New data about the Russian period of life of St. Maxim Grek

Contents Commentary in the light of faith Materials for a scientific biography 1. Chronology of the first translated works 2. Reasons for the second trial and the nature of the Judgment List 3. Duration of imprisonment, date of release 4. On the date of transfer to Trinity and the relationship between the Tver and Trinity periods Commentary in the context of history by St. Maximus the Greek Commentary in the aspect of culture New data on the Italian period of the life of St. Maximus the Greek Commentary in figures and facts Vasily III Ioannovich Domestic policy. Formation of the territory of the state Church policy Foreign policy Iconography Commentary in the media mirror Life at the junction of traditions: on the 450th anniversary of the repose of St. Maxim the Greek Fruits of the tree of knowledge “Maxim the Greek birth” Materials for scientific biography N. V. Sinitsyna, Doctor of Historical Sciences, leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Cited from the publication: Bulletin of Church History. M.: TsNTs "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2006, No. 4. P. 221–236) Preparation for printing of a new edition of the works of St. Maxim the Greek was accompanied not only by their textual research, analysis of the manuscript tradition, and solution of problems of attribution and dating. A number of facts and circumstances of his stay in Russia were also revealed or destroyed, thereby strengthening and making the basis for creating a complete scientific biography of the writer, theologian, and philologist more reliable; Until very recently, it contains many unconfirmed but repeated clichés and contradictory judgments, including about some key events. One of the reasons was the Zion structure of the Judgment List, which mixed information about the courts of 1525 and 1531. Another reason is the contradictions in the Tales of St. Maxim, who remain one of the main sources for describing his fate after 1531, these contradictions cannot always be resolved with the help of his own writings (a learned Athonite monk, although they contain significant biographical material. Other sources - documentary, act evidence, chronicles - for the second period are almost absent, in contrast to the period 1518–1525, which is spoken of by acts, chronicles, and diplomatic documents. 1 Recent publication of two main Tales of St. Maxima Greke, who significantly clarified the publication by S. A. Belokurov, made it possible to remove a number of these contradictions. 2 The proposed article will discuss several groups of facts about the stay of the learned Athonite monk in Russia, for which significant clarifications have been made. 1. Chronology of the first translated works It is necessary to abandon the statements current in historiography, according to which St. Maxim was invited to translate the Explanatory Psalter and that this was his first translation, completed a year and five months after his arrival in March 1518. Not a single source names a book that has been pre-selected for translation; it is only about a request to send a “book translator for a while.” On the contrary, from the message to Grand Duke Vasily III about the translation of the Explanatory Psalter it follows that the choice was already made in Moscow. 3 The colorful story of one of the Legends is based on the news of the message about choosing a book and examining the Greek books of the Grand Duke's library. The collection of Greek books of the Moscow “book guardian,” it says, aroused the admiration of the learned Greek, who told the Grand Duke that he had not seen such a large volume of “Greek books” even in his homeland. Pleased with these words, the Grand Duke ordered to highlight those that had not yet been translated into the “Slovenian” language. Particular attention should be paid to the news of the Legend that St. Maxim compiled a kind of inventory of the untranslated Greek books of the royal library (“make the names of the books clearly”), and Vasily III ordered them to be stored separately from others, accompanied by “scriptures.” It was in this edition (and not directly in the edition of the message to Vasily III about the translation of the Explanatory Psalter) that the news influenced the later version of the ancient library of Ivan the Terrible (in the Tales we are talking about his father). Neither the message nor the Legend specifies, however, which Greek books we are talking about - ancient or Christian. But the editor is a copyist of the Legend in the 17th century. found it necessary to add that Rev. Maxim discovered the “holy” Greek books. 4 The sources do not mention that St. Maxim began translating the Explanatory Psalter immediately upon his arrival in Moscow (March 1518). On the contrary, the records on the manuscripts indicate that the first was the translation of the Explanatory Apostle, the initial part of which (Acts) was translated by March 1519 (record on one of the earliest and most authoritative manuscripts of the RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 118, l. 150). This part occupies about a quarter of the entire monument. Further parts (the Apostolic Epistles) were translated during 1519–1520, possibly as early as 1521, although there are no manuscript records. The translation of the Explanatory Psalter, according to the records on many manuscripts, was completed in December 1522. Since the mentioned message to Vasily III says that the translation took a year and five months, we must conclude that the translation was carried out between June 1521 - December 1522, and the blessing of Metropolitan Varlaam should be attributed to the beginning of this period (approx. June 1521) 2. Reasons for the second trial and the nature of the Judgment List When studying the second period of life in Russia (after the conviction of 1525–1531), one of the most unclear questions remained about the reasons for the second trial - why it was necessary to try again an already convicted prisoner who was in captivity and deprived of the sacrament. In this regard, attention should be paid to a source that has not previously attracted the attention of researchers. In the Inventory of the Archives of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626, among the “Greek charters”, a parchment letter of 1531 was mentioned to Basil III, Protos of the Holy Mountains Anthima, with his signature and seal: “The charter on the Charity of Russia, Protos Holy Mountains Anthima Hermonk, was written in the summer of 7039, under the hand and seal of Protos Holy Mountains eromonk." 5 The charter has not been preserved, its contents have not been disclosed in the Inventory, but the coincidence of its date with the date of the second trial leaves no doubt that the fate of St. Maxima occupied some place in her. It is important to especially note two circumstances. Firstly, the coincidence of the name of the archpriest who sent the letter in 1531 with the name of the abbot of Vatopede Anfimius, who sent “brother Maxim” to Moscow in 1516 with a letter to the same Vasily III and Metropolitan Varlaam. Perhaps this is the same person. Secondly, the combination in 1515 of two requests from Moscow to the Athonite authorities: for a translator and a prayer for the birth of an heir (the brother of the Grand Duke had remained childless for ten years); the request for a translator was stated along the way. Thus, from the very beginning, the fate of the Athonite learned monk unwittingly found itself in conjunction with the history of the Moscow throne, with events in the life of the grand-ducal family. The long-awaited heir (the future Ivan the Terrible) was born in August 1530, i.e., shortly before the second trial (it probably took place in May 1531, as follows from the Judgment List of Vassian (Patrikeev). It is quite natural to assume that the letter of Archpriest Anfim of 1531 contained congratulations on the occasion of this important event and, incidentally (again incidentally), a request for endowment the fate of the learned monk and his return to his native monastery. If this assumption is correct, then the purpose of the second court is explained - to develop a response to the prosecutor's petition. However, the negative answer was predetermined in advance; the trial is based on the presumption of guilt. The basis for the forgiveness of the convicted person could be his repentance, but the Judgment List of 1531, on the contrary, begins - even before the course of the trial is outlined - with a statement that the prisoner of the Joseph Monastery did not show “repentance and correction”, he said that he was not guilty of anything; Moreover, “newest blasphemies were allegedly found that confirmed his heresy (which, logically, made liberation impossible. P. 97): “newest blasphemies have arrived against the Lord God, and against the Most Pure Mother of God, and against church statutes and laws, and so on.” 6 The structure and inconsistency of the Judgment List also becomes clear, in which the charges of 1525 and 1531 are mixed, as if mixed up, but its main tendency and purpose is clear - the selection, selection, compilation of such episodes from both courts, which confirmed, firstly, the validity of the conviction of 1525 (from the point of view of the judges), and secondly, the impossibility of release in 1531. The court list was intended to demonstrate the guilt of the convicted person, to make it obvious both in Moscow and on Mount Athos. It is no coincidence that the presentation of the trial of 1531 begins with Maxim’s accusation that he tried to “raise” the Turkish Sultan against the Russian Tsar and even allegedly expressed confidence in the latter’s defeat, although this episode undoubtedly refers to the trial of 1525. For Athos, the relations of the Sultanate with Moscow were far from indifferent. No matter how great the hope was for the liberation of the Greeks from Ottoman rule and for the help of the Russian Orthodox Tsar, the authorities of Athos could not help but realize that any clash between Turkey and Russia could also affect the position of Greek Orthodoxy. The prisoner, who allegedly provoked such a clash and was even allegedly confident in its negative outcome for the Grand Duke, was discredited in the eyes of both the Athonite and Moscow authorities even in the initial fragment of the case. Vatopedi Monastery, Holy Mount Athos Another feature of the Judgment List is also explained - the absence in it of a separate verdict of 1531. The trial of 1531 ends with the decisions of 1525, set out in the letters of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. They are only supplemented by decisions regarding those persons who were involved in 1531 (in particular, Mikhail Medovartsev and Isak Sobaki). 7 This feature is not an accident, not a consequence of the loss of documents, not the result of the inexperience of the editors and compilers. By placing the letters of 1525 after the trial of 1531, they demonstratively declared the impossibility of another decision for the Volokolamsk prisoner, the unnecessary, from their point of view, of a new sentence, and the preservation of the effectiveness of the decisions of 1525. This was the tendency of the monument, which was not so much a journalistic treatment of the original protocols, but rather a treatment that was intended to perform a kind of legal function; it was created shortly after the trial of 1531, although it cannot be excluded that in the form in which it came to us as part of the Siberian Collection, it could have been subjected to some processing when combining it with the materials of the Council of 1548–1549. The bias of the Judgment List was also manifested in the fact that it was silent about the facts of the accused’s repentance; he himself later reminded Metropolitan Daniel: “Then I answered your sacred Council that if there was some impudence in my translations, it was not because of heresy or some kind of deceit. God is my witness - by accident, either because of forgetfulness, or because of the grief that confused my thoughts at that time, or because of the excessive wine drinking into which I plunged, something was written then. But he also fell on his face three times before your sacred Council, asking for forgiveness for having ignorantly made a mistake. And your reverences - I don’t know how they consulted about me - instead of forgiveness and mercy, they gave me shackles again, and again I was imprisoned and again shut up and again surrounded by bitterness.” 8 But this is not in the Judgment List. The last words are especially important for understanding the fate of the prisoner after 1531. It turns out that he did not immediately receive “weakness”, but, on the contrary, was again put in chains and sent to prison. This is also evidenced by a short essay in which the date is indicated - the year 7040 (i.e. the period between September 1531 - August 1532). Dates do not appear often in the works of this author, as a rule, when he writes about some very important events. Thus, among the works of the first period, the date is indicated only in one of the messages to V.I. Karpov against astrology in 1524. This was the year when the general “inversion” predicted in the Venetian astrological Almanac was expected, in which they saw the prediction of a new global flood. In Russia it was distributed by Nikolai Bulev, a dated message to Karpov is dedicated to polemics with him and to the denunciation of astrological prejudices. 9 In 1531/32 he wrote an essay entitled “This word was written by a monk, shut up in prison and mourning... in the summer of 7040.” 10 By designating the date, the author, presumably, highlights such a milestone in his life as a return to literary activity, the opportunity to write (which was prohibited in 1525). Apparently, this was the only “weakening” after the trial of 1531; only to such a limited extent was the proto’s request satisfied. But the seclusion, prison and sorrow continued at least in the fall of 1531 or throughout part of 1532 (the trial, we recall, took place in May 1531). However, it remains unclear in which monastery this prison was located and where he was sent after the second trial. The only source containing the news that after the Council Vassian was sent into captivity in the Joseph Monastery, “Maxim was sent to the city of Tver, to Bishop Akakios, until his appointed years,” is “The Record of the Second Marriage of Vasily III - a tendentious monument, containing news unconfirmed by other sources. 11 In the extract, the Councils of 1525 and 1531 are mixed, the compiler distinguishes between them. It is not clear where the information about the “scheduled years” was taken from and whether it is reliable, that is, about a predetermined specific period. The statement was created later than the events described in it. 12 The year 1531/32 was an important milestone in the creative biography of St. Maxim also because at the beginning of the year 7040 he began to compile a collection of his works, designed to prove his innocence, his views and position in an undistorted form. “In the summer of 7040, when Maxim began to supply this book,” it is said at the beginning of the Preface in a number of lists of one of the varieties of this author’s collection (Solovetsky collection, according to the 1977 classification). 13 St. Maxim Grek. Fragment of the monument “Millennium of Russia”, Novgorod 3. Duration of imprisonment, date of release Two main stories about St. Maxim Greke contain conflicting information about the duration of imprisonment. One of them (in the publication of S. A. Belokurov No. 7) speaks of 22 imprisonments, while the division of the phrase and the placement of punctuation marks are made as if we are talking about the Tver imprisonment. The date of liberation becomes 1553, which is not confirmed by other sources. Another (in the publication of S. A. Belokurov No. 6) calls 30 years of general imprisonment, so it turns out that he remained in captivity until 1555, almost until his death, which is contradicted by the words of the same Legend about the role of the Trinity abbot Artemy in his liberation, which could only happen in 1551. A new publication of both Legends, made taking into account manuscripts unknown to Belokurov, including and earlier ones, allowed these contradictions to be removed or explained. The greatest interest of researchers was caused by the first Legend (i.e. No. 7 in Belokurov, No. III in the 2006 edition). 14 Belokurov, being an opponent of the version about the ancient library of Grozny, considered it a late work (within the first third of the 17th century) and found the news about the “countless multitude of Greek books” of the royal book guardian unreliable. A.I. Sobolevsky (a supporter of the version), on the contrary, believed that it was written shortly after the death of St. Maxima. I. Denisov tried to determine the author, suggesting that he was Kurbsky, who wrote the Legend before fleeing to Lithuania, i.e., before 1564. The assumption of authorship was rightly rejected by V.V. Kalugin, but following A.I. Sobolevsky, the researcher also wrote about its early origin. 15 Belokurov identified two editions of the Legend - “detailed” and “abbreviated”, but published only one - according to the list of the Long (detailed) one, and presented the Short one in font (the texts of the lengthy edition that are absent in the short edition are typed in letters). This made it difficult to adequately perceive the Brief, and she remained practically out of the field of view of researchers. Meanwhile, it contains significant differences from the Extensive one, which are important for understanding a number of key facts. It cannot be ruled out that it could have preceded the Extensive one. In the 2006 edition, both editions were self-published. The lengthy edition is presented by a list of the original version of this edition in the manuscript of the Nizhny Novgorod Library of the late 16th century, which indisputably proves that the edition was created no later than this time, more precisely, ca. 1587 16 Trinity (more precisely, Trinity-Solovetsky) view of the Long Edition is given in different readings according to the list of the Trinity collected works of St. Maxim the Greek (RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 200 r., l. 17–18 vol.) and according to a manuscript from the mid-17th century associated with the activities of the famous Solovetsky scribe Sergius Shelonin (RSL, Sol. 741/851, l. 234–240 vol.). The Trinity origin of this species is evidenced by the addition made to it, taken from the Trinity manuscript type MDA 153 (see Note 18). The short edition is currently known in the same three lists that Belokurov used, and was published from the manuscript of the Russian National Library, Sol. 752/862, l. 3–7, (first third of the 17th century). 17 It was brought to the Solovetsky Monastery from Trinity by Elder Joseph Sorotsky in 1634. Perhaps he also brought a lengthy edition; in another manuscript of Sergius Shelonin, already mentioned Sol. 741/851, both editions are placed: at the end, on pp. 234–240 vol. – Extensive (Trinity view), and at the beginning – Short, i.e. the same as in Sol. 752/862. The initial view of the Long Edition has a laconic and completely neutral title: “The Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain of the Vatopedi Monastery,” but in the Trinity form it is widespread, emphasizing the theme of suffering for the truth: “The Legend of Maxim the Philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mount Athos of the most glorious monastery of Vatopedi, who suffered here for the duration of the summer.” for the truth." According to one of the lists of the Trinity type, the text was published by Belokurov. In the Brief Edition, the title is as neutral as in the Initial View of the Extensive, but at the same time it also reveals a connection with the Trinity View: “The Legend of Maxim the Philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mount Athos of the glorious monastery of Vatopedi, of its venerable Annunciation, and how he came to Moscow.” The name in the Brief Edition, as we see, simultaneously reveals two lines of connections - both with the neutral name of the Initial View of the Extensive (in meaning) and with its Trinity View (in form). The theme of suffering is not only not emphasized in the title of the Brief, but is completely absent; and the same feature will appear in the content - minimizing the persecution and troubles of the saint. Maxima. This Legend (we will call it, according to its original form, “The Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain”) is most important in the reconstruction of the biography, especially of the second period, gives its main outline; although the information is small in volume, it appears as the trunk or skeleton of biographical information, especially in the final part. In the Long Edition, the following units of information can be identified, conditionally numbered for the convenience of further comparisons. [1] The acquisition by Moscow Grand Duke Vasily III of “countless numbers of Greek books” (“in some chambers”). [2] Prayer to the Patriarch of Constantinople for a translator. [3] Search for a translator and send him to Moscow. [4] Brief information about the translator. [5] An honorary reception for the translator in Moscow and his inspection of the “royal bookkeeper.” [6] Estimation of Rev. Maxim of Greek books stored in Moscow, and the story of the burning of Greek books by the Latins after the fall of the Reigning City. [7] Examination of books by a translator and selection (on behalf of the Grand Duke) of those that have not been translated into “Slovenian”, and compiling a list of them (a kind of inventory): “make the names of those books clearly”; the order of the Grand Duke for their special storage, accompanied by an inventory (“to take care of their individuals and write down their writings”). [8] The order of Vasily III to translate the Explanatory Psalter, a description of the translation process. [9] Conciliar testimony of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, its approval. [10] The honor given to the translator, and his role as a “prayer book” to the Orthodox sovereign for the “royal synclites” who have fallen into sin. [11] Nine years of work translating and correcting books. [12] Slander, envy and false testimony of “unbrotherly lovers” who accused St. Maxim of heresy and high treason (“the enemy of the God-protected land of Rustea”). [13] A laconic message about the conviction and 22 years of imprisonment. The 2006 publication (based on the Brief Edition) has a different arrangement of punctuation marks than in Belokurov’s edition, which will be argued further. [14] “Weakened” in Tver from the Tver Bishop Akaki with the blessing of Metropolitan Joasaph (1539–1542). [15] Blessing for communion from Metropolitan Macarius. [16] Writing a Confession of Faith and a number of “accusatory words”, “instructive” essays, etc. [17] Transfer from Tver to Trinity on behalf of Tsar Ivan IV (date not specified). [19] Repose in 7064 (1555/56). [20] The purpose of writing the Legend. Tverskoy Otroch Monastery (place of imprisonment of St. Maxim), photo con. XIX century The legend in most of its volume (within pages 5–8 of the main list in the 2006 publication, paragraphs 1–10) is devoted primarily to the history of the arrival of St. Petersburg in Rus'. Maxim and his translations, primarily the Explanatory Psalter, and is based on information from the letter to Basil III, but it is colored by a number of details, either undoubtedly fictitious or unverifiable. In this part, the Long and Short editions almost completely coincide (with a small number of exceptions). The second part is significantly smaller in volume (sheets 9–10 of the manuscript, paragraphs 11–19); it is dedicated to the most difficult period of life, after conviction. The source was the writings of the Venerable himself. Maximus the Greek, first of all the Confession of Faith, and also, apparently, the oral tradition, still fresh at the end of the 16th century. There are no more fictitious details here. Despite its brevity, this part is the most valuable for the biography, because it contains news not reflected in other sources, among them about the duration of imprisonment. This news must be carefully analyzed from the point of view of its reliability. In this part there are much more significant differences between the Long and Short editions, with the Short edition providing more accurate information. In the first part of the Legend, paragraph 2 is fictitious - about sending a request for a translator not to Athos (which is confirmed by the official material), but to a higher authority - to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Isn't this innovation of the Legend one of the arguments (albeit indirect) for dating it to the period of the 80s? XVI century, when preparations were underway for the establishment of the patriarchate, when the fate of the learned Athonite monk, the vicissitudes of his life in Moscow acquired special significance, when there was a rise in interest in his work. The fiction turned out to be very attractive, and another Legend (No. 6 in Belokurov, No. V in the 2006 edition) sends a request for a translator not to the patriarch, but to the Turkish Sultan. Here another ideological line emerged - a statement of the sultans’ benevolent attitude towards Orthodoxy. In paragraph 3, the story about the search for a translator on behalf of the patriarch and the names of the places where they were looking for him are unreliable. The story about the two candidates has a real basis - a message about a message to Vasily III that it was originally intended to send another person to Moscow - a certain Savva, but due to his illness and refusal, Maxim was sent to Moscow. But the story is modified, and the name of the second candidate is distorted in the Long version (“Danil”), but correctly conveyed in the Short version (“Sava”); in one of the lists of Prostannya, however, an edit was made, the name “Danil” was replaced by “Save”. In paragraph 4, similarities are revealed between the Initial version of the Long Edition and the short edition (their compilers did not know the hero’s place of birth and the names of his parents). This observation has important textual significance. It (along with others) may indicate that both editions ascend to the archetype independently. But its structure, volume, and the degree of closeness of each edition to it is still difficult to determine. Information about parents and place of birth is included in the Trinity View of the Long Edition based on the same type of entry as in the RSL manuscript, f. 173, MDA. Fund. 153.18 In paragraph 6, of particular interest is the contrast between the preservation in Moscow of “countless numbers of Greek books and the burning of Greek books taken from Constantinople by the Latins, which requires special analysis. In paragraph 7, as already mentioned, there are instructions for drawing up prp. Maximus of some inventory of Greek books by the royal book guardian; there is no such message either in the message to Vasily III or in other sources, but this may turn out to be important in the study of the version about the ancient library of the Moscow kings. In the Brief Edition the meaning of the news is weakened, but there is a hint of some kind of inventory; the order of Vasily III about Greek books is mentioned: “to take special care of them and put down the writings.” In paragraph 8, we note the initially distorted reading of the Long Edition; we note the initially distorted reading of the Long Edition in the news about the duration of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter (“for a year”). The Brief states: “for a year and six months,” which is very close to the source - the message to Vasily III (a year and five months). Grand Duke of Moscow Sovereign of All Rus' Vasily III Ioannovich It is not known on what sources the information in paragraph 9 about the conciliar testimony of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter is based. It is also important because another Legend is connected with it (No. 1 in Belokurov, No. IV in the 2006 publication) by Isaiah Kamenchanin (1591) about the conciliar testimony of the “holy book of Maximov,” but this already happens with the participation of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Macarius. From the context it is obvious that we are talking about the Psalter (without interpretations), translated by St. Maxim for Nil Kurlyatev in 1552, since the text of Isaiah is the Preface to the list of Psalms of the 17th century. This similarity indicates some kind of connection in origin between different Tales. Preface - The Tale of Isaiah, in turn, reveals a connection with the Tale published by Belokurov (No. 6) and in the 2006 edition (No. V), its title “The Tale is known about the coming of Maxim the Greek to Rus' and how he endured until his death.” The problem requires further research. The title reveals a connection both with the Trinity view of the Long version of the text No. III (“like and suffered” - “how you endured”) and with the Short version (“how you came to Moscow” - “about coming to Russia”). From point 10, much more significant differences between the editions begin. Paragraph 10 is missing from the Brief Revision, although this does not yet have any serious significance. But the absence of paragraph 12 in the Brief helps to better understand the intent and, perhaps, even some problems of the origin of both editions. The fact is that paragraph 12 of the Long Edition is devoted to the reasons and circumstances of the conviction of the Athonite monk, while mitigating the facts of his conviction. These reasons are some “non-brotherly lovers” who “slandered him to the Orthodox sovereign as a heretic and a deceiver, and an enemy of the God-protected land of Rustea”; others confirmed the slander by false testimony. This information is based on the Confession of Faith of St. Maxima. But the judges are named in it, the Confession is addressed to those who condemned him. In the Legend, the subject of condemnation is not indicated; in the next, 14th paragraph, it is said in an indefinite form: “and thus condemn the innocent to imprisonment.” The lack of information about cathedral courts and proceedings suggests the official origin of the Legend, that the goal of the compilers was to smooth out the position of ecclesiastical and secular authorities. This same intention is even more clearly manifested in the Brief Edition, where paragraph 12, as already mentioned, is completely absent, and all information about such a tragic event of life and fate is reduced to one line (“how they suffered in captivity here”), i.e. there is not even the term “condemned.” The absence of the 12th paragraph in the Brief Edition highlights even more clearly than in the Long Edition the intention of the compilers to minimize information about the persecution of St. Maxim in Russia, the drafters limited themselves to stating the fact of imprisonment and its duration. This observation indisputably testifies against I. Denisov’s hypothesis about the authorship of Kurbsky, who did not miss an opportunity to make accusations against Ivan IV and the Moscow authorities. Following the above words about suffering in captivity, in both editions there are the words “11 years”, indicating the duration of imprisonment. In the publication of the Long Edition, Belokurov combined them with the following phrase (paragraph 14, describing the Tver period), resulting in an incorrect statement about 22 years of Tver imprisonment. The short version shows beyond doubt that they refer to the preceding phrase and mean 22 years of total imprisonment. For clarity, we present parallel fragments of both editions. A short summary of the content is typed in space; plus (†) and minus (-) signs indicate the absence or presence of a fragment in one of the editions; Fragments of the Brief Edition that are missing in the Long Edition are underlined. And so, for nine years, translating books from Greek into Slovenian, being discouraged by hard work, and correcting the ancient translations, because in many books some speeches are unreasonable... the books were corrupted and uncorrected for many years, but the rest will sufficiently describe it in the book, “Envy, slander and false witness of non-brotherly lovers” And so someone who is innocent of imprisonment is condemned, and is imprisoned for 22 years How much I suffered here in captivity for 22 years. In the city of Tver in the bishopric... I was weakened by the bishop of Tver Akaki with the blessing of the Right Reverend Jasaph Metropolitan Blessing of Metropolitan Macarius for Communion And she wrote the Confession... and accusatory words against Jews and Greeks, in Latin and against Hagarians and many other words, some were instructive, some were about answers to questions, others were about unknown things, but left a lot of writings And for this reason I wrote the Confession and other words of my book. Transfer from Tver to Trinity by order of Grand Duke Ivan It is quite obvious that in the Brief Edition the words “about 22 years old” in paragraph 13 syntactically refer not to the subsequent phrase, but to the preceding one with the predicate “after suffering” and the adverb “here”, which is a general designation of the place where his labors were carried out, they speak of the total duration of imprisonment. And the next phrase (point 14, “in the city of Tver in the bishopric”) is already a new unit of information, it has its own independent predicate “uluchi” (“I will weaken”); the main event of the next, Tver period of life is succinctly stated. It is worth paying attention to a characteristic clarification that corrects the time of the onset of “weakness” by the years of the leadership of the metropolitan see by Joasaph and moving it away from 1531. Consequently, although the prisoner received the opportunity to write after 1531, this was not yet a complete “weakness”; it came only under Metropolitan Joasaph. Indirect confirmation is the fate of Isaac the Dog, who was convicted in 1531, but Metropolitan Joasaph not only freed him, but elevated him and even made him archimandrite of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. 19 It is important in paragraph 13 to indicate the source from which the information about the 22 years of imprisonment was taken: the “book” of the Venerable himself. Maxima. In the Prostannaya it is not mentioned, however, in the absence of the term “book”, its contents and the themes of the works he created are described more fully. In both editions, one of them is mentioned - the Confession of Faith. The works named in the Extensive Works coincide with the contours of the collection, the corpus, the compilation of which he began immediately after he had the opportunity to return to literary activity. This lifetime collection of authors opens with a Confession of Faith; the original core of this collection contained 12 chapters, and the final chapters (11 and 12) were “Advisory Words” about the correction of Russian books. It is on them that information about faulty books and their correction is based. Maxim in paragraph 11, from which the indication of the number of years of imprisonment is also taken. One of these Words names the number of years during which the author is “obsessed with cruelty,” that is, the duration of imprisonment and deprivation of the sacrament, but in different lists the number of years is different, since the author sent these Words to different persons at different times, each time indicating a new number. The numbers range from 15 to 20, i.e., within those dates, that period of time (1540–1545), during which the author made particularly active attempts to prove his innocence, the absence of “heretical vice” and the legality of the corrections he made to the books. 20 It must be assumed that the compiler of the Legend had a list in which the maximum number of years was named - 22. “1547” as the date of liberation is quite probable, considering that shortly before it, the Patriarchs, Joachim of Alexandria (April 4, 1545) and Dionysius II of Constantinople (June 1546), sent letters to Ivan IV asking for relief from the fate of the Athos prisoner g.). 21 It is likely that the liberation occurred in connection with the celebrations of the royal wedding of Ivan IV (January 16, 1547) and his wedding (February 3, 1547). 22 As already noted, the fate of St. From the very beginning, Maxima found herself connected with the fate of the Moscow dynasty, with the life and concerns of the grand ducal family, which were also events in state life. The royal wedding in January 1547 was the apotheosis in the long struggle for the throne, which began in the 90s. XV century, and the question of the heir to the throne has always been acute, taking on different forms. Mercy towards the condemned man was both natural and appropriate: after all, at one time, the request of Ivan the Terrible’s father to pray for the gift of an heir, which Ivan Vasilyevich turned out to be, was accompanied by a request for a translator, which turned out to be the Venerable. Maxim. What was still considered impossible in 1531 became possible in 1547. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Photo – O. Salomakin 4. On the date of transfer to Trinity and the relationship between the Tver and Trinity periods In paragraph 17, the author does not report the date of transfer to Trinity, limiting himself to the information that he was “expelled” from Tver to Trinity at the behest of Ivan IV. About the role of the Trinity abbot Artemy in the fate of St. Maxima reports another Legend (No. V in the 2006 publication); therefore, it connects the transition with 1551. But at the same time, the Moscow period preceding it is highlighted: first, “according to the prayer words” of Abbot Artemy, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich commands Maxim “with honor to take to Moscow and be in his weakness,” nothing is said about the transition to Trinity, but his death in this monastery is reported. The same term “weakened” is used here as in the previous Legend, but it is already associated with other persons and with a later period (Artemy was abbot in 1551). The statement of the previous Legend about the “weakness” under Metropolitan Joasaph seems more reliable. This is supported by the Metropolitan’s similar action towards another convict, Isaac the Dog, and another circumstance, however, indirect. In “The Tale of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain” the translation to the Trinity is mentioned in paragraph 17, and the author writes about the content of the “book of Maxim the Greek” and the composition of the main core of the author’s collected works in the previous paragraph 16, from which it follows that he proceeds from the fact that the book (its main part) was created in Tver. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that one of the manuscripts of this author’s collection (RSL, f. 173, MDA 42) has a record of ownership by Metropolitan Joasaph and testifies to his interest in the work of this author. It cannot be ruled out that he, being a metropolitan and, of course, patronizing the Tver prisoner, supported his plan to combine the main works (including “non-covetous” ones) in a single body, and acquired for himself a book in which this plan was embodied. The significance of “The Tale of Maxim the Monk of Svyatogorsk” is, first of all, that it creates the main outline for reconstructing the biography after 1931. It shows a tendency to soften, weaken the role of secular and church authorities in condemning the learned monk, which indicates those circles (official or semi-official) with which his origin is connected. authorities in condemning the learned monk, which indicates those circles (official or semi-official) with which the origin of the text is associated. As for the authorship of “The Tale of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain,” one of Denisov’s arguments was the presence both in it (point 6) and in one of Kurbsky’s works of 23 stories about the burning of Greek books by the Latins after the fall of Constantinople. However, the explanation of the similarity of texts by their belonging to the same author (the main methodological technique of Denisov) is not the only possible one. Other explanations can be offered. One of them (simpler, but less probable) is that both Kurbsky and the author of the Legend independently convey the oral story of Pri himself. Maxim, while Kurbsky directly refers to it (heard it in a personal meeting), and the author of the Legend could have received it from some other participant in these conversations (either directly or through a chain of transmissions). Another explanation is based on the fact that the proximity of the two texts can be included in a number of facts indicating literary contacts in the 80s and 90s. XVI century between Moscow circles close to the official church authorities, to the Chudov Monastery, and the educational circles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, their publishing activities, which, in turn, were associated with the Milyanovichi circle of Kurbsky (its activities are covered in the book by V.V. Kalugin). Thus, the collection of Chudov origins (GIM. Chud. 236) includes Johann Spangsberg’s essay “On the Syllogism,” published in 1586 at the Mamonich printing house in Vilna, translated either by Kurbsky or one of the members of his circle. 24 Collection of Miracles. 236 dates back to the 90s. XVI century (the lower limit is determined by the mention of the Patriarch in the “Ladder of Powers”, the upper limit is determined by the fact that the manuscript is a contribution of 1600 to the Miracle Monastery of Archimandrite Paphnutius). In the collected works of St. Maximus the Greek at the end of the 16th century. (Synodical and as part of the manuscript of the Paris National Library Slav. 123) included another translation, published in the same printing house in 1585, namely the “Dialogue”, or “Debate”, of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennady Scholarius with Amurat, i.e. Sultan Mehmed P. The preface to the translation was written by Kurbsky, it contains a high assessment of personality and creativity St. Maxim, he is called the “new confessor.” The publication of “Dialogue” was dedicated to Ostafy Volovich, sub-chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and had an image of his coat of arms. 25 Isaiah Kamenchanin went to Moscow in 1561 on behalf of Ostafy Volovich, who was apparently his patron, so in Isaiah one can assume one of the conductors of these literary contacts and join Kalugin’s opinion (based on a different set of facts): “The connection between Kurbsky and Isaiah Kamenchanin, separated by a huge distance, ceases to be incredible and inexplicable.” 26 Despite the apparent connection of the revealed facts with the hypothesis of Kurbsky’s authorship, one should still conclude that this connection is just apparent. We can talk about literary contacts, but it is premature to make any judgments about the author. It cannot be ruled out that there could be more than one author, there could be several of them; the question remains open for now. Commentary in line with history This man, who combined the brilliant talent of a theologian, spiritual writer and publicist with a genuine spiritual and ascetic feat, became, undoubtedly, one of the most significant figures in the spiritual life of Rus' in the first half of the 16th century. Maxim the Greek was born in Epirus, in the city of Arta, around 1470–1475, into a pious and, in all likelihood, well-born family and quite rich despite Turkish enslavement. His secular name is Michael Trivolis. Wanting to get a good education, Mikhail went to Italy, since in Greece, after its capture by the Turks, serious study of science was no longer possible. In Italy at that time there was already a large Greek diaspora, and Michael followed a well-trodden path. He arrived in Italy in the early 1490s. Michael attended lectures at many Italian universities, but he studied for the longest time at the famous University of Padua, where there were then many Greek professors from among the emigrants who came to Italy after the death of Byzantium. Here, during the Renaissance, interest in ancient Greek culture, especially in ancient philosophy and literature, increased incredibly. In Italy, Mikhail communicates closely with Renaissance humanists. The new trends probably fascinated him at first. Then from Venice, where there was a large colony of Greeks, Michael comes to Florence, which at the end of the 15th century. was the largest center of Renaissance culture. Mikhail Trivolis found himself in the thick of Italian cultural life. However, significant changes occurred in Florence during Michael's stay there. The famous preacher, the Dominican monk Girolamo Savonarola, who sharply criticized the Medici family that ruled Florence, became very popular there. Fra Girolamo was also very critical of the achievements of Renaissance culture, which, in his opinion, corrupted morals and contributed to the de-churchization of Italian society. He advocated a morally healthy lifestyle. Savonarola also attacked the papacy and the vices of the contemporary Catholic Church in his sermons. Girolamo Savonarola played a huge role in the life of Mikhail Trivolis. With his sermons, he literally turned the life of a young Greek who had previously become so fascinated by the culture of the Renaissance upside down. Michael, under the influence of Savonarola, was able to discern anti-Christian tendencies in her and reconsidered his attitude towards the Italian Renaissance. Moreover, this was facilitated by the seeds of faith and piety sown in his soul by his Orthodox parents. Savonarola had a tremendous influence on the future Maxim the Greek. Subsequently, already being an Orthodox monk, Rev. Maximus remembered Savonarola with great love, wrote about him and compared him with the ancient ascetics, saying that he was “as one from the ancients, only as a Latin in faith.” In Florence, where Savonarola managed to establish his authority for some time, he led the townspeople to the deepest repentance. Fra Girolamo, although he was a Catholic, turned to European sovereigns with a proposal to convene an Ecumenical Council in order to depose the most immoral pope in the history of the Roman Church - Alexander VI - and elect a new one. That is, Savonarola placed the Council above the pope, rejecting the understanding of papal primacy in the Church distorted by Catholicism. In this respect, his beliefs were close to Orthodox ecclesiology. Fra Girolamo tried, in the face of advancing secularism, to somehow strengthen the spiritual life of Florence. But he did not succeed for long. The temptations of worldly culture and a comfortable life took their toll, and the fear of reprisals from papal Rome completed the process of the Florentines’ renunciation of their yesterday’s spiritual leader. By the verdict of the Florentine court, Savonarola was executed. The impression that Savonarola's sermons had on Michael Trivolis was so great that the young Greek became a Dominican monk in the Florentine monastery of San Marco, of which Savonarola had previously been prior. Trivolis stayed in this monastery for 2 years. But after the execution of Savonarola, spiritual life in this Catholic monastery freezes. Meanwhile, Michael’s increased religiosity forced him to further spiritual search. As a result, he leaves Italy and returns to Greece. The Western Catholic world could not satisfy Michael’s spiritual needs, which, however, was quite natural for a man who, by his origin, belonged entirely to the Byzantine spiritual tradition. Mikhail eventually returned to her, having made such a complex roundabout journey, which, however, enriched him with enormous experience and knowledge. Michael Trivolis returned to the fold of the Orthodox Church. From now on, he sees his life ideal in Orthodox monasticism. Around 1505, he appears on Mount Athos and takes monastic vows at the Vatopedi Annunciation Monastery. In monasticism he was named Maxim - in honor of the Venerable Maxim the Confessor, and the life of Maxim the Greek would later turn out to be strikingly similar to the life feat of this saint, full of struggle and suffering. The young tonsure of Vatopeda, famous for the learning of his monks, intended to devote his entire life to monastic feat and the study of the patristic heritage. For 10 years, Maxim the Greek stayed on Mount Athos and continued to pursue his education here. Maxim acquired colossal learning, and amazingly, the spiritual knowledge that he was able to acquire was determined by God's Providence to be sent to Rus', which desperately needed it in this difficult time of the extinction of Orthodox learning. In 1515, Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich and Metropolitan Varlaam of Moscow and All Rus' turned to Athos with a request to send the learned monk Savva to Moscow in order to translate the Explanatory Psalter from Greek from the sovereign library. But Savva was already old and sick. Instead, Maxim goes to distant Russia. In 1518 he arrived in Moscow, not for long, as it seemed to him then. But by the will of God he was destined to remain in Russia forever. Maxim the Greek very quickly attracted the attention of those Russian people who sought enlightenment and were interested in theological issues. A whole circle of book lovers forms around him. As already mentioned, the first work that was entrusted to him in Moscow was the translation of the Explanatory Psalter. While working on it, Maxim encountered great difficulties: the level of education in Moscow at that time was so low that there was not a single person here who knew Greek. At the same time, Maxim, of course, did not know the Slavic language. Therefore, Maxim translated from Greek into Latin, and then Russian interpreters - from Latin into Russian: there were translators from Latin in Moscow, because constant foreign policy ties were maintained with the Western world, where Latin was the official diplomatic and clerical language. The task that Maxim the Greek received - the translation of the Explanatory Psalter - may have been due to the fact that echoes of the heresy of the “Judaizers” were still felt in Rus'. As already mentioned, the “Judaizers” used a false psalter, and it was necessary to have at hand an interpretation of the real Psalter that would allow them to polemicize with heretics, refuting false Jewish texts and interpretations of the psalms. Rev. Maxim the Greek completed this task in a year and five months and expected that after that he would be released back to Athos. Moreover, he also translated the Commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles for Metropolitan Varlaam. But they were in no hurry to let the Greek scientist leave Moscow. He began to be given various new assignments one after another. In particular, at this time in Moscow they realized the need to eliminate the diversity that took place in liturgical books. Even then, long before Nikon, it was decided to edit the texts according to Greek models, although this approach was very far from ideal. Rev. Maxim, who by this time had already mastered the Slavic language quite well, corrected the Tsvetnaya Triodion, Book of Hours, Gospel and Apostle. But to his misfortune, he declared that other liturgical books also contained many errors, and therefore they also needed to be corrected. This became the reason to again detain the Greek scientist in Moscow and load him with new work. Maxim the Greek, for all his attraction to the contemplative life, was obviously a very lively and sociable person. Having made extensive acquaintances among the monastics, clergy and laity of the Russian Church, he very soon realized that there were two currents here: the non-acquisitive and the Josephites, who by this time had already become fairly politicized and acquired a certain shade of partisanship. Maxim, in his views, was close to the non-covetous: on Athos at that time, due to the spread of monastic asceticism, ideals close to the non-covetous dominated, from which the saint largely drew them. Nil Sorsky. Therefore, Maxim developed a very warm and close relationship with the non-covetous Metropolitan Varlaam. Barlaam’s successor, Daniel, was, on the contrary, a Josephite. So in the relationship between him and Maxim there was almost from the very beginning a contradiction. In addition, not without the influence of a passionate but shallow advocate of non-covetousness - the monastic prince Vassian Patrikeev - the temperamental Greek found himself involved in the very thick of disputes about church land ownership and even wrote a treatise justifying non-covetousness. However, Maxim was still quite poorly versed in the peculiarities of the church life of Rus', and many of his views were often based on the Athonite experience, which, for all its spiritual significance, was far from Moscow realities. At the same time, Maxim condemned the autocephaly of the Russian Church, which he considered uncanonical. Here Greek patriotism (not without an admixture of a traditionally disdainful attitude towards the “barbarians”) took precedence in him over a common sense understanding of the reasons that led the Russian Church to a break with Constantinople. All these factors from the very beginning, as it were, programmed the future conflict between the Rev. Maxim and Metropolitan Daniel. However, at first Daniil treated Maxim well. But the Metropolitan commissioned the Greek to translate the “History of the Church” of Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus into Russian. Alien, like a true ascetic monk, to all diplomacy and flattery, Maxim refused to translate this book. He answered Daniel that in Theodorite’s “History” various heretical teachings are set out in great detail, and for Russian people, inexperienced in theological subtleties, this would be harmful. Moreover, Rus' has just “overcome” the heresy of the “Judaizers.” The Metropolitan, of course, considered himself offended by the refusal of a simple monk, not even ordained. At the same time, Maxim gave reason to turn the sovereign himself against himself: drawn into dangerous conversations by Vassian Patrikeev, Maxim spoke disapprovingly of the Grand Duke’s proposed divorce from Solomonia Saburova. And in general, in Moscow, already accustomed to cautiously listening to the mood of the sovereign-autocrat, Maxim behaved extremely imprudently. In his monastic simplicity, feeling like a foreigner in Rus' and not considering himself a subject of the Grand Duke, he allowed himself, for example, such provocative things by Moscow standards as communication with the Turkish ambassador Skinder, also a Greek by birth. Having aroused the hatred of the Metropolitan, Maxim the Greek at the same time brought upon himself the suspicions of Grand Duke Vasily, to whom Daniel did not fail to describe the learned monk as a freethinker and a spy. In addition, in the circle of Maxim’s constant interlocutors there were many people who were opposed to the sovereign. Among these oppositionists, a particularly prominent figure was the boyar Bersen-Beklemishev, who openly condemned the new Moscow order. In particular, Bersen used to say: “We know from experienced people that the land that changes its customs does not last long.” Bersen and other oppositionists accused Grand Duchess Sophia, the mother of Vasily III, and those Greeks from Italy who arrived in Moscow with her, of introducing Western customs in Moscow. Western influence came to Rus' through Lithuania, including through the Glinsky princes who came from there, from whose family Grand Duke Vasily intended to take his second wife, Elena. It is known, for example, that Vasily III, to please Elena Glinskaya, began to shave his beard in European fashion. But the nature of the relationship between the Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' with his boyars was now such that Bersen-Beklemishev ended up very soon ending his life on the chopping block. It was difficult to get to Vassian Patrikeev immediately: he was a close relative of the sovereign. But Maxim the Greek, with the consent of Vasily III, irritated that some monk dared to condemn the sovereign’s divorce and remarriage, was put on trial. After Metropolitan Daniel, not disdaining denunciations and slander, collected “compromising evidence” against Maxim, in 1525 the first trial was carried out against the Greek. The fact that the intellectual and theological circle of Maxim the Greek included persons known for their oppositional sentiments was inflated to incredible proportions in slanderous denunciations. It was alleged that Maxim allegedly called the sovereign “persecutor and tormentor”, “wicked”, etc. It became known that in a conversation with another Moscow Greek - Novospassk Archimandrite Savva - Maxim allowed himself to doubt the success of the Russians’ struggle with the Kazan Tatars (which, however, is quite understandable, since the Greeks, who had just been defeated by the Turks, at that time looked with pessimism to attempts to repel the onslaught of Muslims and underestimated the real strength and importance of the Russian state). Of course, Maxim also remembered his communication with the Turkish ambassador, the Greek Skinder. With the help of denunciations, the learned monk was portrayed as a Turkish spy, declaring that he, together with Savva, sent “a report to the Turkish pashas and the Sultan, raising him against the sovereign.” You can’t spoil porridge with oil, so Metropolitan Daniel is against Rev. Maxim simultaneously put forward, in addition to political ones, many accusations of an ecclesiastical nature. Most of them were so far-fetched that through the numerous indictments, only one thing was clearly visible - the metropolitan’s personal hatred of the Greek monk. Even just bringing Maxim to trial, Daniel could not resist and uttered an absolutely wonderful phrase, revealing the entire vile nature of his revenge on the Greek: “Your sins have come to you, O accursed one, but about him you refused to tell me the sacred book of blessed Theodoret.” Daniel knew that the most likely way to destroy a person was by accusing him of heresy - a weapon at that time that was universal and reliable. In relation to Maxim, he did exactly that. There was something to cling to: in the first translations of Maxim the Greek (in particular, in his Colored Triodion), errors were found that were associated solely with the fact that Maxim initially did not know the Slavic language well. Based on the errors found, he was charged with allegedly teaching that Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father is “passing and past.” Of course, there was nothing of the kind - it’s just that Maxim, who had little understanding of the intricacies of the tense forms of the Slavic verb, used an unsuccessful literal equivalent of the Greek word. As a result, Maximus’s philological errors were cunningly used by Daniel as a pretext to accuse him of heresy. Although everyone around, of course, understood that there was no heresy in Maxim’s views, nevertheless, no one dared to object to the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke. However, Daniel needed to ensure the destruction of Maxim, so the vengeful metropolitan did not stop at accusations of heresy. In addition to everything, Maxim was also accused of witchcraft. “...Using Hellenic magic tricks, you wrote in vodka on your palms and spread your hands against the Grand Duke, and also against many others, acting as a sorcerer.” This accusation of using magic was, of course, the most absurd, but at the same time almost certainly fatal - after this, the defendant could most likely only face a fire. However, the absurdity of these accusations against Rev. Maxim the Greek, their obvious incongruity with his entire spiritual and moral character, was so obvious that the Council, recognizing him as a heretic and political criminal, nevertheless did not dare to condemn the Greek to execution as a warlock. It was decided to limit himself to excommunication and life imprisonment, although this was not only injustice, but also great cruelty towards the obviously innocent monk. It’s sad, but by this time Rus' is beginning to get used to such things. The tragic fate of Maxim showed that in Rus' under Vasily III the adequate Orthodox idea of ​​conciliarity was beginning to disappear. Councils are formally convened, but in reality they, as in the case of Maxim the Greek, are already pure fiction, obediently stamping out those decisions that are pleasing to the sovereign and the metropolitan subservient to him. Having condemned Maxim so cruelly, Daniel, however, did not completely quench his thirst for revenge. Probably wanting to implement the conciliar condemnation as fully and harshly as possible and in the future to always have a convenient reason for new complaints against Maxim, the Metropolitan designated his Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery as the place of imprisonment of the learned monk. There, Maxim the Greek endured, as he later wrote, “filth and smoke and famine,” while in a monastery prison in the most difficult conditions. Maxim’s accomplice, Archimandrite Savva, was also imprisoned nearby, in the Volokolamsk Resurrection Monastery. Maxim spent almost 7 years in his first captivity. And in 1531, a new cathedral trial took place, to which Maxim the Greek was initially brought as a witness in the case of the monastic prince Vassian Patrikeev. The Grand Duke finally handed over his former favorite and relative to the Metropolitan for reprisal. Vassian, who was the ideological and personal enemy of Daniel, however, had previously avoided his revenge due to the favor that Vasily III showed him in a kindred way. But as soon as Vassian allowed himself disapproving comments about the sovereign’s divorce and second marriage, Patrikeev instantly lost support from the monarch. Vassian Patrikeev (born around 1470, died after 1531) was a very noble boyar from a princely family, who traced his descent from Gediminas and was related to the ruling Moscow dynasty. Patrikeev, who supported the grandson of John III, Dimitri Ioannovich, was forcibly tonsured in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery after Dimitri was imprisoned, and the son of Sophia Paleologus Vasily was declared heir to the throne. Vassian completely came to terms with his new mode of being, although, as contemporaries argued, even in monasticism he was distinguished by completely boyar behavior traits. Ivan the Terrible later ironically noted that the “non-covetous” Patrikeev ate on silver and drank malvasia. But theoretically he was a supporter of the teachings of St. Nil Sorsky and other non-covetous people, although this was most likely due to purely political motives. The humble old hesychast Nil himself was never involved in politics. But his followers, the non-acquisitive people of later times, actively became involved in the political struggle and stood in opposition to the line of the already equally politicized Josephites. The Emperor at first favored non-covetous people, not without the distant thought of using their views as an ideological platform for the much-desired secularization of church lands. However, the Grand Duke soon changed his sympathies. Among the ideologists of non-acquisitiveness there were many who supported the old appanage order. The Josephites, on the contrary, were adherents of the autocratic line, sometimes to the point of being ready to subordinate the Church to the authority of the sovereign, as Daniel clearly demonstrated. Therefore, Basil eventually leaned towards the Josephites. Prince-monk Vassian, however, maintained good relations with the Grand Duke for a long time, being his relative, and at the same time continued to oppose Metropolitan Daniel and church land ownership. But ultimately Vassian also fell. Daniel finally successfully brought him to trial. The Metropolitan did not come up with a new scenario for condemning the monastic prince, but used a method that had already been tested on Maxim and fully justified itself - Vassian was also accused of heresy, witchcraft and crimes of a political nature. True, in fairness, it should be noted that serious misconceptions actually emerged in Vassian’s works. Having accused Vassian, they brought Maxim the Greek to trial as a witness. And by attracting, at the same time they once again accused Maxim himself. By this time, the Turkish ambassador Skinder had died, and in his papers, seized by the Grand Duke's administration, letters from Maxim were discovered with rather unflattering reviews for Moscow. And although nothing seemed to indicate espionage, all new materials were successfully added to the case. They blamed Maxim for his lack of repentance after the first conviction. This was really so, for the learned monk did not feel any guilt about himself. Maxim irritated Daniel to the extreme with his stubbornness and reluctance to ask for mercy, and in monastic imprisonment he claimed that “they imprisoned him without guilt, that he did not know a single sin.” At the trial of 1531, Maxim was added for the discovery of new grammatical errors in addition to the previous ones, which were again loudly declared heresy. Either instead of the expression “impassive Deity” he wrote “fearless Deity”, then he deleted from the Slavic text of the Book of Acts words that were not in the Greek original, then again, by analogy with Greek grammar, he mistakenly omitted the repeated negation “not” in one of the anathematisms of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Probably, Maxim tried to defend himself at the trial and again, out of naivety, raised the issue of mistakes made in Rus', and, possibly, the ignorance of the metropolitan judges. In any case, the cathedral court of 1531 accused the Greek of “blaspheming Russian miracle workers and the Russian Church.” What was new, however, during the second trial was that Maxim was now accused of preaching non-covetousness. At the same time, much of what was actually said not by him, but by Vassian, was attributed to him. And although the final formula of the new sentence for Maxim is unknown, an idea of ​​what was heaped on the poor Greek can be drawn from the reproach that Daniil made to the Russian translator Mikhail Medovartsev, who was tried together with Maxim. Daniel told him that he wrote the scriptures “blasphemous and heretical and spreading and spreading Jewish and Hellenic teachings and Arian and Macedonian and other destructive heresies to many people and nations.” Such absurd and mutually exclusive accusations, of course, did not indicate the height of the theological level of Daniel himself. Those participants in the council who were head and shoulders above the rest, alas, were also forced to remain silent: new times had come for the Russian Church (in particular, this can be said about Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod, who would later become metropolitan). So at the council of 1531 everyone unanimously decided that Maxim and Vassian were guilty. Moreover, the fact that many reprehensible moments could indeed be found behind Vassian gave the court the appearance of justice. After the trial in 1531, Vassian Patrikeev was imprisoned in the Volokolamsk Monastery. Maxim, so that the “conspirators”, “sorcerers” and “enemies of the Church” could not communicate, was transferred to another place - to the Tverskaya Otroch Monastery, under the supervision of the Tver Bishop Akaki. There he spent another 20 years in captivity, but under a more lenient regime than before. Akaki was a humane bishop. Having condemned Maxim together with other bishops, he hardly seriously believed in his guilt. Akaki allowed Maxim to write, which was prohibited during the first 7 years of his imprisonment. In the Tver Otroch Monastery, Maxim finished writing the canon to the Holy Spirit Paraclete (he began work on it in the Volotsk prison, where he wrote with charcoal on the wall). In total, Maxim, who was going to Moscow for a short time, lived in Russia for 38 years. Almost 27 of them are in prison. Only in 1551 was he transferred to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and released, but he was never released from Russia. However, he was already so old that this was hardly possible. It is interesting that, although St. Maxim the Greek was subsequently canonized, the decisions of the two councils by which he was so unjustly condemned were never formally canceled. True, a council of 40 Greek hierarchs was convened in Constantinople, at which Maxim was acquitted. But after moving to Moscow, Maxim jurisdictionally belonged to the Russian Church, and his fate could only be decided by a council of Russian hierarchs. The Council of Constantinople accepted an appeal to Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich with a request to return Maxim the Greek to Athos. But there was no reaction from Moscow. In fact, Rev. Maxim was never legally acquitted. This was replaced by his canonization in 1988. The situation, to put it mildly, is peculiar: two Russian councils call Maxim the Greek a heretic, a sorcerer and a spy, and the third - four and a half centuries later, without canceling the decisions of the previous ones - canonize Maxim. It is obvious that the case of Maxim the Greek, for the first time in the history of the Russian Church, raises the question of conciliarity - real and imaginary. After all, not every cathedral is an expression of true conciliarity. It is always necessary for the reception of the church people to determine which decisions of the episcopate are truly conciliar. Of course, the conciliar decision of the Russian Church regarding Maxim the Greek was ultimately the recognition of his innocence and glorification as a saint. Maxim the Greek was a very talented and prolific spiritual writer. He is the author of more than 300 works. Basically they are of a spiritual and educational nature. Maxim was literally resurrected to life when Akaki Tverskoy again allowed him to write, because for a bookish man, such as Maxim, imprisonment in prison without the opportunity to write anything brought unbearable suffering. Later, during his 20 years of imprisonment in Tver, Maxim wrote most of his original works. Among them, the most numerous are small treatises and letters. Maxim wrote a lot on the direct order of Bishop Akaki and other figures of the Russian Church: his authority, even in prison, remained very high, and the vast majority of people did not believe in his guilt. Rev. Maxim wrote a number of messages directed against the Latins and Protestants, against astrology. Despite the fact that he suffered so much for exposing a number of features of Russian church life that he could not accept, Maxim continued to condemn the increasingly growing ritual faith in Rus', next to which he often did not find true life in Christ. He correctly discerned the extremely negative trend that in the 16th-17th centuries. will develop further and ultimately lead to the tragedy of the Old Believer schism. St. Maxim even dares to denounce the rule of temporary boyars under the young John IV. When John was crowned king, the learned monk wrote for him “Instructive chapters for those who rule the faithful,” where he again denounced the tyrannical rule and explained how an Orthodox sovereign should govern his people. In the life of Rev. For Maxim, the most tragic story is the story of his relationship with the Hierarchy. For him in prison, the most terrible thing was not even the prohibition to write, but the excommunication from Communion. He wrote through Prince P.I. Shuisky to the new Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius, who had headed the Russian Church since 1542, asking to be allowed to partake of the Holy Mysteries, which he had been deprived of for about 17 years. Rev. Maxim sent Macarius, along with the request, the “Confession of the Orthodox Faith” he had written, which was supposed to confirm that the disgraced monk believed Orthodoxy. But Metropolitan Macarius found himself in a very delicate situation, since the former Metropolitan Daniel, who condemned Maxim, was still living out his days in the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, and another former High Hierarch, Joasaph (Skripitsyn), was staying in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery. Macarius became metropolitan as a result of their successive removal from the see, and therefore probably did not feel quite confident in canonical terms. For this reason, to Maxim, in whose guilt Metropolitan Macarius, like everyone else, of course, did not believe, he nevertheless wrote in response: “We kiss your bonds, as one of the saints, but we cannot help you in any way, for the one who bound you lives.” Metropolitan Daniel “tied” Maxim, although Macarius was also among those who conciliarly condemned Maxim. Then Maxim the Greek wrote to Daniil, asking him to lift the reprimand against him. But for Daniel, this would mean admitting his own and the conciliar’s wrong, and therefore giving him a reason to blame himself. Therefore, the former Metropolitan Maxim did not recognize him as innocent, but nevertheless advised him to lie and receive communion without any lifting of the ban, under the pretext of a fatal illness. Daniel remained true to himself in this too, giving such unprincipled advice. But Maxim the Greek could not do anything “on the sly,” much less take communion, without having a blessing for it. His conscience was noticeably different from Daniil's. Moreover, Rev. Maxim could not heed Daniel’s advice that the question of admission to Communion was linked for him with the question of recognizing his innocence. Only after the death of Daniel was Maxim’s fate eased. They did not dare to let him go home to Mount Athos. Perhaps they were afraid for the reputation of the Russian Church after everything that happened to Maxim. But in 1551, the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Artemy begged Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius to transfer Maxim to his monastery. The suffering monk received permission from Macarius to partake of the Holy Mysteries and ended his life in 1556 in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. He was buried with honor, as an ascetic, in the Holy Spirit Church. He was canonized in the year of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', although locally he has been revered since ancient times as one of the Radonezh saints. His icons have been known since the 17th century. The relics of St. Maxima were acquired in 1996. Of course, the story with Rev. Maxim the Greek does not best characterize the dramatic situation that arose in the Russian Church and state at that time. Our history has some rather dark pages, and there is no need to idealize it. But there’s no point in dramatizing either. This has always been the case everywhere, for the Holy and Immaculate Church exists here, on sinful earth, in the midst of a fallen world lying in evil. Commentary from a cultural perspective Reverend Maxim the Greek. Icon of a letter by Tatyana Vodicheva, late 20th century. New data about the Italian period of the life of St. Maximus the Greek N.V. Sinitsyna, Doctor of Historical Sciences, leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Cited from the publication: Bulletin of Church History. M.: TsNTs "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2006, No. 1. P. 193–199) In the works of Rev. Maxim the Greek, written in Russia (March 1518 - December 1555), there is a lot of information about his stay in Italy in the 90s. XV century It was identified and generalized in 1915 by V.S. Ikonnikov 27, whose observations were later taken into account by I. Denisov, creating a new concept of the Italian period in the life of the future Russian ascetic. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Photo – S. Motylev Ikonnikov began the Italian Tenerarium from Venice, which was on the route of the Greeks, representatives of the Greek emigration, who went to Italy for various purposes. In a message to Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov, the learned Athonite monk wrote about his participation in the book publishing activities of Aldus Manutius in Venice: “... often went to him with book work” 28. The Alda printing house, founded around 1494–1495, printed Greek books; It is not known what the role of the young Greek was; he could perform various functions - both proofreading and those related to the selection of texts and manuscripts for printing. 29 In a message to the diplomat and publicist Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov, he reported on such details and episodes of the Franco-Milanese war of 1499–1500 that allow us to see him as a contemporary, and possibly an eyewitness of the events. Other works speak of contacts in Ferrara, Florence, Padua, Naples, etc. But this information is concentrated in brief mentions, scattered across various works, mainly of the first period, created in 1518–1525, before the condemnation. These materials are published in the recently prepared first volume of a new edition of the works of Rev. Maxim the Greek. 30 He recalled his Western European past later. In the Russian works of Rev. Maxim the Greek spoke more than once about his former involvement in pagan Hellenic teachings, about the fact that when he was in Italy he was by no means “on the threshold” of the science of that time, invariably repeating his conversion. In one of his works against astrology, denouncing those persons from his Italian past (“in Italy and in Longobardy”) who placed “external punishment” and “peripatetic tricks” above Christian dogmas, he confirmed the fact of his communication with them not only as a listener and spectator - “not just as a hearer and witness, but also as a communicator.” Continuing his thought, he wrote: “And if God had not cared about everyone, having had mercy on me, he would have visited me with His grace and illuminated my thought with light, long ago I would have perished along with the wicked intercessors existing there.” 31 The ascetic aspirations of the future Orthodox saint were already evident in Italy, as evidenced by one of his works, written in Russia, probably in the 30s and 40s. XVI century The only city and the only group of facts of the Italian period to which a special (and quite lengthy) essay is devoted is Florence, which he called the most beautiful city in Italy he had seen. The very title of the work testifies to his deep ascetic aspirations and moods at that time: “A terrible and memorable story about perfect monastic life.” 32 As an example of “perfect monastic residence,” the orders of the Carthusian and Dominican monasteries are given; The reform initiatives and transformations of Savonarola and his execution are also described. The details and details of this work allow us to judge that already in Italy Maximus the Greek was interested in monastic life in all its manifestations; he tried to penetrate into the practices of various Catholic orders and understand them. The Tale emphasizes the non-covetousness of monasteries and their lack of usury. Florence at the end of the 15th century. was a city of humanism and asceticism. The future Maxim the Greek knew both directions, but the ascetic in him prevailed. Around 1505–1506 he became a monk of one of the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, in the name of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Vatopedi. However, in Denisov’s sensational book “Maxim the Greek and the West,” published in 1943, at the height of World War II, a hypothesis was put forward according to which in 1502 he became a Dominican monk in the Florentine monastery of St. Brand. 33 One of the chapters of the book was called: “The Dominican in the Monastery of St. Mark." This hypothesis was accompanied by other new facts or assumptions. Denisov drew attention to a number of letters, both published and stored in Western European archives, signed with the name “Mikhail Trivolis”. The letters of Michael Trivolis to Scipio Carteromachus, kept in the Vatican Archives, are autographs. They were sent to Venice from Florence. Denisov identified the handwriting of these epistolary sources with the book script of the manuscript of the agricultural treatise “Geoponics” (kept in Paris), written by “Mikhail for Laskaris”. This is what the manuscript entry says; Denisov interpreted the names as “Mikhail Trivolis” (based on handwriting identification) and John Laskaris. A.M. also wrote about Maxim Grek’s contacts with this person. Kurbsky 34, erroneously claiming that he studied with Lascaris in Paris. Denisov believed that our future monk initially arrived not in Venice, but in Florence in 1492 along with Lascaris, whom he met in Greece. Denisov also attracted sources of Athonite origin, signed “Maximus Trivolis” and saw in him the same person, but after accepting monasticism in Vatopedi. Denisov further identifies Mikhail-Maxim Trivolis with the monk Maxim the Greek from Russian sources. The identification was based, firstly, on the coincidence of the geographical area and comparative chronology of previously known and new sources. Secondly, two groups of handwritings were compared; one of them is the handwriting of the Parisian manuscript “Geoponika”, Vatican autograph letters to Scipio Carteromachus, autographs of Athonite origin, the other is the handwriting of the Psalter, written in 1540 already in Russia, in Tver, and having a colophon that certifies the name of the scribe - monk Maximus of Vatopedi, the time and place of creation of the manuscript. The argumentation for identification is rather cursory and not systematized; the handwriting of the Tver manuscript was known to Denisov only from the album of Archimandrite Amphilochius, published in 1880. 35 One of the identifications was subsequently rejected by B.L. Fonkich, who wrote that “the text of two epitaphs to Patriarch Niphon II (Denissoff E. Op.cit. Pl. VIII), published by Denisov from the manuscript of the Dionysian Monastery, is recognized by the publisher as the autograph of the Rev. Maxim the Greek is wrong. Denisov’s mistake is repeated by Ivanov (see: Ivanov A.I. The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. Fig. 13)” 36. Later, other manuscripts attributed to the same scribe 37 were identified in Western European repositories, but there was still no detailed argumentation for this identification. Only a detailed, systematized analysis of handwritings at the modern scientific level will make Denisov’s hypothesis a firmly established scientific fact. Denisov’s most significant conclusions are the establishment of the worldly name of Maximus the Greek - Michael Trivolis and a number of new facts of his Italian biography, the main one of which is his stay in the Mirandola castle in the service of Giovanni Francesco Pico, nephew of the famous Pico, author of the “Speech on the Dignity of Man”, a manifesto of Italian humanism (but after the death of Pico himself). The second part of Denisov’s hypothesis was much weaker argued - about the entry of Michael Trivolis into the monastery of St. Mark in Florence in 1502 (4 years after the execution of Savonarola). During the preparation of the book, Denisov received from the Dominican Chiaroni from Florence a copy of the entry, which, as he was told, was in the “Chronicle” of this monastery. The record stated that in June 1502 Michael, son of Emmanuel from the city of Arta, entered the monastery (accept abitum). Although Mikhail’s last name was not indicated, Denisov suggested that we are talking about Mikhail Trivolis - the future Maxim the Greek, since the name of his father - Manuil and his place of birth - the city of Arta are known from a Russian source. They were named in the entry on one of the manuscripts containing the works of Rev. Maximus the Greek from the collection of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra 38. Despite the fact that this manuscript was compiled at the end of the 16th century, the entry undoubtedly goes back to some lifetime biographical notes of either Maxim himself or one of his closest collaborators. The next milestone in the life of Michael, son of Emmanuel from the city of Arta, was indicated, according to Denisov, by his letter to one of his friends, namely the above-mentioned letter to Scipio Carteromachus, which Denisov dated, based on a number of indirect signs, considerations and inferences, to 1504. In the letter, the author reported that he abandoned the monastic life solely because of the many illnesses that beset him 39 . On this basis, a conclusion was made about the two-year “Dominican” period in the life of the future Russian ascetic. Denisov's reasoning and constructions raise some doubts. Firstly, it should be taken into account that in the Latin record there is no surname, but only the father’s name and place of birth are indicated (and the name Mikhail as the name of the future Maxim the Greek in Denisov’s chain of evidence remained a thesis to be proven). The names and patronymics of two different persons, natives of the same city, could simply coincide. Secondly, the words of the letter about “renouncing monastic life” can be understood not only as leaving the monastic order, but also as a renunciation of the intention to become a monk, i.e. they admit of two interpretations. The validity of these doubts was confirmed in April 2003, when the task of preparing a new edition of the works of Rev. Maxim the Greek and the reconstruction of the initial stages of his biography led me to the archives of the monastery of St. Mark in Florence. In the preface to the 1943 edition, Denisov said that he had not seen the Chronicle with the Latin entry of 1502 he cited, since it was not available during the Second World War for security reasons. Later, he tried to find the original recording and in 1948 he published an article in which he reported that the research carried out at his request, “Chronicles of the Monastery of St. Mark" (Ms. Laurent. 370, papier, ff. 221) established the absence in it of the entry that he published in 1943. 40 Nevertheless, he continued his search and wrote like this: “A la notre reflexion cependent, nous avons estime que ce texte devait (italics by I. Denisov - N.S.) exister et qu’il nous fallait simplement retrouver le misterieux manuscript ou on l’avait lu" 41 . Thanks to the assistance of other people, Denisov managed to overcome Chiaroni’s doubts: “Nous avons pu vaincre les scrupules du R.R.V. Chiaroni, O.P.”, who agreed to reveal his secret (“livrer son secret”). It turned out that the note about “Michael of Arta, our Maximus the Greek” was not an extract from the “Chronicle” of Ulbalini, Savonarola’s secretary (now kept in the Laurentian Library in Florence with the same code), but from another manuscript with the title “Liber vestitionum”. This is a manuscript, according to Denisov’s description, without binding and pagination, of non-standard size (33.1 X 11), on 190 sheets, jealously kept in the Dominican monastery of St. Brand. The entry is in the handwriting of Ubaldini, Savonarola's secretary. This article also left questions about why the exact source was not initially reported, and why it was later made a secret. There is, however, one more source that remains unknown to Denisov. I was able to meet him thanks to the kindness of the staff of the archive of the monastery of St. A brand to which I express my sincere gratitude. I was shown not only the manuscript of the Liber vestitionum, but also a handwritten book containing, compiled in 1911, a complete compilation or list of all those who entered the monastery from the 14th to the beginning of the 20th centuries, called the Spoglio generale. The list was created on the basis of numerous and varied sources - the chronicle of the monastery of St. Mark, “Liber vestitionum” - the book that was shown to Denisov, other monastic sources, obituaries. It is compiled in alphabetical order, consists of a number of vertical columns in which first names, last names, indications of place of birth, date of death, and most importantly, two dates of entry into the monastery are entered. The column called “Vestizione” contains the date of entry into the monastery as a novice (“novice”) who has not yet taken vows (from vestis - clothing, attire). This Latin rite corresponds to the Greek Orthodox ryassophore. Another column – “Professione” – indicates the date of taking vows, i.e. full monasticism. The difference between the two dates for those who joined is approximately a year. As a rule, for most names both columns are filled in, but sometimes the second column is left blank. This may indicate that this novice did not become a monk or left the monastery. The “date of death” column is also not filled in for everyone, i.e. it must be assumed that in these cases the monk died outside the monastery. As part of the “Spoglio generale”, the entry about “brother Michael, son of Emmanuel from the city of Arta” is repeated, coinciding with the entry in the “Liber vestitionum”, while a note was made indicating the page of the book, which corresponds to reality. However, only the column “Vestizione” was filled in, and the columns “Professione” and the date of death were left blank! Consequently, Brother Michael did not become a monk at the monastery of St. Mark and left him. Now we can unambiguously decipher the meaning of the words about “refusal of monastic life” in one of the two letters of Michael Trivolis to Scipio Carteromachus dated April 21. They mean nothing more than a refusal to take the vows of "Professione" in the monastery of St. Brand, i.e. refusal to join this monastery. Thus, the above-mentioned title of one of the chapters in Denisov’s book “The Dominican in the Monastery of St. Mark." What made a novice a Dominican was not simply his stay in a Dominican monastery, but only the acceptance of the fullness of his vows. Both letters are undated; more precisely, only the date and month are indicated - April 21 and 29, as well as the location of the sender (“from Florence”); in one of them (dated April 29) it is reported that the addressee is “in Venice, in the house of Mr. Aldus Manutius.” The letters were preserved together and, according to Denisov’s identification, are the autographs of Mikhail Trivolis and have his signature. Denisov proposed the date “1504” for these letters for the following reasons. In a letter dated April 29, the author asks to congratulate the “enlightened Mark” who received “signs of respect.” All researchers saw in this an indication of Marcus Muzurus, one of the most significant persons in the circle of Aldus Manutius, who in 1503 received the post of censor of all Greek books published in Venice. However, the date “1503” was not direct, i.e. was not documented, but was calculated on the basis of the preface to the 1516 edition of the Words of Gregory of Nazianzus, where Marcus Muzurus reported that he served as a censor for 13 years 42. But since the month of his appointment is unknown, and it could have taken place after April 1503, then the letters of Mikhail Trivolis, according to Denisov, should have been dated April 1504, which, we note, extended his stay in the monastery by almost a whole year. But if we take into account new information and proceed from the identity of Michael Trivolis and the person referred to in the entry on June 14, 1502. (“Michael, son of Emmanuel from the city of Art”) not only in the “Liber Vestitionum”, but also in the “Spoglio generate”, then his “probationary period” expired in the late spring - early summer of 1503. The content, style, intonation of the letter dated April 21 seems to indicate that it was written not almost a year after this date, but according to fresh traces, soon after the event described, with a living and not yet extinguished feeling. Therefore, in my opinion, the date “April 1503” is more acceptable, and, therefore, the decision to renounce monastic life was made even before the end of the one-year period. In this case, Michael, the son of Emmanuel from the city of Arta, was in the monastery of St. The card is about 10 months, from June 14, 1502 to April 1503. So, having finished the business, brief part of the letter dated April 21 with the words “I wish you happiness and good luck in everything,” the author suddenly writes a more lengthy continuation: “No doubt, you heard how it ended, because honest Peter told you everything in detail, and therefore even now it seems unnecessary to me to tell it to you. Besides, I have neither time nor peace of mind and soul, not only because I have not found anything from anyone here, but also because I am tossed up and down, like a ship shaken by the fickle winds on the open sea. That’s why I’m not telling you anything more now, other than the fact that I abandoned the monastic life because of many illnesses that beset me, and not for any other reason... deliver me from my current depression and, in any way you can, pull me to you... Know that now, with such misfortunes of fate, everything will be pleasant for me” 43. The request of Michael Trivolis in a letter dated April 21 to recommend him to Alda also has a biographical significance, allowing us to conclude that his collaboration “in the book business” with the printer began in 1503, and not immediately upon arrival in Italy, as B.C. assumed. Ikonnikov. It is possible that soon after letters to Michael Carteromachus from Florence to Venice with a request to recommend him to Aldus and “bring him to you,” to his friends in Venice, he actually moved to this city and began to collaborate with Aldus. At this time, John Laskaris returned from Paris - he was in Venice as a representative of the French king and continued his teaching work. Perhaps some realities of this particular period were conveyed in a distorted form by A. Kurbsky (about the training of St. Maxim with the “glorious Lascar” in Paris). To summarize, we must say the following. The conclusion about the identity of Michael, the son of Emmanuel from the city of Art and Michael, mentioned in the “Liber vestitionum” and in the “Spoglio generale” - Maximus Trivolis of some Western European and Athonite sources is not indisputable, does not belong to a number of firmly established scientific facts, since there is no surname in the Latin monastic records (unlike the Greek, Athonite sources, in which Maximus Trivolis is named). The coincidence of names (with patronymic) of different persons mentioned in sources, even natives of the same city, is not uncommon. The names Michael and Manuel were common and quite common, and Arta was a large city. It is likely that not only in the Trivolis family there could have been Michael, the son of Manuel, who went to Italy and entered the monastery of St. in Florence. Brand. A more detailed study of the composition of Spoglio generaie would be of undeniable interest. If this supposed identity is nevertheless recognized, then in this case one should conclude that Michael, son of Emmanuel from Arta (presumably the future Maxim the Greek) lived in the monastery of St. Mark, only as a “novice” after the “Vestizione” rite for about 10 months, having renounced monastic life in the bosom of a Catholic monastery, did not take full monastic vows at the “Professione” level, i.e. was not a Dominican in the full sense of the word. The words of Michael Trivolis in a letter to Michael Carteromachus (“I renounced the monastic life”) should be understood as a decision not to take the vows of the Professione, and the reference to illness as the reason for refusal was only a pretext, since after 2–3 years he took monastic vows in Vatopedi. The reasons for his refusal were deeper, which is confirmed by his work in Russia. Commentary in figures and facts (Article from Volume VII of the Orthodox Encyclopedia) Born 03/25/1479 in Moscow - died 12/3/1533, in the same place. Grand Duke of Vladimir, Moscow and All Rus', son of Grand Duke John III Vasilyevich and Sophia, daughter of the Morean despot Thomas, the youngest son of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. Vasily III Ioannovich came to power as a result of the struggle of court factions, which began after the death in March 1490 of Ivan III's eldest son from his first marriage - Prince Ioannovich the Young, married to Elena Voloshanka, daughter of the ruler of Moldavia, Stephen the Great. Their son, Grand Duke Dimitri Ioannovich, grandson, was the heir to the throne in a direct descending line, and V.I., the eldest in age, was the son from his 2nd marriage. A rivalry between uncle and nephew arose, similar to the one that began the feudal war in the 2nd quarter. XV century (see Vasily II Vasilyevich), 2 principles of inheritance collided. After the death of Grand Duke Ivan the Young, who owned the Tver Principality as a result of its annexation in 1485, Tver was transferred not to Dimitri's grandson, but to Vasily III Ioannovich (although Ivan the Young's mother Maria Borisovna, the 1st wife of Grand Duke Ivan III, was a Tver princess). Later, John III decided to make his grandson heir. Those close to Vasily III Ioannovich informed him of his father’s intention to “bestow the great reign of Volodymyr and Moscow” on Prince Dimitri and recommended that he “move away” from his father and deal with his nephew; they even organized a conspiracy to secretly kiss Vasily III Ioannovich with the cross (PSRL. T. 4. P. 200). John III complained about his son to the church. Council (apparently in late October - early November 1497), in December. Vasily III Ioannovich was subjected to house arrest (“put him behind bars in his own yard”), 6 of the most active conspirators were executed, and many were imprisoned. The mother of Vasily III Ioannovich, Grand Duchess Sofia, also fell into disgrace; her maids (“women with potions,” “dashing women”) were executed. In Feb. In 1498, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, a solemn ceremony of installing Dimitri Ioannovich to the great reign took place. In the early (“narrative”) edition of the rank of installation, the scope of Dimitri Ioannovich’s prerogatives is very wide – “the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod and Tver”; in the later (“formular”) edition they are called “the Grand Duchy of Vladimir and Novgorod.” The party of Vasily III Ioannovich and Grand Duchess Sophia did not give up the fight. In the beginning 1499 was followed by new executions and disgraces of the most prominent representatives of the Moscow nobility, as researchers suggest, supporters of Dimitri's grandson. The disgrace was lifted from Vasily III Ioannovich, in March 1499 he was proclaimed “Sovereign Grand Duke,” that is, co-ruler, he was given “Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, the Grand Duchy.” In 1502, John III's position towards the family of his late eldest son became even harsher: April 11. Grand Duke Dimitri and his mother Elena were arrested on April 14. Vasily III Ioannovich was placed “in the great reign of Volodymyr and Moscow and all Rus' by the autocrat” (it is not known whether a procedure similar to the act of 1498 took place). This was preceded by a new attempt by Vasily III Ioannovich to “move” to Lithuania, probably with the aim of influencing the Grand Duke (A.A. Zimin questions this second attempt to leave for Lithuania and explains it by an incorrect reading of the corresponding chronicle message, but the researcher’s arguments are unconvincing). Dimitri Ioannovich died in captivity in 1509, i.e. already during the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich (apparently, a violent death), earlier, in January. 1505, his mother died “in labor”, accused of heresy and connections with Judaizers. Vasily III Ioannovich, as co-ruler, took part in the Council of 1503, in the Council against heretics of 1504, and in other church and state. events. Becoming ruler of the country after the death of John III in October. 1505, he continued his father's domestic and foreign policies. The first 2 decades of his reign were characterized by relative stability and political stability. and economy rise, recent years have been complicated by the problem of succession to the throne. Great successes were achieved in the process of collecting and unifying lands, in expanding the territory of the Russian state, centralization and state. construction, in foreign policy. Domestic policy. Formation of the territory of the state According to the will of John III, power over the main territory of the state was concentrated in the hands of V.I., but the number and size of the estates of his brothers and other relatives were still quite large. The Volotsk inheritance was liquidated in 1513, after the death of the childless Prince Fyodor Borisovich. Brothers V.I., princes Semyon of Kaluga and Dmitry of Uglich, died in 1518 and 1521, both childless, because the Grand Duke, having no heir, actually forbade his brothers to marry. Their possessions passed to the Grand Duke, the same thing happened later with the estate of Prince Yuri Dmitrovsky (also childless), who was “captured” in December. 1533, almost immediately after the death of Vasily III Ioannovich Only the youngest brother of Vasily III Ioannovich, Prince Andrei Staritsky, was allowed to marry in 1533, when Vasily III Ioannovich had already had 2 sons. The last large semi-independent center in the East. Rus' was left with the Grand Duchy of Ryazan, which lost its independence ca. 1521, when the last Ryazan Grand Duke John Ioannovich fled to Lithuania. In 1510, Pskov was completely subjugated, which decided important political issues. and military-strategic problems in the west. boundaries. The city had long been in the orbit of grand ducal politics; the pro-Moscow orientation of the Pskov residents was determined by their desire to see in Moscow a defender against the claims of Veliky Novgorod and an ally in foreign policy. Pskov still retained some city liberties (veche, veche bell, etc.), although the power of the grand ducal governor increased, especially after the appointment of Prince I.M. Repni-Obolensky to this position in the spring of 1509, who was distinguished by his particular cruelty towards the Pskovites. During the stay of Vasily III Ioannovich in Veliky Novgorod in the autumn-winter of 1509/10, residents of Pskov (the delegation included mayors and boyars) filed a complaint against the governor. According to other sources, he was the first to complain to the Grand Duke. filed by the governor, accusing the Pskov residents of violating their duties towards the ruler (“the state’s affairs are not done as before, and in the courts, and in duties, and in taxes, and in all kinds of income they enter into his hands”). Petitions and complaints continued both from Prince Repni-Obolensky and from the Pskovites, not only the mayors, but also black people who complained about the governor, and the Novgorod landowners, and “about their brothers in Pskov.” The Grand Duke found the mayors guilty and put “great disgrace” on “his fatherland Pskov” (the veche was abolished, the bells were removed, the power of 2 governors was established in the city, as well as in 10 suburbs). Pskov accepted the demands for the destruction of liberties, and Vasily III Ioannovich, after consulting with part of the Boyar Duma (which was under him in Veliky Novgorod), did not send troops to the city. 300 families were withdrawn from Pskov (among them mayors, merchants, and living people), who settled in the North-East. Rus'. The courtyards in the Middle City, from where they were evicted, were given to the Novgorodians - a thousand landowners and 500 squeakers, who formed the military garrison of the city; 300 merchant families from other cities of the country were settled here. The minting of money in Pskov was canceled and the coins were reminted. The inclusion of Pskov into the Russian state contributed to its economic growth; an indicator of growth was, in particular, a large church. construction, including stone. In 1516–1533 17 churches were built in the city, the city walls were strengthened, and new defensive structures were built. Following the “capture of Pskov”, the struggle for Smolensk began, which also had important strategic importance. After successful military operations and negotiations, the fortress capitulated in the summer of 1514. It also played a role that Vasily III Ioannovich promised the residents of the city to govern “in the old way” - preserving the privileges the city received from the Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander Jagiellonczyk. The achieved successes could not be consolidated; in the fall of 1514, the Russian army was defeated by the Lithuanian army near Orsha. However, Smolensk remained part of the Russian state; a border was established with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which existed throughout the 16th century. In 1515 Joseph was installed as Bishop of Smolensk. Strengthening the south and southwest borders were facilitated by the annexation of the Chernigov-Seversk land to the possessions of the Grand Duke after the death in 1518 of the childless Prince Vasily Semenovich Starodubsky and the capture in 1523 of Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shemyachich. During the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich, great concern was shown for strengthening the borders. In 1511, the construction of a powerful fortress in Nizhny Novgorod was completed, and defensive structures in Tula, a large defense center in the south, were strengthened. borders and in other cities (Zaraisk, Kolomna). “City affairs” was one of the objects of domestic policy. An institute of city clerks was created, who were in charge of collecting “staff people” (auxiliary troops formed from the rural population), and managed the city squeakers (historical predecessors of the archers). City clerks limited the competence of governors and volostels and played the role of representatives of the Grand Duke in the fight against specific decentralization. Land descriptions, begun in the 15th century, remained an important tool for economic and political centralization. Appanage princes carried out land descriptions as a countermeasure aimed at preserving their appanages. So, in 1509–1510. brother of Vasily III Ioannovich, Prince Semyon of Kaluga, undertook a description of Bezhetsky Verkh; after his death, a new description of his possessions was undertaken in 1519–1521. already by Moscow scribes. In 1510–1511 counties located on the way from Kazan to Moscow were described (which was explained by the aggravation of Moscow-Kazan relations) - Vladimir, N. Novgorod, as well as Balakhna and Arzamas. In 1515 a description of M. Yaroslavets was undertaken, in 1518 - of the border Perevitsk, in 1516/17 scribes were sent to Staritsa, Vereya, Tver, Nov. Gorodishche, Novgorod and other cities (Staritsa and Vereya were part of the inheritance of Prince Andrei, whose relationship with Vasily III Ioannovich was very tense). One of the reasons for the difficult relationship between Vasily III Ioannovich and his appanage brothers was the absence of a son from the Grand Duke for a long time. Marriage with Solomonia Yuryevna Saburova, which Vasily III Ioannovich entered into on September. 1505, was childless. With a prayer for the granting of an heir, the Grand Duke turned to the elders of the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, other Russian monasteries, and the Svyatogorsk monks. The Church of the Annunciation in Vorontsovo, consecrated on November 29, became a symbol of prayer for childbearing. 1515 in the presence of V.I., Grand Duchess, Metropolitan. Varlaam, Bishop of Krutitsa. Later the thought of divorce arose. Assistance in the divorce (November 1525), tonsure of the Grand Duchess as a monk (according to some sources, voluntary, according to others, forced) and marriage with Princess Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (January 1526) was provided to the Grand Duke by Metropolitan. Daniel. In honor of the birth of the long-awaited heir - bud. Tsar John IV - the Church of the Ascension was erected in the village. Kolomenskoye is an architectural masterpiece of that time (1532). The absence of an heir was, apparently, the reason that during the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich the ceremony was not held, which could not but be the subject of his watering. aspirations - a wedding following the model of the procedure of 1498, while we could already be talking about the royal title - in the charter of Emperor Maximilian (1514) Vasily III Ioannovich was called Keiser. The royal title was used sporadically in the letters of Vasily III Ioannovich, for example. in the charters of 1510 to the Pskov monasteries, where its use was intended to emphasize the supreme rights of the Moscow Grand Duke to the annexed lands. Chronicles and other monuments of the time of Vasily III Ioannovich showed great interest in the ceremony of 1498. It was in them that one of the insignias used then, the cap, received the definition of “Monomakhov”. In the 10s–20s. XVI century lit. were created in Rus'. monuments entirely devoted to the substantiation of the main components of the ideology of the Orthodox kingdom - the cycle “Tales of the Princes of Vladimir” and the messages of the elder of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus about the Third Rome. The church policy of Vasily III Ioannovich was more flexible and less controversial than the policy of John III. On the one hand, the government needed support from the Church for its domestic and foreign policies, to sanctify the authority of the Grand Duke, to substantiate the Divine nature of his power (St. Joseph of Volotsky). On the other hand, the fiscal interests of the government, the needs of socio-economic development, and the fear of too significant strengthening of the role of the clergy determined a policy aimed at limiting the rights and independence of the Church in the economic, judicial-administrative and other spheres. The conflict that arose at the beginning of the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich in connection with the transfer of the Volokolamsk monastery, which was located on the territory of the Volotsk appanage under the jurisdiction of the Novgorod archbishop, under the patronage of Grand Duke Josephov, showed the attack of secular power on the traditional system of intra-church relations. In Feb. 1507 St. Joseph Volotsky, complaining about “appanage violence” - abuses against the monastery by Prince Fyodor Borisovich, sent letters to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. Simon, asking to accept the monastery “into a great state.” The abbot of the Volokolamsk monastery not only did not have the blessing of the Novgorod archbishop. St. Serapion, but did not even notify him of his step and tried to do this only 2 years later - in 1509, the Archbishop excommunicated St. Joseph from the Church and tried to explain his position in Moscow, but he failed to get a meeting with either the Metropolitan or the Grand Duke, and he was removed from the pulpit. Church Cathedral and Metropolitan Simon, on the orders of Vasily III Ioannovich, lifted the excommunication from St. Joseph, condemned in absentia by St. Serapion, who was forcibly brought to the meeting of the new Council (July 1509) and then sent to prison in the Moscow Andronikov Monastery. Vasily III Ioannovich ordered Metropolitan. Before his death (1511), Simon made peace with the disgraced archbishop; he fell out of favor with St. Serapion was removed, he settled in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, where he was greeted with honor; The Grand Duke also “reconciled” with him, but St. Joseph continued to defend his case. There remains much that is unclear in the history of the conflict, since its circumstances are described differently by supporters of St. Joseph and St. Serapion. It is indisputable that the main result of the confrontation was the “widowhood” of the Novgorod archdiocese in 1509–1526, which was a blow to the traditions of Novgorod independence, under the influence of which the archbishop apparently acted. Serapion. It is possible that the letter of Elder Philotheus to Vasily III Ioannovich about the Third Rome and the duties of the ruler, in which the author calls on the Grand Duke: “Let the bishops fulfill the holy cathedral churches, so that the holy Church of God will not become a widow during your reign,” written between 1523–1526. in connection with the upcoming appointment to the Novgorod department of St. Makaria, bud. Moscow Metropolitan. Although the Grand Duke returned the archbishop. Macarius “the treasury of the old archbishop”, taken to Moscow after 1478, but limited his rights both in Veliky Novgorod itself (“the boyars gave him their own,” i.e., formed a lord’s court) and in Pskov (limited the length of the archbishop’s stay in the city). Vasily III Ioannovich took into account the lessons of the defeat of John III at the Council of 1503 “about the lands of the church, saints, monasteries,” which also discussed the question of the preferred type of monastic charter and the sources of material existence of monasteries (at the Council, St. Nil of Sorsky, who did not agree with the prevailing practice, proposed, “that monasteries should not have villages, but that monks should live in the deserts and feed doing handicrafts"). John III made an attempt to apply in other regions (it is unknown to what extent) the measures taken in Veliky Novgorod in 1478 and 1499, when significant parts of the estates belonging to the archbishop's see and monasteries were confiscated. Protection of church “immovable acquisitions” by the Consecrated Council, headed by Metropolitan. Simon later forced Vasily III Ioannovich to pursue a more cautious policy in this matter; she was also significantly influenced by the tasks of fighting the appanages, and in the border regions by foreign policy interests. Vasily III Ioannovich generally continued his father’s policy aimed at limiting church land ownership. A reflection of this is the unpreserved Code of V.I., references to which are found in the verdict of the Council of May 11, 1551 (Chapter 101 of Stoglav). According to the presentation of individual points of the Code in the cathedral verdict, under Vasily III Ioannovich, patrimonial owners of a number of cities and regions were prohibited from selling patrimonies to people in other cities, as well as giving patrimonies as a contribution to the monastery “without a report” (i.e., without the permission of the Grand Duke or representatives of the Grand Duke’s administration). This concerned the former great principalities of Tver and Ryazan (named Tver, Mikulin, Ryazan), some Novgorod volosts (Torzhok), estates of princes who had long served Moscow (Obolensk) and some others (Beloozero). The rights of the corporations of the service princes of Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Starodub to dispose of land are significantly limited. Now they could give their estates to the monasteries as a contribution “to their liking” and sell them to anyone other than their heirs only “with the knowledge of the Tsar and the Grand Duke.” The resolution was repeated in Stoglav, in a later verdict (1562), where the list of serving princes who were prohibited from giving contributions to monasteries without the permission of the Grand Duke was significantly expanded (Rostov, Tver, Obolensky and other princes were added). The main tendency of the Code of Vasily III Ioannovich was to reduce the growth of monastic land ownership and to try to establish the isolation of land-owning corporations in a number of ancient districts and limit the turnover of land. However, Vasily III Ioannovich failed to achieve significant success in this direction; the princes and boyar children continued to make contributions to the monasteries. The policy of Vasily III Ioannovich regarding monastic land ownership and privileges (tax, customs, judicial and other benefits) was different at different stages. Before 1511–1513 he continued his father's policy of reducing and limiting these privileges. Increased distribution of confirmation letters of grant to monasteries in 1506–1507. was accompanied by a revision of previously issued documents, while Ch. arr. those charters that did not contain exemptions from taxes, or articles that exempted from a number of payments (yama, myta, tamgas, etc.) were annulled. The restrictions on the benefits of the Metropolitan House continued. At the same time, some acts recorded large tax privileges, i.e. Vasily III Ioannovich retreated, although still slowly, from the steady implementation of the restrictive principles of John III. (The prohibition on patrimonial monasteries from collecting a “spot” - a fee for branding horses sold - was associated with the strengthening of the viceroyal administration apparatus in the newly annexed regions; it was not of a universal nature.) In the system of material support for monasteries, the importance of ruga, i.e., cash and in-kind awards, with which the government tried to replace land dachas and tax-paying privileges, increased. In the grand ducal grants to the monasteries of 1511–1522. exemptions from taxes are often granted, articles appear that stipulate that monastic peasants are not subject to the state administration. (black) volosts. The period 1522–1533, after the installation of Metropolitan. Daniel, marked by some expansion of monasteries and churches. privileges. This especially applied to such authoritative and influential monasteries as Josephov of Volokolamsk, Kirillov of Belozersky and a number of others, as well as to the possessions of the metropolitan see. In the inheritances of Vasily III Ioannovich that passed to him, he strengthened his power, asserting grand-ducal suzerainty over the estates of the monasteries (in particular, in the Uglich principality after the death of his brother Uglich prince Dmitry Zhilka in 1521). The special attention of Vasily III Ioannovich to various types of monastic charters is evidenced by the letter to him of St. Maxim the Greek about the monasteries of Mount Athos (c. 1518–1519), written in response to questions from the Grand Duke. The main theme of the message is a description of 2 types of monasteries: the communal-cinenical monastery (using the example of the Dionysian Monastery) and the special one (using the example of the Lavra of St. Athanasius and Vatopedi) with a detailed description of the ways to support them. St. Maxim pays a lot of attention to the significance of benefits to monasteries from “kings and pious despots.” A reduction in these benefits could lead to a change in the monastic charter, which happened with the Lavra of St. Athanasius: in ancient times, during its prosperity, community life was observed in it; the transition to single life was caused by “impoverishment” and was accomplished with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The non-acquisitiveness of the era of V.I., in which the critical and accusatory side predominated, was largely inspired by the polemical writings and oral statements of the monastic prince Vassian (Patrikeev). The Grand Duke supported mainly cenobitic monasteries, although his charter to the Nilo-Sora empty is known. In 1511, on his recommendation, a communal charter was introduced in the Danilov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky monastery in the name of the Holy Trinity, founded by St. Daniel in 1508 near the “Bozhedomka place” (see Bozhedomka). The Grand Duke granted the monastery a rug, and later lands with peasants; granted preferential charters in 1525 and 1526. exempted monastery peasants from paying taxes according to the same rules as tax-paying people, and from other duties and duties. St. Daniel was the successor of V.I.’s children – bud. Tsar John IV Vasilyevich, Prince Yuri Dmitrovsky. Student of St. Daniel St. Gerasim Boldinsky founded 4 communal monasteries near the west. borders (the first - Gerasimov Boldinsky in the name of the Holy Trinity near the city of Dorogobuzh - in 1528), where he also introduced a communal charter. The transformation of special Novgorod monasteries into communal monasteries was carried out in 1528 by Archbishop. St. Macarius with the consent of the Grand Duke. Vasily III Ioannovich did not approve of the intention of St. Korniliev of Komelsky to leave the Korniliev of Komelsky created by him in honor of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy. Mother of God Monastery, the charter of which combined the instructions of the cenobitic charter of St. Joseph of Volotsk and the monastery charter (“Tradition”) of St. Nile of Sorskoye, and retire to the desert on Lake Sorskoye. Vasily III Ioannovich visited the Korniliev Komel Monastery during a trip to St. Kirill's Belozersk monastery (1528–1529) to pray for childbearing (he also stayed in the monasteries of Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, Rostov, Yaroslavl). The Grand Duke wanted the Venerable. Cornelius returned to the monastery as abbot, but initially agreed with the monk’s request to remain in the desert and asked to pray for the birth of an heir. However, later in Moscow, where St. Cornelius arrived with a request to obtain permission to create a church in the Surskaya monastery, Vasily III Ioannovich did not give permission and ordered the monk to turn to the abbess of the Komel monastery, to which generous grants were given. Vasily III Ioannovich also patronized Anthony of Siysky in the name of the Holy Trinity husband. monastery (founded in 1520). St. Anthony of Siysk sent his disciples Isaiah and Alexander with a petition for help for the monastery to the Grand Duke, who in 1525 issued a grant “for the needs and construction of the monastery,” land, church utensils, asking the monk and the brethren to pray for the childbearing of the Grand Duchess. OK. In 1526, at the expense of the Grand Duke, a stone Trinity Cathedral was built in the Alexander Svirsky Monastery in the name of the Holy Trinity. Like John III, representatives of the Orthodox peoples enslaved by Turkey turned to Vasily III Ioannovich with a request for help. Lively relations with Mount Athos continued, especially during the 1st period of V. I.’s reign; after 1525 they were interrupted for some time due to the condemnation of St. Petersburg at the Council in Moscow. Maxim the Greek and refusal to let him go home. In 1507, the archdeacons came to the Grand Duke with a request for alms to the Athonite monasteries. Pachomius from Panteleimon Monastery and mon. Jacob, in response to Vasily III Ioannovich, sent 5 forty sables, 5 thousand squirrels and a silver charm to the Panteleimon monastery, and 160 gold coins to the other monasteries. In Jan. In 1509, the monks of the Panteleimon Monastery Vasily, Simeon and Jacob brought letters of response to Moscow. Archpriest Paisius announced the receipt of “alms,” called Vasily III Ioannovich “nurse and patron” and wished him victory “over foreign languages.” Igum. Savva also thanked the Panteleimon Monastery for “alms,” mentioned the grants of John III, and called the monastery “your ktitoria.” In response to a new request for help, Vasily III Ioannovich issued 2 charters on July 27, 1509 and sent Archpriest Paisius 5 forty sables and 5 thousand squirrels to all 18 monasteries of Athos and the same number to the Panteleimon Monastery, whose abbot Savva was also issued 2 charters; Svyatogorsk monks were also given the right to freely collect alms in Russia. Almost simultaneously with the Athonite monks, in 1509, envoys from the Serbs came to Moscow. Despot John and Metropolitan of Belgrade. Feofan - elders Anastasius and Ioannikiy (previously they came to John III from Metropolitan Gregory), monks from Kuchaina, from the Transfiguration Monastery also came with them. In response, Vasily III Ioannovich sent letters and alms to Mount Athos and Serbia. Metropolitan of Belgrade Feofan was sent 3 forty sables, 3 thousand squirrels, a silver ktitor's ladle, or bowl, as well as a new letter for the passage of the Serb. monks to Russia. In con. 1514–1515 Monks from the Lavra of St. came to Moscow. Athanasius, Vatopeda, released from Russia with rich gifts. They left Moscow in March 1515 together with the Russian ambassadors V.A. Korobov, who was traveling to the tour. Sultan, V. Kopyl-Spyachy and I. Varavin, who went to the Holy Mountain. Vasily III Ioannovich sent alms of 1000 rubles to Athos, according to the will of his parents. and the same amount from myself (for all monasteries), and to the Lavra of St. Athanasius and in Vatopedi - silver charms, damask vestments and shrouds for the icons of St. Athanasius and Annunciation. These gifts were accompanied by a request to pray “for our health and for our Grand Duchess Solomanida and for our children” (i.e., for the gift of an heir). Dr. the request concerned the sending of a “book translator”. Tver bishop. Neil also sent (through Korobov) gifts to the Patriarch. In addition, a grand ducal charter was sent to the Holy Mountain, granting the Svyatogorsk monks the right to free passage to Russia to collect alms. Kopyl-Spyachy and Varavin returned to Moscow in 1518 (Korobov - in 1516). They arrived along with the embassy of the Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople, whose arrival meant the resumption of contacts between the Russian and Constantinople Churches, interrupted in the 2nd half. XV century in connection with the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church. The Patriarchal Embassy included Metropolitan Gregory of Zikhna (Ioannina), the Patriarchal Hierodeacon. Dionysius, Vatopedi monks, translator of St. Maxim the Greek, confessor Neophyte and monk Lavrenty, from the Panteleimon Monastery - its former abbot Savva with priest. Pachomius and monk Matthew. In his charter, Metropolitan. To Varlaam, Patriarch Theoliptus titled him “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'” and “Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus',” which meant Constantinople recognized the canonicity of the installation of the Russian First Hierarch. The hegumen of the Panteleimon Monastery in a letter, Vasily III Ioannovich, called on him to be “the patron of his fatherland, the house and monastery of St. Panteleimon” and predicted “great reward and mercy... from God... The first will be last, and the last will be first.” The letter also contains a “prayer to the great sovereign” to address the tur. to the Sultan with a request (“speech”) to cancel the tithe from the monastery’s arable land, which goes towards the maintenance of the monastery. Moscow attached great importance to the arrival of the Patriarchal Embassy. News of his arrival and departure were included in the chronicles. Patriarchal letters from Metropolitan. Varlaam are included in the “metropolitan form”, they, like the letters to the Grand Duke, are placed in the embassy book of “Greek affairs”. Patriarchal envoys (and other Greek monks) were present at the funeral of V.I.’s brother, Prince Semyon. The embassy was located in Moscow approx. 1.5 years and returned with rich gifts (not only money, but also icons, clothes, etc.). Along with him, the monk of the Xiropotamus monastery, Isaiah, who had arrived earlier, was released, also with alms. In 1518–1519 Elder Clement of the Sinai Monastery was in Moscow, with whom alms were also sent (600 gold in sables, squirrels, foxes, walrus ivory, etc.). A major event in the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich were the Church Councils of 1525 and 1531 - an important link not only in the struggle between non-covetous people and the Josephites (see Joseph of Volotsky), but also in resolving two important issues of state. and church life - about succession to the throne and the status of the Russian Church, its autocephaly, its place among other Orthodox Churches. It is unknown whether there were attempts on the part of the Patriarchal Ambassador, Metropolitan. Gregory to discuss the issue of the status of the Russian Church during his stay in Moscow. This topic was raised by the Venerable who remained here. Maximus the Greek, apparently ca. 1522, in connection with the installation of Metropolitan. Daniel. Statements by Rev. Maxim was discussed at the Council in the presence of V.I., his brothers, members of the Boyar Duma. Maxim the Greek, who was charged with a large number of charges (of heresy, of espionage for Turkey, etc.), admitted the justice of only one of them, namely, his condemnation of the practice of installing Russian metropolitans in Moscow without the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople (according to St. Maxim, the right to such an appointment could be granted to the Russian Church only by a special charter of the Patriarch). The Council of 1525 considered St. Maxim, guilty of heresy and condemnation of the practice of installing Russian metropolitans, the Athonite monk was excommunicated from the Church and condemned to a solitary stay “in a silent cell.” St. Maxim, considering himself, as a native of the “Greek land,” subject only to the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople, believed that the Moscow Council was not competent to consider his “guilts” and decide his fate. nevertheless, the matter of St. Maxim was also considered at the Council of 1531, to which he was brought together with Vassian (Patrikeev). They were charged with “blasphemy” against Russian miracle workers (bishops and founders of monasteries). The reason for this accusation was the conviction of St. Maxim and Vassian of the monastery fiefdom and large-scale editing of liturgical books, according to which, as the participants of the Council stated, for many years. Russian miracle workers have been saved for centuries. In addition, Vassian was accused of “corrupting” the Helmsman’s Book. Judgment list 1531 has not been completely preserved, and the decisions of the Council are unknown. The reign of Vasily III Ioannovich dates back to active stone construction in Moscow, primarily church construction, including the completion of the formation of the architectural ensemble of the Moscow Kremlin, which began under John III. Simultaneously with the move of Vasily III Ioannovich to the new grand-ducal palace in 1508, the decoration of the Annunciation Cathedral, the home church of the grand-ducal family, was completed: the top was covered and gilded, interior painting was done (the frescoes were made by Theodosius and Vladimir, the sons of the icon painter Dionysius), precious frames of gold, silver and beads were placed on the icons. By 1508 ital. architect Aleviz Novy completed the construction of the Archangel Cathedral - the ancestral tomb of Moscow. grand-ducal family (construction began in 1506) and erected a c. Nativity of John the Baptist at the Borovitsky Gate. In 1508 other Italian. master - Bon Fryazin built the Ivan the Great church-tower “to the tune of bells”. The year 1514 was marked by the foundation, at the behest of Vasily III Ioannovich, of more than 10 stone churches in Moscow, the construction of which was carried out by Aleviz the New. After the capture of Smolensk in 1514, the Grand Duke vowed to found a monastery; in 1524, construction began on the Novodevichy Monastery in Moscow in honor of the Smolensk Icon of the Mother of God, completed in 1525. Ital. craftsmen took part in the construction of the stone Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (1513) and the pillar-shaped church-bell tower in Alexandrova Sloboda (10s of the 16th century), which became the country residence of Vasily III Ioannovich. A number of stone churches in Moscow were built by order of the Grand Duke in 1527: in honor of the Transfiguration at the Grand Duke's court, in the name St. Vmch. George at the Frolov Gate, in the name of St. Princes Boris and Gleb on the Arbat. The foreign policy of Vasily III Ioannovich developed in the same basic directions that were developed under his father. In relations with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the main goal remained the return of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian lands with an Orthodox population. Throughout most of the reign of Vasily III Ioannovich, the Russian-Lithuanian war continued, which began at the end. XV century (wars of 1493–1494 and 1500–1503, during which significant territories were annexed to Russia under John III). At the beginning of V.I.’s reign – in 1507–1508. military operations were not as successful as in the previous reign; they were preceded by an unsuccessful attempt by Vasily III Ioannovich to occupy the vacant Lithuanian throne. During the military operations of 1512–1522. Russian troops took Smolensk (its annexation to Russia was recorded in the Russian-Lithuanian agreement of 1522), unsuccessful attempts were made to take Polotsk and other cities. In Russian-Livonian relations, the Russian government until the middle. XVI century did not set the task of subjugating Livonia and freeing exits to the Baltic Sea. The Russian-Livonian treaties included only articles that provided for the creation of more favorable conditions for trade of Russian merchants in Livonia. The stabilization of relations with Crimea and Kazan, achieved under John III, was disrupted due to a change in the balance of power between the khanates after the destruction of the Great Horde in 1502. The repulsion of military raids and campaigns was combined with diplomatic efforts to resolve complex issues. The government of Vasily III Ioannovich sought to maintain friendly relations with the Sultan's Turkey. Attempts by the empire and the papacy to involve Russia in the anti-Turkish coalition remained fruitless, since Russia did not feel ready for military confrontation. Relations with the papal throne were very active, conducted not on the church, but on the state. level. Proposals to join the anti-Turkish coalition from Pope Leo X were coupled with proposals to “unite the Churches” on the terms of the Ferrara-Florence Council (papal breves to Vasily III Ioannovich on July 4, 1518, September 16, 1519). Pope Clement VII wrote to the Grand Duke only about the “unity” of the Churches, without touching on other issues, and asserted that he would consider for himself the highest reward “the sacred union of love and friendship (breve May 25, 1524). Vasily III Ioannovich, in response, assured of his readiness to be with the pope “in love and good harmony,” but rejected the union, declaring that “from his ancestors the Greek law... holds fast.” Just before his death, Vasily III Ioannovich took monastic vows with the name Varlaam. He was buried in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. In mid. 50s XVII century The cellarer of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Simon (Azaryin) noted the repose of Vasily III Ioannovich (under the wrong year and without indicating the day of remembrance) in his Monthly Book: “In the summer of 7046, the blessed Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich reposed in the Varlam monastery, and at the time of his repose the church was filled with many fragrances” (RSL. MDA. ? 201. L. 308). Source: Maximilian I. Brieff an Basilium Iwanowitz Grossf?rsten der Russen. Freystadt, 1723; Correspondence of popes with Russian sovereigns in the 16th century. St. Petersburg, 1834; Letters from Russian sovereigns and other members of the royal family. M., 1848. T. 1; Obolensky M.A. Acts concerning the arrival of Maxim the Greek to Russia // VOIDR. 1850. Prince 5. Mixture; Muravyov A. N. Relations between Russia and the East on church affairs. M., 1858. Part 1; Kashtanov S. M. Chronological list of immunity documents of the 16th century. [Ch. 1] // AE for 1957. M., 1958. P. 302–376; Part 2 // AE for 1960. M., 1962. P. 129–200; Kashtanov S. M., Nazarov V. D., Florya B. N. Chronological list of immunity documents of the 16th century. Part 3 // AE for 1966. M., 1968. P. 197–253; The story of the illness and death of Vasily III // PLDR: Ser. XVI century M., 1985. S. 18–47; The same // BLDR. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. 10. P. 20–47; Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. M., 1988; The idea of ​​Rome in Moscow: Sources on the history of Russian societies. thoughts, XV-XVI centuries. Rome, 1993; Francesco da Collo. Report on Muscovy. M., 1996; Russia in the 1st half. XVI century: a view from Europe / Comp. O. F. Kudryavtsev. M., 1997. Literature: Kashprovsky E.I. The struggle of Vasily III Ivanovich with Sigismund I Kazimirovich over the possession of Smolensk (1507–1522) // Collection. history-philol. society at the Institute of Prince Bezborodko in Nezhin. K., 1899. T. 2; Demchenko V. Trade of Moscow with Lithuania, Crimea and Turkey by diplomatic means. relations of the era of Ivan III and Vasily III. K., 1916; Dunaev B.I. Lecturer Maxim Greek and Greek idea in Rus' in the 16th century. M., 1916; Presnyakov A.E. Testament of Vasily III // Collection. Art. on Russian history, dedicated. S. F. Platonov. Pg., 1922. P. 71–80; Smirnov I.I. Eastern policy of Vasily III // IZ. 1948. T. 27. P. 18–66; Kazakova N. A. Russian-Livonian and Russian-Hanseatic relations, con. XIV – beginning XVI century L., 1975; Kuznetsov A. B. On the issue of wrestling Rus. states for the reunification of Western-Russian lands in the beginning XVI century // Tr. Research Institute of Language and Literature. Saransk, 1964; Rozov N. N. Laudatory speech to Grand Duke Vasily III // AE for 1964. M., 1965. P. 278–315; Sinitsyna N.V. Message from Maxim the Greek to Vasily III on the organization of the Athonite monasteries (1518–1519) // VV. M., 1965. T. 26. P. 110–136; she is the same. Third Rome. Origins and evolution of Russian. medieval concept (XV-XVI centuries). M., 1998; Kashtanov S. M. Sots.-polit. history of Russia con. XV – 1st half. XVI century M., 1967; aka. Finance of medieval Rus'. M., 1988; aka. From the history of Russian. medieval source (Acts of the X-XVI centuries). M., 1996; Schmidt S. O. About the time of compilation of the “Extract” about the 2nd marriage of Vasily III // New information about the past of our country. M., 1967. S. 110–122; Begunov Yu. K. The story of the 2nd marriage of Vasily III // TODRL. 1970. T. 25. P. 105–118; Balyazin V.N. Russian-imperial relations in the 1st third of the 16th century. // Questions of historiography and source study of Slavic-German relations. M., 1973; Zimin A. A. Russia on the threshold of a new time: (Essays on the political history of Russia in the 1st third of the 16th century). M., 1972; aka. Extract about the 2nd marriage of Vasily III // TODRL. 1976. T. 30. P. 132–148; aka. Large feudal estate and social-political. wrestling in Russia (late 15th-16th centuries). M., 1977; aka. Russia at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries: (Essays on social and political history). M., 1982; Morozov S. A. Experience in literary analysis of “The Tale of the Illness and Death of Vasily III” // Questions of source study and historiography of the history of dosov. period. M., 1979. S. 88–98; aka. The story of the death of Vasily III and Russian. chronicle // Theory and practice of source study and archeography of our country. stories: Sat. Art. M., 1978. S. 61–77; R?ss H. Der Bojar M. Ju. Zachar'in im Chronikbericht ?ber die letzten Tage Vasilijs III. // FzOG. 1980. Bd. 27. pp. 168–176; Pliguzov A. I., Semenchenko G. V. Mitr. Daniel about the heir of Vasily III // Tr. State Historical Museum. Vol. 71. M., 1989. S. 139–154; Kleshchinov V.N., Molchanov A.A. Smolensk money of Vasily III // Sov. archaeol. 1990. No. 2. pp. 258–260; Mikelis Ch. de. Unknown sources in Greek language about Ivan IV // Roman-Constantinople heritage in Rus': the idea of ​​power and politics. practice. M., 1995. S. 231–235; Kudryavtsev O. F. Unknown. charter of Charles V to Basil III // New and recent history. 1997. No. 5. P. 224–228; Macarius (Veretennikov), archimandrite. Blessed Mosk. Prince Vasily III (1479–1533) // Makarievsky readings: Milestones of Russian history in cultural monuments. Mozhaisk, 1998. Issue. 5. pp. 106–130; Vozgrin V. E., Shaskolsky I. P., Shrader T. A. Letters of Grand Duke Vasily III to tribute collectors in Lop land // VID. 1998. T. 26. P. 125–135; Solodkin Ya. G. On the dating of the “Extract” about the second marriage of Vasily III // Humanit. science in Siberia. Ser.: Otech. story. 1998. No. 2. P. 59–63; Krivtsov Yu. D. Embassy of the Ecumenical Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople to Moscow in 1518–1519. // Minin readings. N. Novg., 2001. pp. 45–67. Most of the famous images of Vasily III Ioannovich represent him as a Grand Duke - in an embroidered fur coat and a princely hat. At the same time, a unique tombstone icon of the Grand Duke from the 60s has been preserved. XVI century (State Historical Museum) “St. Basil the Great and Grand Duke Vasily III in Prayer,” located until 1894 in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, on which he is depicted in monastic vestments. The saint and the sovereign-schema-monk are painted full-length in front of the image of the Mother of God “The Sign” in the heavenly segment, on its sides, in the lower part there are figures of 2 flying angels. In accordance with the rank of the great schema-monk, Vasily III Ioannovich is dressed in a light tunic, a brown mantle, a dark green schema with cinnabar crosses and a lectern, intercepted by a belt, a doll rests on his shoulders. The bright individual characteristics and manner of execution of the face of Vasily III Ioannovich have no analogues in Russian icon painting of that period and allow us to assume, despite traditions. the iconography of the icon, that Zap took part in its creation. artist (Kyzlasova. P. 309). Perhaps the inscriptions made during the period of renovation of the icon, ca. 1681 (“Blessed Prince Great Vasily Ioannovich, Autocrat of All Rus' in the monastic rank of Monk Varlaam” and “St. Basil the Great”), reproduce the original ones. It is also possible that before their restoration, the name of the heavenly patron of Vasily III Ioannovich, St. Basil the Great, was indicated on the icon. Vasily Parisky. According to the description of I.M. Snegirev (1837), the icon was located to the south. wall, at the door of the cathedral, where approx. 1680 from the local row of the iconostasis, where it occupied a place above the shrine of Vasily III Ioannovich or next to it. On the shroud "Church procession with the icon of Hodegetria" con. XV century (c. 1498?) from the Assumption or Ascension Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, according to the assumptions of M. V. Shchepkina and N. A. Mayasova, Vasily III Ioannovich is depicted among the participants in the procession on Palm Sunday on April 8. 1498 together with his parents Grand Duke John III and Grand Duchess Sophia Paleologus, nephew Demetrius (son of John the Young and Elena Stefanovna (Voloshanka)). The tradition of depicting Byzantine emperors found a unique development in a number of monuments of Russian monumental painting. XVI century and was associated with the idea of ​​​​the continuity of the royal power of the Moscow sovereigns. The symbolic program for painting the Golden Chamber of the Grand Duke's Palace in 1547 (not preserved, known from the description of the 17th century by the awarded icon painter of the Armory Chamber, Simon Ushakov) included figures of Russian princes from Vladimir Svyatoslavich to Vasily III Ioannovich. The image of Vasily III Ioannovich as the ktitor who completed the construction of the cathedral is presented in the painting of the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (1564–1565) in the most honorable place, opposite the main entrance to the cathedral, on the west. northwest edge pillar (in the upper left corner there is an image of the blessing Savior, in the lower right - a lectern with a royal crown lying on it) and to the south. wall, at the top right there is a medallion with an image of St. Vasily Pariysky. Modern researchers (Kyzlasova, p. 318) speak with confidence about the existence of a lifetime portrait of V.I., which may have become a protograph for Western Europe. engravings of the 16th century, distinguished by a noticeable similarity with the facial features of the sovereign (see in the 1st and subsequent editions of Herberstein’s books “Rerum Moscoviticarum Comentarii... (Viennae, 1549), engraver Hirschvogel, and Paul Jovius “Novocomensis Episcopi Nucerini Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium, VII libris... (Basil, 1575), engravings by Christopher von Sychem the Elder based on Fig. Tobias Stiemer and others). This sample portrait could be the pictorial image of V.I. mentioned by D. A. Rovinsky, brought to Rome in 1525 by the interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov. Images of Vasily III Ioannovich are also presented in the illustration of events of Russian history in the Litsevoy Chronicle, 70s. XVI century (Shumilov volume. RNB. F IV. 232; for example, on L. 863 - the wedding of Vasily III Ioannovich with Elena Glinskaya), and on the miniature of the Tsar’s Titular Book of 1672 (RGADA). Commentary in the media mirror St. Maxim Grek. Icon from the 2nd half of the 17th century. Life at the intersection of traditions: on the 450th anniversary of the repose of St. Maxim Grek In 1556, a monk named Maxim, nicknamed the Greek, died in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. He was buried with great honors in the Holy Spiritual Church of the Lavra. In 1988, the Monk Maxim the Greek was canonized as a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church; his memory is celebrated on February 3. The saint’s short nickname encapsulates his entire eventful fate: under any circumstances, he remained a Greek, the heir and bearer of the spiritual culture of the dying Byzantium. The Lord has prepared Fr. Maxim will taste the potions of the Italian Renaissance and develop a strong immunity to the fashion for astrology, neo-paganism and the occult, widespread among educated people of that time. This was followed by 10 years of monastic feat on Mount Athos in the Vatopedi monastery. The life path of the Monk Maxim the Greek ended in Russia, where he was called as a translator, but, by the will of God, he became a mentor and fully experienced the grand-ducal mercy and disgrace. Not mastering the intricacies of the political game of the Moscow court, but experienced in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and the works of the holy fathers, the Athonite could not leave without conscientious, thorough and completely undiplomatic answers to the challenges of the community of the young and growing Moscow power. And, in the end, his life, as Church historian A.V. Kartashev noted, turned into a hagiography. Around 1475, “Maxim Grekov was born from the Epirus city of Arta, the father of Manuel and Irina, Greek Christians and philosophers.” 44 In his early youth, Michael Trevolis (the worldly name of Maximus the Greek) and his relatives moved to the island of Corfu, and from there to Italy. This was the custom among the educated residents of Byzantium, recently conquered by the Turks. The Greek-Catholic union dominated in Corfu, but for the majority of Orthodox emigrants, Uniates and Catholics represented a lesser evil compared to the Mohammedans. From 1492 to 1505, Michael Trevolis spent in Italy. The Greek language, Greek literature, and the Greeks themselves were in fashion. Trevolis began by proofreading editions of the Greek Fathers of the Church at the Venetian printing house of Aldo Manucci. Then, fascinated by the charm of the Renaissance, he attended lectures at the universities of Padua, Milan, Ferrara, and Florence. In 1503, the young philosopher Michael received the meeting and patronage of the then famous professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne University, John Lascaris. For a long time, Trevolis lived and worked in the palace of the famous humanist and nobleman Pico della Marandolla, where he was received and loved as a close family friend and an interesting interlocutor. It seemed that nothing could overshadow the brilliant career of the young and talented philosopher, but Mikhail, abandoning everything, fled to Athos. Here we should make a small digression, which will allow us to better understand the course of events. Soon after the ruin of Constantinople, the cherished dream of the wealthy Florentine Doge Cosimo Medici came true, about whom Pope Pius II said: “Political issues are decided in his house. The man he chooses gets the post... He declares war and peace and enforces the laws... He is king in everything but title.” 45 In the summer of 1460, the monk Leonardo da Pistoia delivered the so-called Cosimo de' Medici. "Hermeticus": several books in Greek, the authorship of which was attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (the legendary magician who was believed to be revered in ancient Egypt in the form of the god of wisdom Thoth). By order of Cosimo de' Medici, wandering Catholic monks brought shrines and examples of culture and art to Italy from the devastated Byzantium, but, above all, they looked for books that were considered lost. The importance of the discovery of the Hermetica for Cosimo de' Medici was so great that he ordered his adopted son Marsilio Ficino to immediately postpone the translation of Plato's works into Latin and take up a similar translation of the Hermetica. Ficino entitled his translation “Pimander” (from the Greek poimadres, which in turn came from poime-n-re - “knowledge of Ra”), however, “for the sake of inquisitorial fear,” he called the author of “Hermetics” the teacher of Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras, Philolaus, who passed on his knowledge to Plato. "Pimander" soon became extremely popular in the enlightened circles of Catholic Europe, and the Roman See did not oppose this. Ficino himself, a few years after the release of Pimandra, became a high-ranking dignitary and headed the Florentine Platonic Academy. Another example is that one of the frescoes of the cathedral in Siena, built in 1488, depicts Hermes Trismegistus giving a man in oriental clothing a book with the inscription “Suscipite o licteras et leges egiptii” (“Accept your writings and laws, O Egyptians”). The inscription under the feet of the two figures reads: “Hermes Mercury, contemporary of Moses.” 46 The humanist Pico della Mirandola, under whose patronage the young translator Michael Trivolis lived and worked from the mid-1490s, was an exemplary intellectual product of the Italian Renaissance. In his head, neo-pagan superstitions, astrology and the occult coexisted quite calmly with church dogmas, and knowledge of ancient literature and philosophy served as a criterion for education and morality. Mirandola received with great enthusiasm not only Pimandra, but also Kabbalah, and tried to synthesize a fusion of Hermeticism and Kabbalah with Christianity. This is how the “Christian Hermetic Kabbalah” appeared. The Inquisition became interested in Mirandola's invention, and the humanist was forced to flee to France. After some time, he returned to his homeland under the patronage of Lorenzo Medici (grandson of Cosimo Medici), who petitioned Pope Innocent VIII for Mirandola. The next pope, Alexander VI (Borgia), was completely far from theological subtleties. He took the Roman See for the sake of power, money and those pleasures that can be obtained with money and power. It is not surprising that he was sympathetic to magic, Kabbalah and Hermeticism, granted absolution to the humanist and called him “a faithful son of the church.” There was a brave soul who publicly condemned the vices that reigned among the highest Catholic clergy under Pope Alexander VI, and also inspired the citizens of Florence to fight the omnipotence of the House of Medici - Fra Girolamo Savonarola. In the house of Pico della Mirandola they admired Savonarolla's feat and also “mercilessly castigated” Vatican morals, contributing to the transformation of young Michael Trevolis into an “enlightened Catholic.” However, the Catholic Church (more precisely, the union of the pope and Lorenzo de' Medici), having granted forgiveness to Mirandola, declared Savonarola's accusatory sermon as freethinking, and the doctrine of theocracy as heresy and, in the end, executed the preacher. Subsequently, already in Moscow, Father Maxim recalled how courageously Savonarolla resisted the prohibitions on conducting his sermons: “Not exactly did not listen to the lawless advice of the wicked, but rather, with divine jealousy, their conciliar message, like unrighteous and displeasing to God, was exposed. And for this reason, many remained, exposing their iniquities. Already, how foolish it is for me to think, judging myself and dying for piety and God’s glory, if necessary.” 47 The Dominican's feat forced Michael Trevolis to re-evaluate the fashionable hobbies of the minds of Italy in a Christian way. At this turning point for himself, he realized that not all knowledge is good, and realized the responsibility to other people that lies on the shoulders of an educated person. Subsequently, Maxim the Greek repentantly admitted his youthful passion for astrology and warned about the danger of this pseudoscience for spiritual health: “I have learned through the art of many years of painful stargazing... By this art I have understood: not a single one of the teachings of the world has heeded the pure faith in God.” 48 After the execution of Savonarolla and in view of the beginning of the offensive of the troops of the French king Francis I, the Pico family moved to Bavaria, and Michael Trevolis took monastic vows in the Florentine monastery of St. Brand. The walls of this monastery preserved the memory of Savonarolla’s feat, but the Vatican censorship tried to destroy all remnants of “heresy” there too. Having not lived even two years in the monastery, in 1505 Michael Trevolis secretly fled to Athos. "Maxim Grekov's birth" On Mount Athos, the rebirth of the Catholic monk and humanist Mikhail Trevolis into the Orthodox scholar-scribe Maxim the Greek took place. Monk Maxim labored for 10 years on the Holy Mountain. The former Patriarch of Constantinople Niphon became his spiritual mentor. In 1515, an embassy from Moscow arrived on Athos. The ambassadors were looking for an expert in Greek and Russian to work on the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, which was kept in the grand ducal library. The Russian state at that time needed an explanation of the books of the Old Testament in connection with the ongoing theological polemics with the Judaizers. The heresy was branded, the leaders of the sectarians were convicted, but the heretics who remained free hid behind their apparent ideological closeness to the teachings of Nile of Sora, which was very unpleasant for Grand Duke Vasily III and Metropolitan Varlaam, who sympathized with the non-covetous people. The famous Athonite translator monk Savva, due to his old age and illness, asked Protat not to send him to Moscow. Then the Svyatogorsk residents decided to send monk Maxim to Russia, convincing the ambassadors that he had already studied several European languages ​​and “will become proficient in the Russian language.” In March 1518, Maxim the Greek and his comrades reached Moscow. His path lay through Constantinople and the Crimean Perekop, during which time the monk learned to speak and write in Russian. The Grand Duke and Metropolitan warmly received the Athonites, placed them in the court Miracle Monastery and laid out a table from the Grand Duke's kitchen. Prince Vasily allocated two more embassy interpreters (Dmitry Gerasimov and monk Vlasiy) and two copyists (Mikhail Medovartsev and Trinity monk Silouan) to help Maxim the Greek and his two henchmen. The Explanatory Psalter was translated in a year and five months. At the same time, at the request of Metropolitan Varlaam, the Commentaries on the first part of the Acts of the Apostles were translated, which could help the Bishop in polemics with the Josephite money-grubbers. Having finished their work, the guest translators began to ask to return to Athos. Moscow released two of Maxim the Greek’s henchmen, but confronted him with a new task: to straighten the Church Slavonic liturgical books according to the Greek model. The monk looked through and roughly corrected the texts of the Colored Triodion, the Book of Hours, the Gospel, the Apostle, confirming that there were a lot of inaccuracies in the translation and correspondence, and a huge amount of work remains to be done on the errors. “Here, you go to work,” the Russian authorities ordered. By getting involved in correcting liturgical books, Maxim Grek actually signed his own sentence of life imprisonment in Russia. His proofreading began to be used as argumentation and counterargumentation for supporters of the Josephites and non-covetous people, fighters for church Russian independence from Constantinople and against it. The Russian state was rapidly turning into a power; this required theological justification. Again, the fashion for astrology and neo-paganism gradually penetrated into Russia from the West. Maxim Grek was forced to respond to all these challenges, inevitably becoming an increasingly politically active person. In particular, the reverend’s polemic with the Catholic Nikolai Nemchin, who called himself “professore di medicina e di astrologia,” has nothing to do with the translation and proofreading work for which Maxim the Greek appeared in Moscow. If the monk had a little less sense of responsibility, there would be no treatises and letters on the procession of the Holy Spirit (regarding the felioque), celibacy of clergy, unleavened bread, purgatory, overcoming the Catholic-Orthodox schism, etc. Nemchin also confused the minds of Russian people with the temptation to find out the future with the help of astrology and intimidated him with the prospect of a new global flood, which was supposedly expected in 1524. In response, the monk wrote several letters, where he pointed out the contradiction of astrological views with Christian dogmas (in particular, about the freedom of choice of the soul between good and evil), as well as the Holy Scripture, where the Lord promised Noah not to repeat the flood. At the same time, under the influence of the monastic prince Vassian Patrikeev, following the Greek-Byzantine tradition of enlightenment among baptized, but still barbarian peoples, “obeying the Divine teaching, commanding to speak before the kings and not be ashamed” 49 and remembering the sermons of Savonarolla, Maxim the Greek got involved in the struggle of non-covetous people with the Josephites with the treatise “Acquisition of known monastic residence." The treatise is composed in the form of a dialogue between a non-covetous man and a covetous man. With great wit and imagery, the author of the treatise supported the position of the first character. Thus, at the end of the debate, the covetous argues that the dispute is meaningless, since all acquisitions belong to the monastery and the monks have nothing of their own. The non-possessor objects, saying that this argument “does not differ at all from how if many lived with one harlot and, in case of reproach, everyone began to say: “I do not sin at all, for she is the equally common property of all.” The last word, therefore, remains with the non-covetous, through whose mouth the author asserts: “It is much better and more salutary for those who beg for Christ to go around cities and countries. And if there is no place where you happen to be reviled and dishonored, behold, with thanksgiving endure the commandment of Spasov and those who keep the rules of monastic life, rather than shower themselves with silver and gold and be fenced off by lands and villages except the commandments of the Lord.” 50 Maxim the Greek also revealed his position on the better arrangement of monastic life in “The Terrible and Memorable Tale and about Perfect Monastic Life”, “A Sermon on Repentance to Certain Honest Nuns and on the Unhypocritical and Known Honest Monastic Life”, “A Memorable Sermon on the Correction of Monastic Life to Certain Honest Elders”. In general, the ideal of Maxim the Greek was this: enlightened by the wisdom of the God-inspired Scriptures and filled with love for their neighbors, the brethren are engaged in collecting alms and spiritually nourishing the laity in cities and towns. Apparently, the formation of Maxim the Greek’s position was influenced not only by Savonarolla’s sermons and personal conversations with the monk Vassian, but also by the negative example of the corrupting luxury of the highest clerics of the Catholic Church during the reign of Pope Alexander VI. Perhaps a lot of bewilderment among the Athonites was caused by the ignorance reigning among the Russian clergy, who were busy, for the most part, with household work, while the inhabitants of Catholic monasteries, according to their charters, studied the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Holy Fathers. God be with them, with the regulations, but have the Russians really not been able to raise their own translators from the Greek language for half a millennium? Why did the Explanatory Psalter and other Greek books gather dust peacefully on the shelves of the Grand Ducal Library for countless years? All these questions can be answered in one word: tradition. There was a tradition when learned Greeks came and taught Russians in their own way, everyone (both Russians and Greeks) got used to it. However, by the 16th century, circumstances had changed and required a corresponding change in traditions. The author of the concept “Moscow – the third Rome”, Elder Philotheus, makes a characteristic statement about himself: “I am a rural man and ignorant in wisdom, ... I was neither born in Athens, nor did the philosopher study with the wise” 51 . By the way, Filofey was not alone. The messages of the elder are consonant with “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” (about the origin of the Rurikids from the Roman Emperor Augustus, during whose reign the Savior was born), “The Tale of Babylon” (about how a Rusyn youth participated in the delivery of the royal crown from Babylon to the court of the Greek Orthodox sovereign) and, of course, “The Tale of the White klobuk”, given by Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester, but ultimately ended up in Novgorod. It’s clear: every sandpiper praises its swamp. However, while Philotheus’s comrades were talking about the equality of the Moscow sovereigns with the emperors and about the special position of the Russian Church among other Churches, the thesis “Moscow is the Third Rome” quickly enough gave rise to the related one “Moscow is the new Jerusalem, Russia is the new Israel, the Promised Land,” and the Grand Duke, with his power, planned to step over church law and divorce his barren wife. Maxim the Greek, as befitted a learned Athonite, joined this harmonious choir with his dissonant teachings. Of course, the position of the visiting translator displeased the Grand Duke. Previously, he supported the Trans-Volga elders, now he began to be friends with the Josephites against the overly influential Greek. Letting him go back to Athos would have been the end of the matter, but Vasily III decided to demonstrate who was boss: Vladyka Varlaam dared to join Maxim and went into captivity, the Russian Church was headed by Metropolitan Daniel, and the life of the Holy Mountain turned into a hagiography. The protege of Vasily III and follower of Joseph of Volotsky, Vladyka Daniel, helped the Grand Duke find arguments for both a new marriage and for eliminating the intractable Greek. The Holy Mountainer was asked to translate the work of Blessed Theodoret “History of the Church,” which contained large excerpts from heretical texts. Maxim the Greek refused, remembering the effect acquaintance with heretical literature had on Italy and in view of the even lower level of Christian education in Russia. The refusal led to accusations of disobedience, lack of diligence in one’s translation duties, and, finally, malicious distortion of the truths of the Holy Church. The fact is that during the editing of the text of the Colored Triodion, the monk could not find an adequate correspondence to the Greek aorist in the Russian language and corrected the phrase “ascend into heaven and become gray” (about Christ) to “there are saddles”, and “sedyay” to “grayed.” So they wrote in the accusation: “Maxim the monk of the Svyatogorets spoke and taught many and wrote about Christ, as Christ’s seat at the right hand of the Father is past and past.” Subsequently, under Patriarch Nikon, the Russian Church fell into the trap of its own literalism. So, the judges decided that the Svyatogorsk translator turned out to be bad and malicious, but this accusation was still not enough. There were “well-wishers” who reported to the Grand Duke about the alleged espionage activities of the Athonite in favor of the Turks, thus initiating a criminal case. The one who until recently was listened to with great reverence, “was killed by scum and smoke and famine” in Metropolitan Daniel’s native Volokolamsk monastery. From 1525 to 1531, the terrible Volotsk imprisonment of Maxim the Greek lasted, and during all this time he never succumbed to the temptation to make hypocritical repentance for sins that he did not commit. Therefore, when in 1531 the monk again appeared in court (this time in connection with the case of Vassian Patrikeev), he was, on top of everything, accused of unrepentance, and at the same time condemned for company with the monk prince, for supporting the Trans-Volga elders. Realizing the futility of trying to justify himself, the monk only bowed to the ground and asked for mercy. The hearts of the judges softened a little, and the saint was transferred to the Tverskoy Otroch Monastery, where the abbot allowed the Greek to continue his work. During the 20 years of imprisonment in Tver, the monk wrote most of his 300 works, also continuing to edit Russian liturgical books, with the blessing of the abbot of the monastery, Archbishop Akakiy. Having reconsidered the accusations brought against him in his “Discourse on the Benefits of Grammar,” he concluded: “Grammar is the beginning and the end of all wisdom.” The idea is not new for the Greek tradition, but, in the context of the case fabricated against the monk, it demonstrates the strength of spirit and true humility of the saint. In 1532, the cathedral with its rich sacristy burned down in Tver. The monk responded to this event with a treatise in the form of a dialogue between the Lord and Bishop Akaki, who was perplexed as to why the Savior allowed the disaster to happen, because people decorated His church, honored holidays, offered incense and chants. The Lord answered: “I want mercy, not sacrifice. What joy is there for Me from your red-voiced singing along with the sobs and sighs of My beggar, crying out to Me from terrible hunger?... You... decorate the book of My words, both outside and inside, very richly with silver and gold, but you do not accept the power of My commandments written in it, nor do you want to fulfill it.” 52 A similar denunciation of Russian formal piety was put by the monk into the mouth of the Most Holy Theotokos in “Words, like from the person of the Mother of God to the covetous and the nasty, filled with all sorts of malice, and the canons with all sorts of different songs to please the faithful.” In 1539, after the death of his patron, the second wife of Vasily III, Grand Duchess Elena Glinskaya, Metropolitan Daniel was forced to renounce the see, which was occupied by the Trinity abbot Joasaph. His Eminence declared the canonical unity of Moscow with Constantinople and replaced the prison sentence of Maxim the Greek in Tver with a suspended sentence. In 1542, the monk dared to ask Bishop Joasaph for permission to return to Athos. However, by the will of Prince Shuisky, a new metropolitan was already sitting in Moscow - Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod, a well-read man, diplomatic and a great caretaker of the needs of the Church. The elderly Maxim, apparently, no longer hoped to see Athos. The excommunication from Holy Communion, imposed through the efforts of the former Bishop Daniel, caused him great pain. In response to the monk’s request to lift the anathema, Metropolitan Macarius said that “he kisses his bonds, as one of the saints,” but these bonds can only be removed by Metropolitan Daniel, who imposed them, and is living out his life in Volotsk. Bishop Daniel refused to admit his bias in the case of Maxim the Greek and suggested asking for Communion, claiming to be terminally ill. Maxim the Greek rejected this diplomacy with the words: “It is not taught by the holy apostles and reverend fathers to cleanse yourself of the Divine Mysteries in secret and with lies.” 53 In the end, the ban was lifted, but the Afonite was still not allowed to go home - this could have ended in an international scandal. Around 1545, the monk wrote a letter to the young John IV, which, in fact, substantiated future absolutism. Unfortunately, this message was not accepted in essence, but formally (again, due to the destruction of the old tradition of learning bookishness from the Greeks, but due to the absence of a new tradition of learning science in general). Maxim wrote: “The king ... is nothing else but a living image and we see, that is, animated, the very King of Heaven, just as a certain Greek philosopher spoke to a certain king saying: having been confident of the kingdom, be worthy of it, the king of God is an animated image, that is, alive.” A little earlier, in his commentary on the Followed Psalter, he used the word “Christ” to mean “anointed one.” 54 In 1551, the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Artemy, asked the Tsar and Metropolitan for permission for Maxim, whom he respected and appreciated, to live in his monastery. The Council of the Hundred Heads, held in the same year, legitimized Josephiteism, which received, not without the help of a Greek scientist, the status of a Russian national ideology. And yet, the monk spent the last five years of his life in freedom, asceticizing in the service of God along with the Lavra brethren. As usual, the authorities valued the deceased Maxim the Greek more highly than the living one. In particular, his image, along with other teachers of wisdom Homer, Plato, Diogenes and Plutarch, is placed on the frescoes of the porch of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. In the 17th century, the works of the aphonite were widely published in Moscow, Kyiv, Vilna and other cities. Many historians, including Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), called the saint a messenger of genuine scientific enlightenment in Russia. However, strictly speaking, Maxim the Greek was not a scientist. He saw the very beginning of Western science, which, in its youth, recoiled from Christianity, which, in turn, pushed the monk towards Byzantine bookishness. 10 years of Athonite obedience (and the main task of the inhabitants of the Svyatogorsk monasteries of that time was the preservation of the Byzantine heritage, but not development) strengthened Maxim in his choice. The scribe sets a model, as if telling his students: “Do as I do.” Maxim the Greek wrote in his treatise “On the Alien Philosophers”: “... Leave the righteous judgment to you, my masters, for a short period of time, written down by me in the wise Hellenic image for the temptation of everyone who boasts. If, after my death, someone comes to you, and if he can translate for you the term of those according to my translation, have faith in him, he is good and skillful” 55). The scientist calls: “Do it with me.” Many people of that time considered themselves students of Maxim the Greek. Among them is Zinovy ​​Otensky, who, as befits a scribe, argued that the main thing is to follow the pattern sanctified by God and custom. For example, he taught that the Russian language was revealed by God, and Russian church books were written by saints, therefore it is not only unnecessary to edit them, but also sacrilegious. Another student of the reverend, Andrei Kurbsky, is considered by historians of science to be the first Russian scientist. Kurbsky already put forward scientific (i.e., devoid of such subjective factors as authority, custom, generally accepted, etc.) expediency and truth as a justification for mental activity. And yet, if Prince Andrei had not been able to leave Russia on time, perhaps there would have been one less scientist in the history of science, and one more life in the Russian calendar... By the way, Stoglav’s decision, which condemned Maxim the Greek, has not yet been canceled, but that is a completely different story. Russia and the Greek world. In two volumes. M., 2004. T. 1. P. 127–131, 153–159, 334–340; Collection of the Russian Historical Society. St. Petersburg, 1895. T. 95. pp. 105–106, 369–370, 427, 474, 495–496. Sinitsyna N.V. Tales of St. Maxim the Greek. M., 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Legends); Belokurov S. A. About the library of Moscow sovereigns. M., 1899. Applications. WITH. ?? Works of St. Maximus the Greek. Kazan, 1860. Part 2, pp. 269–319. Inventory of the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626 / Prepared. for publication V.I. Goltsov, ed. S. O. Schmidt. M., 1977. P. 71. Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. Ed. preparation N. N. Pokrovsky, ed. S. O. Schmidt. M., 1871. P. 97. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Kazan, 1860. Part 2. pp. 369–376 (quoted in the translation of the author of the article). For more details, see Sinitsyna N.V. Third Rome. Origins and evolution of the Russian medieval concept. XV-XVI centuries M., 1997. S. ?? Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Kazan, 1860. Part ?? pp. 452–453. Zimin A. A. Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III / Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House). L., 1976. T. 30. P. 143. One more can be added to the arguments of A. A. Zimin, who proved the later origin of the monument (early 17th century). The Russian Church Council is repeatedly called “ecumenical,” which appears, apparently, after the establishment of the patriarchate. However, it cannot be ruled out that it was based on some earlier text. A similar situation is typical, for example, for the Tale of the Novgorod White Cowl and for a number of other monuments. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Greek in Russia. M., 1977. pp. 265–270. Sobolevsky S.I. Translated literature of Moscow Rus'. Bibliographic materials. St. Petersburg, 1903; Denissoff E. Une biographie de Maxime le grec oar Kourbsk // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma. Vol. XX. N 1–2. P. 44–84; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible (Theoretical views and literary technique of the ancient Russian writer). M., 1988. S. 81, 85. Nizhny Novgorod State Regional Universal Scientific Library named after. V. I. Lenin, f. 1, op. 1, No. 9, l. 5–10; Tales. pp. 26–27, 29; Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Greek in Russia. pp. 262–263. Tales. pp. 84–88; There was a typo in the manuscript code, Sol follows. 752/862. The correct code is indicated on p. 34. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Greek in Russia. P. 227; playback of the recording, see Ivanov A.I. The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. Characteristics, attributions, bibliography). L., 1969. P. 25, 210 (the entry is not an autograph). Judgment lists. pp. 125–126. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Greek in Russia. P. 154. Russia and the Greek world. pp. 352–358. Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 13. M., 2000. pp. 151–152. Popov A. Description of manuscripts and catalog of books of church printing in the library of A. I. Khludov. M., 1872. P. 118; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. P. 85, etc.; Tales. P. 43; Sinitsyna I.V. Russian texts about the fate of Greek books after the fall of Constantinople // Byzantium and Rus': Collection. in memory of V. D. Likhacheva. M., 1989. pp. 236–246. Guseva A. A. Publications of the Cyrillic font of the second half of the 16th century: Union catalogue. M., 2003. Book. 1–2. P. 715, No. 102; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. P. 87. Guseva A. A. Editions of the Kirill font. pp. 678–679, no. 95; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. pp. 82, 86–89. Ikonnikov V.S. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kiev, 1915. Bulanin D.M. Translations and messages of Maxim the Greek. L., 1984. P. 198. Geanokoplos D.J. Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe. Cambridge, l962. P. 58–60. Sinitsyna N.V. Project for publishing the works of Maxim the Greek / Cyrillomethodianum. Thessalonique, 1993–1994, XVII–XVIII. P. 110–118. Works of St. Maximus the Greek. Part 1. Kazan, 1859. pp. 457–484. Right there. Part 3. Kazan, 1862. Translation into modern Italian in the appendix to the article: Sinitsyna N.V. Massimo il Greco, Firenze, Savonarola / Giorgio La Rirae la Russia / A cura di M.Garzaniti e Lucia Tonini. Firenze; Milano, 2005. P.290–304. Denissoff E. Maxime le Grec et L'Occident. Contibution a l'histoire de la pensee religieuse et philosophique de Michel Trivolis. Paris; Louvain, 1943. The message is contained not in the “History of the Grand Duke of Moscow,” but in the “History of the Eighth Council.” (See: Works of Prince Kurbsky. Vol. 1. Original works // Russian Historical Library. Vol. 31. St. Petersburg, 1914. P. 476.) Amphilochius, archim. Paleographic description of Greek manuscripts of the 15th-17th centuries. certain years. T.IV. M., 1880. pp. 52–55. Fonkich B.L. Greek manuscripts and documents in Russia in the 14th – early 18th centuries. M., 1903. Note. 10. P.73. Gemillscheg E., Harifinger. Repertorium der griechichen Kopisten 800–1000. T. 1–111. Vienna, 1991–1997. To play the recording, see: Ivan A.I. The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. Characteristic. Attributions. Bibliography. L., 1969. P. 25. Contrary to the assertion of a number of researchers, the record is not the autograph of Maxim the Greek (see: Ivanov A.I. Op. cit. P. 24). Denissoff E. Maxime le grec. P.95 – 96 Denissoff E. L'influence de Savonarole sur l'eglise russe expliquee par un MS. inconnu du couvent S.-Marc a Florence / Scriptorium. Bruxelles. V.II, fasc.2.P.253–256; Kashtanov S.M. Works of I. Denisov about Maxim the Greek and his biographers / Byzantine temporary book. T.14. M., 1958. pp. 282–295. Translation: "However, after reflection, we recognized that this text must exist, and that we need to find the mysterious manuscript again where it was read." Geanokoplos DJ. Greek Scholars. P. 132. Translation by K.V. Tail in the book: Klibanov A.I. Spiritual culture of medieval Rus'. M., 1994. P. 252. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. T.1., M.1993, P.461 cit. by G. Hancock, R. Bauvel. The power of the talisman. M.2005. P.216 Quote by M.N. Gromov, N.S. Kozlov. Russian philosophical thought of the X-XVII centuries., M. 1990. P.164. Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. T.1., M.1993, P.476 Quote by B. A. Uspensky. Selected works. T.1., M. 1994. pp.158, 200 Reader on ancient Russian literature, M. 1973, P. 265