Глава четвертая. Москва

I am neither a priest nor a priest’s son, but a simple monk and God’s grace, teaching the understanding of every person coming into the world, deigned and sent me from the Holy Mountain to your blessed country of Great Russia. Maxim Grek. Reply to the Holy Council about what was slandered Constantinople Embassy in Moscow On March 4, 1518, Thursday in the third week of Lent, Metropolitan Gregory the Greek came to Moscow, to the great sovereign Vasily Ivanovich of All Rus'. Together with him, as the chronicles further report, the elders of the Holy Mount Athos, as well as the patriarchal deacon Dionysius the Greek, came to the great sovereign and metropolitan Varlaam, the high priest of all Russia. Among the elders, three elders from the Vatopedi monastery are named in first place: Maxim the Greek, Neophyte the Holy Monk Greek (as we remember, confessor) and Lavrentiy Bolgarin (probably a translator); further named from the Russian Panteleimon Monastery are Savva, the pro-abbot, and also the deacon Dionysius 1. As you can see, the patriarchal deacon is named after the Svyatogorsk elders. If we take into account the attention paid then to etiquette and protocol, we can conclude that the “rank” (status) of the patriarchal deacon was determined lower than that of the Athonite elders. Another thing is also indicative: if it is said about the elders that they came to the sovereign and the metropolitan, then about Metropolitan Gregory, the envoy of Constantinople, only “to the great sovereign.” This probably emphasized the state, and not just the church, nature of the visit. At the same time, there is information about some friction that arose during the reception of the Greek metropolitan (perhaps of a ceremonial nature), but they could hardly have influenced the content of the chronicle records, which are quite respectful. The information is in the tendentious Judgment List and cannot be verified 2 . But it is clear that already at the very beginning of his stay in Moscow, Maxim the Greek became aware of the difficulties in the issue of autocephaly of the Russian Church and the nature of its relationship with the see of Constantinople, which would later affect his fate. Despite the remaining problems in relations, the embassy was given great importance, both state and church, since it meant the resumption of canonical communication with Constantinople, interrupted after the Union of Florence, the flight of the Greek Metropolitan Isidore from Moscow (1439–1441) and the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church (1448). The documents brought by the embassy were carefully stored in the Moscow archives and have survived to this day, despite numerous Moscow fires: letters to Vasily III - in the State Archive, more precisely, in the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, as part of the “Greek” embassy book on relations of the Russian state with the Balkans and the Middle East; letters to Metropolitan Varlaam - in the metropolitan form, which included various materials from the archives of the Moscow metropolitans 3. Records of the reception of the embassy are placed in the chronicles. A separate article with the title “About Gregory the Metropolitan and the Svyatogorsk Elders” is found in the Nikon Chronicle, with which we began our story. It reports that the Grand Duke received the Metropolitan and the elders “with great honor”, ​​designated the Miracle Monastery as their place of residence and appointed the royal allowance (“feeding them and supplying them with all sorts of needs from his royal meal”). Likewise, High Hierarch Varlaam, Metropolitan of All Russia, showed “great love and honor” to the Greek metropolitan and elders, “inviting them to himself, and often talked with them about divine spiritual words.” The chronicle includes a record of the presence of the Greek metropolitan and elders at the funeral ceremony of a member of the grand ducal family, Prince Semyon Ivanovich, brother of Vasily III, son of Ivan III from his first marriage. News about the births, deaths, and weddings of members of the grand ducal family were placed in chronicles as information about events of national importance. Among the elders was, without a doubt, Maxim the Greek, who observed the Moscow funeral custom. According to the researcher and expert on Russian holiday services and church celebrations in old Moscow, Grigory Georgievsky, “until the time of Peter the Great, the burial of the deceased members of the royal family was not distinguished by any sad solemn ceremonies and was the simplest, ordinary church “carrying of the coffin” to the church... The sad procession from the palace to the church had the character of an ordinary procession of the cross, the composition of which was supplemented just carrying the coffin. Therefore, anything that served as signs of the royal dignity of the deceased was not allowed into the procession. Neither the army nor representatives of the estates and administration took part in it. The entire procession consisted only of the clergy and icons, closed with the coffin, and behind it were already members of the royal family, courtiers and officials” 4. The entry in the chronicle under 1518 is equally modest: “And he was buried in a week, and at the burial there was the Great Prince Vasily with the Grand Duchess Solomanida, they saw off his body with many tears, and Varlaam, Metropolitan of All Rus', sang over him with bishops, archimandrites, abbots, with all the sacred councils 47. Metropolitan Gregory, who came from the patriarch, and the elders of Holy Mount Athos were right there at the funeral.” 5 Maxim the Greek could have been an eyewitness or participant in other Moscow ceremonies and services, for example, prayers and religious processions during one of those extraordinary and rare natural phenomena, records of which were included in the chronicles. The article “On Rains” (almost immediately after the entry about the death of Prince Semyon Ivanovich) says that throughout Peter’s Lent and after Peter’s Day there was “a great increase in rains, and the waters in the rivers rose higher than spring waters.” The chronicler did not fail to add: “Because of our sins, this punishment was given to us by God for our salvation” and continued: “And the great prince Vasily Ivanovich commanded his father, Metropolitan Varlaam, to pray to God... and to sing prayers for the mercy of God and for the dispensation of the earth and for the warmth of the sun and for a bucket with bishops and archimandrites and abbots and with all the sacred councils, and all Orthodox Christian people were commanded to fast and pray with pure repentance and tears. And after all this happened, by God’s grace the dark sky with its elements became well-dissolved and light and clear, and the dawn of the sun appeared with warmth” 6. The Moscow authorities, both ecclesiastical and secular, took care to demonstrate to the representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch the maturity and authority of the Russian Church, its fidelity to the traditions of Orthodoxy, its holiness, veneration of icons, and miracles. In August 1518, by order of Vasily III, a new Church of the Ascension was founded in the Ascension Monastery. On September 12, 1518, Metropolitan Varlaam consecrated the Church of St. Leontius the Wonderworker across the Neglinnaya River, and on November 21, the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary on Sretenskaya Street in Moscow 7. Gradually, those “forty forties” for which the capital was later famous were formed. A striking event in the life of the Moscow Church, which the Greeks witnessed, was the arrival to Moscow of the “holy icons of Vladimir” from the ancient – ​​older than the capital – Russian center of Vladimir, demonstrating Russian icon veneration. By agreement (“advice”) with the Grand Duke, Metropolitan Varlaam sent to Vladimir and ordered the priests there to bring the “old holy icons” to Moscow, because over the years they had “gone old and dilapidated,” and they needed to be “built and renovated,” that is, in modern terms, restored. And the Grand Duke, who was going on a pilgrimage, ordered a religious procession to meet the icons. On July 2, news came to the Metropolitan that the icons were approaching Moscow, and Varlaam with the archimandrites, abbots, and cathedral priests went “to the meeting of the holy icons with crosses, with psalmody and prayer services.” “All the peoples” of Moscow, a great multitude - princes, boyars and guests (merchants), elders and youths, mothers and maidens, monks and nuns, husbands, wives and babies - met the holy icons on the field behind the suburbs. The Metropolitan met holy icons at the Sretensky Monastery, among them the image of Christ Pantocrator, the “Greek letter Velmi Wonderful,” and the image of the Mother of God. After the prayer service and service, they returned to Moscow, placed the icons in the Assumption Cathedral, and then transferred them to the chambers of the Metropolitan himself, and he personally took part in the work. And soon the icons became the same as they originally were, they were decorated with gold and silver frames, icon cases and shrouds were arranged. This is how the chronicles write. The power of Russian Orthodoxy, the tradition of holiness and miracle-working was also demonstrated by the miracles of healing that took place at the tomb of Metropolitan Alexy and other shrines. On November 28, in the monastery of the Archangel Michael, at the tomb of Metropolitan Alexy, a certain “lax man” Vasily, who did not control his arms and legs, was healed. On February 12, 1519, in the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary, Elena Ivanova, Shiryaev’s wife, who had lost the use of her arm and leg, recovered after the auction. On the same day, a blind beggar wanderer, named Ivan, began to hear “a deaf man,” named Afanasy, at the house of Metropolitan Alexy. A large chronicle article “On the miracles of St. Alexei the Metropolitan” is dedicated to the miracles at the Metropolitan’s tomb that took place in the summer of 1519, in June-July. After a detailed story about miracles, it is narrated how Archimandrite Jonah of the Chudov Monastery, where - let us remember - the Greeks lived, announced the miracles to Varlaam, the Metropolitan and Great Sovereign; “The entire rank of the church” made a solemn procession with psalmody, candles and censers to the Archangel Cathedral to the tomb of St. Alexis, where his body lies, and many people gathered here. The Grand Duke, giving glory and praise to the Savior, the Mother of God and the great miracle worker Alexy, perceived miracles as a sign of special affection “for our city of Moscow.” “And there was a bright holiday” 8. All these events, witnessed by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, demonstrated the strength and glory of the Russian Church and should, in the opinion of the Moscow authorities, increase its authority and strengthen the right to autocephaly. The embassy participants, of course, not only attended the celebrations and observed what was happening in Moscow, but neither the “Greek” embassy book nor the chronicles, unfortunately, contain records of any negotiations or discussions that took place in Moscow. Speaking about the Constantinople embassy of 1518, one should pay attention to the fact of the chronological coincidence of the presence of the embassy in Moscow and a series of embassies to the Russian capital from different European courts. Was this a coincidence? Was there any connection between the presence of an embassy from the Christian East and ambassadors from the West here? We do not have direct evidence of the existence of such a connection, but the chronology of events and the entire international and diplomatic context suggest a positive answer. Back in 1517, the imperial ambassador Sigismund Herberstein came to Moscow with a mediation mission to resolve relations between Moscow and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the most controversial point was the issue of Smolensk, which passed to the Russian state in 1514 after its capture by Russian troops). But the negotiations ended in failure, and Herberstein left Moscow, subsequently creating the most valuable historical source - “Notes on Muscovy”. A new stage of negotiations began after in March 1518, Pope Leo X de' Medici announced the organization of another Crusade against the "infidels", the formation of an anti-Turkish coalition and, for this purpose, proclaimed a five-year truce between Christian rulers Europe. The head of the coalition was supposed to be the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund, and the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III was supposed to be one of the participants. In July 1518, new imperial ambassadors Francesco da Collo and Antonio de Conti arrived in Moscow with the aim of resuming peace negotiations with Lithuania, which Herberstein had failed. On July 27, in the Kremlin Embankment Chamber, Francesco da Collo gave a lengthy speech about peace 9 . He painted an impressive picture of the victories of Turkish arms and the threat to the European Christian community. His speech indicates that, under the influence of the growing Turkish threat, the empire was ready to see Russia not only as part of Europe, but also among the countries that remained guarantors of the preservation of European independence. The reason for the victories of Turkish arms, said the ambassador, was discord and disagreement between the Christian rulers of Europe; at present they are “tamed and extinguished” by the efforts of the emperor and the pope. On behalf of the emperor, he called on the Grand Duke of Moscow to defend the “common Christian cause”; this term is a translation of the Latin res publico Christiana (or, in the Italian translation of Francesco da Collo's work on Muscovy, tutta la republica Christiana) 10 . Polish researcher B. Geremek believed that the res publico Christiana had by this time become a family of independent nations, and that medieval universalism was being replaced by a new sense of solidarity, crystallized in the concept of “Europe” 11 ; however, the texts preserved in the Moscow “Cesar's Books” show that the first concept still remained an effective tool in political and diplomatic practice; but the concept of “Europe” is also represented. Francesco da Collo, having described in detail the Turkish conquests in Asia, Europe and Africa, as well as the threat to “the entire common Christian cause,” then said, turning to Vasily IIÏ “And for this, with all the strength and consent of the Christian leaders, it is necessary to preserve that small part of Europe, in which, as far as the states are concerned, only Germany, Francia, Spain, and the neighboring islands remain belonging to Italy, the Ugric land, Czech and Polish, which part is small before the one with whom he, the enemy of our faith, constantly threatens, and wants to accomplish in action what he has in his mind, only there will be disagreement among the Christian leaders and special discord among them”; This is followed by a historical excursion about the conquests of Selim’s predecessors due to the “disagreeing Christian leaders.” The answer of the Russian diplomat Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov lacks the pomp of the ambassador’s humanistic speech; it is short and businesslike. “We know much,” said the Russian diplomat, “about the capture of Constantinople, and about the Egyptian, Palestinian, Persian and other victories of Selim Shah Saltan. And just as before we asked the Lord God for this, so now we ask the Lord God for this, that the Lord God would send His help and strength to us, the Christian sovereigns, over the Christian enemies, over the lack of faith, and that our Christian states would be behind us, the Christian sovereigns. And just as in the past we stood for the peasantry and protected and harrowed the peasantry from the lack of grain, so now we want to stand for the peasantry from the lack of grain and we want to harrow the peasantry from the lack of grain, as long as the Lord God helps us; and we want to see everything so that, as God has given, our Christian sovereigns will always have Christianity in silence and in our preservation” 12. This expresses awareness of Russia’s important mission in confronting the Ottoman Empire. As for its participation in the armed struggle as part of a coalition, Russia during this period did not yet have sufficient forces for this; in addition, the Turkish direction of Russian foreign policy largely depended on its relations with its southern and eastern neighbors, which represented a constant source of danger. Victories over the Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimean khanates, the Russian-Turkish wars were still ahead. The “Crimean Tornado” of 1521, when the troops of the Crimean “Tsar” Muhammad-Girey directly threatened Moscow, stands among such European events as the capture of Belgrade in 1521, the fall of Rhodes in 1522, and the siege of Vienna in 1529. Regarding the truce with Lithuania, at the negotiations in 1518 it was said that its specific conditions, proposed by the imperial mediator, were unacceptable to the Russian side. Later, in 1522-1523, it was nevertheless concluded - but this is another topic. At the same time, when the imperial ambassadors were negotiating in Moscow, the papal legate Nikolai Schonberg (Schomberg) was heading to the Russian capital, who had partly the same goals (attracting Russia to the anti-Turkish coalition and a truce with Lithuania), but mainly trying to draw Rus' into the orbit of Catholic influence. The most significant previous milestones in this direction are the Ferraro-Florence Council of 1438–1439 and the activities of Metropolitan Isidore; the arrival in Lithuania in 1459 of the disciple Isidore Gregory, appointed metropolitan in Rome, and his recognition as the metropolitan of Kyiv by the Polish king Casimir; attempts in the 60s - early 70s of the 15th century to extend its jurisdiction to Novgorod and North-Eastern Rus'. But now the conditions put forward by the pope differ significantly from what they were in the 15th century. At that time there was no talk of any benefits or advantages for Rus', and the Moscow Metropolitan Jonah in the papal letters of the 1458–1460s was called a “heretic” and “schismatic”, “apostate” 13. In the new situation, Pope Leo X de' Medici shows his readiness, in the name of union and on its basis, to include the Moscow Grand Duke in the family of European Christian rulers (“to crown a Christian king”), to “raise” and “establish” the Moscow Metropolitan as a patriarch. In September 1518, two more diplomats arrived in Moscow almost simultaneously. On September 24, a “messenger” arrived from Konigsberg, from the Master of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, announcing the upcoming arrival of the papal legate Nikolai Schonberg to Moscow (he was traveling through Prussia). Three days earlier, on September 21, Jan Krishton arrived in Moscow with a letter from the emperor (with the rank of envoy). Although Nikolai Schonberg is not named in it, it is clear from the context that it is he who is being discussed; E.F. Shmurlo drew attention to this. The Emperor warned the Grand Duke that “some pretender” might appear in Moscow, posing as an envoy of the Roman throne, and tried to convince the Moscow ruler not to believe this person, since in fact he was sent “not from the seat of the apostles,” but only thanks to the “trick” of some cardinals, ill-wishers of the House of Austria. Maximilian asked Vasily III to inform him as soon as possible about the actions of the “monk” in Moscow (“what his petition and what kind of charm he was planning against his Tsar’s Majesty”), since he, the emperor, would better understand the “ends,” that is, the true foundations and springs of the monk’s mission, and offered to help the Grand Duke “see the light” on this matter. Jan Krishtop was ordered not to leave Moscow until the monk arrived here, and if he arrived, to immediately return to the emperor with the information that the Grand Duke would give about the “mnich.” Maximilian distinguished two parts in the monk’s mission: one – “the work is straightforward and righteous and useful against the Turks”; the content of the other was not specifically revealed: “And at the end and in conclusion of the speech, some were mixed with flattery and slyness, new tricks were introduced, which he spoke before the Tsar’s Majesty, and about this it is easy to expose that evil deceiver’s thought in a good way” 14. The Polish king, on the recommendation of the emperor, refused to issue Nikolai Schonberg a travel document, but Sigismund could have had his own motives. Perhaps it was the episode with Nikolai Schonberg that Albert Kampensky had in mind later when he recommended that the pope conduct business with Moscow secretly from its closest neighbors, since otherwise, if word spread, the opponents would interfere with the success of the business; one of them was the Polish king, who believed that a church union with the pope would add even more power to Vasily. “If the charge of schism is dropped against him, then the Polish king will lose the benefits and loans that he received from the common Christian treasury,” wrote Albert and warned that when sending a suitable person to Moscow, one must avoid the route through Poland, and recommended a route through Germany, Prussia and Livonia 15. Indeed, Nikolai Schonberg appeared in Konigsberg, but he was not allowed into the Russian capital. The Master of the Teutonic Order, Albrecht of Brandenburg, preparing for war with Poland and counting on the help of Vasily III, was hostile to the prospect of a Russian-Lithuanian truce, and its conclusion was one of the tasks of the papal legate. The papal proposals were brought to Moscow in March 1519 not by Nikolai Schonberg, but by his brother Dietrich Schonberg, Albrecht's advisor. Shmurlo believed that Nikolai “entrusted” the assignment to his brother without having had time to visit Moscow himself. It seems, however, that Dietrich's trip instead of Nicholas was undertaken on the initiative of the master himself, who expected that his adviser would negotiate in Moscow, bearing in mind primarily the interests of the order 16. On October 1, 1518, Pope Leo X wrote new orders to Nicholas Schonberg, where he granted him the broadest powers in the proposed negotiations in Moscow. From these documents we learn that Schonberg reported to the pope that the matter for which he was sent to Russia “has already reached the point where there is some hope for a favorable ending.” Since in Moscow it became known no earlier than September 24 about the arrival of Nikolai Schonberg in Konigsberg and. about the papal proposals, it is obvious that, firstly, the legate sent a report to the pope even before any answers were received from Moscow; secondly, he hoped for negotiations in the Russian capital 17. Their goal, according to the papal order, should be the decision of the Grand Duke to participate in the “sacred campaign” of the “Christian crown bearers” in the “Sultan’s regions”, as well as for the Russians to accept the terms of the Union of Florence. For this, Vasily III is offered the royal title; in addition, Nikolai Schonberg is authorized to make any other promises (“everything that you promise to the sovereign for accepting the Catholic faith will be approved by us without fail and positively, without any changes”). It is unknown whether this letter from the pope reached Moscow. But the proposals of Leo X, or rather, their presentation, were preserved in the record as part of a completely official historical source, which are the “Prussian affairs”, monuments of diplomatic relations between Russia and the Teutonic Order in Prussia (since the proposals were received through the mediation of Prussia). The master ordered his envoy Dietrich Schonberg to inform the Moscow Grand Duke of “father’s order”, who was bringing “mich” to Moscow, his brother Nikolai Schonberg). The purpose of his enterprise was to “destroy the power of the Turkish Christian enemy” and to bring peace to the Holy Church (that is, the union). It is repeatedly said about the “Constantinople heritage”, the “Constantinople fatherland” of the Moscow princes, that “the Tura (as the Turkish Sultan was usually called) holds the patrimony of the Grand Duke”: “and if the Grand Duke wants to stand up for his Constantinople fatherland, a path and help is now open to him, which the heirs of Constantinople have not had for a hundred years before” 18. In Rome, it was known about the purchase of the “Byzantine heritage” from Andrei Palaeologus by the French king Charles VIII in 1494, now the Roman throne plays this card. The proposals of Leo X, conveyed by Dietrich, were very extensive: 1) the pope wants the Grand Duke and all the people of the Russian land “to be accepted into the unity and consent of the Roman Church, without belittling or changing their good customs and laws... and to approve the charter of the Apostolic See”; 2) “since the Greek Church has no head, the patriarch and the entire kingdom are in Turkish hands, and the pope knows that there is a most spiritual metropolitan in Moscow, and wants to elevate him and those who come after him and make him a patriarch, as the one of Constantinople was before”; 3) “and he wants to crown the brightest and most invincible king of all Russia as a Christian king.” The tautology “to crown a king as a king” was admitted by the translators, presumably deliberately, since the pope’s proposals most likely referred to a royal coronation (we do not have the Latin original). And the royal coronation of someone who already calls himself a king, in their opinion, had no value. Let us recall that the pope’s proposals were received and listened to in Moscow in March 1519, when an envoy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the one who in the pope’s proposals is declared “former”, “former”, was here. There can hardly be any doubt that the Moscow authorities - both ecclesiastical and secular, including diplomats, in 1519 in some form communicated the proposals received to the patriarch's envoy, Metropolitan Gregory, as well as the fact that the Vatopedi elder Maxim, knowledgeable, educated and experienced, also took part in these discussions. If we were writing a historical novel, and not a scientific biography, we could invent several dialogues during this discussion, construct the speeches of Maxim the Greek and other persons. But we will refrain from inevitable subjectivity. It is quite enough to give an order to the diplomat Konstantin Timofeevich Zamytsky, who was sent with a return embassy to Prussia (April 1519); he was ordered to express in the most general form his readiness for a joint struggle against the Turks, but proposals to unite the Churches on the terms of the Union of Florence were rejected: “And the master will teach you, do you really want the sovereign to live in unity with the pope and in agreement on the law? And say to Kostyantin: our sovereign wants to be in friendship and harmony with the pope... and just as before, our sovereign, with God’s will from his ancestors, firmly held the Greek law, so now, by God’s will, he wants to firmly hold his Greek law.” The order to Zamytsky, like Fyodor Karpov’s response to the speech of the imperial ambassador, characterizes not only Russia’s foreign policy, but also its cultural and historical orientation in a broader aspect, awareness of its place in the Christian world, a firm conviction in the need to preserve tradition, devotion to the faith of its ancestors, the “law” of the Greek Church, from which Russia was baptized, reluctance to change the logic of the country’s national development and its religious affiliation. The royal title, offered to Vasily III by the Pope in 1518, became a reality in 1547, when Moscow Metropolitan Macarius performed the royal wedding of Ivan the Terrible. It was confirmed by a charter of the Council of Constantinople in December 1560. And the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589 was the act of a Council held in Moscow with the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II and the Greek clergy. This council is called in the charter establishing the patriarchate “the Consecrated Council of our great Russian and Greek kingdom.” It is very symptomatic that it was in 1518, when proposals from Rome were received in Moscow for similar acts, but according to the Roman model, that is, carried out by the pope, the envoys of the Ecumenical Patriarch ended up in Moscow, and with them our hero, sent by the Holy Mount Athos. From the very first years of his stay in Moscow, Maxim the Greek not only enjoyed the authority of a strict Svyatogorsk ascetic monk, but was also surrounded by an aura of scholarship and knowledge. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), assessing the significance of Maxim the Greek and his influence on his contemporaries, wrote that he introduced into our spiritual literature “a new element of scientific and multilateral education. Until now, all our writers, the most gifted and enlightened, were nothing more than literate and well-read people, but not at all familiar with science, and if they sometimes even possessed extensive information, it was almost exclusively theological. Maxim the Greek was the first to appear among us with a scientific education and a rich supply of information not only in the theological, but also in the secular sciences that existed then.” At the same time, the researcher of the history of the Russian Church seemed to warn: “Now we can treat Maxim the Greek with complete impartiality and fairness and judge him as a person and as a writer without any hobbies, without belittling, but also without exaggerating his merits and merits” 20. A participant in the translation works of Maxim the Greek and his student, the Trinity monk Selivan, wrote about him: “And Maxim is much different from the people of the present time in wisdom, intelligence and sharpness of mind” 21. The learned monk was often asked to resolve all sorts of doubts on a variety of issues. Thus, another of his collaborators in the translation business, a major diplomat Dmitry Gerasimov, turned to him with a request to clarify the iconographic plot, the meaning of the icon with the image of Christ, redirecting to him a question that was addressed to Dmitry by another very educated and inquisitive person, the Grand Duke's clerk, the governor in Pskov, Mikhail Grigorievich Munekhin, nicknamed Misyur 22. The participation of state authorities in resolving issues of icon painting will become a characteristic feature of the culture of the 16th century and will be especially clearly manifested in the case of clerk Ivan Viskovaty, head of the Ambassadorial Prikaz 23 . An earlier manifestation of this tendency is also visible in the episode with Misyur’s question about the icon seen in Pskov. Addressing scientists and educated people was a very common custom of this time. The same Misyur Munekhin, for example, turned to an authoritative monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery with a request to speak out about the astrological predictions that were then being circulated, and in response received a message in which the idea of ​​a “Third Rome” was formulated for the first time 24 . Dmitry Gerasimov, sending a response to Misyur, also gave a description of the person from whom the response was received, calling Maxim the Greek a learned man who knows the customs of different lands. By the way, it was precisely this message that I. Denisov referred to, suggesting that Maxim (then still Mikhail) visited Germany together with Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola, since Germany was named among the countries whose customs he was familiar with. But we do not know how accurately Gerasimov understood and conveyed what his interlocutor said. The named persons - monk Selivan, calligrapher and translator, Vlasiy and Dmitry Gerasimov, diplomats and translators, other employees, “the smallest servants of your kingdom,” as Maxim recalled about them in a message to the Grand Duke on the completion of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter - were the first interlocutors who surrounded him in his daily work. Others also came to his cell to “talk about bookish things” (to argue, to have learned conversations). Their names will be revealed later by one of the “witnesses” 25. These are Bersen Beklemishev, Yushko Tyutin and a number of others. But among the interlocutors there were also people much more noble, well-born and influential. Grand Duke Vasily III Ivanovich was, of course, the first among them - both in time and in importance. He turned to the learned monk, and more than once (“asked many times”) with a question about the life and structure (“stay and order”) of the Svyatogorsk monasteries. These were, of course, not written questions, but personal meetings, conversations, and the Athonite monk combined them into a respectful message - the first essay he wrote in Moscow. Addressing the addressee, he calls Vasily III “king” and “Palaeologus,” that is, a representative of the Byzantine imperial dynasty, and further in the text he writes: “Andronikos Palaeologus, your forefather.” The title of the work already takes it beyond the epistolary genre and gives it a broader meaning - “An account of the stay and order of the general monasteries existing in the Holy Mountain and those that are called special, as well as the legend that not from people and not by people, but by divine providence and help, this Mountain has been preserved to this day.” While composing his epistle, Maxim may have become acquainted with the statutes of Russian monasteries. The title of his work uses the same terms as in the cenobitic charter of Euphrosynus of Pskov: “Exposition of the cenobitic stay, charter of the Tresvyatitelsky monastery” 26. The Grand Duke's interest in the Svyatogorsk monasteries was not a manifestation of simple curiosity or abstract interest. He undoubtedly remembered the Church Council convened by his father Ivan III in 1503, at which Elder Nil, who labored in a monastery on the Sora River, not far from the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, spoke about how “there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the monks would live in the deserts and feed themselves on handicrafts,” that is, on their own labor, the “work” of their own hands. Neil’s speech was not a solitary speech—he was supported by the “hermits of Belozersk” 21 . It took place either at the end of the work of the Council, or even after the end of the official meetings, when the main opponent of Nil of Sorsky, Hegumen Joseph, a supporter of a different point of view, had already left him, going to his Volok, but immediately returned, having learned about Nil’s speech, and began “contrary to the verb” 28. Vasily Ivanovich also remembered clerk Levash, who was twice sent to his father, Ivan III, and came, trembling with fear, because he also had to “contrary to the words.” He read the judgment of the Council “on the lands of the church, saints, and monasteries.” The hierarchs came to their defense: “All the holy Councils of the Holy Fathers did not order the saints and monasteries to give or sell immovable church property, and this was confirmed by great oaths.” Then Metropolitan Simon himself with the entire Consecrated Council visited the Grand Duke and read to him testimonies about the presence of villages and other “acquisitions” among the rulers, priests, saints and abbots. It was a selection of texts from the Old Testament, from the lives of Constantine and Helen, the “Donation of Constantine,” the lives of saints, the Helmsman’s Book and other sources. The selection has no title, its preamble is laconic: “The council was about the lands of the church, saints, and monasteries.” The Council did not make any resolution or decision of its own, but cited texts that were indisputable, from the point of view of the legal concepts of that time, and did not require conciliar confirmation. The Council gave an answer not from itself, but from higher authorities, in the form of historical information. Ivan III, however, was not satisfied with this; clerk Levash was sent to him a second time and spoke on behalf of Metropolitan Simon and the Consecrated Council, but the Metropolitan himself and the participants of the Council no longer visited the Grand Duke. The second version of the answer differed from the first mainly in that it explained in detail what “immovable acquisitions” are (“cities, authorities, villages and other similar things”), and their inviolability was more categorically asserted: “And with great and terrible oaths it was confirmed and sealed to be unshakable and indestructible forever and ever.” The part about precedents from Russian reality was somewhat expanded and, on the contrary, the Old Testament and Byzantine precedents were shortened 29 . The position of Nil Sorsky impressed Ivan III, since it corresponded to his aspirations. After the confiscations carried out in Novgorod in 1478 and later, he intended to try their experience in the offensive and on the lands of the central districts 30, but was defeated at the Council of 1503. Vasily III hesitated; his policy on this issue was inconsistent, but it was not radical, like that of his father 31; at least he never decided to have a conciliar discussion. Conversations with the Athonite monk were of particular interest to him, since both sides referred to the experience of the Svyatogorsk monasteries. Nil Sorsky himself visited the Holy Mountain. The conciliar response asserted that Athanasius of Athos (the founder of Athonite monasticism) “had villages.” Maxim the Greek even wrote about some kind of “slander” against these “Dwellings of God,” declaring that he wanted to “stop the mouths” of those who were trying to slander them. But his answer to the Grand Duke is devoid of polemical enthusiasm, calm and thorough, does not touch upon the issue of villages and takes the discussion to a different plane. He does not interfere in the ideological dispute, understanding how different the Russian and Svyatogorsk monasteries are in the natural environment, social conditions, methods of material support, and much more. He doesn’t seem to directly concern the Russian situation. But the aspect of the topic he chose—the types of monasteries—was also relevant for Russia; the question of "desert" as the preferred type of monastery was raised by Neil at the Council of 1503. The nature of the material support for its existence and the very question of villages depended on the type of monastery. There are no direct responses to the questions that were discussed then, just as there are no direct analogies with the Russian order. But in the message to the Grand Duke there is still an element of edification. The answer of the Holy Mountainer is not an ascetic treatise and is not intended for monastics. There are no specific recommendations for the secular ruler. Yet they are implicitly present. In the Exposition-message, two main themes are clearly revealed - the juxtaposition of two types of monastic structure and the apology for monastic work, that “handicraft” about which Nil Sorsky wrote. Maxim tells the Grand Duke that on the Holy Mountain there are special monasteries, also called laurels, and general (coenobitic) monasteries. Their description (“exposition”) has already been given in the chapter devoted to the stay of Maximus the Greek on the Holy Mountain, and there is no need to repeat it. Let us only add that the description not of the Svyatogorsk monasteries, but of the “hotels” in the “presentation” has many similarities with the order of the Nilova monastery on the Sora River (if we do not take into account the difference in natural conditions and climate) 32 . The same orders as in the special monastery of Athanasius of Athos are also characteristic of his Vatopedi. With constant respect, he also writes about the cenobitic monastery, considering its structure, perhaps, more perfect (the cenobitic Zograf, he writes, is truly “pure of specialness”). The unobtrusively but consistently pursued idea of ​​the juxtaposition of the two monastic types smoothed out the severity of the confrontation between the followers of Nil of Sorsky and Joseph of Volotsky. Initially, it did not have a fundamental character; their charters - the monastic Nile and the cenobitic Joseph - were quite consistent with the mainstream of two ancient, peacefully coexisting ascetic traditions. But the intervention of a third force - state power - brought the issue from the monastic cell to the pulpit of the Church Council of 1503. After the death of Nil of Sorsky (1508) and Joseph of Volotsky (1515), the controversy became even more acute, largely due to Vassian’s temperamental position. The connection between the question of “villages” and “acquisitions” and the type of monastery was obvious to both Nil and Maxim. The second rapprochement is the apology of labor, emphasized by Maxim the Greek. It is quite consistent with the “handicraft” that Nil of Sorsky declared at the Council of 1503. The vague mentions of wage labor in Maximus’s “Exposition” also find a correspondence in Neil’s reasoning about the admissibility of fairly paid wage labor and his condemnation of “acquisitiveness” that is collected through “violence” from the labors of others. The third analogy can be seen in the story of the transformations in the Lavra of Athanasius of Athos, which actually took place in the 14th century. Initially, “in times of prosperity,” secured by generous grants from “kings and pious despots” (Byzantine emperors, Serbian rulers, etc.), the principles of communal life were observed in it. But when “impoverishment” set in, she was forced to switch to “single living,” in which the monks partially provide themselves with everything they need, and partially receive it from the monastery. But this was done only on the basis of a conciliar, collective – we would say today – decision. The council-meeting in the monastery expresses its concerns (“needs”) to the Council of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and only after receiving permission (“forgiveness”) from him, a transition was made, the monks were divided into cells, changing the method of providing vital necessities, and some other procedures, this was already mentioned in the Svyatogorsk chapter. This story implicitly leads to a more general and broader conclusion about the admissibility of changing the type of monastery. Nil Sorsky, as far as can be judged from the brief information, also spoke about the type of monastery, arguing that “deserts” were preferable, but he hardly had specific proposals for any changes on a broader scale, for transformations or “reform”; his teaching was of a much more spiritual nature than that of his disciple Elder Vassian. The message about the Athos monasteries, without giving the addressee specific advice, is not one of the “princely mirrors” that create the image of an ideal ruler. Perhaps Maxim the Greek believed that a calm, thorough presentation would sound even more convincing than an annoying teaching. Was Vasily III satisfied with his message? This can be judged from indirect data and from his policies. Not being an ascetic treatise, it nevertheless became widespread among monastic circles. The copy of the message, written by Selivan, probably in the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old, was sent to the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery and was preserved as part of a convolute collection, which also included the lives of saints, including those written by the hand of Guriy Tushin, the former abbot of this monastery, who later copied manuscripts. The second surviving list also comes from the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, the third probably from the personal archive of Maxim the Greek or from the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old. It apparently entered the Pomeranian book literature and the Old Believer environment through the Kirillo-Belozersk tradition 33 . The second message to the Grand Duke was distributed differently. It was written on Maxim the Greek’s own initiative and is dedicated to the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, completed in December 1522. Its genre is an encomium of praise to Vasily III and his power, accompanying a tray copy of this work. In addition to the panegyric, the message also contains admonitions to the ruler related to state affairs, thereby approaching the genre of “princely mirrors.” The Byzantine model of the symphony of priesthood and kingdom, formulated back in the 6th century in the preface to the sixth novella of Emperor Justinian, very early entered into the Old Slavic Helmsmen's Books, and in the 16th century - into Stoglav. Maxim the Greek was one of the first authors in the history of Russian religious thought who recalled it and spoke about it in many of his writings, and the message about the Explanatory Psalter is the first among them, all the more important because in it the presentation of this norm is addressed directly to those who are called to observe it. Already in the initial part of the message, the author writes: “God’s greatest gifts to people, given from the highest love for mankind, are the priesthood and the kingdom, the priesthood serves the divine, while the kingdom rules over human things and takes care of them. Coming from the same beginning, they decorate human life” 34. The following are examples from the Old and New Testaments, from early Byzantine history about the commonwealth of famous kings and wise bishops. The author is especially attracted by the example of the first Christian king, Constantine the Great, who acted in collaboration with Pope Sylvester. He will repeatedly turn to their paradigm in his work. The power of Vasily III, continues Maxim, in full accordance with the encomium genre, is an image of a symphony, an image and a mirror of Justinian’s words in the community of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Varlaam (“your father’s power in the Lord and intercessor to the unceasing God”). The Byzantine model of the symphony prescribed coordinated actions of ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Its significance also lies in the fact that it served as a model of relations between all members of society, a model of social harmony 35. But Maxim Grek saw another aspect of the symphony, which can be called cultural and historical. Describing the history of the creation of the monument, he especially speaks about the intention of the translation, about the “council” of his addressee with Metropolitan Varlaam, about his blessing for calling the translator and for the translation, and this is also a manifestation of the symphony, as is the art of interpreters, combining the divine and the human, since in the highest and divine there is a lot of humanity, and in the “feeling” there is a lot of “reasonable”. From the message about the Explanatory Psalter, it is obvious that Maxim the Greek is gaining courage and is already deciding to make recommendations to the ruler, moreover, on a foreign policy issue. They are guided by “Greek patriotism”, “Greek idea”, and more broadly by the thought of the fate of Christian peoples enslaved by other religious rulers and the role of the Russian Orthodox Tsar in their liberation. At the end of the letter, he assures Vasily II, upon returning to his homeland, he will testify to Christians in trouble that they have not only a pagan king, but also a king glorified by truth and Orthodoxy, similar to Constantine the Great and Theodosius, whom the Russian state will follow. Maxim the Greek expresses his attitude towards Ancient Rome and New Rome, but goes further than Philotheus of Pskov. If the creator of the idea of the “Third Rome” argued that the Greek kingdom “was ruined and will not be built,” then Maxim the Greek expressed the hope that it would be liberated by the power of the Russian Tsar: “May we one day reign, freed by you from slavery to the wicked.” His thoughtful formulation of the “Greek idea” combines historiosophical and concrete political content, as if anticipating the “Greek project” of the 18th century, and sees the heir to the Russian “fatherly thrones” on the throne of Constantinople. The author continues: “Everything is possible and accomplished for the Lord of all, and just as in ancient times, having raised the great king Constantine from the lower Gauls, he delivered ancient Rome from the wicked Maxentius, so now the namesake New Rome, living hard in unrest under the godless Hagarians, He will liberate by His will and from your paternal thrones the heir will show the light of freedom by you. will give to us who are in trouble” 36. This message became widespread, occurring in two ways: in the lists of the Explanatory Psalter, in which it served as a preface (without losing the signs of the genre of the message), and in the collected works of Maxim the Greek, where it was included as an independent chapter. In his third message to the Grand Duke, Maxim the Greek responded with condolences to the terrible disaster that befell the Russian lands in the summer of 1521 - the devastating raid (“Crimean tornado”) of Khan Muhammad-Girey, whose troops reached almost to Moscow. The Moscow suburbs and the Ugreshsky Monastery were burned, and a large population was captured (Herberstein called a fantastic figure - 700 thousand people). This disaster caused both fear and hope of salvation, accompanied by visions and miracles. The atmosphere that reigned in the city at that time, the mood of the townspeople, is conveyed by the “unusual and merciful vision of a blind nun” described in the chronicle. And it is preceded by a story about “many terrible visions and terrible signs” for “our correction.” One of them appeared to the “righteous blasphemer Vasily,” later nicknamed the Blessed. One night he approached the Assumption Cathedral and stood for a long time at the door, secretly praying, there were others there, and suddenly the doors opened, and the miraculous image of the Mother of God, the Vladimir icon, moves from its place, and a voice is heard that, together with the saints, she wants to leave the city. And a fire broke out throughout the whole church, bursting out of all the doors and windows, and the whole church seemed to be on fire. And then the fire hid and became invisible. Next in the chronicle follows the story of the vision of the “blind nun.” Stretching out prayers to God for deliverance from grief, she suddenly hears the noise of a great storm from a terrible whirlwind and the ringing of bells in the square, and “by a divine wave she was delighted with her mind,” she found herself outside the monastery, and her “mental eyes” opened, and at the same time her “feeling” ones, and a “great and wondrous vision” appeared to her, not as in a dream, but as if in reality: the cathedral is coming from the city through the Frolov Gate radiant men, as if woven from light, in consecrated robes, many metropolitans and bishops, and among them the great wonderworkers Peter, Alexei and Jonah, Leonty of Rostov, many other priests, deacons and other clergy are recognized, and with them the miraculous image of the Mother of God of Vladimir and other shrines move, and then countless people come from the city. And Sergius the Great the Wonderworker quickly comes towards them from the Ilyinsky Market, and from another place Varlaam the Wonderworker of Khutyn. The nun hears the conversation of the monks and saints. Prayer of the saints. And both saints fall in agreement at the feet of the saints and pray to them with tears: “Holy shepherds, why are you leaving this city and where are you going and to whom are you leaving your flock at this time of barbarian invasion?” The answer of the saints. The luminous saints also answered with tears: “We prayed to the all-merciful God and the Most Pure Mother of God for deliverance from the upcoming sorrow, but God commanded us not only to leave the city, but also to take away the miraculous image of the Mother of God, because people despised the fear of God and His commandments, and therefore God, in order to punish them, allowed the barbarians to come here and return them to God by repentance.” Prayer of the saints: “The two saints, Sergius and Varlaam, begged them with tears and said with tears: “You, O holy saints, when you were still in this life, laid down your souls for your flock. Do you really want to leave them now, in their present sorrow? After all, you see that they walk, lamenting, and turn to repentance? Do not despise them, we pray you, do not abandon the flock entrusted to you by God, it has come your time to help them, intensify your diligent prayers to the Most Pure Mother of God, so that she will beg with you her Son Christ our God to change His righteous anger to mercy, and his people will try to do godly deeds.” A collective prayer followed these words, and everyone returned to the city with the miraculous image of the Mother of God and all the shrines. And the nun who saw this again found herself in her cell, after which she lived for another two years, and her blind eyes began to discern the light” 37. Maxim the Greek, sharing the sentiments of the townspeople, tried to console the ruler in his own way, but he, it seems, failed, although he wrote: “Having for a long time already loved the power of your kingdom and no longer wanting to tolerate the betrayal of the godless Scythians, condoling for everything that happened in your kingdom, seeing the sorrow, with my own will I wished to present to your kingdom my understanding [about what happened], as far as my feeble mind allows.” In this message, as in the previous ones, the author implements one of his favorite ideas - about the right of advice to the ruler from reasonable and wise men, even if they are humble (“the worst”), as well as the need (if not the duty) of rulers to take advice or at least listen to them, choosing what is useful. The message begins with the declaration: “I do not consider it unreasonable or inappropriate if [someone] who has love for those in authority turns to them with advice that is both timely and useful... will show the word wisely and the advice is prudent... And let your royal, wise mind prompt you, without hesitation 48, to accept my advice” 38. The author of the message showed great awareness of the events that took place, his assessment coincides with that given in the chronicle: he speaks of the surprise of the attack, the violation of an oath and treason; the same thing is in the chronicle, which speaks of violation of the terms of the shert letter (“.. forgetting his oath to the truth, he waged war against us, remembered neither the first friendships nor the oaths... came unknown to the Grand Duke’s fatherland” 39). He also knows about the regular demands for “commemorations” (tribute), calling on the Grand Duke not to fulfill them, and about the connections between Crimean politics and Lithuanian politics, and recommends an offensive policy towards Kazan. But there is one passage in the message (in its initial part) that the ruler hardly liked if he read it - despite the apparent honor of the analogy drawn there. In the chronicle, in an article about the Crimean invasion, it is said that the Grand Duke left the capital, went from Moscow to Volok to wait for reinforcements from Novgorod and wait for other regiments. But Sigismund Herberstein, who diligently searched for all the details from the life of the Moscow court and the grand ducal family, adds that Vasily, as they say, simply fled from the city, and even hid in a haystack 40. Maxim, of course, does not directly write about this, but the consoling hint is obvious when he calls: “Let us not grieve excessively; there is nothing strange about the way we suffered. This happened to many other most glorious kings, among them the first was blessed David. He won many glorious victories over foreigners, but when his son Absalom betrayed him and rebelled against him, David rose up, became angry and left the city of Jerusalem to gather strength; everyone abandoned him, except for a few close friends, with them he retreated from the city, many reviled and annoyed him, but he endured everything humbly, expecting help from the Most High, and did not sin, for soon God interceded for him and put his enemies to shame and restored him to his first glory and honor.” This episode of sacred history is described in the Second Book of Kings (15ff.). The analogy with King David was, of course, full of reverence, but still it was not about the best of the episodes in the life of the psalmist king. And the mention of a son could have a painful echo in the soul of Vasily, who dreamed of an heir. The message was preserved in a single list, not only without any title, but even without the traditional address, without the name of the author and addressee. Attribution belongs to V.F. Rzhiga, who discovered and published the message in 1936; it was not previously known. Either the ruler did not like it, or it was not sent; one of Maxim the Greek’s friends and collaborators could have said or hinted at the possibility of an inadequate reading (“how our word will respond”). Be that as it may, it is found in a late 16th-century manuscript collection of unknown origin, which included other rare texts, possibly taken from the archives of Maximus himself 41 . The awareness of the Crimean raid of 1521 and Crimean affairs, which our hero showed in his message to the Grand Duke, was apparently the result of his acquaintance with the diplomat F.I. Karpov, who was in charge of the eastern and southern policies of the Russian state. It is necessary to talk about him in more detail, since communication, correspondence and polemics with him constitute noticeable and important pages in the biography of Maxim the Greek. Okolnichy Fedor Ivanovich Karpov is another high-ranking interlocutor of Maxim Grek. And not just an interlocutor - their conversations were framed in messages, which almost immediately turned from an act of personal communication into facts of church-political life and an indicator of the mental quest and ideological trends of their era, becoming the property of a fairly wide circle of readers. Seven messages from Maxim to Karpov have been preserved, four of them are lengthy polemical treatises, which we have already partially become acquainted with in chapter two. There they attracted us with stories and memories of Italian life, and now their Moscow component appears before us, to a very large extent connected with the personality of F. I. Karpov - both with the influence of his official tasks, political and diplomatic, and with the unusualness and originality of his broader interests, his role in the culture and social thought of the 16th century. Not only a diplomat, but also a publicist, one of the few secular authors of his time, he discussed with the learned Svyatogorsk monk subjects from secular life (for example, whether kings and rulers need astrology); Maxim addressed to him the subtleties of theological reasoning about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Karpov's interest went far beyond the boundaries set by the diplomatic service and political life. One of his first researchers, V. F. Rzhiga, called Karpov a “Western boyar” 42 . Fyodor Karpov belonged to a family of Tver boyars who switched to Moscow service. Its ancestor Karp descended from the Smolensk princes, whose descendants, the Fominsky princes (the Karpovs and Bokeevs descended from them), lost their princely title 43 . His three sons (“Karpovichs,” among whom was Fyodor’s father Ivan) moved to Moscow along with a group of other people in 1476, shortly before the annexation of Tver 44 . F. Karpov began serving at the grand ducal court at the end of the 15th century in a very modest role, probably while still a “youth.” He was first mentioned in October 1495, when he took part in the Novgorod trip of Ivan III to Novgorod, probably related to the Swedish campaign. He is one of the “bed attendants” who make up the staff of the “bed attendants,” a not very high court position 45 . At the end of the 15th century, Karpov took part in a large state event - a broad description and delimitation of lands with the subsequent compilation of scribe books. The right charter of 1521 mentions “books of letters of Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov” for the Murom district. His “trial” and land survey took place 20 years earlier 46. The Karpov lands were located, in particular, in the Kostroma district 47. In 1508 we see F. Karpov already in the diplomatic service, which did not stop thereafter. It probably began thanks to his personal business qualities and knowledge of the Tatar language. His specialization was initially relations with the Nogai Horde. On September 6 of this year, Karpov took part in negotiations with ambassadors from the Horde 4, and in October, when news arrived about the arrival of the Crimean ambassadors, Karpov, customs officer Nikita Romanov and clerk Alexei Lukin were sent to meet them in order to “print junk for the guests that were coming with the ambassadors” 49. The specifics of his role in comparison with the role of the customs officer and clerk, his “rank” are not indicated, but it can be assumed that he performed the role of a translator and some kind of supervisory function (the customs officer was named earlier). During the negotiations, he carried out a very important task, for which we will continue to see him in the future - drawing up shert letters. He agreed on the text with the “Tsar’s Bakshey” Kasim, while clerk Luka was present, who was ordered “to write those notes in Russian writing.” On December 24, a solemn ceremony for compiling alternatives took place: the Grand Duke “ordered those records to be made by Diak Luke in Russian writing, and by Kasym Bakshey in Tatar writing.” He was also present at the ceremony of signing shert certificates. Shert records in the name of Vasily III given by the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey were confirmed. Their renewal occurred under each new ruler and was an important event in diplomatic relations with Crimea. Karpov was not a simple translator. The drawing up of shert letters took place “at Theodore’s farmstead”; here we find the first mention of such a specialized “Karpov’s farmstead”, which will be repeated in 1516 and later, in the 1530s. This is a kind of administrative premises - the embryo of the buildings of the future Ambassadorial Prikaz. When signing shert letters, his presence is specially stipulated: “And Fyodor Karpov was right there” - as a responsible person on the part of the Grand Duke to give the ceremony authority, and perhaps as a person who enjoys the trust of the Crimean side due to his knowledge of the Tatar language. In 1514–1515, F.I. Karpov took part in negotiations with the first Turkish ambassador to Russia, the Greek Theodoret Kamal. His first reception was very solemn. It took place in the Embankment Chamber, with him sat the boyars in “fat fur coats” (it was the end of May), in front of the entrance to the Embankment Chamber stood the princes and boyar children “in terliks ​​in fat fur coats, and others in casings in fat ones.” When Kamal “arrived at the Court”, at the initial traditional place of “meeting” of ambassadors, “in the porch at the Annunciation”, he was first met by Karpov and two clerks. They received the “wake” and accompanied the ambassador to the Grand Duke. The next stage of meetings is the “upper porch”, then the entrance directly to the Embankment Chamber 50. As we see, Karpov still occupied a modest place within the boyar-diplomatic hierarchy, but his actual, practical role increased. He took part in negotiations with the Turkish ambassador among the “boyars”. Not all of the named persons had the rank of boyar, but were members of special “commissions” of the Boyar Duma, formed to conduct negotiations. The allocation of such commissions is becoming commonplace in embassy practice 51 . In November 1515, Karpov took part in negotiations with the ambassadors of the new Crimean Khan Muhammad-Girey, who reigned after the death of Mengli-Girey, during which the terms of new shert letters were discussed, but they were signed later, only on May 5, 1519. Moreover, in the embassy book it is written: when “the great prince Magmet-Girey kissed the cross to the Tsar,” then “Fyodor Karpov was holding the cross on the letter” 52. Both the Nikon Chronicle and Maxim the Greek in a message to the Grand Duke (probably having learned about this from the words of Fyodor Karpov) will write about the violation of this shert by Muhammad-Girey in 1521 (the already mentioned “Crimean tornado”). Maxim’s interest in the Crimean-Turkish direction of Russian foreign policy is explained by the fact that he was especially aware of the reality of the Turkish danger, since he knew it from the Western (especially Venetian) side. We remember his trip to the island of Corfu in 1499 in connection with the events of the Turkish-Venetian war. The first news of Karpov’s connection with the “Moscow party” in Crimea dates back to 1516. When envoys “from the Crimean tsar and princes” arrived in April, one of them, Appak, in addition to a large official letter, sent a separate letter to Fyodor Karpov, and it was handed over not during official meetings, but separately: “It was given to Fyodor at the courtyard by his man Shamatai.” Here we again meet Karpov’s “farmstead”. Another prince, Akhmat-Girey, brother of the Crimean Khan, wrote a postscript in the letter to Vasily III (“to this same letter is written on the back of the head”): “I bow to Fyodor Karpov many many times. It would have been known. If you yourself had subtracted this letter from us to my brother in front of the Grand Duke, he would have listened to it much more; and I order this good fairy tale for the hope of you. And now, Fyodor Karpov, I have favored you, I want to keep you as a friend, and how many good speeches of mine there will be, and you would have spoken to my brother the Grand Duke and you would have done my work, and God willing, I will send my funeral to you and send my bow, so if you knew.” Akhmat, as noted by I. I. Smirnov, “belonged to the number of supporters of the Russian state and adhered to the Moscow orientation... The government of Vasily III maintained secret connections with Akhmat and relied on him in pursuing its policy in the Crimea” 53. In the 1520–1530s, Karpov played a leading role in relations with Crimea and Kazan - they were very difficult, raids continued 54. The campaigns of 1527 (Islam-Girey), 1531 (Bulgak-Mirza) are known; During the campaign of 1533, “the settlement was burned near Ryazan.” On August 10, 1535, Moscow received news that “many Crimean people came to Ryazan to fight.” In 1539–1540, the Kazan Khan Safa-Girey, who was hostile to Russia, approached Murom and Kostroma. After the “Crimean tornado” of 1521 and the death of Muhammad-Girey in August 1522, the question arose about signing shert letters with the new khan Seadet-Girey. Now it is not the Crimean princes, but the khan himself (“the tsar”) who asks for the mediation and help of Fyodor Karpov both in the preparation of shert letters, in the matter of translations, and in their signing, in other matters, and the protocol of one of them (1524) is similar to the protocol of letters to the Grand Duke. "Crimean affairs" for the years 1522–1539 remain unpublished. They include three letters from Seadet-Girey to Karpov (received in 1523, 1524 and 1526), ​​as well as a letter to him from Imeldysh-Bakhtiar, who was part of the “Moscow party” in Crimea. In a letter to Karpov brought in 1523, Seadet-Girey recalled that the addressee was on friendly terms with his predecessor and asked to continue to assist in his affairs 55. The charter of 1523 contains direct evidence that Karpov translated shert charters. Sending the “draft” of letters to the Grand Duke, Seadet-Girey turns to Karpov: “... and how many of our speeches will be written in them, and you would translate them in full and say a lot to the Grand Duke” 56 . Karpov’s leading role continued in the 1530s - we constantly see him as a participant and head of negotiations with the Crimean ambassadors. As before, receptions often take place in his “yard” 57. As a rule, this happened when the government intended to demonstrate its displeasure with the policies pursued by Crimea. Recognition of his merits occurred late; he received the second Duma rank - okolnichy - probably around August 1538, when in the “Crimean affairs” he was first mentioned with this rank, and then it remained unchanged 58. The last mention of Karpov in “Crimean affairs” dates back to October 20, 1539 59 . As already mentioned, Karpov’s activities were not limited to Crimean politics. He was an active participant in negotiations with the Turkish ambassador Iskander (Skinder) in 1522, 1524, 1526 and 1529 60 . One of the charges brought against Maxim will be associated with Skinder’s name Greek on the ships of 1525–1531. It should be recalled that, in parallel with “eastern” affairs, Karpov was also busy with Western problems; since 1517, he constantly took part in receiving ambassadors and negotiating with them. At the same time, it is obvious that he is attracted precisely as an expert on the Eastern question. We have already cited his lengthy speech at the negotiations with Francesco da Collo, to whom he responded to proposals for participation in the anti-Turkish coalition and in the fight against “infertility”; his main thesis is maintaining fidelity to the “Greek law,” that is, Orthodoxy. He took part in negotiations with Herberstein in 1517 and 1526 (by the way, on his second visit, he was interested in the fate of Maxim the Greek, but, despite the abundance of informants, he could not find out anything reliable - “it seems that he was drowned”) 61. We will meet with Karpov again, and now we need to recall the basic facts of the biography of another person with whom the fate of Maxim the Greek in Moscow will be connected. In part, they will be connected by the same phenomena of Russian life that prompted the Grand Duke’s questions about the Athos monasteries, but now the topics of their conversations will expand. Prince-monk Vassian came from the Gedimin family, descendants of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gedimin, whose grandson Patrick laid the foundation for the Patrikey family. At the end of the 14th century, he entered Russian service, first to Novgorod as a serving prince, and in 1408 to Moscow. His son Yuri Patrikeevich became related to the Moscow Rurikovichs and was married to the sister of Moscow Grand Duke Vasily I Anna, daughter of Dmitry Donskoy. According to other genealogies, Yuri was married to the sister not of Vasily I, but of Vasily II, which is less likely 62. Consequently, Yuri’s grandson, our Vasily (the future Vassian), was Vasily III’s second cousin, not his brother, and was undoubtedly older than him (in 1489, when he commanded the troops, Prince Vasily was ten years old). The Patrikeev princes became associates of the great princes and became part of the noblest families of the Old Moscow boyars, who invariably supported the centralization policy. Ivan Yuryevich, Vasily's father, maintained and maintained close family relations with the Moscow house; he led the boyars who went to Tver for the bride of Ivan III, Princess Maria, and accompanied her to Moscow. In 1492, Ivan III and his family lived in the Patrikeevs’ house when the grand-ducal palace was being built. By the end of the 15th century, I. Yu. Patrikeev was the Moscow governor, in fact the head of the Boyar Duma. The career of his son Vasily Ivanovich was also successful 63. He was a commander who won military victories, took participation in diplomatic affairs, especially Lithuanian ones, which at that time were not always friendly, was a member of embassies, sometimes under the leadership of his father, sometimes independently, and in a number of cases could pursue an independent policy in Vilna, “was arrogant,” as Ivan III would later reproach him. Perhaps it served as a grand ducal court of higher instance, which reviewed the decisions of lower court judges. The disgrace that befell the Patrikeevs in January 1499 was unexpected both for them and for those around them. Ivan Yuryevich’s son-in-law S.I. Ryapolovsky was executed, but the father and son Patrikeevs were “begged off” by the metropolitan. The execution of his father was replaced by forced tonsure into a monastery (“in the glands”), he was sent to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Vasily received the name Vassian in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. A few years later (between 1503 and 1509) he returned to Moscow and became one of the Grand Duke’s authoritative advisers, a very influential person. The reasons for this disgrace are shrouded in mystery; not a single word was mentioned about them in any of the chronicles or any other source of that time reporting on the event. Various versions have been put forward in historiography. What is clear is that the disgrace was connected with the dynastic struggle over the succession to the throne, which began after the death in 1490 of Ivan Ivanovich the Young, the son of Ivan III from his first marriage to Maria Tverskaya. He left behind a son, the grandson of Ivan III Dimitri, born in November 1483. The youngest son of Ivan III, Vasily (from his second marriage, with Sophia Paleologus) was born in March 1479 and was four years older than Demetrius. His mother, a Byzantine princess from the Palaiologos family, of course, wanted to see her son on the Moscow throne. We have already said in the Italian chapter that soon after the birth of her son Vasily, her brother, Andrei Paleologus, visited her with a breve from the Pope (Sophia herself was raised in Rome, she was patronized by Cardinal Vissarion). But the mother of Dimitri’s grandson, Elena Voloshanka, the widow of Ivan the Young, was distinguished, presumably, by no less ambition - her father, the Moldavian ruler Stephen the Great, was a major and influential European ruler. The rivalry between Sophia and Elena was inevitable. Researchers attributed the Patrikeevs to both “parties,” suggesting a wide variety of their interests. The most common hypothesis is about their connections with the Elena-Dimitri party. But researchers usually did not take into account one important factor in this struggle - Vasily’s intentions to put pressure on his father to exercise the ancient right of “departure” and “move away” to Lithuania. The second time it was even carried out. Events developed like this: Ivan III initially intended to make Dimitri, who turned 14 years old in November 1497, heir. Supporters of Vasily, who was already 18 years old, learned about this and organized a conspiracy. Vasily threatened his father with leaving, but Ivan III got ahead of him, putting him and Sophia in disgrace; for his son, he limited himself to house arrest, without punishing him severely (probably under the influence of Sophia) 64. In February 1498, Demetrius was proclaimed heir. But the balance was unstable, the struggle did not end, Demetrius’s supporters wanted to strengthen his position and finally push Vasily aside. The latter, in turn, continued the dangerous game, threatened to “leave” a second time, and at the turn of 1499 and 1500 even tried to fulfill his intention, although the news about this in the source is very laconic 65 . If the reason for the Patrikeevs’ disgrace was their connection with the “party” of Dimitri-Elena, then the date of their disgrace - January 1499 - does not fit well with the fact that Ivan III remained in favor of his grandson-heir throughout 1498-1499 (Vasily and Sophia would finally win only in 1502). And the metropolitan’s intercession for the Patrikeevs would hardly have been possible if they had been associated with Elena Voloshanka, suspected of having connections with heretics. Thirdly (and probably this is the main thing), Vasily III, soon after ascending the throne, threw Demetrius into prison, and in February 1509 he died a violent death (Elena died in the “nation” earlier). It is unlikely that Vasily III would have allowed Vassian to return to Moscow at the same time if he had been a supporter of Demetrius and Helena and, of course, would not have made him his adviser. It seems more legitimate to assume that in 1497 the Patrikeevs, who had connections in Lithuania, strengthened during their diplomatic trips, gave consent to Vasily and Sophia for some kind of support or assistance in Lithuania in the event of the prince’s “departure”. Ivan III found out about this later. The facts were probably serious. But perhaps these were not facts at all, but slander, slander, and exaggeration. The Grand Duke did not punish his son, so as not to give wide publicity to family affairs, but he punished the Patrikeevs. Sophia's influence, despite the disgrace, apparently remained; she did not allow her son to be punished strictly. Both Vasily III and Vassian remembered this, and the Grand Duke seemed to be atoning for his monk uncle and forgiving him a lot. This, of course, is a psychological hypothesis, but it can also explain many of the vicissitudes of their future relationship, which we will encounter more than once, because Maxim the Greek will also be involved in them. Vassian’s collaboration with Maxim probably began with the fact that Vassian, being a very educated and “bookish” man, was involved in the work of Maxim the Greek in translating and rewriting books, as well as editing liturgical texts, and was an observer and organizer of all work. This is evidenced by a number of testimonies at the trial in 1531. Vassian, like the Grand Duke, turned to the authority of Maxim the Greek in matters of monastic structure in order to receive support for his non-acquisitive aspirations, which arose in him in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under the influence of his spiritual father Nil, whose follower he became, and observations of the economic practices of the monastery. He became interested in the norms and rules (legal and canonical) of the life in which he found himself forcibly, not by choice. In the life of the monastery, he saw a constant violation of the vow of “rejection of the world,” that is, the renunciation of everything worldly, and the vow of “non-covetousness.” It is not known exactly when he began to study the Helmsman’s Book (a manual on church administration and court), and the rules and regulations it contained concerning monasteries and monasticism. We may recall that earlier, in 1497, the Patrikeevs may have taken part in the compilation of Code of Laws 66. By the time Maxim the Greek arrived, Vassian had already completed work on his own Helmsman. It was based on one of the rare editions of this monument available in the Slavic tradition; Vassian significantly supplemented and changed it. He paid special attention to articles that spoke about villages and other monastic and church property, movable and immovable. He outlined the results of his research in his own work, which he decided to include in the Kormchaya, which included the Apostolic Rules, decrees of Ecumenical and Local Councils, works of authoritative church writers, interpretations of famous Byzantine canonists, and experts in canon law. Vassian included himself among them, and in the next edition he also included an essay by Maximus the Greek on the Athos monasteries. In his essay (“Meetings of a Certain Elder”), Vassian writes that he made a selection of Rules that “do not command monks to intervene in accordance with his vow (“promise”) in worldly [affairs], neither in villages, nor in anything else.” At the same time, he continues, in other Rules it is written: “...there are villages in monasteries,” and he names two rules (24th Rule of the IV Council and 18th Rule of the VII Council). “Who else should we believe? How to resolve this? Only the Gospel and the Apostle and the holy Rules!” 67 This conclusion was made by Vassian at the time of the arrival of Maximus the Greek, based on the fact that some Rules are opposed to others. But Maxim the Greek introduced him to the methods of philological criticism of a text, based not on contrasting some texts with others, with opposite content, but on clarifying the history and degree of authenticity and reliability of the text itself. He used his humanistic experience gained in Italy in collaboration with Aldus Manutius, the experience of comparing and studying texts when preparing them for publication or translation, which came in handy in Moscow when working not with texts of ancient literature, but with monuments of Russian and Greek canon law. Fortunately, the Greek Helmsman, brought from Constantinople at the beginning of the 15th century by Metropolitan Photius, ended up in Moscow. Vassian knew about its existence. His “Collection” ends with the remark (after the quoted words about the contradictions): “But in the Mother of God Rules of Greek villages it is not written that monasteries should be kept.” Someone told Vassian this information (perhaps Nil Sorsky, who knew Greek, since he had been to Athos), but Vassian could not use the Greek Helmsman on his own. Maxim the Greek made for him a translation of those very rules and interpretations on them, in the Slavic version of which Vassian found a mention of villages, and added to them another rule of the VII Council, not indicated by Vassian. It turned out that in the Greek original there is no mention of villages; it appeared at some stage in the history of the Slavic text. Vassian included these translations of Maximus the Greek in the second edition of his “Collection of a Certain Elder,” replacing with them his final exclamation: “Whom else should we believe? Will you allow me to do something?" - because the answer was found, doubts were resolved. These three Rules as part of the “Meeting” occupy a larger volume than the text of the original short version itself. Instead of her pessimistic conclusion, he wrote: “And what is written in our Russian Rules, in 24 Rules of the IV Council and in 12 and 18 Rules of the VII Council “to the monasteries of the village,” is a deception, according to the testimony of divine scripture, if someone signed it falsely in the holy scriptures in our Russian Rules, that the monastery of the village is to be kept. But in the Mother of God Rules of the Greek letter in the Moscow cathedral church, which were taken from Constantinople by Metropolitan Photius, were not written down in the monasteries.” “The Rules of the Mother of God” is the Greek Helmsman, kept in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin and currently unknown. Further in the “Collection” there are texts translated by Maxim. Maxim the Greek, as already mentioned, did not directly intervene in the confrontation between non-covetous people and their opponents, but he made his contribution to non-covetousness - by taking the side of non-covetous people and using his Italian humanistic experience to support them. We do not know whether he became acquainted with the treatise of Lorenzo Balla, who later proved the origin of the so-called “Gift of Constantine,” according to which the first Christian emperor Constantine in the 4th century granted Pope Sylvester vast possessions “throughout the entire universe.” This document has always been actively used by defenders of church property in different countries; it is also quoted in the Russian “Council Reply” of 1503. But the method with which the learned Greek resolved the doubts of the Russian canonist is the same with which Lorenzo Valla proved the falsity of the Donation of Constantine. He also did other translations for the Helmsman of Vassian, but their volume has not yet been determined. The result of the joint work of Maxim and Vassian was a special edition of the Helmsman, intended specifically for the Grand Duke. Its peculiarity is the presence of a special chapter (34th), addressed to the supreme ruler and containing works that were never previously included in the Helmsman. It contains or mentions works whose genre is instructions and teachings to the ruler by mainly clergy. The same idea that was characteristic of the messages of Maxim the Greek is realized here - the assertion of the right of the council. Here, in a special selection, it is shown how prominent figures of the Orthodox Church realized this right. Its main part is the “Advisory Chapters” to Emperor Justinian (VI century), written by the deacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, Agapit. Slavic translations of this work have been known since the 10th-11th centuries. It was published many times in Western Europe (the first edition was in Venice in 1509) and translated into many languages. Among his translators was even the French king Louis XIII 68. The translation as part of the Helmsman belongs, as can be assumed with a high degree of probability, to Maxim the Greek. The thirty-fourth chapter in the table of contents (fol. 8 vol.) has the title “The mentor of souls, the teaching of the good of the kingdom to the boyars and to the bishops and to the abbots is great.” This is the title of the older translation of the Chapters of Agapit. But then, in a different handwriting, a different title (“inscription”) is assigned: “Exposition to Tsar Justinian of the Holy Great Church of God compiled by Agapit the Deacon.” The text with the same title is placed on the sheet. 616 rev. – 630 volumes: “Exposition of the deliberative chapters to King Justinian, composed by Agapit, a deacon of God’s Most Holy Great Church, their firstfruits (that is, the beginning) verse is as follows: To the most Divine and Most Pious Justinian, Agapit the Lesser Deacon.” This is a new translation consisting of 72 chapters. Further on l. 631, the title of the work mentioned in the table of contents was rewritten: “The teaching of the Macedonian king Basil Komnenos to Leo the Wise, his son, who sought to find the same thing” (here, erroneously, Emperor Basil I, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, is called Komnenos). However, there is no text of the “teaching” in the Helmsman; the compiler only recommends it as a monument “similar” in content to the genre that precedes it in the manuscript, that is, the “Exposition” of Agapit. This kind of “recommendation list” is continued with similar notes: “And packs: Photius of the Patriarch of Konstantinagrad, a teaching message about the seven Councils and about the Orthodox faith and what a prince should be like... Michael, from God, the Prince of Bulgaria, rejoice, seeking to find.” At the end of the title there is an insertion mark, in the lower field with an identical sign there is a postscript: “in the new book of Maximov’s translation.” This indication, reproduced in the book by A.I. Pliguzov, indisputably confirms the previously expressed assumption that the translation was carried out by Maxim the Greek (the word “book” here means a composition) 69 . Maxim the Greek would later recommend the letter of Patriarch Photius to Prince Mikhail-Boris to Ivan the Terrible as edifying reading. The list of recommendations does not end with the name of Patriarch Photius. Further on the same sheet (fol. 631 and volume) there is a text without a title, beginning with the question “What is a king?” In a number of Volokolamsk collections of the 16th century, the same text (but in a slightly different edition) has the title “Socrates the Sage of the Hellenes” and opens with the question “What is the ruler?” (in Kormchay - “king”). Next is the “Epistolia of Aristotle the Philosopher to Alexander, the Great King of Macedon,” and immediately after it there is a small text entitled “The same and the same,” as well as an essay entitled “From the conversation of King Alexander to his father King Philip about the kingdom” (fol. 633 vol. - 637 vol.). At the end of the text it is reported that everything that Alexander the Great said to his father about the virtues of the king was taught to him by Aristotle, “or Omir (that is, Homer), interpreting, or otherwise.” Heroes of ancient mythology and history are mentioned here - Zeus, Agamemnon, etc. This is a unique text, previously unknown, and it requires research, primarily attribution, and a search for a translator. A.I. Pliguzov suggested that it was these texts that served as the reason to accuse Vassian at the trial of 1531: “...they now wrote the teachings of Oristotle, Omir, Philip, Alexander, Plato in their Rules of the Hellenic Sages” 70 . The hierarchs quite rightly considered the helm of the “holy book”, “holy book”, and the inclusion in it as a moral standard of texts with the names of Zeus, Agamemnon, etc., to be inappropriate. It is curious that some of these texts also interested Metropolitan Daniel: they are included in the “Glavnik Danilovsky,” probably compiled by himself (RSL. F. 113. Vol. 489). This includes “Exposition of Agapit” (fol. 324 vol. – 325 vol.) and “Basily the king of the Greek chieftain taught 66 to his son King Leo” (fol. 334 vol. – 354), arranged in the same order as in Kormchay (although the edition of the title of the second text is different here). Next are the texts of “Socrates the wise man of Greece” (fol. 354) and “Aristotle the philosopher from the epistole to Alexander the king of Macedon” (fol. 354 vol. – 355), but there is no chapter accompanying these texts in the Helmsman of Vassian with the mention of Zeus, Agamemnon and others (“Conversations about the kingdom” of Alexander the Great to Father Philip), included in the “Glavnik” and the message of Patriarch Photius “Glavnik”, unlike the Helmsman, the “holy and sacred” book, belongs to the type of “four collections” that do not have such strict restrictions on composition, nevertheless, the Metropolitan rejected a number of texts 71 . The discovery of the “Exposition” of the deacon Agapit as part of the “non-covetous” Helmsman of Vassian refutes the traditional idea of ​​it as a work especially close to “Josephite” circles. Orthodox ethical-political teaching, many key parts of which were formulated in the 6th century by Agapit, deacon of the Great Church (Hagia Sophia) in Constantinople, included provisions close to various Christian thinkers who may have differed on other issues, but were unanimous in their ideas about the divine origin of royal power and its high responsibilities towards its subjects. That is why it became possible to include the “Exposition” of Deacon Agapit both in the Helmsman of Vassian Patrikeev and in the “Glavnik” of his opponent and accuser, Metropolitan Daniel. It can be added that the previously mentioned translation of the interpretations of Theodore Balsamon on the Rules of the VII Ecumenical Council, carried out by Maxim the Greek, was also included in both the Helmsman of Vassian Patrikeev and the consolidated Helmsman of Metropolitan Daniel. All this shows that many historiographical judgments about the “Josephites” and “non-possessors” require significant adjustments. Translations and book writing centers Everything that the reader already knows about the works of our hero in the first years of his life in Moscow was by no means his main occupation, but rather marginal, incidental to the task that stood before him then - the translation of works of doctrinal literature related not only to the genre of homiletics and exegesis 49, but also to others - hagiographic, encyclopedic, epistolary. He also edited existing translations, mainly of liturgical texts. The need to expand the fund of spiritual literature, recognized by both state and church authorities, was the main reason for inviting a translator from Vatopedi in 1516. This need was also felt by society, at least by its most educated and conscientious representatives. Among them was probably the author of one of the works developing the idea of ​​the “Third Rome”, but not Philotheus of Pskov himself, but his successor, who wrote in the 30s – early 40s of the 16th century. In the essay “On the Insults of the Church,” he reinterpreted the original meaning of the idea and wrote about the “Third Rome” - “new Great Russia” as a newly converted and newly enlightened country, because the holy apostles did not preach in it and it was late (“after all”) ““enlightened” by divine grace and the knowledge of the true God” 72. Translations of Maxim the Greek served the cause of spiritual enlightenment, performed an educational function, significantly expanded the fund of educational literature, works of the hagiographic genre, canon law; among the translations there were also texts of a non-ecclesiastical nature and even, as it turned out recently, of the chronographic genre. He translated the interpretations of church writers into almost all the books of the New Testament, and from the Old Testament - into the Psalter, one of the most widespread books of the Old Testament canon, which was also used for teaching, a poetic, lofty book. The works of Maxim the Greek acquired a large scale. The largest in volume and those for which the need was felt especially acutely were copied in many copies (“lists”), and even today they can be found in all large collections of manuscript departments of libraries and archives. Collaboration with the learned Svyatogorsk monk was entrusted to the most educated people of that time, and one of them, Elder Vassian (Patrikeev), already familiar to us, probably performed organizing functions, supervised the staff of scribes and other employees. The activities of this “learned squad” (using the expression of a later time) are comparable to the efforts to create a complete set of biblical books of the Old and New Testaments, the first in the history of Slavic Cyrillic writing, which were carried out in the 90s of the 15th century by a group of experienced scribes and writers at the court of the Novgorod Archbishop Gennady and led to the appearance of the Bible in 1499. The connection between the Novgorod and Moscow enterprises is personified by the names of Dimitry Gerasimov (“Mity”) and Vlas Ignatov (“Vlasiya”), who took part in the creation of the Gennady Bible and in the translation works of Maxim the Greek. The difference between the Novgorod translations and the Moscow ones is that the first were made primarily from Latin (or German) languages ​​in cases where books or parts of books were not discovered in the Slavic manuscript tradition; Greek complete codices were very rare, and printed Greek books were completely absent.” The Moscow translation took place in two stages. First, Maxim the Greek translated from Greek into Latin, and then Dimitri and Blasius “expressed” in Russian to the scribes (“scribes”). The translation language is invariably called “Russian” or “Russian” in the 50 entries on the manuscripts. This method is explained by insufficient knowledge of the language in the first years of Maxim the Greek’s stay in Moscow. In the scientific literature, reproaches were sometimes expressed both against him and against the Athonite authorities, who sent a man who did not know the language as a “book translator.” But in a letter from Vatopedi, Grand Duke Vasily III is given a description of Maxim as a person “skillful and useful in the interpretation and translation of all church and Hellenic books, because from his youth and youth (“youthful youth”) he grew up in these teachings...”. At this point the text ends (the end is lost), its continuation in the letter of the abbot of the Vatopedi monastery to Metropolitan Varlaam: “... and he mastered them thoroughly, and not like others, limiting himself only to reading... He, however, does not know the Russian language, only Greek and Latin, but we hope that he will quickly learn Russian too” 74 . The authorities were aware of his philological training, high education, ability to translate and explain the meaning of books. Perhaps he was still familiar with some version of the Church Slavonic language if he made missionary trips to Wallachia, and possibly to other Balkan countries. In addition, among the monks who traveled to Moscow with Maxim was Lavrentiy, a Bulgarian from Vatopedi. We must assume that he served as a translator; During the long, two-year journey to Moscow, he could teach the language to his companion, and during the translations, listening to the Russian speech of his assistants, memorizing the Russian equivalents of Latin words, expressions, phrases, he himself acquired this language. Training could also be mutual; Russian translators improved their Latin in the course of joint work. A very interesting question is about the technique of double translation - was it only oral? Perhaps Maxim pronounced the Latin text, and Dimitri and Blasius also immediately made a Russian translation orally and dictated it to the clerks, of whom there could be several, and they could write several copies at the same time. Or did the translators take some notes? Or did Maxim give them the text itself in Latin? The answer to this question is complex. At first glance, it may seem that only oral transmission of a complex text of a large volume was hardly possible. Nevertheless, the terminology of the recordings (“expressed”), and especially the words of Dimitry Gerasimov, point specifically to an oral transmission, in any case it is not excluded. He wrote to Misyur Munekhin: “Now, sir, Maxim the Greek is translating the Psalter from Greek to the Grand Duke, and Vlas and I are sitting with him, taking turns: he speaks in Latin, and we speak in Russian to the clerks. And there are 24 interpreters in it” 75. In all cases, it is indisputable that Maximus's employees were professionals, had sufficient experience and training - not only Latin translators (which is indisputable), but also scribes. And yet some version of the written stage in the sequential transmission of the text can hardly be excluded. Perhaps Maxim the Greek still handed over some written translation texts to his assistants. The Latin translators of Maximus the Greek, being very educated people, knowing the language, were connected not only with the literary, but also with the embassy environment. They traveled to various European countries not only as translators, but sometimes on their own. Even the imperial ambassador Sigismund Herberstein wrote about their embassies in his “Notes on Muscovy” 76. This was the Moscow elite, educated but ignorant. In the sources, the Latin translators were mostly referred to only by name (“Vlasiy”, “Mitya” or “Mitya Maly”, in contrast to “Dmitry the Old”, also a diplomat D. Yu. Trakhaniot). Writers and diplomats combined their activities, which were for them two different types of service. F.I. Karpov, already known to us, belonged to the same environment, who at the end of the 15th century served as the Grand Duke’s “scribe”, who took part in a broad description of the lands of the Russian state. All these persons were also among the first interlocutors of Maxim the Greek. Dimitry Gerasimov stood out among them for his special diversity of interests. He not only took part in translations for the Gennady Bible, which were supervised by his older brother Gerasim Popovka, but also did large independent translations both before and after his collaboration with Maxim the Greek 77 . In 1501, he translated the theological treatise of Nicholas de Lira “Against the treachery of the Jews”; in the 30s of the 16th century, he translated, on behalf of the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius (future metropolitan), the Explanatory Psalter of Bruno of Würzburg (Herbipolensky), whom we have already mentioned when speaking about the founding of the Carthusian order. The work of Pavel Jovius, describing his stay in Rome in 1525, is based on information from Dimitri Gerasimov. In turn, with the participation of Vlasiy and according to the stories of Russian ambassadors I. I. Zasekin and S. B. Trofimov, the “Book about the embassy of Vasily, Grand Duke of Moscow to Pope Clement VII” 78 was created. The first translation of Maxim the Greek in Moscow was the Explanatory Apostle, and not the Explanatory Psalter, contrary to a fairly widespread opinion in historiography 79 . It contained interpretations of John Chrysostom, as well as some other church authors. Already in March 1519, the translation of the initial part of the monument, which was approximately a quarter of it, was completed (interpretations on the “Acts of the Apostles”, but not in its entirety, but only from the 31st conception to the 51st, to the end; probably the translators did not have the complete manuscript of the original). Maxim the Greek instructed the translators to make a note at the end of this part about the date of the translation (March 25, 1519), its participants, etc., without waiting for the completion of the entire work; he probably wanted to indicate the result of the first year of his work 80 . And in the future, he will indicate only a very few dates of his works, usually coinciding with some turning points or simply important events in his life. Only Vlasiy is named as a translator from Latin; Dimitri, it seems, was not in Moscow at that time, he was carrying out one of the diplomatic assignments. The rest of the manuscript (the commentary on the “Apostolic Epistles”) was translated another two years later, by March 1521. The date is known only from a single manuscript, but it has not yet been discovered. The manuscript was no longer seen by S. A. Belokurov in 1899, having reprinted information about it according to the description in the “Bibliological Dictionary” of P. M. Stroev, where it is reported about the manuscript located in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery “under No. 2/36 (in 4-ku, half-st., 406 f.), on the white sheet of which in front is written: this cathedral Epistle 7 and Paul the Apostle Epistle 14 was written from the Greek of the four apostles, translated by Maximus the Greek, who translated the Explanatory Psalter and other books, in the summer of 7029 (that is, 1521) March 7” 81. This entry was clearly added later, since it mentions the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, completed in December 1522, after the translation of the Apostle. Nevertheless, it is of exceptional importance: it not only gives the date of completion of the translation of the entire Interpretive Apostle, but also gives a description, albeit very brief, of the Greek original. For the vast majority of his translations there are no such indications about the Greek originals. “Four Greek Apostles” - these could be four bindings into which a single book is divided, that is, separate parts of the monument. These could be four copies of manuscripts of the same or similar composition. Based on the experience of his Italian humanistic past, he collated the text, comparing individual readings, fragments in different manuscripts, giving preference to those that, from his point of view, are closest to the original ones and better reflect the original. Indeed, in Italy, when preparing for the publication of this or that ancient author, they tried to compare the texts of the main manuscript with other manuscripts. Maxim could do the same when translating the text of church authors. If this assumption is confirmed, then the continuation in Moscow of the Italian humanistic tradition in the study and translation of not pagan, but Christian authors will become obvious. March 1521 as the date of completion of the translation of the Explanatory Apostle is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the next translation - the Explanatory Psalter - was started already in June-July of the same year and completed a year and five months later 82, in December 1522. The translation went faster and took less time, although it was larger in volume than the previous one. Now two translators from Latin took part in it; Dimitry Gerasimov joined Vlasiy. The entry available in many lists of the monument calls them “associates” of Maxim and “interpreters” of the Grand Duke, thereby indicating their involvement in public service. The translation of the Explanatory Psalter is accompanied by an encomium message to the Grand Duke, which is placed as a preface in most surviving copies of the Explanatory Psalter. This is not only (or even so much) a traditional word of praise; its main part is devoted to the translated monument, revealing its high content and meaning. It tells about the interpreters, their merits and skills, different approaches to the ways of interpreting the psalms. The author names among them “allegorical”, “constructive”, “moralizing” and “historical”. At the end of the message, Maxim asks to reward not only them, but also “Michal Medovartsev and Silvan the monk and our brother, clerks (that is, scribes) and the smallest servants of your kingdom.” They still have to play a big role in the life and fate of Maxim the Greek. By the end of 1522, he already considered his mission completed. The final part of the message is a plea for a return to the Holy Mountain. He asks and convinces the Grand Duke to let him go. It seems that he already knows or anticipates the difficulties that will arise with his return. He assures the addressee that he will testify to his “deliberate royal deeds, so that Christians in trouble will understand that they still have not only pagan kings, but those glorified by truth and Orthodoxy, like Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great, whom your power will follow” 83 . He asks to release not only him, but also “the brothers who are with him,” these are, apparently, the elders who came with him, the confessor Neophyte, Lavrenty the Bulgarian. “Free us from this long sadness,” he writes about separation from the monastery, where they made monastic promises, “give us to the good, honest monastery of Vatopedi, which has been waiting for us for a long time, and teas every hour, like chicks waiting for those who feed them” 84. But he was entrusted with other works. Before moving on to them and talking about other early translations, we note, looking ahead, that the Psalter attracted his attention in all further works. In 1552, he will make another translation, this time of the Psalter without interpretations, and during the translation he will teach the Greek language to the Trinity monk Nil Kurlyatev, as earlier - Selivan 85. His translation of this part of the Old Testament canon remains, unfortunately, unpublished, although it is of undoubted scientific interest. He attached special importance to this translation, especially to the corrections that he made to the existing translation, and made a special selection of words and expressions, small fragments of text translated in a new way, calling it “Statement on the Psalms” 86. Maxim the Greek carefully studied the then existing Church Slavonic translation. A manuscript from the end of the 15th century, which he used in his studies, has been preserved, in which corrections not only of individual words, but also of entire phrases were made by his own hand. The time when he made these glosses is unknown. Earlier, in 1540, he copied the Greek Psalter in Tver by order of Veniamin, sacristan of the Tver bishop Akakios 87. The third major translation is the Discourses of John Chrysostom on the Gospels of Matthew and John, also of a very large volume (each of the monuments consists, as a rule, of two parts, all four parts contain several hundred pages in different manuscripts). This translation was carried out differently than the previous two, directly from Greek. This turned out to be possible thanks to the Trinity monk Selivan. In the entry on the Explanatory Psalter and in the letter to Vasily III, he is mentioned only as a scribe. But in the translation of the Conversations his role was much more significant. He dedicated an essay to this work and his participation in it, placed in Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew at the end of the earliest (of known) manuscript - a kind of afterword (untitled, begins with the words “This Gospel story”) 88. In other manuscripts it is placed at the beginning, as a preface. Selivan reports: the book was translated “from the wisest Hellenic language” into the “Russian language” “by the wisdom and punishment of the wise elder Maxim, the husband of Velmi Mudra, in all three languages, in Hellenic, Latin and in my sweetest Russian, and I, obscene and unreasonable, was involved in his works.” He speaks very modestly about his contribution to the translation: “Through the labor and sweat of the many-sinful monk Selivan.” But his information was clarified by Maxim the Greek himself. In the message accompanying the same early manuscript of the Egorov collection and placed immediately before Selivan’s afterword, he writes that the translation (“translation”) “from the Hellenic language into Russian” was carried out by Selivan (“be kind and most prudent, as far as I can judge”). He reports that Selivan improved his knowledge of the language under his, Maxim’s, guidance and showed great ability (“he appeared witty”) for “verbal teachings,” as well as a “fair disposition” in his young years, did not ask to be sent either to Athens or to “other Hellas” to master “our sweet voice,” he studied it “in his fatherland,” surrounded by “his language” (“language” here can also be understood as a means communication, and as a people speaking this language) 89. Selivan’s preface and afterword also indicate the date of completion of the translation – “7032”, that is, the period from September 1523 to August 1524. The beginning of the message of Maxim the Greek is very noteworthy, performing the formal function of the title of the text as part of a handwritten collection; Essentially, this is an appeal to the addressee, but not to any specific person, but to a collective addressee, like the “district messages” of church hierarchs: “Maxim the monk of the Holy Mountain from the sacred monastery of Vatopedi, read to all who have this sacred book, God-loving men of Russia, Serbs and Bulgarians, rejoice in the Lord” 90. The author understood the benefit of his translation for the cause of Slavic enlightenment and seemed to have foreseen the area of ​​its distribution. Manuscripts of Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew are even found on Mount Athos, in Vatopedi and in the Serbian monastery of Hilandar. One of them was brought to Hilandar from Poland, and in 1622 a copy was made from it 91. The intention to print the translation in Lithuania arose already in the middle of the 16th century. Black Deacon Isaiah from Kamenets-Podolsky, heading to Moscow, had the goal, in particular, of finding a number of manuscripts here for printing, and one of them was Gospel conversations translated by Selivan 92. Discourses on the Gospels of both Matthew and John were published by the Moscow Printing House in 1664 and 1665. It is not entirely clear when exactly the Conversations of John Chrysostom were translated into the Gospel of John, what the translation technique was, and the names of the assistants and scribes are unknown. One can only assume that the works were the same as in the previous manuscript, and the translation followed immediately after it, that is, around 1524–1525 (until February 1525, when Maxim the Greek was arrested). However, in one later manuscript, written in 1545 on behalf of V.M. Tuchkov, his “parobek” Bogdan, the date of translation is given as 7033, that is, the time from September 1524 to August 1525 93 . However, the rest of the recording reproduces the recording of the Explanatory Psalter about the translation by order of Metropolitan Varlaam mechanically, since he was “reduced” from the throne earlier, in 1521. Consequently, information about the translators Demetrius and Blasius, about the intermediate translation into Latin, was also taken mechanically from the same record. The same manuscript reports that a lacuna in the translation, the absence of Conversations 94–97, was present initially and reflected a feature of the original manuscript. The mention in the records of a number of manuscripts of Mikhail Medovartsev as a scribe made it possible to establish that the book-writing center where some manuscripts of Maxim the Greek’s translations were copied was the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old in Moscow, and not just the metropolitan workshop. A number of translations of the Gospel conversations of John Chrysostom come from the metropolitan workshop. This is the already mentioned manuscript of the Egorov collection with an afterword by Selivan. Metropolitan Daniel himself took part in the writing of this manuscript 94 . A number of manuscripts in the Trinity Collection also contain Gospel Discourses. A book-writing workshop in the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old was discovered on the basis of notes on a number of manuscripts, where it is reported that they were written “in the monastery of the great wonderworker St. Nicholas the Old by the design and hand of the many-sinful Michael Jacob son of Medovartsov, a resident of Novograd” (manuscript of 1505) 95 . One of her handwritings (the main one) is distinguished by high professionalism, sophistication, grace and beauty. This is the handwriting of one of the best calligraphers of the era. Four more scribes worked with him as the leader of the work (as indicated by the term “planning”). The second manuscript, which came out of the same monastery in 1507, is the widely known luxurious Four Gospels, which invariably attracts the attention of art critics; his miniatures belong to Theodosius, the son of the famous artist Dionysius. Medovartsev “wrote in gold” in this manuscript and took part in its design 96 . Of particular interest is a manuscript from the 1520s (Life of Savva of Serbia), created “in the house of St. Nicholas the Old in Moscow in the cell of Mikhail Medovartsov” 97. Four more scribes took part in its creation. In this entry, the mention of Mikhail Medovartsev’s “cell” is especially important. He was not a monk. Remaining a secular person, he had a “cell” in the monastery, which was not a monk’s habitat, but a room, perhaps a series of rooms, where, under the leadership of Medovartsev, a staff of scribes worked and the grand-ducal orders were carried out. The latter is reflected in the manuscript of 1522, which has a record that it was written in the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old by the “command” of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich. Four scribes of the convolute manuscript worked on rewriting the book, and Medovartsev corrected the text and made cinnabar headings 98. “The Colored Triodion” of 1525 reflects the joint work of Medovartsev with Maxim the Greek to correct the liturgical book 99. We will return to this issue later, speaking about the trial of Maxim the Greek, since one of the charges will be the editing of liturgical books he made. In addition to manuscripts with notes, a number of other manuscripts are classified as products of the book-writing workshop based on the identification of handwriting. They contain not only Medovartsev’s handwriting, individualized and easily recognizable, but also the handwriting of the scribes who collaborated with him. Some of them are written in the same manner as the master’s handwriting, in which one can see not just an imitation, but a calligraphic school, and suggest that the monastery also had a kind of school where they studied calligraphic writing, perhaps according to educational copybooks prepared by him. But none of the handwritings reached the same degree of perfection and professionalism, grace and sophistication as the handwriting of the teacher 100. He was “a book master, not only a scribe, but also a designer. Perhaps he also prepared ceremonial letters issued by the embassy department. As far as can be judged from the available photocopy, the letter of Grand Duke Vasily III to Emperor Maximilian (1514), stored in the Vienna State Archive, was written and designed by a representative of his calligraphic school, his circle” 101. Among the famous manuscripts that came out of Medovartsev’s workshop, four are associated with the activities of Maxim the Greek, and with all three of its directions. This is the Epistle about the Athonite monasteries in the manuscript of the Sofia collection (No. 1498), the second part of the Explanatory Psalter of the Ovchinnikovsky collection (No. 63), a complete correction of the liturgical manuscript of the famous Triodion of the Shchukin collection (No. 329) and the Life of the Mother of God by Simeon Metaphrastus. The Explanatory Apostle, the Explanatory Psalter, and the Gospel Discourses of John Chrysostom are the largest translations of the first period. Smaller translations are added to them. We have already mentioned in the Italian chapter the Byzantine encyclopedic collection “Suda,” which probably traveled with Maxim, first from Italy to Athos, and then to Russia. "Suda" is one of the Byzantine "encyclopedic compilations" of the 10th century, which is called the age of encyclopedias; Emperor Constantine XII Porphyrogenitus is called the inspirer of this trend in the cultural life of Byzantium. The dictionary “is perhaps the most significant monument of Byzantine encyclopedism” and at the same time, as D. Bulanin, a researcher of these translations, emphasized, “one of the few works of a not purely ecclesiastical nature that the writer had in his hands in Russia.” Along with articles devoted to biblical characters and events of sacred history, “Judgment” contains articles about persons and subjects of Antiquity. An article about Prometheus (“Promytheus”) and his brothers Epimetheus (“Epimytheus”) and Atlas (“Atlas”) associates with each of them some kind of knowledge or art, and reports some mythological information. Prometheus is the sage who was the first to acquire “grammatical philosophy”; They also say about him that he was the first to create man, and then he taught wisdom to some “ignoramuses,” Epimetheus invented music, and Atlas “showed astrology.” “The many-eyed Argus,” the “excellent sage,” was the first to conceive of “artistic philosophy.” The articles “Phoenix – a fruitful tree and a bird” present different versions of its interpretation. The article “Lycaon, Son of Pelasg, King of Arcad” tells how he tried to deceive Zeus by feeding him the meat of the murdered youth, but was incinerated by lightning. There are also other mythological subjects 102. Articles from the lexicon of the “Court”, or more precisely, sets of articles of various compositions, have been preserved in handwritten collections of different times. Probably the author did not have time to collect them into a single set. Various people showed great interest in them. One of them was V.M. Tuchkov, the same one who was interested in the meaning of the typographic sign of Aldus Manutius, which he saw in a printed book in the cell of Maximus the Greek. Sending him a set of his translations, Maxim writes: “These stories about Origen, Abraham, Job and Melchizedek were translated by me from a Greek philosophical book called Suidas. If you love them, Sovereign Prince Vasily Mikhailovich, order them to write down their day for you in a blank notebook, and send that black one to me for God’s sake, because others also torture such things” 103. Another monument of Byzantine encyclopedism of the 10th century were the lives of the saints by Symeon Metaphrastus, many of which were also translated by Maximus. Some of them are included in the Sofia collection, created by the staff of scribes of Mikhail Medovartsev and edited by him with his own hands. Among them are “The Life of the Mother of God”, “A Homily of Remembrance for the Feast of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian”, “A Homily of Remembrance of the Holy Apostle Thomas”, and the name of not only the author, but also the translator is given: “Translated from the Greek book by Maximus the Greek, a monk of Svyatogorsk”; “The Torment of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite” (also with the designation -. I name the translator). Particularly noteworthy is the translation of “The Word of Simeon Metaphrast on the Miracle of the Holy Archangel Michael of Khoneh,” written, presumably, especially for the Chudov Monastery, dedicated to this holiday. Translations of other lives from the collection of Simeon Metaphrastus are found in numerous manuscripts in the form of independent complexes. The author probably also did not have time to collect them into a single set. Maxim the Greek also translated individual works of other church writers 104. It is almost unknown where he found the originals, whether they were kept in the library of the Moscow metropolitans, in the royal book depository, or whether he brought with him manuscripts and printed publications he acquired. Bibliographers tried to compile a list of translations made by Maxim the Greek back at the end of the 16th century, but it is very short and incomplete, although very valuable, since this list defines as translations of Maxim the Greek some texts included in earlier manuscripts without indicating the name of the translator 105 . Of particular interest are the fragments quoted by Maximus the Greek, sometimes at great length, from the writings of the Church Fathers in polemical works, the totality of which can be called an anthology on two topics: polemics with the Latins on dogmatic issues and “human autocracy” (free will). Another important translation by Maxim the Greek, although small in volume, is related to the topic of the Baptism of Rus'. His interest in history manifested itself in Italy, when he copied Thucydides, and now, in Russia, he referred to him in one of his polemical works. He knew the name of Dmitry Donskoy (did Vassian tell him about his glorious ancestor?). He uses “historical” argumentation in his polemical writings. It can be assumed that he brought with him to Moscow the Greek “Chronicle” of John Zonara (12th century), which contained a certain amount of news on the early history of Rus'. He was interested in Zonara’s news about the early Baptism of Rus', since Patriarch Photius of Constantinople also wrote about this in his “District Epistle,” which Maxim also translated. A set of translations of the works of Patriarch Photius was included in the Great Menaion of the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius in the 30s of the 16th century. Both Zonara and Photius’ “District Epistle” spoke about the Baptism of Rus' in the 9th century. Maxim the Greek, presumably, was also interested in Russian news about this historical event. His employees told him about Prince Vladimir, although Zonara did not note the fact of baptism in 988. After that Based on the contamination of three news, Maxim compiled a short essay with the title “From the chronicler John Zonaras, interpreter of the Rules, about the baptism of the Russian language, which happened under the blessed Tsar Basil of Macedon and Patriarch Photius” 106. Three pieces of news of different origins about the Baptism of Rus' are contaminated here. The translator reproached the chronicler Zonara, who did not report (“concealed”) about Prince Vladimir, did not write that during his reign the Baptism of Russia took place, and during his reign Korsun was taken (“captured”). As a Renaissance man, Maxim the Greek had the widest range of knowledge and abilities. His qualities as a theologian, writer, and polemicist were complemented not only by his poetic gift, but also by his abilities as a historian of the dawn of the New Age. Controversy: space of freedom One day, when Fyodor Karpov was standing in his usual place in the Church of St. Nicholas, the priest of this church, Stefan, suddenly approached him, and a dialogue took place between them, which began with Stefan’s question: – Do you know what message Maxim sent to Nikolai? - Look. - And he handed Karpov a paper, and in it was written a judgment about the three persons of the Trinity. - What does it mean? And what bothers you? – How does he write that the Father “has existence neither from Himself nor from anything else”? - Stop it, Stephane, you won’t be able to defeat Maxim with a word, I know Maxim, he does not write without evidence from Holy Scripture, but borrows and gives it to us. Although Karpov managed to “quench the arrogance” of the priest, nevertheless the question seemed serious to him, and he kept the “piece of paper” with him. At the Grand Duke's court, he accidentally met the interpreter Blasius, who, as we remember, took part in the translation works of Maxim the Greek, and showed him the “piece of paper”. Vlasiy did not give explanations, but recommended consulting with Maxim himself. Karpov objected: “Why would I bother him about the priest who gave me the piece of paper? I didn’t take it seriously, I thought that he wanted to argue with Maxim about theology.” Vlasiy, in turn, continued the chain and told about what had happened to Maxim the Greek himself, who sent Karpov a letter full of reproach, explaining that the dogma discussed in the “piece of paper” belongs not to him, but to Gregory the Theologian, and also said that one should do theology with knowledge of the matter. Karpov also responded with reproach: “It was not proper for you, O philosopher, to condemn before the trial, and to reproach us without hearing from our lips.” Then he told how everything happened, conveyed the dialogue that took place between him and Stefan and with which we began, and swore that he had not said anything evil about Maxim, either before or in the present. Maxim answered him with a kind and conciliatory letter 107. This is how the acquaintance of two outstanding personalities of Russian society of that time took place - a learned Greek monk and an educated Russian diplomat, one of the few secular publicists of the 16th century. The “piece of paper” in question is a message from Maxim the Greek to the Catholic theologian Nikolai Bulev, who promoted the unification of the Churches; it was in the same vein as the active attempts of the papacy to achieve the renewal of the terms of the Union of Florence 108. The message has been preserved and reached us 109; it is dedicated to dogmatic disagreements between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and was the first in a series of polemical messages by Maxim the Greek, many of which were sent to F.I. Karpov, who was interested in these issues not only as part of his diplomatic service (he participated in negotiations with Western ambassadors on the issue of joining the anti-Turkish coalition, and proposals for the “union of the Churches” were also associated with him, which has already been discussed in detail earlier). Karpov was a very inquisitive person; The most detailed explanations of Maxim the Greek in his lengthy polemical messages are directed to a knowledgeable person who is familiar with the issue and is able, in turn, to appreciate Maxim’s erudition. At the same time, these were messages addressed not only to Karpov personally, but also to the intended potential reader who was also interested in the issue. It is no coincidence that appeals to Fyodor Karpov are constantly interspersed with appeals to Nikolai Bulev and to the “Latins” in general; this is a polemic with them rather than with Russian readers, who were more “listeners and spectators” than “praisers” (as the author of the messages divided the category of his readers). In the chapter devoted to Maxim the Greek’s stay in Italy, the Italian components of this controversy were also shown. It can be assumed that the author could also have in mind the possibility of disseminating messages in the Latin environment. Another object of his polemic in correspondence with Karpov was the astrological predictions disseminated in Moscow and other cities of Russia by the same Nikolai Bulev. One of them was based on the astrological “Almanac”, repeatedly published in Venice in 1508–1523, which predicted the upcoming close general “change” in February 1524 by the combination of planets in the constellation Aquarius. It was interpreted as the expectation of a new Flood. However, fear was accompanied by the expectation of some kind of general “renewal,” which was understood and interpreted in different ways: sometimes as transformations in the Church, sometimes as a victory over the Turks (this was the time of the Turkish threat, attempts to organize a new crusade, etc.). Nikolai Bulev, referred to as “Nemchin” in the works of Maxim the Greek, distributed translations of individual fragments of the “Almanac”, apparently made by himself, adding to them in a number of cases other predictions related to the Turkish danger, the upcoming “ruin” of the Turks. One of the “Turkish” predictions was quoted at length by Maxim the Greek in his first letter to F.I. Karpov against predictive astrology, written around 1523 110. It can be assumed that it was a response to an official or rather semi-official order. The message has been preserved in the form that it acquired when it was included in the mainstream of handwritten books in the form of a polemical treatise entitled “The Word against those who try in vain to predict the future with stargazing, and about the free will of man.” Such a change in the nature of the genre (the transformation of the epistolary genre into a rhetorical one) indicates a social need for the topic. The author outlined in detail the reason for writing the answer - the “paper” he received from Nemchin (presumably Bulev), which he quotes in sufficient detail. It spoke of the “beginning of the Turks,” their rise, imminent “ruin,” as well as the upcoming changes by the power of the stars: “And there will be a new transformation and a new law and pure cohabitation both among the clergy and among the people... Then Zeus and Arris will embitter with vengeance those who oppose the Church and her soldiers... and the Turks will take retribution from the scattered Christian herd.” The Almanac and its predictions of evil days and hours are also mentioned repeatedly. In his answer, Maxim considered it unnecessary to talk about the future destinies of the “godless Turks”; he constructs his answer as a refutation not of any specific prediction (flood or “ruin” of the Turks), but of the very principle, the very possibility of predicting the fate of people by the location of the stars or determining “evil days and hours.” He contrasted human free will (“human autocracy”) with astral determinism. The works of Maxim the Greek, dedicated to “human autocracy,” were written in Moscow in 1523–1524, when Western Europe was intensely following the dialogue between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther. Erasmus's diatribe "On the Freedom of the Will" was published in September 1524, Luther's answer "On the Slavery of the Will" - in December 1525 1 ". These publications could not have been known to Maxim the Greek. But with a high degree of probability it can be assumed that he knew a monument of Italian humanism dedicated to the same topic, namely “The Oration on the Dignity of Man” by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, published in 1496, after the death of the author (1494). Mikhail Trivolis could have met her at Mirandola Castle, in the service of Giovanni Francesco Pico. The learned Athonite monk in Moscow defended free will, free choice, based on traditions and sources other than Pico, drawing his argumentation primarily from the writings of the Eastern Fathers of the Church. But the choice of topic, the method of polemic, the nature of the response to the opponent’s challenges reveal the influence of his Italian past. The answer went far beyond the tasks facing the author. The conditions of polemics proposed by Boolean did not in themselves require or imply the raising of the question of human autocracy. Maxim the Greek proves that the fatalism of astrologers essentially denies such an important part of Christian doctrine as free will; It also follows from the astrological calculations of the “star seducers” that God, who created the stars, would also turn out to be the creator of evil. In the writings of Maximus the Greek on this topic, a problem appears that will be further discussed as theodicy, “the justification of God.” The word “autocracy” is a translation of the Greek “aute-dzousia”. According to the Russian theologian V.N. Lossky, this is “the freedom inherent in man, his ability of internal self-determination, by virtue of which man himself is the beginning of his actions” 112. This definition is found in the section “Image and Likeness,” which contains various statements and interpretations available in the patristic tradition regarding the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, which is spoken of in Revelation. V. N. Lossky followed the definitions of St. Anastasius Sinaite, who wrote that “many and different opinions are expressed by exegetes on this matter. Some say that by [the expression] ““in the image and likeness of God” is meant the commanding and autocratic position of man [in the world], others - that the intelligent and invisible principle of the [human] soul, others - the incorruptible and non-sinful principle [that existed then] when Adam was born, and, finally, the fourth claim that a prophecy about baptism is spoken here." The main idea and the main argument are stated at the very beginning of the “Tale”, and then pass through all the works on this topic: it is human autocracy that is the main evidence, manifestation, the main manifestation of the fact that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and it is precisely this that is essentially rejected by the fatalism of astrologers, subordinating it to the influence of the stars: “Everything that was laid down by the Creator in man, created in the image of God, is the autocratic freedom of the mind, thanks to which more than for any other reason, he is the image and likeness of God - the destructive dragon 51 places in the stars and from there leads the autocracy of virtues and malice. And the god-fighting apostate has reached and risen to such shamelessness that he [claims] that the shaken piety and honest life will soon be reintroduced 52 into the Church of Christ by Zeus and Arris, and there will be a renewal and a new Law, according to the arrangement of the planets and zodians... [If] you think like this, then what will happen today or later will be more wicked! And further: “The Creator of everything did not subject man to anyone, but let him go free and honored him in His image, and created him good by nature, and not by stellar dispensation”; “...initially he created man in the image of God and in the likeness, which signifies [a being] autocratic and not possessed by anyone, and then he gave him the power to step on the serpent and scorpions and all the power of the enemy.” Having set out the denounced views, the author immediately sets out the main theses of his refutation: “If, according to the movement of the stars and their relative positions, divine gifts are given to us and renewed (if they have become dilapidated), and if our reason and the will of our souls are guided and pass either to virtue or to evil [based on] the properties of the zodians, then [it turns out that] the apostolic preaching is vain, vain and our faith, let the Law be cast out, let the Gospel cease, let prayers, sacrifices and fasts be abolished, all this is unnecessary and useless for those who are violated by such rapists and are drawn by force to anger, or by Aphrodite to fornication, or from Ares to murder and robbery, or from Hermes to theft, or to anger and incessant enmity from the grievously angry Kronos 53. No one will then be constant in virtues, nor will he avoid evil, but having learned about his lot, what it is, he will expect an increase in good for himself, if his lot is with a good ruler, and if with an evil one, let him not in vain refuse slavery to his master and never free himself, even if he tries. And he will not be afraid of such a terrible trial of the Righteous Judge; then he will find a sufficient answer: the violence of his evil ruler, because of whom, without wanting it, he is drawn to various evils. And also, the one who has shone in virtues does not expect a reward from the Judge of righteousness and truth, because his corrections were not of his own free will, but from the violence of the ruler on whom his lot fell, and from him he went along the right path, like some kind of beast, evading the abysses of evil [surrounding him] on both sides.” The method of his argumentation is characterized by the use of those texts of Holy Scripture in which there is no term “autocracy” and similar ones, but the author interprets them precisely as evidence of “free will.” Let's limit ourselves to one example. To prove the thesis “Our judge promised to crown good deeds [done] by choice, and not by compulsion,” the author cites a verse from the Gospel of Matthew: “If anyone wants to follow me, let him deny himself” (16:24). Thus, the author interprets, the Creator of our nature clearly showed that virtuous and evil deeds are in our power, for he said: “if anyone wants, let him deny himself,” and adds, emphasizing: “and not the powers that control him.” Continuation of the interpretation: “If I knew that it was not in our power to stand on this, I would say more clearly: if anyone cares 54 to follow me. Therefore, to the one who asked Him how to receive eternal life, He answered and said: “If you want to be perfect,” and so on (Matthew 19:21). And He did not say “if you can,” which signifies that good and evil are not in one’s will, but said: “If you want.” And with these [words]: “whether you want” or “won’t you”, he preaches that everyone is the master of his own deeds - either evil or good.” The author interprets the modal verb as an expression of will. As an analogy, we can cite the reasoning of Erasmus of Rotterdam from the essay “On Free Will,” where he quotes numerous passages from the Old and New Testaments, interpreting them in favor of freedom of choice. In his exegesis of a verse from the prophet Isaiah, Erasmus uses the possibilities of the same modal verb “will”: “If you will and listen to Me, you will eat the good things of the earth; But if you are not willing and do not listen to Me, then the sword will consume you” (Isa. 1:19); The commentary is: “If man has in no way free will to do good, or if, as some say, neither for good nor for evil, what do these words mean, 'if you will,' 'if you will not'? Then it would be more appropriate: “if I want,” “if I don’t want.” And since many such things are said to sinners, I cannot imagine how one can avoid attributing to them at least some free will when choosing good, unless we prefer to call it a thought or movement of the soul, and not will, because the will is definite and is born from reasoning” 114. In the writings of various authors on free will, an important place is occupied by the exegesis of the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy, namely the verse about choosing the path to follow goodness (30:15). But it is used in different ways. This is especially clear when comparing the corresponding fragments from Erasmus of Rotterdam and Pico della Mirandola. Erasmus quotes verses 15–20 of chapter 30 quite fully and accurately, but in his own composition, rearranging the verses and their individual parts, breaking up the text with commentary on other biblical passages. And the quote ends with verse 19, quoted almost verbatim: “Today I call heaven and earth as witnesses. I have offered you life and death, blessing and curse. So choose life, so that you and your descendants may live.” What follows are comments similar to those that accompanied the verse from the prophet Isaiah: “Here again you hear the word “proposed,” you hear the word “choose,” you hear the word “turn away,” which would not be constantly used if the will of man were not free to do good, but could only do evil.” 115 For Pico, the text of Deuteronomy served only as a starting point, a form for presenting his own ideas about the unlimited possibilities of man in his free choice: “Then God agreed that man is a creation of an indefinite image, and, placing him at the center of the world, said: “We do not give you, O Adam, neither your place, nor a specific image, nor a special duty, so that you have the place, and the person, and the duty of your own free will, according to your will and your decision. The image of other creations is determined. within the limits of the laws established by us. You, not constrained by any limits, will determine your image according to your decision, into the power of which I leave you. I have not made you either heavenly or earthly, neither mortal nor immortal, so that you yourself, the immortal and glorious master, will form yourself in the image that you prefer." One can hardly conclude from this that Pico denied the thesis of man as the image and likeness of God. He simply walked around him and lowered him. In another essay (“Heptapla”) he writes about “image and likeness” and quotes the text of the book of Genesis (“Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness”), but then again he speaks, as in the “Speech,” about the limitlessness and “completeness” of possibilities: “In man we are looking for something special, revealing and inherent in his dignity, and the image of the divine substance, not inherent in any other creature... Man... unites and binds in his fullness substances of any nature existing in the world"" 7. The significance of Pico’s “Speech on the Dignity of Man” in the history of European thought and in the teachings of modern times on freedom is indisputable. A modern researcher notes that “Pico’s ideas and initiatives had a tremendous influence on the humanistic and religious thought of Europe”" 8. It is no less indisputable that his thoughtful reader, such as Mikhail Trivolis, our Maxim the Greek, could not help but discover the flaws and vulnerabilities of Pico’s concept and contrasted it with the anthropology of the Eastern fathers. How did Maxim the Greek himself understand the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy? This may cause some surprise, but it passes when, at the end of the first part of the Lay, he turns four times to other subjects and images of Deuteronomy, three of them to the 32nd chapter, to the “Great Song of Moses,” which is part of the set of “biblical songs” - poetic texts from the Old Testament used in biblical hermeneutics and liturgical practice. Giving his own interpretations, Maxim Grek in all four cases introduces the terminology of free will, freedom of choice. All quoted passages speak of retribution and vengeance; their inclusion in the context of an essay on “human autocracy” gives it a new, additional meaning, emphasizing a person’s responsibility for the results of his deeds and actions, especially in cases where the choice has already been made - and not in favor of good. Maximus the Greek undoubtedly knew about the possibility of exegesizing the speech to Adam from the 30th chapter of Deuteronomy for the doctrine of free will, but did not take advantage of it. However, he also decided to construct the speech of the Creator, using a verse from the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy about the “sicknesses and plagues of Egypt,” which the “Ruler of all” brought upon the “children of Israel” (Deut. 28:60–61). Having summarized them, the author composes a speech that could follow these words; the “Creator of all” himself could cry out (“seems to cry out”) through his saint Moses. The speech should become an obstacle for the “celebrants” (“their lips will be stopped”). In this speech, imitating the style of the Old Testament book, the author introduced terminology used to assert autocracy and denounce astrology: “Do not be deceived, O people, by attributing to the stars and zodias various sorrows inflicted on you for your good by My incomprehensible Providence, when you do not will (that is, do not want in your own way). will) to follow My commands and accept My countless good gifts for the sake of your salvation. I, overcome by love for you, begin to convert you with sorrows, with which this service is not performed by the stars, soulless and deaf in their qualities, but by My holy angels, verbal and rational, with which they heal you as My righteous instruments. Sometimes they providentially allow the fight against your adversaries so that, having defeated them, you will receive imperishable crowns. This is what the Creator and Ruler of everything says, so that those who are raised by the Church in prudence should follow him." 9 Maxim the Greek was not satisfied with this speech, composed by himself, and in the next part of the essay he cited the original words from the song of Moses in the 32nd chapter of Deuteronomy about grave punishments for sins, moreover, here on earth, and not in the afterlife: “And the Lord saw and was jealous and angry with his sons and daughters, and the Lord said: “I will hide My face from them.” The author explains: “The face of God we understand it as a fatherly care with which he cares for us and covers us like a bird covers its chicks,” and continues: “They angered Me not with God, but with their idols, the fire of My wrath flared up, it will flare up to the lowest hell, it will destroy the earth and what grows on it, it will burn the foundations of the mountains; I will gather all their evil, and my arrows will end on them, they will be exhausted by hunger and eating birds, the sword will deprive them children, and there is fear in their houses" (Deut. 32:19–25). This is enough to show our autocratic will, as well as God’s righteous indignation at us and the fact that evil is brought upon us by the wave and advice of the Master, and not by the rising and setting of the stars and zodians.” The third time he quotes Deuteronomy (32:34–35) to remind him of retribution and retribution, and repeats the argument of autocracy. Attaching special meaning to individual expressions, he independently gives his own interpretations and explanations, and again in favor of his main idea: “Having listed the hidden things of God, the prophet speaks as if on behalf of God: has all this been collected from Me and sealed (that is, sealed) in my treasures? On the day of vengeance I will repay, in the time when their foot fails, for the day of their destruction is near.”120 Maxim the Greek contrasts words about vengeance with the statements of adepts of astrology: “On the day of vengeance,” he said, “I will repay, and not on the day of the rise of Kronos or another planet, according to you, subordinate to demons” (“fearless”). He interprets the words “at the time when their foot is moved” as a deviation from the straight (right) path (“transgressing My commandments”). The words repeated twice about vengeance and retribution are taken from Deuteronomy to emphasize the idea of ​​responsibility, but they also have a narrower meaning, showing the literary skill of the author. He remembered them, commenting on the predictions “about the Turks”, about the coming vengeance, which will be carried out by the power of the stars (“Zeus and Arris will be embittered by vengeance”, “they will accept retribution”). The author contrasts them with biblical words about the providential nature of retribution. The general conclusion of the author: “Have you understood that God providentially allows wounds to be inflicted on us for our correction when we commit crimes, when God pleases, and not when Kronos and Ares ascend.” Maxim the Greek's statements about retribution and retribution go beyond traditional ideas about disasters, misfortunes as punishment for sins, because they are in the context of the doctrine of human autocracy, free will, within the framework of criticism of astrological determinism, thereby they acquire additional meaning, like the doctrine of autocracy itself, supported by these arguments. The doctrine of autocracy introduces (and emphasizes) the thesis of a person’s responsibility for the fruits of his choice, especially if he deviates from the path of good and life, choosing the path of evil. This is the main difference between the humanistic concept of man in Pico and in the anthropology of the Eastern Fathers of the Church, which our hero follows (although he also makes references to St. Augustine). In “The Tale of Autocracy,” Maxim the Greek gave a kind of anthology of statements by the Church Fathers on this topic; it occupies a significant part of the work. Presumably, on Athos he had the opportunity to test the humanistic concept of man with the teachings of the Eastern fathers. He reflected on the limits of human autocracy, on the limits that cannot be crossed, and the answer was not in doubt, did not allow for duality or ambiguity. Autocracy-freedom presupposes and includes providential reward-responsibility. This answer had universal significance. The limit of the space of freedom is responsibility. The theme was not accidental in the work of the learned monk. He sent a second message to Karpov, from which it is obvious that the Russian diplomat and publicist wrote an answer that has not reached us. In this debate we know the position of only one side. If Karpov's messages had been preserved, our ideas about the polyphony of social thought would have been more complete and holistic. From the second message we can judge some of Karpov’s objections to Maxim. The Russian publicist did not distinguish between astrology and astronomy, valued them for their practical knowledge of the universe, and admired the beauty and harmony (“orderly movement”) of the heavenly bodies. Karpov perceived Maxim the Greek’s invective against predictive astrology as a denial of science; the diplomat himself shared the then widespread point of view about the need for astrology for kings and rulers. Maxim’s answer shows that in Moscow he encountered the same phenomenon that he observed and denounced in Italy, seeing in the “epistole” of his opponent “Lacedaemonian cunning,” characteristic of people “who shone in all wickedness.” He again remembered the “Italian schools”, the “illnesses” reigning there, hidden out of fear of the pope, and defined them as “complete godlessness” 121. Philotheus of Pskov, denouncing the same predictions of a new Flood in the astrological “Almanac”, wrote that the true threat is the “stream of unbelief”, to which the “Roman Kingdom of the Third Rome” is an obstacle. Maxim the Greek also often uses the terminology of “flooding,” but speaks of the “flood of godlessness,” which can be countered by the moral imperative of the autocratic dignity of man as the image of God. In the second message, the Svyatogorsk scientist again and again inspires his opponent that a distinction should be made between science and its use to destroy religious doctrine. In his speeches against astrology, he takes as an ally Plato, “the supreme among external philosophers,” who leaves no place for this science in the “legal position” of his “philosophical citizenship.” The works of Maxim the Greek will arouse interest in the following centuries, read and re-read. He enriched Russian thought with a thorough development of the Christian doctrine of free will and freedom of choice in their indissoluble connection with responsibility. His teaching, based on the anthropology of the Eastern Fathers, differed from both the Protestant doctrine of Luther and the humanistic position of Pico della Mirandola. It seems that the arrest caught him developing the theme of autocracy. This was already another autocracy - the autocracy of political power, that autocracy, the ruins of which would be dreamed of back in the 19th century. “Came”, “came” - these terms were used in chronicles and other sources when talking about the arrival of officials and other guests. That is, with the clergy of all Moscow cathedral churches. Without hesitation - directly, frankly, without beating around the bush; without hesitation (Dictionary of the Russian language XI-XVII centuries. Issue 12. P. 53). Homiletics is a branch of theology, the study of the art of preaching; Exegesis is the science of interpreting Holy Scripture. Many manuscripts (unfortunately, not all) were accompanied by notes (usually at the end of the book or in the lower margins of the initial pages), which reported the names of customers, scribes, the date of completion of the work and a number of other information (analogous to the “imprint” of modern editions). Previously, he was called “the boss and the lawmaker and the father of lies.” Option in manuscripts: “will be announced.” The author gives the Greek names of the stars: Aphrodite (Venus), Arris (Mars), Hermes (Mercury), Kronos (Saturn). Lepo is - decent, suitable, follows (Sreznevsky I. I. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1895. Stb. 74).