Nil Sorsky and the traditions of Russian monasticism. Nilo-Sorsky monastery as a unique phenomenon of the monastic culture of Rus' in the 15th-17th centuries.

Contents 1. Basic principles of skete life according to ancient sources 2. Nilo-Sora monastery in comparison with the structure of ancient monasteries Location of the monastery Layout of the skete Monastic Typikon Liturgical Charter and “Rule of the cell stay of monks” of the Nilov Skete Library of the Nilo-Sora monastery 3. Symbolism of the dedication of thrones in the churches of the Nilov Skete 4. History of the canonization of Nil Sorsky List of abbreviations 1. Basic principles of monastery life according to ancient sources Around 1485, having returned from a pilgrimage to Holy Mount Athos, the Venerable Elder Nil, together with his disciple Innocent, settled in the forest on the Sora River, “fifteen miles away” from the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. He had been to Sora before, when, as a monk of the Kirillov Monastery, he dealt with land surveying matters with the neighboring Ferapontov Monastery 1 . Obviously, the reverend elder liked the place then for its solitude and desertedness. Swamps and “great and impenetrable mosses” made it difficult for worldly people to reach. The Monk Nilus chose Copy as a place convenient for living according to the skete custom, the general principle of which he formulated in his chapters “On Mental Work”: “living with one or multiplying with two brothers” 2 . The tradition of monastic residence dates back to the first centuries of monasticism, the founder of which in Egypt, the Venerable Anthony the Great († 356), after 20 years of seclusion, as his life reports, lived surrounded by his disciples (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 100). Although it was not a monastery with its own specific charter and rules of life, the basic principle of monastic life was observed in it - the monks could always use the instructions of their elder and were saved next to him. It is precisely this structure of the monastery of St. Anthony the Great that the monastery patericon reports (in the text, all quotations from the monastery patericon are given according to the list of a 16th-century manuscript from the library of the Nilo-Sora monastery): “Tale... Kroniya, presbyter of Nitria, as despondency once attacked me. I crawled for the sake of coming to Abba Anthony and I reached the monastery where his disciple was sitting and waiting to see him. When is the tenth day coming, when is the fifth, and as if God wanted to reveal to him according to the needs of those who came together” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 2 - 2 vol.). The first Egyptian monasteries of the hermitage type were founded by the disciples of St. Anthony - St. Ammon and St. Macarius the Great of Egypt. Saint Ammon († 350) laid the foundation for ascetic life in the Nitrian desert (forty miles from Alexandria), as reported in his “History of the Monks” by the presbyter Rufinus, who lived in Egypt in the 70s. IV century Fifty monasteries located on Mount Nitria were subject to the same rules and one abbot. Behind the Nitrian Mountain there was an area called “Cells” because of the many cells scattered throughout the desert. According to the description of Presbyter Rufinus, monastic life in the Kelliy desert was organized as in a monastery of the hermitage type. “Only those who are sufficiently prepared for a more secluded life in Nitria retire here. The desert is very vast, and the cells are located at such a great distance from one another that their inhabitants can neither see nor hear each other. Hermits live alone in a cell and in deep silence, in unbroken silence. Only on Saturdays and Sundays do they all come together to church and only then do they see each other” 3. Rufin's description names the basic principles of organizing the life of a skete-type monastery: solitude of each monk, general worship once a week, small conciliarity (several monks live in a skete), and the opportunity to receive spiritual instruction. Presbyter Rufinus reports that “one who is gifted with the special gift of edification” can go “to someone with a sweet word of consolation” 4 . At a distance of a day's travel from the “Kelly” desert, as Rufin describes in his book, there was “an area called Skete” (M.I. Khitrov, following P.S. Kazansky, suggests that the name “Skete” comes from the Coptic Schiet, which means “spacious plain”) 5. The monastery was founded here in the 4th century. Saint Macarius the Great († 390), received the same name. Subsequently, monasteries similar to his in their way of life and spiritual structure began to be called monasteries. The principles of life of the monastery and the monks of the “Kelli” desert were similar, but the living conditions in the monastery themselves were even more severe. In Rufin’s description, the monastery of St. Macarius the Great is highlighted as the highest level of monastic life: “Only men who have already been perfected in spiritual life live there. Who else could live in such a terrible place, except people who have irrevocable determination and perfect abstinence” 6. The monastery patericon says that it is not even worth (“dashingly eating and speaking”) to talk about the ascetic deeds and fasts of the skete’s ascetics, since there “even in the lazy there is no way to find gluttony or disorder..., poverty for the sake of needs, and the jealousy of the feat of those who exist there” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 77). Simultaneously with Egypt, the monastic form of monastic life spread to Palestine. The first Palestinian laurels (the original Palestinian name for monasteries of the hermitage type) with a strict statutory life were founded by the Monk Chariton († c. 350): Paran, Lavra Suka and Jericho Lavra 7. The Lavra of another Palestinian ascetic, St. Hilarion the Great († 371), unlike the monasteries of St. Chariton, did not have a strict charter. The structure of the Lavra of St. Hilarion clearly shows his life. As in the monastery of St. Anthony the Great, the monks of the Lavra lived separately, ran their own household - they cultivated vegetable gardens, but could always use the advice of their elder (RGB. Tr., 684, l. 62 vol. - 64). The most famous Palestinian laurels were the monasteries of St. Euthymius the Great († 473) and St. Savva the Sanctified († 532). The rules of life of the Egyptian monastery were strictly observed in the Lavra of St. Euthymius, who was a zealous imitator of the exploits of one of the famous ascetics of the monastery - the Venerable Arseny the Great: “and the father from Egypt listened with delight from those who came to him about the great Arseny... and he was very careful to imitate him...” (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 165 vol.). In the text of “The Life of Euthymius the Great” there are repeated teachings of the ascetics of the Egyptian monastery, which the Monk Euthymius the Great retold for the edification of his disciples (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 167 o6. – 168). The Monk Savva the Sanctified in his hegumen activity also used the experience of his predecessors. Famous church writer of the 15th century. Simeon of Thessalonica wrote: “Saint Sava set out the Rule, receiving it from Saints Euthymius and Theoktistus, and they received it from those who preceded them and the confessor Chariton” 8 . Athos monasteries, later in origin in relation to the ancient monasteries of Egypt and Palestine (the most ancient St. Anninsky monastery was founded, according to the assumption of the famous historian of monastic life on Athos, Bishop Porfiry Uspensky, under the Lavra of St. Athanasius of Athos at the end of the 10th century, then fell into disrepair, restored around 1012 by the second (after St. Athanasius of Athos) abbot of the Lavra - Evstratiy) 9, repeated the basic principles of the skete life of their predecessors. The Russian traveler Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, who repeatedly visited Athos to study the life of Athonite monasteries, in describing his second visit to Holy Mount Athos (1744), gave a general description of the Athonite monastery life, basically consistent with the description of the ancient Egyptian monasteries of Prester Rufinus, which speaks of an already stable tradition. “The hermitages are called as they are found in isolated and distant places, where there are frequent cells, not far from each other... they live in them one at a time, or two at a time, or three at a time... and they eat the same from various handicrafts, but most of all they strive in prayers, fasting and vigils and are silent alone on workdays, but on weekdays and holidays they all gather with evenings and mornings in a common church, set up for this purpose, and in accordance with this, everyone performs the rule and singing” 10). Many holy fathers considered the skete path of asceticism “golden,” i.e. the most convenient for those who could choose any form of monastic life: hermitage, monastery, monastic life. The Rules of the Life of the Skit (“The Tradition of the Rules of the Same in the External Country for Monks Staying in the Outside Country, the Reksha of the Life of the Skit, the Rule of Cell Sobriety and Cataday Petition”), known in Rus' since the beginning of the 15th century. 11, contains statements by saints John Climacus, Basil the Great, showing the advantages of the skete life: “Basily in his tradition says that a monk himself should be alone without a brother, but in no way points to the life of the monks” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 232). “And everywhere is found in the holy scriptures,” writes the Venerable Nilus of Sorsky in his chapters “On Mental Work,” “silence that is praised with one or two, just as the self-viders were in the holy mountain of Athos and in the countries of Constantinople, and in many other places, the essence of such abiding” 12. Following the tradition of St. John of the Climacus and St. Barsanuphius, St. Nilus of Sorsky calls the skete path “royal,” “non-fallen,” emphasizing its greatest safety (in the spiritual sense) for the ascetic. The life of a hermit “requires strength” and threatens many spiritual dangers. The Venerable Nil of Sorsky here refers to the words of the Venerable John Climacus: “For woe to one alone, he says: if he falls into despondency, or sleep, or laziness, or despair, there is nothing to lift him up in man.” 13 (The same quotation from the works of St. John Climacus, in a slightly modified form, is given in the “Ustav of the skete life”: “Woe to one, if he falls into despondency or despair in laziness, because he does not make him a man” - (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, fol. 232 vol.) Therefore, notes Reverend Neil Sorsky, even such perfect silent people as Saints Isaac, Arsenius the Great, Nile of Sinai, Daniel of Scete, had disciples and lived next to them, and not in complete solitude 14. “Rumors and temptations” characteristic of communal monasteries can also be unhelpful for “silence” and contemplation, as well as complete solitude. The small conciliarity of the monastery (as opposed to the monastery) makes it possible to receive spiritual instruction, which those living in complete solitude are deprived of, helps to avoid the dangerous “charms” of the spiritual path and creates the best conditions for “silence.” “For this reason, it is convenient for us to see,” writes the Venerable Nilus of Sora in his chapters “On Mental Work,” “with faithful brothers and those of the same wisdom, let us unite or two to remain in the work of God, and learn from the saints the scriptures of God’s will, and if God gives to whom God gives greater understanding, let brother edify brother and help each other” 15 . The very principle of skete life, when two or three monks gathered around an experienced elder, certainly could not be new to Russian monastic life. This is how any monastery was formed. In the books of Kirill Belozersky there is, as established by G.M. Prokhorov, “The Charter of the Skete Life,” rewritten by the hand of St. Kirill 16. And, probably, it was precisely according to this Charter that the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery lived at an early stage of its formation. The peculiarity of the Nilo-Sora monastery, its uniqueness, lies in the fact that it is the first Russian monastery that existed for a long time as an independent monastery with its own specific Typikon, charter and way of life in the monastery. Many researchers were interested in the question of the patristic sources of the ascetic writings of St. Nilus of Sorsky, since his “writings” have no analogues in the history of Russian spiritual literature (this topic was studied in the works of A.S. Arkhangelsky, S.P. Shevyrev, G. Levitsky and others, most fundamentally in the book by F. Lilienfeld “Nil of Sorsky and his writings. The crisis of tradition in Russia of Ivan III”) 17. It is also of interest to know what examples of monastic structure the monk was guided by when creating his monastery - after all, he was the organizer of a new type of monastery for the history of Russian monasticism. Studying the structure of the Nilo-Sora skete will help, in our opinion, to determine what a skete is as a monastery. In historiography there is no single view on what can be considered a monastery. In accordance with the late tradition of the Russian Church (19th-20th centuries), monasteries often mean secluded monastic cells located a short distance from the main monastery. Here ascetics live according to stricter rules; visits to the monastery by lay people are strictly limited 18. Describing the monastic life of medieval Rus', N.K. Nikolsky pointed out that monasteries were common in the Russian North, and by monasteries he meant special monasteries. He formed this opinion under the influence of the research of A. Nikitsky, the author of monographs on the history of church life in Novgorod and Pskov 19 . However, A. Nikitsky himself called the hermitage lifestyle (“two or three”) a hermitage 20. At the same time, in his research he proved the particular prevalence of hermitage in the North of Rus', referring to the letters of Metropolitan Macarius to Vasily III 21. But Saint Macarius himself in his letters speaks not about monasteries, but about a large number of special monasteries, which became a real disaster for the monastic life of that time. Thus, in a letter of 1528, he asks the Grand Duke to carry out a reform of these monasteries. Pointing out their shortcomings, he writes: “and other monasteries around the city, some of them living, each in their cells they eat and are obsessed with all sorts of everyday sorrows; and in the best monasteries there are six or seven monasteries, and in others two or three” 22. Thus, there is no evidence of the prevalence of monasteries in the 15th – 16th centuries. in the North of Russia is not cited in Nikitsky’s studies, but this opinion continues to exist, since there is no clear definition of the monastery in historiography. N.V. Sinitsyn, like N.K. Nikolsky, expressed the opinion in her research that the monastery is actually an idiorhythm, i.e. special life 23. F. Lilienfeld, on the contrary, believes that in the monastic form of monastic life one can find many features of communal life 24 . Thus, the problem of what can be considered a monastery remains unresolved in historiography. In order to understand what a monastery is and what type of monastery the Monk Nilos of Sora built in Rus', it is necessary to consider the tradition of monastery life and the Nilo-Sora monastery in line with this tradition. Historical studies have repeatedly noted that in his monastic activities the reverend elder was guided by his own experience gained on Mount Athos “and in the countries of Constantinople,” which he himself writes about in the 11th chapter of the essay “On Mental Work,” as well as by patristic works (this issue is raised in V.S. Ikonnikov’s book “Maxim the Greek in Russia”, it was touched upon by V. Klyuchevsky, A.S. Arkhangelsky, and among modern researchers - N.V. Sinitsyna) 25. This is undeniable. But a specific study of the patristic traditions and the peculiarities of the structure of the Nilo-Sora monastery is necessary. An important discovery in this direction was made by F. Lilienfeld, who established the stylistic and substantive similarity between the “Tradition” of St. Nil Sorsky and the “Rules” of St. Sava the Sanctified, and this, in her opinion, indicates that St. Nil Sorsky was well acquainted with the structure of the Palestinian Lavra of St. Sava the Sanctified 26. Let us consider the question of the patristic traditions of the structure of the Nilo-Sora skete more broadly. Let us compare the principles of its location, layout, liturgical and disciplinary Charter, internal routine of life, economic structure with the structure of ancient monasteries. 2. Nilo-Sora monastery in comparison with the structure of ancient monasteries A visible feature of all hermitages is their location. If cenovia, more open to the world in nature, as a rule, stands on open hills with fertile soil, surrounded by lakes and rivers, then monasteries and laurels, like hermits’ cells, were usually located in the “desert”. This could be the name of mountain gorges and forest wilds - the main thing is that these were uninhabited, deserted, inaccessible and unsuitable places for life. A comparison of the location of the Athos monasteries and the cenobitic Lavra of St. Athanasius of Athos is indicative. In his book “The Second Visit to the Holy Mount Athos” Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky noted that the Lavra of St. Athanasius stands “in an equal and beautiful place”, “sits by the healthy water flowing abundantly from the depths of Athos.” “The monastery contains a lot of space. There is scarcity in nothing, but in abundance in everything” 27. Athonite monasteries, on the contrary, were located in hard-to-reach and “mournful” places. About his journey to the monastery of Kapsokavi, Grigorovich-Barsky writes this way: “I died for three days in dire need, hard and regrettable, and partly in a terrible way, on dry and sharp stones” 28, the place of the monastery “is dry and bare, and it’s too hot in the summer” 29. In a similar way, he describes other Athonite monasteries: the path to the Karule monastery is “cruel and terrible,” the monks “live on rainwater and some wild capsicum, naturally born in rock crevices” 30. Impressions of a Russian traveler of the 18th century. were not much different from the descriptions of the ancient hermitages of Egypt and Palestine. Presbyter Rufinus reports in his book “The Life of the Desert Fathers” that the Egyptian monastery of St. Macarius the Great “lies in the middle of a vast desert at a distance of a day’s journey from the Nitrian monasteries. There is no path leading there, and there are no signs to indicate the way. They get there according to the direction of the stars. There is little water there, and the water that is found has a disgusting smell, it smells like tar, but is not harmful for drinking” 31. It is no coincidence that the tradition of the “desert” location of the monasteries was steadily preserved. Nothing, not even the beauty of visible nature, should have distracted the ascetic from silence, contemplation, and study of the Divine Scriptures - the only source of knowledge of God. “...You have visible nature before your eyes, the Holy Scriptures at your fingertips. Nature is not clear to us; but Scripture is accessible to our understanding. Because we cannot learn about Christ from nature; It remains from there to know His Divinity, from where we know about His Humanity. Scripture alone can teach us about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Rev. Ephraim the Syrian) 32. Life in the desert, in addition to hardships and hardships, had a special spiritual meaning. In the Gospel, wild, uninhabited places are represented as the abode of evil spirits 33: “When the unclean spirit leaves a person, it walks through dry places, seeking rest” (Luke 11:24; Matt.12:43). Therefore, the “spiritual warfare” that the ascetics endured in the desert was considered the most cruel (“fierce”, in the words of St. Nilus of Sora) 34 . The image of the “desert” in the Holy Scripture also has a representative meaning of the future prosperous land: “The desert and the dry land will rejoice, and the uninhabited country will rejoice and bloom like a daffodil; It will bloom magnificently and rejoice, it will triumph and rejoice” (Is. 35: 1-2). This passage from the biblical Book of the Prophet Isaiah is included in the church service on the feast of Epiphany as a prophecy about the revival and rebirth of humanity, which was a dry and barren desert, accomplished thanks to the Savior 35. The spiritual feat of the saints who followed Christ and defeated the “spirits of evil” also makes the desert land fruitful, abounding in water sources. The Monk Nilos of Sora also chose a “deserted and cruel” place for his settlement, and his monastery was most often called the Nilo-Sora desert. “Among... the various lands with which the local bright, happy nature is so abundant,” S.P. Shevyrev noted in his notes, “it is difficult to find a refuge more sad and secluded than this desert. The appearance of this place from the first time gives an idea of ​​what the saint was looking for here, and is fully consistent with the nature of his spiritual contemplations, which are known to us from his works” 36. The memories of Russian pilgrims and travelers who visited the Nilo-Sora monastery are consonant with the descriptions of the Egyptian monastery. A different natural landscape, but the same harsh character of a dull desert is visible in them. Deacon Ivan Pleshkov in his “Tale of the Nilo-Sora Skete” described the life of the monks of the monastery this way: “And great sorrow comes to them from despondency and human for the sake of not seeing, which is weak to say in a word or to know from carnal wisdom” 37. The miracle “On the appearance in a dream of Tsar John Vasilyevich” (known from the list of 1836, but has, as will be shown below, the character of an earlier origin) tells about the tsar’s pilgrimage in the Sorskaya hermitage: “And he came to the Nile, the wonderworker, and performed a prayer service, and saw a deserted place sad and deplorable, and it was great for the soul, and glorified God, and life I imagined the miracle worker” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 61/1300, fol. 15 vol.). The planning principles of the Nilo-Sora monastery, as well as its location, repeated the layout of ancient monasteries, where the cells stood at some distance from each other and from the church. This principle was strictly observed so as not to disturb the “silence” and contemplation of the monks - so that “no one could be heard striving for God” 38. Some devotees of the ancient skete, as the patericon reports, in addition to the main cells, had distant secret caves for even greater privacy. Thus, the Venerable Macarius the Great “created from the inside of his cell underground a source of rumors for the sake of the people. And when you don’t want to gather to them, you go inside and go to the cave, leading no one. The verb of his disciples is that I go away and do 24 prayers and go from there with another 24 (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 75). Presbyter Rufinus reports that in the Egyptian desert “Kelli” the distance between the cells of the ascetics and from the cells to the church was about three to four miles 39 . In the monastery patericon, which describes the life of St. Arseny the Great (according to the list of St. Nil of Sorsky), it is said that the saint’s cell was “12 miles away” (RGB. MDA, 207, fol. 76 vol.). At a closer distance (apparently due to the general crampedness of the place) there were cells and churches in the Athonite hermitages. Bishop Porfiry Uspensky, describing the monasteries of Athos, noted: “in all the monasteries of Svyatogorsk... Kiriakon, that is, the Church of the Lord, occupies a central place, and cells are scattered here and there” 40. In the Nilo-Sora monastery, as Pleshkov’s “Tale” reports, the cells in the forest were positioned so that from the window of one one could only see another cell. In cells, according to the rule of Egyptian hermitages 41, people lived alone. The solitude of each monk was strictly preserved: even in the 17th century. It was forbidden to cut down forest “for one’s own needs” near cells 42. The place of residence of the hermit was quite isolated in the general structure of the monastery; it was arranged so that the monk, regardless of the monastery, could have everything necessary for life. “The Tale of the Coming of St. Nile” (known from the list of 1836, but, like the story of the miracles of St. Nile, has a more ancient origin) tells that St. Nile, having come to Copy, dug a well and a pond not far from the cells, and on the Sora River he set up a mill “for the needs of the brethren” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 61/1300, l. 12 rev.). A cell, a well with drinking water, a pond for watering the garden - this, according to the founder of the monastery, was enough for the monk to live a strict, non-covetous life. In ancient lives one can find similar descriptions of the places where ascetics settled. In the “Life of Hilarion the Great” from the hagiographic collection of St. Nilus of Sora there is a story about how the disciples of St. Anthony the Great showed St. Hilarion the place where their elder lived: “The disciples of Blessed Anthony walked around the place with great diligence and showed us... in this place, our holy father belted, and in this place he prayed and in this place he sat silently and there he sat and made a kettle, and here he had the custom of resting from labor and here he saved these grapes and trees and he planted this grapes and trees with his own hands and made this water for watering the fence with great labor and then left. And so the saints had a hoe to dig the earth for a long time” (RGB. Tr., 684, l. 68). Constant prayer associated with simple needlework (“making a koshnitsa”), work in the garden for daily food “from the labor of his hands” constituted the elder’s entire day. The place of settlement and the way of life of the hermitage monk most of all resembled precisely such a “hermit’s stay.” The center of general monastic life in the monastery was the church. In the Nilo-Sora desert, as in the Athonite and Egyptian monasteries, it occupied a central place in the layout of the monastery. “The Tale of the Coming of St. Nile” tells that at some distance from the cells (about 250 meters) between two rivers, Sora and Brody, St. Nile made a mountain of earth with his own hands, since the place was swampy and low (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 61/1300, l. 12 vol. - 13). The first skete church was built here - in the name of the Presentation of the Lord. A miniature from the manuscript of the lives of northern Russian saints (State Historical Museum. Collection of Uvarov. N107) of the late 17th - early 18th centuries, a plan diagram of the Nile Hermitage of 1761 (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 105/1341) depict the Nilo-Sora monastery in this way. On the hill built by the reverend elder, there were three churches: the Church of the Presentation of the Lord - the main church of the monastery, a warm church with a refectory in the name of St. Ephraim the Syrian (built, apparently, at the end of the 16th century, since the receipt book of the builder of the monastery for 1611 - 1612 reports that mica for the window was purchased for the “new church” (GIM. OPI. F. 484, op. 1.N74, l. 5v.) and the Church of John the Baptist in 1659. Next to the Sretenskaya Church there was a “timbered bell tower, and on it were four bells and a fighting clock” (FIRI. Col. 115, item chronicle 668, l. 10). a few outbuildings. This layout of the Nilov Skete remained until the 30s of the 19th century, until it became a monastery and was completely rebuilt in accordance with the principles of the monastery. The same changes occurred with the Palestinian laurels when they turned into cinnovia. Thus, after the death of St. Euthymius the Great, his Lavra adopted a cenobitic Charter and its layout immediately changed: individual cells were torn down, common cell buildings and a new, more spacious church were built, a refectory was built from the old church, the entire monastery was surrounded by a wall 43. The location of the monastery and its layout create external conditions on which the structure of monastic life largely depends. The basic principles of the internal life of the monastery are determined by its Charter. Let us consider the question of the monastic Charter-typikon of the Nilo-Sora monastery. It is, as F. Lilienfeld established, the “Tradition” of the Monk Nilus of Sorsky, and the closest and only analogy to it among the well-known monastic typikons can be considered the “Tradition” (ParaR dosiV) of Abbot Sava the Sanctified (524). The researcher noted the substantive and stylistic similarity of the two “Tales”. They contain “one series of ancient monastic rules, which are found in the most ancient monastic treatises and patericons, but the liturgical instructions are very meager, and there are no disciplinary ones” 44. In the “simplification of style” of the “Tradition” of St. Nilus of Sorsky, F. Lilienfeld sees a deliberate adherence to the traditions of ancient Sinai-Palestinian monasticism, as they are represented by the “Tradition” of Sava the Sanctified. She even suggests that the Monk Neil visited the “classical laurels” of Palestine and, perhaps, Sinai, where he became acquainted with the traditions of the Palestinian monastic system 45 . The “Tradition” of the Venerable Elder Nile, indeed, has many similarities with the “Tradition” of the Palestinian abbot. But the Palestinian “Tradition” was not a ready-made example of a monastic typicon for the Monk Nile of Sora. The range of his sources is much wider. Outlining the basic principles of monastic life, the Sorsky elder refers in his “Tradition” to the works of St. John Climacus (where he writes about how to deal with “arbitraries” who do not want to live according to the monastic Rules and the commandments of the holy fathers) 46, St. Basil the Great and saints Barsanuphius, Isaac, Abba Dorotheos (about monastic alms, non-covetousness, monastic obedience and the rule of “departure from cells” 47, St. John Chrysostom (about the lack of church decoration). In addition, the founder of the skete life of Russian monasticism gives examples from the lives of the martyr Eugenia, St. Pachomius the Great 48. He probably used other lives, in particular those that he included in his hagiographic collections. It is interesting to note here that the very rules of the abbot of the Palestinian Lavra were known to the Monk Nilus of Sorsky, most likely from the “Life of Savva the Sanctified” (located in his hagiographic collection), and not as a result of his trip to the Palestinian Lavra. After all, the text of the “Tradition” of the Monk Sava already in the 15th century. was considered lost. A contemporary of the Sorsk elder, the famous church writer Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, wrote that the rules of the holy abbot were burned by the Persians during the attack on the Lavra of Sava the Sanctified in 614 49 . Their list was found only at the end of the 19th century. Russian researcher, associate professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A. Dmitrievsky during his scientific trip (1887–1888) to the ancient monasteries of the Christian East in one of the manuscripts of the 11th-12th centuries. (i.e. in a later transcription) of the library of the Sinai monastery 50. However, as A. Dmitrievsky himself, who published the “Tradition” of St. Sava, noted, in the “Life of Sava the Sanctified,” written by the saint’s contemporary, Reverend Cyril of Scythopolis, there is “in places an identity with the real “rules” (“The Tradition of St. Sava.” - E.R.) not only in thoughts, but sometimes even in presentation. For the reliable biographer of St. Sava (Rev. Cyril of Scythopolis - E.R.), familiar with his letters, which he quotes in his work (life - E.R.), it was very natural to know and have at hand the very “rules” of his spiritual father, which, undoubtedly, were still guided in the Lavra when the Reverend Cyril of Scythopolis was there, i.e. 38 years after the death of St. Savva the Sanctified (i.e., around 570 - E.R.)" 51. Thus, it is natural to assume that “The Life of Savva the Sanctified” was for the Monk Nil of Sorsky a valuable source of information about the structure of the most famous Palestinian Lavra. In addition to the “Life of Savva the Sanctified,” the Palestinian tradition of monastic life is well represented in the lives of St. Euthymius the Great, Chariton the Confessor, and Hilarion the Great, which are also found in the hagiographic collections of the holy Elder of Sora. It is of considerable interest to consider the various traditions of monastery life, reflected in the Typikon of the Nilo-Sora monastery. Let us turn to the text of the “Tradition” of St. Nile of Sorsky. Elder Nil begins his “Tradition” with a confession of the Creed, then explains why he “dared” to write “Tradition” - “for no one should eat the word of God with his negligence, but confess his weakness,” “since these are the words of the holy fathers and others, and having experienced the Divine Scriptures for these sake, we betray them to those who come to us and demand them” 52. Next, the Monk Nil of Sorsky dwells on the “rules of admission” to the monastery. He sent those who did not want to keep the Divine commandments and patristic traditions from the monastery “idle.” This principle was preserved in the Nilo-Sora desert in the 17th century. The “Tale” of Diak Pleshkov reports that a monk who wanted to live in a monastery was told the basic rules of monastery life, tested whether he was suitable for silence, and only after that they left him in the monastery. “And if someone comes to them again, even to live with him, the abbot and the brethren will all come together in one cell and watch that brother, if it is possible for him to live with them and alone in the cell. It won't be any sweeter for that brother. This is not done out of malice, but so that they may know the patience of that brother” 53 . The same tradition existed in other monasteries. The skete patericon (according to the list of St. Nil of Sorsky) tells about the Monk Arseny the Great, who came to the monastery of the Monk Macarius the Great to stay there. The elders of the skete first experienced his humility during a meal, threw bread at his feet like a dog: “and when the priests of the church saw him, they brought him to Abba John Kolov. The elder wanted to tempt him if he created a monk. And to those who sat down to eat bread, leave his elder to stand alone... And just as they began to eat together, the elder is one naximod before him (Reverend Arseny - E.R.) more prostrate” (RGB. MDA. 207, l. 76). After such a test, Elder John Kolov, “having seen the great humility of his verb to the elders (rectors of skete churches - E.R.), this skilled monk wants to be and not after a long time gave him a cell... teaching him to strive for his salvation” (ibid. l. 76 - 76 vol.) Athonite monasteries followed the tradition of the Egyptian monastery. The rule from the 1759 Charter of the St. Andrew's Russian Skete (it can be taken into account, since the Athonite monastery charters of the 18th-19th centuries were compiled, as Bishop Porfiry Uspensky noted, on the basis of the principles of surviving ancient charters and oral tradition, although with some changes characteristic of the Athonite life of the “new time” (payment of taxes for life in the monastery, etc.) 54 reads: “When a newcomer comes to the monastery in order to buy a kaliva (cell - E.R.), he first brings him to Kiriakon in the presence of all the elders, and reads to him all the real chapters (Charter - E.R.) one after another, and when he promises to observe everything that is written and obeys, he pays in the monastery and can live" 55 . The rules of monastic life set out in the “Tradition” of St. Nil of Sorsky are, in essence, few. Most of them are dedicated to monastic non-covetousness; they form an integral system of principles of monastic non-covetous life. Another group of rules of the “Tradition” is more traditional for the monastic Typikon: about sinners and “self-inflicted”; about leaving cells and “staying in cells”; about handicrafts; about the amount of food and drink; a ban on women and youths entering the monastery; about hospitality. And in this, the “Tradition” of the Sorsky Elder resembles the instructions of the holy fathers recorded in ancient lives, for example, in the “Life of the Venerable Chariton” (according to the list of the hagiographic collection of the Venerable Nile of Sorsky). Let us cite the text of the “Testament” of this saint to his disciples, which is placed in his life: “He commands his disciples about all sorts of things that are similar to the compilation of a monk’s life. (1) The appointed time for food is the end of the day. And not to satisfy the food, but to ask for food and to leave the womb, but there is only bread and salt to fill the place, drink and water are acceptable and in moderation. (2) Also about singing and praying the testament. We are together day and night, (3) we hate idleness, as I am guilty of many evils, but the work is sung by the hands of the sacred psalms. (4) If your thoughts are vain, as if some tares from the common enemy of all are in the heart of the earth, cut off with this fasting and prayer with the sword. May it not contain the mountain of one’s passion to give birth to fruit... (5) To this end, it is instructive that it is not proper to go often and do things. The mother rejoices in silence as the virtue of her being, and the wisdom of the soul is more artistic and pure. (6) I didn’t even remember the words about love of mankind. But I also diligently care about those. Apply more. It is also powerful. Not a single person who comes bothers to let go of their hands. May you not conceal yourself from despising Christ, who has only shown himself to those who ask.” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 23/1262, l. 28 vol. – 29 vol.). (My digital division is for ease of reading the text. - E.R.). So, among the main “components” of monastic life, the Monk Chariton highlighted the rules: about the time and amount of food, about prayer (though this rule is only named in the life, but not specified in detail), about handicrafts, about fighting thoughts, about leaving cells and maintaining “silence,” about receiving strangers. These rules are in the “Tradition” of the Monk Nil of Sorsky, although Elder Nil sometimes puts different emphasis in his teachings. He defines the measure of “food and drink” simply - “let each person create nourishment against the strength of his body and soul, avoiding satiety and voluptuousness” 56 . The rule about compulsory handicraft in his “Tradition” has a more “non-covetous” emphasis, it speaks in more detail about the “departure” from the cells and from the monastery, the covenant of welcoming strangers is traditional: “If someone comes strange, let him rest to the best of our ability, and from now on, if he remains, give him the blessing of bread and let him go” 57 . In the “Tradition” of St. Nilus of Sorsky there is no teaching about the fight against thoughts, about prayer and maintaining “silence” - the main monastic virtue. But he devoted a separate work to this - his chapters “On Mental Doing.” Outlining the general principles of monastic life, the Monk Nilus of Sorsky pays a lot of attention to the rules and prohibitions, the purpose of which is to preserve the “decency” in the monastery, to protect the monks of the monastery from falling, from the influence of the “world”; this is the main similarity of his “Tradition” with the “Tradition” of the Venerable Savva the Sanctified. It was forbidden to leave the monastery without the blessing of the abbot and outside the “designated” time. “Coming from our abodes, it is not easy to create as if by chance, but precisely determined and necessary. It is untimely, for it is not blessed to come from the cell, not like the Great Basil says: let the dean direct the brethren in distributing by deed. Likewise, the departure of each key and the like commands...” 58. Departure from the cell was allowed according to the “Charter of skete life”, which was adopted in the Nilo-Sora monastery, on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday (i.e. on non-fasting days), during Great Lent - on Saturday and Sunday (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 230). In their cells, monks could gather together or receive strangers only for spiritual instruction: “In our cells it is appropriate for such to bring words to the brethren and strangers; We are informed about them, as for the creation and correction of souls to create conversation, having this with the art of hearing and speaking usefully” 59. This rule of “staying in cells” was considered by the holy fathers to be one of the mandatory conditions for the saving life of a monk. Constant stay in the cell, along with fasting and contrition for sins, was considered especially necessary for a monk by the founder of the Egyptian skete, the Venerable Macarius the Great. About Saint Arseny the Great in his life it is said that he “did not leave his cell often” - “instead I will do his service” (RGB. MDA, 207, l. 76 vol.). After the repose of St. Arseny the Great, the elders of the monastery told their disciples about the saint’s lifestyle, that he “spent all the time of his life over manual work. Plath imash in his bosom, tears for the sake of those falling from his eyes” (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 271). Some ascetics of the monastery, as the patericon reports, did not leave their cells even for the sake of church services: “It was said about Abba Mark, the Egyptian, that he stayed 20 years, without leaving his cell, since it was the custom for the presbyter to come and give him communion” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 92). Presbyter Rufin reports that in the “Kelly” desert, according to monastic traditions, all the monks spent five days of the week in their own cell, and only those with the “gift of edification” could enter the cells of the monks 61 . In his “Tradition”, the Monk Nil of Sorsky forbids women from entering the monastery, receiving youths, and keeping cattle “of the female race for service” 62 . These rules were observed according to ancient tradition in all monasteries. The Venerables Savva the Sanctified and Euthymius the Great, as their lives tell, did not accept into their midst “the bare-haired and the braless.” Sending the youth to grow up in the monastery of St. Theodosius the Great, Saint Sava said this: “It is absurd for a child to eat and it is dirty for a child to have someone in the Lavra without a brad. The fathers established the ancient wanderings. And I gave Euthymius’s child tako” (that is, the monks of the monastery of St. Euthymius the Great) (RNB. Kir.-Bel. 23/1262, l. 306 - 306 vol.). Women were forbidden to enter the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified, even for prayer. These rules were carried out in the strictest manner on Athos, to which the Monk Nil of Sorsky was a “witness.” The Athonite Tragos (a collection of royal and other instructions for Athonite monks) several times repeated the prohibition to accept into the Athonite monasteries “the bare-moustached and the braless”: under Tsar Manuel Palaeologus (1437–1440), a decree was issued “not to accept onto the Mount the braless, even relatives according to the flesh, whoever dares will be cursed, whoever does not remove himself from himself will be under anathema” 63 . The 1575 rule from Tragos states: “children without braids shall not live on the Mountain under any pretext”; a monk who violated the prohibition, “may he be excommunicated and cursed and not worthy of forgiveness and will not decay after death” 64. Stipulating the measure of “food and drink,” Saint Nil of Sorsky especially emphasizes that “drinking and drinking” should not be kept in the monastery “of any kind” 65 . In this, he obviously adhered to the charter of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Pachomius the Serb, who wrote “The Life and Deeds of Our Reverend Father Abbot Kirill,” especially noted that Kirill Belozersky “ordained not only to have honey and other things with his belly, if he had drunkenness, not to be, but even more so, after his death, he commanded not to be found as such” 66. The Monk Nil of Sorsky in his “Tradition” strictly warned the brethren about the danger of “arbitrariness” in the monastery, i.e. life according to your own will. “Many people hate, who, according to God, cut off their own will, but each one covets his own justification. The Divine Ladder speaks about such things: it is better to drive them away, rather than leave them to do their own will” 67 . Innokenty Okhlyabinin also preserved this principle of monastic life in his monastery. In the section “On self-governors” of his “Testament” he says: “Unless our brother monk desires to govern his life according to the divine commandments, and according to the writing of my lord and teacher, Elder Nil, and according to this letter of ours. But he wants to live by self-indulgence and self-will. Let the abbot and the brethren punish such a one. If even after punishment this is not corrected, then the abbot and the brethren will remove from the desert like chaff from life” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, fol. 286 vol.). Those who repented were accepted back. The Venerable Nil of Sorsky in his “Tradition” distinguishes between “self-inflicted” and those who sin “from laziness or negligence.” All sins of the monks were to be corrected only by spiritual instruction. The “Tradition” of the Sorsky Elder, like the “Tradition” of St. Savva the Sanctified, mentions almost nothing about monastic punishments. The monastery charter did not provide for a developed system of punishments, such as, for example, the cenobitic Charter of St. Pachomius the Great 68. “If someone from the brethren, due to corruption or neglect, falls away from those devoted to him in some way, it is appropriate for him to confess, and you, as appropriate, will correct your sins. And so, if a sin occurs in the cell, or to the one who has gone outside, correct it by confession,” says the “Tradition” of St. Nilus of Sora 69. Those who did not want to change their lives had to leave the monastery. The “Tradition” of St. Savva the Sanctified says that if the monks are guilty of discord leading to a fight and do not reconcile, they must be expelled from the Lavra; if they are guilty of drunkenness, quarrels, causing offense, forming parties, let them correct themselves or leave. The main Lavra punishment (penance) was to remain in a cell without a break (except for liturgical hours) for repentance 70 . The monks who left the Lavra could no longer return of their own free will. In the Sorsk monastery this rule was relaxed. As the “Tale of the Nilo-Sora Skete” testifies, those who left without permission, but those who repented and returned were accepted back into the skete 71 . In his “Tradition,” the founder of the Russian monastery apparently did not include all the rules that were in effect in the monastery. The Typikon was obviously supplemented by oral tradition, sanctified by the authority of Elder Nile. Leaving the “Testament” to his monastery, the Monk Innocent Okhlyabinin directly refers to his “teacher Elder Nile,” although not all the rules from his “Testament” can be found in the “Tradition.” It is from the “Testament” of the Monk Innocent that we learn that in matters of property the holy elder adhered to the ancient monastery rules 72 . The concept of “mine” was practically absent in the monastery. One of the highest virtues of a skete monk was complete non-covetousness. The cell was also not his property. If a monk left the monastery, he lost all rights to it. Even if he returned, he could not demand the same cell back. This was decided only by the will of the abbot. “Even if our brother monk,” says the “Testament” of Innocent Okhlyabinin, “sets up cells for himself in our desert, and then even if this desert leaves, those cells cannot be given or sold to anyone. But those cells are owned by the abbot and those living brethren. What if the former brother returns to this desert and has no power over those cells” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, fol. 285 vol. - 286). Even if a monk buys a cell in a monastery, when he leaves, he still has no power over it. And if he returns, he cannot demand her back. The same rule applied if a monk builds or buys many cells in the monastery - “both when they leave and when they come, they have no power over those cells” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 286). This rule about property brings the monastery closer to a cenobitic monastery, where the monk did not have power “over the chalice.” In special lives, each monk bought his cell himself, and then disposed of it at his own discretion. A different principle was in effect in the monastery: “but the monks living in this place do not trade in their cells, do not change their cells among themselves, but each of them live in their own cells” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, fol. 286 vol.). The rules “about the cell” from the “Testament” of St. Innocent are fully consistent with the “Rules of Sava the Sanctified”, where it is said that a monk leaving the Lavra does not have the right “to either completely sell or donate them, but this right belongs to the holy monastery,” and worthy and needy monks should receive cells from the abbot; even the elder could not leave the cell to his disciple 73. It is interesting that on Athos in the monasteries the same rule about the cell was in effect. The Venerable Maxim the Greek in his “Epistle” (1518–1519) to Vasily III, the only time mentioning the structure of the Athonite monastery - in Kareya, reports on the rule of cell ownership: “Those cells of the Scattered in the Kareya monastery... from them they are sold in abundance, to those who want to stay in that place, and for a fraction of the same vengeance to bathe and for two and three, to the dead those who bought the packs are returned under monastic authority” 74 . Thus, the “Tradition” of St. Nil of Sorsky shows the traditionalism and at the same time the independence of this work as a monastic typicon. From the many rules of monastic life that are contained in the patristic works, the lives of saints (it should be noted that the lives are the most important source of the Typikon of the Nilo-Sora monastery), he chose those that he considered most necessary in order to protect his monastery from the influence of the “world” and internal “disorders”. Among them is a whole system of rules of monastic non-covetousness, which significantly distinguishes the “Tradition” of the Sorsky Elder even from the Typikon of St. Savva the Sanctified 75, which is closest in style and content, and makes it an original work in line with patristic literature of this kind. Liturgical Charter and “Rule of the Cell Stay of Monks” of the Nilova Skete The Typikon determined the basic principles of internal monastic life. There were also internal routines and liturgical Rules of the Nilo-Sora monastery. The very continuation of church singing and services in the skete was carried out according to the Charter of the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified, as stated in the canon of the Nilova Skete (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 489/746, l. 1). Every Sunday it was supposed to serve “an all-night monastery service, prayer service and mass,” on the “Vladychnaya Feasts” (the twelfth) - an all-night monastery service and mass, and also for “many reverends” - an all-night monastery service and mass. The monastery all-night vigil continued all night, according to the custom of all monasteries and laurels. On the eve of the all-night vigil, at about six in the evening, the monks gathered in the church and sang vespers, after which a common meal was served if the day was not fast. Those who wanted to abstain from food (who were able) for the sake of the all-night vigil could refuse. After the meal, the monks spent time in spiritual conversations or “reading” the Holy Scriptures - this was a time of spiritual communication for the monks of the monastery. Those who “needed a taste of sleep” could rest a little until “darkness.” At the first or second hour of the night, the all-night vigil began (GIM. Eparch., 349/509, l. 2 vol. - 4). The skete service differed from the services of cenobitic monasteries not only in duration, but also in its composition. During the monastery all-night vigil, half a psalter was read (in the cenovies, three kathismas were usually read), a larger number of canons - four. At the beginning of the service, after reading the first three kathismas and the canon of the Mother of God, everyone sat down in silence and listened with attention to what was “read” from the Holy Scriptures and Lives. The Scriptures were supposed to be read slowly - “as if giving orders, not with simple speech,” listeners could ask for explanations and interpretations of incomprehensible texts: “reading, we sit obediently with attention, if anyone asks to ask for recognition of the holy scriptures being read, let him ask,” says the rule of the all-night vigil of the Nilova Skete (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, l. 20 vol. – 21). The “old cathedral” (RNB. Sobr., 1469) of the Sorsk Hermitage has been preserved, in which there are selected lives and Words of the holy fathers, usually read at services. Here are the “lives and exploits” of St. Demetrius of Prilutsk, Varlaam of Khutyn, Sergius of Radonezh, Kirill of Belozersky, St. Mary of Egypt, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, the story of the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, Words of Andrew of Crete and John the Theologian on the holidays of the Nativity and Dormition of the Mother of God and others. Judging by the content of the Sobornichka, it is clear that it mainly includes texts from the lives of northern Russian saints. On the days of their memory, an all-night skete vigil was served in the Nilov Skete. “Sobornichek” dates back to the first half of the 16th century, and it is unlikely that after the death of St. Nile of Sorsky, the order of services of the Nilo-Sorsky Hermitage could have changed in such a short time. Thus, the assumption existing in historiography that the reverend elder “blasphemed Russian miracle workers” and opposed himself to the Russian tradition of asceticism seems unfounded 76 . After the reading, confession began: the brother, standing in front of the iconostasis, confessed his sins to all the brethren. “... Such a person comes before the iconostasis. The first one bows to the holy icons with humility. The same person who turns to his father and brethren recites a poem. And he falls on his face in the midst, confessing his evil, in his image he is restrained and asking for forgiveness and the prayers of his father and brethren, who will pray for him and deliver him from such passions with their prayers. And so, after confession and punishment, he asks for forgiveness from his father. And having risen, he departs to his place” (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, l. 21–21 vol.). The reading of the scriptures and confession lasted two to three hours. At the skete service, almost everything was read, some hymns from the regular service were omitted: “We are sober by reading and vigil,” says the rule of the skete service (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, fol. 22 vol.). Some researchers (A.S. Arkhangelsky, among modern ones - D. Fennel, F. Lilienfeld) expressed the opinion that the Monk Nilus of Sorsky denied the aesthetic side of the liturgy - solemn singing, which distinguished his monastery from Russian monasteries 77. At the same time, they did not take into account that this is a common feature of the worship of all monasteries. This feature is stipulated in the “Charter of the Life of the Skete,” which was drawn up at the beginning of the 15th century, long before the Sorsk ascetic 78 . In the skete patericon, statements of the holy fathers are repeatedly cited, explaining why solemn singing is unacceptable at skete services. Thus, in the patericon there is a story about how the ascetic of the monastery Pamva sent his disciple to Alexandria to sell handicrafts. The disciple was forced to spend the night on the church porch, “and having seen the entire order of the cathedral church,” he returned embarrassed: “the verb, brother, to the elder, truly, with laziness, we deceive our days in this desert, below the canons below the troparion we sing... I saw the church rites as they sing and in a multitude of mourning, it’s almost like we don’t sing the canons and troparion...” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 108 vol.). To this the elder answered the disciple that it is not like monks to “raise up their voices like an ox, for the monks have not gone out into this desert to stand before God, mocking and singing songs, and counting offerings with a voice and shaking and offering their arms and legs, but we must do so with much fear and trembling with tears and leaders bring blessings, tenderness and a moderate voice of prayer to God” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 109). Matins in the monastery ended at seven o'clock in the morning, when "the night had arrived to the dawn of the day" 79 . After Matins and the reading of the first hour, everyone went to their cells. Then they gathered again for a prayer service, if it was due on that day, after the prayer service a mass was served, at the end of the service everyone asked for forgiveness from each other and dispersed to their cells, staying in them “without leaving... except for the blessed wines, there will be a gathering again” 80. At first, while there was no church in the monastery, monks were supposed to go to the church of a nearby monastery or gather in the cathedral monastery cell. Then the monks had to “spend the night with the psalter and others as much as possible.” If, for some reason, one monk remained outside the church and “did not know how to read books,” then he had to “be sober” all night, reading the Jesus Prayer and doing handicrafts in his cell (GIM. Eparch., 349/509, l. 5 vol.). The skete monks could, like hermits and hermits, commune themselves with the Holy Gifts, which they took at the service. The Monk Nilus of Sorsky wrote out this rule of St. Basil the Great in his collection, apparently guided by it at a time when there was no church and regular services in the monastery (ibid. L. 15 vol.). All the time, except for general services, the hermitages were each in their own cell. For the monks of the monastery, it is said in the Rules, “it is not proper for such congregational singing to be performed daily. But only works like God’s and sobriety of the mind are the same, and each of them in his cells has sobriety and care for himself and his rule” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 207v.). Everyone was supposed to have an iconostasis in his cell: “if it is impossible for someone to acquire holy icons, but he still has a cross. And so, with him, they established a canon in their cell. And kaditi iconostasis according to custom during the cathedral singing” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 221v.). The cell rule of the monks of the monastery was large. But the measure for each monk could be established separately - each “against his own strength,” since “the weak cannot bear the Rule.” “Yes, even if someone... cannot fulfill the weight of the faithful charter, and he is half of it. Even if it’s not this one, he’ll take a third or a fourth each against his own strength.” “But as much as anyone can contain, let him contain” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 215; 234). The charter especially warned against laziness and relaxation, for the skete monk was alone most of the time. An entire chapter of the Charter is dedicated to the careless and lazy. Negligence about one’s established rule leads to “blindness and darkness of the mind. And from this the final insensitivity and ignorance of one’s own unreason. With them, much and more will follow” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 229). At the same time, the Charter also points to measure: “But just as measure adorns every matter, as everything that begins above measure comes from demons” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 228 vol.). Every day it was supposed to sing “half a psalter” every day and night, six hundred or a thousand prayers, three hundred or six hundred bows; the illiterate, instead of the Psalter, had to read six thousand prayers, and for “half a psalter” - three thousand (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 213). This rule of the “Charter of skete life” coincides with the Athonite rule. Archimandrite Dosifei of the Nizhny Novgorod Monastery, who visited Mount Athos at the end of the 14th century. (a century earlier than St. Neil), reports that Athonite monks, who live separately in cells, read half of the Psalter every day and 600 prayers “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.” If anyone wants to add, then it is up to him. In addition, they count from 300 to 500 bows. Those who do not know letters perform seven thousand Jesus prayers, in addition to bows and church rules. Archimandrite Dosifei writes that in his time in Rus' the entire Psalter was read in monasteries only during Great Lent and other fasts, “but the people of the Holy Mountains do not live like that: they adhere to one rule throughout their lives” 81 . By the 16th century This rule of Mount Athos was already known in Russian monasteries. In the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, which received new translations of liturgical and patristic books from the monasteries of Athos and Constantinople, there was, for example, a collection of liturgical and patristic books from the 15th century. (now: RNB. Kir.-Bel., 34/1111), where on sheets 315–316 vol. the rule of Archimandrite Dositheus was rewritten (several Kirill collections include a description of the Athonite statutes: RNL. Kir.-Bel., 101/358. Psalter followed with the Rule of the Holy Mount Athos. 17th century). As a result of active book connections between Russian monasteries and Mount Athos during the second half of the 14th and entire 15th centuries, the statutory prayer rule of Russian monks apparently also changed. In the 16th century daily reading of the Psalter has already become obligatory. Thus, according to the rule of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, the monk “committed”, i.e. I read the entire Psalter in my cell every five days (“from week to Friday” - from Sunday to Friday), during Great Lent - two Psalms in five days. (This rule “among the honest elders” of the Joseph Monastery is described in his collection by Deacon Ivan Pleshkov (GIM. Shchuk. collection, 212, l. 212 - 212 vol.). Apparently, he carefully studied the traditions and everyday life of the most famous monasteries in Russia, since in his book we find the everyday life and regulations of the Kirillo-Belozersky, Joseph-Volotsky and Nilo-Sorsky monasteries, which makes it possible to compare the life of the Russian monasteries and the monastery.) According to the Rules, the monk of the Nilo-Sora monastery was supposed to read the Psalter in two days. Not only the skete monks, but also the communal monks, in particular the Kirillov and Volokolamsk monks, constantly “kept the Jesus Prayer,” just like the Athonite elders. According to Pleshkov’s description, a monk of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery had to read 100 prayers to the Mother of God and 1900 Jesus prayers per day. A comparison of the “cell rule” of the monks of the Nilo-Sora monastery and the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery clearly shows the general trend of monastic life (regardless of the type of monastery) in the 16th – early 17th centuries. – desire for “smart prayer.” And yet, the difference in the prayer rules of cenobitic and monastic monks remained significant. “There is another act of silence, and another of common life,” as the holy elder wrote in his “Chapters” 82. “Prayer of the mouth” (i.e., prayers that are sung and read - according to the definition of St. Nil of Sorsky) 83 and “bodily work” (bows), strictly defined for every day, constituted mainly the prayer work of the Volokolamsk monk. Typically, a monk of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery read in his cell four kathismas, two canons, small vespers (part of the evening service performed in the evening, that is, after dinner) and the Midnight Office (prayers read at midnight), and bowed with prayer to the Mother of God (GIM. Shchuk. collection, 212, l. 211 vol. - 212). The skete monk also read Vespers, Midnight Office, psalms, and made bows. But the main attention of the entire cell rule of the monk of the monastery was focused on “mental prayer”, on achieving silence - hesychia, when “the mind does not pray through prayer,” writes St. Neil in his “Chapters,” “but it is higher than prayer; and in finding something better, prayer is abandoned, it happens in a frenzy, and there is no desire to have anything” 84. “Prayer of the mouth,” according to the teaching of the holy fathers, is only a necessary and long preparation for “smart prayer.” “Saint Agathon said: bodily work is exactly the same; the inner, that is, the intelligent, is the fruit” 85. It was about this “smart”, internal prayer, as the highest monastic activity, that the Monk Nil of Sorsky wrote in his “Chapters”. “Residence of the Nilova Hermitage,” recorded by Pleshkov, tells the following about the cell stay of the skete monks: after sunset, “sit in your cell, silent and gather your mind, keep your prayer and have with it the memory of the mortal memory of God’s judgment and retribution for good and evil deeds, having in everything the most sinful of all and the most vile of demons and according to them whatever you want it’s painful to be.” If tears of tenderness come, then you need to try to hold prayer for an hour, and then move on to prayerful work - singing evening prayers (compline), after that hold prayer again - this time pure, without any reflection, even soul-helping, without thoughts and dreams - “great is your strength with all vigor for half an hour” (Ghim. Shchuk. collection, 212, l. 207 - 207 vol.). The Venerable Nil of Sorsky speaks about this in the words of Saints Gregory of Sinaite and Simeon the New Theologian: “It is diligent to take care of prayer... to keep everyone’s thoughts in it, as powerfully as possible; not just the evil ones, but also the imaginary good ones, and seek in the heart of the Lord, who means, with your mind, guard your heart in prayer and always turn within this...” 86. After the evening rule, there was a short sleep, a midnight office (night prayers) and again the prayer “pure without steam for one hour.” If there was a thought of despondency, then they sang psalms, read prayers at their own discretion, and ended the cell night vigil with prayers during the first hour of the day (about 7 am). From morning until meal time, it was necessary to read the Gospel, the Psalter, patristic books, prayers, after the meal there was rest - “one hour”, then handicrafts with internal prayer, reading and singing evening prayers (vespers). Thus, the day and night of the monk of the Nilo-Sora monastery passed in unceasing prayer, as the ancient monastery fathers taught: “an hour to pray, an hour of honor (read - E.R.), an hour to sing, and so the day passes well” 87 . The ascetic of the Egyptian skete, Elder Isaac, instructed the monks: “The goal of every monk and perfection lies in constant, uninterrupted prayer, as much as possible for human weakness. To achieve this we use all our labors and all our contrition of heart” 88. The skete cell rule specifically stipulated that if at any time of the day or night a pure prayer and a thought of tenderness comes to mind, keep them as long as possible, do not think about fulfilling the rule, do not bow - leave everything for the sake of pure prayer. The Monk Nilus of Sorsky wrote about this in his “Chapters”: “If you... see the active prayer in your heart and never cease to move, so that you will never leave it and rise up to sing, lest it leave you out of consideration: for you leave God within, you call from without, from the high to the low with your bows” 89 . A detailed description of the cell stay of the monks of the monastery, made by Deacon Ivan Pleshkov, is important evidence that in the 17th century. the tradition of “mental doing” in the Nilo-Sora desert did not fade away. (G.V. Fedotov wrote in his book that since the mid-50s of the 16th century, Josephiteness has triumphed, and the mystical trend in Russian monasticism is fading away 90. Information about the cell rule of the Nilo-Sor and Volokolamsk monks allows us to challenge this conclusion.) The “Residence of the Nile Hermitage”, which was followed by the monks of the Sorsky monastery, was compiled in accordance with the “Chapters” of the teaching of the Monk Nile of Sorsky and the teaching of the holy fathers on “mental prayer”. For “hermitage” as a form of monastic life is, according to the fair definition of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “smart doing” 91. The Monk Nil managed to create a monastery on Russian soil, which not only in terms of the nature of its economic structure, location, and Charter, but also in terms of the level of spiritual life corresponded to the ancient tradition of “skete living.” In historiography, there was an opinion that Saint Nil of Sorsky, as a “representative of Athonite-contemplative hesychasm,” was alien to Russian reality (this was the opinion of V.O. Klyuchevsky, V.I. Zhmakin, N.N. Kostomarov, A. Pravdin and other historians of the 19th century. 92. Subsequently, this opinion was practically not disputed; it is present in the works of N.A. Kazakova, Y.S. Lurie 93. The historian of Russian diaspora A.V. Kartashev even called the Monk Nil of Sorsky a Russian native talent who created the hesychast movement in Rus' 94. However, studies of various aspects of the cultural life of Rus' in the second half of the XIV-XV centuries. show the fallacy of such judgments. For Rus', this was the time of “the second acquaintance with Byzantium”, the time of the resumption of active church book and pilgrimage contacts with Athos and Byzantium 95. As a result of these connections, Russian translated literature, as noted in his study by A.I. Sobolevsky, has almost doubled 96. It is characteristic that this was mainly “new” literature for Rus' of a mystical-contemplative direction (works of the Venerable Simeon the New Theologian, Isaac the Syrian, Gregory of Sinai, St. Gregory Palamas) 97. Studying the fate of patristic works in ancient Russian literature, A.S. Arkhangelsky noted that the active supply of Athonite books to Rus' “gave rise... even to a special spiritual-contemplative trend, which Nil Sorsky partly fell into” 98 . Monastic cell literature of this time (books by St. Kirill of Belozersky, Paisius Yaroslavov, St. Joseph of Volotsky, etc.) is full of extracts from hesychast literature about “smart prayer” 99 . The goal of life of the ascetics who founded desert-dwelling monasteries became “silence”, “smart work” 100. Thus, the Monk Nil of Sorsky was not the only hesychast in Rus'; before him, the Russian tradition of hesychasm had already developed. (Lilienfeld, however, believes that the Sorsky Elder was the first hesychast according to the tradition of the ancient fathers 101. She shares the so-called ancient hesychasm and neo-hesychasm of St. Gregory Palamas and the Reverend Gregory of Sinaite 102. Leaving aside disputes about the conventions of such a division, it should be noted that the Reverend Nil Sorsky studied the practice of mental prayer on Athos, where shortly before his Gregory Palamas himself labored on pilgrimages, and the Athonite elders were the most ardent adherents of his teaching. In the work of Elder Nile “On Mental Work,” quotations from the works of ancient and “new” teachers of hesychasm are found nearby 103 The emergence of the Nilo-Sora monastery at the end of the 15th century in the forest desert on White Lake was the result of the development of this Russian tradition of hesychasm. It is important that interest in the hermitage form of monastic life was characteristic not only of the Sorsk ascetic. Dated copies of the “Skete Patericon” have been preserved, written specifically for the Venerable Joseph of Volotsk (in 1487) and Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod (in 1493) 104 . But the special significance of the monastic activity of the Monk Nil of Sorsky lay in the fact that, based on many sources, he developed in detail the system of monastic monastic residence and built a monastery, the way of life of which was fully consistent with the state of hesychast silence and contemplation. His monastery had the same significance for Russian monasticism as the monastery of St. Macarius the Great had for monasticism in the first centuries of Christianity. Library of the Nilo-Sora Skete The tradition of studying the “Divine Scriptures”, established in the monastery by the Monk Nil of Sorsky, has never been interrupted. The elder’s commandments about monastic life “from the traditions of the holy fathers” and the chapter “On mental activity” were not forgotten in his monastery. Every year on the eve of Lent, on Forgiveness Sunday, the monks of the Nile Hermitage gathered in the church to “say goodbye,” i.e. ask each other for forgiveness. Before the rite of forgiveness, it was necessary to read the “Tradition” of “the dangerous monk in these times and the imitator of the ancient saints, the father of the fasting devotee of the Lord and the father of our monk Nile,” addressed to those who will begin to “endure” and be saved in his monastery (GIM. Shchuk. collection, 212, l. 116). ““The Charter of the Skit Life”, “The Tradition of the Chief Elder Nile” were often copied in the desert for the monastic brethren and to order, – wrote Elder Serapion, “two legends of the chiefs...”, he also “rewrote the book Charter from binding for the skin for the chapter given 6 altyn 4 money” (GIM. OPI. F. 484, op. 1. No. 74, fol. 12 vol.; l. 26 vol.), - such entries are often found in the receipt and expenditure books of the Nilova monastery. The skete Charter also drew special attention to the monks that without the “Divine Scriptures”, without their constant study, the path to spiritual perfection is impossible. “Those who do not know how to write” were supposed to learn from skilled brothers: “not knowing how to sing or read books, let them learn as much as possible” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 211 vol.). Knowledge of literacy and the “Divine Scriptures” was necessary for the monastic monk, for the book sometimes replaced the confessor. The Rule instructed “to confess everything spiritually and prudently. And according to those reasonings, work for everyone, and not trust in yourself... woe to those who trust in themselves. And they, having no nourishment, fall like leaves” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102, l. 234). Young monks, according to the Charter, had to be with the elders and learn from them. “It is in no way appropriate for the young to remain except the elders” (ibid., l. 220 vol. - 221). Two or three could gather together only “for the necessary purpose in the name of the Lord.” If more than three monks gathered, everyone had to obey “the one elder in the order of obedience in every thing” (ibid., l. 231). These rules were traditionally observed in monasteries so that the experience of monastic work would be passed on from elder to student. Many such examples can be found in the monastery patericon 105. But both the monastery Charter and Venerable Neil warned that it was difficult to find a confessor 106 . Therefore, if the confessor “has no spirit or is blind according to the Lord’s saying,” “such a person cannot be confessed” 107 . At that time, the only spiritual guidance remained the “Divine Scriptures.” The small monastery, lost among forests and swamps, had a rich library. It included a considerable number of liturgical books (altar Gospels, Apostles, Octoechos, Psalms, Menaions, Service Books, Books of Hours, Books of Daily Life, Triodi, Canons, Saints, etc.). In addition to these books, the inventories are called prologues and “written collections”, compiled, as a rule, from the lives and teachings of the holy fathers, the monastery and alphabet patericon, the works of the holy fathers - “The Ladder of John of Sinai”, the chapter of Abba Dorotheus, Saints Ephraim the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, “Margaret” of Saint John 3latoust, as well as “Nil's Chapters” (works of the Venerable Nil of Sorsky) (FIRI. Col., 115, item 693, l. 13 vol. - 18). The most ancient handwritten books of the Nilo-Sora Library, preserved to this day in the Kirillo-Belozersky collection of the National Library, date back to the 15th – early 16th centuries. (i.e., the time of life of St. Nile of Sorsky). These are the Fourth Gospel (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 61/66), the Fourth Gospel (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 13/138), the Sunday Gospel with selected teachings of the holy fathers and “from many Divine Scriptures” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 17/142), the Ladder of St. John, Abbot of Sinai (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 43/168). The library was quickly replenished (according to the inventory of 1641, there were 70 books in the desert, and in 1689 - already 140) 108 thanks to book contributions to the monastery, books were bought, but mainly they were copied by the monks of the monastery themselves. Copying books was the most common handicraft of the Sorsky monks; the monastery even had special “book gear” for making books 109 . Separate notes on manuscripts, inventory and receipt books of the monastery indicate constant book-writing in the Nilo-Sora desert. At the end of the book of teachings and messages of Abba Dorotheus (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 129/254), after the text in the same handwriting as the entire manuscript, there is an inscription: “On the 14th day of August 7153/1645, this book was written by the reverend father of Abba Dorotheus from the translation of the printed Kiev in the house of the Presentation of the Lord and the venerable our God-bearing father Ephraim the Syrian in the country of Belaezer, called in the Sorsk desert in the monastery of our venerable father Nile the miracle worker of the monastery. And the laboring, many-sinful monk Kozma Kolmogorets, tonsure of the Most Pure Theotokos of the Kirillov Monastery. Monk of the monastery of the monastery of Nilova brotherhood of the church country of Belozersk Greek Orthodoxy. Elder Kozma put the book of Abba Dorotheus into the monastery “for himself and for his parents” 110. His letter also includes the Psalter of 1640 (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 18/23) and, apparently, the Book of Hours (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 251/508), which has the entry “Book of Hours of the monk Kozma of the Kirillov Monastery living in the Nile Desert in the monastery.” The family of the elder scribe Kozma Kolmogorov was included in the skete synodik for eternal remembrance (KBIAHMZ. RK. 127, l. 29). Another manuscript from the skete library is Shestodnev from the 17th century. (GPB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807) - written by the monk Gerasim the Stupid (or Scarce) also with a request “to write to Senodik after his death” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 12). A patristic collection has been preserved, rewritten by the registrant of the Nilo-Sora Hermitage, Elder Serapion (RNB. Soph. collection, 1290). The entry in the book, made by the hand of Elder Serapion, tells about the fate of the manuscript itself and its copyist: the book was written in 1612 “from the translation of the Nilova monastery of Elder Serapion, a monk of the Prilutsk Monastery, and Elder Serapion wrote that book from Jonah, Metropolitan of Rostov, from the translation from the sacristy of Job, Patriarch of All Russia.” Patristic and hagiographic collections were constant reading for the monks of the Nilo-Sora monastery. Brief teachings from the elders, specific and edifying examples from lives were the main spiritual guide to salvation. Organization of economic life of the Nilo-Sora monastery An important and necessary condition for preserving the main meaning of the monastery stay - undisturbed “silence” and contemplation of the monks was the organization of the economic life of the monastery, therefore the internal structure of the Nilo-Sora monastery had a number of features characteristic of all monasteries of the monastery type. Ensuring that the monks of the monastery did not have “everyday worries” was taken upon himself by one of the elders of the monastery, who was called the “builder,” since he “built” the life of the monastery and was in charge of its economic and administrative affairs. There were similar “construction” positions in the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, and Mount Athos. In the monastery of St. Macarius the Great, administrative and economic functions were divided between the presbyter and the steward. The presbyters (abbots) of the four churches into which the monks of the skete were distributed supervised the monastic discipline - they instructed and imposed punishments. The “Life of Arseny the Great” tells that the presbyters accepted new monks into the monastery, having previously “tested” them (RGB. MDA, 207, l. 76–76 vol.). The highest leadership of the monastery belonged to a meeting of elders chaired by presbyters; the most important offenses were judged here and elected to various monastic positions. Mentions of such meetings are repeatedly found in the skete patericon: “Sometimes there was a council in the skete, and the fathers wanted to tempt Abba Moses, humiliating him, saying that this Ethiopian is coming among us. Hearing, I will be silent..." (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259, l. 91). A steward was elected to conduct the economic affairs of the monastery. The special importance of this obedience is evidenced by the very procedure for electing the steward: “no one entered into the position of steward of his own free will, but he was elevated to it by the choice of the elders, by general consent... from those who were respected in age, and in the strength of faith, and in the holiness of life” 111. The abbot of the Palestinian Lavra supervised the spiritual life of the monks, monitored monastic discipline (like the presbyter of an Egyptian monastery), and also took care of the food of the monks 112, i.e. performed partly the functions of a housekeeper. On Athos, the monastery leader was called dikeos (“keeper of truth”). As V. Grigorovich-Barsky writes in his notes about his visit to Athos, the dikeos in the monastery was elected “for the sake of church rank and acceptance for the sake of the strange in the strife of small ones, instructs and makes peace” 113, i.e. the dikeos was primarily responsible for the deanery of monastic life. The principle of choosing the Athonite dikeos is similar to how the steward was elected in the Egyptian skete, which indicates the stable traditionality of the basic principles of skete life, as well as the kinship of the positions of dikeos and steward. The Athonite monastery Charter of 1759 reads: “Whoever of the fathers aspires to be Dikei, and it turns out that he really wants to receive the abbot, let the brethren not desire this, but let them unanimously elect the one who is recognized as worthy of this position...” 114. The statutes of the Athonite monasteries indicate that the dikeos supervised both the administrative and economic life of the monastery. Only with the permission of the dikeos could monks leave the skete 115, with the consent of the dikeos and the elders of the skete, new monks were accepted into the skete, the purchase and sale of cells 116 was carried out (the purchase and sale of cells on Athos - apparently, a late Athonite order, as well as the payment of taxes for living in the monastery, which developed in connection with the general economic situation on Athos in the XVIII-XIX centuries). Dikeos lived at the cathedral church and took care of it; in addition, he carried out repairs and construction of monastery buildings - but with the consent of the elders of the monastery 117. Although the hermitages were supported by the labor of their own hands, the dikeos took care of their food and could appoint monks of the skete for general monastic obediences for these purposes. Thus, the Charter of 1759 of the Dimitrievsky monastery establishes a general procedure for work on the olive trees of the monastery: “so that the fruits from them (olives - E.R.) are collected annually by all the monasteries in general, and are divided equally between them, on the basis of ancient custom" 118 . The procedure for the election and duties of the builder of the Nilo-Sora monastery in the 17th century. most of all can be compared with the position of the Athonite dikeos. But it should be noted that the very duties of the builder of the Nilova Hermitage underwent some changes by the beginning of the 17th century. Officially, construction obedience in the Nilo-Sora monastery appeared, apparently, from the second half of the 16th century: the charter of 1515 of Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich does not yet name the salary for the builder, it is determined only by the charter of Tsar Ivan the Terrible (the exact date of this charter is difficult to determine, since its text is included in the charter of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich of 1584) 119. The first “builder” of the monastery can be considered the Venerable Nile of Sorsky himself. He was not only an elder - the spiritual leader of the monks, but also had authority: he received monks into the monastery, monitored piety and observance of the Rules in the monastery. It is no coincidence that he writes in his “Tradition” about how to deal with “arbitraries”: “If anyone does not do what he wants in these (commandments of the holy fathers - E.R.) let the coldness of my wretchedness cease; I am sending away such idle ones... If they want to live in such a free and comfortable way, we accept such people, speaking to them the word of God...” 120. The Monk Nil of Sorsky, as already mentioned, carried out the first “constructions” in the monastery; the list of items he compiled necessary for the consecration of the church (State Historical Museum. Diocesan collection, 349/509, l. 15) shows that Elder Nil was involved in all the details of monastery life. Feeding the brethren of the monastery in the first years of its existence was not yet one of the main construction functions, as it was later. Until 1515, the monastery did not receive the sovereign's salary, and each monk, apparently, lived from his own labors and small alms given by pilgrims. Probably, shortly before his death, the Sorsky monk himself blessed the first abbot of his monastery: the Synodik of the Nile Hermitage was the first of the Sorsky monks to name the names of “the elders of the Nile and Innocent.” Then follows the name of the Higumen Cornelius (KBIAKHMZ. RK, 127, l. 15.). This means that the abbot of the Nilo-Sora monastery in the first half of the 16th century. had the rank of priest and was the rector of the church, like the elders of the Egyptian monastery. According to the synodik, Higumen Cornelius was replaced by Higumen Savva, more during the 16th-18th centuries. The synodik does not name the names of the abbots. According to the local charter of the second half of the 16th century. and the parish books of the monastery (the earliest dates back to 1611–1612) only the builders of the Nilo-Sora desert are known. At this time, not only the name of the abbot of the desert was finally determined, but also the procedure for his election, as well as the main responsibilities. Like the dikeos of the Athonite monastery, the builder of the Nilo-Sora hermitage was elected for a year - it was rare that someone carried out construction obedience for two or three years. The new builder received a report from his predecessor on the “old inventory book of property”, while a new one was compiled, which noted everything that “gained” or “departed” in the monastery property and for what reasons. In addition, each builder kept a receipt and expenditure book, from which he reported on the state of the monastery treasury 121. This desert order also corresponded to Athonite custom: the Athonite Charter of 1759 states that after the election, “the new Dikei, together with the fathers, takes an account from his predecessor” 122 . At first, the skete elders themselves chose a builder from the desert brethren. In 1641, by decree of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, the Nilov monastery (apparently after destruction during the Polish-Lithuanian intervention in 1612–1618) was assigned to the Kirillov Monastery 123. From that time on, the builder for the monastery was chosen by the Cathedral of the Cyril Elders. If the builder conducted the skete's affairs poorly, the elders of the skete could complain to the Archimandrite of the Kirillov Monastery and ask for something else. This happened in 1652. In one of the parish books, a petition from the Sorsky monks was preserved: “To the Sovereign Archimandrite Mitrofan and the Sovereign cellarer Elder Savatius and all the elders of the cathedral of the Cyril Monastery, the poor pilgrims and your Sory hermitages beat the Nilova skete monk Joseph, and the monk Christopher, and the monk Vlas and all the brothers: please Send us, Sovereigns, a letter of imprisonment so that we can honor the builder Elder Selivester in front of all the brethren, so that we may know, and send us to heaven as God informs you, the Sovereign. Sirs, have mercy, please” (FIRI. Col. 115, item 672, l. 1 vol.). In the 17th century the builder of the Nilo-Sora Hermitage was no longer a spiritual mentor; most often he did not have the priestly rank, but was fully responsible for the deanery and economy of the monastery. The builder, like the Athonite dikeos, with the general consent of the elders of the skete, as reported in the “Tale of the Nilo-Sora Skete” by Ivan Pleshkov, received new monks, distributed cells to the brethren (in accordance with the order stipulated in the “Testament” of the Monk Innocent Okhlyabinin). The income and expenditure books of the Nilo-Sora monastery contain references to the fact that the desert builders traveled to Vologda and Moscow to work on resolving various issues of the internal life of the monastery. So, in 1637, the builder Nathanael submitted petitions to the Patriarch in Moscow... he submitted a petition to the Metropolitan from the letter and gave two money. About foreigners he beat his forehead in the palace from a letter and gave 4 dengi. The file was written out by the clerk menshoi about the foreigners Onastas and Makar” (we are talking about the skete elders Makar and Anastas the Kievite, mentioned in the construction books. - E.R.) (FIRI. Col. 115, item 666, l. 9). The builder also carried out all the repairs and construction in the monastery. He alone took care of everyone: he monitored the serviceability of the stoves in the cells, the repair of cells, bridges, the monastery mill - it is difficult to list all the construction concerns 124. One of the main concerns of the builder was the maintenance of the skete churches: their repair, construction of new ones, provision of everything necessary for church services (the builder bought wax, incense, church wine, flour and salt for bread). The builder observed the activities of the monastery guide, the monastery, and the watchman. Another important responsibility of the builder was feeding the brethren. Since 1515, the monastery of St. Nil of Sorsky, at the request of Prince Vassian Patrikeev, began to receive the sovereign's salary (rugu). According to the charter of Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich, every year the granary and fish clerks in the city of Belozersk gave the monastery 155 quarters of rye flour (8680 kg) for 14 people from the sovereign reserves. If the number of brethren decreased, then less bread was given (560 kg to each elder, 1120 kg to the priest and 840 kg to the deacon) 125 . Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible increased the monastery's salary. In addition to rye, the fish clerks of Belozersk had to give salt, wheat, buckwheat, oats and peas for the monastery, money for “wax, honey and incense” - “and they were ordered to give that ruba for a period of time at the Epiphany of Christ, every year without transfer.” The peasants of the sovereign village of Chyuzhba (not far from Belozersk) carried bread to the monastery on their carts 126 . The charter of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was confirmed during the reign of Theodore Ioannovich (charter on March 23, 1588) and Boris Godunov (charter on January 21, 1599) 127. To receive the “sovereign’s ruga,” the builder often had to travel to Belozersk, Vologda, and Moscow, here he also submitted petitions to the bishop, patriarch, and the sovereign’s orders in Moscow about monastic affairs. Such trips turned out to be very troublesome, since without rolls, carved spoons and painted brothers, the governors and clerks would not issue the royal salary. Once, the builder Markel even bought five lemons in Vologda so that the Belozersky governor Stepan Nikiforovich Chepchagov ordered the money to be given and the required letter to be signed without delay (GIM. F. 484, op. 1, d. 74, l. 29–29 vol.). And in 1612, Markel went to Yaroslavl to Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky for alms for the monastery. At this time, detachments of Polish “thieves’ people” were in charge in Belozerye, the Kirillov Monastery itself was under siege - there was nowhere for the builder to receive the sovereign’s salary. The journey turned out to be very difficult. On the way, Elder Markel was attacked by the Cossacks of Pan Prozorovsky: “And having driven away from the fishmonger (name of the place - E.R.) three miles opposite the Savior, the drunken Cossacks turned to the tray and snatched the pots out of their noses... Yes, I’ve got a great poker and a leather bag” (TIM. OPI. F.484, op. 1, d. 74, l. 21). In Yaroslavl, after many obstacles, Elder Markel finally managed to get to the prince. He presented the prince’s servant Semyon Ermolin with the image of the Kazan Mother of God, after which he “put” the builder in front of the prince. Prince Pozharsky showed great honor to Elder Markel, the elder blessed the entire family of the prince - Princess Maria, children: Princes Peter, Fyodor and two princesses, giving everyone a spoon. Having received alms for the monastery, the builder returned safely to the desert. But after some time he had to go again, this time to the Belozersk village of Chyuzhba for bread. On the way, the elder “was attacked by the gentlemen and took away the monastery’s ruble” (GIM. OPI. F.484, op.1, d.74, l. 28). Having received the sovereign's salary, the builder distributed it to the brethren in food (“reserves”) and money. He wrote all this down in his account books: “Elder Thomas and his son Elder Joseph were given a supply of six quarters of rye flour... and they were also given four quarters of cereal and four quarters of oatmeal, and half a pound of salt... half a pound of fish... half a quarter of peas... and he and his son were given money for the reserve of 10 altyn dengs of May from the 14th of July to the 14th... yes, he was given to Thomas and his son. pots for 9 money..." (FIRI. Col. 115, item 666, l. 6). There was no communal meal in the Nilo-Sora desert, as in other monasteries; everyone baked bread and ate separately. The builder “fed” the brethren, i.e. He served a common meal only on patronal and great twelve holidays and on the name days of members of the royal family. This is reported in the receipt and expenditure books of the monastery builders: “on the 2nd day of February on the feasts of the Presentation of the Lord in the monastery, the table was filled with baked bread for the brethren and for the prayers of the worldly people... 31 altyns were given, three money was given for rye and bark malt for kvass, 15 altyns were given for fish of all kinds, large and small, for 17 altyns of butter and cereals garlic and onions...for 5 altyn for 4 dengi..." (RNB. SPb. DA. 46, l. 8 vol.); “On the 7th day of May, in memory of our reverend father Nile, in the monastery the brothers and the lay people spent a ruble of 32 altyn two dengi to feed bread and malt for kvass and fish, cereals and oils and all sorts of grub” (ibid., l. 9). Thanks to the work of the builder, the monks of the monastery had almost no “everyday worries.” As in the laurels of Palestine, the monks of the Nilo-Sora desert received everything they needed from the monastery treasury: food, utensils, firewood. In addition, the cell was also monastic property. New monks, coming to the Nilov Skete, received a cell with everything necessary for life: icons, books, dishes, “cell tools.” This is reported in Pleshkov’s “Tale” 128. This custom also existed in ancient Egyptian hermitages. Presbyter Rufinus writes in his book that in the “Kelliy” desert, cells were set up for newcomers with everything they needed from donations from the brethren. “By evening, the newcomers, entering the cell, found everything they needed there in full readiness, so that it was absolutely impossible to see any lack of anything” 129. The skete monks did not have obediences, i.e. did not work in general monastic work, like the monks of cenobitic monasteries. Churches were built, bridges were paved, walls in cells were mossed, stoves were repaired in the Nilo-Sora monastery by hired people, who were paid by the builder from the monastery treasury (hired lay people also worked in the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified to “serve the brethren”) (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 23/1262, fol. 295 vol.). “I lifted the millstones into the barn and gave the hired man money 8” 130, “he gave money to the watchman Arkhip 6 to build a bridge across the stream to the Miracle Worker,” the monastery builder wrote down in the section “expenses of money” 131. If a monk did any work for the monastery - he raked wood chips from the built cell, wrote a book for the skete library, led church services as a guide, then the builder of the monastery also paid him for the handicraft performed: “the guide, Elder Josaf, wrote down the legend of the Wonderworker of the Nile... the builder gave 6 altyns of money 5,” “and the sexton raked wood chips from the church, he was given money 6.” 132, “given to the sexton Elder Vlasiy and the watchman Ivan... from the cleaning to the monastery along the forest road, 3 altyns and 2 dengi were lost” 133. The monks almost never participated in any construction work or worked in the fields - the Charter prohibited them from leaving their cells frequently and staying outside for long periods of time. Observing the life of the monks of the Nilo-Sora desert according to the income and expenditure books of the builders and comparing it with the structure of other monasteries, we can conclude that the internal structure of all monasteries has a number of common features that distinguish them from monasteries of other types. In historiography, as already mentioned, there is an opinion that the monastery is very close in its structure to special lives. However, comparing them reveals a number of significant differences. The principles of life of special monasteries, like the monastery, are described in detail in the letter of St. Maximus the Greek to Basil III (1518–1519). From the message it is clear that monks in special monasteries quite often worked for the monastery, and due to the nature of their obediences, they spent a long time not only outside the cell, but also outside the monastery, which was forbidden to monastery monks: they went for “living” to the monastery estates, which were located outside Mount Athos, were engaged in fishing, etc. 134. Special monasteries on Athos owned arable land, but neither the Athonite monasteries nor the Nilo-Sora monastery had arable land, i.e. The system of economic support for the monastery itself differed. In addition, the standard of living of monks in exclusive monasteries was different and largely depended on personal wealth and the contribution made to the monastery. In the monasteries, the communal principle of equality was preserved: the monks of the monastery received from the monastery most of what they needed for life in equal measure; the composition of this “part” in different monasteries was different: in Egypt - a cell, in Palestine - a cell, clothes, food, on Athos - a cell, partial food, in the Nilo-Sora desert - a cell, full food. In the monasteries there was also a small common monastic household, which is also a sign of community life. Inventory of the property of the Nilo-Sora desert in the 17th-18th centuries. they list among the outbuildings a stable, a “brick shed,” a cold storage room, a “mill with all the mill equipment,” a drying wood shed, a barn and a granary in the Kirillov Monastery (for storing the “grain reserve,” which from the middle of the 17th century the Nilov monastery began to receive in the Kirillov Monastery by the sovereign’s charter) (FIRI. Col. 115, unit of record. 681, l. 19 – 19 vol.). It is interesting that the mill was traditional, and initially even the only accessory of the hermitage. Many Athos monasteries (where natural conditions allowed) had mills. Describing the large St. Anninsky monastery, V. Grigorovich-Barsky reports that the hermitages “also have a mill, where they grind their wheat, in case they happen to buy it from the strange ships that arrive” 135 . At the small St. Anninsky and Kavsokalivsky monasteries there were also “large reservoirs with a common mill” 136. According to the general skete tradition, the Monk Nil of Sorsky, when founding his monastery, first of all set up a mill on the river “for the needs of the brethren.” But the very nature of the general monastery economy still differed from the monastic one. The monastery’s economy was intended only for storing the “skete stock” and to help the “handicrafts” of the hermitages (thus, in the Athonite monasteries there were wool shearing shops and carpentry workshops, where the hermitages worked for their “day food”) 137, as well as to help the personal economy of the monk (the monk could grind his own bread, which he either bought with his own money or received from the monastery, in the common monastery mill). The absence of a common meal, which gives the monastery some resemblance to the special way of life, made it possible not to have and not to conduct an extensive monastic economy, not to work on general obediences, as in the cenovies. Thus, the monastery can be characterized as an independent form of monastic life, which occupies an intermediate position between the monastery and the special life. Although the Nilo-Sora monastery, in organizing its economic life, repeated the general principles of the monastery way of life, it also had its own characteristics. This feature was the local (state) support that the monastery received from 1515 until the beginning of the 18th century. (the last document on the issuance of armed money was granted to the monastery by Tsars Peter Alekseevich and Ivan Alekseevich in 1683 (RGADA.F. 1441, op. 2, item 493, l. 13). This, undoubtedly, distinguished the Sora monastery from the Egyptian and Palestinian monasteries, for which donations were not the main source of food Thus, in the monastery of St. Macarius the Great, offerings were accepted, but they were spent on the maintenance of hospitals set up at the church for elderly and sick monks. When a large donation arrived, common meals were arranged for the brethren, but mainly the monks were fed from the labors of their handicrafts. In the laurels of Palestine, donations, as evidenced by the lives of Saints Sava the Sanctified and Euthymius the Great, were primarily spent on the maintenance of the monastery itself 139 . And although the Lavra monks received food and clothing from the monastery, in return they gave their products to the steward 140. According to the principle of its provision, the Nilo-Sora monastery is closer to the Athonite monasteries, which were located on monastic territories (the concept of territory included the area around the monastery). From the description of Abbot Joachim it follows that Athonite monasteries were of two types: located near monasteries and independent; the former received support from their monasteries (a kind of rugu), and the monks of independent monasteries were supported by their handicrafts and occasional “alms.” “The third rank is the hermits, living in the deserts and in the mountains, within the boundaries of each monastery, each monastery has its own boundary, according to the order of the kings and the patriarch, and the hermits eat food from the monasteries, the others live by handicrafts, and they pray to God incessantly...” 141. But handicrafts were still the main means of subsistence for the Athonite monks. Describing the life of the monks of the St. Anninsky monastery, Grigorovich-Barsky reports that each hermitage “does his own handicraft, and from it he feeds on sales; “He cannot turn gray without handicrafts; there is not enough soft soil for planting vines or sowing grain” 142. For the Nilo-Sora monks, handicrafts were not the main means of subsistence. As N.K. rightly noted. Nikolsky 143, apparently, it was indeed much more difficult to feed oneself only from the labors of one’s own hands (the usual handicraft of the Sorsky monks: book and icon painting, gardening) in the conditions of the Russian North than in the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine and Athos. Nil Sorsky took this into account when he allowed his monastery to accept necessary, but not unnecessary, alms: “If we are not satisfied with our needs from our work for our weakness... then we should take little alms from Christ-lovers, necessary, and not unnecessary” 144. Such “necessary alms” can easily be considered the “sovereign’s salary,” since it did not violate the non-acquisitiveness of either the monastery or the monks. Until the 19th century. Nilova Hermitage had no arable land, no livestock, and the monastery never owned villages and hamlets 145. The royal salary that the monastery received cannot be called large - it was the minimum necessary to feed the monks. In the 17th century The monastery also lived very poorly, as in the 16th century. Simple and unadorned, built “with all poverty” was the first church of the Nilo-Sora monastery. Researchers have already drawn attention to the entry made by the Monk Nil of Sorsky himself in one of his manuscripts 146. It follows immediately after the “Tradition” of the monk and, as it were, continues his text. The elder lists in detail what is needed to consecrate the church in his monastery. Here only the most necessary things are named, in exact measure and taking into account the meager capabilities of the monastery: “The Church needs to consecrate things on a column of paper, two sheets of gum, wax, incense, sand, pure white. The sulfur from the spruce is white and the ropes are thin and strong. And for the throne there was walnut soap with wood oil. Holy August water with fragrant grass, Greek lips four or three or two or white plates. In front of each column, create three crosses on the sides. Yes, four nails” (GIM. Diocesan collection, No. 349/509, l. 15). This brief entry eloquently conveys the strict and ascetic atmosphere in the monastery of Nil Sorsky. Decoration of churches in the 17th century. It was also the simplest thing: icons without precious frames, wooden and tin liturgical vessels, iron lamps, simple covers, paper shrouds for the images. Thus, the inventory for 1651 says that in the church of St. Ephraim the Syrian there were “wooden church vessels” (FIRI. Col. 115, item 671, l. 11), a few years later the builder Elder Varlaam bought new tin dishes for this church (FIRI. Col. 115, item 673, l. 13 vol.). A few precious books, icons, and vessels donated by pilgrims to the monastery were in the altar of the Church of the Presentation and in the Church of John the Baptist. The monks themselves did not have anything extra - only a few icons in their cells, as the inventories say, and wooden dishes (“and in the cells there are all kinds of wooden utensils,” pancake frying pans, pokers and stove dampers) (FIRI. Col. 115, item chronicle 679, l. 19), as the Monk Nil of Sorsky commanded: “for yourself in the cells Our judgments and other things are valuable and it is not appropriate to have them decorated” 147. In the inventories of the monastic property one can find, for example, such an illustrative example of the non-covetous life of monks. When the builder of the monastery, Elder Korniliy Zatvornikov, died, the new builder compiled an inventory of his “sobin” (own) property, which went into the common monastery barn. In the cell there was “a supply of bread worth a ruble, two altyns for two money”: “a quarter of rye flour, half a grain of oat flour, osmina of barley and oat malt, osmina of rye, half a grain of oats, half a scoop of steamed rye bread, half a scoop of oatmeal, half a pound of salt,” and “wooden utensils signed with paints, leather chair” (FIRI. Col. 115, item 693, l. 23). Non-covetousness (“lack of superfluous things”), both monastic and personal, remained a strict rule of monastic life throughout the history of the Nilo-Sora monastery (late 15th – early 18th centuries). Concluding the description of the internal way of life of the Nilo-Sora monastery, it should be said about its monks themselves. Little is known about the monks of the Nilo-Sora desert. Usually there were 6–12 people living in the monastery. The elders took refuge in the monastery: Ferapont Verizhnik, Korniliy the Recluses and Pustynnikov, Gerasim the Scarce, or Stupid, a copyist of many books, Pimen and Varlaam, icon painters. Priest Varlaam wrote many icons and books for the monastery. The Missal of Varlaam's letters is known (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 502/759. Zap. on fol. 29), he also wrote the Deesis with holidays, the canopy for the altar doors, the image of St. John the Baptist in the Church of the Presentation (RNB. St. Petersburg. DA A II 46, l. 29). In the books of the builder of the Nilov Skete, Elder Theophan is mentioned, who painted the icon of Nikita the martyr (FIRI. Col. 115, item 681, l. 9). The surviving skete icons (now in the collection of the KBIAHMZ) speak of the skill of the icon painters and the stern and ascetic nature of their writing. In the 17th century Monks from Nizhny Novgorod, Murom, Moscow, Kholmogory, Kyiv, Pomorye, Vologda, Ustyuzhna lived in the monastery; they came from the Kirillo-Belozersky, Ferapontov and Kornilyevo-Komelsky monasteries, and from Solovki. Many elders of the Nilo-Sora skete had the nickname of hermits - this is how they are included in the skete synodik for eternal remembrance: Phillip the Hermit, Cornelius the Hermits and Hermits, Vavila the Hermits (KBIAKHMZ. RK127, fol. 28 vol. - 29). The Synodicus names thirteen monks-schema monks who labored in the Nile Hermitage at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century. (ibid., l. 15 vol. – 16 vol.). 3. Symbolism of the dedication of thrones in the churches of Nilova Skete An analysis of the dedication of the churches of the Nilo-Sora desert allows us to better imagine the interests and life of the monks of the monastery. The history of church construction seems important for characterizing the worldview and distinctive personality traits of the founder of the monastery, the Venerable Nile of Sorsky. The first church of the desert was consecrated in the name of the Presentation of the Lord. The dedication of the church probably belongs to the Venerable Neil. As we have already said, in the handwritten collection of the Sorsky Elder, his own handwritten note was preserved - a list of things necessary for the consecration of the church. This record shows how Elder Nil took care of every little detail necessary for the consecration of the church. It is difficult to imagine that such an important issue as the dedication of the church and monastery was resolved without his participation. The Sretensky dedication of the church gave the name to the monastery. The charter of Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich (1515) 148 refers to the Nilo-Sora hermitage as “Holy Presentation”. “It is impossible to guess why he (Nile of Sorsky - E.R.) chose the Presentation of the Lord as the church holiday, and not the Dormition of the Mother of God, which was celebrated by the first Russian monastery on Athos, Xylurgu, where he probably lived himself,” wrote A.N. Muravyov, author of “Russian Thebaid in the North” 149. The question is natural and important, and it requires an answer. Services in the Church of the Presentation were held twice a week. Monastic manuscript from the early 17th century. (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519) contains the rule of the all-night vigil of the monastery. The preface says that it was established by the Monk Neil himself 150. According to this rule, stichera for the church holiday, i.e. The Presentation (the second monastery church in the name of St. Ephraim the Syrian was built towards the end of the 16th century) was sung at every all-night service. On the feast of the Presentation, the Praise of the Mother of God, on the day of St. Ephraim the Syrian, every Saturday from Easter to Trinity, the canon of the Presentation was obligatory to be read. The theology of the stichera and canon of the Presentation is focused on the main Christian dogma - the Incarnation and God-manhood of Christ. In the poetic lines of the stichera for the feast of the Presentation, the theological meaning of the meeting of Elder Simeon and the Infant Christ is expressed as follows: “These (Elder Simeon - E.R.) are the eternal word of the Father, incarnate. And with the tongue the Light of the Cross and the Resurrection was revealed” (GPB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 2). Of course, Candlemas is not the only holiday whose theology reveals the dogma of the Incarnation, but this holiday has a special meaning of assurance in the truth of the Incarnation, like the “Assurance of Thomas” in the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ. In a collection of the 16th century. from the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery we find the famous “Conversation of Cyril of Jerusalem on the Presentation of the Lord” (RNB. Soph. collection, 1419, l. 318–320 vol.). In it, Saint Cyril says that on the day of the Presentation, the secret of the Incarnation, hidden until that day, was revealed to God’s chosen people Israel and to all languages. “Hear this, all the nations (Ps. 48:1), listen to Israel. The one whom I, your priest Simeon, carry in my arms and preach and testify to the people with a great voice in the church is the Lord your God” 151. Church Tradition says that while translating the Bible, Simeon doubted the words of the prophet Isaiah about the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin (Is. 7:14) 152. He lived 360 years waiting for the prophecy to be fulfilled. On the Day of the Presentation, taking the Infant Christ into his arms, Elder Simeon testified before everyone that the Infant whom he holds in his arms is the Lord Himself, consubstantial and co-essential with God the Father (interpretation of St. Cyril of Jerusalem) 153. The stichera of the feast of the Presentation (all stichera are quoted from liturgical collections of the 16th-17th centuries from the libraries of the Nilo-Sorsky and Kirillo-Belozersky monasteries) states that the Lord, who once gave Moses the tablets of the Covenant on Mount Sinai, is brought to the Jerusalem Temple as a baby. “Today Simeon rises into the arms of the Lord of glory. Under the darkness, Moses first saw him in Mount Sinai, giving him the tablets” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 1v. - 2). “Today, like Moses of old in Sinai, having given the law, he obeys the lawful commandment for our sake...” (ibid., l. 1 vol.). With his sermon, as stated in the Sretensky stichera, Elder Simeon destroyed the clouding of unbelief in the ancient words of the prophets and exposed the “Jewish faithless heart” (the words of the stichera) (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 2), announcing the coming crucifixion of the Savior and His Resurrection. The Canon of the Feast of the Presentation is also focused on revealing the meaning of the dogma of the Incarnation: “The fiend of the earth, flowing back into the nude, the nature conformed to the Divine, the Creator, like an immutable infancy revealed” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 315/572, fol. 44 vol.). “The Creator showed the (human) nature that originates from the earth and again departs into it to be in conformity with the Divine, having become an immutable baby” (translation of the ancient Greek text by E. Lovyagin, professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy 154). In his interpretation for the Feast of the Presentation, Cyril of Jerusalem, as if continuing the speech of the righteous Simeon, says: “Behold, He who created us in the image of God, has now become man in our image, and is a man, but at the same time also God: being the image of the Lord God, now he has taken on the form of a servant, not diminishing the dignity of the Divinity, but sanctifying the confusion of my nature” 155. The theology of the Feast of the Presentation not only affirms the truth, but also denounces its opponents. Saint Athanasius the Great in his “Sermon on the Presentation” says that Simeon the God-Receiver already on the day of the Presentation showed the wickedness of the future opponents of the Church - the heretics Marcion, Arius, Savvelius, Nestorius (RNB. Soph. collection, 1419, fol. 327 vol.). In the stichera of the holiday one can hear echoes of that intense struggle at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon for the dogma of the God-manhood of Christ. One of the Sretensky stichera states that the Lord appeared to the world “not as an opinion, not as a ghost, but as the truth, so that the Divine would unite with the human” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 2 vol. - 3). In the context of the struggle waged by the Russian Church at the end of the 15th century. With the heresy of the “Jews wise”, which denies the main Christian dogma of the Incarnation, the Sretensky dedication of the Nilo-Sora monastery seems not accidental, just as the meaningful selection of lives in the hagiographic collections of the Monk Nilo-Sora is not accidental. The defense of the dogma of the Incarnation and its essential disclosure acquire particular relevance at this time. This is evidenced by the painting of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary at the Ferapontov Monastery, made in 1502–1503. the famous icon painter Dionysius. “The main theme of the painting,” writes L. A. Uspensky, “is the affirmation of the Orthodox doctrine against the deviations of the heretics listed by the council of 1490: the Divinity and humanity of the Savior are emphasized here, the glorification of the Mother of God and saints occupies a special place and the importance of the Ecumenical Councils is emphasized” 156. Dionysius worked in the Ferapontov monastery at the same time when the Monk Nile lived ten miles from Ferapontov on the Sora River. He could not help but come to the elder, known for his spiritual reasoning and God-thinking. It is likely that the theme and spiritual tone of the cathedral’s paintings were influenced by the icon painter’s communication with Elder Nile, who drew the attention of his contemporaries to the theology of the dogma of the Incarnation and called for “testing the Divine Scriptures.” The meaning of this spiritual instruction to “test the Scriptures” is revealed by the Sretensky stichera: “Test the Scriptures. As Christ our God says in the Gospels. In them we find the one born and wrapped in swaddling clothes. She is placed in a manger and fed with milk, and circumcision is acceptable. And worn by Simeon... appeared to the true world" (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 550/807, l. 2 vol.) - i.e. we gain true knowledge about the Incarnation. The second church of the Nilo-Sora desert, built in the second half of the 16th century, was consecrated in the name of St. Ephraim the Syrian. This saint was especially revered in the monastery. Iconographic images of St. Ephraim the Syrian were among the locally revered icons in the iconostasis and on the walls of the churches of the Nile Hermitage: the inventory of 1672 mentions local images of St. Ephraim the Syrian in the churches of the Presentation and Ephraim the Syrian (FIRI. Col. 115, item 683, l. 2 vol. - 6 vol.), “The image of Ephraim the Syrian in paint on the wall of the Church of the Presentation” (FIRI. Col. 115, record unit 683, fol. 4 volume), in the Church of John the Baptist the icon of Ephraim the Syrian was even included in the Deesis rank as a paired icon to the image of Cyril of Belozersky (FIRI. Col. 115, record unit 683, l. 8 vol.), in the Church of the Presentation in the local row there was an icon depicting the monks Cyril of Belozersky and Ephraim the Syrian on the same board (FIRI. Col. 115, item 683, l. 2 vol.). The veneration of Saint Cyril of Belozersky in the Nilovo Skete is understandable - this is the most revered northern Russian saint, the founder of the monastery, with which the Nilo-Sora Skete had the closest spiritual and economic ties. The special relationship in the northern Russian monastery to St. Ephraim the Syrian helps to understand the peculiarities of the spiritual structure of this monastery. Church tradition calls St. Ephraim the Syrian “Teacher of Repentance.” “Crying ceaselessly for Ephraim was the same as breathing air for others,” St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote about him 157 . An ancient troparion to St. Ephraim the Syrian, which we find in the Menaions of the 16th century. Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, speaks of the saint: “The hour of ever foreseeing trials. Ephraim wept bitterly. As if loving silence. You were a doer and a divine teacher in business. The same Father is all red. You lead the lazy to repentance” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 344/601, l. 435 vol.). Throughout Great Lent, a short prayer of repentance by Ephraim the Syrian is read; at the most rigorous services of Holy Week, selected words from the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian are usually offered for edification. Thus, in the Nilo-Sora desert, where the services of Great Lent were held in the warm church of Ephraim the Syrian, on Great Wednesday, when the Church remembers the betrayal of Christ by Judas, the word of St. Ephraim about Joseph the Beautiful was read at the service. (This is reported by the rule of the all-night vigil of the Nilo-Sorsky monastery - RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, l. 88.) And this had a symbolic meaning: the life of the Beautiful Joseph (Gen. 37-50), sold into slavery by his brothers, prefigured, according to the interpretation of Ephraim the Syrian, the first coming of Christ, betrayed and crucified, and His second coming in glory for The Last Judgment of Humanity 158. On Great Heel (Friday), at the removal of the Shroud, the word of Ephraim the Syrian about the great passion of the Lord was read (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, l. 88). Many of the sermons of St. Ephraim the Syrian are addressed to monastics, where he says that one must strictly keep monastic vows. In the church of Ephraim the Syrian of the Nilo-Sora monastery, in the local row there was an icon of the Monk Ephraim (which is known from the earliest inventory of the churches of the Nilo-Sora monastery - FIRI. Col. 115, item 683, fol. 6 vol.), in front of which, mainly, monastic confessions took place. On this icon, the Monk Ephraim the Syrian is depicted “with a charter with words against careless monks” who do not keep monastic vows: “Ephraim says that there is a great trouble, where the law and rules do not live in the monastery. If you, wretched one, for the sake of your weakness and addiction, hate sorrows and run away from patience, and slander your Lord with a light yoke, as if he is cruel and heavy, you say, and I cannot bear him. It is cruel to you, wretched one, and whoever has mercy on the one who has destroyed himself, it is crueler for you not to have a tattoo. The robber and the fornicator pray for salvation. You are blessed by men as if they were eternal. But you lived a good life with a lie, and having loved the sweetness of this world and its lusts, you hated the Kingdom of Heaven” (KBI AHMZ. J. 212, inscription from a scroll; punctuation is mine. - E.R.). These words of St. Ephraim the Syrian are reminiscent of the stern warnings of St. Nilus of Sora, addressed to “self-inflicted people” in his “Tradition... by a disciple.” It is no coincidence that the elder’s “Tradition” itself was read to the entire brethren of the monastery on the eve of Great Lent. Much in common can be found in the writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian and Nil Sorsky, which vividly characterize the similar traits of their personalities. “A contrite spirit” constitutes “the personal seal of the soul of St. Ephraim” 159 - many Church historians spoke about this when they wrote about the life and writings of St. Ephraim the Syrian. “Humility deeply penetrates the sermon of Saint Ephraim and constitutes a very noticeable, outstanding and characteristic feature... He begins many of his sermons with a confession of his unworthiness or weakness” 160. One of the works of Ephraim the Syrian is called: “Confession or reproof to oneself.” Condemning himself, the Monk Ephraim writes that from his youth he was passionate and irritable and in his entire life he did nothing good: “Be in your compassion, be compassionate towards me, brethren. Chosen of God, bow to the appeal of a man who promised to please God, and lied to his Creator... From my youth I became an indecent and dishonest vessel... Alas for me, to what condemnation I fell. Alas for me, how ashamed I am!” 161. The “Prayer... of Elder Nile... having repentance and confession of sins and passions” is dedicated to contrition for one’s sins. In it, the Monk Nil of Sorsky says that he even defiles the earth with his “walking”. “Like I am a sinner on earth. There was no one else from Adam even to this day. Every day and hour and small hour without sin I have not passed from infancy even to this day, and all the souls and bodies of those desecrated from my birth are always in sins. For this reason, I fear the trembling of the mountain of death and your righteous judgment and the fierce terrible torment of the eternal sinners awaiting, I am a cursed and evil dog, unclean and all-foul” (RNB. Soph. collection, 1468, l. 61 vol. - 62). The “Prayer” of St. Nilus of Sorsky echoes the reflections of Saint Ephraim the Syrian “On the Second Coming of Christ”: “... as soon as I remembered this terrible coming of Christ, my bones trembled, my soul and body trembled, I wept with heart disease and said with lamentation: How will I appear in that terrible hour? How will I appear before the judgment seat of the terrible Judge? What will I do when the saints in the palace of heaven recognize each other? Who will recognize me?.. The martyrs will show their wounds, the ascetics their virtues: what will I show except my laziness and negligence? O unworthy soul! O sinful soul! O shameless soul! O soul that has always hated life!” 162. In his sermons, the Monk Ephraim called himself a sinner who must first remove the plank from his own eye, an ignoramus and an ignoramus, he assured that he himself was guilty of everything that he advised his listeners to beware of, and did not keep anything of what he taught. Sending a message to his brother, who asked him about his thoughts, the Monk Nilus of Sorsky wrote: “What am I saying, without having done anything good! What reason does a sinner have? I clear away my sins" 163. A distinctive feature of the sermon, as well as the personality of Ephraim the Syrian, was his love and ardent zeal for the salvation of his neighbor. He exhorted, asked, begged: “I beg you, my children, let us work in this short time. Let us not be careless here, my beloved, so as not to repent for endless centuries, where tears and sighs will not bring us any benefit, where there is no repentance... Work hard, my beloved children, I beg you, work hard so that I can rejoice in you and you in me for eternal times” 164 . Elder Nil wrote about his ardent desire to the best of his ability to help everyone to be saved in each of his writings and epistles, in this he saw the only meaning of his “writings”: “And for this sake I delivered the scripture to the Lord and my brethren for my salvation and for the sake of all who will, lifting up my conscience for the better and preserving myself from negligence and evil life and guilt, like evil and carnal people, and evil traditions and vain ones who came from our common enemy and flattery and from our laziness” 165. “My spiritually beloved, my beloved,” the Monk Nilus of Sorsky turns to Elder Herman Podolny, asking him to carry out his spiritual advice, no matter how cruel and difficult they may seem: “Even if you wrote something rudely, it was not to anyone else, but to you, my beloved, that you would despise your request. I hope that you will receive me with love and will not despise my foolishness. And about our things, for which we prayed for your shrine, which you tried to arrange well, about that person. May God reward you for your work” 166. Dying, the Monk Ephraim the Syrian left a will in which he asked to be placed in a cemetery with unknown wanderers: “Whoever lays me under the altar, let him not see the altar of my God, it is indecent for a stinking corpse to lie in a holy place. Whoever buries me in the church, let him not see the church of light; empty glory is useless to the unworthy. Take me on your shoulders and run with me and throw me as an outcast” 167. The request of the Monk Nile of Sor to the brethren of his monastery to abandon his body without any burial or without honor is akin to the spiritual state of St. Ephraim the Syrian, expressed in his will. Rare, even among monasticism, the “testament” of the Elder of Sora (similar examples, except for the “Testament” of St. Ephraim the Syrian, can only be found in the ancient lives of the Monks Arseny and Anthony the Great) 168 should have made a stunning impression on the monks of the Nilova Skete. And at the same time, it once again clearly highlighted the main feature of the spiritual image of the founder of the monastery - the deepest awareness of his unworthiness, which especially related him to the personality of the ancient saint - St. Ephraim. Probably, the special veneration of Ephraim the Syrian in the Nilo-Sora desert was due to the fact that the image of the Venerable Nile of Sora was compared in the minds of the monks of the monastery with the Venerable Ephraim the Syrian. Moreover, the Sorsky ascetic was not canonized immediately - at the end of the 17th century; icons depicting the Monk Nile and hagiographic stories about him appeared much later than his repose. The memory of “Elder Nile” was first preserved in the oral stories of the monks of the Nile Hermitage. The desire to remember the image of the founder of the monastery “what a saint he was” was reflected in the search for the saints closest to him. It is interesting that the iconography of the first icon of the saint did not coincide with the iconography of Nil Sorsky, generally accepted since the 18th century. On the ancient icon, judging by the description of A.N. Muravyov, the saint resembled the image of St. Ephraim the Syrian (in schematic robes, with a scroll in his hands) “in the splendid peace of contemplation, which he began on earth” 169. This search for the “spiritual kinship” of different saints is typical of Christian consciousness and is one of the techniques of hagiography. As the lives of ancient saints testify, the memory of the founder of the monastery was usually preserved in two ways. Eyewitnesses told their disciples about the life and teachings of the saint, but at the same time they always looked for analogies and comparisons with other saints who were closest in personality and monastic deed. Thus, in the “Life of Athanasius of Athos” it is said that he was wise and hidden in virtue, like the Venerable Savva the Sanctified and Pachomius the Great; names like Anthony the Great. “Wise was the great Arseny and hidden in virtues. But these people (Athanasius of Athos. - E.R.) are wise and hide their wisdom. The great Sava is deliberately great and a mentor to many fathers. And sow the flock of great wealth. And Athos was filled with many blessings, having greater wisdom than those who were glorified in this regard in ancient times. Like Pachomius, God gave this one from above, and like Anthony made him eminent” (RGB. Tr., 685, l. 335). Theodosius the Great was compared by his contemporary Cyril of Scythopolis, who compiled the life of the saint, with St. Basil the Great. According to the hagiographer, the saint not only loved to read the works of Basil the Great, but also sought to imitate his life: “Moreover, remembering the many sacred testaments and fasting words of Basil the Great. Imitating his life, and his words are highly desirable, trying to beautify his soul with morals, and fertilize his language with words” (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 45). Imitating the ascetic of the Egyptian monastery, the Monk Arseny the Great, made the life of Euthymius the Great, according to the remark of Cyril of Scythopolis, similar to the life of Arseny: “And since then, with all care, I have imitated his life for the sake of it and have been vouchsafed his gift. God’s light and the gift of the seer” (RGB. Vol. collection, 630, l. 165 vol.). For the Sorsky monks, their “God-wise Elder Nil” apparently remained in memory as the same teacher of humility and repentance as St. Ephraim the Syrian was in the history of universal monasticism. 4. History of the canonization of Nil Sorsky The history of his canonization sheds additional light on the attitude of Russian society to the teachings of St. Nilus of Sorsky and his extraordinary personality. Let us recall that the will of Elder Nile was never fulfilled; he was buried not in a “dishonorable place”, but near the wall of the Church of the Presentation: inventory of the 17th century. They call the chapel placed over the tomb of the ascetic Sorsky the chapel of the Church of the Presentation 170. In the chapel there was a cross with a Crucifix, the shrine of St. Nile was covered with a simple black cover, and icons were placed above the shrine: the Deesis and the feasts of the Lady, the image of the Mother of God 171. In 1656, instead of the chapel, which was moved to a new location - to the well of St. Nile of Sora, they began to build a church in the name of the Third Finding of the Head of John the Baptist. The history of the construction of this church allows us to resolve, in our opinion, a rather complex and, of course, important question about the time of canonization of the Sorsky Elder. Contrasting Nil of Sorsky and Joseph of Volotsky, researchers usually compare “the history of posthumous veneration of the founders of both movements” 172. A.S. Arkhangelsky, in his book about Nil of Sorsky, wrote: “The desire of the Monk Nil of Sorsky not to receive “the glory of this age” came true: his name, as an ascetic, remained little known. We don’t even know whether he was formally canonized like his famous opponent.” 173 This idea was further developed by G.V. Fedotov: “If St. Joseph was canonized at the end of the 16th century. three times, to local and general veneration, then “Nil Sorsky was not canonized in Moscow at all,” the researcher notes. We don’t know at all when exactly the canonization took place - at the end of the 18th or in the 19th century,” it was sanctioned by the Synod in the “Faithful Monthly Book” of 1903 174. In historical research, a theory appeared that the Monk Nil of Sorsky and his monastery were forgotten (G.V. Fedotov even wrote about the destruction of the Trans-Volga monasteries 175), and the “chief of the monastery’s life” was remembered only in the 19th century. “in connection with the flourishing of old age” (F. Lilienfeld) 176. Therefore, the question of the canonization of the Sorsky elder and the veneration of his skete requires careful consideration. In the Russian Church, canonization is traditionally carried out according to the following principles and criteria. The canonization process is, in the words of historian E.E. Golubinsky, “certificate of miracles” performed by one or another ascetic, on the basis of which he is canonized, i.e. canonized as a saint 177. A canonized saint is usually assigned a memory celebrated annually by the Church, for which a service and life are compiled, in which the saint is glorified and his miracles are told. There is local canonization, when a saint is celebrated in the place of his burial - in a parish church, monastery, or more broadly - in the diocese where he labored, and all-Russian canonization, when a saint is celebrated in the entire Russian Church 178. As E.E. rightly noted. Golubinsky in his study “The History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church”, it is often difficult to establish not only the time, but also the very fact of the canonization of this or that ascetic - there is no complete information about all the Church Councils at which the canonization of Russian saints took place, many ancient services to the saints, lives 179 have not been preserved. In addition, for the local canonization of a saint, only an oral blessing was sufficient, which was often not recorded anywhere. In such cases, when there is no exact information about the canonization of a saint, the only accurate criterion for the accomplished fact of canonization, according to E.E. Golubinsky, is the presence of church prayer singing to the saint when they turn to him with a prayer for intercession. “A canonized or real saint is one to whom an annual celebration (service) is established and performed, to whom prayers are offered (prayer services are sung) and to whom prayers are addressed; A saint who has not been canonized, or who is not real, is one who is revered as a saint by the people, but for whom no celebration is established and is not celebrated and no prayers are offered, and whose memory, in the hope and desire of his glorification, is celebrated with memorial liturgies and requiem services” 180. Based on this (main) criterion for canonization, researchers have tried to establish the time of canonization of St. Nil of Sorsky. But the information found in the manuscripts about the veneration of Elder Nile gave a contradictory answer to this question. A.S. Arkhangelsky, as already mentioned, generally doubted whether Nil Sorsky was officially canonized: “in two or three manuscripts there are traces of services to him - the troparion, kontakion, ikos. But it seems that it was only a private local attempt, and even then it was not established. Be that as it may, judging by the notes accidentally preserved in manuscripts, “panakhidas” continued to be sung for Elder Nile in the 17th-18th centuries, even in his monastery 181. Based on the data given by A.S. Arkhangelsk information about memorial services for Elder Nile, E.E. Golubinsky conventionally dated the canonization of St. Nil of Sorsky as a locally revered saint to the synodal period - after 1721. “Before certain years of the 18th century. there was no celebration, because there were no funeral services for it. When in the 18th or last 19th century. a celebration was established for him, we cannot say; We only know that sometime before 1855.” 182. Setting the upper limit of his dating, E.E. Golubinsky referred to A.N. Muravyov, who in his book “Russian Thebaid in the North,” published in 1855, reported that “he sang a prayer service to the Monk Nile in his monastery” 183. In the “Complete Monthly Dictionary of the East” by Archbishop Sergius, the Monk Nilus of Sorsky is named in the “Index of the Slavic, Georgian saints and feasts of the Mother of God, not found in the monthly Divine Dictionary and liturgical books of the Greek and Russian Church” 184. A modern index to the canonization of Russian saints dates the local canonization of St. Nil of Sorsky to the synodal period (1721–1917) 185 . Thus, information about the canonization of the Sorsky Elder, collected in historical research, is very contradictory and does not make it possible, due to its insufficiency, to date it more or less accurately. Documents from the Nilo-Sora monastery and the history of the construction of the Church of John the Baptist provide new facts that make it possible to remove some of the contradictions noted by researchers and clarify the time of the canonization of the saint. Nil of Sorsky very soon after his repose began to be venerated in the skete and in other Russian monasteries as “the head of the skete’s life,” the monk 186. In the earliest known income and expenditure books of the Nilo-Sora monastery for 1611 - 1612. you can find notes of this kind: “on the 6th day of July... Fyodor laid an altyn on the saint’s coffin”; “On the 10th day of August, wanderers went to Solovki and laid dengu on the coffin”; “of the same month, on the 25th day of the Belozersk Ivan labial huts, the watchman placed 12 spools and 12 spools on the coffin in wax” (GIM. OPI. F. 484, op. 1, d. 74, l. 2, 3). These records are all the more curious because at the beginning of the 17th century, namely in 1612 (as evidenced by the rule of the all-night vigil of the Nilo-Sora monastery - RNB. Soph. collection, 1519 for 1612), memorial services were still served for the Nilo-Sora monastery, i.e. his official canonization as a reverend had not yet taken place. The day of remembrance of the Monk Nile of Sorsky coincides with the celebration of the Remembrance of the appearance in heaven of the Cross of the Lord in Jerusalem. On this day, Vespers of the Cross with a festive service was celebrated in the Nilo-Sora desert. After Vespers, they served a memorial service “for the ruler, Elder Nile.” Then, after Matins and Mass, a small requiem service was again served at the tomb. Memorial services were also performed on days specially established for commemorating the dead: on Dimitrov Saturday, on Meat Saturday and other days (RNB. Soph. collection, 1519, fol. 91 vol. - 92 vol.). Apparently, for some time the veneration of Nil Sorsky as a saint and funeral services for him coexisted. During the second half of the 16th century. and for the entire 17th century. the largest number of Russian saints were canonized, among them many founders of monasteries and their followers. “The order of their canonization, as a rule, was as follows: the brethren of the monastery diligently honored their deceased first abbot with constant funeral singing, which was gradually colored by prayerful appeals to him.” The abbot of the monastery raised the issue of prayerful veneration with the saints before the church authorities and received permission and blessing for this 187. The first step towards the local canonization of St. Nile of Sorsky can be considered permission (blessing) for the construction of a church over the tomb of Elder Nile. Construction of the church began in 1656, apparently on the initiative of Boris Ivanovich Morozov, who after the “Copper Riot” in Moscow in 1648 took refuge in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. As the “Word on the Finding of the Relics of St. Kirill of Novoyezersk” (17th century) reports, Morozov was in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery in great despair, afraid of losing not only his high position at the royal court, but also his life itself. He prayed a lot and went on pilgrimages to the surrounding monasteries. Arriving at the Kirill-Novoezersky Monastery (located near the city of Belozersk on the Red Island of New Lake; founded in the 16th century by the Venerable Kirill Novoyezersky), boyar Morozov vowed to build a church over the tomb of Kirill Novoyezersky. He fulfilled his vow. Having returned safely to Moscow after some time, he told the tsar about the miracles of the Belozersk saints and ordered the construction of a stone cathedral in the Novozersky monastery. In 1649, while digging ditches for the cathedral, the relics of St. Cyril were discovered, about which the monastic brethren reported to Morozov, who reported to the Tsar 188 . By royal decree and the blessing of Patriarch Joseph and the entire sacred council, Archbishop Markel of Vologda was ordered to take the relics of St. Cyril of Novoezersk from the ground. In 1652, the stone cathedral was completed and consecrated, where the discovered relics were transferred 189. This story deserves special attention in connection with the events of the same time in the Nilo-Sora desert. Apparently, Morozov visited this monastery and made the same vow here. The boyar himself and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich donated 10 rubles each for the construction of the Church of John the Baptist (FIRI. Col. 115, item 676, l. 11). The name of boyar Morozov was among the first to be inscribed in the synodikon of the Nilo-Sora Hermitage for eternal remembrance (KBIAHMZ. RK. 127, l. 13). The construction of the church over the tomb of St. Nil of Sorsky testifies to the great veneration of Elder Nil at this time. The church was built entirely on the contributions of pilgrims: Yaroslavl, townsman Fyodor Fedorovich Nezhdanovsky gave 20 rubles, 29 altyns, 4 money, Kondraty Lukin and his comrades - 30 rubles (FIRI. Col. 115, item 675, sheet 10 vol.). With this money we bought logs, planks, nails, blocks, white iron for soldering to crosses. The money of the Tsar and Boyar Morozov was spent on the iconostasis and the consecration of the church. Robes were donated to the Church of John the Baptist by Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich and Boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetyev (FIRI. Col. 115, item 679, fol. 9 - 9 vol.). The royal doors to the iconostasis and the altarpiece “Hodegetria” were given for the church by the elder of the monastery Dionysius Grezdov (FIRI. Col. 115, item 679, fol. 7 vol.). The church was solemnly consecrated by the Archimandrite of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery on the eve of the holiday of the Third Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, to whom the church is dedicated. In 1669, 10 years after the consecration of the church, a wooden carved gilded shrine was built in it over the tomb of Nile of Sorsky, where on the sides in four circles a troparion, kontakion, ikos to the Monk Nile and a chronicle were carved - in which year the saint reposed (FIRI. Col. 115, unit of record 681, fol. 18 vol.). The installation of a shrine with such a signature, like the construction of a church, could only take place with the blessing of the bishop, therefore 1669 can be considered the date of canonization of St. Nil of Sorsky as a locally revered saint - it was in this year that the blessing was given to venerate him as a reverend (as follows from the signature on the shrine). In 1682, during the reign of the builder of the Nilo-Sora monastery, Dionysius Moskvitin, a canon for the first abbot of Sora was drawn up. In the inventory of monastic books for 1682, “a canon in tetratech at noon to the Wonderworker Nile, a large written letter, three printed screensavers bound in black leather” is mentioned for the first time (FIRI. Col. 115, item 689, l. 17). In 1686, under the same builder, the first icon with the image of Elder Nile appeared in the monastery of St. Nile of Sorsky: “the image on the tomb of our venerable father Nile the Wonderworker is painted in paint,” the inventory of the monastery property for that year names the icon in the section “newly inserted dachas” (FIRI. Col. 115, item 691, l. 31). The icon was placed on the saint's shrine. It is unknown where the icon was brought from, most likely, indeed from Moscow and, obviously, with the assistance of the builder of the desert - Dionysius, whose nickname suggests that he was from Moscow or came to the monastery from some Moscow monastery. The news of the almost simultaneous appearance of the canon and the icon with the image of St. Nile of Sorsky is very important. They prove that at the end of the seventeenth century. a prayer service is compiled for the Sorsky ascetic, addressing him as a saint, for the main idea of ​​every canon is a request for intercession: “Pray, pray, thy fallen children, that we, your flock, may be preserved from all slander and evil circumstances, visible and invisible enemies” (17th-century kontakion to the Venerable Nile of Sorsky) 190 . The icon, in its essence, is precisely a prayer image. Therefore, the appearance of the icon and canon confirms the fact of canonization and allows us to date it to the 60s - 80s. XVII century - much earlier than is generally accepted in historical research. Here, however, we should recall the arguments of A.S. Arkhangelsky, who believed that in the 18th century. Memorial services were performed for Nil Sorsky, therefore, there was no canonization. The researcher referred to three manuscripts: the Novgorod-Sofia collection No. 1519, 1158 and the collection from the Pogodin collection No. 260. The first of those named has already been mentioned in this work, it dates back to 1612 and therefore its messages about memorial services (a detailed list of the days on which memorial services were served) do not in any way contradict our dating of canonization. The second collection - Sophia 1158 - contains a short entry: “In the summer of 7016, on the week of the Myrrh-Bearers. On the 7th day of May, the Nile, the Elder of Sorsky Hermitage, died, and we sing ponafidas after him” 191. This collection by A.S. Arkhangelsky dated it to the 18th century, but in the modern catalog of the Sofia collection of the Russian National Library, the collection is dated to the 17th century. An exact copy from the Sophia manuscript 1158, only more fully categorized, is the Sophia manuscript 1159 (1718), where this entry is also preserved. However, the record of the funeral services no longer corresponded to reality; apparently, the scribe, who was copying his collection from another manuscript, automatically transferred this already familiar text without making changes to it. The information from the Sofia manuscript 1159, dated 1718, refute the “Census books of the property of the Sorsk Hermitage” for 1721 (this is the earliest and most complete inventory surviving from the 18th century). In the inventory of the Church of John the Baptist, placed over the shrine of the Venerable Nile of Sora, we read: in the local row of the iconostasis, where icons of locally revered saints are usually placed, there was “the image of the Venerable Wonderworker Nile, at the head of which is the image of the Holy Trinity” (RGADA. F. 1441, op. 2, unit 493, fol. 4 vol.); “in the same church of the wonderworker Nile, a carved crayfish is gilded on gesso, a signature is cut on it, and the grass between the herbs is painted with azure paint on the shrine, the image of the wonderworker Nile is a smooth silver crown with gilded burrs” (Ibid.); Among the icons that were located above the shrine, on the wall there was another “image of the Venerable Nile of Sora the Wonderworker” (RGADA. F. 1441, op. 2, item 493, l. 5). In addition, the founder of the monastery was depicted on a cross, which was located in the altar behind the altar of the northern chapel of the Church of the Presentation: “On the throne is the holy antimension of the new cross written in autumn behind the throne, a cross written on it is the image of the Crucifixion of the Lord at the head of the image of the Lord of Hosts on the middle and at the lower end the image of the Most Holy Theotokos and John the Theologian Mary Magdalene Login Sotnik The Guardian Angel on the other side is the image of the Savior Almighty, headed by the image of a cherub on the middle and at the lower end the image of the archangels Michael and Gabriel the Venerable Nile” (RGADA. F. 1441, op. 2, item 493, l. 3 vol.). In the Church of St. Ephraim the Syrian, on the left side of the church doors there was “an image of the venerable father Ephraim the Syrian Nile of Sorsky, headed by the image of the Savior” (RGADA. F. 1441, op. 2, item 493, fol. 7 volume). The presence of images of the first abbot in the iconostasis and altar of the skete churches, as well as other icons of the monk, indicates that in At this time, Nil Sorsky was already a canonized saint. Collection No. 260 from the Pogodinsky collection dates back to the 18th century. and indeed contains a record of the memorial services for Nil of Sorsky, which, as in the Sophia collections of 1158 and 1159, is the usual brief summary of the life of Nil of Sorsky: “and the Monk Nil lived 75 years in all the years of his life and reposed into eternal rest in the summer of 7016 in May, 3 days a week of the myrrh-bearing wives and according to the will of the venerable Nile the Wonderworker, a panakhida is sung for him and mass is served” (RNB. Pogod., No. 260, l. 57). It seems that this record is of secondary origin, copied from another, earlier collection (as we saw in the examples of the Sophia manuscripts 1158, 1159). In addition, the collection is not of Cyril’s origin, so the scribe of the manuscript may not have known about the canonization of the saint. The fact that in the 18th century. according to the Venerable Nil of Sorsky, memorial services were no longer served in his monastery, but a prayer service was performed for him as a saint; in addition to the census of 1721, manuscript No. 1476 from the Sofia collection of the National Library of Russia, which dates back to the 18th century, is also confirmed. In it, the monk of the monastery, as follows from the text, wrote down the stories “About the miracles of our venerable father Nile of Sorsky desert.” In the second “Miracle” about the healing of the daughter of a certain nobleman from the Novgorod region, it is said: “The Reverend Father Nil appeared in a dream to her mother and showed himself where he was physically and gave health to the eyes of their daughter, the same nobleman, rising with his whole household, came to Nil’s Skete with great faith and began to pray” (RNB. Soph. collection, 1476, l. 167 vol.). Prayers over the shrine of St. Nil of Sorsky are also spoken of in other stories in the manuscript. The “miracles” from the Sofia manuscript No. 1476 have never previously been cited in historical studies about the founder of the Sorsk monastery and have not been published. In publications of the works of the holy elder, in biographical information about him, facts are usually reported from the hagiographic stories about the saint, collected in manuscript No. 61/1300 of the Kirillo-Belozersky collection of the Russian National Library, there are two stories: “On the coming of the Venerable Nile”, “On the repose and burial of the Venerable Nile” and three “Miracles”: “On the appearance in a dream of King John Vasilyevich”, “About his image they began to write”, “About the deliverance of a youth from an unclean spirit”. Interestingly, the last “Miracle” is numbered K-20, which suggests the existence of other “Miracles”. We find six such “Miracles” in the Sofia collection No. 1476: “The Miracle of the image of St. Nile of Sora the Wonderworker” (another edition), “The Miracle of the healing of a certain wife poisoned by “snakes,” “The Miracle of the healing of a monk of the monastery,” “The Miracle of the salvation of a certain “drowning” man,” “The Miracle of the healing of a dumb monk” (breakdown of the continuous text to our miracles and names. - E.R.). There were probably other handwritten records of miracles performed by the founder of the Nilo-Sora monastery. Despite the fact that the Kirillov manuscript is late - 1836, it was obviously compiled on the basis of an older manuscript. S.P. Shevyrev, who visited the hermitage in 1847, described a manuscript “written in an ancient half-rut”, which was shown to him by the abbot of the hermitage, Hieromonk Nikon (Prikhudailov) 192 . As part of this manuscript, Shevyrev names two stories: “On the repose and burial of the Monk Nile”, “On the coming of our venerable father Nile of Sora the Wonderworker” and two “Miracles”: “About his image, when writing began”, “On the coming of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible to the Nilo-Sora hermitage” 193, i.e. those “stories” and “miracles” that were subsequently included in the Kirillo-Belozersk manuscript of 1836. “The miracle of the healing of a youth from an unclean spirit” is also of ancient origin. It is depicted, as we assume, in a miniature from the hagiographic collection No. 107 of the Uvarov collection of the State Historical Museum (the collection dates from the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century). “The Miracle” tells that the youth Michael was kidnapped by demons from the Nilov monastery and taken into the forest, where he was saved by the suddenly appearing Saint Nil of Sorsky: “And at that hour the Reverend Nil came to the youth... and all the evil spirits fell on their faces on the ground” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 61/1300, fol. 23 vol.). By order of the monk, the “divia” carried the youth through the air and placed him not far from the monastery so that the monks could see him. The miniature from the Uvarov collection depicts a youth lying against the wall, and the elder who saved him stands next to him. This miniature is the earliest surviving image of the Monk Nile of Sora. A description of the image of St. Nile appears in the “Iconographic Original” of the 18th century. Under May 7 it is written: “Our Reverend Father Nil, the Wonderworker of Sora, is in the likeness of a gray-haired man, like Kirill of Belozersky, but this one has a curly robe, a monk’s robe, and a scroll in his hands” 194 . It is precisely this way, “like Kirill of Belozersky,” that the Venerable Nil of Sorsky is depicted in a miniature of the late 17th – early 18th centuries. (State Historical Museum. Collection of Uvarov, No. 107). The appearance of the image of the Sorsk ascetic in the all-Russian “Iconographic Original” of the 18th century. suggests that at this time the all-Russian canonization of St. Nil of Sorsky was carried out. After his canonization in 1669 as a locally revered saint, apparently, an active collection of information about his life and miracles began; it is important that these facts began to be recorded in writing, as evidenced by the Sophia manuscript No. 1476 and the manuscript described by Shevyrev. Almost all of the “Miracles” from collection No. 1476 tell that healings took place from the saint’s shrine: a certain sick wife “came to the monastery and prayed to our venerable father Nile the Wonderworker and was taken from his tomb by dust and from his well of water, drank and washed her whole body and so with the prayers of the venerable one... the wife was in good health” (RNB. Soph. collection, 1476, l. 168 – 168 vol.). How important it was for the canonization of the saint “certificate of miracles” occurring from his tomb is shown by the process of canonization of Cyril of Novoezersk. During the construction of the church at the burial site of Cyril of Novoezersk on November 7 (20), 1648, the relics of the saint were found, which in itself is almost sufficient (but not obligatory) grounds for canonization. But the canonization of Kirill Novoezersky was completed, according to E.E. Golubinsky, between November 7, 1648 and August 22, 1652 - “when a new series of miracles began from the relics of the monk, he was canonized” 195. The discovery of the relics of St. Nile of Sorsky during the construction of the church over his tomb did not happen; this, apparently, somewhat delayed his all-Russian canonization. But the collection of information about miracles occurring from his shrine later (in the 18th century) became the basis for it. As already noted, it is not always possible to point to documentary acts of canonization in the history of the canonization of saints. Even in the “Sermon on the Finding of the Relics of St. Cyril of Novoezersk,” as Golubinsky emphasizes, “it does not directly speak of establishing a celebration, but says that “today we celebrate the memory of the blessed Father Cyril” 196. The acts of canonization of Nil Sorsky have not been preserved, but the presence since the end of the 17th century. prayer service to St. Neil, the appearance of his iconographic images documents the fact of his canonization. In addition to collecting information about miracles, universal veneration of the ascetic is always important in the canonization of a saint. It must be said that Nilov Skete was known and revered in Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries. All Russian tsars from Ivan the Terrible to Peter Alekseevich awarded the monastery with letters of friendship. Monastic inventories mention many books, liturgical clothing, and dishes donated to the monastery. Among the monastery's donors are Russian princes and boyars, patriarchs, and tsars. Ordinary pilgrims left money in a mug at the shrine of St. Neil. All precious books, icons, clothes from the churches of the Nilo-Sora monastery were loose-leaf 197. Books were most often donated. Among the most interesting contributions are three handwritten Prologues from the mid-16th century. (now: GPB. Soph. collection, 1334; 1340; 1352), donated to the Nilova hermitage by the famous Russian scribe Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov 198. The names of all noble and non-noble donors are listed by the monastery synodik: the family of Prince Nikita Oduevsky, the family of Prince Peter Dolgorukov, the family of Princess Maximilla Shakhovskaya, the family of Prince Ivan Vorotynsky, the family of the boyars Khitrov, Miloslavsky, Sheremetev, Saltykov, the family of Matvey Naryshkin, the family of steward Peter Pleshcheeva, clan of the village of Butovo Ivan Orda, clan of the village of the Great Court of Fyodor Torovin; “the family of Avitzer Ivan Sobakin”, the family of the Vologda clerk Alexy Kalinnikov; originally from Moscow, clerk Fyodor Klokov; the family of the old woman Theodora Opraksina from Moscow; family from Vognema of priest Luka Alexandrov and others (KBIAHMZ. RK 127, l. 11–52). It is important that the monastic synodik mentions people of completely different classes: monks, laymen from different cities and regions (from the Vologda district, Ustyug, Kargopol, Novgorod, Pskov, Yaroslavl, Moscow, Belozerye), which indicates widespread veneration of the Venerable Nile of Sorsky and his monastery in Rus' in the 17th-18th centuries. Thus, the opinion that has developed in historiography that the Sorsky elder and his monastery were forgotten, and his exploits were hushed up by the Russian Church, should be considered unfounded. For two and a half centuries (XVI - first half of the 18th century), the Nilo-Sora hermitage lived according to the behests of its founder. But in the middle of the 18th century. life in the monastery gradually comes to a standstill, which was largely due to the general state policy towards monasteries. Back in 1717, in the Nilov Skete they began to build a new warm church in the name of St. Ephraim the Syrian to replace the one that had burned down (FIRI. Col. 260, op. 1, item 827), in 1721 the Holy Synod issued an order to issue money to the Nilo-Sorsk hermitage for church needs and for the payment of money to the builder Joseph with brothers 199. But already the 1761 inventory of the monastery’s property lists the “mansion structure” of an almost uninhabited monastery: a construction cell, five dilapidated wooden cells, four of them non-residential, a dilapidated barn (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 105/1341, l. 11). Precious liturgical vessels, icons, books and even a large copper cauldron were taken to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. For supervision, a sacristan hierodeacon from the Kirillov Monastery lived in the desert, and sometimes a priest from Kirillov came to the monastery to perform services. The secularization reform of 1764 did not directly affect the monastery, since it did not have land or peasants. But the “sovereign’s salary” stopped coming, the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, devastated by the reform, could no longer help its assigned monastery (from 1641 to 1777, the Nilo-Sorsky monastery was assigned to the Kirillov Monastery) 200. In the 18th century The very attitude towards the monasteries, including the Nilo-Sora desert, changed. They become, as a rule, places of exile, where monks are sent for correction for “indecorous and inebriated behavior” (TsGADA. F. 1441, op. 3, d. 878. About the transfer of the monk Moses to the Nilo-Sora hermitage for stealing things from the governor and escaping from the monastery in 1799; GAVO. F. 1147, op. 2, d. 1444. About the exile of a monk to the Nilo-Sora Hermitage for drunkenness in 1797). In 1798–1805 The dean of the Belozersky monasteries, hegumen of the Kirillo-Novoezersky monastery, Feofan (Sokolov), tried to restore monastic life in the Sorsk monastery, but without success 201. In the 30s. XIX century a new history of the desert begins, but as a communal monastery. The ancient troparion to St. Nile of Sorsky, compiled in the 17th century, noted the special choice and talent of the founder of the monastery: “Glory to Him who chose you as a hermit in Russia is fair; glory to Him who strengthened you in the desert" 202. In choosing the most convenient form of monastic life for himself, Elder Sora was based on personal experience (long life in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, on Mount Athos) and on a deep knowledge of traditions. It is interesting that the hagiographic collections of St. Nil of Sorsky present the lives of saints - the founders of various forms of monastic life. Here are the lives of the Egyptian hermits Paul of Thebes and Anthony the Great; skete ascetic Arseny the Great; the organizers of the Palestinian laurels, Saints Hilarion the Great, Chariton, Savva the Sanctified, Euthymius the Great and his disciples - Cyriacus the Hermit and John the Silent; the founders of a common life: in Egypt - Pachomius the Great, in Palestine - Theodosius the Great, on Athos - Athanasius of Athonite. The history of the Nilo-Sora monastery allows us to characterize the activities of the Monk Nilo-Sora as the organizer of a rare form of monastic life for Rus' - the monastic life. However, being an innovator in the spread of monastic life in Rus', the Monk Nil of Sorsky was a conservative in relation to this very form of monastic community. A comparison of the Nilova monastery with the ancient monasteries and laurels shows their complete identity. In arranging the life of his monastery, the elder strictly followed all the principles and traditions of the ancient monastery life. The Nilo-Sora hermitage can be called a classic monastery, similar to the early monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, and Athos. In this, Nilov Skete is a unique phenomenon in the history of Russian monasticism of the 15th-17th centuries. But one should not contrast the monastery of Nilov and the Russian monasteries as two schools: ancient desert dwelling and Russian monasticism. The features of the Nilo-Sora monastery, which distinguish it from cenobitic monasteries, relate to the general differences between the monastery and the monastery, which existed in ancient times. The skete path was a higher level of monastic activity than the monastic path. Therefore, the Monk Nil of Sorsky did not propose monastic reform for all Russian monasticism. The emergence of the Nilo-Sora monastery at the end of the 15th century. and its long existence suggests that Russian monasticism turned out to be capable of adopting those classical traditions of mental work and monastic life, the only guardian of which at that time was Athos. AAE - Acts collected in libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archaeographic Expedition of the Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1836. T. 1–4. Vol. collection – Volokolamsk meeting. GAVO - State Archive of the Vologda Region. GLM - State Literary Museum. DAI - Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission. St. Petersburg, 1846–1875. T. 1–12. ZHMNP – Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. St. Petersburg, 1834–1917. IORYAS – News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. KBIAKHMZ – Kirillo-Belozersky Historical and Art Museum-Reserve. Kir.-Bel. collection – Kirillo-Belozersky Assembly. PDP - Monuments of ancient writing. PDPI - Monuments of ancient writing and art. Weather collection - Pogodinsky meeting. RSL – Russian State Library (Moscow). RIB – Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeographic Commission. RGADA – Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts and Documents. Soph. collection – Sofia collection. TODRL – Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Academy of Sciences. Uvar. collection – Collection of Uvarov. FIRI – Archive of St. Petersburg. branch of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. CHOIDR - Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. CHOLDP – Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment Pike. collection - Shchukin collection. Letter of allotment to the Kirillov Monastery on wasteland and villages (1448–1468) / RIB, published by the Archaeographic Commission. St. Petersburg, 1875. T. 25. The letter says: “and on the withdrawal there were... and the elders of the Cyril Monastery were Efrosim Kryloshanin, Efimey Perkhutkov, Nil, Ignateus the Turk” (stb. 24). G.M. Prokhorov believes that mentioned in Kirill’s letters of 1460–1470 and 1471–1475. Elder Nil - Venerable Nil of Sorsky (Prokhorov G.M. Nil of Sorsky // Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Russia. L., 1989. Issue 2. Part 2. P. 134.) Borovkova-Maikova M.S. Nile of Sorsky Tradition and Charter. SPb., 1912 // PDPI. T. 179. P. 89 (hereinafter referred to as the Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky). The life of desert fathers. Creation of the presbyter Rufinus. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. 1991. P. 92. Theodosius (Oltarzhevsky), priest. Palestinian monasticism from the 4th to the 6th centuries. // Orthodox Palestinian collection. St. Petersburg, 1896. T. XV. Vol. 2. pp. 34–35. Traveling around the East and its scientific results. Report on a foreign business trip in 1887/88 by associate professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A. Dmitrievsky. Kyiv, 1890. P. 173, approx. The second journey to the Holy Mount Athos by Archimandrite, now Bishop Porfiry Uspensky in the years 1858, 1859 and 1861 and a description of the monasteries of Athos. M., 1880. P. 335. Second visit to the Holy Mount Athos by Vasily Grigorovich-Barskago. St. Petersburg 1887. P. 35. Belyakova E.V. Charter of the Nile of Sorsky desert // Literature of Ancient Rus'. Source study. L., 1988. P. 105. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 89. Kirill Belozersky, teacher. // Reverends Kirill, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 31. Arkhangelsky A.S. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev: Their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'. Part 1. Venerable Nil of Sorsky. St. Petersburg, 1882. (PDP. T. 16) pp. 140–177; Shevyrev S.P. History of Russian literature. Lectures. M., 1860. T. 4. pp. 182–196. Levitsky G. Report of the professor's fellow G. Levitsky about his studies in 1889–1890. // Christian reading. 1895. Issue. 2–3. Minutes of meetings of the council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. pp. 287–345; Culture and society of Ancient Rus' (X-XVII centuries) Foreign historiography. M., 1988. Part 2. pp. 255–262. This principle is clearly visible in the example of the structure of the Assumption and John the Baptist monasteries in the Nilo-Sora desert in the 19th-20th centuries. // John (Kalinin), monk. Description of the Nilo-Sora men's monastery hermitage of the Novgorod diocese. (Incorrectly typed on the flyleaf – Nizhny Novgorod diocese. – E.R.). M., 1913. Nikolsky N.K. Community and cell life in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in the 15th and 16th centuries and at the beginning of the 17th // Christian reading. 1907, August. P. 168, approx. 2. In the book “Essay on the Internal History of Pskov” A. Nikitsky wrote: “Of all these forms (monastic life - E.R.) in the North of Rus', one especially prevailed. Neither desert living, in accordance with which each individual monk formed a special monastery, nor community life, which consisted of complete communion of persons who entered the monastery, enjoyed significant development there. Both forms of monastic life gave first place in their spread in society to the third - hermitism" (Nikitsky A. Essay on the internal history of Pskov. St. Petersburg, 1873. P. 204). Deciphering what is meant by “hermitage,” Nikitsky refers to the letter of Metropolitan Photius to the Snetogorsk monastery in which the Metropolitan calls a monastic community of two or three monks, i.e. monastery, hermitage. “Before, three ranks are the essence of monasticism: 1) common life throughout; 2) seclusion, two or three; 3) each person’s special life in monasteries, dedicated to those who listen to suffer a great and cruel life” (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission. St. Petersburg, 1841. T. 1. No. 26. P. 52). Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T.VI. P. 284. In his early article “Message of Maximus the Greek to Vasily III” N.V. Sinitsyna wrote: “Maxim the Greek is a supporter of cenobitic monasteries; another non-covetous man, Nil Sorsky, whose teaching also developed to some extent due to the influence of Athonite orders, on the contrary, considered the monastery to be the ideal form of organization of monks, i.e. essentially an idiorhythm.” (Byzantine time period. 1965. T. 26. P. 124). Lilienfeld F. Problems of research on the personality and historical role of Nil Sorsky. Method problem. (in Italian) // Nil Sorskij e l'esicasmo. Comunita di Bose. 1995. P. 68. Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kyiv, 1865. Issue. 1. P. 394; Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. M., 1988. Part 2. P. 264; Sinitsyna N.V. Non-covetousness and the Russian Orthodox Church of the XIV-XVI centuries. // Religions of the world. History and modernity. Yearbook. 1983. M., 1983. P. 85; Arkhangelsky A.S. Decree. op. pp. 25–26. Lilienfeld F. On the literary genre of the works of Nil Sorsky. // TODRL. M.; L., 1962. T. 18. P. 92–93. The first visit to the Holy Mount Athos by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, described by himself. St. Petersburg, 1884. pp. 21–22. The life of the desert fathers... P. 102. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. St. Petersburg, 1882. P. 90. Gladkov B.I. Interpretation of the Gospel. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 333. Borovkova-Maikova M.S. Nile of Sorsky Tradition... P. 51. Explanatory Bible. Publication by the successors of A.P. Lopukhina. St. Petersburg, 1908. T. 5. P. 384. Shevyrev S.P. Nilo-Sora desert. M., 1850. S. 2. Prokhorov G.M. The Tale of the Nilo-Sora Skete // Cultural Monuments. New discoveries. Yearbook 1976. M., 1977. P. 18. (Next: The Tale of the Nilo-Sora Monastery...) The life of the desert fathers... P. 93. The second journey along the Holy Mount Athos... of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky... P. 396. The life of the desert fathers... P. 92. The Tale of the Nilo-Sora Monastery... P. 17. Theodosius (Oltarzhevsky), priest. Decree. op. P. 80. Lilienfeld F. About the literary genre... P. 92. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 5. “It is better to drive away such people in the Divine Ladder than to leave your own will to create.” “Saint Isaac writes: non-acquisitiveness is higher than such alms...” (ibid., p. 7); “And this is spiritual alms, and only above is bodily ... says Saint Dorotheus” (p. 7.) Dmitrievsky A. Traveling in the East and its scientific results. Report on a foreign business trip in 1887/88. Associate Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A. Dmitrievsky. Kiev 1890. P. 175. Right there. pp. 186–187. The typicon of Sava the Sanctified was published by A. Dmitrievsky in the book: Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East. T. 1. Part 1. Monuments of patriarchal statutes and monastery typikons. Kyiv, 1895. pp. 22–247. Another edition: The canonical rules of St. Savva the Sanctified, handed over by him before his death to his successor, Abbot Melitus // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1890. No. 1. Dmitrievsky A. Traveling in the East... P. 191. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. pp. 4–5. The Tale of the Nilo-Sora Monastery... P. 18. The second journey... of Bishop Porfiry... P. 408. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 9. Kazansky P. S. History of Orthodox monasticism in the East. M., 1856. Part 2. P. 57. The second journey... of Bishop Porfiry... P. 343. Reverends Kirill, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 90. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. S. 5. Cinematic Rules of St. Savva the Sanctified... P. 184. This circumstance was previously noted by Lilienfeld. See: Lilienfeld F. On the literary genre... P. 93. Sinitsyna N.V. Message from Maximus the Greek to Vasily III // Byzantine temporary book. 1965. T. XXVI. P. 133. The typology of monastic Typicons and the degree of their closeness to the “Tradition” of Nil Sorsky are discussed in the article: Lilienfeld F. On the literary genre... P. 82–94. “So, the “blasphemy” against Russian miracle workers, for which, as is known, the Josephites accused Nil of Sora and Vassian Patrikeev, was not that Nil did not “believe” in their miracles and was a critic of religion, but that he recognized only the ancient Greek holy fathers, the Greek patericon, which he exclusively cites, without mentioning Russian saints anywhere” (Lilienfeld F. About the literary genre... P. 98.) Lilienfeld F. On the literary genre... P. 97, approx. 101; Fennell J.L.I. The Attitude of the Josefians and Trans-Volga Elders to the Heresy of Judaisers // The Slavonic and East European Review. 1951. Vol. 29. No. 73. R. 503. “As in the outer country, it is not proper for the monks who stay daily to have such conciliar chanting, recce of hours and canons and troparia, saddle prokeimnas, and so on in the church, the day is dedicated to them” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102. L. 207 vol.). RNB. Soph. collection, 1519. L. 22 vol. Kazansky P.S. The history of Orthodox Russian monasticism from the founding of the Pechersk Monastery by St. Anthony to the founding of the Lavra of the Holy Trinity by St. Sergius. M., 1885. P. 122. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 26. Kazansky P.S. History of Orthodox monasticism in the East. M., 1856. Part 2. P. 107. Fedotov G.V. Saints of Ancient Rus'. M., 1990. P. 196. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. M., 1988. Part 2. P. 264. Klyuchevsky V.O.: “Nile Sorsky, even in the Belozersk desert, remained an Athonite-contemplative hermit, laboring on “smart, mental, but alien soil.” But completely native, native soil was under the feet of his opponent, the Monk Joseph” (Op. cit. p. 266); Pravdin A.: “We are unlikely to sin against historical truth by saying that such a height of contemplation was inaccessible to a Russian monk of the 15th and 16th centuries...” (Reverend Nil of Sorsky and the charter of his monastic life // Christian Reading. M., 1878. Part 1. P. 145); Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. M., 1990. P. 145. Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th – early 16th centuries. M.; L., 1960. P. 331; Kazakova N.A. Essays on the history of Russian social thought. First third of the 16th century. L., 1970. P. 63. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959. P. 121. Vzdornov G.I. The role of the Slavic writing workshops of Constantinople and Athos in the development of book writing and artistic design of Russian manuscripts at the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. // TODRL. M.; L., 1968. T. 23. P. 171–177; Information about ancient translations of the works of the holy fathers into the Slavic-Russian language (X-XV centuries) // Orthodox interlocutor. Kazan, 1859. Part 3, pp. 370–378. Sobolevsky A.I. Translated literature of Moscow Rus' XIV-XVII centuries. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 6. Arkhangelsky A.S. To the study of ancient Russian literature. Works of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Literature. St. Petersburg, 1888. P. 137. G.M. Prokhorov, having examined the manuscripts that belonged to Elder Paisiy Yaroslavov, came to the conclusion: “The collections contain the lives of saints with various additions, including those that clearly indicate the contemplative hesychast mindset and the nature of the interests of the creators and owner” of these books (Dictionary of scribes and books of Ancient Rus'. L., 1989. Issue 2. Part 2. P. 159. Y.S. Lurie discovered the works of Simeon the New Theologian about the “Tavorian Light” (GIM. Eparch. 357/536. L. 311 volumes - 312), rewritten by the hand of Joseph Volotsky (Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle... P. 206.) In the books of Kirill Belozersky there are “instructions and guides on “silence”, like the works “Holy Nile on Eight Thoughts”, “The Conception of Mental Prayer and Attention” or “The Messages of a Certain Elder Theoktistus”, where constant repetition of the Jesus Prayer is recommended” (Prokhorov G.M., Shevchenko E.E. Reverends Kirill, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky. St. Petersburg, 1993. P. 31). Kadlubovsky A. Essays on the history of ancient Russian literature of the lives of saints // Russian Philological Bulletin. 1902. No. 1–2. pp. 333–334. Culture and society of Ancient Rus' (X-XVII centuries) // Foreign historiography. M., 1988. Part 2. P. 257. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 22. Kazansky P.S. On the sources for the history of Egyptian monasticism in the 4th and 5th centuries. M., 1872. P. 24. Kazansky P.S. History of Orthodox monasticism... P. 16; RNB. Kir.-Bel., 20/1259. L. 73 vol., 101, 104 vol. Prokhorov G.M. Messages of Nil Sorsky // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 29. pp. 140–141. RNB. Kir.-Bel., 25/1102. L. 234. John (Kalinin), monk. Description of the Nilo-Sora men's community desert... P. 11. “Wooden vice basma silver basma cranked basma inset” (FIRI. Col. 115. Item 671. Sheet 14 volumes). RNB. Kir.-Bel., collection, 129/254. L. 23–49. Kazansky P.S. History of Orthodox monasticism... P. 99. Theodosius (Oltarzhevsky), priest. Decree. op. P. 67. The second journey... of Bishop Porfiry... P. 347–348. DAI. St. Petersburg, 1846. T. 1. No. 227. P. 394. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. pp. 3–4. All skete income and expenditure books usually begin with a similar formula: “In the summer of December 1649, on the 24th day of December, with the blessing of the Cyril Monastery of the Sovereign Abbot Afonasy and by order of the Sovereign Elder Theoktistos of Kolyadinskovo and the Sovereign cellarer Elder Savatiy Yushkov, the monk Pachomius Churkin went... signed away from the old builder Elder Kozma and gave it to the new one to the builder elder Christopher...” (Archive of St. Petersburg. FIRI RAS. Col. 115, item 669, l. 2). The second journey... of Bishop Porfiry... P. 406. “In the summer of May 1641, on the 28th day, according to the Sovereign Tsarev and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of All Russia, by decree and by charter, the Nilov Skete was ordered to be in charge of the Kirilov Monastery to Abbot Anthony and his brothers” (Archive of St. Petersburg. FIRI RAS. Col. 115, item 668, l. 2). “...The elders in the monastery of Barsanuphius and Nikita mossed the walls of the cells and straightened the earth on the ceilings, and in the cell of the elder Barsanuphius two stoves were again placed” (RNB. St. Petersburg. DA AII/46, l. 12); “of the same month, on day 5, Gregory the potter was assigned to the mill; on September 21, he made a bridge from the granary to the church... On October 6, the carpenters made a stable” (GIM. OPI. F. 484, op. 1, d. 74, l. 10); “they made a bushing and handles for the wheel at the mill... they made a candlestick in the table... they repaired the cauldron using copper patches and money for nails 3” (ibid., l. 7); “a new cell with a fence was erected”, “a bridge was paved to the Vognemskaya volost... in a row for a mile” (ibid., fol. 9 v., 17); “I repaired the stoves from the builder and from my brothers... the logs were collected for fires and the bridges were repaired right there... a fathom of firewood was placed at the dryer and the key was tidied up to the mill onbar” (FIRI. Col. 115, item 676, l. 5) - these are the characteristic and constant concerns of the builder. AAE. St. Petersburg, 1836. T. 1. No. 161. P. 131. The life of the desert fathers... P. 94. FIRI. Col. 115 units hr. 656, l. 5 rev. Right there. Unit hr. 666, l. 6. Right there. Unit hr. 676, l. 8 rev. Right there. Unit hr. 682, l. 21 rev. Byzantine timepiece. M., 1965. T. 26. P. 130. The second journey... of Bishop Porfiry... P. 344. In the “Life” of Sava the Sanctified it is said about the founder of the monastery: “There was great glory about him everywhere, and many people came to him, wearing a lot of gold and silver. And there are many other different needs, especially seeing his angelic life. The blessed Savva distributed everything that was brought to him for the monastery building.” (RNB. Kir.-Bel., 23/1262. L. 296–296 vol.). From the “Life” of Euthymius the Great: “the Laurus began to multiply and was blessed by the donation and wear” (RGB. Vol. 630, fol. 160 vol.) Theodosius (Oltarzhevsky), priest. Decree. op. pp. 150, 162. The first visit to the Holy Mount Athos by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky... P. 22–23. Nikolsky N.K. Community and cell life... P. 158–159. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. P. 6. John (Kalinin), monk. Description of the Nilo Sora... desert... P. 19–20. State Historical Museum. Eparch. collection, No. 349/509, l. 15 – this recording drew the attention of researchers E.E. Shevchenko in his speech “Book collection of the Nilo-Sora monastery in the XV-XVII centuries. and hesychasm" (Italy, September 1994) // Nil Sorskij e l`esicasmo & Comunita di Bose. 1995. R. 144. Muravyov A.N. Russian Thebaid in the North. St. Petersburg, 1894, pp. 246–247. RNB. Soph. collection, 1519. L. 20 vol. – 21. The Russian text is quoted from the publication: Selected words and conversations of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church on the most important church holidays. M., 1874. P. 26. Bulgakov S.V. Handbook for clergy. T. 1. P. 72, approx. 1. Selected words and conversations of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church on the most important church holidays. M., 1874. P. 27. Liturgical canons in Slavic and Russian languages, published by E. Lovyagin. St. Petersburg, 1861. P. 38. Selected words and conversations... P. 27. Uspensky L.A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. M., 1989. pp. 219–220. The Life of Saint Ephraim the Syrian // Addition to the edition of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. M., 1848. Part 7. P. 94. For interpretation, see: Works of our holy father Ephraim the Syrian. Ed. 5th. Sergiev Posad, 1912. Part 2. P. 29. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. St. Petersburg, 1882. pp. 82–83. Sermons of St. Ephraim the Syrian // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Kyiv, 1895. March. P. 406. Addition to the publication of the works of the holy fathers. M., 1848. Part 7. P. 96. Prokhorov G.M. Messages of Nil Sorsky // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 29. P. 136. Sermons of Saint Ephraim the Syrian... P. 404–405. Tradition and Charter of Nil Sorsky. S. 2. Prokhorov G.M. Messages of Nil Sorsky // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 29. P. 143. The book of godly works of our venerable father Ephraim the Syrian. M., 1851. Part 3. P. 174. The closeness of the “Testaments” of Ephraim the Syrian and Nil Sorsky was previously pointed out by F. Lilienfeld in the article: On the literary genre... P. 96. Muravyov A.N. Russian Thebaid... P. 295. FIRI. Col. 115 units hr. 669, l. 5. Right there. Unit hr. 670, l. 4. Fedotov G.V. Decree. op. P. 188. Fedotov’s concept of contrasting Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky is shared by many foreign researchers, as shown by the 1994 conference in Italy “Nil Sorsky and Hesychasm.” See reports: Gandolfo (Italy) “Nile Sorsky in the interpretation of Fedotov” (pp. 271–289); Vasily (Grolimund), mon. “The significance of Nil Sorsky for monasticism in the 21st century.” // Comunita di Bose. 1995. P. 299. Arkhangelsky A.S. Nil Sorsky... P. 44–45. Fedotov G.V. Decree. op. P. 188. Culture and society of Ancient Rus' (X-XVII centuries). Foreign historiography. Part 2. P. 248. Golubinsky E.E. The history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. M., 1903. P. 41. Arkhangelsky A.S. Nil Sorsky... P. 46. Golubinsky E.E. History of canonization... P.195. Muravyov A.N. Russian Thebaid... P. 295. Complete months of the East by Archbishop Sergius. Vladimir, 1903. T. 2. P. 662. Canonization of saints. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. June 6–9, 1988. P. 32. This is evidenced by the inscriptions on handwritten collections of the 16th century containing the works of Nil Sorsky. In them, Nil Sorsky is called the venerable one, the head of the skete life: RSL. Vol. collection, 180, l. 391. Venerable Nile of Sora, preface from the writings of the holy fathers. (L. 391). Canonization of saints... pp. 21–22. RNB. Kir.-Bel., 38/1277. L. 132 vol. – 133. Quote by: Arkhangelsky A.S. Nil Sorsky... P. 45–46, approx. 116. RNB. Soph. collection 1158. L. 84–85. For the dating of the manuscript, see: RNL. Description: Library of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. Shevyrev S.P. History of Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1887. Part 3. P. 126. Russian consolidated icon-painting original of the 18th century // Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art. M., 1874. No. 4–5. P. 29. Golubinsky E.E. History of canonization... P. 130. Thus, the chandelier to the Church of the Presentation (FIRI. Col. 115, unit of record 668, l. 4), vestments, Stikharion, epitrachelion, armlets, belt, coverings to the Church of Ephraim the Syrian (ibid., l. 6) were donated by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich; vestments, towels, the book of David's psalms - Patriarch Filaret (ibid.), church vessels - black deacon Mark Pavlovets (ibid. Item 681, l. 16), the image of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary on gold - “the widow Varvara Artemyevskaya wife of Skvortsov from Belozersk (ibid., l. 23), the book “Psalter printed in Moscow covered with red skin" - Prince Ioann Alekseevich Vorotynsky (ibid. Item 686, l. 17 vol.), "12 printed mines at ten and the book of Isaac the Syrian and the golden one" - Fyodor Nikitich Odoevsky (ibid. Item 670, l. 8.), "Chesovnik at noon" - Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (ibid. Item 671, l. 11 vol.), “the new cover on the tomb of Nil Sorsky has a gold cross embroidered on it” - Fyodor Panov; in 1687, the first “inset dacha” in silver arrived in Nilova Hermitage: “church vessels chalice paten star two saucers copy all silver and a silver blessing cross in an icon case... and the weight of silver in the church vessels and in the cross is a copy of half a third” (ibid. Unit 690, fol. 21 vol.); Yaroslavl townsman Fyodor Fedorovich Nezhdanovsky donated 50 rubles 29 altyns 4 money for the church building (ibid. Item 675, fol. 10 vol.). This is evidenced by the inscription on the manuscripts (on the binding). Description of documents and files of the archive of the Holy Synod. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 1. 1542–1721. D. 691. John (Kalinin), monk. Description of the Nilo-Sora men's community desert... P. 11–12. Quote according to the book: Arkhangelsky A.S. Nil Sorsky... P. 45–46, approx. 116.