Глава 1. Источниковедческие аспекты изучения сочинений Максима Грека

A characteristic feature of the sources for studying the biography and work of Maxim the Greek is their large volume, thematic breadth, and abundance of lists (about 300 manuscripts of the 16th–19th centuries). Works written in different genres, devoted to a wide range of problems, make up three volumes of the Kazan edition, which is far from complete; translations of Maximus, almost never published, would require even more volumes; the investigative file and court lists, which are relatively small in size, have specific source study complexity; The tales of Maxim the Greek and his Life reflect all the features and difficulties of studying the works of the 16th–17th centuries. from the genre of hagiography, as well as biographical ones. When studying the works of Maxim the Greek, the following source study problems arise: origin, classification, dating, genre, attribution, history of the text. The principles of the approach to the problem of origin have already been discussed in the introduction. Attribution is significant in both importance and complexity; Although the main body of works that undoubtedly belong to our author has been identified, there remains a significant number of texts about which it is not yet possible to say whether they are the original works of Maxim the Greek or his translations (in the latter case, what their original is). This applies to texts preserved not only in later copies, but also in one of the earliest, lifetime collections of GBL, Rumyants. 264. Sufficiently clear criteria and principles have not yet been developed for determining the authorship of Maxim the Greek, as well as the role in the creation of certain translations, often found in collections of works by Maxim the Greek along with texts that undoubtedly belong to him. The study of the style and language of his writings and translations, which would be of great importance for attribution and, perhaps, for dating, has essentially only just begun. The dating of many of the writings remains controversial; not only their exact date is unknown, but even the period when they were written - the beginning of their stay in Moscow or the last decades of the author’s life. Given the enormous volume of what Maxim the Greek wrote, there is no chronological list of his works. The history of the text of the works has not been studied - a preliminary task of any research. The first stage of the research was the classification of numerous collections of works by Maxim the Greek from the 16th to 18th centuries. on a textual basis. In the course of this work, the earliest, lifetime collections were identified, and in them were the autographs of Maxim the Greek. B.L. Fonkich, based on the work of previous researchers, substantiated the presence of Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek in the manuscript of the GPB, Sof. 78 (Greek psalter, rewritten by Maxim the Greek in Tver in 1540). By identifying handwriting, I discovered marginal glosses and edits of various contents in four collections of works by this author, as well as in lists of translations, both made by him and those existing in the earlier Slavic tradition. Collections with autographs turned out to be important for solving almost all of the source study problems mentioned above. Therefore, first, the currently known collections, edited by the author himself, will be listed here, the content of the edits will be briefly described and a paleographic justification for the identification of the handwriting will be given - so that further, as the presentation proceeds, we will proceed from the presence of autographs in them as an established fact. This structure of presentation is prompted by both the chronology of autographs and their quantitative distribution in time: the earliest are in the collection of 1524–1525, but their number is insignificant; the manuscript, the handwriting of which serves as the basis for subsequent identifications, dates from 1540; the collections containing the largest amount of material date back to the late 1540s - the first half of the 1550s. The characteristic features of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting as a single graphic system can only be established using the entire set of data, therefore, turning several times to the justification of the identity of the handwriting is inappropriate from a purely paleographic point of view. § 1. Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek are currently known in the following manuscripts. 1. GPB, Sof. 78. Greek psalter, rewritten by Maxim the Greek in Tver in 1540, as reported by the Greek colophon entry on fol. 158 rev. There are also Slavic texts written in two handwritings. One of them was identified by B.L. Fonkichem 23 with Greek letter, i.e. with a letter from Maxim the Greek. He wrote in ink on the sheet. 160 rev. two Greek kontakia to the Mother of God and their Russian translation (Fig. 6; Fig. 1–5 show examples of the same school of writing to which the Russian handwriting of Maxim the Greek belongs); on l. 7 and vol. cinnabar - inscriptions of 27 psalms (Fig. 7, 8), on fol. 1 rev. in ink - Greek homophones and their Russian translations (Fig. 9), as well as some marginal glosses related to the Greek text of the psalms. This letter serves as the basis for subsequent identifications. 2. GBL, f. 304, Troitsk. 315. Slavic psalter of the late 15th century. The hand of Maxim the Greek belongs to numerous marginal glosses, as well as edits made directly in the line (Fig. 21, 22). The nature of the glosses is the same throughout the entire manuscript - lexical substitutions and corrections of grammatical forms; The text of almost every psalm will be subjected to careful analysis. The time when the glosses were made is unknown; but the corrections and clarifications in this manuscript coincide in a number of cases with the Slavic translations of some words and expressions in the margins of the previous manuscript of 1540; in Sof. 78 they were written partly by the hand of Maximus the Greek, but mainly by the hand of another scribe, according to the assumption of B.L. Fonkich - the customer of the manuscript of the Tver sacristan Veniamin, whom Maxim taught Greek 24. This coincidence allows us to presumably date the marginal glosses of Maxim the Greek on the fields of Troitsk. 315 around 1540 Textual coincidences are not limited to the two psalters – Trinity and Sophia. Even Arseny, describing the Trinity manuscript, drew attention to the fact that “notes or corrections of some words and expressions” written in the margins of the psalms “in a different handwriting” are the same as in the psalter translated by Maxim the Greek in 1552 at the request of the Trinity monk Nil Kurlyatev 25; in the process of their joint work, Maxim taught Nil, like Veniamin earlier, the Greek language 26 (lists of the State Historical Museum, Uvar. 85, end of the 16th century; GBL, f. 304, Troitsk 62, 17th century). Marginal corrections in the margins and in the text Troitsk. 315 coincide not only with the corresponding text of the Kurlyate psalter, but also with another monument; this is “The statement of the monk Maxim from the Holy Mountain about the psalms” - a summary of those parts of the psalter that Maxim translated in his own way 27. The analysis of graphics is thus confirmed by a number of textual coincidences. It is interesting to compare the edition of the inscriptions of the psalms, which are given in Maximus’s own hand on fol. 7 and vol. the Sophia psalter, with inscriptions of the same psalms in the Trinity psalter of the late 15th century, reflecting the previous Slavic tradition of translation, as well as in the psalter translated by him together with Nil Kurlyatev. In the Sophia Psalter on fol. 7 and vol. the inscriptions of the 27 psalms are given; the edition of nine of them (5, 15, 21. 29, 45, 46, 47, 55, 57) differs from the Trinity, but coincides with the Kurlyatev one. Highlighting in Soph. 78 this text in cinnabar, Maxim the Greek wanted, apparently, to draw attention to the features of translation in the Slavic manuscript tradition and give his translation. Of the nine cases of different editions, psalms 15, 21, 29, 57 deserve special attention. In the Trinity Psalter, their inscriptions are given in a transformative edition, that is, they speak of persons and events of the New Testament cycle; in the Sofia and Kurlyate psalters this is omitted. However, the work was not carried out by Maxim the Greek quite consistently, since the Trinity Psalter also contains Psalms 35, 36, 38–40, 42–44, but a new translation of their inscriptions in Soph. 78 no. 3. GBL. f. 98, Egor. 920. Conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, translated in 1523/24 by Maxim the Greek and his student Trinity monk Selivan. The second part of the monument is the 46th–90th Conversations. The manuscript is close to the time of translation (the filigree dates back to the 20s of the 16th century); it is possible to localize it and narrow the chronological framework. B.M. Kloss established the presence here of the handwriting of Metropolitan Daniel, who copied several sheets (ll. 203–210 vol.); this suggests that the manuscript was written by metropolitan scribes. Several pages in Egor. 920 (ll. 260 vol., 275, etc.) belong to the hand of Isaac the Dog, who collaborated in the 20s with the metropolitan scribes, as evidenced, in particular, by the helmsman of Metropolitan Daniel GBL, Und. 27, compiled according to B.M. Kloss, in the 20s, 28 (handwriting of Isak Sobaka in Und. 27 on sheets 527, 528, 542 vol., 543 vol. - 545 vol., 546 vol.). Maxim the Greek lived in the Metropolitan Chudov Monastery only until 1525, when he was condemned by Daniel and the council and sent to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery; after 1525 Maxim the Greek hardly ever had access to the metropolitan manuscripts; therefore, the most likely date for both the manuscript itself and the notes in the margins should be considered 1523/24 - early 1525. Consequently, here is the earliest autograph. The number of author's notes in this manuscript is insignificant; they are found only on pp. 37–39 (text of the 50th Conversation), however, the characteristic features of Maximus the Greek’s marginal glosses are already expressed here. They can be divided into three groups: 1) corrections of scribe errors; 2) marks “zri”, drawing the reader’s attention to the content of the fragment; 3) synonymous replacements, clarification of the translation of words and expressions, i.e. the search for Russian correspondences that most adequately convey the concepts of the Greek original. The mark “zry” highlights two texts condemning “estates”, “silver” and “gold”: “this sacrament not only commands theft, but also simple enmity to be pure, for the world is a sacrament, this sacrament does not allow the supply of estates; if he does not spare us for his own sake, for what we are worthy, sparing our possessions and not sparing our souls” (fol. 37 vol.); “She was not a meal of silver then, nor a dish of gold, but she was all honest and formidable, she was filled with spirit” (l. 38). Three glosses refer to individual words and phrases. In the words “holidays are God’s obligation,” the synonym “command” is given to the verb “obligation” in the form of a gloss (fol. 37 vol.); in the phrase “if you want to honor the sacrifice, offer your soul, and for its sake you will be devoured” to the verb “devoured” the explanatory gloss “was crucified” is given (fol. 37 vol.); the words “I would thank you for grace” are paraphrased into “I would thank you” (fol. 38 vol.). 4. GPB, Solov. 286/306. Ladder of John Climacus, 10–20s of the 16th century. Cinnabar titles on pp. 1, 2, 6, 15 were written by Isak Sobaka, the glosses on the book belong to the hand of Maxim the Greek. 19 rev., 20, 68 rev. (the gloss is outlined here with a different ink, which somewhat distorts the contours of the letters), 178 vol., 222 vol. (?). The time to which the glosses refer is unknown. One of them is a change of form: the verb form “wake up” is changed to “will” (l. 20); in another, a different sound version of the word is proposed: the gloss “elen” is given for “aliya” (fol. 178 vol.); in the third, a different word-formation option is chosen: in the words “triverstno and tristolpno” Maxim replaces “triverstno” with “triverstno” (fol. 19 vol.). Finally, the last of them gives a dictionary interpretation of the term “water silver”: “interpretation: idrargir in Greek, there is also mercury in Russian” (fol. 68 v). 5. GBL, f. 173, MDA Fund. 42. Collection of works by Maxim the Greek, late 40s - first half of the 50s of the 16th century. 30 The glosses date back to the same time (Fig. 11–13). Many autographs were correctly seen in the manuscript by E.E. Golubinsky, although he wrote about this in interrogative form (on pages 43 vol., 49 vol., 81 vol., 107, 108, 122 vol., 125, 129, 147 vol., 152 vol., 171, 178, 187 and vol., 208 vol., 346 vol., 367; erroneously only pp. 54 vol., 71, 104, 148) 31 are named. On the contrary, A.I. Ivanov mistakenly considered Maxim’s autograph to be “predominantly cinnabar interpretations of certain words and expressions incomprehensible to the Russian reader” 32 . These interpretations belong to the hand of the scribe. Most of the glosses written by the hand of Maxim the Greek are corrections of scribe errors; Some glosses relate to the content of the essays. The following text is highlighted with the mark “look diligently and correct yourself”: “Let us strive to please Him who made us with all righteousness and Christian living, turning away from all malice, deceit, flattery, untruth, covetousness, theft of other people’s acquisitions and property, lies, slander, envy, demonic pride and all fleshly uncleanness" (l. 367). The two glosses are synonymous substitutions. In the text on l. 27 and about. “But that to this obstinate and disobedient race below, praiseworthy below, is suitable from the speech, which is such a philosophizing”, the gloss “sculptural” is given to the word “suitable”. In the text on l. 107 “In Nazareth Galilee the most blessed virgin Mariam, who was numbered from the root of Jesse and David, was evangelized by the former Gabriel” to the word “numbered” - gloss “geneadiable.” Two glosses are explanatory comments that make the text easier to read and understand. In the text, “the present age is the case, as the divine preacher says, but the future is the crown” to the word “crown” of the gloss “vzdaaniu” (fol. 43 vol.). See also l. 178, text: “Below the people themselves, laws are written in vain and feats are offered, and with this, honors are bright, but for glory and honor are I to those who commit, and to those who transgress, dishonor and sorrow.” Maxim Grek gives an explanation of the pronoun “I”: meaning: that is, laws. 6. GBL, f. 173. III, MDA 138. The collection of works of Maxim the Greek, which coincides (with some exceptions) in composition with the previous one, dates back (like the glosses) to the same time (Fig. 14, 15). This collection contains the largest number of edits and marginal glosses written by the hand of Maxim the Greek; corrections of scribal errors occur on almost every page of the manuscript. Among the semantic substitutions and glosses, the same groups stand out as in the previous collection. Author's remarks and addresses to the reader can be found on l. 129 rev. (Chapter 14 - “Conversation between the Soul and the Mind”), where the gloss “see” marks the text about the origin of astrology “from the most ungodly demons”: “Everyone puts teachings in his thoughts, and the teachers rejoice in them.” On the field l. 143 in “Conversation of the Mind to the Soul” (chapter 15) the content of one passage is briefly described: “On the Lantinian (so! - N.S.) heresy, verb purgatorium.” In the same essay on l. 145 entry, located from top to bottom across the entire right margin (“Take note of diligence, acquisitiveness and covetousness, and correct yourself earlier,” Fig. 14), draws the reader’s attention to the text outlining the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek. For chapters 28 and 33, the author writes more extensive headings in his own hand. L. 188, ch. 28: “The telling of the speech of the Gospel of John, even if they were written one by one” (the scribe’s title is crossed out: “From the Gospel of John”). On l. 202 rev. in ch. 33 to the title of the scribe “The same monk Maxim the Greek’s legend of how to signify with the sign of the cross” is added by the author: “and what is the power and purpose of the sign of the cross.” Particular attention is paid to the glosses of a dictionary nature (on the left is the scribe’s text, on the right are the handwritten glosses of Maxim the Greek): A number of glosses, like the last one above, contain interpretations of symbols: l. 14, text “do not adorn yourself with communicating oil”; glossa “meaning: it is communicative to eat oil or oil of alms even to the poor”; l. 21, text “the cup appeared (!) Thou art all-gold, filled with nectar”; glossa “interpretation: that is, the Holy Spirit”; l. 138 vol., text “so that the confusion of the earth may be washed away from the many filthiness”; glossa “sense: that is, body.” Sometimes the author gives a synonymous replacement: l. 228 vol., text “may they find honey from the spiritual stone”, to the word “existence” the gloss “drinking”. Let us note cases of clarification of what was said by means of verbal substitution: “and you clearly expose to yourself the transgressor who has built up what you have previously destroyed.” The word “reprove” is given the gloss “interpretation: that is, you reveal.” The author explains the paraphrases by substituting the name of a biblical character: l. 129, text “to the scepter of the divine singer”; glossa “meaning: King David”; l. 130, text “say a certain one is inspired by God and a heavenly man”; glossa “meaning: Jacob is the brother of the Lord.” In another case, the less common name of Homer is replaced by the more well-known: “let you not suffer what was spoken to the wise Meonidas who spoke”; gloss “interpretation: Omir” (l. 134) 33. In a number of cases, the author reveals the meaning of pronouns by substituting nouns and proper names. Examples: l. 21 and vol. text “From them may the remission of sins and firmness of faith always give us..., and may the wealth of the divine scriptures flow abundantly into our thoughts.” Maxim Grek reveals the meaning of the pronoun “ov” in the first case with the gloss “tolk: that is, Peter”, in the second - “tolk: that is, Paul”. L. 117, text: “The Hellenes, by these stars, by the sun and the moon, by the east and the west, understand everything to be built within us” has an opening to the pronoun “to everything” - “to the whole of creation.” Close to this replacement for l. 117 rev; text: “It will also appear that God is untruthful... neither creates the government, nor provides for his creatures, if the necessity of everything comes unavoidably”; to the words “everything is clear” the gloss “meaning: that is, the whole creation” (the abstract phrase is replaced by a more concrete one). A number of glosses contain an indication of the general meaning of the word used: ll. 145 rev. – 146, text “flee the abundant evil that manifests itself in the Antichrist, everyone who rejoices in it”: to the word “Antichrist” gloss “that is, opposing the Gospel commandment”; or, on the contrary, an abstract concept receives a more specific disclosure: l. 165, text “to complete the rest of our life in the Gospel, in all humility and wickedness and righteousness and holiness”; to the word “thinness” of the gloss “meaning: that is, not in light clothes and the sweetest breasts.” The content of the glosses is basically the same as in the previous manuscript: explanatory commentary to facilitate reading and understanding of the text, and dictionary notes. However, glosses with such content are not limited to the autographs of Maxim the Greek; there are many more similar glosses made in the handwriting of a scribe and going back to the protographer. To assess the content and sources of Maxim the Greek's glossary for the texts of era works, it is necessary to study the glosses in their entirety, i.e., not only those glosses made by the author himself, but also glosses written by the hand of the scribe, since the latter are also the author's. 7. GBL, f. 37, Bolshak. 285. Collection of works by Maxim the Greek, of the same time (Fig. 16, 17). The contents of the gloss are corrections of scribe errors. 8. GBL, f. 256, Rumyants. 264. Collection of works of Maxim the Greek (between 1551–1555) (Fig. 18–20). The number of glosses is relatively small, mainly correcting scribe errors. The author’s handwriting contains the titles of some of the works: “The legend of the bread is participatory, where and how it began to be received” (l. 11); “The legend about this, as if I were lying, saying that throughout the bright week the sun did not go down” (fol. 85 vol.); “The Legend of Origen” (l. 100); “The teaching is powerful and easy to save (so! – N.S.) in worldly life” (l. 122); “The same Maxim the Greek message is conciliatory to the former Metropolitan of All Rus' Daniel” (l. 127); perhaps the title of this text (placed twice in the manuscript) was written by his own hand on the fol. Volume 18: “To Metropolitan Danil.” 9: Presumably, we can talk about the presence of Maxim’s autographs in another manuscript (a small amount of material prevents more definite conclusions about the identity of the handwriting): GPB, F. I. 460. Explanatory prophets, late 15th century. Perhaps, by the hand of Maxim the Greek, “skaz” was written in the margins of the book. 115, 124. 131 vol., 134, 136 vol., 137, 137 vol., 141, 240, 245 vol., 267 vol.; the word "prophet" in the margin of ll. 115 vol., 137, 137 vol., 240 (cf. the same word on fol. 116 vol., written by another scribe), as well as replacements of words and corrections of grammatical forms (directly in the line) on ll. 277, 278, 285, 285 vol., 286 and some others. In a number of collections of works by Maxim the Greek (for example, GBL, MDA 42, pp. 381–404 vol.), the text of “The Prophecies of Osiev” is placed as an additional part - anthological extracts from prophetic texts and interpretations to them. Their analysis may provide material for judging whether the manuscript F.I. 460 was not the one with which Maxim the Greek directly worked. As part of two more manuscripts, Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek were identified by B.L. Fonkichem 34 . 10. Scientific Library named after. A.M. Gorky Moscow State University, 2 Ci 95. 16 Words of Gregory the Theologian, Life and Chapters of Gregory the Sinaite, late XV - early XVI centuries. 35 The number of autographs is insignificant; they are found only in the margins of the book. 6, 15 revs, 16, 21 revs, 33, 35 revs, 36 revs, 37 and revs, 48 ​​revs, 49, 54, 55 revs, 75, 84 revs. (?) and represent translation corrections of individual words, synonymous replacements, insertions of words missed by the translator or scribe. 11. GPB, Kir.-Bel. 120/125. The Greek Apostle, rewritten by Maximus the Greek in his own hand, 1540s. The prayer to Christ written on the inside of the lower cover of the binding is the Russian autograph of Maxim the Greek (Fig. 10). Thus, the autographs of Maxim the Greek relate both to the content of his works and translations, and to their literary form, and are one of the components of the philological practice of Moscow Rus' in the 16th century. The establishment of Russian autographs of Maxim the Greek put forward new tasks related to the study of Russian handwritten books in general and beyond the immediate topic of research. The process of visual-empirical identification and proof of its truth are two close, but not coinciding tasks. It became obvious that it is impossible to prove that the marginal glosses belonged to the hand of Maxim the Greek, if we proceed only from the material of his autographs. To prove the identity of the handwriting in Sof. 78 and other manuscripts, it was necessary to find out some general features of the writing of a given time, that is, to study the handwriting of other scribes in order to determine the common features that unite the handwriting of Maximus the Greek with the writing of his era and the circle of scribes related to him, as well as that individual thing in his handwriting that distinguishes this handwriting from others and creates the possibility of identification. The study of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting took place in parallel with the study of Russian handwritten books of the late 15th – first half of the 16th centuries. The result of this work is the conviction that the identification will be the more reliable and correct the more handwriting of the era under study the researcher knows; coverage of basic book knowledge is practically necessary. The main condition for the truth of the identification is extensive practice in working with manuscripts precisely from the point of view of handwriting analysis, i.e., the ability to “recognize” the handwriting under study among numerous similar and dissimilar ones. HELL. Lyublinskaya, characterizing the scientific appearance of O.A. Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya, noted the qualities necessary for a paleographer: vigilance of the eye and graphic memory. “The first ability (independent of the quality of vision as such) allows you to notice all, even the smallest, details that usually elude people who are not endowed with this kind of ability; the second is the ability to store a huge number of graphic forms in memory and establish connections between them” 36. The need for these qualities, needed when solving any paleographic problem, increases significantly during handwriting analysis. Identification is largely a visual process, the result of visual perception; the proof of the conclusions drawn lies in giving verbal expression to the visually perceived definiteness of handwriting; the difference between these two processes appears as the difference between “see” and “tell” (“justify”); visual characteristics turn into verbal ones. P. Canard, whose research allowed him to identify 155 autographs of the Greek Renaissance scribe Emmanuel Provataris (initially, only two codices were known containing his name in the copyist’s record), wrote: “Long-term intimacy (familiarité) with the handwriting of Provataris allows identification almost instantly, but this experience is difficult to convey” 37. But these difficulties are subjective. Another kind of difficulty is due to the peculiarities of the writing of the time being studied. If the writing of the post-Gutenberg period increasingly became a means of private communication and was intended for one-time reading, then the writing of medieval handwritten books was intended to preserve the text, convey the achievements and knowledge of one era to another, it had to be “durable” and thorough, subject to certain aesthetic norms, being an element of the artistic appearance and design of a handwritten book. After the invention of printing, calligraphic writing coexisted with the printed book, 38 but its purpose was already different than in the Middle Ages - it was not book writing, or rather, the writing of the main body of book production of the era. Differing from modern writing in purpose, it was also different in structure. The pictorial factor in the writing of medieval manuscript books played a significant role; on the other hand, it was more subject to calligraphic standards; These factors (and a number of others) influence the degree of identifiability of handwriting and the methods of identification in different directions. The problem of individual handwriting, especially recently, has become an increasingly urgent task for Russian, Latin and Greek paleography. In Russian paleography, handwriting identifications are made using the material of all three existing types of writing - ustav 39, semi-ustav 40 and cursive 41, but the theoretical side of the problem is only beginning to be developed. Latin paleography associates the emergence of individual handwriting with both book and cursive writing. L.I. Kiseleva, exploring the Gothic italics of the 13th–15th centuries, considers one of its varieties as the basis for individual handwriting. The term “italic” refers to “more or less fluent writing in a very broad sense,” the writing of official documents, personal documents, letters and records that are not intended to be read repeatedly. Among italics, the author distinguishes “clerical italics”, which is sometimes called “business writing” (it is divided into calligraphic, fluent and regularized), as well as “regular italic writing”, “writing without style”, i.e. the writing of the majority of literate people who have not been trained in calligraphic types of writing; It was ordinary writing, not being limited by clerical norms and calligraphic standards, that played a leading role in the emergence of individual handwriting. Study of Russian handwritten books of the late 15th – first half of the 16th centuries. shows a high degree of individuality of handwriting within the framework of the semi-standard type of writing, that is, the individuality of handwriting is manifested not in writing “without any style,” but in different styles of book writing. At the same time, L.I. Kiseleva notes that “ordinary writing is not the only basis for individual handwriting; clerical types of writing are also involved to a sufficient extent in this” 42 . Other researchers (for example, L. Gilissen) talk about individual handwriting in book writing 43 . To establish the features and patterns of writing at the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. The book semi-statutory letter was studied, since the handwriting of Maxim the Greek belongs precisely to this type of letter. As for clerical, cursive writing, as well as the older type of writing - charter, here, apparently, the identification of individual handwritings, their identification and differentiation have their own specifics, both in practical and theoretical terms. The observations stated below relate only to the semi-statutory type of writing. Preliminary results of the work on handwriting identification were published in special articles 44. During the study of the array of handwritten books from the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, deposited in the main funds of manuscript repositories (mainly Moscow and Leningrad), in particular, numerous manuscripts of two scribes who collaborated with Maxim the Greek in the grandfather of correcting books, copied his translations and were put on trial with him in 1531 were identified. These are Mikhail Medovartsev and Isak Dog. Previously, only five manuscripts containing their names were known. By identifying handwritings (and partly on the basis of records), 16 manuscripts by Mikhail Medovartsev, as well as more than 20 manuscripts by Isak Sobaka, were added to the previous manuscripts. Presumably we can talk about the autographs of Selivan, a student and collaborator of Maxim the Greek (see Chapter II, § 1). The manuscripts of Gury Tushin are of significant methodological interest. The study of these manuscripts turned out to be useful for research purposes in various ways. Firstly, previously unknown facts of the biographies of persons associated with Maxim the Greek were established, new materials appeared for judgments about the atmosphere and environment that surrounded him in the initial period of his life in Moscow, about the importance that was attached to his activities at that time. Secondly, during the search, the earliest lists of translations of Maxim the Greek, made before 1525, were identified. Some of them turned out to be close to the time of translation; the definition of book-writing workshops made it possible to associate manuscripts with a specific environment and even specific individuals, and to judge in what circles the translations were ordered and read. Thirdly, some methodological techniques for identifying handwritings were developed, and the tasks of studying individual handwritings of Russian handwritten medieval books were formulated, and the main difficulties that arise in this case were identified. One of the most significant tasks is to establish the number and nature of elements necessary and sufficient to justify the truth of each specific identification. Do the most pronounced identifying features always have the same letters and graphic forms, or do they vary depending on the personality of the writer, the era to which he belongs, and the type of writing? In other words, which graphic forms should be analyzed in the first place in the process of identification and its proof, the identity of which forms is the most conclusive, is the choice of these forms determined solely by the individuality of the writer or can some patterns be identified here? When analyzing Medovartsev’s handwriting, in particular, a group of related and interdependent letters “ѣ”, “b”, “ъ”, “ь”, “ы” was analyzed. The same methodological technique, as further presentation will show, was used in the analysis of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting. Although the composition of the group of related letters has changed somewhat (“ѣ”, “ъ”, “b”, “в”), the very principle of comparing not only individual letters and letter combinations, but also identifying groups of letters in the handwritings under study that have common graphic features, apparently can be used in the practice of working with other handwritings. The second task is to study writing schools. Familiarity with manuscripts of the same period shows that the handwriting of some scribes has similarities, “similarities,” which does not exclude the possibility of identification. This “similarity” is determined by belonging not only to the same era, but also to the same book-writing and graphic center, the influence of training, a teacher, the original, etc. The study of manuscripts that contain the handwriting of major scribes - Medovartsev, Tushin, etc., makes it possible to detect in them the handwriting of anonymous scribes, very similar to the handwriting of the main scribe, but not coinciding with him, i.e., Apparently, the handwriting of the students imitates the handwriting of the teacher. This feature creates the possibility of developing another methodological technique - using one or more “control” handwritings that are as close as possible to the one under study, but not identical. Not only handwritings from the same manuscript as the one being studied can be used as “controls,” but also from other manuscripts of the same time, the same book-writing center or circle of scribes. If the content of the second task comes down to identifying the features of difference in the similar, then the next, third task, on the contrary, consists of identifying the features of the common in the dissimilar. This task is to study the variability of the scribe's handwriting. Analysis of manuscripts belonging to the same scribe reveals his ability to write in different styles, so that sometimes a sharp difference in the appearance of the writing of manuscripts where the name of the same scribe is mentioned in the entry casts doubt on the authenticity of the entries. Only a special study of the patterns of different writing styles in different manuscripts, undoubtedly written by the same scribe, makes it possible in other cases not to subject the record to exaggerated doubt. I had to encounter this phenomenon when working with the manuscripts of both Mikhail Medovartsev and Isak Sobaka. In the Minea GBL, Troitsk. 466, which was the basis for subsequent identifications of Medovartsev’s handwriting, a record of the book belonging to his hand is on l. 354 rev. Indeed, ll. 10–354 (the main part of the Menaion) are written in one hand, but the writing on several sheets is more strict, semi-regular, different from the more free, “decorated” writing of the remaining sheets (folio 100 in its entirety, several lines on folios 97 vol., 98, 99 vol., on folio 10 there is a heading under the headpiece and the beginning of the text). On the last sheets, including the sheet with the record (folios 352 vol. – 354 vol.), the decorative element is significantly strengthened. Among the additional texts placed after the recording, there is also a handwriting that is close to the handwriting of the main part, but is distinguished by faster writing speed, a more “businesslike” character, more neat, less “ornate”. The question arose whether other handwritings were interjected into the handwriting of the main scribe, or whether there were different writing styles of one scribe. The analysis showed the latter. Even more striking are the differences in writing styles in the handwriting of Isak Sobaka (GBL, Troitsk. 100; MDA Fund. 6), and there could be an assumption that the entry on one of these manuscripts is erroneous. But such a solution seemed the most hopeless; Here, undoubtedly, lies an interesting paleographic problem. It was necessary to study other manuscripts whose records named the same scribe. Extremely valuable material in this regard is provided by the manuscripts of Gury Tushin, the analysis of which showed his use of two styles (manners) of writing. One of these types of writing can be defined as the usual, familiar writing of Guria, executed in the rhythm most characteristic of him, and the other - as a stylization of a more strict and solemn angular semi-charter, when the pace of writing slows down. However, there is no impassable line between the two scripts, and interpenetrating elements serve as a reliable criterion for identification. A study of different manuscripts shows that the ability to write in different styles is fixed in the mind of the scribe, his aesthetic tastes and the motor skills of his hand. A similar feature is noted in Latin paleography. Posters of medieval masters - teachers of writing in France and Germany of the 14th-15th centuries have been preserved, where they report that they can teach various types of writing, and sometimes the names of various fonts are indicated and examples of some of them are given 45. Dutch paleographer M.G.I. Liftink, characterizing the so-called Gothic writing of the 13th–15th centuries, noted its inherent “hierarchy of styles,” which he understood as the division of writing (book and clerical) depending on the care of execution into calligraphic, fluent and, between them, “ordinary, but careful, typical writing of the era.” The French paleographer J. Huy wrote about styles within one handwriting, developing the criterion of polymorphism for the study of writing, which means “the use of new letter forms depending on the desire of the scribe in order to change the style of writing” 46 . When studying the writing styles of one scribe, one should take into account both factors that shape the style: both the predominant shapes of the letters and the degree of care of the letter. An important task seems to be, along with identifying style-forming features, to study the factors that determine the choice of a particular style (the intended purpose of the manuscript, the nature of the reproduced text, the customer’s requirements, the degree of arbitrariness of the scribe). Humanistic writing is also characterized by stylistic diversity in the handwriting of one person. Thus, when publishing the autographs of Italian humanists, an attempt was made to show the different types of writing chosen by scientists (often by the same person) to write books, notes, letters and documents 47 . When studying the different writing styles of one scribe in the half-rut of the late 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, as well as when analyzing the handwriting of Maxim the Greek, the observations of M.N. Speransky, who wrote that “against the background of the usual, angular in structure of the Russian semi-ustav of the second half of the 15th and first 16th centuries, in some of the manuscripts, attention is drawn to the sporadically (sometimes less often, sometimes more often) encountered, unusual for this well-established style of writing, the outline of individual letters, standing out with their roundness of features among the angular others and reminiscent in general in structure of the Greek minuscule letter." Considering that the “desire to round out outlines” is a phenomenon “normally alien to the half-rut, including the Yugoslavian one,” M.N. Speransky associated the appearance of these forms not only with the Yugoslav influence, but also with the direct influence of “authentic Greek writing”, “Greek graphics” 48. M.N. Speransky used the term “inscriptions”; but, taking into account the terminology of recent special studies, we can talk about “graphic variants” of letters. So, R.V. Bakhturina proposed introducing the concept of “graphic variant” to classify styles. “We would propose to consider different styles of the same letter, written in an equal number of techniques with common distinctive elements of the letter and their identical proportional dependence, as the same graphic variant. A change in the writing method and, as a consequence, a modification of the style, leading to the loss of some element of the letter or to a different ratio of elements due to their location and size, gives a new graphic version” 49. Similar terminology is used by I.S. Filippov, using the concept of “style” to designate the entire multiplicity of different types of each letter within the manuscript being studied, and with the second term uniting groups of similar styles based on “stable, constantly repeating features.” “Graphic options are determined depending on the design, the number of writing techniques, the ratio of elements and the size of the style” 50. In Latin paleography, the listed characteristics (with the exception of the last) are united by the concept of “duct”. From the point of view of this classification, in the article by M.N. Speransky we are talking specifically about graphic variants, since along with the rounded styles he highlighted in these manuscripts, there are also traditionally angular styles of the same letters, so we can talk about two graphic variants. In the first half of the 16th century. rounded variants are not sporadically occurring elements, but are an integral feature of one of the types of the half-shape proper. The phenomenon that the researcher drew attention to is not of a random nature, caused by the scribe’s arbitrary preference for certain styles; it is very significant and can be identified as a classification feature to distinguish two types within a semi-ustav letter - angular semi-ustav and semi-ustav with the presence or predominance of rounded variants of letters, although rounded variants are not necessarily derived, contrary to M.N. Speransky, from the Greek minuscule. This feature is most clearly manifested in the letters “b”, “v”, “b”, “e” (to a lesser extent “a”, “b”, “y”, “r”, “d”), since they are based on closed geometric shapes on a plane - either an oval and a circle, or a triangle and a rectangle (the components of other letters are open lines - straight or broken). If we accept this position, then the degree and nature of the deviation of the letter form from its ideal graphic prototype (rectangle, triangle, circle, oval) will determine its individual appearance 51 . As for open forms (lines), an important factor here is the shape of the break (for example, the curvature of arcs), the angle at which the lines converge with each other and are inclined to the line. For the first half of the 16th century. The semi-shape with predominant angular forms is characteristic, and the second type - with a predominance (or even simply the presence) of rounded options - is represented by a smaller number of manuscripts. I.S. Filippova wrote that the variation in letter styles in semi-statutory writing can be traced, in contrast to cursive writing, “according to the graphics of individual scribes, and is rarely found within the same handwriting” 52 . However, the analysis showed that Mikhail Medovartsev, Gury Tushin, Selivan (presumably), Maxim Grek are scribes in whose handwriting more or less letters are represented by different graphic options. The same can be said about the handwriting of manuscripts from the mid-16th century. with the works of Maxim the Greek (Fig. 11, 12, 14, 16, 18). Variants of writing by the same scribe turn out to be associated with the presence of two types of semi-statutory writing. Thus, in the second type of writing by Mikhail Medovartsev, angular variants of letters clearly predominate, and in the other three they coexist with rounded ones, the number of which is increasing. The varieties of writing by Guri Tushin also differ from each other. Two manuscripts containing the name of the scribe, Isak Sobaki, are written: one is written in a traditional semi-formal manner (angular forms), and the other is dominated by rounded graphic options. This scribe is the most consistent in the style of writing he chooses. When identifying different types of writing from one scribe, it is necessary to compare, on the one hand, the predominant round forms of one type with sporadically occurring similar forms in another, as well as the predominant angular forms of one type with similar sporadically presented options in another. An important point is the quantitative characteristics of this phenomenon. Differences between graphic forms are accompanied by differences in writing speed. When drawing a square, rectangle, triangle, the writing instrument comes off the paper more times, the writing process is slowed down; rounded shapes lead to its acceleration. Another important factor that determines the speed of writing is the degree of care. However, these two factors - the predominance of round or angular shapes and the degree of care - do not affect the appearance of the letter in the same direction. A half-shape with a predominance of angular forms is a slower style of writing due to its graphic nature, but it can be careless and "fluent"; semi-ustav with rounded cursive elements can be extremely careful, decorative and therefore slow writing. In the book writing of the time under study, the use of a large number of rounded graphic forms is associated with the desire for both faster writing 53 and more “beautiful” writing, often using the so-called “Greek” element, but there is no direct relationship between roundness and acceleration. Differences in the appearance of different samples of writing from the same scribe are mainly due to two factors: 1) the degree of care, calligraphy, speed of movements when writing and their nature (slow, solemn, harmonious or, conversely, sharp, accelerated, abrupt); 2) the predominant shape of the letters, deliberately chosen by the scribe (rectangular, angular, rounded shapes). Identifying the handwriting of one scribe belonging to different writing styles seems to be a more difficult task than identifying the writing of one style, but it is fundamentally possible. When analyzing the handwriting of Maxim the Greek, there is an additional difficulty specific to this particular case: a relatively small amount of material for comparison, an almost complete absence of continuous, coherent text. Autographs of Maxim the Greek are represented only by editing the scribe's text and brief author's notes, comments in the margins, and the writing of marginal glosses, as is known, has its own specifics; differences in its appearance in different manuscripts may be due, among other factors, to sharp variations in the degree of care, the space on which the letter is to be inscribed, the size of the margin, even the influence of the appearance of the writing of the main text. It is important to consider the purpose of the gloss; in “ceremonial” collections of essays, it is as thorough as the text, and, like it, is intended for repeated reading; The glosses of the Trinity Psalter are the notes of a scientist making corrections to a previously existing translation; they are more careless, made in the process of work, at a more accelerated pace. This feature of autographs prevents the comparison of handwriting in different manuscripts based on such important features as the location of the text on the page, the relationship between the height of the letter and the distance between the lines, the slope, the acceleration of the handwriting, the degree of neatness or sparseness of the writing, etc. These factors can only be taken into account in relation to the autographs in Sof. 78. Statistical calculations, which are important when studying graphic variants of letters and different writing styles, are also difficult. Any calculation requires the identification of comparable units of text in different manuscripts (page, sheet, notebook, several notebooks), but in this case this is impossible, since the distribution of glosses in each manuscript is very uneven, and the number of glosses in different manuscripts varies sharply. The handwriting of Maxim the Greek belongs to the book semi-charter, and in the letter of the manuscript of Soph. 78, which is based on subsequent identifications, both of its types are presented: on l. 160 rev. (Fig. 6) rounded variants of letters predominate, and on l. 7 and vol. (Fig. 7, 8) the number of angular shapes increases. One of these varieties is associated with the influence of the Greek minuscule, and the other - with the traditional angular forms of the Russian semi-ustav. The graphic school of both varieties is the one whose samples are presented in Fig. 1–4 54 (manuscripts from the 20s of the 16th century), fig. 5 (late 40s - first half of the 50s of the 16th century). Its characteristic features are: 1) imitation of the Greek minuscule, carried out, however, with varying degrees of consistency not only in different manuscripts, but often throughout the same manuscript; 2) thoroughness of writing; 3) highly developed handwriting, professionalism. Maxim Grek, however, is very moderate in his use of specifically “Greek” minuscule forms, despite the fact that on the fol. 160 vol., where it is placed, as defined by B.L. Fonkich, “a harmonious composition of Greek kontakia and their Russian translations” 55, the scribe consciously strives to bring the appearance of Russian writing closer to the appearance of Greek. He succeeds. But stylization is carried out not so much by the use of special graphic styles, but by the general proportions and rhythm of writing. If we compare the manuscripts of other Russian scribes of this time imitating the Greek minuscule, it turns out that here the imitation is carried out, firstly, by introducing into the letter additional, as if “extra” elements, giving it a decorative appearance, secondly, by using the so-called “Greek” styles of some letters (d, p, m, n), thirdly, with the help of various ligatures (see, for example, Fig. 5). Maxim the Greek does not use any of these techniques, and does not abuse specifically “Greek” graphic forms. His imitation is organic, it manifests itself in the form of the basic elements that make up the letter, in the construction of its body, in the arrangement of the letters relative to each other in the line. The impression of similarity between Greek and Russian writing is also created by its general proportions: the size of letters and lines, the distance between lines, the proportions of the letters themselves. Here, therefore, is a calligraphic version of the letter of Maxim the Greek. The identity of the Greek and Russian letters is especially obvious and obvious, so that at first glance one gets the impression of a single letter made on the basis of a common alphabet 56 . This could only be done by a scribe who mastered the art of careful calligraphic writing not only in Greek, but also in Russian, although, it must be assumed that in Russia he did not have such rich practice in copying large Slavic manuscripts as was the case in Italy with regard to Greek manuscripts. In the writing of Russian translations of kontakions to the Mother of God, the influence of the skill of Maximus the Greek as a professional Greek scribe who copied at the end of the 15th century was manifested. manuscripts for Italian humanists. His writing has a high degree of individuality, is characterized by high elaboration and professionalism; the appearance of the letter as a whole and individual graphic elements differ significantly from the writing of manuscripts belonging to the same graphic tradition. On l. 7 and vol. in Sof. 78, where the cinnabar inscriptions of some psalms belong to the hand of Maxim the Greek (Fig. 7, 8), a different version of the letter is presented than on fol. 160 vol., so that the “illusion of dissimilarity” is created, which B.L. wrote about. Fonkich. It is created not only by what l. 7 and vol. written with a thicker pen and cinnabar and that here is not a continuous text, but “separate lines giving a translation of the inscriptions of only some psalms”; One can also name a purely graphic reason: the number of angular letterforms in the letter increases and the degree of thoroughness of the letter and its decorativeness decreases. Thus, in the letter of Kontakion, the letter “v” is used 13 times in an angular version and 9 times in a rounded version, i.e., angular styles make up 59% of all styles of this letter; in the writing of the inscriptions of the psalms on fol. 7 and vol. We find 61 styles in the angular version and only 12 in the rounded version, i.e. angular styles make up 83%. The letter “ѣ” in the letter of kontakion is used only in a rounded form; in the writing of the psalms, rounded shapes quantitatively predominate (22 and 9), but the very fact of the appearance of angular variants of this letter, along with an increase in the number of angular shapes of the letter “v”, indicates a change in the style of writing. The angular variants of these letters have particularly characteristic identification features that leave no doubt that the letter in both cases belongs to the same hand. Even more expressive is the relationship between the two variants of the letter “a”: traditionally semi-shaped with an elongated loop and a straight back and decorative with a more rounded loop and a curved tail lowered below the line line. In kontakia, all letters are approximately equally distributed between the two options; the number of letters with a long tail is even slightly larger (15 and 17); in the psalms, the letters have forms identical to similar variants in the kontakia, which indicates one handwriting, but the quantitative ratio changes sharply: 60 “semi-formal” and 12 “decorative” (the terms are conditional), i.e. the latter make up only about 17% of all letters; This already indicates a different style of writing. The letters “b”, “ъ”, “ь” are presented both in kontakia and in the inscriptions of psalms only in rounded versions. General proportions and rhythm of writing on l. 7 and vol. different from L. 160 volume: the letters are sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, the line is not even enough, the distances between the lines are not always the same, the degree of neatness and sparseness of the letter also changes; there is no calligraphic writing, the proportionality of the letter, characteristic of kontakia, disappears. In other words, this is less careful writing. If the letter of kontakion is on l. 160 rev. - an element of the artistic structure of the manuscript, then cinnabar on the sheet. 7 and vol. used in order to probably draw attention to the content of this text; the nature of the letter is not given the same importance here as on l. 160 rpm, it is more careless. However, in the handwriting of Maxim the Greek the boundary between the two types of writing is not as sharp as in other scribes. In the autographs of Maxim the Greek in the collections of his works, the type of writing is generally the same as in the inscriptions of the psalms, but its belonging to the angular half-shaft is expressed even more clearly - the angular variant “ѣ” is joined by the angular variants “ъ” and “b”, and the rounded variant “b” disappears. The preferred use of rounded forms, characteristic of kontakia, is not noted in any manuscript. Within the same manuscript there is both more careful and more careless writing. In the marginal glosses of the Trinity psalter, the scribe gives preference to angular forms; the rounded outlines of some letters, for example “ѣ”, are extremely rare, meanwhile, both in the psalms and in the collections of essays, rounded versions of this letter predominate; the change in style here was not associated with the predominance, but only with the presence of its angular version (along with other features). The fact of a sharp predominance of angular forms in the autographs of the Trinity psalter can be explained by the influence of the appearance of the writing of the main text - the traditional angular half-shaft (in more detail later, when analyzing individual letters). Another feature of the autographs of this manuscript is their careless, hasty nature. Marginalia do not decorate the sheet; they are business notes made during the analysis of the translation, in the process of learning the language. This example, by the way, shows that writing speed is not necessarily related to the rounding of styles. When analyzing handwriting, it is necessary to compare, not by chance, striking similarities and differences, but to consider handwriting as a single graphic system, the individual parts of which are dependent on each other, so that the use of one graphic form inevitably entails the use of another and, conversely, the absence of one is associated with the absence of the other. But at the same time, the correct choice of the foundations on which this system is built is necessary. When analyzing Medovartsev’s handwriting, the letters “е”, “b”, “ъ”, “ь”, “ы” were chosen first. The choice is due to the fact that these letters, available only in the Cyrillic alphabet and absent in the Greek alphabet, in combination with the letter “b” represent variations of the same graphic form 57: Therefore, they must contain (and indeed exhibit) related features. In the handwriting of Maxim Grek, this group of letters is also joined by “v”, and the leading role goes to “v”, “ѣ”, “b”, in contrast to “ѣ” and “ъ” in Mikhail Medovartsev. The choice of these particular letters for Maxim Grek is even more justified than for Medovartsev; Maxim, being a Greek professional scribe, studied the Russian language and writing during his life in Russia and did not have extensive practice in copying large Russian manuscripts; individual characteristics are manifested primarily in graphic forms that are new to him, where a solid skill of habitual, uniform outline has still been developed, which is especially characteristic of angular, traditionally semi-formal forms, which are not characteristic of the Greek minuscule. The marked B.L. manifested itself in them. Fonkich “unusuality of writing individual Russian letters” 58. As for rounded forms, they are, on the contrary, distinguished by comparative uniformity and refinement of outline. Another group of letters that have a common identification feature: “o”, “yu”, “b”, “s”; rounded versions of “ѣ”, “ъ”, “в”, some varieties of “a”; the community here is expressed in the form of a circle, slightly elongated upward and often open. Letters of complex design, available only in the Cyrillic alphabet (“zh”, “d”, not going back to the Greek “δ”), are also distinguished by great variety, character and expressiveness of styles. Then other letters of the alphabet will be considered, characterized by comparative stability, uniformity of style, forms of extended letters, matching forms of groups of letters, as well as ligatures. A characteristic feature of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting is the presence in some words of contact between the extreme points of neighboring letters, although in general this handwriting, like any semi-written handwriting, is distinguished by the absence of continuous writing. In Medovartsev’s handwriting, four variants of the letters “ѣ”, “b”, “ъ”, “ь”, “ы” were identified, which were determined on the basis of two characteristics: 1) the shape of the lower part (angular or rounded); 2) the height of the mast and the location of the crossbar (high mast, the crossbar is located above the line line; low mast, the crossbar is located at the level of the top line line) 59. In the handwriting of Maxim the Greek, the constituent elements of the related group (i.e., the letters included in its composition) have changed somewhat; therefore, the grounds for identifying variants have also changed: the height of the mast or the left vertical of the letters “b”, “c” does not have a decisive meaning, all letters within one manuscript are approximately the same size, therefore the main feature for identifying a variant remains the shape of the lower part, angular or round. Consequently, each of the above letters has two variants - an angular half-shaped and a rounded minuscule (however, the letters “ѣ” and “ъ” have a third variant - with a low mast and a crossbar located at the level of the top line of the line, but the number of these letters in each manuscript is insignificant). The variations within each variant are determined by the shape of other elements of the letter: the left vertical-mast, the upper horizontal-crossbar; bottom horizontal line (bottom stroke). However, these terms are conditional, since individual letters have such a characteristic individual appearance that generally accepted designations do not apply to their elements. When analyzing the handwriting, enlarged photographic prints of the autographs were made 60; for all the manuscripts involved, approximately a five-fold increase was achieved, for the Trinity Psalter – a four-fold increase. Then tables of letters were compiled. All the specific styles of each letter could not fit on the tables; the most typical ones were chosen, so that all the individual features that characterize this or that element of the letter are reflected. The horizontal rows of tables contain samples of letters from one manuscript; letters are placed on one vertical that match one or more of the elements from which they are constructed (in some cases the design of the letter as a whole is identical). However, there is no complete coincidence of letters located within the same vertical, firstly, because one element of a letter (for example, the shape of a loop) may coincide with a similar element of a letter located above or below, and another element (for example, the bend of a mast, the shape of a crossbar) may coincide with a similar element of another copy of the same letter in another manuscript; secondly, there is no complete coincidence in the designs of different samples of the same letter, even within the same manuscript (sometimes within the same gloss or one line), so it is impossible to expect complete similarity of all the elements that make up each letter in different manuscripts. Before proceeding to the analysis of individual letters, two preliminary remarks must be made. The tables present samples of letters not from all manuscripts, but only from the following: Soph. 78, l. 160 rev. – kontakia (symbol – K). Soph. 78, l. 7 and vol. – psalms (symbol – P). MDA 42 – Joasaph’s collection (symbol – I). MDA 138 – Academic collection (symbol – A). Troitsk 315 – Trinity Psalter (symbol – T). Regarding the Sophia manuscript, the selection criterion is obvious: it is the basis for subsequent identifications. The Joasaph and Academic collections, as well as the Trinity Psalter, contain the largest number of glosses, that is, material for comparison, and it is these manuscripts that make it possible to identify the characteristic features of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting; there are fewer autographs in the Bolshakovsky and Rumyantsevsky collections; but after the main features of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting are highlighted, they are easily found in other manuscripts, on photocopies without enlargement, in natural size. Next. For greater rigor of proof, it is necessary to involve several or one “control” handwriting in order to show the individuality of identification features and the absence of identical marks (more precisely, their combination) in the handwriting of a given era; Naturally, the control handwriting acquires the greatest value when it is as close as possible to the subject, similar to him, but lacks features characteristic of the subject’s handwriting. It must be handwriting from the same time, the same writing center or the same graphic tradition (school of writing).' When studying the handwriting of Maxim Grek, the handwriting of Selivan (presumably), the handwriting of the scribe MDA 138, imitating minuscule writing, can be used as “control”; these are typologically similar handwritings. You can also use the handwriting of the scribes of the collections containing the autographs of Maxim the Greek, since these handwritings date back to the same time as the autographs and could influence the nature of the writing of the author’s marginalia (imitation could be both conscious and unconscious). But samples of letter styles in these handwritings are not included in the handwriting tables of Maxim the Greek for two reasons: firstly, this would make the tables too cumbersome; secondly (and this is the main thing), this is not particularly necessary, since in the handwriting of other scribes each letter within one graphic variant does not have such a wide variety of varieties as in the handwriting of Maxim the Greek, and the usual style characteristic of the “control” scribe can be easily established on the proposed samples of his handwriting, without isolating the letters from the whole and without giving an enlarged reproduction of it. Let’s move on to the analysis of the group of letters that has the most expressive identification features: “v”, “e”, “b”, “b”. Letter "v". It is presented in two graphic variants - angular, traditionally semi-shaped (Table 1) and rounded minuscule (Table 8) 61. In the angular variant, the identification feature is primarily the very multiplicity of specific styles, individual letter samples within a given variant. If we turn for comparison to the handwriting of, for example, the scribe of manuscript MDA 138 (Fig. 14), then we find two angular graphic variants - a simpler one in the form of a rectangle with a straight or slightly curved right side (3rd line of the book) and a more complex one, when the right side is written in two steps, acquiring a more or less broken shape (1st, 2nd line of the book). Specific letters within each variant sometimes have some deviations (a greater or lesser degree of break on the right side), but they are very insignificant. In Selivan's handwriting (Fig. 3) only a simpler angular version is presented, characterized by uniformity of style, but it is extremely rare (6th line of St., right column). Maxim Grek chose the second, more complex option, but did not develop a stable, stereotypical spelling, and each time he had to “draw” the letter for the first time or anew, and sometimes he got rather ugly samples that did not look like the letter “v” at all (Table 1, P 15, I 10, 13, A 3, 10, 11, T 4, 10, 16). Such a variety of styles is not found in any of the handwritings of the time being studied. In the top horizontal row on the table. 1 shows all the specific outlines of the angular version of “v” in the kontakia (Zeph. 78, fol. 160 vol.) 62, but none of the letters would coincide with the other if they were superimposed one on top of the other. All the letters in this series were undoubtedly written by one hand (they were taken from the same sheet of manuscript, Fig. 6); however, if it were necessary to prove that they belonged to the same hand, this would prove to be a difficult task. The same can be said for each of the four subsequent horizontal rows. The greater identification value is the coincidence of individual elements or the pattern as a whole of letters located on the same vertical (or adjacent ones), i.e., repeated repetition of related features in different manuscripts. The first vertical Columns contain letters with straight or only slightly curved backs. The curved back (Κι) is very rare in the handwriting; in the inscriptions of the psalms there is only one example (Πι), partly this feature is repeated in A 1. In sample K 2, when connecting the vertical with the lower horizontal stroke, a small loop is formed, which has an analogy in I 2 and partly in I 3 and T 2 63, cf. T 19. Sample I 1 coincides with T 1 in the form of the upper loop not closed on the left (cf. also P 6, 10 -I 6 -T 4, 5, 15, 19), and I 4 with T 3 - in the lower part not closed on the right. Further in the vertical columns there are styles that have two related features, repeated in other letters of the group “b”, “c”, “ѣ”, “ъ” (in the angular versions of these letters): 1) the back-mast is concave, generally curved differently; 2) the lower part of the letter expands almost symmetrically, forming the shape of a truncated pyramid or triangle. Sometimes the illusion of curvature of the mast is created by the fact that the lower horizontal line on the left extends beyond the space (field) of the letter, as if pulling the mast to the left, while the mast itself is straight (К 3 –П 5 –И 5 –T 5, 7). In P 5 and T 7, not only the lower, but also the upper horizontal on the left protrudes beyond the mast. In most cases, the back line itself is curved differently, which in the lower part deviates to the left, and only then the pen turns in the opposite direction, forming a lower horizontal stroke emphasizing the letter (K 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 –P 7–11, 13, 14, 16 –I 7, 8, 11 –A 4, 5, 10(?) –T 8,9,12, 13, 14, 16). This lettering is especially clearly visible in the Kir-Bel manuscript. 120/125 (Fig. 10, 3rd line of St., the word “human”), where the left and right parts of the letter seem to be moved away from one another. Letters with such a duct have two more distinctive features: 1) in a number of samples, the internal space of the letter, not filled with ink, has the same shape, similar to a kind of “hatchet” (K 6, 8, 9 – P 9, 11 – I 7,8 – A 5, 6 – T 9; cf. also K 7 – P 10, partly T 11); 2). 17–19 ). The difference is that if in K and P the styles are written out more calligraphically, then in I, A, T they are more careless. In some samples the upper part is slightly rounded (K 9 –P 13,14 –I 9 –A 7, 9, 11 –T 16), in other cases it is more sharp (K 11 –P 12 –I 11 –A 8, 10 –T 13, 15, 18 19). Let us point out the matching forms of individual styles. P 5 – A 3 – T 6 is united by a sharp disproportion in the sizes of the upper and lower loops, the upper one is much smaller, as if flattened. And 7 –A 5 are characterized by the roundness of the upper part, the shape of the break on the right and left sides, the bending of the internal space of the letter and, in general, have an extremely characteristic appearance, which serves as an expressive identification sign. The following pairs of letters are similar in design: P 6 –A 4; K 6 – P 9; I 8 –T 9; P 12 –I 9 –T 13; A 8 –T 16, 17; Π 16 – Τ 19; I 12 –T 20; And 13 –A 12. The rounded version of the letter (Table 8) is distinguished by a more elaborate and stable outline, especially characteristic of the careful writing of K. In P there are both proportional, carefully executed letters (P 1, 3) and careless, even somewhat clumsy letters (P 4). The same feature characterizes I, A, T. The individuality of the outline is manifested in the proportions of the upper and lower loops, in the open form of the lower loop (K 6, 7 – P 5, 6 – T 6, 7). In the handwritings of Selivan and the scribe MDA 138 used for comparison, the letter is distinguished, firstly, by greater stability of the style, secondly, by a different proportion of loops and their different location relative to the line line, thirdly, by the presence (Fig. 3) of another rounded variant imitating the minuscule form (left column, 8th, 10th, 12th lines of the note); Maxim the Greek does not have this option even in K. Letter "ѣ". The handwriting presents three variants of the letter: 1) a semi-shaped angular version with a high mast and an angular lower part, shaped like a triangle or rectangle (Table 2); 2) a rounded variant, which is conventionally called minuscule, since it is genetically related not to the semi-regular Cyrillic group, which includes the angular version of the letter, but rather to the rounded version of the letter “v”, which goes back to the Greek minuscule β (Table 5); 3) a rounded version with a low mast, when the crossbar is located at the level of the top line of the row (Table 6). As in the letter “v,” it is the semi-standard variant that has striking identification features, within which almost every individual letter has some particular feature, the repetition of which in another manuscript convincingly proves the identity of the handwriting. The most expressive are the following coincidences (Table 2). In samples P 2 and I 1, the mast fracture is the same: there is no single mast line; its upper part is more inclined to the line, and then, after a break, it takes on the appearance of an almost perpendicular plumb line; perhaps the entire lower part of the letter was written first, and then the upper part of the mast with the crossbar was “attached” to it. In samples P 5 – T 6, the mast is not brought to the bottom line of the line, turning sharply to the right and forming a lower loop; the mast itself is slightly curved and tilted, i.e. the mast and the lower loop are written in a single continuous movement; This is a very rare type of letter both in this handwriting and in other calligraphers. Some examples of the letter “b” in the autographs of the Trinity and Rumyantsev manuscripts have a similar structure: the mast does not reach the bottom line of the line, but immediately turns into a loop (Table 2, P 5, T 6; Table 3, T 11; cf. Fig. 20, No. 1, the word “bread”). These are the samples: In the latter case (Rumyantsev manuscript), not only the method of connecting the mast to the loop is similar; the scribe seemed to demonstrate his habit, evident in different manuscripts, of moving the lower left corner away from the main space (“margin”) occupied by the letter; the same duct is apparently characteristic of the letter “b” in T 6 (Table 3). In samples P 6, 7 –A 3 –T 7, all three elements that make up the letter “ѣ” are identical: the lower part is a triangle, in T it is open (similar, that is, the open nature of all kinds of loops is generally a characteristic feature of this handwriting); the crossbar is decoratively curved (which in T, however, is less pronounced), the mast is strongly inclined towards the line. It can be assumed that in these samples it was not written in the form of a single line, but the lower triangle and the upper part of the letter were written separately, although here the line does not have the same clarity as in P 2-I 1. The absence of a single line is also indicated by the different thickness of the ink, which, however, is lost during reproduction, but is more obvious when photographed in special lighting. The Te sample belongs to the same group, although it is only related by the triangular shape of the lower part and the curved crossbar; the concave nature of the mast brings this sample closer to P 1. A common feature of the semi-standard version of this letter in almost all samples is the same feature of the mast as in the letter “b”: its lower part is tilted, more or less sharply to the left, forming a kind of angle. The exceptions are samples P 4, I 3, T 5, where the mast at the very bottom is slightly, barely noticeably concave, which brings these three designs closer together. Let us pay attention to the same angle of inclination of the mast in A 2 and T 4. The shape of the lower part in P 1, 2 –I 1 –A 1 –T 1–4 is closer to a rectangle; in P 3, 4 –I 2, 3 –A 2 –T 5 it tends to be rounded, and in P 6, 7 –A 3 –T 7–8 it is triangular. The lower right stroke is similar in P 3 –I 2. The rounded version (Table 5) is comparatively stable in all manuscripts, with minor partial deviations (mainly the slope and shape of the crossbar). The mast in the upper part (above the crossbar) is rarely straight (K 2 –I 2 –A 1, 2 –T 1, more often it is bent, which is especially noticeable and prevails in K 3–5 –P 1–3 –I 1, 4 –A 5, 6. The lower loop is more often elongated than rounded, sometimes closed, sometimes not (see open circle elongated shape K 3 –P 3 –I 3, more rounded shape K 4 –P 4 –I 4 –A 4; rounded closed circles: K 6 –P 2, 6 –I 6 –A 6 –T 2, 3). The rounded low variant (Table 6) is absent in K and P, and is found sporadically in I, A, and T. The closest match is between the forms I 1 – T 3 . The lower part in A is more elongated, in T it is more rounded; the commonality of the letters among themselves and, the relationship with the rounded variants of other letters of this group and with the rounded elements of the remaining letters is that the circle is sometimes closed (A 2 -T 2), and sometimes not (A 1 -T 1). As for the quantitative relationship between the angular and rounded (high) variants, one feature is striking: the complete absence of the semi-shaped angular variant in K and its sharp predominance in T, where the rounded variant is extremely rare. This fact can be explained: in kontakia, the scribe consciously strives to imitate “Greek” writing and uses only the minuscule form of the letter, giving it a decorative appearance with the help of an elongated, smoothly curved crossbar. The predominance of angular forms in the Trinity psalter can be explained by the influence of the appearance of the writing of the main text - the traditional angular half-shape; Rounded letter variants are absent or rare here. It is worth recalling one more fact, which also partly explains this phenomenon: acceleration of the writing process is not necessarily associated with rounding of styles; the letter T is distinguished by carelessness, lack of calligraphic writing, combined with this is the scribe’s preference for angular forms, which are absent (for this letter) in the careful calligraphic letter K. ν In the Joasaph and Academic manuscripts the picture is approximately the same as in the psalms: rounded variants predominate, but along with those, angular ones are also presented, although there are few of them. The predominance of rounded forms of the letter “ѣ” is also explained in the practice of scribes of this time, whose handwriting is used for comparison with the handwriting of Maxim the Greek. Selivan (Fig. 2) does not have an angular version at all; two rounded versions are used: with a high mast (the decorative crossbar is curved differently) and with a low mast (1st, 2nd rows of St.). Scribe MDA 138 (Fig. 14) does not have an angular high version, only an angular low version is used (1st line of the book) and two rounded ones: with a high and low mast (4th, 8th line of the book). In the first scribe of the MDA manuscript 42. we find an angular high variant, but rarely; the rounded low variant predominates; the second scribe of this manuscript does not have the angular version at all, only two round ones are used. Letter "b". It is presented in two variants - angular (Table 3) and rounded (Table 7). In their correlation, the dependence between the writing style typed by the scribe and the preferred shape of the letters was most clearly manifested in comparison with other letters. In the calligraphic writing of the kontakia there is only a rounded version of the letter, the same characterizes the writing of the psalms, in which angular variants of another letter of this group, “e”, appear, but angular variants of “b” are still absent. In the marginalia of the Joasaph, Academic and Trinity manuscripts, only an angular version of the letter is used. However, this difference is not absolute: the angular version “b” is found once in the Sophia manuscript, namely among its marginal glosses (on fol. 67, the word “lot”, see Table 3, the only letter in the top row). The rounded version is used once in the Joasaph manuscript, but not in marginalia, but in a correction made directly between the lines (on fol. 243 vol., the word “byste”, see table 7, the only letter in the bottom row). Identical outlines inside the angular and inside the rounded variants convincingly indicate that the writing in each case belonged to one hand. Some analogy between the round and angular options can be found in the shape of the upper horizontal, which is sometimes distributed to the left and right of the mast (Table 3: I 1–3, 5, 7–6, 12 – A 7 –T 1–3, 10; Table 7: Κ 1 – Π 1), and in some cases goes from the mast only to the right, sometimes rising upward (Table 3: I 6, 1Z –A 1, 4, 8 –T 6, 9, 10; table 7: K 2, 3 –P 2, 3 I 1). The angular version of the letter as a whole is somewhat reminiscent of the design of the letter “c”, here it seems that the upper right stroke, oblique or vertical, is only missing. The similarity of the existing elements with the letter “v” (in the angular version) is found in the shape of the left vertical mast, which is rarely straight (I 2, 7 –A 5 –T 2, 3, 7(?), 10(?)) more often it is concave, generally curved (I 1, 9, 12 –A 1, 2, 7, 8 –T 5, 9), as well as in the character connection of the left vertical (“back”) with the bottom stroke: the vertical in the lower part deviates to the left, sometimes the bottom stroke is pushed to the left beyond the space of the letter, so that an angle is formed in the lower left part, sometimes quite sharp (I 1–3, 5, 7–12 – A 2, 4–8 –T 1, 5, 6, 8, 9). On the table 3 in the initial vertical columns there are samples where the lower part (loop) has a rectangular shape, gradually acquiring a tendency to be rounded. The loop shapes in the following groups are identical: H 1 –A 1 –T 1; And 2 –A 2 –T 2; And 3 –A 3, 4; And 5, 6 –A 4 –T 6, 7. The open shape of the loop, the break in the “back” and the lower left corner of the letter, more or less sharp, create the following identical group: And 7–9 –Α 5, 6 –T 8. The internal space not filled with ink in these letters has the shape of a kind of “hatchet”, marked for some samples of the letter “v” (Table 1: K 6 – P 9, 11 – I 7,8 – A 5, 6 – T 9). Letters with a loop in the form of a triangle or close to it are identical (I 10, 11 -A 7, 8 -T 9). In samples I 12 – T 10 the loop has the shape of a semicircle. The rare duct T 11 was discussed above, when analyzing the letter “ѣ”. The shape of the loop in I 13 –A 9 is identical. In the rounded version, the shapes of the upper horizontal are identical, decoratively curved (Κ 1 -P 1) or raised upward (P 2, 3 -I 1); the loop, as in rounded versions of other letters, is sometimes open (K 3 – P 3). In the handwriting of other scribes, both options are used, but for each scribe the letter has a uniform appearance: for Selivan, see fig. 2, 1st line St.; the MDA scribe has 138 cm. Fig. 14, 4th, 7th lines of St. The letter "ъ". It has the same three options as the letter “ѣ”, angular (Table 4) and two rounded, high and low, when the upper horizontal is located at the level of the top line of the line (Table 9). The difference from the letter “ѣ” is that the number of examples of the letter of the low variant is increasing, which is explained by the influence of the tradition of Russian semi-statutory writing in general, where the low variant “ъ” is more common than the low variant “ѣ”. The relationship between the angular and rounded variants has the same feature as in the letter “b”: the angular variant is absent in the letters K and P, and is used only in I, A, T (for the letter “ѣ” the angular variant was absent only in K). But the rounded version, unlike the similar version “b”, is used not only in K and P, but also in I and A; as for the T, although the rounded version is used here, it is rarely used and only with a low mast; Let us remember that in T the rounded version of “ѣ” is also rare. In general, the letter “ъ” is represented by more angular variants than “ѣ”. In the initial vertical columns of the table. 4 shows samples where the lower part of the letter has a more rectangular shape (I 1, 2 –A 1, 2 –T 1–3), then tends to be rounded (I 3, 4 –A 3, 4 –T 4, 5); Most of the samples have a triangular lower part (compare with similar samples of the letter “b”). To substantiate the identity, the following coincidences are most noteworthy: I 1 – T 1, 2 (here both the shape of the lower part and the angle of connection of the upper horizontal with the mast are similar); And 3 –A 1, 2 (bottom loop shape); And 4 –A 3 –T 6, where the shapes of the upper part of the letter (horizontals and crossbars) coincide. In letters where the lower loop has a triangular shape, you should pay attention to the coincidence of the upper arc (cf. I 6 –A 4 –T 7; I 7 –A 5, 6; I 9 –A 7 –T 10). The angular version of the letter has the same feature as for the letter “ѣ”, but here it is expressed more clearly: the absence of a single line of the mast, its break, since the lower part of the letter is written separately from the upper, the upper is, as it were, attached to it; The “junction” is especially noticeable in I 4, 8, 9 – A 3, 5–8 T 6, 9, 10. In the round version (Table 9) cf. K 1, 2 –P 1, 2 –A 1 where the upper horizontal is connected to the mast at an acute angle; in K 3 – P 3 – I 2 – A 2 this connection has the shape of an arc, written in one step. To substantiate the identity, samples with an open lower loop are important, so that the letter as a whole looks like an unfinished modern number 8 (see P 4 -I 3 -A 3). So, the letters “в”, “ѣ”, “b”, “ъ”, especially in angular versions, have identification features, the totality of which characterizes only this handwriting. The letters of a complex pattern, available only in the Cyrillic alphabet, are highlighted in separate tables - “zh”, “d” (meaning the semi-standard version, which does not go back to the Greek δ), as well as the letter “a”, since these letters, like the above-mentioned group, are distinguished by a variety of styles within one manuscript, which serves as an identification feature of handwriting. Letter "a". Available in two versions: with a straight back (close to the traditional half-shaped one) and with a decoratively curved back; Maxim the Greek nowhere, even in the kontakia with their imitation of the Greek minuscule, uses forms copying the Greek a, unlike, for example; from Selivan (Fig. 2, 1st line of St.). Both graphic options are located in the same table (Table 10), since the individual styles of each letter within one option, although distinguished by a variety of forms, are not as abundant as for the letters discussed above. The semi-statutory version is presented in the first two vertical columns; A straight back of regular shape is relatively rare in all manuscripts; more often it is curved or curved, as in the designs of the second vertical column. The shape of the “head” is also diverse, even within the same manuscript. In the last three vertical rows there is a variant with a decoratively curved back; Here you should pay attention to the fourth vertical row, where the head at the top is not closed, and the letter as a whole resembles the letter “c”. In the third vertical row there is a transitional option - the back, although straight, descends below the line level (as in the decorative option). In kontakia, decorative options predominate, in psalms - semi-ordinary ones with a rather carefully written head and back; in the Joasaph, Academic and Trinity manuscripts the number of decorative options decreases compared to P. The letter "zh". In the first three vertical rows of the table (Table 11) there are carefully written, fairly symmetrical letters, the middle vertical runs exactly in the center of the letter. To substantiate the identity, the following groups of coincidences are of particular importance. In samples K 1, 3 –P 12 –A 1, 2, the right side of the letter has the shape of a closed triangle. In samples K 2 –I 2 the same triangle is not closed. Next, we note P 3 –I 3 –A 3 –Τι, where the middle vertical and the oblique, going from left to right upward, are lowered below the line line and give the letter a decorative appearance. The last two vertical rows show asymmetrical patterns of letters, their design is highly distorted and even ugly (A 4, T 3): Letter "d". The identification feature is the very multiplicity of letter varieties not only in different manuscripts, but even within the same manuscript. Just look at Fig. 7, 8 (psalms), where the word “David” is repeated repeatedly to make sure that almost every time the letter is written differently, and there are almost no such samples that could be strictly superimposed on one another. Nevertheless, two stable signs can be identified (Table 12). The upper part (“roof”) of the letter has a plumb line to the right, often not reaching the horizontal; sometimes it is a light straight or slightly curved stroke (K 1–3 –P 1,2 –I 1, 2 –T 1, 2, 5), sometimes more decorative (K 4 –A 4 –T 4–11). The lower part of the letter (“legs”) is sharply asymmetrical, beveled to the left, the legs are beveled down at different angles (sharper right, blunter left, which creates the left bevel). The right leg is shorter than the left and slightly curved. At the beginning of the table (vertically) there are samples where the bevel is not so pronounced and some symmetry in the arrangement of the legs is still observed (K 1 – P 1 – I 1, 2 – A 1, 2 – T 1–3; cf. also P 8 – A 10 – T 11). Further in the samples, the right leg is sharply deviated to the left, it is shorter than the left, this is especially noticeable in I 3 – A 5 – T 5. While this feature is preserved, the right leg is bent at the bottom (K 5–7 –P 5, 6 –I 4 –A 6, 7 –T 6, 7). The left leg may also be slightly bent at the bottom (K 3 – P 2, 6–9 – A 8, 11 – T 6–8, 12). The lower part of the letter is narrowed, lengthened and still beveled to the left (I 5 –A 7–9 –T 8–10). Finally, another feature of some letters is that the upper part (“roof”) is located asymmetrically with respect to the lower one, it seems to be shifted to the left, which is especially characteristic of P, but is also found in other manuscripts (K 8, 9 – P 6, 7, 9 – T 12). Let us pay attention to the similarity of I 2 –A 2; K 3 – P 3; K 5 –P 5 –I 4; P 6 –T 7; K 7 –A 7; in I 5 and T 9, the right leg is equally concave, which is rare in this handwriting. Other letters of the alphabet do not have such a variety of styles as those discussed above (Table 13). The letter “g” has a horizontal line extending beyond the space of the letter on the left, and ending on the right with an oblique stroke, sometimes quite long, so that the letter takes on a resemblance to the letter “p”, as if its right leg was shortened. The letter "e" has an upper loop larger than the lower one and is slightly tilted back. The letter "s" is rarely used. The letter “z” in K and P is represented only by a variant in the form of a seven (in K the head is closed, in P it is not), and in I and A - only by a variant in the form of a three (the shape of the bend of the lower loop is characteristic); however, this does not contradict the statement about the identity of the handwriting, since in T both options coexist. In the Rumyantsev manuscript, both options are available within the same gloss (Fig. 20, No. 2). The octal letter "i" has the usual form, but in some examples (found in all manuscripts) the oblique line is connected to the right vertical by a smoother line, and the letter resembles the modern lowercase "p". The dots in the “and” decimal are sometimes located symmetrically above the vertical, sometimes asymmetrically moved to the right. In the letter "k" the right and left sides do not touch each other (exceptions are very rare, see I, A), the right line has a more rounded or more angular shape. In the letter “ᴧ” in the upper samples there is a symmetrical version (the right and left sides begin at the same point), and in the lower ones there is a variant with the right side extended upward. The letter “m” consists, as it were, of two connected letters “ᴧ” and sometimes has a carefully written, and sometimes more curved shape. The letter “n” has a traditional shape, the left vertical is sometimes convex and curved at the bottom. In rare variants (I, T), the crossbar is not oblique, but parallel to the line. The letter “o” has the shape of a circle, often elongated; the circle is often not closed, as in the rounded variants “a”, “b”, “e”, “b”. In the letter “p” the legs are less often straight, more often curved and often repeat the shape of the legs of the letter “d”. The letter “p” has a straight or smoothly curved vertical and resembles the sign of a musical note. . The letter “c” comes in two variants – regular size (a more curved or only slightly curved shape) and large size, the letter extends above and below the line. The letter "t" has the same shape as the "p", with another vertical added to it. Another option is high - one mast and crossbar. The third option - in the form of a simple loop - was found only once in manuscript A (Fig. 15, no. 7). This option is of great value for identification, since it occurs (also only once) in the Bolshakovskaya manuscript (Fig. 17, No. 21). The letter “u” in K and P is represented only by the form “ꙋ”, and in I, A, T by both the form “ꙋ” and “ou”. The letters “f”, “ѱ”, “ө”, “ѵ” are rare. The letter “x” is presented both in a simpler form (the left oblique is elongated) and in a decoratively curved form (P, A, partly I). The letter "ω" has both a longer and a shorter bridge. Let us note the styles (I, T) in which the jumper is missing; the lower part has the appearance of a slightly curved arc in the center. The letters “c”, “ch”, “sh”, “sch”, “y”, “b”, “yu”, “ꙗ”, “ѧ”, “ѫ” are represented by uniform identical styles. The extended letters in different manuscripts have identical identical forms. On the table 15 contains samples of three letters (“m”, “z”, “x”), since they have the most characteristic appearance and their designs differ from the corresponding letters in the “control” and in other handwritings known to us from the time under study. An important identification feature is the very similar forms of groups of the same letters in different manuscripts (Table 14; “st”, “ot”, “ma”, “pl”, “la”, “sha”, “shi”), the same ways of mutual arrangement of letters and connecting their extreme points (ibid.: “ste” - “oti”; “ot”; “x”; “ezh” - “yazh”), ligatures (ibid.: “tv”; "tr") The ligature “zri” is very characteristic, appearing four times in manuscripts with autographs: GBL, Egor. 920, l. 37 vol., 38 (the first two of the samples below); MDA 138, l. 129 rev. (third sample); MDA Fund. 42, l. 367 (fourth sample): The characteristic features and identification features of Maxim the Greek’s handwriting were established based on an analysis of the handwriting in four manuscripts. These features are easily identified when referring to other manuscripts with autographs of Maxim the Greek (see Fig. 17, 20 - samples of autographs in Bolshak. 285 and Rumyants. 264). In each of the remaining manuscripts, where there are significantly fewer autographs, there is a greater or lesser number of individual features identified during the analysis of manuscripts with more extensive material. The above observations give reason to conclude that Maxim the Greek personally edited four collections of his works and six manuscripts with translations, both made by himself and those existing in an earlier tradition. Maxim Grek thus turns out to be one of the first Russian writers whose works are represented by texts edited by the author’s hand. § 2. Works: classification, dating, genre, attribution Identification of autographs in collections of works and translations of Maxim the Greek is of paramount importance for the study of the work of this author. A number of aspects need to be noted in this regard. 1) Collections of essays edited by the author can become a reliable basis for the publication of his works. 2) New perspectives are opening up in the study of the translation activity of Maxim the Greek, which is the most important part of philological practice of the 16th century. and – more broadly – ​​Russian culture of that time. Thus, the study of only a small part of his handwritten glosses in the margins of the Slavic and Greek psalters in comparison with other monuments made it possible to make observations about the reflection of the process of the formation of literary language norms in the translation practice of the 16th century 64 . The full glosses, as well as the translation activity of Maxim the Greek as a whole, are still waiting for the researcher. 3) The presence of copyright edits in collections of essays indicates that they were created during Maxim’s lifetime; Previously, this could only be stated regarding the Joasaph collection, which has a record of belonging to Metropolitan Joasaph (died 1555); the filigree of the other collections did not allow such a narrow dating. 4) A comparison of the content and internal structure of the three lifetime collections of Joasaphovsky, Khludovsky and Rumyantsevsky led to the conclusion that in the first two the author not only edited, but also selected and grouped texts. Maxim the Greek himself compiled and edited “selected” collections of his works, caring about the form and composition in which they would appear before readers - his contemporaries and subsequent generations. It turned out to be possible to establish the author's classification of works, identify the principles and grounds on which it was implemented, and study the author's worldview within the framework of the logical system that was chosen by him. Thus, a virtually new source was identified for the study of Russian social thought and culture of the mid-16th century, the time of the “beginning of the kingdom”, the government of compromise - not just individual works of Maximus the Greek, written at this time, but specially created collections, sets of works, which finds an analogy in the grandiose literary enterprises of Metropolitan Macarius. 5) Collected works compiled by the author are the leading thread for the classification of numerous collections of his works of the 16th–18th centuries, for the study of handwritten heritage; It turned out that the origins of the evolution of the corpus of his works are precisely two lifetime collections, which became the basis for almost all later collections. Classification of collections of essays. The handwritten heritage of Maxim the Greek is enormous. Much work to identify it was undertaken at the end of the last century by S.A. Belokurov in connection with the study of sources reporting on the rich library of the Moscow kings in the 16th century; one of these sources was the Tales of Maxim the Greek, and to assess the validity of their testimony S.A. Belokurov attracted both all the manuscripts known at that time containing one or another edition of the Legend (among them a significant number were manuscripts consisting only of the works of Maxim the Greek), as well as those handwritten collections of works and translations of Maxim the Greek that did not contain the Legends 65 . The significance of this work went far beyond the goals set by the author. S.A. Belokurov gave information about 243 handwritten collections containing the original works of Maxim the Greek, his translations, as well as Tales and news about him. The characteristics of the manuscripts are brief (only in some cases more detailed), the classification of collections is only based on repositories. This list was the basis for studying the extensive and complex manuscript heritage of Maximus the Greek in its evolution. Of the 243 handwritten collections, about 80 consist entirely of the works of Maxim the Greek; Some of them could not be found, but during the search process, about 20 collections unknown to S.A. were involved. Belokurov. Most of the manuscripts from the list of S.A. Belokurov, as well as a number of new ones, were used in his work by A.I. Ivanov 66. A detailed bibliography, given separately for each text, includes information about the most important manuscripts containing a given work or translation. However, the dating of manuscripts and information about them in a number of cases are inaccurate and are based only on printed descriptions; research and characteristics of most of the mentioned manuscripts are missing; For some works and translations, the earliest manuscripts containing them are not indicated. The task of studying the handwritten heritage of Maxim the Greek therefore remains relevant. Upon initial acquaintance with the collections of this author’s works, one is struck by their diversity and apparent instability of composition, which was already noted by compilers and copyists at the end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th century: “his books have great dissimilarity and difference among themselves: some are most important, and others are lesser, and not in a single order, but different and unusual” 67 . The composition of the collections is extremely diverse: from 25 chapters to 151 chapters, the order of the chapters is also different. At the same time, the similarity of some collections also attracts attention - complete or, more often, partial coincidence of the composition and sequence of chapters, common features inherent in a number of collections and distinguishing this series from other collections (for example, the message that Maxim the Greek began to compile his “book” in 1532 is read in collections of the general composition). This similarity creates the possibility of classifying collections of essays on a textual basis, i.e., based on the composition (number and order of arrangement) of texts included in the collection, making it possible to identify collections of essays compiled in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. A few words about the difference between the concepts of “collected works” and “collected works” of Maxim the Greek. A collection is a separate handwritten book. A collection is a collection of collections of a certain type and their composition. When we talk, for example, about the Joasaph collection (GBL, MDA 42; see Appendix I, No. 1), we mean a specific manuscript with all its inherent features. The Joasaph collection is, firstly, the entire set of collections that repeated the Joasaph collection, coinciding with it in composition, in the number of works included here and in the order of their arrangement (see. Appendix I, No. 2–9 – collections consist of the same 47 chapters as Joasaph’s, arranged in the same sequence); secondly, the concept of “collection” or “type” is also used, regardless of the specific manuscript, to designate the composition and sequence of texts included in the Joasaph and other collections. In this sense, it approaches the modern concept of a “collection of selected works” of a particular author. Indeed, when creating, for example, the Joasaph collection, only 47 works were selected from the entire set of works. If, when creating collections coinciding with Joasaph's, only a mechanical rewrite of previously collected texts took place, then when regrouping texts, including new works and translations drawn from some other sources, more or less complex editorial and compilation work was carried out, associated with understanding the content, comparing: the composition of various manuscripts, with the search for new texts; as a result, a new set of works by Maxim the Greek became available to a certain circle of readers, appearing in a different grouping than the well-known races, including, as a rule, new works and translations, and, on the contrary, omitting others. I think we have the right to call these large complexes “collected works.” Within the collection, types and varieties are distinguished, which can also be explained using the example of the Joasaph collection. In addition to the nine manuscripts of the total composition (47 chapters, the main type of this type), there are two more manuscripts of the same composition, but with the exception that they lack the first 12 chapters of this collection; their first chapter is chapter 45 of this type, and chapters 2–34 correspond to chapters 13–47 (see Appendix I, nos. 10–11). We also attribute these manuscripts to the Joasaph collection, but we distinguish them into a special (short) form, in contrast to the main type represented by the nine above-mentioned collections. Thus, the presence of individual characteristics in any manuscript or group of manuscripts, with the similarity of the main core, serves as the basis for distinguishing this manuscript or their group into a special type, and within it, again, the presence of varieties is possible. Numerous species and varieties are especially characteristic of the Khludov collection (see Appendix II). One more note about textual classification. We proceed primarily from the composition of the texts included in the collection. As for comparing the text of each work in the collection with similar text in other collections of this collection and in other collections, this task can only be accomplished in full (that is, for all works) through the efforts of many researchers. It is most advisable to solve it in the process of preparing for publication of the entire corpus of works by Maxim the Greek or when studying individual works and their groups by one or another researcher. However, the author’s comparison of texts based on all or several collections shows that each collection contains in all collections of a given type and variety the same excerpt of the text, and different collections (types, varieties) contain different editions, distinguished by more or less significant discrepancies, in most cases not giving, however, grounds for identifying special editions. The classification, made taking into account the composition of all texts included in the collection, is confirmed by the analysis of some texts. You can refer to the results of the study by L.S. Kovtun, who carried out a textual analysis of one of the works included in various collected works of Maxim the Greek, namely his dictionary - “Interpretation of names in alphabetical order” 68. The text of the first edition of “Interpretation of Names by Alphabet” remained outside the collected works of Maxim the Greek; it is represented by collections of mixed content, the earliest of which date back to the end of the 16th century. As it turned out, the second edition of the monument was preserved as part of the Khludov collection. According to the nature of discrepancies, the lists of the Dictionary of this edition are divided into two groups - Nikiforov-Burtsevskaya and Dobrokhotovskaya. In our classification, the Dobrokhotov group of lists is also separated from the collections of the Nikiforov and Burtsevsky types, forming a variety of the latter. The third, lengthy edition of the “Interpretation of Names by Alphabet,” which already includes material from later lexicographers, is in the collected works, consisting of 151 chapters (see Appendix VIII). Thus, the division of the lists based on the results of the analysis of one work coincided with our classification based on the composition of the collections. A textual comparison of the “Confession of Faith” based on the lists of three collections – Joasaph’s, Khludov’s and the collection of 151 chapters 69 – leads to similar conclusions. A study of the handwritten tradition of the “Advisory Words about the Correction of Russian Books,” which contains an indication of the number of years during which the author has been in the position of a convicted person, shows that this number, which varies in different lists, does not change randomly, but depending on the type of collection; in collections belonging to the same collection, the same number of years is indicated - 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 (see Chapter III, § 1). This confirms the validity of our chosen basis for classification. The study revealed that the 100 manuscript collections represent more than 10 collections of works carried out during the 16th–18th centuries. By the 16th century include six meetings. The Joasaph collection (late 40s - first half of the 50s of the 16th century) includes 47 works by Maxim the Greek and a small addition, consisting mainly of translated texts (see Appendix I and I-a). The Khludov collection in its main form (from the same time) includes 73 chapters, which includes 47 chapters from Joasaph (the order of arrangement first coincides, then is broken, the additional part is missing), as well as 26 new works. The collection consists of two parts: chapters 1–25 and 26–73 (see Chapter III, § 2, as well as Appendix II and II-a). These collections are represented by a significant number of collections, and they are also the basis for a number of later, more complete collections. The third early collection is also from the middle of the 16th century. – Rumyantsevskoe (see Appendix III and III-a). It is unique, firstly, because it is represented by a single list (GBL, Rumyants. 264), its composition is not repeated by any handwritten collection; secondly, because there are a number of texts here that are not known from other lists. The next stage in the development of the literary heritage of Maxim the Greek, dating back to the end of the 16th century, is apparently associated with the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia 70 . Interest in Maxim the Greek was caused or, in any case, intensified by the fact that in his writings he raised questions related to the autocephaly of the Russian Church (about the installation of metropolitans), and by the fact that the ecumenical patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria took part in the fate of Maxim the Greek, and by the fact that with his writings he contributed to the spread in Russia of Greek Orthodox orthodoxy, the ideas of the church fathers, which acquired important significance in connection with the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. The collection before 1587 (see Appendix IV) does not yet include works that are new in comparison with Joasaph’s and Khludov’s, however, the selection of texts (57 chapters out of 73), as well as their arrangement and grouping, is of interest here. Collections at the end of the 16th century. based on the combination of the Joasaph type and the second part of the Khludovsky, from which it can be concluded that the first part of the Khludovsky collection (chapters 1–25) was a rather rare source and was not widely used in the manuscript tradition; at present it is also known only in a single list (see Appendix II, No. 1). New texts are also added to these collections. Collection related to the activities of Vologda Archbishop Jonah Dumin at the end of the 16th century. 71 (see Appendix V/Ι), consists of 82 chapters and is based on a combination of the Joasaph type and the second part of Khludovsky; First, the entire 47 chapters of Joasaph are placed, and then the chapters of the second part of the Khludov collection, with the exception of those that have already been rewritten among the first 47. New texts are also placed here: at the junction of the two parts of the charter of Patriarchs Dionysius and Joachim of 1545 and 1546. 72 about Maxim the Greek (their inclusion especially deserves attention in connection with the establishment of the patriarchate and the arrival of Jeremiah II), and at the end - “The Tale of the Sinful Manuscript” and Maxim the Greek’s polemical messages “to Fyodor Karpov and Nikolai Nemchin of anti-Latin and anti-astrological content. These texts, however, are not included in handwritten collections for the first time: “The Legend of the Sinful Manuscript” and the letters of the patriarchs are known from the Rumyantsev collection, and the messages to Fyodor Karpov and Nikolai Nemchin are known from mixed collections of the second quarter and mid-16th century. (see chap. II, § 2-a); what is new is that now these texts are firmly part of the manuscript tradition and are being copied along with other works by this author (the Rumyantsev collection, as already mentioned, has been preserved in a single list). Solovetsky collection of the late 16th century. (see Appendix V/2) is based on the same main sources as the collection of Jonah Dumin, but they are grouped differently: chapters 1–25 of the Joasaph type are placed at the beginning, and then the entire second part of the Khludov type. A new stage in the development of the literary and journalistic heritage of Maxim the Greek began in the 17th century. In the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, a collection of works by Maxim the Greek was compiled, which included a large number of new texts; A significant role in this enterprise apparently belongs to the Trinity Archimandrite Dionysius Zobninovsky (see Appendix VII). Interest in the work of Maxim the Greek was probably caused by the growth of national self-awareness, the general national upsurge in connection with the events of the early 17th century, as well as the work on correcting books that was undertaken at that time in the Trinity Monastery and preceded Nikon’s reforms. Correction of books also occupied a large place in the work of Maxim the Greek. It was important to take into account the results of his practice, as well as the theoretical positions that were expressed by him at one time. In the XVII–XVIII centuries. new collected works are being compiled (see Appendices VIII–X). The classification of collections of essays made it possible to take a new approach to the classification of the essays themselves. E.E. Golubinsky proposed two classifications - thematic and chronological (according to periods of life: in Moscow; in Tver; at the Trinity) 73. The second classification is of particular value, since it allows us to consider the successive stages of Maxim the Greek’s work and study each of these stages as a whole. However, the attribution of a particular work to a certain period was not always justified. A.I. Ivanov followed E.E. Golubinsky along the path of thematic classification. Highlighting basically the same classification headings, A.I. Ivanov reduces (compared to E.E. Golubinsky) the number of sections: 1) translated works; 2) works on grammar and lexicography; 3) dogmatic and polemical works; 4) works directed against astrology, apocrypha and various superstitions; 5) moralizing essays; 6) essays of a journalistic nature; 7) essays of autobiographical content; 8) interpretive articles and legends on various perplexing issues of theological, church, ritual and everyday nature; 9) church historical works; 10)varia 74. The classification becomes more strict than that of E.E. Golubinsky, character, but the same works, multifaceted in content, can be classified simultaneously under different headings. Particularly controversial are the 5th, 6th, 7th sections, which is caused primarily by the lack of clarity of the concept of “journalism” 75. Many works of the 3rd and 4th sections can be classified as journalistic, in particular, messages to various individuals caused by the Catholic propaganda of Nikolai Bulev (3rd section), as well as those directed against astrology (4th section); Nikolai Nemchin skillfully linked the preaching of the unification of churches and the dissemination of astrological works with the question of the reasons for the victories of Turkish weapons, i.e., problems of diplomatic and foreign policy struggle, which became the subject of journalism. Some essays in the “journalistic” section may take a place among the “moral” ones; This primarily applies to the lengthy “non-acquisitive” treatises (No. 231–233), since here the system of ethical ideas of Maximus the Greek in relation to monasticism, the norms of monastic ethics, are most fully expounded, and the “issue of monastic and church possessions” is considered by him from a moral perspective. Many anti-astrological works, which interpret the relationship between free will and divine providence, are also of an ethical nature (No. 158, 165, etc.). “Chapters are instructive to those in command of the faithful,” written for Ivan IV (6th section, No. 216), has the character of a moralizing treatise. From this, of course, it does not follow that all of the named works should be included in the “moralizing” section; We are talking about the need for a clearer definition of the classification concepts themselves. It remains unclear why the essay “On the Catholic monastic orders, Franciscan and Dominican” (No. 230) is classified in the section of journalistic works devoted to the issue of monastic and church possessions, and the essays on the Athos monasteries (No. 323–326, 331) are placed among “church historical ones.” As for works of autobiographical content (section 7), on the one hand, their circle is narrowed; a much larger number of works relate to the circumstances of the author’s personal life (see Chapter III, § 1, 2); on the other hand, the messages included in this section not only concern the facts of the author’s biography, but have a pronounced journalistic sound (No. 242, 244, etc.). In other works devoted to the work of Maxim the Greek, classifications of his works were made incidentally and depended on the plan and objectives of the researcher. V.S. Ikonnikov singled out the following sets of works: 1) works of religious polemics (“with the followers of the Judaizer heresy”; “against the Latins”; “against Mohammedanism”, “against the Armenians”; “in defense of Christianity against paganism”); 2) writings “caused by the spread of stargazing”; 3) works characterizing the “ascetic views of Maximus the Greek”; denunciations related to the “issue of real estate of monasteries”; “means proposed for correcting monastic morals”; 4) essays reflecting “mutual relations of different classes of society”, “living conditions”, “government and court”, “mores of society” 76. V.F. Riga grouped the works in connection with the purpose of his research - to characterize Maxim the Greek as a publicist. Two major problems have been selected: “Social evil in the denunciations of Maxim the Greek”; “Maxim the Greek’s views on power and its tasks in domestic and foreign policy.” For the first section, from the entire body of works, those devoted to the following topics were selected: 1) denunciations of monasticism; 2) denunciations of the white clergy; 3) denunciations of the boyars; 4) exposing abuses of administrative and judicial power at the local level; 5) an allegorical pamphlet on the government of Elena Glinskaya. In the second section, the material is grouped as follows: 1) works characterizing the fundamental view of Maxim the Greek on the relations of secular and spiritual power; 2) messages to Ivan IV; 3) essays characterizing the author’s views on the tsar’s attitude towards the clergy, boyars and army; 4) the poor and wretched in the concept of Maxim the Greek; 5) essays related to his attitude to foreign policy 77. Although both classifications are based on V.S. Ikonnikova and V.F. Riga is based on a thematic principle; the set of themes is different. The issue of classifying Maxim's works is addressed by the English researcher J. Haney 78 . He notes that the writings of this author are devoted to a large number of topics and do not easily lend themselves to precise and orderly classification; for the purposes of his study, J. Haney identifies four general categories: theology; secular philosophy, including astrology; statecraft and social problems. And this classification is largely arbitrary; Maxim the Greek does not have works devoted to “pure” theology, much less secular philosophy; he considers theological and philosophical problems along with others; Even in such a work as “Confession of Faith,” confessional issues themselves occupy an insignificant place: the work is devoted to pressing issues of the author’s personal fate, and at the same time to journalistic polemics. As for the writings against astrology, they can hardly be classified as “secular philosophy”, since they are subordinated to Christian church doctrine. The considered classifications, despite all the differences between them, are built on a common basis - thematic, and the choice of topics and their grouping depend on the researcher’s plan and the specifics of the tasks facing him. The classification of collections of essays, briefly described above, as we see, has a different focus. It allowed us to take a new approach to the classification of the works themselves. It was established that Maxim the Greek was responsible not only for editing collections of essays, but also for selecting texts, determining the order of their arrangement, i.e., the structure of collections; therefore, the opportunity arose to study the author’s classification of works, how their hierarchy and subordination were realized by the author himself (see Chapter III, § 3). A peculiar continuation of the author’s classification is the one that was chosen by the readers of Maxim the Greek, scribes of the late 16th–18th centuries. when including his works in collections of mixed content and when creating new collections of his works and translations. Further research showed that the classification, carried out on the basis of the manuscript tradition, in some essential features (not all) coincides with the chronological distribution of works by periods of life, that is, with dating. Dating. The dating of the works of Maxim the Greek seems to be one of the most difficult source study problems. Only a few of his works have dates, and among the undated, many do not even contain indirect dating signs. Attempts at isolated solutions, that is, in relation to one essay or a small group of them, often encounter serious difficulties. The chronological arrangement of works within one thematic group is in some cases hypothetical in nature, and consideration of sets of works belonging to individual thematic groups makes it difficult to holistically perceive the uniqueness of the various periods of Maxim’s work. Collections of autographs contributed to the solution of this problem. It turned out that works that undoubtedly belong to the first period, as a rule, are not included in the Joasaph and Khludov collections (in their initial, systematic part). Works of the first period appear in the manuscript tradition, first in collections of mixed content, and are included in collections later, at the end of the 16th–18th centuries. In the collections compiled by the author during his lifetime, there are works on the same topics as in the undisputed works of the first period, which were not included in the collections. But the works included in the collections are characterized, firstly, by the absence of any specific realities, and secondly, by a more abstract, abstract level of development of the topic. In addition, the internal similarity of the works included in the collection (in form, genre, originality of argumentation and polemical techniques) suggests that they were created simultaneously (perhaps specifically for the collection), and suggests a chronological break with works on a similar topic of the first period. This will be discussed in detail in the following sections of the work (Chapter II, § 2; Chapter III, § 2, 3). Thus, the problem of dating is to a certain extent connected with the problem of genre. In other words, the study of the works not only in terms of their thematic affiliation, but in connection with the composition of those complexes, diverse in terms of subject matter, in which they entered the manuscript tradition, made it possible in a number of cases, if not to date the works precisely, then to judge the simultaneity or different times of the creation of works devoted to one topic. Thus, the arrangement of material in the work is subject not only to the chronological principle, it is also connected to a certain extent with the nature of the sources; If the second chapter (“The first period of the life of Maxim the Greek in Russia. 1518–1525”) examines the works of Maxim the Greek, the earliest copies of which are represented by collections of mixed content, then the source for the second chapter (“Maxim the Greek in the 30s–50s of the 16th century”) are mainly collected works of his works from the late 40s to the first half of the 50s. Genre. The genre nature of the works of Maxim the Greek is extremely wide: word, word, speeches, song, prayer, story, legend, conversation-monologue, conversation-dialogue, competition-dialogue, etc. This is explained in the variety of “primary” genres of ancient Russian literature, which D.S. wrote about. Likhachev 79. The genre nature of Maxim the Greek’s work is a topic for independent research; The genre of dialogue deserves special attention, especially the dialogue between Mind and Soul, and the definition of criteria for selecting participants in this dialogue; more traditional, as is known, was the opposition of soul and flesh, soul and body (cf. Diopter). For the purposes of our work, we considered one side of the genre problem, namely: whether a particular text belongs to the works of the epistolary or rhetorical genre. It turned out that many of Maxim the Greek’s works in the first period were characterized by a dual genre nature, the development of business epistolary prose (messages to individuals) into journalism, which Ya.S. wrote about. Lurie 80. On the contrary, in most of the works included in the lifetime collections, especially in their initial, systematized part, the unity of the genre is maintained; they are lengthy treatises - Words, devoid of the features of messages to specific individuals. Attribution. The main difficulty lies in separating the original works of Maxim the Greek from the translated texts and in finding the original translation. In cases where the original nature of the work is beyond doubt (this most often applies to messages to specific individuals), attribution does not present any particular difficulties, since the work is usually placed in handwritten collections indicating the name of the author, or the text contains realities correlated with the facts of life and themes of the work of Maxim the Greek. For texts devoted to more abstract or distant subjects, more abstract concepts, attribution becomes more difficult. V.F. Rzhiga, who published and introduced into scientific circulation the largest number of new (after the Kazan edition) works of Maxim the Greek, did not formulate any general Principles of attribution, making it in each specific case on the basis of semantic or formal data. In many cases, he used as an argument a grammatical feature that A.I. drew attention to. Sobolevsky: genitive plural on “ex” (“against the Jews and Greeks”, “from the husbands of the Italians”, etc.) 81. Biographical realities referred to by V.F. Rzhiga, proving that the works belonged to Maxim the Greek, could be different: the author’s request to release him to Athos (in the message to Vasily III in 1521, published according to the GPB manuscript, F.XVII.13; in the message to Ivan IV in 1551, published from the GBL manuscript, Rumyants. 264) 82 ; a description of the order of the Athonite or Catholic monasteries, made by a well-informed eyewitness, which was Maxim the Greek (for messages about Mount Athos and about the Franciscan and Dominican monasteries according to the GBL manuscript, Rumyants. 264). V.F. served as proof of ownership. Rzhiga presence in the title of the name, the author (messages to Konstantin and an unknown princess according to the GBL manuscript, Rumyants. 264; message to Abbess Evnikia, nuns Elena, Anastasia and Feofaniya according to the GPB manuscript, Q.1.219); Let us note that this is the most indisputable argument, especially if the name is named in the lifetime list (Rumyants. 264) or a fairly early list (Q.I.219, mid or second half of the 16th century). The author calls himself “Maxim the sinner” in his letter to Constantine (Rumyants. 264, l. 34); “Maxim the Holy Mountain, your poor pilgrim” in a message to the princess (ibid., l. 169 vol.); “the many-sinful monk Maxim the Holy Mountain” in the letter to the abbess and nuns (Q.I.219, pp. 567–568 vol.). For four works, despite the absence of “formal signs of authorship,” the attribution sign is “their presence in the manuscript b. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264 among other undoubted works of Maxim and similarity in content with similar works of his own" (meaning: a message to an unknown person with a prayer against blasphemous thoughts; a message to an unknown nun about the dying schema; "the teaching is abbreviated to everyone overwhelmed by the sea of life"; a message to an unknown princess, see Appendix III-a, No. 94, 95, 117, 123). The same collection contains “A Sermon on the Worship of Holy Icons Against the Iconoclast Luthor Who Appeared in the German Guild” (ll. 241–245 vol.), which V.F. Rzhiga also considers it to belong to Maxim the Greek: “The theme of the Word is close to the “Lay on the Luthors” found in the collected works of Maxim the Greek” 83 . Attributions to V.F. Rigi should be considered convincing, since they are based on a set of features - semantic and formal (the form of the genitive plural in “ex”, the indication of the author’s name in the title, the presence of the essay in one of the earliest collections, the correlation of the content with the facts of the author’s life, etc.). In cases where the researcher’s attribution is not specifically substantiated, it can be supported by various arguments. Thus, in the works against astrology from the Rumyantsev collection, which remained unpublished, we encounter V.F. Rzhiga language form on “ex” (fol. 17 of the manuscript: “on the heads of the God-fighting demons, the acquirers of such ... teaching”; l. 23: “from the Greeks and Chaldeans, the acquirers”; l. 26 v.: “us pious Christians”); the manner of the author's argumentation and the nature of the polemics bring these texts closer to other works by Maxim the Greek on a similar topic. Another proof of their belonging to Maxim the Greek is the following circumstance. The works against astrology in the Rumyantsev collection (see Appendix III-a) have the following titles: “The Legend of Part 3 of the Song of Anna the Prophetess” (ll. 11 vol. – 18); “The Tale of Honor and 3 Songs of Anna the Prophetess” (ll. 22–26 vol.). Immediately following this text (ll. 26 vol. - 30), the manuscript contains an essay entitled “The same song of 3 Anna the prophetess,” also directed against astrology. The nature of the titles of these works, their content, repeated references to the texts of Anna the prophetess “with more or less extensive options for possible different interpretations of these texts leave no doubt that before us is a cycle of works connected by the unity of concept and origin, manner of argumentation and polemical techniques, i.e., belonging to the same author. The last of these texts (ll. 26 vol. - 30) coincides verbatim with the famous work of Maxim the Greek, which is placed in the earliest collections, edited by the hand of the author, with the designation of his name: “The same monk Maxim the Greek message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about German charm, the verb fortune, and about the wheel of it” 84. It follows that the first two Legends (on folio 11 vol. – 18 and 22–26 vol.) belong to Maxim the Greek. A.I. Ivanov did not pay attention to the fact that the text on pp. 26 rev. – 30 is identical to the text of the letter to the abbot, and included it in the list as an unpublished work 85, expressing the judgment that it was sent to Fyodor Karpov. Meanwhile, the message is addressed to the abbot. Of course, it is possible that the same text could be sent to different persons, and examples of this are known, 86 but to prove this there must be some basis, for example, different names of addressees in different lists or other signs. In this case they are absent. Directed by F.I. Karpov A.I. Ivanov also considers the text against astrology on pp. 11 rev. – 18 of the Rumyantsev collection, however, the argument put forward (Maxim calls his addressee “nobility”) is unconvincing. The assumption of A.I. is of the same nature. Ivanov regarding the third text (ll. 26 vol. - 30), which, in his opinion, was sent to the Tver Bishop Akakiy during Maxim’s stay in Tver captivity, since there is an address “Vladyka” 87. The unity of subject matter, the similarity of polemical techniques, and almost identical headings make it possible to consider all the texts to have been written at the same time, and the mention of Nikolai Nemchin in the letter to the abbot 88 allows us to date all three works before 1525. Attribution is one of the special tasks of A.I.’s work. Ivanova. The author’s great merit is that he collected information about all the texts that belong to Maxim the Greek, are attributed to him or are associated with his name, however, several comments must be made regarding the researcher’s attributions. For the problem of attribution, the edition of the title-inscription is important, primarily the presence or absence of the name of the author (or translator). But in the list of A.I. Ivanov’s titles are given inaccurately: the author’s name is missing 89, the variability of the titles of many works is not reflected, which is expressed in the fact that some lists contain the author’s name, others do not, and in the fact that the genre of the work itself is often defined differently in different lists, and in the fact that there are more or less significant differences in the text of the titles. It is not always clear from which manuscript the title of the work or translation is given (for attribution it is especially important to take into account which lists the author’s name is indicated in). As for the attributions of A.I. Ivanov in general, it should be noted that the number of original works of Maxim the Greek is overestimated: sometimes one text is named twice, placed in different manuscripts under different headings (the number of such cases is generally small - 90), but mainly because the original works include texts about which either now we can confidently say that they are translations, since their source has been established, or the question of a possible source from which the text could have been borrowed and translated, needs careful research (this especially applies to section 8 - “interpretative articles and Legends”). Let us dwell briefly only on the attributions of the texts included in the three lifetime collections - Joasaphovsky, Khludovsky and Rumyantsevsky. 73 texts from the Joasaph and Khludov collections form a stable core of the works of Maxim the Greek, the attribution of which cannot be disputed, since they were placed in lifetime collections edited by the author himself, and the author’s name is indicated in the headings. However, the attribution of these texts did not give rise to controversy, with the exception of three works: “The Word of Thanks... about the victory over the Crimean Dog” of 1541 was attributed to both Sylvester and Metropolitan Macarius 91 (chapter 23 of the Joasaph and Khludov collections); The words about the two-fingered sign and the three-fingered hallelujah were declared false in connection with the Old Believer polemics 92 (chapters 27 and 33 of type I and chapters 27 and 40 of type X). A.I. Ivanov argues for the authenticity of the works by the fact that they were placed in ancient lists with the name of the author indicated. Although the Rumyantsev collection, like Joasaph’s, Academic and Bolshakov’s, was lifetime and contains autographs. Maxim the Greek, the attribution of his texts is quite difficult. Of the 130 texts in the Rumyantsev collection, many undoubtedly represent the works of Maxim the Greek. 29 of them are known from the Joasaph and Khludov collections, where they are placed with the name of the author. The attribution of a number of works (messages) was made by V.F. Rzhiga, as already mentioned. Two large messages from the Rumyantsev collection were identified as the works of Maxim the Greek by Philaret and published by him in 1842 93; belonging to Maxim the Greek is beyond doubt, since in the message to the metropolitan, whose name is not indicated, we are talking about the well-known facts of the biography of Maxim the Greek, and in the essay “A Brief Answer to the Holy Council about them I am slandered,” the author lists his numerous works, known as the works of Maxim the Greek. Several texts from the Rumyantsev collection, the name of the author of which is not indicated, are known from a later manuscript tradition indicating the name of Maxim the Greek. There are still a significant number of texts left in the Rumyantsev collection, the attribution of which to V.F. Riga did not express his opinion. A.I. Ivanov classified many of them as original works. But regarding a number of texts, the question of original or translated character remains open. Let us list the texts in relation to which the authorship of Maxim the Greek is doubtful. For brevity, their names are not given here, but only the numbers under which they are placed with exact headings are indicated in Appendix III-a, where a description of the composition of the Rumyantsev collection is given, and the number of the text in A.I.’s list is indicated in brackets. Ivanova: No. 4 (224), 18 (204), 21 (211), 32 (350), 36 (203), 37 (285), 38 (286), 39 (287), 40 (288), 41 (289), 86 (267), 109 (351), 119 (340), 121 (210). Perhaps some other texts are also translations. From the original works of Maxim the Greek, text No. 265 according to the list of A.I. should be excluded. Ivanov, since this is only an extract from the final part of the manuscript containing 16 Words of Gregory the Theologian (for details see Appendix III-a, No. 33). Texts No. 38 and 39 according to A.I.’s list should be excluded from translations. Ivanov, since these are extracts from the same source (see Appendix III-a, No. 34, 35). Among the moralizing works of Maxim the Greek in the list of A.I. Ivanov included the text “About Fasting” (No. 206); but this is a translated article from the Byzantine lexicographic collection “Suda” 94. Among the “interpretative articles and legends” in the same list, A.I. Ivanov contains a text with the title “From the book of interpretation, which is the apostolic residence” (No. 266) from the Rumyantsev collection (ll. 170 vol. - 171). This is also a translated text containing 4 articles from the same Lexicon of the “Court”: “apostolic residence”, “malice”, “the cry of Sodom”, “myrrh on the head” (see pp. 58–60 of this work under No. 20, 43, 55, 75) 95 . Under No. 273 is the text “Interpretation of various expressions from biblical books” from the Rumyantsev collection, beginning: “A man is spiritual, a man is composed of soul and body.” A.I. Ivanov points out further: “Here the interpretation of the words “welphegor”, “phoenix”, “Habakkuk”, “Abel”, “Tarshish”, “unicorn”, “hyssop”, “cry of Sodom and Gomor” will be given.” Attribution A.I. Ivanova needs significant clarification. Ll. 305–315 constitute one of the notebooks of the Rumyantsev collection, in which 95 relatively small articles of various contents were rewritten (including those named by A.I. Ivanov: “velphegor”, “phoenix”, etc.). Most of these articles are identified as translations from the Lexicon of Judgment. Translations by Maxim the Greek from this collection, the number of which, thanks to the newly identified texts, approaches one hundred 96, their nature and content are currently being studied by L.S. Kovtun, B.L. Fonkich and me. The results will be published in a special article, but some preliminary observations can already be outlined 97 . Let us list in order all the articles placed on the ll. 305–315 of the Rumyantsev collection, indicating the translation from the Lexicon of “Judgment” with a link to the page where the corresponding Greek article according to the edition of I. Becker is located. As for the remaining 18 articles, their exact original remains to be established. So, on ll. 305–315 the following articles are found: New attributions expand our knowledge not only about the volume of translation activity of Maxim the Greek, but also about its content and nature, about the philological practice of Maxim the Greek as a whole. Since translations from the Lexicon of the “Judgment” relate to the first period of his life in Moscow, they will also be discussed in Chapter. II, § 1. The problems briefly described here are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of the work. Fonkich B.L. New autograph of Maxim the Greek. – “Byzantinoslavica”, 1969, No. 1, p. 80; aka. Russian autograph of Maxim the Greek. – “History of the USSR”, 1971, No. 3, p. 153–158; Wed Amphilochius. Paleographic description of Greek manuscripts of the 15th–17th centuries. certain years, vol. IV. M., 1880, p. 52–54; Rhodessky A. On materials for the history of Slavic-Russian bibliography, 3. Autograph of St. Maxim the Greek. – “Christian Reading”, 1882, No. 9–10, p. 609–615. Fonkich B.L. Russian autograph, p. 158; Kovtun L.S. Lexicography, p. 25–35, 67. Arseny, Description, part II, p. 93–95. L.S. Kovtun. Lexicography, p. 65–70. For more details, see: Kovtun L.S. , Sinitsyna N.V., Fonkich B.L. Maxim the Greek and the Slavic Psalter. Formation of literary language norms in translation practice of the 16th century. – In the book: East Slavic languages. Sources for studying them. M., 1973, p. 102–105. Kloss B.M. Library of Moscow Metropolitans in the 16th century. – In the book: Problems of paleography and codicology in the USSR. M., 1974, p. 119–121, 124. For more details on the collections of works by Maxim the Greek with his autographs, see Chapter. III, § 2, as well as Appendix I, No. 1, 2; Appendix II, No. 2; Appendix III. Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, pol. 2, p. 243. Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage, p. 22–23. Homer - Meonidas, son of Meon and Eumitis (Bekker I. Suidae Lexicon. Berolini, 1854" P. 771). Fonkich B.L. New autograph of Maxim the Greek, p. 81–82. Slavic-Russian manuscripts of the XIII–XVII centuries. Scientific Library named after. A.M. Gorky Moscow State University (Description). Compiled by E.I. Konyukhova. [M.], 1964, p. 45–48; Peretz V.N. Manuscripts from the library of Moscow University, Samara library and museum and Minsk collections. L., 1934, No. 244, p. 22 (the indication that the manuscript belonged to the Metropolitan was given erroneously, and the date - ca. 1500 - is not motivated). Lyublinskaya A.D. The significance of O.A.’s works Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya for the development of Latin paleography in the USSR. – SV, issue. 29. M., 1966, p. 174. Canart P. Les manuscrits copiés par Emmanuel Provataris (1546–1570). Essai d'étude codicologique. – “Studi e Testi”, N 236. Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1964, p. 176–177. Kapr A. The relationship between handwriting, printing and calligraphy (translation from German). – In the book: Handwritten and printed book. M., 1975, p. 79–85. Shchepkina M.V. Possibility of identifying handwriting in Old Russian manuscripts. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book, collection. 2. M., 1974, p. 7–13; Rozov N.N. On the identification of handwriting in the oldest Russian books (XI–XII centuries). – Ibid., collection. 2, p. 14–17; Zhukovskaya L.P. Exliteral methods for identifying different handwritings. - Same place, Sat. 2, p. 28–37; she is the same. On the legality of “broad dates” for parchment manuscripts. – In the book: Problems of paleography and codicology in the USSR, pp. 39–53. Kostyukhina L.M. Scribe school of the Moscow Chudov Monastery at the end of the 16th century. – In the book: New information about the past of our country. M., 1967, p. 134–142; she is the same. Handwritings of Moscow scribes of the 17th century. (based on materials from the State Historical Museum). – In the book: Problems of paleography and codicology in the USSR, p. 152–189; she is the same. On some principles of identification and typification of handwriting in Russian manuscripts at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book, collection. 2, p. 18–27; Kloss B.M. Nil Sorsky and Nil Polev are “book writers.” - Same place, Sat. 2, p. 150–167; aka. Library of Moscow Metropolitans in the 16th century – In the book: Problems of paleography and codicology in the USSR, p. 114–125; aka. The activities of the metropolitan book-writing workshop in the 20s–30s of the 16th century and the origin of the Nikon Chronicle. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book. M., 1972, p. 318–337; Prokhorov G.M. Autographs of Neil Sorsky. – In the book: Cultural Monuments. New discoveries. Yearbook 1974 M., 197 5, p. 37–54. Filippova I.S. Identification of scribes based on analysis of the writing of cursive manuscripts. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book, collection. 2, p. 38–57. Handwriting identifications are also made in works on diplomacy, when analyzing the writing of acts and copy books (see, for example: Kashtanov S.M. Copy books of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of the 16th century - “Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the GBL”, issue 8. M., 1956, pp. 6–32; aka. Essays on Russian diplomacy. M., 1970, pp. 244–340). The lists given here and above do not claim to be complete. Kiseleva L.I. Gothic italic 13th–15th centuries. L., 1974, p. 5, 149, 151, 154. Cilissen L. L'expertise des écritures médiévales. Gand, 1973. Sinitsyna N.V. Book master Mikhail Medovartsev. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book, p. 286–317; she is the same. New manuscripts by Mikhail Medovartsev. - Same place, Sat. 2, p. 145–149; she is the same. Identification of handwritings of Russian handwritten books of the late 15th – first half of the 16th centuries. and its difficulties. – In the book: Problems of paleography and codicology in the USSR, p. 89–113. Romanova V.L. On the question of the nomenclature of the so-called Gothic script of handwritten books of the 13th–15th centuries. – SV, issue. 23. M., 1963, p. 45. For more details, see: Romanova V.L. Manuscript book and Gothic writing in France in the 13th–14th centuries. M., 1975, p. 25–26, 37. De la Mare A.S. The Handwriting of the Italian Humanists, vol. I, fasc. 1. Oxford, 1973, p. IX. Speransky M.N. “Greek” and “ligature” writing in Russian manuscripts of the 15th–16th centuries. – “Byzantinoslavica”, t. IV. Prague, 1932, p. 58–60. Bakhturina R.V. Reproducing cursive text and taking into account graphic options. – In: Linguistic source studies. M., 1963, p. 45. Filippova I.S. Decree, op., p. 38. In the practice of modern forensic analysis, deviations from the rules are taken into account. The copybooks of the 16th century, the samples by which writing was taught, are, unfortunately, unknown to us. Filippova I.S. Decree, op., p. 40. M.N. Speransky drew attention to this circumstance: “The same time (the second half of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century - N.S.) in the development of Russian graphics was the time of the development and design of cursive handwriting, which, due to its purpose and the natural living conditions of writing, had many points of contact with Greek minuscule writing (roundness, coherence of outlines as a result of the desire for speed in the writing process itself); it is not surprising, therefore, that the “Greek” skills that penetrated semi-statutory writing turned out to be suitable and strengthened in Russian cursive writing” (Speransky M.N. Decree, op., p. 61). In Fig. 4, it is not possible to determine whether the scribe of the manuscript Benjamin changes the style of writing or whether the handwriting of another scribe is inserted here. Fonkich B.L. Russian autograph of Maxim the Greek, p. 156. Proof that Greek and Russian writing belong to the same hand is also l. 1 rev. in Sof. 78, where Greek homophones and their Russian translations are placed within six lines: both were undoubtedly written at the same time, with the same hand, with the same pen and with the same ink (Fig. 9). Karsky E.F. Slavic Cyrillic paleography. L., 1928, p. 164, 167. (“The letters ь, ъ, ѣ... probably represent a modification of b,” the style of which was taken “from the special spelling of the Greek β”). Sinitsyna N.V. Bookmaster, p. 296–297. On macro photography, see: Fink-Errera S. Contribution de la macrophotography à la conception d’une paléographie générale. – “Bulletin de la Société Internationale pour l’étude de la philosophie médiévale”, No. 4. Louvain, 1962, p. 106–110. The sequence in the arrangement of tables is as follows: first, all the tables of the angular version of the letters of this group are placed, then the rounded ones. Total per liter 160 volumes, as already mentioned, 13 angular styles, in the table there are 12; one of them is not reproduced in the table, since one of the strokes that make up the letter is indistinguishable, and it looks like the letter “b” (see Fig. 6, 11th line of St., the word “not bride”). , In the T on the table this is difficult to distinguish, since the letters do not have such clear outlines as in other manuscripts. This is explained by the fact that the margins of the Trinity Psalter are heavily soiled, the letters are not clearly visible in the manuscript itself, so a more contrasting reproduction is impossible. The paler pattern in P (compared to K. and A) is the result of the fact that in P there is cinnabar, which gives a less contrasting print compared to ink. Kovtun L.S., Sinitsyn N.V., Fonkich B.L. Decree, op., p. 99–127. Belokurov S.A. About the library, p. CCXXXVI–CCCXIV. Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage. State Historical Museum, Shchukinsk. 537, l. 501. Kovtun L.S. Lexicography, p. 116–125. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim the Greek and Savonarola (On the first handwritten collection of works by Maxim the Greek). – In the book: Feudal Russia in the world-historical process. Sat. articles dedicated to L.V. Cherepnin. M., 1972, p. 154–156. On the role of Patriarch Job, see: Belobrova O.A. On the question of the iconography of Maxim the Greek. – TODRL, vol. XV. M. – L., 1958, p. 303. Jonah’s interest in the work of Maxim the Greek is reflected in the manuscripts: of the 16 manuscripts of Jonah Dumin listed by B.N. Florey (Florya B.N. On the reconstruction of the composition of Old Russian libraries. - In the book: Old Russian Art. Manuscript Book. M., 1972, pp. 57–59), half refers to the work of Maxim the Greek (No. 14, 15 - works; No. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 - translations). Three manuscripts written in the same handwriting as Jonah’s insert on the manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Uvar should also be added here. 309 (in the list of B.N. Flori - No. 14) and the text of the manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310 (in the list of B.N. Floria - No. 15): GBL, Egor. 869 – works of Maxim the Greek, first part of the manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310; GBL, Collection. Fadeeva, No. 3, 4 – Conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, in two parts. The contribution of Jonah Dumin is also the Degree Book (TsGADA, f. 381, no. 346). H.N. Pokrovsky connects with the activities of Jonah Dumin the Siberian collection containing a more complete text of the Judgment List of Maxim the Greek (Judgment Lists, pp. 17–18). See p. 152 of this work. Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, pol. 2, p. 232–263. Wed. Budovnits I.U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M.–L., 1947. Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kyiv, 1915. Haney J.V. From Italy to Muscovy. The Life and Works of Maxim the Greek. München, 1973, p. 114. Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. L., 1967, p. 42–47. Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th – early 16th centuries. M.–L., 1960, p. 4. Sobolevsky A.I. Translated literature of Moscow Rus' of the XIV–XVII centuries. Bibliographic materials. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 263. Rzhiga V.F. Experiments, pp. 95–96, 76–77; Wed Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 227, 223. Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 85–109. Ch. 37th type I (Appendix I-a) or Ch. 55 type X (Appendix II-a). Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 157, 161. See p. 80 of this work. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1. Kazan, 1859, p. 447–448. The importance of this indication is evidenced, for example, by the fact that I. Denisov was misled by the absence of the author’s name in the descriptions of the collections of works by Maxim the Greek and concluded that this reflected the peculiarity of the manuscript; Meanwhile, the author's name is omitted from the descriptions of P.M. Stroev and Leonid, and is available in manuscripts (see Chapter III, § 2). In addition to the above example (No. 157 and 161), we also indicate No. 196, which represents the end of the text named under No. 222 (the same text also appeared in different headings). Bibliography see: Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 228. “Moskvityanin”, 1842, No. 11. Becker I. Op. cit., p. 481. Here and below are links to the page numbers of the original, located at https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/15229-Maxim-Grek-in-Russia.pdf – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. It can be assumed that their total number even exceeds one hundred, since the Lexicon of the Suda is the source of many marginal glosses in the collections of works of Maximus the Greek. I express my most sincere gratitude to my colleagues for the opportunity to publish the preliminary results of the work. There is no numbering of articles in the manuscript. The text is also placed on the l. 171 with discrepancies. The text is also placed on the page. 131 rev. – 132 in a different edition of the translation and has the title “Joseph the Judean Testimony of Christ Jesus.” The text is also placed on the l. 170 rpm with different interpretations. The texts placed under Nos. 47 and 48 may represent a single text, but there is a formal basis for their separation: at the end of the first text there is a symbol with which the scribe marks the end of the article. The text is also placed on the l. 106 rev. with different interpretations. The text is also placed on the page. 30 rev. – 31 with discrepancies. The scribe mistakenly wrote “Skoin” at the beginning of the article, but the text correctly “Sisoin” (Greek “σισόην”).