About the stay of Maximus the Greek in the Dominican monastery of St. Stamp in Florence

There is one extremely important event in the life of Maxim the Greek, which until very recently remained an absolute secret. We mean his stay for almost two years (1502–1504) in the Catholic Dominican monastery of St. Mark in Florence as a monk. There is not the slightest mention of this event in any of the numerous “Lives” and “Tales” about Maxim the Greek compiled by Russian scribes in the 16th-18th centuries 1 . Maxim’s contemporaries, who knew him closely in Italy, Mount Athos and Russia, do not say a word about him either. Finally, Maxim the Greek himself in his writings did not express a single hint about his monastic life with the Dominicans, while he recalls other events from his time in Italy very often, devoting to them not only individual pages, but also entire works 3. Thus, the fact of Maximus the Greek’s entry into the Dominican monastery remained unknown for 400 years. The Catholic scientist Ilya Denisov first reported about it in his major work “Maxim the Greek and the West,” published in 1943 in Paris 4 . The basis for such a message was the discovery by him in the ancient “Chronicle” of the monastery of St. Mark, in the so-called “Chronique d'Ubaldini” the following entry: “Brother Michael, son of Emmanuel, from the city of Arta, under the same name by which he was previously called in the world, took monastic vows from the venerable brother Matthew Marchi on the fourteenth day of June about the first hour of the night in the year of the Lord 1502” 5. In view of the exceptional importance of such a record for the biography of Maxim the Greek, I. Denisov decided to establish its authenticity and source of origin. After a thorough search, he was able to discover that this entry was included in the Chronicle from an older manuscript known under the title Liber vestitionum. This manuscript represents the original registration in chronological order of all those who entered the monastery of St. Stamp of new monks from 1491 to 1681. Thus, the authenticity of the record is beyond doubt. I. Denisov dedicated a special article to his research on the record we are considering under the rather strange title “The influence of Savonarola on the Russian Church, discovered through an unknown manuscript of the monastery of St. Mark in Florence" 6. One can raise the question: does the above entry refer specifically to Maxim the Greek? Here doubts are resolved quite easily. In this extract, the city of Arta is called the homeland of Michael, and Emmanuel is his father. We find the same information in a note placed on the first page of the most ancient collection of works by Maxim the Greek from the Moscow period, and the compilation of the collection is attributed by some scientists to Maxim himself. The note reads: “Maxim’s birth from the city of Arta, father of Manuel and Irina, Christian Greek philosophers” 7. In addition, as noted in the above note, Michael Trivolis, in a letter to Scipio Carteromachus dated April 21, 1504, reported that he had “renounced the monastic life.” Thus, the fact of the stay of the young Maxim the Greek in the Catholic Dominican monastery of St. Mark's presence in Florence as a monk is beyond doubt. But here questions arise: 1. What prompted Michael Trivolis (Maximus the Greek) to join the Dominican monastery of St. Brand? 2. How did Michael’s short stay in the Dominican monastery affect his ideological appearance? To answer the first question, it is necessary to remember the environment in which his life took place in Florence. Michael Trivolis arrived in Florence in 1492 at the age of 22 8 to complete his education. Here he remained, with some interruptions, until mid-1498. 9 If Italy was at that time the center of the Western European Renaissance, then Florence was the center of the Italian Renaissance. It was then called “New Athens”. Young Greek emigrants flocked here as if to a promised land, where the famous culture of ancient Hellas was being revived. In Florence, Michael Trivolis took a course in various sciences under the guidance of outstanding representatives of the Italian Renaissance of the late 15th century: John Lascaris, Angelo Poliziano, Dmitry Chalcondil, Marsilio Ficino and others. Long-term communication with the most prominent figures of humanistic science and intensive independent studies with ancient writers could not but have a profound influence on his worldview. He himself testifies to this in his later writings 10. The main features of the humanistic movement were quite clearly reflected in the further literary activity of Maxim the Greek. But simultaneously with his studies at the Platonov Academy, Mikhail Trivolis listened to sermons and witnessed the reform activities, and possibly the martyrdom of Hieronymus Savonarola. Judging by numerous testimonies of contemporaries, Savonarola’s sermons made a stunning impression on his listeners. They fascinated men and women, artists and poets, philosophers and ordinary people equally. The fame of the Florentine preacher spread far beyond the borders of Italy. If we add to this that those around him were irresistibly influenced by the very personality of the Florentine preacher, who was distinguished by high morality, unselfishness, and selfless love for the people, then it will not be surprising that many outstanding representatives of science and art of that time, including the great Michelangelo Buonarotti, who re-read Savonarola's sermons until his old age, became his admirers. It is quite clear that the young, impressionable Greek Michael Trivolis, who witnessed the last five years of the life and work of the Florentine preacher, could also fall under the influence of Savonarola. We learn about the deep and indelible impression that the sermons, personality and fate of Savonarola made on the young Maxim the Greek from the extensive legend about Savonarola by Maxim himself, which we read in his essay “The Tale is Terrible and Noteworthy and about the Perfect Monastic Residence” 12. Here Maximus directly declares that he is ready to rank Savonarola and his two comrades after martyrdom “with joy as the ancient defender of piety, even if there was no Latin faith.” This is what Maxim the Greek said many years after the Florentine tragedy. One can imagine what a halo surrounded Savonarola in the eyes of the young man Michael, when the latter listened to sermons and observed the activities of the Florentine monk. There is no doubt that under the influence of Savonarola, that internal change occurred in Mikhail Trivolis, which he later recalled in Moscow in his writings, already speaking under the name of Maxim the Greek. Thus, in the “Message on the Catholic Dominican and Franciscan monastic orders” he stated: “40 years have already passed, and the Hellenes have renounced the rotten fables and teachings of my ancestors, having listened to the teacher speaking in secret” 13. From a passionate admirer of pagan antiquity, from a humanist with paganistic tendencies, Michael turns into a zealous supporter of the Christian ideals that Savonarola put forward to his listeners. Under the influence of the fiery denunciations and reform activities of the Florentine preacher, Michael Trivolis is imbued with that religious enthusiasm or, in the words of Savonarola himself, that “jealousy for Bose” that the Florentine monk was obsessed with and which infected everyone around him. This “jealousy” was not a manifestation of the ecstatic fanaticism of a hermit monk, but was the source of that inner strength that pushed Savonarola to fight against flagrant abuses in the Catholic Church, against the moral vices of his contemporary society, against the tyranny and lawlessness of secular princes, against extortion and theft of the rich, and to protect the poor and oppressed. “Through his efforts, complete democracy was introduced in Florence; all decisions had to be made in an assembly of citizens” 14. The program of reforms he outlined pursued the following main objectives: “reform of the Christian Church from bottom to top, restoration of the original equality between people, patriarchal system” 15. Remembering the transformative activity of Savonarola, Maxim the Greek later wrote: “This great wisdom of the God-inspired Scriptures... was kindled by the zeal of God, advising good and godly advice, that is, with a teaching word, hedgehog from the Divine Scriptures, to help this city and destroy it from it to the end of this wickedness” 16. Maxim the Greek retained the zeal for the fight against all kinds of vices and lawlessness, inspired by Savonarola, for the rest of his life. And when he arrived in Rus' and was confronted with many blatant sentiments in the church-religious, moral, everyday and socio-political life of the then Russian society, he could not remain silent and, “burning with jealousy,” following the example of his Florentine teacher, he came out with sharp denunciations. In a whole series of his works, he directly states that he writes and speaks “not out of hypocrisy,” not for the sake of flattery and not in search of glory, “but because he burned with Divine jealousy” 17 . This “zeal for God” was the main motivating reason for Michael Trivolis’s entry into the Dominican monastery of St. Mark, in which Jerome Savonarola was prior in the last years of his life. The brave struggle of the Florentine preacher against the iniquities of Rome and in defense of the freedom of the Florentine people, his fearlessness at trial and before being burned at the stake in 1498 finally strengthened the young Greek in his determination to devote himself to the same transformative activities for the benefit of his neighbors, for which Savonarola suffered. It is possible that, under the influence of the fearless martyrdom of Savonarola, Michael Trivolis intended to enter the monastery of St. Mark, in order to continue the high feat of his teacher as a preacher. But this was prevented by the ensuing reaction, accompanied by fierce repressions against the followers and admirers of the Florentine reformer. “It is impossible to express,” says Perrens, “what ridicule and insults the disciples and supporters of the unfortunate monk were subjected to. The monastery was closed for two months. Many monks were sent into exile" 18. Under such circumstances, Michael Trivolis considered it best to retire to Mirandola to serve Prince Pico della Mirandola, who was one of the educated and talented people of his time and was at the same time an ardent admirer of Savonarola and one of his first biographers 19 . At the beginning of June 1502, Michael Trivolis returned from Mirandola to Florence. By this time, in the monastery of St. Mark, a calmer situation is established, and the Orthodox Greek Michael takes monastic vows on June 14 of the same year. Following the example of his teacher Hieronymus Savonarola, Michael retained his secular name in monasticism, as evidenced by the ancient record cited above. In addition to the religious mood caused by the influence of Savonarola, there was another reason that prompted Michael Trivolis to enter the monastery of St. Brand. Since the priory of Savonarola, the monastery has gained fame not only as a center of church and monastic renewal, but also as the greatest treasury of book treasures. Three most valuable book collections were united here: 1) the library of Cosimo Medici donated to the monastery, 2) the public library of Nicolo Nicola donated to the monastery and 3) the richest personal library of Lorenzo Medici acquired by Savonarola 20 . At the head of the monastery library was a translator of the Greek fathers familiar to Michael 21 . All this could be a considerable attractive force for an inquisitive Greek. No information has been preserved about how monk Michael spent his time and what he did in the Dominican monastery. It must be assumed that here he became acquainted with those theological and philosophical works that underlay the teachings of Savonarola, and above all with the “Summa of Theology” of Thomas Aquinas. It is also possible that he continued to study the Greek Fathers of the Church, whose works he translated and prepared for publication on behalf of Pico della Mirandola. In April 1504, Michael Trivolis left the monastery of St. Brand. It is difficult to establish with certainty the reason that forced Michael Trivolis to leave the Dominican monastery. He himself, in his letter dated April 21, 1504 to Scipio Carteromachus, refers to “many illnesses that beset him,” but this is hardly true, since in the same letter he, contradicting himself, declares: “Thank God, I am healthy” 22. It can be assumed that his removal from the monastery was caused mainly by the extremely hostile atmosphere towards the memory of Savonarola that had persisted here since the execution of the heroic prior. On March 10, 1503, the general of the Dominican Order sent an order to the monastery prohibiting talking about Savonarola and even pronouncing his name 23 . It is quite understandable that in such a situation, the zealous student of the Florentine preacher could not continue the work of his teacher, that is, denounce those vices in church and public life that Savonarola fought against. At first, after leaving the Dominican monastery, Michael tried to devote himself to scientific Hellenistic studies. For this purpose, his eyes turn to the famous Venetian book publisher Aldus Manutius, a friend and patron of Hellenistic scholars, with whom Michael Trivolis was previously acquainted and who was surrounded by Michael’s close friends. He sends two letters to one of them, Scipio Carteromachus, in which he talks about his difficult situation and asks him to take care of his affairs, “recommend honest Aldus” and “drag” him to Venice 24. For reasons unknown to us, Mikhail Trivolis was unable to get a job as an employee at the book publishing house of Aldus Manutius. But this attempt indicates that his stay in the Dominican monastery did not erase Michael’s interest in scientific and literary Hellenistic studies and, consequently, his humanistic sentiments. The following year, 1505, Michael Trivolis retired to Athos and there, in the Greek Vatopedi monastery, took monasticism with the name Maximus. Thus, a student of the Renaissance, who for some time wore the hood of a Dominican monk, now puts on the clothes of an Orthodox hagiorite monk, in which he remains for the rest of his life. As I. Denisov rightly notes, there was, however, nothing unexpected or abnormal in this evolution. Greek by birth and feeling, the son of Orthodox parents, Michael Trivolis, not finding an application for his spiritual powers and religious zeal in Italy, decided to devote his solid knowledge in philology, philosophy and theology for the benefit of his homeland and Eastern Orthodoxy. But here we come to the second of the questions we posed above: how did Michael Trivolis’s stay in the Dominican monastery affect his ideological appearance; Was this stay connected with Michael’s temporary renunciation of Orthodoxy in favor of Catholicism? The Catholic scholar I. Denisov considers Michael’s entry into the Dominican monastery as the culminating point of the Latinization of our Greek, that is, as his final transition to the side of the Catholic Church, which, according to I. Denisov, always offered him its “mother’s womb” and invariably took care of him during his wanderings in Italy 25. According to Western scientists, the Latinism of Maximus the Greek was not, however, a temporary phenomenon. He remained in the views and moods of our writer in the future and was reflected even in his polemical works against the Latins, written in the Moscow period. In support of this opinion, I. Denisov provides the following evidence: 1. While the Muscovites, following the Greek polemicists, counted up to 32 Latin heresies, Maximus cites only three. 2. The very style of his writings against Catholicism has a conciliatory character, alien to blind fanaticism. 3. Maximus's religious thoughts are in most cases closer to Catholic doctrines than the thoughts of other Orthodox theologians. 4. He is not afraid to praise the primacy of the Apostle Peter (Works, vol. I, pp. 196,211). 5. For him, the pope is the legitimate viceroy of the prince of the apostles, who has received the right to “knit and decide” (ibid., p. 469). 6. Maxim praises the life of Catholic monks and the order of Catholic monasteries 26. However, all the evidence given by I. Denisov in favor of the Latinism of Maxim the Greek, upon closer examination, turns out to be unconvincing. References to the fact that Maximus, in his polemics against the Latins, touched only on three Latin heresies and that the very tone of his polemical writings is conciliatory in nature, do not in the least indicate his sympathies for Catholicism. In this case, Maxim followed the example of the most prominent representatives of Eastern Orthodoxy (Patriarch Photius, Patriarch Peter of Antioch, Archbishop Demetrius Khomatin of Bulgaria, Simeon of Thessaloniki, etc.), who considered the most important only three dogmatic errors of the Latins (Filioque, unleavened bread and papal primacy), without attaching much importance to numerous ritual and everyday discrepancies, and sought to avoid their speeches have an irreconcilable tone. Further pointing out the closeness of some of Maxim’s thoughts to Catholic doctrines, in particular, in the doctrine of the primacy of the Apostle Peter, I. Denisov admits a clear distortion of the true meaning of our writer’s statements. In those places to which I. Denisov refers, Maxim the Greek directly refutes the Latin doctrine of the primacy of the Apostle Peter, declaring that the power to “knit and loosen” was given by Christ and “other disciples” (Works, vol. I, p. 464). Finally, they are not a valid argument in favor of Maximus’s Latinism and his praise of the non-covetous life of Catholic monks. This question relates to the area of ​​morality, not doctrine, and will be discussed below. In general, the fact of Maxim's Latinization during his stay in Italy is not confirmed by documentary data and is in complete contradiction with all his further activities, which are full of polemical struggle against Latinism. The writings of Maximus the Greek against Catholicism have always enjoyed exceptionally high authority among Orthodox theologians, and some of them already from the 16th century. began to be included, along with the works of the Church Fathers, in doctrinal collections that served as a guide in polemics with Catholicism 27 . Therefore, it can be argued that the monasticism of Michael Trivolis among the Dominicans was not associated with a renunciation of Orthodoxy. Contradicting himself, I. Denisov himself asserts the same thing, declaring that “his (Mikhail-Maxim’s) conversion to Catholicism, strictly speaking, was never an abjuration (abjuration) of Orthodoxy, but only a renunciation of neo-paganism” 28. Mikhail I. Denisov sees Italian Latinism not in dogmatic deviations from the Greek Church or even in any dogmatic fluctuations, but only in the tolerance with which the Greek emigrant treated the Latin environment and Latin rites surrounding him in Italy, but without assimilating them 29 . It must be said that in the XV-XVI centuries. Relations of mutual religious tolerance were established between the Greek emigrants living in Italy and local Catholics. Therefore, from Michael, upon his entry into the monastery of St. No one demanded that Mark change his dogmatic views. In addition, the very rite of monastic tonsure, both in Orthodox and Catholic monasteries, does not contain formulas of a doctrinal nature; he emphasizes only the moral aspects associated with vows of renunciation of the world and worldly interests. These vows fully corresponded to the religious and moral upsurge that was caused in Michael by the preaching and activities of Savonarola. As for his doctrinal views, it must be assumed that Savonarola’s long conflict with the papacy and the Roman hierarchy, which Michael witnessed, already prepared in his soul oppositional sentiments towards the Roman Church. That is why, in his memoirs about Savonarola and Dominican monasticism, Maxim the Greek concerns events and phenomena of an exclusively moral order. A monument to the stay of young Maxim in the monastery of the Florentine Dominicans are his two stories about Catholic monasteries, later written in Russia. We read one in the essay “The Terrible and Noteworthy Tale of Perfect Monastic Residence,” and the other in his “Epistle on the Catholic Dominican and Franciscan Monastic Orders.” These stories, especially the first, describe details of monastic life that could only be known to an eyewitness. At the same time, stories indicate that even then, during his stay in the monastery of St. Mark and under the influence of the reform activities of Savonarola, Maxim the Greek developed non-covetous views and ideas about the organization of monasteries and monastic life. But these non-covetous views, brought by Maximus from Italy, are not the result of Latinization, since they completely coincide with the teaching on the same subject of Russian non-covetous people, as set out in the “Tradition of the Disciple” 30 and the “Charter” of St. Nil of Sorsky and in “The Meeting of a Certain Elder for the Remembrance of His Promise” by Vassian Patrikeev 31. Maxim the Greek, like Savonarola, as well as the Russian non-covetous people - Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, in their views on the structure of monasteries and on monastic life, proceeded from the ideals of original monastic poverty. The monk renounces the whole world in order to live “according to God,” and therefore, renounces all property. An essential condition for monastic achievement is complete non-covetousness, complete poverty, poverty. On such a basis, Savonarola tried to arrange life in the monastery of St. Mark in Florence, where young Maxim the Greek stayed for about two years. It was here that his non-acquisitive ideology was formed, to which he remained faithful throughout his life and in defense of which he wrote a number of remarkable works 32. A detailed analysis of all the known “Lives” and “Tales” about Maxim the Greek is given by S. Belokurov, who numbers them up to 75. (S. Belokurov. About the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century. M., 1898, appendix, 'pp. III-XXXVIII, XLIII-LXXXII.) It should be noted that the Italian and especially the Athonite periods in the life of Maxim the Greek still remain very poorly illuminated. Only recently, the Western scholar I. Denisov partially filled this gap by publishing six new letters from the young Maximus the Greek to his Italian friends (1498–150) and several of his minor works written during his stay on Athos: an epigram on the great rhetorician Manuel (1505), one epitaph on the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim I (t 1505), three epitaphs to Patriarch Nifont II (t 1508) and a canon to John the Baptist (Ê I. D e η i s s o f f. Maxime le Grec et l'Occident. Paris, 1943. Appendix I and II, pp. 396–420). But all these materials are fragmentary and do not give a proper idea of ​​​​the life and activities of Maxim in Italy and on Mount Athos. An extensive work on Maximus the Greek published in 1950 by the Greek scholar Gregory Papamikhail ( Ἐν Αθήναις, 1950) also does not introduce anything significantly new into the biography of our writer, since it is built mainly on the materials of two previous major works: the Russian scientist V.S. Ikonnikov (Maxim the Greek and his time. Kiev, 1915) and the above-mentioned Catholic scientist I. Denisov. Only in one letter from the young Maximus the Greek dated April 21, 1504, when he was known under the worldly name of Michael Trivolis, to his Italian Friend Scipio Carteromachus there is the following phrase: “That is why I am not writing to you now anything more, except that I have abandoned the monastic life because of the many illnesses that beset me, and not for any other reason” (É1. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec... Appendix I, pp. 406–409) But this letter, written shortly after the release of Michael Maxim from the walls of the monastery of St. Mark, as well as the worldly name of Maxim, were not known in print until very recently. El. Den is so ff. Maxime le Grec et l'Occident. Contribution a l'Histoire de la Panse religieuse et philosophique de Michel Trivolis, Paris -Louvain, 1943. Frater Michael Emmanuelis de civitate Arta, eodem nomine prius in seculo diclus, accepit habituni a venerabili Fratre Maltheo Marci, die quatra-decima Junii circa horam primam noctis anno Domini 1502" (Êl. Deniss o ff. Maxime le Grec..., pp. 95, 247). Êl. Denissoff. L'influence de Savonarole sur l'Eglise russe, expliquée par un MS inconnu du Couvent de S.-Marc a Florence, Scriptorium. Voi. II. Fasc, 2, Bruxelles, 1948. pp. 253–256. In the appendix, on p. 28-a is a facsimile of the recording. State Library named after. Lenin in Moscow. Dept. manuscripts, f. 173 – collection MDA, fund. No. 153 (XVI century), l. I. The date of birth of Maxim the Greek is fairly firmly established as 1470 (Êl. Denissofi. Maxime le Grec..., p. 138). From Florence, in the period from 1496 to 1498, Michael Trivolis traveled to the university cities of Bologna, Padua, Ferrara, Milan and Venice, everywhere acting as a student and collaborator of the best Hellenistic professors (Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., pp. 174, 177, 179, 200). Works of St. Maximus the Greek. T. I. Kazan, 1859, p. 377, 462–463. Π asquale Villari. Girolemo Savonarola and his time. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 375–376; N. Osokin. Savonarola and Florence. Kazan, 1865, p. 216–219. Works of Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 194–205. In the printed edition and in most manuscripts, the Tale of Savonarola occupies the second half of the “Terrible Tale...”. But in some manuscripts it is placed separately under the title “Another story is soulful” and begins: “The city of Florence is most beautiful” (State Library named after Lenin. Det. manuscript., f. 256 - collected by Rumyants.. No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 233–239; State Library named after. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Dep. manuscript, QXVII 67 (XVII century), pp. 62–64). In one manuscript of the State Historical Museum, the Legend of Savonarola in “The Terrible Tale...” is missing. Since the Tale of Savonarola is completely unrelated in content to “The Terrible Tale...”, one can think that it was written by Maxim the Greek as an independent narrative. Published by V. Φ. Ρ zhigoy but rukop. State bib. them. Saltykov-Shchedrin. QI, 219 (XVI-XVII centuries), pp. 559–564 vol., in “Byzantinoslavica”, t. VI. pp. 91 – 103, under the title “Message about the tales of ancient mythology.” Archives of Marx and Engels, vol. VII, 1940, p. 79. Works of Maximus the Greek, vol. III, p. 195. There, p. 61: vol. II, p. 220, 322–323. F. T. Perrens. Yérome Savonarole. D'après les documents originaux avec des pièces justificatives en grande partie inédites. Paris, 1856, pp. 293–300. Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., pp. 212, 235. J. Schnitzer. Savonarola. Ein Kulturbild aus der Zeit der Renaissance. München, 1924, S. 372. Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., pp. 247–249. Ibid., Appendix I, pp. 404–407. Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., pp. 404–407. Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., p. 365. The same opinion is shared by the later Orthodox Greek historians Gregory Papamikhail (see decree, op.) and Archimandrite Philaret Vitalis ( ορθοδοξίας έν ᾿Ρωσία ' Αθήνας 1965). Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., p. 376. This means: “The Book of Faith” (Kyiv, 1588, 1618, Mogilev, 1625); “The faith of the one, holy, catholic apostolic Church is at its rise” (Kyiv, 1615, Pochaev, 1618); “The Book of Kirillov” (Moscow, 1643, 1644); “Mirror of Theology” by Kirill Tranquillion (see: Damascene. Russian Library, pp. 23–24, 38–39; Filaret. Review of spiritual literature, p. 144). Êl. Denissoff. Maxime le Grec..., p. 276. A. S. Arkhangelsky. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev. Their literary works and ideas in Ancient Rus'. Part I. Venerable Nil of Sorsky. St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 67. N. A. Kazakova. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. M.–L., 1960, p. 24–25, 78–81, 224–230. We examined the issue of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek in a special article “On the issue of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek” (“Byzantine Vremennik”, vol. XXIX, 1968).