Глава первая. Греческий город Арта

It's time to go, the road is not short. Dante. Divine Comedy. “Maximovo Greek birth from the city of Arta, from father Manuel and mother Irina, Christians, Greeks, philosophers. And from Arta City to the Reigning City there are eighteen days of travel and another half a day, the same to Jerusalem. Arta is located at the same distance from Constantinople and Jerusalem.” This note was preserved in a manuscript written at the end of the 16th century, after the death of Maxim the Greek. The manuscript comes from the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where the monk was in the last years of his life 1 . The record is based either on a stable monastic tradition (written or rather oral), preserved by his employees, assistants and admirers, or even the record goes back to some of his own notes - was he planning an autobiography? The entry was not yet known to the compilers of the first edition of his biography at the end of the 16th century (“The Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain of the Vatopedi Monastery”): “We don’t know his birth (that is, I don’t know. - N.S.) of which city,” but the second edition already includes it 2. There is no information about the date of birth, it was calculated on the basis of indirect evidence - around 1470 3. In the biographical “Preface” - “The Legend” of the black deacon Isaiah Kamenchanin (circa 1591) - Maxim is called “the son of the governor” 4. The source of the information is unknown. If it is true, then it is quite possible that his father could take part in the defense of Constantinople. He belonged to the noble Trivolis family. And this is all, or almost all, that we know about the beginning of the biography, about the early years of the future Maxim the Greek - the names of his parents (Manuel and Irina), their education (they are called “philosophers”) and the place of birth - the city of Arta, in the north-west of Greece, in Epirus, on the border with Albania, near the Adriatic coast. Arta, under the name of Ambracia, was once the capital of the legendary Epirus king Pyrrhus, and in 1204–1337 it was the capital of the independent Epirus Despotate (principality). In 1449, Arta was captured by the Turks. Today it is a small Greek town surrounded by orange and olive groves. The famous bridge (according to legend, for greater strength, the builder walled up his wife in it), the ancient churches of the Comforter and St. Theodora, the patroness of the city, are reminiscent of ancient times. Our hero entered the history of Russian culture with his monastic name Maxim, received during tonsure in the Athos monastery of Vatopedi, and the nickname Greek was given to him by his Russian contemporaries. But we are still far from that - he will arrive in Moscow in 1518 along with Metropolitan Gregory of Cyzicus, an envoy of the Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople. The worldly, secular name was never mentioned in Russian sources, but it became known from Western European sources in 1943 - Mikhail Trivolis. In the autobiographical note quoted at the beginning, it is not by chance that the location of Arta is correlated with two sacred centers of that time - Tsaryrad and Jerusalem. Not just geographical parameters are indicated, named, but a kind of spiritual coordinate system; the spiritual dimension of the personality is specified. The desire to designate one’s place in space, to identify, was characteristic of Maxim the Greek - perhaps partly because he had to travel a lot, and over very long distances. We will meet more than once with his interest in geography. Another identification of him has been preserved, this time in a space that is both real and mythological. His Greek letter of 1552, sent from Moscow to a certain Macrobius, has already been mentioned; it was recently discovered in the Vienna State Archives. The letter contains his “heroic-elegiac verses encouraging repentance,” and in a lengthy signature indicating the date and address of the author of the letter, he writes about himself: “Maxim, who was once a resident of Hellas, and now has become a Hyperborean” 5 . It is worth noting that Moscow is called in the entry the city of “Holy Russia” - this is one of the earliest uses of the term “Holy Rus'”, and in the superlative degree. It is interesting to note that “Russia” is called “Hyperborea”, “the country of the Hyperboreans” in the act of the Council of Constantinople in 1593 on the founding of the Moscow Patriarchate. This means that the designation of Russia by this term was preserved in the tradition of Byzantine geographical ideas, in the “image of the world.” The image of the “Hyperborean” goes back to Greek mythology, to ideas about the Riphean Mountains located somewhere far in the north, from which the cold borea wind blows, and about the mysterious country in which the Hyperboreans, the favorites of Apollo, live. Ptolemy wrote about the Hyperborean Mountains, but Strabo already expressed doubts about the authenticity of such reports about the Hyperboreans and their homeland. Maxim the Greek could have come across a mention of the “Hyperboreans” in Strabo’s “Geography,” the manuscript of which he copied in Italy 6 . The memorable image was used many years later in a joke signature, full of irony and sadness, but also, perhaps, some pride - after all, Mikhail-Maxim, in the reality of his life’s journey, had the opportunity to physically penetrate physically into the space of the ancient legend and spend more than a dozen years in it. So “Hyperboreans” appeared in Russian literature long before the Silver Age. Little can be said about the life of the future Maxim the Greek in Hellas, about his youth. Belonging to an educated family, he received his education in his homeland, and went to Italy to replenish it. After all, his parents are called “philosophers” - not only his father Manuel, but also his mother Irina (the history of Byzantium knows many educated women). The word “philosophy” in Byzantine Slavic and Russian writing, according to the definition of E. E. Granstrem, meant not only “knowledge”, “education” (“love of wisdom, reflection, the search for knowledge or the desire for knowledge, civilization in general”), but also practical morality; the word “philosopher” meant a sage, a mentor in matters of conscience and simply an educated person. In the Byzantine era (and perhaps a little earlier), the meaning of the word “philosopher” as an “educated person” takes on a new connotation - a philosopher is a person who has received an education, who has undergone a certain training, school 7 . According to the testimony of the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Nil Kurlyatev, whom Maxim the Greek taught the Greek language, “Elder Maxim, by birth a Greek,” was “taught philosophy” in his homeland (“in his own language”), where he also mastered the Latin language (“Roman”) 8. The already mentioned Isaiah Kamenchanin wrote the same thing (around 1591): “Maxim, the son of the voivode, a Greek by birth, a philosopher, a Holy Mountain resident... studied pious theology and sacred philosophy in his land in Greece, and in Latin in Italy, great” 9. There is no contradiction here with Neale's testimony; in Italy, our hero undoubtedly improved his Latin and continued his education. Another biographer, who used the information from Isaiah, and also knew the work of Maximus the Greek about Florence and Savonarola, argued that Maximus studied “in his own country... in Palestine 3 and in Italy and in the most beautiful and kindest city of Florence” 10. The author of the already mentioned “Tale of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain...”, who put into the mouth of his hero a speech addressed to the Grand Duke about Moscow as the repository of “many” Greek books and about their burning by the “Latins,” did not know the information of Nile and Isaiah about his teaching in his homeland and wrote: “Teachings of philosophy in Western countries.” This author consistently pursued the idea of ​​“translation” and wrote about the final impoverishment of philosophy among the Greeks after the removal of books from Greece and their subsequent burning, about the “great scarcity of philosophical men” that gripped the Greek land after the Turkish conquest. The author subordinated the speech of Maxim the monk to the Grand Duke to this idea: “From the Greek land to the Western countries, from his youth he went to study, because he did not find philosophical teaching in the Greek country due to the great poverty of books.” Here the opinion of the scribe of the late 16th century is expressed rather than of Maxim the Greek himself. In one of his writings, he wrote that while in Italy, he mastered “Hellenic teachings,” but was subsequently forced to renounce their “rotten fables” 12. New information about the purpose of the Greek youth’s departure from Arta and other circumstances of his life during the Italian and Athonite periods, as well as his secular name, became known thanks to the research of the Russian émigré historian Ilya Denisov, the results of which were published in 1943, at the height of World War II. He discovered in Western European sources a certain Greek Michael Trivolis, who lived in Italy and was in correspondence with his compatriots who collaborated with Italian humanists, and in Athonite sources - the monk Maximus Trivolis, and concluded that these persons were identical with Maximus the Greek, known from numerous and varied Russian sources 13. Dear reader, I will tell you my long-standing doubts about the persuasiveness of I. Denisov’s arguments, the legitimacy of his hypothesis as a whole and its individual components. The web of the author’s observations seemed too multi-component and diverse, the chain of evidence was too long, the design was too complex, some factual connections and logical moves seemed too bold. And most importantly, too responsible conclusions in assessing the personality of Maxim the Greek would follow the acceptance of this hypothesis. But at the same time, what was so amazing was the constantly emerging concatenation of individual, seemingly disparate facts from Greek, Russian, and Latin sources, and the unity of their geographical and cultural area. Some particular coincidences could be random, but their repetition and complexity indicated the presence of some kind of pattern, a hidden internal meaning. As in a detective story, small details and hints joined each other, convincingly joined together, and formed a harmonious picture. Random slips of the tongue revealed hidden springs, secret passages of thought. Doubts were overcome gradually and slowly, mainly during the preparation for the publication of the works of this author, which did not allow any detail to be left unattended. New publications appeared in domestic and foreign science, new discoveries were made, and their flow did not stop for more than half a century after the publication of I. Denisov’s book. All this provided new evidence, direct and indirect. New links adapted to the old ones, but sometimes forced them to abandon some conclusions. When visiting Florence in 2004, I was able to get acquainted with a source that remained unknown to I. Denisov, which made it possible to significantly correct one important component of his hypothesis - about Michael’s entry into the monastery of St. Mark in Florence in 1502. The result of these long works and reflections was the confidence that the stay of Mikhail Maxim Trivolis in Italy and Mount Athos can be described much more fully and somewhat differently than in the book by I. Denisov. But first, we will try to reconstruct the research path traveled by Denisov, restore its moves and links, that is, test his hypothesis for strength. Perhaps the sequence of his searches and discoveries was slightly different, but the logic of the evidence is as follows. The starting point should be the message of Andrei Kurbsky about the training of Maximus the Greek with John Lascaris. Without this link, Denisov’s hypothesis would hardly have been possible at all. Lascaris belonged to the galaxy of Greek scientists who collaborated with Italian humanists of the second half of the 15th century, primarily with the circle of Lorenzo Medici, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and enjoyed great authority in this circle. We'll look at it in more detail in the next chapter. Kurbsky connected the name of John Laskaris with the name of Maximus the Greek in the “History of the Eighth Council” (that is, the Ferraro-Florence Council of 1438–1439). As Kurbsky reported, he “heard about some facts of the work of the Council (in particular, concerning Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus) from the Monk Maximus the Greek, a student of the glorious John Laskir, while studying philosophy with him in Paris” 14 . Kurbsky made a mistake when speaking about Paris (the training took place in Florence), and we will explain the reason for this mistake in the next chapter. The next link in the searches and finds was the discovery in Western European sources emanating from the circle of John Lascaris, the Greek scribe Michael Trivolis and the identification of his handwriting with the handwriting of Maximus the Greek in a Greek manuscript written already in Russia, in Tver in 1540. Identification of a person by identifying handwriting is the most daring and, in my opinion, decisive move in the search for I. Denisov. In the Greek manuscript of "Geoponics", containing an ancient agricultural treatise (it is kept in the Paris National Library), there is an entry that it was rewritten by "Michael for Lascaris" 15. Denisov had no doubt that the owner of the manuscript, for whom it was rewritten, was John Laskaris. As for “Mikhail,” Denisov found two letters in the Vatican Library written in the same handwriting as the Paris manuscript of “Geoponics.” The letters have the author’s handwritten signature – also “Mikhail”, but with the surname “Mikhail Trivolis”. This is how Michael Trivolis was discovered in the circle of John Laskaris. Michael sent these letters to Scipio Carteromachus (Forteguerri) in Venice, at that time the closest employee of the famous printer Aldus Manutius (Denisov dated the letters to 1504, but their dating to 1503 is more acceptable) 16. And from a Russian source, from the writings of Maxim the Greek himself, we know about his work with Ald (“he often went to him for book work”) 17. Handwriting of Parisian and Vatican autographs of Michael Trivolis was identified by I. Denisov with the handwriting of the Greek Psalter, stored in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. It contains a colophon entry in the handwriting of the main scribe stating that the manuscript was written by Maxim the Greek in Tver in 1540 by order of Veniamin, sacristan of the Tver Bishop Akakios 18. Later B. JI. Fonkich discovered another Greek manuscript - the Apostle, rewritten by Maxim the Greek, like the Psalter, already in Russia. Unlike the Psalter, the Apostle does not have a colophon record with the name of the scribe and the date; the scribe was identified by handwriting, and I. Denisov’s observations regarding the Paris manuscript were also taken into account 19. Identification of scribes' handwriting (Greek, Latin, Russian) developed as an independent discipline later - in the 50s–70s of the 20th century. Denisov was one of the pioneers in this field, and he managed to make a great scientific discovery - personal identification by identifying handwriting, a discovery that entailed a number of others, and not only in the field of paleography and codicology. Denisov’s courage deserves special appreciation also because the case was doubly difficult. Firstly, the manuscripts (Paris and Tver) are separated by a period of several decades, and the handwriting could have undergone changes; secondly, the autographs belonged to different genres: narrative (Parisian, Tver) and epistolary (Vatican), which could influence the writing style chosen by the scribe and make identification difficult. Moreover, the handwriting of the Tver Psalter was known to Denisov only from its reproduction in an album of 1880 20 . The author did not provide a consistent and complete analysis of handwriting, limiting himself to individual, most illustrative examples, and was more likely based on intuition. Nevertheless, his identifications were not only not challenged, but, on the contrary, formed the basis for new discoveries made later by other researchers. The complex of manuscripts copied by Michael Trivolis was identified – also through handwriting identification – in 1981–1998 during the compilation of a three-volume catalog of handwritings of Greek scribes of the 14th–16th centuries 21 . Its authors, major experts in this field, not only did not doubt the correctness of Denisov’s identifications, but on their basis, and also taking into account the observations of B. JI. Fonkich, identified a number of other manuscripts written in the same handwriting. The identification of autographs and identification by handwriting were, although the main (decisive), but far from the only argument of Denisov. He discovered other letters Michael Trivolis to persons of the same circle (John Lascaris - Aldus Manutius) are no longer in autographs, but in copies. All this information finds an analogy in the Russian writings of Maxim the Greek during the first period of his stay in Russia, before the trials (1518–1525), when he often recalled his Italian past. It is worth briefly mentioning another group of monuments and - accordingly - another link, namely the monuments of Athonite origin, the author of which is already named Maxim Trivolis (or only by name - “Monk Maxim”). These are epitaphs and liturgical works (“Canon of St. John the Baptist”). Their author, according to Denisov, was the same Mikhail Trivolis, but with a monastic name. However, some guesses about the identity of this person with Maxim the Greek from Russian sources were expressed at the beginning of the 20th century, but Denisov combined them into a coherent system and added new facts. In the story about new data regarding the life of Mikhail Trivolis in Italy and on Mount Athos, revealed by I. Denisov, we got ahead of ourselves; but this was necessary in order to present the main arguments proposed by Denisov to prove his hypothesis. It also contained new facts concerning the life of Maxim the Greek back in his homeland, Greece. This is not only his worldly name - it turns out that Michael Trivolis participated in the elections to the Great Council of Corfu in 1490–1491, but was not elected, and with a very unfavorable score (20 votes for and 73 against). This information is contained in election records preserved in 17th-century copies 22 . It shows that the young man had political ambitions, counted on a political career and a high social position. But then an opportunity presented itself that predetermined a completely different future for him. Another fact established by Denisov relates to the date and circumstances of Mikhail’s departure from Arta. In 1491–1492, the city was visited by John Lascaris during his trip to Greece to collect ancient manuscripts on behalf of Lorenzo de' Medici. He was a famous Greek scientist who collaborated with Italian humanists of Lorenzo's circle. We will meet with him more than once. I. Denisov drew attention to the fact that among the manuscripts he brought to Florence, 14 manuscripts were purchased from Demetrius Trivolis. It was quite natural to assume that he belonged to the same Trivolis family as Mikhail. Its representatives appear in sources from the 14th century, even in contacts with the imperial family. According to references in sources and according to calculations, it turned out that Dimitri was undoubtedly older than Mikhail, and Denisov suggested that the first was our hero’s uncle. Dimitri Trivolis is a well-known face. A calligrapher scribe, which was then a very honorable profession, he had his own good library, and he was considered a bibliophile. Lascaris probably knew about him in advance and it was not by chance that he visited Arta; Having familiarized himself with Demetrius's library, he expressed a desire to acquire some manuscripts. But Demetrius did not want to part with the manuscripts, and Laskaris managed to acquire only four manuscripts from him. As for the rest, copies of them were ordered, and the customer stopped by to pick them up on the way back; perhaps they were copied by Demetrius's nephew. From the very beginning, from the earliest known autographs, the Greek handwriting of Mikhail-Maxim is distinguished by professionalism and a high degree of sophistication, and it is quite natural to believe that he mastered this art in his homeland. It is also natural that Laskaris, as I. Denisov suggested, took with him not only the manuscripts, but also a Greek youth, whose abilities were not at all difficult to discern for an experienced scientist involved in teaching. He opened up for the capable and inquisitive Greek the prospect of communication with Greek and Italian scholars, with the Greek diaspora, with the Italian humanistic environment, where he could offer his services as a calligrapher or teacher of the Greek language and continue his education, improving his knowledge of Latin and expanding his knowledge of Latin and Greek literature. V. S. Ikonnikov in 1915 assumed that the first point of Maxim-Mikhail’s stay in Italy was Venice, based on the traditional route of the Greeks to Italy, where the first point was Venice. This is exactly how the Greek delegation moved to the Ferraro-Florence Council in 1438. But Denisov’s observations are based on more specific facts, more precisely, on facts directly related to the biography of our hero. Therefore, one should accept the point of view of I. Denisov about the date of Mikhail’s arrival in Italy and about the first city where his career began. Most likely, he arrived in Florence in 1492 with John Lascaris. I. Denisov’s hypothesis has not yet been fully stated, but further it relates to the life of Maxim the Greek in Italy, and here some of its components will undergo adjustments, in some cases very significant. Nevertheless, the significance of the hypothesis is beyond doubt. The discoveries of I. Denisov not only made it possible to more comprehensively and specifically present the life and works of Mikhail Trivolis in Italy; New opportunities arose in the study of the personality and work of Maxim the Greek as a whole, as before, in 1915, after the work of V. S. Ikonnikov “Maxim the Greek and His Time”. Ikonnikov's observations, especially those concerning the life of Maxim the Greek in Italy, were fully taken into account by Denisov, and largely thanks to them and in comparison with them, the discoveries of 1943 were made. However, the volume of new materials and sources has not yet been exhausted, as we will show below. The toponym “Palestine” was not only a geographical term, but was also used to designate the fatherland, homeland (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 14. M., 1988. P. 132).