Глава 2. Первый период жизни Максима Грека в России (1518–1525 гг.)

§ 1. Translation activities The Moscow Grand Duke’s modest request to send a book translator “for a while” from Athos resulted in a rich and vibrant page in the history of Russian culture. However, the fate of the translator was dramatic. The Greek embassy, ​​which included Maxim the Greek, arrived in Moscow on March 4, 1518, three years after Vasily Kopyl and Ivan Varavin, together with the ambassador to Turkey V.A. Korobov went to Athos 108 (for a translator and with rich “alms” from Vasily III and Solomonia to remember their parents and pray for the birth of a son). The combination of these two purposes of the trip was, of course, accidental, but subsequently the question of the heir to the Moscow throne played a noticeable role in the fate of Maxim the Greek. The Greek embassy that arrived in Moscow, in addition to Maximus the Greek, included Metropolitan Gregory the Greek of Ioannina, sent by Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople, and Patriarchal Deacon Dionysius the Greek. Maxim the Greek was accompanied by the Vatopedi monks “Neophyte of the Holy Monk and Lavrentiy Bolgarin”. The envoy of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery was “Sava Progumen” 109. The arriving Greeks were placed in the Chudov Monastery. From the investigative case of 1525, however, it is known that Maxim the Greek lived for some time in the Simonov Monastery 110, in the same place as Vassian Patrikeev. Close contact was established between them. Vassian Patrikeev, apparently, introduced Maxim the Greek to the peculiarities of monastic life in Russia, and the learned Athonite monk helped the Russian non-possessor to more clearly formulate his views, translated for him interpretations of canonical decrees, and talked about Athonite monastic practice. Maxim's activities. From the very beginning of her stay in Moscow, Greka acquired a cultural and educational orientation. His cell became the center where the most educated people gathered for scholarly debates and conversations (“they talked with Maxim in books and talked among themselves about bookish things”), to discuss topical political and social problems 111. Some of his interlocutors, for example V.M. Tuchkov, he taught Greek 112. The Trinity monk Selivan, who was entrusted with rewriting the translations of Maxim the Greek, apparently knew Greek before the arrival of the Athonite, and under his leadership he improved this knowledge. Later making large translations on his own, Selivan considered Maxim his teacher. Later, ok. In 1540, the learned Athonite monk taught the Greek language to the Tver sacristan Veniamin, in the early 50s in Trinity - Nil Kurlyatev. Teaching the Greek language to others, his own extensive translations from Greek are important components of the cultural and educational work of Maxim the Greek. The significance of the translations lies not only in the fact that previously unknown monuments became accessible to ancient Russian readers, but also in the fact that Maxim applied Byzantine philological experience to the material of another language, i.e. in critical techniques, principles of attitude to the text. The translation activity of Maxim the Greek was given great importance during this period. Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlasiy, experienced embassy interpreters, as well as major diplomats of the time, participants in embassies to different countries, were sent to help him 113. In addition to Selivan, the best Moscow calligraphers - Mikhail Medovartsev, Isak Sobaka, and scribes of the metropolitan department - were involved in the copying of the translated texts. Mikhail Medovartsev, as shown by the analysis of his manuscripts, while remaining a secular figure, had a “cell” in the monastery of St. Nicholas the Old, where monks-copyists of books worked and where the grand-ducal orders were carried out. This unique book-writing center was associated with the court and embassy environment 114. By identifying handwriting, it was possible to identify manuscripts related to the activities of another scribe, Isak Sobaka, and allowing previously unknown facts of his biography to be established. It turned out that at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries. he collaborated in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery with Gury Tushin in the matter of copying books and may have been associated with the non-covetous circle of Nil Sorsky 115. It is not known how extensive the plans of the church and secular authorities were regarding the translation activities of Maxim the Greek. In the letter of Vasily III on March 15, 1515 to the Athonite archpriest Simeon, it is said about sending a “book translator for a while”; Anfimiy, Vatopedi abbot, writes to Metropolitan Varlaam that Vasily III asked to send Savva, “if he wants to work for some things in Russia for the things that are needed for that land” 116. There is no information regarding who chose the monuments for the translation of Maxim the Greek: whether he himself, the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke, Vassian Patrikeev, or any other persons (it is only known that Maxim later refused to translate, at the request of Metropolitan Daniel, the “holy book of the blessed Theodoret”) 117. We have only the works of Maxim the Greek. They allow us to believe that his translation activity can, in a certain sense, be correlated with the translation practice of Gennadiev’s literary circle, with the difference that in Novgorod at the end of the 15th century. translations were carried out from Latin, and Maxim translated from Greek. This difference, however, cannot indicate a conscious opposition of the Greek and Latin traditions in Russian literature and in Russian culture - it is enough to remember that by order of the Archbishop of Novgorod, later the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius, who diligently collected the lives of Russian and Greek saints, in 1535 another Explanatory Psalter was translated from the Latin language, Bruno of Würzburg, and this translation was included in the Makarievsky menaion-chetia along with the Explanatory Psalter of Athanasius of Alexandria. In addition, Maxim the Greek also translated from Latin 118, and in Gennady’s circle translations were made not only from Latin, but also from Greek. Russian interpreters Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlasiy, former active members of the Novgorod circle, took part in the first translations of Maxim the Greek, which indicates a continuity between the activities of this circle and the works of Maxim the Greek; it manifests itself to a certain extent in the objects of translation. Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlasiy worked on the psalter text on behalf of the Novgorod archbishop at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries. In 1500, Gerasimov translated the inscriptions of psalms from the Latin psalter; the record indicates that 1500 is not the first stage of the appeal to her: “And before that, in two years, Vlas translated them (the inscriptions - N.S.) to Archbishop first Vlas and then Mitya, and then already in the third Mitya translated them again” 119. Maxim the Greek also showed great interest in the psalter. It is generally accepted that the first translation of Maxim the Greek in Russia was the Explanatory Psalter. Since in the message to Vasily III regarding the completion of the work, the translator writes that it took him a year and five months 120, the translation dates back to 1519. 121 Entries on some lists, calling the date of completion of the translation December 1522 122, are considered erroneous 123. Indeed, in the mentioned message to Vasily III, Metropolitan Varlaam is named (until February 1522). However, indirect evidence still forces us to abandon the traditional dating (1519) and attribute the completion of the translation to a later time; The date December 1522 is not completely excluded (the dedication message could have been prepared even before the work was completed). It is necessary to take into account the fact that the entries on the earliest copies of the Apostle translated by Maximus are called the translation date either March 1519 or March 1520. The first date seems more correct 124. It is hardly possible to complete such extensive translations in such a short time. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that while working on the Explanatory Psalter, Maxim the Greek wrote a lengthy polemical message to F.I. Karpov and earlier - a message to Nikolai Nemchin; soon after arriving in Rus', he wrote a lengthy message to Vasily III about the monasteries of Mount Athos (see Chapter II, § 2–6). If the translations of the Explanatory Apostle and the Explanatory Psalter are separated in time, then the translation of the second of these monuments was carried out, apparently, over the course of a year and five months in the period 1519–1522. The earliest known copy of the Explanatory Psalter is GBL, Ovchinn. 63, which contains only the second part of the monument (from the 76th Psalm). The manuscript dates back to the 20s of the 16th century; Mikhail Medovartsev took part in its design and editing. The earliest list of the first part of the monument (1–54 psalms) with dedication to Vasily III – State Public Library, St. Petersburg. YES, A. I. 171 – dates back to the 40s. Other early lists: GBL, f. 173, MDA Fund. 143 (second quarter of the 16th century); GBL, f. 304, Troitsk. 86 (1556); State Historical Museum, Shchukinsk. 4 (mid-16th century); State Historical Museum, Khlud. 4 D (1592; the manuscript is related to the activities of Jonah Dumin); State Historical Museum, Sin. 156 (end of the 16th century). Numerous lists of the 17th–18th centuries. indicate the great popularity of the monument. In 1523/24, the student of Maximus the Greek, monk Selivan, completed the translation of the Conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, as reported in the preface of Selivan 125, as well as in the discovery of N.B. Tikhomirov's message to Maxim the Greek, where the author characterizes the content of the translated book and Selivan's merits as a translator 126. It can be assumed that one of the earliest translation copies (TsGADA, f. 381, no. 196) contains the autograph of this scribe 127 . The date of translation of the Conversations of John Chrysostom into the Gospel of John is not entirely clear. An entry on one of the lists naming the date 1524/25 contains contradictions and cannot be considered completely reliable 128 . Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the translations of these major works of John Chrysostom are close in time. It is not known whether the initiative to translate the Conversations belonged to Maxim the Greek himself or to Metropolitan Daniel, but metropolitan scribes in the 20s and 30s, when the translator was in captivity, repeatedly rewrote this translation: GBL, Troitsk. 94 and GBL, Rogozhsk. 38 (Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew, part 1); GBL, Troitsk. 98 (Conversations on the Gospel of John, part 1); GPB, Kir.-Bel. 20/145 and 21/146 (Conversations on the Gospel of John, parts 1 and 2) 129. The list of the monument, according to the entry on the manuscript, was ordered for himself in 1545 by V.M. Tuchkov (State Historical Museum, Resurrection 82-boom., Conversations on the Gospel of John); in 1556 and 1557 lists of Conversations are given to the Chudov Monastery by the Blagoveshchensk priest Sylvester (GIM, Chud. 188) and the Chudov Archimandrite Levkia (GIM, Chud. 189). The popularity of the monument is evidenced by numerous lists from the 16th–17th centuries, and a relatively early edition (1664–1665). The first period of Maxim the Greek’s life in Russia also includes translations of the works of Simeon Metaphrastus and Basil the Great 130, included in a collection of the 20s of the 16th century. GPB, Sof. 1498. Its Moscow part was written before 1531 in the circle of scribes who collaborated with Medovartsev, and was sent to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery to Gury Tushin 131. In this monastery they were interested in the translations of Maxim the Greek, as evidenced by the above-mentioned list of the Explanatory Apostle, made by the scribes of Gury Tushin (GPB, Kir.-Bel. 24/149). It must be assumed that other translations from Simeon Metaphrast were made simultaneously with those placed in Soph. 1498, i.e. until 1525 The first period of Maxim the Greek's life in Russia includes translations from the Byzantine Lexicon of the 10th century. "Courts." Maxim the Greek writes about some of them in his message to V.M. Tuchkov, with whom he communicated in the period before 1525: “I have translated these stories about Origen and Abraham and Job and Melchizedek from the Greek philosophical book Suidas. If you love the name of rivers, order them to be written off for yourself on a clean notebook, and send the black one back to me for God’s sake, so as not to experience such things in the same way, and I, my sovereign, will beat you with my forehead about all your good things, so that you do not forget the beggar.” Although in the Rumyantsev collection, from which the text is quoted, the name of the addressee is absent, it is indicated in another manuscript 132; Proof that the message was sent to V.M. Tuchkov, is also the fact that it was placed in the Rumyantsev collection as part of a single set of articles, which opens with a message from V.M. Tuchkov about the printed sign of Aldus Manutius (indicating the name of the addressee - “My Prince Sovereign Vasily Mikhailovich”, fol. 99 and vol.); then the translations from the Lexicon of the “Judgment”, named in the message quoted above, are placed, then the message itself (see also Appendix III-a, No. 54–61). Since the translations named in the message belong to the first period, it can be assumed with a reasonable degree of probability that the remaining translations from the Lexicon, including the one found on ll., also belong to the same time. 305–315 of the Rumyantsev collection, a large complex of such translations from the Lexicon. One of the reasons for Maxim the Greek’s appeal to this monument is named in the message: the curiosity of the representatives of his environment (“to experience such things”). But another reason can be assumed - the connection of this work with the translation of the Explanatory Psalter; the source of many of the articles from the Lexicon chosen by Maximus for translation are psalter fragments and interpretations of them by different authors, most often Theodoret. The presence of translations of Maxim the Greek from the Lexicon of the “Judgment” has been known for a long time: they were pointed out by A.A. Pokrovsky 133, more detailed information was given by A.I. Sobolevsky 134. In the list of A.I. Ivanov lists 21 articles from the Lexicon 135, and 11 of them are in the Rumyantsev collection, in which about 80 more translations from this monument have now been found. Previously known texts were mainly articles of an encyclopedic nature with historical, philosophical, mythological content (“Plato the philosopher”, “Abraham”, “Origen”, “Job”, “Melchizedek”, “Praise to the primordial Adam”, “Rahmans”, “Sibyls”, “Satan”, “dog”, “zephyr”, etc.) · To articles of this type it is necessary to add a text translated from the Lexicon, similar to the well-known insert in composition by Josephus with mention of Jesus Christ. A.I. Ivanov believes that the excerpt was translated by Maxim directly from “Jewish Antiquities” 136. But this article, placed twice in the collection, and in both cases among translations from the Lexicon of the "Judgment", is also taken from this monument 137. A reference to the source in the articles of the Rumyantsev collection (“a lot of Joseph speaks about Christ in the tenth word”) is also available in the Lexicon of the “Courts”, the source of which was “Jewish Antiquities” 138. Among the identified new translations of Maxim the Greek, which occupy a separate notebook in the Rumyantsev collection (ll. 305–315), some have the same content and character as those previously known: “Diopethes... an idol from Zeus, sent quickly and arriving from above,” No. 2 139; "Tarshish", No. 42 and 87 (articles of geographical content); “Plato the Philosopher,” No. 61 (end of the article, placed in its entirety in another part of the Rumyantsev collection, on pp. 135–136 vol.); Peleg, No. 68 (chronological article); “Lykaon Pelasgov’s son”, No. 83; “Devderic king of Africa”, No. 90 (var. “Devderic”, i.e. Theodoric). Among these texts is placed (secondary in the manuscript, in a different edition of the translation) not only an excerpt from Josephus about Christ (No. 41), but also another article (also secondarily in the manuscript) “For Nero the King” (No. 76), telling about the fate of Anna, Caiaphas and Pilate after the execution of Christ. Most articles on ll. 305–315 is of a different – ​​lexicographical nature. And since medieval lexicography, like philology in general, had fairly close connections with exegesis 140, the articles translated by Maxim the Greek are dominated by topics interpreting the meaning of Old Testament and New Testament symbols and concepts. Articles of various contents have been translated. A number of articles contain interpretations of words that have different book orientations: church and non-church; word usage befitting high bookishness is being worked out (“I crave, I thirst – I wish for God to eat, for I want to please and look upon him and listen to his command and be guided by him”, No. 3); “a voice and a cry are in divine scripture spiritual will and zeal; I cried out to the Lord with my voice,” No. 70; the last phrase is a fragment of Psalm 3, 4. The differences in meanings assigned to words of similar meanings are explained (“spiritual - “spiritual” No. 1, “justification, law, commandments, fate; the law is called given by God by Moses; the commandments and commandments are the same, like royal behavior and instructions; justified, like the one who can justify the ruler and; fate is like divine judgment and worthy of retribution for those who live according to the law and lawlessly; information likewise testifies to what kind of torment they will suffer”, No. 32). Wed. and double meanings of words (these are the meanings of the adverb “dondezhe” - in relation to the temporality of earthly life and the infinity of the divine ever-being, No. 2; the meanings of the word “malice”, No. 43). The above articles characterize the originality of the semantics of words when used in church literature, the “internal” meaning of words. This is especially evident in articles devoted to the disclosure of symbols and allegories (“horn - in the divine scripture, strength, strength in the likeness of animals armed with horns and those who resist them. David. There I will lift up the horn of David, - firmly and abidingly something will be said,” No. 81; “the horn of the righteous has been named pious wisdom, that is, will be glorified,” No. 82; “and glory to the sun; the sun speaks the new covenant, for it is the sun of righteousness that is perfect,” No. 18; “the earth of the living is not a part of death and sorrow,” No. 28; “the silvered dove is the gift of the Holy Spirit,” No. 73). The disclosure of symbolism causes the appearance of articles in which a real comment is given, or an indication is given that the word has several meanings (“Phoenix is ​​a fruitful tree and a bird,” No. 12; “a unicorn is an animal that has one horn from its creator, accepted...”, No. 53; “a night crow - a bird’s mouth is a desert, even fleeing inhabited churches,” No. 72). Some articles treat topics that occupy a certain place in the work of Maxim the Greek, for example, articles on the distinction between two types of evil (No. 43, 44), on two types of “dwelling” - monastic and secular (No. 26), on “mental and spiritual” (No. 1), on “mammon” (No. 86) 141. A distinctive feature of Maxim the Greek's translations is their variation; Some articles are included in the Rumyantsev collection twice, and the nature of the discrepancies indicates, in particular, the translator’s interest in the synonymy of the language, in form-building, and in the possibilities of paraphrasing. Thus, in two translations of the article “malice” we encounter different interpretations: “verb” – “slander” (ϰαταλαλιά); “death” - “pestilence” (θάνατος); “many times do they intercede for us with good things” - “many times do we receive good things” (αἴτια ἀγαθῶν). Translations of Maxim the Greek from the Lexicon of the Court testify to the philological inclinations and knowledge of Maxim the Greek, his desire to use Byzantine philological experience on the material of another language. Maxim the Greek translated major monuments of Christian literature: the Explanatory Psalter, the Explanatory Apostle, which included articles by many Christian authors; Gospel Conversations of John Chrysostom - one of the largest representatives of patristics of the 4th - early 5th centuries; lives from the collection of Symeon Metaphrastus, a writer of the 10th century; articles from a Byzantine lexicographic collection of the 10th century. “The Court” was a kind of encyclopedia that included information of the most diverse nature. Maxim the Greek did not only translations of new monuments, previously absent from the Slavic manuscript tradition. Soon after arriving in Moscow, he realized the need to correct Russian liturgical books by checking them with the Greek originals, which he carried out. In “Words of Disclaimer about the Correction of Russian Books,” written later, at the turn of the 30s and 40s, Maxim the Greek explains in detail the corrections to which a significant number of liturgical texts were subjected 142 . Among them we are talking, in particular, about “triode correction”. In relation to the triodion, we have a rare case of the presence of both the Greek manuscript from which the verification and correction was carried out, and the original of the corrected Russian text. We are talking about the color triode of the State Historical Museum, Shchukinsk. 329, the entry of which reports that in March 1525 the “reign from the Greek triodion of Photius Metropolitan” was completed, carried out by the “work and feat” of Mikhail Medovartsev; Some of the text is written here in his hand, “smoothed”, and some is written anew. In “The Answering Word,” Maxim the Greek writes about only two corrections in the text of the monument, which are found in the said manuscript when compared with other copies; analysis shows that the entire text was edited 143. The Greek triodion of Metropolitan Photius, according to which the translation was corrected, is a manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Sin. Greek No. 284 (462) 144. To clarify the nature of the corrections made by Maxim the Greek in the Slavic translations of books, to study the leading trends in his editing, his work on the psalter, one of the most popular books of the Middle Ages, was analyzed. This monument was chosen because Maxim the Greek addressed it several times during his life in Russia. Explanatory psalter 1519–1522. reflects the first stage of Maxim the Greek's work on correcting the Slavic translation of the psalter. In 1552, at the end of his life, Maxim the Greek, together with Nil Kurlyatev, translated the text of the psalms without interpretations, while simultaneously teaching the Trinity monk the Greek language 145. A number of other monuments characterize the intermediate stages of work on the text. In the Slavic psalter of the late 15th century. Troitsk 315 there are numerous replacements of a lexical, syntactic and (less often) spelling nature, made by the hand of Maxim the Greek, as already mentioned above (Chapter I, § 1). In the Greek psalter Soph. 78, copied by Maxim the Greek in Tver in 1540, there are Slavic marginal glosses of the same nature as in Troitsk. 315 (some of them coincide textually). A small part of these glosses also belongs to the hand of Maximus the Greek, and the rest to another scribe, in which B.L. Fonkich presumably sees the customer of the manuscript, the sacristan of the Tver Bishop Akaki, Hierodeacon Veniamin, who, like Nil Kurlyatev, deepened his knowledge of the Greek language in classes with an Athonite translator 146. In the collected works of Maxim the Greek from the end of the 16th century. the text “The Statement of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain” is included (the table of contents usually adds “about psalms”), which are excerpts of psalms that differ from the generally accepted Slavic tradition, i.e., subjected to correction by Maxim. In a collection of the early 17th century. GPB, Weather. 1143 contains the “Psalter Lines” - a text similar in nature to the “Expression”, but including a significantly larger number of corrected passages. By examining Maxim the Greek's correction of the Slavic translation of the psalter, it would be possible to involve another set of monuments. The fact is that Maxim the Greek’s Russian assistants in translating the Explanatory Psalter, Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlasiy, conveyed in Russian the translation he had made from Greek to Latin. Therefore, the opinion was expressed that “words and expressions of popular speech” found in the text of the monument “must, of course, be attributed to his assistants” 147; “We cannot see the Slavic-Russian language of Maxim the Greek in this translation” 148. It is also known that Dmitry Gerasimov worked on the psalter not only in 1519–1522. together with Maxim the Greek, but also independently, for the first time - in 1500, even before meeting the learned Athonite, and for the second time - in 1535, when he translated for another Novgorod archbishop, Macarius, the future metropolitan, the Explanatory Psalter of Bruno of Würzburg (from Latin) 149. If in 1500 only the inscriptions of the psalms were processed, and their text remained close to what was generally accepted then, then in the psalter translated in 1535, the readings in the texts of the psalms sometimes coincide with the lexical and grammatical substitutions in the Explanatory Psalter of 1519–1522, which was noted in the literature 150. Some of these replacements were not included by Gerasimov in his work of 1535, i.e. the text of the psalms retains readings that correspond to the generally accepted ones. In addition, in the translation of 1535 there are new replacements, although the nature of the edits remains the same. Maxim the Greek, after 1519–1522, as the above-mentioned monuments show, continued to work in the same direction. The activities of both Maxim Grek and Dmitry Gerasimov, therefore, reflect a single process and should be considered in inextricable unity. However, at this stage, the use of materials characterizing the independent activity of Dmitry Gerasimov goes far beyond the scope of the study, which was limited to monuments characterizing the successive stages of Maxim the Greek’s appeal to the Slavic translation of the psalter. The research carried out by the author of these lines together with L.S. Kovtun and B.L. Fonkich, allowed us to come to the following conclusions: “In the second half of the 16th century, the formation of a national literary language began, so the living connections of the substitutions made by the reference translator with the general course of language development (they appeared quite regularly and clearly) provide scientifically valuable materials for characterizing this process... We do not want to say that Maxim the Greek foresaw the course of language development, but there is no doubt that, replacing some words in the Church Slavonic text with others, he must have sensed some kind of literary norm and contributed to it with his choice approval. His preferences were not random. This is proven by the fact that the words and meanings he chose were fixed in the Russian literary language and are used in it to this day... The glosses of Maxim the Greek should be considered among those materials, the totality of which can represent in living reality the process of thousands of efforts of writers and the entire people aimed at creating a literary language of a new type" 151. The translation activity of Maxim the Greek was of great importance in the history of Russian culture. The point is not only that many new works entered the mainstream of handwritten books. Maxim the Greek was one of the first philologists, whose principles of translation activity and textual criticism, deep conviction in the need to correct Slavic translations of books based on Greek originals characterize him as a person who mastered the Byzantine philological experience, familiar with the humanistic culture, philological practice of the Renaissance. Analyzing the Words about the correction of Russian books, L.S. Kovtun writes about the “philological experience and skill” of the author. In Words, Maxim gives examples of errors in translations and gives his translation; “the Slavic correspondences chosen by Maxim are confirmed in the translations of the most ancient times”; at the same time, in these works “his desire to write in Russian, in a language that was his own for his readers, was clearly reflected... He knew how to defend and defended his “goals,” citing for each amendment the arguments of a philologist and an expert on church texts” 152. The corrections boldly made by Maxim the Greek to the text of church books met with different attitudes from his contemporaries. Some, like Selivan, Nil Kurlyatev, who themselves knew Greek, spoke with respect about the learned Athonite; others treated him with distrust and even fear. Let us remember the words of Medovartsev, who was correcting the text on the instructions of Maxim the Greek: “I smoothed out two lines, but I hesitated to smooth it out... I can’t... smooth it out, a great trembling caught me and horror attacked me” 153. Maxim the Greek's edit gave rise to accusations that he was “corrupting” and “corrupting” the “holy scriptures” 154. In “The Disclaimer” there is an interesting argument by the author - his response to the accusation that, by paying attention to errors in liturgical books, he thereby blasphemes the Russian miracle workers, who “pleasing the gods with the calico sacred books.” Maxim the Greek uses the text of the book in his objection. Paul (1 Cor. 12:7–11) that different people are given different spiritual gifts: one is given the “word of wisdom”, another is the “word of understanding”, or “faith”, or “gifts of healing”, or “prophecy”, or “bearing with the tongue” (Greek γένη γλωσσῶν). Maxim the Greek writes that the Russian miracle workers were “God-bearing fathers” and “God’s saints,” he worships them; but they were not given “the birth of the tongue and their legend,” and therefore “their existing ones were hidden, the correction of the inventories that I am now correcting.” One should not be surprised that, the author continues, some “have been given the gift of healings, wondrous miracles,” while others (here the author clearly means himself), “even though he is a sinner more than all earthly creatures, has been gifted with the tongue reason and legend” 155 . Words about book correction were given wide significance in the 17th century. Thus, they were placed in the 1648 edition of “Grammar” by Meletius Smotritsky. From this source they were known, in particular, to Yuri Krizhanich, who used them in polemics with the Old Believers. If the Old Believers, in their assertion that Nikon “distorted the faith,” tried to rely on the authority of Maxim the Greek and his books written according to pre-Nikon rules, then Yuri Krizhanich, objecting to them, recalled that the opponents of Maxim the Greek, who condemned him, brought against him the same accusations that the Old Believers bring against Nikon - the correction of liturgical books made by Maxim the Greek, as a result of which he “distorted” the faith of Russian miracle workers. Therefore, according to Yu. Krizhanich, the Old Believers, by honoring Maxim the Greek, actually follow those who hated him and called him a heretic 156. Krizhanich was right in drawing attention to the paradoxical fact that the Old Believers relied on the authority of Maxim the Greek, whose translation activity characterizes the same direction in the history of Russian culture as Nikon’s reforms of the mid-17th century. Yuri Krizhanich made perhaps the first attempt at a historical assessment of one of the aspects of the activities of Maxim the Greek, trying to connect it with the phenomena of subsequent times, separated from Maxim the Greek by a whole century. The main content of the activities of Maxim the Greek in 1518–1525. There were translations, their volume is very significant. At the same time, he acted as a writer-publicist, the author of messages to Grand Duke Vasily III, a prominent diplomat and publicist Fyodor Karpov, a learned theologian and physician Nikolai Bulev (Nemchin), and other persons. Are the epistles and polemical treatises of this time the result of the author’s inner motivation, the determination to deliver thematically diverse teachings and denunciations, or is he carrying out someone else’s order (and whose exactly)? This question can be answered with varying degrees of probability in relation to different groups of essays. The message to Vasily III regarding the completion of work on the Explanatory Psalter is related to translation activities and is largely due to the requirements of etiquette. The date of the message is the time the translation was completed (between 1520–1522). An earlier letter to the Moscow Grand Duke about the structure of the Athos monasteries (1518–1519) is a lengthy response to the repeated or numerous questions (“ask in multitude”) of Vasily III, whose interest in the Athos monasteries was caused, presumably, by the controversy surrounding the issue of the monastic structure and monastic land ownership. Message to the Grand Duke 1521–1522. regarding the invasion of the Crimean Khan is, according to Maxim the Greek, the result of his own “will” (“and for my love for the superior power of your kingdom, I will hold on for a long time... be kind enough... to present my mind to your kingdom”). The author asserts the right of advice to the ruler, beginning the message with the following words: “Nothing can be created without a place, something below the mind will be created, if someone brings love, even to those in charge, to those in charge, to light, both in time and in the heights of what is useful”; Those who “show wisely and prudently to those in power” are worthy of praise. Maxim Grek does not specify who can give advice, noting only that “prudent” advice can also be expressed by “the worst.” This message outlines a theme that will occupy a significant place in the work of Maxim the Greek later, in the last decades of his life - “to highlight what is useful to society and the time” 157. The first two of these messages to Vasily III (about the completion of the translation and about the Athonite monasteries) are devoted to subjects well known to the author. When writing messages about the Tatar raid, he, determining the primary, from his point of view, direction of the foreign policy of the Russian state (the fight against Kazan), undoubtedly used information received from any of his Russian interlocutors, and also relied on his own observations. The subjects of the messages to Vasily III are varied (book translations, monastic structure, foreign policy), but they did not determine the main direction of the polemical and journalistic interests of Maxim the Greek at this time. The bulk of the works of the first period are devoted to two themes: anti-Catholic and anti-astrological. A) Anti-Catholic polemics, speeches against astrology Finding out the motivating reasons, the circumstances of the emergence of essays on both topics, and the origins of the controversy is more difficult than in relation to the messages to Vasily III. The speeches of Maxim the Greek chronologically coincide with the facts of the diplomatic struggle of the Russian government against the attempts of Western European diplomacy to attract Russia to the anti-Turkish coalition and to accept the terms of the Union of Florence 158. One of Maxim Grek’s addressees was F.I. Karpov is a prominent diplomat, to whom he wrote no less than seven messages before 1525 159 . The proposal for Russia to join the anti-Turkish coalition was made by the ambassadors of Emperor Maximilian, led by Francesco da Collo, on July 27, 1518. 160 The response of the Russian side actually meant a refusal to participate in the anti-Turkish coalition, since Russia’s foreign policy interests at that time consisted of maintaining peaceful relations with Turkey. The position of papal diplomacy was very active. In June 1518, Leo X sent legate Nikolai Schomberg, a Dominican monk, to Russia, who, however, failed to reach Moscow 161. The papal proposals became known here through Dietrich Schomberg, adviser to the master of the Teutonic Order. In Schomberg’s transmission, they consisted of the Grand Duke “and all the people of the Russian lands accepting the Roman churches into unity and harmony, without belittling or changing their good customs and laws...”, making the Metropolitan a patriarch, and crowning the Grand Duke. In response to the papal proposals, the Russian government in the most general form expressed its readiness for a joint fight against the Turks, but the proposal for union was rejected 162. In September 1519, the curia sent a new embassy to Moscow, Zachariah Ferreri, who, like Nikolai Schomberg, did not get to Moscow, reaching only Krakow 163. In 1520 and 1524 The Genoese Pavel Centurione came to Moscow, the first time as a merchant, who, however, had an unofficial note from the pope, the second time with an official message from Clement VII, where a proposal for union was again put forward 164. In the diplomatic struggle of this time, questions about the terms of the truce with Lithuania, relations with Poland and the Teutonic Order, Crimea and Turkey, church union and the anti-Turkish coalition were closely intertwined. In an atmosphere of complex diplomatic struggle in Moscow, there was a lively debate on ideological issues. The position of Maxim the Greek objectively served as an ideological justification for the government’s foreign policy course on the issue of uniting churches, and, consequently, in Turkey. As for his subjective position, his writings on anti-Catholic and anti-astrological themes allow us to draw two conclusions. Firstly, the initiator of the controversy is Nikolai Bulev, and not Maxim Grek or F.I. Karpov, whom I.B. Grekov is considered as a government representative to organize a written discussion between Maxim and Nikolai 165. Secondly, when Maxim the Greek had an opportunity to speak out about the Turkish danger (one of the “papers” circulated by Nicholas concerned the issue of the “Turks”), he, as will be shown, avoided this opportunity. Works that undoubtedly belong to the first period stand out quite clearly among the anti-Latin and anti-astrological works of Maxim the Greek. In the messages of F.I. Karpov has dating features, and one of them contains a date. Some messages to Nikolai Bulev also contain dating instructions; others should be assigned to a time before 1525 on the basis that after the conviction of Maximus the Greek in 1525, he was, as is known, forbidden to write, and by the time of c. The death of Nikolai Bulev 166 dates back to 1533. One of the earliest known collections is the GPB convolute, Soph. 1498, which was already discussed when characterizing the translation activities of Maxim the Greek. Here is a message to Vasily III about the structure of the Athonite monasteries, rewritten in the circle of scribes who collaborated with Medovartsev (possibly by the hand of Selivan, a student and collaborator of Maxim the Greek). Message to Vasily III regarding the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, second message to F.I. Karpov, directed against the Catholic propaganda of Nikolai Bulev, and the first letter to the same person against astrology are placed in the GPB collection, Q.I.487, dated Yu.K. Begunov in different decades and the middle of the 16th century. 167; the part with the messages of Maximus the Greek dates back to the end of the 40s (ll. 439–562) 168. The first anti-astrological message of F.I. Karpov knows in the list of the second quarter of the 16th century. - GIM, Sin. 384. Two messages from F.I. Karpov contains the Makarievskaya Menaion-Chetya (August), and also the so-called Sofia set (30s of the 16th century) 169. A large number of lists of works and translations of the first period come from the Volokolamsk Monastery (collections of mixed content from the mid-16th century). Collection of the State Historical Museum, Syn. 791 contains correspondence from F.I. Karpov and Maxim Grek, characterizing the beginning of their acquaintance, as well as messages from Maxim Grek to Nikolai Nemchin and F.I. Karpov 170. The text of Maxim the Greek's message is in some cases closer to the original than in other lists. Collections of GBL, Vol. 522 (mid-16th century) and Vol. 488 (50–60s of the 16th century) 171 contain messages from Maxim the Greek F.I. Karpov, repeating the chronological sequence of their occurrence. Collection Vol. 488 in 1571 given as a contribution to the Volokolamsk Monastery by Zhuk Lenkov; one of the representatives of this family in 1525 was entrusted with “supervising” Maxim the Greek 172. Two messages of Maxim the Greek are included in the GBL collection Vol. 4025, transferred to the archives of the Synod from the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery; there is also a valuable set of works and translations of Maximus the Greek of the first period 174. Lengthy messages of Maxim the Greek F.I. Karpov, dedicated to an anti-Catholic theme, were written, as their text testifies, while working on the translation of the Explanatory Psalter. These messages are preceded by a complex of three messages, two by Maxim the Greek and one by F.I. Karpov, characterizing the beginning of their acquaintance. From the text of the messages it is obvious that the publicists did not know each other before and did not correspond with each other. Fyodor Karpov’s message quotes an excerpt from Maxim the Greek’s message to Nikolai Nemchin, which caused him bewilderment (“Believe simply and untestingly in one God in three hypotheses or a cognizable face...”). This phrase is contained in one of the famous messages of Maxim the Greek 175, which should therefore be considered the earliest in a series of his messages to Nikolai Boolev. The works of Maxim the Greek on this topic are arranged in the following sequence. 1. OK. 1518–1519 “Maksim monk Nikolai Nemchin rejoices” 176, another version of the title “Message of the monk Maxim of Svyatogorsk to Nikolai the much-taught Nemchin” 177 (beginning: “Before small days, you told me to always have a memory of you, that is, to send prayers for you to the Savior Christ”) 178. The beginning indicates that the first of the currently known messages from Maxim the Greek to Nikolai Nemchin was a response to his request, most likely expressed in the message (the formula used by Maxim the Greek to present Nikolai’s request is typical specifically for messages, their initial or final part). The genre—message—is indicated in the title of most manuscripts. Title from the collection Sin. 791 reflects the message actually sent to Nicholas; a similar formula of addressing the addressee is found in other messages of Maxim the Greek. The ending is traditional for this genre: “Hello”; it is also found in other messages of Maxim the Greek. The addresses in the text of the message are in the singular (“understand, Mr. Nicholas, the mind of the preacher”; “I say to you”). The argumentation is laconic, the tone of the message is calm, and there are still no sharp polemical attacks against Nikolai Nemchin. The author urges the addressee to abandon misconceptions, being confident in the effectiveness of his arguments. 2. OK. 1518–1519 “Maxim the monk from the Holy Mountain to Mr. Feodor Ivanovich Karpov” 179, another version of the title: “The same to Feodor Ivanovich Karpov” 180 (beginning: “I heard from some, like your lordship”) 181. Unlike the first message to Nikolai Bulev, Maxim Grek’s first message to Karpov is not a response to any request or message from the Russian publicist and diplomat; the initiator of their written acquaintance is Maxim Grek himself. The reason for the message was rumors that had reached him that Fyodor Karpov had reproached Maxim the Greek in connection with his message to Nikolai Nemchin. Maxim Grek even writes that Karpov joined (“confessed”) “Nikolaev and Vlasie’s ignorance.” We are talking here about the Catholic propaganda of Nikolai Nemchin. An interesting indication is that his supporter was also Vlasiy, an interpreter who, together with Dmitry Gerasimov, helped Maxim in his translations. Maxim the Greek “wrote to Nicholas,” as he himself states in this message; therefore, this was even before he met Fedor Karpov. In both well-known lists of Maxim the Greek's message, a response message from Fyodor Karpov 182 is placed after him, characterizing, in particular, the reaction to Maxim's first message to Nikolai. One day in the church of St. Nicholas, priest Stefan approached Karpov, showed Maxim the Greek’s message against Nikolai Nemchin and expressed doubt about one of its provisions. “I said to him: stop, Stefan... we know that Maxima does not write without evidence from holy scripture.” Although Fyodor Karpov managed to “quench ... the arrogance” of Stefan, he, in turn, turned for clarification to the interpreter Vlasiy, who, apparently, told the Athonite theologian about the doubts of the Russian publicist, and perhaps contributed to their acquaintance. The message that Stefan showed to Fyodor Karpov contained the above phrase (“Believe simply and untested”); it served as the basis for establishing the earliest message from Maxim the Greek to Nikolai Nemchin. 3. OK. 1518–1519 “To my master Theodore Ivanovich Karpov Maxim the monk rejoice in Christ” 183 (beginning: “About your love for us”) 184. A kind and conciliatory response from Maxim the Greek to the above-mentioned message from Fedor. 4. OK. 1519–1521 “To the most beloved of Christ and the most honorable kyr Theodore Ivanovich Maxim the monk from Vatopedi does throwing” - the title in one list 185; in the remaining lists 186 “The word in Latin, as if there is no one to add anything or subtract from the divine confession of the Christian faith, formed by Maximus the Greek monk” (beginning: “Meda, the verb is the medicine of the sons”) 187. The message says that it was written in the midst of work on the Explanatory Psalter in response to the request of F.I., stated in a short “epistole”. Karpova. The work has a dual genre nature, belonging to both the epistolary and rhetorical genres. As a message, it was sent not only to F.I. Karpov, but also a certain Prince Ivan, as evidenced by the list of Vol. 638, where all appeals to F.I. Karpov was replaced by appeals to Prince Ivan 188; but all other specific details are preserved (compliments to the dogmatic awareness of the addressee, the author’s assessment of the “epistole” of this person received by him, the characteristics of the “epistole” itself, the author’s attitude to the correspondence of his addressee with Nikolai Nemchin). Consequently, the text was rewritten mechanically, with only the name being replaced. In lists where the text is designated as Word, the reference to F.I. is preserved. Karpov. The essay contains indications of a very lively debate on the issue under consideration. Firstly, the “epistols” of Nikolai Bulev are mentioned, but their addressee is not named. Secondly, the message to him from Fyodor Karpov and the response message from Nikolai Nemchin are named; after receiving it, Fyodor Karpov turned to Maxim the Greek (his “petition” is directly stated). The content of Nikolai Nemchin’s message to Fyodor Karpov was also known to Maxim the Greek: the messages of that time were “open letters.” 5. OK. 1519–1521 “The second word, ruining the chapters of Latin wisdom, was composed by a certain German on the right theology of the all-holy spirit, and was composed by Maximus, a thinker of the Holy Mountains of Athos” (beginning: “The beginning of your words is truth”) 189. The title is given according to a list from the late 40s of the 16th century, and the name in the Makarievskaya menea is literally identical to it 190. The word represents the second part or continuation of the previous message of F.I. Karpov. This is evidenced by repeated references to him in the text of the work, as well as the second version of the title 191; when creating it, the compilers apparently had at their disposal the text of the message without any inscription, and they decided to make the final lines of the previous message the title: “We are strengthened by His grace, we will soon send the rest of that Word, in it we will create a denunciation of the heads of Nikolaev, since God will help us, we will create them, Nikolai Nemchin will expound them on the right theology of the all-holy spirit, as promised to you. Hello!" The third version of the title, repeating the second version of the title of the previous message of F.I. Karpov, appears in later collections. The work has the same genre nature as the previous one; this is a polemical treatise - a Word, but at the same time a message to a specific person; in the text there are repeated references to F.I. Karpov. Occasionally we come across the author's appeal to Nikolai Nemchin, which is a rhetorical device, the author's appeal not to the addressee directly, but to the person whose views served as the source of the addressee's hobbies; the author wants to indicate the true opponent with whom he is polemicizing. 6. OK. 1519–1521 (?). “The word was copied by the monk Maxim the Greek of Svyatogorsk against the flattering copying of Nikolai Nemchin of Latin” 192 (beginning: “Lord and God and saved our Jesus Christ, among many others”). A more extensive title, reproduced in the Kazan edition and in the list of A.I. Ivanova 193 (after “Nemchin” added “he was copied about copulation by an Orthodox Christian and a Latin”), first appears in the Solovetsky collection as a result of the work of a reference editor 194. The genre of the work is designated as Word. This is a polemical treatise directed against a specific work - written by Nicholas “Words... about the union of Russian and Latin” 195. The author sets out the reason for creating the essay in a more general way than simply the desire to refute one essay of his opponent, more broadly than in messages to specific individuals. In the introduction, the author writes about false prophets, warning readers against their influence; Nikolai Nemchin is also counted among the false prophets. The word represents a peculiar result of Maxim’s acquaintance with Nikolai and his writings: “This is how I recognize the flattering Nikolai Nemchin, who, even in the last years, was pleased with the pious Russian language and in every way succeeded in deceiving them from the Orthodox faith.” The Word of Maxim the Greek, written in response to the Word of Nikolai Nemchin, is at the same time a message, since appeals to him are repeated several times (“what is against these verbs, about Nikolai”), and it is possible that the text was sent to him as a message. Along with appeals to Nikolai Nemchin, appeals in the plural are also frequent: “I’ll leave your crimes to count.” But this is not an appeal to like-minded Russians of Nikolai Nemchin, but a polemical device, intended to show that there is a polemic not of individuals, but of directions, that it is not “I” and “you” that are opposed, but “we” and “you”, and “you” is a collective designation for Catholics in general, and “we” for Orthodox Christians in general. If in the first letter to Nicholas one could still find the words: “I say to you,” then here the author no longer speaks of himself in the singular. The argumentation is lengthy and takes on a sharper character. Nikolai Nemchin is characterized as “the wisest,” but at the same time as a “false prophet,” “a charmer, a sophist,” he can be considered not only a “heretic,” but also an “atheist” 196. The essay does not contain any specific dating features. Presumably it can be attributed to the same time as the messages of F.I. Karpov, since it is, as it were, their logical continuation and completion: it refutes the practical conclusion from the views of Nikolai Bulev, namely the preaching of the unification of churches. This, presumably, is the reason for the sharper polemical tone of the author. 7. Until 1525 “Maxim of the Greek of the Holy Mountain to Nikolai Latynin” (beginning: “Every gift is good and every gift is accomplished”) 197. This is the title with which the text is included in collected works of the late 16th – early 17th centuries. 198, does not quite correspond to the content, since at the beginning of the message the addressee is not Nikolai Bulev, but an unknown by name “novice” who wrote to Maxim the Greek. At the end of the message, the addressee turns out to be Nikolai Nemchin. Maxim Grek addresses him specifically, writing that he received three of his messages. It is likely that the message in question was originally addressed to Nemchin; when sent, a new beginning was assigned to the “novice”, but the end remained unprocessed. The message was not written at the beginning of the controversy: three previous messages from Nicholas to Maxim are mentioned; but more precise data to determine the lower chronological limit are not available. 8. Between 1522–1525 “Maxim of the monk Greek of the Holy Mountain, a response to Nicholas the Latin” 199 (beginning: “Before the small days, you asked us when and how Latin separated from the Greek”) 200. Written between 1522–1525, since Metropolitan Daniel is mentioned (from 1522). Title in collected works of the late 16th–18th centuries. incorrectly identifies the recipient's name. It is missing from the text; the author calls the addressee a “friend,” but he did not address Nikolai that way. The message contains a hint of the recipient’s lack of preparedness: “The imam has many more words to tell you, as I customarily do... but you cannot bear it now. When you are enlightened by reason, ask the master and teacher Danil, Metropolitan of All Rus', about this” 201; and Maxim Grek rated Bulev’s scholarship very highly. Nikolai Bulev did not at all need to turn to Maxim the Greek with the question “when and how did Latin separate from the Greek.” He, undoubtedly, was quite aware of such stories 202. The work has the same genre nature as the previous one; This is a message to a specific person, at the beginning a specific reason for writing is named - a question from the addressee. At the same time, this is a polemical treatise - the Word. Its difference from the messages - Words addressed, in particular, to F.I. Karpov, lies in the lack of the completeness and sophistication of argumentation that was characteristic of the messages to the famous publicist and diplomat. The reason is stated by the author himself - lack of awareness of his addressee. 9 . Late 30s – early 40s. “The same monk Maximus the Greek, a word of praise to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, in the same denunciation in Latin of three great heresies” 203 (beginning: “Sing, O soul, to the divine apostles Peter and Paul”) 204. This is the only work on an anti-Catholic theme where, firstly, the unity of the genre is maintained, there is no evidence that it was directed to any person or had any direct, specific reason for writing; secondly, there is no mention of Nikolai Nemchin. The text is devoid of any features of the message; there are no traces of polemics with a real living opponent. This is a ceremonial polemical work, in contrast to the “business” polemical messages discussed above. E.E. Golubinsky assumed that it was “written later, in Tver” 205. For additional arguments in favor of the proposed dating, see Chap. III, § 2–3. The works of Maxim the Greek are devoted to denouncing the teachings of the Catholic Church, which distorted, from the point of view of Orthodox orthodoxy, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in particular, the dogma of the origin of St. spirit (Filioque). Maxim the Greek also wrote about other differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but paid much less attention to this (about the use of unleavened bread by Catholics during communion, and not leavened bread, about fasting on Saturday, about the celibacy of priests, about the doctrine of purgatory) 206. Among the anti-Catholic works of Maxim the Greek, the central ones are three or two letters to Fyodor Karpov (which in the manuscript tradition are known mainly as Words) and “A Word against flattering copying... about copulation between an Orthodox Christian and a Latin” (No. 4–6 according to the above list). The second message to Karpov and the Word against Nikolai Nemchin are devoted mainly to specific religious and dogmatic differences, and Nikolai’s essay, where he wrote about the need for practical conclusions and the unification of churches, was especially criticized by Maxim. To characterize the religious and philosophical views of Maxim the Greek, the first letter to Fyodor Karpov is of greatest value. Here we consider the more general question of which way the “knowledge of the Savior Christ” should go. The author wants to preface the “testing of the chapters” of Nemchin (i.e., their critical examination) with a detailed and lengthy exposition on the topic that “the commandments of the God-bearing Father forbidding us, even above us and the entire angelic mind of the highest being, are to be tested and refined.” Two paths are contrasted - “internal church and God-given philosophy” and “external dialectical knowledge”, which “is flaunted by Aristotelian philosophy.” Maxim the Greek defends the first path - comprehension of “divinely inspired voices”, “the purest fatherly instructions”, “knowledge of Christ” through himself with the help of faith in him: “by faith, it is only visible and knowable, and all verbal art is avoided.” The main idea of ​​the Word is formulated in the title and concretized in the text: “not only reason, but speech and demeanor forbids change”; “We dare not philosophize or say anything other than what the Holy Scriptures have handed down to us.” Those who dare to break this commandment must be “cursed and excommunicated with fire and iron” 207 . Another path that Maxim the Greek opposes in his message to Fyodor Karpov, the one that he observed in Italy and which he encountered again in Moscow, is the path of logical proof (or refutation) of religious dogmas. Maxim the Greek recalls the “Italian schools” and the “Aristotelian syllogisms” that prevail there: “And no dogma is strong in them, neither human nor divine, unless Aristotelian syllogisms will confirm this dogma. And if one does not agree with the artistic, or if it is rejected in the worst way, or if it is seen as being contrary to art, this is cut off to please Aristotle’s art, and will be replaced as if it is most truly interceding.” A little further, he turns to Fyodor Karpov: “And this is what you are trying to establish through dialectical violence and image-painting, and not more than through spiritual enlightenment and faithful confession” 208 . Maxim writes about the robe of the church, torn apart by “dialectical needs and sophisms,” “fierce sophismatics.” At the beginning of the second letter, Maxim the Greek speaks out against Aristotle, whom his opponents, the “Latin”, consider equal to Christ. According to Maxim the Greek, he should be characterized as a “heretic and flatterer”, “false teaching... and the father of the statutes of the blessed is not afraid in everything” 209. Since Maximus the Greek recalls the “Italian schools,” can Maximus the Greeks’ speeches against the use of Aristotle’s logical teachings, in particular the doctrine of syllogism, as the main criterion for resolving issues related to religion and faith, be compared with any specific direction of European philosophy? I. Denisov wrote that in his writings against the Latins, Maxim the Greek opposed the scholastic nominalism of the 15th–16th centuries, which, in the author’s opinion, marked the degeneration of speculative Christian thought. J. Haney limited himself to the remark that, rejecting Aristotle and his peripatetic syllogisms, Maxim the Greek was carried away by the general fad (“game” - pastime) of his century - the refutation of Aristotle 210. N.K. Gudziy drew attention to the similarity of individual statements of Maxim the Greek with some provisions of representatives of early humanism, in particular, Petrarch and Salutati. A.I. writes about such similarities. Ivanov 211. Indeed, there is some similarity between the above statements of Maxim the Greek against the “dialectical sophisms” of Aristotle’s followers and the criticism of the “dialectical” intricacies of late scholasticism and the Aristotelians in Petrarch’s treatise “On One’s Own and Others’ Ignorance.” What should be highlighted, however, is not the similarities, but the differences. Petrarch's treatise, as recent research has shown, is an apology for humanism. Its author, according to A.X. Gorfunkel, “before our eyes, he is transforming from a defender of Christian piety into a man of a new, humanistic culture, and his very Christianity turns out to be the Christianity of a new era...” 212 The Orthodox orthodox (namely, Maxim the Greek acts in this capacity in his anti-Catholic messages to F.I. Karpov) warns the Russian publicist against the path of “high reason”, which has “supernatural power” and “comprehensible dignity”: “In what is more supernatural power of reason, high and comprehending dignity is affirmed, to a depth that is not understood and untested of the divine hiddenness... let us not be afraid of ourselves? 213 “Geometric images”, “international thoughts and geometric formations” mentioned in the first message to Karpov are explained in the second message. Opponents of Maxim the Greek depicted the Trinity in the form of an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle, the apex of which signified God the Father, the corners of the base - the son and the saint. spirit, and the circle is the “path” of St. spirit (from father and son). In this case, a tradition was used that dates back, in particular, to Nicholas of Kuzan. German thinker of the 15th century. expressed the mystery of the Trinity through a geometric image, which Kepler later borrowed from him 214. Can the statements of Maxim the Greek be used to characterize the worldview of a Russian publicist? Maxim the Greek’s own reservations force one to be wary of his “accusations” against Fyodor Karpov: “This is not directed at you, O wise Theodore, but against Nicholas and his like-minded people”; Karpov - “he wanted to be a listener and spectator, and not a student or a silent praiser, like the others” 215. And in the message to F.I. Karpov, and in other writings the polemic is conducted not with Orthodox adherents of Nicholas, but with Catholics and Nicholas as a representative of the Catholic world and the Catholic confession. The messages testify to the persistence of Nicholas's speeches, who always remains the main addressee of Maxim the Greek's messages 216. In his anti-Catholic writings, especially in his first letter to Karpov, he speaks from a traditional point of view - about the subordination of knowledge to faith, about philosophy as the handmaiden of theology, about the prohibition of “what is above us to test and seek.” Among the works of Maxim the Greek criticizing astrology, only one is dated - the message of F.I. Karpov 1523/24. It has a stable title both in the earliest copies and in the later tradition 217: “Summer 7032. Maxim the monk from the Holy Mountain rejoiced at Mr. Theodore Karp Ivanovich” (beginning: “Read your message to me”) 218. The reason for the message is the previous “epistol” of Fyodor Karpov, the content of which displeased Maxim the Greek. The end of the message is traditional for the works of Maxim the Greek, written in this genre: “Hello to the Lord and know the truth!” Among other anti-astrological works from the period before 1525, those in which the author polemicizes with Nikolai Nemchin and which mentions the almanac distributed by the latter with the prediction of a new flood and a general “renewal” in 1524 are indisputably included. 1. 1522/23 “Monk Maxim the Greek Word against those who strive to predict with stargazing about the future and about human autocracy” (beginning: “In the feat of others about the gospel truth”) 219. The title is stable 220. In the title the genre is designated as Word; but researchers (N.I. Petrov, E.E. Golubinsky, V.F. Rzhiga 221) rightly believed that it was also a message, namely, it was the first message of F.I. Karpov on this topic. The answer to this was Karpov’s “epistolium,” mentioned in the above-mentioned message of 1523/24. The argument for researchers was the following circumstance. In a letter of 1523/24, Maxim writes that his addressee was not satisfied with the “epistolium” previously sent to him, where, in particular, Maxim referred to the example of Lodovico Moro (“Ludovian Dux of Mediolans”), who was ruined by the advice of the astrologer Ambrose. A detailed account of this is included in the “Word against those who strive to see the stars...” 222, on the basis of which the conclusion is drawn that it was the first “epistol” to Karpov on this topic. Two additional arguments can be made. In a dated message to F.I. Maxim the Greek writes to Karpov that Karpov dared to write “against... John Chrysostom and Augustine”; and lengthy quotations from their writings are given by Maxim precisely in the message under consideration 223. Another argument is the order of the works of Maximus in the collections of Vol. 522 and Vol. 488. In the collection Vol. 488 they are placed in the following sequence: 1) the first anti-Catholic letter of F.I. Karpov (ll. 78–101); 2) second message from F.I. Karpov on this topic (ll. 102–141; for details, see above for the list of anti-Catholic works); 3) “A word against those who try to predict with their stargazing about the future and about human autocracy” (ll. 141 vol. - 175 vol.); 4) message from F.I. Karpov against astrology 1523/24 (ll. 176–196 vol.); 5) the earliest message of Maxim the Greek to Nikolai Bulev (ll. 196 vol. - 200 vol.). The texts were copied in the same order for the collection Vol. 522 224. So, the anti-Catholic treatises-messages of F.I. are placed first. Karpov 1519–1521, then - the message in question against astrology, which has no addressee, and then - the message of F.I. Karpov 1523/24 If the assumption is correct that the third text placed here is a message from F.I. Karpov, preceding the fourth text, it turns out that the sequence of arrangement of the four texts repeats the chronology of their creation, and they are all connected by a common addressee (the only exception is the fifth text, chronologically preceding the first and sent to another person). The third text, i.e. the Word in question, should be dated 1522/23, since the author reports on the “paper” of Nikolai Nemchin, shown to him in 7031. The Word is the answer to it. And the following message to Karpov on the same topic dates back to 7032. 2. 1523/24 The above-mentioned message of F.I. Karpov. 3. Before 1525, “The same monk Maximus the Greek sent a message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about the German charm of the verb fortune and the wheel of it” (beginning: “Many beings are considered from the divine apostle”) 225. Refers to the first period, as it contains a polemic with Nikolai Boolev. The text entitled above appears in the lifetime collections of Joasaph (chapter 37) and Khludovsky (chapter 55) 226 . But in another lifetime collection, Rumyantsev’s, the text has a short inscription “The same as 3 songs of Anna the prophetess” (ll. 26 vol. - 30 vol.), which connects it in origin and chronologically with two other (unpublished) anti-astrological works placed here. These are the following essays. 4. Before 1525 “The Tale of Part 3 of the Song of Anna the Prophetess” (ll. 11 volume - 18 of the Rumyantsev collection; Appendix III-a, No. 3). 5. Until 1525 “The same legend from honor 3 songs of Anna the prophetess” (ll. 22–26 volumes of the Rumyantsev collection; Appendix III-a, No. 6). Both texts are also the works of Maximus the Greek and were written before 1525, as already mentioned (Chapter I, § 2). About the genre of the last three works. In the Joasaph and Khludov collections, the genre of the letter to the abbot is clearly defined; in the Rumyantsev collection the text is designated “The same 3 songs of Anna the prophetess,” and since two “Tales of the 3 songs of Anna the prophetess” are placed next to each other, it is obvious that the genre of the letter to the abbot is recognized by the author of the work (or the compiler giving the inscription) as a Legend. The same phenomenon that has already been noted for other works is observed - the interpenetration of genres. If earlier, when analyzing anti-Catholic writings, we were talking about messages-Words, now we can talk about messages-Stories. The designation of the genre of anti-astrological works of the Rumyantsev collection characterizes one of the differences between the Legend and the treatise-Word: The Legend most often acts as a “Legend in part”, it sets out any particular aspect of the problem, and in the treatise-Word the author strives for a comprehensive consideration of the subject, for the completeness of the argument. 6. The end of 1524 - the beginning of 1525. “The monk Maximus the Greek’s Word is incriminating, in part, of Latin slander, and in it also on the almanac, which exalted the flood of the world’s existence, and which was once remembered most destructively” (beginning: “Simply a word and unsophisticated”) 227. Known as part of a collection from the late 16th century. with a complex of early texts and in collected works 228. Written in connection with the almanac disseminated by Nikolai Nemchin, which predicted a new global flood in 1524. Created after the specified date had passed and the prediction did not come true (“about him now I lie in shame”) 229, therefore, at the very end of 1524 - January 1525 (before February, when the trial of Maxim the Greek and Bersen began Beklemisheva). In the essay, the author writes about the persistence of opponents in their delusions, about their desire to attract a large number of supporters. There are repeated references to “you” in the text, but here one should see, as in anti-Latin works, Catholics, since attacks against their “star-gazing hobbies” are accompanied by criticism of dogmatic ideas that are characteristic specifically of Catholicism. This polemical device is apparently designed, firstly, to discredit astrology in the eyes of its Orthodox supporters as originating from people “who rose in wickedness”; and secondly, to give a more convincing character to the polemics with the “Latins”, expanding the range of their errors. 7. Until 1533 “On Nikolai Nemchin, the charming astrologer” (beginning: “You hastened to foretell the end of the world, about Nikolai”) 230. Included in the lifetime collection of works (Khludovskoye), but not as an independent chapter, but after the text of the message to the abbot (chapter 55, see Appendix II-a). A short epigram to Nikolai Nemchin, who predicted the death (“death”) of the world, but could not predict any sudden change in his fate. 8. Date unknown. “The monk’s maxim The Word is instructive, at the same time accusatory of the charms of stargazers and comforting to those living in treasures” (beginning: “As in this corruptible body”) 231 - the title with which the text is included in the Joasaph (chapter 36) and Rumyantsev (no. 52) lifetime collections. However, in Khludov’s lifetime collection (chapter 53) the text is called an epistle, although the definition of the genre as the Word (“message to a certain prince, the Word is instructive”) is also retained. The work, like a number of others mentioned above, has a dual genre nature. The absence of any realities does not allow dating the work; assumption by A.I. Ivanov about the addressee is not motivated. 9 . Late 30s–40s. “The same monk Maxim the Greek’s Word about how it is by God’s providence, and not by the stars and the wheel of happiness, that all human affairs are arranged” (beginning: “The reading of Scripture is many and varied”) 232. 10. Late 30s–40s. “The same monk Maxim the Greek had a conversation between the soul and the mind on the question and answer about where passions come from in them, about divine providence and about astrologers” (beginning: “Be kind to me, to you”) 233. The last two works do not contain any realities, specific dating signs, there is no specific reason for writing them; Neither Nikolai Bulev, nor the almanac he distributed predicting the flood, or his other works are mentioned; The unity of the genre is maintained; the texts are devoid of any features of messages to specific individuals. The essays are distinguished by their systematic argumentation, which acquires an abstract and abstract character. The works are included in the lifetime collections compiled by the author himself, and in their initial, systematic part, where the author’s views are presented in a certain sequence (chapters 13, 14 of the Joasaph and Khludov collections). This will be discussed in more detail in Chap. III, § 3. Here we only note that by the time the author was selecting works for inclusion in the collection, he had already written a sufficient number of works against astrology, but none of them were included in its central, systematized part. It can be assumed that the two named works were written specifically for inclusion in the collection. The works of the first period against astrology in the lifetime collections are found in their final parts (chapters 36, 37 of type I, chapters 53, 55, 68 of type X). The reason for Maxim the Greek’s message to F.I. Karpov 1522/23 against astrology was served by two works distributed by Nikolai Nemchin. The first is an excerpt from an almanac translated from Latin, which contained a prediction of the upcoming new global flood in 1524, which, according to the calculations of astronomers and astrologers, was supposed to occur due to a certain combination of planets in the constellation Aquarius (“Idrochoya”). It must be assumed that Nikolai Bulev quite actively distributed this translation. Thus, we know Philofey’s letter dedicated to him to the Pskov clerk Misyur Munekhin, in some copies of which the text of the prediction is given (“the philosophers of Nikolaev’s speech were Latynin, and Misyur Munyokhin wrote about the summer of ’32”) 234 . The fact that these “speeches” were known to Maxim the Greek is evidenced by their final phrase, quoted in his message: “raise up your heads, O Christian men, and understand” 235 (the last word, however, is not in Nikolai Bulev’s “paper”, nor in its Latin original). Another paper distributed by Nikolai Boolean was dedicated to the “beginning of the Turks” and the upcoming death of their rule (also with astrological calculations). In the Kazan edition this text was omitted due to the defectiveness of the list used for publication. Lists of the 16th century 236 do not have this defect. Part of the missing passage was published by N.I. Petrov 237, and then V.F. Rzhiga, apparently not familiar with the first publication 238. Maxim the Greek characterizes the content of the “paper” in the following way, which prompted him to write the essay: “In Moscow, the reigning city of all Rus', living in 7000 and 31 years 239 under the reign of the most faithful king of all Rus', Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, we were given a paper by a German of a certain origin, with the teaching and faith of a Latin and an astrologer, even about the vision of births (i.e., about observing who was born under what star. - N.S.) insatiably clinging and the aspiration unbearable for the future knowledge of the one who acquires. The paper was copied by them to someone from their friends about the beginning of the Turks, how and where it began and by what destinies of God it was exalted more than any hope, according to which the exposition (i.e. after this - N.S.) begins to preface their ruin, how and when and where and from whom it will be, but to hear the years itself speeches that have been translated according to the verb 240 by me.” It further says that “kingdoms and principalities will be brought to the church... under the rule of Maximilian or his follower...”, “a shining time of purity and piety” will come, “the Turks will be exterminated everywhere”, “and the Church of St. Sophia will receive the power.” “And there will be a new transformation and a new law and a new kingdom and pure cohabitation, as in the clergy, as well as among the people... then the church will grow into abiding eternal love...” This text shows that Nikolai Bulev connected his religious propaganda with political propaganda, giving it an astrological “justification”. The Turkish theme in the literature of that time was one of the most relevant, since the victories of Turkish weapons, the fall of Constantinople and the subsequent new Turkish conquests affected the foreign policy interests of almost all European countries 241 . Nikolai Nemchin’s “paper” interweaves the Turkish question, calls for the union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and astrological views 242 . His prediction that as a result of this “renewal” the Christian Church will “receive the power” of the Constantinople St. Sophia, echoes the fact that Dietrich Schomberg promised the Grand Duke of Moscow a “patrimony of Constantinople”, and the Metropolitan - the patriarchate for Russia’s participation in the crusade against the Turks and joining the Union of Florence. The theme of “renewal,” like the Turkish one, was very popular in the literature of that time, but in the works of different authors it had different, sometimes opposing, content. As the researcher writes, in the XIV–XVI centuries. the rhetorical clichés of “renewal” and “rebirth” were used “not only in a humanistic, but also in a traditional Joachimist, mystical sense, identifying them with political-religious transformation (reformatio)” 243. It was precisely the latter meaning that Nikolai Nemchin’s “paper” had. At the very beginning of the message, Maxim the Greek sets out the ideas of his opponents as follows: “piety itself and honest living” are wavering; there will be “in the Church of Christ both renewal and a new law of being” 244. In his refutation answer, Maxim Grek did not touch at all on the political aspect of the problem, the Turkish question (having read Nemchin’s “paper”, he was “offended” not by the fact that it “predicted about the wicked Turks: don’t worry about when to mourn” 245). He focused on the religious-dogmatic and ethical-philosophical side. This fact is extremely important for understanding the position of Maxim the Greek in the first period. As will be shown below, the desire not to directly touch on topical political issues was a characteristic feature of his message to Vasily III on the structure of the Athonite monasteries, written earlier, in 1518–1519. In the first message of F.I. Karpov formulated the basic principles of the anti-astrological polemics of Maxim the Greek, developed by him on the basis of studying the works of primarily Christian authors. Since this work was the first in a series of his numerous speeches against astrology, a significant part of it is an anthological selection containing lengthy excerpts from patristic literature; they form the foundation of anti-astrological criticism and are repeated in various combinations in other works on this topic. These are quotes from the 6th conversation of Shestodnev of Basil the Great, from the Homily on the love of poverty of Gregory the Theologian, from the 75th conversation of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, from Augustine’s “interpretations of the world of being”, from John of Damascus (without indicating the title of the work; the quote is taken from the “Exposition of Faith”) 246. Maxim Grek combines the totality of statements of these authors with his own reasoning, developing one or another topic. A significant place is occupied by interpretations of the Old Testament and New Testament texts in an anti-astrological sense. Maxim the Greek sees the main danger of astrology in the fact that the faith of its supporters in the omnipotent influence of the stars, the conviction that a person’s fate is predetermined by the combination of stars at his birth, does not leave room for human autocracy and divine providence, which are in a state of indissoluble unity and complement each other. Maxim the Greek begins his criticism by defending human autocracy (“autocratic liberation of the mind”, “autopower of virtues and malice”, “the will of our souls”) from astral necessity (“needs”, “compulsion” of the stars). This opposition, undoubtedly, is the strength of his ethical teaching. He repeatedly writes that man is like God, first of all, by his autocracy (“more than others, the hedgehog is in the image and likeness of God”; “the creator... subjugate a person to no one, but let him be free in his image and the blessings of his nature, and not by the stellar structure of creation”; “in the image of God and in the likeness of the hedgehog he signifies the autocratic and not controlled,” l. 148; “autocratic dignity, as it lies in one’s will whether or not to turn oneself to the practice of virtues,” l. 150 vol.). “Compulsion” – necessity (understood as astral necessity) and “will” – freedom (understood as Christian autocracy) are contrasted. The doctrine of autocracy served to substantiate one of the central provisions of Christianity - about posthumous reward, which, according to the author, is actually rejected by astrologers. Sins and good deeds can be punished or rewarded only if they are committed “by choice” and not “by compulsion.” This idea was borrowed by Maxim the Greek from John of Damascus: “If we all act by the communication of the stars, then we act according to need, as much as we act; and what happens out of necessity is below virtue, below is malice. If virtue is lower, if we acquire malice lower, then we are worthy of praise and crown, lower of reproaches and execution. The unrighteous God will also appear, but for others he brings good, but for others he brings sorrow.” A little further: “The wise man - God, the creator of all of them, according to need, sweeps away [from] their standing and management, and chance and some kind of marmenia (εἱμαρμένη - necessity. - N.S.) is a certain one, as if the Hellenes are introducing unrighteous and wordless management... It will appear that the god of the evil ones is guilty, who is above all goodness and there is truth... We slander God like a sad evil-doer who has come upon us” 247. So, the second dangerous trend for the church, which Christian authors saw in astrology, is the conclusion that God is the creator of evil, since the stars were created by him. Meanwhile, God, according to orthodox views, is the source of good. In the work of Maxim the Greek, the problem of “theodicy” arises, that is, the justification of God: how to reconcile the evil reigning in the world with the statement about the all-goodness of the creator who created the world. Speaking against the astral predestination of evil, Maxim the Greek, following tradition, proves that the cause and source of evil are the sins of people themselves, “providentially” punished by God, that evil is not (as it logically follows from the beliefs of astrologers) an integral part of the original divine plan. “The evil is not from God, the good is only from him, but we ourselves are guilty of evil, working with our own lusts and slandering each other in various ways for our sake” (l. 150). This idea was very flexible; with the help of different emphasis, it was possible, developing and emphasizing first one or the other part of it, to affirm the omnipotence of divine providence, and the sinfulness of human nature, and man’s responsibility for his deeds and actions. For Maxim the Greek, everything is subordinated to his polemics with astrologers. In his concept, both divine providence and human autocracy are equally opposed to astral necessity. Each of the components of this unique “unity of opposites” is a necessary condition for the existence of the other; however, one can speak about their opposites only conditionally, in quotation marks, since they are not recognized (or not fully recognized) by Maxim the Greek as such. One of the sources of Maxim the Greek was the Lexicon of the Court. Thus, an article dedicated to Plato begins with a phrase that is repeatedly varied in anti-astrological works: “Plato the philosopher says: God is truly good and guilty of all good things, and innocent of all evil ones 248 . The same philosopher in the “Law” shows us the creator of all who rule all together, saying: God is the beginning and the end and the middle, he rules everyone rightfully, by nature he bypasses the court, he is an avenger of those who transgress the divine law.” But at the end of the translated passage, it is no longer the divine, but the human will that is interpreted: “You say, as the soul is free and the mistress of passions, and if you overcome yourself, victory is right and deliberate, and if you overcome yourself, it is the coldest and most evil.” 249 The fact that the theme of evil interested Maxim the Greek is also evidenced by other articles from the Lexicon of the Court. Christian theology has developed an idea of ​​two types of evil, clearly formulated in the article “Evil” (No. 43 on the above list). Evil in the proper sense is what people themselves do, the result of their autocracy (“fornication and all carnal uncleanness, covetousness, perjury, slander”); “But famine and destruction and death and illness are not evil,” since they were sent down by God to correct people (“benefits intercede for us many times before”). Another article is devoted to the same topic: “God the Creator is not evil; We do not call things evil, as people are accustomed to call them, but malice and all wrongdoing and other lawless acts are autocratically dared from us, for we are guilty of them; and it is not the opposite that God legitimizes” (No. 44) 250. The same thoughts are repeated in the message of F.I. Karpov. The source of the following reasoning is directly from the articles from the Lexicon (No. 16, 39, 40): “God’s indignation” is the result of “our will to virtue and to malice”; “By the wave and advice of the rulers, evil is brought to us, and not by the stellar and Zodean east and dream. But as blessed David said: “He sent upon them the wrath of his wrath, rage and wrath, and sorrow - a message sent by the fierce angels,” and not by the stars and zodias, but by his fierce angels, not by nature or in thought as beings of calico, - God does not require calico angels for service, the speech of blessed Sikhius, the interpretation of this psalm saying, - but fierce “I say, because of sickness and bitterness, I inflict the commandment, just as the day of judgment is declared to be fierce, even if a sinner is filled with need and sickness” 251. Moving on to the second message of F.I. Karpov, we discover a different topic. If in his first message Maxim the Greek raised those questions that he himself considered paramount, here he follows the course of his opponent’s opposing thoughts. The message indicates an ideological conflict between two publicists; at the very beginning it speaks of “the word of difference,” that is, of disagreement with the addressee who could have “understood the truth” from the “indisputable statements” of the first epistle, but instead “rose up ... into church wisdom.” At the end, a similar invective is addressed to a wider circle of people who are interested in astrology: “You spectate us with much violence and madness throughout your message...; spoken of good by the saints, you understand evil and corruptingly to your own wisdom” 252; Maxim Grek perceives Karpov’s message as a reflection of the ideas of some group of people (“your message”). The theme of “autocracy” opposed to “star power and need” is also discussed here, but no new argumentation has been put forward. Two other themes are central - assessing the significance of the “external sciences” and refuting the claims of astrology supporters about the need for kings and rulers; it can be considered that these two themes were central in Karpov’s previous message. From the message of Maximus the Greek it is obvious that his opponents, those with whom he polemicized, without separating astrology from astronomy-science (which is generally characteristic of the Middle Ages), defended it precisely as part of the “external sciences”, “district teaching”, i.e. the seven “liberal arts”. They reproached Maxim the Greek for wanting to distract them from the study of “external sciences” 253. Fyodor Karpov even wrote that mastering them is necessary because of shame in front of foreigners (“shame for foreigners”). Maxim the Greek objected that he does not turn away from “external punishment”, but only from predictions from the stars. This distinction, as well as the defense of human autocracy from the fatalism of astrologers, is the strength of his views. But just as Maximus the Greek always has divine providence next to human autocracy, so he recognizes external sciences with limitations, namely, only to the extent that they are consistent with “divine scripture” 254. He writes that Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and others were exposed to “external punishments” only in their youth, and in their “perfect” age they turned “to prophetic and apostolic” sources, declaring “wickedness and lies” not only astrology, but also “other superfluous teachings” that “cannot be created in piety” 255. A little further on, there is a very clear formulation: “By surrounding the teachings of goodness and the essence of human life, there are many harmful and destructive things hidden in them, even if we want to calculate one by one, we will be forced to write a whole book: there is a lot of lies and impurity in them” 256. When assessing the “external sciences” and “philosophy”, Maxim the Greek puts forward first one side, then the other, sometimes what is unacceptable, sometimes what is used. Thus, his reproaches against the “external sciences” are replaced by sound reasoning about the need to separate the positive information provided by astronomical observations from the predictions of soothsayers and astrologers. He does not deny astronomical knowledge and writes that he not only never took Karpov away - neither by word nor by message - “from healing 257 or from some other philosophical knowledge”, from “verbal teachings”, but even “from the sight of heaven” he does not “excommunicate” him, since this is necessary in order to “know the circulation of the luminary and copulation, by which the four seasons of summer are overcome, months and times and the years are made up for us, as much as we need to eat from the temporary signs we seek” 258. This is a new thought compared to the first message, where, when characterizing the positive content of astronomy, only a phrase from John of Damascus was cited: from the stars “signs... there are rain and dry spells, frost and warmth, and wetness and dryness, and winds and calico” 259. Maximus the Greek makes a distinction between arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy (medieval quadrivium), on the one hand, and “mafimatics,” on the other, which he, with reference to the city laws and Matthew Blastar, interprets as the wisdom that the “heavenly bodies” have dominion over all “creatures”, and their movement controls human affairs. Evaluating philosophy, Maxim the Greek writes that although, in contrast to the prophetic teachings, “divine inspiration... is not involved,” it nevertheless brings great state benefit: it “praises chastity and wisdom and meekness, and legislates all other beauties of character and deliberately establishes citizenship and, collectively speaking, introduces all virtue and grace in the whole world.” Citing the saying of “someone from the ancients” (“a philosopher is a man who does more good to us in this life than a good king”), Maxim the Greek writes about the need for kings not to be astrologers-soothsayers (“drainers of royal treasures”), but philosophers: “The Sitsevs are placed in a place for us without ceasing, like a guide to truth and piety, and from them to collect the best and most abundant for our piety hurry up" 260. This idea echoes the message to Vasily III of 1521–1522; where it is said that the ruler should listen to good and good advice. As we see, in the message of Maxim the Greek, ethical and philosophical issues are partially connected with political ones. To prove the idea of ​​the superiority of philosophy over astrology, Maxim the Greek refers to Plato, who “drives away” astrology from “legal philosophical citizenship.” Maxim the Greek’s attitude towards “Hellenic wisdom” was selective. He used individual thoughts of ancient philosophers if they were consistent with the tenets of Christianity. Thus, in his first letter against astrology, he wrote that neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor Aristotle (“the most honest and true-loving Hellenic philosophers”) were carried away by “star-gazing charm,” and cited Aristotle’s words that “there is no future art, no vision of something” 261. But in other cases, he opposes the logical teaching of the Stagirite (in anti-Catholic polemics), and does not skimp on condemnatory statements about pagan wisdom. From the “message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about German charm, the verb fortune, and about its wheel,” we learn that astrology attracted not only secular representatives of the ruling class; its adherents were among the highest representatives of the church. The abbot, carried away by the “god-like teaching” of Nikolai Nemchin, not only “philosophizes” himself, but also “admonishes others.” The terms used by Maxim the Greek are terms of Greek, Byzantine and Latin philosophy when interpreting the problems of regularity and chance, determinism and indeterminism: quiet (τύχη - fate, chance); imarmenia (εἱμαρμένη – necessity); fortune; happiness. Characterizing late Byzantine philosophy and theology, M.Ya. Syuzyumov noted that in Byzantium the ideological continuity of antiquity was never interrupted, as in the West, although it weakened at times. In Byzantium, XIII–XV centuries. Philosophical analysis was based on the problem of regularity and chance, the problem of the absolute causality of the development of social existence. Byzantine thinking adopted the ancient idea of ​​chance (fate - τύχη), which governs human affairs, and of necessity (εἱμαρμένη), predetermination in nature and human society, of an incomprehensible but recognizable pattern. Many Byzantine philosophers took part in debates about these concepts, about their relationship with Christian positions about the will of God, supreme providence, and predestination. The representative of late Byzantine education, George Gemistus Plithon, dedicated his treatises “Περὶ ψυχῆς” and “Περὶ εἱμαρμένης” to these problems, where he recognized absolute determinism, the existence of universal necessity (εἱμαρμένη), which naturally led him to raise the question of the nature and limits of human free will 262. The ideas of “fortune” and the “wheel of happiness” are widespread in Western European medieval and Renaissance literature 263 . It is this philosophical issue that underlies the message of Maxim the Greek, but it is significantly simplified. The differences between “imarmenia” and “quiet”, which gave rise to the most complex philosophical speculations in Byzantium, are not considered or taken into account. Both of them are included in the same brackets along with “fortune”, “the wheel of happiness”, “fate” - ideas that, according to Maxim the Greek, were created by “godless Hellenes” and spread to Rus' by “Latins and Germans”. The above-mentioned concepts are identified with astral necessity, which is opposed to divine providence: “A certain philosopher is wise to say about the fate of fables: happiness among the Hellenes is and is imaginary a structure unprovided for the world, or a movement from the unknown to the unknown and created by itself; We, faithful Christians of Christ God, confess that all human life is suffering and ruling, and the same: not by human thoughts and lights, but by God’s providence and His untested destinies, all human life is arranged, for it is inconceivable for humans to speak quietly about happiness and happiness and the custom of naming, not understanding from there, why to whom things happen." “This is the most evil teaching of Epicurus, since all this creation is governed by some kind of happiness, and not by the will and judgment of God.” Was the abbot really a supporter of this teaching, or could only the conclusions that Maxim the Greek wrote about be drawn from his passion for astrology? His evidence on this matter is contradictory. So, he writes: “Do you understand now that the great Latins and Germans blaspheme the one great... creator?” From here it seems to follow that Maxim the Greek expresses the point of view of the “Latins and Germans”, and not the abbot himself. But a little further on the author turns to him: “Try, for God’s sake, try, jump off such German charms, and confess directly and honestly” 264. In any case, a certain tendency in the views of the abbot emerges quite clearly, especially if we compare this message with a message to another person, where we are talking about other subjects, namely with a “message to a certain prince.” If representatives of the church were attracted to astrology by the uniqueness of its ideas about divine providence and the driving forces of everything that happens, then secular representatives of the ruling class sought in it an answer to the question of the causes of inequality (albeit understood in a very limited way - in relation only to the sphere of relationships within the ruling class), about the causes of social “disorders,” political and moral. This is indicated by “a message to a certain prince, an instructive word about the charm of stargazing and comforting to those living in sorrow.” This prince, apparently, was interested in the question of why “sorrows are different and circumstances are fierce,” and in search of an answer to it, he turned to astrology. What is the meaning of the concept of “various sorrows” and “disorder”? These are not only and not so much “bodily ailments and illnesses,” but mainly all sorts of “iniquities,” which consist, in particular, in the fact that some are elevated “to the heights of zemstvo glory,” while others are relegated “from there ... to the last disgrace” 265. When analyzing the polemical messages of Maxim the Greek, it is necessary to keep in mind that the content of the polemic can be fully assessed only if the position of both polemicizing parties is known. But neither the messages of Nikolai Bulev, nor the bulk of the messages of F.I. Karpov did not reach us. This fact cannot be explained as the result of an accidental loss. Both diplomatic, chronicle, and literary-journalistic monuments are unanimous in their silence or laconicism of news concerning Catholicism or the union. The Orthodox Church and government circles that controlled their content were not only not interested in preserving these facts, but, on the contrary, sought to omit them. The same can be said about astrological literature, about the works of F.I. Karpov and other supporters of astrology. Their position can only partially be restored from the writings of their opponents (Maxim the Greek, Philotheus), based on the surviving Russian astrological literature 266. Medieval astrology was inextricably linked with astronomy-science, since, trying to predict the future from the stars, it contributed to systematic observations of the movement of celestial bodies 267. Publishing astrological manuscripts, M.A. Shangin noted that astrology understands the world - earth and sky together - as a single whole; everything is connected in space by the threads of world sympathy, that is, every thing also has its opposite. In the mythological language of the astrologer, this cosmic sympathy is illustrated by the conviction that every good spirit of the world is opposed by its antipode (angels - demons). These opposites contain the idea of ​​absolute causality and absolute integrity of the cosmos 268. A number of prominent thinkers of the Middle Ages studied astrology; for many it was inseparable from astronomy. Thus, Roger Bacon, one of the largest representatives of the natural sciences of the 13th century, the herald of experimental science of modern times, paid tribute to both alchemy and astrology. Astrology for Bacon is not associated with arbitrary symbolism and mysticism, but with mathematics and experience 269. An outstanding astronomer of the 16th century was a supporter of astrology. Tycho Brahe, a prominent figure in the German Reformation Melanchthon; Kepler compiled Wallenstein's horoscope; Campanella approached the teachings of Copernicus incorrectly, since he did not dare to break with stargazing. Believed in Marsilio Ficino's astrology; but Pico della Mirandola rejected her 270 . Perhaps the features of the anti-astrological polemics of Maxim the Greek are connected precisely with the influence of the latter, since the future Russian publicist, according to the hypothesis of I. Denisov, in 1498–1502. was in the service of Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola, nephew of the famous author of the “Speech on the Dignity of Man” 271; in this case, it becomes clear why the theme of autocracy occupies such a significant place in Maxim’s anti-astrological polemics. The humanistic work of Pico della Mirandola might have been known to Maximus the Greek, although similarities are evident. in the topic of the essays, and not in solving the problem. In the ideology of the Renaissance and humanism, the traditional Christian idea of ​​autocracy takes on a new meaning, affirming the dignity and value of the human person, although even among the herald of this new direction, Pico della Mirandola, it is not completely separated from previous medieval constructions. “If we try to evaluate the general meaning of Pico’s theory of free choice, then in the rationalistic solution to the question of the relationship between human and divine will, in which the first, although placed in a certain dependence on the second, is not suppressed by it and, moreover, retains the fullness of its power, of course, within the framework of natural necessity (the order of the world), one can see a serious discrepancy with the corresponding position of Christian theology... The ability of knowledge (intelligentsia) seems to him no less important than free choice.” 272. Maximus the Greek's judgments about the relationship between divine and human will are based on patristic literature; his ideas about the cognitive abilities of the human mind also differ from humanistic ones. Nevertheless, the works of Maxim the Greek, which treat the theme of autocracy, are of particular importance for the history of Russian social thought. This problem was not new; in the works of Ya.S. Lurie and A.I. Klibanov characterizes the ideas about autocracy of Russian thinkers of the late 15th–16th centuries. – Fyodor Kuritsyn, anonymous author of Writings on literacy, Joseph Volotsky, Ivan the Terrible, Ermolai Erasmus, author of the Valaam conversation, Ivan Peresvetov 273. Determining the place of Maxim the Greek in this series is a special and independent topic. Let's limit ourselves to just two observations. Firstly, the needs of anti-astrological polemics did not necessarily require turning to the topic of autocracy. The response to the “philosophies of the speech of Nikolaev Latynin” was written not only by Maxim the Greek, but also by Filofey; he was asked to interpret the astrological “Nicholas spelling” by the Pskov clerk Misyur Munekhin. Philotheus’ answer is much poorer than the treatises of Maximus the Greek, primarily in its philosophical problematics; there is only one component of the argument put forward by Maxim the Greek against Nemchin’s astrological predictions, namely divine providence: “... all earthly beings are transformed - the divine scripture clearly says about this: by the holy spirit every creature is renewed... and this does not happen from the stars”; without going into lengthy arguments, he writes: “this is all the blasphemy of the day and fables” 274. Secondly, although the concept of Maxim the Greek does not go beyond the orthodox framework, comparing it with the ideas about autocracy of another orthodox author, Joseph Volotsky, shows significant differences. Joseph mentions human autocracy in connection with the interpretation of the purpose of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but with the term “autocracy” he characterizes the state of man before the Fall: “at the beginning of man’s birth he was autocratic and commanded him to always remain in obedience to the Creator” 275. As a result of Christ’s sacrifice, man was restored to his former autocratic ability: “and give us the power to do good if we want, and not be drawn by need to evil, unless we choose to sin” 276. Joseph Volotsky has one or two more statements about autocracy, very formal, with restrictive clauses, 277 but they are drowned in the verbosity and length of his polemics, remain almost unnoticeable to the reader and do not constitute any significant link in the argumentation. Maxim the Greek proclaims and defends autocracy persistently, actively, repeatedly, from essay to essay. The theory of autocracy serves Maxim to justify not only posthumous retribution, but a person’s responsibility for his earthly affairs; This is its main meaning. B) The position of Maximus the Greek in the struggle around monastic land ownership The third significant issue of the social and ideological struggle in Russia, reflected in the works of Maxim the Greek, is about the monastic structure and monasticism, about the land ownership of monasteries and their right to exploit peasant labor. Maxim the Greek belongs to the non-acquisitive movement in the history of Russian social thought. Condemnation of the monastic practice of “multi-acquisitiveness”, “covetousness”, “covetousness”, preaching “non-covetousness” are the themes of many of his writings. Meanwhile, it is in assessing the non-covetousness of a publicist that there are different points of view. Two most controversial points are put forward: the origins of his non-covetousness (the influence of Savonarola or Vassian Patrikeev, Byzantine and Italian culture or Russian reality); the role and share of non-covetousness in the condemnation of the learned Athonite. Were “non-covetous” charges brought against him in 1525, during his first trial, did his non-covetous views serve as the main basis for the first conviction, and, therefore, did they have a significance in the first period independent of Vassian? Or was Maxim accused on this count only in 1531, together with Vassian Patrikeev? V.F. Rzhiga associated the formation of the “non-covetous” views of the Athos resident with the influence of Vassian Patrikeev, noting that Maxim “developed the breadth and depth of the denunciations he had begun” 278 . A.I. Ivanov wrote that “the non-covetous views of Maxim the Greek... developed while he was in Italy,” life on Athos did not make “significant changes” to these views; in Russia they also “did not change”; the evolution consisted only in the fact that Maxim turned from a “passive contemplator” into a “fiery accuser” 279. N.A. Kazakova, considering the influence of Vassian Patrikeev “indisputable,” added to the observations of V.F. Rig some new points; following A.I. Ivanov N.A. Kazakova noted Western Catholic reminiscences in early non-acquisitive writings. But “the final formation of Maxim the Greek’s views on church life” was determined by “Russian church reality itself with its acute social conflicts - the wealth of monasteries and the plight of the peasants”; under her direct influence the transformation of Maxim the Greek into a Russian writer took place 280. N.A. Kazakova sees the main reason for the first condemnation of Maxim the Greek in his criticism and denial of patrimonial rights of monasteries and exposure of the vices of the dominant Orthodox Church, and A.A. Zimin - in disagreement with the domestic and foreign policies of the government and in a negative attitude towards the divorce and new marriage of Vasily III 281. Valuable adjustments were made thanks to the discovery of N.N. Pokrovsky, but the issue has not been finally resolved. One of the reasons for the difference in opinions is of a source study nature: the dating of the “non-covetous” works of Maxim the Greek, the determination of the nature and genre of the Judgment List, the degree of its reliability and bias. Along with specific source study difficulties, there are others associated with the study of this direction of social thought as a whole. Researchers pay main attention to the critical side of this teaching and to the definition of its social foundations, and the assessments are fundamentally opposite. It seems that there is not a single social group whose ideologists would not be considered “non-acquisitive” by one or another researcher. The very concept of “non-acquisitiveness,” at least in relation to Maxim the Greek 282, does not seem to give rise to any significant controversy. Meanwhile, one of the reasons for the emergence of different points of view is, in our opinion, the contradictions contained in its content. Non-covetous people act subjectively as ideologists of monasticism: “non-covetousness” is one of the three monastic virtues (along with obedience and chastity), therefore, every author, speaking about monastic ethics, is obliged to at least briefly mention “non-covetousness” as a moral norm for every monk; Consequently, the call to “non-covetousness” in itself does not bring the publicist closer to “non-covetousness” as a current of social thought; the question is decided by what social meaning is attached to this concept (both Joseph Volotsky and Metropolitan Daniel wrote about “non-covetousness”). Since non-covetousness acts subjectively as a teaching that interprets the ideal norms of the monastic structure, every non-covetous publicist cannot avoid the question of the sources of the material existence of the monastery, and even among the most radical ideologists who declare work as the source of a monk’s existence, it is never the only source; others are directly or indirectly allowed, the totality and combination of which characterize the boundaries and scope of the publicist’s “non-covetousness.” The “non-acquisitiveness” of various ideologists, moving from the ethical sphere to the field of social practice, turns into various options for resolving the issue of the sources of monastic well-being (since the institution of monasticism is not rejected). Therefore, when assessing the views of a particular author, his idea of ​​the monastery as a social organism and its connection with the environment is important, although it is precisely this idea that turns out to be the most veiled (however, much depends on the genre: in monastic regulations or monuments that approach them in genre, it is revealed quite clearly, in moralizing treatises - more vaguely). Here it is appropriate to cite what belongs to A.P. Each characterizes the social function of the monastery in medieval society (in relation to the Byzantine monastery of the 11th–12th centuries): “Monastic theory and practice, reflections on the deity and church ritual primarily occupy the time of the brethren; labor remains on the periphery of monastic activity. It was the ideal (duplicate) existence of the monastery as a ἀγγελικὴ πολιτεία 283 that ultimately made it necessary to externally provide it with a source of existence, its real existence as an appropriator of someone else’s surplus product,” which is created by “the labor of the dependent population, voluntary alms and the transfer of a share of tax revenues to the monks” 284 . The other side of the issue is that the preaching of “non-covetousness” is connected with the preaching of “poverty,” which is a necessary link in the “monastic concept of poverty,” an integral part of the spiritual ideal of medieval society 285 . At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind the paradox of the concept of poverty, inherent in the worldview of the Middle Ages: poverty as material decline and poverty as a spiritual value, as one of the Christian virtues. “We must distinguish between two categories of the poor: the poor in the literal sense of the word, who through no fault of their own suffer from poverty, and believers who have chosen poverty as an ideal and way of life... The problems of impoverishment do not exhaust the entire question posed. The latter consists, to a large extent, of studying the relationship between real poverty and conceptual poverty” 286. Non-covetousness, therefore, can be considered both in an ethical and philosophical sense (interpretation of Christian virtues, concepts of property, wealth, poverty) and in a social sense (the idea of ​​the material, economic foundations of the monastic structure and monastic existence). In the practice of specific social and political struggle, a third aspect arises - political (practically, a political conclusion from the “non-acquisitive” doctrine, its justification for government policies aimed at limiting the property of spiritual corporations or even secularization). At the same time, the doctrine itself may undergo significant changes; conclusions may be drawn from the teachings of any author that are not consistent with his subjective position (Artemy; partly by Maxim the Greek - the interpretation of his sermon on “non-covetousness” by Theodosius Kosy, known to us in the interpretation of Zinovy ​​​​Otensky). Before moving on to analyzing the content of the works of Maxim the Greek, we will make a few terminological remarks. G.N. drew attention to the importance of studying the term “non-covetous” itself when studying the ideology of “non-covetousness”. Moiseev, N.A. has a few comments on this matter. Kazakova 287. But in general, there has been no detailed examination of the different meanings of “non-covetous” terms among different publicists, however, such an analysis is of great importance for understanding both non-covetousness in general and the writings of Maxim the Greek; “Acquisition”, according to I.I. Sreznevsky, has the first meaning of “property, property” and corresponds to the Greek ϰτῆμα (in the Ostromir Gospel the expression “having acquired much” is translated into the Greek “ἔχων ϰτήματα πολλά”; in the list, XIV century text of Genesis XLVI. 6: “All the acquisitions in the land of Canaonste”, Greek “τὴν ϰτῆσιν, ἣν ἐϰτήσαντο”, Lat. “possessionem quam possederant”. The second meaning is “wealth”, the third is “dependency, means” 288. used independently, without adjectives and adverbs, without additional characteristics, without an explanatory context, it had a neutral meaning, devoid of the ethical or emotional connotation inherent in the word in modern language, where it is associated with “acquisitiveness”. 1503, the Grand Duke was told that the councils and holy fathers ordered that “the saint and the monastery neither sell nor give away immovable church property.” Ivan III, presumably, became interested in the content of the concept of “immovable acquisitions,” since in the second Answer an explanation appeared: “immovable acquisitions are the essence of the predescried: cities, authorities, villages and other similar things” 289 . In the writings of Maxim the Greek, the term “acquisition” has a very broad meaning and is used in relation to phenomena of both material and spiritual life. Being in the sphere of spiritual values, the concept has a positive ethical assessment (“single acquisition... is the zeal for divine virtues”; “single acquisition of the bearer of the cross is deadly”). “Acquisition”-property has a neutral meaning (the zemstvo authorities “steal the estates and acquisitions of widows and orphans”). To express the author's negative attitude, additional characteristics are required: either quantitative (“much acquisitive,” “multi-acquisitive,” “Polictimon”), or qualitative, when the owner’s attitude to his property and wealth is condemned 290 . The verb “acquire” in itself also did not have an evaluative, value-based meaning, usual in modern usage; it meant, first of all, “to acquire” (it related, like “acquisition,” to the sphere of spiritual and material values), as well as “to keep,” “to master,” “to preserve,” etc. The neutrality of the meaning is especially expressive in the context where the term is used to designate the actions of one who “with his own hands, acquired little property” (Life of Theodosius of Pechersk) 291; Wed in the message of Ivan IV to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery: “simple clothing and food are available to each of us, if we want, we can acquire from our own handicrafts without accepting someone else’s goods”; “In his laziness, he does not want to acquire a single piece of bread from his own hand” 292. The term “acquisitive” in the Dictionary of I.I. Sreznevsky is missing. In the works of Maxim the Greek it appeared only once and was used not only without a negative ethical assessment, but, on the contrary, to designate persons to whom sympathy is expressed; “acquisitive” refers to the owners of “estates” that are deprived of them by covetous monks for non-payment of debt (“estate” here is property) 293 . The term “acquisitive” was not used to designate a participant in the dispute in the Contest of Philoctimon and Actimon. The author’s point of view is expressed by “non-acquisitive”, “non-acquisitive”, “Actimon”. His opponent is “covetous”, “covetous”, “Philoctimon” (once – “Polictimon” 294). “Acquisitiveness”, according to I.I. Sreznevsky, means “self-interest, profit” 295. We did not encounter this term, as well as its opposite “non-acquisitiveness,” in the writings of Maxim the Greek and other authors of that time. The concepts of “non-acquisitive” writings and “non-acquisitive” journalism are historiographical and are applied to those authors who talk about “non-acquisitiveness”. The term “non-acquisitiveness,” having various connotations and referring to various phenomena of material and spiritual life, can be used by ideologists who have fundamentally opposing views. Not only Nil Sorsky, Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek wrote about “non-covetousness”, but also their ideological opponents Joseph Volotsky (which drew the attention of Ya.S. Lurie 296) and even more extensively - Metropolitan Daniel. Therefore, in each specific case, a careful analysis of what kind of “non-acquisitiveness” we are talking about is necessary. At I.I. Sreznevsky recorded only two meanings for “non-acquisitiveness”: unselfishness, poverty (“non-acquisitive” is completely absent). But the meaning of the term was more multifaceted. N.A. Kazakova writes that in the sources the term “non-acquisitive” appears twice: in the Contest of Maximus the Greek and in the work of Zinovy ​​\u200b\u200bOtensky 297. Let us add to this that the term “non-covetous” is used by Joseph Volotsky in relation to Christ 298. The short version of the statute of Joseph also mentions the “non-covetous” - in Word 5, which contains the answer to the question “how to acquire” books. In response to a possible statement that “books are not things, for this reason it is appropriate for non-covetous people to have their own,” Joseph replies: “above all non-covetousness” 299 . The Volokolamsk monks, through Elder Jonah, ask Abbot Daniel (1515–1522) to allow them to keep their own books; one of the justifications is a reference to Peter of Damascus: “for a non-possessor, not having a great book is evil” 300. In both cases, the term is used to designate fidelity to “non-acquisitiveness” as one of the main monastic commandments and is limited to the personal property of the monk: “it is not appropriate for a living faster in the monastery to have his own acquisition of things, but to be free to have any special acquisition,” writes Joseph Volotsky. When he says: “it is better to have impoverishment and be with Christ than to become rich in all worldly possessions,” when he recommends “preferring... poverty over wealth” 301, then here “impoverishment” and “poverty” are not only the personal “non-acquisitiveness” of the monks, but also that monastic “conceptual poverty” discussed above. To understand the essence of “non-acquisition” from different authors, it is necessary to answer the following questions: 1) if “acquisition” is property, then does “non-acquisition” mean a negation or only a limitation of property (and wealth); in the latter case, what are the methods and means of limitation; 2) whose property and wealth are we talking about - the personal property of monks or the property of feudal spiritual corporations (monasteries, metropolitan see, episcopal sees, parish churches); 3) what kind of property we are talking about - real estate, i.e. primarily about land ownership as the basis of the wealth of medieval society, or about movable, primarily money (“gold”, “silver”); 4) what are the material resources, the sources of existence of the monasteries? Sources characterizing the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek during his stay in Russia are divided into three large groups: works; translations for Helmsman Vassian Patrikeev; judgment lists. Each of these groups has its own specifics. Translations, unlike essays, do not directly express the views of the author, but they allow one to judge the sources he used and the legal basis that shaped, to one degree or another, some aspects of the content of his literary works. Court lists are used only with major reservations: the accused can hide his views or, on the contrary, make some kind of confession, being forced by prosecutors. The works, in turn, are also divided into three groups according to genre and thematic characteristics: 1) messages and tales dedicated to the Athonite monasteries, summarizing the Orthodox monastic experience known to the author; 2) a “story” characterizing the Catholic mendicant orders and some aspects of Savonarola’s reform activities; message about the Franciscans and Dominicans; 3) extensive polemical treatises examining the problem as a whole. There are four known works by Maxim the Greek dedicated to the Athonite monasteries. The earliest and most extensive of them is the letter to Vasily III (1518–1519) 302. The second work - “The Legend of Elder Maxim to Elder Vassian about the Holy Mountain of Residence” 303 - also dates back to before 1525.” since it was included by Vassian Patrikeev in his Helmsman of the second type, compiled between 1518–1524. 304 Although this work is called a Legend, it can also be classified as a message, since its addressee is known. The third work is a message to an unknown “Reverend” 305, published by V.F. Rzhiga based on the Rumyantsev collection. V.F. Rzhiga rightly attributed the message to the last period of the author’s life and literary activity, since he casually writes here about his senile ailments 306. The date of the fourth work (unpublished) is unknown 307. A.I. Ivanov believed that it most likely “can be attributed to the early works of Maxim the Greek” 308, but N.N. Pokrovsky came to the conclusion that the prosecution of 1531 undoubtedly did not know this work 309. Let us add that the mention of the absence of villages near the Athonite monasteries brings this work closer to the later letter to the “Reverend” than to the early works for Vasily III and Vassian Patrikeev, where nothing is said about villages at all. The second group of works is devoted to the experience of the Catholic mendicant orders. Their dating is not as certain as the first two works about the Athos monasteries. “The story is terrible and memorable and about the perfect monastic residence”, researchers unanimously refer to the first period on the basis of the testimony of Zinovy ​​Otensky, who writes that Maxim, referring to the “non-acquisitiveness” of the Latin monastery and preaching the “non-acquisitiveness” of the Russian monasteries, “it is not possible for oneself... not to be nourished from the meal of the Grand Duke by the many different foodstuffs... but quickly as one from multi-acquisitive" 310. Since Maxim the Greek “fed from the meal” of the Grand Duke only until 1525, the work in which he put forward the “Latin monastery” as an example of “non-covetousness” (and only one such work is known - the Tale) was written before 1525. However, it is hardly possible to consider this statement as an indisputable dating sign. On the one hand, a number of arguments can be put forward against early dating. Firstly, Zinovy’s statement has a sharply journalistic sound and constitutes an important link in the chain of argumentation of Zinovy, who seeks to refute the views of Maxim the Greek in various ways: drawing attention to the inconsistency of his lifestyle with the preached views, he could resort to shifting events in time. Secondly, Zinovy ​​conducts a polemic with two works of Maxim the Greek at once - the Tale and the Contest between the acquisitive and the non-acquisitive, and the latter, undoubtedly, dates back to a later period. In addition, the Contest is closely connected with the Tale in terms of plot. In the Tale, characterizing the lifestyle of the monks of the mendicant Catholic orders, the author reports that they earn their living by collecting alms from the surrounding population. The competition begins with a direct, without any introduction, polemic with the idea of ​​​​the perfection of this method of ensuring material existence. Philoctimon turns to his opponent with the question of what is better: “to go around every city and country to ask for alms from the leading princes” or “I have satisfied acquisitions, always living inside the monastery” 311. Plot proximity may indicate chronological proximity. Thirdly, the Tale was included by Maxim the Greek in the collection of his works (Khludovskoe, ch. 73), meanwhile, as a rule, this collection does not contain early works written before 1525 (the only exceptions are two anti-astrological messages - to Nikolai Bulev and “to a certain monk”, ch. 55:68). Fourthly, narrating the reform activities of Savonarola, the author limits all its diversity to the fact that the Florentine eradicated only two vices: 1) “Bohemian sodomite lawlessness”; 2) extortion 312. The second topic will be discussed more than once; As for the first, it looks more relevant against the backdrop of journalism in the mid-16th century than at the end of its first quarter 313. But, on the other hand, this work still lacks the completeness of content and comprehensive nature of the argumentation that distinguish The Contest and the later works adjacent to it. The story should be classified as one of those works whose creation time remains unknown. The same can be said regarding the epistle on the Franciscans and Dominicans published by V.F. Rzhiga based on the Rumyantsev collection 314. H.A. Kazakova considers one of the early works (before 1525) of the third group - Conversation of the Mind to the Soul. The source of the argument is the Judgment List, a tendentious monument. Based on the words of Metropolitan Daniel, transmitted by the Judgment List (“But you, Maxim, reproach and blaspheme the holy cathedral and apostolic churches and monasteries of God, that they have acquisitions, and people, and incomes, and villages” 315), the researcher concludes, “that even before being put on trial, Maxim the Greek made detailed denunciations of the patrimonial rights of the church and that, therefore, his non-acquisitive convictions were fully formed before his imprisonment.” And since there are no corresponding works undoubtedly written before 1525, then if the Conversation is dated to the later period (the rest of the works in the cycle are dated this way), “it will turn out to be unclear on what materials the Metropolitan based his accusations. This bewilderment will disappear if we assume that “Conversation of the Mind with the Soul” was written by Maximus the Greek before 1525: in it non-acquisitive motives are present in an expanded form, and its content could provide sufficient material for the accusation” 316. This reasoning is based on two premises, each of which must itself be proven: 1) the accusations were reasoned and fair; 2) in the hands of the prosecution there was certainly written “material evidence” - the author’s writings. The justice of the accusation is postulated, while it still needs to be proven. The fairness of the accusation can be refuted at least in one point: judging by the above phrase, Daniel identifies Maxim the Greek’s criticism of churches and monasteries, but his attitude towards both was different, N.A. herself wrote about this. Kazakova, and V.F. Riga. The fact that Metropolitan Daniel made other inaccuracies and direct distortions of the text remains to be discussed further. Therefore, it is not possible to draw any positive conclusions (much less date the writings) based on the fact that Daniel’s accusations characterize the true state of affairs. But even if we assume that the accusations were fair, it does not follow that criticism was necessarily expressed in writing; these could be oral statements that, with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, reached the metropolitan and were transmitted to him. N.A. Kazakova attributes the above-cited accusation of Daniel to both councils at once - both 1525 and 1531; but the point of view of N.N. seems more fair. Pokrovsky that “non-covetous” guilt was brought against Maxim only in 1531, together with Vassian Patrikeev 317, although the critical position of Maxim the Greek in relation to the economic order of Russian monasteries could not but be known to the accusers and serve as one of the hidden, unnamed reasons for the accusation (1525). If the work that gave Metropolitan Daniel the material for the accusation existed, it would certainly have been brought in as material evidence and read out, just as happened with the Life of the Mother of God Simeon Metaphrastus, where “blasphemous lines” were discovered. So, to characterize the views of Maxim the Greek before 1525, only two works about the Athos monasteries, written for Vasily III and Vassian Patrikeev, and with a lesser degree of certainty, works about Catholic monasteries can be used with certainty. The same question or request was addressed to the newly arrived learned Athos resident by both the Grand Duke (and more than once - “ask in many”) and the powerful monk prince. The answers to the Grand Duke and Vassian Patrikeev are different in form - a lengthy message to Vasily III, written in compliance with the norms of epistolary art, and a brief one, which is in the nature of a historical reference, “The Legend of Elder Maxim to Elder Vassian about the Holy Mountain of Residence.” But the essence of the answer is the same: Maxim the Greek remains within the strict framework of an objective description of the Athonite order, without any analogies with Russian reality, as if he did not know about such an acute issue in Russian journalism. He does not write about the presence or absence of villages near the Athos monasteries. It would seem that it was in the Legend that it was very appropriate for Vassian Patrikeev to have some complete presentation of Maxim’s “non-covetous” views. Their absence here cannot be explained by the brevity of the Legend: Maximus’s later message about the Athos monasteries is also distinguished by its brevity, but here the wording is quite categorical. His position in his early writings is explained either by ignorance (or lack of awareness) in all aspects of the controversy surrounding monastic land ownership, or by his reluctance to become involved in such an acute social and journalistic dispute. The neutrality of Maximus’s position in the Tale of Vassian 318 is obvious. He only reports that “in the Holy Mountain, life is divided into three: into the general and into the special (that is, into the Lavra) and into the monastery” (in his letter to Vasily III, he does not touch upon the issue of monasteries, he writes only about the community life and the special life). Next, he reports on the main difference between the cenobia and the laurels: the work responsibilities of the monks are different in them. If in the first everyone works without exception, then in the second - “according to reason and according to dignity,” which is due to the different role of the contribution: in a special monastery, it is the contribution that determines the work of the monk (“whoever the brethren contribute to the monastery is free to do so: they do it if they want, they don’t want to do it, and they do it according to their own strength”); in the kenobii the situation is different (“they do not give a contribution for their peace, except for blessings and alms”). There is no terminology characteristic of journalistic monuments on the topic of monastic land ownership: “acquisition”, “covetousness”, “growth”, etc. The author uses the term “estate” when describing the monastery (without specifying its content); but further, when characterizing the laurel, in the place where, according to the order of presentation, we should talk about “estate,” he writes about “alms that come” (apparently, this is money or jewelry; perhaps, precious church vessels); here "estate" means movable property. In the Terrible and Memorable Tale, as we will see later, “estate” means money. The content of the message to Vasily III is also neutral; the terms “acquisitiveness”, “extortion”, “growth”, “village” are absent here too. But the presentation is more extensive and contains some additional information, which acquires special significance when compared with the later work on the Athonite monasteries. Here the author’s attitude to various types of monastic structure was revealed - cenobitic (cinema) and special (laurels, idiorhythm). In the Tale for Vassian, he only described the differences between them. Maxim the Greek attaches great importance to the fact of the difference between general and special monasteries, noting it in the very title of his work. The author's sympathies are entirely on the side of general monasteries, but he begins the description with special ones (the laurels of St. Athanasius of Athos and Vatopedi). The Lavra of Athanasius of Athos is one of the most important and largest monasteries of Mount Athos, and its creator Athanasius of Athos is considered the founder of Athonite monasticism, and therefore it is with it that Maxim begins his “Exposition”. Two main differences from special ones characterize cenobitic monasteries. Firstly, the monks have a complete absence of personal property (l. 295). Secondly, the opportunity to enter the monastery without making a contribution (fol. 295 vol.); if the contribution is made, then it does not affect the monk’s position in the monastery. In special monasteries, the very fact and size of the contribution significantly influence the future position of the monk and can free him from the obligation to work (fol. 296). A.I. Ivanov denies the presence in the message of “sharp criticism of special monasteries” 319. We see a manifestation of Maximus the Greek’s critical attitude towards the orders of special monasteries in the contrast between the “laborers” of the cenovies and the “investors” of idiorhythms (l. 296 and vol.); in assessing the role of contributions as “love of money”, “revenge” (in another list “obscurity”), “brotherly hatred” (l. 296); in the words that the communal monastery is “truly pure from individuality” (l. 294 vol.): “It is better to have one brother worker than ten contributors” (fol. 296 and vol.). Maxim the Greek in his letter criticizes not the very principle of singular living, but, as it were, only one side of it, but in essence the main one, constituting its material basis - the possibility of a secure position for a monk in a monastery in accordance with the contribution he made upon entering the monastery. In Russian conditions, the difference between monasteries and monasteries had a different real meaning than on Mount Athos. N.A. Kazakova wrote that Joseph Volotsky’s recognition, already in the early period of his activity, of the communal monastery as an ideal form of organization of monasticism meant the protection of monastic land ownership and patrimonial rights of monasteries; in the teachings of Nilus of Sorsky, “recognition of the monastery as the main form of organization of monasticism meant the denial of monastic land ownership” 320. If we turn to Maximus’s later work on Mount Athos, here the difference between general and special monasteries is assessed differently than in the early one; in particular, there are no elements of a critical attitude towards the order of special monasteries. The position of Maxim the Greek on the issue of the monastic structure (cinnovia or idiorhythm) at the time of his arrival in Rus' is explained either by the fact that he did not yet have a good enough understanding of the real differences between general and special monasteries in Russian conditions, the significance of this issue in the controversy surrounding monastic land ownership, or did not want to actively get involved in this complex and dangerous struggle. In his later work one can feel that he is fluent in the facts and groups them in accordance with his views. An even more important difference between the early and late descriptions of Athonite monasteries is observed in another question - about the sources of material existence and well-being of the monasteries. In his letter to Vasily III, Maxim the Greek does not specifically raise this question, and one can judge his ideas only on the basis of individual comments when characterizing other subjects. In the later message, on the contrary, this question is formulated clearly and categorically. In his letter to Vasily III, Maxim the Greek pays great attention to the issue of the monks’ own work. But the question immediately arises: is he, according to Maxim the Greek and in his image, the only source of their existence? We do not find a direct answer to these questions in Maxim the Greek’s “Exposition”; he does not express his attitude towards monastic land ownership (both Athonite and Russian monasteries). True, when describing the activities of the monks of special monasteries, the arable land owned by the monasteries is silently mentioned (fol. 292). It is located somewhere outside the monasteries, from where livestock is brought by ship. But Maxim Grek does not report anything specific about this; It remains unknown who cultivates the arable land. Talking about monastic services, he writes that one of the duties of the skeuphylax (vessel guard) is “according to the list, to collect silver collected from outside from the rulers and princes and from every Orthodox Christian” (fol. 300 vol.); one of the sources of material support for monasteries is clearly named. The following fact testifies to how Maxim assessed the role of “alms” in the life of the Athonite monasteries. Beginning the description of the special Lavra, Maxim emphasizes that in ancient times, “when you were prosperous,” it was a communal monastery, and the transition to special living was caused by “exhaustion” (l. 291). Let us recall that Maxim considers the order of special monasteries less perfect; speaking about the “exhaustion” of the special Vatoped, he sees the reason for it precisely in the absence of “good deeds” “from kings and pious despots” (l. 294). In a late letter about the Athonite monasteries, the author also connects “privacy” with “scarcity and poverty,” which does not mean “conceptual poverty,” but real property decline 321. In his letter to Vasily III, Maxim the Greek reports, albeit succinctly, about the use of hired labor: “As an icon, it is necessary to take charge of all the external and internal services of the monastery, and to have care for the mercenaries” (l. 301). So, in his lengthy letter to Vasily III, Maxim the Greek pays relatively little attention to the economic structure of the Athos monasteries, writing about it incidentally; in the later epistle, shorter than the epistle to Vasily III, a clear, complete description of this structure is given (in this we see the second difference between the late epistle and the early one): “For all monasteries without estates, villages without villages live 322, by their handicrafts and incessant labors and by the sweat of their brow they obtain for themselves all the needs of life. They have too much silver lying around in their treasury, not among the people according to local custom; The Holy Mountain is clean from the unpraiseworthy gains.” This reflects a new stage in the formation of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek, which found a more detailed embodiment in lengthy polemical treatises (see Chapter III, § 3). A later message speaks of the absence of villages and usury in the Athonite monasteries; these facts are not mentioned in the earlier message. The author only states the absence of villages without judgment, without expressing his attitude towards the villages of Russian monasteries 323, although he condemns other aspects of Russian monastic practice: the “local custom” of usury, the “local lawlessness” 324 - transitions. monks from one monastery to another. It is appropriate to recall one episode of the trial of 1531, when Maxim was forced to answer the question: “In your land of Grechestey, are there any monasteries in villages?” He said at first: “Yaz... I’ve never been a builder, I don’t know that.” When Bishop Dosifei referred to the Life of Sava of Serbia, which “you brought from the Holy Mountains,” where it is written, “that the monasteries of the village have, and Saint Sava and his brother Stefan gave letters to the monastery of the village,” and the letters were written on them, the Judgment List recorded the following answer: “I have forgotten that, sir, and I am to blame for that” 325. In the late letter about the Athonite monasteries, an echo of this debate is felt, and the author, on the one hand, sets out facts that undermine the position of the prosecution, but, on the other hand, does not allow too categorical formulations regarding the ownership of villages in the practice of Russian monasteries. If in a message later than the trial, the author claims the absence of villages near the Athos monasteries, then this indicates the forced nature of his testimony and repentance at the trial (on this point). The later epistle described in more detail than the early one the exploitation (using hired labor) of properties located outside the monasteries (in the epistle to Vasily III, the mentions of mercenaries and arable land outside the monastery were very muted): “They have some grapes outside and near the monasteries, but outside the Holy Mountain in the world there is arable land and a yard is needed, and there is an old man who is a builder, and he has a young old man, they call him a cellarer, and two hire a man, they yell and sow. And when the harvest comes, they let you out of the monastery with money, and when you come there, you hire men and reap and thresh and pour into the granary. From the monastery they release the monastery ship with the brethren to take all the supplies from there to the monastery” 326. Consequently, Maximus the Greek, even in his later letter, does not condemn monastic land ownership if it represents ownership of land that is cultivated with the help of hired labor (arable land, vineyards). This hired labor is paid in money, silver, “alms from Christ-lovers” (without specification). The implementation of the “non-acquisitive” ideal in practice inevitably required both receiving “alms from Christ-lovers” (rugs, private grants) and the use of hired labor. As for the latter, it is difficult to say whether the above words reflected the ideal of Maximus the Greek or whether they were cited “simply in the order of describing the structure of the Athonite monasteries, in which the use of hired labor was associated, perhaps, with natural conditions” 327. We can only note that the practice of “hiring” also existed in Russian monasteries: a number of sources from the late 15th – early 16th centuries. reports about “mercenaries” or “hiremen” who worked in the economy of Russian monasteries 328. In addition, another representative of the non-acquisitive trend, Nil Sorsky, has a provision on wage labor, and it acts not as an ideal, and not as a reference to Athonite customs, but looks like a description of everyday practice: “... those who work with us, if they are radiant from the worldly, are not due a proper lesson to be vain, especially to give with a blessing and let them go in peace” 329. The presence of a similar situation cannot be explained by the influence of a common “source”, the Athonite orders, with which Nile was also familiar; on other issues (for example, on the form of the monastic structure), the views of the two authors differed. Let us compare the ideas of Maxim the Greek and Nil Sorsky about the economic foundations of monastic existence. The source will be, first of all, “The Tradition of the Elder Nile the Hermit by His Disciple.” For understanding the Tradition (and another major work of the Nile, traditionally called the Charter), the study of F. Lilienfeld is important, she determined the genre nature of both monuments and placed each of them in a number of related works of both Byzantine and previous ancient Russian literature, showing with what exactly it is necessary and possible to compare each of them. “11 chapters,” or the so-called Great Charter of the Nile, by its genre nature is not a monastic charter in the strict sense of the word; this work belongs to the genre of “teachings,” preaching literature or moralizing treatises. The tradition of Nil Sorsky is precisely the monastic charter for the Nilov Monastery; “This is a real monastic charter, a typikon of the abbot. Here the Nile establishes the order of life in his desert and takes care of it, keeping in mind the times when it will no longer exist” 330. Maximus the Greek’s “Exposition” on the Athonite monasteries is a message, but the range of issues raised in it, the features of the structure and life of the monasteries described in it, forces it to be compared precisely with the Tradition of the Nile. The validity of this conclusion is confirmed by the almost word-for-word coincidence of the initial part of the title of the work of Maximus the Greek and the Rule of Euphrosynus of Pskov for his monastery - a work that F. Lilienfeld considers to be an earlier monument of the same genre as the Tradition of the Nile. Title of the Charter of Euphrosynus: “Exposition of the dormitory stay, charter of the monastery...” 331; the title of the message of Maxim the Greek: “Part of the exposition of the stay and order of the common monasteries existing in the Holy Mountain and the special ones...” Another observation by F. Lilienfeld is directly related to the clarification of the reasons that predetermined the choice of the range of issues that Maxim the Greek touches on both in the Legend included in the Helmsman of Vassian Patrikeev and in the message to Vasily III. F. Lilienfeld drew attention to the pressing issue of a written monastic charter. At the beginning of the 16th century. “The real monastic charters of Russian monasteries for the first centuries of their existence have not been preserved” 332. Let's move on to the Charter, i.e. to the Tradition of the Nile. As is known, the basis of monasticism is withdrawal from the world for various reasons, that is, the severance of social ties, which is more consistently carried out in monasteries. Under these conditions, how is it possible to ensure the material existence of the monks and their performance of the necessary rituals? Nil Sorsky understands the importance of this issue and it is with this that he begins to describe the economic foundations of the monastery (fol. 7 of the manuscript according to the publication of M.S. Borovkova-Maikova). He speaks first of all about the foundations on which “our continued existence and needs” “want to be built.” The answer is based on the apostolic commandment “do not do lest you eat”: “from the righteous labors of one’s handicrafts and work, the Lord and his Most Pure Mother provide daily food and other necessary needs for us” (l. 7). The range of these “handicrafts” is narrow: “things that happen under the roof” are preferred; For monks who have chosen the monastic rule, even “orati” with the help of a pair of oxen, “and others who are sick from their labors,” is “reproachful,” and “commendable” only in “common lives.” With such an economic system, the monasteries cannot fully provide themselves with everything necessary and be completely outside of social ties, therefore the Nile allows their insignificant participation in commodity exchange (“purchase of goods” and “selling of handicrafts”), but profit is unacceptable; on the contrary, a loss is preferable: “it is proper not to take a brother’s vanity, but rather to accept the vanity yourself” (fol. 7 vol.). In the monasteries there is no common daily meal; everyone “carries for himself... to feed himself” “against the strength of his body and soul,” “avoiding satiety and sweets” (fol. 10 vol.). Based on real life conditions, Neil understands that such an economic system does not always allow you to have everything you need (even when reducing it to a minimum) only as the fruit of your own hands, so acceptable additional sources are considered below. The laconicism and simplicity of the Nilov Charter require careful analysis of each phrase. Neil pays special attention to “other people's labor”: “If we are not satisfied with our needs from our own work because of our weakness or for some other guilt, then we should take 333 small alms from Christ-lovers, which is necessary, and not unnecessary. The acquisitions that we have collected through violence from other people’s labors cannot be brought in at our own pace (for we can keep the commandments of the Lord, which we have: to the one who wants to sue you, give back your clothes and sorrel, and other such things, passions exist and are weak), but as deadly poison, run away and drive away 334. In purchasing our needs and selling and handicrafts, it is appropriate not to show off our brother’s vanity, but rather to accept the vanity ourselves. Those who do the same among us, if they are radiant from the worldly, are not given the proper lesson to be vain 335, especially to give with a blessing and to let them go in peace” (ll. 7 vol. - 8). The four phrases refer to four possible sources, three of which are acceptable and one of which is not. The first phrase refers to “alms”; this can be either the contribution of a private individual or the state’s curse; the main condition under which it can be accepted is its small size, providing only the necessary needs. In the second phrase, “alms” is contrasted with a contribution that must be “run away and driven away like a deadly poison”: “The acquisitions that we collect through violence from the labors of others cannot be brought in at our own pace.” I'M WITH. Lurie wrote that “here it is not entirely clear what kind of “acquisitions” “from other people’s labors” are meant (the land itself or its products) and to whom they may be intended - individual monks or a monastery” 336. It seems that the main thing in this part of the charter is not in the content and purpose of the contribution, but in its source: a contribution (“acquisition... make”), which is the result of the forcible appropriation of the fruits of someone else’s labor, is unacceptable. Here the main emphasis is placed precisely on the expression “by violence,” since the fourth phrase contains an order to properly and fairly pay for hired labor. So, in addition to the main source of material support for monastic needs - the monks’ own labor and handicrafts, the following three are acceptable: 1) “alms” (grants from private individuals or state money); 2) the participation of monks in commodity exchange (which is closely related to the topic of the monks’ own labor); 3) use of fairly paid hired labor. The second phrase of the above passage from the Tradition “about acquisitions” is close to the text of a small chapter of the cenobitic Rule of Euphrosynus of Pskov, but has a different, almost opposite meaning. Here is the entire text of Euphrosynus: “On the hired business. The acquisition of other people’s labors is something we can bring from here for our benefit, and even more so, as if we welcome passions of the soul and infirmities into the monastery, but, like a deadly poison, run away and drive away” 337. It is quite obvious that Nile has a reworking, a rethinking of the Rule of Euphrosynus, and we dare to add - a hidden and subtle polemic with the Rule of the cenobitic monastery, which Nile considered less perfect. If in the communal Eleazar Monastery the abbot prohibits the “acquisition of other people’s labors,” which consists only in the use of “hired business,” then Nile, allowing, if one may use such an expression, a “play on words,” argues that the unacceptable “acquisition” of someone else’s labor is precisely its violent appropriation; and the contribution based on it is contrasted (openly) with both the small-scale “alms from Christ-lovers” brought to the monastery, and (hiddenly and “subtly”) with hired labor. Neil raised the question to what extent and in what form it is permissible for monks to use the fruits of other people's labor. He replied that only if someone else's labor is properly paid, and not when his product is forcibly appropriated. The consistency of Nile's position on the question of the role and nature of deposits and the economic and everyday structure of monasteries is further manifested in the statement that a monk “is not allowed to give alms” (l. 8). At first glance, this seems to contradict the general spirit of his teaching, but in essence it indicates that the question is deeply thought out, the system is logically completed. What is his reasoning? “It is not proper for us to have unnecessary ones. And do not turn away giving to those who ask and do not turn away those who borrow; this is commanded for the wicked to eat, says the Great Basil; if you do not have excessively necessary needs, you should not eat such gifts and create... Saint Isaac writes: lack of acquisition is higher than such alms... Alms are monastic, to help a brother with a word in time of need and to console sorrow with spiritual reasoning... Spiritual alms... is higher than bodily..., says Saint Dorotheos... Is anyone strange? He will come and give him peace to the best of our strength, and according to these, if he demands, we give him the blessing of bread and let him go” (l. 8 and vol.) 338. Here, “alms” means, firstly, the provision of loans (“do not turn away those who borrow”); and since loans were often accompanied by interest (“growth”, “extortion”), poverty is prescribed as a guarantee against usurious activity (“if you do not have excessively necessary needs, you should not eat such gifts”); secondly, the terms “alms” and “giving” traditionally served to designate charity. Charity is a function of wealth; the absence of the latter makes charity unnecessary and impossible. In the expression “non-acquisitiveness is greater than such alms,” the term “non-acquisitiveness” means the denial of wealth in general, because, according to the orthodox point of view, the duty of wealth is precisely such “alms”; only the renunciation of wealth can result in release from the obligation of alms. The consistency of Neil's position is manifested in the solution to the issue of “church decoration”; he instructs “not to decorate churches”; if anyone wants to bring “sacred items or other decorations” to the church, order him to give them to the poor; argument: “It is not proper for a monk to acquire silver... and it is not proper for us to have gold and silver and the most sacred things, and other decorations are also unnecessary, but only to be brought to the church” (ll. 9 vol. – 10) 339 . Here we are talking about the decoration of churches; The instructions regarding the personal property of monks are similar: “In our cells, judgments and other things are valuable and should not be decorated. Likewise, the construction of the cellar and other dwellings of ours are all of little value and are unadorned and are appropriate to acquire, as the Great Basil says, “found everywhere and conveniently purchased” (l. 10 vol.). We have presented the question as it is resolved in the Charter, i.e. in the Tradition, following, if possible, the order of arrangement of questions proposed by the author himself, in order to show that Nilus of Sorsky had a completely thought-out, logically consistent and complete, simply and briefly stated system of views on the issue of economic and everyday life, the material basis of the monastic ideal he professed. Some of Neil's statements on this issue in other sources only make it more concrete. In two places in “Chapter 11,” Neil, in almost identical terms, condemns the “currently existing customs” of “acquiring villages.” In the chapter “on a proud thought,” he does not advise being proud of either the “kindness” of the monastery, or the number of brethren, “or, according to the custom that now holds us back, from acquiring villages and acquiring many estates” (l. 61). In the chapter “about cutting off and true carelessness, which is death from all,” he again condemns, “even now we have customs about the attraction of villages and about the holding of many estates” (fol. 81 vol.). In the final part of the “11 chapters” we read about the opposition of a contribution in the form of “small alms” to “excessive”, “bodily covetousness”, which should be “run away”, “like mortal poison”, since they give rise to “warfare and burdens” (l. 90). In a message to Gury Tushin, Nil advises him not to take part in conversations, “even for the benefit of the monastery’s wealth and acquisition of estates” 340. I'M WITH. Lurie decides differently the question of “what was the meaning of the preaching of non-covetousness in the work of Nil Sorsky and what place this idea occupied in the system of his worldview.” Answer Y.S. Lurie boils down to two points. Firstly, “speaking of non-covetousness, the Sorsky ascetic mainly had in mind precisely personal non-covetousness and, in general, the personal improvement of monks.” Comparing Neil's statements on this issue with the brief edition of the Charter of Joseph Volotsky, Ya.S. Lurie writes that “the idea of ​​the fundamental non-acquisitiveness of the monks” received “a definite and partly even more vivid expression in Joseph’s work than in Neil’s.” Secondly, “Nile’s attitude towards monastic land ownership is revealed only in a few of his remarks, which are of a rather indirect and vague nature... Neil does not oppose monastic land ownership, does not prove its harmfulness, but only advises against being proud and getting carried away by the “attraction of villages”” 341. I'M WITH. Lurie quite rightly pointed out the need to distinguish between “the personal non-acquisitiveness of the monks, i.e., their lack of individual property, and the collective non-acquisitiveness of the monasteries, i.e., first of all, the liquidation of monastic land ownership” 342, however, he did not quite consistently draw this distinction when assessing the views of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky. A comparison of the positions of Nile and Joseph on the issue of personal non-covetousness of the monks led to a shift in emphasis. I'M WITH. Lurie draws attention to the connection between the question of the best type of monastic life (according to the Nile - monasteries) with the question of monastic land ownership (“monasteries hardly needed land and peasants to cultivate it”) 343. I'M WITH. Lurie does not deny the fact that Nil Sorsky spoke at the council of 1503 in support of the secularization plans of Ivan III. Nevertheless, the researcher writes about the uncertainty of Neil’s statements regarding monastic land ownership, and characterizes the connection of his program with practical plans for the organization and reform of monasticism as “rather limited” 344. At the same time, the reform program proposed by Joseph Volotsky in a brief version of the Charter is assessed as “quite radical” (it is based “on the principles of absolute personal non-covetousness, strict discipline and compulsory labor for all monks”) 345. Artlessly and laconically formulated in Tradition, i.e., the Charter of the Nile, the rejection of monastic wealth in full, including rich church decoration, and in fact proclaimed monastic poverty as the basis of the economic structure; denial of the charity of monasteries; the condemnation of the practice of “acquiring villages” in “11 chapters” and in the message to Gury Tushin make Neil a more radical ideologist than Joseph Volotsky. Neil’s speech at the council of 1503 in support of the grand ducal plans is the most serious program for the reform of monasticism of all those proposed in the 16th century: “The Great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich desires to unite the villages with the Metropolitan and all the rulers and all the monasteries and unite them all. Provide the Metropolitan and the rulers and all the monasteries with money from their treasury and with bread from their granaries 346. Neil's performance is a serious corrective to claims about his contemplative nature. He was no less a practitioner than Joseph, his practice simply had a different content and a different purpose. The less strictly enforced principle of personal non-covetousness of the monks in the Rite of the Nile compared to the earlier edition of the Rite of Joseph is the result of a deeper principled consistency of the Nile. The basis for the complete personal “non-acquisition” of monks in cenobitic monasteries is precisely the “collective acquisition” of the monastery as a whole 347; In these monasteries, meals are shared, and Joseph specifically instructs the monks to “beware of secret eating” 348. In monasteries, where the principle of collective “non-acquisitiveness” is carried out more deeply and consistently, each monk is forced to run his own small household (“Everyone does the same for food and drink against the strength of his body,” l. 10 vol.) and therefore must have a minimum of necessary personal belongings. Joseph Volotsky understood that monks leading a special way of life have a greater need for personal things compared to general monks: “See that not only in general life is non-covetousness preferred above all else, but also in the deserts, where the need is many and great and urgent” 349. Further, if we proceed from the question of personal non-acquisitiveness, we will have to recognize the Volokolamsk abbot Daniel, the future metropolitan and antagonist of Maxim the Greek and Vassian Patrikeev, as radical as Joseph. I'M WITH. Lurie, comparing the short and menain (later) editions of the Statute of Joseph of Volotsky, drew attention to the fact that the 5th Word “on holy icons and books” was removed from the menaion edition, which especially clearly emphasizes “the principle of complete equality of monks and their lack of personal property” 350. This conclusion requires clarification. From the menaion edition, only the prohibition for monks to have their own books was removed, but the fundamental condemnation of “special acquisitions” and the call for non-acquisitiveness was retained here: “it is not proper for a monk to want wealth, but to love non-covetousness and Christ-like poverty”; “Let us be ashamed of the love of money and the robes of ornaments and things of partiality, and not exactly not having acquisitions, but desiring them below”; “It is in no way special to pretend to be acquisitive,” “to have complete non-acquisitiveness and Christ-like poverty” 351 and a number of similar statements. Joseph’s successor, Abbot Daniel, tried to restore the severity of Joseph’s original Rule, as evidenced by the essay he wrote, “On the monastic law and the rule of common life in the holy monastery of the Most Glorious Mother of God in the common Joseph Monastery” 352. The text is replete with condemnations of “special acquisitions”: “The statute of monastic residence and the promise of perfect non-acquisition” (l. 76); “In the poverty of spiritual life, even more so in the final lack of acquisition and silence” (l. 77), “In the poverty of life and the final lack of acquisition ... these are the essence of heavenly citizens” (l. 80). Daniel uses here the menaine edition of the Statute of Joseph (see fol. 76 vol.: “Even more so for worldly people ...", the end “it is not appropriate for a monk to want wealth, but to love non-covetousness and Christ-like poverty”). In Daniel we are talking, first of all, about “special” needlework, which served the monks as a source of personal enrichment: “Acquisitive things are partial and special and special needlework is for the love of money for our sake” (l. 78); “Holding and selling and buying special things and taking growths upon growths and especially handicrafts, hoarding silver and gold” (l. 81). Daniel instructs: “let all artists and needleworkers endeavor from now on to contribute to the treasury of the monastery” (fol. 81 vol.); “It is appropriate for us to put aside all special acquisitions and special handicrafts, but rather from the common treasury of the monastery we must supply ourselves with all sorts of necessary needs and all sorts of necessary things” (fol. 78 vol.). Apparently, during the period of Daniel’s abbess, the monks were forbidden to have personal books, as evidenced by the message of the Volokolamsk monks to Elder Jonah with a request to convince Daniel to allow them to “keep” the books. The monks refer to Joseph, who “blessed us and ordered us to keep icons and books, and we hold them as monastic ones.” V. Zhmakin believes that the ban on having personal books is directed against monastic acquisitiveness, since books with precious bindings could become an integral part of the personal wealth of monks 353. But the ban could have more than just a material basis. Thus, later the Trinity abbot Artemy, in a letter to Ivan IV, will refute the opinion that some from reading the “scriptures” lead a “corrupt life” and deviate “into various heresies.” Artemy objects: “It is not from reading books that they seduce themselves. Don't be! But because of her own foolishness and evil-wisdom” 354. Although in the Charter of the Volotsk abbot the term “non-covetousness” is used almost more times than in all the works of Maxim the Greek combined, this does not change the assessment of Daniel’s position. His “non-acquisitiveness” is a Christian virtue, a monastic commandment, as well as the lack of personal property of a monk of a cenobitic monastery, who receives everything he needs from the treasury and has a common meal with the rest of the brethren, which is combined with the real wealth of the cenobitic monastery. Daniel’s condemnation of “special acquisitions” also has another side: he places in his Word a number of canonical council decrees and city laws that consider incidents in which the personal property of a monk becomes the property of the monastery. Returning to Maxim the Greek, we can draw some conclusions. In resolving the issue of the type of monastic structure, he is closer to Joseph, considering the monastery more perfect; the mention of strict discipline in monasteries also brings him closer to this author. But on the issue of the role of contributions, Maxim is closer to Nile: he condemns the practice when the contribution affects the position of the monk in the monastery. However, Neil’s position is more consistent: he denies large deposits in general, while Maxim is more evasive. Maxim, like Neil, speaks of the use of hired labor in the monastic economy. We do not know what position Joseph took on this issue, but in the communal Rule of Euphrosynus of Pskov it was prohibited. All three authors talk about the handicraft of monks: this is a general monastic principle. Drawing on the works of Maxim the Greek, written later, we can make a comparison on two more points. Neil rejected “church decoration.” After the Tver fire, Maxim the Greek wrote a special essay, which contained “praise for the renovation of church decoration, the former... bishop of Tefer Akakios” (chapter 22 of the Joasaph Collection). Nil Sorsky denied monastic charity. Maxim the Greek made it the main function of wealth. When describing the Catholic mendicant orders, the genre of “story” was chosen, allowing one to focus attention only on some aspects of their experience; the author's personal attitude is formulated more directly. Researchers are unanimous in their assessment of the non-acquisitive element of the Tale, which is still weakly expressed here compared to later works 355. The position of Maxim the Greek in the controversy surrounding monastic land ownership, reflected in his writings of 1518–1525. (even if the Tale is dated to this time) is far from actively interfering in an acute journalistic dispute. Another kind of source, important for understanding the non-acquisitive views of not only Maxim the Greek, but also Vassian Patrikeev and, to a certain extent, the ideological movement as a whole, are translations of interpretations of canonical decrees made by Maxim the Greek and included by Vassian in his Helmsman. The first view of this monument (without materials from Maxim the Greek) was compiled by Vassian before 1517 (GBL, f. 228, Piskar. 39, 20s of the 16th century); the second type (with materials from Maxim the Greek) dates back to 1518–1524. (GPB, F. II. 74; TsGADA, f. 181, No. 1597, third quarter of the 16th century) 356. The translations were included by Vassian in his own work - the canonical treatise “The Collection of a Certain Elder” (Chapter 17 of the Helmsman). The text of the treatise in the two types of Helmsman has significant differences, which N.A. Kazakova defines the differences between short and lengthy types of composition, rightly considering the type presented by the Piskarevsky list to be earlier, since it “gives the impression of incompleteness: the author’s thoughts have not yet received in it that complete expression that they have in the last two lists” 357. Both views were published as one (second) edition of the monument. However, two types of monument in two different types of Helmsman reflect different stages of the author’s development and comprehension of the material of canonical decrees, different stages of approaching the issue and solving it, therefore it seems to us more legitimate to consider them two different editions. Piskarev's list ends with the author's reasoning, which testifies to his inability at this stage to resolve the contradictions he encountered in the texts of the resolutions of the ecumenical councils and St. fathers regarding monastic villages. Some of them, writes Vassian, do not command “to enter into the world as a monk according to his promise, neither into villages, nor into anything else.” Vassian lists these rules 358. In contrast to the rules prohibiting monks from “entering” villages, there are others in which it is written: “monasteries have villages” (this is the 24th rule of the 4th council, the 18th rule of the 7th council). “Who else should we believe? What should I allow? Only the Gospel and the Apostle and the saints ruled!” – Vassian exclaims. Thus, at this stage, Vassian assumed that the contradiction could be resolved by contrasting some texts with others, with opposite content. However, the text of the treatise in the second type of monument shows that to resolve the contradiction, a person who knew the Greek language well was needed. He turned out to be Maxim the Greek, who introduced Vassian to the methods of philological criticism of a text, when a polemic with a statement in a text is built not by contrasting another text with it, but on the basis of clarifying the history and degree of authenticity of the text itself. Maxim the Greek translated for Vassian the interpretations of the canonist Fyodor Valsamon 359 to precisely those rules in the text of which or in the interpretations of them by Alexei Aristin, monastery villages were mentioned. V.N. Beneshevich wrote, referring to the interpretations of Balsamon translated by Maxim the Greek as part of the Helmsman of Vassian: “As far as I know, the oldest case of using the nomocanon of the XIV titles with the interpretations of Balsamon precisely for the purpose of interpreting canonical decrees, and, moreover, long before the appearance of printed publications, took place through the medium of a learned Athonite” 360. In the treatise in the Helmsman of the second type, the text about the contradictions in the cathedral decrees regarding monastic villages is excluded; instead, it is categorically stated that the mention of monastic villages in the 24th rule of the 4th council and in the 12th and 18th rules of the 7th council “is blessed according to divine scripture: whoever will be the holy scripture signed falsely in our Russian rules, that the village of the monastery was shaking” 361. Below are Balsamon's interpretations of these rules. Vassian's doubts are resolved. The essence of Balsamon’s interpretation is as follows. Some understand the 24th rule of the 4th Council in the sense that “it is appropriate for all monastics, mobile and immobile,” to observe “intact and inviolable.” Here, as we see, the term “monastic village”, which was so unacceptable for Vassian, is absent 362. The interpreter, however, referring to the second title of the fifth book of Kings, speaks of the possibility of another understanding of this rule: it is permissible “not only to mortgage church immovables and sacred loans, but also to sell them in any way” in order to prevent “monasteries from becoming desecrated.” Maximus the Greek's translation accurately conveys the form and meaning of the Greek original: ἱερὰ σκεύη, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκποιεῖσθαι κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐκποίησιν 363 . This text, as we see, speaks of the possibility in some situations (“from certain blessed wines”) to alienate church and monastic property (movable and immovable), not only to mortgage, but also to sell. The relevance of this provision is evidenced by the edition of the text as part of the Helmsman of Metropolitan Daniel, compiled, in the opinion of B.M. Kloss, especially in preparation for the council of 1531. 364 This monument also includes the interpretation of Fyodor Valsamon, translated by Maxim the Greek, but it is “edited” by Daniel in such a way that its meaning has changed: it speaks of the admissibility of “only pawning the acquisitions of the church, immovable, and not only pawning sacred vessels for needs, but also selling them in any way.” 365. The editor wants to make a distinction between the attitude towards immovable property, which can only be mortgaged, and movable property (church vessels), which can not only be mortgaged, but also sold. This contradicts the meaning of the original and is a distortion of it. In a similar edition, the text was read to Vassian and Maximus the Greek at the trial in 1531 366; the falsification could not but be obvious to them. The “Collection of a Certain Elder” also includes Maximus’ translation of Balsamon’s interpretation of the 12th canon of the 7th Council, which talks about “self-fruitful acquisitions” belonging to a bishop or monastery (meaning “things that bear fruit from themselves, like these: salty places, olives, grapes, reapings, mills, sheds and the like”). The rule speaks of the inadmissibility of their sale or any form of transfer, and the prohibition is specifically stipulated for bishops or abbots “to appropriate what from those” and to use church property for the needs of their “relatives” - even if they are “poor.” Further, in the interpretations of Balsamon, the situation is considered when “self-fertile acquisition” “creates a loss, and nothing to please the acquisition.” In this case, he can be sold “either as a cleric or as a farmer,” but not “to nobles.” If “that acquisition” is “bought by evil deceit... from a farmer or cleric, a nobleman buys it,” then the sale will be invalid, “and the acquisition will be given to a bishopric or monastery, and the bishop or abbot who created this will be expelled.” Then a similar case is considered a second time, with reference to the 38th Apostolic Canon 367. This contains an injunction against the transfer of church or monastic property into the hands of “strong nobles” - a situation opposite to that which Vassian speaks of in the Homily of Answer, when representatives of the black clergy beg or buy land from nobles 368. Next, the question is examined: was the discussion above only about “self-fertile acquisitions” or “about every immovable good person who has a good income?” The answer is given in the second sense - “to command about both”: “immovable and well-behaved, as if self-fertile, so that they do not sell out and do not give up”; “The village outskirts, if inhabited by inhabitants again, will be well received, so for the sake of good income, let them not be sold.” It is in this phrase that Vassian’s famous gloss to the words “village suburb” is found: “this is interpreted as proastion, that is, arable land and grapes, and not villages with everyday Christians.” It remains not entirely clear how Vassian realized the difference between the “inhabitants” living in the “village suburb” and the “everyday Christians” living in the village. It can be assumed that these were differences in the degree of dependence and in the forms of exploitation. A.A. Zimin understands the gloss in the sense that the monastic prince allowed “ownership of wastelands, which the monks must cultivate with their labor” 369. In Balsamon’s interpretation, the case of alienation of property is also provided for: “what is true, and not hypocrisy without coming, will be acquisition, but surrender.” And further: “But what has a coming is not sold; which they have according to their immediate needs are sold to the churches, it appears from the 26th rule of the Carthaginian Gathering that they are allowed to do so, but with reasoning.” The final phrase of this interpretation: “Likewise, the great Cyril, in the second chapter of his Epistle to Domnus, commands sacred loans and immovable church acquisitions to be indestructible; but understand this also according to the rule of the Carthaginian Assembly” 370. As we can see, the reference to the rules of the Council of Carthage, considering cases of alienation, is repeated twice. However, in general, Balsamon’s interpretations are based on the thesis about the inalienability of church and monastic property: “God said to Moses: Let them be offered to God, let them not change, but let them remain immovable.” To the observations regarding the study of non-acquisitiveness as an ideological movement outlined above, one more thing needs to be added. Non-acquisitive people could not help but take into account the canonical decrees, which definitely speak of the inalienability of church and monastic property - movable and immovable; and rare situations and incidents in which alienation of one form or another becomes possible are specially considered or discussed. It is these latter that are given special attention in two of the three interpretations of Balsamon, translated by Maxim the Greek for the Helmsman Vassian Patrikeev. The translation activities and polemical speeches of Maxim the Greek ceased in 1525: he was condemned as a state traitor and heretic and sent to prison in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. In 1531 he was tried again - together with Vassian Patrikeev. The reasons for this new metamorphosis in his life continue to excite researchers to this day, remaining one of the central problems in the literature dedicated to Maxim the Greek. An overview of the historiography of the issue is given by N.A. Kazakova 371. In the works of N.A. herself. The Cossack issue was studied most fully and thoroughly; she carried out a source study of materials relating to the councils of 1525 and 1531, primarily the Judgment List 372. The criticism of B.I.’s point of view is convincing. Dunaeva, I.I. Smirnova, I.B. Grekov (and the point of view of I. Denisov, close to them) about the justice of one of the points of accusation - about treason against the state interests of Russia, about Maxim Grek as a Turkish agent in Moscow. The main conclusion of N.A. Kazakova – about the reasons for the condemnation of Maxim the Greek (“his speeches against the patrimonial rights of monasteries and the independence of the Russian Church”) – remains unchanged 373. A.A. Zimin believes that the reason for the conviction of Maxim the Greek was his “independent line of behavior” in matters of both foreign policy (relations with Turkey) and domestic policy (the second marriage of Vasily III) 374 . A.A.'s point of view Zimina was challenged by N.A. Kazakova 375. The discovery of N.N. was extremely important for the study of the biography and creativity of Maxim the Greek. Pokrovsky - a much more complete text of the Judgment List of the Councils of 1525 and 1531, previously known in a defective (without ending) form, as well as a complex of materials related to it in origin, primarily the Judgment List of the Council of 1549, which condemned Isaac the Dog 376. H.N. Pokrovsky introduced these monuments into scientific circulation, conducting a thorough source analysis of them, examining in detail the accusations brought against Maxim in 1525 and 1531. I share the main conclusions of N.N. Pokrovsky, concerning both the nature of the monuments and their significance for determining the range and degree of justice of the charges brought against Maxim the Greek in 1525 and 1531. 377 The following presentation has two objectives: firstly, to provide an analysis of another source - an excerpt from the investigative case of Ivan Nikitich Bersen Beklemishev, Maxim the Greek and Fyodor Zhareny (February 1525), since this source, containing valuable information about the early stage of the process, does not have such a scrupulous source analysis as the Judgment List 378; secondly, to summarize the currently known data on the nature and composition of the charges brought against Maxim the Greek in 1525 and 1531. An excerpt from investigative file 379 is a pasted-out column; the sheets are stitched along the left margin and glued together. The text is written in the same cursive handwriting (with the exception of l. 18, where the handwriting is different); the degree of thoroughness of basic cursive handwriting varies considerably; the second cursive handwriting is sloppy. The publishers of the AAE considered both handwritings to be modern 1525. The paper filigree could not be found; However, the sheets of the column are tightly glued together; 1–2.5 cm of the left margin are included in the “binding”; perhaps fragments of watermarks are preserved there. Nature of the document. When published in the AAE, the document was called "two rough pans"; baking sheet No. 1 (sheets 1–14) is removed from baking sheet No. 2 (sheets 15–20). Both “baking sheets” are called “draft” on the basis that they have crossed outs and corrections, especially numerous in baking sheet No. 2. Baking sheet No. 1 is considered copied from baking sheet No. 2 on the basis that, firstly, the text of baking sheet No. 2 is almost entirely (but not completely) included in baking sheet No. 1, and secondly, the correction of baking sheet No. 2 is taken into account in baking sheet No. 1. Baking tray No. 1, in turn, has a new edit. The rough nature of baking sheet No. 2 is indisputable. Two issues seem controversial: 1) the relationship between the two baking sheets; Is pan #1 a direct copy of pan #2? 2) the nature of baking sheet No. 1. Let's turn to the analysis of baking sheet No. 1. On the sheet. 1 rev. there is a note-heading: “Summer of February 7033 on Bersen, Maksimov’s tale of the Greek, and Fedka Zharenny’s speech with Maxim and with Bersen.” The note is made in the same handwriting as the text, but in paler ink, the same as the insertions and clarifications in the text: 1) on the l. 1, above the first line is written: “Summer of February 7033” (before the beginning of the document); 2) on l. 1. above the first line after “Maxim the Elder” is written: “Greek”; 3) on l, 14 the date “February 22” is inserted before Bersen’s “speeches” (above the first line); 4) on l. 14, above the second line, “against Nikola” is written after the words “he stole me, sir, Fedko Fried about a week ago.” Consequently, these marks are already the result of processing, which has no semantic character; This is just the “design” of the text. As we will see later, there is also an edit that has semantic meaning. The nature of the writing of baking sheet No. 1 is careful cursive; on l. 9 initials are written (black). It must be assumed that at the time of writing the text was thought of as white; therefore, baking sheet No. 1 should be considered a white copy, then subjected to processing (indication of dates, clarification of location, three semantic amendments). The composition of the first part (points are highlighted mainly on the basis of the division of the text in the document itself: spacing between lines). 1 (l. 1). “The Tale” of Maxim the Greek that the only subject of his conversations with Bersen were “books” and “Tsaregrad customs”, “and he did not say any other speeches to him.” The last phrase has been crossed out. Here is the first case of semantic editing. Two conclusions can be drawn: a) at this stage of the investigation (we do not know whether he was the first in reality, but in the document he is the original in relation to those described below) Maxim did not want to give evidence that would not be favorable for Bersen; b) the editor, by crossing out the last phrase, intended to hide this fact, omit it, and present the course of the investigation as smoother and more one-line. Maxim boldly conveys the content of the speeches, not only Bersen’s words, but also his own, although in both of them one can discern a subtext that characterizes the critical attitude of both to the existing order. According to the recording, Bersen asked Maxim how the Greeks “lived” under the “besermensky” “persecuting kings”, in “fierce times.” Maxim’s answer is recorded in the following wording: “Our kings are evil, but our patriarchs and metropolitans do not intervene in their court.” Subtext: “they are standing up for you in Moscow.” Bersen's remark, reproduced by Maxim, is written as follows: “Even though your kings are evil, they walk like this, otherwise you still have a god.” Subtext: “but we don’t.” If these testimony of Maxim were unfavorable for Bersen, then to the same extent they were unfavorable for himself. Consequently, there can be no talk of any “slander”, and this stage of the investigation does not confirm the point of view of A.A. Zimin that “the main witness for the prosecution in the Bersen case was Maxim Grek, thereby trying to ease his fate. Maxim the Greek probably hoped that he, as a foreigner, had a certain immunity, which he decided to reinforce with a denunciation against I.N. Bersen and thereby arouse gratitude from the authorities” 380. 2 (l. 1). Testimony of Maximov's cell attendant Afanasy about Maxim's one-on-one conversations with Bersen; it is here that there is a well-known list of people 381 who came to Maxim’s cell to talk “about bookish things.” Only after Afanasy’s testimony are new testimony from Maxim. 3 (ll. 2–10). New testimony from Maxim about the content of his conversations with Bersen, unfavorable for the latter. There is no date on baking sheet #1, but on baking sheet #2 they are dated February 20th. However, in baking sheet No. 2 the text of the testimony begins with paragraph “d” of baking sheet No. 1. Let us list point by point the content of Bersen’s speeches, transmitted by Maxim (as amended by the document); a) Bersen’s critical statements about the Metropolitan (“there is no teaching word from him”; “he does not grieve for anyone”) 382; b) the “sovereign” should “ask” Maxim the Greek for advice “how to organize his land, and how to pay people and how to live as a metropolitan”; c) contrasting Ivan III with Vasily III, who “has little favor for people”; d) critical statements addressed to the Greeks, Sophia and the surrounding reality (“our land is confused”; there is no “silence” and “peace”; “and great unrest has come”); e) contrasting “old customs” with “new” ones (“it’s better to stick to old customs”); f) Bersen’s complaint against the Grand Duke regarding the farmstead taken away from him; g) Bersen’s dissatisfaction with foreign policy and the lack of peace (“we have no peace with anyone, neither with Lithuania, nor with Crimea, nor with Kazan”); h) Bersen’s conviction that Maxim will not be released to Athos (“you saw our kind and dashing spirit here”); i) Bersen’s conviction that one should not “be friends” with the Turkish Sultan; j) the reason for the Grand Duke’s disgrace with Bersen: a “meeting” regarding Smolensk (here are the textbook words of Vasily III: “Go away, you scum! You are not needed by me”). 4 (l. 10). Maxim’s testimony about conversations with Fyodor Zharenny is recorded as follows: Fyodor Zharenny knows that he is “lost” because he cannot “get” the “sorrowful man,” “and the sovereign... came cruel, and is unmerciful to people.” 5 (l. 11). Bersen's denial of the fact of his conversations with Maxim. 6 (l. 11). Confrontation between Maxim and Bersen. Bersen's denials, Maxim's confirmation of his testimony. Bersen changes his testimony, admits only his “speeches” with Maxim about the “farmstead” and that “nowadays there is no truth in people.” Maxim relays Bersen’s words that the Grand Duke “does not like meetings against himself” and that Bersen “ordered” not to convey the content of their conversations to anyone. 7 (l. 12). Maxim confronts Fyodor Zharenny, who initially “locked himself out.” 8 (l. 12). Fyodor Zharenny’s confession of his guilt: “those speeches” he spoke (including the fact that “the sovereign came cruel and unmerciful to people”). No date. In baking sheet No. 2 it is available, but if at the beginning of the text it says: “Fedko Zharenovo said the summer of 7033, February 24,” then in the note on the back another date is indicated: “February 20. The fairy tale of Fedka Zharenovo.” 9 (ll. 12–13). Testimony of Fyodor Zharenny about Bersen: a) Bersen’s criticism of policy in the Kazan and Smolensk issues; b) Bersen’s reproach regarding the Metropolitan’s behavior towards Shemyachich; it also contains the crossed-out testimony of Fyodor Zharenny about the reasons for the metropolitan’s dissatisfaction (“you didn’t give him that money if he didn’t serve”) - the second case of semantic editing of the text. Assessing the role of Maxim Grek’s testimony in the Bersen case, A.A. Zimin and Ya.S. Lurie 383 does not take into account the testimony of Fyodor Zharenny, although it was no less difficult for Bersen than the testimony of Maxim; Less numerous than Maxim’s testimony (only two points were recorded), they nevertheless relate to the most pressing problems (Kazan, Smolensk, Shemyachich). For a complete (to the extent permitted by the source) and adequate picture of the process, it is necessary to characterize the position of all its participants. 10 (l. 14). February 22 (attributed in paler ink). Bersen's testimony about Fyodor Zhareny. “Said Ivan Bersen. Fedko Zharenaya drove me away, sir, about a week ago against Nikola, and Maxim was already taken away...”, their conversation is further recounted. It is indisputable that “about a week ago,” that is, about a week ago in relation to February 22 (around February 15), Bersen and Fyodor Zharenny were still at large. Meanwhile, I.I. Smirnov and after him A.A. Zimin, interpreting the words “against Nikola” as an indication of “Nikola the Winter” (December 6), believed that in early December 1524 Maxim the Greek was arrested, and after him Bersen and Zharenny 384 . In the Dictionary of I.I. Sreznevsky did not register the temporal meaning of the preposition “against”; it was used to denote place with genitive and dative cases 385. Therefore, “Nikola” here means some kind of St. Nicholas church or St. Nicholas monastery. The chronological convergence of the departure of the Turkish ambassador Skinder and the “capture” of Maxim the Greek 386 is not confirmed by the materials of the investigative case. The following assumption has also not been proven: “Judging by the fact that Maxim later tried in every possible way to present his activities in black colors, it is obvious that Bersen was drawn into the process thanks to Maxim’s testimony” 387 . Let's return to Bersen's testimony. They were more difficult for Zharenny than the testimony of Maxim the Greek. However, A.A. Zimin writes only about Maxim’s role in the condemnation of Fyodor: “Maxim the Greek slandered not only Bersen, but also Fyodor Zharenny, who allegedly complained to him that “the sovereign, due to my sin, came cruel, and is unmerciful to people.”388 Meanwhile, Bersen, according to the document, reported the following words of Zharenny: “They tell me to cleave Maxim. Should I rivet it?” The second part of this testimony of Bersen contradicted the first: “he says that the great prince sent Abbot Troetsk to Fedka: as soon as you tell me the whole truth about Maxim, I will forgive you.” These tins already had a dubious connotation, but here another edit was made (the third case of semantic edit): “you will tell” was replaced by “lie”; “all that is true” was crossed out, and the phrase took on the following form: “just lie to me about Maxim, and I’ll spare you.” It is unknown whether the change of testimony was carried out by Bersin himself or by the editor; but even if we assume the latter, then the original wording of Fyodor’s words, where the Trinity abbot and the Grand Duke are connected in context with the call to “klepati,” could have served as the reason that Fyodor’s “tongue was cut out.” 11 (l. 14). Bersen's confrontation with Fyodor Zharenny, who defends the version of his conversation with Bersen, which is given in the original (before crossing out) edition: “he told him those speeches that he sent the abbot of the Trinity to him so that he could tell him the whole truth about Maxim, and not tell Bersen a lie.” 12 (l. 14). Bersen's indications: a) admission of guilt: “the speeches that Maxim made against me, and I am guilty of everything before the sovereign, those speeches that Maxim made,” 389; 6) the transmission of Maxim’s words: “Grand Duchess Sophia is a Christian on her father, and a Latin on her mother” (said in response to Bersen’s words that he does not know “whose daughter Grand Duchess Sophia is” 390); c) denial of the testimony of Fyodor Zharenny, “speeches” “about the city and about Shemyachich”; d) testimony about Fyodor Zharen, corresponding to those given in paragraph 10: “do not remember his speeches, what he said; whatever the wind blew on his mouth, he said; there is no one who did not speak dashing speeches; he spoke as if enraged.” This ends the first baking sheet. So, both Bersen and Fyodor Zharenny recognized the “speeches” that Maxim conveyed, but denied the fact of each other’s “speeches” (Fyodor – his “speeches” in Bersen’s broadcast, Bersen – his “speeches” in Fyodor’s broadcast). Let us turn to the second part of the document (ll. 15–20). In the AAE publication this part is called baking tray No. 2; Baking sheet No. 1 was removed from it, “in which the syllable was significantly corrected.” In the publication “Collection of Prince Obolensky” this part is characterized as “separate sheets of the same investigative file.” This part is written in the same handwriting as the first (with the exception of l. 18), but much more carelessly, especially l. 15–17; the ink is different - paler; letter ll. 19–21 more thorough. The text is replete with stylistic and semantic corrections and deletions; all of them are taken into account in the first part (i.e. in the first part the text is given as corrected). But does it follow from this that the first part was copied directly from the second? Let us characterize the main discrepancies (changes in word order and other stylistic differences are not taken into account, since, theoretically speaking, they can be produced directly in the process of correspondence and in themselves do not indicate an independent source; only after establishing this independent source in another way can they - indirectly - confirm its presence). The first line of the initial l. 15 – the ending of the word “lostiv” (“merciful”?). Consequently, this and subsequent sheets are a fragmentary part of the column. Next is the crossed out text that is missing in the first part: “Yes, Maxim said: I will tell you the truth, sir, what is in my heart, I have never heard it from anyone or spoken to anyone, but with my own opinion I have kept it in my heart. The widows cry, and the sovereign goes to the church, and the widows cry and follow him, and they beat them, and I prayed to God for the sovereign, that God would put it on the sovereign’s heart and that the sovereign would show mercy over them.” Maxim Grek’s position during the investigation was not one-sided, and he conveyed critical statements addressed to the sovereign’s person not only from those people about whom he was asked, but also from his own (cf. paragraph 1 in the first part of the document). Next is the text corresponding to the first part from paragraph “3-d” to paragraph “3-g” inclusive. But if in the first part this text is in the middle of Maxim’s testimony, then in the second it is the beginning of his testimony, made on February 20. The date - “February 20th” is in the second part before the beginning of the text, on the same line with it, written in the same handwriting and ink. In the first part, as already noted, paragraph 3 has no date. The relationship between the first and second parts can be twofold. If the first part goes back directly to the second, then the first combines two testimonies: points “a” - “c” are taken from the unpreserved part of the second column, the text about “weeping widows” (crossed out) is omitted, points “d” - “g” go back to the second column, the date is omitted, since in the interests of the compiler’s version it was more convenient to combine the two testimonies into one. Another explanation is based on the assumption that the first part does not directly go back to the second, but has an independent source that either has already been influenced by the second part or is parallel to it. It is the second explanation that is confirmed by the discrepancy between the first and second parts in paragraph “d”: after the words “as the mother of the Grand Duke Grand Duchess Sophia came here with your Greeks, so our land was mixed up” in the first part there follows a text that is missing in the second - “and great unrest came, just like you did in Tsar-Gorod under your kings.” If the absence in the first part of texts present in the second, or their stylistic treatment, can be explained by the fact that omissions and replacements occur in the process of correspondence itself, then the presence in the first part of text that is absent in the second can be explained either by the influence of an independent parallel source, or by the fact that the first does not go back directly to the second. It is the second option that is confirmed by the order in the second part of the points corresponding to points “З-з”, “3-и”, “3-к” of the first part. On l. 17 of the second part, after paragraph “3-g”, after the words “on God alone”, paragraph “3-k” is immediately placed, and paragraphs “Z-z” and “3-i” are on p. 18, rewritten in a different handwriting. If the scribe of the first part copied directly from the second, then it is difficult to explain why he, copying from l. 17, finished rewriting the text “3-zh”, left several lines of paragraph “3-k” uncopied, turned to what was written in a different handwriting l. 18, rewrote it (points “Z-z” and 3-i”), and then returned to l. 17 and rewrote paragraphs “3-k”. An explanation in terms of semantic analogies or associations is hardly possible. One significant discrepancy, which drew the attention of S.N. Chernov, indicates that at least paragraph “З-з” of the first part was not copied from l. 18 of the second part, but goes back to an independent (and closer to the consequence) source. Maxim's response to Bersen in response to the statement that he would not be released to Athos is conveyed in the second part as follows: “Why should I not exist, the sovereign took me from the Holy Mountains, and will let me go again.” In the first part, it has a great political emphasis: “Why won’t he let me go, the sovereign took us from our brothers on the grounds that he would let us go back” (the Grand Duke did not keep the promise he made to the Holy Mountain; let’s also pay attention to the difference: “me” and “us”). Points 4–5 are missing; on ll. 19–20 there is text that basically corresponds to paragraphs 6–7, but with significant differences. In the text corresponding to paragraph 6, in the second part there are especially many edits; crossed out are the words “but I didn’t say anything about the sovereign”, “but I didn’t say anything about the sovereign” 391. The text that Bersen “ordered” Maxim not to convey the contents of their conversations to anyone was written in different ink and seemingly in a different handwriting. Then there is the text, laid out in a lapidary manner in paragraph 7 of the first part, but here it is much more extensive. On l. 21 (it is mistakenly placed between sheets 18 and 19) there is a text corresponding to paragraph 8, but it has a slightly modified edition. Next – point 9; points 10–12 are missing. Thus, a comparison of the first and second parts of the document shows the complex degree of dependence between them. The second part, a draft (both in terms of the nature of the letter and the presence of edits and replacements in it - semantic and stylistic), is reflected in the first part, where the edits of the second were taken into account, and cuts were made to individual testimonies (for example, paragraph 7) 392 . At the same time, some of the testimony of the first part goes back not to the second, but to a parallel source, where they are recorded either in great detail (item “3-d”), or have a different semantic meaning, greater political overtones (item “Z-z”). It is possible that the entire first part does not go back to the second directly, but to an intermediate source. Characterizing the trend of editing, S.N. Chernov wrote: “The editing of the testimony protocol is imbued with a visible desire to reduce the degree of guilt and responsibility of Maxim Grek”; but at the same time, there were also cases of changes that contradicted this conclusion (item “Z-z”), and corrections of the testimony of other persons that had nothing to do with Maxim the Greek 393 . If we take into account the general nature of the entire edit in its entirety and the presence of at least three stages of text processing, we should conclude that the document at our disposal reflects the intense process of developing an official version of the course of the investigation, with two trends clearly standing out: 1) the desire to show the course of the process as unilinear, without a hitch (Maxim’s initial testimony about the absence of his conversations with Bersen on topics other than neutral ones is omitted; Fyodor Zharenny’s lengthy explanation of the previous his admission of guilt is reduced to a simple mention that he first “banned himself”); 2) reduction to the minimum necessary for a confession of guilt, critical statements of the accused (or witnesses) addressed to the person of the Grand Duke. The editor strives so that in the official version he does not appear, when crossing unanimous testimony, as a real “persecutor and wicked tormentor”; It is precisely this edit that creates the appearance of its favorability for Maxim the Greek. So, two main features characterize the source: bias and fragmentation. We do not know what the relationship is between the preserved part and the part that is unknown to us. Thus, the short chronicler of the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery reports that along with Bersen, Maxim the Greek and Fyodor Zhareny, Peter Mucha Karpov 394 suffered, but he is not mentioned in our passages. S.N. Chernov asked a question regarding Maxim the Greek: “Why was he so easily and quickly broken during the investigation? Why did Bersen and Zharenny show more persistence than he did, especially the first?” 395 But based on what source is it known that Maxim the Greek was “broken” “easily and quickly”? We do not know about the stage of the investigation preceding February 20, we do not know whether there was evidence incriminating Maxim; We do not know all the circumstances of the investigation. All judgments about the degree of veracity of each person's testimony are more or less hypothetical. The passages known to us preserve two critical statements by Maxim the Greek about the Grand Duke and his relationship with the Metropolitan (in both cases these statements were conveyed by Maxim himself); but what was the extent of such statements in reality? The fragmentary nature of the source - to a greater extent than its bias - obliges extreme caution and tact when characterizing the position of each participant in the investigation. If the considered source concerned secular litigation, then the second source - the Judgment List - presents the materials of the church councils of 1525 and 1531, which tried Maximus the Greek. The most detailed studies of the monument belong to E.E. Golubinsky, S.N. Chernov, N.A. Kazakova, N.N. Pokrovsky. N.A. Kazakova subjected the list to source analysis and came to the conclusion that it represents a literary and journalistic treatment of the original Judgment lists 396. New material introduced into scientific circulation by N.N. Pokrovsky, allowed the researcher, without rejecting N.A.’s conclusion. Kazakova, clarify it. As part of Chapter 39 of the Siberian collection of the late 16th century. contains a complex of inextricably united materials that are connected with the Judgment List by origin and allow us to understand the time, circumstances and reasons for the emergence of the edition of the monument that has come down to us." The researcher defines the components of this complex as follows: "1. Judgment list of the council of 1525 in the case of Maximus the Greek. 2. The court list of the council of 1531 in the case of Maxim the Greek with the verdict. 3. Letters of 1525 from the Metropolitan and Grand Duke in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery about the trial of Maxim the Greek. 4. Report on the discovery of the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek in 1548 in the royal treasury and on the initiation of the case of Isaac the Dog in connection with this. 5. Correspondence of Metropolitans Macarius and Joasaph in 1548 about the trial of Maxim the Greek and the case of Isaac the Dog. 6. A message about the report to the king on the case of Isaac the Dog and about the convening of a council to try him. 7. Judgment list of the council of 1549 in the case of Isak the Dog with the verdict and list of participants in the council” 397. Previously, only the first and more than half of the second part of the named sources were known. The new data does not only apply to the councils of 1525 and 1531. directly, but also to the functioning of the materials of these councils in the late 40s, to their understanding by Josephite circles and use in the ideological and political struggle. According to the definition of N.N. Pokrovsky, the Judgment List as part of the Siberian Collection is a compilation monument of a “semi-official nature”; it “was created on the basis of official documents about the trials of Maxim the Greek in 1525 and 1531. and declared by Metropolitan Macarius in 1548 by the authentic protocols of the council”; This “special kind of source,” created as a functional substitute for the original council protocols, was intended to fulfill their role and actually fulfilled it, at least in the situation of 1548–1549. This source makes extremely extensive use of original documents from the councils of 1525 and 1531. (protocols, correspondence), but they are subjected to literary and journalistic processing, and many parts of the monument are not of a protocol, but of a narrative nature 398 . Having analyzed the text about the council of 1525, N.N. Pokrovsky rightly concludes that there is not a single piece of news in it that would go beyond the information reported in the 1525 letter of Metropolitan Daniel to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, and the materials of 1531; therefore, the author believes that the compiler did not have the original protocols of 1525 at hand when he wrote about the council of 1525; he constructed his story from letters of 1525 and protocols of 1531. 399 Therefore, only the letter of Metropolitan Daniel, which seems to be an official act of the entire council, has “documentary reliability” for judgments about the council of 1525. However, this message deals with only two accusations brought against Maxim the Greek in 1525: heresy (about the time of “Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father”) and in connection with the installation of Russian metropolitans in Moscow, and not in Constantinople, which Maxim considered illegal. The absence of information here about “non-covetous” wines (and a story about them when a prisoner was sent to the center of Josephiteism - the Volokolamsk Monastery - would have been especially appropriate) serves for N.N. Pokrovsky is a compelling argument for the conclusion that “the accusation against Maxim of non-covetous statements was unlikely to have been made in 1525 in any expanded and dangerous form for the accused, if it was brought forward at all then. Of course, Maxim’s non-acquisitive views even then were one of the main reasons for the hatred of the Josephite church elite towards him, but the situation in 1525, when Vassian was in such power, did little to contribute to the big legal dispute around these problems” 400. H.N. Pokrovsky convincingly explains the reasons for the silence about the political accusations of 1525 in the letter of Metropolitan Daniel: it informs only about a church council, and political issues were considered during a secular investigation, and the investigation did not necessarily end in a public trial 401. A description of the events of 1531, according to N.N. Pokrovsky, much closer to the original protocols of the cathedral. In 1531, Maxim the Greek was accused of heretical damage to liturgical books; in condemning the practice of installing metropolitans by Russian bishops, and not by the Patriarch of Constantinople; in blasphemy against Russian miracle workers (together with Vassian Patrikeev); in treasonous relations with the Turkish ambassador Skinder and the desire to “raise” the Turkish Sultan to Rus'; a number of other less significant charges were also brought forward. Before the sentencing of the accused, Maximus and Vassian, “testimonies” were jointly read out on three topics: heresy; the wonderworker Paphnutius and the land holdings of churches and monasteries; installation of metropolitans “in Moscow”. Apparently, these charges were considered the most significant. New materials make it possible to answer the question of how fair the charges were and whether the judges had any documentary basis. It is essential to compare the main points of the accusations with the writings of Maxim the Greek on similar topics. When investigating the political guilt of Maxim the Greek, especially his statements regarding foreign policy, the prosecutors did not have any serious evidence, as new materials showed. Accusations of treason and espionage in favor of the Sultan's Turkey, as N.A. proved. Kazakov and confirmed by the Siberian list, were unfounded. “The most significant of all the new facts that the Siberian list has enriched us with,” writes N.N. Pokrovsky is the one who “didn’t have any letters from Maxim to the Turks in the hands of the prosecution at the council of 1531. The most serious evidence of Maxim the Greek’s betrayal had no documentary basis.” At the same time, it turned out that “there was some real content in these accusations and Maxim recognized it (fol. 342 - about the weak resistance of Vasily III to the Crimean Khan and about the enmity of the Turks towards all relatives of Thomas of Amore, including Vasily III)” 402. But these confessions are material that is too insignificant for judging the extent of Maxim the Greek’s discrepancies with the foreign policy course of Vasily III 403, and we do not have any other material other than unsupported testimony of witnesses. In one of the works of Maxim the Greek, namely in a message to Vasily III regarding the completion of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, the hope is expressed for the liberation of the Greeks from the rule of the Turks thanks to the intervention of Russia. “May we (the Greeks - N.S.) have no time to reign from the wicked work of those freed by you,” he writes to the Grand Duke; God “will deign to free and from your fathers the throne of the heir will show and may the light of freedom be given by you to us the poor” 404. But this hope is expressed in the most general, abstract form; it is hardly possible to give it the meaning of a specific foreign policy council - a war with Turkey. Comparing Vasily III with Constantine looks more like a compliment, like a hope that what Maxim said will happen “one day,” and not as an indication of the direction of foreign policy. It is also necessary to take into account the genre of the essay as a work of epistolary art with its special norms 405. The thought of Maxim the Greek is expressed in an essay, the genre of which is close to the Byzantine encomium, and is not a set of moral and political recommendations to the ruler (such as “Instructive chapters for those in authority”). The essay is a message to the ruler of the country, in response to whose invitation the author arrived in Moscow, whose hospitality he enjoyed; it apparently accompanied a tray copy of the completed work - a translation of the Explanatory Psalter. In a work of this genre, a much greater proportion of commonplaces is possible than in works that are less formal in their purpose. Therefore, Maxim the Greek’s words about the future liberation of Greece by Russian forces cannot be taken too literally. Hypothesis B.I. Dunaev about the “Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century.” not supported by reliable sources 406; N.A. Kazakova rightly drew attention to the subtext of the book, written at the height of the First World War 407. In a message to Vasily III on the occasion of the invasion of the Crimean Khan in 1521, Maxim the Greek advocates the foreign policy course (the fight against Kazan) that the Moscow government persistently pursued during the second quarter - mid-16th century. The researchers’ assumption that after the unsuccessful Kazan campaign of 1524 Vasily III could remember this message with an “unkind feeling” and irritation concerns not the loyalty of Maxim the Greek (it is indisputable in this case), but the psychology of the Grand Duke (V.F. Rzhiga wrote: “The psychological ground for accusations was ready”) 408. Another important accusation concerned the land holdings of churches and monasteries. In the indictment speech of Metropolitan Daniel in 1531, they were mentioned twice: “But you, Maxim, reproach and blaspheme God’s holy cathedral apostolic churches and monasteries, because they have wealth, and people, and income, and villages... But you, Maxim, the holy great wonderworkers Peter and Alexei and Jonah, the metropolitans of all Russia, and the holy reverend miracle workers Sergius, Varlam and Cyril, Paphnutius and Macarius, reproaching and blaspheming" 409. The question of how fair the accusation was seems no less important than the question of when it was brought. The validity of the accusation can be refuted at least in one point: Daniil identifies Maxim’s criticism of churches and monasteries, while it is known that his attitude to the material foundations of the existence of both was different, which N.A. drew attention to. Kazakova 410. It has already been said that the Metropolitan did not stop at direct falsification (distortion of the text of the interpretation of Fyodor Balsamon in the composition of the Helmsman of Daniel and in the text of the court case of Vassian Patrikeev). What is the relationship between the content of Daniel’s accusation and the real material that the accusers had? When it came to the consideration of this point, the prosecution was able to present only two Serbs, whose testimony was much more narrow in nature than Daniil’s broadcast statement. The Serbs Fyodor and Arseny reported to the council that judged Vassian and Maxim that the Greek had blasphemed the Russian miracle workers, and when Arseny was going to “write off their lives and send them to his monastery,” Maxim objected to him: “... there is no fragrance from them, and what do you need them for?” The court list recorded the following behavior of Maxim at the confrontation: “And Maxim, after a short silence, said nothing against Arseny and Fyodor: About the miracle workers, about Peter, and about Alexei, and about Sergius and about Kiril. And you said about Paphnutius, the one who held the villages, and raised money for money, and held people and servants, and judged, and beat him with a whip, otherwise how could he be a miracle worker? (then added that not only money, but also “he gave bread to people”) 411. Maxim the Greek rejected the general and admitted only the particular: the fact of his criticism of Paphnutius. The “holding” of villages, “people” and “servants,” as we see, was criticized in combination with other social vices, primarily the usurious practices of the monastery, and the inhumane behavior of the clergy. Maxim stated that he learned about Paphnutius from his Life, which Vassian Patrikeev gave him to read, although the latter denied this fact. So, the judges did not have any other evidence against Maxim except the testimony of two Serbs; Daniel's indictment, which allowed for an overly broad interpretation, turned out to be poorly supported. It is necessary to emphasize the forced nature of some of Maxim the Greek’s testimony at the trial, which has already been noted (about the villages of the Athos monasteries). The absence of a mention of the non-covetous wines of Maxim the Greek in the letter of Metropolitan Daniel in 1525 to the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, the fact that in 1525 and after him Vassian Patrikeev still remained at large, the careful preparation of the Josephites and Metropolitan Daniel for the council of 1531 412 force us to join the point of view of N.N. Pokrovsky and other researchers that “non-covetous” charges were brought against Maxim and Vassian simultaneously in 1531. Maxim the Greek's views on these issues became known only from his oral statements and conversations with various representatives of society. Neither the works of Maxim the Greek, which undoubtedly belong to the first period, nor his translations contain any data indicating complete and clearly formulated non-acquisitive views. The main non-acquisitive writings will be created later. The third serious accusation brought against Maxim the Greek concerned the condemnation of the practice of installing metropolitans by Russian bishops, and not in Constantinople. Maxim Grek admitted the truth of this accusation. The solution to the issue of autocephaly of the Russian Church, which had important political significance, was found only at the end of the 16th century, when the Moscow Patriarchate was established. Two works related to this issue were included by Maxim the Greek in the collected works of the late 40s and first half of the 50s, but the time of creation of the monuments themselves remains unknown; rather, they belong to the Tver period and are intended for collected works 413. Another reason for Maxim’s condemnation is given by a source, the consideration of which is beyond the scope of our work - the “Extract” on the second marriage of Vasily III, which reports the negative position of Vassian and Maxim the Greek on the issue of the Grand Duke’s divorce. The authenticity of this news is rejected by N.A. Kazakova and recognizes A.A. Zimin 414. One indirect proof can be given that the conviction of Maxim the Greek was largely due to the upcoming divorce and new marriage of Vasily III. The fact is that “Confession of the Orthodox Faith” - a programmatic essay in which Maxim the Greek publicly declared his innocence and the injustice of the charges of heresy and high treason brought against him, was written, as defined by E.E. Golubinsky, after the death of Elena Glinskaya, i.e. not earlier than 1538 415 Such a large gap in time between the councils that judged Maxim the Greek and the “Confession” can only be explained by the attitude of the Grand Duchess and (later) regent towards him, during whose lifetime the question of Maxim’s innocence, much less its public recognition, could not be raised. But what was Maxim the Greek’s attitude towards divorce? The extract characterizes the roles of Maxim and Vassian differently. Vassian is an active opponent of divorce; the Grand Duke is interested in his opinion along with the opinion of the four patriarchs; Vassian's negative answer provokes the anger and wrath of the Grand Duke and the convening of a council. But the compiler of the Extract does not report Maxim’s position as a fact reliably known to him, but only cites the denunciation of Simonov’s archimandrite that Maxim the Greek is also Vassian’s accomplice; The motives for imprisonment are stated as follows: “so that exposition and denunciation would not involve the addition (!) of marriage” 416. Here, as in many other cases (conversations with Skinder and other persons about foreign policy), Maxim's private statements could be incorrectly conveyed and tendentiously interpreted. If we admit that one of the reasons for the Grand Duke’s anger was Maxim’s negative attitude towards divorce (this seems quite probable to us), then the political aspect of Maxim the Greek’s position can only be judged hypothetically 417 . If we proceed from the reliability of the testimony of the Extract, then we should talk not about “Maxim and his entourage” (A.A. Zimin), but about Vassian and his entourage. On the issue of succession to the throne, the position of Maximus, a Greek monk who sought to return to Athos, is not identical to the position of his Russian entourage, it is much more neutral. Adhering to the canonical point of view on the indissolubility of marriage, the learned Athonite monk found himself in 1525 a victim of dynastic struggle and “slander of non-brotherly lovers.” Accusations related to the most important foreign policy and domestic political problems (the question of the independence of the national church, the economic foundations of its power, the foreign policy course, possibly the dynastic question) were “reinforced” by the charge of heresy. But an analysis of the works of Maxim the Greek of the first period allows us to conclude that the reasons for the condemnation were outside the scope of his original literary work. For more details, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, p. 117–119; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 269–270. . Chronicle of Joasaph. Prep. for publication A.A. Zimin and S.A. Levina. M., 1957, p. 172; PSRL, vol. XSh, part 1, p. 28; vol. VIII, p. 263; vol. VI, p. 261; State Historical Museum, Sin. 562, pp. 256–259; AI, vol. I, no. 121, 122, p. 175–176. AAE, vol. I, no. 172, p. 143; Collection of Prince Obolensky. M., 1838, No. 3, p. 7. AAE, vol. I, no. 172, p. 141; Collection of Prince Obolensky, No. 3, p. 3–4; Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kyiv, 1915, p. 391–392; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 270–275. Judgment Lists, p. 116; see also Schmidt S.O. New about the Tuchkovs (Tuchkovs, Maxim Grek, Kurbsky). – In the book: Studies on the socio-political history of Russia. Sat. articles in memory of B.A. Romanova. L., 1971. About them see: Kazakova N.A. Dmitry Gerasimov and Russian-European cultural relations in the first third of the 16th century. – In the book: Problems of the history of international relations. Sat. articles in memory of academician E.V. Tarle. L., 1972, p. 248–266. Sinitsyna N.V. Book master Mikhail Medovartsev. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book. M., 1972, p. 286–317; she is the same. New manuscripts by Mikhail Medovartsev. - Same place, Sat. 2. M., 1974, p. 145–149. Among the numerous autographs of Medovartsev, especially noteworthy is the text of the apocryphal letter of the Apostle Paul to the Laodiceans, known since the time of the Paulician heresy (GIM, Eparch. 47, pp. 385–386; manuscript of the late 15th century, belonged to B.V. Kutuzov). For the text of the apocryphal message, see: Kazakova N.A., Lurie Y.S. Antifeudal heretical movements in Rus' in the 14th – early 16th centuries. M.–L., 1955, p. 173; Klibanov A.I. Reformation movements in Russia in the 14th – first half of the 16th centuries. M., 1960, p. 64–65. ' For the manuscripts written by Isak together with Gury Tushin, see: Sinitsyna N.V. [Rec. for the publication “Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog.” M., 1971]. – VI, 1973, No. 2, p. 154–155. Let's also call the manuscript GIM, Sin. 335 (10th years of the 16th century), where the works of Nil Sorsky were rewritten in the hand of Isak the Dog (photo reproduction of the handwriting without indicating that it belonged to Isak the Dog, see: Prokhorov G.M. Messages of Nil Sorsky. - TODRL, vol. XXIX. L., 1974, p. 131). In the GBL manuscript, f. 98, Egor. 200 there is an entry reporting a previously unknown biographical detail: the fact of Isak’s tonsure in the Cornelius Monastery: “The book of Sia was written in the Kirilov Monastery, and Isak the monk of Cornelius, tonsured, added it ...” (l. 592). Ll. 293–401 vol., 516–591 vol. written, undoubtedly, by Isaac the Dog; perhaps some other sheets also belong to his hand. I express my sincere gratitude to Yu.D. Rykov, who indicated the said manuscript. "Vremennik OIDR", book. V. M., 1850, p. 31–33; AI, vol. I, no. 122, p. 175–176. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2. Kazan, 1860, p. 372. Kloss B.M. Maxim the Greek is a translator of Aeneas Silvius’s story “The Capture of Constantinople by the Turks.” – In the book: Cultural Monuments. New discoveries. Yearbook 1974 M., 1975, p. 55–61. Lists of the early 16th century: TsGADA, f. 181, No. 438/899, l. 162; 2) State Historical Museum, Bars. 25, pp. 111–113. See also Sobolevsky A.I. Translated literature of Moscow Rus' of the XIV–XVII centuries. Bibliographic materials. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 183. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2, p. 299–300. Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage, p. 40–43. The earliest known lists with an entry belong to the hand of the Volokolamsk scribe Dmitry Lapshin: State Historical Museum, Shchuk. 4 (mid-16th century); GBL, Egor. 2072 (1550–1551) For manuscripts, see: Belokurov S.A. About the library, No. 61, 72, p. CCLV–CCLVIII; see also Kloss B.M. About the manuscripts written by clerk Dmitry Lapshin. – AE for 1974 M., 1975. Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage, p. 41. It is contained in the manuscript of this monument GBL, f. 304, Troitsk. 118, l. 153 and vol., erroneously dated 1480–1500. (Catalogue of miniatures, ornaments and engravings of the collections of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and the Moscow Theological Academy. Compiled by T.B. Ukhova. - “Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the GBL”, issue 22. Moscow, 1960, pp. 94–95). The list dates either directly to 1519, or to the very beginning of the 20s. The list, named A.I. Ivanov “the most ancient” (Literary Heritage, p. 44), dates back to the end of the 16th century. (State Historical Museum, Khlud. 49). List with date "March 1520" (7028) written by Gury Tushin together with other scribes (GPB, Kir.-Bel. 24/149); entry on l. 181 rev. – autograph of Gury himself. Despite the differences in date, the same “summer” of the “state” of Vasily III is indicated as in Troitsk. 118, – the fourteenth, which lasted from December. 7027 (death of Ivan III - December 7014) to December 7028. Within these boundaries is the date “March 7027”, i.e. 1519. Since March 7028 already falls in the 15th year of Basil’s reign, March 1519 should be considered a more likely date for completion of the translation of the Explanatory Apostle. Yagich I.V. Reasonings from South Slavic and Russian antiquity about the Church Slavonic language. – In the book: Studies in the Russian language, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 630. GBL, Egor. 920 (see Chapter I, § 1 for a list of manuscripts with autographs of Maxim the Greek, No. 3). The text of the message is currently being prepared for printing by N.B. Tikhomirov, B.L. Fonkich and me. See fig. 3. The same handwriting is used to write the message of Maxim the Greek to Vasily III about the organization of the Athos monasteries (1518–1519) in the Moscow part of the convolute collection of the GPB, Sof. 1498 (Fig. 1), which arose among a circle of scribes who worked together with Mikhail Medovartsev and, apparently, under his leadership (the manuscript also contains Medovartsev’s autograph). The third manuscript with identical handwriting (GBL, Vol. 544, Fig. 2) is the Life of the Virgin Mary by Simeon Metaphrastus, translated by Maximus the Greek c. 1521 (the filigree of Vol. 544 is identical to one of the filigrees of the Moscow part of Soph. 1498; for more details, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Book Master, pp. 315–317). Of all the handwritings known to us from the time under study, this handwriting stands out for its most skillful and successful stylization of Greek minuscule writing; it is also distinguished by calligraphy, a high degree of sophistication, uniformity of style, lightness and grace. For comparison, you can indicate other manuscripts with Greekized graphics (GIM, Eparch. 109; GBL, Troitsk. 133); Their handwriting is significantly inferior to that considered in the perfect reproduction of Greek minuscule forms using the Slavic Cyrillic alphabet. As a hypothesis, the handwriting of the three named manuscripts can be considered as the handwriting of Selivan, a scribe who independently, only under the supervision of Maxim, translated the Conversations of John Chrysostom into the Gospel of Matthew. Maxim, an experienced Greek calligrapher, could teach Selivan not only the Greek language, but also calligraphic writing; Selivan, in turn, could teach Maxim to write in Cyrillic. As an indirect argument, we can point to the fact that in the TsGADA manuscript (Fig. 3) only pp. are written in Selivan’s handwriting. 17–24, and the handwriting of the rest of the text belongs to one of the scribes of the GBL manuscript, MDA Fund. 47, written in the Trinity Monastery in 1524 (ll. VI, VII, 1–369 – Paphnutius of Pisemsky?). One of the paper characters of the two manuscripts is identical (Gothic “R”), reproduced from the MDA Fund manuscript. 47 in the book: Likhachev, No. 1513. And Selivan was a Trinity monk. State Historical Museum, Sunday 82-boom. Sign up on L. 1 rev. names the date of translation as 1524/25; but Metropolitan Varlaam (before 1522) is also mentioned. The record states that Maxim translated from Greek into Latin, and interpreters Vlasiy and Dmitry translated from Latin into Russian. But since in 1523/24 Selivan translated the Conversations directly from Greek, by 1524/25 the need for the medium of Latin, apparently, had already disappeared. Probably, the entry was arbitrarily constructed from an entry on the Explanatory Psalter (such as the entry of the State Historical Museum, Shchukinsk 4). Manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Resurrection. 82-boom, wrote in 1545 “the steamer Bogdanets Yakimov son of Rostov” by order of V.M. Tuchkova-Morozova. The manuscript of the State Historical Museum was written in the same handwriting, Voskr. 80-boom. (Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew). See also Amphilochius. Description of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Library. M., 1875, p. 129–131. On the metropolitan origin of the named manuscripts, see: Kloss B.M. 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. 332–333. For a list of translations, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, p. 111–112; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 9–14. For more details on the connection between the Moscow book-writing center of Mikhail Medovartsev and the Kirill-Belozersky center of Gury Tushin, see: Sinitsina N.V. Bookmaster, p. 308–309, 314–315. Description of the manuscript from the early 17th century. Kostroma Epiphany Monastery (No. 829, fol. 277 volume) was made by P.M. Stroev, but already S.A. Belokurov was unable to find her (Belokurov S.A. About the library, pp. CCLXXXVIII–CCLXXXIX).. Ill. 277 rev. – 305 of this manuscript are close in composition to the Rumyants complex. 264,. No. 54–62 (Appendix III-a). Pokrovsky A.A. One of the Greek sources for the works of Maximus the Greek. – In the book: Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Moscow Archaeological Society, vol. III. M., 1902) Protocols, p. 27–28. Sobolevsky. A.I. Decree, op., p. 275–277. Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 74–94. Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 103. See Appendix III-a, No. 71, as well as the list of translated articles in Chapter. I, § 2, no. 41. The same fragment is placed in the Chronicle of George Amartol and was apparently also borrowed from the Lexicon of the “Court”, which served as a source for some other articles of the Chronicle (Istrin V.M. Books of time and figurative by George Mnich. Chronicle of George Amartol in the ancient Slavic-Russian translation, vol. I. Pg., 1920, p. 225–226). The corresponding text in the chronograph (PSRL, vol. XXII, part 1, p. 237) was apparently borrowed from the “Jewish War” (cf. Meshchersky N.A. History of the Jewish War by Josephus in the Old Russian translation. M.–L., 1958, p. 259). Here and below the numbers are indicated according to the list in Chapter. I, § 2 of this work. Kovtun L.S. Lexicography, p. 29. Wed. Ch. II, § 1-a; Ch. III, § 3. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 3. Kazan, 1862, p. 60–92. For details, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Bookmaster, p. 310–313. For details, see: Fonkich B.L. Greek manuscript of Metropolitan Photius. – In the book: Old Russian art. Handwritten book. M., 1972, p. 189–195. For more details, see: Kovtun L.S. Russian scribes of the 16th century about the literary language of their time. – In the book: Russian language. Sources for studying it. M., 1971, p. 3–23. Fonkich B.L. Russian autograph of Maxim the Greek. – “History of the USSR”, 1971, No. 3, p. 158. Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time, p. 172. Speransky M.N. From the history of Russian-Slavic literary connections. M., 1960, p. 175. Lists: 1) GPB, Solov. 1039/1148 (between 1535–1552); 2) GPB, Sof. 1255 (mid-16th century); 3) State Historical Museum, Syn. 305 (second half of the 16th century), etc. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description, vol. II, part 1, p. 107, no. 77. 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. 99–127. Kovtun L.S. Lexicography, p. 54–63. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 3, p. 87–89. Krizhanich Yu. Collected works, vol. 3. M., 1892; aka. Denunciation of the Solovetsky petition. Kazan, 1878. See also: [Smirnov S.K.]. Serbian priest Yuri Krizanich refuting the Solovetsky petition. – In the book: Addition to the edition of the works of St. fathers in Russian translation, part XXI. M., 1860, p. 503–593. Rzhiga V.F. Experiments, pp. 111, 116; attribution and dating – ibid., p. 95–96. Winter E. Papacy and Tsarism. M., 1964, p. 57, 62, etc.; Shmurlo E.F. Rome and Moscow. The beginning of relations between the Moscow state and the papal throne (1462–1528). – “Notes of the Russian Historical Society in Prague”, book. 3. Czech Prague–Narva, 1937, p. 110 and others; Uspensky F. Relations between Rome and Moscow. – ZhMNP, 1884, No. 8, p. 384. About F.I. Karpove see: Rzhiga V.F. Westerner boyar of the 16th century. – “Scientific notes of the Institute of History RANION”, vol. IV. M., 1929, p. 39–48; Zimin A.A. Socio-political views of Fyodor Karpov. – TODRL, vol. XII. M.–L., 1956, p. 160–173; aka. Fyodor Karpov, Russian humanist of the 16th century. – “Prometheus”, collection. 5. M., 1968, p. 367–370; Sinitsyna N.V. F.I. Karpov - diplomat, publicist of the 16th century. Author's abstract. Ph.D. diss. M., 1966. Monuments of diplomatic relations of ancient Russia with foreign powers, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1851, p. 365. Pearling P. Russia and the Papal Throne. M., 1912, p. 298–299, 303, 308; Shmurlo E.F. Decree. cit., p. 113; Correspondence of popes with Russian sovereigns in the 16th century. St. Petersburg, 1834, p. 95–97. Sat. RIO, vol. 53, p. 85–86. Correspondence of the Popes, p. 3–6, 97–99; Uspensky F. Decree. cit., p. 387–388; Winter E. Decree. cit., p. 54–55. Correspondence of the Popes, p. 17–26; Pearling P. Decree. cit., p. 320; Shmurlo E.F. Decree, op., p. 130–132. Grekov I.B. Essays on the history of international relations in Eastern Europe in the XIV-XVI centuries. M., 1963, p. 279, etc. About him, see: Maikov L.N. Recent works. Nikolai Nemchin, Russian writer of the late 15th – early 16th centuries. – “Izvestia ORYAS”, vol. V, book. 2. St. Petersburg, 1900; Svyatsky D.O. Astrologer Nikolai Lyubchanin and almanacs in Rus' in the 16th century. – “News of the Natural Science Institute named after. P.V. Lesgaft", vol. XV. L., 1929; Zimin A.A. Dr. Nikolai Bulev is a publicist and medical scientist. – In the book: Research and materials on ancient Russian literature. M., 1961; Angermann N. Neues über N. Bülow und sein Wirken im Moskauer Russland. – “Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas”, 1969, Bd. 19, H. 3. The death of Nikolai Bulev dates back to ca. 1533 on the basis that in the Legend about him, placed in some collected works of Maxim the Greek, before the text of one of the messages to Nicholas, it is said that he was a physician during the time of Vasily Sh. To this we add that the Legend first appears in the collection of the GPB, Solov. 494/513, the compilers and editors of which had unique biographical materials about Maxim the Greek, as well as his writings and translations, close to the unique lifetime collection of GBL, Rumyants. 264 (see Chapter III, § 2). Begunov Yu.K. Kozma Presbyter in Slavic literatures. Sofia, 1973, p. 499–503. Filigree: hand – Likhachev No. 4072–1549 TSGADA, f. 201, No. 161, pp. 564–575 vol. About the collection, see: Kloss B.M. Maxim the Greek - translator of the story of Aeneas Silvius, p. 55–56. Filigree Vol. 522: hand – Likhachev No. 1747–1551; jug of three types – Briquet No. 12767 – 1544 (var. 1542–1547); No. 12660 – 1534 (var. 1534–1560); the third type - with the letters 1C (?), IO (?) and a pattern of dashes - could not be found in the reference books, as well as the sign - a hand in a straight sleeve with a heart on the palm; the last sign is known in a manuscript with autographs of Maxim the Greek from the late 40s to the first half of the 50s of the 16th century. – GBL, MDA 42 (see Appendix I. No. 1). On ll. 497–593 vol. – handwriting of the famous Volokolamsk scribe of the mid-16th century. Dmitry Lapshin. Filigree Vol. 488 (ll. 78–271); Tromonin type boat No. 361–1564; Briquet type boat No. 11972 – 1549 (var. 1556–1572) or Likhachev No. 3455 – 1564; hand – Briquet No. 11004 – 1552. In the first part of the manuscript, written in a different handwriting, there is a Gothic sign P of the Briquet type No. 8712 – 1544. The signs were clarified in comparison with the article: Sinitsina N.V. Message from Patriarch Photius of Constantinople to Prince Michael of Bulgaria in 16th-century copies. – TODRL, T. XXI. M.–L., 1965, p. 96. Filigree: tiara – Briquet No. 5019 – 1541 (var. 1533–1559); jug of two types – Briquet No. 12660 – 1534 (the sign is similar to Vol. 522); No. 12661–1537 (var. 1534–1560). Stroev P.M. Description of manuscripts from the monasteries of Volokolamsk, New Jerusalem, Savvin Storozhevsky and Pafnutiev Borovsky. St. Petersburg, 1891, p. 296–297; Nikolsky N.K. Description of the manuscripts stored in the archives... of the Synod, vol. II, no. 2. SPb., 1910, No. 4025, p. 893–899. For a more detailed description of N.K. Nikolsky, see the book: Monuments of Ancient Writing and Art, no. 174. St. Petersburg, 1909, Appendix. II, p. 83–93; see also Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, p. 110–111. “Christian Reading”, 1909, No. 8–9, p. 1121; Wed Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 341. State Historical Museum, Sin. 791, pp. 150–154; in the collection of GBL, Vol. 638 (ll. 84–91 vol.) the text does not have a title, the table of contents reads: “Maximovo’s Message to Nicholas.” GBL, Vol. 522, pp. 188 rev. – 194; Vol. 488, pp. 196 rev. – 200; TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, pp. 120 rev. – 123 rev. With a similar title, it is included in the collected works of Maxim the Greek (hereinafter I will not name all collections containing texts of works of the first period, but only the earliest ones, dating back to the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th century: the collection of Jonah Dumin - according to the list of the State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310; Synodal - according to the list of the State Historical Museum, Syn. 491; Troitsk - according to the list of the GBL, Troitsk. 200; collection in Chapter 151 - according to the GBL list, Troitsk, 201). See State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310, pp. 340–344, ch. 82; Syn. 491, pp. 390 rev. – 393 vol., ch. 74; GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 192–193, ch. 24; Troitsk 201, pp. 132–134 vol. Ch. 32. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 341–346; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage No. 136. State Historical Museum, Sin. 791, pp. 120 rev. – 122. TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, pp. 123 rev. – 124 rev. Immediately before the text there are other works by Maxim the Greek, which is why the title “same” is used. “Christian Reading”, 1909, No. 8–9, p. 1122–1123; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 139. State Historical Museum, Sin. 791, pp. 122–123 vol. (“Mr. Maxim the monk Theodore Ivanov, the son of Karpov, beats his forehead”); TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, pp. 124 rev. – 125 rev. The title coincides with the previous one, but before it there is an indication: “Message of Fyodor Karpov to Elder Maxim of Svyatogorsk” (“Christian Reading”, 1909, No. 8–9, pp. 1123–1124). State Historical Museum, Sin. 791, pp. 123 rev. – 125; TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, l. 125 rev. The title is the same, only the word “to me” is omitted. “Christian Reading”, 1909, No. 8–9, p. 1124–1125; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 140. State Historical Museum, Sin. 791, pp. 103 rev. – 109, 126–142. GBL, Vol. 638, pp. 97–142; Vol. 488, pp. 78–101 (the author's name is not in the title). In collected works; State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310/ll. 234–254 vol., ch. 78 (author's name at the beginning of the title); State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 312–328, ch. 69 (without indicating the author's name); GBL, Troitsk. 201, pp. 556 rev. – 570 rev., ch. 135 (the name of the author is indicated at the beginning of the title: “Maxim of the monk of the Holy Mountain”). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 235–266; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 133. Another work by Maxim the Greek is addressed to “Mr. Ivan,” “Interpretation of certain sayings inconveniently understood in divine scripture” (Works of Maxim the Greek, part 3. Kazan, 1862, pp. 5–22). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 267–322; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 134. GPB, Q. I. 487, pp. 462 rev. – 510; TSGADA, f. 201, No. 161, pp. 564–572 vol. GBL, Vol. 522, pp. 195–248 vol.; Vol. 488, pp. 102–141; State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 328–362, ch. 70; GBL, Troitsk, 201, ll. 201–231 vol. The phrase that serves as the title in these lists is the end of the previous message in the list Q. 1.487, etc., which reflects the original text. In Vol. 522 and 488 it is cut off artificially and turned into the title of the subsequent work. An expanded and modified version of this title is the title in the Trinity Collection (GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 306–318): “The same monk Maximus, the philosopher Greek, denounces the heads of the Nikolaevs, writes to Theodore Karp, since we will create help, Nikolai Nemchin will expound them on the right theology of the all-holy spirit, as promised to you.” In the collection of Jonah Dumin - A shortened (unsuccessfully) version of the title: “Nikolai Nemchin expounded the same monk Maxim the Greek on the right theology of the all-holy spirit” (GIM, Uvar. 310, pp. 254 vol. - 289 vol., ch. 79). With this title, the work was placed in two lifetime collections - Khludovsky (chapter 68) and Rumyantsevsky (No. 87), as well as in later collections - State Historical Museum, Syn. 491, pp. 380 rpm – 391, ch. 73; GBL, Troitsk. 201, pp. 161 rev. – 169, ch. 47. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 213–234; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 132. GPB, Solov. 494/513, l. 655. See also ch. III, § 2. ’ The word of Maxim the Greek could serve to reconstruct the arguments of Nikolai Nemchin and establish the religious and philosophical tradition that Maxim the Greek opposed. However, consideration of the actual theological side of the problem is not our task. There, p. 223, 214–216, 224, 228. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 323–340; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 135. State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 373–380 vol., ch. 72; GBL, Troitsk. 201.ll. 413 rev. – 419 vol., ch. 79; Troitsk 200, pp. 205 rev. – 214, ch. 26; here in the original title “The same Venerable Maximus the Greek to Nicholas the Latin” the “holy mountaineer” (after the “Greek”) and the “star-wise” (after the “Latin”) are added. The title is given according to the list of GBL, Troitsk. 201, pp. 405–413 vol., ch. 78; the same State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 362 rev. – 373, ch. 71. To Troitsk. 200, pp. 194–205 vol., ch. 25 originally had a title close to Troitsk. 201 (only before the author’s name is indicated “The same” and instead of “monk” there was “venerable”). The reference editor changed the title, and it took on the following form: “The same monk Maximus the Greek to Nicholas the Latin, the evil charmer and astrologer, a message about excommunication in Latin, as Latin has fallen away from Orthodoxy.” Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 509–532; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 137. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 530, 531. Wed. Zimin A.A. Dr. Nikolay Bulev, p. 85. With this title, the work was included in the lifetime collections of Joasaph and Khludov (chapter 7); the title turned out to be stable and was preserved in subsequent handwritten traditions (GIM, Syn. 491, pp. 394–410, ch. 76). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 180–213; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 138. In the list of A.I. Ivanov named another work by Maxim the Greek “against the Latins” from a 17th-century manuscript. GPB, Sol. 495/514 (Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 141). The attribution of this text requires special analysis. Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, pol. 1, p. 686. The work of Bernhard Schultze is mainly devoted to the anti-Catholic polemics of Maxim Grek (Schultze V. Maxim Grek als Theologe. - “Orientalia Christiana Analecta”, t. VII, No. 167. Roma, 1963). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 238–241, 247, 248, 253, 255–257. There, p. 249–250, 267–268, 246–247. Denissoff E. Maxime le Grec et l’Occident, Paris–Louvain, 1943, p. 254; Haney J.V. From Italy to Muscovy. The Life and Works of Maxim the Greek. München, 1973, p. 138. Gudziy N.K. Maxim the Greek and his attitude to the Italian Renaissance. – “Kyiv University News”, 1911, No. 7, p. 8; Ivanov A.I. Literary heritage, p. 14–16; aka. Maxim the Greek and the Italian Renaissance. – VV, t. 34. M., 1973, p. 116–117. Gorfunkel A.X. From “The Triumph of Thomas” to the “School of Athens” (Philosophical problems of Renaissance culture). – In the book: History of philosophy and cultural issues. M., 1975, p. 136–139. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 254. Rieger A. Introduction to cosmology. M., 1959, p. 65; Stern A. Nikolai Kuzansky - original German thinker of the 15th century. – SV, issue. 28. M., 1965, p. 119–128. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 241, 236. This is exactly how Kurbsky perceived them: “And another answer of Maxim the philosopher against Nikolai Nemchin in the epistole, written before the wise husband Fyodor Karpov, began to him: “Their holiness is true and forever all the destinies of your righteousness” and so on” (RIB, vol. 31, stb. 436). · GBL, Vol. 522, pp. 159–188; Vol. 488, pp. 176–196 vol.; TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, pp. 217–234. In collected works: State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310, pp. 322–340, ch. 81; State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 209–219, ch. 55 (no date); GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 178–191 vol., 194, ch. 23 (at the beginning of the title it is written: “Message of the monk Maximus the Greek to Fyodor Karp”); Troitsk 201, pp. 393 rev. – 405, ch. 77, no date. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 347–376; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 153. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 399–434; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 152. GPB, Q.I.487, pp. 541 rev. – 562 (text not finished); TSGADA, f. 201, No. 161, pp. 572 rev. etc.; GBL, Vol. 522, pp. 111–158 vol.; Vol. 488, pp. 141 rev. – 175 rpm In collected works: State Historical Museum, Uvar. 310, pp. 289 rev. – 322, ch. 80; State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 174–191, ch. 51; GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 319–330 vol., ch. 65; Troitsk 201, ll. 231 rev. – 248, ch. 53. Petrov N.I. On the influence of Western European literature on Old Russian literature. – “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, 1872, vol. II, No. 8, p. 708–709; Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, pol. 2, p. 234; vol. II, pol. 1, p. 688, approx. 2; Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 90–91. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 357 and 426–429. There, p. 352, 407–410, 418–419. In the collection Vol. 522 texts are bound in a different sequence, but a count of the notebooks shows that they were copied in the same order as in the collection Vol. 488:ll. 195–248 vol. (the second letter against the union of churches) have a count of notebooks from the 17th to the 23rd, and pp. 111–194 (corresponding to sheets 141 vol. – 200 of the collection Vol. 488) make up notebooks 24–34; ll. 111–248 vol. written in the same hand. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 446–455; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 157 and 161. With a similar title it is included in later collected works: State Historical Museum, Sin. 491, pp. 205 rev. – 209, ch. 54; GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 301 rev. – 303 vol., ch. 62; Troitsk 201, pp. 440–443 vol., ch. 89. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 457–484; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 164. TsGIA USSR, f. 834, op. 3, no. 4025, pp. 106–120 rpm; GBL, Troitsk. 200, pp. 330 rev. – 339, ch. 66; Troitsk 201, pp. 571–582, ch. 136. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 460. There, p. 455–456; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 163. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 435–446; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 160. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 377–398; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 158. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2, p. 52–88; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 165. Goldberg A.L. Three “epistles of Philotheus” (Experience in textual analysis). – TODRL, vol. XXIX. L., 1974, p. 69–73. Here is a translation of the text sent by Nikolai Boolev to Misyur Munekhin, and its Latin original - an excerpt from the “New Almanac” by I. Steffler and J. Pflaume (according to the Venetian edition of 1513 and 1518. The GBL also contains an edition of 1506). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 423. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 406. Between the words “we gain nothing” - “before illness” there should be a text that is read in the collections of GBL, Vol. 522, pp. 118–132; Vol. 488, pp. 146–156. Petrov N.I. Decree, op., p. 708–709. Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 91. The date 7031 (1522/23) confirms that this work preceded the message of F.I. Karpov, dated 7032 (1523/24). From the subsequent presentation it is obvious that the essay in question was written immediately after Maxim read the “paper” shown to him. V.F. Rzhiga believes that “prevedeni” should be understood as “translated into Russian.” But another text - with a prediction of a flood - was distributed by Boolean in Russian translation. Regarding the prediction about the Turks, one can apparently also assume that it was a Russian text; the question of whether it was original or translated remains open. The expression “according to the verb of presentation” should be understood as “given verbatim.” In the collection of GBL, Vol. 488, l. 152 rev. we read “brought”. Golenishchev-Kutuzov I.N. Italian Renaissance and Slavic literature of the 15th–16th centuries. M., 1963, p. 57–58, etc.; Ulrichi Gutteni Equitis Germani Opera que reperiri potuerunt omnia, vol. V. Lipsiae, 1861. See also Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 457–458, 478. Batkin L.M. On the problem of historicism in Italian culture of the Renaissance. – In the book: History of philosophy and cultural issues, p. 172. GBL, Vol. 488, pp. 142 rev. – 143; Wed Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 401. In his Accusatory Word against the Almanac, Maxim the Greek writes that after the date indicated in it had passed, his opponents began to say that it was not a “flood of water” that was predicted at all, but “a change and transformation of all things” (Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 460). GBL, Vol. 488, l. 153 rev. Further, when citing the unpublished part, sheets of this manuscript are indicated. John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith. St. Petersburg, 1894, p. 61. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 431–434, cf. With. 387; part 2, p. 63. As J. Haney established, this phrase is a quotation from Plato’s Republic (II, 379) (Haney J.V. Op. cit., p. 141). Text published by A.I. Klibanov (Klibanov A.I. To the study of the biography and literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. - VV, vol. XIV. M., 1958, p. 174) according to the Rumyantsev collection (see Appendix III, No. 75). A small excerpt from this translation (“Plato the philosopher at the bottom of his verb Phaedo verbs sice”) is placed in the manuscript secondarily among a large complex of translations from the collection “Judgment” (see Chapter I, § 2, No. 61). Wed. in the Word against the Almanac: “he does not inflict executions innocently, but providentially”; “It was not I, he said, who was to blame for their destruction, but myself who irritated the long-suffering me with my iniquities” (Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, pp. 475, 476). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 347, 375. There, p. 369, cf. With. 361. The same in the Word against the Almanac, p. 462. Wed. in the Word against the Almanac: “external punishment” is “the slave of the gospel of truth”; it is necessary to choose only “those that contribute to the establishment of the Christian faith” (ibid., p. 462). In the Word against the Almanac, Maxim the Greek similarly evaluates the turning point in his own destiny. Being “in Italy and in Longobardy,” he was not only a “hearer and witness” of “external punishment,” but he participated in it and was by no means “on the threshold”; fortunately, he did not die “with the representatives of wickedness there.” Turning to Christian piety, he continues to believe that “external punishment is beneficial,” but he condemns the excessive claims of a “much-tested mind,” “price ... and zeal from the external evil mind,” contrasting it with “divine reason” (ibid., pp. 462, 463, 481). Astrologers of that time were almost always doctors. There, p. 371–372. Wed. in the Word against the Almanac: observation of the luminaries, “the course of the stars” is necessary in order to “not blaspheme the number of this century, and the right to hold the spoken fascalia” (ibid., pp. 459–460). Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 353, 357. History of Byzantium, vol. 3. M., 1967, p. 239–241; see also Medvedev I.P. Mystra. L., 1973, p. 107. . Patch H.R. The Goddess Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature. New York, 1967; Macek J. “La fortuna” chez Machiavel. – “Le moyen Age”, 1971, N 2, p. 305–328; Doren A. Fortuna im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance. – “Vorträge” der Bibliothek Warburg, II. Vortage 1922/23. I. Teil. Berlin–Leipzig, 1924, S. 71–144; Heitmann K. Fortuna und Virtus. Eine Studie zu Petrarcas Lebensweisheit. Köln – Graz, 1958. GBL, Rumyants. 264, l. 28 and about; Wed Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 450–452. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 435–437. Monuments of Russian Russian literature, ed. N. Tikhonravov, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1863; Peretz V.N. Materials for the history of apocrypha and legend, vol. I–II. St. Petersburg, 1899–1901; Kononov N.N. From the field of astrology. – In the book: Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Moscow Archaeological Society, vol. IV, no. 1. M., 1907; Sobolevsky A.I. Decree, op., p. 409–412; Raikov B.E. Essays on the history of the heliocentric worldview in Russia. From the past of Russian natural science. M.L., 1947. Gurev G.A. Astrology and religion. M., 1940, p. 11, 14, 28. On the nature of the interest in astrology, “star-legal” on the part of Russian heretics, see: Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th – early 16th centuries. L., 1960, p. 186. Shangin M.A. On the role of Greek astrological manuscripts in the history of knowledge. – “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences”, VII series, department of humanities. L., 1930, No. 5, p. 307–317; aka. XII volume of Russian manuscripts from the “Catalogue of Astrological Manuscripts”. Abstract. – “Bulletin of Ancient History”, 1939, No. 1, p. 178–185. (This refers to manuscripts stored in Russia.) Trakhtenberg O.V. Essays on the history of Western European medieval philosophy. M., 1957, p. 169–171. Gurev G.A. Decree, op., p. 27–28, 63–67, 87–89; see also Berry A. A Brief History of Astronomy. M.–L., 1946; Villari P. Girolamo Savonarola and his time, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1913 p. 51–52. Denissoff E. Op. cit., p. 214. Bragina L.M. Ethical views of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. – SV, issue. 28. M., 1965, p. 131–132. . Kazakova N.A., Lurie Y.S. Decree, op., p. 172–180, etc.; Klibanov A.I. Reformation movements in Russia in the 14th – first half of the 16th centuries, pp. 63–82, 334–339, etc. Malinin V. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Philotheus and his messages. Kyiv, 1901. Applications, p. 38–39. Kazakova N.A., Lurie Y.S. Decree cit., p. 338. Joseph Volotsky. Enlightener. Kazan, 1904, p. 157–158. “Create man and give him to understand that I am an animated, autocratic, intelligent man, but we do not know how I was created or what kind of soul there is in me” (Kazakova N.A., Lurie Y.S. Decree, op., p. 394). Rzhiga V.F. Experiments, pp. 7, 15, 17–21. Ivanov A.I. On the question of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek. – BB, XXIX. M., 1969 p. 137–138, 144–145. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 157, 175, 176. Ibid., p., 243; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 267–299. V.F. called Maxim the Greek an opponent of “patrimonial ownership of monasteries.” Rzhiga (Rzhiga V.F. Experiments, p. 9), following E.E. Golubinsky, who spoke about the publicist’s polemic “against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries” (Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, half 1, p. 725). A.A. Zimin writes that in Maxim the Greek “all the “disorder” of monastic life occurs due to the ownership of “villages”,” emphasizing that non-acquisitive people oppose not just monastic land ownership, but against the ownership of monasteries by “villages”, populated lands; “we are talking, first of all, about the inadmissibility of exploitation of peasant labor by monks” (Zimin A.A. The main problems of the reformation-humanistic movement in Russia in the 14th–16th centuries - In the book: Reports of the Soviet delegation at the V International Congress of Slavists. M., 1963, p. 116). N.A. Kazakova, characterizing the content of the main non-acquisitive works of Maxim the Greek, sees their meaning in the denunciation and denial of the patrimonial rights of monasteries and in the criticism of the vices of a social nature caused by them - the acquisitive activities of monasticism, the exploitation of peasants, usury, this constitutes the core of Russian non-acquisitiveness in general (Kazakova N.A. Essays, pp. 159, 162, 164, 166). A.I. Ivanov reduces the main thoughts of Maxim the Greek on the organization of monasticism to the following: “1) monks should acquire everything necessary for life “from their labors,” 2) if necessary, they can accept alms from lovers of Christ, but only what is necessary, and not unnecessary, 3) monasteries should not have estates and generally not allow acquisitions from the labors of others” (Ivanov A.I. On the issue of non-acquisitive views, p. 143, n. 33). However, these formulations, especially the second, are closer to the “Tradition” of the Nile than to the writings of Maximus the Greek. "Angelic community" (Greek). Each A.P. Byzantine monastery of the 11th–12th centuries. as a social group. – VV, t. 31. M., 1971, p. 53. For more details, see: Gurevich A. Ya. Categories of medieval culture. M., 1972, p. 248–260. Molla M. The poor and medieval society. – In the book: XIII International Congress of Historical Sciences. M., 1970, p. 3–4. “Les pauvres” of the original corresponds to the concepts of “poor”, “beggars”, “wretched” of Russian medieval monuments (see also Kerov V.L. The essence of calls for poverty in the Middle Ages. - VI, 1971, No. 2, pp. 193–194). Moiseeva G.N. On the ideology of “non-acquisitive people”. – “History of the USSR”, 1961, No. 2, p. 101; Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 13. Sreznevsky I.I. Materials, vol. III, p. 856. Messages of Joseph Volotsky. Preparation of the text by A.A. Zimin and Ya.S. Lurie. M.–L., 1955, p. 322, 325. “Readings of OIDR”, 1858, book. 3, dept. III, p. 19. Messages of Ivan the Terrible. Preparation of the text by D.S. Likhachev and Ya.S. Lurie. M.–L., 1951, p. 188. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2, p. 111. See also ch. III, § 3. GBL, f. 173, MDA 42, l. 223 rev. Sreznevsky I.I. Materials, vol. III, stb. 856. Example one: “not dirty with acquisitiveness”; Greek "μηδὲ αἰσχροϰερδῶς", Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th – early 16th centuries, p. 340. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 13. In both cases, according to N.A. Kazakova, the term “non-acquisitive” means “opponents of the patrimonial rights of monasteries.” Kazakova N.A., Lurie Y.S. Decree, op., p. 469. Epistles of Joseph Volotsky, p. 309. Zhmakin V. Metropolitan Daniel and his works. M., 1881. Applications, p. 56; see also p. 670–671. Epistles of Joseph Volotsky, p. 308–309; Wed With. 186. Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, p. 128–136. Further, when quoting, the pages of Soph's manuscript are indicated. 1498, according to which the publication was made. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 3, p. 243–245. Kazakova N.A. To the study of Helmsman Vassian Patrikeev. – TODRL, vol. XXVIII. L., 1974, p. 345–349. A.I. Ivanov suggests that this is Trinity Abbot Artemy (Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 331). Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 95. See also Appendix III-a, No. 92. Proposed by V.F. Rzhiga’s dating was accepted by subsequent researchers (Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, pp. 121–123; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 331; Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 169). However, A.A. Zimin considers it among the early works of Maxim the Greek (Zimin A.A.” Russia, p. 327). Earliest list: GBL, Rumyants. 264, pp. 133 rev. – 134 rev. (no title); see Appendix III-a, No. 73. Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 325. Zinovy Otensky. The truth is a testimony to those who asked about the new teaching. Kazan, 1863, p. 894. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2, p. 89. Zimin A.A. I.S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. M.; 1958, p. 59–60; Goldberg A.L. Decree. cit., p. 90–91. . Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 85–87, 99–101; see also Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, No. 230; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 327; Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 157. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 168. Ivanov A.I. On the issue of non-acquisitive views, p. t40. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. M.–L., 1960, p. 21–24; she is the same. Essays, p. 65. Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 96. Here Maxim explains that he interprets “estate” as “village”. In the Legend for Vassian, as we have seen, this term means money or movable property (jewelry, church vessels). In subsequent works, the term also does not have a stable content; in each case, a study of the context is necessary. Understanding N.A. Cossack’s “estates” as populated lands (Essays, p. 175), apparently, is based only on the cited explanation, without taking into account other works where the term is used in a different sense (see Chapter III, § 3). In an earlier article, following the assessment of the content of non-covetousness of the historiographical tradition, I commented on this statement of Maxim the Greek differently, noting in it the manifestation of “criticism of monastic land ownership as the ownership of “villages” with a feudally dependent population,” and characterizing him himself as “an opponent of monastic land ownership” (Sinitsyna N.V. Message to Vasily III, pp. 123, 126). These are not entirely accurate formulations, based on the study of only one group of writings - messages about the Athonite monasteries (however, I stipulated that Maxim the Greek “does not condemn monastic land ownership if it is not the ownership of villages with a feudally dependent population, but the ownership of land that is cultivated using hired labor” - ibid., p. 126). Subsequent study of the entire set of relevant works by Maxim the Greek showed the absence of clear and categorical formulations in them, where he would speak negatively about the very fact of “owning” villages. For details, see chap. III, § 3. Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 96, 99. Judgment lists, p. 113; Wed With. 99. Rzhiga V.F. Unpublished works, p. 96. Similar information was given in 1560 by the Athonite monks to Metropolitan Macarius: “On the arable land, the men have wives and children, no households, but the Cossacks hire aspras, who plow the grain and make grapes” (Monuments of Ancient Writing, issue 30. St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 28). Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 169–170. Cherepnin L.V. Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV–XV centuries. M., 1960, p. 236–245; Law books of the 15th–16th centuries. Preparation of the text by R.B. Muller and L.V. Cherepnina. M.–L., 1952, p. 89; Wed With. 296. [Borovkova-Maikova M.S.] Nile of Sorsky legend and charter. St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 6. Lilienfeld F. On the literary genre of some of the works of Nil Sorsky. – TODRL, XVIII. M.–L., 1962, p. 89, 92, 94. Serebryansky N. Essays on the history of monastic life in the Pskov land. M., 1908, p. 516. Lilienfeld F. Decree, op., p. 87, 92. Maxim the Greek used the same verb in his “Exposition” when describing a similar situation: the duty of the vessel guard is “to collect, according to the list, the silver collected from outside from the rulers and princes and from every Orthodox Christian” (l. 300 vol.). This phrase has a different arrangement of signs than in the publication by M.S. Borovkova-Maikova. The introduction of brackets shows the introductory nature of the text contained in them and connects the initial and final parts of the phrase (“introduce” - “drive away”). The phrase enclosed in brackets means the following: “How can we, being passionately weak, preserve (in this case, that is, in the case of accepting such acquisitions. - N.S.) the commandments of the Lord: to the one who wants to sue you for clothes, give him his shirt.” One of the meanings of the verb “become vain” is to deprive (Sreznevsky I.I. Materials, vol. II, stb. 824). Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle, p. 341. Quoting Tradition, Y.S. Lurie admits an inaccuracy here: the word “by violence” is omitted, which concentrates the semantic emphasis of the entire phrase, and instead of “not” - “is”. Serebryansky N. Decree, op., p. 516. “Yako” here has the meaning of a causal-subordinating conjunction (cf. Stetsenko A.N. Historical syntax of the Russian language. M., 1972, p. 259). Wed. in a communal monastery: “It is necessary to build church things... and give and feed to the poor and strange and passing by” (Epistle of Joseph Volotsky, p. 182). Wed. from Joseph Volotsky: “... and decoration with honorable icons... and sacred vessels, and holy vestments, and all church things, made of gold and silver and beads” (Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 355). Prokhorov G.M. Decree, op., p. 140. Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle, p. 339–341. Begunov Yu.K. “The Word Another” is a newly discovered work of Russian journalism of the 16th century. about the struggle of Ivan III against the land ownership of the church. – TODRA, vol. XX. M.–L., 1964, p. 351. This is an objection to the concept of Ya.S. Lurie, who brought the positions of Neil and Joseph closer together at an early stage, was rightly nominated by N.A. Kazakova (Essays, p. 63). Epistles of Joseph Volotsky, p. 303. Lurie Y.S. Ideological struggle, p. 251. Let us note that some provisions of the brief edition of the Charter of Joseph of Volotsky, especially in the 5th Word, were borrowed by him from other charters, for example, from the Charter of Euphrosynus of Pskov or the earlier charter of the Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius to the Snetogorsk Monastery (cf. Epistles of Joseph of Volotsky, p. 308; AI, vol. I, no. 5, pp. 7–9). Great Menaion-Cheti, vol. I, sect. 1–13. SPb., 1868, stb. 522–523. GPB, Weather. 1149, l. 74 et seq. Zhmakin V. Decree. Op. Applications, p. 55–57. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 159; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 291–292; Wed With. 328. Kazakova N.A. To the study of the Helmsman Vassian Patrikeev, p. 345. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. With. 137. The corresponding text must have a different arrangement of characters than in the publication of H.A. Kazakova: “In the rules of the saints, the father of the 7th collection, rule 17 - 2nd facets in the 2nd chapter; the same rule for the 11th–10th faces in the 1st chapter; collection of the 1st and 2nd rules of the 1st–2nd faces in the 2nd chapter; collection of the 4th rules 3 and 4; Cyril of Archbishop Alexander from the Epistle to Domnus, rule 2 - 1st facet in the 6th chapter" (cf. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 234). Krasnozhen M. Interpreters of the canonical code of the Eastern Church Aristinus, Zonara and Balsamon. – “Scientific Notes of Moscow University”, Dept. legal, vol. VIII. M., 1894. Beneshevich V. Canonical collection of XIV titles from the second quarter of the 7th century, until 883. On the ancient history of the sources of law of the Greek-Eastern Church. St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 6. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 234. It is necessary to point out that the very texts of the rules in Kormchay are preserved unchanged with the mention of monastic villages; the opinion is not confirmed that Vassian excluded from his Helmsman those very articles on which the defenders of church estates relied (Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 110; Ivanov A.I. Literary Heritage, p. 50), but Vassian’s sincerity is confirmed when he wrote in the entry on the Helmsman: “do not put that on your soul,” and obeyed the orders of Metropolitan Varlaam and of the cathedral, who did not order “anything to be displayed” in its Helmsman. This term appears in the translation of Alexey Aristin’s interpretation of the rule in question. However, a comparison of the translation with the Greek original shows that the wording used here to designate monastic property appeared at some stage in the Slavic tradition of this translation: “may they preserve their property and acquisitions, villages and vineyards, and everything else that is integral and inextricable from them.” In the original Greek: φυλάττεσθαι δἐ ϰαὶ τὰς ἀϰινήτους αὐτοῦ ϰτήσεις ἀνεϰποιήτους (Migne J.P. Patrologiae cursus completus. – “Series graeca”, t. 137. Parisiis, 1865, col. 473 C). I express my sincere gratitude to B.L. Fonkich for help with this work. Migne J.R. Op. cit., col. 472 D. 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. 124. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 289–290. About the fact that “testimonies from the divine scriptures” were read simultaneously to both Maximus and Vassian, see the observations of N.N. Pokrovsky (Judgment lists, p. 18). Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 235–236. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 331. Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works, p. 237. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 177–180. Kazakova N.A. About the “judgment list” of Maxim the Greek. – AE for 1966 M., 1968; she is the same. Question about the reasons for the conviction of Maxim the Greek. – VV, vol. XXVIII. M., 1968; Vol. XXIX. M., 1969; she is the same. Essays, p. 180–243. The full text of the Judgment List, discovered by N.N. Pokrovsky, confirmed the point of view about the nature of the trial of Maxim, defended by N.A. Kazakova (Judgment lists, p. 58). Kazakova N.A. Maxim Grek in Soviet historiography. – VI, 1973, No. 5, p. 154. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 282, etc. Kazakova N.A. Maxim Grek, p. 154–156. Pokrovsky N.N. Siberian find (New about Maxim the Greek). – VI, 1969, No. 1; Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. M., 1971. Sinitsyna N.V. [Rec. for the publication “Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog.” M., 1971]. –VI, 1973, No. 2, p. 153–156. S.N. Chernov analyzed the investigative case, but he was forced to use two publications, since he did not find the original and assumed his death (Chernov S.N. Notes on the investigation in the case of Maxim the Greek. - In the book: Collection of articles for the 40th anniversary of the scientific activity of Academician A.S. Orlov. L., 1934, pp. 465–474). The archaeographic imperfection of both publications (AAE, vol. I, no. 172, pp. 141–145; Collection of Prince Obolensky, no. 3) forces us to turn again to this source. TSGADA, f. 52, op. 1, 1525, no. 1. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 278–279. “Yushko Tyutin” is written twice above the line (in handwriting and ink of the main text). A.A. Zimin, characterizing the content of Maxim’s testimony regarding Bersen, conveys one of them as follows: “... Bersen said with bitterness: “I don’t know whether there is a metropolitan in Moscow.” After all, you won’t get any “teaching words” from Daniel, and he “doesn’t grieve for anyone.” Instead of grieving, Daniil acted like an oathbreaker, giving a “dangerous” letter to Shemyachich, who nevertheless was “caught” in Moscow” (Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 283). According to the investigative case, Bersen’s “speeches” regarding the Metropolitan’s actions with his “bosom enemy” Shemyachich were conveyed not by Maxim the Greek, but by Fyodor Zharenny (cf. pp. 2 and 12–13). Lurie Y.S. [Rec. on the book by N.A. Kazakova “Essays on the history of Russian social thought. First third of the 16th century." L., 1970]. – “History of the USSR”, 1972, No. 4, p. 167 (“Maxim’s testimony... cost the life of his former interlocutor”). Smirnov I.I. On the issue of the trial of Maxim the Greek. – VI, 1946, No. 2–3, p. 121. A.A. Zimin, citing the investigative case, admits an inaccuracy: “Fedko Zharenoy drove me away, sir, for a week against Nikola, and Maxim was already confiscated” (Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 268, sn. 3). Sreznevsky I.I. Materials, vol. II, stb. 1593–1594. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 268. S.N. Chernov also emphasized the role of Fyodor Zharenny’s testimony in Bersen’s eventual recognition of his guilt: “Thus, Bersen, denounced by two interlocutors, found himself in an extremely difficult situation. He, apparently, could not stand the confrontation with Zharenny and, in response to his denunciations, made his own, and then accepted all the testimony of Maxim the Greek related to him” (Chernov S.N. Decree, op., p. 472). Maxim the Greek conveyed this conversation as follows: “and Yaz Bersen said: sir, the mother of the Grand Duke, Grand Duchess Sophia, was from both sides of the great family: on the father’s side the royal family of Tsaregorod, and on the mother’s side the great Dux of Feraria in the Italian countries” (ll. 4–5). As we see, if A.A. Zimin is right when he says that in his testimony Maxim the Greek tried to present himself as a completely loyal person, trying to place all the blame for seditious conversations on Bersen (Zimin A.A. Russia, pp. 284–287), then in fairness it should be added that Bersen behaved in a similar way. S.N. Chernov believed that this edit could have “political significance,” but could also represent “a simple reduction of the text due to passages that are self-evident in their general meaning” (Chernov S.N. Decree, op., p. 467). The second explanation in this case seems more fair. Therefore, the conclusion of S.N. Chernov that the first text “entirely includes the second text” (Chernov S.N. Decree, cit., p. 465) is not entirely accurate. Chernov S.N. Decree cit., p. 473, 466–469. Tikhomirov M.N. A new monument of Moscow political literature of the 16th century. – In the book: Moscow region in its past, part 2. M., 1930, p. 112. Chernov S.N. Decree, op., p. 472. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 189–192. There, p. 43. Doubt arises as to the very existence of these protocols of 1525 at all. So, N.N. Pokrovsky drew attention to the fact that in the Inventory of the Archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1614, only “the list of Metropolitan Danil on Maxim the Greek in the year 7039” is mentioned (Inventory of the Tsar's Archive of the 16th century and the Archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1614. Prepared for printing by S.O. Schmidt and S.A. Levina" M., 1960, p. 48). Judgment lists, p. 65, 69. Wed. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 278–282. Works of Maxim the Greek, part 2, p. 318. Popova T.V. Byzantine epistolography. – In the book: Byzantine literature. M., 1974, p. 207–209; Karlsson S. Idéologie et céremonial dans l’épistolographie byzantine. Uppsala, 1962. Dunaev B.I. Ave. Maxim the Greek and the Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century. M., 1916. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 25. Rzhiga V.F. Experiments, pp. 102; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 330. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 175. Judgment lists, p. 111–113. Kloss B.M. On the composition of the copy book of the Moscow Metropolitan House. - In the book: Auxiliary historical disciplines, vol. V. L., 1973, p. 112. See Appendix I-a, Ch. 44; Appendix II-a, ch. 36, 61. Kazakova N.A. Essays, p. 115–120; Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 277–278. Maxim the Greek, speaking in this work “I... incessantly... pray” about the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich and his brother George (Works of Maxim the Greek, part 1, p. 34), does not mention their mother, regent Elena Glinskaya, which would be unacceptable in such an official work as the “Confession” (it is addressed to the princes, judges, boyars, bishops), if Elena were alive; therefore, the essay was written after her death (April 1538) (Golubinsky E.E. History, vol. II, half 2, p. 237). “Readings of OIDR”, 1847, No. 8, dep. IV, p. 4. Wed. Zimin A.A. Russia, p. 277, 282.