Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov in the church and cultural life of Russia in the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries.

Contents Introduction Review of historiography Review of sources Chapter I. Russian learned clergy as a phenomenon of the Early Modern Age §1. Intellectual culture of the Russian lands: from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern era § 2. Formation of the Kiev-Mohyla tradition § 3. Reception of Little Russian intellectual culture in Great Russia in the 17th century. Chapter II. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov in the circle of the learned elite of the Great Russian Church of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. § 1. Met. Demetrius of Rostov and disputes about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the Russian Church of the 17th century. 1.2. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov in the Eucharistic disputes of the late 17th century. § 2. Met. Demetrius of Rostov and the Great Russian learned clergy 2.1. The work of Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov over the Chetya-Minea as a link between Kyiv and Moscow 2.2. Moscow social circle of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 2.3. Relations between Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov with Metropolitan. Job of Novgorod and his entourage Chapter III. The activities of Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov in the context of religious and cultural changes in Russia in the Early Modern Age §1. Traditions and innovations of Latin education among Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 1.1. “External knowledge” and Christian education 2.2. The role of Metropolitan's Latin education. Demetrius of Rostov in his polemics with the Old Believers: semiotic aspect § 2. Met. Demetrius of Rostov on sin and repentance § 3. Views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in the place of the sacraments of Confession and Communion in church life 3.1. Clergy and the Sacrament of Penance 3.2. The Sacrament of the Eucharist Conclusion Index of codes of used manuscripts List of used early printed books List of published sources List of references List of abbreviations A rare study dedicated to Russian culture of the 17th – early 18th centuries. ignores two important problems: firstly, the so-called “Western influence” and connections with Western Europe in general and, secondly, secularization and the changing role of the church in cultural life. As a rule, these two processes are combined in one way or another. Sometimes, speaking about the role of the Russian Church of the Early Modern Age in the cultural life of the era, they simply limit themselves to characterizing the clergy as a relic of the Middle Ages, which was hostile to everything that did not fit within the framework of its narrow horizons 1 . In other cases, while admitting that church people could act as supporters of change and conductors of “Western influences,” they emphasize that it was for this reason that the Orthodox Church ultimately succumbed to the spirit of the times - it began to adopt a secularized worldview and lost the teaching preserved for centuries, mixing its dogmas with heterodox doctrines 2 . How fair these judgments are is not so easy to answer. When approaching church history at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 17th centuries, it is easy to get lost in the whirlpool of ideas, opinions and events that suddenly appears before the researcher. This turbulent era is marked by the most unimaginable combinations of personalities and opinions. Sylvester Medvedev, famous for his Latin learning, reproaches the Greek Likhuds, graduates of the University of Padua, for trampling on ancient Russian piety, defending, in complete unanimity with the Old Believers - and Catholics - the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts "in the words of Christ." Bishop Afanasy Kholmogorsky, a Siberian Old Believer by origin, defends Orthodoxy from “schismatics” and establishes the first Russian observatory on the shores of the White Sea. Stefan Yavorsky, a born teacher of philosophy, against his will becomes the Ryazan Metropolitan and the de facto head of the Russian church hierarchy. “And above everything rises the inconceivable figure of a prominent schismatic teacher, Elder Vavila “of the Germans,” a graduate of the Sorbonne, who knew many European and ancient languages ​​and who ended his life in the “burning area” near Vyazniki” 3. Taking a closer look at this motley picture, we can still see a man in whose personality - monk, hierarch, theologian, preacher, writer - perhaps all those lines of tension that permeated the era, one of the most turbulent in the history of the Russian Church, converged. This man was Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov. Dimitry Savich 4 is deservedly considered one of the most outstanding Russian church figures of the Early Modern era. He was a unique figure among the Russian clergy at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. and belonged to the first generation that connected the Little Russian and Great Russian churches. The future ruler of Rostov was the son of the Cossack centurion Savva Tuptalo and in the world bore the name Daniel. Having graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla College, he took monastic vows in 5, 1668. Thus, Dimitri Savich connected his life with the Little Russian Church, falling into the midst of such outstanding theologians and preachers as Varlaam Yasinsky, Innocent Gisel, John Maksimovich, Ioannikiy Galatovsky, Lazar Baranovich, Melety Dzik. The young monk’s extraordinary abilities and rare gift of speech did not go unnoticed: in 1675, after being ordained as a hieromonk by Archbishop Lazar Baranovich, Dimitri was left in Chernigov as a preacher. In 1677–1678 He made trips to Lithuanian monasteries, visited Vilna and Slutsk, where the monks were so pleased with his vivid sermons that they did not want to let him go for a long time, despite the insistent demands of the clergy from Chernigov. Returning from Lithuania, Dimitri became a preacher at the St. Nicholas Baturin Monastery 6. In 1684, Dimitri Savich was appointed treasurer, i.e. preacher of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra 7. Also from that time, he began to work on compiling the “Book of Lives of the Saints” (Chetiy-Minea), a new hagiographical code for the Russian Church, and in 1689 Demetrius traveled to Moscow with a delegation of the Kyiv Metropolis in connection with the Eucharistic disputes that were then going on. The scale of Dimitri Savich’s personality is evidenced not so much by the external vicissitudes of his life’s path, but by the works that he accomplished in just over half a century of his life. The motto of the life of the Rostov ruler could well be the words he wrote in a letter to a friend: “My rank, which I am not worthy of, requires me to preach the word of God not just with my tongue, but also with my writing hand” 9 . He delivered brilliant sermons that were understandable to the simplest of his parishioners, created catechetical literature and theatrical dramas, wrote multi-volume Chetya-Minea, intended for hundreds of thousands of very different readers and works on chronology, interesting and accessible only to a select few. He organized a theological school in provincial Rostov and brilliantly polemicized with the Old Believers. He justified some of the transformations carried out by Peter I, convincingly proving their neutrality for piety and the permissibility of barber shaving, and at the same time sharply rebelled against others, denouncing court licentiousness and protesting against the abolition of posts in the army. He took part in theological debates and established close friendly relations with Moscow learned men. It is no coincidence that he was destined to become the first saint of the Russian Church of the Synodal era: after the discovery of his relics in 1752. The purpose of the dissertation is to characterize Dimitri Savich, Metropolitan of Rostov, as a church and cultural figure in Russia in the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries. in the context of the religious and cultural history of Early Modern Europe. The dissertation set the following objectives: 1) to identify the historical and cultural context in which the activities of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, paying special attention to the phenomenon of the learned clergy in Early Modern Russia; 2) analyze the participation of Dimitri Savich in the life of the educated elite of the Great Russian Church in the late 1680s-1709; 3) understand how Met. Demetrius, in his activities, responded to the challenges that the religious and cultural realities of the Early Modern era posed to him; 4) study what the so-called “Western influence” on the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, which requires consideration of the activities and views of the bishop in the context of the religious history of Western and Central Europe in the 16th–17th centuries. To solve these problems, specific scenes were chosen that most clearly showed certain aspects of the personality of the Rostov bishop. At the same time, the work attempts to understand only how in the worldview of Met. Demetrius reflected the religious and cultural problems of his time, but not the impact the beliefs of the Rostov ruler had on the cultural and religious life of Russia. Solving the last problem would require a separate study involving other sources. Research structure. The work is divided into an introduction, three chapters, each of which in turn is divided into several paragraphs, and a conclusion. This structure of work is determined by the assigned tasks. The years 1684–1709 were chosen as the chronological framework for the study. This is due to the fact that the early period of Dimitri Savich’s life is closely connected with the local problems of the Kyiv Metropolis, while since 1684 he has been involved in resolving issues common to both Little Russia and Great Russia. However, since the study widely uses historical-comparative and historical-genetic methods, then, if necessary, excursions into the history of the Middle Ages and Early Modern times are made. The methodological basis of the work is a systematic approach, which can be characterized as a consideration of individual historical phenomena in the context of the era, taking into account the multifactorial nature of the historical process. In this work, a systematic approach is implemented through the use of a set of methods, the choice of which is determined by the research tasks posed in it. Comparative-historical, historical-genetic, historical-atropological, and concrete historical methods were used. Solving the set tasks also required the use of interdisciplinary research methods, in particular the involvement of such humanitarian and theological disciplines as cultural studies, philosophy, dogmatic and pastoral theology, and semiotics. Conclusions are drawn on the basis of the traditional principles of historicism and objectivity for historical science. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that the study of the role of Metropolitan. Dimitri of Rostov in the church and cultural life of Russia and the responses that he gave to the challenges of his time, will not only allow us to more fully present the views of Dimitri Savich and evaluate his contribution to Russian history, but will also expand our understanding of the causes, essence and course of those changes in the spiritual life of Russian society that took place in the Early Modern era. The scientific novelty of this study is due not only to the absence in modern historiography of generalizing historical works devoted to Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 11, but also by the fact that in this study, for the first time, personal sources, including unpublished ones, are widely used to analyze the views of the Rostov ruler 12. Historiography of the Russian Empire - foreign researchers of the twentieth century. about Metropolitan Demetrius - works of Soviet scientists - Russian historiography - Ukrainian historiography - Western historiography con. XX - beginning XXI centuries − overview of the main concepts of the history of Russian culture XVII – beginning. XVIII centuries in modern historical science. Life and work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov has attracted the attention of researchers for centuries. Thanks to this, the historiography dedicated to the Rostov bishop is now very extensive, although extremely heterogeneous: among the numerous works we can find monumental monographs, review articles, and journalistic essays. The topics of research also vary: these include both biographical works and works that study certain aspects of the bishop’s legacy and his contribution to the church life of his era, and source research. At the same time, the authors examine the activities of Dimitri Savich from the point of view of various disciplines - from theology and philology to art history and theater studies. All these texts, differing in detail and volume, set out in basic terms the biography of the Rostov Bishop, starting from early childhood and ending with his episcopal service and death. The authors of all Lives undoubtedly used documents from the personal archive of Dimitri Savich, and in some cases relied on the testimony of people who personally knew the Metropolitan (for example, students of his school), and local legends. The latter allows us to consider the unique information of the Synodal Life (the author of which made the most complete use of all possible sources) relating to the Rostov period of the life of Metropolitan. Dimitri, as quite reliable. The Life, mainly in the Synodal edition, for a long time became the main description of the life and work of Metropolitan. Dmitry of Rostov until the middle of the 19th century. Only in 1818 the learned Metropolitan. Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov dedicated a meaningful article to the Rostov Bishop in his “Dictionary”, supplementing the information in the Life with a commented list of the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius and several noteworthy facts 14. Representatives of church-academic science seriously turned to studying the personality and legacy of Dimitri Savich only in the 1840s. By this time, a fairly complete collection of the works of the Rostov ruler, first published in 1786 15 and reprinted several times since then, had been in the public domain for many decades. Thus, in 1842, in the magazine “Christian Reading,” the famous theologian and historian Metropolitan. Macarius Bulgakov published the work “Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, the Saint and Wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings” 16, which is a selection of quotes from the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius on dogmatic issues. A little later, in 1849, the book “St. Dimitri Metropolitan of Rostov" 17, published without attribution. Scientists of the 19th century reported that this work was compiled by the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Rev. A.V. Gorsky from two works by students Nechaev (later Bishop Vissarion) and Barsky. The first part, authored by V. Nechaev, was the first scientific biography of the Rostov bishop (however, rather in the genre of an essay). The second part, which belonged to Barsky, actually examined the content of the multi-volume “Works” of the Rostov Bishop, and an attempt was made to evaluate his dogmatic, “moral-spiritual” and historical creations from the point of view of a church scientist of the 19th century. At the same time, a special section was devoted to the Chetya-Minea, their sources and the methodology of Dimitry Savich’s work on them. The advantages of this work are obvious (among them we note the first experience of scientific analysis of the letters of Dmitry Savich and his Diariush). It also seems that it was V. Nechaev who first drew attention to the Latin-language sources of the Chetiy-Minea and other works of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. At the same time, when writing this work, handwritten sources were practically not used, and the life of Met. Demetrius of Rostov was considered in it in isolation from the context of the era (the reason for this should be seen in the general underdevelopment of the methodology of historiography of Great Russian and Little Russian culture in the middle of the 19th century). Over the next forty years of research, Met. Demetrius of Rostov and his legacy continued to develop at a leisurely pace 18. Particularly noteworthy is the appearance of studies dedicated to the Rostov school of the illustrious metropolitan, combined with the publication of handwritten textbooks 19. Demetrius of Rostov: a meticulous collection of factual information about the life of the ruler, carried out in the best traditions of the positivist school, leaves modern historians with the opportunity only for polemics with individual details. Having noted the significance of Shlyapkin’s work as a biography, one cannot help but say about how he interprets the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov on various subjects, as well as what place in the church and cultural life of Russia in the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries. I.A. Shlyapkin takes him to him. In previous studies devoted to Met. Demetrius, according to the apt remark of M.P. Pogodin: “the author is always afraid, as if to say too much and does not say what is necessary, constantly thinks about decency, as if every line should have a dogmatic or canonical character” 24, therefore there is no thought about identifying the Rostov saint with a certain movement or party - even an intellectual one. The themes of contrast between Little Russian and Great Russian, Western European and Byzantine permeate the entire monograph. So, even the life of Metropolitan. Dimitri I.A. Shlyapkin considers it necessary to clearly divide into two stages: the Little Russian stage, where “the personality of the future saint does not have sharp outlines and his activities stand out little from the general activities of the Little Russian monks” 27 and the Rostov stage, where “life ended... life began” 28. It should be noted that I.A. Shlyapkin was the first to draw attention to the fact that the works of Dimitri Savich contain a number of “Latin” theological opinions: on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts and on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 29 . To summarize, we can say that I.A. Shlyapkin wrote his work about the personality of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in connection with literary activities and circumstances of the time 30. However, at the present moment our knowledge of both literary activity and the circumstances of the time has expanded significantly, which allows us to take a fresh look at the very personality of the ruler. Publication of the work of I.A. Shlyapkin, the 200th anniversary of the ascension of Dimitri Savich to the department (1902), as well as the 200th anniversary of the repose of the Rostov saint (1909), which was accompanied by ceremonial events, helped to draw attention to the personality of Metropolitan. Dimitri. A significant part of the publications of this period dedicated to Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov are popular biographies that differ from each other only in style of presentation and volume 31 and works that are purely general in nature 32 . Original scientific works are also published, with varying degrees of depth and independence. Thus, the conclusions of I.A. Shlyapkina about the “Latinism” of Metropolitan. Demetrius were reflected not only in the work of the Polish researcher A. Yablonovsky, dedicated to the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and its role in the spread of Western European culture in Russia 33, but also in the essay by A. Pypin “The Last Times of Muscovite Rus'” 34, where the author draws portraits of three representatives of the Russian intellectual elite of the late 17th century: Sylvester Medvedev, Patr. Joachim, Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov - moreover, the refinement of thought, kindness and tolerance of the latter are contrasted with Moscow inertia and militant ignorance. The conclusion of the work, however, is very curious: the end of the 17th century. It was the eve of the reform and the best people were looking for “another mental order of things,” at first finding it in Latin scholasticism, but then Peter’s reform would open the way for the best minds to “real and secular knowledge” 35. The Rostov Metropolitan thereby turns out to be sympathetic as a person, but, in general, hopelessly stuck in the dead end of “outdated scholasticism” 36. The chapter “St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, former student of the Academy (1651−1709)” from the work of F.I. Titov, dedicated to the Kiev-Mohyla Academy in the 17th–18th centuries. 37 This text consists of two parts - an original biographical sketch and an excursion into the history of the correction of the text by Met. Demetrius, undertaken in 1755−1756. Kyiv experts and St. Petersburg inquiry officers. The work of the priest M.S. Popov is, as it were, a connecting link between historical works and those works in which the object of study was precisely the religious issues of the work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. These include a number of small studies devoted to various aspects of the theological heritage of the Rostov bishop 39 . Museological and source studies problems were practically not studied at this time 40 . Revolutionary changes in the country interrupted such a dynamically developing area of ​​scientific research: church historical science ceased to exist in the young Soviet state, and Marxist historians were not interested in metropolitans and bishops. However, two major studies of the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius were committed precisely in the first decades of Soviet power. In 1922−26. V.P. Zubov, then a young graduate of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University and an employee of the State Academy of Artistic Sciences, is writing a book on the history of Russian preaching, the first section of which was dedicated to Met. Dimitri Rostovsky 41. In it, the author, with the care of a philosopher and art critic, examines the sermons of Dimitri Savich from both an aesthetic and a substantive point of view. V.P. Zubov examines in detail the sources of various motives and ideas in sermons, the compositional and ideological structure of the “words” of the Rostov ruler. This work, ideologically belonging to pre-revolutionary historiography, was published only in 2001, thereby becoming de facto part of post-Soviet historiography. Paradoxes of Russian history. The fate of the monumental dissertation of Fr. A. Derzhavin “Cheti-Minea of ​​Demetrius of Rostov as a church-historical and literary monument” 42. The author began work on it even before the revolution, finished it in 1917, sent it to the Kyiv Theological Academy for reviewers to read... But the revolution and the ensuing general confusion led to the parcel being lost. O. Alexander almost immediately began recreating the work from memory and drafts. Having gone through arrest and exile in the 1930s, Fr. A. Derzhavin was able not only to restore his original work, but also to surpass it: the final version, in addition to an expanded study, was supplied with three volumes of appendices 43. It was possible to defend the dissertation only in 1953, and partially publish it in 1976. However, the direction of the research, as the author himself admits, was determined by the very first option, and therefore, as for a number of other reasons, the work should be attributed to the pre-revolutionary stage of historiography. Prot.'s work A. Derzhavin essentially became what I.A. abandoned in his time. Shlyapkin (“It would have been possible to study specifically the literary activity of St. Demetrius, to develop the question of the sources of the Saint’s Chet-Menya, especially in Russian Lives...” 44). In it, based on extensive archival material, the Chetyi-Minea Met. Demetrius of Rostov as a literary work. The identification of the sources that the Rostov ruler used in his work, a thorough comparison of all the hagiographic texts of Dimitri Savich with their originals allowed Archpriest. A. Derzhavin to draw a number of fundamental conclusions about the methodology of the Rostov bishop and the very character of the Chetiy-Menaion as a literary and theological monument. The most important of these conclusions were the following: Met. Demetrius used mainly Latin editions or Makaryev’s Great Menaions, giving preference to the latter; when writing Chetiy-Minea, Dimitry Savich sought to create a book aimed at the mass reader; the influence of the Polish hagiographer Piotr Skarga, which had previously been considered very significant, was reduced only to an orientation towards the style of his successful predecessor. Thus, the work of Rev. Alexandra Derzhavina, who presented the work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov on the lives of saints as a serious scientific work based on the processing of sources - and not just an imitation of Polish models - was a significant contribution to understanding the place of Demetrius Savich in the cultural realities of the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. Finally, the third representative of “Soviet pre-revolutionary” historiography was D.I. Abramovich, who taught at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy until 1909. In 1928 and 1929 In Kyiv scientific journals, two of his articles were published dedicated to the Chetyam-Minea of ​​Metropolitan. Demetrius 45. The piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that no earlier than May 1927 D.I. Abramovich was arrested and sent to Solovki, where he remained for five years... The articles are also of interest as the first attempts at philological research into the heritage of the Rostov Metropolitan. Summarizing the first stage of historiography, several conclusions should be drawn. Pre-revolutionary authors perfected the genre of biography of Metropolitan. Demetrius, which began with his Life. At the same time, studies of the works of Dimitri Savich for the most part remained articles, essays and sketches, episodic and scattered. Moreover, most of them did not differ in particular depth and breadth: as a rule, only the published works of the Rostov ruler served as the source base, and the observations made on their basis were not connected by the authors with the historical and cultural context of the era. The only plot that has been studied in sufficient detail is the Rostov School. A way out of this situation emerged towards the end of the existence of the pre-revolutionary historiographical tradition. Thus, the interdisciplinary approach allowed V.P. Zubov to consider the bishop’s sermons from both an aesthetic and a religious point of view. The undoubted breadth of approach in working with sources when analyzing the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius is distinguished by the work of Archpriest. A. Derzhavin: he, along with the philological research of D.A. Abramovich, became a new word in the study of the legacy of Metropolitan. Demetrius, and is a harbinger of a new stage in the national historiography of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in which philology will dominate. Period 1930 - mid. 1960s was marked by complete oblivion of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in the secular historical science of the Soviet Union, the study to some extent continued only in the domestic church historical science. Therefore, before moving on to Soviet historiography, we should turn to what was created in foreign historiography, incl. "Russian diaspora". Here the personality of the Rostov bishop continued to attract the attention of researchers. The center of attention was mainly directed by I.A. Shlyapkin question about “Western influence” on the views of Metropolitan. Dimitri. Thus, the personality of Metropolitan attracted special attention from Catholic scientists and priests. Demetrius of Rostov as an Orthodox saint with “Latin” views. This led to the appearance of works on the theology of Metropolitan. Demetrius, proving that the Rostov Bishop was spiritually close to the Roman Catholic Church, which, in particular, was expressed in his professing the Latin view on the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 46. The Orthodox side, represented by emigrants, did not deny the “Latinism” of Metropolitan. Demetrius 47. In the most influential work “The Way of Russian Theology” 48 Fr. Metropolitan Georgy Florovsky Demetrius of Rostov is characterized as a “Westernist” and a “Latinist,” although outstanding from among the others: “The inner experience of St. Demetrius did not fit into these narrow boundaries of theological false classicism, but as a writer he did not cross these boundaries” 49. We see the same trend in the works of S.A. Zenkovsky, dedicated to the Old Believers: in them Met. Dmitry appears as a bearer of an alien culture, who condemns the “Raskol” because he cannot understand the soul of the Great Russian 50. “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith,” although used by S.A. Zenkovsky as a source on the history of the Old Believers at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, but he evaluates it negatively and is reproached for “falsified” materials 51 . He is partly to blame for the formation in Russian society of an attitude towards the Old Believers as a manifestation of ignorance and obscurantism. Meanwhile, no special analysis of the anti-Old Believer polemics of Metropolitan. Dmitry in the works of S.A. Zenkovsky is not there. M. Berndt's work on the sermons of Metropolitan. Demetrius 52. In it, the researcher turned to the oratorical prose of the Rostov ruler. The author analyzes it in the context of the rhetorical tradition of the 17th century. and comes to conclusions about the significant influence of Catholic preachers on the style and manner of presentation of Met. Dimitri. Thus, the second stage of historiography dedicated to Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, is characterized mainly by a discussion of his “Latin” views. Foreign researchers of this time did not have access to domestic archives, and therefore all their conclusions were based on already published materials and came down mainly to assessing and reassessing the degree and nature of the “Latinism” and “Westernism” of Metropolitan. Dimitri. In Russian church historical science, despite its sad state in the USSR, works dedicated to Metropolitan. Dimitri began to appear in the 1940s. 53, however, nothing new was said in comparison with pre-revolutionary studies (the exception is the publication of the already mentioned work of Archpriest A. Derzhavin in 1976). Renewed interest in the person of Metropolitan. Demetrius in secular Soviet science in the 1960s. associated with the personality of the outstanding Slavist N.M. Dylevsky, who drew attention to the significant role played by the historical works of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov (“The Cell Chronicle” and the Chetii-Minea) in the process of the Bulgarian National Revival 54. Subsequently, philologists begin to periodically turn to the legacy of Metropolitan. Dmitry: an article by N.D. is published. Chislenko 55 and several studies by V.V. Kalugin, dedicated to specific issues related to both the description of manuscripts of texts and the pedagogical activities of the bishop in general 56. In 1981, a monograph by L.A. was published. Sofronova “Poetics of the Slavic theater of the 17th – first half of the 18th centuries. Poland, Ukraine, Russia” 57, in which the dramaturgy of Dimitri Rostovsky is considered in the context of Eastern European baroque culture as a whole (although mainly illustrative). Later, a separate article by the same author was published, specifically dedicated to the “Christmas Drama” of Metropolitan. Demetrius 58. Touched upon the personality of Metropolitan. Dmitry in his work “Russian culture on the eve of Peter’s reforms” and A.M. Panchenko. For the author, the Rostov ruler is a “baroque polonophile,” a representative of Western culture, fundamentally antagonistic to the ancient Russian culture; his opposition to the Old Believers is a collision of “intellect and spirit” 59. Since such assessments (albeit in a milder form) appear for the first time in the emigrant authors described above, it is logical to assume that the concept was borrowed, despite the “Iron Curtain”. Thus, the third period of development of historiography in Russian science (let’s call it “Soviet”) turned out to be frankly poor in research, which was caused by unfavorable conditions for studying the personality of a church figure. Its main result was the appeal of domestic philologists to the works of Metropolitan. Dimitri of Rostov: from now on, Dimitri Savich in the eyes of researchers begins to look not so much as a “zealot of Orthodoxy and an eradicator of schism,” but as “the last writer who was of enormous importance for the entire Orthodox Eastern and Southern Europe” 60. A new stage of historiography began with the beginning of “perestroika,” when at the same time opportunities opened up for an in-depth study of everything connected with the Orthodox Church, and those researchers who would continue their activities in the post-Soviet decades entered the scientific field. Also only at the beginning of the 21st century. works from the end of the first period of historiography, previously inaccessible to the general reader, are published - V.P. Zubova (2001) and others. A. Derzhavina (2006) 61. The formation of historiography at this stage occurred unevenly. A special role in attracting the interest of the scientific community to the figure of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov was played by scientific conferences, in particular “History and Culture of the Rostov Land”, held annually in Rostov the Great since 1991, as well as conferences held by the Rostov Spaso-Yakovlevsky Demetrius Monastery, where the relics of St. Dimitri, in 2007, 2010−13. The most conducive to the development of Dimitri studies were several large conferences dedicated directly to Dimitri Savich: Filevsky readings in 1994, the International scientific conference dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the canonization of St. Demetrius of Rostov, held in the Rostov Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery in 2007, International scientific conference “Orthodoxy and Orthodox culture of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the era of St. Demetrius of Rostov,” held in the Rostov St. Yakovlevsky Monastery in 2013. Among the most prominent authors of this period should be named L.A. Yankovskaya. In her numerous articles and essays, she turned to the handwritten heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius, opening a new era in his study 62. She viewed the work of the Rostov ruler, first of all, as a philologist and source scholar, for this reason the conclusions she made about certain ideas or views of Dimitri Savich were few, but well reasoned. The culmination of L.A.'s research Yankovskaya became her doctoral dissertation: “The literary and theological heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov: perception of Jesuit science in the 16th–17th centuries.” 63. This large-scale work was based on books and manuscripts from the library of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, identified by the author in the archives. Having reconstructed the “creative laboratory” of the Rostov bishop, L.A. Yankovskaya then subjected to a detailed examination the marginalia, marks and handwritten inserts in the Latin books from the library of the Metropolitan. Demetrius, comparing the marked passages from library books with the texts of the bishop’s works. Thus, the author sought to “identify and trace through autograph notes the peculiarities of the perception of St. Demetrius of Rostov of the books of Jesuit scholars that he had... and to show the role and place of these books... in the writings of the writer" 64. The work itself is divided into two parts - a study dedicated to the library of Metropolitan. Demetrius as a phenomenon and a commented description of the books of Jesuit scholars from the library (to which, however, were added books by Catholic authors who did not belong to the Society of Jesus). In the first part of L.A. Yankovskaya comes to the conclusion that Dimitry Savich’s library was collected not for bibliophilism (here the opinion of A.M. Panchenko is refuted, although without reference to him), but for literary work; Accordingly, the books that make it up are directly related to the works of the bishop. In the second part, the author presents the colossal material collected, illustrating the widest use of metres. Demetrius of information gleaned from Jesuit writers in his writings, as well as the methodology for using this information. Here's L.A. Yankovskaya comes to the conclusion that such use was natural and logical for “advanced learned people” of that era: “this is how the rapprochement of Russia with the West was carried out, not only in the fierce disputes of “Grecophiles” and “Latinists,” but also in the ability of the latter to separate truth from lies, reason from heresy, good from evil” 65. The significance of this work is difficult to exaggerate: in fact, in the dissertation of L.A. Yankovskaya was the first to raise material sufficient to substantively, and not unfoundedly, discuss the issue of that notorious “Western influence” on the views and work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, about whom so much has been spoken since the end of the 19th century. That L.A. itself Yankovskaya, being a philologist, and not a historian or theologian, did not draw general conclusions based on this material; it logically implied that future researchers would be able to take advantage of her discoveries. However, until 2013, we had not encountered a single reference to the full text of the dissertation in historiography: it seemed to have sunk into oblivion. M.A. Fedotova began scientific work in the early 1990s and is currently the leading domestic “dimitriologist”. Her main field of activity is the study and publication of handwritten texts by Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. In the studies of M.A. Fedotova can distinguish two main topics: the so-called. “Ukrainian” sermons (1670−1700) by Dimitri Savich 66, as well as the bishop’s epistolary heritage 67. These researches were summarized in the monograph “The Epistolary Heritage of Demetrius of Rostov. Research and Texts”, which included a scientific publication of extensive correspondence of the Rostov ruler, supplied with commentaries 68. In addition, M.A. Fedotova was engaged in a detailed study of issues related to the veneration of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov as a saint and the compilation of his Life 69; she also authored a number of articles devoted to individual subjects related to the life and work of the bishop 70. A.A. Kruming devoted a number of articles and reports to the problems of studying the manuscripts of Metropolitan. Demetrius, as well as the history of his works 71. He also owns a publication that initiated a discussion about the exact dating of Metropolitan’s birthday. Demetrius 72 and a note about the cell icons of the Bishop 73. The historiography of this period clearly shows interest in the dramaturgy of Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky, which was outlined earlier in the works of L.A. Sofronova – and practically uncharacteristic of pre-revolutionary researchers. The theme of Dimitri Savich's theater was discussed in detail by E.V. Zhigulin in a series of works 74 culminating in a candidate's dissertation 75 (which remained unpublished), in which a corpus of texts related to the activities of the Rostov school theater was described and the external appearance of the actions taking place on stage was reconstructed. The theater and source studies focus of the study left open questions of a purely philological and literary nature related to the dramaturgy of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. This gap was filled by the dissertation of N.D. Golovanova 76, who also wrote an interesting article devoted to the perception of life and death in the works of Bishop 77. A short article devoted to the analysis of the dramaturgy of Dimitri Savich in the context of the history of literature was published by N.A. Nekhlebaeva 78. This researcher also attempted to examine the views of Metropolitan from a literary point of view. Demetrius on the inner man 79. The author’s reasoning is in line with the concepts of Soviet literary scholars about the growth of the personal principle in the literature of the 17th–18th centuries. and are connected with religious issues only indirectly, which obviously distorts the picture of the views of Metropolitan presented in the work. Demetrius (it is enough to mention the desire of N.A. Nekhlebaeva to correlate certain plots of the lives of the Chetiy-Mineaion, presented in accordance with the days of memory of specific saints, with the political situation in the years of their writing by the bishop). In the work of L.I. Sazonova, dedicated to the Russian literary baroque of the 17th century - early. XVIII century, metropolitan Dimitry Rostovsky is viewed rather as a baroque writer, whose activity fits into the author’s concept of baroque as a pan-Slavic cultural phenomenon that contributed to the cultural rapprochement of Russia with Western Europe 80. From a historical, cultural and art historical point of view, a number of subjects relating to Metropolitan. Dmitry of Rostov was examined by Yu.N. Zvezdina 81. The main subject of her study was the figurative system in the works of the Metropolitan, considered by Yu.N. Zvezdina in the broad context of baroque culture, with its inherent allegorism. This topic was partly touched upon by L.A. Chernaya in her article on the topic of “the debate between the belly and death” in the interpretation of Dimitri Savich 82. Quite a successful experience in researching such key ones for understanding the personality and heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius’s question as “external wisdom” and its significance for theology was the report of K.L. Bogolyubova ““External teaching” and literary activity: About three southwestern Russian scribes of the 17th–18th centuries: Dimitri Savich, John Velichkovsky, Paisy Velichkovsky” 83 The author, widely using the comparative method, demonstrated the commonality of views of Metropolitan. Dimitri, reflected in his writings, with the concepts of Western European theorists of the Baroque, and also tried to compare the works of Dimitri Savich with two other “scribes” of the 17th–18th centuries. Unfortunately, the author failed to do the latter: the report, in fact, splits into three separate parts, loosely connected with each other. One cannot ignore the introductory article by O.V. Kirichenko to the publication “The cell chronicler of St. Demetrius of Rostov with the addition of his life and selected works” 84, in which the author examined the work of the Rostov ruler in the religious and cultural context of the early modern era. His contribution to the study of Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky was also contributed by employees of the Rostov Kremlin State Museum V.I. Vakhrina 85 and A.E. Videneyev 86, who touched upon certain aspects of the bishop’s activities in their works. In con. 1980s – 2010s Many articles and reports by various authors are published on the source study of the Metropolitan’s heritage. Demetrius of Rostov, as well as individual scenes from his works 87. As a rule, they belong to authors dealing with topics not directly related to the Rostov bishop. These works present a very motley picture, substantial in the bibliographic lists, but with virtually no cross-links. These articles, in fact, are useful mainly as material for future generalizing works. Also, at the new stage of development of historiography, several experiments were undertaken in writing works in the biographical genre 88 . The most successful among which should be recognized as the work of M.L. Rubtsova “Life, works and times of St. Demetrius of Rostov” 89, which summarized the achievements of historiography as of 2007. In addition, a number of reports and articles covered subjects related to certain details in the life of the Rostov ruler 90. The anti-Old Believer polemic aspect of his activity, which was so important for the contemporaries of the Rostov Metropolitan, was undeservedly ignored by researchers at this stage of historiography. Only the review report by V.G. is devoted to it. Putsko about the “Want” 91 in general and the report of E.M. Yukhimenko about the previously unknown source of this work by Dimitry Savich 92. A new stage in historiography has also become a new stage in understanding the theological heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. In a number of articles, various authors addressed one or another aspect of the views of Dimitri Savich 93, but the only researcher who deeply examined the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius, from the standpoint of patristic Orthodox theology, became Archpriest. P. Khondzinsky, who dedicated an entire chapter to the Rostov Bishop in his monograph: ““Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: from the history of Russian theology of the pre-synodal era” 94. In his research, the author follows the “royal path” between the methodology of pre-revolutionary researchers who preferred to consider the theology of Metropolitan. Demetrius as a “thing in itself”, and by foreign researchers who looked at him only as an object of Western influences - sometimes to the extent of crypto-Catholicism. Prot. P. Khondzinsky sees in Metropolitan. Demetrius is a bearer of traditional Eastern Christian theological consciousness, capable of developing Russian theological thought. The author considers the main contribution of the Rostov Bishop to this development to be his teaching on suffering love (which echoes similar ideas among Catholic theologians of the 17th century) and the defense of the Orthodox point of view in the Eucharistic disputes of the late 17th century, expressed in the “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist.” Thus, the work of Rev. P. Khondzinsky became practically the only experience of a holistic understanding of the theology of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in the entire history of the study of this personality. Unfortunately, the author draws on the historiography of the pre-revolutionary period only, without addressing the colossal body of post-Soviet works 95 . The Ukrainian historiography of Metropolitan deserves special attention. Demetrius of Rostov, which, for all its wealth, due to the specifics of its development and weak connections with Russian historiography, should be considered separately. Already in the late USSR, a scientific direction developed in Kyiv that studied the works of major figures of the Mohyla tradition of the 17th century. from a philosophical point of view. This direction was headed by philosopher V.M. Nichik. In her works, Met. Demetrius appears to be the successor to the work of Metropolitan. Petro Mohyla, who made a significant contribution to the development of Ukrainian culture 96. Subsequently, the traditions of this school were developed in his works by S. Yosipenko, who studied the aesthetic and ethical views of Dimitri Savich in the context of the era 97, as well as L.A. Dovga, who in her monograph “The System of Values ​​in Ukrainian Culture of the 17th Century,” touched, in particular, on the issue of the reception of the works of the architect. Innocent Gisel at Met. Demetrius 98. The development of the interdisciplinary direction took place in the conditions of the formation of the so-called. Ukrainian national narrative. Its first manifestation in Demetrius studies was the book “Saint Demetrius” by the philosopher-religious scholar V. Klimov, published in 1995 99 . This work, which was more educational than research in nature, became significant for the development of the study of the personality of Metropolitan. Dmitry in Ukrainian humanities, expressing the spirit of the era of “return to the Ukrainian national narrative” and, as it were, setting the tone for the future. Subsequently, in studies devoted to Met. Demetrius of Rostov, this is reflected in the fact that attention is paid exclusively to the Ukrainian period of his life and work, and the Ukrainian roots of the bishop are emphasized. As in Russia, conferences dedicated to Metropolitan were held in Ukraine. Demetrius of Rostov and also contributed to the development of historiography. The first of these conferences was the Mogila readings in 1997, dedicated to Dimitri Savich, the materials of which were later published. The conference reports dealt mainly with various aspects of source studies of Metropolitan's heritage. Demetrius 100. The theme of the second conference, dedicated to the 355th anniversary of the Metropolitan’s birth and held in Lviv in 2006, was as follows: “Dmytro Tuptalo in the world of Ukrainian baroque.” It was devoted to the consideration of the legacy of the Rostov ruler as a figure of the Ukrainian literary baroque 101. Thus, philological studies 102, so characteristic of Russian Dimitri studies, did not bypass Ukrainian humanities 103. In the appendix to the collection of conference theses, the text of Theoktist Pachovsky’s dissertation, defended at Lvov University in 1939 and dedicated to the “Chetya-Minea” mit, was published. Demetrius 104. V. Sobol examined “Diariush” by Dimitri Savich, coming to the conclusion that it represents one of the types of diaries characteristic of that era, and also proposing an original interpretation of “Diariush” as a diary that reflected the tragic life of an exile 105 . Ukrainian researchers who took part in Russian conferences, as a rule, paid attention to the details of the biography of Metropolitan. Demetrius 106. In generalizing works on the cultural history of Ukraine in the 17th century. figure of Metropolitan Demetrius was also invariably given attention 107. A more complete image of Met. Demetrius of Rostov was revealed in the work of S. Kagamlyk, dedicated to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in the 17th-18th centuries, but here the author only summarized the already known information about the Rostov Metropolitan and his activities, in particular about scientific works and preaching; in addition, the ruler is recognized as one of the many ascetics who were nurtured by the Lavra 108. There have been attempts in Ukrainian historiography to theologically comprehend the legacy of Metropolitan. Dimitri. Metropolitan's work Antonia (Fialko) “Saint Demetrius of Rostov and his pastorate” 109 was written in the traditions of church historical research of the early twentieth century, its conclusions as a whole do not go beyond what was formulated by his predecessors. Of greater interest to the researcher are the articles by V. Shumilo and M. Zagorulko in the Chernigov magazine “Faith and Deeds”, devoted to the consideration of certain aspects of the work of Metropolitan. Demetrius from a theological point of view 110. Personality of Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky also attracted foreign researchers. The largest among them - as well as the most famous to the domestic reader - was J. Brogi Berkoff, an Italian Slavist who dedicated several detailed articles to Dimitri Savich's Chronicle 111. In these articles, the historical studies of the Rostov ruler are considered in the context of European culture of the Early Modern Age. The author comes to the conclusion that Met. Demetrius, on the one hand, systematically used Western methodology and texts, on the other hand, retained his identity both as an author and as a representative of the Orthodox tradition. These conclusions coincide with those reached by L.A. Yankovskaya. Almost unknown in Russia (we have not seen any references to him in Russian historiography) is the Canadian researcher D. Bednarsky - although his remarkable article was published in Russia in Russian. In his writings, D. Bednarsky made the first attempt to present Met. Demetrius as a figure of European religious culture of the Early Modern period, widely applying comparative and interdisciplinary approaches, addressing theological issues, drawing on a wide range of literature. However, D. Bednarsky’s lack of opportunity to work with the handwritten heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius and his insufficient familiarity with modern historiography dedicated to Metropolitan. Demetrius, led to the fact that the author makes serious mistakes when trying to answer the questions he posed. Thus, the lack of familiarity with handwritten sources prompts the author to systematically reconstruct the hypothetical views of Metropolitan. Demetrius based only on information gleaned from published works (these reconstructions usually turn out to contradict information from handwritten materials). This characteristic equally applies to both the dissertation of D. Bednarsky 112 and his article “East and West in the theology of Demetrius Tuptalo” 113. Despite the shortcomings, the main merit of D. Bednarsky is that he was the first to try to write about Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in the genre of modern historical and cultural research. If D. Bednarsky still left at least some trace in Russian Dimitri studies, then the dissertation of the Bulgarian philologist I.A. Ivanova 114, dedicated to the problems of the Baroque in the works of Dimitry Savich, remained neglected by domestic researchers. Summarizing the fourth stage of development of historiography dedicated to Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, we can say that, despite the impressive abundance of research, which reflected a genuine interest in the personality and creations of the Rostov ruler, we can only in some cases talk about a deep comprehension of a particular problem. Since at the previous stage of historiography a new view of Met. Demetrius of Rostov - as a great writer XVII - early. XVIII centuries, then, as a result, the main successes of the next stage described above were achieved in the field of philology. Works in the field of source studies, art criticism and literary criticism were also fruitful. The accumulated material, with some happy exceptions, remained without generalization, in the form of scattered articles and reports. At the same time, the actual historical works dedicated to Metropolitan. Demetrius, was not created: the only exception was the attempt of D. Bednarsky, which, in fact, ended in failure. Likewise, Metropolitan’s interest in theology. Dimitri began to appear only recently. Review of historiography dedicated to Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky allows us to draw several important conclusions. Firstly, many dozens of works by historians, philologists, theologians, philosophers, art critics, and literary critics eloquently testify to the fact that research that claims to be a somewhat complete reflection of the personality and views of Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky should be interdisciplinary. Secondly, the abundance of works on source studies or those studying individual particular subjects, in the absence of generalizing works, makes it urgent to understand the information that has already been collected by previous generations of researchers. Thirdly, a review of historiography shows that while there are topics that have been studied quite deeply (the biography of Metropolitan Demetrius and the literary side of his work), there are a number of problems that, although they were raised in the works of researchers, have not received proper resolution. These include, first of all, the question of “Western influence” and “Latinism” of Dimitri Savich, the place of the Rostov bishop in the dynamic culture of Russia in the 17th–18th centuries, and finally, his role as a church figure in the religious history of Eastern Europe. In order to successfully resolve the problems voiced above, it will be necessary to turn to the basic concepts of the history of Russian culture in the 17th - early centuries. XVIII centuries, which has found expression in the scientific literature of recent decades. The concept of the history of Russian theology by Yu. F. Samarin continues to have a significant influence on modern research devoted to the history of the Russian Church (and to a large extent, the history of Russian culture). Many ideas first expressed by one of the founders of Slavophilism in the 19th century. can, with minor changes, be found in the works of scientists published at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries. The Russian hierarchs, although they rejected Protestantism as a doctrine, sought to find allies in the fight against the ideas of Catholicism in the person of Protestant scientists - thus, a pro-Protestant theological school emerged. Two principles, Catholic and Protestant - represented by the above-mentioned schools - are fighting among themselves for influence in the Russian Church of the early 18th century. This scheme, built according to the canons of Hegelian philosophy 117, was adopted practically unchanged by Archpriest. G. Florovsky, who, filling it with historical facts, paints in his work “The Ways of Russian Theology” a vivid picture of the gradual loss of Russian religious thought in the 16th–18th centuries. its Eastern Christian component. At first, after the fall of Constantinople, Russian scribes ossified in the provincial neo-Byzantism of Moscow in the 16th century. Then, in Western Russian lands, under constant Latin influence, a “pseudomorphosis” of Orthodox theology takes place: while externally maintaining the Eastern Christian appearance, Kievan theological thought is imbued with Catholic content and methodology; Metropolitan plays a key role in this. Peter (Tomb), whom Archpriest. G. Florovsky characterizes quite hostilely (“There is something mysterious and ambiguous in the image of Peter Mogila. It is difficult to understand whether he was a sincere zealot of Orthodoxy or rather a skillful compromiser” 118). The patronage provided by Peter I to the Little Russian bishops, whom he placed in the Great Russian sees, contributed to the spread of Latinized Orthodox theology throughout the Russian state. A new look at the history of Russian theology of the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries. offers modern researcher prot. P. Khonzinsky in his latest work “Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: from the history of Russian theology of the pre-synodal era.” Here the author, having examined the main events and personalities of Russian theological thought of the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries. and comparing them with what worried Western European theologians of that time, he concludes that in the stormy clashes and debates of the era, “the resulting vector of the process appears to be precisely the rejection of the “old fur” of old Moscow life, and the most important becomes not the choice between the Greek or Latin spiritual traditions, but the choice between the ahistorical symbolism of social existence and the exit from it to historically conditioned forms of life” 119. The resulting openness, although “bought at a high price,” made it possible in the future to so easily “fuse” ideas from other cultures into Russian culture, without losing their “Russianness.” Thus, the West-East antithesis did not define the position of Russian theological thought of the era: with Greek theology, Russian was united by the need to defend identity against heterodox confessions, with Western theology - by the need to solve problems posed by the New Age. “Russian theology - “even to the point of blood” learned to independently apply this faith to every phenomenon of spiritual life that arises in its field of vision, learned not only to unconditionally reject or accept, but also to understand, learned that “worldwide responsiveness”, which in the future was to bear such rich fruits” 120. One of the manifestations of this was the first steps in the reception of Augustinianism, carried out by Russian theologians of the era. A.M. Panchenko in his work “Russian Culture on the Eve of Peter’s Reforms” calls the 16th century “the century of Russian loneliness,” contrasting it with previous centuries, when Rus' not only was not in cultural isolation, but maintained close ties with other countries, primarily with Slavia Orthodoxa., In the events of the 17th – early 18th centuries. The scientist sees a confrontation between two cultures: Old Russian, which is characterized by integrity, religiosity and “spirituality” in general, irrationalism, and Western, dating back to the Renaissance, which is characterized by rationalism, analyticism, and the separation of the secular and the church. The confrontation between traditionalists (which include, first of all, Old Believers) and “new teachers,” as A.M. calls the bearers of Western culture. Panchenko, extends to the very depths of consciousness - right up to views on historiosophy 121 and the role of knowledge (leading to moral perfection for the former and to mastery of the world for the latter) 122. The cult of the creator, the creative personality of the “Latinists” is emphasized, in contrast to the anonymous Middle Ages 123. Monograph by M.S. Kiseleva “The intellectual choice of Russia in the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries: from ancient Russian bookishness to European scholarship” 126 is very innovative. The author believes that the key role in the development of secular intellectual life in Russia, as well as in Western Europe, was played by theologians who prepared the ground for secular knowledge and, accordingly, Russia’s “intellectual choice” in favor of European education took place not under Peter I at all, but half a century before his reforms, when Alexei Mikhailovich invited Little Russian monks educated according to Western principles to Moscow. M.S. Kiseleva shows that the learned Kyiv monks of the 17th century. were direct successors of that thousand-year tradition of European intellectualism, which was formed in Antiquity. Thus, the multifaceted activities of these people and their Great Russian disciples, both in the field of theology and preaching, and in the field of creating systematic education, contributed to Russia’s entry into the intellectual space of Europe, as well as the justification of Peter’s reforms of the 18th century. The American researcher P. Bushkovich is the author of an interesting work dedicated to Russian religiosity of the 16th–17th centuries, published in 1992 and, due to some misunderstanding, still not translated into Russian: “Religion and Society in Russia: Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” 127. In the 17th century, after the Time of Troubles, the situation changed due to the fact that the Moscow elite began to turn to Ukrainian writers for guidance, seeking from them both a new form and new content. The pace of these changes increases sharply after the accession of Alexei Mikhailovich to the throne in 1645: at first there was the activity of “zealots of piety” and patriarchs. Nikon, after - changes in the religious culture at court, which placed preaching at the center of religious life. In the latter, a key role was played by the Kyiv learned monks Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk, who were representatives of the baroque Latin world of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium and addressed moral problems in their sermons. This contributed to the fact that by the 1680s. At the center of the religious life of the Russian elite were issues of morality and morality, and not monastic asceticism and miracles from shrines. Thus, the basis for Peter’s secularization of culture was laid. At the same time P. Bushkovich emphasizes that the processes that took place in the Russian religious culture of Russia in the 16th–17th centuries brought it closer to Western Europe. Finally, one cannot fail to mention the monograph by P.S. Stefanovich “Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the 16th–17th centuries.” 128 and introduction to the work of V.M. Zhivov “From the church history of the times of Peter the Great”, entitled: “Traditions and innovations in the church policy of Peter the Great” 129, in which the authors show that significant changes in church life, previously associated exclusively with the reforms of Peter I, such as centralization and bureaucratization of church administration, unification of religious practices began under Alexei Mikhailovich. To summarize this brief review, several conclusions can be drawn. First of all, it should be noted that in modern historiography of the history of Russian culture of the 17th – early 18th centuries, with all the diversity of approaches, methods and positions of authors, several general theses can be identified. The choice of sources was determined, first of all, by the aspects of the activities of Metropolitan. Dimitri, as well as the limitations imposed by the format of the dissertation research. Thus, the information from “Diariush” was not in demand for solving the tasks we had set, and the involvement of the poetic and dramatic creations of the bishop would have required a significant expansion of the scope of work. The sources used in the dissertation can be divided into three large groups. The first is narrative sources, which include various writings and sermons by Metropolitan. Dimitri. The second group are sources of personal origin, not initially intended for the general reader, such as letters or marginalia. The third group is instructions for the clergy, combining sources of various types, but with a common theme. The most extensively represented in the heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov narrative sources. Spiritual and educational works. These include such works as “Spiritual Medicine for Confused Thoughts” 130, “The inner man in the cage of his heart is solitary, studying and praying in secret” 131, “Everyday prayer of confession to God” 132. “On Communion of the Holy Mysteries” 133. Written during the Rostov period of the bishop’s life (1702−1709), they help answer the question of what moral and religious state the Metropolitan sought to see in his flock. Demetrius, and what were the most important and primary topics for his instructions that he chose. Theological Writings. In them Met. Dimitri reveals himself to us as a representative of the church intellectual elite of Russia at the end of the 17th–18th centuries. These essays should be divided into several categories, depending on what research problems they allow us to solve. The first two texts date back to the late 1680s – early 1690s: their dating will be discussed in more detail in this work; the date of creation of the second work cannot be precisely established, but it was undoubtedly written after 1690. These works are of particular interest for studying the development of Dimitri Savich’s views on the controversial theological issues of the era. Polemical essay by Met. Demetrius of Rostov “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” 140. Written in 1709, this work combines a theological refutation of the basic postulates of the “old faith” with the use of extensive factual material on the history of the Old Believers and mystical sects at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. “Wanted” is not only central to understanding the attitude of Metropolitan. Demetrius to the phenomenon of “Raskol”, but also demonstrates his views on a wide range of other issues, one way or another raised in the context of confrontation with the “Bryanians”, i.e. Kerzhen Old Believers. Sermons are one of the main sources for studying the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 141. Dimitri Savich began preaching already in Chernigov. The earliest of his sermons that have reached us dates back to 1677. In total, the texts of eight sermons of the early period are known, which Dimitri Savich undoubtedly preached, and four more, the author of which he was very likely 142. In Moscow in 1701, being Metropolitan. Tobolsky, Demetrius preached sermons, of which fifteen have reached us 143. Dimitri Savich delivered most of his instructions when he became Metropolitan of Rostov, from 1702 to 1709. At the same time, he spent a significant part of his time in the capital. So, at the end of August 1705 to September 1706, he stayed in Moscow, sometimes traveling to surrounding villages and monasteries. From this time, twenty-two sermons of the Bishop 144 have reached us. August 8, 1708 Metropolitan. Demetrius again arrived in Moscow for the consecration of the new Metropolitan of Kyiv, Joasaph of Krokovsky, and returned to Rostov only on September 8. Five recorded sermons from this trip survive 145. There is no doubt that in Rostov the bishop preached no less zealously than in the capital (it is known that only before his death Dimitri Savich himself was unable to deliver a sermon during the liturgy and asked the singer to read its text. However, these instructions were preserved much worse than those in Moscow: only about ten teachings are known, delivered by Metropolitan Dimitri in Rostov 146. The texts of sermons are perhaps one of the richest sources for studying the personality of Metropolitan. Demetrius as a church and cultural figure of his era. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, of all the components of the legacy of Metropolitan. Demetrius, sermons are the most representative. The authentic words and teachings that were spoken by Dimitri Savich over the decades on a variety of occasions, addressed to diverse audiences, have been preserved. Secondly, precisely in his sermons, Met. Dimitri Savich had the opportunity to address the flock directly and express those ideas that he considered necessary to voice publicly, ex cathedra. Thirdly, in the sermons compiled in accordance with the norms of homiletics of the 17th century, the relationship of the Rostov ruler with the baroque culture of his time was most clearly manifested. Personal notes. This includes that part of Dimitri Savich’s handwritten heritage that he never intended for the eyes of an outside observer. These are notes and extracts made directly in the process of work, as well as notes in the margins of books in the bishop’s library. Two collections have come down to us containing metropolitan notes copied out completely. Demetrius 150. One of them (D. 811) is marked 1704, the other is not precisely dated, but was also apparently compiled in the early 1700s. Various handwritings, as well as the composition and subject matter of the documents, convince us that the composition of the collections was formed over many years and included rewritten texts, the originals of which were created back in Little Russia. From among the materials contained in these collections, our work used notes from the book of the Likhud brothers “Healing” (i.e. “Akos”) 151 and Sylvester Medvedev’s “Manna” 152. These recordings allow you to plunge into the depths of the “creative laboratory” of Metropolitan. Demetrius and to understand what kind of response certain ideas of the authors he read evoked in him, what he considered necessary to borrow for himself (and what, accordingly, not), how the ideas he read were translated into his own writings and generally influenced the metropolitan’s judgments. Since most of the books from the library of the Rostov Bishop were the works of Jesuit theologians, it is the marginalia that are one of the most important sources for understanding issues related to the problems of “Western influence.” Epistolary sources. Dimitri Savich conducted extensive correspondence, a significant part of which has reached us 156. There are more than 80 letters written by him and about 20 addressed to him. All of them are dated from the late 1680s to 1709, but most of them relate specifically to the Rostov period of the ruler’s life. Most of the letters - 40, relate to the correspondence of Metropolitan. Demetrius with the Chudov hieromonk Feolog, which lasted from November 9, 1697 to October 27, 1709. Among other addressees of Dimitri Savich are Patriarchs Joachim and Adrian, Metropolitan. Stefan Yavorsky, Tsarina Praskovya Fedorovna, Great Russian bishops, Moscow acquaintances of Metropolitan. Demetrius, such as F. Polikarpov-Orlov, Arkhangelsk merchant I. Vanderburg and a number of other persons. Of the letters to the Little Russians, only a letter to the “senior” of the Vilna Monastery of the Holy Spirit, Archimandrite, has survived. Feofan Ivanovich. Epistolary sources are key for studying the relationship of Metropolitan. Demetrius with his contemporaries. But no less important for the researcher is the fact that in letters addressed to like-minded people, the views of Metropolitan are more fully revealed. Dimitri: while in remote Rostov, he often shared ideas and thoughts with Moscow friends, such as the priest. Theologist and Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. In addition, due to the fact that correspondence was conducted with people of different statuses who were in different relationships with the Rostov ruler, thanks to it we can more fully imagine the personality of the latter. 3. Prescriptions for the clergy The comparative historical nature of this work makes it necessary to turn to a number of sources representing the church tradition of the 17th century. These are printed Trebniks of the Kyiv and Moscow press 161; spiritual works of the Mogilyan tradition: “The Book of the Soul Called Gold” 162 and “Liphos” 163 Met. Peter Mogila, “The Key of Understanding” 164 archim. Ioannikiy Galatovsky, “Peace with God to Man” Archimandrite. Innocent Gisel 165; acts of the councils: Kyiv 1691 166 and Jerusalem 1672 167; letters of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich 168 and Rostov Metropolitan Jonah Sysoevich 169; the writings of Archpriest Avvakum 170 and the spiritual testament of Metropolitan. Mitrofan of Voronezh 171. These monuments reflect various religious and cultural changes that took place in the Orthodox world in the Early Modern era. Also, when studying a number of issues related to the history of Christian theology, the texts of the works of Blessed. Augustine, St. Isaac the Syrian, Thomas Aquinas 172 and other authors. In the 1780s, “Cell Chronicle” Met. Demetrius attracted the attention of N. Novikov, who decided to publish this work in 1784 under the title “The Chronicle... telling in brief” 183 - however, having removed from the text the chapter “On Church Estates”, which defended the right of the Church to own property: twenty years after secularization and the case of Metropolitan. For Arseny Matseyevich, this was obvious sedition 184. The caution shown in this case did not protect the prominent Freemason from the royal wrath in the future. As is well known, in 1792 N.I. Novikov was taken into custody, and all publications of his printing house, including the well-intentioned Chronicle, were withdrawn from sale. The next publication of this work by Metropolitan. Demetrius was carried out already in 1796 185; its distinctive feature was the presence of marginalia indicating all the author’s sources, mainly Latin. Surprisingly, the initiator of the first edition of the collected works of the Rostov bishop was not a church leader, but a former officer of the Elizabethan Guard, Ya.A. Tatishchev, whose entire education was confined to home education. This, without irony, worthy man, having become in 1782, at the age of 53, the leader of the Moscow and Serpukhov nobility, turned to the Holy Synod with a request to publish at his own expense 186 the four handwritten collections of Metropolitan’s works that he had. Demetrius of Rostov. The Synod granted the request, with the condition that the text would be checked for authenticity and the presence of dubious passages by competent clergy. These were first represented by the arch. Simon Milyukov, abbot of the Andronikov Monastery, and then archimandrite. Simonov Monastery Pavel Ponomarev. Some of their comments were accepted by the Synod, some were rejected, and the final editing was carried out by the famous archbishop. Moscow Platon Levshin 187. As a result, very few substantive changes were made: from the 1st volume the ending “the degree of God-thought reasoning about the passions” was omitted as new; from the “grateful remembrance of the Passion of the Lord” the list of the Lord’s blows is omitted - 6666, 104 wounds and 78 draggings, and two “deprivation” of teeth. In the 2nd and 3rd volumes, no corrections were made; in the 4th, the question was omitted from the catechism: “Is the flesh of Jesus Christ in heaven sitting or standing? - answer "Standing" From the fifth volume – a few words are right. Simeon the Receiver of God about the Old Testament righteous, about fasting and some others 188. Otherwise, the corrections boiled down to changing the style and language of sermons, especially the early ones delivered in Little Russia, to a more “elevated” style and familiar to the ear of a Great Russian. Thus, although the Works are not a full-fledged scientific publication, the materials they contain are sufficient to solve the problems of historical research, which involves studying the content of texts. Later, many of the texts included in the “Works” were republished separately 192. Also in the XIX - early XX centuries Many works of the Rostov Metropolitan, not published by A.Ya., saw the light of day. Tatishchev. A significant proportion of these publications were carried out by scientists, which determined the high level of most publications. Among them are dramatic 193 and poetic 194 works by Dimitry Savich, materials related to the activities of the Rostov school 195, individual sermons 196, essays and notes on various topics 197, letters 198. In the second half of the twentieth century - the beginning. XXI century Scientific publications of a number of metropolitan texts are being carried out. Demetrius: both the already published Christmas and Assumption dramas 199, and the handwritten notes and marginalia introduced into scientific circulation for the first time by L.A. Yankovskaya 200. M.A. Fedotova prepared a complete scientific publication of the epistolary heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 201, as well as the publication of the work “The Miracle of the Most Holy and Blessed Virgin Mary” 202. Thus, to date, a significant part of the heritage of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov was introduced into scientific circulation in one form or another. Although from the point of view of textual criticism, a considerable part of these publications leaves much to be desired. But the lion's share of the works of the Rostov bishop is quite accessible to the work of a historian. To this day there are also unpublished texts by Metropolitan. Demetrius: first of all, these are various personal notes and extracts that were part of the library of the Rostov ruler, which since the 18th century. kept in the Synodal Library. In the twentieth century, the library of Dimitri Savich, like other funds of the Synodal Library, was divided between the RGADA and the Department of Manuscripts of the State Historical Museum: now printed and handwritten books from the collection of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, are stored in the RGADA 203, and other handwritten materials, including various collections - in the Department of Manuscripts of the State Historical Museum 204. Individual documents can be found in various collections of manuscript collections of the Russian National Library 205. This is a general characteristic of the source base of this study. Chapter I. Russian learned clergy as a phenomenon of the Early Modern Age If we characterize Met. Demetrius of Rostov as a cultural figure, he was, first of all, a highly educated representative of the clergy, a man who devoted his entire life to studying theology and writing spiritual books. This is precisely the type of person that becomes by the beginning of the 18th century. very popular in Russia. However, in order to understand why exactly the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. became the era of the heyday of Russian church intellectual culture - which was, in turn, part of a broader phenomenon of European intellectualism dating back to Antiquity - a lengthy excursion into history should be taken. §1. Intellectual culture of the Russian lands: from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern era Medieval intellectualism of Byzantium and the Latin West - features of the culture of Ancient Rus' - changes in Russian culture in the XV-XVI centuries. − Reformation, Catholic Reform, process of confessionalization in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth − “Orthodox revival” in Western Russian lands The establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire could not but affect the intellectual life of society. Already the first church fathers taught that secular sciences are very useful for Christians, and that what is contrary to God in them (for example, astrology) can and should be excluded without any harm to the content 208 . In the Middle Ages, this approach was characteristic of both the East and the West of the Christian world. In the Byzantine Empire, Greco-Roman education was part of the “Roman” identity,” 209 and mastery of “external wisdom” was considered a prerequisite for practicing theology 210. At the same time, in the countries of the Latin West, progress in the field of education of the 12th-13th centuries also had rhetorical culture as its basis: in newly opened universities it was comprehended through the disciplines of the “trivium” and quadrivium” in the faculties of liberal arts, although the first place here was not rhetoric, the art of persuasion, but dialectics, the art of argument 211 . Medieval Rus', however, faced a different historical fate. The culture of the Roman Empire, which became from the 10th century. a kind of intellectual metropolis for the Russian lands, was extremely complex and diverse. The traditions of the intellectual elite of Constantinople and Thessaloniki, who felt themselves heirs of Hellenism, coexisted in a single space with the precepts of monastic asceticism, which called for limiting the range of reading as much as possible and completely immersing the mind in thinking about God 214 . In Slavia Orthodoxa, for a number of reasons, only the rigoristic monastic tradition with its tendency towards minimal reception of the ancient heritage was adopted from the cultural polyphony of Byzantine society 215. Thus, the cultural environment that produced the best Byzantine dogmatists, canonists and polemicists never arose here. It is no coincidence that homiletics and hagiography develop in ancient Russian theology, while exegesis and dogmatics, which require deep knowledge of rhetorical culture, are virtually absent. The rapid development of Russian culture in the first half - mid-16th century. was stopped by a long socio-political crisis, which began with oprichnina politics and the protracted wars of Ivan the Terrible and ultimately ended with the Troubles of the early 17th century. 232 The decisions of the Stoglavy Council for the most part remained only declarations and were never implemented 233 . Boris Godunov's desire to send Russian nobles to receive education abroad and the idea of ​​​​creating a university in Moscow, as well as similar statements of False Dmitry I, remained rather a curious curiosity 234. At the same time, in Western Russian lands this period became an era of powerful growth of Orthodox culture. The special cultural situation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth contributed to the emergence of a different style of thinking here, radically different from that which was characteristic of the scribes of Ancient Rus'. Within the framework of the Polish-Lithuanian state, especially after the Union of Lublin in 1569, for the first time it became possible for the East Slavic Orthodox cultural tradition to interact closely with the culture of Latin Europe 235 . At the same time, the Reformation and Catholic Reform became the most powerful ideological movements that determined the intellectual atmosphere in Western Russian lands from the second half of the 16th century. Protestantism has been spreading in the Polish-Lithuanian lands since the middle of the 16th century. The most widespread are the teachings of J. Calvin and the most radical branches of Protestantism: Socinianism and anti-Trinitarianism. The Reformation deeply affected the Orthodox society of Western Russian lands. By the end of the 1560s. with the support of the Great Russian heretics who fled from Russia, a single reformation “front” was taking shape in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, jointly and from a common position opposing the churches of the Apostolic Tradition - Orthodox and Catholic 236 . Within the framework of a single process, a number of “methods” or “mechanisms” of confessionalization can be distinguished, common to all religions. Among them are the establishment of a “pure, true doctrine” and its formulation in a written confession of faith, the dissemination and introduction of these formulated norms into everyday life, primarily through education, but also through catechesis, preaching, pilgrimages, supervision of the performance of rites and sacraments and the participation of the population in them, and finally, control over religious minorities or their expulsion. All this was done in order to clearly distinguish between denominational churches and eliminate possible misunderstandings. − The set of measures also made it possible to make the confessional group completely homogeneous 241 . To implement these grandiose projects, there was a special need for educated clergy. Without a sufficiently high level of knowledge, it was impossible either to clearly express one’s doctrinal truths, or to explain them to the flock, or to defend against the attacks of infidels. Therefore, the process of confessionalization primarily had a positive impact on the intellectual life of the European community, contributing to its activation. In the Catholic Church, the ideas of confessionalization were implemented within the framework of the Catholic Reform. This term usually refers to the movement for reforms within the Catholic Church, which originated in the second half of the 15th century. and culminated in the activities of the Council of Trent 1545−1563. In contrast to Protestantism, the leaders of the Catholic Reform proposed resolving the crisis within the church without radical changes, advocating a kind of “Reformation within the framework of Tradition” with the renewal and improvement of church life 242. The heralds of the ideas of Catholic Reform in the Polish-Lithuanian state, as in many others, were the Society of Jesus, whose representatives first arrived here in 1561. With their appearance, the intensity of interfaith confrontation sharply intensified. Problems of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the end of the 16th century. were common: the bishops for the most part led the lifestyle of aristocrats and were not involved in the practical affairs of the church. Monasticism and parish priests suffered from ignorance and a decline in discipline; the laity did not correlate their lives with Christian teaching. The threat from reformation teachings was also common. However, the Orthodox community considered another way out of the crisis possible. The combination of the political dominance of Catholics, the specifics of Orthodox ecclesiology and the long traditions of secular patronage and the active participation of the laity in the church life of Lithuanian Rus contributed to the development of the so-called. "Orthodox revival" con. XVI-XVII centuries, which can be characterized as a special form of Orthodox confessionalization 244. The issue of “external knowledge” in this context acquired new meaning: Catholic and Uniate polemicists tirelessly accused the clergy of the Orthodox Church of ignorance, but many ordinary parishioners showed no less interest in theological knowledge, wanting to understand their faith more deeply. This desire was one of the main impulses for the creation of fraternities and the development of the fraternal movement as a whole 245. After the Union of Brest in 1596 (largely the result of the confrontation between Western Russian brotherhoods and the hierarchy 247), the position of the Orthodox society of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth changed greatly. On the one hand, most of the tycoons remained Orthodox. On the other hand, the “Dizunites” lost their legal status and were subjected to administrative pressure from the authorities who supported the Uniates and Catholics. All this led to a crisis in the old cultural centers. The Lviv and Vilna brotherhoods were forced to exist in conditions of permanent conflict. The Ostrog “academy”, in fact, ceased to exist with the death of Prince V.-K. Ostrogsky in 1608, who left no Orthodox heirs 248 . Such a dynamic cultural life of Western Russian lands in the second half of the 16th - early 17th centuries. contributed to the emergence of a new socio-cultural type - an Orthodox intellectual who knew his faith well, had developed rational and logical thinking and was not alien to European rhetorical culture, and most importantly, capable of creating original texts on theological topics 251. Meanwhile, in terms of their education, these people were rather erudite; only a few of them were graduates of non-confessional higher educational institutions. Such problems were not the problem of the Western Russian church alone. In 1629, the Confession of Faith of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril I Lucaris was published in Geneva. Written in Latin Lucaris’s “Confession” contained a number of opinions that agreed with the teachings of J. Calvin and sharply contradicted the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. At the same time, Cyril Lucaris himself, who did not hide his sympathy for Calvin, considered his teaching to be completely Orthodox. The many years of controversy surrounding the Patras followed. Cyril Loukaris and his “Expositions,” accompanied by scandals and rivalries between the Greeks of Constantinople, who were supported by European diplomats, dealt an impressive blow to the prestige of Orthodoxy as a whole: opponents of Catholicism were now associated with Protestantism, which was quite consistent with the theses of Catholic propaganda 258 . The situation was aggravated by the fact that Patr. Kirill Lukaris was directly associated with Western Russian Orthodoxy: from 1594 to 1597. he taught in Ostrog and in Vilna, where he was rector of the Brotherhood of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the anonymous author of the polemical treatise "Perestroga", was distinguished by close ties with Protestants 259. Thus, the urgent need was to create a theological school that would be able to clearly state the position of the Orthodox Church on controversial issues and draw a line between Orthodoxy and other Christian denominations. For this, Orthodox intellectuals with excellent education were needed. However, the state of Orthodox education in Western Russian lands in the first half of the 17th century. showed unpreparedness for such a challenge. Although, after heated debates about “external knowledge,” the orientation towards rhetorical culture in its Latin-Polish version 260 triumphed here, there was an acute shortage of learned theologians capable of understanding the intricacies of differences in religions in the Kyiv Metropolis. Having become metropolitan in 1633, Peter (Mogila) combined the qualities necessary for a person leading large-scale church reforms: sincere faith, impeccable reputation, excellent education, skills as a diplomat and administrator. It would be difficult to find a person better prepared to overcome the fragmentation of the Orthodox world: the life experience and connections of Metropolitan. Peter's Graves covered not only Kyiv, Warsaw, Krakow and, possibly, some Western educational centers, but also Iasi, Constantinople and Moscow. He could freely choose the language of conversation and manner of communication in accordance with his addressee (who varied from the king to the simple monk), without difficulty combining Jesuit sophistication with sincere and pure Orthodox faith 267. As a result of this, the conflict that broke out in 1633 was Metropolitan. Peter Mohyla, who received the rank of metropolitan on the recommendation of the Sejm and the royal will, and Isaiah Kopinsky, the “Cossack metropolitan,” had to decide what would henceforth determine who would occupy the Kyiv see: the law or the will of the Zaporozhye army. Victory of Metropolitan Peter Mogila, achieved using fairly harsh methods, became the first decisive step towards restoring the independence of the Orthodox hierarchy from external forces 269. The accusations fell on already prepared ground and did not require special evidence. So, during the uprising of 1637–38. Metropolitan Petro Mogila had to flee from Kyiv, because... the Cossacks accused him of union, since the metropolitan erected a crucifix in front of the St. Sophia Cathedral, reminiscent of a Catholic one, and a dome over the Spasskaya Church, similar to the domes of Catholic churches 272. In the 1630s. Metropolitan Peter undertook a broad program of administrative reforms in the metropolitanate, as a result of which not only numerous abuses among the clergy were eliminated, but also a system was created that prevented the occurrence of such violations 273. The brotherhoods, placed under the control of bishops, began to lose their former importance. The Mogilyan approach to theology differed from the Ostrog-Brotherly one in that Met. Peter Mogila and his like-minded people set themselves the task of creating a rationally structured systemic religious Orthodox knowledge. Since the tasks facing at the beginning of the 17th century. before Orthodox theologians, in general, coincided with the tasks that the ideologists of the Catholic Reform set for themselves, then the appeal of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila to the second scholasticism - the intellectual basis of the Catholic Reform. Representatives of the second scholasticism mastered in practice a new way of working with texts. Jesuit theologians were able to lay the foundation for a new genre of theological and philosophical literature - independent treatises that not only followed the author's text, but had their own logic. In their comments on classical works, representatives of the second scholasticism sought to follow the spirit and not the letter, thereby creating original works, starting from the centuries-old medieval tradition 279. For the theologians of the second scholasticism, Sacred Tradition was material that provided food for the original work of the mind, but not some kind of motionless, unchanging tablet of frozen Truth expressed once and for all, to which the commentator only dares to carefully approach in order to clarify the essence. For the commentator of the second scholasticism, the commented text serves more as an excuse than as a reason for the author to address a certain problem 280. So F. Thus, over two decades of hard work, Met. Peter Mogila and theologians close to him, Archimandrite. Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovsky and Bishop. Sylvester Kossov laid a solid theological foundation for the renewed Kyiv Metropolis in the form of a number of normative texts containing a statement of Orthodox doctrine and worship. When writing these works, the approaches that would later be characteristic of the Mogila theological school of the 17th - early 18th centuries were determined. The approaches consisted of collecting the most complete information from a wide range of Slavic, Latin and Greek sources, while borrowing from the second scholasticism the principles of organization, structure and method of writing theological texts, as well as terminology that was absent in the Eastern Christian tradition. However, in the second half of the 17th century. turning to Greek materials would become a rarity for the Mogilyans, primarily due to the lack of qualified Hellenists in Little Russia during this period 295 . Particularly important was the widespread use of the syllogical method of proof characteristic of scholasticism, which was considered in Eastern Christian theology to be illegitimate for resolving dogmatic issues 296 . However, in order for the theology of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila and his like-minded people became the foundation of a theological school, and not a separate episode in history; it required the creation of an Orthodox educational institution capable of training specialists who were able to think in the philosophical categories of the second scholasticism. “External knowledge” was needed by the Mogilians not only as a means of convincingly presenting their arguments in polemical treatises, but as a powerful tool for systematizing Orthodox theology: where it was difficult to do without knowledge of philosophy and scholastic theology. Mohyla administrative reforms required an educated clergy. The Mohyla orientation towards the entry of the Orthodox into the cultural space of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth determined the breadth of the program and its focus for the training of students, both laymen and clergy. It was necessary to create our own Orthodox educational institution, which would be focused specifically on training a confessional elite capable of defending the interests of Orthodoxy primarily in church life, but also in the secular world. Within the framework of the Catholic Reform, an educational model was created that could be taken as a role model - this was the formation of the Society of Jesus. As far as one can judge, initially the thought of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila was the creation of a certain Orthodox spiritual and educational monastic order based on the Catholic model, in which Peter Mogila himself was assigned the role of an order general, and Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovsky - a provincial. An academy was to be created in Kyiv, around which there would be a number of colleges (the first of them was planned to be created in Vinnitsa). Teaching in these educational institutions was to be based on the Jesuit model. However, the plan could not be fully implemented due to the opposition of a number of influential persons in the elite of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Royal Order of 1635 gave the Kyiv school the right to teach no further than dialectics and logic, making the study of theology impossible. Attempts to create schools in countries where Catholic restrictions did not apply - in the Danube principalities and in Russia 297 - also remained unsuccessful. Since the privilege was confirmed by the Polish government in 1648, 1650 and 1670, it remained in force until 1686, when Kyiv was officially transferred to Russia under the Eternal Peace 298. Thus, until the 1680s. the establishment of a full-fledged Orthodox higher educational institution in Kyiv was difficult. But despite the obstacles, Met. Petr Mogila managed to bring his project to life, at least in part. The Kiev Brotherhood School, although limited in teaching, became the intellectual center of the Kyiv Metropolis; he had a “branch” - a board in Vinnitsa, which was then transferred to Goscha, in Volyn. From now on, college teachers were persons who had received higher education at universities or academies 299 . These were the closest associates of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila: the first rector was priest. Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovsky, and his main assistant, professor of rhetoric and then philosophy, was Sylvester Kossov. To receive education, talented hieromonks Iosaf Kononovich-Gorbatsky and Innokenty Gisel were sent to foreign academies, who upon their return became professors of the college 300. Together with Ignatiy Oksenovich Starushich, Sophrony Pochasky and a number of other teachers, they formed a team, thanks to whose work the Kyiv College in the 1630s and 40s managed to gain fame as an educational institution, not inferior in the level of training of graduates to Jesuit colleges and far superior to Uniate schools. It is reliably known that at this time such outstanding figures of Western Russian church life as Lazar Baranovich, Feodosius Safonovich, Meletiy Dzik, Ignatius Ievlevich studied in Kyiv. It should be said that the “Ratio Studiorum” largely remained only a theory and few of the Jesuit students reached the “higher” subjects, while almost everyone studied the “lower” subjects. Moreover, few were allowed to study theology in full (the necessary staff of teachers was not available everywhere); the majority were limited to listening to individual courses 304. The main form of the Society's educational institution were colleges, education in which was free and open to all classes and religions 305. Education in colleges was not limited to obtaining a certain amount of knowledge; the first place should be for students to master a certain type of piety and norms of Christian morality. To do this, all Catholic students had to pray daily and attend divine services, listen to sermons on holidays and during Lent, and receive the sacraments of Penance and Communion daily or at least once a month 306 . Thus, Jesuit education was aimed at raising a sincerely believing Christian who is fully prepared for active work for the benefit of the Church, has a developed culture of thinking and an extensive stock of knowledge. The Kiev-Mohyla Collegium managed to rationally perceive the main features of the Jesuit educational institution. First of all, this concerned his close relationship with the church and monasticism. The Mohyla Collegium was closely connected with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. In this, on the one hand, he continued the tradition of the Kiev-Brotherly School, which stood out among the majority of secular fraternal schools for its teaching staff, consisting of inhabitants of the Lavra. On the other hand, he imitated the monastic structure of the Jesuit colleges and academies 307. Teachers of the collegium, from the 1640s. were predominantly its graduates. Thus, a corporation of intellectuals of learned monasticism was formed, which had a confessional character and was closely connected with Orthodox monasticism. Often the differences between the Mogilyan tradition of the 17th century. from the Jesuit were determined by purely external reasons: a shortage of teachers and government bans. Thus, the rhetoric course of the Kiev-Mohyla College was shorter than the full course of the Jesuit College for members of the order: two years versus three 309. Philosophy was taught in Kyiv in a more truncated volume compared to Jesuit standards. The course usually consisted of dialectics, logic, physics and metaphysics. Ethics and mathematicians in the college throughout the 17th century. there wasn't. Since the teaching of theology was prohibited, the metaphysics course was used to touch upon purely theological issues. Thus, in lectures on philosophy given by Innocent Gisel in 1645−1647. Questions about God, angels, the soul, etc. are constantly raised. The lack of a systematic course in theology was also compensated by the fact that students were introduced to the works of the church fathers, Western and Eastern, as well as the fundamental texts of Catholic scholasticism 310. The most significant differences between Mogilyan education and Jesuit education were of a confessional nature. Thus, to study the doctrine, the Orthodox catechism “Collection of Brief Science on the Articles of Faith”, written by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila in 1645 as an abbreviated version of the “Orthodox Confession”. From 1665, another text began to be used, probably compiled by Varlaam Yasinsky. 311 In the rhetoric class, which also studied church eloquence, since the late 1650s, the “Key of Understanding” by Ioannikius of Galatovsky 312 has been used as a homiletics manual. To summarize, we can say that the transformation of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila allowed the creation in Kyiv of a theological school and an Orthodox educational institution that reproduced this school. The reforms were determined by two factors: 1) acute limitations in resources and capabilities; 2) orientation towards maximum use of the achievements of the Catholic Reform. The goal of the Mogila school was to fully absorb already existing—in this case, Western cultural standards. It was a desire for equality, not for originality 317. Meanwhile, from the point of view of an Orthodox contemporary, the open perception of Baroque culture and the change in the figurative system, which made it possible to use ancient metaphors in rhetoric, was revolutionary 318. The Mogila Collegium completely coped with its task of creating a confessional elite. By the middle of the 17th century. The students and teachers of the college have already formed an influential intellectual corporation, united by common views and way of thinking, and most importantly, ready to take active action for the benefit of the Orthodox Church. Education received at the college (continued, in some cases, in Catholic academies), on the one hand, provided the necessary skills and knowledge for practicing theology. On the other hand, it provided the opportunity to realize one’s creative potential by creating literary works characteristic of the Baroque era. The Mogilyans successfully entered the field of creating various original theological works of catechetical genres, which were so necessary for explaining the dogmas and doctrinal truths of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, despite external shocks, the second half of the 17th century. for the Mogila Theological School became very fruitful. The fundamental work on homiletics in the Western Russian church for many years was destined to become the “Key of Understanding” by Archimandrite. Ioannikiy Galatovsky (first edition: Kyiv, 1658). It was a collection of baroque sermons by the author along with the article “A short science for the method of atrocity of punishment.” The collection was a simple manual for non-bookish pastors, teaching them the art of composing sermons using examples from the texts of I. Galatovsky himself. The famous preacher Anthony Radivilovsky published two collections, “The Fence of Mary the Mother of God” (1676) and “The Crown of Christ” (1688). The archbishop himself. Lazar Baranovich published three voluminous collections of his sermons, “The Sword of the Spirit” (first edition 1667), “Verbal Trumpets” (first edition 1674) and “Apollonov’s Lute” (1671), the last of which was presented in poetry in Polish. The publication of a printed sermon presupposed the presence of a reader who has basic doctrinal knowledge, giving him the opportunity to understand the preaching word. In the second half of the 17th century, according to the testimony of the Vilna pastor Gerbinius, they were located only in large cities 327. The genre of glorifying miracles, established by the Patericon and Teraturgima, was developed in the Mohyla tradition in the second half of the 17th century. The authors of this era paid attention primarily to evidence of the miraculous intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Archim. Ioannikiy Galatovsky, in the appendix to his work “The Key of Understanding,” collected evidence of more than a hundred miracles of the Mother of God, which the reader could use as examples when composing his sermons. In 1665, Ioannikiy Galatovsky published a separate book, “The New Heaven, Created with New Stars,” specially dedicated to the miracles of the Mother of God. The book contained 445 miracles of the Virgin Mary, collected mainly from Latin sources 328. “The New Sky” aroused great interest among readers, was reprinted several times and was even translated into Russian in the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery near Moscow. In 1676 All the activities of Mogilyan intellectuals in the second half of the 17th century. was aimed at creating an Orthodox confessional culture. Mogilyans strive to find every opportunity to testify to the Orthodox faith, to establish it in polemics with heterodox. They became accustomed to the European intellectual space and could participate on equal terms in debates with representatives of the Western cultural tradition in their own language, refuting the old accusations of “ignorance.” At this time, mechanisms and principles of borrowing are being developed, subject to the preservation of the purity of Orthodox doctrine. The result was the creation of an extensive body of theological and educational literature, which, in general, was in demand in Orthodox society. By the 1680s, the Mogilyans had become a corporation of Orthodox intellectuals, united by friendly and spiritual ties, united by common goals and views. § 3. Reception of Little Russian intellectual culture in Great Russia in the 17th century. After the death of Patr. Filaret, the main direction of his reforms, the pragmatic borrowing of European innovations, was continued. However, the principle of strict isolation in the church sphere was soon put to an end. The change in attitude towards Kyiv theology and, in general, towards Western Russian piety occurred at the turn of the 1630s - early 1640s. At this time, Met. Peter Mogila manages to restore relations with Moscow, although the Russian authorities rejected the proposal of the Kyiv Metropolitan to send teachers to Moscow to set up a school and printing house. In the 1640s, Met. Peter in Russia is beginning to be perceived as a fighter against the Union, which was greatly facilitated by the polemical treatise “Liphos” published in 1644, which became famous in the Great Russian intellectual environment. Also Met. Peter Mogila made significant book donations to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The restoration of ties with the Kyiv Metropolis contributed to the fact that since the late 1630s, a number of books with borrowings from Western Russian works have been published at the Moscow Printing House. The publication of these books, which emphasized anti-Protestant polemics, was associated with the proposed marriage of Princess Irina and Waldemar of Denmark and the ongoing disputes about faith. It is known that Met. Peter Mohyla was also involved in this matter, in particular, he sought to find a canonical solution by turning to Patr. Constantinople 338. At this time, there was a “rehabilitation” of Western Russian theology: it is significant that books from the collections of Moscow scribes, which they received from Kyiv in the 1640s. no longer had prohibitive litters 339. The next stage, which marked the final turn of Great Russia to the Kyiv intellectual tradition, occurred in 1648–1649. In 1648, the Moscow Printing House published the Western Russian polemical collection “The Book of Faith.” This book was a polemical compilation prepared by a Moscow order by a certain author who, apparently, did not belong to the Mogilyan tradition, but was well educated and possessed brilliant erudition. The manuscript of the collection was sent to Moscow by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila for debates with Voldemar in 1644, but the text itself appeared earlier - between 1632 and 1643. 340 The publication of the “Book of Faith” became a turning point in relation to the Western Russian tradition in Great Russia. The Russian intellectual elite that had formed at court felt the need to transfer the experience of Western Russian theology to Russian soil. Following the “Book,” the key texts of the Kyiv tradition were published: in 1648, “Grammar” by Meletiy Smotrytsky, in 1649, the Short Catechism of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila. “The Ukrainian-Belarusian catechism and grammar constituted an integral system of theological knowledge; it differed significantly from the prevailing ideas of the first half of the 17th century. We can talk about a breakthrough in Baroque theology in the middle of the century and that this transition was prepared by the entire course of previous Ukrainian-Belarusian borrowings” 341. Since then, the Moscow Printing Yard begins to massively republish Western Russian literature. The gradual and anonymous adaptation characteristic of the 1630s and 1640s is replaced by lively perception and copying of Little Russian models. It is logical that this required experienced mentors. In 1649, at the request of the tsar, the Kyiv monks Damascene Ptitsky and Epiphanius Slavinetsky arrived in Moscow to carry out translation work and organize a school. The fascination of Moscow state and church authorities with Little Russian culture coincided with the time of the B. Khmelnitsky uprising and a period of prolonged instability in Western Russian lands. This contributed to the migration of numerous Orthodox Christians to quieter lands under the rule of the Russian monarch. This flow expanded many times after Russia entered into war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1654. Entire monasteries appeared, inhabited by Orthodox monks from Western Russian lands, such as the Iversky Valdai Monastery, which was founded by the brethren of the Belarusian Kuteinsky Monastery, whose monks fled from the disasters of war. In addition, Little Russian monks began to predominate numerically in some monasteries in the capital and Moscow region, including such significant ones as Danilovsky, Donskoy and Savvino-Storozhevsky, beloved by the Tsar. The set of ideas shared by the members of the circle was, in fact, another program of “Orthodox confessionalization,” which now arose on Great Russian soil. In many ways these were the ideas of the mid-16th century, the era of Stoglav and Metropolitan. Macarius, which were never developed in Great Russia in the subsequent era 343. The “zealots of piety” sought to raise church discipline, revive preaching and teach the clergy and flock Christian life. Particular attention was paid to Christian enlightenment 344. Since similar issues in one form or another have been relevant for Western Russian Orthodoxy since the end of the 16th century, the interest of God-lovers in the publications of the Kyiv Metropolis and Western Russian piety in general was quite natural. Paisius Ligarid), whose style was somewhat closer to the polemical treatises of the Little Russians 348. However, in other spheres of culture, in particular in architecture, the views of Patr. Nikon were extremely different from the traditional Moscow ones. Thus, the ensemble of the New Jerusalem Monastery is an example of Orthodox monastic baroque culture, a rare understanding of its ideas in depth. Throughout the reign of Patr. Nikon (it must be said - a rather short and stormy) relationship between Moscow and Kyiv intensified, the Western Russian clergy who moved to Russia received assistance and assistance in business. Great Moscow Cathedral 1666−1667 did not change the chosen one in the late 1640s. course towards a wide reception of Little Russian church culture. The fathers of the cathedral approved the key decisions taken under Patr. Nikon, and did not condemn the theological collection “The Tablet,” although they did not recommend it for wide distribution, as causing confusion among the flock. In fact, the Council of 1667 marked the approval by the eastern hierarchs of the changes that took place in the Great Russian Church during the patriarchate of Nikon. After the Council, on Christmas Day 1668, in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral, on behalf of the Eastern Patriarchs, the word “On the Search for Divine Wisdom” was read, which contained a proposal to create schools in Moscow for the study of the Greek language. The Tsar and Russian bishops supported this project 349. Thus, the period of the third quarter of the 17th century. became a time of wide reception of Little Russian intellectual culture. Below we will try to give a brief description of the two main directions of this reception, which also reflected two directions in the Great Russian religious life of that time. The first direction was made up of representatives of the Moscow church elite, closely connected with court life and the Moscow Printing House. The second were the leaders of the early Old Believers. The tone of the intellectual life of the capital of Russia in the third quarter of the 17th century. asked by just two people who enjoyed enormous authority and influence. These were immigrants from Western Russian lands, hieromonks Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk. Little is known about the biography of Epiphany Slavinetsky before his arrival in Moscow. He was educated at a non-confessional higher educational institution (possibly at the University of Krakow and Western European universities), where he took a course in philosophy and theology and mastered the Greek language perfectly (which was rare in Western Russian lands). In the 1640s, Epiphanius taught at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. In 1649 Epiphany Slavinetsky, together with several other compatriots, arrived in Moscow at the invitation of the tsarist government. Here he became close to the circle of “zealots of piety” and its leader, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev, began giving Greek lessons to F.M. Rtishchev and Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod (the latter was also instructed by Epiphanius in philosophy and theology), took part in organizing a school at the St. Andrew's College Monastery. After Nikon’s accession to the patriarchal see in 1653, Epiphanius became the informal head of the collection of liturgical books at the Moscow Printing Yard. In 1652 The Kiev monk settled in the Kremlin Miracle Monastery, with which his fate would be closely connected in the future. Here he created a scientific circle of philological studies. Epiphanius himself was primarily interested in translations from Greek: he made many translations of patristic works into the Slavic language - St. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius of Alexandria, John of Damascus. From both secular and spiritual authorities, orders were constantly received for translations of books of “external wisdom” - works on medicine, astronomy, geography, law, mainly made from secular Latin primary sources. The inherent qualities of Epiphanius as an author and translator were his predilections for pretentious style, literal translation and tracing of Greek words, which sometimes obscured the meaning of the text. This was a consequence of the Little Russian monk’s purposeful attitude that reading should be difficult and stimulating 352 . The stable historiographical image of Epiphanius as the leader of the “Grecophile” party and a supporter of Byzantine education goes back to a number of polemical passages written by Euthymius Chudovsky and created during the polemics of the 1680–1690s. Meanwhile, we have serious reasons to consider them as later tendentious attempts to project the conflicts of the 1680s onto the previous decade and in absentia to attract the authority of the late monk to their side 354. This is also supported by the fact that the activities of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and his Chudov school can only be described as Greco-Latin: this applies to the translations made, the languages ​​studied, and the composition of the library (the Latin part of which Epiphanius bequeathed to the Kiev-Brotherly Monastery, and the Greek to his Moscow Hellenistic students) 355. At the same time, the notes preserved in the manuscripts of Epiphanius Slavinetsky's sermons show that he was not a “Byzantinist”, but rather a Hellenist of a humanistic persuasion, familiar with Greek culture through the philology he acquired during his years of study in Europe 356. Simeon of Polotsk was a man of a different generation and a different destiny. In the world he bore the name Samuil Sitnianovich-Petrovsky and apparently came from the Belarusian Orthodox gentry. After graduating from the Kiev-Mohyla College in 1650, the talented young man continued his education at the Vilna Jesuit Academy 357. However, he was not able to complete his studies at the Academy: after the outbreak of the Russian-Polish War, the Orthodox student considered it best to leave Vilna and return to his native Polotsk. Here, in 1656, Samuel took monastic vows at the Polotsk Epiphany Monastery with the name of Simeon and began teaching at the school of the Polotsk Brotherhood. After much ups and downs, in 1664 Simeon completely moved to Moscow. Here the appearance of a cleric with a full-fledged rhetorical education created a real sensation. When the question arose about the candidacy of a translator for Metropolitan. Paisius Ligarid, who enjoyed great influence at court as the main organizer of the trial of Patr. Nikon, the choice fell on Simeon, who combined both knowledge and holy orders. Proximity to Ligarid provided Simeon with the position of secretary at church councils of 1666−1667. As a result of the council, Simeon wrote the book “The Rod of Government,” which exposed the main errors of the Old Believer leaders. This work became the first example of Western Russian polemical theology transferred to Great Russian soil: “The Rod” combined the literary techniques of Baroque rhetoric with rational theological argumentation 358. As an expression of the official theological position of the Great Russian Church, the book “The Rod” was published in large quantities by the Moscow Printing House. Meanwhile, Simeon himself wrote in a letter to Varlaam Yasinsky that he did not consider it possible to indicate his authorship on the title of the “Rod”, since the original text was revised at the insistence of certain “stubborn” representatives of the Great Russian Church 359. The high position of Simeon of Polotsk in the Moscow intellectual elite was finally consolidated in 1667 after the Tsar appointed a Western Russian monk as a mentor to his children. Invariably taking advantage of the favor of Alexei Mikhailovich, and then his successor on the throne, Fyodor Alekseevich, Simeon of Polotsk did not become a royal courtier in the full sense of the word, although he had every opportunity for this. Simeon of Polotsk maintained acquaintances with the Little Russian Mogilyans, in particular with Lazar Baranovich, helping them with advice on how to strengthen relations with the Moscow church elite. Simeon himself felt uncomfortable in the company of representatives of the capital’s intellectual elite. There were no, or rather, almost no, worthy, educated interlocutors (in a letter to Varlaam Yasinsky in 1666, he wrote with bitter irony that in Moscow people “live like walking trees, but they not only don’t talk about the Tree of Porfiry 360, but have never even heard of it” 361), but there were plenty of envious people and intriguers. With all this, in his literary works Simeon did not limit himself to panegyrics: as a representative of the Mogilyan tradition, he inherited its spirit of “confessionalization” of culture. In the “poetry encyclopedia” entitled “Vertograd of many colors,” Simeon of Polotsk acted as a poet-preacher, seeking to elevate a person’s worldview and bring him closer to an understanding of spiritual truths 362 . The same applies to the “Rhyming Psalter,” a poetic transcription of the Psalms of David. He also created theological works themselves: such as the theological compendium “The Crown of the Catholic Faith” intended for the royal court. Simeon of Polotsk was also known as an eloquent preacher. The main ideas of his sermons were moral themes (in particular, the opposition of pride and avarice to humility and mercy), as well as the identification of philosophy-wisdom with piety, which was new for Great Russia, but typical for post-Renaissance thought. At the end of the 1670s, the Upper Printing House published two collections of sermons under the titles: “The Soulful Dinner” and “The Soulful Supper.” Simeon's main method of work as a writer was an authorized translation and adaptation of Catholic works, worked out in detail in the Mogilyan tradition. Thus, “The Crown of the Catholic Faith” was compiled mainly on the basis of the work of the Belgian Jesuit J. Marchand 364, and “The Rhyming Psalter” was written under the influence of a similar work by the Polish poet Jan Kochanowski 365. During the 16 years of his stay in Moscow, Simeon invariably tried to create an educational Orthodox institution, a “school” that would provide systematic spiritual education. These efforts, however, were never successful. Simeon's official pedagogical achievements were limited to teaching Latin to courtiers and employees of the Secret Order. At the same time, a learned circle little by little settled around Simeon in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, with whose members the Polotsk monk willingly shared his extensive knowledge. The best and most beloved among the students was Sylvester Medvedev, to whom Simeon bequeathed his huge library. At the end of the 1670s. Simeon began working on a project to create a higher educational institution in Moscow on the model of a European university, Academy 366 (recall that the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium received the status of an academy only in 1701), but this plan was never implemented, since Simeon of Polotsk died in 1680. The relationship between Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk was quite simple. From his very appearance in Moscow, Simeon recognized the seniority of Epiphanius (which was justified by both the age and the volume of the latter’s knowledge) and never tried to challenge it. Two Western Russian intellectuals who, by the will of fate, found themselves in Moscow, probably keenly felt their closeness. They were also united by a common task. Moscow intellectual elite of the second half of the 17th century. felt an urgent need for the reception of European rhetorical culture. The “social order” to satisfy this need was expressed in very specific orders for translations received from church and secular authorities and nobles. It is no coincidence that both of them, Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk, devoted almost all of their literary work to translations and adaptations, acting as intermediaries introducing the Moscow elite to European rhetorical culture in its various versions. Only the subject matter differed: if Epiphany Slavinetsky, as a more learned man, translated works that required high education, then Simeon of Polotsk occupied the niche of a “popularizer.” At the same time, it is important not to forget that the work of both Western Russian monks was not “secularized”; it completely fit into the Mogila cultural paradigm, which, as mentioned above, went back to the cultural paradigm of the Catholic Reform. When Epiphany Slavinetsky and Simeon Polotsky could freely search for the topics of their literary studies, more texts came from their pens that served the high goals of preaching and catechesis, be it translations of patristic works or moralizing verses of “The Spiritual Vertograd”. However, the consequences of the activities of Epiphany Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk were not limited to their theological and literary creativity. Their stay in the capital for several decades completely changed the Moscow intellectual atmosphere. Epiphanius and Simeon left behind dozens of students and admirers, for whom the “Kiev teaching” ceased to be something distant and foreign. Meanwhile, the Moscow students of the Kyiv monks were very specifically educated. In fact, it turned out that they received European education through traditional teaching mechanisms: through direct communication with the teacher and reading books. All this contributed to the fact that by the 1680s. In the intellectual elite of the Great Russian Church, a considerable number of people appeared who claimed to be highly educated intellectuals, but whose knowledge was limited only to apprenticeship with the Kyiv “masters”, a “glimmer” of the Mohyla tradition. Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk were outstanding people, but their importance for Great Russian culture was largely due to the fact that in Moscow, unlike Kyiv, there was no one who could compare with them in knowledge. When these authorities, Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk, left the stage, the question arose of who would take their place. And the Muscovite students did not at all share the peacefulness and unanimity of their mentors. Reception of Kyiv theology in Great Russia in the third quarter of the 17th century. was not limited to the Moscow intellectual elite. Members of the circle of “zealots of piety”, leaders of the church opposition, who later became leaders of the Old Believers, also turned to Western Russian religious thought. Enormous influence on the formation of church opposition to the reforms of the patriarchs. Nikon, who later converted to the Old Believers religious movement, was assisted by Spiridon Potemkin. This Smolensk nobleman received a good education, knew Greek and Latin, and may have taken part in polemics with Catholics and Uniates, and in 1655/56. moved to Moscow and became a monk. Here the monk actively participated in church life, wrote a number of polemical messages directed against the “Tablet”, which after his death were compiled into the “Book”. S. Potemkin died in 1665. Despite the fact that S. Potemkin lived little in the capital, in terms of the scale of influence he had on Great Russian religious life, he can be compared with Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk. S. Potemkin’s views were formed long before his move to Moscow, and, obviously, represented a radical development of those trends that were characteristic of the theology of Western Russian brotherhoods, mainly in the field of ecclesiology. One of the main ideas of Spiridon was the opposition between the Church, which preserves the intact teaching of Christ, and the corrupted hierarchy, which is trying to distort the apostolic heritage. Considering the shortcomings of the hierarchy, S. Potemkin came to the conclusion that the Orthodox “Dezounite,” Uniate and Catholic hierarchs are similar to each other in their ungodly life, since they are parts of a single apostate false church 367 . From this, Spiridon concluded that in the Kyiv Metropolis there was a retreat of the Orthodox hierarchy, which accepted the “Latin dogma.” At the same time, Spiridon believed that the “Roman dogma” penetrates through printed books published in Paris and Venice, while the Ecumenical Patriarch and with him the entire Orthodox East, preserves the right faith, because uses handwritten books 368. Probably, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, S. Potemkin belonged to Orthodox circles that were in opposition to the Mohyla reform and supported rumors about the secret Uniate of the Metropolitan and his successors. Arriving in Russia, S. Potemkin appreciated the reforms of the patriarch. Nikon as a Great Russian version of the Mogilyan reforms, which, accordingly, is a repetition of the Western Russian retreat 369. This led to the fact that S. Potemkin became an ardent opponent of the Patras. Nikon, and also contributed to the formulation of the eschatological doctrine of Spiridon, which became a theological synthesis of the theory of the Great Russian scribes “Moscow-Third Rome”, developed in the trans. floor. XVII century and eschatological numerology, which penetrated into Western Russian literature from Protestant writings in the beginning. XVII century 370 In general, the work of Spiridon Potemkin greatly influenced the theology and ideology of the Old Believers (in particular, eschatology), since his works were perceived as authoritative by both his contemporaries and subsequent generations of supporters of the Old Believers, both directions and all agreements. In his writings, Spiridon energetically drew on Western Russian books, which helped further the development of the creative heritage of the Kiev metropolis among the Old Believers 371 . Old Believer thought quickly assimilated the ideas expressed by S. Potemkin. However, Spiridon himself - like his orthodox compatriots - remained only a solitary scientist in Great Russia. The leaders of the early Old Believers, although they treated the native of Smolensk with sincere respect, however, could not become the successors of his scholarship: in essence, the early Old Believer leaders were rather the successors of the scribes-readers of the trans. floor. XVII century, both in terms of methodology and in terms of outlook. It was in this context that the reception of Western Russian books in the early Old Believer environment took place. These were mainly collections published in Moscow in the late 1640s: “Kirill’s Book” and “The Book of Faith.” The growth of the authority of the Book of Cyril among the Old Believers was facilitated by the active quotation of this work by S. Potemkin and his student Deacon Fyodor 373. Archpriest Avvakum 374 knew the “Book of Faith” well and often cited excerpts from it in his writings. The Catechism of Laurentius Zizanius was also used, despite the fact that he was condemned in Moscow in 1627. Curiously, it was understood by the Old Believers as an accusatory treatise written against the heretic by Moscow theologians 375 . Moreover, for the early Old Believers, not only Moscow publications, but also some “Lithuanian” books 376 were authoritative. Meanwhile, the attitude towards “external knowledge” among the early Old Believers was sharply negative. Orthodox polemicists attacked the church opposition, the leaders of the early Old Believers, with accusations that mostly boil down to two positions: ignorance and disobedience to the Church. And here Epiphany Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk spoke in agreement, differing only in the tone of their remarks. For them, the early Old Believers are “secret teachers” who secretly confuse the people, “neutral men.” The early Old Believer leaders could not answer these accusations, because Their education, in fact, could not be compared with the learning of the Moscow “masters of thought”: Spiridon Potemkin, with his “brotherly” education, remained more of an external authority than a participant in the movement. During the period of the early Old Believers, accusations of ignorance provoked a reaction in the form of demonstrative “flaunting” of ignorance and “simplicity” on the part of some of the leaders of the “schism.” 377 Thus, Archpriest Avvakum and a number of other early Old Believers sought to correlate their conflict with the “Nikonians” with the hagiographic topos of confrontation between the carnal wisdom of philosophers and the spiritual wisdom of simple-minded saints. Adam Zernikav, who visited Moscow in the late 1670s, described its elite this way: “They despise those who do not come from noble families, they don’t like scientists, they form parties” 378. These characteristics very accurately reflect the situation in the intellectual elite of Great Russia by the early 1680s, after the death of the last of the “great Kievites,” Simeon of Polotsk. By the beginning of the 1680s, significant changes had occurred in Great Russian culture. Thanks to the activities of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk, and the emergence of Kyiv publications, the Moscow intellectual elite found itself in the sphere of influence of Mogilyan culture. However, this was precisely influence, not perception. To fully perceive European rhetorical culture, the capital’s intellectuals needed to have a systematic humanities education, but it was not possible to obtain such an education in Russia. As a result, the Great Russian students of Western Russian monks in their own way understood and comprehended the cultural tradition, the bearers of which were their teachers, and different students assimilated different facets of this tradition. We can say that the debates of the 1680s became a reflection of Moscow students on Kyiv science, which became possible thanks to this science itself. The positions voiced during the disputes were not the programs of “parties” and not “traditions,” but the results of the personal reflections of specific individuals who claimed to be the rulers of the thoughts of the Great Russian Church in the 1680s, be it the “Grecophilism” of Euthymius Chudovsky or the “Latinization” of Sylvester Medvedev (which, of course, did not exclude the unification into factions of persons with similar views). In fact, most of the characters in the Moscow disputes, with the exception of the Likhudov brothers, can be addressed with the caustic lines of Pyotr Artemyev 379: “In the academies I studied in, is there really a cricket behind the stove in the corner or a fly in the crack?” 380. The 1680s also brought the transition of the Kyiv Metropolis to the rule of the Moscow Patriarch. Indirect “influence” inevitably had to be replaced by direct contact between the Moscow church and secular elite and the Mogila tradition in the person of its best representatives. A new era was approaching, which was supposed to complete the protracted process of reunification of the two traditions within East Slavic Orthodoxy. To summarize, we can conclude that the learned clergy in the Russian lands emerged in the Early Modern era in response to the new challenges that this era brought with it, mainly the need to defend their faith in conditions of interfaith confrontation and the rise of heterodox religious movements, and the need for transformations in church life. The appearance of Orthodox church intellectual culture in Eastern Europe was seriously influenced by a number of circumstances: the unfamiliarity of Ancient Rus' with ancient medieval rationalism, the collapse of the “Byzantine Commonwealth,” the gradual strengthening of cultural ties between Lithuanian and Moscow Rus' in the 15th–16th centuries. with the Latin world and their isolation from each other, the influence of the Reformation and the Catholic Reform. The transformations carried out by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila in 1630–40. in the Kyiv Metropolis, allowed the creation of a theological school based on the synthesis of Eastern Christianity and the Catholic response to the questions posed by the Early Modern era - the second scholasticism and the educational system developed by the Society of Jesus in the second. floor. XVI - beginning XVII centuries A corporation of intellectuals associated with the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium arose, which during the second half of the 17th century. continued what Met. Peter Mogila was responsible for the renewal of Orthodox church life. In Great Russia since the late 1640s. Western Russian church culture is already officially beginning to be perceived as a role model. In subsequent years, the Kiev Metropolis exerted a cultural influence on Great Russia, which was helped by the widespread distribution of numerous publications from Little Russian printing houses, as well as the activities of learned monks who moved to the royal capital. A thin layer of their Great Russian disciples emerged, who accepted the Kiev intellectual culture and thought differently from the scribes. From the mid-1680s. the events taking place in the intellectual life of Great Russia and Little Russia are difficult to consider separately: Kyiv and Moscow are too closely intertwined. It was at this time that Dimitri Savich gained fame as a figure of significance not only for the Kiev Metropolis, but for the entire Russian Church. Chapter II. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov in the circle of the learned elite of the Great Russian Church of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. When in 1684 Dimitri Savich was appointed treasurer, i.e. preacher, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra 381, he already had a reputation as one of the smartest and most educated people of the Kyiv Metropolis. Since young Daniel took monastic vows with the name Demetrius in the Kirillovsky Monastery near Kiev in 1668, 16 years have passed. He had behind him years of preaching in Chernigov under the wing of the archbishop. Lazar Baranovich, trips to the monasteries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, abbess in Baturin, publication of two books - “Miracles of the Most Holy and Blessed Virgin Mary” and “Irrigated Fleece”, dedicated to the miracles of the icon of the Mother of God in the Chernigov Trinity-Ilyinsky Monastery. Over the next quarter of a century, Metropolitan. Demetrius was destined to connect two centers of learning, Kyiv and Moscow, one way or another responding to all the significant events in the church life of Russia at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. If in the 1680s–90s he was a representative of Kyiv intellectuals, interacting with Moscow colleagues, then in the 1700s Dimitri was already a metropolitan, occupying one of the oldest Great Russian departments. What problems did Russian church intellectuals face at this time? First, it was a search for answers to problems that became relevant to theologians in the Early Modern period. A presentation of Orthodox doctrine using clear terminology, begun by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, was not completed to the end. This primarily concerned the theology of the sacrament of the Eucharist: on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, the text of the “Orthodox Confession”, which received the conciliar approval of the Eastern Patriarchs, and the text that existed in the Kyiv Metropolis differed. The resolution of this issue was the subject of long-term theological debates that swept the intellectual elite of the Russian Church in the 1680s. The controversy also touched upon the task of establishing a doctrinal boundary between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Indeed, in those cases, if this boundary was not drawn clearly enough, the possibility arose of the penetration into the Russian Church of specifically Catholic ideas, alien to Orthodox dogma. Secondly, it was the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. became the time of formation of the all-Russian intellectual elite. If in Little Russia by the end of the 17th century. While there was a close-knit corporation of Orthodox church intellectuals from Mogila, in Great Russia there was no unity among educated clergy. Here complex processes of the formation of a learned elite took place, for which the example of “learning” was the education of Western Russians, i.e. European type, and bearers of academic education were no longer perceived as authorities in the intellectual sphere. Little Russian theologians precisely from the 1680s. are fully involved in this process: the historically inevitable subordination of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 contributed to the fact that Mohyla intellectuals, willy-nilly, became part of the single intellectual elite of the Russian Church. In this chapter we will try to understand what the contribution of Met. Demetrius in the controversies of the era of the first flowering of Russian theological thought, and also to understand how his relationship with the Moscow learned clergy developed. § 1. Met. Demetrius of Rostov and disputes about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the Russian Church of the 17th century. Eucharistic disputes in Russia in the 17th century. Controversy about the sacrament of the Eucharist in the 16th-17th centuries. - Metropolitan Peter. The grave and the Latin doctrine of epiclesis - the Old Believers and the “bread-worshipping heresy” - the Likhud brothers about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in 1685 - Eucharistic disputes between the parties of “Latinizing” and “Grecophiles” - about the reasons for the Moscow Eucharistic disputes The debate about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, which flared up in Russia at the end of the 17th century, should be considered not in isolation, but in the context of pan-European disputes about the Eucharist in the 16th–17th centuries, which unfolded after the beginning of the Reformation. The theological doctrine of church sacraments - sacramentology - arose in the Christian Church in the first millennium after the Nativity of Christ, even before the Great Schism. Therefore, the teachings of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches about the sacraments are basically similar to each other: the Eastern and Western traditions did not deny the direct action of God in the main sacred rites and the need for Christians to participate in the sacraments to gain salvation. The Liturgy at which the Eucharist is celebrated is the most important church service, and the Church itself is built around it, being, thanks to Eucharistic communion, the one Body of Christ 382. Since ancient times, both in Orthodox and Catholic theology there has been a single view of the Eucharist as the most important church Sacrament, the foundation and basis of the Church. According to this teaching, during the liturgy, consecrated bread and wine change their essence, transubstantiate and become the Body and Blood of Christ, retaining only the appearance of bread and wine. In this way, believers partake of the real, historical Body and Blood of Christ, achieving the maximum possible unity with God in earthly life. During the Reformation, Protestant theologians faced the question of the place and meaning of the sacrament of the Eucharist in church life. Since the Gospel unambiguously tells about the establishment of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ himself at the Last Supper, it was impossible to consider Communion a human innovation, even with a complete rejection of Sacred Tradition. However, the understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist could be different. The Reformers rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, but their ideas about the essence of the Eucharist differed greatly from each other. M. Luther believed that in Communion the Body and Blood of Christ are in the chalice in some invisible way, simultaneously with the consecrated bread and wine. W. Zwingli believed that during communion, Christ is spiritually present in the heart of the believer, and the bread and wine eaten by a Christian are nothing more than material symbols of the inner sacrament. A kind of compromise was the position of J. Calvin, according to which Bread and Wine are only “signs” of the Body and Blood of Christ, but by accepting these “signs” the believer partakes of the real Body and Blood of Christ. According to the Augsburg Confession, the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, but a common celebration, during which everyone receives communion only for themselves. It is intended to awaken faith and console the conscience, in which people learn that through Christ they are promised grace and remission of sins 383 . The Catholic Church at the Council of Trent reaffirmed its understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist through the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the liturgy. The Eucharist could only be celebrated by a canonically ordained clergyman who had received apostolic grace in the sacrament of the Priesthood 384. Thus, both Catholics and Protestants recognized the Eucharist as a church sacrament, but both reproached their opponents for a blasphemous perversion of its meaning. Protestants accused Catholics of idolatry and the deification of bread and wine, and Catholics, in turn, generally refused to consider Protestant rites to be the Eucharist. This led to the fact that various issues related to the sacrament of Communion became paramount for theological disputes of various Christian denominations in the 16th–17th centuries. The debate between Catholics and Protestants about the Eucharist also affected the Orthodox Church: already in the second half of the 16th century. German Lutherans corresponded with the Patriarch of Constantinople, hoping to reach agreement on religious issues; the question of Communion was among those which caused the most controversy 385 . Subsequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist was one of the main topics of theological debate in the Orthodox Church of the 17th century. The controversy within the Orthodox Church around the Eucharist was closely related to the controversy between Catholics and Protestants about the essence of this sacrament. The central issue of the controversy surrounding the Eucharist was the doctrine of transubstantiation: Orthodox theologians sought to prove that the Orthodox Church understands the sacrament of the Eucharist in the same way as the Catholic Church. In the course of these debates, there is a wide reception of the second scholasticism in Orthodox theology, both Kievan and Greek-Eastern. The reason for this was that Eastern patristic theology did not develop a unified terminology that would exclude the possibility of understanding the sacraments in a Protestant way - as Patr. Kirill Lukaris in his “Confession”. “Orthodox Confession” and “Euchologion” Met. Peter's Graves were written to dispel accusations from Catholics that: “Orthodox Rus' has been ignorant of Lichba, Form, Matter, Intention, and the scriptures of the Divine Mysteries, it does not know how to give information about them, and it heals in different ways in the administration of the Divine Mysteries” 386. However, paying all his attention to defending the doctrine of transubstantiation from Protestant attacks, Metropolitan. Peter Mogila lost sight of the fact that the teaching about the Eucharist in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, despite all their similarities, still has significant differences. In the section of the “Orthodox Confession” dedicated to the sacrament of Communion, Met. Peter Mogila wrote that transubstantiation occurs at a precisely defined moment, namely, when the priest pronounces the so-called. the establishing words of Christ: “Take, eat, this is my body, which was broken for you for the remission of sins. Drink all from it; this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.” This passage of the “Orthodox Confession” was corrected by Meletius Sirig in 1642. as follows: it is impossible to name a specific moment of transubstantiation, but it occurs only after epiclesis - the prayerful invocation of the Holy Spirit. It was in this form that the text of the “Orthodox Confession” was approved by the Iasi Council. Meanwhile, in the “Brief Science of the Articles of Faith” published in Kyiv in 1645 - the abbreviated Mohylyan catechism - the doctrine of the Eucharist was presented without taking into account the corrections of M. Sirig. Behind this seemingly small discrepancy lies one of the most important theological contradictions between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the problem of epiclesis, which originates in the fundamental difference between the West and the East in understanding the issue of sanctifying power and authority in the Church 387. Epiclesis, i.e. following the “institutional words” of Jesus Christ, the prayer of the priest to the Holy Spirit, calling upon Him for the consecration of the Gifts, already existed in the most ancient liturgies. The Eastern Fathers of the Church pointed out the importance of both the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit for transubstantiation. However, in the West after the 5th century. The epiclesis was removed from the rite of the Mass by papal authority. Scholastic theology, which strove for clear definitions, began to assign sacramental power only to “constitutional words” (defining them as the “form” of the sacrament) and to attribute transubstantiation to the moment of their utterance. This made, in the eyes of Catholics, the epiclesis, which was preserved in Orthodox liturgies, not only superfluous, but contradictory to the very meaning of the liturgical text. The question of epiclesis, its place and meaning, is closely related to the understanding of the essence of the priest during the liturgy. According to Orthodox teaching, the priest is the “image of Christ,” however, the sacrament of the Eucharist is performed not by the priest directly, but by God Himself. In the Catholic understanding, the priest during the celebration of the liturgy is not only the “image of Christ,” he possesses all the fullness of His power and the “sacramental formula” reproduces the Last Supper. If the priest is “vice Christi,” “Christ’s substitute,” then prayer to the Holy Spirit for the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts is unnecessary. For the first time, controversy about the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts unfolded at the Council of Florence in 1439, where Catholic theologians insisted that transubstantiation is carried out “only by Christ’s words.” This opinion was later dogmatized by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent. In the Greek Orthodox Churches, the doctrine of transubstantiation by the “words of Christ” was not accepted. Thus, the importance and necessity of epiclesis was emphasized in the message of the patriarchs. Jeremiah Lutherans 1580 Thus, the affirmation of transubstantiation by the “words of Christ” in the “Orthodox Confession” was an obvious reception of Catholic doctrine, contrary to Orthodox theology. However, this reception was not at all the initiative of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila. The “Latin” opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts penetrated into Western Russian theology at the beginning of the 17th century: for the first time, “institutional words” were called the “form of the sacrament” in the Vilna missal of 1617 388. The end of the XVI−XVII centuries. was an era of extensive borrowing of rituals and practices from Catholics in the Kyiv Metropolis. But if most of the borrowings that distorted Orthodox doctrine were identified by Bishop Peter and condemned at the council of 1640, then the Catholic teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Mysteries suffered a different fate. The theology of the Eucharist in Orthodox sacramentology is one of the most complex and apophatic, so it is not surprising that Met. Peter Mogila, who sought to distance himself as much as possible from accusations of Protestantism, sincerely considered the Catholic teaching on the Sacraments not specifically Catholic, but general Church. The fact that the short Catechism of 1645 did not take into account the corrections made at the Council of Iasi also cannot be proof that Met. Peter Mogila consciously defended the Catholic point of view as opposed to the Orthodox one expressed by the Greeks. Rather, we can assume that Met. Peter Mogila, feeling that his strength was running out, did not postpone the publication of the Catechism until he received the corrected Greek text. Indeed, the last years of the bishop were unusually full: in addition to the affairs of his metropolis, Metropolitan. Peter establishes active contacts with Moscow and participates in the case of the marriage of the Danish prince Voldemar with the daughter of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich 389. Against this background, dynamic publishing activity unfolded: “A Brief Science of the Articles of Faith” was published in 1645, and in 1646 “Euchologion” was published. Soon after this, in early 1647, Bishop Peter dies. However, thanks to the works of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, the “Latin” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts was entrenched in the Kyiv Metropolis. Consecrated by the authority of the illustrious metropolitan, it was perceived as completely Orthodox and was reproduced in such significant Kyiv publications in the second half of the 17th century. as “Peace with God of man” archim. Innocent Gisel 1667 and “Exposition” by Archimandrite. Feodosius Safonovich, and also taught at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. Thus, by the 1680s. In the Orthodox world, two views coexisted on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. This became possible in the context of the geographical and political disunity of local Orthodox churches, due to which the process of Orthodox confessionalization was decentralized, and the exchange of information between Orthodox centers was very difficult. Discussions about the Eucharist continued in the Orthodox East until the 1690s. (we especially note the Jerusalem Council of 1672, at which Patriarch Dositheos II Notara, with an abundance of scholastic formulations, confirmed the identity of the Catholic and Orthodox teachings on transubstantiation and indicated that the “institutional words” lay the beginning of transubstantiation, and the epiclesis “sanctifies” the Holy Mysteries, thereby completing the sacrament 390), it was also stimulated by new appeals from Catholic Jansenist theologians to representatives of Orthodox churches who wanted to learn the Orthodox teaching about the sacraments 391, but the problems remained the same. Thus, the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts during the theological debates about the sacrament of Communion in the Orthodox Church in the 16th–17th centuries. was not raised because it did not directly relate to the subject of controversy. Thus, the debate over the sacrament of the Eucharist that broke out in Moscow in the 1680s was not at all accidental or unexpected. Meanwhile, the beginning of the controversy surrounding the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in Russia was not associated with the large-scale anti-Protestant polemic described above, but with a purely internal issue: the Schism. About how the clergy of the Great Russian Church judged the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts until the middle of the 17th century. we have only fragmentary evidence 392 . Their heterogeneity suggests the coexistence of very different views, both “Latin” and “Eastern”. The absence in the Russian Church of a clearly expressed dogmatic teaching on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Mysteries, as in many other similar cases, became a source of disagreement when dogmatics and liturgics found themselves in the center of close attention of opposition theologians who were looking for traces of the patriarchs’ deviations. Nikon in "Latinism". A number of influential Old Believer leaders, most notably Nikita Dobrynin and Geronty Solovetsky in the 1660s. charged the Nikonians with blasphemy against the Holy Gifts, expressing that the “New Believers” did not bow to the ground during the Great Entrance 393. The reason for this accusation was the conviction of the Old Believer leaders that the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs at the very beginning of the liturgy, at the proskomedia 394. At the same time, Nikita Dobrynin condemned the “Tablet” for its “Latinism,” which set forth the traditional Eastern teaching that transubstantiation occurs during the epiclesis. This position was also supported by authoritative “Pustozero prisoners” - Avvakum Petrov and Lazar. At the same time, the radical doctrine of transubstantiation at proskomedia was not common to the early Old Believers. Thus, Deacon Fedor, who stood out among the Old Believer leaders for his scholarship, rejected such views and supported the “Latin” point of view on transubstantiation with “establishing words.” There were no supporters of the “eastern” doctrine of transubstantiation during the epiclesis among the ideologists of the early Old Believers 395 . In the first large-scale anti-Old Believer work, “The Rod of Government,” quite a lot of space was devoted to polemics with the Old Believer concept of transubstantiation. Refuting Nikita Dobrynin’s argument in favor of the recitation of the Holy Gifts at the proskomedia, Simeon of Polotsk, in turn, accused him of “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.” This is how the topic of “bread worship” first appeared on the pages of Russian theological treatises. No less significant for subsequent Eucharistic disputes was the way the author of the “Rod” presented the Orthodox position on the issue of the time of transubstantiation. If at the beginning of the treatise it is said that bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ “by the power of the Lord’s words” (“Latin” point of view), then later, Simeon, analyzing the text of the “Tablet”, writes that from the “Lord’s words” to the prayer of the epiclesis, bread and wine remain themselves (“Eastern” point of view) 396. The reason for this duality may be hidden in the fact that strong corrections were made to the author’s text of the “Rod” at the insistence of certain Russian participants in the 1667 council. In a letter to Lazar Baranovich, Simeon of Polotsk noted that he did not want to indicate his authorship on the title of the “Rod”, since significant changes were made to the original text under pressure from some “stubborn” people. The “wise” Kiev reader will notice the controversial places in the text, although the “Eastern Church treats the issue itself with condescension” 397 . We can assume that we are talking, among other things, about the time of transubstantiation. Indeed, at the end of the 1660s. in Eastern Europe, the “Latin” view was quite rooted (as clearly evidenced by its perception by the Old Believers). The debate over the truth or falsity of this view did not seem topical or paramount. Attention was drawn to views that obviously contradicted Church Tradition: Protestant teachings in the East and the Old Believer concepts of “pro-Skomedia transubstantiation.” In the 1660s - early 1680s. The “Latin” point of view on the time of transubstantiation becomes widespread. This was facilitated, in particular, by the publication in Russian of the work of Theodosius Safonovich in 1667 “Report on the Holy Church,” which contained a presentation of the “Latin” teaching on the time of transubstantiation with detailed argumentation. Safonovich's work, written to introduce a wide audience to the Orthodox teaching on the sacraments, gave a simple explanation of at what point in the liturgy the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. In 1675−1677 Euthymy Chudovsky, a student of Epiphanius Slavinetsky, at the direction of Patriarch Joachim, composes the “Admonishment to the Priests,” which clearly sets out the “Latin” doctrine of the time of transubstantiation 398. The same Euthymius in 1677, when preparing the “Officer of the Bishop’s Ministry” for publication, made corrections therein ordering the bishop to remove the miter and put on an omophorion before pronouncing the “institutional words,” thereby especially emphasizing their meaning 399 . Finally, the work of Sylvester Medvedev, “Animal Bread,” which expounded the doctrine of the Eucharist and touched upon the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts 400, most likely dates back to the early 1680s. Thus, by the beginning of the 1680s. in the Great Russian Church the “Latin” view of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts was fully established. In March 1685, brothers Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud arrived in Moscow. These were Greeks, doctors of theology from the University of Padua, who received letters of recommendation from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus, famous for his zeal in the struggle for the purity of the Orthodox faith. All foreigners who wished to serve the great sovereigns had to pass an official examination. For the Likhuds, such an exam was a dispute with another person who claimed the title of Doctor of Theology, who was in Moscow at that time - with Y. Belobotsky 401. The Likhuds easily defeated Belobotsky (the latter's knowledge was limited mainly to the esoteric teachings of Raymond Lully) and forced him to admit that he did not have doctoral degrees in either theology or philosophy 402. Moreover, the first question that the Greek brothers asked their opponent was the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Belobotsky responded to him with a presentation of the “Latin” point of view, to which the Likhuds responded with a detailed refutation and presentation of the “Eastern” teaching. The exact motivation of the “self-conversion” that prompted them to raise the topic of the time of transubstantiation remains unknown: whether it was somehow connected with the dispute with the Jesuit Rutka, which took place when the Likhuds were passing through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, whether the bows at the liturgy in Moscow churches attracted the attention of the Greeks, or whether the reason was different. In any case, the very fact of the existence of two different views on an important theological issue was bound to come to light sooner or later. However, in the specific conditions of the Moscow intellectual elite of the late 17th century. this purely theological question became the reason for a life-and-death struggle, and marked the beginning of the Eucharistic disputes that shook the Russian Church to the end. 1680s - early 1690s During the discussions, the Russian intellectual elite was divided into two parties, depending on the professed view of the time of transubstantiation, “Latin” or “Eastern”. In historiography, the former were called “Latinists,” the latter “Grecophiles.” The Latinizing party, paradoxically, represented a kind of traditionalists who defended the beliefs that they had learned from their youth, mainly from books. Its most active representative in Moscow was Sylvester Medvedev, who resorted to the defense of Mogila intellectuals with whom he corresponded. The party of Grecophiles was more heterogeneous: it included “traveling foreigners”, the Likhud brothers, and the director of the Printing House, a student of Epiphanius Slavinetsky, Evfimy Chudovsky, and the Kholmogory Archbishop Afanasy, who came from the Old Believers; finally, it was patronized by Patriarch Joachim himself. Unfolded in 1687–1689. The controversy received fairly detailed coverage in historiography. Here we will limit ourselves only to its general characteristics. The first stage of the controversy was the writing by Evfimy Chudovsky in 1687 of two works directed against Sylvester Medvedev’s “Bread of the Animal”. If the first “Testimony on the subject of Latin wisdom” was completely devoid of argumentation and simply ordered “to believe as the Greeks,” then the second “Refutation of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation” was more thorough. The Likhuds probably also made a contribution here. It was in the “Refutation” that it was first stated that the treatise presented the “teachings of Epiphanius Slavinetsky”: here and further, Euthymius will strive to present the disputes as a kind of correspondence debate between the late Epiphanius and Simeon 403. The second stage of the controversy in 1688–89. ended with the writing of detailed works: Sylvester Medvedev, in collaboration with the Little Russian polemicist Innokenty Monastyrsky, wrote a voluminous work “Manna of Living Bread”; it was no longer Epiphanius who responded to them, but personally the “self-brothers” of Likhuda, creating “Akos”. In all likelihood, both works were created at the same time and were published in the form of “notebooks” in parts 404. Both of these works combine theological argumentation with the caustic polemical swearing common to the era. The position of the “Grecophiles” was this: transubstantiation occurs through the power of the epiclesis prayer, therefore, before it, only consecrated bread and wine are found in the altar, but not the Body and Blood of Christ. Those who bow to the “words of establishment” worship the creature instead of the Creator and commit a mortal sin. The opinion about transubstantiation with “establishing words” is a Latin fabrication introduced into the Russian Church by Simeon of Polotsk. The “Latinizers” objected, declaring that the doctrine of transubstantiation “by the words of God” is an ancient teaching of the Orthodox Church. The latter's position was much more vulnerable; the lack of actual theological argumentation had to be compensated for by polemical attacks and philological calculations, designed to interpret in one’s favor numerous patristic quotations confirming the significance of the epiclesis. The controversy also affected the Kyiv Metropolis. The Little Russian clergy fully supported the Moscow “Latinists”: especially since the well-known abbot Innokenty of Monastyrsky was on Medvedev’s side. However, in 1688, the Kyiv Metropolis had to feel for itself that since 1685 it had been under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Patriarch clearly supported the “Grecophiles.” In the spring of 1688, letters from the patriarchs were sent to Kyiv and Chernigov, Metropolitan Gideon Chetvertinsky and Archbishop Lazar Baranovich. Joachim, in which the latter was interested in the attitude of Ukrainian bishops to the Florence Cathedral. Dimitri Savich wrote the conclusion for the Kyiv Metropolitan, Lazar Baranovich himself was responsible: in both cases, the Little Russians wrote about their decisive rejection of the Florence Council and the Union. In September 1688, Joachim sent a new letter to the Ukrainian bishops, now directly asking how they teach about the time of transubstantiation and how they relate to Theodosius Safonovich’s book “Exposition,” which Joachim called a “Jesuitic” provocation, published only under the name of the Kyiv elders. The answer this time took a long time to prepare and Patr. Joachim even sent letters reproaching him for his slowness in the winter of 1689. Lazar Baranovich was the first to answer. In his letter of February 1689, he wrote that the Little Russian Church has always professed the doctrine of transubstantiation by “the words of the Lord,” having adopted it from the fathers; The “exposition” is the work of a worthy author, renowned for his learning and strength in the Orthodox faith. The official response of the Kyiv Metropolitan was delayed. It was compiled only during Lent in 1689 and was a presentation of “Latin” teaching, supported mainly by references to the theological works of the Mohyla tradition. Apparently, by this time the actual Kyiv polemical works against the Likhuds, authored by Innokenty Monastyrsky, “The Book of Transubstantiation” and “Refutation of Akos” were written. However, the stock of actual theological argumentation in favor of the “Latin” teaching had long been exhausted by this time, so the novelty of Monastyrsky’s books consisted mainly in his polemical moves. The letter was signed by the metropolitan and all the higher clergy of Kyiv. Reply from Patr. Joseph, in which he condemned Lazar Baranovich and the people of Kiev, did not take long to arrive. In a letter to Metropolitan. To Gideon, the Moscow Patriarch gave a detailed argument in favor of the Eastern teaching about the time of transubstantiation and demanded to answer whether the people of Kiev agreed to accept the “teaching of the Eastern Church.” In addition, Patr. Joachim insisted that representatives of the Kiev Metropolis come to Moscow in order to finally resolve the dispute 405. In August 1689, two representatives of the Kyiv Metropolitan arrived in Moscow in the retinue of Hetman I. Mazepa: Innocent of Monastyrsky and Dimitry Savich. The arrival of the Kyiv mission coincided with a sudden outbreak of disputes. Theological disputes were interrupted by a coup that put an end to the regency of Princess Sophia. The Patriarch supported the Naryshkins. The closeness of the leaders of the Moscow “Latinists” to the princess became fatal for them. Sylvester Medvedev was arrested on charges of treason. In this situation, there could no longer be any question of continuing the debate. The victory remained with the “Grecophiles”. The subsequent story had the character of a protracted epilogue. Meanwhile, the patriarch still met with the Kyiv envoys. Unfortunately, we have only fragmentary information about the content of their conversations. Apparently, most of the delegates, including Metropolitan. Demetrius, recognized the truth of the Eastern teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The previous point of view was stubbornly defended only by Ig. Innocent of Monastyrsky, who dared to enter into a sharp discussion and object to Patr. Joachim, for which he was expelled from Moscow before the end of the embassy 406. Thus, Kyiv recognized that Moscow was right on the issue of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The last to agree with the Eastern teaching about the time of transubstantiation was Lazar Baranovich: the elderly archpastor submitted to the will of the hierarchy only in November 1689. In January 1690, Patriarch Joachim convened representatives of the Moscow clergy to the chamber of the cross. The results of the Eucharistic disputes were announced before them. The Patriarch read out a letter in which it was attested that Sylvester Medvedev and several of his like-minded people had renounced their views on the time of transubstantiation 407. The “bread-worshipping heresy” was anathematized, books of the Mohyla tradition were banned, in which hidden borrowings from Catholic works were discovered, including the Euchologion and "Peace be with God to man." For the cathedral, Evfimy Chudovsky prepared a collection of materials “Austen”, which included written renunciations of their views by Sylvester Medvedev and Simeon the Long (by then he had already defrocked Senka and Savva) and a message from the patriarchs. Joachim (written by Euthymius), which presented the history of the controversy from the point of view of the “Grecophiles.” Evfimy Chudovsky also wrote a voluminous polemical work, “The Shield of Faith,” as if summing up the debate. However, after the death of Patr. Joachim, it never saw the light of day in printed form 408. The end of the Eucharistic debate in Russia coincided with the end of the debate in the East about the views of Cyril Lucaris. The last influential supporter of his ideas, the great logothete of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, John Caryophyllus, was condemned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation in 1691 at the Council of Constantinople, which anathematized all who in one way or another shared Lucaris’s views on the Eucharist and rejected the reality of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Immediately after the meeting of the council, Patriarch Dosifei sent the acts of his decisions to Moscow, together with works that refuted the teachings of Lucaris and his followers. The Tomos of the Council of 1691 was translated by Euthymius Chudovsky, part of this text was included in the “Statement” of Patr. Adriana. The "Proclamation" was the dogmatic message that opened the collection "Shields of Faith" 409. Thus, Russian polemics about the sacrament of the Eucharist seemed to close in on the Greek-Eastern. This ended the Eucharistic disputes in the Russian Church 410. Here it is quite possible to conclude that these disputes were an episode of a single process of creating a rational system of doctrinal knowledge of Orthodox Christians, characteristic of the era. Obviously, for the Russian Church, which did not have developed dogmatic theology, this process was more complicated than for the local churches of the East. However, with a closer look at the Eucharistic debates of the late 1680s, it becomes clear that even in a purely theological sense, the controversy was not at all reduced to a confrontation between two positions: orthodox and heterodox. Two circumstances attract interest. First: if the topic of the debate was based on disagreements about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, then why did the question of the place of bowing in the liturgy acquire such great importance that it was even brought up under the name of the “bread-worshipping heresy” incriminated by Sylvester? Second: why did the disputes begin so unexpectedly, were extremely heated, and ended just as suddenly? To understand these issues, we will have to turn to the environment in which the controversy took place, namely, the Moscow intellectual elite of the 1680s. As already mentioned in the first chapter, the last years of his life Simeon of Polotsk worked on the project of establishing a higher educational institution in Moscow. However, Polotsky never managed to found the Academy. After his death, all sketches and notes concerning the plan for creating a higher educational institution were sent, along with Simeon's archive, to his favorite student, Sylvester Medvedev. Sylvester decided to personally implement the ideas of his teacher, and in 1681, based on his rough notes, he wrote the “Privilege for the Academy”, intended for submission to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. According to Medvedev’s plan, the Academy was supposed to become not just an institution of higher education, but an autonomous rigid structure that controlled church and intellectual life in the country, severely punished heresies and dissent, and at the same time independent of the patriarch. Not everyone could become a teacher at such an Academy either: according to the strict criteria of the “Privilege,” even the late Simeon of Polotsk would have turned out to be “unreliable.” Sylvester Medvedev himself was to become the head of this institute. “Ambitious plans, jealousy and hatred of possible opponents of his plans - that’s what guided Medvedev’s pen in those months when he composed “Privilege for the Academy” 411. Sylvester was determined to fight his competitors mercilessly. When in February 1681, Jan Belobotsky, a Polish nobleman, arrived in Moscow, declaring himself a doctor of theology and philosophy and wanting to become a teacher at the new Academy, Sylvester Medvedev and his supporter Pavel Negrebetsky, accusing Belobotsky of heresy (quite justifiably, it must be said), persistently sought his immediate execution. The nobleman was saved only by royal patronage 412. However, the “Privilege” was never awarded to Fyodor Alekseevich, and with the death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, talk about the academy itself died down for almost three years, until the moment of submission “Privileges” to Sofya Alekseevna January 24, 1685 However, the very fact of Sophia’s acquaintance with “Privilege” did not bring significant fruit. And on March 6, the Likhud brothers, doctors of theology, arrived in Moscow with a letter of recommendation from the Jerusalem Patriarch Dosifei. From July 1, they begin teaching to the best students of the Typographic School. Thus, Sylvester Medvedev’s long attempts to open an academy ended in failure: now highly learned Greeks, under the patronage of Patriarch Joachim, have begun to create a higher school in Russia. Sylvester was not one of those people who could easily come to terms with the loss of the goal of his whole life; a life-and-death conflict between him and the Likhuds was inevitable. Evfimy Chudovsky became the Moscow leader of the “Grecophiles”, a loyal ally of the Likhuds. And it was not only the characteristic sympathy for the Greek culture that was characteristic of the Chudov monk, which was brought up in him by Epiphanius Slavinetsky. All the works of this intellectual, who worked at the Moscow Printing House from the middle of the 17th century, were in one way or another connected with the defense of Orthodoxy and the denunciation of infidels, with the idea of ​​​​confronting the “dark” West with the Orthodox East. The focus of Western “malice” in Euthymius’s mind was Rome and the Roman Church, seeking to seduce Russia by infusing it with “Western Papaginian new-minded teachings.” “Dominicans” and “Jesusites,” in his opinion, are more dangerous than “Calvins” and “Luthors” because they act cautiously and secretly. The works of Simeon of Polotsk had long confused Euthymius: the Chudov monk recognized hidden “Latinism” in them. Euthymy tried to denounce the “Latinism” of Polotsk during the latter’s lifetime, pointing out the non-Orthodox opinions contained in his writings of the 1670s. However, the opponent was “too tough” for the Chudov monk: the only thing Euthymius achieved was an epigram in which Simeon hinted at a certain “Zoilus,” that is, an envious slanderer who wanted to discredit a more talented fellow writer 413 . The efforts of Sylvester Medvedev to create the Academy did not leave Evfimy indifferent. He and his supporters, among whom was the young bishop. Afanasy Kholmogorsky, in 1684–85. constitute two treatises, “The Argument in Brief” and “Is It More Useful for Us to Learn ...,” in which purely Latin education is condemned and an educational model in which the study of the Greek language dominates is defended. The content of the treatises was largely due to the fears of the authors, generated by their ignorance of the actual content of the project of the Medvedev Academy, which included the teaching of Slavic and Greek languages ​​414. The appearance of the Likhudov “self-breeding” in the Russian capital provided Euthymius and his adherents with a fundamental advantage over their enemies in the Moscow intellectual elite. And the deviation from the orthodoxy of Russian “school” theologians, revealed during the debate with Belobotsky, gave good chances to use these advantages to their advantage. The Likhuds responded only with complaints to the royal name and requests to release them to their homeland, which, apparently, led to the cessation of such excesses the following year, 1688. 415 1.2. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov in the Eucharistic disputes of the late 17th century. Metropolitan's opinion Demetrius on the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in published and unpublished works - Notes in the “Theologiarum Scholasticarum” by M. Becan - a judgment on the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus and the positions of the participants in the Moscow Eucharistic disputes - treatise “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist” - note “On the threefold communion of the most pure blood of Christ.” The very fact that Dimitri Savich was chosen to participate in the embassy from the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow in 1689 indicates the important role he played in the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680s−1690s. Patriarch Joachim, demanding that the Kiev Metropolitan send his representatives to Moscow, wanted to see: “a man of humble wisdom, a sincerely son of the Eastern Church, who knows the writings of the holy fathers of the ancient teachers of the Holy Eastern Church of Christ, and not merely practicing syllogisms and arguments, so that through him you will know all of ours, and we are yours, and so on disagreement will rage" 416. Innocent of Monastyrsky, although he was known in Kyiv as an expert in patristic teaching on the question of the time of transubstantiation, did not meet the requirements of the patriarch at all: he was a man of a stormy temperament, prone to controversy and caustic irony, but not to conducting deep conversations. He was even less inclined to make concessions or compromises. In Kyiv, they undoubtedly knew about this. In order to try to reconstruct the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius and their evolution, we will have to turn to his handwritten notes, which were not intended for an outside reader. Most often in these records there are all kinds of notes and extracts that the bishop considered useful for himself. Collected together in Rostov in the 1700s, they represent a collection of texts relating to different years of the life of Metropolitan. Dimitri. The first chronologically of the notes that interest us, without a doubt, are the summaries of Moscow polemical works contained in one of them: a short summary of the Likhud brothers’ work “Akos” 418 and a lengthy summary of “Manna” by Sylvester Medvedev 419. The records apparently date back to the beginning of 1688, when “Manna” was sent to Hetman I. Mazepa and the Kyiv authorities along with “Akos” (or parts of it) 420. “Such art. Ambrose's testimony is not the clearest of the Sun. If no one listens to him, he is anathema. Behold the Lenten Triodion and the Orthodox Sunday of the Curse” 423. It is obvious that after the Moscow Council of 1690, Metropolitan. Demetrius would not write about the fact that his opponents in the Eucharistic disputes, i.e. the patriarch and the entire hierarchy must be anathematized. In the papers of Metropolitan. Demetrius contains a number of extracts devoted to Eucharistic disputes. The Notata per Alphabetum, containing notes and extracts on various topics, under the heading "Corpus Christi et Communion" contains a number of quotations from St. John Chrysostom, one way or another confirming the meaning of the Lord's words for the sacrament of the Eucharist 424. In the literature, traditionally, these extracts, together with other materials described above, are interpreted as “confirmation of the Latin teaching” of Metropolitan. Demetrius on the time of Transubstantiation 425. However, this conclusion is quite hasty: not a single direct evidence of the confession of Metropolitan. Demetrius has no opinion about transubstantiation by Christ’s words alone after August 1689. In “Brief Questions about Faith” 426 and “Mirror of the Orthodox Confession” 427 Met. Demetrius writes about the celebration of the Eucharist only after the epiclesis. Is it possible that Met. Demetrius, expressing the official church position in his teaching essays, kept his “Latinizing” views secret, trusting them only to his cell drafts? It is known that Demetrius separated works intended for wide acquaintance and thoughts that he considered possible to discuss only in a narrow circle. These included, first of all, those theological problems that seemed to Metropolitan. Dimitri is unclear. The following phrase from his letter to Hierom is typical. To the theologist: “I’m afraid to write much about the Roman purity and the ordeals, since ours do not tell the fire to be in holding souls, but they themselves disgustingly printed in the Prologues the souls seen in the fire. Otherwise, there are few written messages and ambassadors of Your Honesty, but I won’t put this in my little book” 428. The reason for this was the fears of Metropolitan. Demetrius, that in the realities of the Great Russian Church early. XVIII century public discussion of controversial theological issues, and in particular criticism of the Great Russian church tradition, could provoke accusations of apostasy from Orthodoxy and malicious Latinism. As the Bishop of Rostov wrote: “I pray to my Chronicler, let not too many people read it, so that it does not spill like oil on water, as if not everyone knew about it, so that unnecessary words do not multiply; The essence of the morals of mankind is different: one seeks benefit, and another seeks grasp” 429. Thus, the judgments of Metropolitan. Demetrius on some theological issues, which he did not consider possible to discuss publicly, have come to us either in his correspondence or in papers intended for personal use. However, before drawing a conclusion that Met. Demetrius secretly adhered to the “Latin” view of the time of transubstantiation; we must turn to some other evidence. The largest theological work in the library of Metropolitan. Demetrius was the work of the Jesuit theologian from Belgium Martin Bekan (van der Beek) “Theologiarum Scholasticarum”. This book was purchased on November 8, 1690 from the Glukhov priest 430. Bekan’s work, apparently, became for Metropolitan. Demetrius's manual on scholastic theology. There are many notes and underlinings in the book by Met. Demetrius, testifying to the bishop’s interest in a number of issues discussed by M. Bekan. Among them: do all saints see God to varying degrees, why those baptized by heretics should not be rebaptized, and others. Bekan’s careful reading was reflected in such works of Metropolitan Demetrius as “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” and “Cell Chronicle”, where, when considering certain issues, the Rostov Bishop applies information gleaned from Bekan 431. One of the most important issues that interested Dimitri Savich while reading “Theologiarum Scholasticarum” was the sacrament of the Eucharist. In general, the Bishop of Rostov was interested in two aspects: first, the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, the “institutional words” of Christ and the epiclesis; the second is the real presence of Christ in the Holy Gifts. Attention to the first question is not accidental: the book was acquired by Dimitri Savich shortly after his return from Moscow and in the year of the Moscow Council, which exposed the “bread-worshipping heresy” and condemned a number of Little Russian books as containing “Latin teachings.” It is not surprising that Ig. At that time, Demetrius thought intensely about the question of time and the “form” of transubstantiation. In the chapter “Theologiarum Scholasticarum” under the title “On the Form of Transubstantiation” Ig. Demetrius emphasized “the third opinion, belonging to some Greeks, especially Nicholas Cabasiles and St. Mark of Ephesus. Those who believe that the form of the Eucharist is determined both by the words of Christ: “This is my body,” and especially in some sermon preached after Christ, with these words: we ask you, Holy Father, that you would send your Spirit on us and on these offered gifts; and make this bread the precious Body of Your Son, and what is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ” 432. Another fragment is noted nearby: “In the liturgy of Sts. James, Basil and Chrysostom, after the above words, follows a prayer in which they ask God for the bread to become the body of Christ. Consequently, he does not become It [the Body of Christ] only through the words spoken above [more prayer is needed] 6. […] When the priest pronounces these words: “This is my body,” he pronounces them publicly or within himself. […] I answer; that he pronounces them in both ways, both out loud and to himself. Out loud, that is, in one’s own person, and silently – in the face of Christ” 433. Thus, Met. Demetrius, reading Bekan, became familiar with the judgment of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus. They did not oppose the Lord's words and epiclesis, but recognized the importance of both for the performance of the Sacrament. This view, which was subsequently confirmed as the most accurate expression of the view of the Orthodox Church on this issue, 434 did not correspond to any of the points of view expressed during the Eucharistic debate. Of particular interest here is, of course, the position of the “Grecophiles”. The opinion of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus were no doubt familiar to both Likhudami and Euthymius (the latter translated into Slavic the works of these fathers, which set out their opinions on the Eucharist 435), moreover, in their polemical works they quoted fragments from the works of these Byzantine theologians - but only selectively, never setting out their entire position. Such silence of the “Grecophiles” about the “compromise option”, which did not deny either the need for epiclesis or the significance of the Lord’s words, could only be deliberate and suggests that in their polemics Euthymius and Likhuds did not at all strive for an impartial and accurate presentation of the Orthodox doctrine 436 . This becomes especially clear if we trace the changes in the position of the Likhuds, expressed in various works. In “Akos” (let us remember that this work was published gradually, as separate notebooks were written), at first the emphasis is on the fact that the “words of the Lord” are pronounced by the priest “only narratively and historically” 437, have no direct relation to transubstantiation, and therefore the one who bows to them sins. However, later, when refuting Sylvester Medvedev’s interpretation of one of the quotes from St. John Chrysostom, the authors are forced to make a reservation that not a single “establishing words” without an epiclesis, just as one epiclesis without “establishing words” does not commit transubstantiation. It is not difficult to see that the latter judgment contradicts the first and undermines the entire argument against bowing to the “Lord’s words.” An entire section of Akosa was devoted to exposing the sinfulness of these bows. In two Likhudov’s works that followed “Akos” and were written by Sophronius alone (Ioannikiy left for Venice), a different point of view is preserved. In “Demonstration of Truth” of 1689, the author, explaining one of the quotes from St. John Chrysostom, writes that “the words of the Lord are the beginning or foundation of the Sacrament” 438. This is an exact statement of the corresponding point of the “Confession” of Dositheus in 1672. This view of transubstantiation is expressed even more clearly by Sophronius in the “Spiritual Mechts” of 1691, an anti-Latin treatise, formalized as a statement of the dispute with the Jesuit I. Rutka, which occurred in 1685. Thus, the position of the Likhuds in the debate about the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts is different duality. On the one hand, they teach that the “words of the Lord” do not refer to transubstantiation, which occurs by epiclesis alone, and on the basis of this they accuse those who perform prostrations of mortal sin; on the other hand, they recognize that without “institutional words” transubstantiation is impossible. The second opinion is in complete agreement with the Greek theology of the second. floor. XVII century, the first is original and has no precedents. The same duality is also characteristic of the documents of the Moscow Council of 1690, which were included in the Ostn. If the text of Sylvester Medvedev’s repentance speaks of the words of Christ as “the foundation and beginning of the Sacrament” (“Eastern” teaching), then in the “Instructive Epistle of Patriarch Joachim,” the author of which was Evfimy Chudovsky, it is argued that the “establishing words” do not refer to transubstantiation. Moreover, it is here, in the “Instructive Message” of “Ostna” that the Chudovsky monk, based on the doctrine of transubstantiation by epiclesis alone, sets out a holistic view of the disputes that have occurred as the struggle of the Orthodox against the “bread-worshipping heresy.” This presentation allows us to assume what was the reason that prompted Euthymius in Ostna and Likhudov in the first notebooks of Akos to reject the meaning of the “establishing words”: most likely, it was the desire to accuse the “Latinizing” opponents of heresy. The idea of ​​such a demarche could only have belonged to Evfimy, who knew well the realities of Moscow life. This largely explains his stubborn adherence to the idea of ​​the Latin “bread-worshipping heresy.” The Likhuds, drawn against their will into the struggle of Moscow pundits, were not so consistent in the course of the polemics and often moved on to expounding pure “Eastern” teaching. Of course, this reconstruction is largely speculative. However, it is indisputable that the “Grecophiles” in their disputes with the “Latinists” did not take a purely “Eastern” position, but for polemical purposes put forward the opinion that transubstantiation occurs through one epiclesis. Accordingly, the Moscow Council of 1690 did not at all become the apotheosis of the “eastern” teaching about the Eucharist in the Russian Church: the condemnation of the “bread-worshipping heresy” proclaimed there was not based on the “eastern” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, but on its radical variation, the main ideologist of which was Euthymius Chudovsky. Probably, Dimitri Savich was not satisfied with this conclusion of the Eucharistic disputes and continued theological research on the topic. Information about the teachings of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas, gleaned from Bekan, came in handy. We can assume that the result of the research of the future Rostov Metropolitan was the treatise “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist.” This work, preserved in several copies, does not have a direct indication of authorship. A number of researchers have attributed this text in different ways, leaning either towards the authorship of Dimitri Savich, or towards the authorship of Stefan Yavorsky. There is no direct evidence that would make it possible to unambiguously name one or another person as the author of the treatise in either case 439 . In our opinion, all indirect signs indicate that the treatise belongs to Dmitry of Rostov and was compiled by him in the 1690s. This is confirmed by the fact that in the collection of words of Met. Demetrius, dating from the beginning of the 18th century, contains a list of “Discourses” without a final fragment, accompanied by another essay dedicated to the Eucharist - “On the Threefold Most Pure Blood of Christ Communion” 440, already indisputably belonging to the Rostov Bishop 441; Moreover, both texts were rewritten by the hand of the scribe of the Rostov scriptorium of the time of Metropolitan. Dimitri. The treatise begins with a statement of how: “There are different things about this [about Transubstantiation - A.K. ] they are telling fortunes.” First, the opinion about transubstantiation “in words alone” is briefly stated and refuted by a quotation from chapter 27 of the sixth book about the Holy Spirit by St. Basil the Great: “I am pleased with the words of the Apostle and the Gospel remembered (in consecration), not only with the pre-verb, but also with the above-verb and other words, as having great power in the mystery” 442. Then the opinion about transubstantiation only by epiclesis is also stated, which is also refuted by the same passage from St. Basil the Great, in which the ancient Saint, according to the author of the treatise, in no way denies the Words of the Lord the importance and necessity for the Sacrament. According to the author: “Unless by themselves (according to the Greek Church confession) they transubstantiate St. gifts into the body of Christ, both of which effectively enable the one who has the abyss of the Holy Spirit to undergo transubstantiation” 443. The author of the treatise “does not add up” to both opinions and adheres to the third: “both of them, the words of Christ and the words of the priest, are accepted in one place in transubstantiation, saying, as the words of Christ begin, and transubstantiation ends with prayer, and the essence of the words of Christ is the basis for transubstantiation, prayer is the completion, and one cannot be without the other; neither do the words of Christ themselves, without the Holy Spirit, invoked by the Jewish prayer, act transubstantiation, nor does the Holy Spirit, without the preverbal words of Christ, accomplish this; both are required for transubstantiation” 444. This view is substantiated by references to the Teachings of the Patras. Joachim January 1690, chapter 14, chapter 4 of the book “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus and the 150th word of the book of St. Ephraim the Syrian. The first opinion belongs to the “Latinists”, the second – the “radical” version of the “eastern” teaching – was expressed in their works by Evfimy Chudovsky and, partly, Likhud. Enough has been said about these opinions above. The third opinion, the author’s, is much more interesting. At first glance, this is a classic “Eastern” teaching, similar to that expressed by the Likhuds in their later works. However, the “eastern” view necessarily emphasizes the meaning of the epiclesis as a “form” of the sacrament (Cf. in the “Confession” of Patriarch Dositheus: the “institutional words” only “lay the beginning”, and the epiclesis “sanctifies” the Holy Gifts), and the author of the treatise speaks in the sense that the “form” is the entire anaphora, which corresponds to the teaching of the saints. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas. However, the discussion about the time of transubstantiation is only the introductory part of the treatise. Its main content is devoted to the issue of bowing during the “Lord's Words.” The author cites quotes from two “notebooks” of certain “Creators..., in the spiritual rank of high (I do not express their names, they are led by the leaders)” 445, containing a condemnation of bows from the position of the “radical” “eastern” teaching of the Grecophiles. These “notebooks” are “Austen” by Euthymius Chudovsky and “Akos” by Likhudov 446. He then sets out to refute the argumentation of these quotations and prove that bowing while pronouncing “institutional words” is not heresy. It is already noteworthy how the question is posed at the beginning of the main part of the treatise: “Whether their teaching is right, it is appropriate to search for these considerations” 447. This phrase alone instantly brings to mind the title of another work by the bishop: “A search for the schismatic Bryn faith, about their teaching, their deeds, and the declaration that their faith is wrong, their teaching is harmful to the soul, and their deeds are not pleasing to God.” The coincidence is not accidental: both treatises have a similar syllogism structure: at the beginning of the work, a list of questions is formulated, to which the answer is subsequently sought. Moreover, both works are imbued with the same thought: ritual does not have independent value and meaning, separate from faith, therefore there cannot be a “ritual” heresy, for heresy is a distortion of faith. If the “Grecophiles,” defending the Eastern doctrine of the time of transubstantiation, sought to use the difference in rituals (bows at the liturgy) as a reason to accuse their rivals of heresy, then the author “Discourses” thinks completely differently. For him, ritual is only an external expression of faith: “according to faith, bowing is judged by God, lower by the very head of worship” 448. While preserving the right faith, any forms of its expression that are not prohibited by the canons are permissible, including bowing in special places of worship. Over the course of seven “considerations” Met. Demetrius convincingly proves the inconsistency of the theological argumentation of the fighters against bowing 449. In this case, the position of the latter was indeed extremely weak. Let us remember that in his discussions about the “grain-growing” of the Latinists, Euthymius was guided by the anti-Old Believer polemics of the times of the “Rod”. However, the views of the early Old Believers were completely different: Nikita Dobrynin insisted on the obligatory bows to the consecrated bread and wine at the Great Entrance as to Christ himself. Those same Orthodox Christians who bowed to the “Lord’s Words” did not at all put any special theological meaning into their actions. We see exactly the same conviction - differences in ritual mean nothing as long as the right faith is united - in another document, now undoubtedly belonging to Metropolitan. Dimitri. This is a note “On the threefold communion of the most pure blood of Christ.” It is dedicated to differences in liturgical practice: Little Russian priests received communion at the altar once, while Great Russian priests received communion three times. The note itself is a refutation of a certain opinion that threefold Communion in the name of the Holy Trinity is unacceptable, since, firstly, it goes back to the heresy of the “god-passionate”, who believed that the whole Trinity suffered on the cross, and not just its hypostasis - God the Son, and secondly, it is a Latin custom condemned by St. Nikita Stifat in the text included in the Helmsman. Metropolitan Demetrius refutes both statements: the Great Russian custom has nothing to do with the heresy of the “god-passionate”, since it does not symbolize the suffering of the Trinity on the cross, but the statement of St. Nikita Stifat was devoted to a completely different issue. The Rostov bishop concludes that both Little Russian and Great Russian priests “do good,” concluding: “We praise both, the customs of the country, in which we live, we adhere without a doubt” 450. This note is notable for the fact that in it Met. Dmitry refutes the accusations of heresy directed against the Great Russians. Most likely, the reason for its appearance was the reasoning of one of the Kiev friends of Dimitri Savich, who sought to “give a symmetrical answer” to accusations of heresy and Latinism among the Little Russian clergy during the period of Eucharistic disputes. Again we see the same train of thought: since ritual is an expression of faith, then while maintaining true faith, differences in rituals are completely acceptable. These views of the Saint will be fully revealed in the “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith,” the work of Metropolitan. Demetrius, dedicated to polemics with the Old Believers. The only question that remains is why the work of Met. Did Dimitri remain virtually unknown? The answer to this is to be found in the fact that The “Discourse” was written against the fighters against the “bread-worshipping heresy.” The “heresy” itself was too “topical” and closely connected with the struggle in Moscow church circles in the late 1680s. and the ambitions of specific people. In the first half of the 1690s, when in all likelihood the treatise was created, great changes took place in Moscow. Patr. Joachim died shortly after the Moscow Council, in February 1690, Evfimy Chudovsky, already in the summer of the same year, was, by royal decree, removed from work at the Moscow Printing Yard and was forced to leave for Pereyaslavl-Ryazan 451. The Likhud brothers even in their later works of the 1680s. began to expound the classical “Eastern” teaching, and already in the 1690s. they were more concerned with personal problems and teaching. Such heated debates around “bread worship”, very few years after their completion, were consigned to oblivion: even Euthymius himself, in 1698, wrote about Simeon of Polotsk without hostility, respectfully pointing out some of the errors of the venerable monk 452. Another reason that contributed to the fact that the research of Metropolitan. Demetrius were not in demand, was that the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680s. were disputes among Western-style theologians. In historiography, a contrast is often made between the “scholastic” thinking of the “Latinists” and the “Oriental” thinking of the “Grecophiles” 453. Meanwhile, the very way the main question about the time of transubstantiation was posed betrayed the general manner of thought of both parties: they were looking for the exact moment, the secretly fulfilling words, that is, the form of the sacrament. Meanwhile, such an approach is completely unusual for traditional Eastern sacramentology, but it is typical for the second scholasticism, in which all the main participants in the Eucharistic disputes were raised in one way or another. And from this point of view, the Paduan doctors Likhuda were much greater adherents of the scholastic way of thinking than the Moscow “Latinists” or Mogilans. In the XVI-XVII centuries. The University of Padua was one of the main centers of the second scholasticism; students from all over Europe came to it. Padua, which was in the possession of Venice, was the undisputed authority in matters of philosophy and theology for the Greeks from the 15th century; the best intellectuals of the Orthodox East sought to receive an education here. Therefore, it is not surprising that Greek theology of the second half of the 17th century, whose representatives were the Likhud brothers, received the second scholasticism no less than the theology of the Mohyla tradition 454. Sylvester Medvedev directly wrote in his “Manna” that it is in no way possible for transubstantiation to be accomplished simultaneously with both “establishing words” and epiclesis, because then the sacrament will have two forms, and this is absurd 455. The Likhuds avoided the categorical expression “form of the sacrament,” but they reasoned entirely in the same way as their opponent: since epiclesis is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist, then transubstantiation occurs precisely at the moment of its pronouncement; a sacrament has one verbal form, which performs the sacrament 456. In this context, it becomes clear why the opinion of St. Mark of Ephesus, who formulated the Eastern understanding of the Eucharist at the Council of Florence, turned out to be unclaimed among theologians of the late 17th century: the idea that the “form” of the sacrament could not be reduced to a specific prayer sounded extremely unusual to the ear of a person brought up in the tradition of the second scholasticism. Meanwhile, Met. Demetrius of Rostov was able to rise above the school and above the era, seeing in the “atypical” judgment of the Greek fathers of the 14th–15th centuries. a response to the contradiction that tormented him. Finally, there was a third circumstance directly related to confessionalization: attitude towards Catholicism. One of the reasons that prompted Euthymius Chudovsky to support the doctrine of transubstantiation only by epiclesis was, obviously, his hostility to “Latinism,” which initiated the desire to distance himself as much as possible from the Latin teaching only “by the Lord’s words.” In the Orthodox East, Greek theologians did not reach such radicalism, but their emphasis on the exclusive significance of the epiclesis for transubstantiation seems to have been caused by a desire to emphasize the difference between Orthodox and Catholic dogma. The Mohyla theological tradition was initially characterized by a search for common ground between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in the field of dogma, which also left an imprint on the perception of the Latin doctrine by Kyiv theologians. On the one hand, this, in a number of cases, led to the reception of specifically Catholic doctrines, such as the “Latin” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of St. Gifts, but on the other hand, it expanded the theological horizons of the graves. This breadth of outlook, in our opinion, became for Metropolitan. Demetrius is one of the arguments in favor of the doctrine of the Eucharist of Sts. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas, since it allowed the existence of the Eucharist to be recognized in the Catholic Church. One of the arguments in favor of the sacramental power of the “institutional words” present in “On the Consecration of the Holy Most Pure Mysteries” by Met. Demetrius, is a reference to the message of the Bulgarian Archbishop Dimitri Khomatin to Konstantin Kavasile, Archbishop. Dyrrachian, which testifies that Catholics celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist in the same way 457. Since there is no epiclesis in the Catholic Mass, the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist during a Catholic Mass, in which there is no epiclesis, indicated that it is impossible to assimilate the meaning of the “form” of the sacrament solely through prayer to the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the understanding of the Eucharist by Sts. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas, allowed us to assert that among Catholics the “form” of the sacrament is present, albeit in a “truncated” form. Eucharistic disputes 1680 - beginning. 1690s became an important stage in the history of Russian intellectual culture. Their importance lay, first of all, in the fact that they revealed those contradictions within the intellectual elite of Russia that had remained hidden for a long time. This concerned both theological issues and the relationship between the learned clergy of Moscow and Kyiv. It was during the Eucharistic disputes that Dimitri Savich declared himself as a church figure on an all-Russian scale. At this time, he became an outstanding theologian. Without taking personal part in the heated debate, the future Bishop of Rostov is looking for the “royal path” in resolving the problem of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, avoiding polemical extremes. The result of his searches and reflections is the treatise “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist,” which was a balanced response to the mixture of violent journalism and shallow theology that accompanied the fight against the “bread-worshipping heresy” in the end. 1680s − 1690s In this treatise, Dimitri Savich divides the position of the "Grecophiles" into two parts - a radical denial of the significance of the "Lord's words", with which the author does not agree, and the "eastern" teaching, which he understands as coinciding with the judgment of the saints. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas on the significance of the entire anaphora for transubstantiation. The latter explains the abundance in the records of Metropolitan. Demetrius's notes on the importance of “establishing words” for transubstantiation, which were previously interpreted by researchers of his work as evidence of his secret adherence to the “Latin” view of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Also in the “Discourse”, Dimitri Savich examined the problem of bowing at the liturgy from the point of view of the relationship between ritual and faith. In this work, the saint for the first time formulates his position as follows: ritual is only an external expression of faith, and therefore a formal change in something in the essence of the ritual cannot in any way be called heresy as long as unity in the true faith is preserved. Later, at the Rostov department, Metropolitan. Demetrius will be guided by this approach when resolving many problems of church life. The main reason that this treatise by Met. Demetrius was not published, most likely due to his excessive “topicality”. By the time the “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist” was written, a new intellectual elite was already taking shape in Moscow, oriented not towards confrontation, but towards cooperation with the Little Russian one. And Dimitry Savich took a direct part in this process. § 2. Met. Demetrius of Rostov and the Great Russian learned clergy In 1701, Metropolitan. Demetrius, ordained a bishop, arrived to serve in Rostov - a provincial city where he knew practically no one, especially where he had no equal in education and people close in spirit. To satisfy the craving for communication, Dmitry begins to conduct extensive correspondence. Almost half a century earlier, another Mogilyan, Simeon of Polotsk, moved to Great Russia, and also faced the hardships of intellectual loneliness, and letters also became his way out. But over the past forty-five years, much has changed in the intellectual climate of the Mother See. Simeon once corresponded with distant Kyivians, complaining that Muscovites were like trees and could not maintain an intelligent conversation 458. Demetrius' correspondents, on the contrary, mainly lived in the royal capital. And these were not people like him from Little Russia, but indigenous representatives of the Great Russian intellectual elite: Hieromonk Feolog, Fr. Karion Istomin-Zaulonsky, Fedor Polikarpov-Orlov. This indicates that by the beginning of the 18th century. Moscow intellectuals already spoke the same language as the Mogilyans. Correspondence of Metropolitan Dimitry with his Moscow addressees is a friendly, sometimes deeply personal correspondence. In it, the Rostov Metropolitan discusses the intricacies of working on his works, reports news, and shares his life impressions. Although only ten years have passed since, at the Moscow Council of 1690, supporters of Sylvester Medvedev, who maintained contacts with the people of Kiev, were executed and disgraced, and the Mogilyan deviations into “Latinism” were solemnly condemned. The years of Hadrian's patriarchate that followed these events are traditionally considered in historiography to be the period of triumph of the ideas of the “Grecophiles” 459. A time that is distinguished by its orientation toward the Orthodox East and, accordingly, by its strict rejection of the Mogilyan tradition with its “Latinism.” The author of the latest significant study devoted to the problems of church life in Russia at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, V.M. Zhivov agrees with the conclusion about the negative attitude towards the graves in Moscow in the 1690s, but does not look for its reasons in Eucharistic disputes. He believes that an important aspect of the activities of Patr. Adrian in the 1690s becomes the “suppression of Ukrainian particularism” based on the authority of the Eastern patriarchs. For the purposes of this policy, the task of unifying religious practices and “religious discipline” of the Kyiv Metropolis is being carried out. For this purpose, headings addressed to Western Russian candidates are added to the rank of episcopal election: promises not to accept new customs, especially Latin ones; not to ordain several clergy at one time at one liturgy (a non-canonical practice that was widespread in Little Russia); to profess the “Eastern” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. At the same time: “The Moscow Patriarch automatically appears as the guardian of Orthodox piety, thus discrediting Kyiv scholarship” 460. Within the framework of the same policy of “religious discipline” of the Little Russian Church, V.M. Zhivov also considers restrictions on the printing and distribution of books by the Kiev-Pechersk printing house without certification in Moscow, as well as the refusal of patrons. Adrian consecrated Dionysius Zhabokritsky as Bishop of Lutsk because of his first marriage to a widow (which constituted a canonical obstacle to accepting the episcopal rank), despite the fact that his candidacy was supported by the Kiev clergy, who asked for “oikonomy” for political reasons. This line of “suppression of Ukrainian particularism,” according to V.M. Zhivova, was central to Adrian’s church policy and continued until 1700, when Peter I, taking advantage of the weakness of the patriarch, “begins to distribute bishop’s places to Ukrainians” 461. Agreeing with the conclusion of V.M. Zhivov about the “religious unification and disciplinarization” that took place in the Russian Church in the late 1690s, it should be noted that this correct observation is adjacent to the rather controversial statement that this policy also covered the intellectual sphere: “Part of this policy of religious discipline and unification, spreading to Ukraine, was Patriarch Adrian ... orientation towards the Orthodox East. There he found a completely accessible and reliable resource of Orthodox scholarship, which he could contrast with the scholarship of Kiev” 462. The friendly relations that connected Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, one of the brightest representatives of Mogilyan education, with Moscow intellectuals in the 1700s, in our opinion, are evidence that at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. Some profound changes took place in the Great Russian intellectual elite, the result of which was the achievement of unanimity with the Mogilans. What could these changes be? Mogila tradition of the 17th century. - this is not only and not so much baroque culture and “Latin” education.” Speaking about the phenomenon of the Mogilyan tradition of the 17th century, we have already noted that it is closely connected with the process of confessionalization. All the activities of Mogila church intellectuals were aimed at creating an Orthodox confessional culture, for the widest dissemination of knowledge about Orthodox doctrine among clergy and laity. Therefore, the unanimity of the people of Kiev and the residents of the capital was not so much the fruit of the assimilation by Muscovites of certain cultural and educational guidelines, but, first of all, the result of general ideas about what goals should be set for the activities of the educated elite of the church. However, in order to understand how the formation of these collective ideas took place, it is necessary, first of all, to find out who exactly was included in the circle of contacts of Metropolitan. Demetrius and trace how the relationship between Metropolitan. Dmitry with his Moscow like-minded people. 2.1. The work of Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov over the Chetya-Menaia as a link between Kiev and Moscow The background to the creation of the Chetiy-Menai - Dimitri Savich’s work on the text of the “Book of Lives of Saints” For the Moscow intellectual elite of Russia at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. Metropolitan Demetrius was, first of all, the author of the “Book of Lives of the Saints,” a colossal hagiographic collection that he wrote over the course of 20 years, from 1684 to 1704. The New Chetii-Minea were one of the “confessional” texts. It is no coincidence that their creation was planned by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, along with such “fundamental” works as “The Orthodox Confession of Faith” and “Euchologion” The process of confessionalization is characterized by such features as the desire to root faith in the everyday life of the population, the streamlining of worship, the desire to “dissociate” from other faiths, emphasizing existing differences 463. These features found their expression in the Chetya-Minea. Firstly, the widest circles of the Orthodox population of Russia - laity, priests, monastics - needed an accessible collection of saints' lives written in understandable language, that is, specific examples of how a Christian should live in order to achieve the goal of his earthly existence - holiness. Secondly, churches, monasteries and clergy needed books that would contain liturgical texts dedicated to each saint from the month book. Thirdly, for polemics with Catholics and Uniates, a collection of the lives of saints was needed, which would be independent of Catholic literature and demonstrate the rich history of holiness of the Orthodox Church after the 11th century and its continuity with the ancient church. That is why it is important to understand what the history of the creation of the “Book of Lives of Saints” was and how the friendly relations of Metropolitan. Demetrius with Moscow intellectuals during the writing of the books Chetiy-Minea. Perhaps this will serve as a key to understanding the processes that took place in the Moscow intellectual elite at the end of the 17th century. To understand the meaning of Chetiy-Menay Met. Demetrius of Rostov for contemporaries, one should look at them in the context of the church situation of that time. In the Catholic Church in the 16th - early 17th centuries. A number of large-scale collections of ancient hagiographical monuments, translated into Latin, are being created. These studies were of great importance for the process of confessionalization; on their basis, Catholic theologians wrote works intended for worship, as well as for reading by the laity. In Slavic countries, the most significant work of this kind was “Żywoty Swętyh” by the outstanding Jesuit preacher Peter Skarga (1579). This book was short stories about common Christian and Catholic saints, presented in monthly order. The main advantages of the work were the completeness and breadth of coverage of the lives of Christian ascetics, good style and simplicity of presentation. Skarga's work was popular among both Catholics and Orthodox Christians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 464. Moreover, according to the testimony of the Kyiv Metropolitan Varlaam Yasinsky, even Orthodox priests sometimes read excerpts from the lives of Skarga during divine services 465. The reason for this was that after the turbulent Middle Ages, the Western Russian lands were extremely poor in Orthodox hagiographic works. The Little Russian clergy began to realize this already in the 16th century. The development of the publishing activities of Orthodox printing houses, which have been especially fruitful since the second quarter of the 17th century, was only able to partially eliminate this shortcoming 466. However, even the most extensive of the printed books were only collections of selected lives of saints. They were often written in Polish, or were generally adapted translations of Polish literary hagiographic works like Skarga's collection. This circumstance caused numerous mockery from Catholic publicists and served as a reason for them to once again declare that Orthodoxy is nothing more than a distorted version of Catholicism. The Western Russian Orthodox Church was in dire need of collections of biographies of Orthodox saints, presented chronologically according to the days of their memory. For the first time, the idea of ​​​​the need to create the Chetiy Menaion was expressed by Metropolitan Peter Mogila in the 1640s. However, attempts to compile similar collections over the next forty years were never successful, both due to political turmoil and a lack of sources 467 . In Muscovite Rus' the situation was better. Here, after the Tatar invasion, more hagiographic materials circulated. Moreover, in the middle of the 16th century. Metropolitan Macarius compiled the Great Chetya-Minea, which collected all the translated hagiographic material available in Rus', as well as the lives of Russian saints who had been canonized by that time. In addition to the lives of the saints, Metropolitan Macarius’ Chetya-Minaia also included “all works of dogmatic, moralizing and even legendary Christian literature known in his time,” 468 which made them a unique church literary collection. In the middle of the 17th century. Based on the work of Bishop Macarius, two more Chetya-Menaia 469 were compiled. Meanwhile, the Chetya-Minea created in Muscovite Rus' had a number of shortcomings: they were written based only on sources available in the North-West, numerous rhetorical embellishments made it difficult to understand the content. And most importantly, the Menaion existed exclusively in a small number of lists. Thus, the need for Orthodox Chetya-Menaia in the last quarter of the 17th century existed both in Great Russia and in Little Russia. In 1684, Varlaam Yasinsky, who in 1669–1673 held the post of rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium 470, was elected rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. He immediately resumed work on preparing the edition of Chetiy-Minea. Varlaam considered Dimitri Savich, whom he had known since the 1660s, to be the most suitable person to carry out this colossal work. After persistent persuasion, Dimitri gave his consent and On May 6, 1684, a special council of elders and brethren of the Lavra, chaired by Varlaam Yasinsky, solemnly entrusted the young abbot with the obedience of compiling the Book of Lives of the Saints 471. Dimitri Savich's work took twenty years, from 1684 to 1705. The first volume (September-November) was published in 1689, the second (December-February) in 1695, the third (March-May) in 1700 and the fourth (June-September) in 1705. The books were printed in the printing house of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. The most important feature of Bishop Demetrius’s work was its focus on presenting specific historical facts of the lives of saints, processed literary. Dimitri Savich turned directly to Greek, Latin and Slavic sources. At the same time, Greek hagiography was used based on Latin translations from Western hagiographic collections. Among the main ones: the work of Abbot Lawrence Surius “Vita sanctorum orientis et occidentis”, the 18-volume edition of the Bollandists “Acta Sanctorum”, the works of Cardinal Baronius on the history of the church, various handwritten Slavic Chetya, “Great Chetya-Menaion” by Met. Macarius, Slavic Printed Prologue, Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, interpretations of the Bible by Cornelius and Lyapida, Slavic liturgical books (Lenten and Colored Triodion) and many others 472. Meanwhile, the writing of Chetiy-Menai did not go smoothly at all. At first, everything turned out very favorably. The Great Chetya-Minea, so highly valued by Dimitri Savich, was obtained almost immediately after work on the text began, in 1686. This became possible thanks to the patronage of Hetman I. Samoilovich and Prince V.V. Golitsyn, and also for the reason that Patr. Joachim probably wanted to show some kindness to the people of Kiev after the Kiev Metropolis submitted to his authority in the same 1686. Not all of Makary’s Chetya-Minea were sent, but only the first books for September-February. Working on the first volume of his work. Demetrius was completed in 1688, and by this time relations between Moscow and Kiev were already different: there were Eucharistic disputes in the capital. In the current situation, the work of Dimitri Savich in compiling the “Chetiy-Minea” became for the Patriarchs. Joachim is the reason for the manifestation of his supreme power in relation to the people of Kiev. If earlier the patriarch sent the Makaryev Chetya-Minea as a sign of his mercy, now, in March 1688, in letters to Metropolitan. Gideon Chetvertinsky and Archimandrite. Varlaam Yasinsky, the patriarch demanded the return of valuable books back without explanation. At this point Ig. Demetrius barely began to compare his texts with the second volume of Makary’s Chetiy-Minea, but he did not dare to resist the will of the high priest. He immediately sends the books to Moscow, accompanying them with a letter in which he asks the patriarch. Joachim’s blessing for the publication in the Pechersk printing house of the first part of “Chetiy-Minea.” Reply Patr. Joachim was unusually stern. In it, Varlaam Yasinsky was censured for printing books without prior approval from the patriarch, and the “writer of lives” himself, Ig. Demetrius was accused of including in them some “words of the church ... unusual,” namely, a mention of the blessed. Jerome among the “Orthodox teachers” (in Russia he was considered a Catholic author) and an exposition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. In conclusion, the Patriarch ordered that the sheets that mentioned the Immaculate Conception be reprinted and distributed to readers, and also strictly forbade the printing of books in the future without witnessing in Moscow 474 . When Dimitri Savich arrived in Moscow in August to resolve the issue of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, he talked with Patr. Joachim and the Book of Lives of Saints. The Moscow Patriarch was probably pleased with Demetrius' humility and his willingness to make concessions on controversial issues. Patr. Joachim blessed the ig. Demetrius of Vatopedi in the image of the Mother of God for further work on the Chetya-Menaion, however, the Great Chetya-Menaion was still not given to the Kyiv embassy: either the turmoil of the time of the palace coup had an effect, or the patriarch considered such a sign of mercy in relation to the Little Russian clergy unnecessary. Meanwhile, without Makariev’s Chetiy-Minea, Dimitri Savich could not continue his work. In February 1690, a letter was sent to Moscow from Kyiv with a request for permission to further print the “Book of Lives of Saints,” as well as a report on the distribution of corrected sheets and explanations of controversial passages that had previously caused the patriarch’s comments. The latter apparently belonged to Dimitri Savich. Here he pointed out that Blessed. Jerome is called a saint in the Lenten Triodion in the text of the service of the Cheese Week, and the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God is spoken of in the book “The Rod of Government” by Simeon of Polotsk (news of the Moscow Council had not yet reached Kiev) and in the service of the Nativity of the Mother of God 475. However, these letters did not reach their addressee: two days after the arrival of the Kyiv envoy to Moscow, Patr. Joachim died. The new patriarch, Adrian, was elected only in August, which postponed the resolution of the issue of the Makaryev Chetya-Minea. However, in the same month, changes also occurred in the Kyiv Metropolis: here Gideon of Chetvertinsky was replaced by Varlaam Yasinsky at the department. The new metropolitan arrived in Moscow for confirmation in October. For Varlaam, this was a good opportunity to personally establish relations with the new patriarch and his entourage. These relations, as can be judged, turned out as well as possible. With Metropolitan Patr. Adrian sent Dimitri Savich a letter in which he thanked him for his efforts in writing the “Book of Lives of Saints” and blessed his further work. The patriarch also approved the printed edition of Chetiy-Minea. The reason for the letter was indicated in its text: praise and stories from Metropolitan himself. Varlaam Yasinsky 476. Metropolitan Demetrius was, apparently, stunned by how the benevolence and care of the new Moscow first hierarch contrasted sharply with the severity and exactingness of the patriarchs. Joachim. In a response letter dated November 10, he thanked the patriarch for his care and asked to send the book of Makaryev’s Chetiy-Menai for December-February, which had been confiscated earlier at the request of the patriarch. Joachim. Metropolitan's request Demetrius was soon completed and he was able to continue the work interrupted in 1689. At the beginning of 1694, he briefly took time away from her to fulfill the personal request of the patriarch. Adriana. When he was Metropolitan of Kazan, during a pestilence, Adrian erected a church in honor of Sts. Martyrs of Kizich and now asked Dimitri Savich to write their lives. As a result, the manuscript “Free Medicine of St. nine-numbered, like in Kizitsa, martyr,” which included a service to the martyrs, a description of their suffering, a legend about their glorification in Kazan and a word on the day of remembrance. When in March 1695 the second volume of Chetiy-Minea was published, Dimitri Savich sent it to Moscow to Patr. Adrian “through special ... messengers ... and not in a binder, at the speed of time” 477. The accompanying letter, in addition to thanks, contained two requests: to send the next volume of the “Great Hours and Menaions”, March-May, and also to submit a written blessing so that Met. Varlaam Yasinsky “read more judiciously” the text of Chetiy-Minei Ig. Demetrius, just as he read the texts of the previous two volumes 478. In a response letter from Patr. Adrian thanks the people of Kiev for their efforts and “prays” Metropolitan. Varlaam to continue his assistance to Dimitri Savich in his work on the “Chets-Mineas”. At the same time, Metropolitan himself. The Patriarch characterizes Varlaam Yasinsky as “a lovingly wise man with a long history of faithful and pious learning” 479 . It should be noted that during these years there was a significant change in the status of Kyiv scholarship as a whole. In 1691, on the initiative of Metropolitan. Varlaam Yasinsky and Hetman I. Mazepa sent a delegation of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium to Moscow. Prefect Silouan of Ozersky, three teachers and three students beat Tsars Peter and Ivan with their foreheads, thanked them for the patronage of the college, and also presented theological and philosophical theses, printed in the Lavra printing house and decorated with engravings. In 1693, when the first full-fledged theology course in its history was completed at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, the Metropolitan and Hetman turned to Moscow with a request to issue a charter to the college. Such a charter was received in January 1694 and, according to it, the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium received the official right to teach not only poetics and rhetoric, but philosophy and theology, both to students of the “Russian people of all ranks” and to Orthodox Christians from other countries, while the college received support from the treasury 480 . Combined with the removal of the Likhud brothers from teaching at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin School in the same 1694, this made Kyiv the only center of theological education in Russia. In the fall of 1696 481, the patriarchal secretary Karion Istomin himself went to Little Russia. The purpose of his mission was to deliver patriarchal letters to influential persons of the Hetmanate, such as Hetman I. Mazepa himself and the Kiev Metropolitan, as well as copies of the Slavic translation of the “Orthodox Confession” just published in Moscow, based on the full text approved by the Iasi Cathedral. One of the recipients was Dimitri Savich, to whom, in addition to a copy of the catechism, K. Istomin also brought the long-awaited third volume of Makariev’s Chetiy-Mineas 482 . Probably between Karion and Ig. Demetrius, highly educated people who care about Orthodox education, had a meaningful conversation. Returning to Moscow, Karion, of course, told his friends about Dimitri Savich and his works. Soon, in 1697, Hieromonk Feolog sent two letters to Demetrius, and a correspondence began between them. At first, her tone is distantly polite, the conversation is only about the third volume of Chetiy-Minei, which the igger was working on at that time. Dimitri 483. When in December 1697 Dimitri was elevated to archimadrite of the Chernigov Yelets Monastery, he did not fail to inform the patriarch about this event. Adrian, assuring the archpastor in his letter that the new rank will only contribute to the advancement of his work on the third book of Chetiy-Minea, which, according to Dimitri Savich, is close to completion. The Patriarch responded to the letter favorably, sending monetary assistance with a letter. At this point, the correspondence between the “writer of lives” and the head of the Russian Church ended: Patr. Adrian was seriously ill and soon died, without waiting for the release of the new book Chetiy-Minea. Archimandrite's relationship. Dmitry and Moscow intellectuals continued to develop. In 1699, Karion Istomin sent the life of St. St. Dimitri Savich from Moscow. Joseph of Volotsky 484. And in 1700, after the publication of the third book “Chetiy-Minea”, Archimandrite. Demetrius immediately sent a copy of it to Moscow to Feologu, “remembering your vow of honesty” 485. In 1701, Dimitri Savich, at the call of the Tsar, came to Moscow, where he spent a whole year. During this period of time, he had many meetings and conversations with Feolog and Karion Istomin, as well as their acquaintances from the Printing House and the Chudov Monastery. Thus, Met. Dimitri personally met the intellectual elite of Moscow at the turn of the century. Their relationship quickly moved from respectful business to confidential personal. When in the summer of 1701, Bishop Dimitri became seriously ill, he was carefully looked after by Feolog, Karion Istomin and the miracle cellarer Joasaph Koldychevsky 486 . When the next year, in the spring of 1702, Metropolitan. Dimitri left for Rostov, his communication with the people of Kiev became extremely difficult. But he retained the possibility of unhindered communication with his Moscow acquaintances. The result was an extensive correspondence that the Rostov ruler conducted with the circle of the Printing House. Even after the Bishop of Rostov completed work on the last, fourth, volume of the Chetiy-Minea in May 1705, his work was not finished. At the beginning of 1706, Dimitri Savich, at the request of the Kyiv Metropolitan Joseph of Krokovsky, began to work on preparing for the republication of the first book of the Chetiy-Menai. In this regard, he turns to Feologu with a request to find the life of St. Venerable in Moscow libraries. Abraham of Rostov and send him to Metropolitan. Demetrius 490. In his search for sources, Met. Dimitri did not limit himself to contacting his Moscow acquaintances. In October 1704, he wrote a letter to Novgorod Metropolitan Job with a request to send the lives of the Rostov saints, Venerable. Abraham, St. Leontius and St. Jacob, as well as information about the history of the Valaam monastery and its abbot Theoktiste, mentioned in the edition of the life of Abraham of Rostov 491 available to Bishop Demetrius. This letter serves as the beginning of correspondence between the two metropolitans, which lasted until the death of Metropolitan. Demetrius and concerned not only the Chetiy-Minea, but also various issues of church life. However, the important conclusion is that in 1701 Metropolitan. Demetrius was greeted in Moscow not as a stranger from Kiev, but as a long-familiar correspondence author of a well-known and expected literary and theological work. Ten years earlier, in 1689, Metropolitan. Dimitri went to Moscow as if he were going to a hostile camp. Thus, we can say with confidence that in the 1690s. Some changes are taking place in the Moscow educated elite, which contribute to the fact that Patr. Adrian radically revises the policy of his predecessor regarding the Kyiv Chetiy-Menai and gives them the status of an all-Russian project. These changes are in no way limited to the will of the first hierarch: in parallel with official support, personal contacts are being established, and the initiative comes from Muscovites. All this prompts us to turn to the biographies of the addressees of Metropolitan. Dimitri, his Moscow friends. As we have seen, they represent the Moscow educated elite of the 1690s. 2.2. Moscow social circle of Metropolitan. Dimitry of Rostov Karion Istomin - Fyodor Polikarpov - Theologist - about the favorable attitude of the friends of Metropolitan. Demetrius to Kyiv scholarship and the reasons for such attitude Moscow friends of Metropolitan. Dmitry were employees of the Moscow Printing House. This institution occupied a special place in the church and cultural life of Russia. One of the main tasks of church authorities in Russia in the second half of the 17th century, starting with Patr. Nikon, there was a distribution of corrected and uniform liturgical books. The Moscow Printing House was responsible not only for publishing, but for correcting and preparing liturgical texts for printing. For this responsible work, clergymen known for their education were involved, and only occasionally laymen 492. The importance of their work was emphasized by the fact that the employees of the Printing House received salaries from the royal treasury, and before going to press, the book had to be read in the presence of the patriarch, after which the official ceremony of presenting it to the king and patriarch followed. The most erudite people of the Russian Church, those close to the patriarch, and those entering the royal palace, became the enquirers of the Printing House. In the early 1680s. Karion himself teaches Greek at the Typographical School. From 1686 to 1689 Karion Istomin studied with the Likhud brothers. This allowed him to improve his educational level and polish his literary skills. And besides, he made a choice - he finally took the side of the “Grecophiles” in the theological polemics about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. This made him an opponent of his mentor Sylvester Medvedev, their relationship deteriorated so much that Medvedev's supporters accused Istomin of denouncing Sylvester to the patriarch. After Sylvester was arrested on charges of participation in the Shaklovity conspiracy in 1689, Karion Istomin ordered his nephew Ivan Istomin to go to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and report to the authorities the information he knew about Sylvester’s activities 493 . In 1679, Karion began working at the Book Printing House as a book reader and scribe, and in 1682, by royal and patriarchal decree, he was included in the official staff of the Printing House as a reference 495. His further service at the Printed Court was very successful: Karion soon began to receive a high salary of 45, and then 60 rubles as one of the main and most qualified employees of the court. His future career was not even affected by the fact that from December 1689 to July 1690. he was temporarily suspended from work at the Printing Yard due to his involvement in the investigation into the case of Sylvester Medvedev 496. Numerous connections at the royal court in the 1680s–90s. helped Karion Istomin establish good relations with Moscow aristocrats, to whom he often provided services in writing congratulatory letters, epitaphs and gravestone inscriptions 497. In general, the cross-cutting thought of Karion Istomin’s entire work in the 1680s was the question of planting “wisdom” in Russia. This is stated in a collection of poems addressed to Tsars Peter and John, entitled “The Book of Admonition” in 1682 503, and in a poetic appeal to Princess Sophia in the same 1682, urging the princess to “establish free science” 504 and in an oration addressed to the same Sophia, which precedes the colorfully designed manuscript translated by Karion in 1687, from the Western Russian language, the works of the blessed one. Augustine “Godlike Love” 505. It is not surprising that Karion Istomin retained the position of patriarchal secretary under Joachim’s successor, Patriarch Adrian. Adrian, who was in poor health and did not receive a good education, did not want to participate in the busy court life of young Peter and relied heavily on Karion. All the patriarch’s correspondence passed through Istomin; he wrote “words” and speeches for the patriarch on various occasions. The fact that Karion Istomin was so close to the supreme church hierarch allowed him to establish good relations with many prominent church figures of that time. From 1690, Karion maintained regular correspondence with Metropolitan Markell of Kazan and Sviyazhsk until the latter’s death in 1698. In addition, he knew Metropolitan Job of Novgorod well (on the see from 1698), even when he was the archimandrite of the Moscow Petrovsky Monastery. In 1712, Karion even arrived at Job’s request in Novgorod to teach at the Novgorod school. Fyodor Polikarpovich Polikarpov-Orlov, who replaced Karion Istomin as head of the Moscow Printing House, was a man of a different breed. He was born in Moscow into the family of a serviceman in the late 1660s - early 1670s. He received his primary education at the Typographic School, opened in Moscow in 1681. From 1685, among the five best students of the school, he continued his education with the Likhuds at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy 509. Fedor’s natural intelligence and ability for languages ​​brought him attention from teachers: Polikarpov was one of the six best students at the Academy. According to established procedures, he taught younger students, and also participated in the translation from Greek of the works of Likhudov 510. Since 1690, Fyodor Polikarpov has worked as a book scribe at the Moscow Printing House 511. However, after the disgrace of the Likhuds in 1694, when the brothers were removed from the leadership of the academy, Fyodor Polikarpov was appointed in their place along with other students - Nikolai Semenov 512. Work at the Printing Yard had to be stopped. It is easy to see that before his appointment as head of the Printing Order, Fyodor Polikarpov was closely associated with Karion Istomin. Istomin taught him Greek at the Typographic School, then they studied together with the Likhuds. Most likely, the leadership of the Slavic-Greek-Latin school after the departure of the Likhuds was entrusted to Polikarpov on the recommendation of Istomin. And after Istomin became the head of the Printing House, Polikarpov was transferred to him from the academy. Thus, Polikarpov was a kind of protégé of Istomin. It would be logical to assume that even after Istomin’s resignation, he continued to remain Polikarpov’s closest adviser. About the closest friend of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, Theologist, we know much less. The hieromonk himself reported in the 1730s that he took monastic vows in 1694 in the Florishcheva Hermitage near Nizhny Novgorod, and in the same 1694, by order of Patriarch Adrian, he was summoned to Moscow and sent to the Chudov Monastery. In 1698, Feolog was included in the staff of the Printing House as a scribe. We can judge the personality and education of Theologist from indirect information. We know that he was educated enough to begin work at the Printing House in 1698. At the same time, in the 1690s, another church figure of that time, Hierodeacon Damascene, became a resident of the Chudov Monastery, famous for his polemical work “One Hundred and Five Answers,” sent in 1705 to Metropolitan Job of Novgorod. In this work, which was a response to criticism of the “Refutation of Osten” by Gabriel of Dometsky, Damascene demonstrated extraordinary knowledge of theology, church history and languages ​​514. We have no information that Theologus or Damascene studied with the Likhuds, but there is no doubt that they knew each other 515. Obviously, they belonged to the scientific tradition founded by Epiphanius Slavinetsky and which continued to exist in the Chudov Monastery until the 1690s. Unfortunately, we know nothing about how the transfer of knowledge took place, what was the relationship between systematic training, personal transfer of experience and self-education. We can assume that the emphasis was on philological training and familiarity with Orthodox theology through patristic works from the extensive monastic library. Indirect evidence can help little: Bishop Demetrius does not use Latin in his correspondence with Theologian, which certainly indicates the latter’s ignorance of this language (in his letters to more educated recipients, Metropolitan Demetrius abundantly supplies Latin words and expressions), while Hierod. Damascene, in his polemical work, demonstrates familiarity with Latin and Greek. Also, judging by the letters addressed to Theologist, the Moscow friend of the Rostov ruler understood church-historical issues, and could also well understand a joke on an ancient theme, in which Pegasus and Bucephalus were played out 516. “One Hundred and Five Answers” ​​by Hierodeacon Damascus, in turn, indicates his extensive knowledge of theology and demonstrates a high level of polemical culture. At the same time, we have reason to assume that the composition of the Moscow intellectual elite of the 1690s was largely determined by the patriarchal secretary Karion Istomin, who gathered like-minded people around him. One may wonder how the Moscow addressees of the Metropolitan treated him. Dmitry to the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680s? Only Karion Istomin took direct part in the controversy, supporting the “Grecophiles” in the dispute about the Holy Gifts, but at the same time a contemporary considered it possible to characterize Karion as “motley” for his desire to adhere to a compromise solution on a number of issues 517. Fyodor Polikarpov, as one of the best students of the Epiphany School, translated the text of “Akos” by Likhudov 518 into Russian from Greek. Hieromonk Theologian took monastic vows only in 1694, and even then far from Moscow: there is no information about his participation in the Eucharistic disputes in the 1680s. No. Meanwhile, as has already been shown above, the reason why Sylvester Medvedev’s supporters adhered to the view of transubstantiation only by “the Lord’s words” was not at all a love of rational conclusions, but rather a commitment to tradition. If the “Latinizers” more widely used all kinds of “indirect” methods of polemics, this was not due to their fundamental adherence to the syllogical proof of dogmas, but to a banal lack of traditional patristic argumentation. In turn, one of the main denouncers of the “Latinists,” Evfimy Chudovsky, really pays a lot of attention in his writings to denouncing “evil syllogisms.” We know where the Chudovsky monk got the idea that the use of syllogisms in theological discussions of “syllogisms” is one of the vicious features of “Latinism”: these were the writings of Nilus Cabasilas, a Byzantine apologist of the 14th century. 520 However, the main idea of ​​Cabasilas is not to deny the significance of syllogical logic, but to limit its use in resolving dogmatic questions such as the “filioque”: in them, human syllogism must yield to Divine Revelation. In the works of Euthymius, a syllogism is understood as a kind of theological statement expressing the private opinion of the affirming subject, and not the teaching of the Church, and thereby a priori incorrect. Thus, for Euthymius, syllogism is a kind of synonym for “fallen wisdom,” and the Latin theology of syllogisms is contrasted with Orthodox patristic theology. Thus, the Slavic-Greek-Latin school of the Likhuds became, in some way, a continuation of the intellectual tradition established in the third quarter of the 17th century. graves who came to Moscow: the Greek “self-brotherhood” taught children what Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk praised in sermons and verses before their fathers - rhetorical culture 525. That is why among the students of the Likhuds we not only do not meet principled opponents of “Kyiv scholarship”, but on the contrary, we see precisely those people who had a favorable attitude towards education in general. We can assume that the emergence of the Moscow intellectual elite in the 1690s. a large number of people with a systematic rhetorical education primarily contributed to her rapprochement with the Little Russian intellectual elite, with the Mogilans. But, in any case, this could not be the only factor influencing the attitude towards Kyiv scholarship in Moscow. No less significant was the weakening of the intensity of the internal struggle that followed the defeat of Sylvester Medvedev’s supporters. In the previous section, much was said about the fact that the Eucharistic controversy was largely due to the confrontation between the peculiar “parties” of the Moscow intellectual elite. After this rivalry ended, the spiritual atmosphere for creative intellectual work became more favorable. In a similar conciliatory spirit, a little later, in 1705, another resident of the Chudov Monastery, Hierodeacon Damascene (more on him later), spoke about the people of Kyivians, recognizing the intelligence and learning of the Kyiv theologians, however, without denying their “human” mistakes, corrected by the patriarchs 527. But Damascene wrote this in the heat of controversy, responding to the praise of the Kievites as the greatest experts in the Orthodox faith. It is worth noting here that the closest friend of Metropolitan. Demetrius, Hierom. The theologian was also a monk at the Miracle Monastery. 2.3. Relations between Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov with Metropolitan. Job of Novgorod and his entourage Metropolitan Job of Novgorod and his educational activities - the polemic between Gabriel Dometsky and Hierodeacon of Damascus and the subsequent conflict between Gabriel Dometsky and Metropolitan. Job - Met. Demetrius and Metropolitan Job, Herod. Damascene and Gabriel Dometsky. Assumptions about the reasons that determined the favorable attitude towards Kyiv scholarship in Moscow at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries are revealed even more fully if we abstract from the Moscow circle of contacts of Metropolitan. Demetrius and let's see how the Rostov bishop was connected with the events that unfolded around the church and cultural center, which was created by the Novgorod Metropolitan Job at his department. Beginning of correspondence with Metropolitan. Demetrius with the ruler of Novgorod dates back to 1704. In October of this year, Dimitri wrote a letter to the Novgorod Metropolitan with a request to send him the full texts of the lives of the Monk Abraham of Rostov, Saints Leontius and Jacob, bishops of Rostov, since “it is heard that in the diocese of your Eminence, in the holy monasteries, there are complete books of the ancients” 528. Also, the Rostov Metropolitan asked to provide him with information about the early history of the Valaam Monastery. In addition, in the letter, Dimitri expressed a desire (perhaps for etiquette reasons) to continue the correspondence. It really had a continuation, which was connected with the personality and activities of Metropolitan Job. The Novgorod Metropolitan, like his Rostov brother, was determined to create a cultural center at his department. About the biography of Metropolitan. Not much is known about Job. A monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Job lived for some time in Moscow as an archimandrite of the Petrovsky Monastery, and in 1694 he was transferred by Patriarch Adrian as archimandrite to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. We can assume that when he was the archimandrite of the capital’s monastery, Job communicated with educated people of the mother throne. In June 1697, Job was consecrated metropolitan of Novgorod and in September 1698 he arrived at his see 529. Most likely, Vladyka Job did not have any systematic education. Meanwhile, for his time he was quite well read - perhaps this was influenced by the years spent in such a cultural center as the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Many years of exposure to the Moscow cultural environment instilled in him extreme respect for school education. Therefore, after the pressing problems of the metropolis were resolved, Metropolitan. Job plans to create a school for clergy and laity in Novgorod. In 1702, he wrote a letter to the Likhud brothers, who had lived in the Ipatiev Monastery since 1694. In this letter, he talks about information that reached him about a certain highly educated Trebizond Greek, an elderly layman living in Bucharest. Job expresses his desire “from the country there to entreat (him) to himself, for the benefit of the Church of Christ” 530 and asks, if the specified person is known to the Likhuds, to give a letter of recommendation. Here it is worth mentioning how the life of the Likhud brothers developed after the end of the Eucharistic disputes. Events that occurred in the 1690s led the Greek brothers from the leadership of the Slavic-Greek-Latin school to exile in the Kostroma monastery. The reasons for this unexpected turn in their fate were the conflict between the Likhuds and the Jerusalem Patriarch Dosifei, as well as several scandals of a rather domestic nature. In 1694, the Likhuds were removed from teaching at the school they founded and sent as inquiry officers to the Moscow Printing Yard. In 1698, after the case of Deacon Peter Artemyev, who accused the brothers of pro-Catholic sympathies, the Likhuds were removed from printing and teaching and sent to the Novospassky Monastery. Here the brothers began active literary work, continuing the polemic with Protestants that had begun shortly before. The Likhuds supplemented their work “Luther's Heresies,” begun under Patriarch Joachim, and in 1701 they wrote a sermon “The Word of Predestination,” which was read by the Likhuds themselves during the Great Lent of 1701, first at the Academy (the school received this status in 1701), and then in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. In the early 1700s, the Likhuds participated in the revision of Fyodor Polikarpov's Trilingual Lexicon, published in 1704. Metropolitan received a positive response to his request to send a teacher from the East. Job never received it. However, in 1706, the Novgorod Metropolitan sought permission to summon the Likhud brothers themselves, who in 1704, in connection with the visit of the Ottoman ambassador Mehmed Agha to the Russian capital, were expelled from Moscow into exile in the Kostroma Ipatiev Monastery: the tsarist authorities suspected that the brothers were acting as Ottoman agents and writing to Constantinople about the state of affairs in Russia 531. It is curious that the Likhuds, having arrived in Novgorod, sent a letter to the Chudov Monastery, in which they invited their Moscow acquaintances to come to Novgorod, among whom is Hieromonk Feolog, an employee of the Moscow Printing House and a close friend of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov 532. Immediately after arriving in Novgorod, the Likhuds began active work. Under their leadership, a Greek-Slavic school was created in Novgorod, and work began on translating books from Greek and Latin. Around the same time, Metropolitan Job received the first order for translation: in September 1707, Peter sent F.M. from Poland. Apraksin two Latin books and instructs him to send them to the Likhuds for translation. These were the work of the Jesuit natural philosopher Athanasius Kircher “Sphynx mystagoga, sive diatriba hieroglyphyca de mumiis” (The Mystery of the Sphinx or reasoning on the hieroglyphs of mummies) and Virgil’s “Aeneid”. The Likhuds began translating and even compiled additional “notebooks” explaining the meanings of the words “sphinx” and “mummy.” However, to accurately translate many terms into Russian, a dictionary was required, and Job turns to F.M. Apraksin with a request to transfer Epiphanius Slavinetsky's Lexicon to the Novgorod School 533. Metropolitan Job was obviously proud of his creation and personally monitored the affairs of the school. The Novgorod bishop himself did not have sufficient education to translate books or study, but with zeal he began to work to provide his brainchild with everything necessary. For this, the Metropolitan had every opportunity: Job knew how to write letters in a “high style” and was on good terms with the Menshikov family and the brothers F.M. and A.M. Apraksin 534. In 1706–1707, Metropolitan Job corresponded with a considerable number of influential persons. In 1707, in a letter to N.M. To Zotov, Peter’s former teacher, Job asks him to intercede in order to have the “18 theological books sent to the autocratic His Majesty from His Holiness Patriarch Dositheos are found in no other country in the world,” as well as the so-called equipment. The “Upper Printing House”, established by Simeon of Polotsk, had long been idle by that time 535. Job sends a letter with the same request for the books of Dositheus to A.D. Menshikov. At the same time, the Metropolitan writes a letter to the prince’s wife Daria Mikhailovna, in which he talks about the benefits of the school established in Novgorod and thanks for the benefits provided to his diocese by the princely family. Metropolitan Job establishes contacts with Fyodor Polikarpov, who headed the Moscow Printing House, sends him the translated books and asks him to “correct”, i.e. edit at the Printing Yard the prologue, stichera and canon of Sophia of the Wisdom of God, translated by the Likhuds from the Greek original 536. The correspondence between Met., which began a little earlier, also continues. Job with Met. Dimitry Rostovsky. At the end of 1705 - beginning of 1706. year, the Novgorod Metropolitan addressed a letter to the Rostov Bishop himself with a request to send to Novgorod the last book of Chetiy-Minea, recently published in 1705 (June-August) 537. The correspondence between the bishops continued, albeit extremely irregularly, until the death of the Rostov Metropolitan in 1709. The letters touched upon the problems of theological schools, Novgorod and Rostov, and discussed pressing problems of the church 538 . Already having royal permission to receive printing equipment and theological books in Moscow, in the second half of 1707 Met. Job sends a delegation to Moscow consisting of Sophrony Likhud, Khutyn Archimandrite Theodosius Yanovsky and Metropolitan Treasurer Theodosius. They had to bring Epiphanius Slavinetsky’s Lexicon and other books, a printing house with craftsmen and equipment, as well as a reference book, Nikolai Semyonov, to Novgorod 539 . However, Stefan Yavorsky detained Sophrony in Moscow so that he taught Greek at the academy. Moreover, in January 1708, the nearby sovereign’s office decided to summon Ioannikis Likhud to Moscow to teach Greek 540. Metropolitan Job managed to ensure that Ioannikiy remained in Novgorod, but Sophrony never returned. We have already talked about how close the Likhuds, the former leaders of the “Grecophiles,” were to Metropolitan Job. However, Bishop Job was not at all embarrassed to resort to the help of people with Latin sympathies. Moreover, the initial period of Job’s bishopric was closely connected with immigrants from Kyiv. Among them are Gabriel Dometsky and Theodosius Yanovsky. Theodosius came from the Smolensk gentry and in 1663–1676 he studied at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium together with Metropolitan. Dimitry Rostovsky. Then Theodosius became a monk and by the 1690s he was already a resident of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. Somewhere in the mid-1690s, for complaining about oppression by the harsh Simonov Archimandrite Bartholomew, Yanovsky was exiled in chains to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Job, who was then the Archimandrite of Trinity, took part in the fate of the exiled Theodosius, freed him from his chains and brought him closer to himself. When Job became Metropolitan of Novgorod in 1697, he took Theodosius with him. He probably appreciated the Little Russian monk's learning and administrative talent. For this reason, in 1701 Job made Theodosius abbot, and in 1704 - archimandrite of the Khutyn Monastery, the abbots of which were traditionally the first assistants of the Novgorod metropolitans. During his stay in the Novgorod diocese, Theodosius managed to meet Tsar Peter, who appreciated the capable and educated abbot. It is known that already in October 1704, Theodosius in a letter complained directly to the sovereign about the disobedience of the former cellarer of the Khutyn monastery. In 1708, Theodosius, together with Sophrony Likhud, was sent to Moscow. There, the Khutyn archimandrite met with Peter, after which the monarch appointed Theodosius as a “spiritual judge” to manage the clergy of the newly acquired Ingrian lands and St. Petersburg. Metropolitan Job was notified of this only in writing 541. Later, Theodosius was very close to Peter and became the first archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The fate of Gabriel Dometsky turned out differently. Gavriil Dometsky, most likely, was from Ukraine, but moved to Moscow, where he had a family and was in the administrative service 542. Then Dometsky became a monk; in the 1677–1680s he was abbot of the Petrovsky Monastery in Moscow, and from 1680 to 1691. - Simonovsky. In the theological disputes of that time, he was on the side of the “Latinists”; there is information about his acquaintance with the Jesuits who lived in Moscow at that time 543. During this period, Dometsky wrote several works concerning various aspects of church life. Of particular interest are several of his works devoted to monastic life. In them, Dometsky exposes the vices of monks, and at the same time explains how monks should live. The instructions of Gabriel of Dometsky are noteworthy in that he allows for some comfort for the monks (for example, delicacies), and for the sick he completely abolishes fasting 544. Meanwhile, we do not have exact information about his education. After the arrest of Sylvester Medvedev, Gabriel Dometsky renounced his previous views and burned the manuscript of his essay on the Translation of the Holy Gifts. Despite this, Dometsky, as a clear representative of the “Latinists” and a person close to V.V. Golitsin, was exiled from Moscow to the Iversky Valdai Monastery in 1691 545. Here he remained in the rank of abbot until 1699, when, due to a complaint against him from one of the inhabitants of the monastery, Dometsky was transferred to the Yuryev Cross Monastery, of which he later became an archimandrite. Metropolitan Job responded with responsiveness to the former metropolitan archimandrite who was in his diocese. The Novgorod bishop repeatedly turned to him for books (it seems that the disgraced Dometsky was able to take his library with him from Moscow). Planning to create a school in Novgorod, Job listened to the advice of the educated Gabriel Dometsky, who apparently proved the superiority of the Kyiv-style Latin school. In 1703 or 1704, several works by “Grecophiles” were sent to Metropolitan Job, including the work of Euthymius Chudovsky on the superiority of the Greek text of the Bible over Latin and Polish. Dometsky in the same year provided Metropolitan Job with his critical comments on the works of Euthymius, combined with an apology for the Latin school. Soon after this, in 1704, Dometsky wrote and submitted to Metropolitan Job an entire essay, “Refutation of the Book of Austen,” in which he openly expressed the ideas of the “Latinists” of the late 1680s and spoke extremely negatively about the “Grecophiles” in general and Euthymius Chudovsky in particular 546. Hierodeacon Damascus belonged to a different type of people. A native Muscovite, he had known Metropolitan Job for a long time. Thus, Damascene recalled an ancient incident when, while he was still a layman, he came from the road to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where he met a hospitable welcome: Job, who was at that time a hierodeacon in the Lavra, gave him “an eight-ounce piece of bread and half a fish of salmon” 547 . When Job became the abbot of the Moscow Petrovsky Monastery in the 1690s, Damascene, who was then a novice of the Chudov Monastery, expected to talk with his old comrade, but was never able to do this due to the latter’s busy schedule. Damascene then went to Mount Athos, from where he returned in the early 1700s. In Moscow, he was warmly greeted by the Patriarchal Sacristan, Hierodeacon Filaret. Filaret was in correspondence with Metropolitan Job, the latter, having learned about the return of his comrade from Athos, invited him to his place in Novgorod. For some time, Damascene, at the request of Bishop Job, traveled through the monastic monasteries of the Russian North, looking for the metropolitan a place for a solitary dwelling. Damascene writes that the metropolitan at that time was thinking about leaving the department and becoming a desert dweller and asked him to find a suitable place. Having failed to achieve success, Damascene returned to Moscow. During this time, Job never met him in person for a conversation. In 1705, a letter from Job to Hierodeacon Philaret arrived at the Chudov Monastery with a request to send the book “Salvation of Sinners,” as well as several others, similar in topic, which were to be selected by Hierodeacon Damascus. Damascene responded to Metropolitan Job with a series of letters in which he sharply criticized Dometsky, who, according to him, abused Job’s trust, who himself knows about Dometsky’s shortcomings, but believes that there is no one to replace him 548. He sends Job the essay “One Hundred and Five Answers,” in which he sharply criticized Dometsky’s “Refutation of Austen” and proved the fallacy of his views. The personality of Damascus is of great interest to us also for the reason that he lived in the Miracle Monastery at the same time as Theologist. In his polemic with Dometsky, Damascene demonstrated extraordinary knowledge of theology, church history and languages ​​549. Meanwhile, we know that Feolog was educated enough to take the position of inspector of the Moscow Printing House. Most likely, they received the necessary knowledge from those inhabitants of the Chudovsky Monastery who in the 1660–70s. participated in the work of the translation circle and were engaged in translations together with Epiphanius Slavinetsky or were related to the school that was located within the monastery walls at that time. A few words should be said about the further fate of Gabriel Dometsky. Job lost interest in G. Dometsky, and in 1708 a quarrel broke out between them. In a letter to Archimandrite Sergius of Trinity in September 1708, Job calls Dometsky a servant of the devil, who “does not fall asleep without evil; he always repents in pen and word, but from within his all-destructive soul wears out everywhere,” namely, he slanderes certain “spiritual” people, about which Metropolitan Job considers it necessary to inform his addressee 550. In another letter to Sylvester (now the Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod), he reports that Gabriel has already been deprived of his archimandriteship and is in exile (“in homelessness”), but continues to send letters with trusted people “in certain cities to honest persons, although he added the truth to himself with false complicated writings 551.” According to Job, he knows that no one wants to listen to Dometsky, with the exception of one influential person. “There is only one master who is merciful and kind to him, and an everlasting intercessor for him is promised to exist; his person is not your shrine. But even if they arm themselves against us in order to crush us like a spider’s web, they themselves will receive endless death for this boasting before us. To them may God grant forgiveness and blessing, and here and in heaven there will be a hundred-destroying recompense" 552. These letters suggest that between Met. Some sharp conflict arose between Job and Gabriel Dometsky, and the latter tried to attract influential clergy to his side by sending letters to them. The caution with which Job writes about the intercessor of G. Dometsky allows us to assume that he is none other than Metropolitan. Stefan Yavorsky, who could well support his fellow countryman. An indirect confirmation of this is that in September 1709, in a letter to his student Andrei Bodakovsky, who was then in Moscow, Metropolitan. Dimitry of Rostov asks: “I would like to know about Father Dometsky whether he will come to us as abbot at the Petrovsky Monastery or not. The monks are asking for the abbot, but I am waiting for him” 553. However, these plans were not destined to come true (possibly because Metropolitan Dimitri died in October 1709) and Gabriel Dometsky was sent to retire in Kyiv, where he died 554. It is far from accidental that the fate of the participant in the “last polemic of Latinizers and Grecophiles,” Abbot Gabriel of Dometsky, ultimately turned out to be connected with the Rostov Metropolitan. This shows that Met. Dmitry, who had only recently arrived from Ukraine, became involved in the turbulent life of a narrow circle of church intellectuals in Great Russia. However, of even greater interest are the personality of Metropolitan. Job of Novgorod: the fact that he turned out to be the only Great Russian bishop with whom Metropolitan. Dmitry maintained constant contact. At the same time, Bishop Job was the only Great Russian bishop interested in the church education of clergy and laity. And he also belongs to the generation that emerged in the 1690s. Although Met. Job did not have a systematic education; once he found himself in the episcopal department, he made every effort to create a cultural center in Novgorod, which could become the second most important after Moscow for Great Russia. For this, the Novgorod ruler used all the connections he had, both among clergy and secular persons. In the difficult conditions of the 1700s, he managed to organize a school and a translation circle of a fairly high level. This became possible not only thanks to the connections of Metropolitan. Job among influential secular persons, but also due to the fact that Bishop Job in his enterprise sought to attract to the cooperation of all educated people known to him, regardless of whether their education was “Latin” or “Greek”. In this regard, the assumption of I.A. Shlyapkin that Job sympathized with the “Latinists” since the time of Patriarch Joachim 555 seems unfounded. It is based only on a very tendentious report by Gavril Dometsky, who, along with him, in polemical fervor, also cites such “accurate” information about the events of the 1680s, such as the fact that the Likhud brothers were Jews, took monastic vows only in Moscow and tried under V.V. Golitsyn escape to China 556. As we have already seen, after 1690 it is not possible to talk about the existence of “Latinist” and “Grecophile” parties. The opinion expressed in historiography that Met. Job in the 1700s At first he was inclined to the views of the “Latinists,” but then, in connection with the polemical letter of Hierodeacon Damascus, “One Hundred and Five Answers,” he changed his point of view 557. A detailed examination of the circumstances of the conflict by Metropolitan. Job of Novgorod and Gabriel of Dometsky on epistolary material suggests that the causes of the conflict were not of a theological nature. In addition, this conflict apparently took place somewhat later after Damascus’s work was sent to Novgorod. The controversy did not affect the relationship between Metropolitan. Job with Theodosius Yanovsky, who received a Western theological education at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. The Likhud brothers, although they were invited to Novgorod only in 1706, had for Metropolitan. Job was an authority on matters of theological scholarship even earlier, as evidenced by the bishop’s message to them, dated 1702. All this again confirms the above statement that after the council of 1690, there was no rejection in the Great Russian intellectual elite towards the Little Russians-Mogilans due to certain theological differences. On the contrary, the best representatives of the church-intellectual elite of Great Russia invariably sought to establish relations with educated Little Russians, seeing in them their like-minded people and helpers. In this context, the correspondence of Metropolitan. Job with Met. Demetrius seems quite logical: the two bishops, concerned with the education of their flock and the organization of schools, had common interests. Moreover, such an educational program was quite typical for a Little Russian bishop, but unusual for a representative of the Great Russian episcopate. So, now that we imagine how the relationship between Metropolitan. Demetrius with Great Russian intellectuals, we can answer the question asked at the very beginning of this section: what were the objective prerequisites for this friendship, or, in other words, what led to such a close rapprochement between representatives of the Moscow and Mogila intellectual elites at the beginning of the 18th century? The answer seems quite clear. In all cases, interest in Kyiv scholarship was shown by bearers of a new idea about the role of the church intellectual. Often these were representatives of the last generation of the church-intellectual elite, formed by the 1690s. and received a “variegated” education, close to the Mogilyan tradition. Their activities had more and more in common with the activities of their Little Russian contemporaries, which was most clearly manifested in the desire for Christian enlightenment. The Christian enlightenment of Moscow representatives of the intellectual elite at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, such as Karion Istomin, as well as the Christian enlightenment of the Mogilyanites, can be adequately understood only within the framework of the process of confessionalization, during which the dissemination of doctrinal knowledge becomes of paramount importance. However, if individual manifestations of the process of confessionalization were characteristic of Russian religious culture earlier, then at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. important changes are taking place. These changes become especially clearly visible in the example of the relationship between Metropolitan. Demetrius with Moscow intellectuals during the work on the Chetya-Minea. With Patr. Joachim, the Kiev project to write the Chetiy Menaion was received rather coolly in Moscow. At the height of the Eucharistic disputes and polemics, he was even used as a kind of lever of pressure on the obstinate Kievites, recalling the Makaryev Menaion from Metropolitan. Dimitri. However, under Patr. For Adriana, the situation changed dramatically. The ideas of Christian education of Karion Istomin, in all likelihood, found full support from the patriarchs. Adrian, whom his contemporaries characterized as a kind-hearted and gullible man 558. It was from the position of awareness of the need for Christian enlightenment that the unprecedented support of Met. Demetrius, which he felt during his work on the Lives of the Saints during the reign of the last Moscow first hierarch. So, in his letter of May 1695 to Patr. Adrian expresses himself as follows: “There is nothing more precious than the words of God, which are sweet to the souls of intellectuals and to the hearts of men, according to the Scriptures. There is nothing more necessary and useful than the amazing acts of God and glorious miracles in God-pleasing children and daughters, according to the abundance of the power of God that occurs in their souls and hearts; These are revealed in the sacred and ecclesiastical scriptures; For the poverty of the good-writers and money-makers, we not only contemplate, but below the essence we hear, which all Christian peoples, somewhere, hear and see, more than wealth and earthly pleasure, they all diligently desire, so that they may flow into the love of Jesus Christ with zealous faith and necessary deeds. And since every scripture is inspired by God and faithful to the Eastern Church of the Holy Fathers, it is for teaching, for encouragement in virtue, for reproof of one’s own or a friend’s conscience, for correction and punishment, so that the man of God may be perfect, well-prepared for every work, as is required by the people of the Lord” 559 . Thus, the Moscow Patriarch (and the secretary standing behind him, Abbot Karion Istomin) comprehend the writing of the Chetiy-Minea Metropolitan. Demetrius not just as the creation of another work of Orthodox literature, but as an important stage in the Christian enlightenment of the people and their education for a godly life. Moscow intellectuals from the Printing House circle are involved in the work on the Chetya-Minea: at first their help is limited to sending individual materials, but then, when Met. Dimitri moves to Great Russia, his Moscow friends begin to actively support him in his work on the “Book of Lives of Saints” by consulting in difficult cases and finding the necessary sources. Later, Met. Dmitry turns to them for help in working on anti-Old Believer polemical works. Also, on the basis of common views on the goals and means of Christian enlightenment, relations between the Rostov bishop and Metropolitan are built. Job of Novgorod. At the same time, in the relationship between Great Russian intellectuals and Metropolitan. Demetrius, we do not see any echoes of the confrontation between the “Latinists” and the Grecophiles” of the 1680s - early. 1690s All this allows us to assert that in con. XVII – beginning XVIII centuries a unified process of confessionalization contributed to the integration of the Great Russian and Little Russian intellectual elites. The role of Metropolitan Demetrius and his Chety-Minea were extremely important in this process. Having considered the most striking cases of participation of Metropolitan. Demetrius in the turbulent intellectual life of the Russian Church at the end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th centuries. we can finally answer the questions of what the theological views of Met. Demetrius and what were his relations with his contemporaries, the Great Russians. Theologically, Met. Demetrius cannot in any way be called “following” anyone, be it Jesuit theologians or Mogila authors. “Intellectual peace and contemplation of scholasticism” 560 for the bishop was not a revelation of the greatness of the Roman Church, but a way of comprehending the humanitarian scholarship that flourished in his time in the West. Therefore, what Met. Demetrius’s education did not make him a “Latinist,” giving him a set of ready-made answers borrowed from Catholic authorities, but provided him, first of all, with a set of methods for solving theological problems relevant to the Russian Church at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, in the spirit of Orthodox dogma. Two main features of this technique can be distinguished. The first feature is clear logic and the desire to identify the main thing in the controversy and avoid disputes about the secondary, which was clearly manifested in the way Dimitri Savich approached the problems of Eucharistic disputes in his “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist.” However, the separation of the main and the secondary is not only a purely methodological device, but a fundamental principle of Metropolitan’s theology. Demetrius: the main theme of his writings, devoted to the current theological problems of his time, is the division between the heavenly and the earthly, the temporal and the eternal. The second feature of the theological method of Met. Demetrius can be called his broad appeal to Church Tradition. And here the Rostov ruler received invaluable help from Latin books, which opened access to the treasury of patristic wisdom, carefully collected by generations of Western authors. In his works, Metropolitan. Demetrius expressed the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church in the terminology of the second scholasticism - as was customary among contemporary Kyiv and Greek theologians of the 17th-18th centuries. At the same time, Dimitri Savich relied widely on the Eastern Fathers of the Church and was in no way inclined to unconditionally imitate Catholic theologians. Moreover, in some cases he demonstrated greater independence of thought than the “Grecophiles” - an example of this is Dimitri Savich’s perception of the “non-scholastic” teachings of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas on the importance of the entire anaphora for the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Thus, the European-rhetorical education of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov not only did not limit him, but, on the contrary, opened new horizons for him, helping in his theological research. Relations with Metropolitan's contemporaries Demetrius of Rostov were closely related to his beliefs described above. Great Russian intellectual elite at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. underwent qualitative changes: by this time a generation of people had grown up for whom European rhetorical education was not a “Kyiv novelty”, but the initial stage of their life’s journey. These people, such as Karion Istomin, were open to cooperation with the people of Kiev, moreover, they themselves sought it. Thanks to them, the era of Patras. Adriana was marked by an ever-increasing expansion of friendly relations between Moscow and Kiev, and these connections were no longer one-sided: like-minded people entered into close epistolary communication. This process - the formation of a European-educated Great Russian church-intellectual elite - was a general consequence of the process of confessionalization taking place in Russia: in order to respond to the theological challenges of the time and disseminate knowledge about the orthodox teaching of the Church among the people, the Russian Church needed educated, proactive and pious people. Such a person was Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov - such people were his Great Russian friends and addressees: hierome. Theologist, ig. Karion Istomin, Metropolitan Job of Novgorod and others. Great Russian and Little Russian intellectuals by the beginning of the 18th century. moved in one direction - that’s why Mogila bishops, such as Metropolitan. Demetrius, became for the best people of the Great Russian Church not “strangers”, but “flagship leaders” 561. Chapter III. The activities of Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov in the context of religious and cultural changes in Russia in the Early Modern Age The early modern period became for Russia both a period of cultural dynamism and openness, and an era when the religiosity of the people inhabiting the country not only did not become less, but rather developed and intensified, acquiring new forms. This was reflected in the sincere piety that shocked foreigners, the spread of folk religious literature and the massive construction of churches and monasteries, and finally, in the emergence and spread of the “schism” - as a set of religious movements that appealed to a caring person in an apostasic world 562. Although faith, as in the Middle Ages, continued to maintain an important place in human life, in the 17th – early 18th centuries. In Russia, a new type of religiosity is being formed, which is characterized by an individual experience of faith, a sense of personal communication with the Creator, and a desire to churchize the world 563. These sociocultural processes brought Russian culture closer to the culture of Western Europe of that time 564, where “everything revolved around God, His demands, Salvation” 565. All this led to the fact that the reflections of the learned clergy on the fate of the Church rarely remained unclaimed: theses expressed in treatises and debates were often embodied in the decrees of church councils. The key figures in the introduction of new religious norms were, first of all, active bishops, determined to put into practice in their dioceses what theologians were talking about. Dimitri Savich belonged to the number of such bishops. He ascended to the Rostov See in 1702. This meant that one of the leading Kyiv church intellectuals became the Rostov Metropolitan. He was faced with a difficult task: to use the knowledge and experience accumulated over decades of book studies and stays in the best Little Russian monasteries to resolve those problems and disorders that abounded in Great Russian church life after decades of unrest and incomplete transformations. In this chapter, using the example of several stories, we will look at how Met. Demetrius of Rostov fulfilled his archpastoral duty to transform the religious life of his flock, giving answers to the challenges that his time posed to him. This will help us more fully understand him as a cultural figure of the Baroque, the “religious age” 566. The choice of these subjects from the whole variety of topics related to the activities of the Rostov ruler is not arbitrary and allows us to look at the religious and cultural life of Russia at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. in all its diversity. The problem of “external knowledge” and European scholarship in general, being one of the central issues of the era, is a topic that is simply impossible for a researcher of Metropolitan to ignore. Dimitri. Studying the changing understanding of sin allows us to touch upon the problems of changes in the sphere of religious mentality, and consideration of the question of the place of the sacraments of Confession and Communion in church life makes it possible to get acquainted with the religiosity of the Early Modern Age not only in the form of ideas and theological constructs, but also in the very visible form of specific practices and institutions. §1. Traditions and innovations of Latin education among Metropolitan. Dimitry of Rostov In 1739, a young student of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Peter Velichkovsky, firmly decided to leave the walls of his alma mater. In a letter to the rector, he argued his refusal to continue his studies as follows: “I feel a creeping in my soul from the external teaching, hearing in it often the memory of Hellenic gods and goddesses and pyitic fables, I hated such teaching from the bottom of my heart. Even if in external teaching they had used the words of the God-bearing Holy Teachers, having learned the Spiritual Mind from the Most Holy Spirit, then the disciples were honored with the deep crawling of the Spiritual Mind and external teaching: And since it is printed in the Spiritual Alphabet, Today, not from the Holy Spirit, but from Aristotle, Cicero, Plato and other pagan wise men of reason, they learn reason; for this reason, they are completely blind and lie and are deceived from the right path to reason and in words they learn: within the soul there is darkness and darkness, but on the tongue is all their wisdom. Therefore, according to this testimony, not feeling any benefit in my soul from such a teaching, and, moreover, fearing that it might cause me to fall into a depraved mind, I left it” 567. It is difficult to find a more vivid denunciation of the “Latin” scholarship of the Mogilyan tradition, and indeed the baroque culture of the 17th–18th centuries. However, a little later, Peter Velichkovsky, having retired to Athos and taking monastic vows, changed his view of “external teaching.” Now we know him well under the monastic name of Paisius, as a venerable, great ascetic and compiler of the Slavic “Philokalia”, a revivalist of Russian eldership. The widest book activity, work on translation and correction of monastic texts inspired St. Paisius has deep respect for Kyiv scholarship, which he once renounced. In his letters, the monk directly states that a translator of spiritual books should have a perfect knowledge of “external wisdom,” and not only within the framework of philology, but “the highest teachings, literature, verbiage, rhetoric, and philosophy, even without touching the very Theology with a finger” 568 . Realizing the inadequacy of his education, which did not surpass a grammar class, he lamented that, due to “ignorance” and “stubbornness,” he did not listen to the rector, “the wisest man,” who convinced young Peter not to give up science. The topic of the relationship between secular knowledge or, according to the patristic tradition, “external wisdom” and “spiritual wisdom” has attracted the attention of theologians since the first centuries of the development of Christian thought. The Great Cappadocians gave a comprehensive answer to the question of how a Christian should relate to pagan culture. Yes, St. Basil the Great wrote: “We are introduced into this life, of course, by the Holy Scriptures, which form us through mysterious teachings; but while, due to age, we cannot study the depth of their meaning, we also exercise our spiritual eye for a while in other scriptures, which are not completely distant from them... And we, of course, must adhere to the thought that we have before us a feat, the most important of all feats - a feat for which we must do everything, to prepare for which we must work to the best of our ability, talk with poets, and with historians, and with speakers, and with every person, from whom can there be any benefit to the care of the soul" 569. St. Gregory the Theologian echoes him: “I believe that everyone who has intelligence recognizes learning as the first good for us, and not only this noblest and our own learning, which, despising all the ornaments and fertility of speech, is embraced for the only salvation and for the beauty of the mind, but also external learning, which many of the Christians, according to a bad understanding, abhor as evil, dangerous and moving away from God... On the contrary, we must recognize as stupid and ignorant those who, holding such an opinion, would like to see everyone like themselves, in order to hide their own shortcoming in a common lack and avoid being accused of ignorance” 570. Later, in the Eastern patriotic tradition, the idea was preserved that secular knowledge is useful, but only when it serves spiritual knowledge. Along with this teaching about the role of secular knowledge, there was also a teaching about the need to purify the mind in order to know God. St. Isaac the Syrian expounded this teaching as follows. There are three stages of knowledge - carnal knowledge, in which a person’s mind is absorbed in satisfying various carnal lusts and does not think about God; spiritual knowledge, in which the mind is occupied with spiritual thoughts and thinks about pleasing God; spiritual knowledge, perfected, when this degree is reached, the mind rises above earthly concerns and supernaturally contemplates heavenly realities 571 . On this path, prayer, a virtuous life and reading the Holy Scriptures help improve the mind to know the Creator; secular knowledge is useless and often harmful. And it is in this context that St. Gregory Palamas, polemicizing with Barlaam of Calabria, condemned the passion for philosophy as supposedly promoting the knowledge of God 572. The book that once confused St. Paisius (Velichkovsky) in his youth - “The Spiritual Alphabet” Met. Isaiah Kopinsky 573 - clearly demonstrates how the traditional ideas of Eastern Christian theologians were interpreted in the Early Modern era. This text, intended for monks (the original title of the work was “The Spiritual Ladder according to God of monastic life, containing thirty and three chapters in the image of the Lord according to the flesh on earth of life, which has thirty and three degrees”) was created in the early 1630s. and organically fit into the later Kyiv book tradition 574. The first chapters of the treatise represent, in fact, an authorized reworking of several chapters of the “Ascetic Words” of St. Isaac the Syrian 575, whose works were well known to Russian monasticism 576, outlining the doctrine of knowledge, which was already mentioned above. They differ significantly in tone from their ancient source and, in their way, are a real hymn to reason. The author writes from the very beginning that the cause of Adam’s fall was “madness and lack of consideration of all things” 577. From here the conclusion is drawn that if a person has fallen from God and grace through madness, then it is possible to reunite with God only through reason and “the knowledge of all things.” This emphasis on the primary importance of reason for a person’s spiritual life is the leitmotif of the entire “Alphabet of the Spiritual” - while reason is understood precisely as the ability for rational thinking. Improving the mind gives “smart work,” that is, exercise in contemplation of God, prayer, reading Holy Scripture and ascetic deeds - and secular sciences without “smart work” lead into darkness 578 (this moment confused the young Peter Velichkovsky at one time). The central idea of ​​the work of the Kyiv ascetic is: “as reason flourishes, faith grows as much,” and from it comes virtues, hope in God, and love. Madness makes all of the above impossible. Although Met. Isaiah Kopinsky was destined to become an irreconcilable rival of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, the main idea of ​​the “Spiritual Alphabet” can be called congenial to the entire Mogila tradition of the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries, entirely aimed at developing the mind for spiritual success. And the personality of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, serves, by far, as the most striking example of such success: after all, he was famous for his learning during his lifetime - and already at his funeral, Metropolitan. Stefan Yavorsky exclaimed: “Holy, Demetrius, holy!” Extensive library of Metropolitan. Demetrius abounds in Latin publications, among which are not only theological works, but also “general humanitarian ones.” Vladyka Demetrius, without a doubt, was one of the most skillful authors of the Eastern European Baroque: from a purely literary point of view, his sermons, cants and school dramas are masterpieces, aesthetically in tune with their time. At the same time, personal spiritual experience, reflected in the bishop’s writings, allowed St. Paisius Velichkovsky should be appointed Metropolitan. Demetrius is on a par with St. Nil Sorsky 579. It turns out that, on the one hand, we see a highly educated person immersed in the culture of his time, on the other, an ascetic man of prayer, i.e. a person as detached as possible from the “spirit of the times” of the century. Let's try to understand what goal Metropolitan saw. Demetrius of Rostov in possessing “external wisdom” and Latin education in general. 1.1. "External knowledge" and Christian enlightenment “External knowledge” as an aid in the interpretation of Holy Scripture - baroque sermon and Thomas Mlodzianowski - baroque concepts as a means of expression - the language of ancient mythology - “witty” interpretations of Holy Scripture - “conversational” style of preaching - humor - “realism of the supernatural” There is no doubt that the Rostov Metropolitan shared the traditional patristic view of the relationship between spiritual and secular wisdom. In one of his sermons, the bishop wrote that reason is the exterior of the soul and if it is damaged by sin, it will come from man: “without the head of reason, and without the hands of rational acts, there remains only Dagon, a meaningless fish, and moreover an insensible and ineffective idol” 580 . In another teaching, he compared worldly Hellenic wisdom with the apples of Sodomo-Gomorrah, which, according to stories, are beautiful on the outside, but contain stinking dust inside, and contrasted it with the spiritual wisdom of Christian 581. In the “Book of Lives of the Saints” it is described as St. Kosma studied all human wisdom, comprehended the movements of the luminaries - in order to ultimately devote himself entirely to the knowledge of the Creator 582. But what did the Rostov ruler turn his mind to first? To understand this, you should turn to his “creative laboratory” - the library. Let's take a closer look at what the Metropolitan's library was made up of. Dimitri. It is easy to distinguish two main groups of Latin works. The first group was called upon to help the Rostov ruler in writing his magnum opus, the Chetiy-Menaion; it included multi-volume hagiographical and church-historical works, such as the Acta Sactorum and the History of the Church of Cardinal Caesar Baronius. The purpose of these books is obvious and does not require special comments. The second group is much more interesting for us. These are the works of Catholic exegetes Cornelius a Lapide, Didacus de Beza and Francis de Mendoza 583, in close connection with which there are various reference publications such as dictionaries or encyclopedias, such as “Polyanteya” or Calepin 584. According to Met. Demetrius, ignorance of Holy Scripture lies at the basis of the bad life of the people. In “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith,” he wrote: “Countless evils are born from ignorance of the Scriptures. From here comes the great harm of heresy, from there an unprofitable life, spiritual blindness, the deception of the devil" 585. However, an attempt to reason about Scripture without the appropriate knowledge leads to trouble: the root of the schism is that: “the ignorant have dared to test and teach about the faith” 586. They are contrasted with “theologians and correct teachers, who from their youth have exhausted their lives in teachings, to whom the Mysteries of the Divine Scripture are revealed, to whom a perfect mind has risen” 587 . And this is where the need to master “external sciences” arises. Even Blessed Augustine in “Christian Science” wrote that for an interpreter of Scripture it is necessary not only knowledge of languages, allowing one to compare different translations of the Bible, but also comprehension of secular sciences in the scope of the “seven liberal arts” and even wider, and wrote: “scientists should not forget that our Holy Writers used all kinds of expressions, known to grammarians under the Greek name of tropes, and, moreover, much more diverse and in greater abundance than they could think or believe those who do not know our Holy Writers and learned these paths only from secular teachers. Those familiar with the paths easily find them in Holy Scripture, and often use them to understand it” 588. The detailed works of Jesuit authors located in the library of Dimitri Savich were commentaries on the texts of the Holy Scriptures, compiled using the latest achievements of theological science of the Catholic Church of the late 16th–17th centuries. Post-Tridentine theological thought made significant use of the legacy of the Renaissance: numerous quotations from the works of the ancient Holy Fathers, retrieved from centuries-old oblivion by humanists, and philology, which made it possible to compare texts in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and, finally, history, came to the aid of the exegete. All this turned the books of Jesuit exegetes into real biblical encyclopedias, filled with all kinds of information necessary to understand the meaning of this or that passage of Holy Scripture. Numerous notes that litter the volumes of Latin commentators from the library of the Rostov Metropolitan make it clear that he invariably used them - and precisely as encyclopedias. Thus, the overwhelming majority of references to the works of Jesuit authors found in the books and sermons of Metropolitan. Demetrius, in fact, is a quotation from the holy fathers of the first millennium or references to historical facts that contribute to the correct understanding of certain passages of Scripture. Indeed, since the Orthodox and Catholic Churches equally venerate the holy fathers of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, classical patristic interpretations of the Bible were widely represented in the works of Jesuit exegetes. However, only a few could master the wisdom of the Latin “exegetical encyclopedias” - and thousands needed knowledge of the interpretation of Holy Scripture. First of all, the priests needed accessible interpretations. In “The Search for the schismatic Bryn Faith,” Dimitri Savich defines the qualities of a true teacher as follows: “Unfalse teaching is that which comes from the mouths of Teachers skilled in the Divine Scripture, and filled with teacher prudence, who teach the Holy Scriptures with power, and are able to interpret the right. It is fitting for a teacher not only to be sanctified by the Church by the Holy Spirit to the rank of teacher, but also to be wise, having contented understanding, according to the word of God Himself in prophecy: The mouth of the priests preserves understanding, and I will exact the law from his mouth (Mal. 2:7)” 589. The school that was opened by Metropolitan was supposed to educate such true teachers for the Rostov diocese. Demetrius of Rostov in September 1702 and apparently existed until September 1709, when the bishop’s illness, coupled with the final depletion of financial resources, made continuation of his studies impossible 590 . Thanks to the efforts and inexhaustible energy of Dimitri Savich, not just a grammar school was created in Rostov, but an “advanced school”, which provided the best students with full preparation for entering higher educational institutions, such as the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy in Moscow or the Mohyla Academy in Kyiv. The program included the study of Latin, Church Slavonic, Greek, as well as the principles of theology, rhetoric, versification and, probably, church singing. It is possible that, as a kind of “short course in general erudition,” the beginnings of arithmetic, history and geography, as well as etymology and syntax, were also taught, although there is no exact information on this matter. The program of the school was fully consistent with the goals that Bishop Demetrius himself formulated quite succinctly in his message to the clergy: “if only they understood the power of the Divine Scripture, let the priests send their children to grammar schools in Rostov, where, by order of the great sovereign, they teach without money, on purpose, so that the priestly children are not stupid, and when instead their fathers are worthy priestly rank, they would be able to teach the people in the church not just by reading books, but also by memorizing the words of God through legends 591.” Therefore, at the Rostov school, designed to prepare future shepherds, the Latin language was taught, which was the key to Latin-language exegetical literature, and “in his free time from his usual studies, the saint gathered capable students and interpreted to them some books from the Old Testament; in the summer, while living in the bishop’s village of Demyanakh, he explained the New Testament to his disciples” 592. It was obviously written for the students. “The Cell Chronicle” is a work that combined a presentation of the events of Sacred History with didactic interpretations 593. The subject of another concern of Metropolitan. Demetrius were “Bryanians” - Old Believers. “The Search for the Schismatic Bryn Faith” contains a number of biblical interpretations devoted to current issues, such as the need to shave beards. And from the bishop’s correspondence we learn about his plans to compose an interpretation of the Psalter and the Apocalypse, since both biblical books “are not interpreted by the Brin theologians in the same way” 594. When writing all of the above works, the Rostov bishop actively used Catholic exegetical works, as evidenced by the countless references in the margins of these books 595. However, no books could satiate that “thirst for the word of God” among the people, about which Metropolitan endlessly lamented. Demetrius: “We know that all the ignorant do not imagine that there will be a great plague from God, who is angry with us for our sins, which is sent by the famine of hearing the word of God: they do not imagine there will be a greater plague, a famine of bread, than the famine of hearing the word of God. But, oh foolishness! Is there anything more to say? Is it the body or the soul? And what kind of food is the most honest and healthy? Is it perishable or imperishable? Is it carnal or spiritual? And what is the greatest vanity, poverty of bread or poverty of God’s word? Evil is the famine of bread, but, but the most evil thing is the famine of God’s word... That spiritual hunger, the hunger of hearing the word of God, is greatly overcome in our Diocese...” 596. It was possible to satisfy this “hunger” only with the help of oral preaching, accessible to the majority of Orthodox Christians. And here again “external knowledge” came to the aid of Dimitri Savich - this time in the form of Baroque art. The Baroque sermon itself, in the form in which it existed by the end of the 17th century, was not at all the fruit of intellectual exercises far from life - although these are precisely the associations that evoke the terms “false classicism” and “scholasticism”, which were so kind to researchers of the 19th century. It is enough to mention the fact that the main propagandists of the Baroque sermon in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were members of the Society of Jesus, who, with its help, managed to turn Poland and Lithuania away from the seemingly inevitable conversion to Protestantism. So, what was the art of Baroque preaching at the end of the 17th century? Perhaps the key to understanding this may be the thought of the Polish scientist Jan Białostocki, that the Baroque era became a time “when the human soul is studied with scientific precision and various means are developed that can cause its reactions” 597. Rhetoric with its pathos of persuasion permeated all Baroque art, and therefore Baroque artists invariably set themselves the task of educating the viewer and instilling in him certain ideas. All the diversity of artistic means was ultimately directed towards this goal. In the sermon, as an initially didactic genre, this rhetorical accent of baroque art was sharpened to the limit. To the greatest extent, the potential of Baroque preaching in Eastern Europe was destined to be revealed by the Jesuit Thomas Mlozyanowski, who was one of the most outstanding personalities of the Polish Catholic Church of the second half of the 17th century. A learned theologian and missionary who visited Persia, Syria and Palestine, a strict ascetic, this man gained fame as the most popular preacher of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of his time and the founder of a special style of preaching, which was, perhaps, the culmination of the Christian intentions of the Eastern European Baroque. The imitation of Thomas Mlodzyanovsky, after the publication of his works in 1681, became universal and affected, among other things, Western Russian Orthodox preachers. Metropolitan Dimitry Rostovsky became acquainted with his works after 1686, when the first collection of works of Thomas Mlodzyanovsky was brought to Kyiv by the rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium Joasaph Krokovsky. Later, Dimitri Savich acquired four volumes of sermons for his personal library. And if among the classical fathers the greatest influence on the sermons of the Rostov Bishop was St. John Chrysostom, and from the Eastern ascetic fathers - St. John Climacus 598, then it was the famous Polish preacher who became an example to follow in the field of “latest achievements” of homiletics. Metropolitan Dimitri carefully studied the volumes of Thomas Mlodzyanovsky's sermons that belonged to him: their margins were covered with numerous notes, in which he highlighted successful passages or wrote out a quotation. In the early sermons of Dimitri Savich there are direct textual matches with the texts of Mlodzyanovsky 599, and in the later sermons the apt remarks of the Polish homilet more than once suggested successful images to the Rostov saint. Thus, Mlodzyanowski’s thought: “Whoever begins to work God will become a cherub, like cattle and like beasts” 600 will be reflected in the sermon on the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem in 1702, in which a vivid picture, beginning with the comparison of a stubborn donkey with a sinner and continuing with the sight of the Lord sitting on the luminous Cherubim, will end exclamation: “and that is now the triumph of Christ, donkeys into Cherubim, transforming sinners into Cherubim-like saints” 601. Meanwhile, Met. Demetrius of Rostov can least of all be classified as one of the blind imitators of the great Polish homilet, who multiplied in that era. Thomas Mlodzyanovsky brilliantly mastered the art of using Baroque artistic means for the needs of preaching - and the Rostov Bishop was able to adopt this art from him, creatively developing his oratorical techniques and filling them with the Orthodox tradition. How could Baroque art help in the work of Christian evangelism? One of the most striking features of Baroque preaching - as well as Baroque art in general - was the concept, a special kind of metaphor, consisting of a combination of concepts that at first glance are incompatible. It was in concepts that the Baroque creator demonstrated a special quality of his mind - wit, which, according to Abbot Gracian's definition: “consists in an elegant combination, in a harmonious juxtaposition of two or three distant concepts connected by a single act of reason” 602. However, it is curious that the authors of the 17th century who dealt with the theory of art emphasized, first of all, the importance of the concept as a means of influencing the feelings of listeners, as a way to capture their imagination and surprise. Many educated contemporaries, like Metropolitan. Feofan Prokopovich, for this reason, they considered the use of concepts in sermons to be in bad taste and an attempt to gain cheap popularity among the crowd. However, recent research in the psychology of memory shows that the human mind is designed in such a way that a narrative is remembered much more easily if it contains counterintuitive ideas: for example, a text with the phrase “long-necked table” is remembered much more firmly than with the phrase “wooden table.” In this case, counterintuitive ideas are not only remembered by themselves, but also help to recall the associated narrative 603. It is easy to see that baroque concepts in sermons are just an ideal example of such counterintuitive ideas, and their role, accordingly, is not limited to attracting the attention of listeners, but also facilitates the assimilation of the content of the sermon. In sermons, concepts usually, in one way or another, played out the emblematic interpretation of natural objects or incidents from history. After all, all the elements of the surrounding world for the authors of the Baroque era had a hidden secret meaning placed in them by the Lord; this meaning, allegorical and didactic, could be revealed with the help of interpretation 604. Thus, one famous Polish preacher of the 17th century. built his sermon on St. Stephen by comparing the holy archdeacon with a rooster, skillfully demonstrating to the listener how the virtues of the saint were allegorically manifested in this bird 605. In such an interpretation, the principle of wit, already mentioned above, found its expression especially clearly. It was believed that any object introduced into the artistic space acquires meaning only after the artist explains and interprets how it should be understood correctly. At the same time, the interpretation of objects could be whatever the author wishes - the main thing is that they are edifying. Such an emphasis on polysemy opened up almost limitless possibilities of interpretation for the Baroque preacher, allowing him to decorate his speech not only with images of animals and plants, but also with characters from ancient mythology and other topoi from the general humanitarian heritage - interpreting these “adjectives” ad majores Dei gloria 606. Metropolitan Demetrius widely used this technique in his sermons. For example, if you turn to a sermon delivered with the words: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27), then you can be convinced that it is built on the principle of illustrating the preacher’s theses with topoi - quotations from Holy Scripture, the works of St. fathers and secular literature. However, in this case, this is not blind adherence to the scheme, but a subtle artistic technique. The main idea of ​​this sermon by Bishop Demetrius is that love for enemies is a miracle. An angry person is compared to a stormy sea, a raging fire, an angry beast - accordingly, the one who pacifies all these misfortunes with love works miracles. All sorts of outlandish “addictions” that accompany the homilet’s reasoning about each such “miracle of love” help create an effect of extraordinaryness in the listener. Let us limit ourselves to just one example: “In the harp, string under string, positioned mutually and in harmony, all together produce sweet sounds. In the same way, people, being one under the other and agreeing with one another, show a beautiful and pleasing life to the Lord God, and to demons they show terrible music like the music of the harp, with which God rejoices, but the demon, driven away, runs far away. Since he who loves his enemy submits to him with kindness and humble meekness and, being in agreement with him, like a string tuning to another string, emits the sweet music of humble words, considering himself the same sinner as his friend and foe consider himself, he with the same humility destroys the enemy’s anger, saying: “I am guilty,” and thus drives away angry rage from him; and this means that he who loves his enemy is a miracle worker who casts out a hostile demon from a person” 607. There are also more intricate concepts in which information from secular erudition and knowledge from the field of humanities and natural sciences could be used. Such allegories of sermons were not at all incomprehensible to the common people: the concepts of the sermons of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, especially in his later years, is no more difficult to understand than the symbolism of folklore, an allegory popular in Russia since the 17th century. translated literature of the medieval West like the “Great Mirror” and Gesta Romanorum or, finally, than the metaphors of St. John Chrysostom 608. What might have caused confusion was rather the figurative system that the Baroque preacher used, namely, the language of ancient mythology. In European culture as a whole, mythological images never completely disappeared from creation, and in Western Europe, since the Renaissance, mythological images contributed to the emergence of a universal sign system. In Baroque aesthetics, the combination, juxtaposition, fusion of ancient and Christian motifs and images becomes common; although, of course, the first ones were always of an aesthetic nature, without any religious content 609. This view was fully adopted by Mogila intellectuals: a typical example is the title of the poetic work of Archbishop. Lazar Baranovich “Appolonov's Lute” 610. At the same time, Little Russian spiritual writers, accepting the conditions of literary etiquette, were not at all distinguished by frivolity: thus, Bishop Lazar Baranovich, denouncing prodigal passion, wrote “On Venus with a sharp horn,” and his student Simeon of Polotsk in the same spirit condemned Cupid, who is “an obscene prodigal son of Venus,” with “evil arrows of love” 611. However, having moved to Moscow, Simeon Venus and Cupids stopped remembering in verses. And not without reason. In the Russian tradition, Greco-Roman deities were closely associated with “Hellenism,” a pagan cult, and were perceived not as images, but as real characters - demons or deified people 612. Although the reception of ancient culture after the second half of the 15th century. was carried out quite consistently, but until the 17th century. this assimilation concerned history and philosophy and did not affect the church sphere: in the church ancient images appeared mainly only as “Diy” and “Hermias” - the wicked gods of the patristic accusatory teachings 613. The pioneers in introducing the Great Russians to the “thesaurus of ancient culture” 614 were the rhetorically educated intellectuals of the second half of the 17th century, who included mythological characters in their works. However, even later, even during the time of Peter I, a collision with “Hellenic gods” could cause a cultural shock: let us remember the well-known story of St. Mitrofan of Voronezh 615. Taking all this into account, it is not surprising that in the Notata per Alphabetum Met. Demetrius of Rostov we find an entry entitled: “Against those who do not praise the current executioners for remembering the filthy philosophers in their Kazan”, in which such an opinion is refuted by references to the examples of St. John Chrysostom, who quoted pagan philosophers in his sermons, as well as the apostle himself. Paul 616. Where Dimitry Savich’s opponents who objected to his “pretexts” lived, in Moscow or Rostov, one can only guess. However, let us appreciate their rigorism: the Rostov Bishop never allowed himself to play mythological images on the “Apollo’s Lute” in his sermons; questions were raised only by quoting “filthy philosophers” from the pulpit. And this was in the 1700s, when Peter’s cultural transformations had already begun! However, friend Metropolitan. Demetrius, Hieromonk Theologist, even in 1726, being a reference officer for the Moscow Printing House, refused to edit the text Appoliodorus's "Library" (perceived as a revision of the traditional religious idea of ​​​​the ancient gods), for which he was subjected to severe punishment 617. Wasn't Theolog himself that mysterious opponent? Hardly. After all, Dimitry Savich’s own attitude to ancient imagery was by no means unambiguous. Apparently, he knew how to easily adapt between both traditions - which allowed him, on the one hand, to create poems according to the rules of the literary game, with the mention of the “spirit of the gods” 618, on the other hand, to discard all conventions in a serious conversation. Under the conditions of Peter the Great’s “cultural revolution,” which firmly linked the activities of the tsar-transformer with ancient symbolism, this gave the ironic Dimitri Savich special artistic opportunities. Thus, in a striking sermon on the 14th week after Pentecost, delivered in 1708, the theme was the comparable feast of Christ and Herod’s feast (and the reason for the delivery was the abolition of fasting in the troops). At Herod’s feast, as guests, “I only see three faces, and their names in Greek are Aphrodite, Dionysus and Ares: in Roman Venus, Bacchus and Mars, and in Slavic, adultery, drunkenness and inhumanity or murder” 619. Further on in the course of the sermon, these images are revealed in detail. Actually, here we see a brilliant combination, on the one hand, of allegories of vice in the spirit of Baroque poetics, and on the other, representations of ancient deities as demons in the spirit of one of the ancient Christian traditions. In addition, all this is combined with a hint of the symbolism (and morals - described in the sermon with sufficient naturalism) of Peter's court. Even a double translation of the names of deities helps this perception, because in the Russian tradition, “Hellenic” demon deities were known only by Greek names, and in Petrine usage they began to be called in Latin, also to avoid associations with church texts 620. The sermons of Thomas Mlodzianowski stood out from the background of his contemporaries in that the venerable Jesuit, according to his own statement, wanted to fulfill in his sermons the duties of a professor of “positive theology” (i.e., the interpretation of Holy Scripture): “in my sermons I usually use this theology, caring more about interpreting Holy Scripture than about just citing it as proof of my own thoughts” 621, − he wrote in the preface to one of his sermons. In fact, this attitude meant that Thomas Mlodzianowski sought to apply the technique of polysemantic interpretation not to objects of the surrounding world or individual words, as his contemporaries did, but directly to the biblical text. The “Professor of Positive Theology” delighted his listeners with unexpected paradoxical interpretations and comparisons, demonstrating an originality and resourcefulness that was not inferior to that of his predecessors, telling about the animal and plant world. Moreover, Mlodzyanovsky’s interpretation is extremely “baroque”: “The interpreter does not recognize any rules of biblical hermeneutics, ... the meaning of Holy Scripture bends in any direction he pleases” 622. If for Mlodzianowski’s predecessors the concepts used in sermons were predominantly interpretations of allegories (like the already mentioned St. Stephen and the rooster), then for Mlodzianowski the concepts are witty interpretations of Scripture, especially those that would be somehow connected with the topical realities of Polish life, for example: the demon in the Gadarene demon called himself a legion, since the unclean spirit was similar to those who first want to go to war, and then they lose the desire to do so 623. This concealed the danger of the endless generation of meanings, arbitrary fantasizing over any biblical statement - this is precisely why Feofan Prokopovich tirelessly castigated the “frivolous Polish executors” throughout almost his entire life 624 . However, skillfully applied, such a technique made it possible to apply the words of the Bible to everyday life and make it understandable to a simple parishioner. Metropolitan Demetrius often used such a “baroque” interpretation in his sermons. Let's give some striking examples. The teaching for the 21st week on the Holy Spirit is structured as an interpretation of the parable of the sower (Luke 8:5–8). The Rostov ruler, starting from the traditional interpretation - the seed is the word of God, and the earth is the human heart, looks for a new meaning: the tares sown by the enemy are the teachings of the schismatics of the Brynyans. The bird that pecks from the souls of people the seeds of the word of God, sowed by Orthodox teachers, is the devil, “a bird of heaven, but has already been cast into hell,” and then rose from the Underworld and made a nest for itself in the Bryn forests, a refuge for the Old Believers. “The good seed of the word of God, which teaches not to depart from the Holy Church, clinging to it as a child of the mother who gave birth to us through Holy Baptism, but the birds of demons, schismatics, having flown away from their nest in Bryn, have attacked that seed, teaching many to run away from the Holy Church, and to abhor the Holy Things of God, lying and deceiving simple men and women, and saying: “Nowadays the church is not a church and the priests are not priests.”625 In another sermon, delivered on the day of memory of Saint Eustathius Placidas, on the words: “In your patience gain your souls” (Luke 21:19), St. Demetrius concludes the conversation about patience, built on examples from Holy Scripture, with a magnificent story based on the parable “like the kingdom of heaven is to the treasure hidden in the countryside” (Matthew 13:47), describing how the Kingdom The heavenly wanders throughout Russia, not finding a place for itself anywhere: neither in the palaces of noble people, nor in shopping arcades, nor in orders, nor on city streets, but only in the village among the peasants. After this story, Met. Demetrius points out that the true meaning of the parable is not literal, and offers two others: the first - the village is the world, as Jesus Christ himself says, according to the Gospel, the second - the village is a person. Without a doubt, such vivid interpretations of Scripture “with application to life” made the bishop’s sermons much clearer and more memorable for listeners: it is no coincidence that the number of such interpretations grew during the Rostov period of Metropolitan’s life. Dimitri. At the same time, the attention of the flock was attracted not due to the fact that “curious fragments” were inserted into the sermon (remember how Archimandrite Ioannikiy Galatovsky recommended that the preacher insert “butts” from the natural world into his sermons for the sake of entertaining the listener 626), but due to the fact that the biblical material itself was presented in a lively and unusual way. A special style of preaching also served for the success of perception. At one time, Foma Mlodzianowski became famous for the fact that his sermons were similar to a casual conversation. They lacked a clear structure, and the impression was created that this was an improvisation, the preacher uninhibitedly sharing with the listeners the thoughts that came to his mind. Often he suddenly asked unexpected questions and answered them himself, or gave the right to vote to the saints or the Lord Himself - speaking for them in paraphrases from the Holy Scriptures, patristic writings or lives, of course. From time to time the impression was created that the sermon was not a monologue or even a dialogue with the flock, but a polyphonic conversation. The preacher either acted out small interludes in which the characters of the sacred story communicated, or began to talk and even enter into an argument with the heroes of his story: saints, angels and God himself. Such a rapprochement between preaching and theater was, in general, a logical follow-up to the stylistics of the Baroque era. Theater claimed to be the dominant art, and elements of theatricality permeated everything from fine art and poetry to public life, finding their logical conclusion in philosophical discussions about the “world-theater” 627. Aesthetes were repelled by the artistry of the preachers, but they were forced to admit that such a style of preaching ensured its constant success among the flock 628. The Rostov Bishop masterfully adopted the “conversational” style of Mlodzyanovsky’s sermon, from time to time asking questions that aroused curiosity in the listeners and looking for some perplexities in the words and actions of the characters in Sacred History - naturally, subject to clarification during the sermon 629. These techniques naturally helped to gain the attention of the listeners and made it necessary to understand what was being said in the sermon. “Dialogue” with the saints became one of the main creative techniques of the saint - it can be found in one form or another in almost every sermon, and in some “teachings” it becomes the main structural element. For example, in the second week's homily according to the Holy Spirit, the sermon is structured as the preacher asking questions to various saints. Moreover, when it comes to repentance, the dialogue becomes very lively: Met. Demetrius turns to the saints with reproaches, proposing to act from the position of “common sense.” Thus, he reasons: “Remember here the sinful wife in the Gospel, who stood behind His foot and began to wash His nose with tears. Holy Supreme Apostle Peter, warm zealot for Christ! Cast away the prodigal woman from the feet of Christ, and from the place on which you, followers of Christ, stand. Away from the sinful stench, from the purity of the Source! Saint Peter does not scold her for standing in the Apostolic place and touching Christ” 630. Theatrical performances by Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov's "Rostov Action" and "Assumption Drama" were the ultimate development of this typically baroque representation of sacred subjects 631. A kind of authorial feature of Mlodzianowski was his relaxed style of narration. Jokes and humor in sermons after the arrival of the Jesuits in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became commonplace; moreover, for many parishioners such an uninhibited manner became the main advantage of preaching. However, Foma Mlodzyanovsky was, it seems, the first who began to speak from the pulpit about lofty subjects in simple colloquial language, richly equipped with jokes and jokes. This was intended to make things easier to understand; it was no coincidence that the executioner himself compared a good sermon to bittersweet mustard 632. However, the reduced vocabulary also pursued another goal: by creating the effect of “naturalism,” it made it possible to bring the figures of the Old and New Testaments closer to the true life of the flock. This combination of allegories and realistic details fit well into the desire for a combination of opposites characteristic of Baroque poetics, therefore Baroque authors widely used “everyday realism” in their creations: “A sublime event came closer to everyday reality, which did not lose its innermost meaning, but became more accessible” 633. Metropolitan Dimitri of Rostov, who, as can be seen from his correspondence, had a naturally cheerful character, invariably dissolved his sermons with some slight irony. And if Mlodzyanovsky joked constantly and often lost his sense of proportion in his witticisms, which, apparently, he himself regretted 634, then the sermons of Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky is always harmonious; to put it figuratively, he has a smile, sometimes sad, but there is no laughter, and even more so there is no cackle of the Polish epigones of Mlodzianowski. And the smile of the Rostov saint most often means mockery towards the world. So, in the word on the week of the Exaltation of the Cross of the Lord, Met. Demetrius, asking what is better, the world or the soul, notes that answering this question is as difficult as weighing the flame of fire, remembering how the Archangel Uriel puzzled Ezra with this and the prophet refused the impossible. And then he comments: “Ezra didn’t know today’s mathematics, but if he had said otherwise: first hang all the wood, as much as you weigh, and light it; then the ashes and the rest hung down, and as much as the weight was lost before the fire was lit, so much went into the flame. We will not heed mathematical curiosity, otherwise we will weigh our soul like a fiery flame, and this world like coal and ashes” 635. But in the simplicity of the presentation, Met. Demetrius fully follows the manner of the Jesuit homiletic - and in the sermons of the Rostov ruler we find the apostles being called “nobles of God”, Semey – “a simple peasant in Jerusalem”, and the Zebulon and Naphtali “districts” are told 636. They also contain other “modernizations” of biblical realities. Here it is worth mentioning another parallelism between two preachers, Catholic and Orthodox. Thomas Mlodzianowski divided his testimony into two parts: the first is devoted entirely to the interpretation of the topic of the sermon and is built according to all the rules of Baroque homiletics, but the second is different from it - in it the preacher, as if throwing away all his learning, expresses himself simply and clearly, abandoning all playfulness and play with the listeners, speaking in a serious and even melancholic tone. This part, according to the Jesuit himself, “ordinary people,” was considered addressed to themselves, and the first – to the lords. This division was unique: “The second part of Mlodzyanowski is the creation of Mlodzyanowski himself, his personal genius, his subjective views and aspirations” 637. At Metropolitan In Demetrius of Rostov’s sermons, we also sometimes encounter the second part, addressed to the “bookless people”: “But not yet an amen, something else for the simplest river’s benefit: for the hedgehog verbs, bookish verbs, I don’t want to let the bookless people go without using them” 638. In the Rostov ruler, the second part is also distinguished by the simplicity of the style and the presentation of certain thoughts that are different from the baroque narrative of the first part 639. Thus, in the sermon for the Annunciation and Easter Monday, in the first part of the sermon, Dimitri Savich spoke about what happened on the days of the Annunciation and Easter from the standpoint of Sacred history and high theology, and in the second, he explained to the listeners that both holidays teach every Christian to rise from sinful death into a virtuous life and unite with the Lord in a strong and inseparable union, “as God the Word united with flesh human nature in the womb of the Most Pure Virgin" 640. Another facet of Baroque art was also revealed in a peculiar way in the works of Dimitri Savich, namely: the desire for realistic depiction of horrors and suffering. Early modern man loved to be afraid and longed to do so: public executions turned into spectacles, and theatrical scenes and paintings, usually full of allegories, presented scenes of bloody massacres quite naturalistically and in all details. The theater especially stood out here, where numerous dramatizations of lives or historical conflicts rarely did without images of terrible atrocities. However, those with a refined taste protested against savoring cruelty. Many playwrights did the same as Metropolitan. Demetrius in his “Christmas Drama”, where the murder of the Bethlehem infants occurs offstage, “inaudibly”, depicted through a magic lantern behind a transparent curtain 641. In the sermons, all the above-described baroque naturalism of cruelty made it possible to give an adequate description of the torments of hell: and truly, there were no such naturalistic (and so close to the listener!) descriptions of the torment in Gehenna in the history of homiletics as those depicted by the baroque preachers. Here are descriptions of Mlodzyanovsky and descriptions of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov are not inferior to each other in brightness and detail: here the outcasts turn into stinking firebrands even before being thrown into eternal fire, here are toads and worms into which objects of earthly carnality are transformed, here the soul and body of a sinner abhor each other, here there is stench and brimstone, cramped conditions and darkness 642. However, it should be noted that descriptions of hellish suffering in the Rostov Bishop can be found only occasionally, in those cases when the narration of the sermon requires it. Similar “realism of the supernatural” Met. Dimitri, however, is not at all limited to creepy pictures of the underworld. The desire for imagery and visualization is characteristic of the Baroque. The very idea of ​​Theatrum Mundi also implied the desire to reflect on the stage the entire universe from small details to cosmic spheres 643 - and the stage in Baroque art was, in a way, as already mentioned, both the picture and the pulpit. Dimitri Savich took full advantage of these Baroque possibilities, which allowed him to speak about spiritual realities in the language of images. V.P. Zubov, examining the peculiarities of Bishop Demetrius’ preaching, comes to the following conclusion: “At St. Demetrius's visual image is a reference point, the grain of a sermon. From it a sermon-vision develops, and transitions from one part to another are figurative transitions, tangible to the eye” 644. At the same time, the Baroque interpretation of the allegory serves not as a “butt” or “example” illustrating the thesis, but as a reason for contemplation: “In the process of its interpretation, more and more new meanings are born, the symbol gives sprouts and branches... everything develops from one concrete, sensory-spiritual “vision”” 645. If we turn again to the “Spiritual Alphabet”, we will remember Metr. Isaiah Kopinsky says that the one who wants to know God “let him first know all creation, visible and intelligible, so that he may know all things, and all creation, to consider who and why this is, so that not a single thing is hidden and bewildered from Him; the same to yourself, and all the sacrament about yourself, the same to God, and all His ineffable good deeds, and thus you come to a complete knowledge of everything” 646. These words are a retelling of the words of St. Isaac the Syrian about the contemplation that an ascetic goes through when reaching a higher, spiritual state of mind 647. In the sermons of Met. Demetrius we see a reflection of a similar experience. “First of all, to know all creation, visible and intelligible.” In the sermons, pictures of the universe here and the coming Gehenna with dark fire, filled with sinners like a wallet with money 648, and the beautiful ladder of angelic ranks 649, and the amazing eternal palace, where the twenty-four elders before the Lamb are like senators, and the angelic choir is controlled by the Archangel Gabriel, beating the beat, are revealed in vivid images before the eyes of the listeners. unfading lily 650. The earthly world appears not only in the faces of people, but also of animals: bears and pigs, pigeons and serpents. According to the literary canons of the Baroque, zoological allegories were considered the most suitable for preaching, but the Rostov ruler went beyond traditional emblematic interpretations, imitating, rather, the metaphorical language of the Eastern ascetic fathers. As V.P. noted Zubov: “Animals at St. Dimitria is not an animal. These are world categories of grace-filled and graceless existence, corresponding to different degrees of spiritual decline or blessings, categories that are more visually tangible, visible to the eye” 651. This, however, did not prevent the Rostov Metropolitan from turning to classical baroque allegories, for example, likening an angry man to a tiger, enraged by the sound of bells, and an elephant tamed by the melody of a flute 652. “Let him know... also for himself, and everything about himself, the mystery.” Foma Mlodzyanovsky sought to teach his compatriots morality, exposing the vices of the inhabitants of the stormy and dissolute gentry Republic. The Polish Jesuit directly wrote that in his sermons he aims to “adapt Scripture to morals” 653. His Great Russian and Little Russian contemporaries also leaned towards moral themes in their sermons - at least, this is the conclusion that P. Bushkovich comes to 654. However, Met. Dimitri was never a moralist. The main subject of his preaching is not the behavior or morals of people, but the human soul. The theme of the “inner man” is cross-cutting throughout the entire work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, who followed the Eastern Christian tradition in this. Thus, Dimitri Savich prefers to interpret the “Song of Songs” not as a dialogue between Christ and the Church, but as a conversation between the Lord and the human soul 655. Similarly, in his sermon on the parable of the vinedresser (Matthew 21:33), the Bishop of Rostov also prefers the interpretation of the vineyard as a human soul 656. There are many similar examples. Thus, we see that in his sermons Met. Dimitry Rostovsky widely uses the artistic means of Baroque art. To summarize, we can say that the purpose of using all these techniques has always been the same - to make sure that the flock understands, understands, what the essence of the Orthodox faith is. Stunning images and paradoxical concepts were designed to reach the minds of the listeners and make them think about the content of the sermons, which, as already said, was very deep. At the same time, it should be noted that if for Foma Mlodzianowski the baroque techniques remained, as it were, something external to the meaning of the sermon, it is no coincidence that in one of the sermons the Polish Jesuit declared: “Concepts away: in the current sermon the place will be taken by St. theology" 657, then Met. Demetrius managed to ensure that his concepts were already completely theological. 2.2. The role of Metropolitan's Latin education. Demetrius of Rostov in his polemics with the Old Believers: semiotic aspect The concept of “semiotic conflict” of Old Moscow and New European cultures as the cause of the Schism is a general semiotic theory of bliss. Augustine in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times - polemics with the Old Believers in “The Search” of Met. Demetrius in the context of the general semiotic theory of the blessed. Augustine Despite the fact that in Russia by the beginning of the 18th century. Education of the European type was already very widespread among the church elite; at that time there was also a fairly large group of people who, intellectually, sought to continue the bookish-teaching tradition of the early 17th century. These were the leaders of the Old Believers, who were experiencing at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. stage of his theological formation. In a situation of polemical confrontation between the Old Believers and representatives of the patriarchal church, a difference inevitably had to appear between the thinking brought up in the tradition of the second scholasticism and European rhetorical culture and the way of thinking that fundamentally rejected “external knowledge.” The peculiarity of the controversy was that its participants seemed to speak different languages, without hearing each other's evidence. However, the reasons for this phenomenon for a long time remained outside the field of view of researchers of the early Old Believers. Pre-revolutionary researchers sought to find out who was right, the Old Believers or the “New Believers,” and therefore they were interested, first of all, in the semantic content of the opponents’ argumentation. Only in Soviet times, when the condemnation or apology of the Old Believers became no longer relevant, did it become possible to study those features of thinking that underlay the polemics of the “schismatics” and “Nikonians”. In his works of the 1970s. S. Mathauzerova, analyzing the petitions of Nikita Dobrynin, the priest Lazarus and the “Rod of Government” by Simeon of Polotsk, came to the conclusion that the authors of the second half of the 17th century existed. two theories of text. The researcher characterized the position of the Old Believer leaders as a substantial concept of the text, its meaning lies in the fact that the word itself is equal to the designated substance, the object. S. Mathauzerova characterized the position of Simeon of Polotsk as rationalistic or relativistic 658. In it, according to the author, the text acts as an object that is critically perceived by the subject. The conclusions made by S. Matukhauzerova in her works were interpreted by A.M. Panchenko as one of the manifestations of the confrontation between medieval “culture-faith” and modern “culture-art” in Russia in the 17th century. 659 S. Mathauzerova’s observations were later developed by B.A. Uspensky and V.M. Zhivov. They came to the conclusion that the Schism was based on a purely semiotic conflict, although semiotic and philological disagreements were perceived by contemporaries as theological disagreements. This semiotic conflict manifested itself in different attitudes towards the sacred sign and, in particular, towards the liturgical language. According to researchers, the Old Believers understood the sacred sign non-conventionally, as a means of expressing Divine Truth, the form of expression of which cannot be opposed to its content. In this case, the problem of correct expression becomes of great importance. “New Believers,” on the contrary, understood the sign conventionally, as a kind of convention: “The same content, in principle, can be expressed in different ways - different methods of expression, generally speaking, are equal in relation to the transmitted content, but one method of expression can be considered more successful in one respect or another” 660. Different understandings of the sacred sign also led to different understandings of the sacred texts, which caused a “hermeneutic conflict.” For the “New Believers”, “the Gospel text in itself is not the truth (“verbs, exactly, and not the truth itself”); truth emerges only through the application of the correct hermeneutic procedure when the “true” content of that text is discovered. This is why the study of grammar, rhetoric, etc. is so important. The Old Believers approach this differently. For them, Holy Scripture, being a revealed text, is the truth in itself, which fundamentally does not depend on the receiving subject or methods of interpretation. The sacred form and sacred content by their very essence cannot be dismembered, since they are connected by an unconditional connection. From this point of view, truth is associated not with the correct interpretation, but with the correct reproduction of the text. Therefore, Nikon’s correction of books turns out to be their damage, and the hermeneutical justifications for these corrections turn out to be ungodly tricks of those who are indifferent to the truth” 661. The reason for the above-described contradictions, according to B.A. Uspensky lay in the collision of Western Baroque culture, the conductors of which were immigrants from Little Russia, and the culture of Moscow Rus' 662. He emphasizes the Old Believers’ fundamental rejection of grammar and rhetoric, as allowing for texts that are obviously false in content 663. V.M. Zhivov later developed this conclusion, concluding that the new perception of texts and signs, although appearing in Russia within the framework of Baroque culture, is not directly connected with Baroque, but is an element of the reception of rhetorical culture in general 664. Nevertheless, the general conclusion remained the same: the reason for the different attitude towards the sacred sign among the Old Believers and their opponents was not their theological differences, but their belonging to different cultures: Old Moscow and European. However, research by historians specifically devoted to the Old Believers of the 18th century demonstrates the complexity and inconsistency of the attitude of adherents of the “old faith” to the sign. The “clear and constructive doctrine” 665 of the Old Believers was built in the first quarter of the 18th century. Denisov brothers, one of whom, Andrey, already in adulthood studied at the Orthodox Kiev-Mohyla Academy to master rhetoric and grammar. In Vygu, thanks to the efforts of the Denisovs, future Old Believer leaders received a systematic education, which included the study of grammar and rhetoric from textbooks used in Orthodox theological schools. According to S.S. Zenkovsky: “The early Old Believers were too amorphous and did not have a positive program. It was doomed to degeneration. However, the genius of the active Denisov brothers, who adopted rhetoric and grammar (sic!), allowed the Old Belief to reorganize into an integral movement” 666. Knowing this, it will not be surprising that the Old Believers in the 18th century. not only confidently defend their right to rely on the books of Western Russian scribes of the Donikon edition (both Moscow and “Lithuanian” press), but also begin to actively use the texts of Kyiv authors of the second half of the 17th century. (those. era of the dawn of the Mogilyan tradition), such as Ioannikiy Galatovsky. Moreover, when writing their creations, Old Believer readers also draw on the works of Metropolitan. Stefan Yavorsky (“Stone of Faith”) and Feofan Prokopovich (“Rhetoric”) 667. All this indicates that the assumption of A.M. Panchenko on the conflict between “culture-faith” and “culture-art”, as well as the conclusions of V.M. Zhivova and B.A. Uspensky’s ideas about the “hermeneutical conflict” relate mainly to the end of the 17th – first decade of the 18th century, to the era of the early Old Believers, and even then, not to all Old Believer figures of this era 668. The further development of the “schismatics” from scattered dissident communities into a cohesive religious movement, the confessionalization of the Old Believers 669, took place in the conditions of a wide reception of rhetorical culture, which found vivid expression in the person of Andrei Denisov, the “baroque polyhistor” and, at the same time, the “Old Believer patriarch.” Meanwhile, despite such a deep assimilation of European rhetorical culture, the theological understanding of sacred signs by the Old Believers in the 18th century. remained generally the same as that of the “schismatic teachers” of the 17th century, who shunned grammar and rhetoric. All the main contradictions with the “Nikonians” have also been preserved. This allows us to conclude that the semiotic views of the Old Believers cannot be reduced to a single “doctrine” or “theory” common to the entire Old Believers and, even more so, to the entire Old Russian culture as a whole. In our opinion, the key importance for understanding the semiotic conflict of the 17th century. has an understanding of how semiotic consciousness was formed (that is, an understanding of what the roles and actions of signs are in the world) among intellectuals of the Mogilyan tradition on the one hand and Old Believer leaders on the other. The first teachings about the sign arose in Antiquity. The most influential among them was the concept of Aristotle, expressed, in particular, in his work “On interpretation” (“Hermeneutics”). The semiotic achievements of ancient philosophers were adopted by Christian theologians of the patristic era. Thus, in their polemics with Eunomius, one of the main representatives of the Anomean heresy, the Great Cappadocians relied on the theory of names set forth in Hermeneutics in order to clarify the Orthodox understanding of the names of God as phenomena that belong only to human consciousness, certain conventional signs expressing the properties of God in human language 670. However, if in the Eastern Christian tradition the problems of the sign and the signified were not specifically raised in the future, then in the West semiotics acquired special significance for theological thought. This happened thanks to the works of one of the greatest Western Fathers of the Church, Blessed. Augustine. The Bishop of Ipponia specifically dedicated his treatise “Christian Science” to the problems of semiotics and hermeneutics in their connection with theology, mainly with the comprehension of the meaning of the text of the Holy Scripture. Thus, he became the creator of the first general semiotic doctrine in the history of Western thought, which was extremely influential throughout the Middle Ages. The innovations and transformations of R. Bacon, D. Scott and W. Occam were of a private nature, therefore the general semiotic doctrine expressed in the treatises of Blessed. Augustine's Christian Science and the Trinity remained foundational in Western thought until the early modern period. Blazh. Augustine defined a sign as follows: “A sign is a thing that, in addition to the form imprinted in the senses, allows something else to be recognized from itself” 671. Moreover, every sign is something material, perceived by the senses. Signs are divided into natural and artificial, created by people, while any word, even the word of Scripture, is an artificial sign, created by people and for people 672. At the same time, in general, in theology, Blessed. Augustine traces the idea that a sign, including a sacred one, in general, cannot accurately convey the signified 673. Since authority is blessed. Augustine was extremely high in the Western Church, and the influence of his semiotic concept on the development of theological thought in the West was very significant. The next stage in the development of semiotic consciousness in the Latin world was the emergence of scholasticism. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, which played a huge role in the development of scholasticism, demonstrates how Augustinian semiotics was perceived in the field of theology. For example, when discussing the question: “Is religion an external act?” Thomas writes: “Nowadays the human mind, in order to be united with God, needs to be guided by the sensory world, since “the essence of it, which was invisible from the creation of the world, was thought by the created, visible” (Rom. 1:20). For this purpose, it is necessary to use material things in Divine services so that the human mind can be awakened through them, as signs, to spiritual actions through which it unites with God. Therefore, the internal actions of religion take precedence over others and belong directly to religion, while its external actions are secondary and subordinate to internal actions” 674. Just below, Thomas Aquinas, speaking about the fact that external sacrifices to God are signs of internal and spiritual affairs, directly refers to the blessed one. Augustine, quoting “On the City of God”: “The visible sacrifice is the sacrament or sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice” 675. In parallel with the general semiotic Augustinian theological tradition, there was also a narrow linguistic tradition of studying Aristotle’s treatise “On Interpretation,” dating back to Boethius. B In the early modern period, these traditions were combined in the works of the second scholastics, who came close to the creation of semiotics as a separate philosophical discipline 676. The most famous work of this era was the “Coimbra Course in Logic” of 1604, one of the most popular textbooks on philosophy in the 17th century. The section on signs in the Coimbra Course was made in the form of comments on Aristotle's Hermeneutics, but in fact it was an independent work 677. Ultimately, it was the works of representatives of the second scholasticism, such as the “Coimbra Course in Logic”, that were used as the basis for philosophy courses taught at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium in the 17th century. 678 Using them, college graduates independently mastered theology. Thus, representatives of the Mogilyan tradition inevitably assimilated the basic provisions of the general semiotic teaching of the blessed. Augustine, as well as the results of its application to theological problems, carried out in scholasticism. In addition, the Mogilans could become acquainted with the teachings of the Fathers of the East and West not only through the “Latin” school and Jesuit science, but also through reading the works of the Church Fathers in Latin editions, which were available by the end of the 17th century. quite affordable. The paradox of the Mogilyan tradition, based on the second scholasticism, was that in what is in it: “as a novelty [for the Great Russian audience - A.K. ] quite traditional hermeneutical schemes known from patristic literature are analyzed” 679. The formation of the semiotic ideas of the early Old Believers took place differently. The issue of the relationship of the sign was not the subject of special consideration by Eastern Christian theologians and was touched upon by them only in the context of the theology of the name of God and the theology of the icon. The Eastern Fathers of the Church, based on ancient semiotic teachings, stated that Divine names are creations of the human mind, which cannot fully convey the heavenly realities they designate, and have no connection with the essence of the Deity they designate; the same, adjusted for their figurative language, applied to icons 680. If in the Eastern Christian, and especially in the Latin tradition, the formation of semiotic consciousness was carried out for centuries and included an extensive theoretical stage of philosophical and theological treatises in which the problems of sign and signified were comprehended, then in the culture of Slavia Orthodoxa such a segment was simply absent until the end of the 17th century. It is no coincidence that in the above-mentioned article by B.A. Uspensky “The Schism and Cultural Conflict of the 17th Century,” the overwhelming evidence in favor of the “unconventional” theory of the sign, refers to the work of Old Believer leaders of the second half of the 17th century. The instability and inconsistency of the semiotic consciousness of the adherents of the “old faith” was manifested in the further development of Old Believer culture: the predominance of an unconventional attitude to the sign in the work of the ideologists of the early Old Believers was replaced in the beginning. XVII century a bizarre combination of baroque “orbits” of the Denisov brothers’ sermons and allegorical exegesis, which formed the basis of priestless eschatology 683 with meticulous unconventionalism in sacred texts and rituals. All of the above explains why the “semiotic conflict” primarily arose between representatives of the Mogilyan theological tradition or people who were under its influence, and bearers of “teacher” theological education. The former had a clear semiotic consciousness, while the latter had it rather vague. Therefore, it is no coincidence that explanations according to the rules of allegorical interpretation of the expressions of sacred texts will become a common place in the polemics with the Old Believers of Kiev Simeon of Polotsy and Stefan of Yavorsky, and the Greek Dionysius Ivirit, in full consonance with them, will explain that the images on icons are only “signs”, depending on the will of the icon painter, but in no way an accurate reflection of heavenly reality 684. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov was one of the brightest representatives of the Kyiv theological school at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries. In his library, along with the works of the Eastern and Western Church Fathers, we can also find many works by representatives of the second scholasticism, of which the most representative is the work of the Jesuit theologian from Belgium Martin Bekan (van der Beek) “Theologiarum Scholasticarum” 685, which were abbreviated comments by F. Suarez to the “Summa” of Thomas Aquinas. The book is replete with marginalia and underlining, which indicates that Met. Dimitri worked with her carefully. Thus, we can say with confidence that the Rostov Metropolitan was generally familiar with the semiotic concept of blessedness. Augustine, organically inherent in the authors who made up the Bishop’s reading circle. Therefore, it is of particular interest to us that the Rostov Bishop begins his main polemical anti-Old Believer work, “The Search for the schismatic Bryn Faith,” precisely with the problem of the relationship between the sign and the signified. This question is revealed by Bishop Demetrius through an understanding of what faith is in general. The first section of “The Search” is called: “Are there any of them [Old Believers – A.K. ] faith right faith?” First, Dimitri Savich gives the traditional Christian definition of faith as conviction in the invisible: “Faith is that which your fleshly eyes do not see, nor your hands touch, but your heart, your mind undoubtedly affirms in itself, as it is, and not otherwise, that is, Faith” 686. The objects of faith are the realities of the spiritual world (for example, the existence of God and angels) and revealed truths - dogmas (for example, about the Trinity, about two natures in Christ), since a person cannot perceive them sensually. Faith, according to the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Romans by St. Paul, will disappear in the Kingdom of Heaven, since there the saved will be able to directly experience the fullness of the universe. Accordingly, everything that is tangible and material, i.e. sensually cognizable already in earthly life cannot be an object of faith for a Christian. So, if material shrines are not objects of faith, then what is their purpose? Metropolitan Demetrius, without using special terms, sets out the semiotic theory of blessedness. Augustine: sacred symbols, whether icons, prosphora or texts, are signs, means for transmitting information about objects of faith. Let us recall that according to Augustine, a sign is necessarily some kind of sensually comprehended thing, while the signified object can also be God 689. As a result, according to Dimitry Savich, the Old Believers’ incorrect idea of ​​what the object of faith should be leads to the fact that they believe not in a single invisible God, but in many material things. Such an abundance of “faiths,” according to the Rostov Metropolitan, naturally leads to contradictions and disagreements: “You yourself do not have faith in your faith, competing, bickering, is it this way or that?” Having reached this conclusion, the Rostov Bishop proceeds to analyze the specific provisions of the Old Believers, presenting them as examples of his thesis. The first is an example of an icon. Referring to Rev. John of Damascus, the author of “The Search” writes: “As icon writing is the same as book writing. Not everyone knows how to read what is written in the book, since many Christians are unlearned; but what is depicted on the icon is understood by everyone, even the unbookish simpleton” 690. Thus, the icon serves for figurative knowledge of the realities of Holy Scripture and Tradition. When a Christian worships an icon, he worships not the material icon, but the one who is depicted on it, the icon is only a means that helps to raise the mind to the one depicted on it and show him honor: “Whenever I stand before the icon of my Savior, I want to worship, and I raise my mind to Christ my Savior himself, who reigns in heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and I worship Him before His icon: and thus the honor that I do to the icon of the Savior ascends to the prototype, this is to the Savior himself, reigning in heaven” 691. Thus, the icon has no independent value, new or old - it is only a means of raising the mind to God. Analyzing the attitude of the Old Believers to the cross, Metropolitan. Dimitri finds the same flaw in him: a passion for sensual things. The author of "Wanted", again referring to Rev. John of Damascus, shows that when Christians worship the image of the cross, they worship not a specific historical instrument of execution, but the symbol of Christ Crucified. Thus, the image of the cross is a sign denoting the Crucifixion of the Son of God, and therefore it does not matter how many ends this sign will have - four, eight or more, the essence of what is signified will not change in any way 692. Words spoken about material shrines, Metropolitan. Demetrius also added to the texts: “We know about the old books and the new books that they are one in essence, just as the old and new icons are one in essence.” Accordingly, like icons, spiritual books should raise the Christian’s mind to God, and here the specific methods of achieving this goal, such as language or expressions, are also not important. Changes in the text do not matter if these changes do not interfere with the knowledge of God: “The change of certain speeches in books is a change of faith: in the same way, new books teach to believe in God, in whom the old ones; The same dogmas of faith and new books contain the same tenets of faith as the old ones. The same God is prayed to and new books are commanded, to Whom the old ones are also; The new books teach the same good deeds as the old ones: and there is no contrary teaching in the new books, just as in the old ones” 693. That is why it is impossible to “be saved by books”; spiritual books only provide some information that helps to live according to the commandments of God: “Neither a letter nor a saying in a book saves, but a life pleasing to God saves” 694. Dimitry Savich devotes an extensive discussion to the issue of “new rituals.” The main idea of ​​this argument is as follows. The Church has kept its faith pure and unchanged since apostolic times. However, church customs, rites and ceremonies are material and do not relate to objects of faith, therefore they can change over time: “for they are customs, corrected and changed, and otherwise faith, which abides in the Church of Christ” 695. With many examples, Met. Demetrius shows the development of church life over time, the change in piety, the oblivion of some traditions and the establishment of others. He especially draws attention to the fact that Orthodox worship also developed gradually, and those liturgical texts that are “old” for the Old Believers (for example, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) were once “new” for the Byzantines 696. Moreover, adding new ways to glorify God to existing ones, creating new rites and rituals, is a good and proper thing. Old Believer views on the sacred text (what S. Mathauzerova characterized as a substantial theory of the text) Met. Demetrius refutes this with a number of witty examples. Thus, to refute the Old Believer opinion about the connection between the verbal form and the “mountain” content existing in true sacred texts (which allows one to “be saved by books”), Metropolitan. Demetrius cites a number of incidents that were admitted in the “old books”: a change in the handwritten services of the Mother of God of the epithet of the Mother of God from the electrified “glow of gold” to the alector-rooster or the writing in the life of St. Paisiya from Makaryev's Chetiy-Menya "with bad thoughts" instead of "innermost". From this the conclusion is drawn: if the form in these texts was connected with the content, then the existence of such blasphemous slips would desacralize the texts containing them and would prevent salvation. However, the ancient Russian saints read such books and were saved, since salvation does not depend on “the sayings of the books,” but on faith and deeds 697. Quite wittily, Met. Demetrius also proves the falsity of the idea of ​​the Old Believers about the existence of the only correct textual form of transmission of the “Divine Verb”, turning directly to the text of the Bible. He points out disagreements between the four evangelists in the description of New Testament events (the number of demoniacs in Gadarene, angels at the open tomb after the Resurrection, etc.). But the main thing is that the evangelists differ among themselves when presenting the words of the Savior, conveying the same thought in different verbal formulations. Thus, the prayer “Our Father” by St. Matthew and St. Luke is presented in different ways. Bishop Demetrius concludes that despite many such differences, the faith of the evangelists is the same. Hence the conclusion is drawn that changes in new books do not change faith 698. This is perhaps the most vivid presentation of the conventional attitude of the Rostov ruler to the text, his perception of it as a sign that has no connection with the essence of the signified. However, the greatest difference in the theological approaches of Met. Demetrius and the Old Believers are revealed when discussing the issue of the name of Jesus. As mentioned above, in Christian theology the question of the relationship between the sign and the signified was first seriously raised precisely in connection with the names of God in the context of the Eunomian disputes. Christian semiotics has always been closely connected with the theology of the name. The Old Believer position, as far as one can judge, proceeds from the fact that the name of Christ was given by an angel and therefore cannot be changed. Here we can recall that even Avvakum, turning to Alexei Mikhailovich, contrasted imperfect earthly languages ​​with the language of angels as an ideal unattainable on earth, the language of the Kingdom of Heaven 699. Next after the angelic language in terms of perfection, Habakkuk places the “Slovenian” language, regarding which there was a belief that it had special holiness and was given directly from God 700. Accordingly, the traditional Moscow Isus preserves the name of Christ as “he is called an angel,” and the “Nikonian” spelling Jesus is a human distortion of the name of God. Metropolitan's approach Demetrius is in tune with the views of the Eastern Church Fathers. During the Eunomian disputes, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote that angelic language is not verbal; spirits have no need for words, since they directly reveal to each other the pure movements of the mind. Words and names are a product of imperfect human nature 701. Dimitri Savich also does not consider the words of the Archangel Gabriel as some kind of phenomenon of a “higher language”: if an angel talks with a person, then he adapts to his weakness and uses human language. At the same time, the claim to some special sacredness and connection with the Prototype of the Slavic spelling of the name of Christ, for Metropolitan. Demetrius seems absurd 702. For the author of “The Search,” the name of God is a special sacred sign of God. Therefore, to resolve the question of how the name of Christ should be written, Met. Demetrius suggests abandoning the form and turning to the content, considering the meaning of the name Jesus. For this purpose, Met. Demetrius, leaning on St. fathers, conducts philological research. First, he describes that in the Hebrew language, in different dialects, the name of Christ was pronounced and written differently, being derived from the word “Jesuha”, “salvation”, while maintaining a single meaning - “Savior”. Then Met. Demetrius points out that in Greek the name of Christ is written as “Iasus,” “Healer,” indicating its connection with the verb “iasao,” “to heal.” Accordingly, when translating the New Testament into Latin and Slavic languages, in Greek “Iasus”, in accordance with philological rules, the second letter changes, respectively, to “e” and “i”, let’s end up with “Iesus” and “Jesus”. The Moscow spelling “Isus” is the result of incorrect reading of the abbreviation under the title, Ic. The result of this study is this: the Russian spelling Jesus accurately conveys the spelling of the Greek word “Healer” and the Hebrew word “Savior” and, thus, carries their meaning. The spelling “Jesus” defended by the Old Believers is meaningless, the only thing with which it can be correlated is the Greek word “isous”, “equal-eared”, and such a meaning of the name of Christ is obvious blasphemy. Metropolitan's conclusion Demetrius of Rostov is as follows: “In both of them Jesus, who is said to have equal ears, will be found; but in us there is one, who was before, and now is, and will forever be, the spoken Savior and healer of our souls, Christ the Lord, who in the Gospels is even written in the Greek abbreviation under the title Iс, but not in two, but in three syllabs the verb Jesus is written" 703 . In these discussions, the difference between the theology of the name of Bishop Demetrius, brought up in the Mogilyan tradition, and the Old Believer leaders is revealed with particular clarity. Old Believers are concerned about the name of God, first of all, with its sound and spelling; they do not consider it necessary to comprehend the meaning of the name. It is quite possible that for them to try to comprehend the meaning of the name Jesus communicated by the angel is as useless as to know the Creator himself; they can only accept the revealed verbs in the simplicity of their hearts and pray with them. For Metropolitan Demetrius, any name, including the name of God, belongs to the sphere of human thinking and, therefore, has some meaning that is understandable to people. The name of God is an expression of one of the properties of God, and therefore is always endowed with a meaning that expresses a specific property in human language. The three-syllable name Jesus makes sense, revealing God as a Savior and Healer, but the two-syllable name Jesus can only carry the curiously blasphemous meaning “equal-eared” and therefore cannot be the name of God. Thus, Met. Demetrius here seeks to emphasize the idea that the name of God exists for man and in human language, and therefore necessarily carries a meaning accessible to man. However, it would be a mistake to reduce the theology of the name of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov only to some kind of preaching of “conventionality”. If in polemical works (“Search”) the Bishop emphasized the conventional, human qualities of the name of God, then in his sermons he spoke about the power of the name of God and its mystical properties. In the “Word on Circumcision” from “Chetiy-Minea” Met. Demetrius narrates that the name Jesus, announced to the Virgin Mary by the Archangel Gabriel, seemed to reveal to the world a new side of the Divinity that existed even before the beginning of the world: “This saving name Jesus, before all centuries in the Trinity Council, was prepared, written and until now was kept for our deliverance, but now, like priceless pearls, it was brought from the heavenly treasury for the redemption of the human race and was revealed to all by Joseph.” 704. Therefore, the name Jesus is worthy of all worship, it should be inscribed on your heart, it should be used to defeat your enemies. Such a combination of “anthropologization” of the names of God with their mystical veneration is not a unique feature of the theology of Dimitri Savich - the same views were characteristic, for example, of St. Gregory of Nyssa 705. Thus, the Rostov Metropolitan appears in his theology of the name as a continuer of the previous patristic tradition. All these examples, in our opinion, provide quite convincing evidence in favor of the fact that the criticism of Met. Demetrius's Old Believer understanding of sacred symbols was based on the semiotic consciousness formed by the Augustinian tradition. At the very beginning of his work, when discussing the “wrongness” of the Old Believers’ faith, he actually points to his opponents’ incorrect understanding of the relationship between the sign and the signified. For the Rostov bishop, the object of faith is heavenly realities inaccessible to the senses. Only faith in them must remain unchanged. Nevertheless, sensually comprehended things (i.e., essentially, Augustinian signs), such as rituals and sacred texts, exist for a person and are thought by a person; these are means to knowledge of objects of faith. This gives rise to two of their properties. First: they change over time, which in no way affects the essence of the objects of faith they designate, and, consequently, the salvation of Christians. Second: every sign exists for a person, and therefore must have a meaning accessible to a person. Thus, any Name of God cannot be an incomprehensible combination of letters; it must have a meaning that reveals something about God to people. If there is meaning, it needs to be cognized. Thus, the problem of the relationship between the sign and the signified turns into the problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge in the life of a Christian. The solution to this problem for Metropolitan. Demetrius, an educator and mystic, became his whole life. However, the first chapter of “The Search” provides food for other conclusions. The very “casual” construction of the chapter from answers to various controversial issues is quite remarkable. Indeed, the Old Believers did not formulate some kind of holistic theory of the sign; they put forward a number of specific claims against the “Nikonians” (the shape of the cross, new icons, etc.). The generalization of the Old Believer position and the derivation of a certain doctrine about the relationship between the sign and the signified, opposite to Augustine’s semiotic theory, is carried out not by the “Bryn elders”, but by the author of “The Search”. If we return to the origins of the study of “semiotic conflict” in historiography, then we will also find a similar situation: S. Mathauzerova comes to the conclusion about “two theories of the text” after studying the materials of “The Rod of Government,” a polemical work in which Simeon of Polotsk, refuting the petition of Nikita Dobrynin, proves that the latter belongs to church schismatics. In both cases, we have before us the bearer of “Augustinian” semiotic consciousness, analyzing the views of people who do not possess it, in order to conceptualize the heresy contained in them. It is obvious that both Mogilyans were superior to their opponents in systematic thinking. Therefore, we can assume that the “substantial theory of the text,” as well as the theory of “the non-conventional attitude to the sign characteristic of traditional Russian culture,” 706 represent only a kind of mirror reflection of Augustine’s general semiotic theory, which arose in the works in which the Mogilans, polemicizing with the Old Believers, constructed the image of the “Schism.” Among the early Old Believers themselves, semiotic consciousness was not so developed as to give rise to a clear and consistent semiotic doctrine. To summarize, we can say that the main goal of using “external knowledge” in the work of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov was to saturate the “famine of the word of God” of his flock through the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The latest achievements of European humanitarian scholarship, which found expression in the works of Jesuit exegetes, helped to more fully understand the meaning of the Bible. At the same time, the diverse artistic means of Baroque art helped to make sermons bright, meaningful and accessible to the understanding of the entire flock, to bring the words of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition out of the silence of the cells and make them the property of the entire Orthodox people. At the same time, the analysis of texts related to the anti-Old Believer polemics of Dimitri Savich showed that the “Latin” education, which instilled in the bishop a semiotic consciousness in the spirit of the blessed. Augustine's clear distinction between the sign and the signified led to the fact that the Rostov bishop theologized about icons, texts and the name of God in the same way as the classical church fathers. Thus, the European education of Metropolitan. Demetrius in this case contributed not to the secularization of his views, but to their deeper rooting in the patristic tradition. § 2. Met. Dimitry Rostovsky about sin and repentance Changes in religiosity and attitude to the sacrament of Confession in Early Modern Europe - a change in the understanding of sinfulness in the Russian lands in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times - sin and repentance in the works of Metropolitan. Dimitri The Early Modern era in Europe became a period of significant changes in the spiritual and moral sphere. One of the important features of modern religiosity was the tendency to internalize 707 norms of Christian life. Researchers speak of “a trend toward a more personal, sincere, and internalized religion,” 708 a “process of internalization, development of Christian consciousness, understanding of sin, and the desire to “live cleanly”” 709. Such internal assimilation of Christian norms went side by side with a change in social mores, expressed in a significant strengthening of the requirements of “good behavior,” which meant control over affects and drives, and “intimization” of bodily functions. In historical sociology, this process is called the “civilization process” 710. Thus, there was a transition from the rather loose norms of behavior characteristic of the Middle Ages to the strict rules of good manners of the 19th century. Rising religious and secular standards of behavior had a significant impact on the policies of state and church authorities in Early Modern Europe. In the XVI-XVII centuries. they are making enormous efforts to establish control over the behavior of the population, introducing new models of behavior and forming a new mentality. This phenomenon is called “social disciplinarization” in historiography. The reasons for it were different. Among them are the progressive development of the state, which needed more manageable subjects, and the spread of the philosophy of neo-stoicism, based on the ideas of strong will, self-education and discipline, and the religious upsurge, which actualized the ideal of Christian life. One of the important components of social discipline was the activity of raising morals. Concern about the moral state of the people at this time is expressed not only by clergy of various faiths, but also by government officials and representatives of society. The wave of demands for moral reform in the Christian world reached its peak in the second half of the 16th century. Often these demands were argued by the state of unprecedented sinfulness of society. However, the real reason was, rather, an increase in moral requirements and sensitivity to deviations from them: what was considered acceptable in the Middle Ages became unacceptable in the Early Modern Age 711. The Reformation and the split of the united Catholic Church led to the emergence in Europe of different responses to the challenge of the need for moral reform. In general, these responses can be divided into two types: external discipline and internal discipline. Maintaining external discipline meant strengthening government control over the actions of believers. In Protestant churches, special institutions were created for these purposes: church courts among Lutherans, consistories among Calvinists. The Catholic Church preserved and developed those institutions and practices that developed in the Middle Ages. These included the Inquisition, which operated in a number of Mediterranean countries, and the system of church courts at various levels. The practice of visitations, half-forgotten in the late Middle Ages, was revived: regular visits by the bishop to his diocese, and by the parish priest to the houses of the flock. In matters of internal discipline, repentance for sins continued to be central in all Christian denominations. Meanwhile, to the question of what repentance should be, different confessions answered differently. In Protestant churches, repentance becomes a purely internal act that does not require any special external actions. In the Catholic and Orthodox churches, repentance for sins is closely connected with the sacrament of Confession. Therefore, the study of the content of confession, those sins for which it was considered necessary to repent, makes it possible to significantly illuminate the processes of change in the internal norms of people of the Early Modern Age. On the one hand, changes in the understanding of sin and deviations from the norm influenced the content of confession; on the other hand, these changes were largely determined by the teachings of confessors and the very need to comprehend one’s actions while confessing sins in the sacrament of Confession. In this section, our attention will be drawn primarily to the religious aspect of the changes and the role of Met. Demetrius of Rostov, whose moral theology had a significant influence on Russian society in the 18th century. Despite the fact that the doctrine of temptations and the fight against them was developed in detail by Christian theologians and ascetics in the 1st millennium AD, the perception of sin among broad layers of the laity remained very shallow. For a long time, repentance was perceived primarily as the reconciliation of an individual with the community, and, accordingly, attention was paid to actions committed openly. In Latin Europe in the Middle Ages, when confessing, most Catholics paid attention, first of all, to obvious transgressions and sinful acts: even at the beginning of the 15th century it was not yet considered necessary to confess sinful thoughts 712. Thorough confession, deeply touching the soul, was the lot of individual communities that devoted themselves to deep repentance. The “New Piety” movement, which arose in the 14th–15th centuries. spread the idea that an attentive attitude to one’s inner life and repentance of sinful thoughts is also possible for the laity. However, in general, in Europe, on the eve of the religious upheavals of the 16th century, the penitent was likened to an accountant striving for the most complete listing of his sins 713. It is not surprising that M. Luther, having become disillusioned with this practice from his own experience, declared that a person cannot list all his sins, and, therefore, the very principle of confession by naming all the sins committed is vicious 714. The figures of the Catholic Reform, no less than the ideologists of the Reformation, were concerned about raising the moral level of the church, retained the traditional form of confession of sins, but sought to make it less formal and more affecting the inner life of a Christian. This tendency found its expression, among other things, in the introduction of the confessional-confessional into the practice of the Catholic Church, i.e. a special room in which the penitent, alone with the priest, could carefully confess his sins. The new attitude towards repentance made confession an important factor in making modern European society more susceptible to violations of Christian moral norms 715 . The study of changing views on sinfulness in Rus' in the Middle Ages and Early Modern times is possible thanks to a number of monuments, in one form or another intended to help confessors in the confession of penitents. The earliest of them is the “Question of Kirik” of the 12th century, which contains questions from several Novgorod priests to their bishop and answers to them. “The Questioning of Kirik” shows that the idea of ​​sin in Rus' at that time was closely connected with the opposition of sacredness and defilement. The moral duties of a Christian were understood, first of all, as a worthy attitude towards the shrine and the prevention of its desecration. For final deliverance from sinful impurity, penances were considered necessary, which, as a rule, were external, bodily labors 716. Questions of the sacred and its desecration through uncleanness occupied the confessors of that time much more than the struggle with spiritual passions. This understanding of sinfulness was characteristic of the Russian spiritual tradition in the future. This can be seen in the materials of confessional questionnaires that have appeared in Rus' since the 14th century. They contained a possible list of sins that the confessor asked the penitent about. There were also so-called “renewals” are lists of sins set out on behalf of the penitent himself. Such questionnaires immediately become widespread and become a field for the creativity of Russian scribes. They are much more detailed than similar Greek and South Slavic ones. Over time, confessional questionnaires identify increasingly minor and specialized sins, creating separate lists of sins for men and women, and later for people of different social status and profession. The peak of creativity and diversity in the composition of confession questionnaires occurs at the end. XVI – beginning XVII centuries, when numerous texts were created, reaching 100-150 articles. They focus primarily on sinful acts and various forms of defilement, such as prodigal sins and superstition. “There are not many questions in confessional questionnaires that are often not related to any specific actions of a person, but devoted to such abstract concepts as despondency, pride, etc.” 717. We can talk about the development of those ideas that existed in Rus' in the first centuries after the adoption of Christianity. However, in the early modern period, the idea of ​​sinfulness begins to change. Since the 16th century, and especially in the 17th century. in confessional questionnaires, more and more attention is beginning to be paid to spiritual sins, such as anger, envy, resentment 718. With the publication of the first printed missal in 1623, the handwritten tradition began to fade; lists of sins that should be asked about in confession are now compiled in Moscow under the direct control of the hierarchy. In the text from the printed Trebnik of 1623, out of 59 questions for the laity, one question is devoted to such “internal” passions as anger, resentment and envy, 3 questions are devoted to inappropriate entertainment, most of the rest are devoted to blasphemy, desecration and harm to neighbors and their property. There are no questions about the sins of despondency and vanity 719. In the questions for priests from the articles that do not concern neglect of priestly duties and objects, as well as inappropriate behavior, there is only about slandering a bishop or clerk and about boasting about one’s service and condemnation of the service of other clergy 720. In the Trebnik 1642 spiritual sins are listed much more fully, but in the expanded text of the renewal for the laity, attention is paid to the various forms of external sins 721. An important milestone was the bookstore on the right. Nikon. According to N.I. Sazonova, a number of changes were made to the new Trebnik, emphasizing that God is not only a strict Judge, but also merciful and humane 722. From the listing of specific sins in liturgical texts, a transition is made to the concept of sin in general 723. In the rites, the emotionality of the prayers of repentance is reduced, and they themselves are shortened. The emphasis is not on God's punishments for sins, but on God's gifts to the righteous 724. In the revised Trebnik of 1658, there is no long and detailed listing of sins in line with the tradition of handwritten confessional questionnaires. The list of sins is much more concise and structured, each group is provided with a brief commentary. In conclusion, it is advised: “And he remembers other mortal sins: pride, covetousness, fornication, envy, gluttony, anger, laziness, and all the sins born of seven mothers” 725 with reasoning and the difference in the status of the penitent. Thus, the reform of Patr. Nikona, as it were, forced the trend towards a more subtle understanding of human sinfulness. This tendency, as shown above, has been characteristic of the Russian Church since the 16th century. During the second half of the 17th century. the missals were printed on the model of the corrected text of 1658. Thus, in the Trebnik of 1698, the section on the sacrament of Repentance practically coincides with that in the Trebnik of 1658 726, the greatest differences lie in the composition of the teachings and recommendations for priests, placed after the rite of confession and the list of sins. Another important trend observed in confessional questionnaires of the 16th and 17th centuries is the emergence of an emphasis on sins against the faith other than superstition, magical practices, or blasphemy. From the second half of the 16th century. Questions arise about the orthodoxy of the penitent’s faith, first as agreement with the fundamentals of the doctrine: the veneration of the Trinity, the Mother of God, saints, the cross and icons. In the 17th century there is a requirement to read the creed by heart before confession; later confessors begin to check the formation of the finger during the sign of the cross and knowledge of the basic prayers 727. Thus, in the Trebnik of 1642, the list of sins comes after the priest’s questions about faith and the proper answers of the penitent to them 728. Also among the sins there are such as close communication with people of other faiths and praise of their customs 729. The list of sins in the Trebnik of 1658 begins with a block of questions about heresy 730. In the text of handwritten missals con. XVII century There is also a ban on reading and studying “renounced books”: “Don’t you read the marked books of those who fight against God and don’t you delve into other heretical books?” 731 Thus, by the end of the 17th century. In the understanding of sinfulness in the Great Russian Church, two trends can be traced: increased attention to spiritual sins and deviations from orthodoxy. It is important to note that both trends appear back in the 16th century. and grew in the 17th century, regardless of direct dependence on the events of the Schism. There is every reason to assume that the same tendencies were characteristic of the Western Russian church. However, it is difficult to trace this from the sources in this work, due to the lack of research on the handwritten tradition of Western Russian confessional questionnaires, and also due to the fact that in Western Russian printed breviaries of the 17th century. There are no lists of sins. This applies to both the first printed missals 732 and the “Euchologion” of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila 1646 733, which became a model for the Little Russian Church in the second half of the 17th century. Since when compiling the text of the Trebnik of 1658, the reference books used the Euchologion 734, and the sections on repentance in both breviaries are structurally similar, we can make a reasonable assumption about the influence of the Western Russian tradition on the Great Russian 735. In particular, this was expressed in the refusal to list sins in detail, as well as in the identification of the seven deadly sins, in the form in which they were received in Little Russia from the Catholic tradition 736. A further influence on the understanding of sinfulness, both in the Little Russian and Great Russian churches, was exerted by the work of Archimandrite. Innocent Gisel “Peace with God for Man” 737. This work was a compilation of three works by the Polish Dominican Mikołaj Moschiski. Innocent Gisel edited the text, supplementing it with abundant quotations from the Holy Scriptures and replacing a number of Catholic texts with similar meanings, but belonging to the Orthodox tradition, and also removing references to the scholastics of the 16th-17th centuries. The reason for writing “Peace with God for Man” was the lack of practical manuals on moral theology in the Orthodox tradition. Innocent Gisel created a fundamental work, which not only became the first Orthodox manual on moral theology, but also introduced into circulation a unified conceptual apparatus associated with the doctrine of sins 738. First published in Kyiv in 1669, “Peace with God to Man” was well known in Great Russia, since a significant part of the circulation was purchased by the royal treasury and distributed to dioceses and monasteries 739. The text of the Kyiv archimandrite’s work was divided into three parts. And if the first part, “About repentance in general,” revealed the concepts of repentance and the sacrament of confession, then the second and third: “About the penitent” and “To the confessor” were a whole encyclopedia of human sinfulness and ways of liberation from it 740. Over the course of hundreds of pages, each sin was examined in detail, explaining how it should be confessed, in which cases it becomes more serious, and in which these actions are not a sin at all. The main principle for the confessor, necessary for the faithful guidance of the penitent, became an understanding of the circumstances of the commission of a sinful act: “What is the environment of sin? And how many are there? What does the neighborhood teach you? Who? What? Where? When? What? What? Or with some help and in what way? 741. The main “embarrassments” that occur in the spiritual life of Christians were also examined - for example, such as embarrassment due to “not feeling sweetness in prayer” or doubts about the silence of one’s conscience 742. Thus, by the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries. In the Russian Church there is a change in the understanding of sinfulness. This was due to both the ongoing process from the 16th century. the tendency of closer attention to spiritual sins, and with the specific influence of the Mogilyan tradition, with its characteristic desire for the reception and adaptation of Catholic theology. These observations are consistent with the conclusions of P. Bushkovich. An American researcher, considering the religious views of representatives of the Russian intellectual elite of the 17th century, both clergy and educated laymen, comes to the conclusion that for them, moral issues come to the fore in Christian life. At the same time, religion became more personal, but not in the sense of abandoning public worship, but by adding a new dimension to a person’s religious life 743 . The above-mentioned trend concerned both representatives of the old Moscow intellectual elite, such as Prince P.A. Khvorostinin and the poets of the Printing House circle, as well as people from Western Russian lands who settled in Moscow: Epiphany Slavinetsky and Simeon of Polotsk 744, as well as “zealots of piety” who came from among the parish clergy 745. Given this, it is important to understand what Metropolitan’s view of sinfulness was. Demetrius of Rostov, for whom one of the most important themes “of both book and oral preaching... was repentance” 746. Thus, “A Brief Moral Teaching to a Christian,” a short work by Met. Demetrius, intended for the simplest readers 747. It describes how an Orthodox Christian should live, and consists of 19 short commandments, which describe the most relevant virtues and sins for an ordinary parishioner. For all the laconicism of the “Brief Moral Teaching,” we can say that its main attention is paid specifically to the spiritual life of a Christian, and sins are considered as consequences of spiritual disorder. The main attention is paid to sins in thought and word, sinful deeds are presented as their consequences. In general, the task of the “Brief Moral Teaching” is to form a positive ideal, and not to list everyday sins. An interesting commandment: “Teach children good deeds; Be careful not only to do bad things in front of them, but also to say bad things” 748. It is specifically commanded to avoid schism and heresy. It is interesting to compare the “Short Moral Teaching” with a similar text from the Trebnik of 1642. 749 The main provisions of both texts are the same, however, the Teaching of 1642 emphasizes humility and the absence of arrogance, and also mentions the need to abstain from marital relations during fasts and holidays 750. The “Brief Moral Teaching” points out the need to avoid schism and heresy, which was important after the emergence of the Old Believers as a permanent factor in religious life. In his sermons, Met. Demetrius paid special attention to the topic of due repentance. However, the Metropolitan draws the attention of his listeners primarily to sin in general, and not to specific sinful acts. Following the Orthodox tradition of understanding sin as a human disease, Dimitri Savich examines sin in an anthropological context. The Rostov ruler divides the natural passions inherent in man into carnal ones, which are “visibly contained in carnal feelings” and spiritual ones “in the invisible and unknown heart”; each of them requires a special approach 751. However, external and internal sins are of interest to Metropolitan. Demetrius, first of all, by its impact on the human soul. Thus, the guilt of a fornicator lies not in his actions, but in the fact that he completely devotes his mind to thoughts of fornication and bad deeds, through this becoming a slave of the devil and an enemy of God 752. This impact, in turn, also varies. The soul, like the body, is divided into external and internal: the external of the soul is the mind, the internal is the conscience. Sin damages the mind, turning a person into the likeness of cattle, incapable of virtues. The damage to conscience is deeper; it lies in the false hope of God’s forgiveness when repeating repentant sins 753. Attention to the state of your soul, to your heart, is key to salvation. Many of those who lead seemingly worthy and pious lives will not inherit the Kingdom of God, since they perform their virtues only outwardly, while remaining proud inside, or, in addition to good deeds, have done others that are displeasing to God. Although the unrepentant sinner crucifies Christ a second time and calls upon himself severe punishment 754, any sinner who repents of his sins becomes righteous and holy 755. This concern for the purity of man's inner life finds its greatest expression in two works of St. Demetrius: “Spiritual medicine for confusion of thoughts, briefly collected from various fatherly books” and “The inner man is solitary in the cage of his heart.” “Spiritual Medicine” is a collection of quotations from various works dedicated to the blasphemous and sinful thoughts that overcome a person 756. In the introduction to “Healing,” Bishop Demetrius writes that evil thoughts become sin only if a person accepts them and begins to enjoy them. Otherwise, there is no guilt on the person, since the source of such thoughts is demons. “The Inner Man” 757 is dedicated to mental prayer and, more broadly, to the principles of human spiritual life. The main idea of ​​the work is that the true purpose of prayer is to devote one’s mind to God. Therefore, the only correct one is mental prayer, which a person does in his heart, personally turning to God. A person who does not know “about the secret conversation in the heart with God” 758, but prays only from books or without attention, is like a blind man. One of the forms of personal interview with God, for Metropolitan. Demetrius had daily repentance for sins. Dimitri Savich wrote the text of such a daily prayer of repentance, which was offered as an example to follow. “The Prayer of Everyday Confession to God” 759 is very lengthy and emotional, but at the end the Rostov Bishop briefly conveys its main essence: “1) I confess all my sins to my God; 2) I judge myself unworthy of the existence of His mercy, but worthy of eternal torment; 3) I don’t despair either way; 4) I humbly ask for forgiveness; 5) I set the intention of correcting my life; 6) I believe that my sin has undoubtedly been forgiven” 760. Ideas about sin in the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius has two characteristic features. First, Dimitri Savich is not concerned about specific sins, but about sin in general as a destructive force operating in a person; he teaches his flock about sin and the fight against it from the standpoint of high theology. The second is the main attention of Metropolitan. Demetrius invariably devotes attention to spiritual sins, which not only give rise to bodily sins, but also devalue external virtues. The Rostov Bishop calls on his flock to watch their “inner man” and devote their minds to God, practicing their thoughts on God. Thus, repentance for Metropolitan. Dmitry is a deeply personal act of reconciliation between a person and the Creator, which destroys sin and makes possible union with God, possible only with “extreme heartfelt love” 761. The understanding of sin expressed in the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius is not radically new or alien to the Great Russian religious tradition. The desire for a deeper spiritual life and cleansing of the soul not only from external sins, but also from spiritual sins, has been constantly growing in Russian confessional literature since the 16th century. In the 17th century problems of morality become the focus of attention of Russian theologians and preachers. Dimitri Savich's teaching on sin is a continuation and further development of this process. Thus, from this point of view, the legacy of Metropolitan. Demetrius fits well into the context of the general trends in changes in Russian religiosity in Russia in the 17th century. with her characteristic attention to moral issues. This is combined with the fact that in the works of Metropolitan. Demetrius’s red line is the idea of ​​the insufficiency of the usual “ritual confession” for true repentance 762. This allows us to conclude that the individualized understanding of sin in the beginning. XVIII century was not widespread. Instructing the laity to pay attention to their souls and a deeper understanding of sin depended to a greater extent not on the bishop (even as the author of instructions), but on the priests accepting confession. At the same time, Met. Demetrius in his teaching about sin is very different from the Great Russian preachers of the 17th century. “At St. Demetrius's sin is touched, smelled, felt in its blackness by the eye. His teaching about sin is an ontology of dirt and burning darkness, and not a moral teaching about what is improper and forbidden” 763. The desire of the Rostov ruler to consider sin, first of all, not as a “mistake”, but as a disease of the soul, a scab that impedes communion with God, makes the works of Dimitri Savich similar to the classic patristic works on asceticism, setting out the doctrine of the fight against passions. Here we see the phenomenon of a kind of “adaptation” of the monastic tradition for the laity. It is difficult to say to what extent Dimitri Savich’s individual traits were manifested here, and to what extent to the general spirit of Kiev intellectuals who were supportive of the monastic feat. § 3. Views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov to the place of the sacraments of Confession and Communion in church life Among the legacy of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov especially distinguishes two “epistles to the priests,” written around 1704. 764 Both of them were sent to Hieromonk Joseph, the vicar of the bishop’s court in Yaroslavl, along with a letter in which he said: “When this message comes to you, call all the priests of Yaroslavl to our bishop’s court and have our exhortation read to them in the hearing of everyone, and, having read it, order that every priest copy it for himself and have it for himself. Likewise, they went to the Yaroslavl district to the elders by registered order, so that all the priests could be read and written off” 765. Thus, the “epistles to the priests” were supposed to not only inform the priests about the will of the metropolitan, but become a kind of instructions for them. What did the Bishop of Rostov so urgently want to tell the clergy of his diocese? The first message is dedicated to the sacrament of Confession and spirituality, the second to the sacrament of Communion and the service of the liturgy. At the same time, the messages do not so much expose the shortcomings of the clergy as they give detailed instructions on how to perform the sacraments. Similar attention from Met. Demetrius of Rostov to the sacraments of the Eucharist and Repentance is not accidental. In the Early Modern era, the main task for religious leaders of all Christian denominations became the churching of believers. At the same time, the main attention was paid not directly to the laity, but to the parish clergy. According to the well-known proverb: “like the priest, so is the parish,” the spiritual appearance of the people ultimately depended on how the shepherd shepherded his flock. After all, it was the parish priest who was the representative of the church hierarchy who was in direct contact with ordinary parishioners. And if the Protestant pastor was mostly a preacher, then the priest - Orthodox or Catholic - was primarily a performer of church sacraments, among which the sacraments of Confession and Communion always played a special role. The importance of these sacraments for Christians who experienced the spiritual storms of the Early Modern era cannot be overestimated. Indeed, during the celebration of the Sacrament of Repentance, a direct dialogue between a layman and a priest took place, during which the former, confessing his sins, correlated his life and beliefs with the doctrines of the confession, and the priest had the opportunity to personally instruct each person. At the same time, the Eucharist, understood by traditional Christian theology as the main church Sacrament, the foundation and basis of the Church, allowed the participants to achieve the maximum possible unity with God in earthly life, becoming, thanks to Eucharistic communion, the one Body of Christ. When Dimitri Savich ascended to the Rostov See in 1701, he was forced to leave “the learned silence of the Kyiv monasteries” 766, immersed in concerns about the flock, “let not a single sheep be stolen by a hellish beast, and not a single sheep be turned into a goat, but even more so from the goats be turned into sheep” 767. Naturally, the new ruler did not start from scratch, but relied on the experience of his predecessors. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov was one of the first Little Russian bishops who was appointed to a diocese in Great Russia. Behind it stood a powerful Mogilyan tradition, which spanned more than half a century of decisive transformation of the religious life of Western Russian lands. Such pillars of the Kyiv Metropolis of the second half of the 17th century. how Lazar Baranovich and Varlaam Yasinsky were the direct teachers and mentors of Bishop Demetrius. On the other hand, Dimitri Savich in Rostov was to become a continuer of the traditions of his Great Russian predecessors, who contributed to the fact that in the Rostov-Yaroslavl land from the middle of the 17th century there was an increase in religious feeling among the people 768. Next we will consider the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius in the place of the church sacraments of Confession (and more broadly, clergy as a phenomenon) and Communion in church life and we will try to find out what realities of the modern world are reflected in the views of the Rostov Bishop. 3.1. Clergy and the Sacrament of Penance The Institute of clergy in Rus' and its crisis in Tue. floor. XVII century − clergy and the sacrament of Repentance in the Mogilyan tradition of the 17th century. - Metropolitan Demetrius about confessors and the sacrament of Repentance in teachings and messages - a comparison of the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius with the Old Believer, Great Russian and Mogilyan traditions - a comparison of the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov and Metropolitan. Ion Sysoevich To understand the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov on clergy, it is necessary first to briefly consider issues related to the crisis of Russian clergy in the 17th century. and the Mogilyan tradition of attitude towards the priesthood. In the XV-XVI centuries. In the Russian lands, a model of clergy developed, modeled after monastic eldership. This was due both to the close connection between secret confession and monasticism 769, characteristic of Eastern Christianity, and to the special authority that monasticism enjoyed in Medieval Rus' 770. The priest who takes confession from a Christian and is his mentor in spiritual life was called a confessor or spiritual father, the penitent is his spiritual child, the confessor and all the persons confessing to him were together called the “penitential family,” the relationships within which were determined not so much by canons as by tradition. The right of any priest (including a priest without a place) to accept confession was not limited in any way until the beginning. XVIII century At the same time, with the exception of the northern regions of Russia, the concepts of spiritual children and parishioners did not coincide: everyone chose their confessor themselves, and in some cases the parish priest might not have spiritual children among his parishioners at all 771. The authority of the spiritual father in Rus' was very high; his relationship with his spiritual child was built on the model of the relationship between an elder and a novice in a monastery or a father and child in a “natural” patriarchal family. The means of educating spiritual children were penances, the severity of which depended on the will of a particular confessor 772, as well as personal teachings spoken during confession 773. Moreover, the son had to be in unquestioning obedience to his spiritual father even in everyday life 774. The spiritual father enjoyed virtually unlimited power, could impose any penance and even refuse confession, while prohibiting confession from another priest. Ideally, the spiritual father was irreplaceable; the transition from one confessor to another was a very difficult procedure - but in reality, due to the increasing mobility of the population, it was not so rare 775. The clergy did not interfere in relations within the penitential family - except perhaps to restore the power of the confessor - thus the clergy was, as it were, an institution independent of the church authorities. However, from the middle of the 17th century. The attention of church authorities to the relationship between confessors and spiritual children is increasing. From the late 1640s. The hierarchy begins to regularly demand that priests not neglect performing the Sacrament of Repentance. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself in 1660 taught the Novgorod priests to confess to the laity every fast; the Rostov Metropolitan Jonah called on the parish priests to ensure that “no one would be without a spiritual father and without repentance” 776 and to confess to the flock three times a year. The content of the instructions of other proactive bishops of the second half of the 17th century, such as Metropolitan. Mitrofan of Voronezh or Bishop. Afanasy Kholmogorsky, it was similar 777. Cathedral 1666–1667 made an attempt to somehow formalize the institution of confessorship, decreeing that in order to confess to a priest who is not his confessor, the penitent must present a “letter of release,” a written permission from the confessor for his child to confess to another. At the same time, the principle of one irremovable confessor was preserved 778. Also, parish priests were required to keep books with records of the names of the laity approaching the sacrament of Confession 779. The reason for all these “control-bureaucratic” efforts was the crisis of the institution of clergy, which clearly manifested itself in the second half of the 17th century. The harbinger of this crisis was the decline of Russian monasticism, which reached its completeness in the 16th century: monasticism was forced to focus on its internal problems, and in its midst there were fewer and fewer people capable of providing genuine spiritual leadership 780. Meanwhile, the white clergy were poorly educated even by the modest standards of the Russian church 781. An even more serious challenge for Russian clergy came from the turmoil that the 17th century brought to the Moscow state. The traditional system of relations within a penitential family was optimal if the confessor knew the life of his children and could resolve all the issues that arose before them, and the children, in turn, unquestioningly obeyed their spiritual father in everything. Based on the voluntary consent of the confessor and spiritual child, this system did not require external intervention. An analogy with a cenobitic monastery, which, according to the well-known saying, does not interfere with its own rules, would be quite appropriate here. However, if a person for some reason refused to enter into such a relationship with a certain priest, then he found himself out of sight of the Church. After the Time of Troubles, which dealt a serious blow to the traditional way of life, in the context of the active penetration of Western cultural influences, such cases became more and more frequent. Some generally refused to choose spiritual fathers for themselves and go to confession with them, others refused to obey their confessors 782 . However, the most powerful test for the institution of clergy was the Schism. The existence of autonomous penitential families uncontrolled by church authorities, whose leaders were the unquestioned authority for their children, was an ideal environment for the flourishing of nonconformist communities of any kind 783 . The hierarchy did not have mechanisms to influence penitential families and even to control them. That is why the Great Moscow Council of 1667, concerned about the “schism,” considered it necessary to place the institution of clergy under the control of the hierarchy. While the Great Russian hierarchy unsuccessfully tried to combat the consequences of the crisis of clergy through the establishment of external control over the performance of the Sacrament of Confession, in Little Russia the hierarchy resolutely set out to change the very attitude of priests to their spiritual responsibilities. The milestone here was the transformation of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila. In search of a way to resolve conflicts and contradictions in the Orthodox Church of the Early Modern era, Met. Peter Mogila tirelessly addressed the personality of Jesus Christ, emphasizing that Christ, as the God-man, is the only mediator between the Creator and people. Christ unites people with His love; all ranks and classes are equal before Him. Therefore, harmonization of relations in society is possible only if every person interacts with Christ and strives to become like Him. At the same time, “the most perfect manifestation of human cooperation with Christ, who consolidates society, for Metropolitan. Peter the Mogila remains to remain in His Body, that is, in the Church" 784. It is no coincidence that the first work he wrote immediately after assuming the post of Kiev-Pechersk archimandrite was a creative reworking of “The Imitation of Christ” by Thomas a à Kempis 785, entitled: “The Book of the Soul, called Zloto” 786. This work was intended primarily for priests, so the author’s corrections and additions concerned specifically the duties of clergy. His position regarding the role of the priest, Metropolitan. Peter Mogila formulates this: “It is a great thing to live in a monastery, to save your soul. But the more important thing is to live among human communities, setting a pious example to everyone, to save others through divine teaching, and there to communicate with them without complaints, and to stand faithfully until death. Blessed is he who lived there with dignity and came to a happy end” 787. The key thoughts of the “Book of the Soul” can be expressed in two quotes from it: “The Body of Christ and the Holy Scriptures are most needed by a faithful soul” 788 and “Do not neglect Holy Communion, but go to confession as soon as possible” 789. According to Met. Peter Mogila, “first of all, the metaphysical “inheritance of Christ” is carried out in the sacraments, which transform the inner essence of a person according to Christ’s ideal measure” 790. Thus, the main task of the priest becomes the churching of his flock, first of all, through the sacraments of Confession and Communion, and also through preaching. “they sent us for apples, and we are carrying leaves” 791. It is natural that the activities that Met. Peter Mogila began to implement, having ascended to the metropolitan see, mainly aimed at transforming the appearance of the parish clergy. To do this, the Kiev ruler made extensive use of the successful experience of the Catholic Church, which served as an example to follow for Western Russian Orthodox hierarchs since the end of the 16th century. 792 The main ideas of the Catholic Reform in relation to the clergy were formulated at the Council of Trent, which, refuting the Protestant doctrine of the universal priesthood of the faithful, especially emphasized the role of the priest as the bearer of sacred functions, being the performer of the sacraments and, first of all, the Eucharist. There it was stated about the need for systematic training of future clergy in seminaries 793. These principles were embodied in the further activities of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila. Bishop Peter paid the main attention to the education of parish clergy, which was supposed to provide them with the knowledge necessary to fulfill their duties, as well as instill in them new standards of behavior 794. Therefore, priests had to send their sons to study at the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. This was encouraged not only by regulations, but through the provision of various benefits. Proteges who did not receive education at the college were examined for knowledge “in questions about the articles of faith, the seven sacraments and details related to this” 795. Those who could not properly answer the questions were detained with the bishop for additional training for a period of several months to six months. However, those proteges who showed the proper knowledge had to live for some time in the monastery, participating in divine services. Such “practice” was supposed to teach proteges the proper performance of the sacraments and pious life in general, and teach a lesson in proper priestly service 796. A multi-level structure was also created that controlled the performance of priests of their duties, consisting of archpriests appointed by bishops and visiting visiting hieromonks who supervised several archpriests; Diocesan councils met annually 797. In addition, the Metropolitan personally made tours of the dioceses entrusted to him 798. In this system of measures, a special place was given to the sacrament of Confession. "Euchologion" Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, published in 1646, contained a detailed article devoted to the sacrament of Confession. According to this article, the right of clergy was closely related to the administrative structure of the church. The parochial (i.e., parish) priest had the right to accept confession only in his parish. Although there were a number of exceptions 799. The parochial priest is also instructed to make every effort to ensure that all parishioners clear their consciences in the sacrament of Penance at least four times a year 800. In addition, the priest had to ask whether the penitent knew the basic prayers (Creed, Our Father, Virgin Mary, Ten Commandments), and if he did not know, then teach them 801. At the same time, in the letters issued, the priests themselves pledged to confess to their confessors monthly 802. Subsequently, the instructions of the Euchologion were supplemented by many works on pastoral theology published since the late 1660s. in the printing houses of the Kyiv Metropolis and containing instructions for both confessors and penitents 803. The most outstanding of them was “Peace with God for Man” by Archimandrite. Innocent Gisel, already mentioned above. It is significant that these books, both in printed form and in the form of handwritten copies, were distributed in Great Russian churches and monasteries 804. Such manuals for confessors were imitations of the corresponding Catholic publications published from the end of the 16th century. The flourishing of the genre of “instructions for confessors” in the Early Modern Catholic Church was caused by the fact that the leaders of the Catholic Reform, inspired by the ideas of the leaders of the “New Piety”, such as Jean Gerson and Thomas à Kempis, sought to make the sacrament of Confession a regular, constant factor in the life of every Christian. Therefore, the new monastic orders that appeared during the Catholic Reform: the Theatines, Oratorians and, of course, the Jesuits 805 not only preached frequent confession, but also paid special attention to the training of confessors from among the monks of their orders. Thus, in the instructions for Jesuit spiritual fathers, the latter were required not only to have “knowledge, humility and prudence,” but to be “gentle,” “pleasant, accessible and sensitive,” and to show “compassion and kindness” 806. In 1564 at the direction of Rome, Jesuit Juan Polanco compiled special instructions for confessors, which immediately gained considerable popularity among the clergy 807. The completion of the worries of the Little Russian hierarchy of the 17th century. The local Kyiv Council of 1691, 808, which took place immediately after the accession of the new Metropolitan of Kyiv Varlaam Yasinsky to the throne, became a resolution on the proper performance of the sacrament of Confession. The resolutions of the council concerned, first of all, priests and the order in which they performed the sacraments and requirements. Of the ten conciliar commandments, most are devoted to the order of performing the sacrament of Confession, in particular, the 4th article, as a guide for the priest, prescribed the work “Peace with God for Man,” which should have been available to every pastor, if not in the form of a printed book, then at least in handwritten passages 809. Thus, we can conclude that during the second half of the 17th century, Kyiv theologians made significant efforts to increase the role of the sacrament of Confession in the life of their flock. They sought to achieve this both by bishop's instructions, calling on priests to encourage laity and priests to regularly begin the sacrament, and by providing confessors with literature that could guide them in the work of caring for the penitents. The Kiev Council of 1691 fixed this direction in the life of the Little Russian Church. Thus, when Dimitri Savich ascended to the Rostov see, he inherited a very contradictory inheritance: a combination of the crisis of the institution of clergy, measures of the Great Russian episcopate aimed at establishing control over the celebration of the Sacrament of Repentance in parishes and the activities of the Little Russian hierarchs to improve the level of training of pastors. Views of Met. Demetrius of Rostov's clergy should be considered in the context of his ideas about the duties of a priest in general, since the theme of “true shepherding” as a whole was one of the cross-cutting themes in the bishop’s work. This was largely due to the fact that for Dimitri Savich this was a largely personal question: reflecting on his pastoral duty, the Bishop of Rostov wondered whether he himself could cope with the burden of caring for the souls of the entire metropolis placed on him. It is no coincidence that in the books that belonged to Metropolitan. Demetrius, passages about the severity of episcopal service and how much God demands from bishops are repeatedly noted 810. Bishop Demetrius most fully outlined his views on what a true shepherd should be in the “Chronicle of Cells” 811. This work was originally intended as a “cell reading” for selected people, primarily students of the Rostov school, most of whom were preparing to become priests 812. The chronological presentation of the events of world history gave the author reasons for lengthy teachings on various topics, among which was a discussion about the priesthood. This instruction was so successful and meaningful that it was later rewritten separately under the title “A Word on the Shepherding of Spiritual Shepherds” 813. The basis for them was the classical texts of the Eastern patristic tradition, mainly the word on the priesthood of St. John Chrysostom 814. Based on them, the Bishop of Rostov deduces three main qualities of a true priest: to be a teacher in word, holy in life, and to have concern for his flock. It is important to note that although the Chronicle contains many quotations from Catholic authors, there are practically none specifically in the teaching on the priesthood. Even when the author of the Chronicle expresses his cherished thoughts about the severity of the episcopal service, he does not use the quotes of the Latin theologians Bernard of Clairvaux and Robert Bellarmine that once attracted his attention, but relies only on the interpretations of St. John Chrysostom on the apostolic acts and epistles, as well as on the writings of St. Gregory the Great 815. However, there is still one significant reference to Catholic works - albeit in the form of an allusion - in the teachings of the Chronicle about the priesthood. And it is of all the more interest to us because its content is very important for understanding the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov for the duties of the clergy. In one of his sermons, Thomas Mlodzianowski, interpreting the words of the Psalter: “they exchanged their glory for the image of an ox eating grass” (Ps. 55:20), compares bad rulers with the idol of a calf, which was “a god who had to give everything, carry everything, but he only took and swallowed everything. This is how these bad rulers know how to act, these little calves, greedy for other people’s goods, other people’s hay” 816. Metropolitan Demetrius liked this passage, but it served as a source of inspiration for the Rostov bishop to talk not about wasteful rulers, but about careless shepherds. Starting with the fact that in one of the translations of the biblical book of the prophet Zechariah, the words: “About those who feed the vanity and the rest of the sheep” (Zechariah 11:17), sound like “About the shepherd and the idol!”, Met. Dimitry interprets this expression in line with Mlodzyanovsky’s reasoning. Based on the interpretations of St. Cyprian and Ambrosius 817 that the Israelites did not sculpt the whole calf, but only its head eating hay, Met. Demetrius makes an extensive comparison of the lazy shepherd and the calf-headed idol: “The idol is golden and honest for the sake of gold; golden and a shepherd in rank and honest for the sake of the pastoral rank. Golden idol and honest; and a shepherd who does not have the spirit of zeal for the sheep is as if soulless. A frameless idol of a calf, not wearing a yoke on his neck: and a shepherd, not wearing, as befits, the burden imposed on him, is as if he does not have a shoulder, not harnessed to the yoke of Christ. This is not an image of a working calf, but only one that eats: and a shepherd, who does not lift up the labors due to him, but only feeds on rich meals; I am like a fed calf, for I am like a golden calf; and kindness to such a person is spoken in Scripture: “O the shepherd and the idol!” 818. The understanding of the priesthood as a certain privilege, and not as a set of duties to “sow spiritual seeds” 819, the existence of the cleric as “an idol of gold, but soulless” - this is what the Rostov Metropolitan saw as the main trouble of the modern clergy. The same idea is key in the first letter of Metropolitan. Demetrius to the priests. It begins with a description of the offenses of “evil confessors” who violate the secret of confession by divulging the sins they have confessed. Then the Metropolitan sets out the essence of the Sacrament, how it is performed, emphasizing what the duties of the confessor are and what his responsibility is before God and the penitent. The Bishop shows that it is not the priest himself who forgives sins, but the Lord, and, accordingly, the spiritual father acts only as an instrument of God and must keep His secret. The same confessor who reveals the confessed misdeeds of his spiritual children commits a terrible sin before the Lord, he is “the destroyer of the mystery of God, the violator of the seal of the Holy Spirit” 820, who, moreover, turns people away from salvation and deprives them of good glory. However, the root of the problem is Met. Dimitri of Rostov sees himself not in the moral imperfections of individual priests, but in the false consciousness of the confessor as a kind of full-fledged ruler of his spiritual children. This is where the boasting of spiritual children comes from, and threats to reveal their sins in case of disobedience. Dimitri Savich considers such claims from confessors to be unfounded: “Why on earth would I need to eat this, to boast about spirituality? What praise is there to wash someone away from cronyism and what vanity is there to cleanse someone else’s courtyard of pus? What glory is there in wiping off other people’s feces?” 821. According to Met. Demetrius, clergy is, first of all, the fulfillment of the sacrament of Confession: “Spiritualism was given by God to the priest for the service of human salvation, and not for vanity and pride, and vain exaltation, and not for unnecessary power over spiritual children. Even if the power has been given from God to the priest to bind and resolve sins, but that power only acts at the very time when the mystery of confession and repentance is accomplished: after confession, the confessor cannot remember and commemorate the confessed sins, and it is not appropriate for him to have any power over spiritual children” 822. At the same time, the priest, Metropolitan. Demetrius should be a confessor not for the elect, but for the entire flock that flows to him: “It is enough for you that everyone leads you as a confessor in their existence, people who come to your church” 823. Another problem raised in the message was the reluctance of priests to go to the sick and poor to perform the sacraments of Confession and Communion. Metropolitan Demetrius strictly condemned such priests and ordered them to visit all parishioners in need of the Sacraments. The same priests, whose flock was too large, were supposed to be helped by the marginal priests serving in the same church. The text of his message, Metropolitan. Demetrius sent it to Hieromonk Joseph, the metropolitan governor in Yaroslavl, accompanied by a letter intended directly for the hieromonk. In the letter, the bishop asks the priest. Joseph to notify the laity that if the rector of their church for some reason cannot or does not want to perform the sacraments of Confession and Communion, then this should be done by other priests of the church, “ultimate priests.” If the confessor of a layman divulges the sin of his spiritual child, boasts and “extends the excessive power of the clergy for the sake of”, then the spiritual father should be chosen in another parish or in a monastery, among the hieromonks. Against the opinion that “black priests” cannot accept confession, the Rostov bishop cites a number of arguments 824. Bishop Demetrius again defines the reason for his instructions as follows: “those who are not from the worldly priests, who do not fear God, who neither keep the commandments and rules of the holy fathers, nor have shame, boast of clergy, extend excessive power over spiritual children and denounce them, and reproach them in front of other people, which is displeasing to God, and disgusting to the holy church, and disgusting to people, but to ours.” Velmi’s humility is sad” 825. Thus, for Met. Demetrius of Rostov, a confessor is a minister of the Church through whom Jesus Christ cleanses the souls of parishioners in the sacrament of Repentance. This obviously contrasts with the ancient Russian idea of ​​the confessor as an autocratic ruler of the life of a penitential family, who through teaching, prayer and penance directs the applicant to salvation. It follows from this that for Met. Demetrius of Rostov's response to the crisis of clergy is the rejection of the medieval system of the penitential family in favor of greater independence of the laity, and a reduction in the role of the charismatic personality in church life. In this regard, it is interesting to note the following fact: in the Mogilyan tradition, with a wide reception of the experience of the Catholic Reform, such an important feature of post-Trident Catholicism as the desire to separate the clergy from the laity in everyday life, to emphasize the otherworldliness of the priesthood by a kind of caste isolation 826, was practically not reflected. It is interesting to compare views on the role of Metropolitan’s confessor. Demetrius of Rostov with the position of the Old Believers, on the contrary, who sought to revive the former role of the spiritual father. Archpriest Avvakum’s “spiritual credo” was as follows: “The patriarch, as I am in Christ, shall not have such power over you, I will anoint your soul with my blood and wash it with my tears” 827. The confessor begs his children, but he also gains special power over them. Within the vast penitential family of Avvakum, there was an atmosphere of unanimity and obedience to a caring spiritual father, who monitored the lives of his children even by correspondence. At the same time, the sin of the spiritual child was perceived by Avvakum as an act of disobedience to the confessor, and the contradiction of the spiritual child, Deacon Fyodor, in religious matters caused such indignation in Avvakum that the archpriest did not stop at forgery and slander in order to discredit the disobedient 828. Thus, for Rev. Habakkuk The Church fades into the background before the majestic figure of the confessor. Such an orientation towards charismatic leadership inevitably led to isolation and sectarianism, fragmentation into groups that depended on the views and qualities of their spiritual leaders. Metropolitan's position Dimitria was the opposite. Since not every priest has high spiritual experience, the priest should not pretend to be an incarnate guardian angel. The confessor must contribute to the salvation of his spiritual child not so much through personal advice and deeds, but through the teaching of the Sacraments. The emphasis is shifted from the personality of the confessor to the sacrament of Confession, in which, regardless of which priest performs it, the Holy Spirit acts. A new look at the place of the priest in spiritual life led to the fact that other demands were placed on the priests themselves. Such a hierarchical consciousness again makes us remember Met. Peter Mogila with his Christ-centric ecclesiology and the logically related assertion of bishop's authority and power. It was already said above that Bishop Demetrius demanded that the priest be “teachable.” This “educational ability,” however, could be of different kinds. High knowledge (which was mentioned in the last chapter) remained, obviously, difficult for the current generation of priests, but was rather the lot of a new generation of shepherds, and therefore, in the final part of the second letter to the priests, it was prescribed to send children to schools 829. This most clearly demonstrated the above-mentioned difference between the Mogilyan tradition and the Great Russian one: the fundamental solution to the problems of the undisciplined clergy was the education of a new generation of pastors, educated and acquired the skills necessary to read new literature. But from all pastors - even the most unlearned ones - the Rostov Bishop demanded that at the end of the mass he teach his flock “from the holy books”, and after the sermon, to learn the main prayers by heart. What is interesting here is a comparison of the instructions of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov with the “Euchologion” Met. Peter's Mogila. The Rostov Bishop demands that priests learn with their flock “The Jesus Prayer, the Heavenly King, the Trisagion, Our Father, I believe in one God, the Virgin Mary, Worthy. If anyone cannot learn all this from the simple ones, then learn the Jesus Prayer, Yes Our Father, Yes to the Virgin Mary” 830. His Kiev colleague recommends a slightly different set of obligatory prayers: the same Creed, Our Father, Virgin Mary, but adding to them the Ten Commandments 831. If we look at the views of Met. Demetrius of Rostov for the role of shepherd and confessor in the aspect of their origins and development, then he will appear before us as the continuer of the Kyiv Mohyla tradition. The direct Catholic influence on the views of Dimitri Savich was minimal in this case: obviously, he did not need book teachings, having many years of experience in close communication with such famous archpastors as Lazar Baranovich and Varlaam Yasinsky. In this regard, it is interesting to note that among the books of the Rostov ruler there was a brochure “Discourses on Jesuit schools between two high-ranking Polish officials”, previously owned by the archbishop. Lazar Baranovich (and before him - someone else). The book contains underlining and marginal notes, but obviously by the hand of the previous owners 832 . It is also known that although in the library of Bishop Demetrius there was the work “Instructions for Priests” by the Jesuit Francisco Toleti, acquired in 1706, there are no owner’s notes in its text, just as there are no references to it in the works of Demetrius Savich 833. However, it is possible that Met. In the last years of his life, Demetrius simply could no longer pay special attention to issues of true shepherding. About the fact that Met. Demetrius of Rostov, in his views on the duties of a priest and confessor - as well as in the practical implementation of these views in the Rostov Metropolitanate - was guided precisely by those orders that existed in his homeland and which, he apparently considered a model, is evidenced not only by the general direction of his activities. Thus, justifying the possibility of hieromonks to receive confession from the laity, Metropolitan. Demetrius refers to the practice that exists in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: “and even if this happens there, the holy faith in all of Russia has gone out, then here, in our diocese, which forbids the same custom to exist” 834. His recommendations to priests are consonant with the resolutions of the Kyiv Council of 1691 and are imbued with the desire to return to the sacrament of Confession the role in Christian life that it had lost due to the negligence of priests. It is also curious that although Dimitri Savich does not directly refer to “Peace with God for Man” by I. Gisel as an instruction for a confessor, in the essay “Short Questions and Answers”, in the section “The Mystery of Repentance” in the answer to the question: “What must the priest observe when observing this secret?” it is explained that the priest is obliged, during confession, to take into account all the personal characteristics of the repentant and the circumstances under which the sin was committed - and precisely in the same form as in “Peace with God for Man”: “1) who 2) what 3) where 4) with some help 4) for what sake 5) how 6) when” 835. However, in the administrative sphere, Little Russian specifics became little noticeable: bureaucratic methods at the beginning of the 18th century. were similar everywhere. This idea is illustrated by one interesting document, the so-called. “Instruction” - instructions given by Metropolitan. Demetrius to Hieromonk Varlaam, before sending the latter on the affairs of the Rostov bishop's house to the Uglich district on April 6, 1705. A document consecrating various church disciplinary issues, from unanimity at worship to monetary collections, is shown to us by Metropolitan. Dimitri also as a major administrator. In this document, most of the points of which are devoted to the incidents of the church court, one can clearly sense something characteristic of the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries. the desire to “discipline” the clergy through bureaucratization: the rules for issuing and checking all kinds of “letters” and “memories” are side by side with instructions about significant incidents to write to the Bishop of Rostov “without waste.” Among others, it is natural to see the duty of the “prikhotsky priest” to compile “name lists” of those who do not confess during Great Lent and “have not had spiritual fathers for many years” and send them to the metropolitan 836. It is interesting that this implies some possibility of separating the concepts of parish priests and spiritual fathers: a parishioner’s confessor can be not only his parish priest. Let us recall that in the era of the “penitential family” the confessor might not even live next door to his spiritual child, but during the synodal period the concepts of spiritual father and parish priest were combined, largely due to bureaucratization and regulation. It is interesting to compare the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov for clergy with his Great Russian predecessor at the Rostov See - Metropolitan. Iona Sysoevich. Both bishops, in their archpastoral messages, show concern for issues of preaching and performing the sacraments of Confession. However, if Jonah limits himself to a general recommendation to confess three times a year and make sure that no one is left without a confessor, while placing special emphasis on abbots and monasteries 837, then Demetrius turns mainly to the parish clergy, and with detailed instructions. Both bishops require clergy to deliver sermons, reading the works of St. fathers: however, if for Iona Sysoevich this is the norm, then for Dimitri Savich it is an indulgence for the uneducated, for those who are not able to deliver sermons on their own. Finally, Iona Sysoevich could not even think about training his clergy, while Dimitri Savich obliges the priests to send their sons to the newly opened school. All this shows what, despite the general similarities, was the difference between the “innovator” bishop of the Nikon era and the Little Russian Mogilyan of the early 18th century. So we can draw some conclusions. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov took over his diocese at a time when issues related to the sacrament of Confession and clergy attracted the attention of the hierarchs of the Russian Church. In the Rostov diocese, Dimitri Savich, relying on the example of the Mogilyan reforms and the activities of the Little Russian episcopate of the second half of the 17th century. sought to create a well-trained and competent clergy. In his writings, the Bishop encouraged the clergy to behave as servants of the Church, without being vain of their special position and without abusing their power over their spiritual children. This contrasts with the perception of a confessor, widespread in Rus' since the late Middle Ages, as an “elder in the world,” autocratically instructing his spiritual children. For the Bishop of Rostov, performing the Sacrament of Confession is only one of the services of the parish priest, which he must perform in relation to the entire flock entrusted to him; They cannot even imagine some kind of independent intra-church structure of a “penitential family.” The same applies to “teaching” the flock the basics of faith. Such an attitude towards the duties of a priest, in our opinion, is a consequence of the entire body of ideas and theological views that underlay the Mohyla tradition as a whole. The role of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the religious life of Catholic Europe in the Early Modern era - the calls of hierarchs for regular Communion in the Great Russian Church of the 17th century. - Metropolitan Demetrius about the Eucharist and the veneration of the Holy Gifts - unexpected parallels with I. Pososhkov - the opinion of Metropolitan. Demetrius on frequent Communion - a comparison of the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius and Metropolitan Mitrofan of Voronezh on the sacrament of Communion - the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Old Believers in the works of Metropolitan. Dimitri In the previous chapter it was already said about how important the sacrament of the Eucharist occupied in the religious life of the Early Modern Age. However, sacramentology in this era was not at all the lot of learned theologians: the controversy surrounding the meaning and essence of the Sacrament, which unfolded in the 16th–17th centuries. was directly reflected in the practice of church life. So, in France during the era of Louis XIV, a contemporary of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, the key moment in the forced conversion of the Huguenots to Catholicism was bringing them, who had previously mocked the “goddess of bread,” to communion under the escort of the royal dragoons 838, and the young graduate of the Jesuit college Voltaire wrote touching poems: Christ, the living sacrifice for our sins And living food for His chosen ones, Descends on the altars before their astonished eyes And he reveals himself as God, under the guise of bread, which is no longer bread 839. At the same time, the appeals of theologians about the need to place the Eucharist at the center of the religious life of a Christian inevitably led to the solution of two problems - how to make the laity understand the meaning of the Sacrament and how to ensure that they approach it regularly. And if the first question was related to the general problem of religious education, then the second gave rise to heated debates about how often a Christian should approach the Holy Mysteries, closely related to the issue of regular confession. In Catholic piety of the late Middle Ages, it was considered normal to receive Communion no more than once or twice a year. Movement of “New Piety” XIV-XV centuries. generally did not emphasize the need for frequent Communion, but the movement's most famous document, Thomas a à Kempis's On the Imitation of Christ, devoted an entire section to the benefits of frequent Communion. Another prominent representative of this movement, J. Gerson at the beginning of the 15th century. wrote about the practice of monthly "frequent" Communion 840. This tradition was adopted by the leaders of the Catholic Reform: members of the new monastic orders and congregations that appeared in the 16th century, such as the Barnabites, Theatines, Capuchins, confessed and received communion every week. The most active supporters of the idea of ​​frequent Communion were the Jesuits, who were the most numerous and influential of the new monastic orders. Initially, Jesuit theologians encouraged weekly Communion, and by the 1570s. some of them began to favor daily participation in the Eucharist for the laity. This met with serious opposition among clergy who criticized the practice of frequent Communion from the position of defending the medieval, pre-reform tradition. The Council of Trent established annual Communion as a general norm, confirming the decree of the IV Lateran Council of 1215 841. In the middle of the 17th century. The French Jansenists opposed frequent Communion, believing that frequent confession without deep contrition for sins does not lead to true repentance and, accordingly, frequent Communion is an unacceptable profanation of the Sacrament. By the beginning of the 17th century, it became the norm for pious Catholics to receive Communion once a month or at least four times a year 842. Weekly Communion 843 was probably not uncommon. However, the majority of the population approached the Sacrament less frequently: for example, Polish peasants of the 17th century. received communion once a year on Easter 844. In itself, the idea of ​​frequent reception of the Holy Mysteries is only a return to the practice of the ancient Church and is in no way confessionally specific. At the end of the 18th century. in Greece, frequent Communion became one of the key ideas of the “kollivad” movement. Its leading representatives, such as Rev. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain and St. Macarius of Corinth, fought for the purification of Orthodox liturgical practice from Latin borrowings. Thanks to their efforts, the practice of rebaptizing Catholics converting to Orthodoxy became established in the East. At the same time, the “kollivads” advocated frequent Communion, St. Nicodemus and St. Macarius of Corinth wrote the book “On the Continuous Communion of the Holy Mysteries.” It is curious that the argumentation of the “collivads” in defense of the practice of frequent communion was so similar to the argumentation of the Jesuits of the 16th–17th centuries that it allowed some scientists to assume direct borrowing. However, recent research allows us to say with confidence that borrowing was impossible: the leaders of the “kollivads” did not know any other language other than their native one, becoming familiar with individual Catholic works (among which there were no Jesuit treatises on the Eucharist) only in anonymous translations 845 . We have only limited and contradictory information about the frequency of communion in Russian lands before the 17th century. Most likely, there were many different practices and how often a particular person participated in the Eucharist was determined by his confessor. However, it can be assumed that the peculiarities of the spiritual discipline that existed in the Russian lands in the 15th–17th centuries had a great influence on the regularity of Communion. The desire for cleansing from sinful defilement through ascetic deeds was expressed in long, many-year penances with excommunication from Communion, and the requirements of long-term fasting not only before Communion (“fasting”), but also after communion of the Holy Gifts. This was an obvious obstacle to the practice of regular and frequent Communion. Already from the 11th century. There is information about the existence of “non-gifters” - people who did not approach the Holy Mysteries because they considered themselves unworthy of it, and also simply because of their reluctance to fulfill all the fasts associated with the sacrament of the Eucharist. Such people have not received communion for decades. The hierarchy fought against the “non-gifters” with penances and strict reprimands. However, the results were insignificant, because parishioners did not want to heed the exhortations of the priests about fasting, considering them only an attempt by the clergy to obtain a new source of income. Already from the 16th century. There are calls for a targeted church-disciplinary struggle against “non-gifters,” but the situation, apparently, does not change 846. Religious upsurge of the mid-17th century. marked the beginning of a new stage in the church's struggle for the systematic participation of parishioners in the sacraments. However, the degree of regularity here depended on the jealousy of a particular bishop. If Met. Rostov Ion Sysoevich in 1652 instructed the archimandrites and abbots of the monasteries of his diocese to give communion to “elders and lay people” three times a year “or as much as is powerful for them” 847, then in general, annual communion during Great Lent remained the norm 848. For example, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, in a letter to the Novgorod clergy, called on the Novgorodians to confess every fast, and during Great Lent, “whoever, according to the rules of the holy fathers, is worthy of the Holy Mysteries of Christ to receive communion, let him receive communion” 849. The schism affected the attitude of the laity to the sacrament of Communion. It can be assumed that communion among the Old Believers was not particularly frequent, because Old Believer confessors were supporters of strict penances in the spirit of the shepherds of the 15th century. The Old Believer leader, Monk Abraham, even condemned the “Nikonian” confessors for accepting the laity who returned to them from the Old Believers without strict penance 850. Old Believer leaders called on the laity not to receive communion from Orthodox priests, declaring that in the “Nikonian” churches there are not true Holy Mysteries, but defilement. Those who, succumbing to Old Believer propaganda, decided to leave their “Nikonian” confessor, often could not find a new one and did not participate in the Eucharist at all. Not only the “schismatics,” but also the Orthodox did not fast, for various reasons, from “pious” fears and ignorance to outright laziness. Both of them usually justified their refusal of Communion by citing “unworthiness” or long-term penance imposed by a distant confessor. Without a special investigation, it was impossible to understand whether a particular person receives communion, and if not, then what are the true reasons for his “not giving.” Thus, in the conditions of the spread of the Old Believers and the general decline of the clergy system, the old system, in which the layman personally chose his own rhythm of Communion, led to the multiplication of “non-gifters.” At the same time, the spread of the Old Believers led to the fact that from the 1660s. the annual Communion on Easter begins to be understood by the clergy as a “test of orthodoxy” and a reliable means of identifying secret “schismatics”; hence the requirement that all communicants be taken into account in special books 851. In connection with these circumstances, by the beginning of the 18th century. Metropolitan Demetrius and his contemporaries had to deal with the widespread practice of extremely rare participation in the Holy Mysteries and the lack of perception of the Eucharist as an integral part of religious life. Changing the view of the Sacrament of the Sacraments became one of the most important goals of the archpastoral ministry of Dimitri Savich. In the essay “On Communion of the Holy Mysteries” Met. Demetrius considers the question of what a Christian needs in order to partake of the Holy Mysteries, the center of his reasoning being the words of the Apostle Paul: “Let a man tempt himself, and so let him eat of the Bread, and let him drink of the Cup. He who eats and drinks more unworthily, judges himself by eating and drinking, without considering the Body of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:28-29). But what does it mean to tempt (i.e., test) oneself, and what does it mean to reason (i.e., think) about the Body of the Lord? At the beginning, Met. Demetrius gives brief answers to these questions: a person must examine his soul by confessing all sins, and also prepare for the Sacrament by fasting and prayer. The one who does all this is the one who discusses Communion. However, then Met. Demetrius approaches the words of the apostle. Paul on the other hand. To reason means to think. What should be the thoughts of a Christian when he approaches the Chalice? The main idea of ​​the proposed Metropolitan. Demetrius of prayerful reflection is that the communicant begins the Holy Mysteries, despite his sinfulness and unworthiness, since he cannot live without Christ, who heals spiritual wounds and gives life 852. At first, Met. Demetrius speaks of the great holiness of the Holy Mysteries and the need for a proper attitude towards Them 853. A proper understanding of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Gifts for the Rostov Bishop is the key to spiritual life and knowledge of the Creator: “Unless you know Christ God Himself in His Most Pure and Life-Giving Mysteries, you do not know what exists, you do not have faith and love for Him, and you do not render the veneration due to Him; then teach ordinary people the true knowledge of God” 854. Metropolitan Demetrius considered the consciousness and understanding that Christ Himself is in the Chalice to be key in the sacrament of the Eucharist. One of the works of the Rostov Bishop is twelve articles on transubstantiation in the Eucharist, in which the Bishop, with the help of examples and images, resolves various doubts about the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Chalice 855. The final articles tell us how to prepare for the Sacrament. In order for a person to receive communion of the Holy Mysteries without condemnation, he must, according to the apostle. Paul, “discuss” about them. “Reasoning” consists in cleansing the soul from sins, remaining in the Orthodox Church and believing about the Holy Mysteries as the Church believes. All this inevitably brings us back to the plots discussed in detail in the previous chapter. If there we talked about the Transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts as a subject that worried church intellectuals throughout Europe in the 16th–17th centuries, then here we have before us another level of the same phenomenon - the education of the so-called. "Eucharistic piety" among the flock and clergy. This brought the distant ends of the Christian world closer together: it is no coincidence that the Rostov Metropolitan in his words about Communion “with reasoning” was in tune, for example, with his contemporary, the famous “Sun King” in France, Jesuit-preacher L. Burdal, who, in sermons filled with allusions to the holy fathers, taught that the Eucharist is approached in two ways - by habit or in a “holy manner”, with an inner conversion of the heart 856. True, Bourdalou preached among the dévotes, the most devout French, and Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov was never a mentor to the chosen laity, rather the opposite. The Rostov Metropolitan was deeply shocked by an incident from his trip to Yaroslavl in 1702. Arriving at one of the rural churches, the bishop asked the local priest about where he kept the Body of Christ, but he did not even understand the question. He did not understand even when Met. Dimitri asked where the spare Gifts were. After the priest accompanying the bishop explained that the metropolitan was talking about a “reserve,” the village priest showed a “very vile” vessel. This incident became for Metropolitan. Demetrius is a striking example of the fact that many Rostov priests do not understand the essence of the Sacrament they perform, which is why they treat the Holy Gifts with neglect. Therefore, in the works of St. Demetrius devotes significant space to the proper preparation of the presbyter for serving the liturgy and his pious attitude towards the Holy Gifts. This constitutes the main content of the second letter to the priests, the works “On the Communion of the Holy Mysteries” and “Memory of the Spiritual Father on How to Guide a Protege,” as well as several paragraphs of the “Instructions” to Hieromonk Varlaam 857. In them Met. Demetrius gives detailed instructions, sometimes identical verbatim, on how a priest should prepare for serving the Liturgy. Firstly, this is the preparation of the priest himself: external and internal: reading all the prescribed prayers, cleansing the soul from sins (which requires frequent and detailed confession), three-day abstinence from marital communication, fasting and silence the day before and in the morning before performing the Sacrament. Particular attention is paid to the internal disposition of the priest: the priest must serve and receive communion, being in faith, hope and love for Christ 858. Speaking about these subjects, Dimitry Savich draws attention to two blatant cases of violation: when the priest did not read most of the prayers during the service, making the excuse that he had read them at home in advance, and cases of serving the liturgy with a hangover 859. Secondly, this is a reverent attitude towards material shrines, such as the proper preparation of liturgical prosphora 860. In general, the Bishop of Rostov pays special attention to prosphora: in the “Instruction” to Hieromonk Varlaam, which touches on liturgical aspects only in passing, two points are devoted to prosphora: it is carefully stated that they must be prepared from pure wheat flour and printed with a four-pointed cross 861. These instructions, most likely, were written “based on” the corresponding teaching in the “Euchologion” by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila 862, which, of course, is much more detailed and regulated, literally to the point of bureaucratic instructions. In comparison with the latter, Dimitry Savich’s instructions are distinguished by simplicity and brevity, as well as greater specificity: it seems to give answers to the question: “What should I do and what should I not do?” Here we can assume that both bishops took into account the peculiarities of perception of the clergy of their dioceses. Thirdly, this is the veneration of the Holy Gifts. Remembering that same unfortunate incident on the way to Yaroslavl, the Rostov Bishop strictly forbids calling the spare Gifts “reserve”, because this insults the Body of Christ and describes in detail how the spare Gifts should be handled, referring to the Euchologion Met. Peter the Mogila, calling it the “Great Trebnik of Kiev” 863. However, another point is of greater interest, also connected with the veneration of the Eucharist: Met. Demetrius writes that when serving proskomedia and liturgy, the priest must first of all light a candle in front of the Holy Gifts in the altar. Dimitri Savich here notes not only the liturgical meaning of a lit candle - the image of the Holy Spirit, but also points out that if candles “out of our zeal” are lit in front of the images of saints, then how much more important it is to light the candle in front of Christ directly, and not just in front of the images present in the church 864. It is curious that in his letter to Metropolitan. Stefan Yavorsky (dating from the same 1704 as the letters to the priests of Metropolitan Demetrius!), I. Pososhkov, enumerating the measures necessary to eradicate ignorance and church discord, complains in particular that on holidays: “and in the altar at the throne of God no matter how many candles burn, but even before the very life-giving body of Christ there is never a single candle. And if, sir, this saying of mine is good, that there should be lights of the throne of God and before the ark, where the body of Christ is preserved, and before everyday gifts, then I imagine that those lights will be more pleasing to God than before icons, since here is not an image, but the body of Christ itself” 865. Further, I. Pososhkov advises the Ryazan Metropolitan to include in the written rite of confession an instruction that priests instruct their spiritual children to buy candles to light before the altar. It is obviously impossible to talk about any kind of mutual influence here - although Met. Dimitri was familiar with Pososhkov’s anti-Old Believer “The Obvious Mirror”, he even had it in his library, moreover, he highly valued it, but complained in correspondence that he did not have the honor of knowing “who is writing, how long ago, is he alive?” 866. Such an amazing coincidence of opinions of two contemporaries who were not indifferent to the Christian faith again allows us to assert that Dimitri Savich in his activities expressed the spirit of “new religiosity” that was common to Great Russia and Little Russia at the beginning of the 18th century. Calls from Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov's reverent and attentive attitude to the Eucharist concerned not only priests. In the “Sermon on the Communion of the Holy Mysteries,” the bishop draws attention to the fact that the priest, while constantly serving the liturgy and frequently receiving communion, should not forget that members of his family also participate in the sacrament. The Eucharist should not be some kind of professional “duty” of the priest, but an obligatory element of the spiritual life and of his flock 867. In general, it should be noted that the essay “On Communion of the Holy Mysteries” itself is structured in such a way that most of it is suitable for any Christian, although the final prayerful reflections are obviously intended directly for priests, because they describe the separate Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ 868. The sermon of Dimitri Savich, delivered in the fifth week of Lent in 1706, is entirely devoted to the sacrament of Communion and its place in the life of a Christian. 869 The main theme of the sermon is the need for frequent Communion. The Bishop of Rostov condemns those Christians who rarely receive Communion and shows the benefits of frequent Communion. He contrasts the benefits that participation in the Eucharist brings with those spiritual troubles that lead to removal from the Holy Mysteries. Either a person partakes of the Cup of the Lord and becomes like Christ, or he partakes of the cup of demons, the cup of bad life, and becomes like demons. A special place for Met. Demetrius devotes his time to answering those who do not receive communion, citing their unworthiness with false humility. According to Met. To Demetrius of Rostov, every person is unworthy of Communion. However, there is unworthiness of those who truly repent, and there is unworthiness of those who repent hypocritically or do not repent at all. The one who truly repents is the one who confesses all his sins to his spiritual father, sincerely regrets the evil he has done and firmly desires not to return to it. Such repentance, even if satisfaction is not brought for sins, makes Communion possible for any person, even the greatest sinner. Without it, Communion will be a condemnation. It is obvious that this sermon is directed against “those who are not giftless.” The sermon calls the laity to frequent Communion. But what did Metropolitan mean by “frequent” Communion? Dimitri? This question is quite interesting. As mentioned above, the recommended frequency of communion in different eras was very different. The opinion of the Rostov Metropolitan was as follows: “But what am I saying: they don’t want it often; they do not want to receive communion and rarely: not once a year, every two or three, as many say about it. Some have not received communion for ten years, others for twenty, and others have not known what it means to receive the Divine Mysteries all their lives; unless, when they were babies, when they were baptized, they received communion, but they don’t remember that either” 870. Thus, for Bishop Demetrius, Communion once a year is rare. In the essay “Brief Questions and Answers about Faith,” Dimitri Savich writes that it is appropriate to receive communion four times a year, during all Lents, and “he commanded those who are illiterate, who work with their own hands under mortal sin, to receive communion once a year around Easter” 871. In the same way, in the “Instruction” Hieromonk Varlaam is instructed that priests teach parishioners to confess four times a year, every Lent, especially on Lent, “no one would be without confession and, according to the reasoning of their fathers, they would not be deprived of the most pure divine Mysteries and would come to the Church of God unceasingly, especially on Sundays and ... holidays ... and would stand in churches ceremoniously and calmly with fear and would listen to the divine singing with all attention and pray to the Lord God about the sins they had committed” 872. From this it is clear that Met. Demetrius considers it the norm for the laity to take Communion four times a year. This norm, apparently, goes back to the works of Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila, because “Short Questions and Answers” ​​is an abbreviated retelling of the Mogila Greater Catechism, published in Moscow in 1696. In the “Euchologion” of 1646, Met. Peter Mohyla orders confession four times a year 873. Since the sacrament of Repentance was closely connected with the sacrament of Communion, it seems quite likely that in the Little Russian church they received communion four times a year. However, we have before us a church-wide mandatory norm. If we turn to other, less official works of Bishop Peter, the picture will be somewhat different. In the “Book of the Soul, Called Gold,” a lot of space is devoted to the Eucharist, and several chapters are devoted to the issue of frequent Communion, including, what is especially important, Chapter XX, which is not a translation of the text of Thomas a à Kempis, but the original work of Peter Mogila. In this chapter, the Pechersk archimandrite condemns confessors who postpone communion under the pretext of careful preparation, directly stating that: “Our unconcealed laziness introduces such an empty excuse: they say, I’m afraid that I will receive [communion] unworthily and as a condemnation for myself” 874. Metr. Peter Mogila refers to the example of the first Christians, who received communion “very often,” and then concludes: “And if the Lord God is more ready to give than to receive, and not just once a year, but how many times you ask Him and are ready, the mercy that He can make you worthy, He promised to grant you, you no longer have an excuse.”875. Later, in his instructions for the monks of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, Metropolitan. Peter Mogila cited as an example the Archimandrite of the Vilna Monastery of the Holy Spirit Leonty Karpovich, who served the Liturgy daily: “When I said to him, “It is not good for you to approach the Divine Mysteries often, so that the saints will not come often for the sake of boldness, he answered, saying: as soon as the sun’s light approaches, those who carry the filth on themselves will be denigrated, even if the lesser ones are, they will see: those who partake more often of the Holy Mysteries and the Divine Mysteries sins" 876. The norm recommended by Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov to the laity, is similar to the practice of communion that existed at that time among pious Catholics. To what extent did information about Catholic piety influence the views of Metropolitan. It is impossible to say definitely about Dimitri. It is known that in the library of the Rostov Bishop there was a Catholic book specifically dedicated to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Also, various notes in the texts of other Latin publications indicate that Met. Demetrius was interested in them to confirm the real presence of Christ in the Holy Gifts. In the library of Bishop Demetrius there were no books by Jesuit authors who specifically wrote about the private communion of the Holy Mysteries 877. However, in owned by Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov’s copy of the Catechism of Peter Canisius, the most prominent Jesuit theologian of the 16th century, in the section on Communion states that “the more often this Holy and healing Communion is worthily repeated,” the more useful it is. Meanwhile, no litter of Met. Demetrius associated with this thought is not in the text of the Catechism. At the same time, the words “it is enough for a Christian to receive the whole Christ in the form of bread”, located in the text of the Catechism immediately before the above-mentioned passage, were emphasized by Dimitri Savich, which is undoubtedly connected with the already mentioned attention of the Bishop to the topic of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Gifts. Also of some interest is a collection of sermons by the Jesuit Jan Kraszewski. In one of his sermons, Met. Demetrius of Rostov drew attention to a passage about the importance of Communion, which, in particular, says: “After all, even the single acceptance of the Divine wafer can lead us to great Holiness, it can even kindle us to martyrdom for the sake of God, because then we accept the very Source of Holiness” 878. However, judging by the notes, Met. Demetrius was interested here, first of all, in the idea that Communion is harmful to the unworthy. Meanwhile, in the works of Met. Demetrius also contains his personal reflections on issues of the frequency of Communion. In the manuscript collection Notata Per Alphabetum under the title Corpus Christi, the first two entries are quotations from St. Ambrosius of Milan 879 and Blessed. Augustine 880, speaking about the benefits of daily communion. Knowing that Met. Demetrius of Rostov actively used hagiographic material to confirm his theologian judgments; attention should also be paid to the Chet’i-Minea, where one can find repeated examples of frequent Communion from the Eastern Christian tradition. The weekly communion of monks is described in the lives of St. Onuphrius the Great 881, Paisius the Great 882, Gerasim of Jordan 883, Euthymius the Great 884, Savva the Sanctified 885. There are also references to the laity receiving communion more often than once a week; they are contained in the lives of St. Alexia of the Man of God 886, holy rights. Martha of Antioch 887, St. Fedora Sikeota 888. Thus, we can conclude that on the issue of frequent Communion, Met. Demetrius of Rostov apparently adhered to the Mogilyan tradition: this is evidenced by a clear statement of the minimum norm of communion four times a year (and once a year as an indulgence), combined with calls for more frequent communion without specifying a specific frequency, but with a strong condemnation of pseudo-pious abstinence from the sacrament “due to unworthiness.” We do not find any direct Catholic influence on the views of the Rostov ruler on this issue. So, if the Eucharistic piety of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov is largely in accordance with the Kyiv tradition, then should we assume that in his struggle for the veneration of the Holy Gifts, he became some kind of absolutely new figure for Great Russia? You can compare the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius with the “Spiritual Testament” of Metropolitan. Mitrofan of Voronezh. Bishop Mitrofan came from a Vladimir priestly family and did not receive a school education. From 1682 to 1703 Metropolitan. Mitrofan was the head of the new Voronezh diocese. Soon after ascending to the department, he wrote his most significant monument - a spiritual testament addressed to the clergy. One of the main themes of this testament is the proper celebration of the liturgy and the sacrament of the Eucharist. The main attention of Met. Mitrofan of Voronezh emphasizes that a priest should not perform the liturgy while in a state of mortal sin that prevents worship, especially the sins of fornication and anger. You cannot give communion to the laity if they are in unrepentant mortal sins. Bishop Mitrofan also emphasizes the impermissibility of the inappropriate attitude of priests towards the celebration of the Eucharist: it is inappropriate to enter the altar while drunk or in dirty clothes, to read liturgical prayers indistinctly, to take unclean or unleavened prosphora for the Sacrament, to pour wine into the chalice without adding water, and finally, to have a careless attitude towards the consecrated Holy Gifts. The priest must carefully prepare for the Liturgy and remain in unflagging attention during its celebration: “In no way and no way, after speaking a lot of words during the evening singing and before the Liturgy, offer the Most Pure Sacrifice, but, having quieted your thoughts, send a prayer to your God and do not look back in your thoughts and have a mind full of grief: for the Angels will serve you; and so offer the Bloodless Sacrifice and do not think at that hour of earthly insignificance, accept the Heavenly King in your heart” 889. Thus, the main idea of ​​the Voronezh bishop is that the priest must serve the Liturgy with attention, taking care “so that the Holy Mysteries are not offended by laziness or fighting” 890. This is consistent with what Metropolitan wrote in his writings. Dimitri. Meanwhile, both bishops belonged to different generations and traditions: if Metropolitan. Mitrofan of Voronezh is the flesh and blood of the Great Russian episcopate, then Metropolitan. Dimitry Rostovsky was raised in the Kiev-Mohyla tradition. The commonality of their views on the sacrament of the Eucharist shows that the ideas of Dimitri Savich were not an expression of the specific attitudes of Kyiv theologians, but expressed tendencies inherent in church life in both Great Russia and Little Russia in the second half of the 17th century. However, in the writings of Met. Demetrius, the emphasis shifts from church-disciplinary issues to educational ones: the Rostov Metropolitan strives, first of all, to talk about the meaning of the Sacrament in order to, by revealing the highest significance of the Eucharist, convince the priests and laity to treat the Sacrament of the Sacraments accordingly. Another problem that is posed to the researcher of the sermons and instructions of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov dedicated to the Eucharist is associated with the “old faith”. As already mentioned, Communion in Great Russia by the beginning of the 18th century. was often considered by the Orthodox hierarchy as a confessional “identity marker” and, accordingly, control over the regularity of the Holy Mysteries for the flock was an important method in the fight against the Old Believers. The diocese of Bishop Demetrius was in direct proximity to the largest Old Believer center of Kerzhenets - “Brynya”, hence the question arises: how was the high Eucharistic theology of the Rostov bishop combined with the practical goals of confronting the Old Believers? To begin with, it should be said that Met. Demetrius does not directly mention anywhere the need to track “schismatics” using parish registers of communicants. In the “Instruction” to Hieromonk Varlaam, it is mentioned that parish priests are obliged to write down in the “name lists” those “people of all ranks will not come to confession during Holy Great Lent and have not had spiritual fathers for many years,” and report the lists to the Metropolitan in Rostov 891. However, there is no direct indication that such “non-gifters” are “schismatics” here. Another paragraph of the “Instructions” is dedicated to the “Brynyans”: “There will be schismatic monks in the cities and towns and villages, who do not obey the holy eastern councils and the apostolic Church and the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, and will begin to live in worldly houses and Christians from the Orthodox faith with their malice and satanic teachings will convert and what outrages repair, and having found out about those schismatic monks, ask questions in the house yard... and there will be a lot of [Orthodox Christians - A.K. ] with his evil teaching, if he seduced anyone, and if he seduced someone or burned him in the barns and in the forests, interrogate everything about him truly and interrogate him, send him to a monastery and keep him in the fortress until the decree of the Right Reverend Metropolitan, so that he does not go anywhere... and also deal with the Balti schismatics according to this above-written article” 892. As can be seen from this text, the “schismatic” who should be looked for is a preacher who actively “seduces” the Orthodox to his faith, primarily the “Elder of Bryn” monk. Accordingly, measures directed against such a preacher (imprisonment in a monastery) are aimed at suppressing the possibility of proselytism. Against the background of the cruel anti-Old Believer laws of 1685, this policy of the Rostov ruler was extremely humane. In how much Met. Demetrius personally sought to avoid repression; an illustrative example is the case of the priest David from the village of Kurby, which we know about thanks to the intercession of Tsarina Praskovya Feodorovna on his behalf. David was an active Old Believer preacher, famous for certain “miracles”; the search for his case was carried out personally by boyar I.A. Musin-Pushkin. However, despite the defiant behavior of David, who persisted in his views and publicly insulted the metropolitan, at the personal request of Bishop Demetrius, the punishment was extremely mild: David was not deprived of the priesthood, but was only removed from the parish and offered to choose a monastery for himself to take monastic vows 893 . In fact, the government order on the tonsure of widowed priests into monasticism was only applied to him in its entirety. Usually Met. Demetrius tried in practice to ignore this royal command, as it had no canonical basis and was extremely embarrassing for both priests and parishioners 894. However, in this case, he used it as a disciplinary measure. So, although Dimitry Savich did not advocate control over regular Communion as a way of searching for “schismatics,” Bishop Dimitry in no way ignored the very problem of the connection between the Old Believers and a negative attitude towards the Eucharist. On the one hand, Met. Demetrius in his “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” quite at length refutes the “schismatic blasphemy against the Divine mysteries”, which consists in the fact that the Old Believers call the Orthodox Eucharist “the abomination of desolation” 895. On the other hand, the logic of his “anti-schism” sermon on the 21st week in the Holy Spirit is interesting. It is good to take communion often or once a year. But the “birds of demons, schismatics” taught many Orthodox Christians to shun the sacraments as some kind of abomination. Because of this, many in the Rostov diocese, even priests, receive communion very rarely, almost once in their lives, which is unacceptable 896. Thus, for the Rostov bishop, the Old Believers appear not as a united force that needs to be driven out of the diocese, but as some external factor instilling in their flock inappropriate ideas about Christian piety. This echoes the conclusion of A.S. Lavrov that in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century. There was a special situation of coexistence of two religious cultures. Many of the residents of Russia were not aware of the events of the Schism, continuing to adhere to those rituals that they considered traditional. The sign of the cross with two fingers could easily be combined with attending an Orthodox service; people baptized by the Old Believers could take their children to Orthodox priests to baptize. In fact, most of the population did not know which denomination they belonged to, since they did not think about these issues. There were several reasons for this. Here is the internal heterogeneity of the Old Believer movement, which, moreover, was forced to be outside the law until 1716, and the poor knowledge of the majority of the population in religious matters. Only a fairly small number of conscious Orthodox and Old Believers could clearly see and formulate the difference between Orthodoxy and the Old Believers 897. Orthodox hierarchs, such as Demetrius of Rostov, should not only resist Old Believer propaganda, but also clearly show the flock the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Old Believers, and draw a clear boundary between them. However, the same task faced the Old Believer leaders, who sought to acquire loyal followers, and not an unsteady mass of hesitant listeners, ready at any time to go back to the “Nikonians.” The result was the growing isolation of the Old Believers from the Orthodox environment since the early 1700s. Thus, the first cases of refusal to eat together are known from the mid-1700s 898. This situation remained until the decree of 1716, which legalized the Old Believers and created conditions for the consolidation of disparate communities into a fairly clearly defined confession. This process of mutual isolation and demarcation has direct parallels with confessionalization in Europe 899 . In this situation, the “positive strategy” of confronting the Old Believers was more effective, relying not so much on repression as on strengthening the Orthodox identity, which was to one degree or another opposed to the alien, “schismatic” Old Believers. Apparently, this is exactly what Metropolitan adhered to. Dimitry Rostovsky. The above-mentioned attitude of Dimitri Savich to the participation of the laity in the Eucharist is in line with this strategy: annual Communion is necessary not because it distinguishes the “true son of the Church” from the “schismatic,” but because without it the salvation of the soul is impossible; those who prevent this (“Brynyans”) should be avoided. The main anti-Old Believer work of Metropolitan. Demetrius, “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” is precisely structured as “an expression that their faith is wrong, their teaching is harmful to the soul and their deeds are not pleasing to God.” Her “statements,” of course, were primarily addressed not to the Old Believers, who were rooted in their views, but to those same “undecided” laity, for whose souls both “Bryn” preachers and Orthodox pastors fought. The logical consequence of such a strategy to combat the Old Believers was to convey to the population the idea that the Old Believers are not part of the Orthodox Church and that communication with Old Believer preachers, and, moreover, harboring them, is apostasy. It is no coincidence that in the final “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” Met. Demetrius’s “Admonition to the Faithful” is especially emphasized: “You know, about orthodoxy, that everyone welcomes schismatics, the enemies of the Church of Christ and has friendship with them, and giving alms to them from your estate is the enemy of Christ himself, who is the head of his church” 900. The objects of the “search” were “birds that flew out of Brynia,” small but active members of illegal Old Believer communities who preached “in the world.” So, let's try to highlight the main thoughts of Met. Demetrius of Rostov, concerning the meaning of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the life of a Christian. At the center of Dimitri Savich’s Eucharistic piety was the belief that the Holy Gifts are the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and by partaking of them a Christian is united with the Lord. Understanding this, a Christian should treat the Holy Gifts with the greatest reverence, especially for priests serving the Liturgy. One should take communion often in order to receive sanctification and help from God. These views of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov were to varying degrees consonant not only with the Kyiv Mogilyan tradition, to which they ascended, but also with the thoughts of the Great Russian bishops of the second. floor. XVII century, and the reflections of the leaders of the Catholic Reform, which indicates that the activity of the Rostov ruler in this matter was an expression of pan-European trends. Speaking against Old Believer calls for the laity not to take Communion in Orthodox churches, Dimitri Savich did not seek to identify secret “schismatics” through bureaucratic mechanisms of control over participation in the sacraments. The reason for this was probably that the Rostov ruler preferred to counteract the influence of the “Bryn” preachers not by repressing their supporters, but by strengthening the Orthodox consciousness of the bulk of parishioners and returning those who waver to Orthodoxy through preaching. In his views on the place of the sacraments of Confession and Communion in church life, Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov acts, first of all, as an outstanding representative of the Kyiv Mohyla tradition, who managed to creatively develop the ideas that were laid down in its foundation by Metropolitan himself. Peter Mogila. Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov places regular participation in the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist at the center of religious life. At the same time, the priest should not try to play the role of an elder-mentor for his spiritual children; his purpose was to be a representative of the Church of Christ in the world, cleansing parishioners from sins in the sacrament of Repentance and giving communion to those already cleansed during the liturgy. Both were to be done at least four times a year. Thus, from a theological perspective, the consciousness of the believer’s belonging to a single Church, headed by Jesus Christ, was updated. Direct personal communication with the Divine Head of the Church was to be carried out through regular participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus, answering the main spiritual question of the era, the question of the relationship between man and God, Metropolitan. Demetrius, developing the Mogilyan tradition, affirms a theocentric view of church life. Within the framework of this system of theological views and ideas, both the preaching of frequent Communion and the fight against the arbitrariness of confessors, rooted in the understanding of a confessor as an “elder in the world” dating back to the Middle Ages, acquires its significance. The influence of Catholic authors on Met. Demetrius’s contribution in this case turned out to be extremely insignificant, if not insignificant. In fact, we have not been able to identify a single case where we could say with certainty that Met. Demetrius of Rostov directly borrowed some of his ideas about the practice of making Confession or Communion from his extensive collection of Latin books. There is no sharp gap between the views of Met. Demetrius of Rostov and Great Russian bishops of the second half of the 17th century. Since the 1640s and in particular, from the patriarchate of Nikon, the hierarchy of the Great Russian Church begins to strive to change the place of the sacraments in church life. These actions were not of the nature of some harmonious system, but the general trends - the desire to make the sacraments of Confession and Communion permanent factors in the religious life of the laity, combined with strengthening church control over the previously informal relations between the confessor and spiritual children - are obvious. At the same time, differences are noticeable, but these differences are rather differences in emphasis. Thus, using administrative means in his opposition to the “schism,” Metropolitan. Demetrius avoided repression and did not seek to find secret “schismatics” based on the paintings of those who did not confess. The enlightened metropolitan preferred to resist Old Believer preaching, strengthening the Orthodox identity of his flock, in particular by regular participation in the sacraments, and explaining that the “Brynians” are alien to the true faith and the true Church. Let's summarize. Responding to the challenges that the Early Modern Age posed to him as an archpastor, Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov sought to instill in his flock the consciousness of belonging to the Orthodox Church as the true Church of Christ, and each member of the Church should strive to completely devote his mind to God and through this serve Him. At the Rostov School, future pastors were taught everything necessary to comprehend Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. In the sermons, Christian teaching in all its breadth - from contemplative theology to moral theology - was introduced into the minds of the laity through concepts and dialogues. Knowledge of God must be not only rational, but also mystical - through prayer and participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Moreover, as we found out from the example of a number of stories, it was personal, conscious faith that was for Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov is the main “weapon” in the fight both against the “schism” (a conscientious Orthodox person will not succumb to the persuasion of the “brynians”), and in the fight against sin in general: after all, the latter is not a series of inappropriate actions, but, first of all, a distortion of the “inner man”, generated by his apostasy from God in the mind and heart. In general, speaking about the nature of the religiosity that found expression in the writings of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov, it should be admitted that it was very consonant with the general spirit of the era of the formation of the personal principle. This applies to the view of communion as a personal act of piety, and not a demonstration of good intentions, and persistent attention to the “inner man,” and the aforementioned desire to turn the minds of the flock to God. However, in order to get a complete picture of Dimitri Savich’s views on this subject, a broader study is necessary, including, in particular, his poetic works. “External knowledge” was not understood by Metropolitan. Demetrius as a kind of intrinsic value, as something in itself that contributes to the improvement of a person 901. Latin learning was the key to biblical exegesis and a deep knowledge of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Baroque art and erudition made it possible to preach in such a way as to best saturate the “thirst of the word of God” among the people. To all this, Met. Dimitri Rostovsky mastered it perfectly himself - this is what he sought to teach future priests in his school. At the same time, European education made his theology more profound, systematic and rooted in the patristic tradition, which was especially clearly manifested in polemics with the Old Believers. In general, the priest was understood by Metropolitan. Demetrius, first of all, as a minister of the Church: the Rostov Bishop obviously adopted the hierarchical and Christocentric ecclesiology from Metropolitan. Peter's Mogila through the Mogila tradition. Based on this position, he demanded that the clergy of his diocese teach and preach to the best of their abilities, confess all parishioners, without claiming special privileges and the power of the spiritual father of the former “penitential family,” and finally, be a reverent celebrant of the Eucharist. Of great interest are the conclusions about the relationship between Catholic influence on the views of the “Latinist” Dimitri Savich in various areas. If in exegesis, in polemics and in preaching he actively uses Latin authors, then in matters related to church life he did not resort to direct borrowing from Catholic experience. But the influence of the Mogilyan tradition, ideas going back directly to Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, in this area can be traced quite clearly. The synthesis of Eastern Christian and post-Christian Catholic traditions that Met. Peter, in his theology in the middle of the 17th century, turned out to be very in tune with the tasks that faced Metropolitan. Demetrius in the Rostov Metropolitanate at the beginning of the 18th century. The conclusion that the views of Dimitri Savich were very often in tune with the ideas put into practice by Great Russian church leaders of the second half of the 17th century is also very important. First of all, this concerns views on the sacraments and the attitude towards sin. Since there is no need to talk about any direct influence of the Great Russians on Dimitry Savich, we can argue that the development of religiosity in Great Russia and Little Russia during this period occurred along similar paths. Therefore, the activities of the Mogila bishops at the beginning of the 18th century. - among which Met. Demetrius of Rostov was only one of the first - it should not have been something foreign, but only a continuation and development of the already existing trends in Great Russian religious life. Of no less importance is the fact that Dimitry Savich’s views on the subjects we have examined fit well into the pan-European context. Combined with the previous observation, this again confirms the conclusion that Russian religiosity in the 16th–17th centuries. in its development it is approaching the religiosity of Western and central Europe. The historical development of Russian culture in the Middle Ages and Early Modern times led to the fact that by the last decades of the 17th century. An all-Russian church intellectual elite began to take shape, which united the Moscow and Little Russian learned clergy. In many ways, this became possible thanks to the Kiev-Mohyla educational tradition. From the late 1680s, the activities of Dimitri Savich, the future ruler of Rostov, became significant not only for the Kyiv Metropolis, but also for the entire Russian Church. This was facilitated, first of all, by his work on writing the “Book of Lives of the Saints,” otherwise Chetiy-Minea, a multi-volume work designed to become a real “encyclopedia of holiness” for the Orthodox Slavs, as well as his participation in the debate about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, which worried the Russian Church in the late 1680s - early 1690s. In the Eucharistic disputes, Met. Demetrius did not act as a blind imitator of Catholic authors or fellow Mogilans. At the same time, European-style education helped Dimitri Savich to determine the principles that made it possible to solve the theological problems of the Early Modern Age in the spirit of Orthodox dogma. The first of these was clear logic and the desire to identify the main thing in the controversy and avoid arguing about the secondary. This principle became fundamental to the metropolitan’s theology and later began to appear in all works devoted to pressing theological problems of that time. The second principle was a constant appeal to Church Tradition - and the source of patristic quotations was often Latin publications. A striking example of the application of these principles is Metropolitan. Demetrius was the presentation of the “non-scholastic” judgment of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas about the importance of the entire anaphora for the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, which eliminated the very theological reason for the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680s, as well as a number of other comments made by the Bishop of Rostov regarding the relationship between ritual and faith in the context of the liturgical features of the Great Russian and Little Russian churches. In close connection with the scientific studies of Metropolitan. Demetrius was in his relationship with the Great Russian learned clergy, which began with official correspondence and over the years transformed into true friendship. The history of the twenty-year work of Metropolitan. Demetrius' work on the "Book of Lives of the Saints" shows how, over the years, Moscow's educated society began to share the same aspirations as the church elite of Little Russia. It was at this time, especially in the 1690s, during the era of Patr. Adrian, in the Great Russian church-intellectual elite there appeared people with a European education who sincerely strived for the comprehensive Christian education of their flock. Great Russian and Little Russian intellectuals by the beginning of the 18th century. become like-minded people moving in the same direction - which was facilitated by the process of confessionalization that was taking place in Russia at that time. It was this unanimity that bound Metropolitan. Demetrius with such of his Great Russian friends and recipients as Hierom. Theologist, ig. Karion Istomin, Metropolitan Job of Novgorod and others. At the same time, disputes about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, despite the intensity of passions that accompanied these debates, did not have a deep impact on the process of “Europeanization” of Moscow intellectuals, which brought them closer to the graves. This debate remained, rather, an episode of struggle between two parties, in which the desire to restore doctrinal purity was closely intertwined with ambition and intrigue. Despite his belonging to the highly learned elite, Metropolitan. Dimitri Rostovsky did not live in an “ivory tower.” In his diverse activities, he sensitively responded to the religious and cultural challenges of the Early Modern era, new trends in church and public life. For this reason, Met. Demetrius of Rostov considered his main task as an archpastor to be to educate in his flock the consciousness of belonging to the Orthodox Church, a reasonable understanding of the meaning of the doctrine, Sacraments and rituals. For this purpose, the Rostov School was created, where future clerics learned everything necessary to comprehend the Bible and patristic works. In sermons addressed to the laity, Dimitri Savich tried, through bizarre baroque concepts and dialogues, to reveal Christian teaching in its entirety - from a true understanding of dogmas to the exact fulfillment of commandments. To achieve the goals of Christian education, Metropolitan. Demetrius made extensive use of “external knowledge”; he skillfully used his Latin learning for preaching, exegesis, polemics - and sought to pass on this art and this knowledge to his students. Knowledge of God, according to Metropolitan. Demetrius, it must be not only rational, but also mystical - through unceasing prayer and participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Dimitri Savich called for personal conscious faith: it is this that protects from the temptation of “schism” and in general from all sins, which are not a series of inappropriate actions, but, first of all, a distortion of the “inner man” generated by his deviation from God in the mind and heart. This was also facilitated by the view, going back to the classical fathers of the church, of the relationship between the sign and the signified, the invisible object of faith and its external, material expression, that same “Augustinian semiotic consciousness”, which was assimilated by him through Latin books and clearly manifested itself in polemics with the Old Believers. In general, the ideal of religiosity that the Rostov Bishop preached to his flock was in tune with the era of the formation of the personal principle in man, marked by persistent attention to the “inner man” and personal acts of piety. The meaning of the priest’s activity is that the Rostov bishop, following the tradition laid down by Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, believed, first of all, selfless service to the Church. Therefore, he demanded that the clergy of his diocese teach and preach to the best of their ability, confess all parishioners, without claiming special privileges and the power of the spiritual father of the former “penitential family,” and finally, be a reverent celebrant of the Eucharist. The archpastoral ministry of Dimitri Savich in religious and cultural terms finds various parallels in the practice of church leaders in Early Modern Europe. Thus, the predominant influence on the views of Metropolitan. Demetrius was influenced in this area by the Mogila tradition. Obviously, the synthesis of Eastern Christian and post-Christian Catholic traditions that Met. Peter Mohyla and his successors implemented in their theology in the middle - second half of the 17th century. turned out to be very in tune with the tasks that faced Metropolitan. Demetrius in the Rostov Metropolitanate at the beginning of the 18th century. At the same time, if the Bishop of Rostov relied on Catholic authors mainly when composing a sermon and selecting patristic quotes for exegesis, then in other cases, especially in matters related to the practice of church life, he did not resort to direct borrowing of Catholic experience. At the same time, the views on the archpastoral activity of Dimitri Savich were basically consonant with the ideas put into practice by Great Russian church leaders of the second half of the 17th century. This allows us to assert that Met. Demetrius was not alien to the topical issues of Great Russian religious life at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries; he only continued and developed the already emerging trends. Of no less importance is the fact that the views of Bishop Demetrius on the problems discussed in this work fit well into the pan-European context: this confirms the assumption of the convergence of the religious and cultural development of Russia and Western and Central Europe in the period under review. The observations outlined above allow us to conclude that Dimitri Savich, as one of the most prominent theologians in Russia at the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, while remaining faithful to Orthodoxy, harmoniously combined in his worldview the traditions of the East and West of Christian Europe. Address by Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov to the Catholic heritage was caused by the commonality of problems and challenges that faced the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Russia in the Early Modern Age. Moreover, such a conversion occurred only in the case when, within the framework of the Eastern Christian tradition - in the form in which it existed at the beginning of the 18th century. − it was not possible to find an adequate response to the challenges of the era. It was this logic that prompted Dimitri Savich to use the philosophical terminology of scholastic sacramentology, resort to theological encyclopedias of Jesuit theologians or the style of Baroque sermons. Moreover, it should be noted that Met. Demetrius stood out among his contemporaries precisely by his ability to go beyond the usual framework, including the logic of reasoning of scholastic theology. And the Rostov bishop was helped in this by his perfect knowledge of the Scriptures and Tradition of the Orthodox Church, and at the same time his close acquaintance with the works of Latin spiritual writers of the Early Modern Age. This is what opened up new horizons for the bishop and helped in his theological research. At the Rostov bishop's see, Bishop Dimitri in his activities was a successor to his Great Russian predecessors. The reason for this is rooted in the fact that the main trends in the development of religious life and the methods of its organization were common to Great Russia and Little Russia in the Early Modern Period. Therefore, the installation of a representative of the Mogilyan school in Rostov did not mean that the traditions of the Great Russian archpastors of the 17th century. will forever remain in the past: in his activities, Metropolitan. Demetrius developed and deepened those directions in church life, the contours of which had been outlined here decades before him. These observations logically correlate with observations about the relationship between Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov with enlightened clergy and laity of the Great Russian Church. The learned Muscovites and the Novgorod ruler Job, with whom Dimitri Savich communicated after arriving in Great Russia, were not rivals for the Little Russian bishop, but friends, colleagues and like-minded people, albeit not as experienced in the intricacies of Baroque culture as his compatriots who graduated from the Kiev-Mohyla Collegium. Thus, among the educated Great Russians, Metropolitan. Dimitri felt not like a stranger, but like one of his own, close in spirit. Reflections on the instructions of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in the field of practical religious life suggests that the bishop witnessed the destruction of the ritual and statutory model of spiritual life and sought to awaken in every Christian personal conscious faith, to teach active care for the “inner man.” The need to counter the spread of the Old Believers, as well as the emerging trend towards individualization of religious life, only strengthened the efforts of Metropolitan. Demetrius on the awakening of conscious faith. The fruitful activity of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov in its entirety harmoniously fits into the general course of development of the Russian spiritual tradition and Russian culture of the Early Modern era. Moreover, based on the example of the stories we examined from the life and work of Dimitri Savich, it is clear that Great Russia and Little Russia were not antagonistic poles of the religious and cultural life of Russia in the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries, their unity was expressed in a common cultural paradigm, for which the key idea was the Christian enlightenment of the people. The identified parallels in the religious and cultural development of Western faiths and the Orthodox Church in Early Modern times also require further in-depth and balanced study. Index of ciphers of used manuscripts Department of Manuscripts of the State Historical Museum Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts F. 381. (RS Sin. typ.) Op. 1. D. 352. List of used early printed books 1. Galatovsky, Ioannikiy. Key of understanding. Kiev, 1659. 2. Euchologion albo Prayer book or Breviary. Kyiv, 1646. In 2 vols. 3. Peace be with God to man. Kiev, 1669. 4. Breviary. Vilno, 1621. List of published sources 1. Published texts from the legacy of Metropolitan. Dimitry of Rostov 1. [Demetrius of Rostov, St. ] Book of Lives of Saints. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. 1764. 2. It's him. Essays. T.I.M., 1839. 3. It's him. Essays. T. II. M., 1840 4. It's him. Essays. T. III M., 1840. 5. It's him. Essays. T. IV. M., 1849. 6. It's him. Works of T. V. M., 1835. 7. It's him. Search for the schismatic Bryn faith. M., 1855. 8. It's him. Brief teaching about the seven sacraments of the church. M., 1880. 9. [ Same. ] Indication // Shlyapkin I.A. Decree. op. Applications. pp. 15–42. 10. Same. Brief questions and answers about faith and other things necessary for Christian knowledge. M., 1906. 11. [ Same. ] Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist // Khondzinsky P., prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: Essays on the history of theology of the pre-synodal era. M., 2013. pp. 297–325. 12. Repose of St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky, and an inventory of the property left after him // Moskvityanin. 1855. No. 21/22. 13. Titov A.A. Sermons of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov in the Ukrainian dialect. M., 1909 14. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage of Dmitry of Rostov. 8. Kyiv Cathedral 1691 // Kyiv Diocesan Gazette. 1865. No. 8. Dep. 2. pp. 313–329. 9 . Quevedo F. The life story of a scoundrel named Don Pablos // Aka. Favorites. L., 1980. 10. Mitrofan of Voronezh, St. Text of the oral spiritual sv. Mitrofan, bishop Voronezh // Theological Bulletin 1897. Vol. 1. No. 2. 11. Pascal B. Letters to the provincial. Kiev., 1997. 12. Petro Mogila, St. The Book of the Soul, called Zloto. Kiev, 2007. 13. [AKA] Lifos // AYUZR Ch 1. T IX. 14. Osten. Monument to spiritual writing of the 17th century. Kazan. 1865. 15. Sreznevsky V.I. Letters from Pososhkov to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. St. Petersburg, 1900. 16. Chistovich I. Novgorod Metropolitan Job, his life and correspondence with different persons // Wanderer, 1861, No. 2. 3. Published sources on the history of Christian theology 1. Augustine, blessed Christian Science. M., 2009. 2. Basil the Great, St. Conversation 22. To young men on how to benefit from pagan writings // Basil the Great, St. Conversations. M., 2000. 3. Gregory the Theologian, St. Collection of works in 2 volumes. T. 1. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. 1994. 4. Gregory the Theologian, St. About myself and the bishops // Church and Time. No. 1 (22). M., 2003. 5. Gregory Palamas, St. Triads in defense of the sacredly silent // 6. Joseph Volotsky. Message to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal // Epistles of Joseph Volotsky. M.;L., 1959. 7. Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. M., 2002. 8. Catechism of the Catholic Church. M., 2007. 9. Paisiy (Velichkovsky), St. The life and writings of the Moldavian elder Paisius Velichkovsky. With the addition of prefaces to the books of St. Gregory of Sinai, Philotheus of Sinai, Hesychius the Presbyter and Nil Sorsk, composed by his friend and fellow faster, Elder Vasily of Polyanomerulsky, on mental sobriety and prayer. M., 1847. 10. Paisiy (Velichkovsky), St. About mental or internal prayer. M., 1902. 11. Philaret of Moscow, St. Orthodox Catechism. M., 2004. 12. Confession of Dositheus / Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem. L., 1899. R. 109–175. 13. Die Augsburgische Konfession - Augsburg Confession. 14. The Council of Trent. The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent. Ed. and trans. J.Waterworth. London, 1848. 15. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. NY, 1947. 1. Abramovich D. AND . “The Tale of Varlaam and Josaph” in the Chetyi-Minaia of Demetrius of Rostov // Anniversary collection to M. S. Grushevsky. Kiev, 1928. pp. 729–734. 2. Abramovich D. AND . Litopies of Dzherel Chetyih-Minei of Dmitry Rostovsky // Scientific collection of NAS. 1929. Kiev, 1929. pp. 32–61. 3. Averintsev S.S. Two births of European rationalism // Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition. M., 1996. 4. Averintsev S.S. Ancient rhetoric and the fate of ancient rationalism // Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition. M., 1996. 5. Abraham (Florinsky), archimandrite. A word on the day of remembrance of St. Demetrius of Rostov, the wonderworker, spoken by Archimandrite Abraham. 1786 M., 1786. 6. Ageeva E. A. Trebnik 1658: history of publication // Patriarch Nikon and his time. M., 2002. pp. 174–188. 7. HELL. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. St. Petersburg, 1909; 8. Andreev D.A. Russian universities of the XVIII – first half of the XIX century in the context of European university history. M., 2009. 9. Anthony (Fialko), Metropolitan. Saint Demetrius of Rostov and his pastorate. Kiev, 1999. 10. Almazov A.I. Secret confession in the Orthodox Eastern Church. Odessa, 1894. 11. Arzhanukhin V.V. Philosophy at the University of Padua in the mid-17th century. // Likhudov readings. Materials of the scientific conference. Veliky Novgorod, 2001. pp. 209–210. 12. Astafieva N.A. Dmitry Rostovsky (Personality and era) // Time and creative individuality of the writer. Yaroslavl 1990. pp. 6–19. 13. Bednarsky D. (Bednarsky D.) West and East in the theology of Dmitry Tuptalo // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. pp. 93–131. 14. Belokurov S.A. Sylvester Medvedev's true news to the Orthodox // CHOIDR. 1885. Book. 4. P.XVI. 15. Belova L. B., Kukushkina M. V. On the history of the study and reconstruction of the manuscript collection of the Antonievo-Siysk Library // Materials and communications on the funds of the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences. L., 1978. pp. 154–187. 16. Belova L. B. Old printed books from the library of the Anthony-Siysky Monastery // Book collections of the Russian North: problems of studying, ensuring preservation and accessibility. Vol. 4. Arkhangelsk, 2009. 17. Belonenko M. A . , Enin G. P. “Diariush” by Demetrius of Rostov // Study of monuments of written culture in the collection. and archives of the Department. manuscripts and rare books: Memoirs and diaries. L., 1987. pp. 7–21. 18. Belonenko V. WITH . History and personality: (New materials for studying the work of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // Rus' and the South Slavs: Collection of articles. St. Petersburg, 1998. 19. Belonenko V. WITH . On the history of cultural relations between the peoples of Eastern Europe in the 17th–18th centuries. People and books // Belarusian collection. Vol. 1 St. Petersburg, 1998. pp. 438–448. 20. Belyankin Yu.S. Church and state in polemics with the Old Believers in the second half of the 17th century. (using the example of the activities of the Moscow Printing House). Dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 2012. 21. Bernatsky M.M. The Council of Constantinople of 1691 and its reception in the Russian Orthodox Church (on the question of the canonical status of the term “transubstantiation”) // Theological Works. 2007. Sat. 41. pp. 133–145. 22. Bilous O. The miracle of Archangel Michael in the interpretation of Dmitry Tuptal // Dmitry Tuptal in the world of Ukrainian baroque: Collection of scientific works / Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 25–30. 23. Bilous P. Nutrition of psychology of creativity in “Diyariyushi” by Dmitr Tuptal // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 64–71. 24. Bogdanov A.P. Moscow journalism of the last quarter of the 17th century. M., 2001. 25. Bogolyubov K. L. “External teaching” and literary activity: About three southwestern Russian scribes of the 17th-18th centuries: Dimitri Savich, John Velichkovsky, Paisy Velichkovsky // Filevsky readings. 1994. Vol. 9. pp. 177–202. 26. Bulgarian D. Singing and music in the life of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Mohyla readings. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. pp. 85–88. 27. Brailovsky S.N. F.M. Polikarpov-Orlov // ZhMNP. 1894. No. 9. 28. Brailovsky S.N. One of the “variegated” ones of the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 1902. 29. Brogi-Berkoff G. (Brogi Bercoff G.) “History in Brief” of Hieromonk Spyridon: research experience in European historiography of the 17th century. // Slavs and their neighbors. Vol. 6. M., 1996. 30. Brogi-Bercoff G. (Brogi Bercoff G.) Aspects of Russian historiography of the 17th–early 18th centuries. in the European context // TODRL. T. 54. 2009. pp. 211–219. 31. Bubnov N. Yu. Monuments of Old Believer writing: Works of Gerontius Solovetsky. The story of Patriarch Nikon. M., 2006. 32. Bulanin D.M. Ancient traditions in ancient Russian literature of the 11th-16th centuries. Munchen, 1991. 33. Buseva-Davydova I.L. Russia of the 17th century: culture and art in an era of change. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Art History. M., 2005. 34. Vaigachev S.A. Spiritual culture of the transitional era from the Middle Ages to the New Age in Russia and Western Europe: some typological parallels // Russian culture in the transitional period from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age. M., 1992. 35. Vasiliev M. Memorable places associated with the Tuptal family in Kyiv // Mohyla Readings. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. pp. 91–93. 36. Bartholomew, Met. On the pastoral nature of the creation of St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1949. No. 1. P. 54–58. 37. Vakhrina V. AND . “A zealot of Orthodoxy and an eradicator of schism” (St. Dimitry Rostovsky) // She is. Spaso-Iakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery in Rostov the Great. M., 1994. pp. 16–32. 38. Vakhrina V. AND . Cell icon of St. Demetrius of Rostov “Our Lady of Vatopedi” // IKRZ, 1994. Rostov, 1995. pp. 104–114. 39. Vertelovsky A. St. Dmitry of Rostov and his creations. Kharkov 1910; 40. Vizzhilin N.N. “... so that those hungry for gold do not look for it in my churches” // Monuments of the Fatherland. 1988 No. 1(17). M., 1988. 41. Videneeva A. E. On the history of dedications of the churches of the Rostov Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery // Communications of the Rostov Museum. 1991. Issue. 1. pp. 74–119. 42. Videneeva A. E. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery // Uchemsky collection. Myshkin, 2001. Issue. 3. pp. 43–48. 43. Videneeva A. E. Rostov bishop's house and the system of dioceses. management in Russia in the 18th century. M., 2004. 44. Videneeva A., Grudtsyna N. Metropolitan Dimitri at the Rostov See // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. P.65–80. 45. Viktorov P., priest. , Saint Demetrius of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1959. No. 2. P. 64–73. 46. Volkov A. Editions of the “Cell Chronicler” of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The Star from Kyiv that has risen. pp. 89–97. 47. Ganetsky V., priest. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1947. No. 6. 48. Hermogenes (Dobronravov), bishop. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Christian conversation. 1857. 49. G-kov, K.D. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Wanderer, 1895. No. 8. P. 371–387; No. 9. pp. 3–35. 50. Gladkova O. IN . "The Life of Eustathius Placidas" ed. St. Demetrius of Rostov // V Scientific readings in memory of I. P. Bolotseva. Yaroslavl, 2001. pp. 110–121. 51. Golik R. Rhetoric and mysticism: middle-century images and early-modern stereotypes in the discourse of Dmitry Tuptal // Lviv Medievistics. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 125–135. 52. Golovanova N.D. The problematics and poetics of the spiritual drama of St. Demetrius of Rostov. Abstract of dissertation. doc. Philol. Sci. Yaroslavl, 2002. 53. Golovanova N.D. The theme of life and death in the works of Dmitry Rostov // Literature and philosophy. Collection of scientific articles. St. Petersburg, 2000. 54. Golovashchenko S.I. Christology of Peter Mohyla in the context of reforms in the Kyiv Metropolis of the 30s–40s. XVII century // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the XV-XVII centuries: general and different. M., 2012. 55. Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla and his associates. In two volumes. Kiev, 1883–1898. 56. Golubev S.T. Kyiv Academy at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. Kiev, 1901. 57. Gorsky A.V., prot. About the Council of Jerusalem 1672 // Additions to the Works of St. Fathers 1871. Part 24. Book. 3. 58. Gorshkova V.V., Dobryakova O.I., Poloznev D.F., Rutman T.A. Religious experience of parishioners of a Russian city of the 17th – first quarter of the 18th century (based on materials from the historical and cultural chronicle of the parish life of Yaroslavl) // Man between the Kingdom and the Empire. Collection of materials of the international conference. M., 2003. 59. Granstrem E.E., Tikhomirov N.B. Works of Isaac the Syrian in Slavic-Russian writing // Bulletin of Church History. 2007. No. 1 (5). 60. Gritsevskaya I.M. Readings and reading collections in Russian monasteries of the 15th–17th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2012. 61. Gudziak B. Kiev hierarchy, Patriarchate of Constantinople and union with Rome // 400 years of the Brest Church Union (1596–1996): Critical reassessment. Collection of materials of the international symposium. Nijmegen, Holland. 1998. 62. Guryanova N.S. Old Believers and the creative heritage of the Kyiv Metropolis. Novosibirsk, 2007. 63. Guryanova N.S. Old Believers and “Kyiv scholarship” // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. 64. Derzhavin A., prot. The Chetya-Minea of ​​Demetrius of Rostov as a church-historical and literary monument // Theological works. 1976. No. 15. pp. 61–145; 1976. No. 16. pp. 46–141. 65. Derzhavin A. M. , prot. “The hearts of the faithful rejoice”: Cheti-Minea Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky, as a church-ist. and lit. monument. M., 2006. 66. Derzhavina E.I. Archpriest A.M. Derzhavin. Personality and scientific activity. On the history of the creation of a master's thesis // Bulletin of PSTGU. Story. History of the Church. 2007. No. 4. P. 7–21. 67. Dmitriev M.V. Orthodoxy and Reformation. M., 1990. 68. Dmitriev M.V. Centrifugal and centripetal trends in the development of European Christianity in the 16th–17th centuries. // Dmitriev M.V., Florya B.N., Yakovenko S.G. Union of Brest 1596 and the socio-political struggle in Ukraine and Belarus at the end of the 16th – beginning of the centuries. Part 1. Union of Brest 1596. Historical reasons. M., 1997. 69. Dmitriev M.V. Between Rome and Constantinople: the genesis of the Brest Church Union of 1595–1596. M., 2003. 70. Dmitriev M.V. Church brotherhoods of the Kyiv Metropolis at the end of the 16th century: the result of “Orthodox confessionalization”? // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. pp. 133–153. 71. Dovga L. System of values ​​in Ukrainian culture of the 17th century (on the example of the theoretical decline of Innocent Giesel). Kiev – Lviv, 2012. 72. Drobyazko N.V. St. Demetrius of Rostov and Baturinsky Nikolo-Krupinsky Monastery // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery, 2008. pp. 259–264. 73. Dubinina K. Metaphysics of image in the poetry of Dmitry Tuptal and Ivan Velichkovsky // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 147–152. 74. Dylevsky N. M. Dmitry Rostovsky (Daniil Tuptalo) and the Bulgarian revival // Études balkaniques. 1966. T. 2. N 4. P. 113–139. 75. Dylevsky N. M. Russian and Ukrainian historiography of the 18th century. and “A Brief History of the Bulgarian Slavic People” by Spiridon (1792) // XVIII century. L., 1974. Sat. 10. pp. 127–134. 76. Dylevsky N. M. The life of the Slavic first teachers Methodius and Cyril, processed by Demetrius of Rostov // Études balkaniques. 1986. T. 22. N 1. R. 105–113. 77. Dylevsky N. M. Dmitry Rostovsky and the Bulgarian Renaissance // Studies on ancient and new literature M., 1987. 78. Dyatlov V. Saint Demetrius of Rostov and the Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Saints // Ibid. pp. 130–126. 79. Efimov A.N. Yelets-Chernigov icon of the Mother of God of the cell of Saints Theodosius and Demetrius with sacred objects of their time in the Yelets Dormition Monastery in the city of Chernigov. Chernigov, 1902. 80. Zhivov V.M. Features of the reception of Byzantine culture in ancient Rus' // Research in the field of history and prehistory of Russian culture. M., 2002. 81. Zhivov V.M. From the church history of the times of Peter the Great: research and materials. M., 2004. 82. Zhivov V.M. On the typology of Baroque in Russian literature of the 17th – early centuries. // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. pp. 11–31. 83. Zhigulin E. IN . Moscow-Rostov theater circle St. Demetrius // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. 1992. Sat. 4. pp. 335–369. 84. Zhigulin E. IN . Recitation “On the Resurrection of Christ” at the Rostov school of St. Demetrius // Filevskie readings 1994. Vol. 9. pp. 137–162. 85. Zhigulin E. IN . Source study of the theater of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1993. Rostov, 1994. pp. 139–145. 86. Zhigulin E. IN . The artistic originality of the theater of Dmitry Rostov. Dissertation for a candidate of art history. M., 1995 87. Zhigulin E. IN . Demetrius of Rostov // Historical Lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. pp. 258–260. 88. Zhilenko I. On the question of the main source of the first volume of the Lives of the Saints. Dimitri Tuptal-Savich // Mohyla Readings. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. P.60–71. 89. Zhuravleva S.S. The phenomenon of martyrdom in the hagiographic poetry of St. Demetrius of Rostov (Tuptalo) // Literature and culture in the context of Christianity. Images, symbols, faces of Russia: materials of the V International Scientific Conference, September 22–25, 2008. Ulyanovsk, 2008. Part 1, pp. 11–16. 90. Zagorulko M. “Spiritual Food”: from “Teachings on the Cheese Week” by St. Demetrius of Rostov // Faith and Life. 2010. No. 1–2. pp. 117–126. 91. Zaitsev D.A. The Kiev-Mohyla school in its influence on Russian religious and philosophical thought of the second half of the 17th century. Dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philosophical Sciences. M., 2010. 92. Zaitseva E.E. School of Demetrius of Rostov and the beginning of a new system of religious education in Russia. Manuscript of the thesis. M., 2011. 93. Zvezdina Yu. N. “Grateful Remembrance of the Passion of Christ” by St. Demetrius of Rostov and the reflection of his theme in the culture of the 17th century. // IKRZ, 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 173–178. 94. Zvezdina Yu. N. "Word of Remembrance" by St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky: (features of figurative structure) // IKRZ, 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 143–147. 95. Zvezdina Yu. N. Allegory of St. Demetrius of Rostov and the emblem of Anthony Radivilovsky // IKRZ, 1998. Rostov, 1999. pp. 106–111. 96. Zvezdina Yu. N. “Instruction on the Circumcision of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ” St. Demetrius of Rostov and the new chronology // IKRZ, 1998. Rostov, 1999. pp. 140–144. 97. Zvezdina Yu. N. Subject and image in the sermon of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 2000. Rostov, 2001. pp. 135–140. 98. Zvezdina Yu. N. Sermon on the Holy Trinity by St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky // Trinity Readings. Bolshie Vyazemy, 2001. pp. 69–75. 99. Zvezdina Yu. N. Two globes from the property of St. Demetrius of Rostov and globes in the spiritual culture of the 17th century. // IKRZ, 2001. Rostov, 2002. pp. 260–264. 100. Zvezdina Yu. N. The image of the heart in the spiritual culture of the 17th-18th centuries: (to the coat of arms of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // IKRZ, 2002. Rostov, 2003. pp. 42–47. 101. Zvezdina Yu. N. Sacred texts and allegories in the texts of St. Dimitri. // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery, 2008. pp. 377–386. 102. Zvezdina Yu. N. Instruments of the suffering of Christ in the texts of St. Demetrius of Rostov and church art of the late 17th - early 18th centuries // The Star from Kyiv that shone. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery, 2013. pp. 137–147. 103. Zevezdina Yu.N. “Tombstone” to Saint Demetrius of Rostov (“Poems in Memory of Mortal” by Metropolitan Stefan of Yavorsky) // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery, 2013. pp. 148–152. 104. Zelenskaya G. The personality of Patriarch Nikon and early Russian Baroque. // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. pp. 274–284. 105. Zenkovsky V., prot. History of Russian philosophy. M., 2001. 106. Zenkovsky S.A. Russian Old Believers. In two volumes. M., 2009. 107. Zenkovsky S.A. The ideological world of the Denisov brothers // Russian Old Believers M., 2009. T. 2. P. 594–606. 108. Znamensky L. About the life and works of St. Dimitri Metropolitan of Rostov. Tobolsk, 1892. 109. Zoitakis A.G. Traditional Enlightenment in Greece in the Eighteenth Century: Cosmas the Aetolian and Nicodemus the Holy Mountain. M., 2008. 110. Zubov V.P. Russian preachers. Essays on the history of Russian preaching. M., 2001. 111. Ivanova I. A . Barokt in oratorical prose and drama on St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Abstract of dissertation. doc. Philol. Sciences.. Sofia, 2003. 112. Igumnova N. D. Manuscript “The Cell Chronicler” by Dimitri Rostovsky in the Zonal Scientific Fund. Irkutsk State Library University // V Makushin readings: Abstracts of reports. Novosibirsk, 2000. pp. 42–44. 113. John (Kologrivov), Hierom., S.J. Teachings of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Essays on the History of Russian Holiness. Brussels, 1961. 114. Isachenko-Lisovaya T.A. Evfimy Chudovsky // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century. Part 1. M., 1992. 115. Yosipenko S. Estetichne vchennya D.S. Tuptala (St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov) in the context of the Ukrainian spiritual tradition. Author's abstract. Ph.D. philosophy Sci. Kiev, 1996. 116. Yosypenko S. Dimitriy Tuptalo and ethical-humanistic direction of the early Enlightenment in Ukraine // Ukraine of the 17th century: marriage, philosophy, culture. A collection of scientific works in memory of Professor Valeria Mikhailivna Nichik. Kiev, 2005. pp. 118–127. 117. Igor (Isichenko), architect. The ascetic tradition of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in the hagiographic discourse of St. Dmitry Tuptala // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 7–14. 118. Isichenko Yu.A. Kivo-Pechersk patericon in the literary process of the 16th century - beginning of the 18th century. in Ukraine. Kiev, 1990. P.86–87. 119. History of Ukrainian culture in 5 volumes. T. 3: Ukrainian culture of the other half of the XVII-XVIII centuries. / Goal Ed. V.A. Smoliy. Kiev, 2003. 120. Kalugin V. IN . “The Cell Chronicler” by Demetrius of Rostov // Almanac of a Bibliophile. M., 1983. Issue. 15. pp. 160–174. 121. Kalugin V. IN . About one source of the “Cell Chronicler” Demetrius of Rostov // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1982, M., 1983, pp. 107–111. 122. Kalugin V. IN . Pedagogical activity of Dmitry Rostovsky // Education and pedagogy. thought dr. Rus'. M., 1983. pp. 76–84. 123. Kalugin V. IN . Autograph of “The Assumption Drama” by Dmitry Rostovsky // Cultural monuments: new discoveries. 1985. M., 1987. pp. 99–101. 124. Kabanets E.P. Unknown creation of St. Demetrius Tuptal of Rostov // Mohyla Readings. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. pp. 94–98. 125. Kabanets E.P. Saint Demetrius and the service to the Pechersk saints. // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Demetrius Monastery, 2008. pp. 219–237. 126. Kagamlik S. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: the world of Orthodox spirituality and culture (XVII–XVIII centuries). Kiev, 2005. 127. Kagamlik S. The world of Orthodox spirituality and culture. On the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra of the 17th–18th centuries. Kiev, 2008. 128. Kagin M.A. Petr Artemyev // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century. Part 3. M., 1998. pp. 32–34. 129. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Volume II. St. Petersburg, 2004. 130. Kashuba M. Dmytro Tuptalo in Ukrainian philosophical traditions // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 198–208. 131. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Eucharist. M., 2001. 132. Kirillin V.M. “The Enlightener” by St. Joseph of Volotsky // Notes from the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library. Vol. 51. M., 2000. 133. [Kirichenko O.V.] “The Cell Chronicler” of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Demetrius of Rostov, St. Cell chronicler with the addition of his life, miracles, selected creations. Innocent Gisel, archimandrite. Kyiv synopsis. Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2007. pp. 3–32. 134. Kiseleva M.S. The intellectual choice of Russia in the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries: from ancient Russian bookishness to European scholarship. M., 2011. 135. Klibanov A.I. Spiritual culture of medieval Rus'. M., 1996. 136. Klimov V.V. Saint Demetrius. Kiev. 1995. 137. Klimov V.V. Tuptalo (Tuptalenko) Danilo Savich // Kiev-Mohyla Academy in the names of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Encyclopedic vision. Kiev, 2001. 138. Korzo M.A. Problems of moral reform of society in the early modern era // Ethical Thought. Vol. 4. M., 2003. pp. 89–102. 139. Korzo M.A. The pedagogical system of the Jesuits // History of education and pedagogical thought in the era of Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 2004. pp. 469–532. 140. Korzo M.A. Ukrainian and Belarusian catechetical tradition of the 16th–17th centuries. M., 2007. 141. Korzo M.A. External tradition as a source of inspiration. On the question of the authorship of Kyiv and Moscow Orthodox texts of the 17th century. Two examples // Studi Slavistici VI (2009). Firenze, 2009. S. 59–84. 142. Korzo M.A. Innocent Gisel. Works // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. XXII. M., 2009. pp. 747–749. 143. Korzo M.A. The moral theology of Simeon of Polotsk: the development of the Catholic tradition by Moscow scribes of the second half of the 17th century. M., 2011. 144. Krooming A.A. Collection of works by St. Demetrius of Rostov: (manuscript. Rostov Museum No. 828) // IKRZ, 1992. Rostov, 1993. pp. 69–91. 145. Krooming A.A. Original manuscripts of St. Demetrius of Rostov in the collection. Rostov // IKRZ, 1993. Rostov, 1994. pp. 18–24. 146. Krooming A.A. Chetyi-Minea St. Dimitri Rostovsky: an essay on the history of the publication // Filevsky readings: abstracts of the conference. 1994. Vol. 9. pp. 5–52. 147. Krooming A.A. Book of St. Dimitri Rostovsky “Irrigated Fleece” as a literary source of plots in “Russian folk pictures” and icon painting // Filevskie readings. 1995. M., 1995. pp. 41–44. 148. Krooming A.A. The first book of St. Demetrius of Rostov in Old Believer publications // Filevskie readings. 1995. M., 1995. pp. 207–214. 149. Krooming A.A. St. Dimitry Rostovsky: Exact date of birth // Messages of the Rostov Museum. 1992. Issue. 3. pp. 3–8. 150. Krooming A.A. Icons that belonged to St. Demetrius of Rostov // Filevskie readings. 2003. Vol. 10. pp. 383–399. 151. Korobeynikova L. N. Life of Galaktion and Epistimia as part of the Chetiyh-Menai of Demetrius of Rostov // V Scientific readings in memory of I. P. Bolotseva. Collection of the Yaroslavl Art Museum. Yaroslavl, 2001. pp. 122–137. 152. Korobeynikova L. N. “The Life of Saint Thekla” as edited by St. Demetrius of Rostov // V Scientific readings in memory of I. P. Bolotseva. Yaroslavl, 2003. pp. 135–148. 153. Korogodina M.V. Confession in Russia in the XIV-XIX centuries. St. Petersburg, 2006. 154. Korogodina M.V. Two Old Believer confessional collections: innovations in the traditional text // Bulletin of Church History 2007. No. 4(8). 155. Chris B. Virshovany text by Dimitri Tuptal as the intersection of middle and early modern trends // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 117–124. 156. Krivushin I.V. School and education in Byzantium // History of education and pedagogical thought in the era of Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 2004. 157. Kryzhanovsky E.M. Collected works. T. I. Kyiv. 1890. 158. Krylov G., prot. The concept of “filth” (trash) in Medieval Rus' and in modern Old Believers // Religion as a sign system: Sign. Ritual. Communication. Vol. 1. Tver., 2011. 159. Korsunsky N.N. Materials for the history of the school of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1883. pp. 347–359, 363–365. 160. Kulmatov V.A. On the issue of the dispute by A.Kh. Belobotsky and the Likhud brothers in 1685 // Likhudov readings. 1998. Novgorod the Great, 2001. pp. 53–60. 161. Lavrov A.S. Religion and Witchcraft in Russia 1700–1740. M., 2000. 162. Lebedeva N.A. Religious and philosophical heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University. M., 2004. – 2010. No. 2. P. 88–95. 163. Levchenko V. Biblical hermeneutics in the works of Dmitry Tuptal // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 87–96. 164. Levchenko-Komisarenko T. Top name of the sermons of Dmitry Tuptal and the place in the rhetorical baroque // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 97–109. 165. Le Goff, J. Intellectuals in the Middle Ages. M., 1997. 166. Leskin D., prot. Ontological status of name and word in the philosophical culture of Ancient Rus' // Bulletin of the Samara Humanitarian Academy. Series “Philosophy. Philology". 2006. No. 1 (4). pp. 210–221. 167. Leskin D.Yu. The dispute between the great Cappadocians and Eunomius about the boundaries of the knowledge of God and its reception in Russian philosophy of the twentieth century // State, religion, church in Russia and abroad. 2009. No. 3. pp. 87–98. 168. Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature M., 1979. 169. Lyubimov S. The struggle between representatives of the Great Russian and Little Russian directions // ZhMNP. 1875. No. 9. 170. Nikolsky A. AND . A few words about the Life and writings of St. Demetrius of Rostov // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. 1909. T. 14. Book. 1. pp. 160–171. 171. Nedosekin V., prot. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov and his homiletical heritage. Coursework. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Zagorsk, 1969–1970. 172. Nekhlebaeva N.A. The evolution of school drama in the work of Dmitry of Rostov // Problems of studying Russian literature of the 18th century: interuniversity collection of scientific works. St. Petersburg, Samara, 2005. Issue 13; L., 2007. pp. 71–79. 173. Nikolsky F.Ya. Rostov School at St. Metropolitan Demetrius // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1863. pp. 231–438; 174. Nilus S.A. Great in small // The power of God and human weakness. Great in small. M., 2003. 175. Makkavesky S.K. St. Dimitry as a patrolologist and pastoralist. TDKA. 1910. I. No. 1. pp. 22–64. 176. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, the saint and wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings // Christian Reading. 1842. No. IV. 311–512. 177. Macarius (Veretennikov), archimandrite. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Makaryevsky Chetya-Minea // Makaryevsky readings: Russian culture of the 16th century. − era of Metropolitan Macarius. Mozhaisk, 2003. Issue. 10. pp. 95–110. 178. Makariy (Veretennikov), archimandrite. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Makaryevsky Chetya-Minea // Makaryevsky readings: Russian culture of the 16th century. − era of Metropolitan Macarius. Mozhaisk, 2003. Issue. 10. pp. 95–110. 179. Margolina I.E. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in the history of the Kirillov Monastery // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery, 2008. pp. 203–208. 180. Margolina I.E. Missing and returned relics of the Kiev-Kirillov Monastery. New discovery of the relic of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery, 2013. pp. 51–58. 181. Marchenko O. Works of St. Dmitry of Rostov in the collections of early printed, rare and valuable books of the State Historical Library // Mohyla Reading. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. pp. 101–102. 182. Matasova T.A. Russian-Italian relations in the politics and culture of Muscovite Rus' in the mid-15th – first third of the 16th centuries. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences. M., 2012. 183. Matushek O. Holy Metropolitan Oleksiy in the Baroque literary discourse (Lazar Baranovich − Simeon of Polotsk − Dimitri Tuptalo) // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 110–116. 184. Mathauzerova S. Two theories of text in Russian literature of the 17th century. // TODRL. L., 1976. T. 31. P. 271–284. 185. Matseevich L. Polish preacher of the 17th century, Jesuit Thomas Mlodzyanovsky // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1870. T. 2. P. 108–152; T. 3. P. 155–172; 502–534; T. 4. P. 4–81; 1871. T. 2. pp. 129–218. 186. Melnik A.G. When was St. baptized? Dimitry Rostovsky? // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Demetrius Monastery, 2008. pp. 183–186. 187. Meshcherina E.G. Spiritual and moral problems and “external wisdom” in the works of Andrei and Semyon Denisov: traditions of the Middle Ages in the context of the culture of the 18th century. //Verbum. Vol. 6. Religious and moral transformations of European culture: from the Middle Ages to the New Age. Almanac. St. Petersburg, 2008. pp. 196–211 188. Mineeva S. IN . The Lives of Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky as part of the “Book of Lives of Saints” by Dimitri Rostov (the problem of sources) // Filevskie readings 1994. Vol. 9. pp. 53–74. 189. Miroslavsky V. Saint Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov as a preacher. Yaroslavl. 1889. 190. Mirkovich G.G. About the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The dispute that took place in Moscow in the second half of the 17th century. Vilna, 1886. 191. Mitsik Yu.A. Dimitry of Rostov // Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History. T. 2: G-D. Kiev, 2004. 192. Mishanich Y. Existential motives in the dramas of Dmitr Tuptal // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 167–176. 193. Nekhlebaeva N.A. The work of Dimitri Rostovsky in the context of Russian literary ideas about the inner man of the late 17th – early 18th centuries: a dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Severodvinsk, 2003. 194. Nichik V. M. Etichni look D. S. Tuptal // Philosophical thought. Kiev, 1983. No. 2. P. 77–87 195. Nichik V. M. Petro The grave in the spiritual history of Ukraine. K., 1997. 196. Obtemperansky A. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan and Wonderworker of Rostov (his life and works) // Yekaterinburg Diocesan Gazette. 1909, no. 41, pp. 607–620. 197. Oparina T.A. Ivan Nasedka and the polemical theology of the Kyiv metropolis. Novosibirsk, 1998. 198. Oparina T.A. The number 1666 in Russian literature from the mid-third quarter of the 17th century. // Man between the Kingdom and the Empire. Collection of materials of the international conference. M., 2003. 199. Oparina T.A. On the prehistory of the reception of Ukrainian Baroque theology in Russia // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. 200. Oparina T.A. Polemical bookishness of the East Slavic lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Russia during the Time of Troubles // Troubles in Russia: Conflict and dialogue of cultures: Abstracts of the international scientific conference, St. Petersburg, October 12–14, 2012. St. Petersburg, 2012. 201. Essays on Russian culture of the 17th century. / under. ed. Artsikhovsky A.V. M. 1979. Part 1. 202. Essays on the history of school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR from ancient times to the end. XVII century M., 1989. pp. 261–264. 203. Panchenko A.M. Epiphany Slavinetsky // Dictionary of Scribes and Books // Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century. Part 1. M., 1992. pp. 309–313. 204. Panchenko A.M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter’s reforms // Aka Russian history and culture. M., 1999. P. 7–262. 205. Pascal P. Archpriest Habakkuk and the beginning of the schism. M., 2011. 206. Pachovsky T. “Book of Lives of Saints” by Dmitry Tuptalenok-Rostovsky. Lviv // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 221–265. 207. Pimen. A brief story about the life, works and creations of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, the Wonderworker. With short instructions attached. Yaroslavl, 1884. 208. Pitirim (Starinsky), hierod. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. His theological works and pastoral activities. Course essay. Zagorsk, 1972. 209. Podskalski G. Christianity and theological literature in Kievan Rus (988–1237). St. Petersburg, 1996. 210. Pozdeeva I.V., Dadykin A.V., Pushkov V.P. The Moscow Printing Yard is a fact and factor of Russian culture. 1652–1700. Research and publications. M., 2007. Book. 1. 211. Politylo V., priest. Saint Demetrius of Rostov as a theologian-dogmatist. Course essay. L., 1959. 212. Poplavnaya V. A . Handwritten collection of the 1st quarter. XVIII century from the collection of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Book in Russia: From the history of spiritual enlightenment: Scientific works. St. Petersburg, 1993, pp. 65–71. 213. Popov M.S., priest Saint Demetrius of Rostov and his works. St. Petersburg, 1910. 214. Villager E. Russian Church and Russian ascetics of the 18th century. St. Petersburg, 1905. pp. 24–47. 215. Villager E. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his creations. Russian pilgrim, 1909, no. 15. pp. 238–239; No. 16. pp. 255–257; No. 17. pp. 268–270. 216. Panich T.V. “Answer” of Evfimy Chudovsky to the “lying scripture” of Pyotr Artemyev // Social consciousness and literature of the 16th-20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 2001. 217. Panich T.V. The book Shield of Faith in the historical and literary context of the end of the century. Novosibirsk 2004. 218. Petrov I.I. Kyiv Academy in the second half of the 17th century. Kiev, 1895. 219. Preobrazhensky A. St. Demetrius as a preacher. Kazan, 1909. 220. Prozorovsky A. Sylvester Medvedev, his life and work. M., 1896. 221. Prosvirnin A., prot. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1977, no. 9. pp. 68–75. 222. Putsko V.G. "The search for the Bryn faith." Saint Demetrius of Rostov as a polemical writer // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. pp. 121–130. 223. Pypin A. Last times of Moscow Rus'. Sylvester Medvedev and the “Latin part”. Patriarch Joachim. Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov // Bulletin of Europe, 1894, No. 11. 224. Ramazanova D.N. The Likhud brothers and the initial stage of the history of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (1685–1694). Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 2009. 225. Runciman S. The Great Church in Captivity. History of the Greek Church from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821. St. Petersburg, 2006. 226. Rogozhina N.V. To the history of the parental home of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Demetrius Monastery, 2008. pp. 183–186. 227. Rolland P.A. Simeon of Polotsk on the border of two worlds // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. 228. Romodanovskaya V.A. Gennadievskaya Bible: tasks and principles of publication//TODRL. T. 59. St. Petersburg, 2008. 229. Rosovetskaya T. N. Lavra editions of the “Book of Lives of Saints” by Demetrius Tuptalo and their distribution in Ukraine in the 1st half. XVIII century // Book in Russia: Age of Enlightenment. L., 1990. pp. 58–59. 230. Rubtsova M.L. Life, works and times of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery, 2008. pp. 15–152. 231. Rubtsova M.L. About the date of birth of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. pp. 59–64. 232. Rubtsova M., Rubtsov P. For the glory of the Life-Giving Trinity // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery. Rostov the Great, 2013. pp. 38–50. 233. Rumyantseva V.S. Popular anti-church movement in Russia in the 17th century. M., 1986. 234. Rumyantseva V.S. Epiphany Slavinetsky in Moscow // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the 15th–17th centuries: general and different. M., 2012. pp. 278–289. 235. Rutman T.A. Saint Demetrius and the Demidov Icon of the Mother of God // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov; Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitrievsky Monastery, 2008. pp. 265–272. 236. Rutman T.A. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in the church history of Yaroslavl // Images of the city in the horizon of Russian dynamics. Yaroslavl, 2010. pp. 225–231. 237. Savchenko I. The genre of “memory” in the system of “Chetikh-Menya” by Dmitry Rostovsky (Tuptal) // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 15–24. 238. Sazonova L. AND . Literary culture of Russia: Early Modern times. M., 2006. 239. Sazonova N.I. Changing the liturgical text as a direction for the transformation of religious consciousness: based on the material of the liturgical reform of Patr. Nikon. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Tomsk, 2009. 240. Samarin Yu.F. Works of T. V. M., 1880. 241. St. P. St. Demetrius and Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery. Russian Pilgrim, 1914, No. 48, pp. 768–772. 242. Svirelin A.I., prot. Orthodox confession of the Christian faith in the Chetya-Minea of ​​St. Demetrius of Rostov. St. Petersburg, 1893. 243. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, Wonderworker. Yaroslavl, 1909. 244. Saint Mitrophan of Voronezh. Life. Akathist. Zadonsky Nativity-Bogoroditsky Monastery, 2011. 245. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1955. No. 9. pp. 28–32. 246. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Moscow. M., 1849. 247. Sevastyanova S. Epistolary works of Patriarch Nikon in the tradition of Russian Baroque // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. 248. Sinitsyna N.V. Types of monasteries and the Russian ascetic ideal (XV–XVI centuries) // Monasticism and monasteries in Russia in the 9th–20th centuries. M., 2002. 249. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek. M., 2008. 250. Siroid O. Psalms of Dmitry Tuptal in the ancient tradition // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 153–166. 251. Syroid D. Genre of Life in the “Four Menaions” of St. Dimitria (Tuptala) // Lviv media studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 42–49. 252. Smentsovsky M. Brothers Likhud. St. Petersburg, 1899. 253. Smirnov S.I. Old Russian confessor. M., 1914. 254. Sobol V. The book by Dmitry Tuptal is memorable. Warsaw, 2004. 255. Sobol V. Shchodenniki Dmitra Tuptal and Joasafa Gorlenka in the context of European tradition // Ukraine of the 17th century: marriage, philosophy, culture. A collection of scientific works in memory of Professor Valeria Mikhailivna Nichik. Kiev, 2005. pp. 521–531. 256. Sobol V. The history of the stanza ““Chetih-Menya” by Dmitry Tuptal’s sculptor // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 72–86. 257. Sofronova L.A. Poetics of the Slavic theater of the XVII - first half XVII centuries: Poland, Ukraine, Russia. M., 1981. 258. Sofronova L.A. “Christmas drama” by Dmitry Rostovsky // Spiritual culture of Slavic peoples: Literature. Folklore. Story. L., 1983. pp. 97–108. 259. Stefanovich P.S. Parish and parish clergy in Russia in the 16th–17th centuries. M., 2002. 260. Sukina L.B. Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov and his essay “The Inner Man” // History and culture of the Rostov land. 2007. Rostov, 2008. 261. Sulotsky A., prot. Metropolitan Demetrius as Archpastor of Siberia. Wanderer. 1866. No. 11. P. 51–66.P. 395–418. 262. Sumtsov N.F. Ioannikiy Galatovsky // Kyiv antiquity. 1884. 263. Sumtsov N.F. Lazar Baranovich. Kharkov. 1885. 264. Sukhova N.Yu. Vertograd of spiritual sciences. M., 2007. 265. Tarasenko A.F. Memoirs of St. Demetrius of Rostov in the funds of the Chernigov Regional Museum named after V.V. Tarnovsky // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Rostov the Great. St. Yakovlevsky Monastery, 2008. pp. 249–258. 266. Tarasov A. Russian church hierarchy in the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov: “Chronicle of the Rostov bishops” // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. pp. 98–120. 267. Timoshenko L.V. Prince V.-K. Ostrozhsky and “one of the same faith” Muscovy (to the problem of the relationship between Orthodox religious cultures of Eastern Europe) // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the 15th–17th centuries: general and different. M., 2012. 268. Titlinov B. Feodosius (Yanovsky) / Russian Biographical Dictionary of St. Petersburg, 1913. Yabolonovsky-Fomin. pp. 346–357. 269. Titov A.A. Life of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, compiled from manuscripts and printed sources. Rostov-Yaroslavsky, 1902. 270. Titov F.I. On the history of the Kyiv Theological Academy in the 17th–18th centuries. // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1909. III. pp. 173–239. 271. Tikhvinsky N.A., prot. Memories of the life and works of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, wonderworker, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his arrival in Rostov the Great. Rostov-Yaroslavsky, 1902. 272. Thomson F. Meletius Smotritsky and the union with Rome: a religious dilemma in 17th-century Ruthenia / 400 years of the Union of Brest 400 years of the Church Union of Brest (1596–1996): A critical reappraisal. Nemegen, Holland. B.m. 1998. 273. Troitsky A. St. Demetrius as an anti-schismatic figure // Wanderer. 1915. No. 2. P. 219–248. 274. Trofimenko T. Passionate motives in the poetry of Metropolitan Dimitry Tuptal // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 136–146. 275. Turilov A.A., Florya B.N. On the question of the historical alternative to the Union of Brest // Dmitriev M.V., Florya B.N., Yakovenko S.G. The Union of Brest of 1596 and the socio-political struggle in Ukraine and Belarus at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. Part 1. Union of Brest 1596. Historical reasons. M., 1997. 276. Uspensky B.A. Schism and cultural conflict of the 17th century // Selected works. T.1. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture. M., 1994. pp. 333–367. 277. Uspensky L.A. Theology of the Orthodox icon. M., 1997. 278. Fedotova M.A. Dimitri // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. M., 1993. Issue. 3. Part 1. pp. 258–271. 279. Fedotova M.A. About two sources of Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov: (Foma Mlodzyanovsky and Cornelius a Lapide) // TODRL. T. 48. 1993. 280. Fedotova M.A., Kruming A.A. Saint Demetrius of Rostov and his correspondence with the monk Theologist Chudovsky, a director of the printing house // Filevsky readings. 1994. Vol. 9. M., 1994. 281. Fedotova M.A. Oratorical prose of Demetrius of Rostov: (Ukrainian period: 1670–1700). Author's abstract. diss. for the job application Ph.D. Philol. Sci. St. Petersburg, 1995. 282. Fedotova M.A. Letters from Demetrius of Rostov to Job, Metropolitan of Novgorod // Novgorod in the culture of ancient Rus'. Materials of readings on ancient Russian literature. Novgorod, 1995. 283. Fedotova M.A. On the issue of the epistolary heritage of Dmitry of Rostov // TODRL. T. 49. St. Petersburg, 1996. 284. Fedotova M.A. The works of Didacus de Beza - one of the sources of Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov // First Demetrius readings: Materials of a scientific conference. [SPb.], 1996. pp. 16–27. 285. Fedotova M.A. Cult of St. Barbarians in the works of Dmitry of Rostov // Russian literature. No. 4. L. 1999. P. 98–108; pp. 283–293. 286. Fedotova M.A. Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov (1670–1700) and their handwritten tradition // TODRL. 1999. T. 51. pp. 253–288. 287. Fedotova M.A. Commentaries of Cornelius and Lyapida on biblical books and early sermons of Demetrius of Rostov // Translation of the Bible in the literatures of the peoples of Russia, CIS and Baltic countries: Conference materials M., 2003. pp. 425–443. 288. Fedotova M.A. “I will always remember his many good deeds...”: (to the question of the biography of Hetman Mazepa and the work of Dmitry of Rostov) // Mazepa e il suo tempo: Storia, cultura, società / A cura di G. Siedina. Alessandria, 2004. P. 529–539. 289. Fedotova M.A. About two autographs of Dimitri Rostovsky // TODRL. T.50. St. Petersburg, 1996. 290. Fedotova M.A. Letters and messages of Dmitry of Rostov and the epistolary genre of the late 17th – early 18th centuries. // Ukraine of the 17th century: marriage, philosophy, culture. A collection of scientific works in memory of Professor Valery Mikhailivnya Nichik. Kiev, 2005. pp. 510–520. 291. Fedotova M.A. Letters of Dmitry of Rostov: new materials // Articles on ancient and modern literature: Collection in honor of N. S. Demkova. St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 285–294. 292. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage of Dmitry of Rostov. Research and texts. M. 2005. 293. Fedotova M.A. About the lifetime miracles of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Poetics of Russian literature in the historical and cultural context. Novosibirsk, 2008. 294. Fedotova M.A. Life, veneration and lifetime miracles of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov the Great, 2008. pp. 273–310. 295. Fedotova M.A. Life of Saint Demetrius of Rostov (on the question of the history of the text) // TODRL. T. 60. St. Petersburg, 2009. pp. 150–182. 296. Fedotova M.A. About the conclusion of Saint Demetrius of Rostov (and again about the date of the saint’s baptism) // TODRL. T. 61. St. Petersburg, 2010. pp. 311–328. 297. Fedotova M.A. Sources of the life of Demetrius of Rostov // Russian hagiography: Research. Materials. Publications. St. Petersburg, 2011. T. II. pp. 180–222. 298. Fedotova M.A. Miracles of Demetrius of Rostov: pilgrims from the Russian North // Ryabinin Readings-2011. Materials of the VI conference on the study and actualization of the cultural heritage of the Russian North. Petrozavodsk, 2011. pp. 462–465. 299. Fedotova M.A. Dimitry Tuptalo - abbot of the Baturinsky Nikolo-Krupitsky monastery // Baturinsky old man. Collection of scientific works, dedications to the 300-liter Baturinsko tragedy. K., 2008. pp. 200–211. 300. Fedotova M.A. Life of Princess Olga in the Four Menaions of Demetrius of Rostov // Pskov, Russian lands and Eastern Europe in the 15th–17th centuries. To the 500th anniversary of Pskov joining a single state. Pskov, 2011. pp. 362–383. 301. Fedotova M.A. On the history of the Four Menaions of Dimitry of Rostov: handwritten materials // Bulletin of NSU. Series: History, philology. 2012. Volume 11. Issue 126. Philology. pp. 123–133. 302. Fedotova M.A. Memory of Saint Demetrius in the context of new forms of veneration // The shining star from Kyiv. Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery; Rostov, 2013. pp. 164–177. 303. Fedotova M.A. About one manuscript from the collection of Peter I (P I. A No. 32): on the history of the Four Menaions of Demetrius of Rostov // Materials and communications on the funds of the Manuscripts Department of the BAN. St. Petersburg, 2013, pp. 187–194. 304. Fedotova M.A. On the unpublished works of St. Demetrius of Rostov: towards the formulation of the problem // Bulletin of PSTGU. Series: Philology. 2014, No. 1 (36). pp. 47–64. 305. Fedotova M.A. “The legend that, for the sake of guilt, the Akathist was told to St. Demetrius of Christ” (About one miracle of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // TODRL. T. 62. St. Petersburg, 2014. pp. 120–142. 306. Fedorak N. Boriso-Glibsky plot in “The Lives of the Saints” by Dmitry Tuptal // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007.P. 50–63. 307. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Review of Russian spiritual literature: 862–1720. Kharkov, 1859. Book. 1. 308. Filippov S.B. Religious struggle and the crisis of traditionalism in Russia in the 17th century. Budapest, 2007. 309. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. 310. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. M., 2009. 311. Florya B.N. The crisis of the organizational structures of the Orthodox Church in the 16th century. // Dmitriev M.V., Florya B.N., Yakovenko S.G. Union of Brest 1596 and the socio-political struggle in Ukraine and Belarus at the end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th centuries. Part 1. Union of Brest 1596. Historical reasons. M., 1997. 312. Fonkich B.L. Greco-Slavic schools Greco-Slavic schools in Moscow in the 17th century. M., 2009. 313. Franklin S. Writing, society and culture in Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 2010. 314. Kharlampovich K.V. Little Russian influence on Great Russian church life. T.I. Kazan, 1914. P. 254. 315. Khizhnyak Z.I., Mankivsky V.K. History of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. Kiev, 2008. 316. Khondzinsky P., prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: from the history of Russian theology of the pre-synodal era. M., 2013. 317. Chislenko N. D. Sapphic rhythms in the dramas of Dmitry Rostovsky // Bulletin of Leningrad University. Series: history of linguistics and literary criticism. 1976. No. 20. pp. 91–98. 318. Chernaya L.A. Anthropological code of ancient Russian culture. M., 2004. 319. Chernaya L.A. Debate of the belly and death in the interpretation of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Rostov House of Bishops and Russian artistic culture of the second half of the 17th century: conference materials, September 21–23, 2005. Rostov, 2006. pp. 305–317. 320. Cherny A.I. Theology of church ministry and staff positions for the laity in the Catholic Church of Germany after the Second Vatican Council // Bulletin of PSTGU. I. Theology. Philosophy. 2013. Issue. 5. pp. 26–40. 321. Chistovich I. Novgorod Metropolitan Job, his life and correspondence with different persons // Wanderer. 1861. No. 2. pp. 61–145. 322. Chumicheva O.V. Great Moscow Cathedral 1666–1667 // Orthodox encyclopedia. T. 5. M., 2002. pp. 679–684. 323. Chumicheva O.V. Kyiv and Moscow in the fight against Protestant influence: two books in defense of the icon image (late 16th – first half of the 17th century) // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the 15th–17th centuries: general and different. M., 2012. pp. 58–69. 324. Sharipova L. Treasury of immortality: Peter Mogila and his essay “The Book of the Soul called Zloto” // Petro Mogila, St. The Book of the Soul, called Zloto. K., 2007. pp. 353–407. 325. Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his time (1651–1709) St. Petersburg, 1891. 326. Shmanko T. Author's comments on the Margineses of “Chetikh-Mineya” by Dmitry Tuptal // Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. pp. 31–41. 327. Shmonin D.V. In the shadow of the Renaissance: the second scholasticism in Spain. St. Petersburg, 2006. 328. Shpirt A.A. “The Truthful Messiah” Ioannikiy Galatovsky and his “Jewish” sources // Lechaim. 2010, No. 4. pp. 31–33. 329. Shonu P. Civilization of classical Europe. Ekaterinburg, 2005. 330. Shumilo V.P., Shumilo S. The Passion of Christ in the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov: (To the 300th anniversary of his repose) // Faith and Life. 2009. No. 1–2. pp. 166–180. 331. Eingorn V.I. Essays from the history of Little Russia in the 17th century. M., 1899. 332. Elias N. About the process of civilization. M.-SPb., 2001. 333. Yurkin I. Metropolitan of Siberia or Rostov? “Dmitry the Father” and A. A. Vinius in 1700 – 1708 // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. pp. 65–75. 334. Yukhimenko E.M. Unknown source of “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” by Dmitry Rostov // IKRZ. 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 155–161. 335. Yakovenko N. Essay on the history of Ukraine in the Middle Ages and early modern times. M., 2012. 336. Yalamas D.A. Clashes between representatives of Greek and Latin cultures in Moscow in the second half of the 17th century (some episodes from the life of the Likhud brothers). Scientific reports of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University. Issue 2. M., 1998. pp. 119–123. 337. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) To the study of the writing skills of Dimitry of Rostov: Literary treatment of the Life of Abraham of Rostov // Slavika Orientalis. Warszawa, 1984. Rocz. 28. N 3/4. S. 383–396. 338. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) Life and works of St. Methodius and St. Constantine-Cyril in the Chetyih-Menaia of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Ibid. 1988. Rocz. 32. N 2. S. 179–221. 339. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) Little-known facts of the pastoral and literary activity of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1991. Rostov, 1991. pp. 37–40. 340. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, adapted by St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1992. Rostov, 1993. P. 10–26. 341. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) The literary and theological heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov: perception of Jesuit science in the 16th–17th centuries. Manuscript of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology. M., 1994. 342. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) A few more comments about the problem of sources and the literary and theological significance of the lives of Sts. Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky // Filevsky readings. Vol. 9. M., 1994. Issue. 9. pp. 75–107. 343. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) Theological heritage of Simeon of Polotsk in the library of St. Demetrius of Rostov (brief commented description) // Filevsky readings. Vol. 9. M., 1994. 344. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) Lives of Byzantine hymn-makers in the Chetyih Menaion of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici: Nauki humanistyczno-spoleczne. Toruń, 1994. Zeszyt 281: Filologia rosyjska. S. 3–17. 345. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) “Cell Chronicle” of St. Dimitri of Rostov from the collection of A. A. Titov in the library of the Higher Theological Seminary in Lublin // IKRZ, 1994. Rostov, 1995. 346. Jankowska L. A . (Jankowska L.A.; Jankowska L.) Sermons of the Krakow canon Jacek Liberiusz as one of the sources of the works of St. Dimitri of Rostov (one of the mistakes of I.A. Shlyapkin) // History and culture of the Rostov land 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 27–36. 347. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A.; Jankowska L.) “About Russia, when Rus' began to break away” in the “Book of Lives of Saints” and in the “Cell Chronicle” of St. Dimitry // IKRZ, 1997. Rostov, 1998. pp. 179–185. 348. Yakhontov I. Hierodeacon of Damascus, Russian polemicist of the 17th century St. Petersburg, 1883. 349. Yatsenko B.I. Dmitry Rostovsky and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” // Russian Literature. 1996. No. 4. pp. 117–122. 350. Bednarsky D. (Bednarsky D.) The Spiritual Alphabet: St. Dymytrii, Metropolitan of Rostov's Rhetorical Program for lnward Knowledge. Th. Ph.D. Edmonton, 1998. 351. Berndt M. Die Predigt Dimitrij Tuptalos: Studien zur ukrainischen und russischen Barockpredigt. Fr./M.; Bonn, 1975. 352. Bialostocki J. Barok. Styl. Epoka. Postawa. Biuletyn Нistorii Sztuki. 1958. No. 1. 353. Bireley, R., S.J. Redefining Catholicism: Trent and beyond // The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge, 2006. V.6. P. 145–161. 354. Brogi Bercoff G. The “Letopisec” of Dimitrij Tuptalo, the Metropolitan of Rostov, in the context of Western European culture // Ricerche slavistiche. R., 1992/1993. Vol. 39/40. P. 293–336. 355. Brogi Bercoff G. A proposito di Dimitrij Tuptalo, Mitropolita di Rostov // Europa orientalis. Salerno, 1993. Vol. 12. P. 49–65. 356. Brogi Bercoff G. Ruś, Ukraine, Ruthenia, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Rzeczpospolita, Moskwa, Rosja, Europa Środkowo Wschodnia: o wielowarstwowości I polifunkcjonalizmie kulturowym // Contributi italiani al XIII congresso internacionale degli slavisti. Pisa, 2003, pp. 325–387. 357. Bushkovitch P. Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. NY.; Oxford, 1992. 358. Cary Ph. Outward Signs. The Powerlessness of External Things in Augustines Thought. Oxford. 2008 359. Chrissidis N. A. A Jesuit Aristotle in Seventeenth-Century Russia: Cosmology and the Planetary System in the Slavo-Greeco-Latin Academy // Modernizing Muscovy. Reform and social change in seventeenth-century Russia. L. & N.Y. 2004. 360. Confessionalization in Europe, 1555–1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan / ed. J.M. Headley, H.J. Hillerbrand and A.J. Papalas. Aldershot, 2004. 361. Dąbrowski Ks. R. Dimitr Rostowski jako obrońca prawd wiary nieuznawanych dziś przez prawosławie. Warsaw, 1936. 362. Forster M.R. Catholic revival in the age of the Baroque. Cambridge. 2004. 363. Jabłonowski, A. Akademia kijowsko-Mohyłanska Craców, 1899–1900. 364. Jankowska L. (Jankovska L.A.; Jankowska L.A.) Dymitra Rostowskiego: Źródła biblijne w archiwum pisarza // Biblia a kultura Europy: (Materiały międzynar. konf. nauk., poświęconej 2000-leciu chrześcijaństwa). Lódź, 1992. T. 2. S. 200–212. 365. Jankowska L. (Jankovska L.A.; Jankowska L.A.) Św. Dymitra z Rostowa przyczynek do zagadnień chronologii historycznej // Zeszyty naukowe Wydziału humanistycznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego: Sławistika. Gdańsk, 1992. N 6. S. 119–146. 366. Helsch A. De theologia Dimitriae metropolitae Rostoviensis. Roma, 1936. 367. Norenzayan A., Atran S., Faulkner J., Schallera M. Memory and the mystery: the cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. Cognitive Science. 2006. No. 30. 368. Myers D. "Poor, Sinning Folk." Confession and Conscience in Counter-Reformation Germany. NY, 1996. 369. Mullett M. The Catholic Reformation. L., 2000. 370. O'Malley J., S.J. The First Jesuits. Cambridge, 1995. 371. O'Malley J., S.J. How Humanistic is the Jesuit Tradition?: From the 1599 Ratio Studiorum to Now // Jesuit Education 21: Conference Proceedings on the Future of Jesuit Higher Education. Philadelphia, 2000. 372. Paprocki H. Dymitr z Rostowa, św. // Encyklopedia Katolicka. TIV. Lublin, 1985, pp. 421–422. 373. Plokhy S. The Cossacks and religion in early Modern Ukraine. Oxford., 2001. 374. Rodes E. La Mariologia di D. Tuptalo metropolita di Rostov (1651–1709). Milano, 1967. 375. Ševčenko I. Many worlds of Peter Mohyla // Idem. Ukraine between East and West: Essays on Cultural History to the Early Eighteenth Century. Toronto, 1996. 376. Taft R. F. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Rome, 1978. 377. Tentler Th. Sin and confession on the eve of the Reformation. Princeton, N.J., 1977. AAE − Acts collected in the libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the archaeographic expedition of the Imperial Academy of Sciences AI - Historical acts collected and published by the archaeographic commission Southwestern Russia - Acts relating to the history of Southern and Western Russia, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission State Historical Museum - State Historical Museum ZHMNP – Journal of the Ministry of Public Education IKRZ − History and culture of the Rostov land TKDA – Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy TODRL – Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature RGADA - Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts RSL – Russian State Library RNL - Russian National Library See: Essays on Russian culture of the 17th century. / Under. ed. Artsikhovsky A.V. M., 1979. Part 1, pp. 22–24. See: Uspensky L.A. Theology of the Orthodox icon. M., 1997. pp. 492–497. Khondzinsky P., prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: Essays on the history of theology of the pre-synodal era. M., 2013. P. 272. In historiography, traditionally Met. Dimitry of Rostov is called Tuptalo, meanwhile this is not a surname, but a personal nickname of his father; Dimitri himself signed exclusively as “Dimitri Savich.” See eg. Jankowska L.A. The literary and theological heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov: perception of Jesuit science in the 16th-17th centuries. Hand. diss. for the job application Doctor of Philology degrees Sci. M., 1994. P. 2. Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his time (1651–1709). St. Petersburg, 1891. P. 28. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage of Dmitry of Rostov. Research and texts. M. 2005. P. 167. See section: Review of historiography. See section Historiography Review. See Review of Sources. Demetrius of Rostov, St. A collection of various instructive words and other writings. M., 1786. Part 1. L. 1–27; Fedotova M.A. Life, veneration and lifetime miracles of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov the Great, 2008. pp. 276–281. Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov), Metropolitan. Historical dictionary about writers of the clergy of the Greek-Russian Church who were in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1827, pp. 116–137. Demetrius of Rostov, St. A collection of various instructive words and other writings. M., 1786. T. 1–6. This publication was preceded by a number of publications of some other works of the Bishop; for more details, see the section "Review of sources." In the same year, a sermon was also published: Abraham (Florinsky), Archimandrite. A word on the day of remembrance of St. Demetrius of Rostov, the wonderworker, spoken by Archimandrite Abraham in 1786. M., 1786. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Our Holy Father Demetrius of Rostov, the saint and wonderworker, dogmatic teaching selected from his writings // Christian Reading 1842. No. IV. pp. 311–512. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Moscow. M., 1849. Hermogenes (Dobronravov), bishop. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Spiritual conversation. 1857. pp. 395–418; Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Review of Russian spiritual literature: 862–1720. Kharkov, 1859. Book. 1. pp. 373–377; Sulotsky A., prot. Metropolitan Demetrius as Archpastor of Siberia. Wanderer. 1866. No. 11. P. 51–66; Pimen. A brief story about the life, works and creations of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, the Wonderworker. From appendix instructions. Yaroslavl, 1884; Miroslavsky V. Saint Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov as a preacher. Yaroslavl, 1889. Nikolsky F.Ya. Rostov School at St. Metropolitan Demetrius // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1863. pp. 231–438; Korsunsky N.N. Materials for the history of the school of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1883. pp. 347–359, 363–365. Mirkovich G.G. About the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The dispute that took place in Moscow in the second half of the 17th century. Vilna, 1886. pp. 243–245; I-XXVI. Matseevich L. Polish preacher of the 17th century, Jesuit Thomas Mlodzianowski // TDKA. 1871. T. 2. pp. 190–201. Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his time (1651–1709) St. Petersburg, 1891. Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 17. Quoted from: Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... S. I (First pagination). Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... P. 457–458. Right there. P. 193; 224–225; 238–239. Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... S. I (First pagination). Znamensky L. About the life and works of St. Dimitri Metropolitan of Rostov. Tobolsk, 1892; G-kov, K.D. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Wanderer, 1895. No. 8. P. 371–387; No. 9. P 3–35; Titov A.A. Life of St. Demetrius of Rostov, Metropolitan of Rostov, compiled from manuscripts and printed sources. Rostov-Yaroslavsky, 1902; Tikhvinsky N.A., prot. Memories of the life and works of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, wonderworker, on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his arrival in Rostov the Great. Rostov-Yaroslavsky, 1902; Villager E. Russian Church and Russian ascetics of the 18th century. St. Petersburg, 1905. pp. 24–47; HELL. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. St. Petersburg, 1909; Obtemperansky A. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan and Wonderworker of Rostov (his life and works) // Yekaterinburg Diocesan Gazette. 1909, no. 41. pp. 607–620; Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, Wonderworker. Yaroslavl, 1909; Villager E. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his creations // Russian Pilgrim, 1909, No. 15. P. 238–239; No. 16. pp. 255–257; No. 17. pp. 268–270. Vertelovsky A. St. Dmitry of Rostov and his creations. Kharkov 1910; St. P. St. Demetrius and the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery // Russian Pilgrim, 1914, No. 48. pp. 768–772. Jabłonowski, A. Akademia kijowsko-Mohyłanska. Craców, 1899–1900. Pypin A. Last times of Moscow Rus'. Sylvester Medvedev and the “Latin part”. Patriarch Joachim. Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov // Bulletin of Europe, 1894, No. 11. P. 273–323. Pypin A. Decree. op. P. 323. Titov F.I. On the history of the Kyiv Theological Academy in the 17th-18th centuries. // TDKA. 1909. T. III. pp. 173–239 Popov M.S., priest Saint Demetrius of Rostov and his works. St. Petersburg, 1910. Svirelin A.I., prot. Orthodox confession of the Christian faith in the Chetya-Minea of ​​St. Demetrius of Rostov. St. Petersburg, 1893; Preobrazhensky A. St. Demetrius as a preacher. Kazan, 1909; Makkavesky S.K. St. Dimitry as a patrolologist and pastoralist. TDKA. 1910. T. I. No. 1. P. 22–64; Troitsky A. St. Demetrius as an anti-schismatic figure // Wanderer. 1915. No. 2. P. 219–248. Efimov A.N. Yelets-Chernigov icon of the Mother of God of the cell of Saints Theodosius and Demetrius with sacred objects of their time in the Yelets Dormition Monastery in the city of Chernigov. Chernigov, 1902; Nikolsky A. AND . A few words about the Life and writings of St. Demetrius of Rostov // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. 1909. T. 14. Book. 1. pp. 160–171. Zubov V.P. Russian preachers. Essays on the history of Russian preaching. M., 2001. P. 15–62. Derzhavin A., prot. The Chetya-Minea of ​​Demetrius of Rostov as a church-historical and literary monument // Theological works. 1976. No. 15. P. 61–145; 1976. No. 16. pp. 46–141. Derzhavina E.I. Archpriest A.M. Derzhavin. Personality and scientific activity. On the history of the creation of a master's thesis // Bulletin of PSTGU. Story. History of the Church. 2007. No. 4. P. 7–21. Abramovich D. AND . “The Tale of Varlaam and Josaph” in the Chetyi-Minaia of Demetrius of Rostov // Anniversary collection. M. S. Grushevsky. Kiev, 1928. pp. 729–734; It's him. Litopies of Dmitry Rostovsky's Chety-Minei Dzherel // Scientific collection for the period of 1929. Kiev, 1929. pp. 32–61. Dąbrowski Ks. R. Dimitr Rostowski jako obrońca prawd wiary nieuznawanych dziś przez prawosławie. Warsaw, 1936; Helsch A. De theologia Dimitriae metropolitae Rostoviensis. Rome, 1936; John (Kologrivov), Hierom., S.J. Teachings of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Essays on the History of Russian Holiness. Brussels, 1961; Rodes E. La Mariologia di D. Tuptalo metropolita di Rostov (1651–1709). Milano, 1967. Characteristic in this regard is an article by an Orthodox priest in the Catholic Encyclopedia, repeating the conclusions of Roman Catholic researchers: Paprocki H. Dymitr z Rostowa, św […] // Encyklopedia Katolicka. TIV. Lublin, 1985, pp. 421–422. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. It's him. Paths of Russian theology. M., 2009. P. 79. See Zenkovsky S.A. Russian Old Believers. M., 2009. P.447, 484, 495, 569, 634. Berndt M. Die Predigt Dimitrij Tuptalos: Studien zur ukrainischen und russischen Barockpredigt. Fr./M.; Bonn, 1975. Ganetsky V., priest. St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1947. No. 6. P. 42–48; Bartholomew, Met. On the pastoral nature of the creation of St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1949. No. 1. P. 54–58; Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1955. No. 9. P. 28–32; Viktorov P., priest. Saint Demetrius of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1959. No. 2. P. 64–73; Politylo V., priest. Saint Demetrius of Rostov as a theologian-dogmatist. Course essay. L., 1959; Nedosekin V., prot. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov and his homiletical heritage. Coursework. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Zagorsk, 1969–1970; Pitirim (Starinsky), hierod. Saint Demetrius of Rostov. His theological works and pastoral activities. Course essay. Zagorsk, 1972; Prosvirnin A., prot. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1977. No. 9. pp. 68–75. Dylevsky N. M. Dmitry Rostovsky (Daniil Tuptalo) and the Bulgarian revival // Études balkaniques. 1966. T. 2. N 4. P. 113–139; It's him. Russian and Ukrainian historiography of the 18th century. and “A Brief History of the Bulgarian Slavic People” by Spiridon (1792) // XVIII century. L., 1974. Sat. 10. pp. 127–134; He's the same. The life of the Slavic first teachers Methodius and Cyril, processed by Demetrius of Rostov // Études balkaniques. 1986. T. 22. N 1. R. 105–113; It's him. Dmitry Rostovsky and the Bulgarian Renaissance // Studies in ancient and new literature. M., 1987. Chislenko N. D. Sapphic rhythms in the dramas of Dmitry Rostovsky // Bulletin of Leningrad University. Series history of linguistics and literary criticism. 1976. No. 20. pp. 91–98. Kalugin V. IN . “The Cell Chronicler” by Demetrius of Rostov // Almanac of a Bibliophile. M., 1983. Issue. 15. pp. 160–174; It's him. About one source of the “Cell Chronicler” Demetrius of Rostov // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1982, M., 1983. P. 107–111; It's him. Pedagogical activity of Dmitry Rostovsky // Enlightenment and pedagogical thought of Ancient Rus'. M., 1983. S. 76–84; aka. Autograph of “The Assumption Drama” by Dmitry Rostovsky // Cultural monuments: new discoveries. 1985. M., 1987. pp. 99–101. Sofronova L.A. Poetics of Slavic theater of the 17th – first half of the 18th centuries: Poland, Ukraine, Russia. M., 1981. It's her. “Christmas drama” by Dmitry Rostovsky // Spiritual culture of Slavic peoples: Literature. Folklore. Story. L., 1983. pp. 97–108. Panchenko A.M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter’s reforms // Same. Russian history and culture. M., 1999. S. 51, 67, 154, 201–202, 224. Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature M., 1979. P. 9. Derzhavin A. M. , prot. “The hearts of the faithful rejoice”: Cheti-Minea Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky, as a church-historical and literary monument. M., 2006. Jankowska L. A . (Yankovskaya L.A., Jankowska L.) . To the study of the writing skills of Dimitry of Rostov: Literary treatment of the Life of Abraham of Rostov // Slavika Orientalis. Warszawa, 1984. Rocz. 28. N 3/4. S. 383–396; She is the same. Life and works of St. Methodius and St. Constantine-Cyril in the Four Menaions of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Ibid. 1988. Rocz. 32. N 2. S. 179–221; She is the same. Little-known facts about the pastoral and literary activity of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1991. Rostov, 1991. P. 37–40; Eadem. Biblia w spuściźnie św. Dymitra Rostowskiego: Źródła biblijne w archiwum pisarza // Biblia a kultura Europy: (Materiały międzynar. konf. nauk., poświęconej 2000-leciu chrześcijaństwa). Lódź, 1992. T. 2. S. 200–212; Eadem. Św. Dymitra z Rostowa przyczynek do zagadnień chronologii historycznej // Zeszyty naukowe Wydziału humanistycznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego: Sławistika. Gdańsk, 1992. N 6. S. 119–146; She is the same. Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, adapted by St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1992. Rostov, 1993. P. 10–26; She is the same. A few more comments about the problem of sources and the literary and theological significance of the lives of Sts. Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky // Filevskie Readings. M., 1994. Issue. 9. pp. 75–107; It's her. Theological heritage of Simeon of Polotsk in the library of St. Demetrius of Rostov (brief commented description) // Ibid.; She is the same. Lives of Byzantium. songwriters in the Chetyih Menaion of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici: Nauki humanistyczno-spoleczne. Toruń, 1994. Zeszyt 281: Filologia rosyjska.S. 3–17; She is the same. "Cell Chronicle" of St. Dimitri of Rostov from the collection of A. A. Titov in the library of the Higher Theological Seminary in Lublin // IKRZ, 1994. Rostov, 1995. Yankovska L.A. Sermons of the Krakow canon Jacek Liberiusz as one of the sources of the works of St. Dimitry of Rostov (one of the mistakes of I.A. Shlyapkin) // History and culture of the Rostov land 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 27–36; She is the same. “About Russia, when Rus' began” in the “Book of Lives of Saints” and in the “Cell Chronicle” of St. Demetrius // Ibid., 1997. Rostov, 1998. pp. 179–185. She is the same. The literary and theological heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov: perception of Jesuit science in the 16th–17th centuries. Manuscript of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology. M., 1994. Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 34. Fedotova M.A. About two sources of Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov: (Foma Mlodzyanovsky and Cornelius a Lapide) // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 1993. T. 48. P. 343–350; She is the same. Oratorical prose of Demetrius of Rostov: (Ukrainian period: 1670–1700). Author's abstract. diss. candidate Philol. Sci. St. Petersburg, 1995; She is the same. The works of Didacus de Beza - one of the sources of Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov // First Dimitrievsky readings: Materials of a scientific conference [St. Petersburg], 1996. pp. 16–27; She is the same. Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov (1670–1700) and their handwritten tradition // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 1999. T. 51. P. 253–288; She is the same. Commentaries of Cornelius and Lyapida on biblical books and early sermons of Demetrius of Rostov // Translation of the Bible in the literatures of the peoples of Russia, CIS and Baltic countries: Materials of the conf. M., 2003. S. 425–443; She is the same. “I will always remember his many good deeds...”: (to the question of the biography of Hetman Mazepa and the work of Dmitry of Rostov) // Mazepa e il suo tempo: Storia, cultura, società / A cura di G. Siedina. Alessandria, 2004. P. 529–539. It's her. About the lifetime miracles of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Poetics of Russian literature in the historical and cultural context. Novosibirsk, 2008; It's her. Life, veneration and lifetime miracles of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov Velikiy, 2008. pp. 273–310; It's her. Life of Saint Demetrius of Rostov (on the question of the history of the text) // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 2009. T. 60. P. 150–182; It's her. Sources of the life of Demetrius of Rostov // Russian hagiography: Research. Materials. Publications. St. Petersburg, 2011. T. II. pp. 180–222; It's her. Miracles of Demetrius of Rostov: pilgrims from the Russian North // Ryabinin Readings-2011. Materials of the VI conference on the study and actualization of the cultural heritage of the Russian North. Petrozavodsk, 2011. pp. 462–465; It's her. Memory of Saint Demetrius in the context of new forms of veneration // The shining star from Kyiv. Rostov, 2013. pp. 164–177; It's her. “The legend that, for the sake of guilt, the Akathist was told to St. Demetrius of Christ” (About one miracle of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // TODRL. T. 62. St. Petersburg, 2014. pp. 120–142. Fedotova M.A. Dimitri // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Vol. 3. Part 1. M., 1992. P. 258–271; She is the same. Cult of St. Barbarians in the works of Dmitry of Rostov // Russian literature. 1999. No. 4. P. 98–108; pp. 283–293; It's her. Dimitry Tuptalo - abbot of the Baturinsky Nikolo-Krupitsky monastery // Baturinsky old man. Collection of scientific works, dedications to the 300-liter Baturinsko tragedy. Kyiv, 2008. pp. 200–211; It's her. About the conclusion of Saint Demetrius of Rostov (and again about the date of the saint’s baptism) // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 2010. T. 61. pp. 311–328; It's her. Life of Princess Olga in the Four Menaions of Demetrius of Rostov // Pskov, Russian lands and Eastern Europe in the XV-XVII centuries. To the 500th anniversary of Pskov joining a single state. Pskov, 2011. pp. 362–383; It's her. On the history of the Four Menaions of Dimitry of Rostov: handwritten materials // Bulletin of NSU. Series: History, philology. 2012. Volume 11. Issue. 126. Philology. pp. 123–133; It's her. About one manuscript from the collection of Peter I (P I. A No. 32): on the history of the Four Menaions of Demetrius of Rostov // Materials and communications on the funds of the Manuscripts Department of the BAN. St. Petersburg, 2013. pp. 187–194; It's her. On the unpublished works of St. Demetrius of Rostov: towards the formulation of the problem // Bulletin of PSTGU. It's him. St. Dimitry Rostovsky: Exact date of birth // Messages of the Rostov Museum. M. 1992. Issue. 3. pp. 3–8. In the future, the discussion will develop in: Melnik A.G. When was St. baptized? Dimitry Rostovsky? // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov Velikiy, 2008. pp. 183–186; Fedotova M.A. About the conclusion of Saint Demetrius of Rostov (and again about the date of the saint’s baptism) // TODRL. T. 61. St. Petersburg, 2010. pp. 311–328; Rubtsova M.A. About the date of birth of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The shining star from Kyiv. Veneration of St. Demetrius of Rostov: history and modernity. M., 2013. pp. 59–64. Krooming A.A. Icons that belonged to St. Demetrius of Rostov // Filevskie readings. 2003. Vol. 10. pp. 383–399. Zhigulin E. IN . Moscow-Rostov theater circle St. Demetrius // Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. 1992. Sat. 4. pp. 335–369; It's him. Recitation “On the Resurrection of Christ” at the Rostov school of St. Demetrius // Filevskie readings. Vol. 9. M., 1994. S. 137–162; It's him. Source study of the theater of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 1993. Rostov, 1994. pp. 139–145. Zhigulin E. IN . The artistic originality of the theater of Dmitry Rostov. Dissertation for a candidate of art history. M., 1995. Golovanova N. D. The problematics and poetics of the spiritual drama of St. Dimitri Rostovsky: Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Yaroslavl, 2002. It's her. The theme of life and death in the works of Dmitry Rostov // Literature and philosophy. Collection of scientific articles. St. Petersburg, 2000. Nekhlebaeva N.A. The evolution of school drama in the work of Dmitry of Rostov // Problems of studying Russian literature of the 18th century: interuniversity collection of scientific works. St. Petersburg; Samara, 2005. Vol. 13; L., 2007. pp. 71–79. It's her. The work of Dmitry Rostovsky in the context of Russian literary ideas about the inner man of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Severodvinsk, 2003. Sazonova L. AND . Literary culture of Russia: Early Modern times. M., 2006. (according to decree). Zvezdina Yu. N. “Grateful Remembrance of the Passion of Christ” by St. Demetrius of Rostov and the reflection of his theme in the culture of the 17th century. // IKRZ, 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 173–178; She is the same. "Word of Remembrance" by St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky: (features of figurative structure) // IKRZ, 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 143–147; She is the same. Allegory of St. Demetrius of Rostov and the emblem of Anthony Radivilovsky // IKRZ, 1998. Rostov, 1999. P. 106–111; She is the same. “Instruction on the Circumcision of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ” St. Demetrius of Rostov and the new chronology // IKRZ, 1998. Rostov, 1999. P. 140–144; She is the same. Subject and image in the sermon of St. Dimitry of Rostov // IKRZ, 2000. Rostov, 2001. pp. 135–140; She is the same. Sermon on the Holy Trinity by St. Demetrius, Met. Rostovsky // Trinity readings. Bolshie Vyazemy, 2001. pp. 69–75; She is the same. Two globes from the property of St. Demetrius of Rostov and globes in the spiritual culture of the 17th century. // IKRZ, 2001. Rostov, 2002. pp. 260–264; She is the same. The image of the heart in the spiritual culture of the 17th-18th centuries: (to the coat of arms of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // IKRZ, 2002. Rostov, 2003. pp. 42–47; It's her. Sacred texts and allegories in the texts of St. Demetrius // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. [Kirichenko O.V.] “The Cell Chronicler” of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Demetrius of Rostov, St. Cell chronicler with the addition of his life, miracles, selected creations. Innocent Gisel, archimandrite. Kyiv synopsis. Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2007. pp. 3–32. Vakhrina V. AND . “A zealot of Orthodoxy and an eradicator of schism”: (St. Demetrius of Rostov) // She. Spaso-Iakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery in Rostov the Great. M., 1994. S. 16–32; She is the same. Cell icon of St. Demetrius of Rostov “Our Lady of Vatopedi” // IKRZ, 1994. Rostov, 1995. pp. 104–114. Videneeva A. E. On the history of dedications of the churches of the Rostov Spaso-Yakovlevsky Dimitriev Monastery // SRM. 1991. Issue. 1. pp. 74–119; She is the same. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery // Uchemsky collection. Myshkin, 2001. Issue. 3. pp. 43–48; She is the same. Rostov bishop's house and the system of diocesan administration in Russia in the 18th century. M., 2004 (according to decree); Videneeva A., Grudtsyna N. Metropolitan Dimitri at the Rostov See // The shining star from Kyiv. P.65–80. Belonenko M. A . , Enin G. P. “Diariush” by Demetrius of Rostov // Study of monuments of written culture in the collections and archives of the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books: Memoirs and Diaries. L., 1987. P. 7–21; Essays on the history of school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR from ancient times to the end. XVII century M., 1989. S. 261–264; Rosovetskaya T. N. Lavra editions of the “Book of Lives of Saints” by Demetrius Tuptalo and their distribution in Ukraine in the 1st half. XVIII century // Book in Russia: Age of Enlightenment. L., 1990. S. 58–59; Poplavnaya V. A . Handwritten Sat. 1st quarter XVIII century from collection St. Demetrius of Rostov // Book in Russia: From the history of spiritual enlightenment: Scientific works. St. Petersburg, 1993. pp. 65–71; Mineeva S. IN . The Lives of Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky as part of the “Book of Lives of Saints” by Dimitri Rostov (the problem of sources) // Filevskie readings 1994. Vol. 9. pp. 53–74; Yatsenko B.I. Dmitry Rostovsky and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” // Rus. Lit. 1996. No. 4; Belonenko V. WITH . History and personality: (New materials for studying the work of St. Demetrius of Rostov) // Rus' and the South Slavs: Collection of articles. St. Petersburg, 1998; Belonenko V.S. On the history of cultural relations between the peoples of Eastern Europe in the 17th–18th centuries. People and books // Belarusian collection vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1998; pp. 438–448; Marchenko O. Works of St. Dmitry of Rostov in the collections of early printed, rare and valuable books of the State Historical Library // Ibid. pp. 101–102; Igumnova N. D. Manuscript “The Cell Chronicler” by Dimitri Rostovsky in the collections of the Zonal Scientific Library of Irkutsk State University // V Makushin Readings: Abstracts of reports. Novosibirsk, 2000. pp. 42–44; Gladkova O. IN . "The Life of Eustathius Placis" as edited by St. Demetrius of Rostov // V Scientific readings in memory of I. P. Bolotseva. Yaroslavl, 2001. pp. 110–121; Korobeynikova L. N. Life of Galaktion and Epistimia as part of the Chetiyh-Menai of Demetrius of Rostov // Ibid. pp. 122–137; she is the same. “The Life of Saint Thekla” as edited by St. Demetrius of Rostov // VII Scientific readings in memory of I. P. Bolotseva. Yaroslavl, 2003. pp. 135–148; Makariy (Veretennikov), archimandrite. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Makaryevsky Chetya-Minea // Makaryevsky readings: Russian culture of the 16th century. − era of Metropolitan Macarius. Mozhaisk, 2003. Issue. 10. pp. 95–110; Volkov A. Editions of the “Cell Chronicler” of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The Star from Kyiv that has risen. pp. 89–97; Tarasov A. Russian church hierarchy in the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov: “Chronicle of the Rostov bishops” // Ibid. pp. 98–120; Makariy (Veretennikov), archimandrite. St. Demetrius of Rostov and the Makaryevsky Chetya-Minea // Makaryevsky readings: Russian culture of the 16th century. − era of Metropolitan Macarius. Mozhaisk, 2003. Issue. 10. pp. 95–110. Vizzhilin N.N. “... so that those hungry for gold do not look for it in my churches” // Monuments of the Fatherland. 1988 No. 1(17). M., 1988; Astafieva N.A. Dmitry Rostovsky (Personality and era) // Time and creative individuality of the writer. Yaroslavl 1990. P. 6–19; Zhigulin E.V. Demetrius of Rostov // Historical Lexicon. XVIII century. M., 1996. pp. 258–260. Rubtsova M.L. Life, works and times of St. Demetrius of Rostov // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. Research and materials. Rostov: Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery, 2008. Rutman T.A. Saint Demetrius and the Demidov Icon of the Mother of God // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. pp. 265–272. It's her. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in the church history of Yaroslavl // Images of the city in the horizon of Russian dynamics. Yaroslavl, 2010. pp. 225 – 231; Yurkin I. Metropolitan of Siberia or Rostov? “Dmitry the Father” and A. A. Vinius in 1700 – 1708 // The shining star from Kyiv. pp. 65–75; Dyatlov V. Saint Demetrius of Rostov and the Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Saints // Ibid. pp. 130–126. Putsko V.G. "The search for the Bryn faith." Saint Demetrius of Rostov as a polemical writer // The shining star from Kyiv. pp. 121–130. Yukhimenko E.M. Unknown source “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” by Dimitri Rostov // IKRZ, 1996. Rostov, 1997. pp. 155–161. Zhuravleva S.S. The phenomenon of martyrdom in the hagiographic poetry of St. Demetrius of Rostov (Tuptalo) // Literature and culture in the context of Christianity. Images, symbols, faces of Russia: materials of the V International Scientific Conference, September 22–25, 2008. Ulyanovsk, 2008. Part 1, pp. 11–16; Lebedeva N.A. Religious and philosophical heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Scientific notes of the Russian State Social University. M., 2004.–2010. No. 2. P. 88–95; Rubtsova M., Rubtsov P. For the glory of the Life-Giving Trinity // The shining star from Kyiv. pp. 38–50. Khondzinsky P, prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology” (from the history of Russian theology of the pre-synodal era). M., 2013. pp. 142–174. In particular, Fr. Pavel Khondzinsky managed to familiarize himself with the full text of L.A.’s dissertation. Yankovskaya only after finishing work on the text of her work. Nichik V. M. Etichni look D. S. Tuptal // Philosophical thought. Kiev, 1983. No. 2. P. 77–87; It's her. Petro Mohyla in the spiritual history of Ukraine. Kiev., 1997. P. 17, 32, 47, 57, 65, 82, 142, 144, 156, 163, etc. Yosipenko S. Estetichne vchennya D.S. Tuptala (St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov) in the context of the Ukrainian spiritual tradition. Author's abstract. Ph.D. philosophy Sci. Kiev, 1996; It's him. Dmitry Tuptalo and ethical-humanistic direction of early Enlightenment in Ukraine // Ukraine of the 17th century: marriage, philosophy, culture. Zb-k sciences. Let us pay tribute to the memory of Professor Valeria Mikhailivna. Kiev, 2005. pp. 118–127. Dovga L. System of values ​​in Ukrainian culture of the 17th century (on the example of the theoretical decline of Innocent Gisel). Kiev - Lviv, 2005. P. 43, 47, 55, 60–62, 64, 68, 69, 308, 309, 313. Klimov V. Saint Demetrius. Kiev. 1995. Margolina I. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery // Mohyla Readings. Materials of major scientific conferences. 1996–1997. Kiev, 1998. pp. 58–59; Zhilenko I. On the question of the main source of the first volume of the Lives of the Saints. Dimitri Tuptal-Savich // Ibid. pp.60–71; Bulgarian D. Singing and music in the life of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Ibid. pp. 85–88; Vasilyev M. Memorable places associated with the Tuptal family in Kyiv // Ibid. pp. 91–93; Kabanets E. The unknown creation of St. Demetrius Tuptal of Rostov // Ibid. 94–98 (Later, the theses of this report were again voiced at a conference in Rostov, see: Kabanets E.P. St. Demetrius and the service to the Pechersk saints // St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. pp. 219–237); Marchenko O. Works of St. Dmitry of Rostov in the collections of early printed, rare and valuable books of the State Historical Library // Ibid. pp. 101–102. Dmytro Tuptalo in the world of Ukrainian baroque: Collection of scientific works / Lviv Media Studies. VIP. 1. Lviv, 2007. Sobol V. The book by Dmitry Tuptal is memorable. Warsaw, 2004; Sobol V. Shchodenniki Dmitra Tuptal and Joasafa Gorlenka in the context of European tradition // Ukraine of the 17th century: marriage, philosophy, culture. Zb-k sciences. I honor the memory of Professor Valeria Mikhailivna Nichik. Kiev, 2005. pp. 521–531. Rogozhina N.V. To the history of the parental home of St. Demetrius of Rostov // Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. pp. 183–186; Margolina I.E. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in the history of the Kirillov Monastery // Ibid. pp. 203–208; Tarasenko A.F. Memoirs of St. Demetrius of Rostov in the funds of the Chernigov Regional Museum named after V.V. Tarnovsky // Ibid. pp. 249–258; Drobyazko N.V. St. Demetrius of Rostov and Baturinsky Nikolo-Krupinsky Monastery // Ibid. pp. 259–264; Margolina I. Missing and returned relics of the Kiev-Kirillov Monastery. New discovery of the relic of St. Demetrius of Rostov // The shining star from Kyiv. pp. 51–58. Brogi Bercoff G. The “Letopisec” of Dimitrij Tuptalo, the Metropolitan of Rostov, in the context of Western European culture // Ricerche slavistiche. R., 1992/1993. Vol. 39/40. P. 293–336; Eаdem. A proposito di Dimitrij Tuptalo, Mitropolita di Rostov // Europa orientalis. Salerno, 1993. Vol. 12. P. 49–65; Brogi-Berkoff J. “History in Brief” by Hieromonk Spiridon: research experience in European historiography of the 17th century. // Slavs and their neighbors vol. 6. M., 1996; She is the same. Aspects of Russian historiography of the 17th–early 18th centuries. in the European context // TODRL. 2009. T. 54. pp. 211–219. Bednarsky D. The Spiritual Alphabet: St. Dymytrii, Metropolitan of Rostov's Rhetorical Program for inward Knowledge. Th. Ph.D. Edmonton, 1998. It's him. West and East in the theology of Dmitry Tuptalo // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. pp. 93–131. Ivanova I. A . Barokt in oratorical prose and drama on St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Abstract of dissertation. doc. Philol. Sci. Sofia, 2003. Samarin Yu.F. Works of T. V. M., 1880. Zenkovsky V., prot. History of Russian philosophy. M., 2001. pp. 225–226. Florovsky G, prot. Decree. op. P. 65. Khondzinsky, P., prot. . “We are all sick of theology.” pp. 274–275. Panchenko A.M. Decree. op. P. 50. Chernaya L.A. Anthropological code of ancient Russian culture. M., 2004. Kiseleva M.S. The intellectual choice of Russia in the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries: from ancient Russian bookishness to European scholarship. M., 2011. Bushkovitch P. Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. NY.; Oxford, 1992. For a chronological list, see: Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... P. 287. See Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... P. 378–408. First edition: Book of Lives of Saints (Minea Chetii). Kyiv, 1689–1705. In this work, quoted from the publication: [Dimitri of Rostov, St.] Book of Lives of Saints. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1764. In this work, quoted from the publication: Demetrius, Rostov St. Essays. M., 1849. T. IV. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” T. 2. P. 362. OR GIM. Syn. D. 146; OR GIM. Syn. D. 811. OR GIM. Syn. D. 146. L. 193–194. OR GIM. Syn. D. 811. L. 194 vol. –204. See eg. Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 11. Published in: Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 104–335. Published in: Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P. 61–361. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P.201–221. Published by I.A. Shlyapkin from a handwritten collection discovered by Fr. Andrei Volkov, a priest of one of the churches in Uglitsky district in 1847: [Dmitry of Rostov, St. ] Indication // Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... Applications. pp. 15–42; Dmitriev A.A. Newly found documents about St. Dmitry of Rostov // Perm Scientific Archival Commission. Proceedings. Vol. 4. Perm, 1901. Works of Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. M., 1805–1807. Parts 1–4; Same. M., 1818. Parts 1–4; Same. M., 1824. T. 1–4; Same. M., 1833–1840. Parts 1–4; Same. M., 1857. T. 1–5; Same. Kyiv, 1869–1872. Parts 1–5; Same. Kyiv, 1880–1881. Parts 1–5; Same. Kyiv, 1895–1905. Parts 1–5. The 2000 edition (Creations of St. Demetrius of Rostov. M., 2000. Vol. 1–3.) differs from the pre-revolutionary one not only in the radically modernized language, but also in new substantive edits in the texts. Nikolsky F. Ya. Rostov School at St. Metropolitan Demetrius // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1863. pp. 231–438; Lestvitsyn V.I. Praise by a philosopher, composed of blessed memory to His Eminence Demetrius, Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Rostov. Yaroslavl, 1881; Korsunsky N.N. Materials for the history of the school of St. Demetrius of Rostov" // Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1883. pp. 347–359, 363–365; Pedagogical measure of St. Demetrius of Rostov to curb the willfulness of schoolchildren // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1883. Book. 2. Dept. V. S. 17–18. Word on the Descent of St. Holy Spirit Demetrius of Rostov // Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1884. Book. 2. Dept. II. pp. 1–15; Titov A.A. Sermons of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov in the Ukrainian dialect. M., 1909. Matasova T.A. Russian-Italian relations in the politics and culture of Muscovite Rus' in the mid-15th – first third of the 16th centuries. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences. M., 2012. pp. 14–15. Dmitriev M.V. Orthodoxy and Reformation M., 1990. P. 51–53; Kirillin V.M. “The Enlightener” by St. Joseph of Volotsky // Notes from the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library. Vol. 51 M., 2000. P. 119. Romodanovskaya V.A. Gennadievskaya Bible: tasks and principles of publication // TODRL. T. 59. St. Petersburg, 2008, pp. 245–248. Sinitsyna N.V. Types of monasteries and the Russian ascetic ideal (XV–XVI centuries) // Monasticism and monasteries in Russia in the IX–XX centuries. M., 2002. P. 143. Joseph Volotsky. Message to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal // Messages of Joseph Volotsky. M.; L., 1959. P. 162. See: Dmitriev M.V. Centrifugal and centripetal trends in the development of European Christianity in the 16th–17th centuries. // Dmitriev M.V., Florya B.N., Yakovenko S.G. Union of Brest 1596 and the socio-political struggle in Ukraine and Belarus at the end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th centuries. Part 1. Union of Brest 1596. Historical reasons. M., 1997. pp. 26–27. Confessionalization in Europe, 1555–1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan / ed. John M. Headley, Hans J. Hillerbrand and Anthony J. Papalas Aldershot. Aldershot, 2004. P. XVII. (first pagination). Bireley, R., S.J. Redefining Catholicism: Trent and beyond // The Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge, 2006. V.6. P. 145–147. Dmitriev M.V. Between Rome and Constantinople: the genesis of the Brest Church Union of 1595–1596. M., 2003. pp. 220–222. Dmitriev M.V. Church brotherhoods of the Kyiv Metropolis at the end of the 16th century: the result of “Orthodox confessionalization”? // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. P. 147. For more information about the fraternal movement in Western Russian lands and its correlations with the Protestant Reformation, see: Ibid. pp. 134–135; 140; 146–147. Yakovenko N. Essay on the history of Ukraine in the Middle Ages and early modern times. M., 2012. pp. 272–273. Dmitriev M.V. Between Rome and Constantinople. pp. 282–283. Korzo M.A. External tradition as a source of inspiration. On the question of the authorship of Kyiv and Moscow Orthodox texts of the 17th century. Two examples // Studi Slavistici VI (2009). P. 60; Timoshenko L.V. Religiosity of Catholics and religiosity of Orthodox Christians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: ways and methods of comparative analysis of ideas of modern society // Religious traditions of Europe and modernity: study and teaching in Russian and foreign universities. Ivanovo. 2011. pp. 138–141. Dmitriev M.V. Orthodoxy and Reformation. P. 108; P. 139. Yakovenko N. Decree op. P. 291. Yakovenko N. Decree op. P. 289. Runciman S. The Great Church in Captivity. History of the Greek Church from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 282–292. Dmitriev M.V. Church brotherhoods... P. 139. Thomson F. Meletius Smotritsky and the union with Rome: a religious dilemma in 17th-century Ruthenia / 400 years of the Union of Brest 400 years of the Church Union of Brest (1596–1996): A critical reappraisal. Nemegen, Holland. B.m. 1998. P. 193. Thomson F. Decree. op. P. 198. Turilov A.A., Florya B.N. Decree. op. pp. 28–34. Plokhy S. The Cossacks and religion in early Modern Ukraine. Oxford., 2001. P. 334–341. Dmitriev M.V. Between Rome and Constantinople. pp. 220–223. Ševčenko I. Many worlds of Peter Mohyla // Idem. Ukraine between East and West: Essays on Cultural History to the Early Eighteenth Century. Toronto, 1996. P.165–166. Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. T. II. S. 3. Plokhy S. Op. cit. P. 237–239. Turilov A.A., Florya B.N. Decree op. P. 37. The contents of the “Spiritual Alphabet” will be discussed later, in Chapter III. Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. T.II. pp. 478–480. Plokhy S. Op. cit. P. 239–240. Turilov A.A., Florya B.N. Decree op. pp. 45–46. Yakovenko N. Decree op. P. 394. Turilov A.A., Florya B.N. Decree. op. pp. 46–47. Shmonin D.V. In the shadow of the Renaissance: the second scholasticism in Spain. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 16–17. Shmonin D.V. Decree. op. P. 133. Euchologion albo Prayer book or Breviary. Kyiv. 1646. L. 4. Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. T.I.S. 438. Right there. P. 357. It is noteworthy that Uniate works of this kind have been known since the beginning of the 17th century. For this common point of view, see: Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Volume II. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 291–292. Korzo M.A. Ukrainian and Belarusian catechetical tradition of the 16th–17th centuries. M., 2007. pp. 359–360. Kryzhanovsky E.M. Collected works. T. I. Kyiv. 1890. P. 104. Kryzhanovsky E.M. Decree. op. pp. 141–146. Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. T.II. pp. 268–293. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part I. pp. 99–105. Sevčenko I. Op. cit. P. 171. See Eingorn V.I. Essays from the history of Little Russia in the 17th century. M., 1899. Sumtsov M.F. Lazar Baranovich. Kharkov. 1885. pp. 29–30. Korzo M.A. External tradition as a source of inspiration... S. 62–72. Sumtsov N.F. Ioannikiy Galatovsky // Kyiv antiquity. 1884. pp. 570–574. Right there. pp. 377–385; 574–587. See eg. Shpirt A.A. “The Truthful Messiah” Ioannikiy Galatovsky and his “Jewish” sources // Lechaim. 2010. No. 4. pp. 31–33. Kiseleva M.S. The intellectual choice of Russia in the second half of the 17th – early 18th centuries: from ancient Russian bookishness to European scholarship. M., 2011. P. 134. Sumtsov N.F. Lazar Baranovich. P. 50. It's him. Ioannikiy Galatovsky. pp. 372–374. Bushkovich P. Op cit. P. 168. Kiseleva M.S. Intellectual choice... P. 103–104. Filippov S.B. Decree. op. pp. 80–85. Rumyantseva V.S. Popular anti-church movement in Russia in the 17th century. M., 1986. pp. 34–36. Pozdeeva I.V., Dadykin A.V., Pushkov V.P. The Moscow Printing Yard is a fact and factor of Russian culture. 1652–1700. Research and publications. M., 2007. Book. 1. P. 78. Rumyantseva V.S. Epiphany Slavinetsky in Moscow // Orthodoxy of Ukraine and Muscovite Rus' in the 15th–17th centuries: general and different. M., 2012. P. 279. Sevastyanova S. Epistolary works of Patriarch Nikon in the tradition of Russian Baroque // Man in the culture of Russian Baroque. M., 2007. P.285–298. Zelenskaya G. The Personality of Patriarch Nikon and Early Russian Baroque // Ibid. pp. 278–279. Chumicheva O.V. Great Moscow Cathedral 1666–1667 // Orthodox encyclopedia. T. 5. M., 2002. pp. 679–684. Kharlampovich K.V. Little Russian influence on Great Russian church life. T.I. Kazan, 1914. P. 254. Kagamlik S. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: suite of spirituality and culture (XVII–XVIII centuries). K., 2005. pp. 237–239. Rumyantseva V.S. Epiphany Slavinetsky in Moscow. P. 274. Bushkovitch P. Op. cit. P.156. Ibid. P.154–155; Zhivov V.M. From the church history of the times of Peter the Great: research and materials. M., 2004. pp. 25–26. Guryanova N.S. Old Believers and the creative heritage of the Kyiv Metropolis. Novosibirsk, 2007. pp. 73–74. Guryanova N.S. Old Believers and creative heritage... P.103. Guryanova N.S. Old Believers and creative heritage... P. 58–66. Adam Zernikav (review of the manuscript containing his autobiography) // TKDA. 1860. Book. 3. pp. 196–197. Peter Artemyev, deacon (1670–1700) – graduate of the Slavic-Greek-Latin school of Likhudov. In 1689 he traveled with Ioannikiy Likhud to Venice and also visited Rome and Vienna. Upon his return, he became a zealous Catholic, preaching his views in the Moscow church, where he served in the 1690s. After he was removed from ministry, he organized a home philo-Catholic circle. All this led to the fact that in 1698 Pyotr Artemyev was arrested, and church authorities began a search for the reasons for his defection to “Latinism.” Peter himself wrote lengthy “notebooks” in his defense, in which he told in a confessional form how he was disappointed in the Likhud mentors, having seen their ignorance and hypocritical crypto-Catholicism, and came to the realization that Catholicism, which the deacon became acquainted with during his travels and through conversations with Moscow Jesuits, is the true faith, much more enlightened and tolerant than the Moscow one. Orthodoxy. A refutation was written on a “notebook” by the elderly Evfimy Chudovsky, whom the deacon also rudely criticized in his notes. As a result, Peter Artemyev was exiled to Solovki, where he soon died, expressing repentance for his mistakes before his death. See Kagin M.A. Petr Artemyev // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century. Part 3. M., 1998. pp. 32–34. OR GIM. Syn. 393. L. 57 vol. Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius... P. 18–38; 43–44. Philaret of Moscow, St. Orthodox Catechism. M., 2004. P.116–123; Catechism of the Catholic Church. M., 2007. pp. 320–322. Die Augsburgische Konfession - Augsburg Confession. Erlangen, 1988. P. 89. The Council of Trent. The canons and decrees of the sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent. Ed. and trans. J.Waterworth. London, 1848. P. 55–56, 75–84. Runciman S. Decree. op. pp. 252–263. The theological problem of epiclesis and its history are presented in detail in: Cyprian (Kern), Archimandrite. Eucharist M., 2001. pp. 208–261. Prozorovsky A. Sylvester Medvedev, his life and work. M., 1896. P. 224. Oparina T.A. On the prehistory of reception... P. 192–197. Confession of Dositheus // Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem. L., 1899. R. 137–139, 144–150. Gorsky A.V., prot. About the Council of Jerusalem 1672 // Additions to the Works of St. Fathers 1871. Part 24. Book. 3. pp. 568–601. See Prozorovsky A. Decree. op. pp. 222–223. Bubnov N. Yu. Monuments of Old Believer writing: Works of Gerontius Solovetsky. The story of Patriarch Nikon. M., 2006. pp. 348–435. Isachenko-Lisovaya T.A. Evfimy Chudovsky // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century. Part 1.M., 1992. P. 288. Panich T.V. “Answer” of Evfimy Chudovsky to the “lying scripture” of Pyotr Artemyev // Social consciousness and literature of the 16th-20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 2001. P. 230. See Belokurov S.A. Sylvester Medvedev's true news to the Orthodox // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1885. Book. 4. P. XVI. Arzhanukhin V.V. Philosophy at the University of Padua in the mid-17th century. // Likhudov readings. pp. 209–210. Prozorovsky A. Decree. op. P. 459. See Bednarsky D. Decree. op. pp. 104–107. OR GIM. Syn. 811. L. 51 vol. For a brief overview, see: Bogdanov A.P. Moscow journalism of the last quarter of the 17th century. M., 2001. pp. 279–282. Zhivov V.M. From church history... P. 190. Zhivov V.M. From church history... P. 41. See Confessionalization in Europe, 1555–1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part 1. pp. 80–81. AUZR. T. 5. Part I. pp. 227–228. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part 1, pp. 83–99. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part 2. P. 64. Golubev S.T. Kyiv Academy at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. K., 1901. S. 3–4. Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part 2. P. 129. See detailed analysis of all sources of Chetiy-Minea: Derzhavin A., prot. “They rejoice...” Part 2. pp. 70–235. See his objections to Dometsky in: Yakhontov I. Hierodeacon of Damascus, Russian polemicist of the 17th century St. Petersburg, 1883. About the acquaintance of the Likhuds and the Feologist, see: Smentsovsky M. The Likhud Brothers. P. 288. Fedotova M.A. Decree. op. P. 89. Brailovsky S.N. One of the variegated ones... P. III–IV (first pagination). OR GIM. Syn. 146. L. 193. Zaitsev D.A. Decree. op. pp.55–56; See also: Brailovsky N.O. One of the motley... P. I (first pagination) and a number of other works devoted to the problem. Panich T.V. Book "Shield of Faith". pp. 107–108. Zaitsev D.A. Decree. op. pp. 73–75. Osten. Monument to spiritual writing of the 17th century. Kazan. 1865. P. 71. Fonkich B.L. Decree. op. pp. 164–173. Zaitsev D.A. Decree op. pp. 98–105. Chrissidis N. A. A Jesuit Aristotle in Seventeenth-Century Russia: Cosmology and the Planetary System in the Slavo-Greeco-Latin Academy // Modernizing Muscovy. Reform and social change in seventeenth-century Russia. L. & N.Y. 2004. P. 404. Panich T.V. “Answer” of Evfimy Chudovsky to the “lying scripture” of Pyotr Artemyev // Social consciousness and literature of the 16th-20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 2001. P. 230. Yakhontov I. Decree. op. P. 55. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P. 145. Chistovich I. Novgorod Metropolitan Job, his life and correspondence with different persons // Wanderer. 1861. No. 2. pp. 61–62. Smentsovsky M. Decree. op. P. 328. Chistovich I. Decree. op. pp. 123–124. A.M. Apraksin also patronized the Likhuds. Chistovich I. Decree. op. P. 125. Buseva-Davydova I.L. Decree. op. pp. 268–295; Vaigachev S.A. Spiritual culture of the transitional era from the Middle Ages to the New Age in Russia and Western Europe: some typological parallels // Russian culture in the transitional period from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age. M., 1992. pp. 60–72. See: Bushkovich P. Op. Cit. P. 178–179; Vaigachev S.A. Decree. op. pp. 46–49. Pascal P. Decree. op. pp. 44–49. Shonu P. Decree. op. P. 442. Shonu P. Decree. op. P. 444. Quote by: Bogolyubov K.L. External teaching and literary activity: about three southwestern scribes of the 17th–18th centuries: Dmitry Savich, John Velichkovsky and Paisy Velichkovsky. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov: Research and materials. M., 1994. P. 187. Paisiy Velichkovsky, Rev. The life and writings of the Moldavian elder Paisius Velichkovsky. With the addition of prefaces to the books of St. Gregory the Sinaite, Philotheus of Sinai, Hesychius the Presbyter and Nil Sorskago, composed by his friend and fellow faster, Elder Vasily of Polyanomerulsky, on mental sobriety and prayer. M., 1847. Quoted from: Bogolyubov K.L. Decree. op. P. 194. Basil the Great, St. Conversation 22. To young men about how to benefit from pagan works // Creations. T. 1. M., 2008. P. 720. Until the beginning of the 18th century. "Ladder" Met. Isaiah Kopinsky was known in handwritten copies, not only in Little Russia, but also in Great Russian monasteries. There was a list of this work in the library of Metropolitan. Demetrius of Rostov. In 1710, through the diligence of the Kyiv hieromonk Ilya, “The Spiritual Ladder” was published under the title “The Spiritual Alphabet” without indicating the author. In the 18th century after a series of anonymous reprints, the authorship of Dimitri Savich was assigned to the “Alphabet”, which was facilitated by the inclusion of this work in the first collected works of the Rostov Metropolitan, published in 1764 574. In general, “Alphabet” was destined to become one of the most famous and influential works of the Kyiv tradition - it is enough to mention that according to it, according to N.A. Motovilov, St. Petersburg himself studied spiritual life. Seraphim of Sarov. See Nilus S.A. Great in small // The power of God and human weakness. Great in small. M., 2003. P.746. Wed. Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. M., 2002. pp. 186–208. Granstrem E.E., Tikhomirov N.B. Works of Isaac the Syrian in Slavic-Russian writing // Bulletin of Church History. 2007. No. 1 (5). pp. 137–143. Fedotova M.A. About two sources of Ukrainian sermons of Demetrius of Rostov (Foma Mlodzyanovsky and Cornelius a Lapide) // TODRL. T. 48. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 346. Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 132. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. C. 117. Gracian B. Wit or the art of a sophisticated mind / Spanish aesthetics. Renaissance. Baroque. Education. M., 1977. P. 175. Norenzayan A., Atran S., Faulkner J., Schallera M. Memory and the mystery: the cultural selection of minimally counterintuitive narratives. Cognitive Science. 2006. No. 30. P. 531–53. Sofronova L.A. Poetics of Slavic theater of the 17th – first half of the 18th centuries. P. 208. Matseevich L. Polish preacher of the 17th century, Jesuit Thomas Mlodzianowski // TKDA. 1870. T. 2. P. 151. Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 208–210. Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 644–643. Shlyapkin I.A. Decree. op. P. 387; Zubov V.P. Decree. op. P. 19. See Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 226–238. Baranowicz Łazarz. Lutnia Apollonova. Kijow, 1671. Sazonova L.I. Decree. op. P. 699. Buseva-Davydova I.L. Decree. op. pp. 224–229. The reasons for this are rooted in the peculiarities of the reception of ancient culture in Slavia Orthodoxa, which has already been mentioned in Chapter I of this work. See Buseva-Davydova I.L. Decree. op. P. 228; 231–234. For more information about the dramaturgy of Dimitry Savich, see: Zhigulin E.V. The artistic originality of the theater of Dmitry Rostov. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of art history. M., 1995. Matseevich L. Decree. op. 1870. T. 3. P. 514. Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 187. Macieevich L. Decree. op. 1870. T. 3. pp. 514–515. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. III. P. 259. Matseevich L. Decree. op. 1871. T. 2. P. 362. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. P. 149. Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 188–189. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. pp. 9–11; 15. Sofronova L.A. Poetics... P. 89. Zubov V.P. Decree. op. P. 22. Zubov V.P. Decree. op. P. 23. Wed: Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words... P. 156–163. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. C. 127. Zubov V.P. Decree. op. P. 28. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. pp. 540–542. Matseevich L. Decree. op. 1870. T. 4. P. 3. Bushkovitch P. Op. cit. P. 178. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T. II. C. 155; Right there. T.III. C. 198. Matseevich L. Decree. op. 1871. T. 2. P. 151. Mathauzerova S. Two theories of text in Russian literature of the 17th century. // TODRL. L., 1976. T. 31. P. 273–274. Panchenko A.M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter's reforms. P. 50. Uspensky B.A. Schism and cultural conflict of the 17th century // Selected works. T.1. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture. M., 1994. P. 336. This point is important because it reflects the widespread understanding of marital communication as “filth” in medieval Russian religiosity. The refusal to pay close attention to “filth” after the reforms of the patriarchs is indicative. Nikon and, conversely, the preservation and cultivation of this attention among the Old Believers, especially among the Bespopovites. See Krylov G., prot. The concept of “filth” (trash) in Medieval Rus' and in modern Old Believers // Religion as a sign system: Sign. Ritual. Communication. Vol. 1. Tver, 2011. pp. 78–120. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T.III. P. 175. It's him. Essays. T. II. pp. 368–378. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T.III. pp. 193–200. Right there. Essays. T II. pp. 233–234. OR GIM. Syn. 811. L. 254–266 vol. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T I. S. 147–158. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T I. P. 152. Sukina L.B. Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov and his essay “The Inner Man” // History and culture of the Rostov land. 2007. Rostov, 2008. pp. 38–39. Zubov V.P. Decree. Op. P.51. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P. 201; 208. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Works T. I. P. 59. Thus, the Spanish writer of the first half of the 17th century. F. de Quevedo, drawing in his novel “The Life Story of a Rogue named Don Pablos” the image of a sanctimonious cook, among the signs of her special piety, names the fact that she received communion and confessed every Sunday. See Quevedo F. The life story of a scoundrel named Don Pablos // Aka. Favorites. L., 1980. P. 323. Korzo M.A. Problems of moral reform of society in the early modern era // Ethical Thought. Vol. 4. M., 2003. P. 94. Zoitakis A.G. Traditional Enlightenment in Greece in the Eighteenth Century: Cosmas the Aetolian and Nicodemus the Holy Mountain. M., 2008. pp. 18–19. Smirnov S.I. Old Russian confessor. M., 1914. pp. 199–204. Stefanovich P.S. Decree. op. P. 305. AAE. St. Petersburg, 1836. T. 4. No. 115. P. 160. AAE. T. 4. No. 115. P. 214–215; 227–228. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T.I.S. 269–271. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T.I.S. 129–134. Mullett M. Op. cit. P. 161. [Demetrius of Rostov, St. ] Note. P. 16. Right there. Works T. I. P. 205; Syn. 858. L. 225–230 vol. Right there. P. 216; OR GIM. Syn. 858. L. 228–230 vol. [Demetrius of Rostov, St. ] Note. P. 15; 20. Right there. pp. 202–205. OR GIM. Syn. 858. L. 230–230 vol. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Works T. I. P. 205. Sreznevsky V.I. Letters from Pososhkov to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. St. Petersburg, 1900. P. 16. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P. 111; 300. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Essays. T.I.S. 205–207. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Works T. I. S. 272–274. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Works T. I. P. 121. [ Same. ] Note. pp. 17–18. Petro Mogila, St. Book of Souls. P. 345. Quote by: Golubev S.T. Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. T. II. pp. 324–325. See commented list in: Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 108–335. Quoted from: Jankowska L.A. Literary and theological heritage... P. 222–223. Si quotiescunque effundetur Sangvis Xti in remissione peccatorum funditur. Debeo illum semper accipere, ut Semper mihi peccata dimittantur. Tui semper pecco, semper debeo habere medicinam. S: Ambrosius. OR GIM. Syn. 187. L. 21. Accipe quotidie [corpus et sangvinem Christi] quod quotodie tibi prosit. Sic vivere, ut quotidie merearis accipere. qui non meretur quoteidie accipere, non meritur post annum accipere D.;Augustinus. Right there. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Book of Lives of Saints. Kyiv, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. 1764. L. 93. Right there. Book IV. L. 138–149. Right there. Book III. L. 24 rev. Right there. Book II. L, 377 rev. Right there. Book II. L. 33–50. Right there. Book III. L. 98 rev.–102. Right there. Book IV. L. 240. Right there. Book III. L. 277–284. Mitrofan of Voronezh, St. Text of the oral spiritual sv. Mitrofan, bishop Voronezh // Theological Bulletin. 1897. T 1. No. 2. P. 7 (4th page). [Demetrius of Rostov, St. ] Indication... P. 18. [Demetrius of Rostov, St. ] Indication... P. 21. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage... P. 165–166. There are letters of permission from Metropolitan Demetrius, who allowed widowed priests John and Vasily to continue to serve. See M.A. Fedotova. Epistolary heritage... P. 195–198. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Search... P. 492–497; 525–526. It's him. Essays. T. II. pp. 596–597. Lavrov A.S. Decree. Op. pp. 39–60. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Search... P. 640. Wed. a similar position of Simeon of Polotsk in: Bushkovich P. Op. Cit. P. 170–171.