Maxim Grek in Russia

The book is dedicated to the work of one of the most important Russian writers and publicists of the 16th century. Maxim the Greek. The enormous manuscript heritage of this author is explored, and a classification and description of handwritten collections of the 16th–18th centuries containing his works are given. The establishment of Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek - his own handwritten corrections to which he subjected the texts of his works and translations - made it possible to identify collections of “selected” works compiled by him, to better characterize his worldview and role in the socio-political and ideological struggle of the mid-16th century. Maxim the Greek is a unique and exceptional phenomenon of Russian culture of the 16th century. He spent the second half of his life in Russia (1518–1555). At the end of the 15th century. he lived in Italy, where, in his own words, he was by no means “on the threshold” of the philosophy and science of that time. At the beginning of the 16th century. Maxim is an Athonite monk who studies Christian literature in the rich library of Vatopedi. According to I. Denisov's hypothesis, Maxim's secular name is Mikhail Trivolis, who was born ca. 1470 in Greece, where he was educated and made an unsuccessful attempt at political activity; in Italy (Venice, Padua, Ferrara, Florence) he communicated and collaborated as a professional Greek scribe with some figures of Italian humanism (Aldus Manutius, John Lascaris, Angelo Poliziano, Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola); then he lived in the Catholic Dominican monastery of St. Mark in Florence, and from 1505, having become an Orthodox monk, in Vatopedi 1, whose authorities sent him to Moscow in 1517 in response to the request of the Grand Duke to assign a book translator. Maxim the Greek, while in Russia, wrote about his former involvement in “Hellenic teachings”: “In my youth, I lived for a long time in the country of Italy with the lust of Hellenic teachings”; “... Almost 40 years have already passed; the rotten fables and teachings of my ancestors, the Hellenes, have renounced” 2. There are no works of Maxim the Greek written in the first period of his life and activity, in Italy and on Mount Athos, with the exception of several personal letters published by I. Denisov, or they are unknown. All of his works were created in Russia; he is rightly called a Russian writer-publicist. But since he came here as a mature man, his writings are the result of a synthesis of Western European, Athonite experience and the direct influence of Russian reality. N.A. Kazakova rightly put forward two main tasks in the study of the work and personality of Maxim the Greek. Firstly, the role in the formation of Maxim the Greek’s worldview of the cultural heritage of those countries with which he was associated before coming to Russia, especially Byzantium (Byzantine literature denouncing monasticism and Byzantine political theories). Secondly, the cultural and educational activities of Maxim the Greek, his role in the development of Russian social thought 3. Indeed, these problems remain unresolved, the answers to these questions are given in the most general form, despite the great successes of historical and literary science in the study of the writer and publicist. The historiography of Maxim the Greek arose already at the end of the 16th century, when Tales about him were created, making an attempt to comprehend his fate and partly his creativity. From the middle of the 16th century, when Maxim the Greek died, and up to our time, it is hardly possible to name at least one decade that did not respond to the work or personality of Maxim the Greek, although these responses, naturally, differ in content and depth of penetration: in the 16th–18th centuries. – creation of a new list of works by Maxim the Greek; the emergence of a new collection of his works with the inclusion of new texts previously unknown to readers, the compilation of a new edition of the Legend of Him, the Life, i.e., essentially a biography, the use of the works of Maxim the Greek in the ideological struggle; in the 19th–20th centuries – publication of texts of his works, studies highlighting various aspects of his activities, stages of his fate. The merit of pre-revolutionary historiography was the search, description, and introduction into scientific circulation of numerous sources, manuscripts containing the works and translations of Maxim the Greek. Descriptions made by experienced archaeographers (P.M. Stroev, A.V. Gorsky, K.I. Nevostruev, A.X. Vostokov, I.Ya. Porfiryev, A.V. Vadkovsky, N.F. Krasnoseltsev, X.M. Loparev, A.F. Bychkov, etc.) were often independent studies-studies. The first edition of the works of Maxim the Greek was carried out by the Kazan Theological Academy (1859–1862), but the state of archeography and textual criticism of that time did not allow publishers to take into account not only the entire manuscript tradition, but even the earliest collections of works. The publication is based, as indicated in the preface, on four Solovetsky manuscripts 4 . Some essays were published earlier 5 . Despite the obvious imperfections of the Kazan edition, researchers are still forced to use it. The most valuable studies dedicated to Maxim the Greek in science of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. there were works by S.A. Belokurova, E.E. Golubinsky, V.S. Ikonnikova. Based on published descriptions of manuscripts, as well as searches in public and private repositories, S. A. Belokurov gave a valuable list of manuscripts containing works and translations of Maxim the Greek, news and Legends about him; His thoughts on the origin of the Legends of Maxim the Greek 6 are interesting. Some conclusions of E.E. Golubinsky 7 have not lost their significance to this day. So, N.A. Kazakova, analyzing the Judgment List of Maxim the Greek, used his observations 8. In the work of A.I. Ivanov 9 The classification of Maxim the Greek’s works is based on the same thematic principle as in the work of E.E. Golubinsky. A study of Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek showed that E.E. Golubinsky correctly saw and guessed many of them in the collection GBL, MDA 42. It should also be noted the works of B.I. Dunaeva 10, observations by A.A. Pokrovsky 11, etc. In the monograph by V.S. Ikonnikova 12 facts of the biography and work of Maxim the Greek are considered against a broad historical background; his information must be clarified in many ways, but the bibliography reported in connection with it is extremely valuable and extensive. In the review by V.N. Peretz for this work 13 formulated the tasks of further studying the work of Maxim the Greek: 1) collecting information about the lists of works of Maxim the Greek; 2) the number of works by Maxim the Greek, their chronology, principles of attribution of texts; 3) the sources of his works (especially Western); 4) literary techniques and style of Maxim; the influence of his works on subsequent figures of Russian literature; 5) the significance of Maxim’s literary activity for his contemporaries and posterity; to what extent what he preached was translated into facts. Availability of a special article by N.A. Kazakova “Maxim the Greek in Soviet historiography” saves us from the need to revisit this topic. The formation of a Marxist assessment of the personality and creativity of Maxim Grek N.A. Kazakova is associated with the work of V.F. Rzhigi 1934. The latter considered the activity of this publicist as “a complex ideological formation requiring in-depth analysis, which, revealing the traditional religious forms of the Middle Ages, should reveal the social tendencies expressed in them and, as a result, throw light on the complexity of the class struggle that was unfolding at that time” 14. A qualitatively new stage in the development of science was reflected primarily in the problems of research: V.F. Rzhiga is primarily interested not in the dogmatic and polemical works of the author, but in his journalism, the connection with the development of Russian journalistic thought and the historical reality of his time, the class and social foundations of his worldview. An analysis of the socio-political views of Maxim the Greek is given taking into account their evolution and connection with the facts of domestic and foreign political history. V.F. Rzhiga introduced a large number of new works by Maxim the Greek into scientific circulation 15. Recent years have brought a noticeable revival in the study of the work of Maxim the Greek, as evidenced by the monograph by A.I. Ivanov, large sections in monographs by N.A. Kazakova, A.A. Zimina. L.S. Kovtun, publication of the most valuable source discovered by N.N. Pokrovsky 16, article by the named authors, as well as O.A. Belobrova, B.M. Klossa, I.I. Smirnova, B.L. Fonkicha, S.O. Schmidt, reviews by S.M. Kashtanov and A.I. Klibanov on the book by I. Denisov and others 17 A feature of most of these works is the primary attention to the first period of the life of Maxim the Greek, to the mystery of his condemnation. The work of Maxim the Greek in the Tver and Troitsk periods is covered to a much lesser extent. Works in recent years have clearly shown that the main obstacle to further research into his work is the lack of a critical edition of his works. Currently, there is a sharp disproportion between the degree of source study of the court lists and the works of Maxim the Greek. If the nature of the former was the subject of careful research by S.N. Chernova, N.A. Kazakova, N.N. Pokrovsky, then the statements of this author in his works were used without a preliminary analysis of the works themselves - their origin (understood in a broad sense), the purposes of writing, the features of the genre, the manuscript tradition, the history of the text. Therefore, source study problems are brought to the fore, the solution of which is mainly devoted to the proposed work, but at the same time, the most significant problems of the biography and work of the writer-publicist are also considered. When talking about the origin of works, it is necessary to keep in mind, first of all, their social conditioning, which is understood as a reflection of historical reality (or historical need) in the work of a particular author, often through unique and repeated refractions. The study of the mechanism of the internal connection between ideology and the era that brought it to life encounters difficulties due, in particular, to the fact that the class, as K. Marx and F. Engels pointed out, “in order to achieve its goal is forced to present its interest as the common interest of all members of society, that is, speaking abstractly, to give its thoughts the form of universality, to depict them as the only reasonable, universally valid” 18 . This feature was especially pronounced in the Middle Ages, where religion performed this function. Medieval ideology is characterized by “the supreme dominance of theology in all areas of mental activity” 19 ; “The Middle Ages added to theology and turned into its subdivisions all other forms of ideology: philosophy, politics, jurisprudence” 20. An even more important task is to discover the “earthly core” of religious structures. A researcher usually approaches a text, an essay, with a more or less clearly formulated question, but it is important to know what question the author himself answers in his work, and its reconstruction is the solution to a significant part of the problem of the origin of the source. To understand the content of the answer, it is necessary to know both the essence of the “question” and the arsenal used in the “answer” in the author’s argumentation, i.e., its ideological origins and specific sources, and also try to establish why he chose this or that form (i.e., the genre of the work). “Question” is understood in a broad sense - not just as a specific question, order or request of a specific person, but also as the need for socio-political and ideological struggle realized (or insufficiently realized) by the author, as a specific interest of a class as a whole or a narrower social stratum. Many of Maxim the Greek’s works, especially those dating from the 30s to the 50s, are permeated by an atmosphere of “answer”, “responsibility”: “A brief answer to the Holy Council about them, I am slandered”, “Words of disclaimer about the correction of Russian books”; the program essay “Confession of Faith” is repeatedly called a “response” in other essays. Maxim the Greek gave the form of questions and answers to some of his works; the conversation is conducted by the “non-covetous” - Actimon and the “covetous” - Philoctimon, the Tver bishop and god, Mind and Soul. In other cases, the genre of the work is not a dialogue, but is designated as “Word against”, “Word opposite”. The opponent can be either a contemporary (“The Word is against the flattering copying of Nikolai Nemchin of Latin”), or the authors of previous centuries: “The Word is opposite to John Lodovic, the interpreter of the sacred book of St. Augustine, Bishop of Ipponia” (XV century); “Words are opposed to the heads of Samuel the Jew” (XI century). Maxim the Greek not only answers himself, not only forces the heroes of his works to pose questions and give answers, but also writes some works as ready-made “answers” ​​for his readers to questions that may be addressed to them (“Answers by Christians against the Hagarites who blaspheme our Orthodox Christian faith”). This genre feature of creativity is explained not only by the circumstances of the personal fate of the author, who was forced to give answers to the unfair accusations brought against him in 1525 and 1531, but also by the atmosphere of controversy, “debate” in Russian journalism of the first half of the 16th century. Being a Christian writer, he strives to give his reasoning a universal character, to put his argumentation into traditional forms, to present current problems of the surrounding life as timeless, and his own solutions not only as the fruit of his personal reflections, but as already existing in Christian literature, already found answers, as eternal models that individuals, social groups or society as a whole are obliged to follow.. All this does not exclude, however, the author’s pride in his work, nor the awareness of its significance. The works of Maxim the Greek are the main source for answering the question about his role in the social thought of that time; the testimony of the court lists and the investigative file, as extremely biased monuments, reflect the views of the defendants very indirectly. Source research aimed at reconstructing the creative biography of a writer-publicist is the task of this work. In its source study, three main problems are posed: the lifetime stage of the history of the handwritten heritage of Maxim the Greek (second quarter - mid-16th century); the evolution of the corpus of his works at the end of the 16th–18th centuries; chronology, dating of works. The main attention is paid to the first and third problems. The main methodological technique used in studying the heritage of Maxim the Greek was a codicological study of handwritten collections with primary attention to their origin; in a number of cases, it was possible to identify the book-writing centers where the collections were created, the cultural and historical environment, which greatly increased our information about these collections and the historical period in which they were created. A precondition (or first stage) for studying the work of a medieval author is an analysis of the history of the text of his works, their manuscript tradition 21 . According to the original plan, 22 it was supposed to give equal attention to each collected works of Maximus the Greek of the 16th–18th centuries. (on the difference between a collection and a collection, see Chapter I, § 2), studying the successive stages of the evolution of the corpus of his works against the background of the spiritual atmosphere, political and ideological struggle of the time in which they arose; this connection cannot be characterized mechanically, straightforwardly; sometimes it can be seen clearly, sometimes it is subtle and difficult to discern. During the study of the handwritten heritage among the early collections of essays (late 40s - first half of the 50s), those edited by the author himself were identified. A comparative study of the internal structure of three lifetime collections of works, as well as a comparison of their composition with the characteristics that Maxim the Greek gives to his works in the messages of the 40s - early 50s, made it possible to establish that two of them were not only edited by the author, but also compiled by him, i.e. he also owned the selection of texts for inclusion in the collections and their grouping. Maxim Grek thus turned out to be one of the first Russian writers whose works are presented in texts edited by the author’s hand. This circumstance, as well as the identification of a significant number of manuscripts related to the activities of persons who collaborated with Maxim the Greek - Mikhail Medovartsev, Isak Sobaka, Selivan (presumably) - forced us to pay special attention to the intravital stage. Materials of the second half of the 16th–18th centuries. included in the Appendices, where a description of the handwritten collected works of Maxim the Greek is given - both during his lifetime and those that later arose on their basis. The classification made will subsequently serve as the basis for the work of many researchers when studying any of the works of Maxim the Greek. The main attention is paid to collections with autographs of Maxim the Greek, since they essentially represent a new source for studying his worldview and creativity. Collections of works, compiled and edited by him, create an extremely rare opportunity for medieval authors to establish the author's classification carried out when creating “selected works”, and to find out which of his texts the author himself attached special importance to. Various marginal glosses in manuscripts containing translations that existed in the earlier Slavic tradition (along with Maximus the Greek's own translations and his work on "correction" of books), the extensive marginal glossary in early collections of works prove to be an important source for the study of philological practice of Muscovite Rus' and - more generally - Russian culture of the 16th century. The author hopes that the source observations of the proposed work can be the basis for a new edition of the Works of Maxim the Greek, completed at the level of the requirements of modern science, and will also serve to solve complex and important problems in the development of Russian social thought and culture. I consider it my pleasant duty to express my sincere gratitude to everyone whose friendly support and help contributed to the appearance of this book. First of all, with a feeling of deep gratitude, I would like to mention the name of Academician L.V. Tcherepnin, who supervised my history studies since my student years. Academician D.S. showed constant attention to his chosen topic. Likhachev. Thank you for your valuable advice and comments T.V. Dianov, A.A. Zimina, S.M. Kashtanova, A.I. Klibanova, B.M. Klossa, L.S. Kovtun, O.I. Podobedov, N.B. Tikhomirova, B.L. Fonkicha, D.P. Erastov, all employees of the Departments of Manuscripts of GBL, State Historical Museum, State Public Library, BAN, as well as the Central State Academy of Arts. Denissoff E. Maxime le Grec et l’Occident. Contribution à l'histoire de la pensée religieuse et philosophique de Michel Trivolis. Paris–Louvain, 1943, as well as a number of articles by this author (see Kashtanov S.M. Works of I. Denisov about Maxim the Greek and his biographers. - Byzantine Time Book, vol. XIV. M., 1958, pp. 284–295; Klibanov A.I. To the study of the biography and literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. - Ibid. "p. 148–174). Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works of Maxim the Greek. – “Byzantinoslavica”, t. VI. Prague, 1935–1936, p. 99, 101. Kazakova N.A. Maxim Grek in Soviet historiography. – “Questions of History”, 1973, No. 5, p. 149–157. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1. Kazan, 1859, p. 19. ZhMNP, 1834, No. 8, p. 243–278; “Moskvityanin”, 1842, No. 11, p. 59–96. Belokurov S.A. About the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century. M., 1899. Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church, Vol. II, Pol. 1. M., 1900; vol. II, pol. 2. M., 1917. Kazakova N.A. Essays on the history of Russian social thought. First third of the 16th century. L., 1970. Ivanov A.I. The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. Characteristics, attributions, bibliography. L., 1969. Dunaev B.I. Ave. Maxim the Greek and the Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century. M., 1916; aka. Works of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek. – In the book: Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Moscow Archaeological Society, vol. IV, no. 1. M., 1907, Protocols, p. 56–58. Pokrovsky A.A. One of the Greek sources for the works of Maximus the Greek. – In the book: Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Moscow Archaeological Society, vol. III. M., 1902, Protocols, p. 27–28; aka. One of the unpublished works of Maxim the Greek. – Ibid., vol. IV, issue. 1. M., 1907. Protocols, p. 29–31. Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kiev, 1915 (1st ed., Kiev, 1865–1866). "Bibliographic Chronicle", III, 1917, p. 37–49. Rzhiga V.F. Experiments on the history of Russian journalism of the 16th century. Maxim Grek as a publicist. – TODRL, vol. I. L., 1934, p. 5. There, p. 111–120; aka. Unpublished works, p. 99–101. Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage; Kazakova N.A. Essays; Zimin A.A. Russia is on the threshold of a new time. M., 1972; Kovtun L.S. Lexicography in Muscovite Rus' in the 16th – early 17th centuries. L., 1975; Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. The publication was prepared by N.N. Pokrovsky, edited by S.O. Schmidt A.M., 1971. Maxim the Greek is a special topic in foreign historiography. Interest in his personality and work continues unabated. Let us name only a few works that are not included in the bibliography of A.I. Ivanov or those that appeared after the publication of his work: Rozemond K. Aldus Manutius’ Neakademia, Michael Trivolis en de Russische Culturele centra in de zestiende eeuw. – “Het Boek”, t. XXXVII, 1965–1966, phase. 3, p. 163–177; Baracchi M. Ricerche sull'opera di Maksim Grek. - “Acme. Annali della Facoltà di Filosofia et Lettere dell’ Università statale di Milano,” XXI, 2–3. Milano, 1968; idem. La Lingua di Maxim Grek. – In: Istituto Lombardo. Rendiconti. Classe di Lettere et Science morale e storiche, vol. 105. Milano, 1971, p. 253–280; vol. 106. Milano, 1972, p. 243–267; Risaliti R. Massimo il Greco alla luce della più recente storiografia sovietica. – In: Umanesimo e teologia tra ’400 e ’500. Memorie domenicane, 1973, N 4 (della Nuova Serie), p. 392–403; Haney J.V. From Italy to Muscovy. The Life and Works of Maxim the Greek. Munich, 1973. Marx K. and Engels F. Works, vol. 3, p. 47. Marx K. and Engels F. Works, vol. 7, p. 360. Marx K. and Engels F. Works, vol. 21, p. 314. Likhachev D.S. Textology. Based on Russian literature of the 10th–17th centuries. M.–L., 1962, p. 95–96. Sinitsyna N.V. Manuscript tradition of the collected works of Maxim the Greek (Towards posing the question). – TODRL, vol. XXVI. L., 1971, p. 259–263.