Глава вторая. Италия

Just as the past smoulders in the future, so the future matures in the past. “Florence is the most beautiful and deliberate 4 of all the cities in Italy that I have seen,” Mikhail Trivolis, however, now Maxim the Greek, will write several decades later in Russia. And he saw a lot, and had something to compare with. Here is Milan: “There is a certain city in Italy, bright and populous (that is, populous), we call it Mediolan 5, abounding in countless blessings necessary for life, and especially [it is famous] for wise and noble men, rejoicing at travelers. It takes precedence among other cities in the country called Loggovardia (Lombardy - Ya. S.). The hegemon of that city will be called Dux in Latin, Lodovic by the name, Moros.” We are talking about Lodovico Moro (Moor) - we know him from the portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, who also painted the Duke’s beloved Cecilia, “The Lady with an Ermine.” It should be noted that the author distinguishes between Italy as a whole and its northern part, Lombardy, striving for the accuracy of his information. And in other Russian works, he will indicate a geographical location, talking about events from his past: in countries beyond the Alpine and Pyrenees mountains, “to the Gadir River” 2. More briefly, he wrote about Venice, more precisely, about the famous printer Alda Manutius. But this description was especially important, because we were talking about a printed book, and in Russia at that time there was no printing press 3. There are also names of a number of other Italian cities. But only to Florence will he dedicate a special large essay - “A Terrible and Memorable Tale.” This was not the first enthusiastic review of Florence in Russian literature. It is called a “preeminent and great city” in the “Walk of Abraham of Suzdal to the Eighth Council” (meaning the already mentioned Ferraro-Florence Council of 1438–1439). The author saw and described two religious mysteries - the “Annunciation” in the church of the monastery of St. Mark and the “Ascension” in the church of another monastery. The performance is described as “wonderful,” “wonderful,” “an unspeakable vision.” The text of the mystery has not been preserved in the original language; it is known only in the presentation of the Russian author. It has been translated into modern Italian 4 . “The Tale” by Maxim the Greek is one of the first works of the memoir genre in Russian literature. Italian memories and impressions in his Russian writings will be transformed by Athonite spiritual experience, purified and crystallized by it, but they will preserve evidence of his interests and aspirations in Italy, attractions and repulsions, and show his social circle. In combination with Western European news, they make it possible to recreate the outline of his personality of the Italian period. Florence in the 90s of the 15th century was a city of humanism and asceticism, although we know more and better Renaissance Florence, which, according to E. Garin, was considered one of the most important and advanced centers of high Italian and European culture. Biographer of Maxim the Greek V. S. Ikonnikov called this place of his stay “the abode of muses and the haven of humanism,” “the second Athens.” But in these same years, in a prosperous city, where the richest merchants and bankers of Europe lived, where, according to the same Ikonnikov, there was such a knowledgeable and enlightened nobility that was not found in any state in Italy, the ascetic principle actively declared itself, manifested in the sermons and practical activities of the Dominican monk and prior of the monastery of San Marco, Girolamo Savonarola; starting with reforms in his monastery, he soon became involved in reform activities throughout the city. E. Garin called the direction to which Savonarola belonged the “right wing” of the culture of the Quattrocento era, noting at the same time that, for example, such a scientist as A. Beniveni, a famous physician and an outstanding researcher in the field of medicine, who combined humanistic studies with serious research in the field of pathological anatomy 5. Indeed, there was no impassable border between the two directions at that time. And Mikhail Trivolis will pay tribute to each of them. It may be recalled that Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Angelo Poliziano, who were among the most significant participants in the famous Florentine Platonic Academy, became close to Savonarola in the last years of their lives and were buried nearby in his monastery (they died almost simultaneously, in September 1494 - Poliziano, in November - Pico), and Pico's nephew, who revered his relative and did a lot to preserve and publish his legacy, had with this monastery family connections 6. In the church of the monastery of the contemplative monastic order of the Camaldulians of Santa Maria degli Angeli, learned debates took place in which humanists and the “best citizens” of Florence took part. One of them, the humanist Cristoforo Landino, dedicated the treatise “Disputes at Camaldoli” (completed before 1474) to their description. The participants in the described conversations were representatives of two directions in Florentine humanism - Platonic and Aristotelian. The monk of this order, Paolo Orlandini, recalling the disputes later, at the beginning of the 16th century, likened them to the “daily bread” that the brethren of his monastery received 7. In the same church, public performances, open lectures and sermons took place by Marsilio Ficino, who was ordained a priest in December 1473, and later (in March 1488) became a canon of the Florentine Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. Here his lectures and sermons continued; in the 1490s they were devoted to commenting on the letters of the Apostle Paul 8. Mikhail Trivolis could have been their listener. Let us note that in those same years, Savonarola also preached in the same cathedral, which will be described in the mentioned “Tale” (already in Moscow) by Mikhail Trivolis - Maxim the Greek. In the Church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, along with images of events and characters of sacred history, the Florentine humanists Marsilio Ficino, Angelo Poliziano, Cristoforo Landino and Michael's compatriot Demetrius Chalkondil ("Byzantine") who collaborated with them are presented together. This is a fragment of a fresco executed by the artist Domenico Ghirlandaio in 1486-1490. The fresco in the Church of Sant'Ambrogio "Procession of the Blessed Sacrament" from the same time (1485-1486, artist Cosimo Rosselli) depicts Ficino, Pico and Poliziano 9. And Savonarola found a place on one of the frescoes in the painting of the Vatican Palace, painted by Raphael in 1508–1511. The rebellious prophet turned out to be among the most significant representatives of the present and past eras, both figures of the Church and secular persons (among them, for example, Dante). According to researchers, the placement of the burned heretic in the group of heroes of the faith, which occurred under the influence of Fra Bartolomeo and his enthusiastic stories about the Florentine martyr, is explained by the connection with Savonarola of many Florentine Neoplatonists and his undoubted influence on the spiritual and artistic culture of the High Renaissance 10. Each of the directions - both humanism and asceticism - had its own differences, colors and shades that determined the diversity of the spiritual life of the city. Our hero, a young Greek who arrived in the second Athens from the country of the first Athens, faced a difficult choice, and not the only one. The “Tale” mentioned at the beginning is dedicated to the ascetic beginning, “perfect monastic life,” which is already indicated in its title. But there was also room in it for a description of the University of Paris - real praise for knowledge and enlightenment. The events described in it date back to 1493–1498. However, Michael's first Florentine contacts were in a humanistic environment, among the Greek diaspora, where he was introduced by his teacher and patron John Lascaris. They arrived in Florence, as already said, in the summer or autumn of 1492. Laskaris brought another young man from Crete, Arsenius Apostolis, presumably on the basis of an order from Lorenzo de' Medici to find and bring talented young people to Florence to copy manuscripts." Perhaps this order from the uncrowned ruler of Florence also influenced the fate of Michael Trivolis. The Greek scientist John Laskaris was an outstanding personality and lived a long, eventful life (1445/47–1534) 12 . He was born in Constantinople; in 1453, fleeing from the Turks, he left the city with his father, lived in Crete, later moved to Italy, and in Padua he was a student of Demetrius Chalkondylos. Laskaris found himself on the wave of Greek emigration, the Greek presence in Italy, which began at the end of the 14th century in connection with the growing Turkish threat. After the fall of Constantinople, it became a powerful factor and support for the formation of Italian Renaissance culture, an integral part of which was the revival of classical antiquity 13. Greek professors and other educated people were engaged in teaching, searching for ancient texts, translating and publishing them. Greek colonies existed in Florence, Venice and a number of other cities. John Laskaris, according to the latest research, met Cardinal Vissarion of Nicaea in the late 1460s, who became his patron, and soon after Vissarion’s death (November 12, 1472) he himself began to be considered the patron of the Greeks who arrived in Italy 14. From 1475 he taught in Florence, where he taught a course in Greek, which had considerable success. From 1490 he was in the service of the Medici, but, having received an offer from the French king Charles VIII in 1494, he went to Paris (the above-mentioned description of the University of Paris was probably made from his words). He made great contributions to the history of Greek studies and Renaissance culture in France. In 1503–1508, Lascaris was the French ambassador to the Venetian Republic, then moved to Rome, where he also did much to spread Greek learning, taking part in the organization of the Greek College, undertaken by Pope Leo X de' Medici. Contemporaries spoke of him as a decent and reasonable person, highly respected both for his intelligence and for his noble character 15. The activities of John Lascaris made a great contribution to the culture of Florence and to the history of printing in Greek. He was a professor and publisher, enriched the city's book treasury, and brought about 200 manuscripts from Greece, among which were very valuable. So, Marsilio Ficino immediately became interested in them. Being closely associated with Lorenzo the Magnificent, he was able to take advantage of the acquisitions of his library. Among the manuscripts received from Lascaris were hitherto unknown commentaries by the Neoplatonist Proclus (410-485) on Plato's Republic, and Ficino very soon sent some notes on this matter to his friend Lascaris 16 . The Medici, who ruled Florence from the mid-15th century, were among the largest and richest European bankers. Their patronage of the arts created the basis for many significant pages of Quattrocento culture. This era owes them a lot. One of the city's libraries, created largely through the efforts of Lorenzo the Magnificent, still bears his name - Laurenziatia. I had a chance to visit it and get acquainted with the original charter of the Florence Cathedral of 1439 stored in a special casket (in three languages ​​- Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic), as well as with other manuscripts. Let me make a digression from the presentation and share with you, dear reader, my impressions of this city. At first, during the flight from Rome to Florence, he was seen from above, from the airplane window. The lights of the city were arranged in multi-colored groups with an unlit dark space between them, as if a beautiful necklace had scattered over Florence and shimmering precious stones lay in patterns on black velvet. But their arrangement did not seem chaotic or random; there seemed to be order and harmony in it. And during the day, in the sunlight, it felt like you were walking through the revived pages of a well-illustrated expensive book you had once read - its pictures come to life, become three-dimensional, and you recognize (or don’t recognize) cathedrals, palaces, squares, marveling at how far from the original the famous book images are. You need to walk along the city streets early in the morning, when they are not yet filled with tourists, and then the illusion of moving in space and time arises, reality is transformed, combining eras. There was little time. Once, when a professor at the University of Florence and I were hurrying from the monastery of San Marco, where Michael Trivolis listened to Savonarola’s sermons, to the Laurenziana library, the professor casually said, pointing to the cathedral located on the right: “And here Ambrose of Milan preached” (this is the 4th century). Without stopping, we hurried on. And on the way back, on a short evening flight from Florence to Milan, I saw an unusual picture in the west, a natural phenomenon, a kind of mirage, a sight that I had never seen before. The plane gained altitude, it was completely dark outside the window, and suddenly, to the left, as if along the horizon, bizarre peaks rose up, the peaks of completely black mountains against the bright orange, slightly reddish background of the setting sun. But these were not mountains, but clouds, we were already flying above the clouds. And the setting sun was not the usual round luminary - no, it was a wide orange streak of sunset that stretched and lasted for a very long time, almost all the way to Milan. It was very hard to believe that the orange sunset screen actually showed clouds, black in the night; that these are not the mountains themselves, not their rearing gigantic peaks, but clouds that almost mystically reproduce the shape of the mountains. A Greek professor flying on the same flight noticed that this can be seen often among them. But I was from the “country of the Hyperboreans,” to use the image of Maximus the Greek from a letter to his Greek friend Macrobius, and I had never seen anything like this. The nature of Italy was familiar to our hero - after all, he remained in his native Mediterranean. It will be different more than two decades later, when he, accustomed to a warm and mild climate, will be greeted by harsh, long Russian winters and a short “northern summer - a caricature of southern winters.” But while he is in Florence, studying with John Lascaris. Laskaris received the chair of the Florentine School (Studium), the future university, after his return from Greece and the departure to Milan of Demetrius Chalcondylus, who headed it in the period 1475–1492. In the second half of the 15th century, the department where Greek language and literature was studied was successively occupied by Greek professors, a whole galaxy of prominent scientists: John Argyropoulos (1456–1471), Andronikos Calistos (1471–1475) and Demetrius Chalkondylos, the immediate predecessor of John Lascaris. Chalcondylos was born in 1424 into an old noble Athenian family, arrived in Rome in 1447, was a professor in Padua (1463–1471), was invited by Lorenzo de Medici to Florence in 1475, and in 1491 went to Milan, where he continued teaching and publishing. There, in particular, in 1499 he published the Byzantine lexicographical encyclopedia “Suda,” which Maxim the Greek was to translate in Moscow into Church Slavonic. The merits of Chalcondylus in the history of Florentine humanistic culture were appreciated so highly by his contemporaries that in the already mentioned fresco in the Cathedral of Santa Maria Novella, the artist Ghirlandaio depicted him in the group of the most outstanding representatives of this culture. Among the students of Demetrius Chalcondylos were Pico della Mirandola, the future Pope Leo X de' Medici, the English scientist Linacre and a number of others 17 . It was at this department, which had such glorious traditions, that Mikhail Trivolis studied with Lascaris. Teaching left a noticeable mark on his life; he preserved the memory of his teacher and talked about him (in Moscow or at Trinity) to his younger contemporary Andrei Kurbsky, who, in turn, preserved such a precious testimony for us. The curriculum of that time involved reading, translating and analyzing one or more Greek authors for a year. The inaugural lecture of John Lascaris survives, from which we learn that in 1492/93 the subject of study was Sophocles and Thucydides. Looking ahead, we note that a reference to Thucydides will also be found in the Moscow work of Maximus the Greek, where he mentions the military exploits of Themistocles during the Greco-Persian wars (5th century BC). The next year's program included Demosthenes and "Greek Epigrams" 18. Epigram is one of the genres of ancient Greek literature (originally an inscription on a tombstone, dedicatory tablet or statue, and then a common form of book poetry), which gradually acquired an increasingly mocking, parodic, satirical character. But in this genre, dedications to various persons were also written, often with panegyric content. Later, in the Athonite period, Maximus Trivolis uses this genre, writing several epigrams to the deceased patriarchs. And Lascaris himself wrote a number of epigrams, which were later, in 1527, published by his son.” Lascaris' activities combined teaching, research and publishing, and the Greek Epigrams, which served as the subject of his studies, were printed and published in 1494 under the title Greek Anthology. It was published in the form preserved in the manuscript of Maximus Planoudis of 1299; his autograph manuscript survived and was in the library of Cardinal Vissarion, but, as a modern researcher noted, Lascaris used a different manuscript 20. Other publications appeared in Florence during these years, a list of which was compiled by Lascaris. Among them are the plays of Euripides chosen by him: “Hippolytus”, “Medea”, “Alcestus”, “Andromache” 21. Did his student take part in Lascaris's publications? Denisov assumed that this was possible, but did not yet have evidence. At present, there is still no direct evidence, but some indirect evidence, introduced into scientific circulation later, suggests the possibility of an affirmative answer. D. M. Bulanin discovered in two works by Maxim the Greek a translation of the quatrain of Leonid of Alexandria from the “Greek Anthology” condemning the Magi who are fond of astrology: Magi, elves [who] look at the starry procession, disappear, teachers of vain wisdom who are lies, courage gave birth to you, madness raised you, and you can foretell your misery 22. At the same time, in different works there are two different versions of the translation, which have lexical and grammatical differences. At first glance, it may seem that the translator is simply editing his work, searching for more adequate matches. But this phenomenon can be explained differently if we consider that there were two editions of the Greek Anthology. The 1494 edition of Lascaris was so popular that in 1503 Aldus Manutius in Venice published a new one, and did not mechanically repeat the Florentine one, but made a number of changes and corrections based on new manuscripts brought into the edition 23 . Corrections were made in cases where research revealed readings in them that more accurately and correctly conveyed the original text. This work was labor-intensive in volume and complex in content, since the texts of the manuscripts used from different times were rewritten more than once and had many different readings, and the choice required great erudition and experience from the researcher and publisher. This method of collation (colatio), comparing text from several manuscripts and selecting a version for publication, was widely used in humanistic philology of that time and was one of its principles and achievements. Mikhail mastered it, as will be evidenced by his Russian writings and the care with which he worked in search of the right word, an adequate way of expression, both in translations and in his own writings. At the same time, one cannot exclude the influence of the Byzantine literary tradition (Eustathius of Thessalonica). Do different versions of the translation from Leonidas of Alexandria go back to two different editions that he brought with him to Moscow (and first, of course, to Athos)? In this case, we see here the results of the work of a philologist. It would be tempting to assume that Maxim the Greek deliberately chose for two different translations exactly one of those fragments where corrections were made in 1503 when preparing a new edition. This can be judged with complete certainty only after broader textual comparisons. One quatrain, of course, is not enough for such important judgments, but the given example is not the only one - a similar picture is observed in another translation. One of the large and significant translations of Maxim the Greek in Moscow was the already mentioned Byzantine lexicon “Suda”, and it also had two early editions. One of them is the already mentioned edition of Chalcondylus, the other was made in 1513. The translation of a number of fragments by Maxim the Greek also has different versions, but here there is incomparably more data for comparison and research 24 . This suggests that Mikhail Trivolis was a bibliophile (like his uncle Dimitri Trivolis, according to Denisov), who appreciated not just the book, but also its various editions. The fact that he brought “Greek books” with him to Moscow is also stated in his Russian writings. According to the latest data from Florence researcher D. Speranzi, the period of collaboration with John Lascaris, that is, 1492–1494, includes two manuscripts rewritten by Michael and used by students when studying with Lascaris. One of them is “Geoponics”, already known to us, the other is Strabo’s “Geography”. “Geoponics”, stored in the Paris National Library, was introduced into scientific circulation by I. Denisov, and “Geography” - when compiling a catalog of Greek scribes in the 1980–1990s (it is located in the Vatican Library). Other manuscripts were identified; it turned out that Michael copied both ancient and Christian authors. The manuscript of the idyllic poet Theocritus is kept in the Vatican Library, Theodoret of Cyrus, the author of “Ecclesiastical History”, is kept in Oxford, Josephus is also in the Vatican Library. Later, a manuscript was discovered in Cremona containing John Philoponus's Commentaries on Aristotle's First Analytics 25 . All these manuscripts have no records that indicate the name of the scribe, the time and place of their writing. But advances in the identification of handwritings made it possible to determine that the manuscripts belonged to the hand of the same scribe, which Denisov identified in the Parisian “Geoponics”, the Tver Psalter and in a number of other manuscripts. Studying with Lascaris in Florence and possible collaboration with him in publishing were short-lived, as Lascaris accepted the invitation of the French king Charles VIII and left for Paris. The king bought the rights to the Byzantine inheritance from Andrew Palaeologus, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI, and he needed the authoritative Greek scientist both in political affairs, as an experienced consultant and translator, and to add shine to the French court. This event had a direct close connection with the war started by the French. The French king, who crossed the Alps on September 2, 1494 and took Naples in February 1495, had far-reaching plans that included a campaign against Constantinople. Philippe de Commines reported on them in detail in his memoirs; he was a person very close to the king, carried out important diplomatic assignments at that time, and his knowledge was very thorough. He received information about the duration of the journey in the territories subordinate to Turkey, and about the pro-French sentiments of the inhabitants. Regretting the unsuccessful outcome of the enterprise, the memoirist wrote that the French campaign “could have brought a lot of good and honor to the Christian world if people had understood that they were led by the Lord; after all, the Turk, who is still alive 6 and is the most worthless person in the world, would be just as easy to overthrow as King Alphonse 7 And how many thousands of Christians were ready to rebel - no one can imagine. After all, from Otranto to Albania there are only 60 miles, and from Albania to Constantinople about 18 days of travel by land, as those who have often traveled this route have calculated for me; and on this path there is not a single fortress, except two or three, for all the rest have been destroyed. There were three populous countries - Albania, Slavonia and Greece - and their inhabitants were constantly waiting for news about our king from their friends in Venice and Apulia and themselves wrote to them, waiting only for this messiah to rebel. Bishop Durazzo was sent to them on behalf of the king. An Albanian, he talked with many people, with the children and nephews of many lords and nobles of these regions, with relatives of Skanderbeg, with the son of the Emperor of Constantinople himself, with the nephews of Lord Constantine, now ruling in Montferrat... They were all ready to take the side of the king. More than 500 Janissaries would have gone over to him...” 26. It is worth noting that the ancestor of the mentioned lord Constantine, Boniface of Montferrat, was the military leader of the Fourth Crusade. Philip de Commines made a mistake when he mentioned negotiations with the son of the Emperor of Constantinople. In fact, it was the nephew of Constantine XI, the mentioned Andrei Paleologus. According to the treaty signed on September 6, 1494, he ceded to Charles VIII his rights to the Empires of Constantinople and Trebizond and to Serbia in exchange for a pension (4,300 ducats per year), lands with an income of 5 thousand ducats and an army of 100 copies. By the way, Andrei Paleologus had previously tried to sell his rights to other European rulers 27 . He visited Moscow twice to visit his sister, Zoya-Sophia, the wife of the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan III. However, the chronicles do not report anything regarding Andrew’s negotiations with the latter about the Byzantine heritage or on any other issues. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that such negotiations (probably unofficial) took place. The date of his first visit is very noteworthy - shortly after the birth of Sophia’s son Vasily, a future contender and winner in the struggle for the Moscow throne (although initially he did not have any prospects). Vasily was born on March 25, 1479, and the breve of Pope Sixtus GU, recommending to Ivan III Andrei Paleologus, who was heading to Moscow to meet with his sister Sophia, the Grand Duchess, was given on October 2, 1479, 28 when the news of the birth of a male child from Sophia could have already reached Rome. Russian chronicles report in 1480 (without indicating the month) the arrival of Andrei, the “brother-in-law” of the Grand Duke, the son of the Morean despot Thomas 29. John Laskaris, accepting the offer of Charles VIII, undoubtedly knew about his purchase of the right to the Byzantine inheritance. But did he also know about the previous negotiations of Andrei Paleologus, about his trips to his sister, the Moscow Grand Duchess? There is no data about this. Moreover, there is no data on whether the student could have known what the teacher knew. But we can take into account that Zoya was a pupil of Cardinal Vissarion, that her marriage took place largely on his initiative and that Vissarion was also the patron of John Lascaris. Lascaris was by no means the last person among the Greek diaspora in Italy, the “patron of the Greeks,” and the future fate of the enslaved homeland, the descendants of the imperial family, and the inheritance of the throne of Constantinople were acutely relevant here. In 1522, in Moscow, the revival of his fatherland and the fate of the Greeks will be discussed with the Moscow Grand Duke and Maxim the Greek. Mikhail Trivolis, of course, could not foresee this; He could not have known that he would call the Moscow ruler tsar, that is, equal to the Greek basileus, and express hope for his future role in the liberation of “us, the troubled” Christian peoples enslaved by the Turks. But we know about this and therefore we can see in the teacher’s departure to Paris, in its deepest reasons, a sign from the future for the student, a sign of fate. The years 1494–1495 brought changes in the life of Michael Trivolis, not only because of the departure of his teacher and patron. Great events took place in the life of both Florence and all of Italy. As already mentioned, the Italian Wars began, which lasted intermittently for several decades. After initial support for the French King Charles VIII by some forces in Italy, he was soon turned away due to the plunder and greed of his troops. A coalition of states was formed that united under the banner of defending Christianity from the Turkish threat, but actually saw the king of France as the main enemy. It included Venice, Milan, the pope, the German emperor, and the Spanish king. Unable to resist her pressure, Charles returned to France in July 1495, probably together with Lascaris. In the future, the balance of forces in Western Europe, alliances and confrontations will change repeatedly, which will affect, at least indirectly, the circumstances of the life of Mikhail Trivolis, especially in connection with the Turkish issue. What happened in Florence is known from the memoirs of Philippe de Commines. The city managed to avoid the fate that befell Naples - French troops left here on November 28, 1494. But the foreign invasion was accompanied by the fall of the Medici regime - their palaces were plundered, the weak and indecisive ruler Piero, the son of the recently deceased Lorenzo, was expelled from the city, republican orders and institutions were restored. The collapse of the Medici regime also affected the fate of humanist circles, which were patronized by enlightened bankers. The period of Florence's leading role in the field of Greek studies was also ending, which had lasted for more than a century, from the arrival of Manuel Chrysolor in 1396–1397 and the publication of his Greek grammar until the fall of the Medici. The leading role passed to Venice 30. Cooperation with Venetian circles also constitutes an important link in the Italian period of Michael Trivolis. We have almost no direct data on how his life developed after 1494–1495 until 1498, when we find him at Mirandola Castle, and correspondence from 1498–1503 allows us to establish some biographical facts. I. Denisov believed that he left Florence in the winter of 1495/96, heading to Venice, but ended up first in Bologna, where he spent that winter in the circle of the famous professor Urceo Codro, who became his mentor, like Lascaris earlier. Denisov referred to a letter from Codro sent to Baptista Palmieri, where the “young Greek Michael” was mentioned, in which the author saw Michael Trivolis 31. But this letter is much later (April 1498), and Denisov’s chronological calculations, which resulted in the “winter of 1495/96” as the date of departure, are quite arbitrary. The letter only allows us to state the fact of Michael’s acquaintance with Urceo Codro and his stay in Bologna earlier than 1498, but there is no data to determine either the more precise date of his arrival in Bologna or the nature of his relationship with Codro. Nevertheless, the year 1495 and Venice, perhaps not by chance, appeared in Denisov’s constructions, although the relevant facts were not yet known to him - they were introduced into scientific circulation later. Aldus Manutius published the ancient Greek poet Theocritus in Venice in 1495. This was the very beginning of the career of the famous printer, the founder of the publishing house, which continued to function for decades after his death. And among the new autographs of Michael Trivolis, that is, the manuscripts he copied, there is also Theocritus 32. The date of correspondence of the manuscript is not indicated. It can be assumed that the year of publication is 1495 – terminus ante quern 8 for correspondence, since the presence of a printed edition made it hardly advisable to order the manuscript immediately after it. But wasn’t the correspondence itself related to the preparation of the publication? The idea for the publication appeared to Aldus Manutius much earlier, as evidenced by the response letter sent to him from the already mentioned Bolognese humanist Urceo Codro (October 26, 1492). From the letter it follows that Aldus asked Codro to clarify certain expressions from Theocritus. It was also about rewriting texts. Aldus approached him with a request from the scribes, Caudro replied that there would be a delay, since his Greek scribe Nicholas was busy with other matters 33. In further searches for correct manuscripts and good scribes, Aldus may have become acquainted with Michael as a calligrapher, and he may have prepared a copy of the text for the publisher. Of course, this is just a hypothesis; it can be verified through textual comparisons. If this assumption is confirmed, it turns out that Mikhail Trivolis was associated with Ald from the very beginning of the printer’s activity. Indirect confirmation are fragments discovered in the Russian works of Maxim the Greek, which represent translations (or the influence of translations) from other early editions of Aldus in the same 1495. Thus, D. M. Bulanin established that in the work “Conversation of the Mind and Soul” (written in the 30s or 40s of the 16th century) one can see the influence of a fragment from Hesiod’s poem “Works and Days”; it was included by Aldus in a collection of works by Greek authors published in 1495. In the initial part of the poem there is an appeal from the poet to the muses, interpreted in his own way by Maxim (it is used as an argument against astrology): “Astrologists are sufficiently denounced by a certain veleum sage - his name is Hesiod - and even more so by the most memorable youths (that is, the muses), who are the source of all wisdom. When Hesiod asked them why some people become famous and famous, while others are deprived of honors and are not famous, they answered: “One way or another, it happens to people not by the wheel of happiness and not because of the combination of planets, but for the sake of the great Zeus, that is, by the ineffable destinies of God.” 34 The “Wheel of Happiness,” a symbol of fate-fortune, is repeatedly mentioned in the Russian writings of Maxim the Greek, and always with the same reprehensible connotation. V.S. Ikonnikov also noted the dependence of these fragments on the dialogue “Picture”, attributed to Cebes, a student of Socrates. The dialogue was also published by Ald, but later, in 1502 33. Maximus the Greek knew another fragment from the 1495 edition of Aldus Manutius - a complete version of the Sibyl’s acrostic with a prophecy about Christ. For Bulanin, this was another argument in favor of the fact that Maxim had this collection of Alda 36 in Russia. The educational theme with prophecies about the appearance of Christ will attract Maxim the Greek for many years, which will be reflected both in the original writings and in the translations. All of the above does not mean, of course, that Mikhail Trivolis necessarily took part in these publications. But there is no doubt that he knew about them, was interested in them, and may have brought some of them with him to Moscow and included information taken from them in his writings, not only from memory. Indeed, in Moscow, V. M. Tuchkov, asking Maxim the Greek about the meaning of the typographic sign “in a printed book,” saw this sign most likely in a book that belonged to the Greek scientist. In Italy, he was preoccupied with the formation of a personal library and valued it very much. In one of his Russian essays, he asks for the return of “the Greek books that came with him” - these could be both printed publications and manuscripts. The sequence of Michael Trivolis’s stay in Italian cities before 1498 is quite difficult to establish, not only because of the fragmentary information, but also because he could, apparently, combine stay, study and service in different cities, leaving them and returning. Denisov built a scheme of Mikhail’s sequential stay in different cities, believing that he first went through the path of learning, and then began to independently collaborate with humanists in their works. But the news is too fragmentary, and its nature is such that it allows us to talk about a combination of both types of activities. First of all, he could copy manuscripts, being a calligrapher; this art was highly valued at that time. If six manuscripts copied by him in Italy have survived to this day (more precisely, identified), then their actual number was much greater. In addition, he could teach, being both a teacher and a student at the same time, make translations, prepare manuscripts for printing, and be a proofreader. As for his own education and training, in Italy at that time they were not always systematic and regular. Researchers have repeatedly noted that not only students, but also mentor-professors moved from city to city, and professors sometimes taught in several places at the same time. Thus, V.S. Ikonnikov referred to the observation of A.N. Veselovsky that it was impossible to find the names of teachers in the archives of Florence, since then they could freely start and compose their courses 37. In one of the Russian works of Maxim the Greek, three names are mentioned, which make it possible to establish some of the cities of his residence and circle of friends 38. The chronology of this news covers the years 1494–1498. In addition to Florence, these are Ferrara and Padua. One of the names is “Kozmik from Ferrara”. As Ikonnikov established, guided by the instructions of V.N. Zabugin, this is an inaccurately conveyed surname of Niccolò Lelio Cosmico, who was a poet in Padua, taught in Ferrara, in private schools, without being a university professor, and died in June 1500 after a wandering life full of adventures 39 . The assessment given to him by Maxim is ambivalent. His great education was noted: he surpassed many “in external teaching” (that is, in secular sciences); At the same time, his excessive passion for “pagan teaching” is condemned. Dying, he said to his students and friends: “Rejoice with me, O beloved ones, tomorrow I will rest on the Champs Elysees with Socrates, Plato and many heroes.” Mikhail could not be present at his death, since since March 1498 he had been serving in the Mirandola castle; therefore, he conveys what he heard from other persons. In the same vein, “from Patavia 9 (that is, from Padua) Sesa, the Neapolitan philosopher” is described. As determined by V.S. Ikonnikov, this is Agostino Nifo, also called Sessa after his place of birth - the town of Sessa near Naples, - a famous scientist, an adherent of Averroism 40. Maxim speaks with condemnation about his attitude towards the Christian faith and the Church: he is so “mature” 10 of your faith and customs, writes Maxim, that he told his friends when they went to church: “Let us also go to the common delight” 11. Nifo taught at the University of Padua in 1492–1498, and it was during this period of time that Michael was either his student or a listener in those debates, in the polemic that Nifo led with another professor of the same university, Pietro Pomponazzi, who rejected the immortality of the soul in his lectures. In 1516, Pomponazzi published a Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul in Bologna, which was publicly burned, however, in Venice; but later the author managed, through the mediation of Pope Leo X, to publish it in a slightly modified form 41 . The author did not plead guilty. Although Maximus the Greek does not have the name Pomponazzi, only Nifo is named (he published his book in 1505), it is likely that the brief statement in another work (close in time to the one in question) dates back to the debates at the University of Padua; he writes almost with horror about how the “Latin sons” are “lawless” about the immortality of the soul. We'll come back to this a little later. The third in this series is named “Angel Poliziano” - Angelo Poliziano, poet, philosopher, philologist, one of the most significant representatives of Florentine humanistic culture. He died in Florence in 1494, and Michael Trivolis's acquaintance with him dates back to the last years of the poet's life. According to Denisov, he was the mentor of the young Greek 42. But the characterization given to him, limited to the message about his inglorious death, casts doubt on this, although it is on this mention that Denisov bases his conclusion. “Who doesn’t know the Angel Polizian from Florence!” - he quotes and interrupts the quote. And it continues like this: “... in all wickedness he shone forth and gave up his soul uncleanly and evilly. And others in another place, filled with all kinds of wickedness, would have long ago erected churches to idols, if they had not been restrained by the fear of the pope’s prohibition.” Three lively sketches made according to the principle of ad hominem, the episodes remaining in memory bear the stamp of authenticity; assessments could not be the result of the Athonite and Moscow rethinking of the Italian experience, the rejection of the humanistic interests of youth, although such judgments are sometimes found in scientific literature. Poliziano’s characterization can hardly belong to a grateful student who remembers his teacher many years later, as I. Denisov believed - let us remember the respectful review of Lascaris (“glorious”) conveyed by Kurbsky. Rethinking and revaluation began and continued in Italy itself, becoming the fruit of what would later be called “the contradictions of the Italian Renaissance” 43. An observant and inquisitive Greek young man, moving in humanistic circles with their diverse and multidirectional interests, polemics, disputes, absorbing the atmosphere that reigned there, acquired positive knowledge in schools and universities, in various contacts, but at the same time he noticed and accumulated facts (at first, perhaps unconsciously or not quite consciously), which would later become arguments for his removal to Athos. M. Baracchi, referring to the above statement (as well as some others similar to it), wrote that Maxim the Greek “attacked Italian humanism in Russia” 44. But this is not about humanism. The author does not touch upon humanism as such as a phenomenon as a whole; he does not even mention it, although there is also an element of generalization in the memories of the three individuals. What unites them is the “wickedness” that he observed in different cities of Italy. In relation to Cozmiko, Nifo, Poliziano, specific manifestations, facts, episodes of “wickedness” in their real lives are spoken of (and in relation to two – in connection with some circumstances of their death). The author did not tell us anything about the content of their teaching, without expressing his attitude towards it in any way. Nevertheless, we still have the right to pose the question: is it not possible to identify, recognize at least some trends in the mental and spiritual life of Italy at that time, which were at least known to him? The invectives of Maxim the Greek, for all their expressiveness and apparent categoricalness, are of a rather general nature; they are quite difficult to identify and combine with specific teachings and individuals. But in a number of cases this becomes possible if we take into account the context of the above statement, as well as two others, also in the writings of the Moscow period. They talk about “Italian schools” and also contain other Italian realities. This refers to both the internal context, that is, the immediate environment of the statements that interest us, the content of each work as a whole, and the external context, that is, the church-political, literary, ideological situation in Moscow, which brought it (the work) to life. What was the question-request-challenge to which the essay was the answer, what was the “external” purpose of its creation? Of course, it is quite difficult to completely “stratify” the Italian and Moscow parts of information, but we will still try not only not to destroy each of them, but, on the contrary, to mutually enrich one another. Therefore, dear reader, we need to make a small digression and look ahead to look at our hero already in Russia: what he distinguishes from his Italian past, how, and most importantly, why he writes about it. In order to avoid subjectivity of interpretation and not to make a collage, a composition of individual passages from different works, we will present in full each of the three fragments of interest to us, translated into modern language and accompanied by explanations (mainly of a lexical nature). In this case, a translation made at the Kazan Theological Academy 45 is used. “Italian schools” are mentioned in the message to the diplomat and publicist F.I. Karpov against the Latins - the first lengthy polemical work of Maxim the Greek on this topic. It was written between June 1521 and December 1522 and, during the author’s lifetime, received a title that indicated its theme and changed genre (from epistolary to rhetorical): “A word in Latin that no one should add or subtract anything from the divine Confession of the immaculate Christian faith” 46. The presentation is subordinated to the proof and substantiation of this particular thesis, which is based on the First Rule of the VII Ecumenical Council 47. And the “Italian schools” are shown as one of the examples of distortion or denial of Christian dogmas and doctrines. The tradition of Byzantine anti-Latin polemics includes the Italian experience of a polemicist. The Moscow controversy was caused by the propaganda of the idea of ​​uniting the Churches, which was led in Russia by the Catholic theologian Nikolai Bulev (Nemchin); it is also known that the Genoese Paolo Centurione, who visited Moscow with letters from the pope, had conversations on this topic in Moscow at the same time, as reported by the Italian historian Paolo Giovio in his work published in Rome in 1525 48 . Maxim Grek pays great attention to terminology, especially philosophical, a conceptual apparatus that was then very poorly developed. Some terms appear for the first time precisely in his writings on this topic, as far as one can judge from the material recorded in the dictionaries. In the “Latin Word” there are marginal glosses of an explanatory nature for such words as “syllogisms”, “dialectics”, “logic”, etc., the term “sophism” appears (in the form “sophismat”, the meaning of which in the modern dictionary is documented in this text). The terms “art” 12, “artistic expression”, “art of logic”, “verbal art” present in this work refer to the so-called “liberal arts” (“Artes liberales”). According to the classification of sciences and education that existed at that time, they included the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, dialectics) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music) - in different sequences. A 14th-century fresco in the church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence depicts fourteen allegorical female figures, symbolizing the seven theological sciences and the seven liberal arts; they are confronted with historical characters, in the identification of which the opinions of scientists differ. Among the theological sciences, Emperor Justinian and Pope Clement V (civil and canon law) are indisputably identified, as well as Peter of Lombardy, Boethius, St. Augustine and two representatives of Eastern patristics - Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius) the Areopagite and John of Damascus. The liberal arts are symbolized by Pythagoras (arithmetic), Euclid (geometry), Ptolemy (astronomy), the legendary blacksmith Tubalcain (music), Aristotle (dialectics), Cicero (rhetoric), Donatus (grammar) 49 . The large fragment in the “Word” of Maximus the Greek in question is a solid, complete part of the work; it is stated as an interpretation of several verses from the letters of the Apostle Paul, which were often used as an argument in resolving the issue of the relationship between faith and knowledge. This part ends with the words: “In this the divine Paul confirmed us.” Inside it there is another interpretation - John Chrysostom from the “Tale of the Seraphim” on the text of the prophet Isaiah. Maximus the Greek's own interpretations adapt him to the tasks of polemics. The text occupies about three sheets of the manuscript in quarto (fol. 127–130 of the published manuscript). The verse taken from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Colossians: “Take heed that no one deceives you with philosophy and vain flattery, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). Maximus the Greek interprets these words as an indication of the vain attempts of “external,” secular philosophy to “deceive” and distort the apostolic truth and refers them to the “Latin sons,” transferring to them the apostle’s appeal to the Galatians (Gal. 1:8–9). He addresses the addressee: “Is it not this (that is, vain philosophy) that the Latin sons are now [subordinated to] and deceive 13 with the apostolic truth? Go mentally to the Italian schools, and there you will see, like streams flowing, or better yet, drowning, Aristotle and Plato and those around them. And no dogma is considered strong among them, neither human nor divine, unless they confirm this dogma with the help of Aristotelian syllogisms 14. And if it does not agree with artistic evidence 15, then it is either rejected as worse, or - if they see that it contradicts art - then it is cut off for the sake of Aristotle's art and replaced with another, supposedly true one. And that I will tell you how wicked the 16 Latin sons are now, deceived by the seduction of vain philosophy, according to the apostle 17, because they follow more external knowledge, dialectics 18, than internal church and God-given philosophy, [when they speak] about the immortality of the soul, and about the enjoyment of the righteous in the future [life], and about the remission of sins for believers 19 who depart from this lives that suffer in every possible way 20 . Knowledge of external words is wonderful and truly worthy 21, it is needed in order to speak correctly 22, for [cultivating] purity and sharpness of mind 23, but not for discussing and acquiring divine dogmas and reasoning about them, because this is above any thought and above any sight of the essential and non-essential, visible and knowable only by faith, without any art of logic 24 , [it should] be avoided and raised high 25 . This is what the divine John Chrysostom, knowledgeable in everything, says in his Word on the Seraphim, where he interprets the visions of the blessed prophet Isaiah 26, these are his golden words: “What [the prophet] saw, he said, and in what manner he kept silent. and the reading of the Scriptures was [like] a golden loom [and a cloth of gold], [it has] a warp of gold and a weft of gold. 27 I know the weakness of my thoughts. Do not change the eternal limits, which your fathers laid down; it is not safe to move them. O the inscrutable honors of this blessed father, Mr. Theodore! Woe to our daring and unpunished shamelessness, [which] we dare to do [in connection with] divine mysteries, incomprehensible even to the angels themselves! This [John Chrysostom], so great in virtue, did not dare to see or speak or think more than what a servant deserves, but was content with what was said by the prophet, and likened his godly thoughts to a web. We, however, are further removed from the grace and wisdom that came down to him from heaven and settled in him than from his incomparable angelic life and holiness, we, immersed in the ashes of passions, clinging, like dumb cattle, to vile voluptuousness, we, flaring up from some small spark of worldly dispute 28 more even than from philosophy and jumping out like wild beasts, - [we] fiercely tear the robe of the Church, woven from high theology, with dialectical incitements 29 and sophisms 30, competing in vain in order to speak with human speech about the sacred sacraments, ineffable and incomprehensible, known only to the Holy Trinity... This is what the divine Paul affirmed us in.” This complex, multi-component interpretation is built on the principle of opposition. Having begun as an interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul, to whom the author contrasted the “Latin sons” who deceive the apostolic truth, it continues with the interpretation of John Chrysostom on the text of the prophet Isaiah, where the esoteric, mystical silence of the prophet is opposed by the grandeur of the “Latin sons”, like the golden fabric from a church vestment - a cobweb. The burning coal of the prophet is opposed by a weak spark that flared up from worldly debates, dialectical incitements and sophisms (“maliciousness”). In this fragment, two objects of denunciation can be identified, and this is by no means humanism. Firstly, this is late scholasticism, observed by Maximus the Greek in the “Italian schools” (“Aristotelian syllogisms”, “dialectical incitements” and “vile sophisms”, cunningly used to deny or distort the dogmas of the Christian doctrine). Late Aristotelianism and scholasticism were at that time in a state of decline and provoked criticism, reaching the point of satire (for example, by Erasmus of Rotterdam), from many humanists, and the invective of Maximus the Greek is in a humanistic vein. We will return to this after bringing in two other fragments with additional arguments and statements about “Aristotelianism” and “Peripatetics”, with a more complete reflection of the author’s attitude towards “external sciences”, philosophy, and secular knowledge. Secondly, another specific object of his denunciations - however, very laconic - are the teachings that denied the immortality of the soul. They were quite widespread at that time. V. S. Ikonnikov attached great importance to this trend in the atmosphere surrounding our hero; speaking about the debate at the University of Padua between Agostino Nifo, whom Maxim the Greek mentioned, and Pietro Pomponazzi, he wrote: “In the schools of philosophers they only argued about the essence of the human soul” - and cited the opinion of JI. Ranke: “One should not think that the opinion about the mortality of the soul was shared by a few or that it was kept secret. Erasmus was surprised at the blasphemies he heard. They tried to prove to him, on the basis of arguments taken from Pliny, that there is no difference between the souls of people and animals” 50. It is known that students of any university, when they wanted to evaluate a professor from the very first lecture, shouted to him: “Talk to us about the soul!” 51 The University of Padua was one of the main centers of debate on this fundamental religious and philosophical issue. Michael Trivolis may have been a listener at these debates. His position, succinctly reflected in his Moscow works, on this issue was in the same humanistic vein as in his assessment of late scholasticism and Aristotelianism. Suffice it to say that Marsilio Ficino devoted the main of his original works to the defense of the thesis about the immortality of the individual human soul - the fundamental treatise “Plato’s Theology on the Immortality of Souls” (published in 1482 in Florence) 52 . Maximus the Greek exclaims almost with horror about the “lawlessness” of the Latin sons in this matter. By speaking of the "enjoyment of the faithful" in the future life, he may be arguing against Epicureanism; if so, then the connection is apparently not accidental. Adherents of Epicureanism are seen, for example, by commentators in heretics who deny the immortality of the soul in several verses of Dante's Divine Comedy 53 . In the words of Maxim the Greek about the remission of sins and about the suffering of the righteous departing from this life, perhaps some of the theses or episodes of polemics on this issue are hidden, as in the review of Poliziano, who gave up his soul “unclean and evil.” The laconicism of Maxim the Greek is apparently explained by the same caution that he showed in Moscow when describing certain teachings in the history of the Church (especially heretical ones), fearing that they could give rise to temptations and have a bad influence on readers. It is known that for this reason he refused Metropolitan Daniel’s request to translate “Church History” by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, since it spoke at too length about the heresies of the early centuries of Christianity. Attacks against scholasticism and Aristotelian syllogisms, with the help of which the dogmas of Christian doctrine are distorted or denied, are also found in the second “Tale on the Latins” by Maximus the Greek. It was written shortly after the first one (around 1522–1523) and is devoted largely to dogmatic issues; the author argues in detail the thesis of the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father and refutes Filioque 31. This is the ultimate goal of the anti-Latin polemic of Maximus the Greek. At first, the words of Maxim the Greek are not devoid of even some irony, but then they become more firm, to the point of likening their opponents to heretics: “It would be fitting for the Latins - if they do not want to righteously give the divine words of the divine Gospels greater honor and faith than what they have for the very beginning words of the Stagirite, that is, Aristotle, revered by them - then at least they honored Stasov Godly words of equal honor with them [the words of Aristotle]. And just as they consider the teachings of the Stagirite immutable, so the words of the Lord [should] be kept pure and uncorrupted. And just as they are accustomed to calling anyone who thinks and teaches contrary to the teachings of Aristotle a liar and a seducer, they should also call everyone a heretic and a seducer who is not afraid to teach contrary to the voice of the Lord.”54 Finally, the third large fragment with Italian reminiscences - the one already mentioned at the beginning - is associated with the condemnation of the wickedness of three humanists - Cosmico, Nifo, Poliziano. The specific purpose and object of the essay are indicated in the title: “The accusatory word is partly about Latin slander, and also against the Almanac, which claimed that there would be a worldwide flood, more destructive than ever mentioned” 55. The author has in mind a very specific book and a very specific event that excited all of Europe in the first quarter of the 16th century - the astrological “Almanac”, repeatedly published in Venice, which was interpreted as a prediction of a new Flood in February 1524 based on the combination of planets in the constellation Aquarius (publications of 1508, 1513, 1518 are known). General horror led to the fact that they even began to build arks... The prediction also reached Russia, it was spread by the same Nikolai Bulev, who promoted the idea of ​​​​unifying the Churches 56. The essay was written shortly after the appointed date had passed, and the author now has such a convincing argument as the fact of an unfulfilled prediction. A large fragment in the “Tale against the Almanac” begins, as in the first “Latin Lay”, with an interpretation of texts from the letters of the Apostle Paul, partly the same as in the “Tale”; the author repeats some previous arguments. In the condemnation of "philosophy" in Colossians (2:8), "external" is added (to make the object more specific). The address to the Galatians (3:1) has been redirected, instead of “O foolish Galatians” there is “O foolish Latins”: “But it’s time to turn to you the word that blessed Paul writes to the Galatians: “O foolish Latins!” Who has deceived you not to obey the truth” [...], if you observe days, months, times, years? 32 As it seems, what has happened to you is what the same apostle bequeathed to the Colossians: you have been kidnapped by external “philosophy, by empty deception, according to human tradition, according to the elements of this world, and not according to Christ.” And it is not surprising. in order to direct you to copulate with what was mysteriously spoken by the prophets and apostles about the highest Trinity. And if the dogma is not confirmed by cunning syllogism, then it is rejected as rotten or without any fear changed for the sake of peripatetic cunning. And if I were not embarrassed by the length of what I am talking about to the detriment of further [exposition], then I would show you with facts that, based on this, you have completely corrupted many honest secrets [revered] by Christians, and converted others to please yourself, perverting the entire paternal rule. But do not think because of this that I condemn external punishment 33 - it is useful, as evidenced by almost all those who have shone in piety. I am not an ungrateful disciple of his, although I have not been sufficiently on his threshold, but I condemn the highly experienced mind of those who seek it [external punishment], which rises beyond the necessary 34 level. For they should use it piously and engage with it wisely, and take from it what contributes to the establishment of the Christian faith and, as the divine Paul says, “captivate every mind into the obedience of Christ” 35, and place it everywhere below the gospel truth as its slave. The opposite [of what has been said] is done by those who - as we will see - having rejected the truth, devoted their whole lives to it, and Aristotle, and Plato, and the rest of the Hellenic line, and visit them and breathe them. [To show] what corruption of dogmas and wickedness is born in the thoughts of those who learn it, no word will be sufficient. I am a truthful witness of all this, because I was not only their listener and eyewitness in Italy and Lombardy, but also was once in communication with them. And if God, who cares about universal salvation, had not visited me with His grace and illuminated my thought with His light, then soon I would have perished along with the representatives of wickedness existing there. About how many people I learned in Italy are suffering from pagan wickedness and are desecrating the most honorable sacraments that exist among you.” Next is the already quoted fragment about the wickedness of Cosmiko, Nifo and Poliziano. What is new in these fragments (compared to “Words in Latin”) is, in addition to the names of the three humanists, mentions of the “Peripatetics,” a fairly lengthy passage about “external punishment” as the “slave” of the Gospel truth (it is usually interpreted as a traditional medieval thesis about philosophy as the “handmaiden of theology” 57, although this does not quite correspond to the author’s actual thought), and about the “Hellenic order.” “Peripatetics” were the followers and commentators of Aristotle of the 4th century BC. e. – III century AD e. By the end of the Middle Ages, their teaching, like all medieval scholasticism, was in a state of decline and caused not only criticism, but also ridicule. Condemnation of “peripatetic syllogisms”, “peripatetic cunning”, as before, in “Words in the Latins”, “Aristotelian art” and “dialectical incitement” is carried out by Maxim the Greek completely in the spirit of humanistic rejection of late scholasticism, which was increasingly turning into sophisticated sophistry. It was opposed in the 14th century by Petrarch, in the 15th century by Lorenzo Valla, and at the beginning of the 16th century by Thomas More and Erasmus of Rotterdam. In the treatise-dialogue “On One’s Own and Others’ Ignorance,” as A. H. Gorfunkel wrote, Petrarch denounced the “godless peripatetics” and mocked “the dialectical intricacies of late scholasticism (it is against them, first of all, as recent research has shown, that the most harsh polemical passages of Petrarch’s treatise “On One’s Own and Others’ Ignorance” are directed)” 58 . The “heresy of peripatetic fabrications” in the first half of the 15th century was denounced by Lorenzo Valla in his work “Digging [revising] all dialectics together with the foundations of universal philosophy.” He wrote: “Modern Peripatetics... it seems to me that a representative of none of the schools will not be given the freedom to disagree with Aristotle... Other Latin authors do not consider other philosophers to be sages, recognizing one philosopher as a sage, and even the wisest. Isn’t it so if they only want to know him?” 59 These words are close to the just quoted statement of Maximus the Greek in the second “Word on the Latins.” Erasmus of Rotterdam writes about the scholastics already in the genre of satire in “The Eulogy of Stupidity” (published in 1511 in Paris). An entire chapter (LIII) is devoted to “doctors” and “our newest theologians.” Stupidity, ironic about their wisdom and omniscience, speaks of “the many trends that exist among the scholastics, so that it is easier to get out of the labyrinth than from the networks of realists, nominalists, thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists and others (I am not naming all of their sects here, but only the most important ones). No one will convince me that Paul, who was superior in learning to the rest of the apostles, would have allowed himself to condemn competitions, controversies, genealogies and other, as he puts it, word disputes so many times, if he had been privy to all the tricks of dialectics...” This fragment of Erasmus is inspired by the same words of the Apostle Paul as the interpretations of Maximus the Greek on verses from the Apostle Paul in the first and third of the quoted fragments of Maximus the Greek. Erasmus condemns the “competitions,” “controversy of words” of the scholastics - and Maxim writes about “external, that is, worldly competition,” the vain “competition” of the Latin sons (let us pay attention to the similarity of terminology in the Russian translation of Erasmus). Erasmus speaks of “the tricks of dialectics,” and Maxim the Greek speaks of “dialectical incitements and sophisms.” He saw the “competitions” and “controversies” that Erasmus condemns in the repeated warnings of the Apostle Paul addressed to the addressees not to heed all kinds of calls, “disputes” emanating from various seducers seeking to tear their listeners away from the truth. These are the same words with which Maxim the Greek began his interpretation: “Take heed, brethren, lest anyone lead you away with false philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8); in the same message: “...so that no one deceives you with insinuating words” (2, 4); “...let no one judge you for food or drink, or for any holiday...” (2, 16); in the letter to the Ephesians: “... lest we be children, tossed to and fro and carried away by every wind of doctrine, by the craftiness of men, by the cunning craft of deceit” (Eph. 4:14) and a number of verses from other letters. Erasmus’s stupidity, meanwhile, continues to be ironic: “No, in my opinion, Christians would have acted very wisely if, instead of the powerful cohorts who have long been waging war with the Turks and Saracens with varying success, they sent into battle noisy Scotists, stubborn Occamists, invincible Albertists and all the other sophistical army: we would then see the most exquisite battle and victory in history, never before never seen." Let us not deny ourselves the pleasure of getting acquainted with another fragment of Erasmus about “our doctors”: “By idle talk in schools, they imagine that with their syllogisms they support the universal Church, which is ready to collapse, just as the poets Atlas holds the vault of heaven on his shoulders. Isn’t it nice, in your opinion, to knead and mold, like wax, the mysterious sacred teaching, placing your conclusions, sealed by the authority of several scholastics, above Solon’s laws and papal decrees? Isn’t it gratifying to imagine ourselves as censors of the entire circle of the earth, demanding the renunciation of anyone who diverges even a hair’s breadth from their obvious and implied conclusions: neither baptism, nor the Gospel, nor Paul and Peter, nor Saint Jerome, nor Augustine, nor even Thomas Aristotle himself are able to make a person a Christian, unless he receives approval from the subtly wise bachelors? The attacks against bachelors are also reminiscent of a short fragment from “Latin Words.” Of course, Maxim the Greek is not so eloquent, he is very laconic, less informative, but the object of his denunciations is the same as in Erasmus’s satire, and in emotional intensity he is not inferior to the representative of Christian humanism 60. Erasmus's "Praise of Folly" caused extreme discontent among adherents of traditional scholasticism. Louvain theologian Martin Dorp publicly condemned Erasmus's satire on theological sophistry; Thomas More came out in defense and support of his friend Erasmus. In a lengthy letter to Dorp (October 1515), he expressed his rejection of the false dialectical theologians and their “sophistic nonsense” 61 . As far as one can judge from the laconic, general statements of Maxim the Greek, he was close to the point of view on dialectics and rhetoric, demarcating their role and significance in the then system of sciences, in their relationship with theology, which was characteristic, in particular, of northern, Christian humanism. I. N. Osinovsky, summarizing the observations of a number of researchers, in particular M. Fleischer, described these positions as follows: theology, according to the scholastic concept, “comprehends God and his doctrine with the help of speculative reason, and therefore dialectics or logic are the main means for establishing “divine truth.” On the contrary, humanists who belonged to the circle of Erasmus took the study of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers of the Church as the basis for their theology. point of view, true theology is interested only in such knowledge as is necessary and sufficient for the salvation of a Christian, and this knowledge is embodied in the Holy Scriptures, patristics, ancient sacred customs and institutions of the Church. With this view of theology, its main assistants were proclaimed to be the verbal arts - grammar and rhetoric. Scholastic theology, which highlighted dialectics or logic, was unacceptable to humanists and meant, from their point of view, the replacement of genuine, positive knowledge with false truths obtained through logical tricks.” The subject of fierce debate between humanists and scholastics were two approaches to scientific knowledge: the position of Dorp and his colleagues - the Louvain theologians, who defended the priority of dialectics as the main tool of theology, and the position of humanists (More-Erasmus), “who gave preference to rhetoric as a practical art, the vital significance of which, in their opinion, was much more important than abstract logical speculations... Cultural historians of the Middle Ages centuries, these two positions - modus rhetoricus and modus logicalis - are usually associated with the literary-rhetorical method of the early Church Fathers and the dialectical-speculative method of the era of scholasticism" 62. A negative attitude towards dialectics is expressed by Maxim in the context of condemning those who deny the immortality of the soul with the help of dialectical “competition” (“competition”), and especially in the use of John Chrysostom’s interpretation of a text from the prophet Isaiah. In his own interpretation, as if continuing the patristic one, he contrasts two approaches. On the one hand, “the acquisition of divine dogmas,” which is “above all thought,” “above the sight of every essential and inessential,” “visible and knowable” only by faith; its supporters avoid the art of logic, but “they fly high” (this is close to some provisions of Neoplatonic philosophy). And on the other – dialectical “incitement”, “maliciousness”, “coercion”, “sophisms” (and even “vile sophisms”). The burning coal of the seraphim from the visions of the prophet Isaiah touches the lips of the former, and only a small spark is struck by the competition of the latter. By citing such lengthy extracts from humanistic works, we are far from asserting that Maxim the Greek read precisely these texts. Our goal was to indicate a channel in which to place the laconic statements of Maxim the Greek, showing that he was aware of the mental currents of his era. The "Peripatetic discussions" continued throughout the 16th century. Francesco Patrizi opposed the Peripatetics, and Giordano Bruno took up arms against both the Peripatetics and Patrizi 63 . Taking up arms against scholasticism, Maxim the Greek invariably and constantly makes a reservation in order to ward off the possible reproach that he is an opponent of “external sciences”, knowledge as such. This is precisely what Fyodor Karpov reproached him for. He constantly talks about the benefits of “district teachings”, “external punishment” (training, education), his attitude is expressed quite definitely, categorically, devoid of any ambiguity. He separates the positive content of “external sciences” from the possibility of their false use and abuse. And the main thing for him is the inadmissibility of “testing” (testing) Christian dogmas and sacraments with their help, especially such a “test” that leads to their distortion, denial, and “corruption.” It is permissible to use “external sciences”, secular knowledge only for the affirmation of the Gospel and Apostolic truth, for “agreement” (coordination) with it, and not for confrontation and confrontation. And for religious thought and science of the 20th century, this remained an urgent task, as P. Florensky formulated it in the title of his main work, “The Pillar and Establishment of Truth” (the words “affirmation”, “affirm” in Maxim the Greek’s treatises on this topic belong to a number of key ones and become terms). Affirmation, not denial; agreement, and not the opposition of faith and knowledge - this is the pathos of his writings. Of course, the volume of “external sciences”, secular knowledge in Moscow was incommensurate with what Maxim the Greek observed in Italy, but the important thing is that he found it necessary to say about this in Russia. His attitude to the question of the relationship between philosophy and theology is not equivalent to the thesis “ancilla theologiae” (handmaiden of theology), as I. Denisov, for example, believed. He praises secular knowledge, but when it comes to the gospel and apostolic truth, it becomes undeniably higher. Her “slave” turns out to be the “divine” John Chrysostom, and her “slave” is “external punishment” in general. But he puts a high and deep, and most importantly, spiritual meaning into the concepts of “slave” and “slavery”. This is not “servitude of a servant” in the modern sense of words, not the forced subordination of a “slave,” but a high service, perhaps even similar to the liturgical one. It is also close to the approach of the northern humanists, which was just mentioned. In the first place for him is the comprehension of the “mysterious sayings of the prophets and apostles about the highest Trinity,” that is, the direct study of the Holy Scriptures, not distorted by scholastic interpretations. In the system of his argumentation, the writings of the Church Fathers, extensive fragments of which he cites, as well as the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and related messages of authoritative church hierarchs (for example, Patriarch Photius) 37 are of great importance. The system of oppositions in “The Word in Latin” is not an artistic device, not a literary feature of an aesthetic nature, but a category belonging to the category of dogmatic and moral concepts, spiritual values. The question arises about the addressee of the Russian works of Maxim the Greek. This is not only Fyodor Karpov, Nikolai Bulev, Russian contemporaries. In “The Lay Against the Almanac” there are repeated appeals to the “Latin sons”, to whom all these syllogisms and sophisms were closer and more understandable. This kind of appeal can be regarded as a rhetorical device aimed, firstly, at indicating the origin and source of the views being denounced; secondly, to identify a fairly wide range of their distribution. But there remain some statements that cannot be explained within the framework of this approach. For example, exclaiming “who doesn’t know the Angel Polizian,” Maxim the Greek himself could not, of course, not know that no one in Moscow knew him. Or, blaming Nipho and saying that he “has matured your faith and customs,” he meant Latin, not Russian readers. One gets the impression that this kind of statement is intended not only for the Russian circle and is not just a rhetorical device. One can make an assumption that was hardly possible two or three decades ago, before P. Bushkovich found in the Vienna State Archive the Greek message of Maximus the Greek, which is the Greek version of two of his famous Russian works (“Words of Repentance” and “Against Hellenic Charm”). It was sent from Moscow in 1552. If even at the end of his life our hero retained connections with representatives of his former environment, then they were all the more possible in the first period of his activity in Russia (1518–1525). This is especially likely for an essay dedicated to the Venetian astrological almanac, given the previous connections of Michael Trivolis with Venice. By creating his polemical works against the Latins, Maxim the Greek could also have had in mind the possibility of introducing them to the Western European circles of his compatriots. Since 1498, there was a community of Greek Orthodox in Venice (the school of St. Nicholas), founded with the permission of the Council of Ten, which had its own legal status and the right to choose its own priests. She had privileges from the popes and the Republic. Mark Mouzouros, one of the friends of Michael Trivolis, enrolled in the community on December 5, 1514 and repeated the registration on December 5 of the following year. The mediation of Mark Mouzouros and John Lascaris in the community's relations with Pope Leo X ensured its religious freedom. The Orthodox confession of Mouzouros is known, where he writes about the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father (without FilioqueY 5). Perhaps someday in the future, in the Venetian or some other archive, a Greek version of the treatise of Michael Trivolis - Maximus the Greek against the Venetian astrological almanac or other polemical work against the Latins will be discovered. Returning to the question posed at the beginning of the section - which Maximus the Greek attacked in his Italian reminiscences - we can now say with confidence that we see the object of his denunciations not of humanists, but of the “Peripatetics” and “Aristotelians” of late scholasticism, “cunning syllogisms” and “inflammatory sophisms”. Reproaches and accusations against them are combined in a number of cases with humanistic criticism. The same can be said about statements regarding the controversy about the immortality of the soul, although they are extremely laconic, and about statements against astrology. However, there was no unanimity in attitude towards it even among the humanists themselves. Pico della Mirandola, for example, categorically rejected predictive astrology, but Marsilio Ficino took a wavering position on it. As for humanism, Maxim the Greek does not touch upon the main content and essence of humanistic teachings and does not even mention them. He could not speak out against that component of the Renaissance, of which he himself was a participant (copying manuscripts, participating in the preparation and publication of works by ancient authors, etc.). But he could not ignore or ignore the trends, or more precisely, those components of the mental and spiritual life of Italy and Lombardy, which he defined as “impiety” or even “atheism.” And besides the wickedness of the Peripatetics and Aristotelians, he sees another wickedness - “Hellenic”, speaks of the “Hellenic line” with an undeniable negative connotation, counting Plato and Aristotle among it. It is in this context that the names of the three humanists are found, some real facts of their lives are condemned, in which “wickedness” was demonstrated. In the three quoted fragments, the theme of condemning precisely pagan “wickedness” is developed to a lesser extent than in later writings specifically directed against “Hellenic charm.” Again she will be condemned for wickedness and immorality. But this condemnation is not frontal; its position is differentiated. Classifying Plato and Aristotle as “the wicked line of the Hellenic”, decrying the abuses of their followers, Maxim the Greek at the same time recognizes the merits and authority of these famous philosophers of antiquity, especially Plato, calling him “supreme” among them 66, and in other contexts (for example, in polemics against astrology) takes them as his allies. His attitude towards Aristotle is evidenced by the fact that he copied the manuscript of John Philoponus’s “Commentaries” to Aristotle’s “First Analytics,” which in no way contradicts the reproaches against the abuse of “Aristotelian syllogisms” in contemporary scholasticism, since the “Commentaries” were created during its heyday. The merits of ancient Greek works published by Jlackaris, Aldus, and other printers, the significance of their Latin translations, their relevance in the history of culture could not raise doubts in him. But he condemned the wickedness and immorality associated with their perception in the Italian environment, penetrating into everyday life and everyday life, which was one of the characteristic features of the era, and this was repeatedly noted by researchers describing his environment and era in Italy (Ikonnikov, Denisov, etc.). Maxim Grek belonged to those scientists who have the ability to differentiate a phenomenon and are able to distinguish and evaluate its different aspects. In every case of denunciation, censure, criticism, whatever their object, he makes reservations, noting its positive aspects. This was also manifested in relation to “external sciences” (condemning their abuses, he writes about the benefits of “external punishment” - education, giving him praise), to astrology (recognizing the importance and necessity of astronomy as a science about celestial phenomena and luminaries, he denies the predictive side, astrology, which is also assessed as “wickedness”). This is the attitude towards Hellenism - while recognizing its high achievements, helping to master it, he denies and condemns those aspects of it that were negatively perceived in his time and in his environment. In addition, it should be remembered that he was, of course, well aware of the tradition of denouncing Hellenism, which was strong in Eastern patristics. It was an integral part of polemical theology and could not help but influence its attitude to the complex and ambiguous religious quests of humanists, to their search for religious synthesis. This topic requires independent consideration. Having a rare, even the rarest opportunity to see Renaissance Italy not only from the inside, but also from the outside, he was one of those who was able to discern the different components in its culture, in particular that about which scientists of the following centuries had to write and argue a lot. Contents of the exercise XIX-XX centuries, condemning Renaissance individualism, self-assertion of man and his betrayal of God, was aphoristically formulated by one of the largest researchers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Etienne Gilson (in a work of 1932): “The Renaissance, as it was presented to us, was not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus God, and the tragedy was that, losing God, the Renaissance was losing the person himself" 67. If we try to define the position of Maxim the Greek in the same vein, then we can propose the formula: “Hellenic beginning minus wickedness.” But this was unattainable, just like the Utopia-Nowhere of his contemporary Thomas More (whose name we will remember in the Moscow part of the biography of our hero). It must also be said that the very formulation of the question of “Maximus the Greek’s attitude towards the Renaissance” 68 is not entirely correct, since it presupposes to a large extent his attitude towards himself. Indeed, for him, as for his compatriots in Italy, who were “in the service of humanism,” the revived Greek antiquity was not “alien,” but “our own,” did not require and did not imply “rebirth,” since it never completely died. Being a calligrapher, collaborating with printers, Maxim the Greek became a living instrument of the transfer of knowledge, a versatile and powerful process of translatio, which was part of the culture of the era (translatio studii, translatio imperii, etc.). The Greeks in Italy were not just speakers of the language of revived antiquity - they were organically close to what was written in this language (with all the differences in eras, customs, linguistic norms and forms, etc.). In antiquity, they remained at home, even in those cases when they disagreed with it ideologically and ideologically. Maxim the Greek looked at the surrounding reality both from the inside and at the same time from the outside - this is the uniqueness of his position in the 90s of the Quattrocento and the first years of the next century. Soon on Athos he will understand his experience in a new way, and most importantly, he will be able to penetrate deeper into another antiquity, the spiritual heritage of the Eastern fathers, stored in the richest book treasuries of Athos. Humanists also showed great interest in some of them (these were Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great and a number of others). And in Russia, his works will be devoted in large part to the revival of Eastern patristics in translations into Church Slavonic, transfer to a new environment, to a different soil. Although we have just begun the story about the Italian fate of Mikhail Trivolis, let us recall once again his quote from “Words against the Almanac”), which sounds like a confession; it summarizes his Italian experience. Admitting that he himself almost drowned in the streams of wickedness, he speaks of his conversion: “And if God, who cares about universal salvation, having had mercy on me, had not soon visited me with His grace and illuminated my thought with His light, then I would have long ago perished along with the representatives of wickedness existing there.” Recalling his Italian past in Moscow, Maxim Grek did not deny that in his youth he was not alien to the hobbies of that time. But, referring to the “God-bearing fathers,” he would like to comprehend their life path as an example for himself. They put in, Maxim writes, a lot of work and sweat, mastering “external teachings,” but subsequently they were not too lazy to expose the lies in them and eradicate the growing harm from them. “All who have shone forth in wisdom and holiness have partaken of external disciplines, while still young and not having attained the highest wisdom... demanding more milk, and not solid food, as Paul says to the Corinthians. But when they reached the perfect age in which Paul was, freed from what was characteristic of infancy, they condemned as lies and ungodliness excessive teachings that do not know how to create godliness, and turned to prophetic and apostolic sources” 69. A verse from the Apostle Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians is contaminated here with verses from the Epistle to the Hebrews: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things” (I Cor. 13:11). And milk and solid foods are contrasted in the letter to the Hebrews: “Whoever is fed with milk is ignorant of the word of righteousness, because he is a child; solid food is characteristic of the perfect, whose senses are trained by skill to distinguish between good and evil” (Heb. 5:13–14). But Mikhail was still far from perfect then. Maximus the Greek (while still Michael Trivolis) lived in Florence when Savonarola’s ascetic preaching sounded here at notes of unimaginable heights, when the monk, who declared himself a prophet, transformed not only his monastery, but also the morals of the townspeople. His listener Mikhail belonged to a different confession, but everything that happened made such a strong and deep impression on him that several decades later he remembered and described the events, moreover, and this is especially noteworthy, being already in Russia, in a different confessional and cultural environment 70 . He presented to his Russian readers two Latin monastic orders and the abbot of one of the monasteries as an example of “perfect monastic life,” showing that even people who profess “wrong” teachings can have good beginnings. A lot has been written about Savonarola, 71 but we have the opportunity to talk about him in the words of Maxim the Greek himself, who was separated from Michael Trivolis by his stay on Mount Athos, his observation of Russian monastic order, and his acquaintance with Russian non-covetous people. It is all the more interesting what subjects and images from his past he chose. We will limit the additions to his story to only brief comments, mainly of a factual nature, and also present evidence from Philippe de Commines, already familiar to us, containing information about that side of Savonarola’s activities that Maxim the Greek did not touch upon, although in some part the events could have been known to him. When you read these pages of the memoirs of a French diplomat, the shadow of John Lascaris constantly looms, who at that time also became a close associate of the king, a link between the Greek diaspora and the French court, which at that time was preoccupied with plans to fight the Turks. Of course, we do not know what exactly Mikhail’s connections with his former mentor might have been. Denisov assumed that he could visit Paris with Lascaris, but Ikonnikov showed in 1915 that there was no sufficient basis for this assumption. Savonarola was born in 1452. His father was a famous doctor, his son received a good education, but refused a medical career, preferred the monastic path and in 1475 secretly fled from home to Bologna, to a Dominican monastery. He preached and taught in various cities, particularly in Florence in 1482. In 1490, Lorenzo de' Medici invited him to the city on the recommendation of Pico della Mirandola, and the Dominican took the chair of teacher in the monastery of San Marco, and soon, in 1491, he was unanimously elected abbot of this monastery. True, in 1493 he was forced to leave Florence after the ban imposed by Piero de' Medici on speaking sermons during Lent, but he soon returned. From that time on, Mikhail Trivolis became a listener to his sermons (in the Tale he reported that the sermons continued for five years). Savonarola's authority increased thanks to his mediating role in negotiations with the French king Charles VIII at the very beginning of the Franco-Italian War, in November 1494; he met with the king for the second time on June 18, 1495, as reported by Philippe de Commines. According to him, Savonarola saw in the king an instrument of God's punishment, hoped that he would help in reforming the Church, and called on him to do this, not stopping at threats. De Commines himself also met with Savonarola; their meeting took place in June 1495, when the diplomat was returning from Venice after unsuccessful negotiations for France. At this meeting, the French diplomat was accompanied by the royal majordomo, Jean François de Cardon; it must be assumed that the meeting took place on behalf of or with the knowledge of the king. The author of the “Memoirs” also recalled the events of the recent past, telling how “while in Florence, when he was going to the king, he visited a brother preacher named Brother Girolamo in a reformed monastery, a man, as they said, of a holy life, who spent 15 years in this monastery<...>. The reason for the visit was that he always preached to the great benefit of the king, and his words kept the Florentines from coming against us, for never before had a preacher enjoyed such confidence in the city. Whatever was said or written in refutation, he constantly assured his listeners of the coming of our king, saying that the king was sent by God to punish the tyrants of Italy, and that no one could resist or resist him. He also said that the king would go to Pisa and enter it and that on the same day a coup d'état would take place in Florence (this is what happened, for on that day Piero de' Medici was expelled). He predicted many other things in advance, such as the death of Lorenzo de' Medici, and openly declared that he had a revelation about this. He also preached that the Church would be reformed by the sword, which, however, did not happen, although everything was going exactly that way, but it could still happen. Many blasphemed him because he claimed to have a revelation from God, but others did not believe him; as for me, I consider him a kind person. I also asked him whether the king could return back without endangering his person, considering that the Venetians had assembled a large army, which Brother Girolamo knew better than me, although I had just returned from them. He answered me that the king would have many difficulties on the way back, but he would come out of them with honor, even if only 100 people accompanied him, and that the Lord, who brought him here, would bring him back; but because he did not fulfill his duty and did not reform the Church, as well as because he allowed his people to rob and rob the people, and especially the adherents of his party, as if they were enemies, although they of their own free will opened the gates for him, the Lord has pronounced judgment on him and will soon punish him 72 . But he added that I told the king that if he takes pity on the people and prevents his people from causing evil and punishes them for it, as he should, then the Lord will cancel or commute the sentence” 73 . The memoirist's story shows the diplomatic and political components of Savonarola's activities, which complements Maxim the Greek, who does not touch this side. In the “Tale” he says this: “In Florence there is a monastery - the birthplace of those who are called in Latin predicators, that is, preachers of the word of God. The church of this sacred monastery is consecrated in honor of the holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, whom the monks living here have as their guardian and representative. The abbot of this monastery was a priest named Jerome, a Latin by birth and teaching, full of wisdom and understanding of the divinely inspired scriptures and external sciences, that is, philosophy, a great ascetic, adorned with divine zeal. This husband learned that the city of Florence is subject to two godless sins - the vile lawlessness of Sodom (that is, homosexuality - N.S.) and godless extortion with the inhumane collection of exorbitant interest (we are talking about usury - N.S.). He made a good and godly decision - through the teaching word from the divine scriptures, to help the city and finally destroy these wickednesses in it. He began to teach the people of God in the church, bringing them various wise teachings and explaining books. In the Church of St. Mark the Evangelist, many listeners from among the noble and truth-loving residents of this city often gathered to see him. Finally, the whole city became attached to him with love, and begged him to come teach them in the cathedral church itself. He liked their invitation and permission, and he zealously accomplished this feat in the name of God, teaching them every Sunday and on special holidays, as well as every day on Holy Pentecost. He came to the cathedral church, where people gathered, and offered teaching, standing on a high place for two hours; and it happened that his teaching lasted for more than two hours. His preaching had such an impact that most of the city fell in love with his solid and saving teaching, and everyone retreated from their long evil custom and wickedness, instead of fornication, debauchery and carnal uncleanness, they became followers of all chastity and purity, instead of unrighteous extortion and the merciless demand for exorbitant interest, they became the most righteous, merciful and humane, and some of them began to imitate Zacchaeus, the elder of publicans mentioned in the Gospel. The funds they collected unjustly were squandered for good, distributing them through the hands of the teacher to those in need. But in order not to bore the readers of this description by telling about all his corrections, I will say briefly that most of the inhabitants of this city changed, and from followers of great malice they became followers of every praiseworthy virtue. I will tell you only about one praiseworthy act of a wretched woman, which will show the power of the divinely inspired teaching of that husband. Her son found a damask wallet lying on the street, which contained 500 gold coins. He brought it to his mother, but she, not happy that with this find she could get rid of her extreme poverty, immediately took it to the sacred teacher of the city and asked him to find the owner. Savonarola, seeing her truth-loving disposition, blessed the widow and released her. The owner was found and rewarded her generously, happily handing over 100 gold coins.” Maxim 1>ek writes only about what the townspeople did according to their personal choice. But the social transformations carried out at the request of Savonarola are also known. At his suggestion, the Great Council of the city replaced the land tax with an income tax, decided to expel money lenders and money changers from the city, who took extortionate interest, and carried out other reforms. “I could tell you other cases of corrections under the influence of the teachings of this man, but in order not to bore you with the length of the writing, I turn to the end of his five-year teaching. So, thanks to him, half of the inhabitants of the city received an excellent and godly correction, while the other half continued not only to disobey him and resist his divine teaching, but were at enmity with him, annoyed him, dishonored him, and made slander. He, amazed at the meekness and long-suffering of the Savior, endured everything courageously, strongly desiring the correction of many.” Among those who were influenced by Savonarola are famous names. Sandro Botticelli, for example, under the influence of his denunciation of pagan morals in the city, burned some of his canvases. Much more complex and ambiguous was Niccolò Machiavelli’s attitude towards Savonarola’s sermons and the townspeople’s reaction to them. In a letter to the Florentine ambassador in Rome, R. Becchi, written shortly before Savonarola’s execution, he wrote: “The citizens of Florence think that they cannot be classified as ignorant or savage, yet brother Girolamo Savonarola convinced them that he had spoken with God. I will not discuss whether it was true or not, because such people should be spoken of with respect, I will say one thing: there were an infinite number of people who believed in this, and nothing extraordinary was required to reinforce the faith. His way of life, his teaching and the subject he chose had sufficient persuasive power to make them believe." 74 Scientists view his reasoning as an expression of both respect and irony, even sarcasm. One of Machiavelli’s works was written, probably, under the influence of calls to repentance in the sermons of Savonarola and processions through the streets of the city of his supporters - “crybabies” in penitential clothes; this is the “Admonition of Repentance” or “Discourse on a Moral Theme,” which, according to researchers, in its direction “diverges from the rest of Machiavelli’s works” 75 . Further Maxim Grek continued: “He did not praise those who were in the church authorities themselves, but who did not live in the apostolic manner and did not care as they should for the flock of the Savior Christ. He fearlessly denounced their sins and often said: “If we lived in accordance with the Gospel of Christ the Savior, then all unbelieving nations would turn to the Lord, seeing our life as equals with the angels.” Saying this without hesitation, condemning with even harsher words the pope himself, who was especially revered by them, as well as the cardinals and other clergy who were with him, he thereby gave rise to even greater self-hatred and enmity on the part of those who from the very beginning hated his holy teaching. They called him a heretic, a blasphemer and a flatterer, since he opened his mouth against their most holy pope and the entire Roman Church. The rumor about this reached Rome and greatly embarrassed the pope and the clergy who were with him, so that they sent him a conciliar prohibition to teach the people of God. The scriptures added that if he did not stop preaching, he would be cursed as a heretic. He not only did not listen to such lawless advice, but was even more inflamed by divine jealousy and called their conciliar message unrighteous and unpleasing, as prohibiting him from teaching believers in the church.” The author does not report that in May 1497 the prior of the monastery of San Marco was excommunicated from the Church. The Pope sent a breve to the authorities of Florence with a ban on preaching, but Savonarola did not obey and even “burned the anathema” after one of the services. “Therefore, he began to denounce their iniquities even more, for, as I guess, not without reason, he decided within himself to die for piety and for the glory of God, if it were necessary. For in whomever the fire of zeal for God kindles, it will make him despise not only possessions and acquisitions, but also life itself. The pope's adherents did not cease to threaten him and in every possible way distract him from the preaching pulpit, and he continued to disobey them, never ceasing to expose their lies. And they decided to kill him and did so. Having chosen a general of the monastic order, named Joachim, who was very devoted to them, they sent him away, authorizing him with the authority of the pope to deprive him of his abbess and, after conducting a judicial investigation, put him to death by burning, as rebellious and an annoyancer and slanderer of the Apostolic Roman Church. This Joachim, having arrived in Florence and showing the pope’s letters to the highest authorities of the city, presented Jerome to the court and subjected him to painful torture.” We are talking here about Gioachino Torniani, general of the Order of Predicators, who arrived in Florence on May 19, 1498, together with Francesco Romolino. It was said that Savonarola was sometimes tortured fourteen times a day. “Since he boldly answered all the questions and cunning of that unrighteous investigator, the judge could not find him guilty. Then false witnesses from among the wicked, who had not submitted to his teaching, came forward against that venerable and innocent teacher of their city, and made grave and unjust accusations against him. Based on these accusations, those unrighteous judges condemned him and two other holy men, his supporters, with a double execution: they hung him on a tree, and then they lit a fire and burned him. Such was the end of the lives of those three reverend monks, such was the reward they received for their feat of piety from the most unworthy Pope Alexander, for at that time there was Pope Alexander, a native of Spain, who surpassed all lawbreakers in all untruth and malice.” We are talking about Pope Alexander VI Borgia, known for his crimes and debauchery. Savonarola's execution took place on May 23, 1498. The information about the two executed along with him is true. “I am so far from agreeing with those unrighteous judges that I would gladly classify the sufferers they tortured among the ancient defenders of piety, if they were not of the Latin faith. I saw the same ardent jealousy as in the ancients in those reverend monks. I didn’t hear it from anyone else, but I saw them myself and often attended their teachings. Their sermons were distinguished not only by zeal for piety, but also by wisdom, reason, knowledge of not only divinely inspired, but also external scriptures” 76. In the final part of the “Tale,” the author considers it necessary, as in the stories about the wickedness of the “Italian schools,” to avert possible reproach from himself, this time the accusation that he considers the Latin faith pure, perfect and righteous. “Let there be no such madness in me!” - he exclaims. As in the previous case, Maxim Grek considers different aspects of the phenomenon, assessing them differently. He separates the incorrect Latin teachings, “alien and strange,” from the fidelity that those who devoted themselves to monastic life maintained to such gospel commandments as like-mindedness, brotherly love, non-covetousness, silence, carelessness about worldly things, and concern for salvation. His goal is to provide a role model so that “we” do not turn out to be worse than “they.” Here the author follows, in modern language, the model of a positive “alien” to correct the negative “our own.” “The Tale” was written under the influence of the author’s non-acquisitive views, which were formed in Russia. But its main meaning and pathos are in full accordance with the nature and content of Savonarola’s transformative activities and his sermons. Her last words again denounce usury (the annual demand for interest) and curse the rich man, a hater of the poor. The Dominican Order was one of the four mendicant orders. By that time, all of them had already departed far from the norms of poverty and humility proclaimed when they arose, but they were preserved rather as an ideal that must be followed, and it was this ideal that attracted Mikhail Trivolis. We broke the complex structure of the Tale by first talking about predicators and Savonarola. This story is in its second part, and the first, no less in volume, is dedicated to another mendicant order - the Carthusian, although there is neither the name of the order nor the name of its founder, so even Denisov mistakenly extended the description of the orders of this order to the Dominican predicators of the second part 77. A similar error occurs in other works, although back in 1915 V. S. Ikonnikov, having analyzed “The Tale,” determined the names of the characters discussed in it 78 . At first glance, it may even seem that two independent stories are combined here, each of which is called a “Tale.” In addition, the “Tale” is structurally complicated by the description at its beginning of the University of Paris and praise of enlightenment (the second part, we recall, begins with admiration for Florence). The combination of the two “Tales” is subordinated to the ideological intention of the work - to show “perfect monastic life” using the example of two mendicant orders. If Maximus the Greek’s interest in Savonarola and his monastery could be explained by the atmosphere of universal involvement in what was happening that reigned in the city at that time, the enormous influence of the preacher, then detailed knowledge and description of the orders of another monastery (of the same direction) show the ascetic inclinations of our hero’s nature, which had already manifested themselves in Italy. Internal impulses prompted his desire to become acquainted with the practices of different monasteries. He was also aware of the Franciscan order, named after Francis of Assisi, “the apostle of poverty and love.” In Russia, he will write a brief description of it, combining it with the Dominican on the basis of commitment to non-covetousness. Among his friends was the monk of the contemplative order of the Camaldulians, Peter Candido (Leucheymon). On Mount Athos, living in Vatopedi, he will also be interested in other insistently and describe in detail the “stay and order” of various Svyatogorsk monasteries. The combination of two stories in the story “about perfect monastic residence” was not done on a formal principle; my own visit to Florence finally convinced me of this. It turned out that in the southern part of the city a Carthusian monastery, one of the most famous in Italy, still operates. Consequently, this part of the description was also based on personal meetings and personal observations, but also on written sources. He writes about this at the very beginning of the Tale, talking about a miracle witnessed by the founders of the Carthusian Order, then still students at the University of Paris. This is the plot and structural reason for the introduction of a large fragment characterizing the university, praising knowledge and enlightenment; This part also acquires independent significance. The description of the miracle is preceded by the author’s assurance that he is writing the truth, since he fears that he will be accused of lying by not believing the miracle, and speaks of his sources, both written and oral: “I write the truth, which I not only saw and read myself, but also heard from many trustworthy men, adorned with a virtuous life and great wisdom, with whom I, while still very young, lived for quite some time.” Consequently, he himself calls another (in addition to the humanistic) circle of his communication - monastic. He probably talked with the Carthusians, became acquainted with one of the lives of St. Bruno of Würzburg (11th century), the founder of the order, as well as with the monastic charter. He also makes a second reservation in order to remove doubt that such a glorious miracle was performed among people devoted to the Latin teaching. “No,” he objects, “for divine grace extends untold gifts and benefits to all people from its bounties, for the sun shines for the evil and the good, and the rain falls on the righteous and the unjust.” These are the words of the Gospel of Matthew (5:45). “In the famous city of Paris,” Maxim Grek begins the story of the miracle, “there was a certain man, very educated.” The author did not know his name, but Ikonnikov determined that he was talking about Raymond Diocre, a real person distinguished by his blasphemous disposition. Once during class, proud of his thoughts, while interpreting a theological saying, he eloquently declared: “The Apostle Paul himself could not explain this saying the way I explained it.” “But the judgment of the Lord,” continued Maxim the Greek, “always opposes the proud, and did not slow down, and made dead and voiceless the one who himself was loud and eloquent. The disciples who were there took him to the church and began to perform the usual singing. But, oh horror, the dead man came to life, sat down on his bed and exclaimed: “I am set before the Judge!” - he became dead again and sank onto the bed. Those standing nearby were horrified. And then the dead man suddenly came to life again and said: “I am tested,” and again sank down onto the bed. Even greater horror and fear seized those present, and the deceased came to life for the third time and said: “I am condemned,” and did not come to life or speak again.” Episodes of this miracle, described in the lives of St. Bruno, are also presented in paintings, frescoes, and stained glass windows kept in the monastery. The miracle made such a strong impression on those present that the disciples of the deceased, of whom there were a great many, among them noble and rich young men, went to a remote place and there they built a monastery for themselves, despising and treating as nothing the short-lived beauties of this vain life, zeal in the sciences and the vain glory resulting from this. They unanimously renounced all worldly cares, distributed their property and acquisitions to the poor and needy in accordance with the Gospel commandment, leaving only a small part for food and the needs of the monastery. Having chosen monastic life, they established new rules and orders that were not easy to implement for everyone. There is an inaccuracy here. Since the first Carthusian monastery of Grand Chartreuse was founded in 1084, when Bruno was already about fifty years old, he could not have been among the students who witnessed the miracle, who after him retired to a deserted place and founded the monastery. Initially, in 1083, he himself retired to a Benedictine abbey in Burgundy, and then, having chosen six disciples from among his followers, he went to Grenoble, where Bishop Hugh granted them the mountainous place of Chartreuse, 24 kilometers from the city. Perhaps Mikhail knew about these discrepancies and skipped over the exact details of the founding of the monastery, not even mentioning the name of its founder, which was not at all difficult to find out. The main principles of the Carthusian monks were contemplative life and complete detachment from the world 71 . In the 11th century and later, the desire for desert living and contemplative life became widespread in Europe. In France it was a Carthusian monastery (from the Latinized name of the place - Chartreuse), in Italy - Camaldouli, already mentioned in connection with the humanistic debates that took place there. The Florentine monastery of the Carthusians was founded in the 14th century; at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries it flourished, and a lot of construction was carried out there. Residents of Florence still call it “our Certosa.” The story of the miracle is accompanied, or rather, preceded by a description of the University of Paris, and again, as for other cities, geographical information is given: “There is a glorious and populous city of Paris, located in Gaul, which is now called France, it is a great and glorious power, abounding in countless blessings.” The story about Paris goes back to information from John Lascaris who visited there. “The first and exclusive concern of the inhabitants of this country,” continues Maxim the Greek, “is to provide free education to everyone, and teachers are annually given a large salary from the royal (state - N.S.) treasury, since the ruler has a special love for education and zeal for verbal sciences.” Here the voice of John Lascaris is clearly heard, his assessment of his patrons, kings Charles VIII and Louis XI. Not only ecclesiastical sciences, pious theology and sacred philosophy are taught there, but also external (secular) sciences, and there are a great many teachers of such sciences (as I heard, the narrator adds). Particular attention should be paid to the message that the children of not only ordinary people, but also kings, rulers, princes gather at the university, attracted there by the desire to study verbal sciences and arts, and some dignitaries send their brothers there, others - grandchildren and other relatives. Each, after quite long studies, returns to his homeland, filled with the wisdom of reason, and there serves as an adviser and kind assistant to the rulers. The final part of the story has an edifying character: such should be those who in our country (that is, in Russia) greatly boast of the nobility and abundance of wealth, they too should be enlightened by the sacred teaching of the verbal sciences, they could, having conquered their unpraiseworthy passions, despise external female adornment, free themselves from the love of money and all covetousness, and also force others to imitate them in a godly lifestyle. In stories about his Italian past, about the Western European world, Maxim Grek constantly separates “wrong Latin teachings” from “positive experience,” to use modern language, which should be imitated in Russia. The detailed description of the orders and way of life of the Carthusian monks, emphasizing their non-acquisitiveness and strict morals, has the same edifying character. The subjects of Maxim the Greek’s “Tale of Florence” are also facts of world Christian culture that aroused interest in subsequent centuries. Russian historian N.M. Karamzin, while in Toulouse, collected information about the Carthusians 80. Romain Rolland turned to the personality of Savonarola in the 90s of the 19th century. Anna Akhmatova evoked the image of Savonarola in a poem dedicated to Florence, which appeared to her as a city not only of Dante, but also of Savonarola’s “repentant crybabies.” The names are not named, but they can be guessed. Dante – “he”, “this one”: Even after his death he did not return to his dear Florence. This one, leaving, did not look back, This is why I sing this song. A torch, night, the last hug... Beyond the threshold is the wild cry of fate. He sent a curse to her from hell And in heaven he could not forget her. Savonarola and his “crybaby” followers, their processions around the city, sermons calling for general repentance are distinguishable in the words: But barefoot, in a shirt of repentance, With a lit candle, he did not walk through his desired Florence. Treacherous, low, long-awaited. For the Silver Age poet, Dante and Savonarola turned out to be two sides of the same coin - or a common profile on one of its sides. Mirandola Castle and San Marco Monastery 1498 is the second important milestone in the Italian life of Michael Trivolis. His service began with Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola, nephew of the famous Pico. This is one of the important discoveries of I. Denisov made in 1943. Almost simultaneously, Mikhail receives two more invitations - to Bologna and to Count Lodovico II Tizzoni of Decani, which he rejects. This means that by this time he had acquired fame and authority both among the Greek diaspora and in humanistic circles: being invited to different cities, for different services, he could choose, refuse, or recommend another person in his place. The name Pico della Mirandola is not in the Russian works of Maxim the Greek, and it is unknown whether our hero managed to meet him in person (Pico died in 1494 at the age of thirty-one). There is no name for his nephew either. Giovanni Francesco honored the memory of his uncle, prepared and published his works, and he could benefit from the help of an educated Greek. The following chapters will present indirect evidence of the influence of Pico’s works on Maxim the Greek and even the hidden dialogue with him that lasted in Russia. We find Michael in Mirandola on March 29, 1498, when he writes from there two letters to his compatriots in Italy, Nicholas of Tarsus and John Grigoropoulos. You can also establish the places of previous stay - Venice and Vercelli. On March 5, 1498, in Venice, he completed the copying of the manuscript of John Philoponus' Commentaries on Aristotle's First Analytics, his main work on logic. We have already said that one of Maxim’s occupations in Italy was the work of a calligrapher, copying manuscripts, and this manuscript is his new autograph that was recently established. It is not indicated who ordered the manuscript; only the place of writing and the date are indicated, which allow us to conclude that Michael arrived in Mirandola directly from Venice shortly before March 29 (the date the letters were written). In a letter to Nicholas of Tarsus, canon in Vercelli, he writes that he “arrived to the lord of Mirandola for a reward,” which he had previously informed the addressee about, and that he was “sufficiently surrounded by love and honor.” This means that the invitation to this service was received after some success, work done conscientiously, or an assignment that was generously rewarded. The letter to Nicholas of Tarsus is a response to his letter in which he conveyed to Michael an invitation to serve with Count Lodovico II Tizzoni of Decani. If the count sent the invitation specifically to Vercelli, then it is obvious that Mikhail previously lived there and was somehow connected with Nikolai, as he himself writes at the beginning of the letter: “I am very grateful to you for taking care of us even during our absence and not ceasing to do good to us. For all this, may the King of all that exists give you a worthy reward, for it is not in our power to reward you worthy.”81 How long he lived in Vercelli, what his service was, what kind of relationship he had with Nicholas, we do not know. Michael informs Nicholas that he cannot accept the invitation, since he has already promised the lord of Mirandola “his faithful service once and for all”; but “wanting to please” Count Decany, he recommends to him, as he writes, “another young man, no less educated than me” and adds: “for the same salary that was offered to me, because he will not take less.” This “young man” is the same age as Michael and, apparently, his closest friend John Grigoropoulos, to whom he informs about Count Lodovico’s proposal in a letter (also March 29), including a letter to Nicholas of Tarsus to be sent to Vercelli. At the same time, he conveys another invitation he received - from Bologna. In a letter to a friend, Mikhail appears as a cheerful and sociable person, prone to jokes: “Do I need to say how happy your letter handed to me made me? It seemed to me that I was talking to you and joking, taking you by the hand, as we used to do. You did well, bringing me considerable joy, and in the future, I hope, you will do the same.” Having conveyed Count Decana’s offer to John, Michael continues: “Find out also that I recently received another offer, from Bologna. I was given letters from there, in which they asked me to go there and promised us a lot, without, however, indicating the fee even approximately. I am telling you all this so that you can choose what you like best; however, both proposals are good for the present moment. Take care to send the letter I wrote to Vercelli. Be healthy and write to me as soon as possible, what you are doing, what is new, true and worthy of attention” 82. I. Denisov assumed that the proposal from Bologna came from the university professor Urceo Codro 83, already known to us. There is no direct information about what kind of service Michael performed at Mirandola Castle. But from the letter to Nicholas of Tarsus one can see what kind of service the Count of Decani required: “And since the Lord of Decani is such a lover of Greek, as we know, I, wanting to please him, will send to him another young man, no less educated than me, from Crete, very outstanding both in knowledge and in morality, who has perfectly mastered both the popular speech of the Latins and the essence of the book language.” It would seem that nothing special is said here; but this laconic remark becomes significant if it is read in the context of the linguistic situation of that era, those debates, disputes, polemics about language that constituted an important feature of Italian culture from Dante until the 19th century. As the researcher wrote, by the beginning of the 16th century - and it is precisely this time that interests us primarily - the alternative in the choice of language, Latin or Italian, had not yet been removed 84. From Mikhail’s words it follows, firstly, that the count needed a translator who could make qualified translations into both Italian and Latin, possibly a teacher of language and literature. Secondly, he discovers that he is well aware of one of the key problems of humanistic culture and humanistic scholarship. Mikhail's brief remark about the popular and book language, about classical Latin and volgare was not accidental. Scholarly debates on this issue were of such great public importance that even such a politician as Niccolò Machiavelli took part in them, not only the author of The Prince and the History of Florence, who occupied important government positions in Florence, but also a theorist of language. Later, in 1514 or 1515, he wrote a linguistic work, The Discussion Concerning Our Language; this is a direct response to the oral debates that took place in the country residence of the noble Florentine family Bernardo Rucellai 85 . Later, already in Moscow, Maxim the Greek will become a participant in other disputes about language, which will no longer be so harmless, and his position on purely philological issues will cause “non-philological concerns” and will become one of the reasons for accusations of heresy. Disputes about language will form an important page in the history of Russian culture, as well as Italian, in subsequent centuries, right up to the 19th and even 20th 8–6. And in the 16th century, at the beginning of its second half, Zinovy ​​Otensky, who considered himself a student of Maxim the Greek, formulated a problem close to the one with which Mikhail Trivolis showed familiarity in Italy. Zinovy ​​discussed whether “book speeches” should be modeled on “folk speeches,” thereby “dishonoring” them, or, conversely, “folk speeches” should be brought closer to the level of book speeches, and gave undeniable preference to “book speeches” 87 . But let us return to Mirandola, where Michael remained in 1499–1500, as evidenced by new letters sent from here to John Grigoropoulos in Venice, “to the house of Mr. Aldus.” Like his friend, John did not accept the offers of either Count Decana or the Bolognese professors, but remained in Venice and went into the service of Aldus Manutius. Previously, John worked for another famous Greek printer, Zacharias Kallergi, who published the “Grand Etymology” in Venice in 1499, one of the most significant publications of the end of the century 88 . In 1498, the work was nearing completion, and Zechariah intended to close his enterprise due to various kinds of difficulties, including financial ones. In view of this, John was preoccupied with looking for work, which probably prompted the letters of 1498. While remaining in Mirandola, Mikhail maintained contacts with the Venetian book community. He had friends there - not only John Grigoropoulos, but also other people in the Alda printing house; Thus, he writes: “I hug all my friends and most of all Mr. George Mosch” 89. This refers to one of the representatives of the learned family Moshov, teacher of rhetoric and medicine, calligrapher, proofreader at the Alda printing house. Mikhail also took some part in the political events of that time. In 1499–1503, Venice fought a war with Turkey. In September 1499, the troops of Sultan Bayazid II invaded the Venetian Republic from Dalmatia and reached Vicenza, but the main war with the Turks was fought at sea. Venice received assistance from France, Spain and Hungary. Mikhail Trivolis, according to the assumption of I. Denisov, in 1499–1500 made a trip to the island of Corfu (Kerkyra), which, again in his opinion, was connected with military events. This is known from a letter from Michael to John Grigoropoulos in 1499. He turns to the addressee: “my sweetest brother” and asks: “Inform me as soon as possible whether the head of the wicked (Turkish Sultan - Y.S.) is going to send a fleet to sea this summer or not and whether sailing on the Adriatic Sea is safe or not.” And then he writes that one of his friends is going to sail to the island of Kerkyra (Corfu) and would like to know about the safety of the route 90. Denisov believed that in fact Mikhail himself intended to make this journey and that we were talking about preparing an expedition of the Venetian fleet against the Turks 91 . Two letters from Mark Mouzouros, another remarkable representative of the Greek scientific community in Italy, date back to the same time and to the same series of events. One of them was sent to John Grigoropoulos (September 7, 1499) 92, the other, undated, to Michael Trivolis. The latter was introduced into scientific circulation relatively recently 93 . C. Belloni, who published it, presumably dates it to the same year. We do not know whether the trip to Corfu was connected only with the military-political interests of Venice or whether some personal motives could have been added to them. We remember that Mikhail had connections with Corfu even before leaving for Italy, but their content is unclear. Michael returned to Mirandola in March 1500, as reported in the third (of the known to us) letter to John Grigoropoulos (dated by I. Denisov). He writes: “Find out, my beloved John, that I arrived unharmed in Mirandola and that the prince treats me no worse than before. He was glad to see me, as evidenced by many undoubted signs. I hope that in the future I will find even more favor from him, because he is a fan of everything Greek and is very generous” 94. Presumably, the friends were afraid that the trip could have a bad effect on the service in Mirandola, and now Mikhail reports the successful completion of the matter. He adds: “I would like to see you proud and boasting of the disposition and generosity of such a patron, then I would consider myself quite happy, but “this, as they say, rests on the knees of the gods.” 38 And you, my friend, do not be discouraged and do not forget to use life, remembering the words of the sage: “take advantage of the blooming season, because everything quickly fades.” This letter also testifies to some previous contacts with Aldus Manutius. Mikhail is interested in Ald’s new publications, corresponds with him, asks to say hello to “the most learned Ald,” says that he intends to purchase a number of his publications, and is going to send him money for other books. In a postscript he tells his friend: “I am writing to Aldus asking him to send me several books, among them I asked him to send Dioscorides 39 . If you have it, then you better make money on it than anyone else.” At the same time, Michael Trivolis had some contacts with the aforementioned major Venetian publisher Zacharias Kallergi: “I told Zacharias to take care to carry out what he undertook to do when I left.” We have no other information about the case connecting him with this printer. In a letter from March 1500, Mikhail appears as a bibliophile, a person associated with the humanistic, book publishing environment. But at the same time, important political events did not pass him by, in particular the Franco-Milanese war of 1499–1504, which we learn about from the Russian work. This was one of a series of Franco-Italian wars in which Milan received no help from other Italian states; France's ally was, in particular, Venice, but its forces were distracted by the war with Turkey. In October 1499, Milan was taken by the troops of the French king Louis XII (1498–1515), who proclaimed himself Duke of Milan. By the way, John Lascaris, who remained at the French court under the new king, arrived in Milan with Louis and delivered a speech during the celebrations on the occasion of the captured city 95. Mikhail could have met with his former teacher during his stay in Italy: in this case, Lascaris’ information about the University of Paris could be the basis of the story about him discussed in “The Terrible and Memorable Tale.” In February 1500, Duke Ludovico Moro managed to recapture his capital with the help of Swiss troops, but in April he was finally defeated and captured. Some events of this war are described in the Russian work of Maxim the Greek - a message to the diplomat and publicist F.I. Karpov (1523). The reported details allow us to raise the question of whether he was, if not a participant, then a direct observer of the events 96. The polemical message is directed against predictive astrology, and the reason for introducing the story about Lodovico Moro was the Duke’s passion for astrology and the advice of the astrologer Ambrose Rozade that ruined him, which is described in sufficient detail and colorfully. First of all, it is reported that the “superiorship” of the duke was destroyed by the king of the Western Gauls (“Galatians”) Louis (he gives his name in the form “Logiz”), it is said that Ambrose had a deep influence on him; The Duke soon believed that he was the “lord” of all Italy, and ordered the painters to paint himself “on boards and walls”, to depict himself as a man sleeping on his left hand, and with his right hand embracing the whole world, which symbolized his desire for “unity of command.” The story is chronologically sequential, the author also notes the connection with the events of the Venetian-Turkish confrontation. The French (“Galatian”) king sent an army against the duke, won a victory, and the one who hoped to embrace the whole world, overcome with fear, fled to Germany, to Caesar Maximilian with great shame. After some time, he returned and was about to regain his power, but soon, along with his entire army, he was captured by the French who attacked at night. He was imprisoned in a “hard archer”, where he died. The death of Lodovico Moro dates back to 1508, when Maximus the Greek was already on Mount Athos; consequently, he maintained connections with the Italian environment there. Maxim the Greek openly expresses his political sympathies, and they are entirely on the side of Venice, not Milan. He reproaches the Duke of Milan for causing “countless evils” to Venice when he “raised against the Venetians” the wicked Turkish Sultan, who, coming with a great army from Constantinople, conquered the “Gelladic cities” of Naupactus, Methonia and Coronia, which were then under the rule of Venice. Michael's collaboration with Giovanni Francesco della Mirandola continued until 1502, when the castle of Mirandola, after a 50-day siege, was taken by Giovanni's brother Lodovico Pico, and the former owner was forced to flee to Emperor Maximilian, under whose protection he came in February 1501. Denisov even suggested that Mikhail could accompany Pico on a trip to Germany, citing the testimony of Dmitry Gerasimov about Maxim’s knowledge of German customs 97 . But this is still too indirect evidence, and also from a third party. Denisov saw the last sign of Michael’s stay in Mirandola in a letter from Pico to the librarian of the monastery of San Marco Acciaiuoli on September 13, 1501, where he wrote: “Michael greets you” 98. Michael's collaboration with him may have been based on the librarian's interest in Greek patristics; he not only studied, but also translated Eusebius of Caesarea and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The period of 1502–1506, the final stage of the Italian life of Maximus the Greek, retained until very recently a number of ambiguities and even mysteries, which are partly unresolved to this day. Before Denisov’s work, nothing at all was known about this period, with the exception of the supposed date of departure to Athos, and even this has now been clarified. The new facts discovered, it seemed to him, made fundamental changes in our ideas about this person. According to Denisov, Michael entered the Dominican monastery of San Marco in Florence in 1502 (which is discussed in the “Terrible and Memorable Tale”), stayed there for two years, but left it in 1504, and the following year retired to Athos, to Vatopedi. This made an impression on the researchers, and some of them even gave reason to reproach Maxim the Greek for being unprincipled, although others were quite wary of I. Denisov’s conclusions. In previous chapters, we talked about those components of Denisov’s hypothesis, which later received direct or indirect confirmation. We need to return to it at the point at which we interrupted the presentation in the first chapter. But now, when we talk about the last link of the hypothesis, very significant adjustments will be required. Ilya Denisov relied on two sources he discovered. This is primarily a record of the admission into the monastery of San Marco on June 12, 1502 of Michael from the city of Arta, son Emmanuel. Denisov identified this person with our hero, since his father's name and place of birth coincided with those indicated in the Russian record of the parents and place of birth of Maxim the Greek (although the surname is not indicated in the record). The next milestone in Michael’s life was indicated, according to Denisov, by a second source - his letter to one of his friends and compatriots Scipio Forteguerri (Carteromachus) in Venice, in which he writes about his refusal of monastic life due to many illnesses bedeviling him.” The date of the letter contains only the month (April), the year is not indicated. Denisov attributed it to 1504 based on a number of indirect signs, considerations and inferences. On this basis, a conclusion was made about the two-year Dominican period of the future Russian ascetic. One of the chapters of the book was called “The Dominican in the Monastery of St. Mark.” With Michael’s departure from the monastery, the researcher actually ended his Italian itinerary, and his removal to Athos, in his opinion, occurred a year later, that is, around 1505 100. This part of Denisov’s hypothesis turned out to be much less convincing than the previous one, and required very significant adjustments, especially after meeting in Florence with a source that remained unknown to Denisov. The adjustment affected three points: the interpretation of the entry into the monastery and the legality of identification; status in the monastery of Michael, son of Emmanuel; the date of his departure from the monastery. In the 1502 entry, the weak point is the absence of the surname of the applicant - Trivolis, while in the entries on the entry of other persons, the surname is usually indicated. And prosopography knows cases when not only the names, patronymics, and surnames of different persons coincide, but even individual facts of their biography related to their places of service. Arta at that time was a fairly large city, and the names Manuel and Michael are not among the rare ones, and not only in the Trivolis family there could have been Michael, who went to Italy and became a monk. Of course, the likelihood that the recording refers specifically to our Mikhail Trivolis is quite high, but it is not indisputable and not absolute. We accept it precisely with this reservation, allowing for the possibility of new discoveries and the space into which conclusions drawn on their basis can be inserted. However, these doubts about the possibility of an unambiguous interpretation of the 1502 entry do not in any way extend to the identification of Michael Trivolis with Maximus the Greek, which now seems obvious. When preparing a new edition of the works of Maxim the Greek, the compilers considered it possible to include in it Greek texts found and attributed by Denisov. Denisov wrote that Mikhail entered the monastery as a “novice,” “novice” (in Orthodoxy this is novitiate). Only after this period of testing and preparation for the monastic feat did the novice take monastic vows. Denisov believed that this happened in the life of Mikhail Trivolis. Referring to the bull of Pope Gregory IX dated July 11, 1236, which prescribed that the novitiate lasts about a year, and based on his conclusion about a two-year stay in the monastery, Denisov made another conclusion - that Michael completed his novitiate, took his vows, becoming a Dominican, and began to study theology, having become acquainted, in particular, with the “Summa Theologica” of Thomas Aquinas 101. However, the researcher did not have any documentary evidence of how and when the period of novitiate was completed. Nevertheless, such data exist. In his work of 1943, Denisov reported that the entry of 1502 was in the “Chronicle” of the Monastery of San Marco, and in the Preface he made a reservation that a fragment of this “Chronicle” was known to him only from a copy made by the Dominican in Florence V. Chiaroni (author of a book about the Florence Cathedral). The document itself was not available to researchers during the war for security reasons 102. Later, the author made efforts to find the manuscript and clarified the information in a 1948 article. In the Chronicle of the Monastery of San Marco, kept in the Laurentian Library in Florence (Ms. 370, 221 f.), “it was not possible to find any trace of a published text about the entry of Michael of Arta into the monastery.” “Nevertheless, upon reflection, we recognized,” the author further writes, “that this text must (the word is italicized in the article - Ya. S.) exist and that we just need to find it again in the manuscript where it was read”; as a result, with the help of other people, Denisov “managed to overcome the doubts of V. Chiaroni, who agreed to reveal his secret (livrersort secret) to us.” The note about Michael of Arta turned out to be a fragment of a manuscript without a code and without pagination, carefully kept in the monastery of San Marco. It was a bound volume, on 190 paper sheets, measuring 33.1 x 11 centimeters, with the title “Liber vestitionum”, that is, “Book of tonsures” or, more precisely, “vestments”. It was not a copy (unlike the part of the Chronicle before 1505 (Ms. 370), which was a copy from an older unsurvived manuscript, a copy made by Ubaldini, Savonarola's secretary), but an original, in which the successive entries into the monastery of San Marco were recorded from 1491 to 1681. It does not duplicate the list that makes up the third part of Ubaldini's Chronicle, but, having a different format, can be considered as an addition to it. The entry about Michael from Arta is on sheet 4 and was made, according to Denisov’s observations, in the hand of Ubaldini 103. The question remained open about the reasons for the differences in the two lists - in the composition of the “Liber vestitionum” (the original, in which the introductions were sequentially recorded) and in Ubaldini’s “Chronicle”, which already summarized the material. In other words, why was the name of Michael of Arta, which Ubaldini undoubtedly knew, not included in the Chronicle of the monastery? Another question also arose: why initially, in 1943, Denisov was not told the exact source of the recording, and why was this made a secret in 1948? The possibilities for interpreting the 1502 entry in the direction indicated by Denisov narrowed significantly after information was received in April 2003 that remained unknown to him. Thanks to the kindness of the staff of the archive and library of the monastery of San Marco, I was lucky enough to familiarize myself with a handwritten book from the beginning of the 20th century - it was the “Spoglio generale”, that is, a complete list of everyone who entered the monastery from the 14th to the 20th centuries. It was compiled in 1911 on the basis of “Liber vestitionum” - a book that Denisov knew - and other monastic sources, in particular obituaries. The list is compiled in alphabetical order, consists of a number of vertical columns in which first names, last names, indications of place of birth, date of death, and most importantly, two dates of entry into the monastery are entered. The column called “Vestizione” contains the date of entry into the monastery as a novice (“novice”) who has not yet taken vows, and the other (“Professione”) contains the date of taking vows, that is, full monasticism. The difference between the two dates for those who joined is approximately a year. As a rule, for most names both columns are filled in, but sometimes the second column is left blank, that is, the novice did not become a monk or moved to another monastery. Not everyone has the “date of death” column filled in; it must be assumed that in these cases the monk died outside the monastery. As part of the “Spoglio generale”, the entry about “brother Michael, son of Emmanuel from the city of Arta” is repeated, coinciding with the entry in the “Liber vestitionum”, but only the column “Vestizione” is filled in, and the column “Professione”, like the column with the date of death, remains blank. Consequently, Brother Michael was in the monastery as a novice, but did not take vows. Thus, the above-mentioned title of one of the chapters in Denisov’s book “The Dominican in the Monastery of St. Mark” becomes not entirely correct, since only taking the “Professione” vows made him a Dominican. If we agree that Michael of Arta, son of Emmanuel, is the same person as Michael Trivolis, then we should clarify how long he stayed in the monastery and when he abandoned the monastic life, which he writes about in a letter to his friend Scipio Carteromachus in Venice. In his calculations, which resulted in “April 1504,” Denisov was based on the mention in the letter of “the learned Mark,” in which researchers unanimously see Mark Mouzouros, a famous representative of the Greek diaspora in Italy. Mikhail Trivolis asks to “warmly congratulate” him “on the signs of respect that he received.” This meant the appointment of Mouzouros to the position of censor of Greek books published in Venice, which happened in 1503. The date is determined on the basis of the message of Marcus Mouzouros himself, no later than April 1516, that he had fulfilled this duty for thirteen years (in his Preface to the edition of the Sixteen Discourses by Gregory of Nazianzus, published in April 1516). Consequently, he received this position earlier than April 1503. However, Denisov did not dare to date Michael’s letter to Scipio on this basis, since, firstly, he apparently did not know the month, but only the year of publication of Gregory the Theologian’s book; secondly, he believed that another important event in his biography could have been a “sign of respect,” namely, receiving a professorship at the University of Padua. This happened later than April, namely on July 22 1503 Therefore, Mikhail’s letter of congratulations, dated “April,” should, in his opinion, be attributed to 1504. Nevertheless, the date of the letter “April 1503” turns out to be legitimate. Otherwise, it turns out that he congratulates his friend not in hot pursuit, but after a year - a whole academic year of his teaching. But the main thing is that in July 1503 Mouzouros was only invited to teach at the department headed by Lorenzo Camerino, and became a full-time professor (“professore di ruolo”) only after his death in 1505 104. So, receiving the position of censor of Greek books was a much more extraordinary and honorable event, indicating recognition of authority and “signs of respect” on the part of the fathers of the city, the Venetian state. One of Denisov’s arguments regarding Michael’s stay in the Dominican monastery was his “deep knowledge” of monastic life, details of which he gives in the “Tale”, which could be autobiographical evidence of a person who belonged to the order 105. However, this argument is based on a misunderstanding, since the description of the monastic order in the first part of the “Tale”, to which Denisov refers, refers, as already mentioned in the previous section, not to the Dominican, but to the Carthusian monastery, to which Mikhail could not belong, but he knew its order well from the stories. Describing Michael’s stay in the monastery of San Marco, Denisov tried to find out the reasons for his departure and drew attention to the intensifying persecution of Savonarola’s supporters at that time; the monastery experienced a period of decline after the execution of its prior. It was in 1502–1503 that the Brotherhood of San Marco faced the introduction of strict censorship: on March 10, 1502, the general of the order, Bandello, confirmed the ban on saying that Savonarola was convicted unjustly, calling him a prophet, a martyr, a saint who performed miracles 106 . Denisov, referring to this document, mistakenly gives its date (March 10, 1503), that is, it postpones it a year later 107. Since the document appeared before Michael entered the monastery, it can hardly somehow explain his departure. The question of the reasons for our hero’s departure from San Marco remains open. But now the length of his stay in the monastery is known - about ten months as a novice. Michael’s renunciation of monastic life in April 1503 was not easy, it was accompanied by some stormy events that shocked him, led him into confusion, into a state of depression, and deprived him of “peace of soul and mind,” as he himself writes in a letter to Scipio on April 21 of the same year. But what they were, one can only make assumptions. It is only obvious that the situation was extremely difficult for Mikhail. “No doubt, you heard how it ended, because honest Peter told you everything in detail,” he tells his friend, “and therefore now it seemed unnecessary to me to tell it to you. Moreover, I have neither time nor peace of mind and soul, not only because I have not found anything from anyone here, but also because I am tossed up and down, like a ship shaken by the fickle winds on the open sea. That’s why I don’t even now write to you anything more than the fact that I abandoned the monastic life because of the many illnesses that beset me, and not for any other reason.” Although “illnesses” could have taken place, they were more of an excuse - after all, three years would pass, and they would not prevent him from taking monastic vows in Orthodox Vatopedi, on Mount Athos. Having abandoned the monastic life, Mikhail found himself in a very difficult situation in Florence, not finding support from anyone “from here,” as he himself writes in a letter to Scipio (Denisov understood these words in the sense that he could not find work here). But support came to him from Venice. Here they learned about the misfortunes of their compatriot through Peter Candido, a friend of Michael, whom he mentioned in his letter. The humanist Peter Candido (Leukhaimon) showed great interest in Greek literature, traveled to Crete to improve the Greek language, and made translations from Greek. Living in Florence at this time, he collaborated with the publishing house of Aldus Manutius. Having informed the latter about the difficult situation in which Michael found himself, he received friendly assurances, which allowed Michael to write his first letter to Scipio. He probably conveyed it through Peter Candido, who at the same time showed him a letter from Scipio with a mention of Michael, which he writes about in the second letter to Scipio: “Peter Candido showed me three days ago your letter, in which you mention me with great love and truly friendship. If friends are made in difficult circumstances and there are such among tried and tested (friends), you alone can truly be called my most tested friend, who has rendered me the most services. Although you were not called or asked, you, prompted only by your beautiful and truly noble nature, are so concerned about my affairs as few fathers. May Divine Providence, the cause of all good things, reward you for such philanthropy.” Denisov believed that the information about Mikhail’s life in Italy ended with letters to Carteromachus. But apparently this is not the case. Venice and removal to Athos In the quoted letters of 1503 to Scipio Carteromachus, Michael turns to a friend with a request, almost a plea, to help him move to Venice, to a friendly environment: “I ask you, in the face of the Savior himself, take care of my affairs as you began, deliver me from my current depression and, in any way you can, bring me to you. So I leave you to manage my affairs as you see fit, so that it is useful for me and honorable for you. Know that now, with such misfortunes of fate, everything will be pleasant for me.” We do not know what kind of affairs he had in Venice (property, financial, publishing), but it is obvious that his connections with this city were not interrupted. We have no information about his relations with the Orthodox community in Venice, which existed since the 1490s. Michael's request to Scipio to “recommend him to the honest Aldus” was not a request for an acquaintance, since they had certainly already known each other previously, as is evident from the quoted letter to John Grigoropoulos of 1500. But contacts with Ald were, presumably, not regular and strong, but episodic, if now he is forced to ask for a recommendation from a third party. This meant nothing more than a desire to be an employee at Alda's printing house. Was Michael's request granted? A positive answer seems more than likely if we pay attention to the context, to the activities and activities of Aldus Manutius and Scipio at this particular time. 1502–1503 - the beginning of the formation of the New Academy of Alda, the plan of which could have been influenced by the Florentine Academy of Marsilio Ficino, which, in turn, imitated the Athenian Academy of Plato. “Academies” appeared at this time in a number of other cities in Italy, but the New Academy of Alda stood out among them for its contribution to the revitalization of Greek studies and publications. Aldus's closest associates in this endeavor were Scipio Carteromachus (the addressee of the letters of 1503) and the already known John Grigoropoulos, also a friend of Michael Trivolis. It was Scipio who was the author of the document that appeared in August 1502, called the “constitution” or “law” of the “New Academy” and written on behalf of all three: “Since serious lovers of education receive great benefit from conversations in Greek, we three, Aldus the Roman (as Aldus Manutius called himself), John the Cretan (that is, Grigoropoulos) and the third - myself, Scipio Carteromachus, took it as a rule that we were allowed speak to each other only in Greek" 108 . What follows is a half-joking passage with a touch of humor about monetary fines for violating the rules (increasing exponentially), about shared dinners and a number of other details. But humor and a serious goal, as document researcher N. Wilson writes, do not contradict each other. The document shows the existence of a design or plan for such a community; Aldus gathered around himself a group of scientists, like-minded people and enthusiasts, united in the “New Academy” with the goal of selecting Greek authors for publication and looking for solutions to the various philological and literary problems that arose. Since during the formation of the academy it was envisaged to attract new participants, scientists, educated people knowledgeable in Greek literature, it can be assumed that the answer to Michael’s request to one of the founders, Scipio Carteromachus (“pull me out to you”) was to invite him to Venice, to participate in the affairs of the academy and in the new publications of Aldus. From the letters of 1503 it is obvious that they were preceded by oral negotiations between Peter Candido in Venice, where he was collaborating with Aldus at that time; Peter received assurances of a favorable attitude towards Michael, first verbal, and then supported by a letter, conveyed them to Michael, after which his two letters to Scipio followed. He moved to Venice, presumably, already in April. The years 1503–1504 were the time of greatest activity of Aldus Manutius. Its two editions of 1503 repeated the editions of John Lascaris of 1494 in Florence. One of them is the already mentioned “Greek Anthology”. If we take into account the possible presence of two editions of the Anthology by Maxim the Greek in Moscow, then we can assume that he could take part in the preparation of both and acquired them not only as a bibliophile, but also as a participant in the publication. Another publication from 1503 is Lucian, a Greek satirist of the 2nd century AD. e. The colophon of the book says that it was already ready in February, but for some reason Aldus decided to add some other texts to make a larger volume, and the work was completed in June; Philostratus (Lives of the Sophists) and other texts were added. Investigating these publications, N. Wilson wrote that he would like to know more about what reasons - commercial or other - prompted Ald to change the publication plan 109. Would it not be too bold to assume that this was caused by the arrival in Venice of Michael Trivolis, who was entrusted with the preparation of the additions? The researcher called the year 1504 the “highest point” of Alda’s activity. At this time, Homer (in two small editions), Plutarch, Demosthenes (with a colophon certifying that it was a product of the New Academy), and John Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Second Analytics (as a textbook for students) were published. In the Preface, Ald wrote that he does not risk making changes to the published text if there are discrepancies between manuscripts, but is content to record the options in the margins, marking them with a special icon (asterisk). N. Wilson believed that this indicates the scientist’s indecision and hesitation 110. But we can also state the scientific integrity of the scholarly publisher, the desire to avoid subjective decisions, and also assume the presence of a qualified consultant. Michael Trivolis could have been involved in the publication because he was well acquainted with the first part of this work: in 1498 he rewrote (also in Venice) the “Commentaries” to the “First Analytics” by the same author. Works by Christian authors were also published - poems by Gregory of Nazianzus (in Greek with a Latin translation) and paraphrases (in hexameter) of the Gospel of John by the early Byzantine poet Nonnus. This publication was conceived and prepared by the already mentioned Peter Candido and Scipio Forte-gerri (Carteromachus), who acquired the Nonna Codex while in Rome 1 11 . In the Russian works of Maxim the Greek, his knowledge of another of Ald's publications of the same time, the dialogue “Picture” (“Pinax”), is revealed; it was included as additional material in one of the textbooks on grammar and syntax (1502) and after that it became very popular. It is unclear whether the dialogue was as popular in Byzantium, since the manuscript tradition of the composition is not rich 112. The Russian essay by Maximus the Greek, dedicated to Aldus Manutius, reflects the entire period of his acquaintance and collaboration with the Venetian printer, without highlighting any periods or individual episodes 113 (possible participation in the early editions of 1495, acquisition of his publications in 1500, move to Venice in 1503). The author shows the same respect for his person as in the Greek letter to John Grigoropoulos of 1500, where he asked to greet the “most learned Aldus.” The work of Maxim the Greek represents his response to a question-request from one of his Russian interlocutors, Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov, to explain the meaning of the sign (“sign”), which he saw in a printed book. The message also exists in another version, without the name of the addressee, this indicates a wider distribution, although in general the handwritten tradition is small. The addressee of the message saw the sign in one of Ald's publications, undoubtedly in Maxim the Greek himself in his cell, which was a kind of club for Moscow educated people. A.I. Klibanov called it the “Moscow Academy” of Maxim the Greek 114. Maxim begins his answer, as always in Moscow messages, by repeating the addressee’s request: “You told me, my prince and sovereign, to tell you the interpretation of the sign that you saw in the printed book. Listen carefully." He starts the conversation from afar, namely with information (albeit brief) about the printer himself and his business. “In Venice,” he writes, “there was a certain very skillful philosopher, his name was Aldus, and his nickname was Manutius, a Fryazin by birth, a Roman by birth, a branch of the Old Rome, he knew well both Roman (that is, Latin) and Greek letters. I knew him and saw him in Venice and often went to him for book business, and I was still young then, remained in worldly clothes. That Aldus Manutius the Roman, thanks to his wisdom, conceived such a wise plan for himself.” There are no characteristics of the plan, but it is obvious that we are talking about printing books. This is very important information, since there was no printing in Russia yet and printed books were little known. Let us note that in Moscow he writes about Alda what was also typical for Venice: he calls him “Roman” (the printer himself insisted on this), notes his scholarship and knowledge of Greek (which his friends and contemporaries valued). Maxim the Greek gave a spiritual and moral interpretation of the sign, which differed from the generally known one. “With the help of an anchor,” he writes, “the printer shows the affirmation and strength of faith, and the fish (as the dolphin is named) means the human soul.” The message ends meaningfully: “As much as I said, I said as much, and I could have said more.” We do not have direct data about the last years of Mikhail’s life in Italy. But the flow of discoveries may not yet have dried up and the research search has not yet been completed: as recently as 2002, Anna Belloni published a previously unknown letter from Mark Mouzouros to Michael Trivolis (1499), which has already been mentioned earlier. Perhaps new pages of his life in Italy will be opened, which will remove the remaining questions (or raise new ones). One of these questions is the time and circumstances of Michael’s departure from Italy, from Venice and tonsure in Vatopedi on Mount Athos. Denisov proceeded from the fact that traces of Michael Trivolis in Western European sources were lost after 1504, and believed that he left Italy a year after leaving the monastery - according to his calculations, in 1505” 5. At the same time, the observations of V.S. Ikonnikov, who drew attention to an important testimony in one of the Russian works of Maxim the Greek about his ten-year labors on the Holy Mountain, were not taken into account. Considering that he arrived in Moscow in 1518, Ikonnikov assumed that 1508 was the time of his arrival on Mount Athos and, therefore, his departure from Italy” 6. But Maxim the Greek himself in Moscow had other calculations. In his “Confession of Faith,” written after the trials of 1525 and 1531 in order to prove the injustice of the charges brought against him and the absence of “heretical vice,” he wrote that he enjoyed the merciful disposition of the Moscow Grand Duke for nine years.” 7 Subtracting nine years from the date of the first trial (1525) gives the year 1516 - this is the actual date of his departure from Mount Athos, certified by embassy documents and ambassadors’ reports” 8 . His departure to Moscow was a response to the request of the Moscow Grand Duke to send an interpreter, so he included the time of his two-year journey to the Russian capital (1516–1518) together with Russian envoys among the years when he was under the patronage of the Moscow ruler. If the date of his departure from Athos is 1516, then the ten-year Svyatogorsk period began around 1506. This is the date of his departure from Italy. Some information (however, greatly distorted) about the last period of Maxim the Greek’s life in Italy is found in the materials of his trials, in the part that was introduced into scientific circulation only in 1971 (previously, the “Judgment Lists” were known in incomplete form). One of the witnesses, boyar M. Yu. Zakharyin, at the trial of 1531, relayed some stories of Maxim the Greek about the circumstances under which he left Italy: “I heard from many reliable witnesses about Maxim the Greek of the Svyatogorets: he was, - dei, - he was in Rome with a certain teacher as a student, and there were many of them in that apprenticeship, more than two hundred, and they learned philosophical wisdom and all kinds the wisdom of Lithuanians and Viters, but they deviated and retreated into Jewish law and teaching. And the Pope, having learned this about them, ordered them to be imprisoned and put to death. And spreading their wood around them, they burned them all, only eight of them fled to the Holy Mountain, and Maxim with them.” It is quite obvious that different events separated in time are merged here - the execution of Savonarola and his like-minded people and the persecution of young people, students of some school, among whom was Maxim the Greek. Bishop Dosifei of Krutitsa, who continued the interrogation at the Consecrated Council, apparently had somewhat more information than what was included in the written protocols, since he was specifically interested in what kind of accusations were made by the pope and whether they were talking about religious things related to the “law”: “Have you been in Rome with a certain teacher as students, and how many of you were that teacher in the school (a traditional question for any inquiries - about the number of like-minded people. - N.S.), and what kind of word did you receive from the Pope, in what things - church and legal." But Maxim the Greek understood the danger of this question and did not make any confessions: “You see, sir, and myself, in what grief and misfortune and sadness I am now, and from many misfortunes I have no mind or memory at all. I don’t remember, sir." Of course, the testimony of such a biased document as the “Judgment List” cannot be accepted without reservations; memory errors of the “witnesses” and their inadequate understanding of what they saw and heard are possible; Slanders, slander and slander are also possible, as Maxim Grek writes about repeatedly. Moreover, the “witness” reports only what he heard from other “reliable witnesses”, and not from the accused himself. Nevertheless, it is important that from the fragment one can extract evidence of a discussion of some religious issues, as well as, in a reflected form, some troubles and misfortunes that marred Maximus the Greek’s stay in Italy (in the “Judgment List,” Rome is a collective designation for the Catholic world). But in the Moscow “Judgment List” they are described in the same generalized, emotional and non-specific manner as in his own letter to a friend in Venice, and it remains unclear whether these statements are correlated. We don’t know what he actually told his Russian interlocutors about his past and what was at the heart of his stories. The only thing we can say with certainty about recent years in Italy is that the situation in the Alda printing house has changed. After the rise of his publishing activity in 1503–1504, a decline followed, including due to financial difficulties. In the next two years there was not a single publication in Greek and very few in other languages. The calculations are indicative. From 1506 to 1512, only 11 editions of Alda (“aldine”) appeared, while previously there were 13 in 1497 alone, and 16 in 1502 9 . All this, of course, could have an adverse effect on Mikhail Trivolis’s cooperation with him. The foreign policy situation was becoming equally unfavorable. Clouds were gathering over Venice. In the ongoing wars, the balance of power changed compared to what it was in 1494–1495, and the system of alliances became different. In December 1509, an alliance will be concluded in Cambrai directed against Venice and consisting, as the researcher puts it, of “envious people” of its power and wealth - a real pan-European league, which will include the French and Spanish kings, the pope, and the emperor 10. In 1509, Aldus Manutius would close his publishing business in Venice and move to Central Italy, and John Lascaris would go to Rome, where he would collaborate with Pope Leo X de' Medici in organizing the Greek College and developing education. Even earlier, Zakharia Kallergi will go there. Michael Trivolis left Italy earlier, around 1506, but chose the opposite vector (and not only from a geographical point of view) - to the east, to the homeland of his ancestors, into the bosom of his enslaved fatherland. One could make various assumptions and hypotheses about the circumstances surrounding his departure, about the motivating factors. But this event can be approached differently. The deep motives for which a person chooses the path of asceticism and monastic service remain in the space of his inner world; he is in no hurry to talk about them - or does not talk at all. Let's not speculate. “Deliberate” – among the meanings of the word there are the following: “famous, famous”; “worthy, respectable”; “exceptional, outstanding, wonderful” (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 10. P. 220). Latin name of Milan. Turkish Sultan Bayazet II (1481–1512). King Alfonso II of Naples (1448–1495). Latest date (lat.). Patavia is the ancient name of Padua. One of the meanings of the verb “zreti” is “to condemn, reproach, blame” (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 5. M., 1978. P. 200). “Delight” - “temptation, sinful temptation, seduction, deception” (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 18. M., 1992. P. 259). The word “art” had a number of meanings, among them: “art” (“art of understanding”, “medical for the sake of art”); “knowledge” (“and there is no art in them [the people], Greek episteme, Latin scientia); “cunning”, “cunning” (“could have stood against the art of the devil”) - see: Sreznevsky I. I. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language. T. III. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 1415. “Deceive” – “to deceive, mislead; seduce" (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 18. P. 267). For the word “syllogisms”, the gloss “syllables”; one of the meanings is “a way, a manner of verbal presentation; syllable, style" (documented by the text of Ivan the Terrible in 1573 according to the list of the 17th century) - see: Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Vol. 25. P. 109. The quoted text is earlier (1521–1522, list from the mid-16th century). In I. I. Sreznevsky’s “Materials” the word is missing. This refers to one of the seven “free arts”, that is, “external sciences” (apparently, dialectics). “Lawlessness” - “to act lawlessly, to sin” - see: Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Vol. 1. P. 110. This refers to the previously cited words from the letters of the Apostle Paul to the Colossians and Galatians. In the original, “external dialectic knowledge”, to the word “dialectic” there is a gloss “covetous”. The author points to dialectics as the art of argument, “competition” (“competition”), which will be discussed again later with an even sharper negative connotation. In the original “about the establishment of the faithful.” One of the meanings of the word “ordaining” is “absolution, forgiveness of sins” (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 17. P. 231). In the original, “everyone else is guarding”; The pronoun “all” is used here in the meaning of an adverb. In the original, “external knowledge of words” is one of the definitions of “external sciences”, “external punishment” (education), where the word “external” has the meaning of “worldly”, “secular” (as opposed to church) - see: Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Vol. 2. P. 239. In the original “to encourage the mind and purify”, we are also talking about rhetoric. By the way, there is a marginal gloss “verbal”, that is, “verbal art”. The term of Neoplatonic philosophy is found in the Enneads of Plotinus. This refers to the text that served as the basis for many stories in world culture (remember Pushkin’s “Prophet”) - about the seraphim who touched the lips of the prophet with a burning coal from the altar, and about sending him to serve: “[...] I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and the edges of his robe filled the entire church. The seraphim stood around Him […] one of the seraphim flew to me, and in his hand he had a burning coal, which he took with tongs from the altar, and touched my mouth and said: behold, this has touched your mouth, and your iniquity is taken away from you, and your sin is cleansed […]” (book of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 6, v. 1-7). Maxim the Greek refers to the mystical silence of the prophet; he spoke only about the form in which he saw the seraphim, but kept silent about their “rank” and service. The warp and weft are the longitudinal and transverse threads of the fabric. In the original - “external competition”, both words have the same meanings as in the above fragments; we translate it as “worldly dispute.” “A Little Spark” is a clear allusion to the biblical verse about the burning coal from the altar, sparked simply by a worldly dispute. In the original, “post-stretching” (creative fallen plural). “Postretsati” is the same as “postrekati”, meaning “to induce, persuade, incite” (Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 17. P. 256). In a number of manuscripts (including early and authoritative ones), “post-incitement” is replaced by the term “needs”; “need”, along with the meanings of “coercion, violence”, “need, necessity” also has the meaning of “necessary connection. causes and consequences, necessity as a philosophical category" (Ibid. Issue 11, p. 440). In a number of manuscripts (the same as in the previous note) there is the gloss “and by evil deception”, sometimes it is included in the text. In the modern dictionary, the term “sophism” is documented by the quoted fragment (Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue 26. P. 252). It should be noted that in the text of Maxim the Greek the word is used in the form “sofism” (in the creative plural: “dialectical sophism”), and not “sophism”. A little further on, the adjective “sophismatian” appears (“he attempted to destroy the vile sophismatists”). The Latin addition “and from the Son” is one of the most important dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. A hint of astrological interests. “Punishment” - the word has the meaning not only of “punishment”, but also of “teaching, instruction”, “science, knowledge”, “teaching, training” (Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 10. P. 109). In the original “through lepago”. This refers to the text from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians (10:5). The question of what were the sources of Maximus the Greek’s lengthy quotations from patriotic literature has received almost no research. Whether he used the existing Church Slavonic translations, whether he gave his own translations (and in this case - where did he find the Greek originals, did he bring some of them with him) or did he draw from the treasury of his memory - all these questions will arise before future researchers of the work of this author. Quote from Homer's Iliad (XVII, 514).