Глава шестая. Освобождение

...Cunious and poor pilgrim of your God-protected power, I will bring her with hope a small commemoration, words of a notebook, from which your power will know what a sinner I was from the beginning, a pilgrim and a servant of the blessed Russian power, and am, and will be until my end. Maxim Grek. Message to Ivan the Terrible After the trial: a response to the accusers It is widely believed that after the trial of 1531, Maxim the Greek was sent to Tver, to the Otroch Monastery, where, thanks to the patronage of the Tver bishop Akaki, his position improved. But the sources do not report that this happened immediately, directly after the trial, and the prisoner’s own essay, written in the year following the trial, comes from the prison where he was “shut up and grieving”: “The monk wrote these words, shut up in prison and grieving, with these words he consoled himself and affirmed his patience, in the summer of 7040” (the period from September 1531 to August 1532) 1 . This means that during this period of time he still experienced the hardships of imprisonment, nevertheless, some “weakening” had already occurred, the prot’s request was partially satisfied: he received the opportunity to write, which, of course, meant a lot to the scientist. As already mentioned, Maxim rarely dated his writings, only in those cases when he wanted to mark some milestone in his life or a major event of wider significance. This apparently explains the appearance of the date in the laconic “Lamentation.” At the same time, this was also the date of the resumption of literary creativity. In the “Preface” to some handwritten collections of his works, dating back to his lifetime, there is a note that he began to compile “this book” at the beginning of 7040, that is, in the fall of 1531, while still in captivity, experiencing “sorrow” and “angst.” We can say with certainty that in 1537 he was undoubtedly in Tver, since he wrote an essay on the devastating Tver fire on July 22 of this year, as well as praise for the Tver bishop regarding the “renewal of church decoration” 2. “Crying” is structured as an appeal by the author to his own soul; This way of expression will be characteristic of many works of this period (“Conversations of the Soul and Mind”). He writes: “Do not grieve, do not grieve, do not yearn, O my dear Soul, that you suffer unfairly from those whom you fed with a spiritual meal, interpretations of the songs of David, translated by you from Greek into the glorious Russian language. And other spiritual books were either translated by you or corrected if alien, erroneous words crept into them.” Both in “Lamentation” and in other works he laments the ingratitude of those he served, the injustice of the accusations, and writes about how to restore his good name. This thought will not leave him. He didn't have a lawyer. The prot defense didn't help. This means you have to build your own defense. Maxim writes “Confession of the Orthodox Faith”, proving the purity of his faith and the absence of “heretical vice”, he “informs every Orthodox priest and prince about Christ Jesus, that in everything there is a true Orthodox monk” 3. This is an answer addressed to ecclesiastical and secular authorities, courts and judges, moreover, stated publicly: “Since they are not afraid to call me, an innocent person, a heretic, as well as an enemy and traitor to the God-protected Russian state, I considered it necessary and righteous to answer about myself”; “I pray to every pious priest and prince to listen to my answer”; “Yes, it is known to you, most God-loving bishops and most illustrious princes and boyars”; “I am making this response to the faithful Orthodox judges and princes.” At the same time, he addresses all Orthodox Christians: “I beg you, Orthodox Christians, do not listen to such unrighteous slander.” We remember that earlier he also addressed all “Orthodox Christians, Russians, Serbs and Bulgarians,” but on a different occasion (translation of “Gospel Conversations” by Selivan). The confessional part, a statement of the Creed, occupies the beginning of the Confession; the rest is a response to the two main charges - heresy and high treason. At the trials, he was deprived of the opportunity to give such a detailed, thorough answer. Since the main reason for the accusation of heresy was book corrections, he writes about them in some detail. At the same time, he openly declares (more precisely, asks a question) that perhaps the main reason for the accusation of heresy is his denunciation of such aspects of the social practice of Russian monasteries as usury (“extortion”, “rosty”), and the collection of “other people’s estates and labors.” “Is it not because of this that I appear to you in a terrible way and am labeled a heretic?” But in this matter, too, he realizes that he is right, since his denunciations and advice are fully consistent with the teaching of the Gospels and the entire Holy Scripture. Maxim the Greek calls on his former judges: “Judge my prue” - and asks, if he is guilty of high treason, to present evidence. At the same time, he declares that he is subject only to the court of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and refers to the Rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which prohibits saints from judging outside the boundaries of their area. However, in subsequent messages we no longer see such a statement. The author had the opportunity to write the “Confession” only after the death of Grand Duchess Elena Glinskaya in April 1538, 4 which indirectly testifies to her unkind attitude towards the convict and confirms the version of the “Extract” about Maxim’s involvement in the divorce case. Elena’s hostility is also indicated by an allegorical hint in a letter to P.I. Shuisky (1542), a representative of the boyar group involved in the deposition of Metropolitan Daniel in 1539, which also could not but have a favorable effect on Maxim’s position. Shuisky visited him, knowing about the Metropolitan’s role in his condemnation. In this message, Maxim the Greek presents what happened to him as an analogy to the story of the biblical Joseph (although he writes that he does not dare to liken himself to “that righteous one”). Joseph was first sold into slavery by his brothers, and then, due to the slander of an evil harlot, he was imprisoned. No names are mentioned here, but the “Byzantine” hint could easily be read. Maxim Grek is inclined to attach to Shuisky’s visit the same significance that a certain “glorious husband” had in the fate of Joseph. When the dream of this “husband,” previously unraveled by Joseph, came true, he, having received “the king’s first rank and honor,” told about Joseph to Pharaoh, who exalted Joseph (book of Genesis, ch. 30–39) 5 . Maxim the Greek hoped for the help of P.I. Shuisky in returning the sacrament, since the Shuiskys were associated with the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius, metropolitan since 1542. However, a change in the political situation and the fall of the Shuiskys upset these intentions, and the next stage is associated with the name of Metropolitan Macarius. The time of his predecessor, Metropolitan Joasaph (1539–1542), was a period of significant “weakness” for Maxim the Greek. The first, we recall, consisted of permission to write after 1531, the second - in translation to Tver under the patronage of Bishop Akaki (between 1532-1537), an even greater relaxation came under Metropolitan Joasaph, after 1538-1539. This is reported in one of the fairly authoritative “Tales” about him, compiled at the end of the 16th century (in a number of collections of his works of this time, it is placed in the initial part as a biography of the author): “...weakly received in the city of Tver from the Tver bishop Akaki, with the blessing of Metropolitan Joasaph” 6. During the same period, Maxim the Greek began the main task of the second period of his life in Russia - compiling a collection of his works, both those that had been written earlier and new ones, the need for which arose in connection with the new circumstances of his life and the new general situation of the period of the 1530-1540s. At first, the concept of this meeting centered around the task of acquittal in connection with unjust accusations, but very soon it went beyond these tasks, expanded and acquired a wide scope. His Italian experience helped him. Leaving Venice and going to Athos, he could not imagine that he would need that part of his experience, his observations, which relates to a situation that would seem unthinkable for him - a type of behavior in the face of accusations of heresy. He knew of two such precedents associated with the personalities of Pico della Mirandola and Savonarola. Even before Maximus the Greek arrived in Florence, in March 1487, a commission appointed by Pope Innocent VIII recognized Pico’s 13 theses on issues of Christian theology as heretical. In their defense, Pico wrote an Apology. The 25-year-old Pico faced an inquisition process. He tried to leave for Paris, was arrested on the way, and was saved only by the protection of Jiorenzo the Magnificent 7. Of course, the example is not very suitable to follow. But Maxim the Greek also knew another “Apology,” which Savonarola wrote and published in 1497, after the bull excommunicating him from the Church was signed. “The Triumph of the Cross,” Savonarola’s last work, opened with a “Confession of Faith,” followed by essays in which various heresies were exposed, deviations from Christianity, and other religions were considered; he refuted Jewish and Mohammedan teachings, astrology and idolatry, “religions transmitted by philosophers.” They were supposed, according to the author’s plan, to prove the “purity and correctness” of his faith. A work similar in structure and similar in composition and many themes was conceived by Maxim Grek. Back in 1916, B.I. Dunaev drew attention to the common themes in Savonarola’s “The Triumph of the Cross” and in a number of works by Maxim the Greek and suggested that “such a coincidence is hardly accidental” 8 . But the dates of creation of the corresponding works of Maxim the Greek were unknown, as were the specific reasons for their writing. In the course of the study of the manuscript tradition and the classification of numerous manuscripts of the 16th-17th centuries, entirely consisting of the works of Maximus the Greek, but varying in composition and structure, collections of his works were identified, not only formed directly by him, by his own choice; they were presented in manuscripts with his own handwritten corrections. In the initial part of many collections there is a stable set of works (the first 12 chapters), opening with the “Confession of Faith” and ending with “Words of Disclaimer about the Correction of Russian Books.” Between them there are texts, the similarity of the themes of which with “The Triumph of the Cross” was written by B. I. Dunaev. Similarities are found in the following topics: “The Word of the Nativity ... of Jesus Christ, and in it against the Jews” (chapter five), “A word of accusation against Hellenic delusion” (chapter six), “A word of accusation against Hagaryan delusion” (Mohammedanism) (chapters eight and nine). There are also other polemical works (“against the three main Latin heresies”, against the apocryphal “writing of Aphroditian”) 9. It is significant that the largest works in this complex are devoted to those issues that are related to accusations in courts. This is a correction of books, to which two chapters are devoted, and a criticism of Mohammedanism, which also occupies two chapters. The last two are, of course, caused by accusations about the defendants’ alleged intentions to raise a Muslim ruler in Rus' and even confidence in his victory, but they also acquire independent dogmatic and polemical significance. Instead of random, out-of-context testimony of “witnesses”, fragments of heard phrases and their helpful interpretations, misunderstood or distorted statements, the author offers a broader approach, proving the fundamental, even, if such an expression is permissible, conceptual impossibility for him of the type of behavior, those intentions that were accused of him. Accusations of treason, as well as of the heretical nature of correcting books, seemed to him, presumably, the most unfair, perhaps even offensive, and only monastic humility helped him maintain a reasonable tone and preserve his characteristic style. “Words of Disclaimer” were written by a philologist who was at the very top of education of that time, and the fact that the accusation of heresy was built precisely on this point, in this direction, caused, presumably, the deepest sorrow and melancholy, which he spoke about in “Lamentation,” written as soon as his hand regained the pen. When was the twelve-chapter complex, the nucleus of future collections, compiled? Although the Confession (in the version in which it is included in the collections) was written after April 1538, this does not mean that the works that followed it were written after it; they could have prepared in advance. Such a thoughtful, logically argued essay like the Confession also required time to prepare. Notes on some manuscripts indicate that the author began “compiling this book” already in the fall of 1531 10 . Its final chapters, “Words of Disclaimer,” were written in 1540, but then were repeatedly sent to different persons, and the number of years indicated in them, during which the author endures “severe adversity,” could vary (from 15 to 20).” The entire complex of twelve chapters was completed at the end of the 1530s or at the turn of the 1530s–1540s during the period when the Russian Church was headed by Metropolitan Joasaph 12. Gradually new works were added to it. Royal wedding and liberation The same “Tale”, which reports about the “weakness” received by Maxim the Greek from the Tver Bishop Akaki with the blessing of Metropolitan Joasaph, continues: “And then with the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius - and the walk to the church and the life-giving mysteries of Christ.” But this was preceded by great efforts made by Maxim the Greek himself, as well as the intercession of the patriarchs on his behalf - in the Orthodox East he was known and remembered. He addressed Metropolitan Macarius in 1542, indicating the same 17 years of deprivation of communion as in the letter to P.I. Shuisky 13. In another message to the metropolitan (let’s call him the second), Maxim the Greek quotes his words spoken in response to a request for release: “We kiss your bonds, like one of the saints, but we cannot help you” 14. The metropolitan’s message is unknown in full, but this phrase preserved in Maxim’s answer is very significant and indicative. From the answer it becomes obvious that the Metropolitan hopes for the possibility of a positive resolution of the matter. Why, nevertheless, does he answer that he cannot (or cannot yet) help the one whom he has awarded the sign of holiness? In accordance with canonical rules, the right to “bind and solve” sins belongs to the one who imposed the punishment. In this case, permission, remission of sins could only be performed by the former Metropolitan Daniel. Therefore, having received Macarius’ answer, Maxim the Greek addressed a conciliatory message to Daniel, “already cast out” 15. In it, as already mentioned, he expresses regret and repentance for mistakes, “inventories” made by chance when translating books, reports his public repentance before the Council, that is, in a written text he does what was necessary for his forgiveness and lifting of excommunication. Simultaneously with the message of Metropolitan Macarius, Maxim the Greek received a message from his protosinkel (official, official) Alexei, who asked for clarification about the rumors circulating about him in Moscow 16. Alexei’s question was the question of Macarius himself, which caused “bewilderment and fear”: “It is better for me to become deaf and humble and silent.” Nevertheless he answers. Firstly, in Moscow they spoke and advised to allow Maxim the Greek to receive communion secretly or “with a feigned illness,” but he rejects this possibility: “I have not learned to partake of the divine mysteries secretly and with lies.” Secondly, they said that he allegedly demands a new Council, which could recognize his innocence and give permission to begin communion. He refers to his “Confession of Faith” and considers it sufficient without a new trial: “I asked for mercy and now I ask, and not judgment and not conciliar reasoning.” Maxim again speaks to Macarius about the injustice and groundlessness of the excommunication, regrets that he cannot return to the Holy Mountain and is deprived of his Greek books. The metropolitan's message, in which he called Maxim a saint, but could not help him, was delivered by a certain Andrei Semenov, a servant of the metropolitan official (protosinkel) Alexei. Semenov gave the convict a “monetary blessing” with which Macarius accompanied his message, and most importantly, he “said something at length.” Apparently, the possibilities of “resolution”, of lifting the excommunication, were discussed. Alexey’s letter also contained an “order” for Maxim to send his essays. “Praise my very bad writings and command me to send them to you,” answered Maxim. He sent the Metropolitan ten notebooks of his writings and one additional “notebook” to be given to “the greatest ruler”, Ivan the Terrible. The ten notebooks of works by Maximus the Greek, sent to Metropolitan Macarius, were close in composition to the complex of twelve works compiled for the purpose of justification. In the letter to the Metropolitan, the contents of the “ten notebooks” are described in the most general form (dogmatic teaching and “spiritual words”), and an essay against the Mohammedans (“on Moameth”) is also named. In the message to the metropolitan official Alexei, written simultaneously with the message to Macarius, a more detailed description is given: “And I, father, have prepared that notebook, according to your letter and on your order, and I am also sending 10 other notebooks to our sovereign metropolitan and to you, things, in my court (that is, judgment - N.S.), are not bad: the teaching of morals, and weapons are strong against Latin heresies, and the evil stubbornness of the Jews, and against Hellenic charm, and against the astrologer... and the notebook, containing 27 chapters, was written by me wisely and kindly to the great ruler himself” (this, as V.F. Rzhiga established, “Instructive chapters for those who rule correctly”, containing exactly 27 chapters) 17. “The doctrine of morals” is a fairly broad concept (“practical morality”), which can unite works that set out moral standards for different groups of society. An even more extensive list contains “A brief answer to the Holy Council about what was slandered” 18. Probably, Maxim the Greek did not exclude the possibility of a new Council and prepared an “Answer”, but it was not needed, remained in the author’s archive and is known in a single copy (“list”), not included in any of the collected works. Maxim gives an even wider list of his works, which can prove his innocence and the absence of “heretic vice”. This is the answer that was not heard at the Councils of 1525 and 1531 with their “witnesses”. After dogmatic and polemical works, he names works “about virtue and malice, truth and untruth, about chastity and uncleanness, about repentance and monastic life, about non-covetousness and plurality and various things, an account of the former Tver fire...”. He also sent the “words of the notebook” to Ivan the Terrible, and with his words we opened this chapter.” A set of messages mentioning “notebooks” and other writings shows that a new stage has arrived, a turning point in the case of the conviction of Maxim the Greek. The head of the Church became interested in the authentic writings of Maxim the Greek, his genuine views. While still an archbishop of Novgorod, he knew both the works and translations of Maxim the Greek and included them in the Great Menaion of the Chetya - a grandiose collection of “all the books of the ancients in Rus'” (mainly the lives of saints, but also other original and translated monuments), which made up the annual circle of reading for every day 20. The last of the twelve monthly volumes, the August one (the year then began in September), had an additional part in which there was room for two works by the Tver prisoner (the second letter to F. I. Karpov against the Latins and the first against predictive astrology), as well as a set of polemical works of Patriarch Photius translated by Maximus the Greek, related to the history of relations between the Western and Eastern Churches in the 9th century 21 . The relevance of the polemical works of Maxim the Greek and the need for his translations were so great that they were included in this grandiose encyclopedia, despite the fact that their author was accused of heresy and was imprisoned in Tver. Archbishop Macarius, including the writings of Maximus in the Menaion, probably understood the far-fetchedness of the accusations against him. Dimitri Gerasimov, who in the 1530s in Novgorod translated the Explanatory Psalter of Brunon of Würzburg, also included in the Menaion of Chetya, could tell Makariy about Maxim’s education. For such an educated hierarch as the future metropolitan, the high education of Maxim the Greek, his philological experience, and knowledge of Byzantine literature were obvious. One can even suggest that he, while still an archbishop, contributed to easing his fate and even, perhaps, to his transfer to Tver. When preparing an essay for transmission to the “great ruler,” Maxim could be guided by the program outlined and proposed by the metropolitan, but could be based on his own knowledge of the Byzantine “princely mirrors.” “Instructive chapters for those in command of the faithful”, written for Ivan IV, is an essay of the same genre as the “Exposition of deliberative chapters” by Deacon Agapit to Tsar Justinian, although they are separated by a thousand years. The “Symphony of Priesthood and Kingdom” retained its significance; Maxim the Greek was not a priest, he represented monasticism, but the fact of the transmission of the “Chapters” through the Metropolitan gave them to some extent an official character. The earlier inclusion of the translation of the “Chapters” of Agapit in Vassian’s Helmsman probably did not have much effect, since Vassian was denied the right to independently change the composition of the Helmsman: “Neither are you an apostle, nor are you a saint, nor are you a priest” 22 . Maxim, however, understood the significance of the teachings included in the “recommendation list” in its composition, and advised Ivan IV to more often turn to the message of Patriarch Photius mentioned in it to Prince Mikhail of Bulgaria 23 . Maxim’s “Chapters” are inferior to Agapit’s “Chapters” in the breadth of coverage of topics and tasks. They are more consistent with the specific tasks of the moment. According to V.F. Rzhiga, of all the attempts to exert moral influence on the young Tsar, Maxim’s “Heads” stand out decisively. Nowhere has the question of power been raised to such an ideological height and received such coverage... It was here, in Maxim’s “Chapters,” that the ideological foundations for the first years of Ivan the Terrible’s reign were laid 24 . It is no coincidence that the initial “Chapters” propose a struggle with passions, perhaps referring to those character traits of the young tsar that Macarius somehow managed to restrain, but which blossomed during the oprichnina period after the death of the metropolitan. Macarius’ request to Maxim to send his writings, the addition of “Chapters” intended for the Tsar, testifies to the intention of the head of the Church to change the fate of Maxim the Greek, to alleviate his situation. When did this intention arise? Maxim’s “chapters,” as well as the messages to Macarius and Alexei with which they are associated, were traditionally dated (following V.F. Rzhiga) “around 1548,” that is, the time after the royal wedding in January 1547 25 . However, the possibility of attributing them to the time preceding the royal wedding and the royal wedding is also very acceptable. This version is due to the letters of the Eastern patriarchs asking for the forgiveness of Maxim the Greek. In a letter dated April 4, 1545, the Alexandrian Patriarch Joachim sent a letter to Ivan IV with a wish for victories over his enemies and with a request to release Maxim, who had come from the Holy Mount Athos, “to give him the will and freedom to go wherever he wants, and above all to the place of his tonsure. Joachim calls the prisoner “a teacher of the Orthodox faith.” “Your kingdom, king,” he writes to the addressee, “through the action of the devil and through the machinations of evil people, he was scorched by the devil and cast into prison and given unsolvable shackles, and cannot go anywhere and teach, but God gave him such a gift. We heard about him and received written evidence from many great people who are here and from the Holy Mount Athos that this man named Maxim unjustly bound and caught by the power of your kingdom." 26 In June of the following year, Patriarch Dionysius II of Constantinople, informing Ivan Vasilyevich about his appointment as patriarch, asked to release Maxim the Greek, addressing the king not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of the Jerusalem Patriarch Herman and the entire Council 27. It is hardly possible to admit that such letters could remain unanswered. In Moscow, the authority of the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches was recognized, which was manifested, for example, in the approval of the royal title in 1556–1561. In January 1557, Ivan IV sent a letter to Patriarch Joasaph II of Constantinople with a request to send a letter with the conciliar blessing of the royal wedding performed by Metropolitan Macarius in 1547 28 . The conciliar charter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II (November-December 1560) approved the royal title of Ivan the Terrible 29. Earlier communication with the heads of the Eastern Churches, letters of 1545–1546 resulted in the metropolitan’s practical actions to free Maxim the Greek. We would hardly be mistaken if we assume that the arrival of Andrei Semenov to him with a metropolitan message and a monetary blessing followed these letters, perhaps even the first of them. What relief they brought to his anguished soul! The Metropolitan was ready to kiss the shackles of the Tver prisoner and recognized him as a saint! It was, of course, upsetting that Macarius could not help him right away, but hope arose. Maxim quickly prepared sets of his essays, highlighting a “notebook” specially addressed to the “great ruler,” and soon wrote other essays for the ruler. He wrote “Instructive Chapters” either by order - at the request of the Metropolitan, or on his own initiative. It was 1545–1546 that became the time when the justificatory complex, created at the turn of the 1530–1540s and gradually acquiring new texts, received concrete practical application. His release could have been timed to coincide with the crowning of Ivan Vasilyevich (January 16, 1547) or the royal wedding (February 3, 1547). The already repeatedly cited “Tale” about the twenty-two years of his imprisonment also leads to 1547. Having received freedom, Maxim the Greek writes a new message to the Tsar, in which he no longer speaks of imprisonment or excommunication. His only request is to return to the Holy Mountain. The message adjoins the “Instructive Chapters” not only in content and purpose, but also in the place occupied in the early manuscript collections of his works. It is included in these collections with different names (“Word to the ruler on earth” or “in Rus'”) as chapter 24, and chapter 25 – “Instructive Chapters” 30. In another manuscript tradition, it has a more extensive title in a ceremonial style. The tasks of the tsarist power are described here much more broadly than in the “Chapters”; the councils have a state character. He writes about the divine origin of royal power (which was not in the “Chapters”). “The Most High” has entrusted to you “the scepter of the glorious kingdom,” he addresses the king. A new element also appears in the traditional prescription of the “symphony”. The tsar must respect the spiritual hierarchy, listen to the advice of the metropolitan and bishops (Maxim remains faithful to his favorite idea about “wise advisers”). But he expands the circle of forces that are the key to the power of a state, its support. The tsar must respect the boyars and the army, generously reward them for their service: “Honor and protect and abundantly bestow on the blessed princes, boyars, glorious commanders and valiant warriors; by enriching them, you strengthen and protect your power.” V.F. Rzhiga characterized his position as “the point of view of coordinating political forces, and he does not limit their composition to the clergy and boyars, but introduces here a young force that is just beginning to declare itself - the army (that is, the clergy, military service people)” 31. This idea was developed by N.A. Kazakova, believing that Maxim the Greek was drawing the contours of an estate monarchy: “The idea of the tsar’s duties to take care of the three feudal estates - the clergy, the boyars and the army - corresponded, in our opinion, to the social content of the estate monarchy, when the nobility had not yet become the main support of the monarch’s power... The deliberative principle inherent in the estate monarchy was also answered an urgent appeal to the king to listen to wise advice. The political ideas of Maxim the Greek, despite the inherent moralization, substantiated the tendency of Russia’s development along the path of a class monarchy” 32. This interesting idea requires further investigation. It can be added that this was the time of the beginning of the activity of Zemsky Sobors, which trace their origins to Church Councils, to which JI drew attention. V. Cherepnin 33. The activity of Maxim the Greek in his advice to the “commander in Rus'” makes it possible to recognize as reliable the information in “Tales” about the role of the tsar in his liberation. In the already quoted “Tale”, after information about the “weakness” of a prisoner under Metropolitan Joasaph and about the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius (“going to the church and receiving communion of the most pure and life-giving mysteries of Christ”), there follows a story about his writing a series of works, the contours of which are close to a complex of twelve chapters. Although the sequence of events was different, the compiler was aware of the connection between the liberation and the creation of a set of “exculpatory” works. After the author reported the lifting of church punishment by Metropolitan Macarius, he writes about the role of the tsar in liberation from imprisonment (a function of state power): “The merciful tsar ... Grand Duke Ivan removed him from Tver, and ordered him to live in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery.” Another “Tale” (as part of the Menaion of the Chetyah by John Milyutin) reports that even before his transfer to Trinity, Maxim lived in Moscow (the tsar “ordered to take him to Moscow”), which is apparently true 34. But the compiler is mistaken when he says that this happened “according to the word of prayer” of Abbot Artemy: he became abbot much later, in 1551. What is probably certain is that, at the request of Artemy, Maxim the Greek was transferred to Trinity from Moscow (and not from Tver). But the circumstances of Artemy’s own life were poorly known to the compiler of the Life: he writes that Artemy died earlier than Maxim, but in fact he fled to Lithuania and continued his activities there for a long time. This “Legend” also reports some details of Maxim’s stay in Tver, unknown from other sources. It turns out that “the wise Maxim the Greek was in great honor with the Tver ruler, and he was allowed to sit at a meal with the saint and “eat from a single dish.” However, “The Tale of the Tver Fire” turned out to be unpalatable to the Tver ruler - too many denunciations were expressed there. As we see, the compilers of early biographies of Maxim the Greek did not have much factual material about the last years of his life, they made inaccuracies, and confused the sequence of events. They wrote on the basis of two groups of sources - his writings and oral tradition; Documentary material is used minimally. But they are also valuable for the small factual material that they preserved (for example, about twenty-two years of imprisonment), as well as an indicator of the change in attitude towards the personality of Maximus the Greek that occurred in the era of preparation for the establishment of the patriarchate. Among other events in the life of Maxim the Greek of the last period, one can say about the Council of 1548–1549, which tried Isak Sobaka, a former employee of Maxim. He was accused of having dared to be appointed archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, having been excommunicated from the Church. The details and details of the work of the Councils of 1525 and 1531 were again discussed. The “Judgment Lists” of these two Councils, discussed in previous chapters, have come to us in conjunction with similar information about the Council of 1548 and may have been edited in connection with the new discussion. You can also talk about how Ivan IV invited Maxim to speak out against the heresy of Matvey Bashkin (“the scriptures came to me about the current atrocity”). The king heard that his addressee was afraid of being counted among the heretics (“and you expect that we will combine you with Matthew”), but he assures: “Do not cause the faithful to associate with the infidels... you put aside doubts” 36. However, in the materials of this Council the name of Maxim the Greek is absent. As we see, the Svyatogorsk learned monk was deprived of both will and peace, and his freedom was incomplete; he could not return to the Holy Mountain. He was plagued by various illnesses. The “Tales” call the date of his death 7064, that is, the period from September 1, 1555 to August 31, 1556. The month and day - December 21 - are indicated in the Life of the 18th century, but the source of the message is unknown. In the same Life, a day of remembrance is also named - January 21, coinciding with the day of remembrance of St. Maximus the Confessor 37. Lifetime collected works The peculiarity of the personality and biography of Maxim the Greek is that the events of his life were associated with key phenomena of Russian history, with the main directions of Russian domestic and foreign policy, Russian religious thought and culture. His return to creativity, the resumption of literary works, takes place during the era of the Councils for the canonization of Russian saints, the Council of the Hundred Heads, and the royal wedding of the Moscow Grand Duke in 1547. During this period (“the beginning of the kingdom”), the ideal of a symphony of priesthood and kingdom was close to being embodied in the practice of church-state relations to a greater extent than in any other period in the history of the Russian Church and the Russian state. Maxim Grek made a great contribution to ensuring the vitality of this ideal. He proclaimed this ideal already in a letter to Vasily III in 1522, and during the reign of Ivan IV, many of the works of the Svyatogorsk scientist and theologian were imbued with it. In the first period of his work in Russia, his contribution to the cause of spiritual enlightenment and spiritual literature was, first of all, extensive translations, and in the second period - not only his own new works, but also collected works compiled by him and edited with his own hand. Maxim the Greek is one of the first writers in the history of Russian literature who himself compiled collections of his selected works, chose and edited them himself. The accusations brought against him, despite their improbability, concerned various problems - state, church, and cultural, and those that had a future. “Correcting books” would become one of the most important cultural (and not only cultural) problems of the 17th century. Issues of language and translation will persist into the 19th century (“Shishkov, I’m sorry, I don’t know how to translate”). Is it worth talking about the significance in the following centuries of the Turkish (Eastern) question or the question of church property? Therefore, the works of our hero, originally conceived for the purpose of justifying, proving the injustice of accusations, acquired a broader significance. They not only reflected the author’s worldview, but also gave a fairly complete picture of life at that time, many of its aspects. They were striking monuments of Russian religious thought of that era; they spoke about real, transitory phenomena of the surrounding life and eternal truths. During the study of the extensive manuscript heritage of Maxim the Greek, the classification of manuscripts consisting entirely of his works with the most variegated composition, it was possible to identify a central core to which the rest go back. It turned out that Maxim the Greek compiled two extensive sets of his works, each of which is represented by manuscripts of several hundred sheets. They can be defined by the modern term "selected works" or "collected works". Determining the handwriting of Maxim the Greek and establishing his autographs were of great importance for the study of his work. When studying the works of Maxim the Greek, there is a happy opportunity to understand his texts based on the hierarchy of themes, decisions and preferences, from the classification that he himself proposed. The collections of his works compiled by him are not just a formal, mechanical combination of various works, but a unity that reveals an internal plan and goals, an internal logic in the selection of texts, and the sequence of their arrangement. The components of this thoughtful structure, especially in its first, central and larger part, are dependent and connected with each other, so we can talk about it as a “Sum”. At the same time, he did not simply combine previously written texts, but often wrote anew, in accordance with his new plan. Maxim Grek compiled two “Collected Selected Works” - in 47 chapters (with additional articles) and in 73 chapters (which included all 47 chapters of the previous one and new texts). The first collection was named Joasaph after the owner of the main manuscript of the collection - Metropolitan Joasaph (his owner's mark is available). This is a manuscript from the collection of the Moscow Theological Academy (RGB. F. 173, I, MDA 42) - a unique phenomenon in the history of writing and religious thought of the Russian Middle Ages. Complexes that united various works of church writers and represented by lifetime lists are known (collections with “Tradition” and “Charter” by Nil Sorsky, “The Enlightener” by Joseph of Volotsky, “Sobornik” (“Glavnik”) by Metropolitan Daniel), but they cannot compare with the Joasaphic collection of Maximus the Greek in the completeness and variety of topics, in the nature of their development. To a certain extent, the “Summa” of Maxim the Greek can be compared with the “Truth Testimony” of Zinovius of Otensky, but this is already a monument of a later time (Zinovy ​​himself considered himself a student of Maxim the Greek). The collection is edited by the author himself. In addition to him, there were other editors who took care of the correctness of the text. The special significance and relevance of this collection is emphasized by the fact that in addition to the Joasaph collection, there is another manuscript of this collection, that is, coinciding with it in composition (not fully preserved) and also corrected by the author. At the same time, there are disproportionately more cases of editing (not only proofreading, but also semantic). This means that the author not only compiled the collections, corrected the text, and continued to improve it, but worked with several copies of the collection. Joasaph's meeting was very popular; Ten manuscripts of the 16th-17th centuries were identified, repeating its entire composition, and two short-form manuscripts, including only 39 chapters. On its basis, new collections were created with the addition of new texts, or the works were regrouped in accordance with new ideas. The second lifetime author’s collection is Khludov’s in 73 chapters. The mechanism, the process of compiling two systematic collections was quite complex. Although the more complete one was completed somewhat later than the collection of 47 chapters, at the same time the study reveals some “parallelism” in the work, not a chronological sequence, but the functional principles of their compilation. The earliest manuscript of this collection consists of two parts. Chapters 1–25 are in the manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Khludov collection, No. 73 (with the date 1564), chapters 26–73 - in the manuscript of the Russian State Library, Bolshakov collection, No. 285 (endless). This manuscript also has the author's own handwritten edits. The collection was named after the owner of the manuscript, A. I. Khludov. Based on this collection, new ones also arose - both by rearranging its chapters and by adding new texts. As a rule, the author did not include works written in the first period and which were already discussed in his lifetime collections, but preferred to write new ones. There is another collection with the autographs of Maxim the Grek, with his author’s corrections - Rumyantsevskoe (as part of the Rumyantsev collection, RSL, No. 264). It is no longer distinguished by the unity of concept characteristic of the previous two, being based, apparently, on the author’s archive, which his like-minded people tried to carefully preserve; some texts were accidentally copied twice in the manuscript. It is especially valuable because many of Maxim the Greek’s works have been preserved only in it; other lists of them are unknown. This applies, in particular, to the two works mentioned in the previous section - “A Brief Answer to the Holy Council on the Slander” and a letter to Metropolitan Macarius (in which the author calls Maxim a saint). It contains more than 20 works that were not included in the lifetime collections, although individual works by Joasaphsky and Khludovsky are included. Works from three collections (together with earlier ones) form the main core of his manuscript heritage 38 . A number of works entered the handwritten tradition as part of later collected works of the second half of the 16th - first third of the 17th centuries. In subsequent collections, cases of the appearance of new, previously unknown works are rare. Studying (or simply considering) the entire creative heritage of this author goes far beyond the scope of a biography. Let's limit ourselves to some observations. At the beginning of both collections there is a complex of those works that were written for exculpatory purposes. These are the first 12 chapters of each collection, a kind of “wreath”, opening with the “Confession of the Orthodox Faith” (chapter 1) and ending with “Words of Disclaimer about the Correction of Russian Books,” in which the author proves the philological validity of the book correction he made (chapters 11–12). His work will be continued by the “inquirers” of the 17th century; editing books will be one of the components in the activities of Patriarch Nikon; in the 18th century, Paisiy Velichkovsky would also be concerned with correcting books 39. The complex includes dogmatic and polemical works adjacent to the Confession of Faith; “Words” against the Mohammedans and denunciations of Hellenic paganism occupy a large place. The author did not consider the justification complex complete. There have not yet been lengthy, reasoned answers to many of the charges. He also observed phenomena that were not related to trials and accusations, but, as it seemed to him, also required his intervention. Finally, many simply turned to him for clarification on various issues. All this was reflected in the meetings. The following chapters of the meeting are not related to the “justifying” topic and constitute its ethical part; they are devoted to issues of Christian life and the responsibilities of a Christian. Chapters 13–14 are structured as a critique of astrological fads, but it is expanded from that expressed in the first period 40 . In these chapters, the specific addressee for whom moral standards are intended is not named; it turns out to be the entire Christian society as a whole and each of its representatives individually. The author did not include here previously written Messages against astrology to specific individuals, for example, F.I. Karpov. The genre nature emphasizes the universal nature of the norms set forth. The unity of the genre is maintained here, the texts are devoid of any features characteristic of the messages, do not contain realities, dating signs, and no specific reason for their writing is given. This does not mean that there was no connection with persons, events, or circumstances; the author does not find it necessary or possible to write about this, choosing a different level of topic. Much space is devoted to refuting the teachings of astrologers that “the starry wheel of happiness lifts some to various powers and dominions, and overthrows others from there and subjects them to extreme troubles and dishonor... the arrangement of the stars is the reason that some receive wealth and glory and a position of authority, while others receive squalor, dishonor and extreme dishonor.” The main argument of criticism of astrologers is that they “deprive us of the autocratic gift with which the Creator honored us, and this gift is evidence that we were created in the image and likeness of the One who created us.” The question is raised why an autocratic person sometimes chooses good, sometimes evil, what are the criteria for choice. The answer is formulated with reference to Maximus the Confessor: “... a certain force that inclines to evil is nothing more than a disregard for natural mental doing” (in another place “the natural doing of our mind”). The result of such neglect is “malice,” that is, “the demand of a seduced thought, followed by obscene deeds.” Further, it is specifically explained what “the natural doing of our mind” means; its goal is that the “verbal part” of man should obey the divine word everywhere and keep the “dumb part” in obedience, that is, in other words, that the mind should dominate the dumb, carnal part of the human being. Three forces motivate a person to do good: “natural seeds”, that is, positive natural inclinations, “holy powers” ​​and “good will” (the term “will” is used). Three forces also attract to evil: passions, demons, evil will. The next, 14th chapter is devoted to passions and their origin: “The same monk Maximus the Greek Conversation of the Soul and Mind, questions and answers about how passions are born, here about divine Providence and against astrologers.” The Mind appears here as a higher, more authoritative principle in relation to the Soul, dealing with teachings and instructions, but this is a human Mind subject to passions, and the interlocutors more than once say about each other “you and me.” The Conversation of Mind and Soul, like other works of the Joasaph collection concerning the same topic, are in line with Christian anthropology. Characterizing its place in the spirituality of Eastern Christianity, T. Shpidlik highlighted the following problems: self-knowledge (connaissance de soi) and its psychological aspect; meekness, outer and inner man; body-soul-spirit in various aspects of this trichotomy. All these themes are reflected in the considered part of the collection of Maxim the Greek, but in different volumes, in different sections and works 41 . Chapters 15–16 and the following can be called ascetic 42. The author sets out his views on what “true monasticism” consists of. He remembered, of course, the accusations brought against him of blasphemy against Russian miracle workers, but here he does not remember these episodes and rises to the height of ascetic feeling and thought, speaking in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Fathers and ascetics. Here the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek are presented in all their depth. His non-covetousness differed from the passionate polemical attacks of Vassian Patrikeev: “I order the Grand Duke to take away the villages from the monasteries.” Maxim, on the contrary, put in first place the moral perfection of monks and observance of ascetic norms. Central to this part of the collection is chapter 20 (“The same monk Maximus the Greek has a debate (competition) about monastic residence, and the faces of the participants in the Debate are Philoctimon and Actimon, that is, covetous and non-covetous”) 43. In the “Debate” Maxim’s non-acquisitive concept was most fully reflected. Unlike Vassian Patrikeev, he was not a supporter of secularization and persistently recommended to the tsar “not to strive to steal other people’s estates and acquisitions.” At the same time, he sharply condemned the practice of relations between monasteries and peasants in their own villages, as well as constant litigation with the peasants of neighboring villages and their owners: “For the sake of the village [he] begins to go to the court,” argues (“he will get very angry”) with his rivals, asks the judges “for the sake of the small land” to appoint a “field with weapons,” that is, an armed duel of the disputing parties or their representatives, in which the winner was considered to have won the case. He writes: “Immeasurable inhumanity and brutality [manifest] in not only depriving property, but also tormenting its owners themselves with the bitterest torment.” This refers to usury and punishment for non-payment of debt - torture with a whip (pravezh), confiscation of property, expulsion from the land and even slavery. Maxim the Greek condemns the enslaved-serf forms of exploitation and the treatment of feudal dependent peasants as serfs. He writes about the inadmissibility of monks owning villages and engaging in usury (it is designated by the terms “extortion”, “extortion”, “interest”, “growth”). His denunciations take on a broader focus, being addressed to different strata and social groups. The mind instructs the Soul: “You are commanded, O foolish one, to feed the poor with your labors, and not to own others, drinking their blood with covetousness, to serve others, and not to rule over them.” It is unacceptable to “mercilessly drink the blood of the poor with interest and every unrighteous deed.” He especially dislikes usury; The practice of “borrowed silver” and high interest rates (“rostov”) becomes the subject of denunciations: “[The peasants] are constantly being tortured with demands for the most difficult increases and all kinds of monastic work.” Maxim the Greek condemns monks who, contrary to the Gospel commandment, throughout their lives feed on “the labors of others, then the poor with all untruth and extortion.” The concept of “theft of other people’s labors” is further deciphered: “The final lie” consists of not only “accumulating gold and silver on earth through any extortion, in the following years torturing the poor villagers and never leaving them the truth (the borrowed amount - Ya.S.), although it has already been returned for many years by repeated collection of interest.” Not just land as a source of wealth, but also usury, coupled with other negative phenomena, underlie the “theft of other people’s labors and lies.” Speculation in grain during famines belongs to the same area; the forcible retention of peasants in monastic villages and the restriction of the right of peasant refusal (an incident described in the 57th chapter of the Code of Law of 1497) are condemned. The non-covetousness of Maxim the Greek is associated with the concept of the charitable function of wealth. He does not deny wealth as such, but insists on its “righteous” use. The “covetous” Philoctimon refers to biblical heroes who pleased God because they “righteously” and “goodly” disposed of the “acquisitiveness” and property they owned. The “non-acquisitive” Actimon, in response to this, agrees with his opponent, but also emphasizes the difference between the “righteous” and “unrighteous” use of wealth. The meaning of the first is the prevention of usury and, as its opposite, the embodiment of the commandment of “love of poverty” (“offering your bread abundantly to every poor and wretched person and generously fulfilling it with your silver”), “Unjust” use of wealth in monasteries is, first of all, usurious practice, bonded and serf-like forms of relations with peasants. The ideal of relations between the monastery and the “helpful villagers,” according to Maxim the Greek, involves providing them with loans without “growth”, and, if necessary, without returning the borrowed amount: “It would be a great consolation for them if you lent them silver without interest; and the one who, due to extreme poverty, could not pay back either the growth or the truth (the borrowed amount - N.S.), would not torture him, but would expect reward in the next century.” Thanks to the works of Maxim the Greek and other non-acquisitive writers (especially Vassian Patrikeev), the theme of “poor people,” “humiliated and insulted” 44 became increasingly louder in Russian literature. Chapters 21 and 22 of the collected works continue the theme of Christian life and Christian duties with an emphasis on the condemnation of multi-acquisitiveness (“the desire to collect much wealth”) and usury 45 . Chapter 21 is also a dialogue, but imaginary, between the Tver Bishop Akakiy, the patron of Maxim, and the Lord: “What speeches would the Bishop of Tver have made to the Creator when the cathedral church and its entire courtyard burned down, and all the property, and the city itself, and many other churches, and houses, and people burned down due to God’s wrath in 1537 July 22, and how the Lord answered him divinely, and this is appropriate to heed with fear and unfeigned faith, and compiled by Maxim the Greek, a monk of the Holy Mountain.” Chapter 22 is devoted to the same subject, but much shorter: “The same monk Maxim the Greek gives a brief summary of the former Tver fire, as well as praise for the renovation of church decoration made by the Bishop of Tver Akakiy.” In the first dialogue there is only one question and one answer, Akaki asks why God, despite the solemn services and magnificent icons, sent such a fierce fire to the city. Christ responds that he does not demand formal observance of rituals, but a righteous life and punishes violation of the commandments: “If you people bring me what [received] from unjust (unjust) and abominable interest, theft of other people’s property, my soul hates it as mixed with the tears of orphans, widows, with the blood of the poor.” We are talking, as in the previous non-acquisitive chapters, about two types of wealth. One of them, not rejected by the author, goes to charity, to feeding the poor. It is called the property of the poor and orphans. Other wealth has its source in usury and other unjust methods of accumulation, the theft of what belongs to others, the poor and orphans: “Silver on silver and gold on gold, insatiably accumulate on earth with illegal interest and bad profits.” The ethical part of Maxim's collection is imbued with an atmosphere of dialogue. This is both an internal, in subtext, dialogue between the author and the accusers, and dialogue as a literary form. The “faces” of the participants in the dialogues are Mind and Soul, the “non-covetous” Actimon and the “covetous” Philokgimon; The heavenly Lord talks with the earthly Lord, the Bishop of Tver. Chapters 24–25 lay out the moral standards for the supreme ruler and the “rulers.” These are the already mentioned “Instructive chapters for those in command of the faithful”, written by Maxim the Greek for Ivan IV, in all likelihood, by order of Metropolitan Macarius (chapter 25), and a message to Ivan IV with a wide coverage of the tasks of royal power, written after the wedding (chapter 24) 46. Chapter 26 is one of the best works of Maxim the Greek (“The word more extensively expounds with pity the disorder and disorder of the kings and rulers of the last century of this”) 47. The further part of the Joasaph collection is thematically adjacent to the first and includes chapters returning to some of the original topics (book corrections, purity and adequacy of translations, denunciation of covetousness, “covetousness”, stargazing, criticism of heresies, apocrypha, superstitions) or belonging, according to the classification of E. E. Golubinsky and A. I. Ivanov, to the section “interpretative articles and legends on various perplexing issues of theological, church, ritual and everyday nature.” Particular attention should be paid to Chapter 44, the topic of which was not touched upon in the first part of the meeting. Its content is connected with the accusation concerning Maxim’s attitude to the autocephaly of the Russian Church. The title of this short chapter sets out its contents in detail: “The same monk Maximus the Greek’s legend to those who refuse during the installation and swear by their handwriting to the Russian Metropolitan and the entire Holy Council not to accept those who will be installed to the metropolis or bishopric by the Pope of the Latin faith or the Patriarch of Constantinople as being in the region of the filthy king of the godless Turks.” The text of such an oath actually existed; its inclusion was due to the appearance in Rus' in the second half of the 15th century of Uniate metropolitans installed in Rome and Constantinople. Maximus agrees with the refusal to accept metropolitans, proteges of Rome, but argues that Constantinople retains its canonical status as the center of Orthodoxy. The inconsistency of the reference to its desecration by the “filthy” (Turks) as an argument for refusing to install it in Constantinople is indirectly stated. Maxim the Greek was not an opponent of autocephaly of the Russian Church, but believed that its establishment should have a canonical basis, which happened at the end of the 16th century, but on new principles 48 . The author will return to this same topic in the Khludov collection (chapter 61): “The legend that the shrines are not desecrated at all, even if the cities have been ruled by pagans for many years” 49. After the chapter on the appointment of metropolitans, which is important for understanding the true position of the author on this issue, there follows a final chapter. Being brief, it is the final chord of his teaching writings and sets out a call to repentance. Initially, according to the author’s plan, it was called “The Tale of the Tawny Owl Bird 57, in the same words exhorting to repentance” and had the number 46. But the presence of four short independent separate chapters in it later led to the expansion of the numbering or division of the single chapter 50 according to the plan. “The Tale of the Tawny Owl” contains an interpretation of Psalm 101, which tells of the psalmist’s suffering and cry for mercy (“The prayer of the poor, when he is discouraged and pours out his prayer before God. Lord, hear my prayer, and let me come to you, do not turn your face away from me” (101, 1-3, 6–7, 9). The author does not quote the psalm, but gives an interpretation of the owl as a symbol of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (the serpent kills its chicks, but the parents heal them with their blood). G. A. Kazimova established that the source of the “Tale of the Tawny Owl Bird” is an additional article about the pelican (tawny owl), contained in some codes of the “Physiologist” of the Alexandrian edition; Maximus the Greek’s interpretation belongs to the “dogmatic” (different from the “moralistic”) interpretation; for him, mixing them was impossible. Other versions of this article introduce the motive of repentance, which is absent in Maxim the Greek’s article in verbal expression, but apparently known to the author, who combined with this interpretation “The word incites to repentance.” G. A. Kazimova quoted E. I. Vaneeva’s translation from Greek of “The Physiologist” of the group that is closest to the Slavic translations: “The Savior, having pierced his side, exuded blood and water for salvation and eternal life. Blood - saying, “taking the cup, he blessed...”, but water - in baptism for repentance” 51. Maxim the Greek isolated an additional motive of interpretation (“repentance”) and, leaving its presentation outside the scope of his work, made it the topic of an independent article dedicated to the martyrs; it, directly following the interpretation of the tawny owl bird, without having an independent number, turns out to be, as it were, a part or continuation of this interpretation. “Tales of Repentance” consists of a short introductory part (less than half a page) and four texts about the courage of ancient martyrs. And each of the stories has an independent title included in the secondary (added) table of contents. At the end, the author notes that the tradition of these martyrs was preserved by Paul of Thebes, a famous disciple of the desert, and reported it to the founder of the monks, Anthony. The final short chapters, thus, turn out to be connected both with the initial part of the collection, which is both dogmatic and justificatory, and with the central one, which included “Tales of Repentance.” In the final part, the author did not say a word about his own misfortunes, but closed the vindicatory plan of the meeting on a sublime level, with an allegory of the redemptive meaning of martyrdom and suffering. Now the entire collection appears as a cycle, opening with the “Confession of Faith” and ending with repentance and atonement - the life story of an outstanding figure of Russian culture of the 16th century, entirely contained in his work. An epilogue, as literary scholars say, is a final message about events in the lives of the characters that occurred some time after the actions depicted in the main part of the work. The epilogue of the biography of Maxim the Greek could be no less extensive than the biography itself. It may include both the history of the development of the heritage of a scientist, theologian, writer, translator, its different actualization in different eras and in different circles, and the history of changes in assessments of his personality and creativity, the highest point of which was the canonization of 1988. Maxim the Greek was canonized as a “miracle worker, ascetic monk and teacher of monastic life, a prisoner and sufferer of many years of imprisonment, a spiritual teacher who deepened the patristic tradition” 1 . His translations of the works of the Holy Fathers, primarily John Chrysostom, numerous interpreters of the Psalter and the Apostle, and original works that contributed to the cause of spiritual enlightenment also served to deepen the patristic tradition. In them, he set out the Christian doctrine, based on the needs and tasks of Russian life, the mental and spiritual quests of his contemporaries, developing those aspects of the doctrine that had not yet been mastered here or were not assimilated in its entirety. His writings reflected many features of Russian life - state, church-political, cultural. A student and participant in the Italian Renaissance, who collaborated with humanists in the development of Antiquity, the language of which was his native language, in Russia he devoted himself to the cause of reviving the patristic tradition. In Italy, he mastered the achievements of humanistic philology and methods of text criticism, and used them both in his Russian works and in translations. In his writings, ancient reminiscences are revealed, the names of Homer, Plutarch, Hesiod, Thucydides, Aristotle are found; He called Plato "supreme" among the “external philosophers”, he valued the philosophical citizenship “legislated” by him. At the same time, he denounced the “pagan Hellenic wickedness” that sometimes accompanied the revival of Antiquity; he also recognized negative features in the movements and hobbies of that time in Italy. Mikhail Trivolis became the Svyatogorsk monk Maxim, joining Vatopedi. In his rich book treasuries, he found ample opportunities to familiarize himself with Christian antiquities, the works of the Holy Fathers, in which elements of ancient achievements, so valued by humanists, were preserved. And later in Russia he devoted himself to the cause of reviving the patristic tradition in Rus', which contains the spiritual values ​​of Christianity. Many of his works remain relevant today. New translations into modern language of his “spiritual and moral words” were published recently in connection with the 450th anniversary of his death and in preparation for the conference “Russia - Athos: 1000th anniversary of spiritual unity” (October 2006). The uniqueness of Mikhail Trivolis - Maxim the Greek in the history of European and Russian culture of the late 15th - first half of the 16th centuries was that he spoke the languages ​​of all three components of the then Christian world - the language of Greek Orthodoxy and ancient culture, the language of the Latin world, Church Slavonic (in its Russian version). This is not just about language as a means of everyday communication, but about the languages ​​of cultures and the problems of translation, which he solved brilliantly in the conditions of his time. Despite the importance of religious differences, he paid tribute to the achievements of each culture, its “good beginnings.” The need for his works appeared already in 1561, when Deacon Isaiah Kamenchanin (from Kamenets-Podolsk) went to Moscow to search for and acquire manuscripts for the purpose of printing and distributing them in Lithuania and Ukraine. Among the books that interested him were the “Gospel Discourses” of John Chrysostom, translated by Maxim the Greek and his student Selivan, along with the Bible and the Life of Anthony of Pechersk, who was not in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. In Moscow, Isaiah suffered the same fate as Maxim the Greek, he was convicted, but soon received the opportunity to engage in literary activity, devoting it to the study and collection of Maxim's heritage, searching for information and information about him, and later collaborated in this matter with Patriarch Job or the scribes who worked on his behalf. Isaiah compiled (c. 1591) “A Brief Tale of the Great Reverend Father Maxim the Greek,” which served as a Preface to the “Canon of the Holy Spirit,” written by Maxim the Greek, and also (in a slightly different version) as a Preface to the Psalter (without interpretations), translated in 1552 by Maxim the Greek and Neil Kurlyatev. This was one of his first biographies, still very brief, but not the only one. On the basis of this laconic “Tale” - Preface, “The Legend is known 58 about the arrival of Maxim the Greek in Rus' and how much he endured until his death” 2 was later created. During the era of the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, at the end of the 16th century, there was a surge of interest in both the works of Maxim the Greek and the facts of his life. It was compiled (c. 1587) “The Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain from the Vatopedi Monastery” (in another version of the title it was added: “who suffered greatly here for the truth”) 3. In the original edition, its author did not yet have information about the place of birth and parents of the hero (“I don’t know what city he was born in”), but in the second edition the entry from the Trinity manuscript about the place of birth and parents of Maxim, with which we opened the chapter dedicated to Arte, was already used. This “Tale” was very popular; it opened some new collections of his works, created in this era on the basis of earlier (lifetime) collections of the author. These “Collected Works” were books of a new type, approaching the literature of the New Age. The “Tale” that opened them served as a biographical sketch, similar to those that preceded them in the collected works (complete or selected) of modern authors. Moreover. Collections sometimes included miniatures depicting the author. They were of two types - half-length or chest-length images in profile, first without a halo, as well as images of Maxim the Greek writing or praying. The earliest (surviving) is a black and white drawing in profile, with the hero without a halo looking to the left. Perhaps it is based on the author's sketch - a self-portrait. Several miniatures go back to it (perhaps tracings, the hero is looking to the right). Later a halo appears. They were very fond of the images of Maxim the Greek in the Old Believer environment (with a large thick beard, a ladder, often against the backdrop of a monastery). In these increasingly complete collections, readers of subsequent centuries found answers to questions that interested them, both of a private nature and broader and more general ones. He enriched Russian thought, Russian spiritual enlightenment with the development of the Christian doctrine of freedom, the autocratic dignity of the human person (“human autocracy”), its free choice, coupled with full responsibility. And if freedom is inseparable from responsibility for him, then in his political teaching politics is inseparable from ethics, and even in his advice and recommendations to the ruler and “superiors”, political norms are set out as moral imperatives. His non-acquisitive writings were especially relevant. He did not deny wealth as such, he even recommended that the supreme ruler not strive to “steal other people’s estates and acquisitions,” but here, too, he insisted on the priority of the moral principle both in the methods of acquiring wealth and in its use. He denounced the “theft of other people’s labor,” understanding it as the use of unpaid labor of others, primarily with the help of usurious interest; he wrote that the “growth” of the “surplus”, increasing annually, already far exceeded the size of the borrowed amount. The object of his criticism was greed, greed, the insatiable desire to increase wealth, its accumulation in all kinds of reprehensible ways. His image was also attractive - an exposer of “untruth”, a martyr and an innocent sufferer (“the Russian people love the unfortunate one”). His veneration began very early. We remember that Metropolitan Macarius was already ready to recognize Maxim the Greek as a saint and kiss his chains. In 1588, Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople gave a “letter of permission (“farewell”) to Maxim the Greek 4 . Interest in his work and personality grew. In the middle of the 17th century, the already mentioned “The Legend is Known” was included in the Cheti-Minea of ​​the priest John Milyutin. Remaining within the framework of the literary genre “Tales,” its content has features that bring it closer to the hagiographic genre, and a small fragment in the central part is written in imitation of a liturgical work. The “Tale” is accompanied by a description of two miracles that happened at his tomb. Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, wrote that this “Tale” indicates his veneration in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, speaking about “Russian church children” who crown their father, teacher and mentor with “touching words”, adhering to his relics. The famous Solovetsky scribe Sergius Shelonin compiled in the 40s of the 17th century “A word of praise to the Russian saints” (between 1645–1647) and “The Canon of all the saints who shone forth in Great Russia” 5 . Among them is, among the holy teachers, in the “rank of venerables,” and Maxim the Greek, “the new Theologian,” “the teacher and worker of true love, who has reached its pinnacle, for God is love.” In 1988, in the year of the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia, the locally revered saint Reverend Maxim the Greek was canonized among the holy saints of God for all-Russian church veneration, and in 1996 his relics were discovered, now resting in the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. In the book monuments of that period the pelican was called a tawny owl; Popularly, one of the owl species received the same name. The adjective “known” (in the title in short form) meant not only “well-known, widespread, generally accepted,” but also “reliable, accurate” (Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th-17th centuries. Issue 6. P. 114).