Митрополиты московские и всея России

Metropolitan Isidore, who tried to introduce the Florentine Union in Moscow, was condemned by a council of Moscow Russian bishops and deposed by them from the metropolitan see. But what could the Muscovite Russians do with this see after the apostate from Orthodoxy was overthrown from it? We said above that the union with the pope, accepted by the Greek bishops present at the Florentine Council, was decisively rejected by the majority of the Greek clergy and the Greek people immediately after the bishops returning from the council informed the clergy and people on what conditions it took place. However, if this was the case with the majority of the clergy and the people, and, in the first case, we should mean the majority of the bishops themselves who were at the council: then Emperor John Palaiologos, who saw in an alliance with the pope the only means of salvation for his state in its plight, remained firmly faithful to the obligations that he gave to the pope at the council, and to occupy the patriarchal chair, which became idle after the death of Joseph in Florence, he managed to find between bishops of a man who expressed his readiness to be the same champion of the union as himself - this was Mitrofan, who was installed as patriarch from the metropolitans of Kizi on May 4, 1440. Thus, in Constantinople at the moment of the deposition of Isidorov in Moscow, despite the majority of the clergy and people, the emperor and the patriarch were Uniates. How could the Moscow Russians, after the deposition of Isidore, proceed further in view of this circumstance that the supreme head of the Russian metropolitan see - the patriarch and its supreme temporal administrator - the emperor were the same Uniates as Isidore, whom they deposed? If the Russians declared Isidore an apostate from Orthodoxy and deposed, then it is clear that they had to proclaim the patriarch as an apostate from Orthodoxy, in order to break the church union with him and declare their church independent of him: finding the Uniate metropolitan subject to condemnation and deposition, they, obviously, in relation to the power of the Uniate patriarch over them, should have found that it was subject to overthrow. But the Russians did not do this last thing at all and did not even raise any speeches about doing this. The severance of the church union with the Patriarch of Constantinople, even if it was a Uniate, seemed to them such an inconvenient task that they did not have the courage and determination to do so. How could the Russians achieve that, without overthrowing the power of the Uniate patriarch, they could obtain for themselves an Orthodox metropolitan, and so that, without breaking the church union with this patriarch, they themselves would remain Orthodox? They found an outcome for themselves in installing their own metropolitan, and so that, without formally breaking the church union with the Uniate patriarch, they would be in actual separation or non-communication with him. A metropolitan appointed by them themselves, and not by the patriarch, would be Orthodox in everything - not only in his thoughts, but also in his dedication; recognizing the power of the apostate patriarch over himself, he would actually join in his apostasy, but since he would not actually communicate with him, the Russians found this sufficient to consider him, the metropolitan, completely Orthodox. There is no doubt that, wanting to arrange things in this way, they well understood that they did not want to arrange it entirely cleanly. But the reluctance of an open break with the Greeks forced them to agree to allow the nominal and fictitious power of the Uniate patriarch over them. The view of the Russians of that time on the spiritual was already a view, so to speak, reified: they could not allow an Orthodox metropolitan to be dedicated to them by the hands of a Uniate patriarch, because through this he would be infected by his unorthodoxy; but their Orthodox metropolitan, although he recognized the authority of the Uniate patriarch, but did not come into direct contact with the latter, could, in their opinion, remain completely Orthodox, especially since recognition of the authority of the patriarch would be only feigned and insincere on the part of the metropolitan. But not daring to formally overthrow the power of the Uniate patriarch, and wanting only to be in actual non-communication with him, the Russians, in order to achieve this latter, had to ask the same patriarch for permission to appoint their own metropolitan. How could they turn to the Uniate Patriarch with a request that he would allow them to install an Orthodox Metropolitan instead of the Uniate Metropolitan they had overthrown? They resolve this issue in a simple way: they turn to the patriarch as if he were Orthodox, and, informing him about Isidore, about the actions of this latter and about his condemnation by the Russian bishops, they motivate their request not by the fact that they do not want to receive a metropolitan from him, the patriarch, but by other motives 962. Turning to the Uniate Patriarch with a strange request for permission to install an Orthodox metropolitan themselves, the Russians, of course, had to count on something. As one must think, they hoped that the patriarch would be forced to fulfill the strange request by the desire to maintain his power over the Russian Church - that the patriarch would rather agree to see an Orthodox metropolitan at the see of the Russian metropolis than to lose his church power over them - the Russians. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich decided to turn to the patriarch with a request that he be allowed to elect and appoint a successor to Isidore by his Russian bishops either in the shortest possible time after Isidor’s flight from Moscow, which took place on the night of September 14-15, 1441, or, which seems more likely, even while Isidore remained in Moscow and, dethroned, lived under arrest in the Chudov Monastery. The message of the Grand Duke to the Patriarch, in which he addresses the latter with his request, has no date in the lists currently known; but its text makes it clear that it was written in 1441 963. Consequently, it was written in the very year of Isidorov’s flight from Moscow. But it seems to indicate that it was written when Isidore was still in Moscow. Firstly, it says nothing about the flight of the metropolitan who betrayed Orthodoxy and was condemned by a council of Russian bishops, and such expressions are used about him that it is as if he was still present: “this Isidore” - twice, “this Isidore who was ordained”... Secondly, the Grand Duke, not expressing himself entirely definitely and precisely, seems to be saying in it that he decided to turn to the emperor and patriarch immediately after “the whole matter and the coming of Isidor” appeared to the council of Russian bishops and to all Russian Orthodox Christianity as alien and strange from the divine and sacred rules. That is, immediately after Isidore was condemned by a council of bishops. Finally, in addition to the message itself, there are also third-party indications that it seems to have been written even before Isidorov’s flight from Moscow. Metropolitan Jonah, who was placed in Isidore’s place, in his later letters to Lithuania on the occasion of the appearance of Uniate Metropolitan Gregory there, says that Isidore, after his condemnation by the bishops, was ordered to stay in the monastery of the Holy Archangel Michael, “until my lord and son the great prince dealt with the great cathedral of Constantinople” 964. By this sending, it seems that we should mean the sending that the Grand Duke made or intended to do through our message, for nothing is known about another, earlier sending, and there is no reason or probability to assume it. We said that the Grand Duke addressed in his message to the Patriarch - the Uniate, as if he - the Patriarch was Orthodox. The Grand Duke, with the most deliberate insistence, tries to convince the imaginary representative of Orthodoxy of his firm and unshakable attachment to Orthodoxy. The assurances addressed to the Uniate Patriarch look like deliberate evil ridicule; but it must be thought that the Grand Duke had a special goal in doing this, namely, to take away from the patriarch any hope of attracting the Russians to the union and thus incline him to the idea that if he wanted to maintain power over the Russian church, he had no choice but to agree to the Russians’ request for permission to appoint an Orthodox metropolitan for themselves. The message is quite extensive in scope, and being written by an unknown, relatively skilled, literate person, it is a very good literary work. The Grand Duke says in the message that the Orthodox Christian faith initially shone and grew in the Greek land, which God raised for this holy king Constantine - that from Greece it was transferred to Russia by Saint Vladimir Equal-to-the-Apostles, who decided to accept it after a thorough test of all faiths. What from St. Vladimir and until the death of Metropolitan Photius, the Russians firmly and invariably maintained the Orthodox faith they had borrowed from the Greeks, and that after the death of Photius, the uninvited and unexpected Metropolitan Isidore was sent to Russia, who, having turned out to be a traitor to Orthodoxy, tried to betray the apostate - the pope and the Russian church. Turning to Isidore, the Grand Duke says how he initially did not want to accept him, how he (as if) exhorted him not to go to the Florentine Council, how, having failed to do so, he adjured him not to bring anything alien from Orthodoxy from the Council, and how the Metropolitan, who returned from the Council as legate of the Pope, was subjected to a conciliar trial of Russian bishops and how all Russian bishops and It appeared to the archimandrites and abbots and other holy monks and to all Russian Orthodox Christianity that “Isidore’s whole work and coming is foreign and strange from the divine and sacred rules.” Therefore, says the Grand Duke, we send our envoys to the holy king and to your most holy sovereignty and to the entire divine and sacred council and turn to you with a request - and after this he sets out his request. This request literally reads like this: “And we ask your most holy sovereignty, and with the holy king and with all the divine and sanctified collection, having matured in your holy and divine rules of the Greeks and having judged both for the need of a distant and impassable journey and for the presence of the godless Hagarians on our Christianity and for the disorder and rebellion in the surrounding of us countries and rulers of the multiplication, freely create for us the installation of a metropolitan in our land, for this reason we also need it, since all spiritual affairs are hidden to every Orthodox Christian and ours, and the Lord’s needs, words and deeds need to be done with the metropolitan by young people, from whom it is foolish that they will not know. (That is, our secret, but at the same time state and important, speeches and affairs must be conducted with the metropolitan - a Greek who does not know the Russian language, through translators - insignificant people from whom we need to hide something else, then they will be the first to find out). And for this sake, we ask your holy sovereignty, send to us your most honest writing, as if with the help of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and the haste of the holy king and with the blessing of your holy sovereignty and the divine and sacred collection, according to the holy rule, gathered in our fatherland, in the ruth of the earth, the God-loving bishops of our fatherland and by the grace of the Holy Spirit having chosen someone who is good, a man of spirituality, who is Orthodox in faith, let them appoint us a metropolitan in Rus': even before this, out of necessity, a metropolitan has been installed in Rus'.” The Grand Duke informs the Patriarch that Metropolitan Isidore turned out to be a traitor to Orthodoxy. It would be expected that he would ask the patriarch - instead of the traitor to Orthodoxy, to send another metropolitan, firm in Orthodoxy, and, however, his request is completely different. The real reason for the request was that the patriarch was a Uniate and that the Russians, without interrupting the church union with him in a formal way, wanted to separate themselves from him and disunite with him in a factual way: but the Grand Duke puts forward completely different motives for his request. One instead of the other and one instead of the other: the Grand Duke, of course, understood very well that his request was something very strange. But the request could not have been less strange, as he, without interrupting the church union with the Uniate patriarch, wanted to ask the latter for permission to install an Orthodox metropolitan. Besides the fact that the patriarch was a Uniate, there were no other incentives at this time to ask for permission to install a metropolitan in Russia itself, and the Grand Duke really fails to come up with these temporary incentives. He refers to the distance and extreme difficulty of traveling to Constantinople, to the ignorance of the Russian language by the Greek metropolitans - this was completely reasonable; but these were not difficulties that appeared only at this time, but existed from the very time the Russian metropolitanate began to exist. When the Grand Duke then exposes the invasion of Russia by the Hagarians, the unrest and revolts in the surrounding countries and the rulers of multiplication, then, no doubt, he himself understands that to the question: how did all this constitute the motivation for his request, or even simply: what did it mean, what is the “lord of multiplication”, he would not be able to answer anything. The Grand Duke asks the Patriarch for permission to appoint a successor to the deposed Isidore as his Russian bishops. But when he wrote his request to the patriarch, he could not foresee what happened, namely, that the Uniate patriarchs would not remain at the patriarchal chair for long and that the Orthodox patriarchs would return to it again. Not foreseeing this and having his desire and intention to actually separate his Orthodox metropolitans from the Uniate patriarchs, he obviously had to have in mind not only to install one successor to Isidore as his bishops, but to generally begin to install Russian metropolitans as his bishops. This limitation by the Grand Duke of his request must be understood in such a way that he was not aware of the right and did not see the opportunity to turn to the patriarch with a general request for permission to begin the installation of Russian metropolitans in Russia itself. Citing the above-mentioned imaginary temporary circumstances, the Grand Duke could refer in his request for permission to appoint a successor to Isidore in Russia itself to the fact that isolated examples of the appointment of metropolitans in Russia itself had happened before, as he does 965, but what precedent or in general anything respectful - not in a subjective sense in relation to himself, but in an objective sense in relation to the patriarch, he could refer to with his general request? Seeing himself forced to limit himself to a request for the installation of only a successor to Isidore in Russia, the Grand Duke, as one must think, had in mind for the future that several subsequent installations would be made on the basis of the same particular permissions and that a general demand would then be based on a number of particular cases. The true motivation for the Grand Duke to ask the patriarch for permission to appoint a successor to Isidore with his Russian bishops was so that, without formally breaking the church union with this Uniate patriarch, he would actually separate from him and become out of communion with him. But, wanting to achieve his goal, the Grand Duke sees himself forced to act in accordance with the rule: the end justifies the means, and to his request, which we conveyed above, he adds the assurance to the patriarch: “and for this we want by God’s grace, according to the originality of our Orthodox Christianity, to have sending and interrogation and love with the holy king and to demand your most holy blessing and prayer and we wish, as much as God deigns, that our land will stand as long as possible, and our Orthodox Christianity will never be separated from you forever.” The Russians, unshakably devoted and faithful to Orthodoxy, did not want to have communication with the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople. But they did not have the courage to openly and formally break the church union with the patriarch, which they should have done, and they decided to achieve their goal in a different way. Achieving their goal in a different way, they had to resort to imperfect means. And thus it turned out that they tried to achieve a laudable goal by means that were not entirely commendable... A message from Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, written by him to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1441 and containing a request to the Patriarch and the Emperor for permission to install a successor to the deposed Isidore in Russia itself, has survived to this day. But what the fate of this message was remains completely unknown to us, because in our chronicles under 1441 there is not a single word about the message of the Grand Duke to the Patriarch. From what follows we know that the Grand Duke did not receive permission from the Patriarch to appoint a successor to Isidore as his Russian bishops. Therefore, one must assume one of two things - either that the message was written, but was not sent, or that it was written and sent, but was refused in Constantinople. The later testimony of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Jonah, who was appointed to Isidore’s place, suggests the first case; however, these testimonies, as coming from people interested in the case, cannot be accepted as completely reliable 966. If we assume the first case, then in all likelihood the matter will need to be understood in such a way that before the Grand Duke sent his message, he received from Constantinople such information about the patriarch and the emperor, on the basis of which he was convinced that it would be in vain for him to turn to them with his request. If we assume the second case, then the refusal received by the Grand Duke in Constantinople will be completely understandable to us. They inform the Emperor and the Uniate Patriarch that the Uniate Metropolitan has been dethroned from the throne, and they ask their permission to install an Orthodox Metropolitan in the place of the Uniate. It is clear that the satisfaction of the request would be on the part of the emperor and the patriarch an act of such self-denial and such self-mockery, which, with some sense of themselves, it was impossible for them to allow. And if they could not satisfy the request on their own, then even more so, and in any case, they could not satisfy it in their relationship with the pope: what would he say if they, on the one hand, presented themselves as champions of the union, and on the other hand behaved like its enemies? Assuming the second case, one only needs to assume that the refusal was given by the patriarch not in a completely decisive, but in some evasive form, because in the first case the patriarch should have feared for his ecclesiastical power over the Russians. The message of the Grand Duke to Constantinople with a request for permission to install a successor to Isidore in Russia itself and with its Russian bishops has reached us in two editions: according to one edition, it is addressed to the patriarch and in its text it is made clear that it was written in 1441. According to another edition, it is addressed to the emperor and in its text it is made clear that it was written in 1443 967. This duality of the edition must be understood in such a way that after the attempt of 1441, whether carried out and ending in failure or remaining only in intention, a new attempt took place in 1443, and the previous message was used. The outcome of this second attempt was the same failure as the first. One of the Sofia Chronicles, having given the message in its second edition, further reports that the Grand Duke was about to send his ambassadors to Constantinople, but that news came to him that the emperor had gone to Rome to rule and became a Latin believer, and that therefore the Grand Duke ordered the ambassadors to be sent back from the road 968. So that the absurd news could reach the Grand Duke that the emperor had gone to Rome to rule and became a member of the Latin faith, this is completely incredible, and the chronicle, one must think, reproduces here one of the rumors circulating among the people. The erroneous news could have reached the Grand Duke that the emperor had gone to the West to seek help from Western sovereigns against the Turks. But it is difficult to admit that it was so that the Grand Duke, having received the news, turned the ambassadors back and ended the attempt: nothing prevented him from verifying the truth of the news and, upon receiving news of its falsity, again sending ambassadors to Constantinople. It is likely to think that the ambassadors reached Constantinople - that they were refused there and that only the failure of the embassy was explained by the tales conveyed by the Sofia Chronicle. In the second edition, the message is addressed not to the patriarch, but to the emperor, perhaps because it was sent or was supposed to be sent after the death of Patriarch Mitrofan, who died on August 1, 1443. If this were so, then one would think that the Russians had great hopes for the compliance of one Uniate emperor and that after the death of the patriarch, finding it possible to be content with the permission of the first one, they hastened to try their luck. So, the Moscow Russians did not want to formally break the church union with the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople, and at the same time they did not receive permission from him to appoint an Orthodox metropolitan for themselves, in order to thus actually isolate themselves from him. They had no choice but to decide, finally, to formally break the alliance with the patriarch, or to install an Orthodox metropolitan for themselves without permission, without the permission of the patriarch. They still didn’t have the courage to do the first thing, so they decided to do the second. However, they did not decide soon enough. It is true that the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich himself encountered misfortunes that should have slowed down his decision: in July 1445 he was captured by the Tatars, with whom he stayed for about 3 months; in February 1446, he was captured and deprived of the Grand Duchy by his cousin Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka, from whom he managed to take the Grand Ducal throne again only 10 months later. But even after returning to Moscow, he did not make his decision suddenly: he returned to Moscow (taken from Demetrius by his followers on the Nativity of Christ 1446) on February 17, 1447, and the decision to appoint a metropolitan himself, without the permission of the emperor and patriarch, was carried out only in December of the following 1448. It is very likely that the Grand Duke, after much hesitation, was finally moved to his resolution by the danger that Isidore would appear in Russia again. It is usually customary to think that Isidore, after his flight from Moscow, made no further attempts to return to Russia. But this turns out to be untrue. The message of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory Mamma to the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich, which has been known for a long time, but which was published in its original and complete form only recently 969, has survived to this day. The message constitutes the patriarch’s answer to the prince’s question addressed to him through the ambassador: on what conditions did they, the Greeks, unite with the Latins? From this message it turns out that Isidore had the intention of returning to Russia: briefly informing the prince about the conditions under which the union took place, the patriarch writes: “and if the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia and the all-honorable Cardinal Cyrus Isidore, the beloved brother and co-servant of our humility about the Holy Spirit, comes to you, he will teach and punish you about everything in word and deed.” Under the message in the surviving copies of it there is no yearly date 970, so it is not positively known to what time it refers. But, firstly, for reasons of all probability it should be attributed to the time before the death of Emperor John Palaiologos, who died on October 31, 1448; secondly, and in it itself it is negatively given to know that it was written before the installation of St. Jonas to metropolitan. It is accepted that Isidore, after his flight from Moscow, was in Constantinople only once, this is when at the end of 1452 he was sent there by the pope to restore the union (initially rejected by the successor of John Palaiologos, his brother Constantine). But from the history of Isidore’s installation of Bishop Daniel of Vladimir and Berestey in Constantinople 971 it turns out that he was in Constantinople before that. This first visit by Isidore to Constantinople must be attributed to the time preceding the installation of Jonah as metropolitan, for Daniel could have gone for consecration to Constantinople only before this installation, and meanwhile it is very likely that the letter to Alexander Vladimirovich was written by Patriarch Gregory when Isidore was in Constantinople. As for the negative evidence of the epistle itself, it speaks of Greek metropolitans and bishops hostile to the union, who came to Lithuania to confuse the Russians there, but it does not say that at the head of those who confuse was a metropolitan installed in Moscow. It goes without saying that Isidore had the intention of returning to Lithuanian Rus' only, because he could not possibly have the desire to appear in Moscow again (to which, in any case, he would not have been allowed). But for the See of the Metropolitan of All Russia, located in Moscow, there was the danger that its Lithuanian half could be torn away from it in this way. And the danger here was far from entirely imaginary. In Lithuania, they looked at the union and at Isidore with significantly different eyes than in Moscow: when Isidore returned from the council as a uniate and a papal cardinal and legate, she was accepted there for the same real metropolitan as he was before the council; after his condemnation and deposition in Moscow, perhaps a few began to doubt him there, but they did not at all assimilate the firm Moscow view of him as an apostate and heretic. Proof of this is the above-mentioned appeal to Constantinople with a demand for a union of Prince Alexander Vladimirovich and the above-mentioned case of Isidore’s installation of the Bishop of Vladimir and Berestey Daniel. Alexander Vladimirovich, turning to the Uniate Patriarch in Constantinople with a demand for union, obviously does not yet look at it through the eyes of Moscow 972. If Bishop Daniel decided to seek consecration from Isidore, it follows that he did this either with the positive consent of the council of Lithuanian bishops, or, at least, not contrary to their opinion about the Uniate metropolitan, because otherwise he would not have been recognized by them as a real bishop. The long delay of the Grand Duke in making the decision to install the metropolitan as his bishops without the permission of the patriarch obviously indicates that he thought for a long time and hesitated over the question: whether he has the right, given the patriarch’s non-Orthodoxy, to install an Orthodox metropolitan as his own bishops. That this was really so is positively evidenced by St. Jonah in one of his messages, saying that the great prince “has been pleased at many times” consulted about the issue with his clergy 973. The Russians could not find any answer to their question in the canonical rules of the church, because they posed the matter in such a way that the canons not only did not foresee such a case, but did not allow it at all. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who maintained a union with the pope, was recognized by the Russians as a heretic; despite this, they did not deny his power over themselves, but only did not want to have actual communication with him and get a metropolitan from his unclean hands. But according to the canons of the church, the Orthodox cannot and should not recognize the power of heretics over themselves, because there should be absolutely no communication between the Orthodox and heretics - because the latter should simply be cut off from any union with the Orthodox Church. And it must be thought that the Russians finally decided to act as they did, not because they found canons that seemed to them to justify their action, but simply because they were forced to do so by necessity, since necessitas non habet legem. They did not want to take a metropolitan from the heretic patriarch; but the patriarch did not give them permission to install the metropolitan themselves: they had no choice but to install the metropolitan themselves with their own authority. However, after committing the act, the Russians wanted to justify themselves with canons. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, in his message to Emperor Constantine, in which he informs the latter about the installation of a metropolitan in Russia without the permission of the Greeks, writes: “having matured in the divine and sacred rules of the holy apostles and god-bearing saints, the fathers of the need for the sake of those who have found no armor, but commanding bishops to install a great saint Metropolitan." The Metropolitan himself, installed without the permission of the Greeks, St. Jonah, in one of his letters, claims that he was appointed on the basis of the 1st rule of the holy apostles, which he gives in this form: “Three bishops must, without any notification, appoint a greater saint,” and then refers to the 4th rule of the 1st Ecumenical Council, which commands the appointment of a bishop to all bishops of the region, and in case of need, at least three, and dully refers to “many others.” correct principalities" 974 . In addition to the canons, the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan gave one more argument to justify the unauthorized act: They argued that when the second of them, after the death of Photius, arrived in Constantinople and found Isidore there already ordained as a Russian metropolitan, the emperor and patriarch appointed and approved him to be the latter’s successor; according to them, the emperor and patriarch allegedly said to Jonah, who did not have time to arrive before Isidorov’s appointment: “What should we do now? You didn’t have time to come to us, and we installed someone else in that most holy metropolis and we can no longer change what was done - Isidore should already be the Russian metropolitan; (but let it be this): go Jonah again to your table, to the Ryazan bishopric, and whatever the will of God arranges for Isidore - whether he dies by death or something else happens to him, and you, Jonah, may you be a Russian metropolitan after him" 975. Now the argument presented, as one must think, was intended to satisfy two purposes: on the one hand, to serve as a justification for the unauthorized consecration of the metropolitan, and on the other hand, to prove that this metropolitan, although he remained nominally dependent on the Uniate patriarch, was completely Orthodox, for he received a blessing for the metropolitanate from the still Orthodox patriarch. The installation of a metropolitan by his own bishops without the permission of the patriarch was a completely exceptional and extremely sensitive matter. And therefore, there is nothing unnatural in the fact that the Grand Duke lacked the courage and determination to take full responsibility for him on himself. According to the testimony of St. Jonah, he decided to install him only after lengthy consultations with all his bishops and with archimandrites and abbots and with many spiritual men of judgment and with the entire priesthood and after sending with the Orthodox princes of Lithuania 976. By order of the Grand Duke, without the permission of the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Jonah, Bishop of Ryazan, the same one who was sent to Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan after the death of Photius. Just as the Grand Duke had previously consulted with all the clergy about the appointment for a long time, so, according to the testimony of St. Jonah, and the very installation was condemned by a great council of bishops, archimandrites, abbots and the entire priesthood 977. St. Jonah December 15, 1448 978. Regarding the ordination itself, 2 the Sophia Chronicle says: “the offering of the divine service is performed and an honorable amphora is placed on his cloak and the great staff of the metropolitan is given in his hand, and thus with piety he performs the holy service (and) blesses the peoples” 979. After a long delay, the Russians finally decided to appoint an Orthodox metropolitan as their bishops, without the permission of the Uniate patriarch. But after they did the job, the question arose for them: what should they do with this patriarch, whose rights they saw themselves forced to encroach on? What exactly they thought and came up with regarding this difficult and very sensitive issue, which should have occupied them, first of all, in a positive way, we do not know. But their behavior shows that they decided not to notify the patriarch themselves about the violation of his rights they committed, but to wait for a request from him, so that, thus, avoiding the unpleasant responsibility of being informers on themselves, simply making excuses when the patriarch’s request requires it. There is no doubt that the matter lay the heaviest stone on the hearts of the Russians and caused them extreme anxiety... In reality, what they expected was that everything would turn out well and that they would receive the actual independence of their church much sooner and easier than they expected. St. Jonah was installed as metropolitan in Moscow a month and a half after the death of Emperor John Palaiologos in Constantinople (October 31, 1448), when the imperial throne was the subject of a dispute between his three brothers. It remains unknown whether this circumstance had any influence on the Russian resolve; in all likelihood, no, for they could hardly foresee that the change of sovereign would be favorable for them. But this turned out to be true. Ioannov's elder brother Konstantin 980, who took the imperial throne at the beginning of 1449, immediately upon his accession declared himself, despite his brother, a supporter of Orthodoxy and an opponent of the union. It is true that in a formal manner he restored Orthodoxy very slowly and tolerated on the throne the Patriarchal Uniate left to him by his brother for about two years or even a little more (Patriarch Gregory Mammu, who, almost three years after the death of Mitrofan, who died on August 1, 1443, was installed on July 7, 1446; he fled from Constantinople to Rome in August 1451 981, but how long before that he was deposed from the pulpit remains unknown). But being an opponent of the union at home, the emperor, obviously, could not demand an answer from the Russians: how dare they install an Orthodox metropolitan for themselves without asking the patriarch - the Uniate. When the emperor finally formally restored Orthodoxy in Constantinople and deposed the Uniate patriarch, the Russians not only were no longer afraid of the request, but they themselves decided to notify the emperor about their unauthorized appointment of metropolitan and ask him for an apology for their act. The message of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, written by him for the now indicated purpose to Emperor Constantine in July 1452, has survived to this day 982. Having congratulated the emperor on his accession to the ancestral throne and expressing his joy at the fact that he accepted the scepter “to confirm the entire Orthodox Christianity of the Greek powers and the dominions of the Russian land,” the Grand Duke says: “let us sing the packs to your holy kingdom and our lands have been established.” After this, he tells how, after the death of Metropolitan Photius, Bishop Jonah of Ryazan was sent to Constantinople to be installed as Russian metropolitan, and how Isidore was sent in his place 983 - how this Isidore turned out to be an apostate from Orthodoxy and how he, the Grand Duke, being instructed by God, rejected both himself and his wickedness. After this,” says the Grand Duke to the Emperor, “for many years we constantly wanted to send our ambassadors to Constantinople to appoint a metropolitan 984, but we could not do this, partly because, “as we heard, in your pious powers there was discord in the Church of God,” partly because of the extreme difficulty of the road to Constantinople from robbers and robbers, partly because of the invasions of us Hagaryans and our internecine battles and battles (Shemyak); “For all this,” the prince concludes his report, “having looked at the holy and divine rules of the holy apostles and holy God-bearing fathers, who for the sake of need do not forbid, but command the bishops to appoint a great saint metropolitan, for the sake of our great need, we appointed the previously mentioned Bishop Jonah as metropolitan as our Russian bishops. This is followed by the integral purpose of the message - a request for an apology for an unauthorized, forced act and assurance of one’s continued recognition of the authority of the patriarch. This, which constitutes the purpose of the epistle, reads: “And we ask your holy kingdom, so that you do not slander this against us, for we have created this impudence, which we have created, without dishonoring your great dominion, but for this great need we have created it, and not with arrogance, nor with insolence; and we ourselves are in all piety according to the ancient Orthodoxy devoted to us, and in this we are, as we were before, and so we will be until each of our temporary life and until the end of time; and our Russian Church - the holiest of the Russian Metropolis from the Holy Ecumenical and Apostolic Church of God, the Wisdom of God, Saint Sophia of Tsarigrad demands and seeks the blessing, in everything, according to ancient piety, obeys it, and that our father, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Cyrus Jonah, therefore in every possible way demands it from and blessings and unification of the development of the current newly emerged discords.” The Grand Duke concludes this section of the letter: “We pray to your holy kingdom that our father Jonah, Metropolitan, will have good will for everything, and that we will receive love from you, and we are, as we write, united with you in everything from the beginning with love and all affection.” At the end of the message, the Grand Duke says that he wanted to write to the patriarch, but he does not know whether there is a patriarch in Constantinople, since he has not heard about him from anyone, and if there is, he does not know his name. Now the message of the Grand Duke that we have cited, as is revealed from the note made on one of his surviving lists, having been written, was not sent to Constantinople 985. What was the reason that they wrote a message in Moscow and then changed their minds about sending it, we do not know; but it is necessary to think that the reason for this was the changed church circumstances in Constantinople. Emperor Constantine Palaiologos, the last of the Byzantine emperors, who for most of his short reign was an opponent of union with the pope, finally saw himself forced to turn to the same union. The Turks, who had long owned almost the entire Greek part of the Balkan Peninsula and left almost only Constantinople to the Greeks, had already made repeated attempts to take possession of this latter too. At the beginning of 1451, there was a change on the Sultan’s throne - Murad II died and his place was taken by his son Mohammed II. This latter, almost immediately upon his accession to the throne, began to prepare for the siege of Constantinople: and then Emperor Constantine, not hoping to receive help from anyone except the pope, decided to resume negotiations with him about the union, which began at the beginning of 1452 986. It is necessary to think that the news that reached Moscow about the emperor’s betrayal of Orthodoxy was the reason why the Russians, having written a message to him, did not send the message to its destination. But this time they could be calm and had every reason not to fear that a request would be made to them from Constantinople regarding their unauthorized act, for the emperor, who himself had initially declared himself against the union, how could he ask them for the fact that they were its opponents, what forced them to an unauthorized act? Soon after this, all Russian fears in this regard should have ceased: on May 29, 1453, Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and the Florentine union disappeared forever, leaving only the most extreme hatred of its memory. This circumstance - the capture of Constantinople by the Turks - gave the Russians reasons to make their metropolitans virtually independent of the patriarchs and, despite the fact that the latter began to be Orthodox again. We will return to speeches about this below. Before talking about St. Jonah, as metropolitan, we will provide the preliminary biographical information about him that we have 987. He was born in the ancient Galich region, near the city of Soligalich of the current Kostroma province, from the local large or small patrimonial fief Theodore Odnoush, therefore, by his origin, he was from people more or less noble 988. As a 12-year-old boy, he entered, with the goal of becoming a monk, into an unknown monastery in the Galich region, from which he later moved to the Moscow Simonov Monastery. In the last monastery, according to the assurance of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, St. Jonah, while still a young monk, together with some of his older brethren who were zealots of strict monastic life, when he saw that the old customs of the monastery were changing and the deanery in it was being swept aside, he did not remain silent and did not consider this to be neglectful, but forbade it, not allowing disorder and rebellion to happen. For which, together with other zealots, he accepted much grief and sadness from the archimandrites who were then in the monastery 989. According to the testimony of life, the deliberate occupation of St. Jonah compiled 990 divine books in the monastery. Then, the life conveys the following prophecy about him by Metropolitan Photius: “The once most reverend Photius, Metropolitan of All Russia, came to the monastery of the Most Pure Mother of God on Simonovo, as was the custom, to pray and bless the existing archimandrite and the brethren and spiritually use himself and them, and in the church you prayed and went to see and bless the working brethren in the holy services of the monastic country; I came to the bakery, which is a bread-box, and at the sight of this blessed Jonah fell asleep from great abstinence and from diligent work and unceasing prayer, holding my right hand on my head, as if blessing it; The saint was surprised and did not command anyone to wake him up and prophesied about him saying: “Understand, O children, that this monk Jonah will be a great saint in the countries of the Russian land and will convert many from the infidels to God and enlighten him with holy baptism and bring them to true reason, especially to this reigning city of Moscow and many other cities.” and everyone (everyone?) will be a true shepherd and teacher." [The Metropolitan came to the monastery and walked around the monastery, and one of the monks of the monastery was sleeping at that time! The Metropolitan came to the very bread room in which the monk was sleeping, and before the Metropolitan’s arrival he, the monk, was not awakened! It is clear that the authenticity of the legend is far from indisputable...] Since St. Jonah was appointed bishop precisely by Photius and, therefore, this second seems to be prophesying about himself (about what he himself intended to do), then one can somewhat doubt the reliability of the prophecy 991; equally, one can doubt its reliability because, instead of a simple prophecy, St. Metropolitan Jonah Photius could directly bless him as his successor. The tendency of the dubious prophecy is that Jonah, who did not receive a blessing for the metropolis from the modern patriarch, had several preliminary blessings (of Patriarch Joseph and ours - Photios). When he was appointed bishop of Ryazan by Metropolitan Photius remains unknown; some claim that in 1430, but without giving reasons 992. While he was bishop of Ryazan, as his life testifies, he converted to Christianity and baptized many of the foreigners who were in the diocese. Delivery of St. Jonah becoming metropolitan by his Russian bishops, without the permission of the patriarch - the Uniate, undoubtedly, was a matter that was fully sympathized with by the decisive majority of the Russian clergy and, in general, the entire Russian society. However, there were individuals in the clergy and among the laity who protested against this encroachment on the rights of the patriarch. The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk reports about his teacher, the Venerable Paphnutius of Borovsk, that he had a fight with Metropolitan Jonah: they told Jonah that he, Paphnutius, did not order him to be called metropolitan, and that, upon Jonah’s complaint to the Grand Duke, “the matter was brought to fruition in Moscow according to the testimony of the sacred rules” 993. In the miracles of St. Jonah is told that a certain boyar named Vasily, called Kutuz, had disbelief towards him, the metropolitan, and did not come to him and did not demand to receive blessings from him 994. Finally, the legends about the blessing of St. Ions to the metropolis by Patriarch Joseph and about the prophecy of Photius to him, perhaps, were partly directed against those who did not want to recognize him as metropolitan. Unfortunately, our positive news about his non-recognition as a metropolitan is very brief and consists only of what we have just given. Meanwhile, it would be very interesting to know how those who did not recognize, being a kind of conservatives or, on the contrary, a kind of liberals, proved the obligation of the Russians not to encroach on the rights of the patriarch of the Uniate, or in general what they had and declared against recognition 995. The first concern of St. Jonah, after occupying the metropolitan see, was to extend his power to the metropolitan bishoprics that were in the possession of the King of Poland and together with the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir 996. In one of his later messages to the Lithuanian bishops, Jonah says that Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, intending to install him as a metropolitan, sent with Casimir and that he received letters from the latter expressing his consent 997. Since in 1448, when Jonah was installed, the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Moscow were at peace, the words of the Metropolitan at first glance arouse doubt. But, on the other hand, it is difficult to admit that he decided to tell a lie to the Lithuanian bishops, who should have known the matter exactly, although the message was written quite a long time after the event (in 1459-60). According to the Nikon Chronicle, in the spring of 1448, Ambassador Kazimirov 998 was in Moscow, coming, as one must think, to negotiate peace. And this circumstance indicates the possibility that Casimir actually expressed his consent to the installation of Jonah as metropolitan. Be that as it may, the Russian dioceses, which were in the possessions of Casimir, were not given over to Jonah immediately after he was appointed, and he had to work about it, and did not manage to achieve this completely. 8 and a half months after his installation as metropolitan, on August 31, 1449, a peace treaty was concluded between the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Moscow, in which he, for his part, seems to have taken a more or less active part 999 . Soon after the conclusion of the treaty, the king sent his ambassador to Moscow, probably regarding the implementation of the treaty articles, and asked him, the metropolitan, to help strengthen the strong friendship between him, the king and the Grand Duke 1000. Taking advantage of his influence on state affairs, the Metropolitan tried to behave in such a way as to earn the favor of Casimir 1001 (implying: as far as possible without harming the interests of the Moscow Grand Duke). At the same time, he wrote messages to the Orthodox Christians located in the domain of Casimir, in which he urged them to promote the reunification of the entire Russian metropolitanate under the authority of one head - his metropolitan; Thus, his messages are known: 1) to all the princes and lords and boyars and governors and governors and the entire Lithuanian-Galician people of Christ's name, which has come down to us in passage 1002, and 2) to the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich, who, as we said, was married to the sister of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich and was a very influential person among the Lithuanian Orthodox princes 1003. For a short time St. Jonah, probably thanks mainly to the assistance of the now-named Prince Alexander Vladimirovich, managed to achieve his efforts, however, as we said, not completely. With a charter dated January 31, 1451, given in Vilna, Casimir entrusts Jonah with “the metropolitan capital of Kiev and all Rus', as was the first according to the establishment and custom of Russian Christianity,” but by the capital of Kyiv and all Rus' he means part of the Lithuanian metropolitanate without the Galician part 1004. The power of the Polish king in Lithuania and Galicia was completely different: Lithuania was a separate state from Poland with its own special rights, only dynastically united with it in the person of the sovereign. On the contrary, Galicia was its own and true part of Poland, since it was conquered by the Poles. One must think that, as the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Casimir did not find it possible to resist the desire of the Orthodox population of the principality to be under the same church head with Moscow and gave the principality to Jonah; but in Galicia the desire of the population of the latter could not mean anything to him, and one must think that he did not give it to Jonah at the insistence of his Latin clergy, who wanted to leave it behind Isidore, as the latter’s nominal see, and, in any case, free from the ecclesiastical power of Moscow. Having received Lithuania from the king, Jonah tried to get Galicia from him; but in this case his efforts were in vain 1005. Having received the Lithuanian-Russian dioceses into his power, St. Jonah saw himself obliged to carry out some cleansing here from the infection of Isidorism and Uniatism in general. We said above that during the absence of the Metropolitan in Moscow, one of the Lithuanian bishops, namely Daniel of Vladimir and Berestey, went to Constantinople to the Uniate Patriarch Gregory Mamma for initiation and that in Constantinople he was dedicated by Isidore, who was there at that time. It was this bishop who, at his consecration, gave Isidore a confession according to his will, and forced St. Jonah, soon after becoming his superior, made a formal renunciation of his initiator, of the confession given to him at the initiation, of the initiation itself, and in general of the Council of Florence and the Union. For this purpose, Daniel was summoned to Moscow and here, having made a renunciation before the Metropolitan and confirmed it with his submitted manuscript 1006, he received forgiveness and blessing from him. (The Metropolitan allows Daniel to say in his manuscript in his defense that he did not understand “that that Isidore Metropolitan was the advocate and assistant of this Latin cathedral, which was in Florence.” For the work of coming to Moscow, St. Jonah provides the bishop, at his request, with the initiation of proteges from his governorships of Kyiv and Novgorod or Lithuanian, which then constituted one of the items of bishop’s income). St. Jonah occupied the metropolitan see for 12 years and 3 and a half months in 1007. His first, and at the same time the only church-governmental activity known to us, was the solemn canonization of Metropolitan Alexy. At the beginning of 1431, which was the last year of the reign of Metropolitan Photius, the top of the church in the Chudov Monastery, which was built by Metropolitan Alexy, and in which his body was buried, collapsed. When, after dismantling the old church, they began to dig a ditch for the foundation of the new one, they found the body of the saint incorrupt, which is why they carried it to the surface of the earth 1008. Metropolitan Jonah hastened to establish a solemn celebration of the memory of His saint, once again glorified by God, in order to have his deliberate prayers for himself and for the Russian Church under unusual circumstances, both his own and those of the Church in general. Bishop Pitirim of Perm, who before his episcopate was Archimandrite of Chudov and who was present in Moscow at the council that elected and installed Jonah as metropolitan, was commissioned to write the life of St. Alexy and his service, and after the council’s approval, a celebration was established for him twice a year - on February 12, on the day of his repose, and on May 20, on the day of the discovery of his relics 1009. Monuments of church and government concerns of St. Iona serves his teaching letters that have survived to this day, which are known in print: two for Vyatka, two for Novgorod and one for Pskov. Vyatka, a Novgorod colony in the land of Votyakov, founded in the second half of the 12th century, until the thirties of the 15th century was a small republican community that was completely independent of anyone, including its metropolis - Novgorod. Before 1434, for unknown reasons, the Vyatchans recognized the greater or lesser suzerainty of the Galich prince Yuri Dmitrievich, whom they helped in his struggle with the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Vasilyevich 1010. In 1458-59, this latter sent his troops against them and they recognized themselves to some extent as tributaries of Moscow 1011. In terms of the church, Vyatka is an extremely curious phenomenon that in the administrative sense it was, so to speak, outside the Russian church: the free community had priests, whom it received and obtained from neighboring Rus', but was not under the authority of any Russian bishop. This exceptional ecclesiastical position resulted in the fact that the Vyatchans were Christians more in name than in reality. At that time, the vast majority of priests were very bad shepherds even where they were under the supervision of bishops, especially since they had to be extremely bad shepherds in Vyatka, where there was no supervision over them and where they were completely on their own. And this is all the more so since the very composition of the priesthood, as one must think, was extremely poor quality here - that along with the legitimate priests, prohibited priests and even impostor priests came here from Russia 1012. The extremely bad Christian life of Vyatchan was the reason why Jonah wrote his letters to Vyatka, which have survived to this day. However, one of the two surviving letters was written not so much on a direct church issue as on a state matter. Before recognizing themselves as tributaries of the Grand Duke, the Vyatchans, despite repeated kisses of the cross to him for peace, made constant raids on his possessions closest to them for the purpose of robbery; in an unknown year, they raided Sysola, Vym and Vychegda, and many residents were beaten in the most barbaric manner, and up to one and a half thousand were taken into captivity: this incident was the reason for writing the letter. To Vyatka, which was not yet under any church-administrative authority, the Metropolitan sent a letter to the local zemstvo governors, atamans and all residents with his abbot and in the letter convinced them to stop their predatory raids and return the prisoners and church things captured and looted by them in the last raid, threatening them otherwise with excommunication from the mercy of God and his blessing in this century and future. Together with the letter to all residents, the Metropolitan sent a private letter to the priests, in which he convinces the latter to turn away citizens from perjury and from the aforementioned raids, and also generally reproaches and denounces them for extremely poor shepherding. “I don’t know,” says St. Jonah to the priests - how to call you priests, (for it is not known) from whom you have been ordained and ordained..; you yourself do not demand evangelical and apostolic teachings and, living carelessly, you yourself go to destruction... and you send Christian souls into eternal torment, without punishing them and without restraining them from an evil life. spiritual children live illegally, marrying five times, six and seven times, and you bless them and accept offerings from them, which is disgusting to God” 1013... Another surviving letter to Vyatka was written by St. Jonah, when the Vyatchans recognized the power of the Grand Duke over themselves, when in church-administrative terms they became subordinate to him, the Metropolitan, and when he sent his tithe to them to manage them. Having been addressed to the boyars, governors, atamans and all Vyatka Christians, the letter is divided into two halves, the first of which is addressed to the laity, the second to the clergy. In the first half, the Metropolitan reproaches Vyatchan for their bad Christian life, and in particular points out marriages without a church wedding, marriage for the fourth, fifth and up to the tenth time, and the fact that other monks cut their hair and get married - he exhorts them to correct themselves from their vices and not to hinder, but to assist the sent tithe in eradicating these the latter; making a general review of the Christian life of Vyatchan, the Metropolitan says: “I have heard, my son, that the deeds there in the patrimony of my son, the Grand Duke, in Vyatka, are committing resistant and hateful deeds to God, leading to many things that lead to the destruction of the peasants”... In the second half of the letter, the Metropolitan turns to the Vyatka priests with his admonition and prayer, so that they have great regard for themselves, as well as for Christ’s flock, that is, so that they are shepherds somewhat worthy of their title 1014. Two surviving letters to Novgorod, written at the same time, are addressed: one to Archbishop Euthymius, the other to all Christians or citizens there. The subject of both letters is the Novgorodians’ excessive passion for fist fights, or more precisely, stick fights, which resulted in enmity between citizens and led to bloodshed and murder, as we discussed above, outlining the actions of the Vladimir Council of 1274. The Metropolitan, teaching the Archbishop and reminding him at some length of the duty of pastors to care for their flock, both personally and through the priests, to try to completely “exterminate” their destructive passion between his spiritual children; The Metropolitan himself directly exhorts the Novgorodians themselves, extending to them a teaching speech about rage, blessed repentance, obedience and disobedience. Since the Archbishop of Novgorod and the Novgorod citizens were exceptional people in Russian Christian society, people of especially sensitive arrogance, in both letters the Metropolitan tries to speak with deliberate gentleness, clearly taking care to teach people not to irritate them. By their nature, the letters should be considered very well composed; only in the second of them the teaching about rage, etc., is not entirely clearly connected with the main subject of the speech 1015. The surviving charter of St. Jonah in Pskov mainly concerns zemstvo affairs and only partly is a scripture in the proper sense of pastoral and teaching. The people of Pskov sent their ambassadors to the Grand Duke and asked the Metropolitan to intercede for them with the latter. The Metropolitan, informing the Pskovites that, out of his holy duty, he spoke for them to the sovereign “with great power, and, expressing to them his readiness to do the same in the future, convinces them to stand firmly on everything that they agreed on with the Grand Duke. Following this, he extends to them the speeches of the church itself: he convinces them that they should not have any disagreement in the churches of God and in the Orthodox Christian faith and makes a general remembrance for the priests, so that they always have care for their priesthood, how powerful it is, and for their flock 1016. What is meant by disagreement in the churches of God and in the Orthodox faith, which the Metropolitan of Pskov urges to stop, remains positively unknown; but, in all likelihood, the disputes about the Hallelujah song that took place in Pskov at that time and which we will talk about below. (In the manuscripts of the former Tsars, one can read a short message that remains unprinted and, perhaps, relates here, “to the princes, if they go against the filthy for the holy churches of God and for all Orthodox Christianity” 1017. [In the same manuscript of the former Tsar, one reads the not yet printed short message of Metropolitan Jonah, “On teaching Orthodox Christians, so that they listen to their spiritual father in all spiritual matters,” page 26.] About the relationship of St. Jonah to the Lithuanian part of his metropolis, we only know that he visited it several times. The first time he was in Lithuania at the beginning of 1451, to accept power over the local bishoprics from the Polish king 1018; nothing is known about the time of his subsequent travels. In his message to the Lithuanian-Russian bishops on the occasion of the appearance of their Uniate Metropolitan Gregory, he speaks of his visits to Lithuania: “and again I am (after 1451) not alone, governing for the sake of the Holy Church, and not the wealth of dividing gold, nor silver, nor retribution for the sake of honor, as he was before the former Sidor, a robber and an enemy of the church” 1019 ... During the reign of St. Jonah, there was one case of violation by one bishop of the charter of fasting adopted by us at that time, which shows what extraordinary importance we then attached to the observance of the statutory rules of fasting. In 1455, the eve of the Epiphany of the Lord happened on Sunday, and Archbishop Theodosius of Rostov ordered that after the funeral service of the liturgy and vespers, the monks should eat cheese, milk and fish, and the laity eat meat, while the fasting charter adopted by us at that time read: “if the eve of the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany of the Lord happens to be on Saturday or a week, then it is not commanded you monks are allowed to have cheese and fish, and the worldly are allowed to eat meat, but after absolution, the liturgy is commanded to partake of a little communion, a meager amount of food, but after the evening absolution, to eat completely, but fast food, and not cheese, nor fish, nor human meat.” 1020. The violation of the adopted charter, committed by the archbishop, who was guided by the fact that there is no fasting on a weekday (Apostolic canon 64 and the Gangra Council canon 18) 1021, the Metropolitan found it so important that he wanted to remove the rank from him, and did not do this only because the Grand Duchess was sad for him 1022. A cathedral was convened by the metropolitan for the archbishop, at which the grand duke and his synclite were present, and at the cathedral Theodosius brought the most humble and tearful repentance of his evil sin and his crime, cursing the new leadership he had created and promising to firmly maintain the rules and legislated scriptures devoted to the church 1023. One letter of St. has survived. Jonah, concerning his preservation of his advantages as a metropolitan. Bishop Simeon of Polotsk sent him his letter about something and called him in the latter not his father, as he should have, but his brother. St. Jonah did not let this pass in vain and without attention, but wrote our letter to the bishop, in which he reprimanded him quite severely for violating the duty of subordination 1024. We, however, do not think that on the basis of this incident we should draw any conclusions about the personal character of St. Ions. It is more than likely that any other metropolitan would have acted in the same way as he did. Participation of St. Jonah's involvement in state affairs began even before he occupied the metropolitan department from the time when Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka sat on the grand-ducal throne, taking it away from Vasily Vasilyevich. On February 13, 1446, Shemyaka and his ally Ivan Mozhaisky captured Vasily in the Trinity Sergius Monastery and blinded him and sent him to prison in Uglich; but at the same time, Vasilyev’s sons were saved by the boyars loyal to him and taken to Murom. Wanting to get the saved princes into his hands, Shemyaka called St. from Ryazan to Moscow. Jonah and, promising him the metropolis, began to ask him to go to his bishopric - to Murom and there, from the boyars, take the sons of Vasilyev for his epitrachelion, and assured that he was glad to reward them - that he would release their father and give them all a satisfied estate. When St. Jonah actually brought the Vasiliev sons to Moscow from Murom, who were given to him by the boyars in the cathedral church from the shroud of the Mother of God for an epitrachelion, Shemyaka changed his word and, with the intermediary himself, sent the princes into captivity with their father in Uglich. Then St. Jonah, strongly and incessantly reproaching Shemyaka for committing a lie and leading him, the bishop, into sin, convinced him to release Vasily and his children to freedom, and in order to protect himself from him, offered to strengthen him with an honest cross and rulers 1025. The behavior of St. that we have now presented. Jonah may seem flawed. But, as Eminence Plato quite rightly notes in his History of the Russian Church 1026, the best justification for him is that Vasily Vasilyevich himself, the most competent judge in the case, did not harbor the slightest anger at him, not finding anything reprehensible in his behavior towards himself. In order not to be at all surprised by this, we must remember that Shemyaka, who took the grand-ducal throne from Vasily, was not at all a person who did not have any right to the throne - that there was a dispute between the two rivals about the rights of the disputed 1027, which could only be resolved by the strength and preponderance of sympathies of the inhabitants of the great reign (actually the Moscow boyars and service people). Consecrated metropolitan by Vasily Vasilyevich, St. Jonah, as far as we know, took an active part in state affairs and was the same adviser to the Grand Duke as his predecessors in the metropolitan department. Thus, the Polish king, having sent his ambassadors to Moscow to complete the peace treaty, asked the metropolitan to contribute to the success of the embassy with his participation 1028; The Pskovites, who sent ambassadors to the Grand Duke, beat the metropolitan with their foreheads so that he would intercede for them before the sovereign 1029. That the state significance and state authority of the metropolitan still retained all their strength under Jonah is evident from the fact that Shemyaka and Ivan Mozhaisky in their agreement with Vasily Vasilyevich in 1447 ask him not to summon them to Moscow until there is a metropolitan in it, who alone could give them a guarantee of safety 1030, and that in the agreements of Vasily Vasilyevich with The king of Poland and the Grand Duke of Ryazan submitted some controversial cases to the metropolitan arbitration court 1031. After Vasily Vasilyevich expelled Shemyaka from the grand princely throne he had seized, St. Jonah took an active part in his further seven-year struggle with the last 1032. When he was still a designated metropolitan, in December 1447, a letter of admonition was written to Shemyaka on behalf of all the bishops and all the clergy, so that he would correct himself in everything to the Grand Duke according to his agreements with him and that, having stopped caroling against him, he would sincerely repent of him, with the threat of being subjected otherwise to ecclesiastical excommunication 1033. When he became metropolitan, St. Jonah wrote a letter of admonition to some unknown well-wishers of Shemyaka, perhaps to the Novgorodians, who were in alliance with Shemyaka and gave him refuge, or perhaps to the Vyatchany or Ustyuzhany, threatening them, in case of their unrepentance towards the Grand Duke, with the same church excommunication and the closure of all churches in their land 1034. Behind this, in one surviving letter to the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius about Shemyak, he testifies that he had multiple communications with the Novgorodians in the latter’s case 1035. He also wrote letters against Shemyaka’s ally Prince Ivan of Mozhaisk in 1036. Over the course of ten years, St. Jonah ruled the Russian metropolitanate as part of the dioceses of Moscow and Lithuania. But in the middle of 1458, the Lithuanian half of the metropolis was torn from his power, which rejection this time was not short-lived, but led to the fact that the Moscow and Kiev halves of Rus' were divided among themselves in church-administrative terms for quite a long time. Isidore was convicted and deposed in Moscow and fled to Rome to the pope. But it is clear that in Rome they did not recognize the Moscow verdict and that for the pope he, Isidore, was a Russian metropolitan who had been illegally deprived of his see. The pope could not think about restoring it in the Moscow part of his metropolis, but he could very well think about restoring it in the Lithuanian-Galician part, which was under the authority of the Polish king. However, here too, circumstances were not favorable to the popes for quite a long time. During the reign of King Casimir, the Poles and Lithuanians were in constant strong enmity with each other, so that it even came to the thought of breaking the dynastic connection between both states, and Casimir, for his part, was drawn more to Lithuania (from whose great princes he was chosen as king) than to Poland 1037. As a result, Catholic Polish influence in Lithuania was very weak. We saw above that before Jonah was appointed metropolitan, Isidore had the intention of returning to Lithuanian Rus'; but through Moscow's efforts in Lithuania it was possible to achieve not only that he postponed his intention, but also that Jonah, who was installed in Moscow, was recognized by the Lithuanian Russians as their metropolitan. The popes, as usual, did not lose heart and finally managed to achieve their goal. The third Pope after Eugene IV, Callistus III, managed in 1458 to get Casimir to agree to take away the Lithuanian Russian bishoprics from Jonah and accept a Uniate metropolitan on them. Since Isidore was probably already in old age in 1458 (he died on April 27, 1463), this time he did not want to go to Lithuania and renounced his rights to it to the pope. In his imaginary power over the Russian metropolitanate, the pope divided it into two halves - Moscow and Lithuanian-Galician and, leaving the first, supposedly occupied by the usurper Jonah, in the nominal power of Isidore, on July 21, 1458, he appointed a student and former protodeacon of Isidor Gregory, who was then listed as abbot of the Constantinople monastery, as metropolitan in the second. St. Demetrius, whose dedication was carried out by the Uniate patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory Mamma, who lived in Rome 1038. In Moscow, as soon as it was learned about the installation of Gregory in Rome, the most decisive efforts were made to prevent him from taking the Lithuanian metropolis. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, as soon as he heard that this Gregory was coming from the pope to Lithuania, sent an embassy to the Polish king, through which he strongly urged the latter not to accept the Uniate metropolitan 1039. For his part, Jonah sent two of his abbots (Trinity Vassian and Cyril Cassian) to Lithuania, with instructions to convince the local Russian princes, boyars and lords and all Orthodox Christians, so that they, sending each other, would firmly stand for the Orthodox faith of Christ 1040; and after this he wrote a message to the entire Russian population of the Lithuanian principality, urging everyone to stand even to death against Isidore’s disciple who was about to come 1041. When Gregory arrived in Lithuania and was received by the king, Jonah, both on his own behalf and on behalf of the council of Moscow Russian bishops, wrote letters against him to the Lithuanian-Russian bishops, and to all the district bishops together and to each or at least some of them separately. But all his efforts remained in vain: Gregory was not only seated by the king on the Lithuanian see, but the latter, through a special embassy to Moscow, offered to Vasily Vasilyevich himself to accept him instead of Jonah, citing the fact that he was already in old age. It is very likely that the reason for the failure of Jonah’s efforts was not so much the king’s desire to fulfill the will of the pope, but rather the desire of the Lithuanian-Russian bishops themselves to be under their own special metropolitan from Moscow. (Which, probably, has already begun to become not particularly sympathetic to them in spirit). – We will return to speeches about this after 1042. Grigory was not dangerous for Moscow itself; however, here too St. Jonah found it prudent, just in case and for complete certainty, to take his own measures against him. At the end of 1459, he called the bishops of the Moscow great reign to his council and at the council forced them to give themselves a general handwritten or written promise that they would remain unfailingly faithful to him and his successors and that they would have no communication and no relations with the Uniate metropolitan 1043. Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod and Bishop Moses of Tver were not present at the council. To the first, who did not come, perhaps because not long before he had made his promises at his installation (in February 1459), the Metropolitan considered it necessary to write a special reminder letter 1044. In 1456, Vasily Vasilyevich went to war against Novgorod in revenge for Shemyaka. And, having gained a decisive upper hand over the Novgorodians, he concluded a peace with them, under the conditions of which the first clear steps were taken towards their complete conquest, which awaited them in the not particularly distant future 1045. From that time on, the Novgorodians, feeling an irreconcilable hatred of Moscow, began to defend themselves against it with all their might. Perhaps in Moscow it was already foreseen what actually happened later, namely, that the Novgorodians would surrender under the protection of the Polish king. And since along with this there would also be the danger that, by betraying Orthodoxy, they would fall away to Lithuania in church terms, then, prudently taking care of averting a possible danger in the future, the Metropolitan invites the Archbishop to instruct and strengthen his children in Orthodoxy, Orthodox Christianity, according to his hierarchal duty, with great strength. The non-arrival of Bishop Moses of Tver at the council raises a question: he did not appear despite the metropolitan’s three-time invitation, and the last time he was invited in the most strictly insistent manner 1046. But we think that the answer to the question should presuppose what is most simple. It does not seem at all probable to think that the bishop of Tver would be for the Uniate metropolitan; and therefore, it is most likely that he did not come to the council due to illness (since Moses died unknown when shortly after the end of 1459, it may be that the metropolitan’s last invitation found him already on his deathbed). The acceptance of Metropolitan Gregory by the Lithuanian Russians did not have the consequence that the Florentine Union would be established between them, but it had another consequence, namely, that the Russian Church was divided for a very long time in church-administrative terms into two special halves, Moscow and Kyiv, for with this Uniate metropolitan a continuous series of individual Orthodox metropolitans began in Lithuanian Rus'. Below we will make special speeches about them. St. Jonah was made metropolitan in Moscow itself, by his own Russian bishops and without the permission of the patriarch, for the reason that the patriarchs of Constantinople from the time of the Council of Florence were Uniates. But soon after his installation as metropolitan, the Orthodox patriarchs returned to the patriarchal see again and forever, and however, his successors began to be installed as he was installed - in Moscow itself, by their Russian bishops and without the permission of the patriarchs, so that with his installation a new period begins in the History of the relations of our metropolitans to the patriarchs - a period of complete actual independence of the former from the latter. Having been forced to erect St. Jonah at home due to the Uniate patriarch, the Russians, of course, had in mind that if this order of affairs continued in Constantinople, they would appoint Jonah’s successors in the same way, no matter what results this self-will would lead to in their relations with the patriarchs; But when they installed Jonah, it was not at all a foregone conclusion that his successors would be installed in the same way even if Orthodox patriarchs appeared again in the patriarchal department instead of the Uniate patriarchs. This decision was made by them after the installation of St. Jonah and was caused by a new circumstance that happened, namely the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. Mixing up the motives for which St. Jonah and according to which his successors began to be installed in it, and, seeing with what insistence the Russians wanted Jonah to be installed in Russia itself, our researchers believe that then the Russians’ idea and desire to provide their metropolitans with actual independence from the patriarchs had fully matured. But St. The Russians certainly wanted to install Jonah in Russia itself because the patriarchs were Uniates, but whether the indicated thought and desire really matured in them remains completely unknown. Although it is certain that another desire has matured, this is for the patriarchs to appoint Russian metropolitans from natural Russians, conceding the choice of candidates for metropolitan to the Russian Grand Duke himself with bishops. If Constantinople had not been taken by the Turks, and if at the same time Orthodox patriarchs had again appeared in the place of the Uniate patriarchs, then it is more than likely that the previous order of installing our metropolitans would have been restored again for an indefinite period. But four years and five and a half months after the installation of St. Jonah (May 29, 1453) Constantinople was taken by the Turks - and just as after the Council of Florence the Russians wanted to give their metropolitan actual independence from the Uniate patriarch, so now, after this capture, they decided to give it actual independence from the Orthodox patriarch. In Constantinople, after its capture by the Turks, the place of the Orthodox Greek Emperor was taken by the Muslim or Basurman Turkish Sultan. Just as the emperor was the temporal head of the Patriarch of Constantinople, confirmed him in his rank and assigned to him the distinctions (insignia) of this latter, so the Sultan began to do the same in relation to him 1047, as a result of which the patriarch now turned into a slave of the Christ-hating busurman. But the Russians could not have a desire for their metropolitan to receive initiation from this Busurman slave - for the Busurman filth, which the Sultan communicated with his own hands to the Patriarch, to pass on to the Metropolitan, and that through the slavery of the Patriarch to the Sultan they, to some extent, became slaves of this hater of the cross of Christ. And the matter here was not just about abstract concepts and opinions, but also about tangible reality, for the Russian Metropolitan, who had to go - assuming that he would be elected at home - for initiation to Constantinople, owned by the Turks, would have to have direct relations with Turkish officials, who were in charge of the patriarch and the church - could be required for direct representations himself the Sultan, who could apparently arrange things in such a way that the Metropolitan would seem to be as much his slave as the Patriarch himself, through which the Sultan could express some claims to supremacy over the Grand Duke himself. Thus, the Russians should have abhorred the idea of ​​their metropolitan going to Constantinople for consecration, after the latter had fallen into the unfaithful and nasty hands of the Muslim Turks, and should have found this impossible for very important and tangible practical reasons. But for the Russians there was also another and opposite impulse to wish that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, our metropolitans would become virtually independent of the patriarchs of Constantinople. We said above how, according to the ideas of that time, the Roman kingdom, which was supposed to protect the Church of Christ, had to exist indestructibly until the end of the century, and how the Russians, after the fall of Constantinople, began to think that the place of this second Rome was taken by the third Rome - our Moscow. But if, after the fall of Constantinople, such a high role passed from him to Moscow, then could its metropolitans remain dependent on the external and receive dedication for themselves precisely where the enemy of the cross of Christ settled? Given the now indicated opinion of the Russians about the new high role of their state, they should have desired the complete independence of their church with the establishment of an independent patriarchate in it. But this desire was still completely outside the thoughts of the Russians of that time and did not occur to them at all. The only freedom of their church, which they found it possible to dream about then, was actual freedom: and after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, for the reasons indicated now, they decided to provide their metropolitans with actual independence from the Orthodox patriarchs, just as during the reign of the Florentine Union in Constantinople they decided to provide this independence to their metropolitans from the Uniate patriarchs. Now the indicated motives, which forced the Russians, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, to want their metropolitans to be actually independent of the patriarchs of Constantinople, although these latter rejected the union, had all their binding force for them. But these impulses were partly, and partly seemed to them, too subjective and they did not find it possible to directly and precisely refer to them. The motive to which they referred was that the enslavement of Constantinople by the Turks damaged the purity of true Orthodoxy among the Greeks and that we who are truly Orthodox - it was further implied - should not have communication with them, who have ceased to be true Orthodox. It is difficult to decide whether this was simply invented by the Russians in order to justify themselves, that is, their desire to place their metropolitan in actual independence from the patriarch who had fallen to the power of the Turks, or whether there was a sincere opinion mixed in here. We said above that even before the Council of Florence, the Russians began to form a conviction about the Greeks, as if the purity of Orthodoxy had been damaged among them. The conviction had its source in the peculiar Russian view of church rituals and church appearance. But, of course, they sought an explanation for the fact they accepted not in their own views, but in external reasons by which it could be explained: the Council of Florence came at the time - and they hastened to proclaim that this particular council damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks. It may very well be that the government, taking advantage of the already beginning to take shape conviction about the corruption of Orthodoxy among the Greeks, deliberately declared its cause, instead of the Florentine Council, as the enslavement of the Greeks by the Turks. But it is not impossible that the Russians actually accepted to some extent that Turkish enslavement damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks. They understood this purity of Orthodoxy at that time in a very unique way, considering as its indispensable condition the possible greater external splendor of churches and worship, and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks actually resulted in the complete disappearance of external church splendor in the latter. When Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich says in one of his letters, which we will talk about below, that “the large cathedral churches of God (in Constantinople) were repaired (converted) by the Turkish king in the mizgiti (mosque), and which churches left to the patriarch, there are no crosses on those, there are no bells - they sing without a bell,” and when he concludes from this: “the Orthodoxy of the Greeks has already been destroyed” 1048: it may be that to some extent he speaks sincerely. So, during the reign of St. Jonah, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks and on the occasion of this capture, we made a decision to install our metropolitans in Moscow itself and with our Russian bishops in the future, so that the metropolitans could be virtually independent of the patriarchs in the future. When it was decided to place St. himself in Moscow itself. Jonah because of the Patriarch's Uniate status, they first tried to ask the Patriarch for permission to do this. How things happened this second time - whether they approached the patriarch with a request for permission and received it or not, this remains an unresolved question. Our later legends assure that permission was received from all four patriarchs who agreed among themselves, who at the same time honored the Russian Metropolitan with the honor of primacy among all metropolitans 1049. But we know of very strong objections to these legends, which are suspicious in themselves 1050. The seventh Patriarch after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, Dionysius 1, said in 1469 that the Constantinople Church did not recognize and does not recognize the Moscow metropolitans as being installed without its blessing (see below in the speeches about Metropolitan Philip). The Monk Maxim the Greek reproached the Russians for the fact that, contrary to the rules, the metropolitan is appointed by its bishops in Moscow, and not in Constantinople from the patriarch. If the patriarchs had given permission, then the Russians would have had a charter; and if there had been a letter, then Maxim’s lips would have been blocked by it, and he would not have made his reproaches. A fragment of a message from an unknown metropolitan to an unknown patriarch has survived to this day, which is most likely mistaken for a fragment of a message from Metropolitan Jonah to Patriarch Gennady, the first after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1051. The Metropolitan writes to the Patriarch that the Grand Duke is sending his ambassador to him according to his order and scripture 1052 to them - the Prince and the Metropolitan - that the Metropolitan is sending him with the ambassador the financial commemoration that he is able to send, and then turns to the Patriarch with a request: “Yes, please, sir, show us your perfect spiritual love: they have bypassed my son, the Grand Duke Ambassador, your honest writing about everything and the strengthening and spiritual benefit of our great Orthodoxy and for God’s Church and for our holy honor.”... The order and letter of the patriarch to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan about sending an ambassador should be understood in such a way that the patriarch wanted to talk with the prince and metropolitan about church affairs, but about what kind of affairs - whether our Russians or his Greeks, this is not at all clear from the surviving fragment of the message. The Metropolitan’s request to the Patriarch to send the Grand Duke writings about everything and (about) strengthening with full probability should be understood about the matter of installing our metropolitans, but whether the recognition of the legality of the installation of Jonah himself, if his message, or about permission to install his successors in Moscow, is also not visible from the message. Paisiy Yaroslavov in his legend about the Spaso-Kamensky monastery says that the tonsure of this monastery, abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, Cassian, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Jonah were sent to Constantinople twice to the patriarch “for some need, about church correction” 1053. If Paisius is not confusing here and does not understand Cassian’s embassies to Lithuania, then we can only regret that he does not say anything definite about the purpose of the embassies and their result 1054. Be that as it may, whether the patriarchs gave or did not give their formal permission to the Russians to install their own metropolitans in Moscow itself, but, in any case, it is positively known that they did not openly protest against the installation itself. Consequently, even if they did not give formal permission to it, they willingly or reluctantly accepted it and recognized it as a fact. Thus, from the time of St. Jonah began the election of Russians, or more precisely, Moscow-Russian metropolitans, certainly in Russia itself and exclusively from natural Russians, and their installation in Moscow itself and as their own Russian bishops; in general, since the time of St. The Moscow-Russian metropolitans became virtually independent of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. We have already said that we must distinguish between the motives for which St. himself was installed in Russia itself. Jonah and according to which it was decided to install his successors in Russia: St. himself. Jonah was installed in Russia because the Patriarchs of Constantinople were Uniates; It was decided to place his successors in Russia because Constantinople was taken by the Turks. As for the legal side of the matter, in the first case, when St. Jonah, the Russians did less than what they should have done, for they had to break the church union with the Uniate patriarch. In the second case, they did less than they could have done, for they had the right to declare their church independent, which right belonged to them from the very beginning of their Christianity. The Russians’ lack of awareness of their duties and rights and their lack of courage to act as some prescribed and others allowed, had the strange consequence that their behavior is far from being completely irreproachable where it could be completely irreproachable... We will talk about the significance of the new procedure for the installation of our metropolitans for our church below. In the person of St. Jonah, installed in Russia itself, our metropolitans took a higher position than what they had before - they became (in fact) autocephalous metropolitans, in accordance with the autocephalous Greek archbishops. As the first such metropolitan, St. Jonah took care of his external representativeness. In his yard he erected a stone chamber with a house or cross church in it, the Church of the Deposition of the Most Pure Mother of God 1055; He decorated his Assumption Cathedral with icons in gold and silver vestments with precious stones, expensive chandeliers, a pulpit and gilded entrance gates (Korsun), and made the service there more solemn by increasing the choir of its singers (choristers) and the number of readers 1056. [Since the Nikon Chronicle says that already in 1432 Vasily Vasilyevich was installed as the khan’s ambassador for the great reign “at the Most Pure One at the Golden Doors” - V, 111: then, perhaps, the testimony of the “Word of the Chosen” should be understood in such a way that Jonah restored the gates (doors) made by one of his predecessors.] After 12 years and months of governing the metropolis of St. Иона скончался 31 Марта 1461 года 1057 в глубокой старости, ибо всего в сане епископском пребывал более 30 лет. В. 1 Софийской летописи читаем запись об его преставлении: «в лето 6969, месяца Марта в 31, преставися пресвященный Иона митрополит киевский и всея Руси; бе же тогда зрети лице его не яко же бе обычай мертвым, но яко спящу показуяся за великое и преславное его житие, якоже слышахом о нём, еже от юности, якоже древнии святии отци» 1058 . In the very year of St.'s death. Ионы архиепископ новгородский Иона возревновал прославить его память каноном, который и написал по его поручению живший тогда в Новгороде известный творец канонов и житий Пахомий Сербин, «ведяше бо, – говорится в житии его – Ионы новгородского, – его добродетели, сего ради и память его каноны почте равно со святыми» 1059 . В 1472 году, по случаю перестройки московского Успенского собора, были обретены нетленными мощи св. Jonah, and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich with Metropolitan Philip commissioned the same Pachomius Serbin to write a canon for this discovery of his relics in 1060 and established a local celebration for him in the cathedral. A solemn church-wide celebration of his memory was established under Metropolitan Macarius in 1547. In place of St. Jonah was installed as metropolitan by Archbishop Theodosius of Rostov, the same one who in 1455 was tried for violating the charter of fasting in 1061. The election of this second metropolitan, who was to be installed in Russia itself, was carried out in an unusual way: he was chosen by St. Jonah during his lifetime. When the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich recognized Jonah’s weakness, that is, he saw that his hour of death was approaching, he called some bishops to Moscow, and the dying metropolitan, having reasoned and discussed with him - the Grand Duke and the called bishops, elected and blessed his future successor - our Theodosius; he wrote his blessed letter in his name, which, having approved it with his signature and seal, he placed on the throne in the Assumption Cathedral 1062. In explanation of this unusual election, it is suggested that it was most likely done in this way in order to prevent any hesitation among the Russian (Moscow) bishops in choosing a successor to Jonah and thereby deprive the Polish king Casimir of the only plausible opportunity to again petition for the acceptance of the false metropolitan Gregory to the see of the Moscow metropolitanate. But such hesitations between the bishops, which would give Casimir an excuse to intervene in the matter, could not be expected or feared at all; no matter under what pretexts he tried to propose Gregory again, in Moscow they did not at all need to refuse him the pretext that they already had a metropolitan, for without any pretext he was refused because they did not want to hear about the metropolitan - a Uniate sent by the pope 1063. It would be more likely to assume that they were afraid of the Patriarch of Constantinople, lest he would hastily try to impose his candidate on us. But with somewhat closer attention to the matter, this does not turn out to be consistent: it would not be long before the patriarch learned about the death of the metropolitan in Moscow, and yet here they had the opportunity to elect a successor to him immediately after his death. Turning to our previous history, we find there an explanation for the unusual election of Theodosius to metropolitan. In the previous post-Mongol time, it was so that if a candidate for metropolitan was elected in Russia itself, then he was elected and blessed by the former metropolitan himself, alive or during his lifetime: St. Peter chose and blessed a certain Archimandrite Theodore in his place; Theognostus chose and blessed St. Alexia; St. Alexy (although perhaps not with much desire) - Archimandrite Mikhail (Mitya). The first two times this was done out of necessity: Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich Kalita, in state affairs, was very desirable that the successor of St. Peter was a man as devoted to him as St. Peter - and he decided to elect a successor in Russia itself; but since at one time he could not at all hope that the Russian bishops would choose exactly the person he liked, Peter, together with him, appointed his successor himself during his lifetime. Guided by similar motives, Theognostus chose St. Alexia. The third time, when appointing a successor to St. Alexy, there was no particular need for Alexy himself to bless him. And, however, Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, as evidence assures, persistently sought this blessing from Alexy: it is clear that after the two previous examples, Dmitry Ivanovich already considered it obligatory for himself to do this and not otherwise - that he considered these two examples to be a rule for himself. And thus, now indicated, we are given an explanation of why Theodosius was elected in an unusual way. And his successor, as we will discuss below, was elected in the same way as he. It might seem an exceptional feature that St. Jonah wrote his blessed letter in his name; but in fact, this was not an exceptional feature: we know that St. Alexy gave his charter in the name of Archimandrite Mikhail (see above p. 231, electronic version - footnote No. 420, corr.); therefore, there is reason to assume that it was the same in other previous cases 1064. Chosen by St. Jonah during his life, Theodosius was invested with the rank of metropolitan in order to take his place, in a very short time after his death - either on the very 40th day according to him (magpies) or even a little earlier, on May 9 or 3, 1461 1065. The peculiarity of Fedoseev’s appointment, which depended on the circumstances of the time, was that the bishops of the metropolis, as it remained after the apostasy or separation from Moscow of Lithuanian Rus, had to repeat to the new metropolitan the St. Jonah undertook not to approach the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory, who had appeared in Lithuania, and not to enter into any relations with him. As we said above, there was no reason to fear Gregory for any of the bishops of the metropolis, with the exception of Novgorod (and in the latter case, not for the bishop himself, but for his flock). But in Moscow they loved possible caution and prudence and therefore did not consider the formality of the bishops repeating their obligations at all unnecessary. The bishops who were personally present at the dedication of Theodosius repeated the obligations, perhaps verbally, but much more likely in a deliberate letter that has not reached us; bishops who were not present at the consecration and expressed their consent to the installation through voluntary letters, repeated it either twice - in these voluntary letters and then in special sworn letters given to the new metropolitan himself, or at least once - in the first letters 1066. Speaking above about the installation of St. as metropolitan in Russia itself. Jonah and after him Theodosius, we said that for some reasons the first was installed and for others - the second. St. Jonah was installed in Russia itself because there were patriarchs in Constantinople, Uniates. If the Orthodox patriarchs had returned to their see and at the same time Constantinople had not been taken by the Turks, then the reasons for which it was established would cease to exist. But during his reign, Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and the Russians decided that their metropolitans should be supplied at home and become virtually independent of the patriarchs and, despite the fact that the latter again became Orthodox: on the one hand, they did not want their metropolitans to be supplied by patriarchs who became slaves of the Turkish sultans. And on the other hand, the new high role in the Christian Orthodox world, which, according to their ideas, was inherited by their great princes from the disappeared Greek emperors, required, in their opinion, for the future, independence of their metropolitans. Thus, the new period of relations between the Russian metropolitans and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the period of their actual independence from the latter and actual autocephaly, begins with Theodosius. And thus, the installation of Theodosius as metropolitan was a very important event in Russian church history, which began a new period in relation to the position of metropolitans. But it was also a very important event in civil history: Theodosius was the first metropolitan whom the Grand Duke approved (invested and installed) himself directly and solely in his capacity as a successor to the Greek emperors. The government felt the need to address an important event with its speeches to the public in order to direct its understanding in a certain way, and it did this through the publication of a kind of political pamphlet: “The Word Selected from the Holy Scriptures in Latin,” which we spoke about above (p. 475, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 965, corr.). In the word in relation to the event, in its explanation and justification, two thoughts are carried out, although far from with complete clarity and openness: firstly, that the Grand Duke is the successor of the Greek emperors; secondly, that in Russia we have higher piety than in Greece, enslaved by the Turks. The name of Metropolitan Theodosius is not at all one of the particularly famous names in our Russian church history. The view of his contemporaries and immediate descendants placed him in the category of ordinary, ordinary, our metropolitans. And since he occupied the metropolitan see for a very short time, so to speak, he only briefly appeared on it, then for this reason, among our ordinary metropolitans, he would have to be given a very low place. In fact, Metropolitan Theodosius is one of the most outstanding of the ordinary series and the most remarkable of our metropolitans, so that he, undoubtedly, should be given one of the highest and one of the most honorable places among them. Throughout our old Rus', our parish clergy was of very poor quality: but how many metropolitans did we have who would think about improving this clergy with all seriousness - who would want to set such improvement as one of their deliberate tasks? And Metropolitan Theodosius belonged precisely to a small number of these our metropolitans. In the “Historical Acts” there is printed a letter from the nameless Rostov archbishop, which was adopted by the publishers to our Theodosius and with which the archbishop calls the clergy of the Belozersk region to a local council in the city of Belozersk 1067. The diploma was adopted by the publishers of Theodosius without any reason 1068; but there are some real reasons for him to assimilate it: in her he allows himself to be seen as the same zealous shepherd as Theodosius showed himself to be at the metropolitan see 1069. In ancient and ancient times, the Rostov diocese consisted of two parts: from the Rostov region proper and from the vast Belozerie or Belozersky region (see Vol. 1 half, p. 559, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1315, corr.). There is no doubt that the clergy of their own Rostov region was far from being of very good quality; but the clergy of the remote Belozero region was directly like this: being removed from the episcopal supervision, this clergy in its qualities approached the Vyatka clergy, about which we spoke a little higher. In ancient and old Rus', the means for bishops to make teachings and teach instructions to parish priests was the annual diocesan councils, compiled at the bishops' cathedral churches on the so-called assembly Sunday. (For in the ancient language a cathedral is a gathering). At these councils, the unknown archbishop wanted to denounce and teach the Belozersk priests, wanting to eradicate among them such abuse as the wedding of fourth marriages; but the Belozersk priests did not want to come to the cathedrals. The archbishop spent four years in the Rostov cathedra and could not get these priests to come to him. Then he himself decided to go to Belozersk to form a deliberate council of the local clergy there. With our surviving letter, he invites the Belozersk clergy to a council in Belozersk, threatening those who disobey the invitation with expulsion from the priesthood and the full severity of church executions. Whether or not the charter belongs to Theodosius and, therefore, we have or do not have evidence that he showed himself to be a zealous shepherd, being the archbishop of Rostov: but, in any case, having become a metropolitan, he decided to urgently and energetically begin to correct the clergy of his metropolitan diocese, in what must be thought, the intention, in order to then extend his concerns in this regard throughout metropolis. Our clergy at that time was very unsatisfactory and required correction; Theodosius was an extraordinary man, aware of the need and filled with the desire to undertake this correction: this is his own and simple reason for the decision he made. But in all likelihood one should think that his will and energy were greatly influenced by the peculiarity of his position that he recognized. With his installation as metropolitan, a new, so to speak, highest, period in the history of the Russian Church began. It was completely natural that he, being an ordinary person, would be aware of the duty that lay upon him to take care of the improvement of the Russian church in the person of its clergy, so that the church would become, as far as possible, worthy of its new highest position. Subsequently, we see that such awareness of the peculiarity of the situation had an extremely strong influence on the activities of another metropolitan, who belonged to the number of ordinary people, this is Metropolitan Macarius, under whom Russia occupied the highest state position, formally becoming a kingdom from a grand duchy. By the correction of the clergy, which Metropolitan Theodosius conceived, it should not at all be understood as corrections in some too broad sense; Theodosius could not at all think about forcing our priests to become any kind of real shepherds-teachers of the people, for from people who were barely literate, semi-literate and completely illiterate, how could one demand that they be teachers? The only correction of the clergy that Metropolitan Theodosius could think of was so that they would not be too bad in their lives - so that the priests, not at all thinking about any kind of teaching and remaining simple mechanical performers of church services, sacraments and services for the people, would not seduce the people too much with their bad life; in a word, the correction of the clergy undertaken by Metropolitan Theodosius consisted solely in correcting the clergy’s own vicious life. The Metropolitan conducted the matter in such a way that he began every Sunday to call and summon to himself a certain number of priests, that is, especially the worst among them, and began to teach them according to the holy rules, that is, he began to scold them and admonish them, threatening them with the severity of punishments (to put it in somewhat vulgar language, he began to inflict races and overkill on the priests). In relation to the widowed priests and deacons, who were then producing a true and great temptation with their lives, he took decisive measures: for those of them who did not have open concubines, he, according to the legalization of St. Peter, confirmed by Photius, ordered to become a monk. And he mercilessly punished and fined those who had these open concubines, and then deprived them of the priesthood. But, alas! This attempt of Metropolitan Theodosius to correct the clergy of his metropolitan diocese, which, as one must think, would later extend to the entire metropolitanate, was very short-lived and ended in complete failure, proving the sad truth that a person who comes out to fight some social evil alone and contrary to society, either falls in the fight or must sometimes abandon it and lay down his weapon. At that time, due to the complete ease of opening parishes and due to the extreme ease of getting priests, which we talked about before (I volume 1 half, p. 410, electronic version - paragraph footnote No. 898, corr.) and which we will talk about later, we had a great many parishes. When the Metropolitan began his strict search of priests and banned and deprived many of them of the priesthood, many parishes found themselves without priests. Completely satisfied with their bad priests and not at all sympathizing with the purpose with which the Metropolitan launched his persecution against them, the dark people saw only the result that the persecution led to for them, and for this result, that is, for the fact that many churches were left without priests and without singing, the people began to curse the Metropolitan. Then the Metropolitan, for his part, seeing that his good zeal, instead of people's blessings, had attracted insane curses on him, hastened to leave the department, having remained in it for only three years and four months (September 13, 1464). Here is the story of the chronicle about Theodosius’s failed attempt, which forced him to leave the see: “(having become a metropolitan) I wanted to guide the priests and deacons to God’s path: I began to call them every week and teach them according to the holy rule, and commanded the widower deacon and priest to take their hair, and those who have concubines should be tormented without mercy by the priesthood. taking from them and selling them; and many churches have been instructed, and whoever does not want to do handicrafts 1070 - everyone is in the priests, so he feeds and follows carnal lusts, for he does not serve God as he pleases, but rather serves his own body; and the people were enraged, there were many churches without priests, and they began to curse him (the metropolitan)” 1071... Unexpected curses from the people so struck the metropolitan that he fell ill. Having recovered and abandoned the see, he retired to the Miracle Monastery, where he was an archimandrite before being appointed archbishop of Rostov, and here, perhaps, wanting to make amends for the involuntary guilt of the temptation caused to the people, he took the weakened elder into his cell in order to serve him and wash his scabs 1072. Let us report on the remarkable short-lived reign of Feodosiev. The Metropolitan twice, through his letters, reminded Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod about his vow not to recognize Gregory of Lithuania and not to have any communication with him - the first time at the very beginning of his reign, the second time at the end of it, when he decided to leave the see 1073. During the reign of Theodosius, just like St. Jonah, the Novgorodians, it seems, had not yet begun to talk about surrendering under the protection of the Polish king; but in Moscow, as we said above, there were some reasons to foresee this danger. Then, as one must think, there was fear of efforts on the part of Gregory himself, that is, so that he would not entice the Novgorodians with his own proposals, supported by an indication of political benefits. Finally, here, as we also said, they were generally very careful and were zealous followers of the rule that it is better to prevent dangers than to avert them. Theodosius's first letter to Jonah with the indicated reminder is dated July 8, 1461, i.e., written just two months after his installation as metropolitan. It seems that there was a special reason for writing it. Jonah, together with another bishop, Gennady of Tver, was not personally present at his installation and sent his free letter regarding this. But while the bishop of Tver repeated his vow not to recognize Gregory and not to communicate with him, not only in a free letter for his election - Theodosius, but also in a sworn letter to himself, Jonah did not send him the last letter 1074, probably finding it unnecessary. Therefore, our metropolitan’s letter to the archbishop can most likely be looked at as an indirect and delicate reproach to the latter for his failure to comply with the due, we don’t know - deliberately required or not required of him, formality. The second time the Metropolitan reminded the archbishop of his vow in his letter to him, in which he informed him of his decision to leave the see, and it may be that the reminder was not the main purpose of the letter, but was done only by the way. The archbishop's answer to the metropolitan seems to indicate that he was finally offended by the too frequent reminders; Jonah answers Theodosius: “And if you write to us, our lord and father, about Gregory, Isidore’s disciple and zealot, you cannot mingle with him, as then, as now, with him: otherwise, lord and father, it is not the custom of the House of the Wisdom of God, Saint Sophia, to receive a wolf instead of a shepherd, nor bitter instead of sweet, to partake of communion below the stone, I present the bread, but tremble with the true shepherd, who comes through the doors of the sheepfold and lays down his soul for the sheep, and not the one who transgresses from Rome.” In Novgorod, as well as in its suburb of Pskov, the laity took a very large part in church affairs, so that on their part there was an encroachment on the management of diocesan power by the lower white and black clergy and interference in the use of immovable church estates by the clergy: we will talk about this in detail in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on administration. After the letter about this, that is, actually, against this, by Metropolitan Cyprian, addressed to the Novgorodians at the request of Archbishop John, there is a letter to them from our Metropolitan Theodosius, written, probably at the request of Archbishop Jonah. In a letter dated January 26, 1463, the Metropolitan admonishes the Novgorod secular authorities - firstly, not to encroach on the rights of the archbishop over the clergy, and secondly, not to encroach on immovable church estates 1075. At the end of 1463, the Pskovites turned to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich (who replaced his father Vasily Vasilyevich on March 27 of the previous year 1462), with a request that he order the Metropolitan to install for them a special bishop from Novgorod, from his native Pskovitin. This was the second attempt of the Pskovites to acquire a special bishop for themselves after the attempt made in 1331 under the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich and Metropolitan Theognost. At that time they were flattered by the hope of beginning a political existence independent of Novgorod. This time the motivation for the request was different, namely, that their quarrels with the Novgorodians, in which the Archbishop of Novgorod, of course, took the side of the latter, produced enmity between them and their shepherd, which circumstance was extremely inconvenient for them both in terms of church-spiritual and political. In 1463, the Pskovites had a war with the Germans, and the Novgorodians did not want to help them at all. Having quarreled over this issue with the Novgorodians and with the ruler, and in all likelihood, counting on the fact that the Grand Duke began to have great disagreements with the former from the very accession to the throne, they turned to the sovereign with their request. But this time they failed too. Previously, their dreams of independence from Novgorod did not at all correspond to the views of Moscow; now the reason for the refusal was precisely the strained relations of the Grand Duke with Novgorod: he did not want to be the first to give rise to an open quarrel. The only consolation for the Pskovites was that the refusal was not given to them in a harsh form, since the Grand Duke, avoiding an open quarrel with the Novgorodians, did not want to quarrel with them either. First, Ivan Vasilyevich answered the Pskovites: “that is, the matter is great, we want to think much more with our father (the metropolitan), and our father will send our pilgrims, and his children - archbishops and bishops, and whether it will be like this, and we will refuse (answer) you, as it will be suitable.” Then, a month and 10 days later, he answered: “I want the great prince to send his ambassadors to Veliky Novgorod, and my ambassadors from Novgorod will also come to you in Pskov, my fatherland, and everything after them will be revealed to you: the great prince Ivan Vasilyevich is glad to grieve with you, with his fatherland, with his father Theodosius of All Russia Metropolitan." Finally, after much imaginary deliberation with the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke positively refused the Pskovites’ request, saying: “that it is not right for the ruler to be in Pskov, who has never been from time immemorial, and not a table in Pskov,” i.e., since Pskov does not constitute a special inheritance 1076. Due to the war with the Germans and their anger at the Novgorodians and the Archbishop of Pskov, for two years they kept the latter’s immovable estates located in the Pskov region under sequestration, using the income from them for their public needs 1077. The archbishop complained to the metropolitan about this seizure of Pskov, and the metropolitan sent his letter to Pskov, urgently urging the Pskov Church of God not to offend and to correct everything to the archbishop and warning them, so that otherwise something sad would not happen to them according to the instructions of the holy rules 1078. During the reign of Metropolitan Theodosius, the Russian Church expanded its spiritual territory among foreigners who belonged to the state territory of our fatherland, namely, Jonah, Bishop of Perm, completed the baptism of the Permians or Permians, begun by St. Stefan of Perm. We said above that the people of the Finnish tribe Permians or Permyaks were divided into two halves - the northern half, which lived in the eastern half of the current Vologda province and partly in the Arkhangelsk province, which we called Zyryan, and the southern half, which lived in the current Perm province, which bore its own name Permians or Permyakov. The first half of Permians or Zyryans were baptized by St. Stefan of Perm, who died in 1396; the second half of the Permians, who were called by this last name and whose country was called Great Perm by the Russians, was baptized by Stephen's fourth successor at the Perm department, the aforementioned Jonah 1079. Unfortunately, we do not have any detailed information about the apostolic act of Jonah; one of the chronicles says briefly under 1462: “that same summer, Bishop Jonah of Perm baptized Great Perm and set up princes and churches, abbots and priests” 1080. Since the installation of Jonah as a bishop, it is unknown when it took place after 1455, should most likely be dated back to 1459 1081, and since we find him in Moscow from the very end of this year 1082, it follows that he used the work of converting the Permians, whom he baptized in 1462, for a very short time. And this leads to the conclusion that the conversion of the pagans to Christianity was prepared by his predecessors and that he only succeeded in crowning the efforts of the latter. Indeed, about the immediate, at least, predecessor of Jonah, St. Pitirim has reason to believe that he preached Christianity in Great Perm 1083. Regarding the means used by Jonah to establish Christianity in Great Perm, we only know that he founded a monastery in the city of Cherdyn, which was the capital or main city of the land 1084. During the reign of Metropolitan Theodosius, a very unimportant in itself, but very important for the Russians in a relative way, event took place, the consecration of one of the Greek metropolitans by our metropolitan. In Jerusalem, during the reign of Patriarch Joachim, as was told by the Russians, a great earthquake occurred, from which the dome of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ fell. When the Sultan of Egypt, who then owned Palestine, learned about this, he decided to destroy the Christian church to the ground and in its place, above the Holy Sepulcher, build his own Mohammedan mosque. Having begged the patriarch to cancel the decision, the Sultan demanded 10 thousand Venetian gold and finally settled on 5 and a half thousand gold. To collect money to restore the dome and pay the ransom to the Sultan, it was necessary to go to Christian Orthodox lands; but all these lands, with the exception of Russia, were in the power of infidels, and the patriarch intended to go to this latter. Having reached Kafa, he fell ill and died. Before his death, he decided to send to Russia in his place his protosyncellus and together with his nephew Joseph, who went with him from Palestine, having been named metropolitan of Caesarea Philippi, or whom he himself, before his death, named these metropolitans and regarding whom he asked our metropolitan with his letters, so that the latter would make the consecration in accordance with the naming 1085. It was this Joseph, on the basis of the patriarchal path, that Theodosius dedicated as metropolitan on April 4, 1464 1086. Was everything as Joseph said, and why did the metropolitans in Russia need to be consecrated to him, and not at home? The Russians did not inquire about this 1087; they were extremely glad that the Greek Patriarch was asking our Metropolitan to consecrate one of his metropolitans: this meant that the Patriarch formally recognized the legitimacy of our Metropolitan, installed in Russia itself. Very pleased with Joseph that he had served, so to speak, as an instrument for such an important act, Theodosius used his diligent efforts so that he could collect the most abundant alms in Russia 1088. After being removed from the cathedra, Metropolitan Theodosius lived for 11 years and died at the end of 1475, in the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, to which he moved from Chudov or in which, perhaps, he was caught in death while on a pilgrimage. He was buried in the Trinity Monastery in 1089. [From the inventory of the Trinity Monastery of 1641 it is clear that there was a tomb over the grave of Metropolitan Theodosius (for it is mentioned “two taffeta covers that are placed on the metropolitans,” i.e., on Theodosius and Joasaph) and that this grave was near the grave of Archbishop Serapion or in the tent bearing the name of the latter. At present, due to the destruction, it is unknown - when and by whose order, the tombstones, the place of the grave of Metropolitan Theodosius remains completely unknown.] The successor of Theodosius at the metropolitan see was Philip I, appointed from among the bishops of Suzdal in 1090. How Theodosius himself was chosen by St. Jonah was still alive, and Philip, in turn, was chosen by Theodosius himself before his removal from the see. We read about this election of Philip by Theodosius himself in the letter to the last Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod, constituting a response to the metropolitan’s informative message about his removal from the cathedra: “You write to us, our lord, that you have spoken with your son, and with our lord, with the Grand Duke, and with his mother the Grand Duchess, and with our brethren - the archbishop and bishops, and Thou hast blessed our lord Bishop Philip in his place in the metropolis for the sake of his grave illness” 1091. Chosen by Theodosius himself, Philip was elevated to the metropolitan see two months after his abdication - November 11, 1464. We know the following about the affairs of Metropolitan Philip during his 10-year rule of the Russian metropolitanate: firstly, he tried, together with Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, to turn the Novgorodians away from the Lithuanian Metropolitan Gregory; secondly, he undertook the construction of a new Assumption Cathedral in Moscow in place of the old one; thirdly, he showed persistent and zealous concern for maintaining respect for Orthodoxy regarding the arrival of Ivan Vasilyevich’s second wife, the Greek princess Sophia, to Moscow from Rome. Metropolitans of St. Jonah and Theodosius reminded Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod of his vow, given at his installation, not to recognize Gregory and to turn his flock away from him, as one might think, without any real reason, out of mere prudent concern for the future. But soon real grounds appeared in relation to the flock. Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, in his peace treaty with the Novgorodians in 1456, imposed on them conditions that severely curtailed their freedom, and which obviously began their complete enslavement to Moscow. Taking advantage of the youth of Vasiliev's successor, the Novgorodians decided to regain their previous position in relation to the great princes; but it turned out that this successor, despite his youth, has a firm intention to defend his acquired rights. It was then, in view of Moscow's enslavement, as an undoubted reality that was imminent in the near future, the Novgorodians asked themselves the question: would it not be better for them to recognize the patronage of the Polish king. But when they had the idea of ​​surrendering under the protection of the King of Poland, it was quite natural to fear that they would decide to succumb to the church authority of Gregory. Moreover, by the very time our danger appeared, Gregory himself had become incomparably more dangerous than before. During the 12 years of his stay at the metropolitan see, he remained a Uniate, but in 1470 he decided to return to Orthodoxy and sent his ambassador to Constantinople to the patriarch with an expression of his desire and with a request that the patriarch recognize and confirm him in the rank of Russian metropolitan. Patriarch Simeon of Trebizond, to whom the ambassador was sent, either refused the request or, perhaps, did not have time to fulfill it, since he occupied the patriarchal chair for a very short time 1092. But Simeon’s successor Dionysius, inclined, as our news assures, by the great gifts of Gregory 1093, reunited him with Orthodoxy, confirmed him in the rank of metropolitan not only of Lithuania, but also of all Rus', and sent his ambassador for him not only to Lithuania, but also to Moscow and Novgorod, commanding in these last two places that he be recognized as their metropolitan, and that the metropolitan, installed in Moscow itself, was removed as illegal and not recognized by the Church of Constantinople 1094. When it was learned in Moscow about the act of Patriarch Dionysius and that his ambassador, together with Ambassador Grigoriev, was going to our Muscovite Rus' 1095, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich hastened to warn the danger that threatened in relation to Novgorod, namely, he hastened to write a letter to Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod 1096. The Grand Duke tells Jonah in his message how Casimir of Poland sent requests for the acceptance of this illegally installed Uniate Gregory to his - Grand Duke's father Vasily Vasilyevich and after the death of his father more than once to himself, and how Casimir was constantly given a decisive refusal and he himself, on the contrary, was convinced to recognize the Metropolitan of Moscow - reminds Jonah how he vowed not to proceed to Gregory at his installation as St. Jonah and how he later confirmed it with his writing to Metropolitan Theodosius and the current Metropolitan Philip. But since after the recognition and approval of Gregory as the Patriarch of Constantinople, new evidence was needed against him, the Grand Duke presents this evidence. We said above that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the opinion was spread among the people, or the people formed, that Turkish enslavement damaged the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks. The Grand Duke assures the archbishop that this fact of damage to the purity of Orthodoxy among the Greeks by the Turks is recognized by the Patriarchs of Constantinople themselves. He tells him that when Gregory sent his ambassador to Constantinople to seek blessings and confirmation from the patriarch, Patriarch Simeon, under whom the ambassador came to Constantinople and whom the Grand Duke calls Simon, despite the promise of great gifts, refused the request, citing the fact that he could not give blessings, since their Orthodoxy had already been destroyed among the Greeks. “He (Gregory) sent,” writes the Grand Duke, conveying, as he assures, the news communicated to him from Constantinople, “his ambassador Manuel to Tsar-Gorod, seeking blessings and confirmation from the Tsargrad Patriarch, but from that he sent a lot of gold and spoil to the patriarch, and gave a great commemoration; and at that time there was a patriarch, their name was Simon, over a certain monastery over a poor one, and the Turkish king completed the large cathedral churches of God in the Mizgits, and the churches that he left to the patriarch have no crosses on them, they have no bells, they sing without a bell; and that dei Patreiarch Simon, a man dei prudent 1097, and that Manuel at Grigoriev’s ambassador, did not accept the funeral and the promised gold and did not give a blessing, but denied the dei to him like this: ““I myself live in squalor, in the hands of Besermen, in someone else’s captivity, and our Orthodoxy has already been destroyed." "Simeonov's successor Dionysius, despite the fact that for the reason now stated, could not give Gregory his blessing and confirmation, being tempted by great gifts, gave them to him 1098. But,” the Grand Duke further informs the archbishop, “a council of all bishops, archimandrites and abbots and the entire priesthood, which I assembled in Moscow, and the entire priesthood, protested against this illegal action of the patriarch, and condemned the Patriarchs of Constantinople to be alien and renounced (from our true Orthodoxy). “We have now made plans for ourselves,” the Grand Duke writes to the archbishop, “with our father and the metropolitan and with our mother with the Grand Duchess and with our brothers and with our pilgrims - with the archbishop and with the bishops and with the rulers and with the archimandrites and with the honorable abbots and with all the priesthood, and that my ambassador to the patriarch I don’t even order Grigoriev to be allowed into my land: I don’t demand him, neither his blessing nor his unblessing, we have him from ourselves, that same patriarch, a stranger and renounced.”... Thus, against the blessing and confirmation received by Gregory in Constantinople, the Grand Duke presents to the archbishop: firstly, that the patriarch, as having ceased to be truly Orthodox, had no right to do this; secondly, that in Moscow a council of the entire priesthood pronounced a renunciation against him or from him - the patriarch. It is very likely that Metropolitan Philip also wrote his letter to the archbishop at the same time as the Grand Duke. But his charter has not survived to this day. Two of his letters to Novgorod, written after the death of Archbishop Jonah, which occurred on November 5, 1470, have reached us. The idea of ​​surrendering under the protection of the King of Poland against the enslaving aspirations of Moscow acquired a party of adherents among the highest Novgorod citizens even during Jonah’s lifetime; this party, in the form of a demonstration against Moscow and in the form of a threat to it, begged for feeding from the King of Poland one of his Lithuanian princes (Mikhail Alexandrovich or Olelkovich of Kyiv), who arrived in Novgorod on the third day after the death of Jonah. On the 10th day after his death, Jonah’s former protodeacon and sacristan Theophilus was chosen by lot from three proposed candidates to succeed Jonah. Since at this time the final decision had not yet been made to surrender under the patronage of the king, at the insistence of Theophilus himself, who was one of the adherents of Moscow, an embassy was immediately sent to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan with a request to send dangerous letters to the chosen candidate for his arrival in Moscow for the appointment of 1099. But the king’s party managed to gain a decisive upper hand at the very time the embassy was traveling to Moscow, and it stopped the matter of Theophilus’s trip to the metropolitan for installation. Then the Metropolitan sent his letter to the Novgorodians, in which he urges them not to change their good old days, not to deviate from their original grandfather and father, from the Christian ruler - the Grand Duke of Moscow, and not to approach someone else, to the Latin ruler - the king 1100. This first letter, which says nothing about Gregory, was written by the metropolitan for one state purpose, to turn the Novgorodians away from the decision to surrender to the king. But soon he found it necessary to send another letter to Novgorod in order to write specifically against the Lithuanian metropolitan. The Novgorodians, having decided to surrender to the king, did not intend to betray their Orthodoxy and surrender to the rule of Gregory. But there were certain people among them who, for their own personal reasons, preached this last thought. Among the three candidates chosen for the archbishop draw was the key keeper of the late archbishop Pimin. When the lot was not chosen for him, he, dreaming of receiving the department through open election in order to win over the king’s party, declared that he was ready to go to initiation wherever he was sent, at least to Lithuania to the metropolitan there. True, the consequence of this statement was that partly due to the verdict of the veche, partly, it seems, due to the free reprisal of the people, he was subjected to terribly cruel punishment 1101. But his idea of ​​​​subordination to Gregory, having been preached after that either by himself or by others, actually acquired some adherents in the most radical part of the royal party, so to speak. This circumstance, that a circle of people formed in Novgorod who stood for subordination to Gregory, prompted the Metropolitan to write his second letter to Novgorod, which was already directed against the Lithuanian Metropolitan 1102. Informing the Novgorodians that a rumor reaches him that they have many young, unintelligent people who have not learned how to stand and fight in piety in the good old days, gather at gatherings and focus on many aspirations and great disarray on earth, although they want to introduce a rebellion and a great schism in the holy Church of God - leaving Orthodoxy and the great antiquity to come to the Latins, the Metropolitan turns to the Novgorodians with his an admonition to cease from their evil undertaking. He convinces the old mayors, the thousand, the boyars and merchants and all the old people, to repeat in Orthodoxy, so that they try to enlighten young people and curb the reckless; he convinces the named archbishop, archimandrites, abbots and priests that they punish all their spiritual children, from great to small, with spiritual teaching, strengthening them in the faith of Orthodoxy and protecting their only-begotten and immortal souls from the snares of the catcher, the many-headed serpent of the devil. The Metropolitan is trying to present the fall from the light of Orthodoxy to the darkness of Latin delusion and Latin heresies to the Novgorodians as such a god-remarkable and apostate act, for which they will face the grave wrath of God both in this century and in the future. The Novgorodians remained faithful to Orthodoxy and did not abandon themselves to the darkness of Latin delusion in the person of the Lithuanian Metropolitan Gregory. But, remaining faithful to Orthodoxy, they soon formally surrendered to the king’s patronage, concluding an agreement with him in 1103. The consequence of this was that in May 1471, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich decided to undertake a campaign against Novgorod - that in June he set out on a campaign and that in August (after the Battle of Shelon on July 14, 1104. Novgorod already became forced from free, although for several years not quite completely. The first Moscow Assumption Cathedral, which formed the cathedral church of the metropolitans, was founded on August 4, 1326, shortly before the death of St. Peter, as we talked about above. Since at that time Moscow was still only timidly and uncertainly thinking about its rise, since it did not at all foresee its future greatness, which it had actually achieved, and since with any dreams it had then it had to still be hidden: this first cathedral, although intended to be the actual see of metropolitans, was built in very modest sizes, so that it was a church in size or completely ordinary or maybe just a little more ordinary. Is it because the construction of the cathedral was carried out in haste, having begun at an unusual time - in the fall, or because it was built by bad craftsmen; Only less than a hundred and fifty years after its construction, during the time of Metropolitan Philip, did it fall into such disrepair that its moving vaults were supported by thick logs. Whether due to both of these circumstances or just the latter, Metropolitan Philip was moved to the determination to build a new cathedral, and in size one that would already correspond to the dignity of the metropolitan see 1105. It seems puzzling that it was not the Grand Duke, but the Metropolitan himself who undertook the construction of the new cathedral at his own expense. We cannot say anything satisfactory to explain this perplexity. In the pre-Mongol period, bishops' cathedrals were built by the princes of 1106. From the post-Mongol period we know two examples of the construction of these cathedrals: Kolomna in 1382 and Rostov after 1408. The first was built by the Grand Duke, to whose region Kolomna belonged 1107, the second was built (actually renewed) by the bishop 1108, but here the matter can be explained by the exceptional political circumstances of Rostov: its own princes were then full tributaries of Moscow and therefore may not have had the desire to build a cathedral, and the Grand Duke, in turn, may not have had this desire because in Rostov after all, they had their own princes. We know one indication from the post-Mongol period, and specifically from the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich, that the bishop was charged with the duty of building a district cathedral 1109; but even if we accept that this was the rule, then, in any case, this rule would apply to cities in which there were no princes. Perhaps the matter should be explained in such a way that the Grand Duke wanted to save his money for his numerous church and civil buildings (we will talk about the first ones in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on worship), and the Metropolitan, for his part, volunteered to save the Grand Duke from costs, hoping to handle the construction himself. Be that as it may, the Metropolitan undertook the construction at his own expense: he probably had a very considerable reserve of what had previously been accumulated (for with the immediate replacement of three metropolitans in a row, metropolitan officials did not have the opportunity to plunder the metropolitan treasury); it must be thought that his annual income 1110 represented a significant resource; he collected what was missing in such a way that, firstly, he imposed a very high forced tax on the parish churches and monasteries of his metropolitan diocese, which, according to the chronicler, was extremely burdensome for the clergy 1111, and that, secondly, he turned to the voluntary charity of the boyars and merchants. The Metropolitan decided to build the new cathedral on the model of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral of Bogolyubsky, but with an increase of one and a half fathoms in length, width and height compared to the last one. Moscow was not famous for the masters of stone work, which had been very insignificant in it until then, and the Metropolitan, despite the fact that it was planned to build a church of exceptional size, for some reason (perhaps out of motives of Muscophilia) did not look for masters in other places, and found in Moscow two contractors who undertook to build the cathedral for him, but who, as the consequences showed, were poor experts in their craft, relying only on the Russians famous: “maybe and don’t be afraid.” For the procurement and transportation of material and in general for all side work during construction (and perhaps partly non-side work), the Metropolitan bought slaves, so that the work was largely carried out by his own people 1112. The new cathedral was supposed to be erected in the place of the old one, and since it was much larger than the last one, it should be erected in such a way that it would evenly encircle it on all sides. Construction of the cathedral began in the spring of 1472. Around the old cathedral they dug ditches for the foundation of the new cathedral and, when the foundation was made, they dismantled the altar of the old cathedral and the smaller porches to it, but left its walls untouched for the time being, since next to them were the shrines of the metropolitans buried in it, who were supposed to remain in their places until places were prepared for them at the walls of the new cathedral; over the shrine with the relics of St. Peter, located at the northern altar wall, after it was dismantled, a temporary wooden church was erected. After this, on the 30th of April, the ceremonial laying of the new cathedral took place. When its walls were raised to the height of a man, the old cathedral was dismantled to the ground and the metropolitan shrines were moved to new places prepared for them near the new walls (according to the Nikon Chronicle - May 23, according to the Sophia Chronicle - May 29). Cancer with the relics of St. Peter had to stay in the new cathedral in the same place where she was in the old one. But since the floor of the new cathedral was made higher compared to the floor of the old cathedral for the height of a person, and the shrine with relics was supposed to be on the floor in it, as it was in the old cathedral: then a new shrine was made on the new floor, into which the relics were transferred after the destruction of the old shrine 1113. This placement of the relics into a new shrine or their transfer was accomplished in a solemn manner, and the day of the transfer (July 1) was established to be celebrated in the future as a holiday. The further history of the construction of the cathedral dates back to the reign of Philip’s successor, Gerontius, where we will explain it. At the end of 1472, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich entered into a second marriage with the Greek princess Sophia Paleologus, the daughter of the former Sea despot Thomas, brother of the last two Constantinople emperors John and Constantine. Forced in 1460 to flee from his possessions from Sultan Mohammed, Thomas found refuge with the Pope in Rome, where he died in 1465, leaving behind two sons and a daughter - our Sophia 1114. In 1469, the pope (Paul II) proposed her in marriage to Ivan Vasilyevich through the famous cardinal Vissarion, and the Grand Duke, as our chronicle expresses meaningfully, having taken the pope’s proposal into consideration, after consulting with the metropolitan, with the matter and the boyars, was not slow to accept it 1115. It is hardly possible to think that the pope and Vissarion seriously dreamed when arranging this marriage about a new attraction of Muscovite Rus' to the Florentine union, for the convincing example of Isidore was still too vivid in memory 1116. But they were most actively engaged in organizing a crusade against the Turks, and there is no doubt that in this regard they had high hopes for the marriage of the princess with the Grand Duke. As for this latter, through his marriage to the princess he acquired formal and positively legal rights to be considered the successor of the Byzantine emperors, and one must think that this is what he mainly took into account. To escort Sophia to Moscow, the pope (Pavlov's successor Sixtus IV) sent his cardinal, named Anthony, with her as legate 1117. This cardinal behaved within Russia all the way to Moscow in the same way as in Catholic lands: he made his way in presenting a roof or cross erected on a high pole 1118. When the train with the princess was approaching Moscow and when they informed the Grand Duke that the cardinal was coming in the presentation of the kryzh, he began to consult with his mother, his brothers and boyars: what to do with the master's ambassador - whether or not to allow him to enter Moscow in the presentation of the kryzh. At the council, the voices were divided: some said that this should not be forbidden to him, others said: it has never happened in our land to honor the Latin faith; Isidore alone did this, and he died. Then the Grand Duke sent to report the matter to the Metropolitan, from whom the answer was received: “It is impossible to allow not only the cardinal to enter the city while presenting the roof, but for him to approach it in this way; if you allow him this, wanting to honor him, then he is at the gates of the city, and I, your father, at the other gate, out of the city; It is unworthy for us not only to see this, but also to hear it, because whoever shows respect to someone else’s faith has insulted his own” 1119. As a result of this answer from the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke sent his boyar to the cardinal 15 versts from Moscow, who forced him to order that the roof be hidden. The cardinal was not sent to Moscow in order to make an attempt to re-attract the local Russians to the Florentine union. But for some reason Metropolitan Philip was very willing to have a theological debate with him. While waiting for his arrival, he diligently studied books and called to his aid what must have been a famous scribe in Moscow at that time, Nikita Popovich. When the cardinal came to Moscow, the metropolitan arranged a meeting with him, at which, assisted by Nikita Popovich, he bombarded him with questions; but the cardinal, out of prudent caution (which, of course, was understood by the Russians as his consciousness in its weakness), completely avoided the debate, making the excuse that he had no books with him 1120. In addition to the letters of Metropolitan Philip mentioned above, two church and government letters in the proper sense of the word have been preserved from him to this day, written - one to Novgorod, the other to Pskov. In a letter to Novgorod dated April 8, 1467, addressed to Archbishop Jonah and all citizens, the Metropolitan, like his predecessor Theodosius, exhorts Novgorod citizens not to encroach on church real estate, accompanying his admonitions with a lengthy teaching about the inviolability of these estates. In all likelihood, one must think that the letter was sent, just like by Metropolitan Theodosius, at the request of Archbishop Jonah; but it is written in such a way that it is as if the rumor about the outrages happening in Novgorod reached the metropolitan not at all from the archbishop, but from others 1121. By a charter in Pskov dated September 22, 1471, the Metropolitan allows the Pskovites to establish a sixth council for daily service 1122 - we will talk about these councils in the second half of the volume. The Metropolitan intervenes with his letter in the affairs of the Archbishop of Novgorod, in part, probably because at that time there was only a named bishop in Novgorod, but not an ordained one. Partly, perhaps, because the Pskovites, who were in an abnormal relationship with the archbishops due to their civil dependence on Novgorod, generally had the custom of addressing the metropolitans in addition to the archbishops. Philip's message to the abbot of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, Spyridon, can be added to the two surviving letters with a request for forgiveness of one elder of the monastery, who fell before the brethren into some kind of reproach and great need for his sin and for this was deprived of his name by the monastic authorities. The letter recommending meekness to the abbot instead of cruelty, as it seems, is actually a private letter for a person close to the metropolitan, for he asks to forgive the sinner and return to him his junk and horses “sharing me” 1123. (For a Jewish prayer book posing as the Psalter of David, translated from Hebrew on the orders of Metropolitan Philip, see below in the History of the Judaizers’ heresy). During the reign of Metropolitan Philip, a remarkable incident took place in our church life, which consisted in the fact that the Pskov clergy, removing the power of their archbishop, decided to usurp lynching for themselves. The non-widowed Pskov priests found that the behavior of their widowed brothers was completely impossible and completely intolerable, that is, that the latter either openly lived with concubines or indulged in open debauchery. It is not known how to explain this sensitivity of the non-widowed Pskov priests - either by the fact that moral feeling was relatively alive in the clergy here, or by the fact that the widowed priests here behaved in an incredibly shameful manner. If the former, then perhaps the phenomenon should be explained by the greater freedom that the local clergy enjoyed compared to other places and which morally educates people (through the self-responsibility that it places on them). If the latter, then perhaps it is necessary to explain the matter by the close proximity of the godless Catholic clergy of Livonia, whose example of licentiousness, like that of the entire Catholic clergy, influenced the Pskov widowed priests. Be that as it may, in the fall of 1468, the non-widowed Pskov priests decided to put an end to the temptation that the widowed priests caused, and decided to do this through lynching. Regarding widowed priests, St. Peter legitimized that if they want to retain the priesthood, they should become monks, and if they want to remain in the world, they should resign. But this is the legitimation of St. Peter, later confirmed by Metropolitan Photius, was not strictly observed among us. In particular, it was not observed during the reign of Metropolitan Philip, and the special reason for the relief for widowed priests, perhaps, was that the drastic measures against them by Philip’s predecessor Theodosius brought popular curses on the latter 1124. The non-widowed Pskov priests wanted to use the legalization of St. Peter, confirmed by Photius, and since they did not hope that Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod would agree to the application of this, at that time inactive legalization, then, bypassing the archbishop, they decided to resort to lynching. Metropolitan Photius confirmed the legitimation of St. Peter precisely in his message to Pskov; The message was included among the Pskovites in their lists of the Helmsman's Book, and on this basis they attached such importance to it that it seemed to be one of the canonical legalizations of this latter. Thinking of applying the imaginary canon, the Pskov priests believed that they could do this in spite of the archbishop, and that the latter would have to bow to the accomplished fact after they had done the deed. The priests gathered the city at a veche and, with the consent and approval of the veche, with their unanimous verdict they wrote a serf charter, copying it from the Nomocanon, that is, from the message of Photius, read in the Pskov nomocanons, with which widowed priests and deacons were excommunicated from service in the entire Pskov region 1125. The charter was written by the priests with the consent of the veche, firstly, because in Pskov the laity took a large part in church affairs and nothing important in the church could be done without their consent, and secondly, because without the consent of the laity, the decree made by the priests could remain without effect, since the laity, despite the decree, could keep widowed priests in their parishes. The expectations of the Pskov priests that Archbishop Jonah would submit to their arbitrary sentence, supposedly delivered on the basis of the Nomocanon, were not justified. After his own vain attempt to force the priests to tear up or destroy their serf charter, the archbishop turned with a complaint against them to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, and the interference in the affairs of these latter had the consequence that the priests, having held out for their charter for a year and two and a half months, were finally forced to tear it up, ceding the matter of widowed priests and deacons into the hands of the archbishop. According to the Pskov chronicler, the archbishop showed himself in this case in a far from particularly worthy manner. The chronicler says that, persuading the Pskov priests to tear up their letters, he promised them that if they put that holy case about widowed priests and deacons on him, then he would show greater severity towards the unworthy among these priests and deacons than what they wanted to show, but that in fact he showed something completely different. When the priests tore up their letters and when the widowed priests and deacons were ordered by the archbishop to appear before him for administration, then what happened next, according to the chronicler, was: “and widows’ priests and deacones began to come to him, and he began to take bribes from them - some had a ruble, some a ruble and a half, and all of them half a dozen (in a row) without after the tribulations (tests), I began to bless the petitions and other letters from the bribes given behind the seals” 1126. Metropolitan Philip died on April 5, 1473, 1127. [After the death of Metropolitan Philip, “great iron chains” or large chains were found on his body, which were hung over his coffin and to which everyone then applied healing for the sake of healing - Nikon Chronicle VI, 53 fin. and 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 197 sub fin.. When the bodies of the metropolitans were transferred to the second new Assumption Cathedral, before which 6 years and 5 months less 8 days had passed from the death of Philip, having opened his coffin, they found him lying “whole body intact” and did not make a tombstone over him for 12 days - Resurrection Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 203 sub fin.: the delay can most likely be understood in such a way that they expected, not will God glorify the incorruptible body with miracles? - About the place of the tomb of Metropolitan Philip in the Assumption Cathedral, the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles say: “and his tomb was near the northern church gates, where the tomb of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Jonah was, and walking through the northern doors on the right side,” - the first - VI, 54, the second - in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 178 beginning, and the 2 Sophia Chronicle, accurately indicating the place of the tomb, says that Philip was placed “outside” Metropolitan Jonah, i.e. precisely next to the latter, - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 197 sub fin..-Since after Philip the metropolitans were placed along the northern side of the cathedral, of course, one next to the other: then the actual order of the metropolitans placed near the wall should be; St. Jonah, Philip I, Gerontius, Simon, Macarius.] In place of Philip I, Gerontius, Bishop of Kolomna 1128, was installed as metropolitan. It is very likely that the new metropolitan would have been elected in the same way as Philip himself was elected and as his predecessor Theodosius was elected, i.e., that the Grand Duke would have allowed the oldest to elect the new metropolitan; but Philip suffered an unexpected death: on April 4, 1478, he suddenly fell ill, and the next day, April 5, he died 1129. To elect a new metropolitan, the Grand Duke ordered his brothers and all bishops to be in Moscow within 18 days after the death of the old one, by April 23 or St. George's Day. Elected by a council of bishops, with the participation, as it should be implied, of the wishes of the Grand Duke, Gerontius was elevated to the metropolitan court on June 4, 1473, and “installed” as metropolitan on June 29 of the same June, on Peter’s Day 1130. He occupied the metropolitan see for 16 years and died on May 28, 1489. The most important event of his reign, in the sense of importance, however, of a negative nature, and not a positive one, was the discovery of the heresy of the Judaizers in Novgorod. We will put the speeches about the heresy of the Judaizers, which are the most important in their way, to the end, and first we will talk about everything less important. The second or third year after the installation of Gerontius as metropolitan, in 1474 or 1475, the Turkish Sultan and the Patriarch of Constantinople did something that aroused the fears of the Moscow Russians and forced them to take their measures. A self-proclaimed candidate for the see of the Lithuanian metropolitanate, which became idle at the end of 1472 after the death of Gregory the Bulgarian in 1131, appeared in Constantinople, a Tver monk named Spiridon, nicknamed, as the news says, for his agility Satan, and managed to achieve that the Sultan (Mohammed II conqueror of Constantinople), despite the lack of requests about him from the Lithuanian civil government or from the local Orthodox clergy, he ordered Patriarch Raphael to consecrate him to the place he was looking for. This unauthorized appointment of the Metropolitan of Lithuania by the Sultan and Patriarch aroused in the Moscow Russians a fear, probably, however, only some and not particularly great, that the Sultan and the Patriarch would not do the same thing in the annex to Moscow, and they took the measure against this that in the letters of promise that were given to the Metropolitan by the newly installed bishops, they included an obligation not to accept metropolitans, initiated in Constantinople. Spiridon arrived in Lithuania, invested with the rank of metropolitan by the patriarch, in 1476, and in the letter to Metropolitan Gerontius of Tver Bishop Vassian, installed on December 6, 1477, it reads: “and to Metropolitan Spiridon, called Satan, who sought (read: sought) in Constantinople appointments in the region of the godless Turks from the filthy king, or whoever another metropolitan is appointed from the Latin or from the Tours region, do not approach me” 1132. After Philip, Gerontius was left with the construction of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, which by April 5, 1473, when the latter died, had been folded to approximately half of its walls in 1133. During the summer of 1473 and the beginning of the spring of the following 1474, the walls of the cathedral were folded and its vaults were brought down. But when they began laying the large top or main dome, on May 20, 1474, the cathedral collapsed. Unskilled craftsmen, who built the walls of the cathedral smoothly but fragilely 1134, made some part of its northern wall hollow, building a staircase in the wall onto a floor or choirs attached to the western wall. For some part the hollow wall, being poorly built, was not able to withstand the weight of the vaults and the whole collapsed; with it fell half of the western wall and the ceilings that were located at the latter, as well as the pillars and all the vaults. After this, the Grand Duke himself took over the construction of the cathedral. No longer relying on his Moscow masters, he instructed his ambassador, sent in the same 1474 to Venice, to find and hire a good architect there, and sent for simple masons to Pskov, since the local masons, being students of the Germans, were famous for their art 1135. On March 25 of the following 1475, the famous architect Aristotle Fioraventi arrived from Venice, to whom the Grand Duke entrusted the construction of the cathedral in 1136. Aristotle did not find it possible to restore the dilapidated building of Moscow masters, but decided, after completely dismantling it, to build a completely new one. On April 16, 1475, they were moved from the dilapidated cathedral to the church of St. John Climacus, under the bells, a shrine with the relics of St. Peter and the shrines with the bodies of other metropolitans. And the next day, April 17, they began to destroy the walls of the cathedral that had survived the fall, after which, from June, ditches were dug for the foundation of the new cathedral and the foundation itself was made. Aristotle began his own masonry of the cathedral on top of the foundation the following year, 1476. On April 22, work began, and on May 12, the Metropolitan performed the prayer service for the foundation of the church. The second new cathedral was built, counting from the beginning of work on top of the ground, over the course of four years and was completed by August 1479. This second new cathedral, which exists to this day, was solemnly consecrated by the metropolitan with three bishops and all the Moscow clergy (all seven cathedrals) three days before its church feast - August 12, 1479 1137. The day of the transfer of the relics of St. to the cathedral from the Church of St. John the Climacus. Peter, - August 24, it was established to celebrate for the future, just like the day of the first transfer or translation 1138. We will talk about the architecture of the cathedral and its significance in the History of our church architecture later (in the second half of the volume). The consecration of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral gave rise to heated debates between the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan about how to walk with the procession during the consecration of the church - against the sun or along the sun. After the consecration of the cathedral, some charmers slandered the Grand Duke against the Metropolitan that the latter would do the wrong thing by walking around the church with crosses in a manner not aligned with the sunrise. The Grand Duke, convinced by unknown charmers that the Metropolitan would really do wrong, became angry with him, saying that for this reason, i.e., such errors, the wrath of God comes. To resolve the issue that arose, they turned to searching books and, having searched a lot in them, did not find anything in them - how to walk during the consecration of churches, in the sun or not in the sun; but there were many speeches and disputes. The archimandrites and abbots spoke out and wanted to defend the metropolitan; one of these latter said: in the Holy Mountain I saw the consecration of the church, and there they also walked with crosses against the sun. The Grand Duke called for a dispute with the Metropolitan of Rostov Archbishop Vassian and Chudov Archimandrite Gennady, who shared the same opinion with him, and of whom the first was at the same time the personal enemy of the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan gave evidence to Vassian and Gennady that when the deacon burns incense in the altar, he walks with the censer around the altar against the sun; and they, for their part, without giving any evidence, said: “The righteous sun Christ comes to hell and the death of the bond and freedom of the soul, and for this reason, they say, it comes at Easter, the same is represented at Matins.” We argued a lot and came to nothing. However, the Grand Duke remained firmly in his opinion and, hoping to overcome the Metropolitan, did not order the consecration of churches, of which there were many in Moscow at that time ready for consecration. Due to the invasion of Akhmat, which took place in the second half of 1480, there was a stop for a year or more; and then in the second half of 1481 the Grand Duke again resumed the dispute 1139. Probably this time the dispute was conciliar and open; be that as it may, but now on the side of the metropolitan were all the priests and book readers (“scribes”), monks and laity, and on the side of the Grand Duke there were still only two - the new Rostov Archbishop Joasaph, who took the place of Vassian on July 22, 1481, and the same Miracle Gennady. In view of the extreme stubbornness of the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan finally decided to leave the metropolitanate, go to the Simonov Monastery and announce that he would completely resign from the rank of metropolitan if the Grand Duke did not beat him with his brow and did not stop insisting on his demand to walk salted. Having everyone against him, and only two on his side, the Grand Duke saw himself forced to humble himself before the Metropolitan: he sent his son to him with a request to return to the abandoned throne; when the Metropolitan did not listen to the request addressed to him through the ambassador, the Grand Duke went to him himself and, declaring himself to blame for everything, promised to listen to him - the Metropolitan in everything, and regarding walking with crosses, he gave it to his will, as he ordered, and as was the case in the old days. The Metropolitan returned to his throne, and this ended the dispute. Having ended the dispute, no formal statute was laid down for the future regarding the controversial issue. We have conveyed the story of the dispute as it is read in the chronicle of 1140. The behavior of the Grand Duke remains not entirely clear. It is made clear in the story that walking against the sun was an antiquity in Moscow, and was a universal custom there, and, therefore, that a novelty was instilled in the Grand Duke. But when he stubbornly stood for the novelty, there is no doubt that he had some motives that seemed to him to be fundamental. These motives are not indicated either directly or in hints by the chronicler. When the latter says at the conclusion of his story that “they didn’t create a statute,” this must be understood to mean that although the Grand Duke saw himself forced to humble himself before the Metropolitan, he did not give up his opinion, and therefore prevented the establishment of a formal statute for the future. To resolve the dispute, it would be natural to ask the Greeks how they have their custom; but the Grand Duke, having ignored the reference of some archimandrite or abbot to the example of Athos, did not do this at all: as we said above, the Russians had already ceased to consider the Greeks as the guardians of the purity of true Orthodoxy and in matters of church ritual they no longer recognized their authority at all 1141. We said above that Archbishop Vassian of Rostov was the personal enemy of Metropolitan Geront. In 1478, they had a fight that reached the cathedral court over the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery. The Kirillo-Belozersky monks, extolling themselves, as the chronicler says, with their vain arrogance and wealth, intended to create for themselves an exclusive legal position, namely, so that, not being dependent on the diocesan bishop, which was the Archbishop of Rostov, they would only be subordinate to their appanage prince. They persuaded their appanage prince Mikhail Andreevich of Vereysko-Belozersky 1142 so that he begged from the metropolitan a charter, which would place the monastery under the control of him, the prince, and would be removed from the authority of the Rostov archbishop. The Metropolitan, listening to the prince and probably guided by some personal motives, gave him the requested letter. Archbishop Vassian of Rostov, with such an encroachment on his rights, first beat the metropolitan with his forehead so that he would not enter his borders contrary to the rules. When the Metropolitan did not respect his petition, he filed a complaint with the Grand Duke and began to ask the Emperor for a trial with the Metropolitan according to the rules. The Grand Duke first addressed the Metropolitan privately; and when he did not listen to him, he sent to take his letter from Mikhail Andreevich and ordered a council of all bishops and archimandrites to be in Moscow to give the archbishop a trial against him. After much punishment at the cathedral, the metropolitan was afraid of the cathedral court and turned to the Grand Duke with a prayer to reconcile him with the archbishop and stop the proceedings. The Grand Duke did this, tearing up the metropolitan's charter and indicating with the cathedral that the Kirill Monastery would continue to be under the full authority of the archbishop. The legend of the battle between Gerontius and Vassian, read in the chronicles of 1143, assures that all this evil came from the then former abbot of Kirill, the new (in him or newcomer) Nifont (after the bishop of Suzdal) and from the new monks and from the parishioners of the troubles, and that the old elders of the monastery (and local) tonsures prayed with tears to God that He tamed the abuse, and they would live in obedience to their saint - the Archbishop of Rostov, as their venerable elder Kirill lived. On the contrary, the Metropolitan managed to settle accounts with another defender of the salting walk, Archimandrite Chudovsky Gennady. In 1482, the vigil of Epiphany took place on Sunday, and Gennady, probably guided by the rules, which did not directly say anything about when to drink the water, but which prescribed: “to partake of the liturgy with a crust of bread in the church and a cup of wine, and begin Vespers and bless the water,” ordered his brethren to drink Epiphany water after eating. The Metropolitan declared this to be a serious crime and sent to seize the archimandrite by force and bring him to him. Gennady fled to the Grand Duke, but the Metropolitan himself went to the latter and spoke against him, demanding his extradition: “He did the first thing autocratically without asking me; Another thing is that he dishonored such sacred water, even as the Holy Father ordered the catechumens (repentants or those under penance) to drink the place of communion once a year on Easter, and then for the non-repentant then on the Epiphany (at the Epiphany itself) to drink beforehand, and he ordered them to drink even while eating.” The Grand Duke handed Gennady over to the Metropolitan, and the latter ordered him to be shackled and placed under the chamber in a glacier. Finally, the sovereign and his boyars reported him to the metropolitan, citing the fact that Metropolitan Theodosius, being the archbishop of Rostov, committed a similar crime, but that Metropolitan Jonah, now a miracle worker, tortured him, but after the repentance he brought, he granted him forgiveness 1144. In 1478, after the final conquest of Novgorod, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich took or took over a fairly significant part of the immovable church estates in the latter - ten volosts from the Lord of Novgorod himself and half of the volosts from the six richest monasteries with estates. This private secularization of immovable church estates is considered a prologue to that general secularization, speeches about which were raised under Ivan Vasilyevich himself. We will return to our case later, when we talk about raising the speeches just mentioned. At the end of 1483, Metropolitan Geronty, being ill, moved to the Simonov Monastery, with the intention of leaving the metropolitanate; but then he recovered and again wanted to return to his table. Then the Grand Duke, having ended his dispute with the Metropolitan about walking with crosses around churches too unpleasantly and humiliatingly for himself, used strong efforts to prevent him from fulfilling his intention and thus gain the opportunity to replace him with another. Here is an interesting story about this chronicle: “that same summer (November 1483) Metropolitan Gerontey wanted to leave the metropolis and moved to the monastery on Simonovo and took the sacristy and staff with him, since he was sick; and get well and want to return to the metropolis; the great prince did not please him, (but the metropolitan) and unwillingly did not leave the metropolis; and the prince sent Paseya (elder Paisius Yaroslavov, about whom we will talk below) to him, and we could not lead him into that (i.e. so that he agreed to leave the metropolis): he ran away from the monastery many times and imash it, and suffered a lot in the metropolis; The great prince began to think with Paseya: is he fit for the metropolis again, since he (Paisius) wanted to be the metropolis, but he (Paisius) didn’t want it.” Metropolitan Gerontius on the table 1146. Two letters from Metropolitan Gerontius to Vyatka have survived to this day, written - one to the local clergy, the other to all the local laity 1147. These letters, the content of which are denunciations of the priests for their own and their flock’s bad Christian lives and reproaches to the laity for their disobedience to the Grand Duke and robberies, show that Metropolitan Gerontius himself did not have the ability to write letters and did not have a good clerk who would do this for him. Our charters are nothing more than a generally literal reproduction of the charters for St. Vyatka. Jonas 1148 with very minor and not particularly skillfully made private changes. One of these changes can be recognized as significant and consist in the fact that the laity, in case of their unrepentance, St. Jonah threatens with his unblessing in general terms, and Gerontius threatens them directly that he will expel priests from their land and close their churches. In the second half of 1480, there was an invasion of Moscow by Khan Akhmat, which ended the rule of the Tatars over our fatherland. Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, as is known, behaved in a far from brilliant manner on this occasion and urgently needed the true sons of the fatherland to use all their intense efforts to inspire him 1149. Our highest clergy showed themselves in these moments, truly decisive for the fatherland, in the most worthy way, but not in the person of the metropolitan, who was unloved by the Grand Duke and who was at that time in a quarrel with him, but in the person of his sovereign confessor, Archbishop of Rostov Vassian. The Metropolitan wrote a conciliar message to the Grand Duke in the camp on the Ugra, rousing him to a courageous stand against the Christ-hating enemy 1150. But in this message, short and officially pale, there is nothing similar to the courage and directness with which Vassian exhorts the Grand Duke in his message to him 1151. In the summer of 1481, Metropolitan Gerontius installed three bishops one after another: Joasaph of Rostov, Gerasim of Kolomna and Simeon of Ryazan, and one of the chronicles accompanies the news of these installations with the unexpected and mysterious lament of Jeremiah: “alas, alas,” she exclaims, “the blessed one perished from the earth for our sin, according to David: save me, Lord, as the venerable one has become impoverished, as the truth has fallen away from the sons of men, the vain verb of each one to his sincere” 1152. This mysterious cry can be understood in two ways: either that unworthy people were appointed bishops, or that they achieved the episcopacy through unworthy paths. One way or another, but we are given to know that the reign of Metropolitan Gerontius was not one of the best reigns... We turn to the heresy of the Judaizers 1153. The heresy of the Judaizers, which in its true form represented pure Judaism, with a complete denial of Christianity, so that one was accepted instead of the other, and in its inauthentic form - more or less Christian free-thinking, which we will discuss below, arose in Novgorod, in 1470-71, during the reign of Metropolitan Philip. We said above that in 1470 the Novgorodians asked the King of Poland to feed the Kyiv prince Mikhail Alexandrovich or Olelkovich, who arrived to them on November 8 of our year. The prince was accompanied by a large retinue. In this retinue, among others, there was a Jew named Skhariya, who, being familiar to the prince, joined the number of his companions either for trade or, perhaps, only under the guise of trade. This Jew Skhariya was the founder of the Judaizing sect in Novgorod. More or less shortly after his arrival in Novgorod, he seduced one of the local priests, named Dionysius (Denis), into Judaism; the priest Dionysius brought to him another priest - Alexy 1154 who also became his proselyte: two priests were the founders of the sect. After their conversion to Judaism, several other Jews came from Lithuania to the aid of Skhariya 1155, and they, seduced, being filled with the greatest zeal in their new faith, for the study of this latter, constantly remained in the company of their new co-religionists; After themselves, they seduced their wives and children into Judaism. Both priests wanted to be circumcised, but the Jews did not allow them to do this, saying that if they were suspected, they could be exposed through this and that they should keep their Judaism secretly, but should openly remain Christians. The Jews changed the names of the priest Alexei, who took precedence over Dionysius, and his wife, calling him Abraham, and his wife Sarah 1156. After what we have just said, the Jew Skhariya and other Jews who came to his aid completely disappear from the history of the Judaizing sect, so that they are no longer mentioned at all, and the further spreaders of heresy and the real founders of the sect are our priests Alexei and Dionysius. What became of the Jews remains unknown. But in any case, whether it was that they left Novgorod soon after they sufficiently taught our two priests about Judaism, or remained in it even after that - this circumstance that, due to the seduction of the two, they did not conduct further propaganda themselves, but left it to these two, should hardly be looked at as an accidental circumstance. The propaganda of the Jews themselves, if carried out throughout society as a whole, could soon attract attention and be open; and therefore, in order to better preserve the secret, they could arrange things in such a way as to prepare propagandists from the Russians themselves in the two priests they seduced and then conduct further preaching through them 1157. Be that as it may, after a small beginning made by the Jews themselves in the seduction of two priests, these two priests, Alexei and Dionysius, were further spreaders of heresy and the real founders of the sect. The propaganda of the new faith, carried out by them zealously, was crowned with success: they managed to seduce many of the priests, deacons and clerks and many of the ordinary people into it; Even the archpriest of the St. Sophia Cathedral, Gabriel, was seduced among the priests in 1158. The heresy existed in Novgorod, remaining unknown to the government and not being discovered by it, for 17 years. During this long time, being promoted both by its original leaders and by many others from among those seduced, it did not increase the number of its followers within the walls of the city itself, but managed to spread throughout the villages of the Novgorod region. The heretics used the priesthood as a special means to spread their teachings. They deliberately sought ordination to the priesthood so that they could then seduce their spiritual children 1159. After ten years of existence in Novgorod, Judaism moved from there to Moscow. At the end of 1479, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich went to Novgorod; he really liked our priests Alexei and Dionysius, the secret chief proselytes and propagandists, or, as it were, the patriarchs of Judaism, and he transferred them from Novgorod to Moscow, in order to make the first of them the archpriest of the Assumption Cathedral, and the second the priest of the Archangel Cathedral. And in Moscow, just as in Novgorod, Alexei and Dionysius managed to seduce many into Judaism, among whom the main ones were: Archimandrite Zosima of the Simonov Monastery and the Duma (ambassador) clerk of the Grand Duke Fyodor (Vasilievich) Kuritsyn. In Kuritsyn and some other seduced crusaders or sextons of the Grand Duke Istoma and Sverchka and in the merchant Klenov, Alexey and Dionysius found zealous helpers in spreading their new faith 1160. For 17 years, the Judaizers sect existed in Novgorod and Moscow and in other places where it managed to spread from Novgorod and Moscow, remaining, as we said, completely unknown to the government. Finally, in the second half of 1487, it was randomly discovered in Novgorod in 1161. The drunken heretics, having started a quarrel among themselves, began to reproach themselves and with their reproaches revealed the secret of the existence of the sect, which was brought to the attention of the archbishop 1162. The Archbishop of Novgorod was then Gennady, whom we talked about above as Archimandrite Chudovsky, and who was promoted from archimandrite to archbishop on December 12, 1484, 1163. Gennady initiated government persecution of the sect. Having received unexpected information about the existence of some kind of anti-church society in Novgorod - for at first only this was known - Gennady immediately reported his discovery to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. The answer was received from the Grand Duke: “Take care of that one so that it does not spread across the earth.” Then Gennady began a formal search of heretics 1164. After general vague information, he probably would not have soon learned anything positive about the sect, since the most stubborn denial and the use of all kinds of oaths constituted one of the sectarian dogmas 1165; but he was helped by the fact that one of the seduced priests, named Naum, renounced Judaism and returned to the church again: this priest told him information about the essence and teaching of the sect and delivered him the books with which they performed their prayers 1166. The search, due to the decisive denial of the sectarians, led Gennady to little: he found only four people who could be accused of belonging to the sect (two priests and two clerks 1167, and whom he therefore arrested and bailed. The accused, having handed over their guarantors, fled from Novgorod to Moscow 1168, in the hope, as one must think, of finding there, protection from Archpriest Alexei and Fyodor Kuritsyn, who enjoyed the greatest and exceptional favor of the Grand Duke 1169 Gennady sent to the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan his search file about the escapees, with the addition of testimony about the heresy of the priest Naum, who had renounced it, and the notebook from which the Judaizers prayed, 1170 and continued his search. in Moscow they were somewhat slow in pronouncing the sentence about the four who fled here, which was probably understood by the sectarians in the sense that the influence of Alexei and Kuritsyn was having an effect, then the search, as Gennady himself puts it, was not carried out well 1171, i.e. as you need to understand, in view of the arrogant and decisive denial of the sectarians, he did not lead to anything. The Grand Duke with the metropolitan, with the bishops and with the entire council judged those who fled to Moscow from Novgorod in January - early February 1488; those accused of everything locked themselves up; but regarding three of the four (two priests and one of two clerks 1172 since there was evidence on them in Gennadiev’s search, it was recognized as proven, at least, that they swore at the holy icons in a drunken state. The Emperor ordered these three to be subjected to city execution - to beat the trade with a whip 1173, and wrote a letter to Archbishop Gennady dated February 13, 1488, in which he ordered: firstly, for the three subjected to city execution in Moscow, to assemble a council for the archbishop in his place and if they do not repent of their heresy before him, to hand them over to the Novgorod to the grand ducal governors for a new execution of the same kind; secondly, to continue the search for heretics with the now-mentioned governors, and whoever is convicted of it will be worthy of church execution, those will be executed by him - the archbishop with this execution according to his own reasoning, and who will be worthy according to the rules of city execution, those will be sent to him to the governors to punish them with city execution according to the reasoning of the latter 1174. Having received the Grand Duke's letter, Gennady zealously began searching for heretics 1175. Those of them who repented and “wrote their actions on themselves with their own hands,” he accepted into repentance or reunited with the church, ordering them to come to the churches and, without entering the latter, to pray outside them. And those who did not repent and continued to praise the Jewish faith, he handed over to the governors, so that the latter would subject them to city execution. Gennady sent his search for heretics who had not repented to the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan, so that in Moscow they would be finally condemned through a conciliar curse and so that they would finally be subjected to civil executions. But in Moscow this end to the heretics, sought by the archbishop, was not brought about in 1176. Metropolitan Gerontius, who, as one must think, continued his enmity towards Gennady and at the same time was in very bad relations with the Grand Duke, according to the modern historian and denouncer of the heresy of the Judaizers, the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, did not show even the slightest concern 1177; for his part, the Grand Duke, probably under the influence of Archpriest Alexei and Fyodor Kuritsyn, did not give him any movement: “they put it, says Gennady, that the matter (in Moscow) is for nothing, as if Novgorod and Moscow are not the same Orthodoxy” 1178, i.e., as if Moscow had no worries before Novgorod. The complete inattention of the sovereign and the metropolitan to the ideas of the archbishop had the consequence that those Novgorod heretics who repented again turned to Judaism. Having heard that their brothers in Moscow, due to the influence of Fyodor Kuritsyn, were living in weakness, these heretics fled from Novgorod here 1179. The government persecution of the Judaizer heresy remained in this situation until the death of Metropolitan Gerontius, which followed on May 28, 1489. After a very long delay, which probably was not without some significance, but in explanation of which we cannot say anything, on September 26, 1490, Archimandrite Zosima of Simonov, a secret follower of our heresy of 1180, was installed as metropolitan. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk says that Archpriest Alexei, before his death, which happened a short time after the death of Metropolitan Gerontius, “with his sorcery, the sovereign approached and placed on the throne of the hierarch the nasty vessel of Satan, and he gave him the poison of the Jews” 1181. But the conciliar condemnation of heretics, which was not pronounced under the Orthodox Gerontius, was pronounced under the secret heretic Zosima immediately after his accession to the metropolitan see. Gennady was happily helped in this case by circumstances combined with his courageous courage. By the time Zosima was installed, the episcopal see of Kolomna remained vacant in 1182. The Grand Duke wanted the bishop to be elected by the same council that elected the metropolitan, and therefore the latter turned to Gennady, who was not summoned to Moscow for his election, but sent his free letter, with a proposal to send the same letter for the election of a bishop. Gennady took advantage of this to force the new metropolitan and the sovereign to pronounce a conciliar judgment on the heretics. Having turned to the metropolitan with the most urgent idea of ​​the need for this trial, he did not give his licence, on the grounds that if the election of a bishop was made before the condemnation of heretics, then either a direct heretic or a person who was in communion with them could be elected. Simultaneously with the letter to the Metropolitan, Gennady addressed his letter to the council of bishops present in Moscow, in which he addresses the bishops with the same urgent idea of ​​​​the need for a conciliar condemnation of heretics and in which he informs them that he did not give his letter for the election of the bishop of Kolomna 1183. Although Gennady, by refusing his freedom certificate, did not act completely legally 1184; but this bold refusal of his, probably supported by the general voice of the bishops in favor of his demand 1185, had the consequence that the Grand Duke, before electing the bishop of Kolomna, ordered the council to pronounce a condemnation of heretics. However, if Gennady finally managed to achieve his goal, then “his” only in the closest sense of the word. Not limiting himself to those Novgorod heretics alone, regarding whom he carried out searches, submitted them to Moscow and did not receive further movement here, now in letters to Zosima and the bishops he demanded the search and condemnation of all heretics in general, so that heresy could be completely suppressed. But the Grand Duke, acting, as one must think, under the influence of Zosima and Kuritsyn, ordered only to finish the case about those Novgorod heretics about whom Gennady had launched a search. Only two people were added as defendants to the Novgorodians accused by the search; these were one of the two heresiarchs who was still alive, the Arkhangelsk priest Dionysius and a certain monk Zacharias, or, as he is called by Gennady, Zakhar. How the first one was brought to trial is not entirely clear. Of the Moscow heretics, such as Dionysius by his residence, Gennady points out not only him in his letters to Zosima and to the bishops. And, however, of these heretics, only he was condemned by the council. Probably, we need to understand the matter in such a way that in the search for the Gennadievs, for which it was actually decided to pronounce the final verdict, none of the other Moscow heretics had yet been mentioned, and that, on the contrary, he, Dionysius, was mentioned in them to such an extent that, despite all the desires and all the efforts of the Metropolitan and Kuritsyn, he could not be spared from trial 1186. As for the monk Zachariah or Zakhar, he was condemned as a result of the deliberate demand of Gennady, which he addressed to the metropolitan and bishops in letters to one and to others, and it is very possible that he was condemned not as a Judaizer, but only at the same time as the latter. Gennady accused Zakhar of strigolism and demanded that the metropolitan and bishops put him on trial because he had disgraced himself, the archbishop, throughout Russia, sending letters everywhere against him and calling him a heretic in the letters 1187. A deliberate council for the solemn condemnation of heretics in the currently indicated composition of the latter took place 21 days after Zosimas was installed as metropolitan, on October 17, 1490. In addition to the full number of bishops, with the exception of Gennady, it was attended by Moscow archimandrites and abbots, the abbot of the Trinity Monastery Athanasius, some elders respected by the Grand Duke (Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky, whom we will talk about below), archpriests, priests and deacons and the entire, as the chronicle says, the priestly council of the Russian metropolis 1188. Having been called to the council, the heretics locked themselves in all their heresies “and were, according to the same chronicle, as if in a frenzy of mind”; Without making their own confession, they were convicted on the basis of Gennady’s searches and on the basis of Moscow evidence, that is, evidence against them during their residence in Moscow. The council's condemnation was that the heretics were excommunicated and damned. Exactly how many heretics were condemned remains unknown; the chronicle names nine people by name, with the inclusion of the monk Zacharias or Zakhara, and then adds that along with those named, their like-minded people were also condemned 1189. [The late A. S. Pavlov published in the Monuments of Canon Law an excerpt from the teaching of Metropolitan Zosima with the council of 1490, which is inscribed: “The humble Zosima, Metropolitan of All Rus', and the entire holy council, a teaching to all Orthodox Christianity, denunciation of heretics and deportation from the dignity and excommunication from the holy Church of God,” which he found in one Chudovsky manuscript, – No. 116, col. 785. In its entirety, this teaching, which actually contains, as Pavlov supposed, a story about the formal conciliar trial of heretics, was found in one manuscript of the Public and Rumyantsev Museums by the curator of manuscripts in the Museums S. O. Dolgov and will soon be published by him in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities.] After church condemnation, heretics were to be subjected to civil execution. Archbishop Gennady, bearing in mind that most of them were returning from heresy to the church and fell into it a second time, in his message to the council of bishops he demands the merciless execution of the guilty, namely, that they be burned or hanged. Gennady was familiar with the methods of struggle against heretics on the part of the Catholic Inquisition, and his not particularly gentle soul was seduced by the thought of the inexorable severity with which this latter acted 1190. But the Grand Duke sentenced those convicted by the council not to death, but partly to imprisonment, partly to other lighter punishments that remain completely unknown to us. In Tatishchev’s extracts from the chronicles, one reads the news that when at the council there was talk about the civil execution of heretics, then - “everything was decided, as if everything was worthy of burning, and when I reached Metropolitan Zosima, that speech: I am worthy of being cursed and sent to Novgorod for repentance in custody, since we are not put to death by God.” condemn, but turn sinners to repentance" 1191. That Zosima spoke out against condemning heretics to death is entirely probable. But it must be assumed that what Tatishchev reads is nothing more than his own assumption, only conveyed by him in the form of positive news taken from the chronicles, which is not uncommon with him, for it is necessary to think that not everyone present at the council, with the exception of Zosima, that is, not all the truly Orthodox present at it, were in favor of the death penalty for heretics. We cannot say anything about any of the bishops; but the elders Paisius Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky were present at the council, and it is positively known about these elders that they were opponents of the death penalty. As for the Grand Duke, who had the last decisive word, it may be that he himself was against this death penalty for heretics, since they were condemned not as a result of their own consciousness, but only on the basis of third-party evidence, and if not, then he will have to think that in addition to the Metropolitan, he was influenced by the now-mentioned elders, who enjoyed deep respect from him, and that, in any case, he was influenced omnipotent over his mind and will is clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn. Those heretics who were sentenced to imprisonment were sent to imprisonment by the Grand Duke. Other heretics, sentenced to lighter punishments, were returned to Novgorod in 1192. Gennady gave these last heretics a solemn and shameful meeting. When they were 40 versts (? “forty miles away”) from Novgorod, he ordered them to be mounted on horses on yuch (pack) saddles, turning their clothes from front to back and placing them with their backs to the horses’ heads, “so that they may look west into the fire prepared for them”; He ordered them to put sharp birch bark helmets on their heads, like demonic ones, with mochal combs (with “elovtsi mochalny”) and with crowns or rims made of straw and hay placed on them, and to sew labels (“targets”) to the helmets with the inscription: “This is Satan’s army. In this form, he ordered them to be led around the city and everyone to spit on them with the sentence: “Behold, behold the enemies of God and blasphemers of Christianity”; in conclusion, he ordered the demonic helmets to be burned. 1193 What lighter punishments the heretics sent to Novgorod to Gennady were subjected to remains unknown. As for reality, one Novgorod chronicle says that “Ghenadei, the ruler of some (heretics), ordered the burning of some (heretics) on the Dukhovskoe field, others were put to execution for trade, and others were sent to prison as ambassadors, while others fled to Lithuania, and others to the Germans.” 1194 By “burning on the Dukhovskoe field” we should not mean that Gennady ordered the burning of some heretics: he himself, of course, would not have dared to do this, and the Grand Duke did not execute the burning of those heretics who were recognized by the council as the most serious; By burning, it should probably be understood that the helmets of some heretics, wanting to put them to torture, he ordered to be burned on their very heads. That Gennady actually sent some heretics into captivity is confirmed by the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, when he says that after the council of 1490, the Grand Duke sent other heretics to Novgorod, “they were afraid of execution and began to repent all of them, but Archbishop Gennady gave faith to repentance” and gave them weakness, and like Priasha and Abiye all rushing to escape, going to Lithuania and going to the Germans and other cities” 1195. One must think that, not content with the trade execution, which was probably prescribed as the capital punishment for heretics sent to Novgorod, Gennady came to the Grand Duke with new ideas regarding some of them, proving their greater guilt than what the council recognized for them, and that he received permission from the Grand Duke to send these some to prison. The Council of 1490, as we said, did not have in mind the general purpose of finding and condemning all heretics; his limited task was only to pronounce judgment on some Novgorod heretics sought out by Archbishop Gennady. But if he had had the first goal as his goal, then it is obvious that he could not have put an end to heresy under the existing circumstances, which consisted in the fact that in the person of Zosima there was a secret heretic on the metropolitan throne, and that in the person of Kuritsyn there was a secret heretic who had the greatest influence on the Grand Duke. Forced to allow condemnation to be pronounced on some of the heretics, Zosima and Kuritsyn, having their main assistants in the latter’s brother, clerk Ivan Volk, and in the son-in-law of the deceased archpriest Alexei Ivan Maximov, devoted themselves with all zeal to the propaganda of heresy. According to the testimony of the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, the propaganda had the same success as it had in Novgorod in the first time after the emergence of the sect, when it was carried out by priests Alexei and Dionysius 1196. Among those seduced into heresy, if you believe the later testimony of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, was even the latter’s daughter-in-law, the widow of his eldest son Ivan the Younger († 1490) Elena Stefanovna Voloshanka 1197. The severity of Gennady of Novgorod towards heretics, as we have seen, resulted in the fact that some of them fled to Lithuania and the Germans. But not everyone fled abroad; many fled across Russia to preach heresy in cities and villages 1198. However, Novgorod itself was not left by them without proper care: some of them took refuge and secretly lived in it in order to conduct the same sermon there 1199. The special circumstances of the time gave the Judaizers an argument against the truth of Christianity in order to promote the success of their propaganda. It came to us from Greece, and the belief was very firmly rooted in us that with the end of seven thousand years from the creation of the world, its demise would come. The Judaizers themselves adhered to this belief. But whereas, according to the Jewish calendar they adopted, 1200 was still very far from this time, according to our Greco-Russian calendar, seven thousand years ended in 1492 (according to the then-used September calendar, Augustus was the month of this year). When the fateful year passed, and the end of the world did not follow, the Judaizers began to point out to the Orthodox the falsity of their former beliefs, as proof of the falsity of their entire faith. Zosima managed to hold out at the metropolitan see for three years and eight months (with full accuracy - seven months and 21 days). His heresy was not immediately recognized; when it was recognized and when the champions of Orthodoxy began to fight against him, he managed to lead the latter in such a way as to remain victorious. According to the Monk Joseph, when the metropolitan’s heresy was revealed and when the champions of Orthodoxy began to denounce him and began to preach to everyone about his apostasy, he fought against them with spiritual and temporal weapons: he excommunicated some from divine communion and, if they were priests, deprived them of the priesthood; on others he slandered the Grand Duke, ensuring that the accusers were subjected to civil punishment (chains and prisons and plunder of estates), like slanderers of the high person of the saint. Preaching the doctrine that the saint’s curse retains its force even if he is a heretic and that, despite his heresy, divine judgment will follow his judgment, he managed to keep from reporting him to the Grand Duke those people whose testimony could be accepted by the latter 1201. Fortunately for the Orthodox, the heretic metropolitan himself helped them overthrow himself from the pulpit. Zosima was not a man of holy private life at all: he was devoted to drunkenness and sodomy. And the Grand Duke, who, perhaps, did not have time to convince of his heresy 1202, was forced to remove him from the department for his now indicated vices (according to the chronicles, in fact, for the first of them 1203. Zosima was removed from the department on May 17, 1494. In his place, after the same significant period of time as between the death of Gerontius and the election of himself, on September 20, 1495, Simon, chosen from the abbots of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, was installed as metropolitan. Kuritsyn failed to replace one heretic with another, and the new metropolitan was Orthodox and an enemy of heresy. However, with the accession of the new metropolitan to the throne, the last hour of Judaism had not yet struck. This Kuritsyn enjoyed such unusually great favor with the Grand Duke that the new metropolitan did not begin his activities by coming to the sovereign and demanding the search and condemnation of heretics. On the contrary, under the new metropolitan, even the propaganda of heresy did not stop or decrease at all. Kuritsyn found that in Novgorod, after the imprisonment of all the main proselytes of the heresy there in 1490, the latter did not have worthy representatives and capable propagandists, and he decided to send there such a representative and propagandist from Moscow. He begged the Grand Duke to appoint a certain Cassian as the archimandrite of the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery, who, having been seduced into heresy by himself and his brother Ivan Volk, was recognized by him as the person he desired. The Yuryev cell of Cassian, who brought with him his brother Ivashka the Black, the most zealous proselyte of heresy, one of the few even doomed, who fled to study Judaism, as it seems, to Lithuania itself, and who, relying on his all-powerful patron, was not afraid of Gennady, became an open gathering place for heretics and from it the most active propaganda of heresy was carried out 1204. There can be no doubt that Metropolitan Simon knew about the secret existence of heresy, for in Moscow this was known to many in both church and non-church circles 1205. If he did not turn to the Grand Duke with his ideas about taking measures to eradicate it, then it is necessary to understand this in such a way that he did not consider such ideas possible. This impossibility of ideas, in turn, must be understood in such a way that Kuritsyn managed to keep the Grand Duke convinced that there was no heresy. But how did Kuritsyn manage this last thing? In 1490, the Grand Duke condemned the Novgorod heretics accused by Gennady; Apart from those persons who were wanted by the Gennadievs, he did not bring anyone else to trial, considering the accusations against all others, due to the representations of Zosima and Kuritsyn, to be vain slander. But now the Metropolitan was not with Kuritsyn, but against him: how could the Grand Duke continue to believe Kuritsyn that there was no heresy? This question, in the absence of instructions, is not easy to answer and can, of course, only be answered with greater or lesser probability. It seems to us that the following is most likely: Judaism, as a heresy, consisted of two elements - from the Jewish faith and from astrological knowledge, so that people, on the one hand, accepted the Jewish faith, and on the other hand, were initiated into the secrets of astrology. Moreover, the latter was accepted by heretics as possible only under the condition of the former (as we will talk about this below). Based on this duality of Judaism, Kuritsyn could assure the Grand Duke that there were indeed a few people in Novgorod who, from the Jews who came there from Lithuania, borrowed not only the knowledge of astrology, but also the Jewish faith itself, but that all these people were executed by the council of 1490 - that there are no more such people at all, but only people who are engaged exclusively in astrology, in which the only Jewish thing is that it was borrowed from the Jews. From the church point of view, astrology was also very reprehensible, and if the Grand Duke, standing on this point of view, wanted to look into it, then he could get to his own Judaism behind it. But the Grand Duke could stand in this case not on the point of view of the church, but on the point of view of those people who, believing in astrology and its power, had the greatest respect for it. Standing on this last point of view and belonging to the number of zealous admirers of astrology, he not only could not have had the desire to find out whether something was hidden behind astrology, but, on the contrary, he could have had a very deliberate desire to prevent this, so that as a result of revelations he would not have to abandon astrology itself. That Archpriest Alexei and Fyodor Kuritsyn had the greatest influence on the Grand Duke precisely because they were astrologers, this is quite clearly hinted at by the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk 1206. Pointing to himself to the sovereign, Kuritsyn could assure him and keep him confident that just as the only thing Jewish about him was that he was engaged in astrology, which actually originated from the Jews who came to Novgorod, so in all the others who were taken for heretics, the only thing Jewish was the same. There were people specially familiar with Judaism who could prove to the Grand Duke that Judaism was not just about astrology, which he revered. But Kuritsyn’s influence on the sovereign, one must think, prevailed over these people. In Novgorod, after 1490, the heresy of the Judaizers did not cease at all; There is no doubt that Gennady knew this very well, and, however, we do not at all see that after this year he came to the sovereign with new ideas about heretics. It is more than likely to understand this in such a way that Kuritsyn managed to put a seal of silence on the archbishop’s lips - that he managed to arm the sovereign against him to such an extent that he, the archbishop, saw his ideas as impossible and useless. After Gennady, another deliberate fighter against the heresy of the Judaizers appeared among the Orthodox - the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk. But if Joseph was a fighter, on whose lips it was impossible to put seals of silence; then, due to his social position and authority, he could not suddenly become a fighter, dangerous for heresy in a practical way, in relation to the Grand Duke’s views on it. The Monk Joseph was not a bishop among whose flock heresy would nest, causing corruption in it; he was the abbot of the monastery, who had no personal relationship with heresy that could justify his efforts against it before the Grand Duke. He could have done this last thing if he had enjoyed personal authority with the sovereign. But coming out to fight against heresy, he did not have this authority and acquired it only later in 1207. The only possible way for him to fight against heresy was the literary method. Joseph turned to him, undertaking the writing of an extensive polemical work against the Judaizers (his so-called Enlightener). Fyodor Kuritsyn was alive in 1497 1208. When he died after that until 1504, in which he was no longer alive, unfortunately remains unknown to us. It is necessary to think that his death, desired by the Orthodox, was a decisive event in relation to the fate of heresy. After this astrologer, who held the fate of the Grand Duke in his hands, died, the champions of Orthodoxy, with the Metropolitan at their head, gained access to the sovereign in order to begin their efforts to open his eyes to what he partly knew, but for which they did not suspect heresy. And the efforts finally led to the fact that the sovereign, who was approaching death and began to wait for that hour; when he had to give an account to God for his concerns about protecting the church, he decided to cleanse the church of heresy. In 1503, there was a council in Moscow on the non-payment of fees for ordination to church degrees, on widowed priests and on monks and nuns, which we will discuss below. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, who had already acquired the special respect of the Grand Duke, was also summoned to this council, along with other best abbots of the monasteries. When Joseph was in Moscow, the sovereign more than once called him to himself to talk with him about heretics: he asked Joseph’s forgiveness for having tolerated them for so long - he said that he had already asked forgiveness for this from the rulers, and that the rulers had already given him their forgiveness 1209. Thus, it was proven to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich that behind the astrology that was known to him, there was hidden an evil heresy that remained unknown to him, sometime immediately before 1503. Having been convinced of the existence of heresy, the Grand Duke decided to execute the heretics. But after he made this decision, he was subject to rather long hesitation about how to execute 1210. The Metropolitan with the bishops and probably with the vast majority of the entire clergy demanded the death penalty 1211; but there were elders highly respected by the Grand Duke (Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky), who were against the death penalty for heretics: the elderly sovereign, who wanted to cleanse the church of heretics, but was also afraid of falling into the sin of forbidden cruelty, hesitated between the opinions of the parties. Finally, the opinion of the majority, proven by the examples of the Byzantine emperors and their decrees against heretics, included - as it was then understood - in the Pilot's Book by the holy fathers, prevailed in 1212, and the Grand Duke decided to execute the heretics with all severity. The Emperor ordered a search to be carried out in all cities of 1213 and to bring them to Moscow. In November-December 1504, a church council was drawn up against them, which, after, according to the Monk Joseph, many true witnesses stood against them, exposing them about their Jewish and nasty deeds 1214, condemned them to damnation. After church condemnation, they were subjected to civil executions: many heretics, led by the brother of the deceased Fyodor Kuritsyn Ivan Volk, the son-in-law of Archpriest Alexei Ivan Maximov and Archimandrite of Yuryev Cassian were executed by death by burning; all other captured heretics were sent to prison and to monasteries in 1215. The executions of 1504 put an end to the existence of the Judaizers sect as such. A greater or lesser number of individual heretics managed to escape, and these who escaped death and imprisonment, deeply hidden, alone or in small close circles, continued to preserve the heresy and find successors for themselves in its preservation; but the sect, as a sect, ceased to exist. Along with the remnants of the heresy itself in its true form, the remnants of the Christian freethinking that it produced were preserved. To the remnants of heresy, which after some time regurgitated into a new heresy, and to the remnants of free-thinking, which after some time again came to light, we will return a little lower. Now, what we have said, however, is not yet the complete end of speeches about the external History of the Judaizers sect. Not the history of the sect itself, but the history of those heretics who were sent by the Grand Duke after the council to imprisonment and to monasteries, also has its own epilogue. On the question of the executions to which the Judaizers were to be subjected, as we said, representatives of our clergy, were divided into two halves: the majority, having the Reverend Joseph of Volokolamsk as a learned advocate for their opinion, demanded the death penalty for the most serious among them, and the elders Paisius Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky with their disciples were against this execution. Likewise, both sides disagreed with each other regarding the acceptability of repentance for those of our heretics who, having been left alive and sent to prison and to monasteries, expressed a desire to repent. The majority, with the same Reverend Joseph at their head, was against accepting their repentance and in favor of leaving them in permanent or lifelong imprisonment, since they found, on the one hand, that their repentance was feigned, and on the other, that they were not heretics, but apostates, which is why the rules about accepting repentant heretics were not applicable to them. The elders Paisius and Nil with their disciples were in favor of accepting their repentance, like all other heretics. The struggle of the two sides over our issue, which was reflected in the fate of the heretics, constitutes the epilogue to the history of the latter. Since Paisiy and Nil and their disciples were called Trans-Volga elders from the area in which they lived - they lived in Belozerye, which was then called Trans-Volga region because it was located from Moscow beyond the Volga: the struggle is known as the struggle of the Trans-Volga residents with the Josephites, and in the latter case it is unfairly assumed that the opponents of Paisiy and Nil were only Joseph and his few disciples. Some of the Judaizers who were left alive began to repent immediately as they were sent into captivity, and therefore the struggle began immediately. For the first time, the Volga residents prevailed. It was on the eve of the death of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, who, perhaps, even felt its approach, and the sovereign, wanting to show dying mercy (like how slaves were set free before death), decided that the repentance of those who repented should be accepted and that they should be released from prison 1216. But when Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich died on October 27, 1505, immediately or shortly after his son Vasily Ivanovich took the Grand Duke’s throne, the opponents of the heretics won a victory - turning to the new sovereign with their ideas regarding the insincerity of their repentance and the harm they were causing to the church, being released and after that turning again to their propaganda, They, the opponents, managed to achieve that Vasily Ivanovich “searched and managed” about the heretics, i.e. That is, as must be understood, those of them who were released were again sent into captivity in 1217. Some time later, after occupying the throne, Vasily Ivanovich brought closer to himself Nilov’s disciple, the elder Vassian Patrikeev Kosoy, about whom we will talk below 1218 - and Vassian managed to persuade the Grand Duke to the decision to give freedom to repentant heretics 1219. But then the opponents of the latter, still with the same Reverend Joseph at their head, turned to the sovereign with new urgent representations 1220, and the final end was that the sovereign commanded that all the heretics who had been released be thrown into prison and be kept in prison until the death of their lives 1221. We turn to speeches about the essence of the heresy of the Judaizers. A direct contemporary of our heretics, the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, who wrote a deliberate accusatory essay against them, directly and clearly says that heresy, being not actually a heresy, but a complete departure from Christianity, an “apostasy,” was Judaism or Judaism, the Jewish faith, accepted instead of Christianity, which was rejected as a lie. According to him, the Judaizers taught that Jesus Christ was not God, but a simple man, crucified by the Jews and decayed in the tomb - that He was not the Messiah or that prophet who is foreshadowed in the Scriptures under the name of the Son of God, for he has not yet come, but will only come, and that therefore one must keep the law of Moses 1222. But when we began to scientifically process the history of our heresies, it was found that, contrary to the direct and clear words of the Monk Joseph, the heresy of the Judaizers should be taken not for Judaism or Judaism, but for something else. In 1838, “Discourse on heresies and schisms that existed in the Russian church from the time of Vladimir the Great to Ivan the Terrible,” written by a student of the Moscow Theological Academy Nikolai Rudnev 1223, was published as a result of the proposal of Count Rumyantsev. In this Discourse, which for its time constituted a remarkably good study of our heresies, it is proven that the heresy of the Judaizers was not Judaism, but something else, namely, that it, not being pure Judaism, was a mixture of Judaism with Christian rationalism. Rudnev's opinion about the heresy of the Judaizers remained the dominant opinion until recently. The Most Reverend Macarius in his History of the Russian Church (in volume VI, published in 1870), rejecting the opinion of Rudnev, expresses his opinion that the heresy of the Judaizers, in accordance with the direct and clear testimony of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, should be accepted as pure Judaism or Judaism. Thus, in the science of Russian church history, there are currently two opinions about the heresy of the Judaizers - Rudnev and the Right Reverend Macarius (in fact, our main ones, because there are not yet main ones, which we do not consider necessary to talk about). We, for our part, decisively join the opinion of the Right Reverend Macarius, finding that the previous opinion should be rejected as unfounded. G. Rudnev does not consider it possible to pass off pure Judaizers as heresy on the basis of the following: 1) and according to Joseph of Volokolamsk himself, the heresy of the Judaizers does not seem to be a purely Jewish teaching. His accusatory words are so composed and directed that one can see in them a refutation of more than one Judaism; 2) according to other monuments, the teaching of our heretics is not presented in such a way that nothing can be seen in it except Judaism, and 3) that the historical circumstances of the heresy do not fully confirm the opinion of it as pure Judaism 1224. But, firstly, if the Monk Joseph, who constantly says in his book from its beginning to its end that the heresy of the Judaizers was real Judaism and, in fact, not a Christian heresy, but a complete apostasy from Christianity, at the same time behaves in his polemics in such a way that he assimilates heretics and refutes not only purely Jewish opinions, but also free-thinking Christian opinions, then this is his visible contradiction to himself he himself explains it completely to us. The Monk Joseph says that the heresy of the Judaizers manifested itself in two forms among us: in the form of pure Judaism and in the form of Christian free-thinking - that some fully accepted Judaism, completely rejecting Christianity, and that others, without completely rejecting Christianity and not accepting Judaism, were only infected by more or less free-thinking from the heretics 1225. By combining both categories of heretics in his presentation and in his refutation of the teachings of heretics, St. Joseph falls into a self-evident contradiction. Secondly, as for the presentation of the teachings of the Judaizers according to other monuments, of the three other monuments to which it is indicated, two 1226 do not make it clear that Judaism was a mixture of Judaism with Christianity, but only does not say with sufficient certainty that it was pure Judaism, and in the third monument 1227 this latter is stated quite definitely. Thirdly, by historical circumstances that allegedly prevent one from recognizing pure Judaism in the heresy of the Judaizers, Mr. Rudnev means the following. First: “In the life of the followers of Sharia, we do not see anything particularly Jewish - we do not see any special attachment to Judaism; For more than twenty years we have not noticed among the Judaizers either a synagogue, or special rituals and holidays according to Jewish custom; Therefore, Joseph’s testimony that the heretics made sacrifices and celebrated the Passover according to Jewish custom and celebrated Jewish holidays, perhaps, was compiled from rumors that reached him, which in such cases are often very incorrect, exaggerated, and sometimes convey something that did not happen at all” 1228. But on what basis does the author claim that we do not see any special attachment to Judaism among the Judaizers; for more than twenty years we have not noticed any special rituals or holidays according to Jewish custom among them? The only witness, thanks to whose testimony we can see and notice anything here, is the Monk Joseph; and he specifically tells us that the Judaizers “always gather secretly in all places, wherever they are found, and sacrifice the Jews to the priest and the Jewish Passover and the holidays of the Jews” 1229. There is no, not the slightest, basis to assume that Joseph said this based on rumors alone. He had every opportunity to know the exact truth about the Judaizers: and how could he not have taken the trouble to find out it by undertaking to write a deliberate polemical work against them? The Monk Joseph was the fiercest enemy of the Judaizers, and on this basis scholars are inclined to suspect that he is going into exaggeration regarding them: but isn’t it so much the other way around that this bitterness can be satisfactorily explained precisely by the fact that they were complete apostates from Christianity? The Monk Joseph says that although it was not customary for the Judaizers to be circumcised, so as not to be convicted of it, but that some were still circumcised: and this news of Joseph is confirmed by Gennady 1230. That the Judaizers did everything Jewish in secret, that for more than twenty years they did not have an open synagogue, this is completely understandable. They had to be hidden most diligently, and the existence of the sect was possible only under the condition of this secret 1231. The second indication of historical circumstances is the following: “The society of Jews trying to spread the teachings of the Jewish religion is an extraordinary phenomenon in the history of later Jews - Jews everywhere only cared about how to protect themselves from the persecution of Christians, how to safely profess their faith; this is not enough: it would still be understandable if real Judaism were widespread among us only among the simple, rude people. But if the Judaizing heretics were truly faithful followers of their Jewish faith, then how did they dare to offer a religion rejected by God, a hated and persecuted people everywhere, to offer here first not to the common people, but to those who were more versed in Christian truths than others, who could and should have supported Orthodoxy more than others - the clergy? How did they dare to offer it to high people, to exhibit it even before the Grand Duke himself, such a prince as John was? How could clergy and other persons so quickly and so willingly indulge in Judaism, given the low concept of Judaism that we have always had about it?” 1232. Now what we have given, undoubtedly, is the main thing why Mr. Rudnev does not find it possible to see pure and real Judaism in the heresy of the Judaizers; in conclusion and directly it says: “here there is something incomprehensible, intractable, and will remain so unless something Christian is assumed in this Judaism.” Let's start with the fact that not everything in this is as unclear as the author seems to think. When he says that the society of Jews trying to spread the teachings of the Jewish religion is an extraordinary phenomenon in the history of later Jews, he is telling a complete lie. Jews in the Middle Ages, generally speaking, lived extremely poorly in Europe. But at times and in places, due to their monetary influence, which was then even incomparably stronger than now, they managed to acquire a more or less satisfactory position, and then they really thought about spreading their faith among Christians; we have evidence from the second half of the 12th and from the second half of the 13th century that says that in Western Europe very many Christians (quamplurimi) converted to Judaism 1233. The Jews lived relatively well in Poland and Lithuania, which they called their paradise in Europe; and they lived especially well here during the reign of King Casimir IV, who occupied the throne from 1447 to 1492 and who gave them great privileges in 1234. From the beginning of the 6th century we have evidence that in both of these countries conversions from Christianity to Judaism were very common 1235. Thus, the arrival in Novgorod in 1470 of a guide from Lithuania, who intended to conduct his Jewish propaganda here, is not at all unusual. The author’s question: how would the Judaizers dare, if their faith were real Judaism, to expose it even before the Grand Duke himself and such a prince as John was, indicates an extreme misunderstanding on his part. In 1503, Ivan Vasilyevich really repented to the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, which he also knew about the heresy of the Judaizers 1236: but can this repentance be understood in the literal sense? Suppose that the heresy of the Judaizers was not pure Judaism, but a mixture of Judaism with Christian rationalism: is it possible to allow the Grand Duke to know the heresy and tolerate it - he is a Grand Duke, whose firm devotion to the church is beyond any doubt, who heatedly argued with Metropolitan Gerontius over how to walk around churches with crosses, for “for this the wrath of God is coming"? It is obvious that the Grand Duke’s repentance must be understood in a special sense. How exactly, we talked about this above. Fyodor Kuritsyn and his comrades were accused of heresy before the sovereign; but Kuritsyn, who enjoyed his greatest favor, managed to assure him that he and the other accused had nothing heretical and that they were only studying special sciences, which they actually learned from the Jews who came to Novgorod; and so the sovereign repented to Joseph that he had every reason to suspect the heretics of heretics and did not want to carry out a real inquiry, or otherwise - he repented that he had made a mistake and allowed himself to be tricked and deceived by the heretics. But in fact, that’s not what he repented of either. Archpriest Alexey and Fyodor Kuritsyn were engaged in astrology and other sciences that make up the witchcraft; the Grand Duke, not suspecting any heresy in the proper sense of the word behind these activities, did not look at these very activities as heresy. On the contrary, he treated them in such a way as to benefit from them himself. And so he repented of the fact that, due to human weakness, he himself was involved in what he should have looked at as heresy 1237. Thus, not everything that appears to be incomprehensible to our author is far from clear. But there really is something very incomprehensible to us in the history of the Judaizers sect. The Moscow Russians of the second half of the 15th century, as always before and after, hated and despised the Jews to the extreme - this constitutes a positive fact; suddenly a Jew comes to them preaching his faith; they listen to his preaching and accept his faith: this is actually extremely incomprehensible to us. But what is incomprehensible to us is not always necessarily impossible, and does the means by which the author wants to make the incomprehensible understandable in any way achieve his goal? Let us assume that the heresy of the Judaizers was a mixture of Judaism and Christian rationalism; but it was preached by a Jew, a fact which the author does not at all think to deny: therefore, the difficulty of comprehending how the Russians wanted to listen to the preaching of a Jew remains in all its force even with his opinion about heresy. But suppose that this Jew presented himself more as a Christian than as a Jew: will not another equivalent incomprehensibility appear or remain? The Russians of 1470–71, when the heresy of the Judaizers began to be preached in Novgorod, had already reached a complete extreme in their attachment to church-ritual appearance; A preacher of rationalism, diametrically opposed to this, comes to them - and they listen to him and accept his preaching! Thus, this desire to understand the incomprehensible, because of which the author wants to see in the heresy of the Judaizers a mixture of Judaism with Christian rationalism, does not at all achieve its goal and the incomprehensible and with his method of presentation remains equally incomprehensible. An arbitrary understanding, contrary to Joseph of Volokolamsk, of the heresy of the Judaizers leads to nothing and achieves nothing. Meanwhile, there are other circumstances, historical and non-historical, which not only constitute decisive objections to it, but also show its complete inconsistency. If Skhariya preached a heresy in Novgorod, which was a mixture of Judaism and Christian rationalism, then it is necessary to assume that such a heresy existed in Lithuania, and that Skhariya appeared in Novgorod as its representative, which is the assumption that Rudnev makes. But neither special historians of Lithuania, nor special historians of Jews in Lithuania know of any such heresy 1238. Rudnev does not deny that the Judaizers rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, mistaking him for a simple man, for this is said not only by Joseph of Volokolamsk, but also by the chronicle in its presentation of the teachings of the heretics 1239. But if the Judaizers rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, then what could remain of Christianity for them, so that the remnant could be united with Judaism? If the heretics rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, then the heresy could be either Jewish or simply rational deism without any part or any remainder of Christianity in it. And since we positively know that there was something Jewish in the heresy (as Rudnev also admits - p. 140), it follows that the first should be accepted, and not the second. So, it is necessary to accept that the heresy of the Judaizers in its own form - for it was still in the form of an improper one - was nothing more than complete and real Judaism or Judaism with a complete denial of Christianity. As we said above, it is very difficult to understand that among the Russians of the second half of the 15th century, who extremely hated and despised the Jews, Judaism established itself in the form of a sect. But if this must be recognized as a fact, then all that remains is to make assumptions that could more or less explain the difficult-to-understand fact. The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk speaks of Skaria, a preacher of Judaism in Novgorod: “This was a vessel of the devil and was taught every evil invention, sorcery and witchcraft, astronomy and astrologers” 1240. If we understand the words: “this is a vessel of the devil and has learned every evil invention,” we understand that Skhariya was a very smart and very educated man, that he was endowed with the talents of a propagandist, then we will understand to some extent the incredible miracle that he managed to convert two Novgorod priests to Judaism. The Jews were hated to the extreme by the Russians of that time; but Skhariya could be one of those outstanding people to overcome this hatred and turn antipathy into sympathy. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk makes it known that his evidence against Christianity and in favor of Judaism was: how is it possible to imagine and allow God himself to descend to earth and become incarnate? In the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, God says that He is one God: how can one accept the New Testament, which says that He is trinity? The apostles wrote that Christ was born in the last year, and yet there is still no second coming: isn’t it clear that their writings are false? Ephraim the Syrian says in his writings: behold, our Lord Jesus Christ is coming to judge the living and the dead, and behold the end has come, and yet after his death about a thousand years have passed: isn’t it clear that this writer, respected by Christians, from whom one can conclude about their other writers, was mistaken and told lies? Let us imagine that all this was argued and developed with skillful and convincing dialectics, and we will understand to some extent how two priests who were unable to answer the propagandist’s arguments, but who did not want to run away from him, covering their ears, but wanted to listen to him, were finally conquered and convinced by him. Thus, we repeat, the very incomprehensible fact of the Russian people accepting Judaism or Judaism can be explained to some extent. But we strongly think that his explanation should mainly be based on those words of the Monk Joseph about Skaria, that he was studied in sorcery and witchcraft, astronomy and astrology. In the Middle Ages, not only ignorant people, but also the most enlightened people believed in the secret sciences of sorcery and sorcery and star law or astrology, and ignorant people believe them at all times. But as long as people believe in them, then they have the greatest attraction for them, for these sciences present themselves as sciences of working miracles and foreknowing the future. When one foreigner began to spread astrology among us immediately after the sect of the Judaizers ceased to exist, he found numerous and ardent adherents in the highest part of our society (Nikolai Nemchin, about whom below in the history of Maxim the Greek). And we think with confidence that it is precisely these secret sciences that should be taken mainly as the means by which Cxaria managed to accomplish the so difficult to explain task of seducing two Novgorod priests into Judaism or Judaism. Skhariya could easily arouse in the priests a desire to be initiated into these most attractive sciences. But by offering them science and Judaism at the same time, he could represent to them that one is inseparable from the other and that initiation into science is possible only under the condition of accepting Judaism. And in this case, he could act not as a pure deceiver, but, on the contrary, as a convinced person. The Jews have the so-called Kabbalah: this Kabbalah is actually a fantastic doctrine about God, about the spiritual world and about God’s creation of the material world, which asserts that God, as unlimited and infinite, could not directly create the material world and that for this purpose he brought forth ten spiritual beings (Zephyroths); but at the same time it is also sacred magic or sacred secret science. The Jews, as a chosen people, are supposedly entrusted by God with the secret of working miracles and, in general, with the secret of bringing down good deeds from Him to people to promote the well-being of the world, which secret is contained in Kabbalah. God seemed to put the entire set of numerous rites and ritual actions of the Jewish faith in such a relationship with the mentioned spiritual beings, to whom the government of the world was entrusted from Him, that with a certain use of these rites, what Kabbalah teaches and what constitutes its secret. His named helpers are forced (sic) to perform miracles on people or generally bestow blessings on them 1241. The Jews also included astrology in the circle of their Kabbalah, making it also their exclusive property, i.e., claiming that only they possess the secret of commanding the heavenly bodies so that these latter serve the well-being of people. Based on what has just been said, Skhariya could present to the priests the secret sciences and Judaism or Judaism as inseparable from one another, and thus, by drawing them into the former, he managed to achieve the goal of drawing them into the latter. Having seduced two priests into Judaism, Skhariya, as we said above, no longer conducted propaganda himself directly, but left it to these seduced ones. We indicated there the motive for which he could do this. But another motive may also be indicated, namely, that the preaching of his Jew would push the Russians away from him, and that, if carried out by real Russians, it promised to be more reliable and successful. Be that as it may, in the person of two priests, Skhariya, fortunately for Judaism, acquired such propagandists of his faith as he could wish for. That both priests were distinguished by their qualities from the ordinary ranks of people is evident from the fact that Ivan Vasilyevich took them from Novgorod and transferred them to his place in Moscow; and that one of them, Alexei, towered above the ordinary row of people in a remarkable way, is evident from the fact that he managed to acquire the greatest favor of the Grand Duke. After talents and abilities, a necessary condition for the success of propaganda is perhaps a strong and ardent enthusiasm for what is being propagated. And the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk portrays to us the priests Dionysius and Alexei as neophytes of Judaism, filled with the most ardent enthusiasm for it 1242. Two priests, quite capable of successfully conducting propaganda, carried it out among their fellow Novgorod priests and created a sect. It was already incomparably easier for them to recruit new apostates than for Skhariya to seduce them themselves. They acted as preachers of Judaism, which was hated by the Russians; but they were not Jews, but their own, and, therefore, prejudiced hatred no longer repelled the listeners from them. If they, the leading priests, were preachers of Judaism, then such a great surprise, so to speak, stunning people, involuntarily should have prompted the question: in fact, is not the truth hidden in this Judaism? And in this way she should not only not repel listeners from them, but, extremely arousing curiosity, so to speak, involuntarily attract them to them. There is no doubt that the priests began their propaganda fully armed with those arguments against Christianity that the then Jewish and non-Jewish rationalism had against it and with which Skhariya provided them: what could those Novgorod priests, who were completely unprepared and incapable of resisting, who wanted to listen to them, answer them? But if regarding the priests Dionysius and Alexei themselves it is very likely to assume that they were mainly drawn into Judaism by the secret sciences, which were presented as something inextricably connected with it: then it is even more necessary to think about those adherents of their new faith whom they themselves recruited. People so passionately desire to possess the gift of bringing exceptional happiness from heaven to themselves - to possess the gift of miracles and foreseeing the future, that they are ready to buy it at the price of renouncing all faith (through the sale of their souls to the devil). How attractive and tempting must have seemed to them a faith that presented itself as true and promised them the possession of what they passionately desired? But people believe in the possibility of this possession the more, the more ignorant they are; and it must be taken for granted that the majority of adherents of Judaism after Alexei and Dionysius themselves were significantly inferior to them in terms of intelligence and mental development. That the secret sciences, which Judaism presented as something connected with it, really constituted the main thing by which people were drawn to fall into it, St. Joseph of Volokolamsk directly testifies to this; he speaks of Archpriest Alexei and Fyodor Kuritsyn: “I am devoted to astrologism and many fables and astrologers and sorcery and witchcraft; For this reason, for the sake of many, I deviated from them and got bogged down in the depths of retreat” 1243. At the council of 1490, the monk Zachariah or Zakhar was condemned, who was actually Strigolnik and whose accession from Strigolnikism to Judaism is not known with certainty 1244. In any case, the transition from the first to the last was much easier than falling away from Orthodoxy. Proclaiming as a dogma that there is no true priesthood in the church, which the Strigolniki did, it was not too difficult to agree with the conclusion that the church itself is a lie. Thus, the Strigolniki would represent a contingent of people whom it would be much easier for the propagandists of Judaism to recruit than Orthodox Christians. But it is more likely to think that by the time the Judaizers sect arose, the remnants of the Strigolnikov sect were very insignificant and that, having disappeared as a society, it continued to exist only in a few individuals. The testimony of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk that the Pskovites under Metropolitan Photius completely eradicated the lovely heresy of the Strigolnikov 1245 is, however, tendentious, because Joseph wants to confirm with this testimony the reality and usefulness of strict measures against heretics. But, in any case, it retains its meaning in the sense that the sect has ceased to exist as a sect, for Joseph, of course, would not have dared to assert anything contrary to living reality. We have already said above that Judaism existed among us in two forms - proper and improper. The priests Alexei and Dionysius were converted by Skhariya to true Judaism. Then, these priests and the new propagandists of apostasy who came from them managed to convert some to the same Judaism, that is, complete and real, while with others they did not have time to do this and achieved in relation to these others only to arouse in them greater or lesser doubts about the truths and beliefs of the Christian Orthodox. The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk says the following about this: “(the preachers of heresy) I see that they are prudent and versed in the divine scriptures, I do not dare to bring them into Judaism, but some of the main chapters of the divine scripture, the Old Testament and the new, are crookedly telling and pretentious to their heresy, and some fables and astronomical laws are taught and look at the stars and build the birth and life of man, and despise the divine scripture, as nothing exists and is indecent to exist by man, but I teach the simplest to become Jews: if anyone does not retreat into Judaism, then many will learn from them to reproach the divine scriptures” 1246. It is necessary to understand the matter in such a way that the Judaizers generally began their preaching with small doubts in relation to Christianity in order to lead it to larger and larger doubts and finally to the complete denial of its truth, and that in doing this they had different successes: some were brought to Judaism, others, not being able to bring them to the last, were left Christians more or less doubting. Doubts regarding Christianity, which do not go as far as denying its truth, consist in presenting later Christianity as something other than ancient Christianity - in order to find in the latter much that was introduced against the former after Christ and the apostles. It was in this area of ​​doubt that the Judaizers managed to achieve more or less doubt in those whom they were not able to bring to real Judaism. As we said above, there is reason to accept that Skhariya was a very smart and very educated person, deliberately capable and prepared for propaganda. But if he was an educated man and prepared for propaganda, then one must think that in relation to our area of ​​doubts about the truth of the later Christianity in comparison with the ancient, as in relation to the area of ​​doubts in the truth of the ancient Christianity in comparison with Judaism, he, in turn, prepared propagandists of Judaism in the person of the two priests he seduced, that these latter were in possession of a very considerable supply of weapons 1247. At the time of Scharia, the Jews already had numerous polemical works against Christians; in these polemical writings, the entire arsenal of weapons against Christianity, applied to both one and another area, had already been collected. To collect evidence against the truth of the later Christianity in comparison with the ancient, polemicists had to study the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the writings of the fathers: and this they really did with all possible diligence 1248. The preaching of the Judaizers against the truth of later Christianity in comparison with the most ancient, forming part of their entire preaching, was exactly what Luther’s preaching was in the West; Those listeners of the propagandists of Judaism, whom the latter failed to seduce into real Judaism and whom they only managed to lead to greater or lesser doubts about the truth of Christianity in its later form, were exactly the same as those in the West who were carried away by Luther into his Protestantism. Thus, fate would have it that here, where there was no prepared ground for Protestantism, it appeared earlier than in the West, where the ground for it had been prepared for a very long time. Proper Judaism consisted of a complete denial of Christianity, with the acceptance in its place of Judaism in the form of the latter, as it has been confessed by the Jews since the time of Jesus Christ, whom they rejected. The teaching of this own Judaism was: Jesus Christ is not God, but a simple man; being a simple man, He is not the Messiah promised by God, who must also be a simple man - a prophet like Moses, but who has not yet come, but will only come: therefore, Christianity is a lie and must be rejected, and instead it must be kept by Judaism or the Law of Moses 1249. As for improper Judaism or Christian free-thinking, the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk does not report anything definite regarding it. It is necessary to think that some had more of this free-thinking, others less, and that here everyone had his own measure. The points of Christian free-thinking, which St. Joseph exposes and refutes in his Enlightenment, are: denial of the need for an external, visible church 1250; denial of icon veneration and veneration of relics; denial of monasticism. We said that the secret sciences, which were proposed by the propagandists of Judaism along with the Jewish faith and which they presented as an integral and essential part of Judaism, should be recognized as that feature of Judaism by which it was most likely to attract people to itself. And Judaism is depicted to us by the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk in such a way that it is half faith, half the study of secret sciences 1251. These secret sciences, which were supposed to constitute the most attractive side of Judaism, bring it closer to our paganism, but only placing it in its own way incomparably higher than the latter. The pagans had a special class of people, the so-called Magi, who acquired the gift of working miracles and foreknowing the future. In Judaism, each adherent of it became a sorcerer who received this gift, so that it constituted, as it were, a religion of the sorcerers. According to the testimony of Archbishop Gennady and the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, the Judaizers outrageously abused the Christian Orthodox external shrine - icons and crosses, allowing themselves to act in relation to them with all kinds of blasphemous insults. One can assume, and there are direct reasons 1252 to think that the reason for this outrage was not only direct and simple hatred of Christianity as a faith, but also that pagan view that existed among the Magi (and still remains among the sorcerers) that the stronger the insults to the Christian shrine, the more effective the magic will be. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk speaks reproachfully about the moral behavior and Judaizers, saying that they got drunk and overeat and became defiled by fornication 1253. But we think with great confidence that these reproaches of St. Joseph need to be understood in a special way. When he says that the heretics got drunk and overeat, he, in all likelihood, means that on days of sorrow and fasting seasons they got drunk and overeat in the same way as on non-fasting days and times. That is, that they did not observe Christian fasts (and among themselves, of course, they did not observe fasts in the sense of eating meat instead of fasting), and that those of them who were priests ate and drank before the liturgy: the reproach “overeat,” if understood in a general sense, would be very strange. For what does it mean that the heretics ate more than usual, and how could Joseph know and claim this? When he says that the Judaizers were defiled by fornication, he probably means those among them who were monks. And since the Judaizing monks did not consider themselves monks and were such only in appearance, they could live with their secret wives and thus appear to the Orthodox to be committing fornication. In general, we see absolutely no real reason to think anything deliberately bad about the morality of the Judaizers: it had to be simply what the morality of real Jews is. And if Zosima was given over to sodomy and drunkenness or the latter alone, then this depended not on faith, but on his personality - he could have been like that without retreating into Judaism. As a sect, Judaism existed among us, counting from 1471 to 1504, for a period of 33 years. To what extent did it manage to spread in our society, or to what extent should a sect be represented as numerous? The Reverend Joseph of Volokolamsk, who repeatedly answers this question in his Enlightenment, mostly says that the propagandists of Judaism managed to seduce many into it, but several times he expresses himself in such a way that they “destroyed fractions of the soul, and they even destroyed them weakly (that they took many people away from the church unknown.” 1254. By sectarians we mean not everyone who became infected more or less free-thinking, but only those who accepted real Judaism, it is necessary to think that the last expression of the Monk Joseph is pure hyperbole, having as its source his ardent zeal against heretics, and that by many seduced is meant not many thousands of them, but only many units, ascending no more than a few hundreds. When in 1503 it was the Reverend Joseph who interceded with the Grand Duke so that he would move against the Judaizers, the sovereign promised him that he would personally send throughout all the cities and order them to search for the heretics and eradicate them 1255. From the words of the Grand Duke Joseph it is clear that he hoped to eradicate the heretics in one go and at one time; but if so, then it is obvious that it was a question of hundreds, and not of thousands of people, for in the latter case it would be impossible to hope to eradicate heresy at once. At the council of 1504, indeed, all heretics were immediately executed, with the exception of a few who escaped; but if this was possible right away, then the conclusion is again the same as now above. Here we find another confirmation of the validity of our opinion. After the main heretics were put to death, the other heretics who were left alive were sent away - partly to imprisonment, partly to monasteries. If there were thousands of heretics, the monasteries would be overrun with exiles; Meanwhile, we know that, for example, only one heretic was sent to Joseph’s own monastery 1256. But we find the most decisive evidence that there were not thousands of heretics, but no more than hundreds, in one indirect indication from the Monk Joseph himself. In a letter to the confessor of the Grand Duke Andronikov, Archimandrite Mitrofan, convincing the latter to incite the sovereign against the Judaizers, he says: “and if only the sovereign wanted to eradicate them, otherwise he would soon eradicate them, he would catch two or three heretics, and they will tell everyone.” If the heretics could be quickly eradicated, if each of them knew all the others by name: then it is clear that there were not thousands of heretics, but no more than hundreds. The existence of the Judaizers sect was possible only under the condition of the deepest secrecy. On this basis, one must think that, on the one hand, the preachers of heresy did not conduct their propaganda in such a way as to address entire crowds of people, but so as to address only individual people (so that the matter would be face to face), which circumstance naturally should have greatly slowed down the success of propaganda. And on the other hand, that they themselves did not find it possible to think about the wide dissemination of their heresy, because with this wide dissemination it would be impossible to maintain a secret, and it would serve as a means to the discovery of a sect. Be that as it may, one must think that the sect of the Judaizers, as such in the proper sense of the last word, was far from being very small and that it was not so much a real sect as a small secret society. For conclusions about the number of people who, without accepting Judaism itself, were only infected by the preachers of the latter with more or less freethinking; we don't have any positive data. But it seems most likely to us to think that it was not particularly large, although, perhaps, it was significantly greater than the number of actual heretics. When the Monk Joseph says: “If anyone does not fall back into Judaism, then having learned from them (preachers of heresy) the divine scriptures, both in the marketplace and in the houses they create strife about the faith and have doubts” 1257: then one might think at first glance that he is painting a picture from living reality. In fact, one can very well suspect that he is not copying the picture from reality, but is copying it out of Greek books: among the Greeks in similar cases this really happened like that; but that this would be the case with us too seems quite doubtful. In addition to those seduced into heresy itself and besides those infected with freethinking, in all likelihood there should be a third category of people whose purity of Orthodoxy was encroached upon by Judaism, namely those who, without falling into heresy and without being infected by freethinking, became admirers and adepts only of the black book and astrology offered by Judaism. Having begun with two priests who were outstanding in intelligence and education, Judaism spread among us mainly in the most educated part of society (in the then sense) - between the same priests with other clergy (deacons and clerks) and between the boyars 1258. In the same environment of society, freethinking also spread mainly, which is already assumed by itself. In our manuscripts, some written monuments have been preserved to this day, which in all likelihood should be mistaken for monuments left behind by the Judaizers. These monuments are: a translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, corrected according to the Hebrew original, and a collection of Jewish prayers. The Pentateuch of Moses, like all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, written in Hebrew, were translated into Slavic from the Greek translation of the seventy. In some of our manuscripts this Slavic translation is read with a fairly significant number of private text amendments made according to the Hebrew original. Who and when the amendments were made remains unknown. But their language is the Great Russian language of later times, the 15th-16th centuries, with some admixture of the Belarusian language of the same time, and the understanding of the text of the Holy Scriptures, which is revealed in them, makes it possible to see in themselves not a Christian, but a Jewish understanding. From the first it can be concluded with probability that the amendments were made in Great Russia, but by a person who came from Belarus or from Lithuanian Rus'; and from the second it directly follows that the corrector was not a Christian by faith, but a Jew. Both of these signs go to the founder of the Judaizing sect, Sharia, and with all, and at least with a very high probability, one should think that the amendments belong to him 1259. The collection of Jewish prayers in the Slavic translation, read in our manuscripts, is given the name psalter and the external form of this latter; it is the prayers that are called psalms and are divided into kathismas and glories. Only due to the significantly smaller number of prayers than psalms in the actual psalter (74 prayers), there is no correspondence with the actual psalter in the kathismas and glories in terms of the number of imaginary psalms. At the end of the collection there is an afterword, which states that the imaginary psalter was translated from Hebrew into Russian “with the blessing and order of St. Philip, Metropolitan of All Rus'.” [The late I.I. Stroev in his article: “Chronological indication of materials of Russian History, literature, jurisprudence, until the beginning of the 18th century,” published in Part I of the Journal of the Ministry of National Education (in the February book of 1834), says, meaning our imaginary psalter, that by the will of Metropolitan Philip 1 “The newly baptized Theodore translated from Hebrew Psalter,” page 162, § 67. But in the two manuscripts of the former library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, containing our imaginary psalter, there is no name of the translator (see Archimandrite Varlaam, as we indicated) and where Stroev, who does not indicate his source, takes it from, remains unknown. In one of the two manuscripts, 1 sheet of the imaginary psalter is now missing (see ibid.): perhaps the name of the translator was on this sheet (and it is possible that this sheet should be looked for in the manuscripts of Stroev himself, which were received in the ancient repository of Pogodin, which is now located in the St. Petersburg Public Library). As for Theodore, the newly baptized, he really was. In one of Undolsky’s manuscripts the “Message of Fyodor the Jew” is read, which was long ago indicated by A.E. Viktorov in his “Essay on the collection of manuscripts of V.I. Undolsky” - p. 41 fin., No. 1254, sheets 59–61, but which was recently noticed by Professor I.I. Sokolov, who will soon publish it in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities Russian. The author of the letter, addressed to his former co-religionists and containing reproaches to them for not recognizing the coming Messiah-Savior, reports about himself that he converted from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity, being at the age of 40, under the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich and under Metropolitan Jonah. By what motives the translation of the imaginary psalter was adopted by the newly baptized Jew Theodore, unless Stroev, through some mistake or some misunderstanding, himself assimilates it to him, is not entirely clear to us. – About the Jewish original of the imaginary psalter, see the note in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, XXII, 644, note.] [Of other books that belonged to the Jews, which were translated into Russian in order to become the property of our Judaizers, the following are currently known: The logic of the famous Jewish scientist Moses Maimonides († 1204) is, of course, the same one that Gennady Archbishop of Novgorod speaks of as one of the books available to the Judaizers in his letter to Joasaph, the former Archbishop of Rostov, and the so-called “Secret of the Secret”, which is a comprehensive educational or guiding work for sovereigns, supposedly written by Aristotle for Alexander the Great and translated from Greek into Arabic, and from Arabic into Hebrew. See the abstract read by Professor Sobolevsky at the meeting of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing on March 5 last 1899 and published in the appendices to No. CXXXIII of Monuments of Ancient Writing and Art. (The logic of Maimonides, except for the synodal manuscript in which Mr. Sobolevsky, read in another one of the manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Monastery, now located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, see Descriptions of manuscripts, part I, p. 406, No. 263/105, sheet 44 verso; detailed bibliographic information about Logic, namely about its editions, translations into European languages ​​and commentaries, is found in Furst in Bibliotheca Judaica, II, p. 303 sqq. About the book “The Secret of Secrets”, in the Hebrew translation called: Sod hassodot, which means exactly: The Secret of Secrets, in the Latin translation – Secretum secretorum or De secretis secretorum, see Io. Alb Fabricii Bibliothecae Graecae lib. III, p. 167, Io. Christ. Wolfii Bibliothecae Hebraeae t. I, p. 222, and in F.I. Buslaev in the Historical Reader, col. 1401; its table of contents in Sylvester Medvedev’s “Table of Contents of Books, Who Compiled Them” - § 18, Book, which was compiled by Aristotle the philosopher. It was also called the Aristotelian Gates [as Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich calls it in his questions to the Stoglavy Cathedral, second questions question 17, Kazan edition p. 179], because the sections of the chapters in it are called gates, i.e. gates [see. excerpts from Buslaev’s book in the reader, col. 1400, and a copy of its table of contents in the Description of Manuscripts of the Vilna Public Library, compiled by F. Dobryansky, No. 272 ​​(222), pp. 464–465, and in the Description of the manuscripts of the Archaeographic Commission compiled by I. Barsukov, No. 229, pp. 175–184, what is the name of the sections of chapters or the chapters themselves usually among Jewish writers [for examples of this, see the mentioned Bibliotheca Iudaica of Fürst]. A sufficient number of lists of the book “The Secret of the Secret” are known). We said above that Judaism is portrayed to us by the Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk in such a way that half it is faith, half the pursuit of secret sciences (p. 600 beginning, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1251, corr.): The book “The Secret of the Secret” with its instructions on signs should be ranked among those books that compiled professional books of Judaism precisely as an occupation secret sciences. (It may be that the raffles, which were a fortune-telling astrological book, were also delivered to our ancestors by the Judaizers. - G. Sobolevsky in his abstract indicates to look at the book “The Secret of the Secret” in the XI issue of the Bulletin of Archeology and Art, published last 1899: but until now we could not get the issue to our God-saved Posad).] This deception in giving the collection of prayers the appearance of a psalter and in assimilating the translation to the blessing and order of Metropolitan Philip, under whom Skhariya came to Novgorod, must be understood in such a way that the Judaizers had in mind to distribute it among the Orthodox, or that, at least, they wanted to avert the eyes of the Orthodox from it 1260. The fight against the Judaizers on the part of the Orthodox Church consisted not only in taking government measures against them - ecclesiastical and civil, but also in exposing their heresy through polemical writings. In this case, the credit belongs partly to Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, and mainly to St. Joseph of Volokolamsk. Archbishop Gennady did not feel capable of taking on himself a written polemic with the Judaizers, and he ordered two polemical works against the Jews, borrowed from Catholics, to be translated into Slavic from Latin. These works are: 1) “Master Nicholas Delir’s most beautiful conquests, Jewish unbelief in the Orthodox faith are blasphemous,” translated in 1501 by the embassy interpreter or translator Dmitry Gerasimov, nicknamed Maly. The work of Delira or De-Lira enjoyed very great fame in the West, as one of the main polemical works against Judaism 1261. 2) “Teachers of Samoil the Jew on the God-marked Jews with accusatory prophetic speeches,” translated in 1504 by a foreigner who lived in Russia 1262. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk wrote an extensive polemical work against the Judaizers and against the free-thinking they sowed, which in its external form consists of 16 words, preceded by a historical introduction, and to which, after Joseph, the name of the Enlightener was given. This Illuminator of St. Joseph, representing the most remarkable work of our writing for the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, was such a brilliant accusatory work for its time against the Judaizers and against the free-thinking generated by them, better than which it would be impossible to demand. Endowed with a brilliant mind and outstanding literary talent, the Monk Joseph was exceptionally well-read in the Holy Scriptures and in the works of his fathers, as far as the latter existed at that time in Slavic translation, so that due to this erudition he has every right to the title of the most learned man of his time. With such possession of all the necessary qualities, he wrote an accusatory essay, which is distinguished by the internal dignity of possible scientific thoroughness and the external dignity of possible satisfactory presentation; in the latter case, clarity comes first, which was most needed for our old bookish people. In relation to the Judaizers in the strict sense of the word, the Enlightener of St. Joseph could not have too much significance, because he argues against them (proving the trinity of persons of the Divine and that Jesus Christ is the come Messiah) with the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament according to the translation of the seventy. And the Judaizers, together with the Jews themselves, as it must be assumed, did not at all recognize this translation as obligatory for themselves. But in relation to free-thinking and as a means of protection for the Orthodox both from Judaism and from this free-thinking, the Enlightener undoubtedly had all the significance that a completely satisfactory accusatory essay could have. We will return to the Enlightener later, when we talk about our original writing of the department of time we took. [ S. A. Belokurov found in one of the manuscripts of the collection belonging to I. A. Ovchinnikov and located in the village of Gorodets, Nizhny Novgorod province, another untranslated polemical work against the Jews and against the Judaizers. This is the “Creation of (a certain) monk Sava of Sennaya Island, a message to the Jews and heretics,” which, not being in the literal sense a translated work, does not constitute a real original work, but consists of almost nothing but bare extracts from the so-called Explanatory Paleia, which is a polemical work (translated from Greek) against the Jews and against the Mohammedans. The message, as if written between 1490 and 1504, is addressed to Mr. Dmitry Vasilyevich and was written on the occasion that when he - Mr. Dmitry was an ambassador, he spoke with the Jew with Zechariah and Skara and could have been infected from him by the bad things that he heard from him. By Mr. Dmitry Vasilevich we mean the boyar Dmitry Vasilyevich Shein, who in 1487–1488 served as the Grand Duke’s ambassador to the Crimean Khan Mengli-Girey. By the Jew Zechariah Skara we mean the Kafin Jew Zacharias Skara, who, as one should think, was a great money ace and a man of great importance in the trading and financial world in general, and who, probably being dissatisfied with living in the Cafe, after it was taken from the Genoese by the Turks in 1475, through our merchants who traveled to the Crimea, twice asked the Grand Duke permission to come to live in Moscow and was twice invited by the Grand Duke to his place through letters. (The first letter of the Grand Duke to the Jew Zacharias Skara, dated March 14, 1484, probably sent with the ambassador to the Crimea to the Khan by Prince Vasily Ivanovich Nozdrovaty, who set out from Moscow on March 14, 1484, is printed in the Collection of State Charters and Treaties, Part II, No. 20, p. 24, and in Russian Historical Collection, vol. XLI, p. 41; the second letter from Skara, dated October 18, 1487, sent precisely with Dmitry Vasilyevich Shein, who set off from Moscow on October 18, 1487, is printed in volume V of the Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, in the appendices to the article: “Historical and Diplomatic collection of affairs that took place between the Russian Grand Dukes and former in Crimea by the Tatar kings from 1462 to 1533,” No. 8, p. 272, and in the same Collection of R.I.O. (R.I.S.?, corr.) Vol. XLI. In letters identical in content, the Grand Duke writes to Skara: “You wrote to us about being with us, and you would go to us; and if you stay with us, you will see our salary for yourself; but if you want to serve us, we want to pay you; If you don’t want to be with us, but if you want to leave us again to go to your own land, we will let you go voluntarily, without costing you.” Getting ready, but, as can be seen from the time interval between letters, not in a hurry to go to Moscow, Skara, if he got ready before 1490, when there was a council on the Judaizers in Moscow, of course, postponed his intention to move to it). The monastery of Sennaya Island, of which Savva was a monk, should in all likelihood mean the Trinity Sennovsky Monastery, which was located on the island or islet of Lake Ladoga Sennaya, lying on the southern shore of the lake, up and to the left of the mouth of the Volkhov, see V. Zverinsky Material for historical and topographical research on Orthodox monasteries, III, 191, No. 2150. We believe that “Creation” was written by Sava between 1490–1504, on the basis that he speaks of God’s denunciation of the Novgorod priests who accepted the Jewish teaching (at the beginning of creation), by which denunciation should be understood the council of 1490, and does not speak of the cruel executions that befell the Judaizers after the council of 1504. There is nothing historical about the Judaizers in “creation, besides what is now indicated, that God could not tolerate and denounced the Novgorod priests who accepted the Jewish teachings. It is published by Mr. Belokurov in the Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities.] For Archbishop Gennady, the heresy of the Judaizers gave rise to a very important book enterprise, namely, the collection of all the books of Holy Scripture in one composition, which we had not had before. We will also talk about this later. Metropolitans Zosima and Simon We return to Metropolitan Zosima to tell us about him and about the time of his short reign in 1263 that very little that can be said besides his Judaism. According to the assurance of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, as we reported above, he was appointed metropolitan by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, having been “approached” by Archpriest Alexei. If the assurance is true, then it will be necessary to understand the matter in such a way that the Grand Duke appointed him with his own authority, either without the conciliar election of bishops, or, what is more likely, when they made the election only in a formal manner. And if this is so, then our case of the installation of a metropolitan will be the first case in which instead of an election, although not entirely independent, there was already a real (essentially) appointment. We paid attention to the fact that he, Zosima, was put in the place of Gerontius after a very long delay, at the same time we noticed that the reasons for this delay remain unclear to us. Perhaps the Grand Duke considered himself very mistaken in his hasty election of Gerontius. Assuming this, it will only be necessary to say that this time delay turned out to be worse than haste. As we said above, following Greece, there was a widespread belief among us that with the end of seven thousand years the end of the world would come. For this reason, the liturgical Paschalia, which consists of indicating the month and date of Easter and the movable holidays depending on the latter, was brought to the year seven thousand and stopped there. When the seven thousandth year passed (it ended in the month of August 1492 A.D.), and the end of the world did not follow, it was necessary to continue painting Easter eggs for further time. This is what Zosima did after consulting with the archbishops, bishops, archimandrites and the entire metropolitan council. Having calculated the Paschalia for the next 20 years, the metropolitan sent his calculation for verification to Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod and Bishop Philotheus of Perm, and perhaps to other bishops, and then no later than December 7001 (1492 A.D.) he published it throughout the metropolis in 1264. In 1492, by order of the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan and Archbishop Gennady gave the city of Vologda, which had hitherto been under the ecclesiastical authority of both of them, to the Bishop of Perm 1265. In 1494, we don’t know whether before or after Zosima was removed from the metropolitan see, widowed priests in Pskov were dismissed from service. The chronicler reports absolutely nothing about the history of this dismissal, whether it was with the consent of the archbishop or against his will, limiting himself only to the bare and brief news that “the same summer the widowed priests were dismissed from service” 1266. We turn to Metropolitan Simon 1267, the slowness of whose installation in the place of Zosimas is as unclear to us as the slowness of the latter’s installation in the place of Gerontius. Speaking about previous metropolitans installed in Russia itself, the chronicles do not provide any details of the rank that was observed during their installations. Regarding the appointment of Simonov, the chronicles provide some details of this rank. When he was elected by the bishops, as it seems, only in a formal manner, having been directly indicated by the Grand Duke 1268, he went to the palace to present himself to the sovereign. From the palace, the Grand Duke, together with the bishops, being accompanied by his heir (grandson Dimitri), his children and his boyars and clerks, escorted him to the Assumption Cathedral, in which he venerated the icon (the Mother of God of Vladimir) and bowed to the tombs of his predecessors, and then to the metropolitan court. At the door of the latter, the Grand Duke handed it over to the bishops in 1269. On the very day of dedication, when the liturgy was over, and when the time had come to elevate the new metropolitan to the metropolitan seat, the Grand Duke, handing him the pastoral staff, greeted him with a short speech, which began with the words: “The almighty and life-giving Holy Trinity, which gives us the state of all Russia, gives you this holy great throne of the bishopric”..., and The Metropolitan answered the Grand Duke with his short speech 1270. After the dedication, the Metropolitan rode on a donkey around the city, and the boyar of the Grand Duke drove the donkey under him 1271. These details, reported by the chroniclers, with a very high probability should be looked at as an innovation against the previous time, which did not exist before. From the moment of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, Ivan Vasilyevich’s father Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark began to look at himself as the successor to the Byzantine emperors or Greek kings. But if his position as a sovereign was still far from corresponding to the idea of a tsar, and if he based his view of himself only on the fact that in the Christian Orthodox world there should be a sovereign who would be the guardian of the Christian Orthodox Church: then Ivan Vasilyevich, who finally established autocracy in Russia, overthrew the yoke of the Mongols and finally married a Greek princess, already had too many positive rights to consider himself a successor Greek kings. And he really began to look at himself, as such, in a completely confident way, although he had not yet dared to take the last step - openly and formally accept the very title of king. As a result, one of his concerns was to introduce new external forms into our higher social life, partly directly Byzantine, partly generally more ritual and, so to speak, ceremonial. So that in this life, in place of the former simplicity, that “decorated and beautiful royal rank” (as Constantine Porphyrogenitus puts it), which the Greeks so extremely valued and which we later valued no less, would be installed. The details of the installation of Simonov as metropolitan, reported by the chroniclers, clearly indicate that Ivan Vasilyevich wanted to give the rank of installation of metropolitans the same look as the installation of patriarchs in Constantinople. And when the Grand Duke handed over the future metropolitan to the bishops and when he told the dedicated metropolitan that “the almighty and life-giving Holy Trinity, which gives us the state of all Russia, gives you this holy and great throne”: then here is not just royal ritual, but very important news, significant - a testimony and declaration of the royal rights of the sovereign in relation to the metropolitan... In addition to the Council of Judaizers in 1504, which we talked about, the reign of Metropolitan Simon was marked by another extremely important council, which took place a year before this last one. The Council of 1503, convened not against the enemies of the church, but for the improvement of the church itself, made the following determinations: that bishops should not charge fees for appointment to church degrees; about the non-service of widowed priests and deacons in the world; about non-widow priests and deacons not celebrating the liturgy the next day after they got drunk, and about the undeath of monks and nuns in the same monasteries. For this reason, at the council we also raised the issue of confiscating immovable estates or estates from monasteries. Unfortunately, we do not have any historical information about the council to answer the questions: on whose initiative it was convened and what were the immediate reasons for its convening. In any case, it must be taken for granted that it belonged to the initiative of not only the Metropolitan, but also the Grand Duke. The metropolitan could also have a desire to make decisions regarding widowed and non-widowed priests and regarding monks and nuns; but that he would have the desire to make a decree on the non-collection of fees by bishops and that in this way he would want to raise his hands against himself, and most importantly, he would want to arouse against himself the greatest general hatred of the bishops and their officials, this is completely incredible. For this to be possible, we would have to imagine Simon as a man of exceptional moral qualities and exceptionally strong character, for which ideas we have no basis at all. The Council wrote its decisions in two special sentences: one sentence about the non-collection of fees by bishops, the other about widowed and non-widowed priests and about monks and nuns. Judging by the manner in which these sentences were expressed, one can think that the resolution contained in the first of them belonged to the initiative of the Grand Duke and that the resolutions contained in the second belonged to the initiative of the Metropolitan. Both sentences were written on behalf of the Grand Duke and the council; but in the first of them it is written that the Grand Duke, having talked with the Metropolitan and the bishops, laid down and strengthened so-and-so to be, and in the second, that the Metropolitan and the bishops, after talking with him, laid down and strengthened to be the Grand Duke. Beyond this, based on the time of writing the verdicts, namely, that the first of them was written earlier than the second (one on August 6, the other on September 1), it seems not incredible to think that the council was actually convened by the Grand Duke to pass a verdict on the non-payment of fees by the bishops. But then, when it was already happening, it was proposed by the metropolitan and bishops to make the remaining decisions. [In the 1st Pskov Chronicle there is a decree of Metropolitan Simon in Pskov on the resolutions of the council held on September 1, which does not say anything about the resolution of August 6 - Collection of Chronicles IV, 277. It is very likely to understand this silence in such a way that there was a special decree about the resolution of August 6, and on behalf of not the metropolitan, but the Grand Duke.] The collection of fees by bishops for ordination to church degrees, which came to us from Greece, was actually anti-canonical. But if in Greece, where the canons were written, it constituted a general custom that was held more firmly than any canons, then it should have been held even more firmly in our country, where the justification was a simple reference to the example of the Greek Church. At the beginning of the 14th century, we raised the most ardent protest against this collection of fees, as against lawless bribery and simony, which later gave rise to the Strigolnikov sect, who proclaimed our entire priesthood as an untrue and invalid priesthood for this collection of fees. But the custom withstood itself with unshakable firmness against the protest of both the Orthodox and the Strigolniks. How could it happen that Ivan Vasilyevich suddenly raised his hand against this custom, which was too long ago or, more precisely, antiquity and such a firmness that had survived all the trials? It does not seem probable to think that he did this according to his own direct intention, and it turns out to be necessary to assume outside influences on him. Ivan Vasilyevich, firstly, was a person about whom it is very doubtful to think that he could be indignant at the extortions of bishops from the lower clergy: He himself was endowed with too great an inclination to take. Secondly, and most importantly, this collection of fees was a church matter, and in order to consider it an illegal and lawless matter, a solid knowledge of church canons was necessary. As for third-party influences, we can to some extent assume reproaches to our bishops from the Judaizers and it is positively known about reproaches to them from some remaining representatives of Strigolnichestvo, but mainly and in our own way, as we think, we should assume suggestions and representations to the Grand Duke that came from among the Orthodox themselves. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk does not say in his Enlightenment that the Judaizers reproach our bishops for charging fees or bribes from the installation; but this in itself is very probable; Of the remaining representatives of Strigolnichestvo, we know at least one who openly reproached the bishops for charging fees, this is the monk Zachariah or Zakhar, who, having accepted or not accepted Judaism, was condemned with the Novgorod Judaizers at the council of 1490. However, it seems completely incredible to think that the Grand Duke could incline his ears to the reproaches of the enemies of the church if, with the general voice of the representatives of the latter themselves, they were declared for unjust and unfounded reproaches 1272. Considering it necessary to explain the matter with suggestions coming from among the Orthodox themselves, we think that these suggestions should be assimilated by the famous elders of that time, Paisius Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky, who enjoyed the great respect of Ivan Vasilyevich, and who were present both at the council of 1490 and at our council of 1503. That Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky were against the collection of fees by bishops for installation, we have no positive evidence for this 1273. But with absolute probability this can be assumed: representing special people in their contemporary society and precisely representing liberals in the sense of being ardent opponents of everything illegal and anti-canonical, they could very well be opponents of our collection of fees and renew the protest against it that rang out in our country in the 14th century. For Paisius and Nil, it was not particularly difficult to prove to the Grand Duke with the canons that collecting fees is illegal and that the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers - as it is read in the cathedral verdict - prescribe not to take anything for delivery. But it is a matter of considerable bewilderment how the Grand Duke could be moved to his determination to destroy the board in view of the fact that it existed in the Russian Church for such a long time and that thus it had too strong a prescription for itself. In order to explain this, it must be assumed that the ambition of the sovereign was skillfully affected, to whom it could be seen that his predecessors did not feel strong enough to decide to eradicate the great abuse. That he has this power and therefore must do it - that by doing this he will surpass the kings of the Greeks who suffered evil. That, having begun his succession to the Greek kings with such a famous act, he will begin it in the most worthy and glorious way... The urgent care that the Grand Duke reveals in the sentence, so that this sentence remains inviolable for the future, really makes it clear that the sovereign looked at the abolition of payment for deliveries he made as one of his important acts. The conciliar verdict was written on August 6, 1503. Meanwhile, we have some indications that it seems that the council began no later than Easter of this year, which was April 16, so that from the beginning of the council until the writing of the verdict, a continuation of time should be assumed to be more than three and a half months 1274. If we had accepted the instructions, then this slowness could not be explained by the fact that the resistance of the bishops was not immediately and not soon defeated. In the conciliar verdict, the Grand Duke, together with the metropolitan and bishops, lays down and strengthens the following for the future: 1) the metropolitan should not take anything, either in the form of direct payment or in the form of gifts from the installation of archbishops and bishops; 2) the metropolitan and bishops should not take anything from the appointment of archimandrites and abbots, priests and deacons and from the entire priestly rank; 3) the bishop’s printers should not take anything from the printing of the issued letters, and the clerks from their signature; 4) all bishops’ tax collectors or their officials who have the right to income should not take any duties, i.e., taxes introduced by custom; 5) bishops not to take anything from archimandrites and abbots, from priests and deacons from sacred places and from churches, but both supply and release those supplied to their places without compensation and without any gift. In conclusion, the council confirms the canonical rule, which has been repeatedly confirmed, that “by no means” (under any circumstances) anyone under 30 years of age should be appointed to the priesthood, and 25 years of age to the deaconate, and that no one younger than 20 years of age should be appointed to the subdeaconate. For violators of its resolution, the council, being led by the Grand Duke, determines the punishment - defrocking: “and whichever saint from among us and after us is a metropolitan, archbishop or bishop in all Russian lands, from now on, through some negligence, dares to transgress the code and strengthening and take what is from the installation or from the priestly place, (then) he will be deprived of his rank, according to the rule of the saints the apostle and father of the saints - may he himself and those appointed by him be cast out without any answer.” The council's letter of verdict, “for greater approval of its code” and so that “the matter would be indestructible in the future,” was sealed and signed, namely, the Grand Duke attached his seal to it, the Metropolitan attached his seal and put his hand, the bishops put their hands 1275. Our conciliar resolution, in which Ivan Vasilyevich showed his decisive power over the bishops, in all fairness befits the epithet famous, and it would be extremely beneficial for the lower clergy (down to our present times...) if it retained its force. But, alas! it retained its power no further than until the death of Ivan Vasilyevich, and this death happened only two years and three months after the council - October 27, 1505. There was, however, a bishop who did not even want to wait for the death of the elderly Ivan Vasilyevich and who paid for his excessive haste. This bishop was the oldest of the Russian bishops and a famous person in his own right - Gennady of Novgorod. Returning home from the cathedral, and, according to the chronicles, succumbing to the influence of his clerk, who was his favorite 1276, and perhaps justifying himself by the fact that his department was robbed by the Grand Duke, about which below, he still began to charge for performances, as if the cathedral had not existed at all. But Ivan Vasilyevich, pronouncing the conciliar verdict and threatening its violators with defrocking, did not want to joke at all: on his orders an inquiry was carried out and when it really turned out that the archbishop was guilty of violating the verdict, in June of the following year 1504 he was deposed from the see 1277. The second conciliar verdict, containing decrees: on the non-service in the world by widowed priests and deacons, on the failure to celebrate the liturgy by priests and deacons who are not widowed the next day after they get drunk, and on the non-life of monks and nuns in the same monasteries, as we said, can be adopted by the initiative of the metropolitan himself. Of the extraneous influences in this case, the influence of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk 1278 may be expected to influence the metropolitan with some probability. Among our widowed priests of ancient times, as we said above, it became such a custom to live openly with concubines or, without resigning the priesthood, to enter into a second marriage that St. Peter found himself forced to make an anti-canonical decree that these priests either resign from the priesthood if they wanted to remain in the world, or go to monasteries. Decree of St. Peter was confirmed by Metropolitan Photius and Metropolitan Theodosius wanted to involve him in the matter. The Pskovites dismissed widowed priests from service in 1468 and 1494. The Council of 1503, with its decree on widowed priests, did what it restored and confirmed the decree about them by St. Petra. The drunkenness of our priests, both widowed and non-widowed, was such a strong vice throughout ancient and ancient times that the adoption by the council of at least some measures against it, that is, actually only against its abuse, is something completely understandable. Against such disgrace of monastic life as the cohabitation of monks and nuns in the same monasteries in our country, no general instructions were made by the highest church authorities until our council in 1503. But, in any case, the ugliness was so large and so visible, that is, so conspicuous, that the question does not require an answer: how could attention finally be drawn to it, for there is rather another puzzling question: how no attention was paid to it until then 1279 . The second conciliar verdict was written after the first, 26 days later - September 1, 1503, 1280. Regarding widowed priests and deacons, supposedly based on the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers and on the teachings of the holy and great wonderworker Peter Metropolitan and on the writings of Photius, Metropolitan of All Russia, the council decides the following: from this time on, all widowed priests and deacons should not serve in the world; those widowed priests and deacons who will be proven or who will say to themselves that they kept concubines, resign from the priesthood and become laymen, subject to the obligation to give tribute with lay people; If such priests, without giving the bishops their assigned letters, go somewhere to distant places and, holding wives or concubines under the guise of legal wives, begin to serve as priests, then they will be handed over to the city judges. Those widowed priests and deacons who will not have a word about the fall of prodigaldom, and who will say to themselves that after their wives they live purely, stand in churches - on the wings, that is, fulfill the duties of sextons. And for them to receive communion - the priests in the altars in stoles (which they are allowed to keep in their homes), and the deacons in the altars in surplices with an orarion; new priests and deacons who will take the places of these widowed priests and deacons do not have the right to send them away from the churches if they want to stand on the choir,” that is, to perform the duties of sextons, but are obliged to give them - priests to priests, and deacons to deacons, a fourth of all their income; If widowed priests of the second category, that is, those who live a pure life after the death of their wives, want to become monks, then, “having renewed themselves for everything with pure repentance to their spiritual father and according to their dignity, if they are worthy, with the blessing of the hierarch, let them priest in monasteries, and not in secular (churches).” The decree regarding priests and deacons who are not widowed and have become drunk reads: “and whose priest and deacon have drunk themselves to the point of drunkenness for days, and do not serve him at mass tomorrow.” The decree on non-life in some monasteries is read to monks and nuns: “and that in monasteries monks and monks lived in one place, and abbots served with them, and (we) laid down that from this day forward monks and monks should not live in the same monastery; and in which the monasteries will teach the monks to live, otherwise serve the abbot, and the monks should not live in that monastery; and in which monasteries will teach monks to live, otherwise they will serve as priests of Beltsy, but they will not live as monks in that monastery.” The Council motivates its verdict on widowed priests solely by the fact that many of these priests kept concubines, and says nothing about those among them who, while maintaining the priesthood, entered into a second marriage: “In our Orthodox faith of Christian Greek law,” he writes, “many priests, priests and widower deacons have strayed from the truth and, forgetting the fear of God, committed outrages, and then kept their wives with them.” concubines, and the entire priestly acted, it is not worthy for them to do them for the sake of disorder and bad deeds.” But from another source we know that at this time, as in the time of Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius 1281, there were widowed priests who, while maintaining the priesthood, entered into a second marriage. This second source, the life of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, written by an unknown person, does not even say anything about priests who kept concubines, but only about priests who entered into a second marriage. About the cathedral of 1503 in the life it reads: “and again the consecration of the bishop and the presbytery of those like them: for some sacred husband from forbearance, having always died according to the law of their wives, without a doubt come to this second marriage, but the priesthood and after the second marriage do not renounce, which is not justified by the church and is not fertilized by not having eaten.” 1282. This exclusive speech only about second-wed priests suggests that the council also understands by concubines not only concubines in the proper sense, but also second legal, i.e., lawless, wives. One of these last priests, namely the Rostov priest Georgy Skripitsa, wrote a protest against the council’s resolution on widowed priests. Church authority since the time of St. Petra, together with the community itself (Pskovici), did not see any other way to get rid of the temptation that most widowed priests caused with their lives, except to prohibit all these priests, without exception, from serving in the world. But this anti-canonical remedy, which had in mind the general good of the church, sacrificed individual people to the latter, for not all widowed priests without exception were vicious. George Skripitsa vigorously protests against the inconsistency of the council’s resolution on this side, against its injustice and cruelty towards innocent widowed priests because of the guilty. By prohibiting all widowed priests from serving in the world, the cathedral deprives the priesthood of those widowed priests who live purely, for the sole reason that the Lord visited them with misfortune - taking away their wives: Skripitsa tries to present all the incongruity and injustice of punishing people for this alone, not afraid to exclaim: “what is more merciless and cruel than this!” Pointing out to the bishops that they made their decree contrary to the canons of all seven ecumenical councils, Skripitsa tells them: “They dared to create a great work, which has never happened, just as the Orthodox faith became!” He also criticizes the resolution of the council from the side that a widowed priest, remaining in the world, is deprived of the priesthood, and if he takes monastic vows, he retains it and can serve as a priest not only in monasteries, but - as the custom of that time allowed - in the same parish churches. In response to the bishops’ justification that the decree was made for the good of the church, Skripitsa responds to them with a reproach that they themselves are to blame for the bad life of the majority of widowed priests with their careless supervision of the clergy under their charge. “What do you say, my lords,” he says to the bishops: “we have done this—we have excommunicated those from piety for the sake of cleansing the church, that the priests keep the place of concubines in their wives, otherwise, my lords, judge, from whom did this evil come into our land? Is it not because of your negligence and negligence that the wicked were not executed or excommunicated from the priesthood? Gentlemen and leaders! Blessedly (properly), you do not oversee priests yourself or the chosen priests, and you do not send them to cities and villages to test how someone shepherds the Church of God: you discipline priests according to the royal rank of the earthly king - bolyars and butlers, week workers, tiuns and finishers for their own profits, and not according to the hierarchical property; The apostle says: he who serves the altar and the altar will become 1283, and it would be worthy for you, our Lord, to shepherd the church with God-fearing priests, and not with worldly armies.” The violin ends her protest with a prayer to the clergy leaders so that they create love and reconcile themselves with the pure widowed priests and deacons, whose enmity they aroused against themselves with their unjust decree, and so that, having found them and blessed them to serve, they excommunicate them from the priesthood by God's judgment and prohibition of the unclean and lawbreakers. Skripitsa’s protest is generally very bold and very caustic; but it would be incomparably more caustic if the protester had the same degree of literary exposition as he has the talent of criticism, although, however, the exposition cannot be said to be completely unsatisfactory 1284. Along with Skripitsa’s protest against the council’s resolution on widowed priests, we also have a deliberate copying or note in defense of our resolution. The copy belongs to the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk and, not being found in a separate form between his works, is read as included in the acts of the council of 1551 or the so-called Stoglavnik 1285. What prompted Joseph to write in defense of the council’s resolution remains unknown: perhaps it was he who primarily gave the idea to the council to make a resolution, and therefore considered it necessary to justify himself. But perhaps it also happened that the Metropolitan instructed him to draw up a protective note, as the person most capable of doing so. Whether the writing off of Joseph serves as a response to Skripitsa is also not clear. Letting it be known that the resolution of the council aroused murmurs in society - and this murmur, recalling the example of Metropolitan Theodosius, must be assumed - he says that he is responding to many who condemn the measure taken against widowed priests. The Monk Joseph or those who instructed him to compose the note did not particularly bother to defend themselves against the reproach of the council that, by prohibiting all widowed priests from serving in the world, he acted unfairly and cruelly towards the pure among the latter. But they wanted to justify themselves from the accusation that the council acted contrary to the canons or rules of the church. Justification against this last charge is the main and proper purpose of Joseph's note. Since the council actually acted contrary to the canons, it goes without saying that Joseph, despite all his skill in proving, could not prove that two and two are not four, but five. But his attempt to justify the council is something very remarkable in its own way. To the latter’s reproach that he acted unfairly and cruelly towards widowed priests who are pure, Joseph responds briefly that otherwise “it is powerless to eradicate that evil adultery.” Then, his response to the accusation to the council that it acted contrary to the canons of the church is as follows: he expresses the position that “many holy fathers left out of the apostolic and patristic rules, which is to the detriment of the church and to the benefit of Christianity”; Having confirmed this position of his by indicating numerous examples of the fact that later councils abolished decrees made by earlier councils, he draws from here the conclusion that observance of the sacred canons consists in preserving the dogmas of the faith. Thus, the answer of the Monk Joseph, which he did not express completely directly, is that private churches have the right to abolish the canons of councils that relate not to the dogmas of the faith, but to the improvement of church life. In other words, to say: a conservative person like Joseph, out of a desire to justify the council, falls into the most extreme radicalism! The relationship of later councils to earlier councils and the relationship of private churches to the canons of councils approved by the universal church are two completely different things. For his purpose, Joseph does not find it difficult to identify these two completely different things, and behold, he gets what he wants to receive. Very many conservatives act in such a way that for them there are no contradictions and that everything is good for them, which at this moment proves them: in our case, the Monk Joseph belongs precisely to the number of these conservatives... At the council of 1503, as we said, the question of taking away real estate or estates from monasteries was raised. An unexpected question for us was raised at the council not by the state authorities and not in the interests of the state, but by representatives of monasticism and precisely in the interests of monastic life. He was aroused by the elders Paiai Yaroslavov and the Monk Nil of Sorsky, who were present at the council, and whom we mentioned several times above. Paisiy Yaroslavov was tonsured to an unknown monastery from the so-called Trans-Volga monasteries at that time. The Trans-Volga region, as we noted above, was then called Belozerye, as it came from Moscow beyond the Volga, and the Trans-Volga monasteries were the monasteries of Kirill Belozersky and Ferapontov, founded simultaneously and not far from one another at the end of the 14th century by the Monks Kirill and Ferapont, and with these two large monasteries small monasteries and deserts located in their circumference between lakes Beloye and Kubensky 1286. In 1479, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich forced Paisius to take on the abbess at the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery; but he was in the abbotship for a very short time, and in 1482 he saw himself forced to leave him, about which the chronicle reports: “the great prince at the Trinity in the Sergeev Monastery forced him (Paisius) to be abbot, and we cannot convert the monks to God’s path - to prayer and to fasting and to abstinence, and if you want to kill him, for there the boyars and princes having taken monastic vows, you don’t want to obey, and leave the abbess” 1287. In 1484, as we said above, the Grand Duke wanted to install him as a metropolitan in the place of Gerontius. The Monk Nil of Sorsky, a disciple of the Paisievs, who received his nickname from his monastery or monastery, which he set up on the Sorya River, 12 versts from the Kirillov Monastery, was a tonsure of this latter. He traveled to the East - to the countries of Constantinople, on Athos, he fell in love with the way of monastic life, the so-called hermitage, and the type of monastic asceticism, called smart work, and in Russia he was the planter of this way of life and this type of asceticism, which we will discuss in detail below. Both elders, teacher and student, enjoyed the deep respect of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich and were, as modern evidence says, in great honor 1288. It was the two of them who raised the issue of taking away estates from the monasteries at the council. The views of Paisius and Nil on the impropriety of monks owning estates originate from the Monk Kirill of Belozersky, who, having founded his monastery in 1397, died in 1427. According to the true idea of ​​monasticism, monks should feed themselves with the labors of their hands (and even try, to the best of their ability, to benefit the laity from these labors). This true idea of ​​monasticism never died among the monks in Greece and, having been transferred to us in Russia, never completely died among us. We said before that the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, although he accepted the addition of real estate to his monastery from zealous laymen, was against such provision of the monastery in his thoughts, and that if he did not do in this case as he thought and wanted, it was because he saw himself forced to yield to the lack of faith and cowardice of the brotherhood of monks he had gathered in his monastery 1289. The Monk Kirill of Belozersky represented in this regard a second Theodosius: he accepted the contributions of the estates made to the monastery and acquired the latter by purchase, and was also in his thoughts against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries. After Cyril, some of his disciples continued to look at patrimonial ownership through his eyes, and this view of patrimonial ownership remained and was preserved in his monastery until the time of Paisius and Nil 1290. And so the two of them, we don’t know - the teacher, whether in this case acting on the student or vice versa - the student on the teacher, and were inspired by the determination that, not giving in to the cowardice of people, but taking up arms against him with war, they would try to implement in practice what Cyril had only in his thoughts, and namely, to implement in application to all Russian monasticism, in other words, they were animated by the determination that, by making an attempt to accomplish the great transformation of our Russian monasticism, to return it to the original and real idea of ​​monasticism. In their time, all the sad consequences of the patrimonial ownership of monasteries in relation to monasticism as such or as a feat managed to be revealed in all its brightly regrettable splendor: the monks were seized with a passion for acquiring villages and villages and they only thought about begging them from rich people with all sorts of caresses; having become equal to ordinary patrimonial owners, who cared only about extracting the greatest possible income from their estates, they exploited the peasants who lived on their lands, no more mercifully than worldly patrimonial owners; having acquired the inclination not to give up what was theirs, but to seize what was someone else’s, they only knew how to wander around the courts to compete and sue their neighbors about boundaries and borders. It was this extremely sad spectacle, where monasticism, as a complete renunciation of the world and everything in the world, turned into such a great laugh, and exceptional people, such as Paisius and Nil, were excited to their determination to raise their voices against patrimonial ownership. The first of them did not leave writings in which he would express to what extent he was against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries; but the second was against him to the very depths of his soul and speaks of him as a deadly poison of monasticism, arguing that monastic life, once highly desirable, thanks to patrimonial ownership, became an abominable life 1291. At the council of 1503, when the speeches were over and a resolution was made on widowed priests and deacons, the Monk Nilus, supported by Paisius and having on his side, besides him, the other Belozersk hermits present there, came up with his proposal for the transformation of our monasticism. Pointing out what monasticism should be and what it is, he began to say that monasteries should not have estates inhabited by peasants, that monks should live by the labor of their hands, doing either handicrafts or their own cultivation of the land, and that if these methods of maintenance are insufficient, due to some blessed fault, they should resort to the charity of those who are zealous, taking a little alms from Christ-lovers - necessary, not excessive 1292. We do not know to what extent the Reverend Neil possessed oratorical talent; It is very possible that the proposal was made by him with the greatest conviction - that he spoke about what monasticism should be and what it is, with extraordinary power... But the dream of two hermits to radically transform our monasticism, returning it to its original ideal, was too brave a dream... The entire council was decisively against Nilov’s proposal. It is more than likely that - if the Grand Duke himself had not been an invisible listener of speeches on the subject, about which below - not only would no proper response to the proposal have been given, but the proposal itself would not have been listened to, but simply eliminated. Due to the now indicated need to give an answer, the cathedral nominated St. Joseph of Volokolamsk as a special defendant to the Nile in 1293. The Monk Joseph, like Paisius and Nil, was an ardent zealot of true monasticism, but on the issue of monastic non-covetousness he differed with them and understood this latter in a different form, lower and, so to speak, secondary to the one in which they understood it. True monastic non-covetousness consists in the fact that monks, having renounced everything that they had in the world and not accepting any acquisitions from the world after renunciation, support themselves with the labor of their hands. But since this type of non-covetousness of one’s own is very serious, another type of non-covetousness that is not one’s own was invented. A monastery can be a money-grubber and can be provided with the means of maintenance by real estate, income-producing estates; but the monks of the monastery must be non-acquisitive: there must be a strict community life in it, so that no monk has absolutely nothing of his own and receives everything from the monastery treasury, and so that in relation to what they receive, all monks are completely equal from first to last. Joseph was an ardent zealot of this lack of covetousness, but in monasteries provided with ready income relative to the means of their maintenance. Regarding Joseph's response to Nile's proposal, we have two pieces of evidence. According to the modern narrator, he, firstly, pointed to the example of Theodosius the Great, the general life of the chief, Athanasius of Athos, Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk and many other examples, from which it is clear that the ancient holy fathers owned villages. Secondly, he made the following presentation: “if there are no villages near the monasteries, how can an honest and noble man take haircut? And if there are no honest elders, how can we appoint a metropolitanate or an archbishop or a bishop and all sorts of honest authorities? And if there are no honest elders and nobles, there will be a wavering of faith” 1294. According to the later narrator, Joseph’s answer was as follows: many Russian monasteries were founded at the beginning of Christianity in Russia by bishops and princes with the aim that divine services would be performed for their souls in the monastery churches. And since funds were needed to maintain churches, perform services and maintain employees, they provided the monasteries with contributions from villages and other estates. In addition, the patrons of the monasteries, enriching them with these contributions, also had in mind that the monks, in accordance with their vows, enduring poverty and acquiring bread for themselves with their own labors, would use the wealth of the monasteries to do good for the laity who demand these latter. But what if some monks, succumbing to the disease of covetousness, do not act as they should, then because of some it is unfair to take away the real estate of everyone 1295. That everything conveyed by the second storyteller belonged entirely to Joseph, one can doubt this. The lofty paternal view of the riches of monasteries as a means of benefiting needy laity may have been his own view; but for him to decide, completely contrary to reality, to assert that this is precisely what the majority of Russian monks do, is not entirely probable. As for Joseph’s idea that “even if there are no villages near the monasteries, how can a noble person take tonsure,” etc., he wants to say: monks who took tonsure from noble people, as having more or less education, and not from common people who are ignorant, are appointed to metropolitans, bishops, archimandrites and abbots; but if the monasteries do not have estates that provide income, and the monks are forced to acquire means of support through their labors, then how can a noble man take haircut? This original presentation of Joseph, which is quite in vain called “highly practical for that time,” was indeed very convincing as evidence of ad hominem. There is no doubt that noble people would become monks even if monasteries ceased to have villages, and the people would be better than before, but for those who had the ability to see only what was and did not have the ability to imagine what could be, it really should have seemed incredible that noble people would become monks for their own labor. Neil and Paisius were given an answer, one or the other. But the main concern of the cathedral should not have been this answer, but the fact that behind the non-covetous hermits who wanted to transform our monasticism, stood the Grand Duke himself with his own calculations and views. Nil and Paisius wanted the monks to stop owning fiefdoms, because with this fiefdom their renunciation of the world was vain, or that monasticism ceased to be real monasticism. For the Grand Duke, the fulfillment of the wishes of Nilov and Paisiev was of unusually great importance from the point of view of state interests and from the point of view of his personal interests. Firstly, under Ivan Vasilyevich III, the so-called local service developed to such an extent, which consisted in serving people receiving from the sovereign for temporary use land plots inhabited or uninhabited by peasants, that under him there was a very great need for lands that could be used for this purpose; secondly, Ivan Vasilyevich III was a sovereign whose inclination towards his own, personal enrichment was one of his dominant passions. The proposal of Paisius and Nil, if it had come true, would have provided the Grand Duke with an abundant amount of land that he could distribute into estates, and on the other hand, it would have greatly contributed to his own enrichment, giving him the opportunity to turn one or another amount of the received lands into palace villages. If it had happened that the monasteries refused to own the estates, then it would hardly have all gone to the state and the sovereign: The boyar families who assigned estates to the monasteries, of course, would have expressed a claim to, in our case, receive their estates back into their ownership; but even after this, quite a lot would remain for the share of the state and the sovereign. For both of these reasons, Ivan Vasilyevich reacted to the thought of Paisius and Nil about the impropriety of monasteries owning estates with his greatest sympathy. Some of our researchers think that at the same time as Paisius and Nil matured their idea of ​​​​this impropriety for monasteries to own estates, the Grand Duke, in turn, matured the idea of ​​secularizing church estates. Namely, about the secularization of estates that belonged not only to monasteries, but also to episcopal sees and the church and clergy in general, and that he did not actually join or adhere to the thoughts of Paisius and Nil, but used them with their thoughts in order to express his own thought to the council. For our part, we do not find it plausible to think in this way. Exceptional people among our monasticism could, in the name of this latter, demand at the beginning of the 16th century that the monasteries renounce the ownership of estates: there was nothing too unusual in this, for the idea of ​​​​the contradiction of such ownership with the idea of ​​​​monasticism has never completely died out among monks since the time it began. But for our state power at the same beginning of the 16th century, in the person of Ivan Vasilyevich, to realize its right in the name of the state good to secularize the immovable estates of the church, this does not seem likely to us. Awareness of such extreme importance of rights does not arise immediately, but grows more or less slowly. Meanwhile, before Ivan Vasilyevich we do not see any signs of the awakening of this consciousness. In relation to his predecessors, he took a higher position, firmly recognizing himself as de facto king and successor to the Greek kings; but nothing followed from this in relation to the idea of ​​the secularization of church estates, or, on the contrary, it followed that he recognized himself as deliberately obliged to preserve the laws of the Greek kings, which affirmed the right of the church to own immovable estates. They think that in the mind of Ivan Vasilyevich the idea of secularizing the immovable estates of the church, that is, opinions that belonged to both monasteries and episcopal sees, had matured, on the basis that, firstly, after the final conquest of Novgorod in 1478, in two stages - during the conquest itself and then in 1500, he took a significant number of estates from the Novgorod the archbishop's see and at the Novgorod monasteries, and that, secondly, our council of 1503, in its response to the sovereign regarding the proposal of Paisiev and Nilov, which is now discussed below, speaks about the estates of not only monasteries, but also those of the hierarchs or bishops. But both one and the other now indicated can be explained without the assumption, which is incredible in itself, that Ivan Vasilyevich had his own idea about the secularization of church estates. In Novgorod, on account of the close connection which existed here between church and state, the former had long been considered obliged to assist the needs of the latter as their own; Ivan Vasilyevich, having conquered Novgorod, demanded lands from the Novgorodians, because, as he said, “we, the Grand Duke, cannot maintain our state in our fatherland Veliky Novgorod without this” 1296. That is, that he needed lands to distribute them to estates for his service people to serve in Novgorod. And the Novgorodians, as they had previously managed the treasury of their rulers, now offered the Grand Duke lordly and monastic lands. For his part, the Grand Duke did not protest against the fact that the Novgorodians disposed of church lands as state lands; but this view of the Novgorodians on the relationship of their church to their state corresponded to his interests. In this case, taking the Novgorodians’ own point of view, Ivan Vasilyevich tried to rob their archbishop’s see and their monasteries as much as he could. In 1478, he took much more than what was offered to him, and then, in 1500, he carried out an additional robbery of 1297; but this Ivan Vasilyevich was already such as to extract his own benefit, when it turned out to be possible, to the very last degree. If the council, in its response to the Grand Duke, speaks together about the patrimonial and monastic estates, combining them into one inseparable whole, then it could have done this in order to more accurately defend the inviolability of the monastic estates. In defense of the inviolability of the bishop's estates, the council could cite a lot of undeniable things; but by uniting the episcopal and monastic estates, he extended this much to the latter. So, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, prompted by the interests of the state and his own, reacted with the greatest sympathy to the intention of Nil and Paisius to make a statement to the cathedral about the inappropriateness of monasteries to own immovable estates or estates. It may well be that, knowing their thoughts in advance, he encouraged them to make their statement. On the contrary, it is also very likely that they, for their part, proved to him, the sovereign, that he had the right to take patrimony from the monasteries 1298. Despite all the pleasantness of the dream - after the monasteries refused to give up their estates, to get such a large number of the latter into their hands, Ivan Vasilyevich, of course, understood very well that this dream was too close to a chimera. But it happens that the most chimerical dreams come true in an unexpected way: one must think that hope, based on this rule of worldly wisdom, animated Ivan Vasilyevich, as it animates all people who, like him, are endowed with too great an inclination to acquire and receive. That Paisius and Nil, in response to their statement about the inappropriateness of monasteries to own estates, the cathedral would respond by decisively eliminating their speeches as untenable and inappropriate, there could be no doubt of this. But the Grand Duke had another means of trying to influence the cathedral in the sense he desired: this was to demand that the cathedral give an answer to the proposal of Paisius and Nil to himself - the Grand Duke; This is the remedy he tried. The end result was that the Grand Duke’s hope for this remedy turned out to be completely in vain: the question was about a subject of such great importance that the members of the council found the courage to answer himself with decisive firmness the same thing that was answered to Nil and Paisius. If, perhaps, the Grand Duke expected and hoped that the bishops would hand over the monks, then he was completely mistaken. The bishops were from the same monks and took the interests of the latter to heart as their own. The monks had for themselves at the council such a lawyer as the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, a man highly endowed with the ability and art of persuasion. There is no doubt that he managed to prove to the bishops that the danger here is common and the same for the monks and for them - the bishops - that once the estates are taken away from the monasteries, the turn of the bishops' estates will immediately come. And the cathedral answered the Grand Duke: “According to divine commands, established by the holy fathers and the Christ-loving kings equal to the apostles and all the holy holy cathedrals in the Greek, as well as in our Russian, countries, even to this day, the saints and monasteries of the earth have held and are holding, but they do not dare to give them away and do not deign to give them away, since all such church acquisitions are God’s. acquisitions, entrusted and named and given to God and not for sale, given away, or owned by anyone, never for ever and ever, and indestructible to be and be observed, as sanctified by the Lord and favorable and praiseworthy: and we please and praise and restrain this humility” 1299. It is remarkable that the Grand Duke was not content with the council’s one-time answer to him, but forced the latter to give himself this answer three times. First, the metropolitan clerk Levash was sent from the cathedral to the Grand Duke with a brief answer that the right of saints and monasteries to own cities, volosts, villages and lands was constantly recognized in the Christian world from Constantine the Great and “to this place” and that “for all the councils of saints, the father prohibited the saint and the monastery from selling or giving away immovable church property and this was confirmed by great oaths” 1300. Then the council went to the Grand Duke in its entirety and read to him a detailed copy of the nomocanonical and historical evidence, which affirmed the inviolability of the church’s rights to real estate 1301. Finally, another time, clerk Levash went from the cathedral to the Grand Duke to repeat before him the copy of evidence presented by the cathedral itself, with some additions. We cannot say positively how to understand this “demand” of the cathedral by the Grand Duke. That he hoped to break the stubbornness of the members of the cathedral and force them to finally give up the monastery estates is quite incredible. It is much more likely that he hoped to bargain something with the cathedral, that is, he hoped that the cathedral would come up with an idea to get rid of his claims in such a way as to worship him with one or another part of the monastery estates. Ivan Vasilyevich’s attractive dream of enriching the state and himself at the expense of the monasteries was not at all fulfilled. But since he himself must have been well aware that this dream was too chimerical, he was not at all offended by those who prevented its implementation: In relation to the head of the cathedral, Metropolitan Simon, and in relation to the main person acting on it on the issue of monastic estates - the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, we see him after the cathedral not only not at enmity, but also in favor, as if there was absolutely nothing unpleasant between did not happen to them 1302. It does not seem likely to us to think that Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, in a completely unexpected way for him, had the idea of ​​​​secularizing the immovable estates of the church. But by his time, these immovable estates of the church, which were lands that had come out of the sovereign’s service, since they went to the church from patrimonial owners who carried out the sovereign’s service from them, were so numerous that fears for the “loss” of our service should have finally awakened. - And he took the first few measures to stop and limit the transfer of immovable estates from secular patrimonial owners into the possession of episcopal sees and monasteries. For this purpose, we don’t know whether after or [before] the council of 1503, he issued two laws: 1) if a patrimonial owner gives land according to his soul to the monastery on the condition that his heirs are given the opportunity to buy it back from the monastery at the price set by him, which must be written down in the spiritual charter: then the heirs are recognized as having the right to make such redemptions; 2) in the newly acquired regions - Tver, Mikulin, Torzhok, Obolensk, Beloozero and Ryazan, also the princes of Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Starodub, are prohibited from giving estates to monasteries per soul and selling them to them without reporting to the sovereign 1303. During the reign of Metropolitan Simon, there was an exceptional case of the conciliar deposition from the cathedral and excommunication of one bishop for the wrongful excommunication by the latter of one hegumen subordinate to him and at the same time for rebellion against the verdict of the Grand Duke; this case is the deposition and excommunication of the Archbishop of Novgorod, Gennadiev's successor, Serapion for his excommunication of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk and for the rebellion against the verdict of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich (Ivan Vasilyevich's successor from October 27, 1505), who took Joseph's monastery from the power of the appanage prince of Volokolamsk into his own power 1304. The Monk Joseph founded his monastery, located 18 versts from Volokolamsk, in 1479, under the appanage Volokolamsk prince Boris Vasilyevich, brother of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich. Boris Vasilyevich was a zealous patron and benefactor of the monastery. But his son Fyodor Borisovich belonged to the category of those princes who, instead of doing good to the monasteries, themselves, on the contrary, wanted to be, so to speak, benefited from them - who imposed on the monasteries of their regions the obligation to be the governors of their princes. He began to borrow money from the monastery in order not to give it back - he began to beg from the monastery for valuable things that he saw and learned about, he began to demand that good feasts be arranged for him in the monastery and that good gifts be presented to him from the monastery. In the old days, we had quite a few abbots who saw the purpose of the monastic wealth in that they, the abbots, would live it with the princes and boyars, using it for feasts with the latter and for the generous offering of gifts to them. But the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk was not at all one of these abbots. Nor was he one of those people who, with silent submission to fate, are ready to become the subject of shameless exploitation of others: He most energetically protested against the inclination of Prince Fyodor Borisovich to treat his monastery the way other princes treated their monasteries and how he himself treated other monasteries in his region 1305. This aroused irreconcilable hatred against Prince Joseph and his boyars, so that living in his monastery finally became completely unbearable for him. Then, having made unsuccessful attempts to settle with the prince, Joseph, on the basis of previous examples, decided to ask Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to remove his monastery from the power of the prince of Volokolamsk and take it into his own power. Intending to do this, he sent to ask for the blessing of his diocesan bishop, who was Archbishop Serapion of Novgorod 1306; but at that time a severe pestilence was raging in the Novgorod region 1307, cordons were placed on the roads so as not to let anyone into it, and the monk sent to the archbishop had to return from Torzhok. The Monk Joseph sent to Moscow to the Metropolitan so that he would intercede with the Grand Duke to take the monastery under his authority, and regarding the Archbishop he said that he would ask him for forgiveness in an unauthorized forced act when the illness stopped in Novgorod. The Grand Duke, respecting the metropolitan's request and - as it should be implied - being prompted by his greatest disposition towards Joseph himself, for Vasily Ivanovich had precisely this disposition towards Joseph, immediately fulfilled the request: in 1507 1308, with the blessing of the metropolitan with the council and by the verdict of the boyars, he took the monastery under his authority, and relatively The archbishop told Joseph's messengers that he would take it upon himself to ask for forgiveness from the former. Having passed from under the authority of his appanage prince to the authority of the Grand Duke, Joseph at the same time did not pass from under the authority of the archbishop to the authority of the metropolitan and still remained with the former. His guilt before the archbishop was that without his blessing he changed his worldly power over himself 1309. Upon his transition from the power of the appanage Volokolamsk prince to the power of the Grand Duke, Joseph, hoping for the latter’s promise to ask for forgiveness from the archbishop and himself, being prevented from making this all a continuing pestilence, slowed down by asking for forgiveness. Prince Fyodor Borisovich took advantage of Joseph’s slowness to arm Serapion against him. The prince found an ally in the archimandrite of the Volokolamsk Vozmitsky monastery Alexei Pilemov, who is unknown to us - for what he was at enmity against Joseph 1310, and together, with the mediation and assistance of bribed Novgorod bishops' officials 1311, they managed to arm Serapion against Joseph, representing the slowness of the abbot, who hoped for favor in himself the Grand Duke, the contempt of his power - the archbishop, to the most extreme degree. When the epidemic ended in Novgorod, and the cordons were removed from the roads into it, Joseph, who already knew about the archbishop’s anger at him, hastened to send a monk to him for an explanation; but Serapion did not accept the messenger even to his eyes. Meanwhile, the Grand Duke, who himself undertook to pardon Joseph from Serapion, did not do so. Subsequently, the sovereign said that he committed this into oblivion, i.e. forgot to fulfill a promise; maybe this is really so, but it is almost more likely that he found it inappropriate: in a purely zemstvo matter, which was done according to his will, asking Joseph for forgiveness, he, the Grand Duke, would have found himself in such a position that he seemed to be asking forgiveness for himself. Serapion, who was extremely opposed to Joseph, two years after his transfer from the power of his appanage prince to the power of the Grand Duke, expressed his anger at him by pronouncing his unblessing and excommunication on him, sending him his unblessed letter 1312. The monks of Joseph's monastery, being amazed by the heavy punishment that befell Joseph, begged him to ask the archbishop for forgiveness. But Joseph was a man of strong spirit, who had no inclination to give in where he saw himself only as a victim of lust for power and intrigue, and a man who knew the canons well. He was not embarrassed by the excommunication of the archbishop, but was outraged by the fact that he excommunicated him without examining his guilt, which, in his mind, was not his fault at all. Answering the monks that they were speaking without knowing the divine rules, and that if an archbishop or bishop excommunicated not according to the rule, he himself would be excommunicated 1313, Joseph waited a while to see if the archbishop would come to his senses and lift his excommunication, and after waiting in vain, he sent a complaint against him to the metropolitan and grand duke 1314. Naturally, the Grand Duke had to understand and accept Serapion’s act with Joseph as a personal grave insult to himself, for it was he who did the deed. And since Vasily Ivanovich looked at himself as already a real autocrat and was an autocrat to the last degree sensitive to personal insults, and since at the same time Serapion, in his very letter of excommunication to Joseph, intentionally or only unreasonably insulted him in the extreme 1315: then he, the Grand Duke, flared up against the archbishop with the most terrible anger. By his order, a council was immediately convened by the metropolitan and Serapion was sent to Novgorod, and according to his - as it must be understood - order or equivalent to this last insistence - the hastily assembled council, contrary to the canons, lifted the excommunication imposed on Joseph even before the arrival of the archbishop (before listening to his explanations 1316. Arriving in Moscow and appearing at the council, Serapion could not answer anything about the reason for the excommunication he imposed, in addition, boldly expressing his view of the episcopal authority that “I am free in my monk to bind and loose”; at the same time, in relation to the Grand Duke, he did not act in such a way as to humbly ask for forgiveness, but to respond with steadfastness, reaching the point of insolence 1317 - and he was dealt with without mercy: for the guilt against Joseph, and mainly for the guilt that he dared to rebel against the verdict of the Grand Duke, who took the latter’s monastery into his power, while according to the royal law “royal narrowing is not subject to trial and is not subject to re-judgment,” the metropolitan and the council of bishops pronounced a sentence on him: on the basis of canon 134 of the Council of Carthage, which says that “having deprived a bishop of communion without conviction of sin, the bishop is deprived of communion with others,” 1318, to depose him from the pulpit, deprive him of the bishopric and subject him to excommunication 1319. The sentence of the council was immediately carried out: Serapion, deprived of his bishopric and subject to excommunication, was sent to repentance at the Andronikov Monastery. As for Joseph, the council released him for the second time from the unjust excommunication imposed on him in 1320. Our quarrel between Serapion and Joseph, which ended so sadly for the archbishop, created the greatest excitement in Moscow. There is no doubt that Serapion was far from wrong: with his extremely exaggerated ideas about episcopal power and with his extremely hot temper, he allowed himself to become a pathetic toy in the hands of his bribed consistory officials 1321; but public opinion was decisively on his side, seeing in him an innocent, fearless sufferer. The punishment that befell him was very cruel, and it was explained not by his guilt, but by the fact that Joseph was the favorite of the Grand Duke and his temporary man, “the most praiseworthy Joseph,” as the author of the life of Serapionov mockingly expresses about him - that besides the Grand Duke he had strong patrons 1322 - that he was too capable of “proving”, and what was completely fair in the sense of good was understood in the sense of bad. A cruel punishment befell Serapion, in fact, not because of Joseph, but because of the sovereign he had angered, whose character was terrible to anger. But they either didn’t know this or didn’t want to know, accusing Joseph that with his pride he attracted the wrath of the sovereign to the archbishop instead of humbly begging for his forgiveness 1323. Even Joseph's friends were inclined to condemn him, so he had to write lengthy exculpatory letters to them 1324. Serapion's quarrel with Joseph, on the one hand, somewhat illustrates for us our then diocesan administration and provides us with some interesting and not unimportant messages regarding it (in Joseph's letters to Kutuzov and Tretyakov); on the other hand, it reveals to us the character or disposition of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich so much that we are able to understand further tragic incidents of his reign related to our area of ​​the church 1325. Two teaching letters to Great Perm have been preserved from Metropolitan Simon, one to the local abbots, priests and deacons, the other to all the local Christians, written on August 22, 1501. At the moment of writing the messages, the Perm episcopal see was idle, for the former bishop Philotheus retired in April of our year 1501, and a new bishop had not yet been installed. Thus, Simon wrote to the Permians as those who were left without a shepherd; What, however, were the special motivations for writing letters, when this lack of pastoralism of the Permich people was completely ordinary and would not last very long, since they installed a new bishop on May 5 of the following 1502, this is not clearly visible. The Permians of Great Perm were newly baptized Christians and it is likely that with his concerns about them Simon wanted to show his special pastoral zeal. In his letter to the abbots and priests, the Metropolitan reproaches the latter for the fact that they are careless about church correction and their salvation and careless about their spiritual children, and addresses them with an admonition about the proper performance of their pastoral duties. But it is somewhat strange and not entirely clear in the message that the vice of abbots and priests, which the Metropolitan considers necessary to denounce in a deliberate way, is eating and drinking at inappropriate times before dinner, i.e. it is strange and incomprehensible that, bypassing other more important vices that the Perm priests undoubtedly had, or denouncing them only as if in passing (immense drunkenness), the Metropolitan deliberately denounces this particular one vice. Increasing the incomprehensibility for us, he says that their former bishop Philotheus more than once sent letters to them asking them to refrain from early eating and early drinking. Perhaps the matter should be understood in such a way that, given the unique understanding of Christianity by the newly baptized Permians, this vice of their priests most seduced them 1326. In his letter to all Christians of Perm, the Metropolitan exhorts these newly baptized Christians so that they hold the true Christian faith they have accepted honestly, firmly and immovably, fulfilling all Christian duties with unfailing zeal, and so that they finally and completely lag behind everything pagan. In the latter case, the Metropolitan admonishes the Permians: not to serve idols and not to accept them, to the Voipel fool not to pray according to the ancient custom, to marriages according to the old and Tatar customs, so that the wife of the deceased brother passes after him to the second brother, and after the second to the third, not to commit meat and meat during Lent and on Wednesdays with Fridays, not to go bare-haired, with bareheaded 1327 . After 16 years of ruling the metropolis, Simon died on April 30, 1511, 1328. In Simon's place, Varlaam, archimandrite of the Moscow Simonov Monastery, was installed as metropolitan in 1329. Two cases of election of metropolitans that took place in the second half of the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich, when he began to recognize himself as an autocratic tsar, namely, Metropolitans Zosima and Simon, as we said, in all likelihood were elections more only visible than real: the bishops did not actually elect, but performed a simple ritual of electing candidates whom the Grand Duke indicated to them. Regarding Vasily Ivanovich, who recognized himself as a tsar to a stronger degree than his father, for this consciousness was rapidly growing, and who was personally endowed with a love of power in no less, if only not to a much greater extent, than the latter, we have positive evidence that under him the metropolitans were not elected by a council of bishops, but were appointed by him himself. The certificate belongs to the famous Baron Herberstein, who came to Russia twice during the reign of Vasily Ivanovich and who wrote the famous Commentaries or news about our fatherland in 1330. True, Herberstein’s testimony that Vasily Ivanovich appointed candidates for metropolitans and bishops exclusively by his own authority should be taken as a reproduction of the speeches of those Russians who were agitated against the sovereign’s too royal lust for power in the sphere of state. But it is completely consistent with everything that we know directly and indirectly about Vasily Ivanovich. Under him, there were two cases of electing metropolitans - our Varlaam and Varlaam’s successor, Daniel. In neither case, the chronicles say whether the election of candidates appointed by the Grand Duke was carried out, even formally, but directly and solely speak about their elevation to the department and dedication. It seems more likely to assume that the election was carried out in a formal manner. Varlaam was elevated to the metropolitan court and named Metropolitan of All Rus' three months minus four days after the death of Simon, on July 27, 1511; it was dedicated a week after its construction and naming, on August 3, 1331. We have absolutely no information about the activities of Metropolitan Varlaam during his 10-year tenure at the department. Perhaps the appearance in Russia of the second Skaria, a Jew named Isaac, who tried to preach Judaism among us again, and regarding whom we have completely vague indications in the writings of the Monk Maximus the Greek, should be attributed to his time. Among the works of Maxim there is one, which is a note submitted to the council of Russian bishops unknown when and which is inscribed: “Monk Maxim the Greek advice to the Orthodox council on Isaac the Jew, sorcerer, sorcerer and charmer” 1332. Making it known that Isaac tried to preach Judaism among us 1333 and that he had at least enough success to cause confusion in our Orthodox society 1334, Maxim convinces the council of bishops to show their strongest possible zeal and hand over the Jew to external or civil authorities for execution, “and others will attack; our Orthodox land." Maxim arrived in Russia under Metropolitan Varlaam in 1518 and remained with us until his death, which followed in 1556, alive under four metropolitans: Varlaam, Daniel, Joasaph and Macarius. Since Maxim’s submission of a note to the council with equal probability can be attributed to the reign of all four metropolitans, with the only limitation that under Daniel it could not have been submitted during the entire reign, but only during a very small part of it, as will be seen further from the story about the life and fate of Maxim: then for ours, decreed at the beginning, “maybe” its own and only basis for now is that Varlaam was the first metropolitan, under which Maximus wrote in 1335. Having no information about Metropolitan Varlaam’s own activities, we must talk about other figures who were present in his time. [In one of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, now located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, one reads a record that remains unknown to us in its content about a thing that happened in the days of Metropolitan Varlaam - about the temptation that took place in the cathedral against a holy monk: Perhaps the thing that happened has some historical significance. See Descriptions of manuscripts, part I, p. 366, no. 239, sheet 557 verso. – It should be said about Metropolitan Varlaam himself that he was to one degree or another familiar with the art of icon painting and that when in 1518 the dilapidated icons of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral were brought from Vladimir to Moscow for renovation, he participated with icon painters in the work of their renovation, - 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 262, Resurrection Chronicle ibid. VIII, 265. – According to the testimony of the two chronicles now indicated, – Collection of chronicles VI, 254, and V Ι II 254, under Metropolitan Varlaam in 1514, the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God was renewed and decorated, namely (after the renovation of the icon?) an icon case was made for it, decorated with silver and gold.] These figures are: the disciple of the Venerable Nile of Sora, Elder Vassian Patrikeev Kosoy and the Venerable Maxim the Greek. Paisiy Yaroslavov and the Venerable Nil of Sorsky, who raised in themselves the thought of the Venerable Kirill of Belozersky about the indecency and inappropriateness of monasteries to own estates, either on their own initiative or having been excited by the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, made a presentation about this to the council in 1503. When the proposal was decisively rejected by the council, neither one nor the other of them turned to literary propaganda of their thoughts through copy-pasting, because they had no inclination towards this. And neither one nor the other tried to put their thoughts into action by force with the help of the Grand Duke. How Paisiy Yaroslavov behaved in relation to the idea, after the failure of the proposal about it at the council of 1503, is completely unknown; it is likely that he lived out his life in the Cyril Monastery or the Nilov monastery in exceptional concern for himself and his soul. As for the Monk Nilus, having abandoned the hopeless thought of transforming all of our monasticism and leaving this monasticism to himself, he concentrated his concerns solely on instilling his thoughts in his few disciples who had gathered to him in his monastery and who wanted to asceticize in his own (skete) way of asceticism. However, the history of protest against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries was not limited to the presentation of Paisius and Nil, which they made to the cathedral in 1503. Among Nile's disciples there was one who came out after him with literary propaganda of protest and who, at the same time, taking advantage of his exceptional position, tried to forcefully carry out a reform of monasticism with the assistance of the power of the Grand Duke. This disciple Nilov was Elder Vassian, by his worldly name - Prince Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev - Kosoy. The surname of the princes Patrikeev, which belonged to the number of exclusively noble boyar families and was closely related to the grand ducal house, originated from Lithuania and had as its ancestor Narimant, one of the sons of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas. The son of Narimantov, Prince of Zvenigorod (in Lithuanian Rus'), Patrick, from whom the nickname came, came to serve in Moscow with Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich in 1408, in the retinue of his cousin Svidrigail Olgerdovich, who was expelled from the Lithuanian grand-ducal throne, and remained in Moscow after the latter was removed from it. The Patrikeev's son Yuri, who married the daughter of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, was the very first boyar under his son, and under his brother by wife, Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark. Son Yuriev Ivan Yuryevich, the father of our Vasily Ivanovich, was the same boyar under his cousin Ivan Vasilyevich. Our Vasily Ivanovich, who was the eldest son of Ivan Yuryevich and who had the private nickname Kosoy, probably from the physical defect of strabismus, was expected, if not the place of his grandfather and father, then, in any case, one of the closest places to the Grand Duke. But in 1499, an unexpected disaster happened to the famous Patrikeevs. In the family dispute of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, who should be the heir to the throne after him - grandson Dimitri, the son of his eldest son Ivan the Younger, born from his first wife Marya Borisovna Tveryanka and died in 1490, or son Vasily, born from his second wife Sofia Fominichna, the Patrikeevs were supporters of Dimitri. On February 4, 1498, this unfortunate young man, who later died in a cruel dungeon of an unknown death, was solemnly crowned by the order of his grandfather with the Grand Duke's crown, and less than a year later the Grand Duke changed his mind, decided to leave his son Vasily as his successor and was terribly burned - it remains not entirely clear why - on the supporters of his grandson. One of these supporters (Prince Semyon Ivanovich Ryapolovsky) was executed by death, and the Patrikeevs, as a result of the intercession of the metropolitan and bishops for them, were spared their lives, but the two eldest of them - Ivan Yuryevich and his eldest son Vasily Ivanovich Kosoy were tonsured as monks. - The first in the Trinity Sergius Monastery, the second, with the name of Vassian, in Kirillov Belozersky monastery From the Kirillov Monastery, Vassiana, the former Vasily Ivanovich, went to the Monk Nil in his monastery, located 12 versts from the monastery, became an adherent of Nilov’s teaching about the impropriety of monasteries to own patrimonies even after the death of Nil and under his changed personal circumstances, and led a persistent struggle in word and deed against this patrimonial ownership of monasteries. How to think about the new one who accidentally appeared in the person of Vassian, the preacher of the return of monasticism to its original perfection, remains an unresolved question. As if the most probable thing is not to see in him a completely true preacher, like Neil, whose word would be an expression of deeply sincere thoughts - that he became a preacher not so much as a result of the direct desire for this perfection that really gripped his soul, but rather as a result of a side ambitious desire to be a preacher. Existing evidence assures that Vassian had no inclination to lead his own life as he preached, and that he had no inclination to do what he charged others with 1336. These testimonies lead one to suspect to some extent regarding his assumption of the role of a preacher, that, torn out from the environment of state activities and doomed through tonsure as a monk to an inactive, insignificant existence, he seized on preaching about the reform of monasticism as a new type of activity and as a new path for himself to glory. Vassian does not seem to be an irreproachably bright person based on other data that we have to judge his moral character 1337. Be that as it may, whether to see in Vassian a real preacher like Nile, who preached as much for himself as for others, or not quite a real one, who preached only for others, but not for himself. In any case, he acted as a very persistent preacher. He made preaching the goal and calling of his monastic life and carried it on until he was overcome by his opponents. Vassian, together with his father, brought upon himself the disgrace of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich by being on the side of his grandson Dimitri against his son Vasily. But this son of his, because of whom Vassian suffered, taking his place, summoned the latter to live in Moscow and made him the person closest to him. How to explain this unexpected favor of Vasily Ivanovich towards Vassian, no instructions are given in modern news. To assume that, by mercy to Vassian, the Grand Duke wanted to atone for his guilt before him in that he - Vassian because of him - the Grand Duke became a monk, does not seem probable, for Vasily Ivanovich was not at all distinguished by such knightly qualities of character that would make it possible to assume this. It seems not incredible to think that, in bringing Vassian closer to him, the Grand Duke was guided by an important state calculation. An extremely power-hungry man, he wanted to take everyone firmly into his hands, including the clergy. The best remedy in this case in relation to the clergy was to keep them in constant fear for their fiefdoms, the question of which was raised at the council of 1503. This is what Vasily Ivanovich did, bringing Vassian, a persistent opponent of patrimonial ownership, closer to him. Seeing this opponent of patrimonial ownership (actually, monastic patrimonial ownership) as the sovereign’s favorite, the clergy had to fear every minute that the Grand Duke, succumbing to his suggestions, would finally decide to fulfill his father’s dream in relation to the church estates, and thus had to try to ward off trouble from themselves with increased obedience to the sovereign 1338. One way or another, Vassian was a very close person to Vasily Ivanovich, although, in all likelihood, close and not to such an extraordinary degree as it seemed to others or as others wanted to imagine. Taking advantage of his position, Vassian energetically sought to ensure that Nile's thought about the reform of our monasteries became a matter with the participation of state power: As others say about him and as he himself admits, he urgently inspired the Grand Duke and preached among the boyars that the monasteries, for their own good and for the return of monastic life to its original perfection, should be taken away from immovable estates or estates 1339. At the same time as conducting an oral sermon against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries before the Grand Duke and among the boyars, Vassian undertook written propaganda against it. Neil's student and successor was undoubtedly a very smart man, endowed with the talent of wit and causticism, which was very important for a publicist and propagandist; but he could not conduct his written propaganda too brilliantly because he had not developed the ability of literary presentation, which suffers from a lack of clarity, distinctness, coherence, and consistency in the presentation of thoughts, and that, as a great gentleman, he could not have the desire for perseverance in written work. Vassian wrote three small treatises against the fiefdom of monasteries in 1340. The general thoughts that he sets out in his treatises are as follows: 1) monastic life is that perfect gospel life about which the Savior said: if you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor... (Matthew 19:21): it is a complete renunciation of the world; therefore, the acquisition of immovable estates by the monks is their violation of the Gospel commandment about complete non-covetousness, which they made a voluntary vow to observe; but “those who do not keep their promise, by this means the Holy Scriptures are tormented, and they are consigned to eternal fire, and they are called apostates and cursed”; 2) the possession of real estate infects monks with the passion of love of money, and love of money, according to the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:10), is the root of all evil. Proving that the apostolic word really comes true on the monks, Vassian depicts what our money-grubbing monks are: Having taken a vow of non-covetousness, they constantly travel around the cities in order to beg villages and hamlets from rich people with all sorts of caresses and servility; in the person of their peasants, they offend, rob and torture Christians - their brothers - without mercy. Extortionate in a pagan way, they give away their money on interest for huge interest and then, without any mercy or mercy, collect from debtors who turn out to be insolvent; they drag themselves to the courts to compete with poor people whom they lent money for usurious reasons, or to sue their neighbors about the boundaries of their villages; 3) the ancient holy fathers, both Greek and Russian, did not keep villages near monasteries, but lived according to the gospel without estates; if someone gave them villages, they did not take them and taught their disciples to live according to the gospel and according to the monastic promise. In his treatises, Vassian gives an answer to the defenders of patrimonial ownership for their justification that the noble princes attached patrimonies to the monasteries for the salvation of their souls, as well as an answer to their assurance that if the authorities had listened to him - Vassian’s words, they would have desolated churches and monasteries. In the first case, he answers that the monks’ acceptance of estates from the princes was on their part a violation of the commandments, evangelical, apostolic and paternal. – That the pious thought of the princes who assigned estates to the monasteries was that the monks, being provided with everything they needed and having the opportunity to completely indulge in prayer and silence, would use excess income for charity to those in need. But that the monks, completely forgetting the pious intention of the princes and turning it into ridicule, use the income from the estates solely for the fat food of themselves and not only do not do good to the needy, but also oppress the peasants living in their estates in every possible way. In the second case, he answers that he does not want the desolation of the monasteries, but their return to their first spiritual beauty - that the ancient holy fathers did not have fiefs, feeding on the labor of their hands and living solely by trust in God, and that monasticism flourished under them, shining with all its splendor. Due to the insufficient disclosure of evidence and unsatisfactory literary presentation of it, Vassian's argument does not have an irresistibly convincing effect on the reader. But when he depicts patrimonial monks, with the same zeal, indulging in the oppression and exploitation of their peasants, as did the worst among the laity, then, sinning or not sinning against reality, he paints with his caustic colors a picture full of repulsive brightness. The main idea of ​​the polemic against the patrimonial ownership of the monasteries of St. Nilus of Sora, reproduced by Vassian, was that monasticism is a complete renunciation of the world and that, therefore, the acquisition of patrimonies by monks is a violation on their part of the vow of this perfect renunciation. Speaking abstractly and, so to speak, ideally, this was fair. But the reality was different: soon after the appearance of monasticism as a complete renunciation of the world, the weakness of human nature forced such a compromise to be made so that the obligation of perfect renunciation, while remaining in full force in relation to individual monks, was abolished in relation to monasteries as monastic communities. Monasteries were allowed to own immovable estates, but with the condition that they had a strict community life and that the monks did not have anything of their own. This happened very early, and therefore in the lives of the ancient holy fathers it is said that under them the monasteries owned estates. Without entering into polemics with Nile and Vassian about their general position that monasticism is a complete renunciation of the world, the defenders of patrimonial ownership referred, as one of the positive evidence in favor of this latter, to the fact that the ancient holy fathers, as their lives testify, owned patrimonial lands. The Monk Nilus, guided by a priori conclusions, found it possible to reject this evidence. Arguing that monasticism is a vow of complete renunciation of the world and that it is impossible to allow the ancient holy fathers to allow themselves to violate this vow, he came to the conviction that what was read in the lives of the ancient fathers, that they owned estates, was unfairly written on them by later estate lovers; and thus his answer to our proof was that the lives of the ancient holy fathers lie. By using this bold refutation, the Monk Neil was telling a lie; however, it was difficult to prove that he was telling a lie, because the defenders of patrimonial ownership would not have had enough scientific means for this. But if the Monk Nile, cutting, so to speak, the Gordian knot, found it possible to give an answer to one positive evidence of the defenders of patrimonial ownership, then these latter had another positive evidence, which was not so easy to answer. The Book of Church Laws or the Helmsman in the canonical rules of the councils and in the laws of the Greek emperors related to the church included in it, clearly stated that the ownership of immovable estates is a matter permitted to monks. The defenders of patrimonial ownership referred to this Helmsman after the lives of the ancient holy fathers. Vassian took it upon himself to study the Helmsman's Book in relation to the issue of patrimonial ownership of monasteries. It seemed to him that some canonical rules prohibited monks from owning estates 1341; on this basis, he had to come to the conclusion that other canonical rules that allow monks to own villages are later and counterfeit. Assuming this, Vassian decided to compose his own edition of the Helmsman, or, so to speak, his own edition, in which the canonical rules would be cleared of later insertions and forgeries. However, Vassian's assumption that the canonical rules allowing monks to own estates were later and counterfeit, was not at all justified. The oldest Slavic Helmsman that he could find was the Helmsman of Novgorod St. Sophia, written at the end of the 13th century and located at that time in Moscow, in the treasury of the Grand Duke 1342. Taking this Helmsman as not yet damaged or tampered with by the defenders of the fiefdom, Vassian took it in order to reproduce from it the canonical rules in his own edition or in his edition of the Helmsman 1343. The result that resulted from the reproduction was that in the ancient Helmsman the canonical rules were read in the same form as in the later Helmsman, and that in it, as well as in these latter, there were those rules that allow monasteries to own estates. Vassian managed in this case to make only one discovery, which was not without significance, but which was not at all sufficient for his purpose. Our later Helmsmen read “the rule of the holy fathers of the 165th 5th (Ecumenical) Council on those who offend the churches of God and their sacred authorities,” which threatens with severe civil punishments those who would dare to encroach on church property and on all rights and benefits of the church and clergy 1344. The council of 1503 referred to this rule among others in its extract read to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich. Since this rule was not read in the Sofia Helmsman, Vassian did not include it in his Helmsman, as a forgery, which it actually was. With the other part of the Helmsman's Book - the laws of the Greek emperors relating to the church, Vassian acted very simply: he did not recognize their mandatory authority and, considering this lack of authority as something proven or not requiring proof, he did not give them a place in his Helmsman without any reservations. Thus, Vassian’s attempt to publish his own Helmsman, contrary to the hopes he had entertained, only led him to the sad conviction that the defenders of patrimonial ownership were right when they referred to the canonical rules of 1345. If Vassian had to remain with this conviction, then he would have to manage to explain the rules in such a way that they would not serve to protect our Russian patrimonial ownership. The attempt he made was 1346. But it so happened that he was led to the conviction that our ancient rules, that is, those that existed in our Slavic translation, were corrupted. He completed his work, in vain in relation to his goal, of drawing up his new Helmsman in 1517. A year later, the famous Maxim the Greek arrived in Russia, with whom our opponent of the patrimonial ownership of monasteries immediately struck up an acquaintance that soon turned into a close friendship. Vassian hastened to turn to the multi-learned Greek with information about the canonical rules allowing monasteries to own real estate, namely, the 24th rule of the fourth ecumenical council and the 12th and 18th rules of the seventh ecumenical council. From the certificate it turned out that the Slavic translation of the rules that we had was incorrect: in the 12th rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, immovable estates belonging to bishops and monasteries are designated in Greek by the word ἀγρός, which means field, while in our country it was translated by the word: village, which in Vassian’s time was understood in the sense of a village, populated area, hamlet (here was not an incorrect translation, but an ambiguity produced by time: when the rules were translated, the word “village” meant a field, and then it began to be used in the sense of a village); in the 18th rule of the same cathedral, the mentioned estates are designated in Greek by the word προάστεια, which Maxim translated with the words: “village suburb”, which words, according to Vassian’s interpretation, meant arable land and grapes, and not villages with everyday Christians, while in our translation there was again the word: villages, understood in the now indicated sense 1347. Vassian's discovery that the Greek original of the rules that occupied him did not speak about villages inhabited by peasants was actually imaginary, for Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 12th rule of the seventh ecumenical council, which was translated for him by Maximus along with the rule, clearly says that by proastia one should mean not only arable land and vineyards, which the monks would cultivate with their own hands, but also rural estates with peasants settled on them (slaves 1348): but Vassian hastened to proclaim that in the Greek Kormcha, located in the Moscow cathedral church and brought by Metropolitan Photius, with whom Maxim translated the rules for him, monasteries were not ordered to keep villages and that in our Russian Kormcha, probably someone added to the rules that monasteries should keep villages 1349. However, Vassian did not dare to correct the translation of the controversial rules in the very text of his Helmsman in accordance with how Maxim translated them. He only made a reservation regarding this at the end of his Helmsman, which reads: “there is in the holy rules (implied - according to their Slavic translation) the opposite of the holy Gospel and the Apostle and the Father of all Saints, but do not put the ridicule of this (correction of the opposite) on your soul.” He further says that he announced this to Metropolitan Varlaam and the entire holy council, and that the Metropolitan and the council did not order him to set anything out (throw out of the rules), saying: “whoever has a chaste mind, adheres to the best, which is according to God, and we also want and bless” 1350. It is fortunate for the defenders of the monastic fiefdom that Vassian did not know the letters of Metropolitan Cyprian to Athanasius of Vysotsky, in which he says that “even if the villages and people are kept as monks, it is not customary for the holy fathers to eat,” and urgently represents to Athanasius that “the destruction of the monks of the villages is the property and there the frequent origin of creation” 1351. Otherwise, he - Vassian, so to speak, would have been running around with this message, and it would have been far from easy for the defenders of the monastic fiefdom to remove their unexpected, at the same time later and very authoritative, opponent. The news about the Monk Nile says that he made a proposal to the council of 1503 that monasteries should not have estates, but they do not say that his demand, limited only to monasteries, did not extend to the estates of episcopal sees and lay churches in general. Vassian directly declares this about himself, calling his opponents slander that he orders the sovereign to take away villages not only from monasteries, but also from secular churches. However, in relation to the fiefdoms of episcopal sees, he makes very important demands. He says that these estates (according to the canons of the church) should be “well-managed” by icons specially appointed for this - that of the income that is received from them, bishops should use only the most modest part for themselves, and that all excess, “from the bishop’s report and from the entire consecrated council of his priests,” should be used for helping the needy clerics and for charity to the poor and the poor, widows and orphans and strangers and for the redemption of captives. At the same time, Vassian sharply denounces the Russian bishops of his time, who, according to him, not at all thinking about charity, relied on all the income of their departments to insatiably invent countless types of clothing and food, and who, in order to increase their income, were engaged in usury, dealing with debtors just as unmercifully as any other usurers 1352. Simultaneously with written polemics, as we said, Vassian conducted oral propaganda among the boyars. Since in living speech he was unrestrained in his language to the most extreme extent and to the point of complete unbridledness, and since this language of his was very sharp and, with his inclination towards vulgar directness in expressions, very strong: there is no doubt that in oral propaganda he struck and scourged his opponents with stinging denunciations and vulgar abuse for as long as the human ear could bear it. It is clear that his opponents must have had the most fierce hatred for him. But they could not do anything to him, because he was under the protection of the Grand Duke, who saw his calculation in giving freedom to his pen and language. Until 1515, the opponents of our propagandist of non-covetousness remained at the head of the opponents of Nilov, the Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk († September 9, 1515), and Vassian mercilessly reviled him personally, since he hated him not only as an opponent, but in his offended pride and as a person who defeated him before the Grand Duke in the case of repentant heretics. Joseph would have been able to respond to both polemics and the abuse of Vassian, and as for polemics, he was infinitely more capable of it than the latter. There is no doubt that Joseph also had the greatest desire to write in defense of the fiefdoms in order to overcome and destroy Vassian with positive evidence. And yet he was bound. Vassian mentions some writing against him - Joseph on the issue of patrimonial ownership 1353; but probably it was a private letter to someone in Moscow; As for public writings, as it turns out from one of Joseph’s letters, the will of the Grand Duke (although he was just as close to the latter, only on the other hand) placed a seal of silence on his lips 1354. Thus, the state considerations of the Grand Duke provided Vassian with complete freedom to write and speak. Since neither he was privy to these considerations, nor his opponents, it is very likely to think that he was fueled by the hope of overcoming the indecision of the Grand Duke and forcing him to take away the estates from the monasteries. And opponents, in turn, feared the possibility of such an act on the part of the Grand Duke. If the Grand Duke gave Vassian the freedom to write and speak against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries according to his state calculations, then regarding Metropolitan Varlaam there is some reason to think that in this case he was a supporter of Vassian according to his convictions. The latter says that he undertook the compilation of his new edition of the Kormcha with the blessing of Metropolitan Varlaam in 1355, and then that, having encountered bewilderment regarding some canonical rules, he reported about them to the metropolitan and the entire holy council in 1356. For Vassian to tell a lie, this cannot be allowed: now he affirms and reports what is indicated in the notes read in his Helmsman himself, and the Helmsman was not only begun, but also finished by him when Varlaam was at the metropolitan see, so that he would lie against the metropolitan, so to speak, in the presence of himself 1357. But in the new edition of the Helmsman, which Vassian undertook to compile, there was no general church need and the only motivation that guided him in this case should be considered his hope to discover and prove that the canonical rules read in our later Helmsmen, which allow monks to own estates, are fake. It is difficult to admit that this impulse could be a secret for the Metropolitan; but if he blessed the work undertaken on such an impulse, then one can suspect that he was sympathetic to the impulse itself, for otherwise, not being able to stop Vassian with his unblessing and prohibition, he could refuse him a blessing. Further, we know that among Vassian’s main friends and advisers was the elder of Metropolitan Varlaam, also named Vassian 1358. If the metropolitan had been an enemy of Vassian, he would hardly have tolerated the elder, who was one of his main friends, with him. Finally, the character of Metropolitan Varlaam, as far as we know him and about which below, gives some reason to assume that he is a person close in his way of thinking to the Venerable Nile of Sora. We turn to another figure of the time of Metropolitan Varlaam, the Venerable Maxim the Greek. St. Maximus is a person in our church history - on the one hand, completely random, and on the other hand, just as famous in it itself, it is just as important in relation to its science. Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich and Metropolitan Varlaam wished to have one Greek book in a Slavic translation. We in Moscow at that time did not have people at all capable of making the desired translation; Therefore, they turned to Athos for a translator, as a result of which Maxim was sent from there. If, having completed the translation, Maxim immediately returned back, as expected, then he would have absolutely no significance in the history of our church. In the preface or afterword to the book he translated it would be read that the book was translated in such and such a year by such and such an Athonite monk, and that would be the end of the whole matter. But after the book was translated, Maxim was left in Moscow and then remained with us forever - and he became our church historical figure. A brilliantly talented and highly educated man in the strictest sense of the word, he had a special innate inclination to act as a prophet or denouncer. And his fame as our figure lies in the fact that, among his diverse teaching, he acted as a fearless and ardent denouncer and flagellant of the religious and moral vices of his contemporary Russian society - that he appeared among us as a preacher of true Christianity against the Pharisaism of external piety, which he found among us. For the science of Russian church history, Maxim is very important because in his accusatory writings he gave it such a vivid image of the moral physiognomy of contemporary Russian society, which we would look in vain for from natural Russian writers. No one notices their own peculiarities in themselves, for which reason these latter writers were not able to see the peculiarities of the moral character of the Russian society of their time. For this, a capable outside observer was needed - and this was precisely the Monk Maxim, an extremely capable observer. Our biographical information about Maxim during his life before his arrival in Russia is very scarce. We have compiled several legends about him, but after, or even many after, his death and by people who knew nothing about the pre-Moscow period of his life 1359. We read in our manuscripts a note about his homeland and his parents, made by an unknown contemporary and included in the legends about him, which is as follows: “Maksimo Greek birth from the city of Arta, father of Manuel and Irina, Christian Greek philosophers” 1360. [In Nil Kurlyatev’s afterword to the translation of the psalter, read in the former Tsar’s manuscript No. 327, Description p. 323, there are no words: “this was Maxim, the son of the governor.” Therefore, it is possible that in the Solovetsky manuscript, as well as in some other manuscripts, they are a later insert.] Then, another, famous contemporary of Maxim and his close acquaintance, namely the monk of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery Nil Kurlyatev, calls him the son of the voivode 1361. The title: philosophers, assimilated by Maxim’s parents, must be understood either in such a way that they were educated people, or in such a way that they were pious people, or both. Following the Turkish enslavement, when Maximus was born in 1362, the Greeks no longer had a governor in the proper sense, and therefore the title of governor, assigned to his father, should be understood in the improper sense that he belonged to the class of noble people. The birth of Maximus should be approximately dated to the year 1475 1363. After the few information about him that our contemporary records provide, we learn from his own writings that he spent his youth in Italy to study the sciences. Endowed with exceptionally brilliant abilities, Maxim was not able to be content with the training that he could receive in his parents’ home, and had to feel the need for real and higher education. It is very possible that his father was a wealthy man and was able to provide him with the means to seek higher education; but it is not impossible that he belonged to the number of seekers of enlightenment who are not stopped by any poverty. Maxim wanted for himself a higher education not of Western European scholasticism, but of his own Greek philological and philosophical, but he had to go not to Constantinople or some other place in his own Greece, but to Italy, because at that time representatives of Greek education were located in the latter. In Italy, starting from the first half of the 14th century, a burning passion arose for the study of Greek classical literature, which had until then been completely forgotten in the West, which had as its great consequence for the West the so-called revival of the sciences. In a country inflamed with enthusiasm for Hellenism, Greek scholars began to migrate from their unfortunate fatherland even before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, and when this last event happened, and when the day of the terrible flight for all the Greeks arrived, only a very few of them did not want to flee to Italy to escape the sword and despotism of the barbarians. But if it was possible to find in Greece itself the lonely few scientists who wanted to remain in their fatherland and completely enslaved by the Turks, then every Greek who wanted the best possible Greek education had to strive not for them, but for Italy. A necessary condition for education was libraries of manuscripts; but while lonely scholars who remained in Greece itself could only possess insignificant libraries, the main cities of Italy, in which education was concentrated, established public libraries of Greek manuscripts, most zealously collecting them from everywhere, sparing no means or effort for this, and sending special agents throughout Greece to acquire and collect them. Finally, Italy was a European-free country, but Greece was burdened with the despotism of a terrible barbarian: what seeker of science would not prefer to acquire it, taking advantage of the blessed air of freedom, and not suffocating in the suffocating atmosphere of despotism? We do not have any detailed information about Maxim’s stay in Italy for the purpose of studying Greek science. He says that he lived in it “for quite some time” 1364: it is not without probability that this quite time can be extended to 10 years, considering 1495 and 1505 1365 as the extreme limits. He says that he studied with famous teachers 1366; but which ones exactly, this remains unknown. He mentions the cities of Italy in which he lived during his stay in it: Venice 1367, Padua 1368, Florence 1369, Ferrara 1370 and Milan 1371. It can be assumed with some probability that Maximus mainly studied in Padua, for the local university was a common place of study for subsequent Greeks. During Maximus's stay in Italy, the chair of Greek philology and philosophy was occupied at the University of Padua by his compatriot, an epirote by birth, Nicholas (Laonicus) Tomei (T ομαῖος), who is known for the fact that in philosophy he was not a friend of Plato against Aristotle or vice versa, as was then usual, but equally respected both great philosophers, and to whom the glory is given that He was the first to teach in the West Aristotle in his true form, freed from the distortions that he suffered in the processing of the Arabs and scholastics in 1372. Maximus could visit Milan in Lombardy to listen to lessons from the famous Demetrius Chalkondylos, who was a professor of Greek at the court of the Milanese Duke Louis Sforza and about whom contemporaries speak of him as being Graecorom (eruditorum) suae aetatis and Atticae eloquentiae facile princeps 1373. In Florence, Maxim had to live for a more or less long time, firstly, because here was the center of Greek classicism, because here love first awakened in him and here, under the patronage of the famous Medicis, who made Florence the second Athens, his study reached a higher degree of perfection than anywhere else in Italy 1374; secondly, in order to use the local library of Greek manuscripts, which, having been collected through the most diligent efforts of the same Medicis, was not only relatively better than anywhere else in Italy, but also absolutely represented a real treasury. In Venice, at the end of his stay in Italy, Maxim had to listen to lessons from the famous Jan Lascaris, who arrived here in 1503 as the ambassador of the French king Louis XII in 1375. On one occasion, Maxim says in his writings that during his stay in Venice he knew the famous typographer Alda Manucci (1494–1515) there and “often went to him for book work” 1376. It is known that Aldus Manucci not only printed Greek classics, but also carefully corrected their text by comparing manuscripts and by using philological knowledge, for which work a whole society of scientists was employed at his printing house. It may very well be that Maxim’s words: “I often went to him for book work” should be understood in the sense that he took some part in the works of the mentioned society. Maximus does not say anywhere in his writings that he was in Rome; and in all likelihood one must think that he was not in it. During most of the time of his stay in Italy, Alexander VI, Borgia (1492–1503), the worst and most immoral of all popes, the illegitimate father of five children, including the famous Caesar and Lucrezia Borgia, sat on the papal throne. Maxim could not have wanted to see this pope, about whom he says that “in all untruth and malice (he) surpasses every criminal” 1377. What exactly Maxim studied in Italy from Greek teachers, he does not talk about this in detail in his writings, because he had no reason to talk about it here in Russia. A priori, it is necessary to think that he studied Greek classical philology, meaning by this word the study of classical language and classical literature, and Greek classical Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy. Perhaps already during his stay in Italy, Maximus partly studied theology, but, in any case, privately, through his own reading of the fathers, for in Italy Greek theology was not taught from the pulpits. To what extent he became a perfect scientist in what he studied, we cannot say anything positive, since in Russia his philological and philosophical learning remained hidden and without any application. But concluding from what we know about him, it is necessary to think that, with his talents and his diligence, he formed a scientist who would have taken one of the most respected places among the Greek philologists of that time, if after his studies he had joined the ranks of the latter as a teacher. Contemporary to Maxim, learned and unlearned Italy was a country of terrible unbelief and at the same time terrible superstition. The Roman popes with their sacred colleges of cardinals, who for centuries presented a most shameful spectacle, probably concluding from themselves that if Christianity were a true faith, then God would not tolerate so many unworthy people in their places, the first were representatives of unbelief. High society, immersed like the highest clergy in depravity, sought to console itself among its vices by more firmly rooting in itself the conviction that there is no future reward for virtues, and no punishment for sins, and that all this Christianity is a deception and a human invention. Philosophers pronounced such a judgment about Christianity that it is a faith suitable only for old women and for the ignorant 1378. When the love for the study of Greek classical literature awoke in Italy, at the same time the love for classical paganism with aversion from Christianity awakened to the same extent, so that the largest part of the admirers of classical Hellenism were avowed pagans, and the more admirers they were, the more they were enemies of Christianity. Maxim, who had reasons to talk about this lack of faith in contemporary Italy, depicts it with the same vividness as Western writers 1379. Along with unbelief, Italy was immersed in superstition: in a very significant part of its educated society, as was then the case throughout Western Europe, an extremely strong passion for astrology reigned. So people, rejecting divine providence, wanted to firmly believe that everything in the world is controlled by the movement and influence of the stars. Maxim admits that he himself was more or less carried away by the free-thinking that prevailed in Italy and that only the Lord, caring for the salvation of all, soon visited him with his grace and illuminated his thought with his light, not allowing him to perish with the local preachers of wickedness 1380. However, if science and external philosophy temporarily attracted Maxim to the path of freethinking, then the true and greatest fruit from it was for him that it purified, exalted and enlightened his faith, so that later he could appear among us as an ardent preacher of the commandments of God against human traditions, which preaching was required by the nature of our then piety. Maxim was one of those chosen people whom God sends into the world as prophets to preach His truths to people. In Italy he was destined to see a similar prophet, so that later in Russia he would have before his eyes an example for his inspiration. This was the famous Hieronymus Savonarola. Preparing to be a doctor, Savonarola, at the age of 23, felt an attraction to monastic life and joined the Dominican order. For the next 14 years, he was in charge as either a preacher or a professor in different cities of Italy, and finally, he was appointed abbot of the Florentine monastery of St. Brand. In the then depraved Italy, beautiful Florence was the most depraved city, so that in this respect it was second only to Rome. Inflamed with zeal to save the city, which was drowning in wickedness, and especially, as Maxim says, to exterminate in it two sins by which it was most wickedly enslaved - godless sodomy and inhumane retribution or usury, Savonarola acted as a fiery preacher of repentance. Filled with irresistible power and persuasiveness, the sermon was an extraordinary success. Then the preacher, inspired by success, decided on what lay in the depths of his soul to turn his repentant call from a small part of the church, which Florence represented, to this entire latter - in order to speak about the need for its transformation in its entirety and so that, with the same thunderous word of denunciation with which he addressed the inhabitants of Florence, he would turn to the pope himself and to all the scribes and Pharisees sitting on the Moses' seat. The Pope, that Alexander VI, whom we mentioned, after vain attempts to force Savonarola to silence, brought the matter to such an end that, after five years of preaching, on May 23, 1498, he was burned. The Monk Maximus, who lived in Florence while Savonarola preached there, who saw the success of his preaching and the end to which it led him, talks about him with the greatest enthusiasm 1381. In one remark about Savonarola's irresistible jealousy, Maxim clearly expresses himself and his soul. When the pope and the cardinals sent Savonarola a ban on preaching, the latter, in the words of Maxim, “not exactly did not listen to the lawless advice of the wicked, but rather, inflamed by divine jealousy, their conciliar message (as) is unrighteous and displeasing to God... and for this reason, he repeatedly denounced their iniquities, already because - adds Maxim - how foolish it is for me to think, judging myself and to die for piety and God’s glory, if necessary: but if the fire of jealousy ignites in them, even according to God, not only possessions and acquisitions, but also despise life itself.”... If Maxim had remained in Italy and occupied one of the departments there, then, as we are sure, among the Greek scientists and professors who were then famous in Italy, he would have taken one of the most prominent places. But, having carefully enriched himself with external Hellenic wisdom, Maxim felt that he was not destined for it. He was attracted to Christian wisdom, which theoretically consisted of the study of the fathers and practically monastic asceticism: after long-term study in Italy, he went to Athos and there became a monk. In all likelihood, it must be assumed that Maxim decided to become a monk on Athos, and not somewhere else, for the reason that Athos represented the only treasury of Christian book wisdom. There were then 18 large monasteries on Mount Athos 1382; they all had more or less good libraries: and this was a wealth that could not be found anywhere else. The monastery in which Maxim took monastic vows was one of the pillars, so to speak, of the Athonite monasteries - Annunciation Vatopedi. On Athos, before being called to Russia, Maxim spent, in his own words, about ten years 1383. It is necessary to think that his first activity here, together with his monastic exploits, was diligent reading of the church fathers, so that, as we said, after acquiring external and Hellenic wisdom, he would acquire Christian wisdom. That is, to become as widely and thoroughly read a Christian theologian as possible. Reporting something positive about himself during his stay on Athos, Maxim says that he was repeatedly sent to the monastery to collect alms and that he used these travels to preach and defend the Christian Orthodox faith. In one place he says: “Wherever we were sent from the sacred monastery of Vatopedi, at the command of my venerable fathers, by alms, everywhere, with the grace of the Holy Paraclete, we enlighten, preach the Orthodox faith” 1384; in another place: “we were deemed worthy to fight many times in many places for our good faith and was not put to shame, and most of all we fought against the Latins, the mighty ones in the sacred scriptures and in the external ones” 1385. The words of Maximus, in all likelihood, should be understood to mean that he was sent by the monastery for alms to the islands of the Greek seas, which were under the rule of the Venetians, and that here he strengthened the Orthodox in their fatherly faith, counteracting the propaganda of the Latins and entering into open debate with the Latin deliberate missionaries 1386. After a 10-year stay on Mount Athos, Maxim had to undertake that journey to us in Russia, which made him our Russian historical figure. We have already said above that Maxim undertook the trip not in order to stay with us forever, as happened, but in order to fulfill a one-time assignment in Moscow for the book part. In the library of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, between other Greek manuscripts, there was a large explanatory psalter, which was a collection of interpretations (catena) of many interpreters 1387. It is unknown who and with what ideas aroused in the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Varlaam the desire for this psalter to be translated into the Slavic language 1388. Since there were no people in Moscow at that time capable of making the desired translation, they decided to turn to Greece for translators. From questioning the Athonite monks who came to Moscow for alms, we learned that there was such a “book translator” in one of the Athonite monasteries, namely, in the Vatopedi monastery of Elder Savva 1389. In 1515, the Grand Duke sent his ambassadors to Athos with rich alms to all the monasteries there 1390 and with a request to the prot and the council of other abbots to send the mentioned elder Savva to Moscow for a while to serve. But Savva, due to old age and leg disease, refused to go to Russia. Then the priest of Athos and the monks of Vatopedi, not wanting to leave the requests of the Grand Duke unfulfilled, decided to send Maxim to Moscow instead of Savva, as a person capable of fulfilling what the sovereign needed first: “our most reverend father, the monks of Vatopedi write to Moscow, “so that the petition of the Grand Duke will not remain idle and endless (not finished, not fulfilled), having chosen our most honest brother Maxim, hedgehog from our sacred monastery of Vatopedi, who is skilled in the Divine Scripture and is good at telling (capable of translation) all sorts of books - both church and spoken Elin (Hellenic, secular or classical): from his early youth at this age and with this he was punished virtuously (thoroughly), and not like another “someone is revered by many only (that is, he is not read only in books, like others, but received a real, thorough education).” Maxim, knowing Greek and Latin, did not know Russian: “but, say the monks, we hope that the greyhound will learn the Russian language too” 1392. The review of the Vatopedi monks about Maxim shows that they had a very high opinion of him and were firmly convinced that he would not disgrace them before the Grand Duke. Their confidence did not deceive them, but if they could have foreseen what fate awaited us for their learned brother, whom they sent to us with pride for him! Maxim was sent to Russia from Vatopedi, accompanied by two monks who were to stay with him in Moscow until he fulfilled the assignment for which he was sent: one of the monks was a Bulgarian and, perhaps, was intended to help him study the Russian language 1393. On his way from Athos to Russia in June-July 1516, Maxim was in Constantinople 1394, and then, after a long stop in Crimea, which was probably required by the sovereign affairs of the ambassadors accompanying him 1395, he arrived in Moscow on March 4, 1518 1396. The task for which Maxim arrived, which consisted of translating a book from Greek into Slavic, was not of extreme importance; but the sovereign, as one must think, was extremely pleased that on Athos they did not refuse to fulfill his requests, and that Maxim, for his part, did not refuse to undertake the long and difficult journey. He met the latter and his companions with great honor, placed them in residence in the Metropolitan Chudov Monastery and ordered them to be fed and provided with all sorts of needs from his royal meal 1397. The Metropolitan, for his part, received Maxim and his companions with great love and honor 1398. Maxim immediately began translating the explanatory psalter, for which he arrived in Moscow. Since he did not know Russian, he was given two embassy interpreters or translators, so that he would translate from Greek into Latin, and they from Latin into Slavic 1399; For writing, he was given two calligraphers, who were: the famous Moscow calligrapher of his time, a native of Novgorod, Mikhail Yakovlev Medovartsev 1400 and the monk of the Trinity Sergius Monastery Silouan, or, as he is usually called, Selivan, who later became a student of Maxim and shared his fate 1401. The explanatory psalter, which Maxim was supposed to translate and which, as we said, represented a set of interpretations of very many fathers and writers (all fathers and writers up to fourteen or fifteen) was an extremely large or completely huge book in volume 1402; translating it was a very difficult task for the reason that each interpreter wrote in his own language. But Maxim was engaged in the work of translation with the greatest zeal and diligence, so that, in his own words, he had idleness below his breath 1403, and managed to finish it in a relatively short time - in a year and five months 1404. At the same time, as a side job, he managed to do, at the request of Metropolitan Varlaam, another small translation, this is precisely the translation of an interpretation of some part of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, an interpretation of which we had not previously had in Slavic 1405. Presenting his work to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, Maxim preceded it with an extensive message to the sovereign, in which, after an introductory speech about how he, the sovereign, from the grace and divine jealousy that abided in him, wished to have a translation of the book and how he looked for a translator for this on Athos, Maxim speaks in detail about the fathers and writers, whose interpretations were included in the psalter. Dividing all these fathers and writers into three classes, those who adhered to the anagogical explanation (mysterious, seeing the secrets of the spiritual world in events and historical persons), allegorical (allegorical, by which Maximus means the correct explanation of the prophetic psalms) and literal, he characterizes these classes of interpretations and makes historical and critical remarks about most of the fathers and writers individually 1406. Having completed the assignment for which he was summoned to Russia, Maxim urgently asked the Grand Duke to let him go back to Athos 1407. No matter how good it was for him to live in Moscow, being satisfied with all sorts of needs from the sovereign's royal meal, it is necessary to think that his one and a half year stay among the Russians did not at all favor him in favor of his coreligionists. A highly educated man, he must have felt completely alien and superfluous in our extremely ignorant society. He spent his youth in the country of freedom and was, by his nature, a freedom-loving person (one of those people who are keenly aware of human dignity and human rights), and we were dominated by a harsh government, extremely close to real despotism. It is true that in Turkey there was a very real despotism; but Athos in this case represented a happy exception, being able to position himself in such a way that his relations with the Turk were limited to paying tribute. Staying with us, Maxim could not withdraw into himself, but had to become a social person. But being such, he could not be anything other than a condemner of everything that is ours: and such a situation, as well as he could understand, was the most inconvenient and did not promise anything good at all, especially since he had to be aware of his irrepressible inclination to criticism. But, despite his strenuous requests, Maxim was not released by the Grand Duke. At that time, we usually promised foreigners who came to our service that they would be freely released from Russia whenever they wished, and in fact they did not fulfill this promise at all: if they wanted, they were released, if they did not want, they were not released 1408. The Grand Duke, summoning Savva from Athos, considered it necessary to directly promise the local authorities that when the need for him passed, he would be sent back again; but in Maxim he saw the man he needed and, completely forgetting about his promise, decided not to let him go, although the latter, for his part, did not want to stay. Maxim’s strong request makes it clear that he already knew about the Grand Duke’s decision regarding him, and that he was fueled only by the hope of begging for leave. Alas, a vain hope: his companions were released in 1409, and he, despite all his pleas, was left in Russia. But what did the Grand Duke need Maxim after translating the explanatory psalter? We are not given a direct answer to this question. But the official, government-entrusted task, for which we see Maxim immediately after he was left in Russia, is the correction of our liturgical books: and it is necessary to think that it was for this correction that he was retained by the Grand Duke 1410. Not too long before Maxim’s arrival in Russia, some Greeks who remained with the Grand Duke after his mother Sophia Fominichna made the discovery that the Slavic liturgical books were full of heretical errors, which discovery was brought to the attention of the sovereign. Vasily Ivanovich could not at all admit the idea that our books were filled with heretical errors, for, firstly, according to his ideas, like all Russians of that time, it would be necessary in this case to admit that our miracle workers who used these books are not miracle workers 1411; secondly, then we turned into a firm church-political dogma the opinion that while ancient Orthodoxy was damaged among the later Greeks, it was preserved in all its purity among us - the Russians, while with the assumption of the presence of heretical errors in our books, it would be necessary to abandon this dogma. The consequence of this was that the aforementioned Greeks, who made their discovery and reported it to the Grand Duke, attracted the extreme anger of the latter 1412. But the sovereign, as one must think, allowed for the possibility of errors in non-heretical books, and in order to cleanse the books of these errors, he could entrust Maxim with the task of revising them. Regarding the history of Maximus's correction of our liturgical books, we have extremely little information. After the fact that he began to work on it immediately after finishing the translation of the explanatory psalter, we only know that he corrected the Colored Triodion, with which he began, the Book of Hours, the Psalter, the Gospel, the Apostle. Since Maxim confirmed the discovery made by the former Greeks that there were heretical errors in our liturgical books, he not only did not deserve the gratitude of the Grand Duke for his work, but, like the same former Greeks, he attracted his wrath. We will return to speeches about this later. Having been left in Russia forcibly, Maxim, apparently, had to worry only about quickly completing the new assignment entrusted to him, so that after that he could ask to go home again. But correcting liturgical books was such an endless task that, willy-nilly, he had to come to terms with the idea of ​​staying in Russia for an indefinitely long time. Left in Russia and forced to come to terms with the idea of ​​himself as a resident for an indefinite time, Maxim, partly due to external challenges, partly due to internal motivations, acted as a publicist. From 1491, Nikolai, a German from Lübeck, unknown by name and called by Maxim the Greek Nikolai Nemchin and Nikolai German (German) 1413, lived in Moscow as a doctor to the Grand Duke. This Nikolai Nemchin or German, according to the reviews of foreigners who saw him in Russia, is not only a good doctor, but in general a very learned man 1414, belonged to those secular people who take church affairs to heart. Having entered into short connections with our highest church society in 1415, he had a fantastic dream of arranging a union of the Russian church with the Latin one and carried out oral and written propaganda in this sense 1416. He argued that the Latin Church, despite its differences with the Greek, is as Orthodox as the latter, and that it, like this one, preserves the faith in unchanged purity since the times of the apostles 1417, i.e., as the matter should probably be understood, he tried to prove that the differences between the Latin Church and the Greek are insignificant and do not interfere with the union. Maxim began his journalistic activity with us through polemics against this propaganda of Nikolai Nemchin. He was summoned to debate by one Moscow boyar, namely Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov-Dalmatov, an adherent or like-minded person of Nicholas in relation to his other propaganda, which we will now talk about below 1418. When Maxim arrived in Moscow, Fyodor Ivanovich, a very intelligent man and an admirer of learning 1419, immediately tried to get acquainted with the learned Greek, and it was he who wanted Maxim to speak out about Nicholas’s propaganda about the unification of churches, which he, like none of the Russians, was keen on, but about the degree of thoroughness of which he was curious to hear the opinion of a competent person. He suggested that Nikolai write a detailed note on the issue and give it to Maxim, so that the latter could express his opinion about it 1420. This was while Maxim was translating the explanatory psalter. No matter how extremely busy he was with the work of translation, he found it possible to write to Karpov in two steps (in two letters one after the other) an extensive treatise on the most important novelty of the Latins, which makes the unification of churches impossible - about their teaching regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son 1421. After completing the translation of the psalter, Maxim continued his polemic against Nicholas, partly as a result of the latter’s own challenges, partly without any challenges. Nikolai, having received from Karpov the now indicated treatise of Maxim, addressed him with epistols and oral inquiries and petitions, and Maxim, in response to Nikolai’s appeals, wrote three letters to him, in which he again mainly advocates against the Latin dogma Filioque, but in which he also refutes their other wrong innovations: Saturday fasting, celibacy of priests, the use of unleavened bread 1422. In one of the messages, Maxim convinces Nicholas himself to join Orthodoxy from Latinism in 1423, and in two there are indications that the latter intended to do this in 1424. When he died without fulfilling his intention, either because the intention was feigned or because he suffered a sudden death, for he actually died such a death: then Maxim wrote another accusatory word against one of his writings about the union of churches, probably the one that enjoyed the greatest fame 1425. In this word, Maximus proves that the union of churches will be possible only if the Latins reject their dogma Filioque, the use of unleavened bread and the doctrine of purgatory 1426. Maxim's polemics against Nikolai Nemchin's propaganda about the unification of churches, being conducted by him mainly on external direct calls (Karpov and Nikolai himself), in fact, had very little to do with Russian society. The Russians were so armed against the Latins and considered the union impossible to such an extent that they had to listen to Nicholas’s fantastic sermon only with laughter. If Maximus found three or four heresies among the Latins that prevented unification, then they, on the contrary, firmly believed that the Latins had thirty and two heresies, if not more 1427. But after this beginning of Maxim’s journalistic activity, which cannot be perceived as having any special significance for the Russians, everything that followed in it was already directly related to them, more or less important. Our activity of Maxim is divided into two periods: the first - from his arrival in Russia until 1525, when a catastrophe happened to him, depriving him of the opportunity to write for a long time; the second - from the time after 1525, when he again gained the opportunity to write, until the end of his life. Now we are talking about the first period of activity. This period, in turn, extends to the reigns of two metropolitans: Varlaam, under whom Maxim arrived, and the beginning of the reign of Varlaam’s successor, Daniel, during which a catastrophe happened to him. But since it is no longer possible to divide the activity into parts, in this chapter about Metropolitan Varlaam we will talk about it, since it embraces the reigns of both metropolitans. Perhaps not in strict chronological order, but in order not to interrupt the speech about Nikolai Nemchin, we must now talk about Maxim’s literary struggle against the spread of passion for astrology in Russian society. Maxim wrote a number of essays denouncing astrology. But, unfortunately, these works, while excellent in relation to their purpose of denunciation, give us very little historical guidance regarding the spread of our passion for astrology. It is precisely the unresolved question that remains for us: should we see in the aforementioned Nicholas the German the instiller of astrology among us, or should we think that he was only trying to support and disseminate what he had already found ready? Nikolai Nemchin, like many of the Western scientists of that time, according to the testimonies of foreigners and the Monk Maxim, was a most zealous admirer of astrology 1428. One person, to whom one of Maxim's messages against astrology is addressed, is directly called a student of the charming Nicholas the German 1429. We also have evidence that Nikolai tried to spread the predictions of Western astrologers among us, which we will discuss below. But in Maxim’s writings against astrology, with the exception of the fact that one person is called a student of Nicholas, it is not at all said that he was the planter of astrology among us: apart from what was mentioned, nothing is said about him, but is written impersonally against astrology, regarding which it is not stated who exactly planted it among us. This attitude of Maxim towards Nikolai makes us consider it most likely not to see in him our first instiller of astrology, but to see only a man who, for his part, tried only to maintain and disseminate among us what he had already found ready. Accepting this, it will be necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that the knowledge of astrology and the passion for practicing it remained and was preserved in our society from the Judaizers, half of whose faith, as we said, were the secret sciences, including astrology 1430. It is not clear from Maxim’s writings to what extent the passion for astrology was widespread among us. But taking into account that people have always and everywhere had the greatest passion for this peculiar science, which supposedly revealed the secrets of foretelling the future and preventing misfortunes, in all likelihood one should think that in our bookish society, to which it could be to some extent accessible, it enjoyed no less respect than it was in the West. Be that as it may, Maxim, who became very closely acquainted with astrology in Italy and hated it with all his heart for its harm to the Christian faith and Christian morals of people, wrote, as we said, a long series of accusatory works against it. These writings are: two messages to Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov-Dalmatov, whom we mentioned above and who belonged to the adepts of astrology 1431, a message to an unknown prince 1432, a message to an unknown monk who was an abbot, who became an admirer of astrology, having been seduced to it by Nikolai Nemchin 1433 and two public, neither to whom are not addressed, words, one of which is against astrology, and the other in particular against the predictions of Western astrologers about the global flood of 1434. In his writings, Maxim proves that astrology, despite its absurdity, is the most wicked science - that, subordinating the entire course of life in the world and all the affairs of people to the influence of the stars, it denies the divine providence over the world and the free will of man, turning the latter with his good and evil deeds into a simple unrequited toy of stellar influences - that in this way it destroys all the gospel teachings and all Christianity. “If our mind and will,” Maxim writes about the wickedness of the teachings of astrology in relation to the moral life of people, “are governed by zodiacal influences, being moved towards good or evil, then the apostolic preaching is vain, and (our) beliefs are vain, let the law be rejected, let the gospel be rejected, let prayers cease, because all this is unnecessary and useless: we we are under the irresistible power of despotic rulers who forcibly drag us towards evil, Aphrodite (planet) into fornication, Mars into murder and robbery, Mercury into theft; let no one try to practice virtue and run away from evil, but (one or the other of us), having recognized his lot, what it is (under the rule of which planet who is under), let him consider himself good if his lot has fallen to be under the rule of a good master, and let him not labor to free himself from the power of his master if his lot has fallen to be under an evil one, because this is completely in vain; Let the latter not be afraid of these terrible tests of the righteous Judge, because he will then be able to give a sufficient answer, namely, he will point out the shepherds of his evil master, by whom he was drawn to evil against his will. Let the one who has shone in virtues not expect reward from the righteous and true Judge, because his virtues do not come from his good will, but from the accidental circumstance that he fell into the lot of a good ruler, as a result of whose influence he walked along the path of goodness like a kind of beast." Against astrology, with its teaching about the dependence of the life of the world and the freedom of people on the influence of the stars, Maxim cites numerous testimonies from the Word of God, the church fathers and the best Greek philosophers, and also tells examples of how sovereigns who believed in the predictions of astrologers were pitifully deceived in their hopes. Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov represented to Maxim that astrology was necessary for Christians and very necessary; he claimed that none of the ancient kings and military leaders did anything valiant without astrological foreknowledge and response, from which he draws the conclusion that astrology is the most necessary science for people and deserves the greatest respect, as serving to maintain and strengthen kingdoms. Responding to this presentation of Karpov, Maxim, after referring to the above evidence against astrology, as against a wicked science, and, therefore, cannot be useful to people, says that even if there were kings and military leaders who believed in astrologers, the pagan Roman emperors ordered to expel them from Rome and from all of Italy, and the Christian Byzantine emperors strictly prohibited the study of their wicked science. Turning to examples from history, it shows that great deeds were accomplished without any participation of astrologers, who are only deceivers. Pointing to Western Europe, he certifies that the only and at the same time undoubted fruit from the wicked and absurd science that is astrology is that it undermines people’s pure faith in God and introduces unbelief among them. By 1520 or 21, an astrological almanac was published in Germany, in which the astrologer John Stoffler predicted that in 1524 the world would perish from a new general flood, which terrified all of Western Europe. This almanac was also received here in Russia, and on the basis of it Nikolai Nemchin predicted to the Russians that in the summer of 7032, according to the Russian account, there would be an undoubted change and change in the universal countries and kingdoms and regions and cities and customs and virtues and livestock and belugas of the sea - together with all earthly creatures” 1436. It was against the almanac’s prediction of the flood that Maxim wrote his above-mentioned private word. He proves that it is wicked to believe in the possibility of a new global flood, when the Lord gave Noah a promise that such a flood would no longer happen 1437. The works or writings of the Monk Maxim against astrology, by their nature, so to speak, passionately convincing, in all fairness should be called beautiful, and there can be no doubt that they brought the greatest benefit to Russian society. Maxim arrived in Russia while Vassian Kosoy was conducting his polemics and propaganda against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, and he, for his inquiries in the Greek Helmsman, had the need to establish an acquaintance with him, in order to at the same time acquaint him with the subject of his polemic, immediately after he arrived in Moscow. When Maximus declared himself a strong supporter of Vassian in the controversy, Vassian, no doubt, strongly urged him to cast his competent vote on the controversial subject. It is necessary, however, to think that Maxim would not have failed to cast his vote even without any persuasion on the part of Vassian. The question of whether monasteries should or should not own estates was too important a question among those that were within Maximova’s terms of reference. But Maxim was a man who made it his duty to respond to everything that was within his circle of competence, even if it was not important. He considered himself called upon to speak the word of truth with innocence in all those cases where his word could take place: “no one will despise me,” he says in one of his writings, addressed specifically to our Russian monks, although not regarding patrimonial ownership, “if, in obedience to the divine teaching (which commands me to speak before the king and not be ashamed), I write more boldly and, out of the zeal of God, I rise up against denunciation of some of my brethren who are acting outrageously and living and thinking against our vows to God” 1438. It is quite likely that Maxim was aware of all the imprudence of taking part in a polemic of an extremely burning nature: but it was not in vain that he said about Savonarola that “if the fire of jealousy ignites in them, even according to Bose, not just possessions and acquisitions, but also transform their life itself”: he belonged to the number of people who were completely incapable of obeying the voice of prudence. Vassian, following Nile, rebelling against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, argued that monks should eat from the labor of their hands, and in case of need turn to alms. Maxim, without releasing the monks from the obligation to work themselves, allows the main means of their maintenance to be alms, as was the case in Greece at that time, but under the condition of a different behavior on their part in relation to the laity than as was the case in the latter. To resolve the question: which method of maintaining monks is better and more consistent with monasticism - the collection of alms in cities and villages through the brethren assigned to monasteries, as was the case in Greece, or our patrimonial ownership, Maxim wrote a treatise, which is a dialogue between two bickering and which is inscribed: “The dispute about a certain monastic residence, the faces of the contenders Philoctimon and Actimon, that is, covetous and non-covetous" 1439. Declaring himself a strong supporter of the Greek collection of alms, Maximus rebels with all his might against our fiefdom. His arguments against the latter are essentially the same as the arguments of Vassian, who reproduces the Monk Nile of Sora. Monasticism is a complete renunciation of the world in order to fulfill the commandment of the Savior: if you want to be perfect, go, sell your property and give to the poor... Consequently, monks who own estates violate their vow and turn it into lies and empty words, and, therefore, they are subject to the same punishments that are threatened for violators of promises given to God. The venerable leaders of the monastic divine life, Paul of Thebes, Anthony and Pachomius, Euthymius and Savva the Sanctified, and others tried with all their souls and thoughts to avoid returning to the world through the attraction of estates. Owning estates, monks are immersed in the worries of everyday life, are drawn into conflicts and quarrels, and often fight and litigate for the sake of villages: is this true monasticism? Ownership of estates enslaves monks to the passion of love of money, and this passion is the root of all evil. It is not for monks who have renounced the world to offend their neighbors, and yet the insatiable passion of the love of money of the patrimonial monks makes them mercilessly oppress their peasants with work and that without any mercy they rob them as their creditors, being in the latter case Jewish moneylenders. Maxim has something extra against Vassian that he gives a witty and sarcastic answer to the justification of those patrimonial monks in whose monasteries there was a hostel. The covetous man, at the end of the debate, says to the non-covetous one: “Stop your continuous idle talk; We do not deserve any condemnation for the fact that we acquire property and own lands and villages: none of us has anything of our own and it is not permissible for anyone (of us) to take anything (but everything belongs to the monastery); and therefore we are rightly called non-covetous, since none of us has anything of our own, but everything (we have) is common to everyone.” To this the non-covetous one answers the covetous one: “You are telling me something funny; this is not at all different from how if many live with one harlot and how, if reproached for this, each of the many will say: I am not sinning at all, for she is the equally common property of everyone, or - just like if someone went out on a robbery in a gang of robbers and committed robbery together with others, and then, being captured and tortured, began to say: I am completely innocent, everything that was stolen remained with others, but I have nothing. took it." Maxim expresses his opinion in the dispute between an acquisitive and a non-acquisitive man in the words that he puts into the mouth of the latter: “it is much better and more salutary for those who are begging for Christ to go around cities and countries, and if they happen to be reproached and dishonored somewhere, to endure with thanksgiving the commandment of Spasov to those who observe the rules of monastic life, rather than to be doused in silver and gold and fenced to be lands and villages apart from the commandment of the Lord.” But declaring the collection of alms, which served as a means of supporting the Greek monks, as much better and more salutary than our fiefdom, and allowing it to be the main means of supporting the monks, Maximus, as we said, wants to see a different attitude of the latter towards the laity than was the case among the Greek monks. When collecting alms from the laity, you need to acquire the right to do so with something and repay for it with something. Nothing similar could be said about the Greek monks, and instead of them Maxim points the Russian monks to the example of Western, Latin monks. For this purpose, Maxim wrote an essay entitled: “The story is terrible and memorable about the perfect monastic residence” 1440. Having told about the miraculous incident that gave rise to the founding of the Order of Carthusian (what is the terrible story and what is the plot itself), Maximus depicts the extremely strict charter of this order, which prescribed complete non-covetousness, and says that the monks belonging to it, as well as other (many?) Western monks, have the only means of supporting themselves through alms from well-wishing laymen, which is partly collected by them themselves through brethren deliberately sent to the cities and villages closest to the monasteries, partly sent to them to the monasteries themselves. The laity not only do not bother to support the monks by giving them alms, but also do it with the greatest zeal. Why is this so? Because, Maxim answers, Western monks are “filled with all the philosophy and reason of the divinely inspired writings” - in the study of which they work day and night - that, making love for their neighbors their main virtue, they manifest it in constantly engaging in the work of Christian instruction and skill of the laity; for this reason they are deeply respected and honored last. “For such people (in teaching) constantly give to themselves,” Maxim says about the monks, “and like the love of children, the fathers, constantly caring for the salvation of many, are honest and loved by everyone, and for his sake, with all thanksgiving and good will, they provide them with daily food and other things that are essential to life.” As an example of how zealous and great the teachers of the people are in the West among monks, Maximus offers a detailed story about Savonarola. So, alms from the laity, paid for by the labor of their unceasing Christian teaching, is, according to Maximus, the means of supporting the monks. However, as we said, it does not relieve the monks from the obligation to work themselves. In the epilogue to the Contest about the well-known monastic life, he convinces the non-covetous “to live with all truth and honor, eating his own bread by the sweat of his brow”; in another place he exhorts the monks to “live mercenarily and reverently by their labors, great wealth to those who imagine poverty” 1441. In addition to the Controversy about the famous monastic residence, Maxim speaks out at length against our patrimonial ownership of monasteries in two other works. These works are: “A Sermon on Repentance (unhypocritical and about a certain monastic life” 1442 and, beautiful in its teaching qualities, “A Homily of Remembrance on the Correction of Monastic Life for Certain Honest Nuns.” 1443. Maxim’s arguments against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, as we said, are the same as those of Vassian; but since Maxim was real and a brilliant speaker, their presentation, of course, is completely different from that of the latter. As for the practical significance of the Maximovs’ convincing arguments, their whole meaning, alas! The most important type of journalistic or teaching activity of Maxim in Russia, as we said above, was that he appeared among the Russians as a preacher of true Christianity against their extreme attachment to external piety. He preached this sermon during the first time of his stay in Russia, which we are talking about; but since he led it throughout his entire life, we will talk about it later. Maxim’s first stay in Russia dates back to his protest against the behavior of the Russians in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople. We said above that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, the Russians found it necessary to make a decision in order to end the actual connection with the patriarch as a boss, and to appoint their own metropolitans themselves. Soon afterwards they considered it necessary and allowed themselves to do something more. On the occasion of the installation of Spyridon Satan in the Lithuanian see in Constantinople in 1475, as we also said above, we included in the letters of promise of the newly appointed bishops, which they gave to the Metropolitan, the following promise: “and to Metropolitan Spyridon, called Satan, who sought appointments in the region of the godless Turks from the filthy king or whoever will another metropolitan, appointed from Latin or from the Turkish region, I should not approach him.” Maxim considered it his duty to protest against the Russians’ appropriation of the right to appoint their own metropolitans themselves, in addition to the patriarch, and against the now indicated promise. He protested verbally and in writing. His energetic verbal protest, first of all, was aimed at the fact that the Russians were illegally installing their own metropolitans. But in writing, in view of the extremely sensitive and, so to speak, completely criminal properties of matter, he did not find it possible to do this and limits his protest to only one specified promise. Moreover, he expresses it not in a real public essay, but either in a private letter to an unknown person or in a public essay, which is deliberately given the form of a private letter. This very small work has the following lengthy title: “A legend to those who deny the installation and swear by their handwriting to the Russian metropolitan and the entire sacred council, that they should not accept the ordination of the metropolis and the dominion (bishopric) from the Roman Pope of the Latin faith and from the Patriarch of Constantinople, like a filthy king in the region of the godless Turks, and the one installed from them is not accept" 1444 . Having said that it is worthy and righteous and necessary to reject and reject the ordination of the Pope of Rome, as having fallen away from the face of the Orthodox bishops, Maxim asks the unknown, real or imaginary person to whom he is addressing: “and the ordination of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who to this day, by God’s grace, remains in all Orthodoxy and good law, for what reason are you rejecting, oh wonderful"? Then Maxim introduces to his interlocutor: the sacred canons, to the observance of which the bishops commit themselves by their handwriting, nowhere teach that they should separate themselves from their patriarch until he Orthodoxy stands before the holy Church of God; if in Constantinople there were unfaithful tormentors instead of Orthodox kings, then the first church from the Ascension of the Savior to Constantine the Great was in the same position and not only was not defiled by the power of the wicked, but also shone in the midst of wickedness like the sun. The priesthood is greater than the earthly kingdom, and if there are no earthly Christian Orthodox kings in Constantinople, then the spiritually reigning patriarch remains untouched by the hand of God's grace and is preserved by this grace among the wicked in all Orthodoxy. Our legend by Maxim contains an implicit protest against the Russian opinion about the Greeks, as if the Turkish enslavement damaged the purity of true Orthodoxy among the latter. But in relation to this opinion, which could hardly remain unknown to him, he limits himself only to this implicit protest. Another thing, against which he deliberately protests, is the opinion, unknown how widespread among the Russians of that time and expressed to him by one person, that old Jerusalem (with its shrine), due to long-term possession from the Saracens, became obscene, and that Moscow took its place. To refute this opinion regarding Jerusalem, Maxim wrote: “The legend that no one is desecrated by the saints, even if they have been in possession for many years, is from the filthy” 1445. It is possible, however, in the second case to understand Maxim in such a way that, refuting the opinion of the Russians about the indecency of the supposedly old Jerusalem, he wanted and had in mind to covertly refute their opinion and, in general, about the damage to Orthodoxy among the Greeks. Left by the Grand Duke in Russia to correct liturgical books, Maxim, at the same time, fulfilling, as one must think, the instructions given to him, was also engaged in translations from Greek. We will talk about translations in a deliberate review of Maxim’s literary works, and now we will only note that one of them provided material for his accusation, when, under Varlaam’s successor Daniel, trouble befell him and he was put on trial. Interrupting speeches about Maxim for a while, we must now finish about Varlaam himself. Varlaam did not live to see the metropolitan see until his death, but left it during his lifetime, and precisely - he left it in a way that none of the Russian metropolitans had ever left it before (with the exception of the exceptional Clement Smolyatich): he was expelled from it by the sovereign. We saw above that Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich was very disliked towards Metropolitan Gerontius and that, despite all the desire to get rid of him, he could not remove him from the pulpit. But very little time and water passed, and Vasily Ivanovich not only drove Varlaam away, but also sent him into captivity. What was the reason for the sovereign’s anger at the metropolitan remains reliably unknown. In Herberstein we read the following about our event: “while I was the ambassador of Emperor Maximilian in Moscow (in 1517), Bartholomew (errone instead of: Varlaam), a man of holy life, was metropolitan; when the sovereign broke the oath given to Shemyachich by himself and the metropolitan and did something else that seemed contrary to (not subject to) his authority, then (the metropolitan) came to the sovereign and said: if you admire all the power for yourself, then I cannot remain in my place, and, giving him my staff, refused the position. The sovereign immediately accepted the staff along with the position, and, having shackled the poor man in iron, he immediately sent him to Beloozero. They say that he remained there in the glands for some time, and then was freed and lived the rest of his life in the monastery as a simple monk" 1446. Shemyachich (Vasily Ivanovich, grandson of Dmitry Shemyaka, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky), contrary to the oath of safe conduct of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, was captured in Moscow not under Varlaam, but under his successor Daniel; therefore, in this case, Herberstein is not telling the truth. One can, however, suspect that he is not telling a complete lie, but it could be that the Grand Duke suggested that Varlaam fraudulently summon Shemyachich to Moscow and that he did not agree. In the remaining vague words of Herberstein about the reason for the removal of the metropolitan from the see, obviously, it should be understood that the Grand Duke wanted in some respects to appropriate the latter’s power to himself. If Varlaam, as Herberstein says, had himself refused the throne, then the Grand Duke would have had no reason to exile him. This reference, which is also mentioned in our chronicle of 1447, makes it clear that the Metropolitan was trying to protest against the encroachment on his power by the Grand Duke and that the Emperor, in anger at the Metropolitan’s steadfastness, did not limit himself only to deposing him from the pulpit, but also sent him to prison. The imposition of iron or shackles on the deposed metropolitan seems to represent something not entirely probable; However, we do not find it possible to declare the incredible with decisiveness. Varlaam was deposed on December 17 or 18, 1521, 1448. According to our chronicle, he was exiled to the Stone or Kamensky monastery on Lake Kubenskoye. When he died in exile is not recorded in the chronicles. Varlaam was deposed by Vasily Ivanovich from the metropolitan see because he did not want to follow his sovereign will. Consequently, the Grand Duke needed a person to become a metropolitan in Varlaam’s place who would have this desire to walk in all his will. The choice of the sovereign, as the consequences showed, was completely successful, and fell on Abbot Joseph of the Volokolamsk Monastery Daniel. As hegumen of the Volokolamsk monastery, Daniel directly succeeded its founder, the Monk Joseph. However, he became Joseph’s successor not according to the latter’s designation and in a far from entirely expected manner. The Monk Joseph considered ten people from the senior brethren of the monastery capable of taking the abbot's place after him, and among these ten people he did not name Daniel 1449. But when, before his death, he allowed the brethren of the monastery to choose a successor for themselves, the brethren, bypassing the ten whom he considered worthy, chose Daniel. One of the biographers of the Monk Joseph says that the brethren, after proposing these and other candidates, finally settled on Daniel in their council because he was an old man, “loving poverty and being in work and in fasting and in prayer,” and that they learned about him, “that he wants to join another monastery to become an abbess” 1450. The biography writer's frank information about Daniel, that he wanted to be hegumen in another monastery, makes it clear that he was an ambitious man, one of those very numerous monks we had in the old days who were looking for abbot positions in order to then try to further move towards the bishopric - we will give special speeches about this later. Abbot's places were acquired by ambitious monks in two ways: if the seeker was a rich man, then he bought himself a place either from the bishop or from bishop's officials or from secular officials, depending on who could be bought from and on whom the appointment depended; if the seeker was a poor man, then he had to put himself forward from among the other monks so that they would start talking about him and so that the monks of some monastery would want to take him as their abbot. We have reason to think that Daniel belonged to the second class of ambitious monks 1451. Consequently, for him the path to the abbess was the path of distinction, which, according to the biography, he followed. But if Daniel managed to distinguish himself so much by his monastic virtues that he had the hope of being chosen for the abbess in some other monastery, then it is still unclear how he, in addition to many very worthy ones, was chosen for the abbess in the Joseph Monastery itself. To explain this incomprehensible thing, we can only assume that he was a very clever man, so that in some unknown way he managed to win over the majority of the monks in his favor. Based on existing evidence, it must be accepted that Daniel was elected abbot unusually young, about 30 years old or a little older than 1452. And this makes us even more surprised by its quality. Having been unexpectedly chosen by the brethren, Daniel was not rejected by Joseph, and therefore, even though he did not have him in mind himself, he still considered him worthy. Elected to the abbot of the Volokolamsk monastery, Daniel, if he could not dream of a metropolitanate, then could well be confident in the bishopric. The Volokolamsk monastery was the favorite monastery of the Grand Duke, and, consequently, its abbot, if it pleased the sovereign, was one of the first candidates for bishops. Daniel was a man specially able to please; but, as it seems, he not only wanted to please the Grand Duke, but also to assure him that he was a completely worthy successor to the Monk Joseph as abbess. The Monk Joseph was a most zealous advocate of strict social life, for which he founded his own monastery. Before his death, he tearfully begged the Grand Duke to take care that after him the order he had established in his monastery would not be violated. The Grand Duke, who undertook to be the deliberate “clerk” of the monastery, often visited it after Joseph and convinced the monks to keep the law handed down to them by the latter, and not to adopt the customs of other monasteries, adding that if they did not keep them, he himself would correct them and then they would not be too pleased 1453. Thus, concerns about maintaining strict social life in the monastery were the main ways in which Daniel could show himself as a worthy successor to Joseph in the eyes of the Grand Duke. And we have from the time of Daniel’s abbess his written work, which seems to be deliberately designed precisely for what is now indicated. This written work is Daniel’s message to the monks of his monastery, denouncing them for the violation of Joseph’s covenant of unconditional non-covetousness that had begun between them, and admonishing them to invariably preserve the charter handed down to them 1454. In view of the fact that there was no need for writing to interview people who were face to face, one can suspect that the main purpose of the message was not to spread a teaching word to the monks, but to make the desired impression on the Grand Duke. However, Daniel could also have been a sincere zealot for non-covetousness, for ambition does not exclude all virtues. Before Varlaam was demoted from the metropolitan see, Daniel served as abbot at the Volokolamsk monastery for six years (Reverend Joseph † September 9, 1515). During this time, the Grand Duke managed to get to know him enough to find him completely pleasing to himself, and he, for his part, managed to achieve all the favor of the sovereign. And Vasily Ivanovich, wanting to replace the obstinate man at the department of the metropolis with an unconditionally submissive man, put him in Varlaam’s place. Having been appointed metropolitan, Daniel did not disappoint the hopes that were placed on him by the Grand Duke: he showed himself to be as servile and obsequious as the latter could have desired. Another thing that he marked himself with was his merciless and irreconcilable hatred of the enemies of his principles and his personal ones. In general, as a leader and as a moral person, we know Daniel only from the bad and completely repulsive sides of him. However, we must make a reservation that the same Daniel represents something completely different in the field of written pastoral teaching; give one or another value to this teaching in itself and taken separately, but here Daniel occupies in the ranks of our metropolitans not only one of the prominent places, but also a completely outstanding and completely exceptional place, decisively and unusually rising in this regard above all our other metropolitans. Varlaam, as we said, was deposed from the metropolis on December 17 or 18, 1521; Daniel was installed as metropolitan on February 27, 1522. He occupied the department for 17 years, until the same month of February 1539. Having almost absolutely no information about his church and government activities, we must speak partly about the services he provided to the Grand Duke, and mainly about his triumph over people who represented a direction hostile to him. We don’t know whether the Grand Duke made or didn’t make an offer to Varlaam to treacherously get Shemyachich to Moscow, but he and Daniil very soon arranged this matter. Shemyachich, Vasily Ivanovich, was the grandson of Dmitry Shemyaka, who, after his father Yuri Dmitrievich and brother Vasily Kosoy, disputed the grand-ducal throne with Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark and who died of poison in Novgorod in 1453. Dmitry's son Ivan fled from Novgorod to Lithuania, where the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir († 1492) gave him Rylsk and Novgorod-Seversky as hereditary possession. In 1500, when the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander, the son-in-law of Ivan Vasilyevich III, raised a persecution of the Orthodox in Lithuania, the son and successor Ivanov received his inheritance - our Vasily decided to surrender to Moscow and, as a juror of this latter, marked himself as a brilliant warrior against Lithuania and Crimea. But he had an irreconcilable enemy in the neighboring appanage prince Vasily Simeonovich Starodubsky (the grandson of an ally of his grandfather Ivan Andreevich Mozhaisky, who fled to Lithuania with Ivan Shemyachich and together with him received an inherited inheritance from the king). This Vasily Simeonovich constantly slandered him to the Grand Duke, as if he was plotting to surrender to Lithuania again. In 1517, Shemyachich was called to Moscow and managed to justify himself from the accusations brought against him by the enemy. But Vasily Simeonovich continued his denunciations and managed to achieve the fact that the Grand Duke, freeing himself from doubts and preventing the danger that the warlike prince’s weapons would not turn against him, decided to get rid of Shemyachich through his imprisonment. He was demanded to Moscow a second time. Since this time he probably suspected an intention against him and did not want to appear if the Grand Duke and Metropolitan did not send him letters of protection of the cross, then the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Daniel sent him the desired letters 1455. Relying on written oaths, Shemyachich appeared in Moscow on April 18, 1523, and 23 days later, on May 11, he was captured and put into custody in 1456. The Metropolitan not only was not ashamed of his treacherous act, but also found it possible to talk about his success with gratitude to God 1457. Daniel was one of the most zealous disciples and supporters of the Monk Joseph on the issue of patrimonial ownership of monasteries. Consequently, as such, he must have seen his enemies in Vassian Kosom and the Monk Maximus the Greek. Complete and merciless triumph over these enemies is the main thing with which Daniel marked his reign. The defenders of patrimonial ownership of monasteries, with the Monk Joseph at their head, no doubt, did not have feelings of love for the Monk Nile of Sorsky, after he raised the issue of taking away patrimonial lands from the monasteries. But the Monk Neil, having made his proposal at the council of 1503 and having failed, did not want to conduct polemics against patrimonial ownership and did not want to turn to propaganda against it, but left the patrimonial owners alone. Vassian Kosoy, who replaced Nile as an opponent of patrimonial ownership, handled matters completely differently. He set out with the idea, through written polemics, to arm public opinion against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, and through personal influence on the Grand Duke, which made his exceptional position possible for him, and through oral propaganda among the boyars surrounding the sovereign, to try to ensure that the confiscation of patrimonies from the monasteries was carried out by force. Naturally, the defenders of the fiefdom, with the Monk Joseph at their head, should have felt the most irreconcilable hatred towards Vassian. Daniel inherited this hatred from the Monk Joseph and should have felt it to a greater extent because it was an inheritance for him. The Monk Maxim the Greek, turning out to be a like-minded person of Vassian, acted as his collaborator: like the latter, he undertook written polemics against patrimonial ownership, and if, perhaps, he did not try to personally influence the Grand Duke, not being able to do this, then, no doubt, he conducted heated oral propaganda, as far as he addressed himself among the Russians. And he had to attract Daniel’s hatred, no less than Vassian’s, but also much greater, for if he could not directly influence the Grand Duke, then his authority in the eyes of society was greater than Vassian’s, and his persuasiveness and skill as a polemicist and propagandist were incomparably greater. But it is necessary to think that, being hated by Daniel as opponents of patrimonial ownership, Vassian and Maxim also tried to make him their personal irreconcilable enemy. When the Grand Duke, having overthrown Varlaam, was going to appoint a successor for him, it cannot be doubted that Vassian used all his efforts to prevent the election of the Josephite he hated, such as Daniel. The Grand Duke, who kept Vassian close to him not at all in order to obey him, did not pay any attention to his protests: but this could not make Daniel’s hatred of him any less. Having not prevented Daniel's appointment, Vassian must have felt inclined to vent himself even more mercilessly by criticizing him; and yet the Metropolitan was not at all the kind of person who could remain invulnerable to criticism. For the sake of satisfying ambition, having given himself up to the will of the Grand Duke to the point of sacrificing moral rules, he began his activities with such an act as treachery towards Shemyachich. A silently obedient servant of the sovereign, forgetting about his pastoral duty of intercession, he was not, like the former independent metropolitans, an intercessor before the sovereign for those who were subject to his wrath, so that for those exposed to misfortune, disgrace did not become the usual refuge. For his actions and behavior, the Metropolitan was condemned in society, and, of course, the first among the most caustic judges, as far as it was possible to subject the Metropolitan to trial, singling out the Grand Duke, was Vassian. A preacher of ideals, perhaps not entirely impeccable, he had the ideal of a bishop that the latter, limiting his own needs as much as possible, would mainly use the income of his see to help the poor, widows and orphans and to feed visiting strangers. All our bishops of that time did not at all satisfy this ideal, for which Vassian denounced them, but in particular the hated metropolitan should have given him a reason for such denunciations. During his search for the abbess and then for the bishopric, Daniel may have behaved as a faster and abstinent; but, having achieved everything, he wanted to live well and cheerfully 1458. And if Vassian said about all the bishops of his time that they needed not just anything, but “feasts and villages and galloping and laughing with thieves” 1459, then there could be no mercy from him for the metropolitan who had an inclination to live for his own pleasure. The Monk Maxim, having been an opponent of Daniel on the issue of patrimonial ownership of monasteries, could not harbor for him the personal, biased hatred that Vassian had towards him. But he had too great an inclination to criticize people, and in Vassian’s company he could not help but become just as zealous a critic of the Metropolitan as he was, with the only difference being that he was an incomparably more subtle and poisonous critic. Daniel, as a representative of the defenders of patrimonial ownership, must have harbored excessive hatred for Vassian and Maxim. But personal hatred, as we know, surpasses any other hatred, especially when the hater is truly aware of those shortcomings for which he becomes the subject of malicious criticism. Consequently, Daniel had to harbor the most fierce hatred for Vassian and Maximus of which he was capable, and he was capable, as the consequences showed, of the most merciless and irreconcilable hatred. Daniel could not suddenly reach Vassian, but he soon reached Maxim in order to fall upon this latter with his vengeance with all his terrible force. He was installed as metropolitan on February 27, 1522, and he had Maxim in his hands as a destroyed enemy at the beginning of 1525, therefore, he celebrated his victory over him just three years after taking the metropolitan see. During this period of time, we know of two actions of Daniel in relation to Maxim, one of which has the meaning that the metropolitan either tried to win him over to his side or wanted to lull his vigilance, and the other consisted in using the hands of the enemy in his favor. In 1523, Maxim's scribe, the monk Selivan, who learned Greek from him, translated for the Metropolitan, under his editorship, from Greek the conversations of John Chrysostom into the Gospel of Matthew. [Selivan’s preface to the translation of Chrysostom’s conversations into the Gospel of Matthew (and not of John, which is a slip of the tongue) was published in Volume I of Studies in the Russian Language, published by the Academy of Sciences (I.V. Yagich), p. 626 fin..] In the preface to the translation, Selivan says more than once and with emphasis that it was completed by the proctor and under the care of the metropolitan 1460, that is, he makes it known that both he, the translator, and the editor were paid with deliberate generosity. Generosity could have one or another of the above-mentioned purposes. Then, Daniel insistently sought from Maximus to translate for him the Church History of Blessed Theodoret. Maxim resolutely refused to fulfill the metropolitan’s demand, because, as he explained later, he feared that the translation might serve as a stumbling block and a temptation for some Orthodox Christians because of the letters of Arius, Macedonius and other heresy leaders read in history 1461. But as for the Metropolitan, it is necessary to think that someone suggested to him that the History of Blessed Theodoret contains evidence of the permission of monks in the ancient Greek church to own estates. Maxim's refusal to carry out the required translation aroused the metropolitan's greatest anger, which was later reflected a lot in his revenge on the defeated enemy; when Maxim found himself in front of him in the position of a defendant before a judge, he could not refrain from the malicious pleasure of telling him: “I have achieved your sins, O accursed one, but about him I refused to tell the sacred book of Blessed Theodoret to me” 1462. No matter how much Daniel hated Maxim, on his own, as long as he enjoyed the favor of the Grand Duke, he could do absolutely nothing to him. To destroy Maxim, it was necessary to arouse anger against him and attract the hatred of the Grand Duke. The latter was done, and Maxim suffered great misfortune. How Daniel managed to arouse the wrath of the Grand Duke against Maxim is a question. It is believed that Maxim himself aroused him against himself with his protest against the sovereign’s divorce from his barren wife Solomonya, which divorce took place in the same year with the disgrace that befell him (at the end of 1525, while disgrace was at the beginning of the same year). But there is no modern and reliable evidence that Maxim protested against the divorce. Later evidence speaks of a protest, but, as it should have been, they put Vassian the Oblique as the first protester and behind him Maximus 1463. Meanwhile, about Vassian, it must be said with almost complete confidence that he did not protest: if he had allowed himself to do this, he would have fallen into disgrace with the Grand Duke at the same time as Maxim; but we know that he was given by the sovereign to the metropolitan only much later, and we have positive evidence that he retained the sovereign’s favor after his divorce and second marriage 1464. And without protest, which Maxim could find impossible and insane, no matter what thoughts he had on the subject, there was something to attract the sovereign’s severe wrath to him. By nature, Maxim was an uncontrollable critic in the broadest sense of the word. But he, a highly educated man who spent about ten years in Italy, suddenly ended up in Russia; this is almost the same as the modern Western European with his Maxim inclinations ended up in Persia or Khiva, Bukharia, or Afghanistan. He had to find extremely many things, if not everything in general, in our state order and state life unsatisfactory and deserving of blame, and he had to extend his criticism to everything. This criticism of very much of ours, perhaps, would not have angered the Grand Duke with Maxim to such an extent as actually happened, although it would have had the consequence for him that he would not have been released from Russia, so that, having returned home, he would not become a herald among the Greeks of our bad glory 1465. But Maxim could not refrain from extending his criticism to the representative of the order - the Grand Duke himself, and precisely - to the specific properties of Vasily Ivanovich. This sovereign was an autocrat, very close to a real despot, and Maxim, for his part, both by nature and by upbringing, felt little sympathy for despotism to such an extent that he could not help but speak out against it. Meanwhile, one of the terrible features of despotic natures for people is not to tolerate the slightest criticism - and here was Maxim’s misfortune and death: the Grand Duke was told against him that he was his sovereign’s impudent denigrator, and the Grand Duke, after he was more or less convinced of the justice of the slander, flared up with unbridled anger against him. The unlimited autocracy of Vasily Ivanovich, naturally, aroused against him all those who had to become victims of autocracy; Maxim received some of these dissatisfied people in order to talk with them about the sovereign - carefully or carelessly, but not in the sense of giving him praise. And this could be presented to the Grand Duke in such a way that Maxim, with his non-Russian concepts, was restoring the Russians against the power of his sovereign, and unintentional carelessness could be turned into deliberate malice. One of the indictments against Maxim says that “he called the Grand Duke a persecutor and wicked tormentor, just as the previous persecutors and wicked tormentors were,” and there can be no doubt that it was precisely this accusation that constituted the means by which unbearable hatred of Maxim was aroused in the sovereign. It is impossible to think that Maxim went too far in his careless speeches about the sovereign. Even less could they be proven, for those who heard them from Maxim as his interlocutors could not have wanted to give themselves away. But in such cases, even a little goes for a lot, because it is assumed that if you say little, then you think a lot. Revolted against Maxim to the point of unbearable hatred for him, the Grand Duke, naturally, was filled with the same desire to destroy and crush him, which had long been consumed by the Metropolitan. But, probably, with all his hatred of Maxim, Vasily Ivanovich found that to punish a person for some immodest reviews about him - the sovereign, which were not of a public, but private nature, which were expressed in private conversations and became known through denunciations, would mean doing nothing more than confirming Maxim’s reviews about him. Therefore, it was decided to invent other charges against the latter, on the basis of which he could be convicted. We have indications that they tried very hard to invent accusations, resorting to such a means as persuading some of his acquaintances to slander him 1466. One way or another, accusations, the depth of which is now lower, were found, and the sovereign decided to try him in order to severely condemn him. The misfortune caused by Metropolitan Maxim, as we said, befell him at the beginning of 1525: he was taken into custody in order to be brought to trial in the first half of February of this year 1467. Although the accusations that were to be presented to the court were of an ecclesiastical nature only to a small extent, the Grand Duke instructed the Metropolitan to judge Maxim with a council of bishops, and only at the first meeting of the council he was present with his brothers and boyars, for which the latter met for the first time in his sovereign chambers. Existing news about the council says that it had numerous meetings and carried out a great exaction on the wines of Maximus in 1468. If this is really the case, then one must think that the trial proceedings were deliberately drawn out in order to show that Maxim’s guilt requires a lot of research and that he is a very guilty person. Now we have referred to the existing news about the cathedral of 1525, and we must begin our discussion of the cathedral precisely with this news. Maxim was tried twice, in 1525 and then in 1531. We have records of both councils that judged him. But, unfortunately, these records are not official records of the proceedings at the councils, but someone’s private historical notes about them, most likely belonging to Metropolitan Daniel himself. The first thing that should be said against these records is that in a very significant part of the cases they do not provide Maxim’s answers to the accusations, and that even in those cases where they are cited, we cannot at all rely on the reliability of what was put into Maxim’s mouth by their unknown author. The second is that from the records it is impossible to determine with complete certainty what Maxim was accused of at the first council and what at the second. The record of the first council is very incomplete, and what charges were brought against Maximus, we must learn from the record of the second council. But this last entry is compiled in such a way that it merges the speech about both councils of 1469. From the record of the council itself in 1525, we know for certain that Maxim was accused of one heresy; then, as far as can be identified in the record of the council of 1531, which relates to our council, he was also accused there of impudent speeches about our relationship to the Patriarch of Constantinople, of political crimes and politically criminal speeches, and of one criminal crime. Maxim's alleged heresy was as follows. Having begun, on behalf of the Grand Duke, to correct our liturgical books when he did not yet know the Russian language, and having begun the correction of the Colored Triodion, Maxim made language errors that introduced heretical thought into the corrections of the Ascension service. Where before him in the service it was read about Christ: ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father,... sat at the right hand of the Father, he corrected: sat (thou art saddled) at the right hand of the Father, gray..., sat at the right hand of the Father. Having made mistakes, Maxim imagined that the wrong would be replaced by the right, and wanted to defend his amendments. On this basis, the following accusation was brought against him: “Maxim the monk of the Holy Mountain spoke and taught many and wrote about Christ, as Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father is past and past: just as Adam’s settlement in paradise and direct sitting in heaven, so Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father is past.” For Maxim to accept and preach the heresy that Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father is a passing thing, this, as is self-evident, is extreme absurdity, but he really could defend his incorrect amendment, and until he learned the Russian language very well, he could defend it more or less stubbornly. In Russian it was translated: “sede” - second and third person, and in the Greek original the aorist: ἐκάθισας, ἐκάθισεν; in Russian it was translated: “sitting,” and in the Greek original the aorist is καθισας (i.e., seated). Given his ignorance of the Russian language, Maxim, obviously, found a priori that the Greek aorist would be more accurate and correct to convey in Russian not by the past perfect and not by the present tense, but by the past imperfect: on this basis he made his unsuccessful correction and on this basis he could defend it until he became well acquainted with the Russian language. We cannot explain why he referred to Adam’s settlement in paradise and his seating directly in paradise, but there is no doubt, not to prove that Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father and these settlements and sitting are one and the same. The record of the council of 1525, which speaks of one of our points of accusation, states that when the accusation was read to Maxim at the council, he answered the same thing as he had said before: “there is no difference in that, otherwise Adam’s settlement in paradise has passed by and sitting directly in heaven has passed by, and Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father has also passed by.” Since in 1525 Maxim had to know Russian well enough to understand the difference between the expressions sede and sedel, it is rather doubtful that this was the truth, which probably consisted in the fact that he asked the cathedral for forgiveness for his unintentional error. But if this really were so, then no one could have the slightest doubt that Maxim was defending not a heresy, but an incorrect translation, considering it to be correct. Thus, if it really were so, as the record of the council presents the matter, Maximus’s guilt would not be that he defends heresy, but that he defends an incorrect translation, which introduces, which he was not aware of, a heretical thought, i.e. Maxim’s fault would be that he wanted to imagine himself knowing the Russian language better than the Russians themselves. For his perseverance, if it really took place, Maxim did not deserve any praise, although with this perseverance he did not cause anyone any harm, since his corrections had to go through the censorship of the church authorities before being accepted. But it is clear that it was possible to declare him a heretic only by means of deliberately accepting a qui pro quo - one thing for another. The Metropolitan took the opportunity to do this: the accusation was read to Maxim; he insisted on the correctness of the translation; this was deliberately taken to mean that he was insisting on the heretical thought contained in his supposed correct translation, and he was declared a heretic. Maxim's impudent speeches about the Russians regarding their relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople consisted in the fact that he reproached them either for denying the patriarch, as if they were in the realm of the godless Turks, or for not remembering his name at divine services, and then - that he reproached them for appointing their metropolitans in Moscow itself, and not in Constantinople. “But you, Maxim,” the accusation reads, “said to many here in Moscow: the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan are called out for many years and heretics are cursed, they do things neither according to the scriptures nor according to the rule, and the Metropolitan is appointed by his bishops in Moscow, and not in Constantinople from the Patriarch.” In the first half of the accusation, which seems incomprehensible, the meaning must be sought in such a way that either the words “heretics are cursed” are attributed to the patriarch and understood as a negation of him as a heretic, or, understanding these words in the ordinary sense, it is meant to omit the words: but the patriarch is not remembered. One way or another, but regarding everything that is read in the accusation, Maxim’s guilt consisted solely in the fact that he dared to tell the Russians a truth that was unpleasant for them, to which they were not able to answer him with anything satisfactory. Regarding his reproach to the Russians for installing their metropolitans in Moscow, Maxim spoke at the council of 1531, when the accusation was repeated to him: “I inquired why Russian metropolitans were not installed as before and according to the old custom in Constantinople, and I was told that the Patriarch of Constantinople gave a blessed letter to Russian metropolitans to be installed as their bishops. And I tried a lot to see this letter, but I still haven’t seen it.”... The political crimes of which Maxim was accused at the council of 1525 are the following: Firstly, he - Maxim and his accomplice Savva (Archimandrite of Novospassky, who was also a Greek by birth) instead of good, intended and advised evil to the Grand Duke: they sent letters to the Turkish pashas and to the Turkish Sultan himself, raising the Sultan against the sovereign; Yes, they - Maxim and Savva said: the Grand Duke is waging a war against Kazan, but he will not have to own it, because for the Turkish Sultan (who considers Kazan his vassal) it will be a disgrace to endure this (“the Great Prince Kazan is fighting, but it will be a shame for him, and he will not tolerate it as rubbish for Tours”). The accusation against Maxim and Savva, that they sent letters to the Turkish pashas and to the Sultan himself, raising the Sultan against the Grand Duke, not only represents a pendant to the accusation of Maxim of heresy, but something even more surprising and, in its own way, perfect. Two Greek monks living in Moscow are planning to use their letters to the pashas and the sultan to incite the latter to war against the Grand Duke: does this look like anything at all probable? And why would the monks want to arouse the Sultan to war? So that he conquers Russia? But what would be the benefit to the monks from this and was there at least one, not completely bestial, soul in Europe who would want any country to be conquered by the Turks? But let us suppose that the completely impossible was possible: the Sultan, who did not at all think about fighting against Russia, which, due to geographical conditions, would have been completely absurd for him to think about, was then in such a relationship with the Grand Duke that the monks’ letters would have been immediately delivered to Moscow. And if such a grave accusation had even a shadow of truth, then instead of being imprisoned in monasteries, to which Maxim and Savva were subjected, would it not have happened that they would have been condemned to the most terrible and shameful death penalty that can be imagined? The accusation was probably prompted by some absurd slander, and although they did not believe him, since the accusations were needed for the comedy of the trial, they hastened to say: bring him here too, and the more terrible the better 1470. As for the speeches of Maxim and Savva: the Grand Duke is waging a war against Kazan, etc., they could very well have said something like that the Grand Duke could quarrel with the Sultan in this war, and that a quarrel with the latter is something not entirely pleasant. But even here it is not impossible that Maxim and Savva learned speeches that were not spoken by them 1471. Secondly, they, Maxim and Savva, knew about the intentions and boasts of the Turkish ambassador Iskinder, who boasted of raising the Sultan against the sovereign: Maxim knew about this and did not inform the Grand Duke and his boyars. The Turkish ambassador, or more precisely, the envoy Skinder, a Greek by birth (Prince Mankupsky), who came to Moscow several times under Vasily Ivanovich, not so much for state negotiations, but to purchase Russian goods (furs) for the Sultan, and by the way, was in Moscow before the time of Maxim’s disgrace, behaved badly among us and perhaps actually boasted of putting the Sultan at odds with the Grand Duke 1472. Whether or not Maxim knew anything about Skinder’s boasts, if they took place, we cannot say 1473; but there is no doubt that the Grand Duke knew in detail about all of Skinder’s behavior besides Maxim. Consequently, he was charged only with the fact that he, on his part, did not make a denunciation. The politically criminal speeches of which Maxim was accused at the council of 1525 and which constituted lèsemajeste or lèse-majesté are the following: Firstly, he told many people: the Sultan should own the Russian land, because he hated the relatives of the (former) Constantinople emperors, and Grand Duke Vasily was the grandson of Thomas the Sea. A Greek and an ardent Greek patriot allegedly said similar things, taking the Turkish point of view! It may be that with regard to the intensified efforts of the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to establish a close alliance with the sultans of 1474, Maxim spoke in a completely different sense, namely, that the Grand Duke was now doing the above in vain - that there could be no sincere friendship between him, as a relative of the former Emperors of Constantinople, who had rights to their heritage, and between the Sultan. Secondly, Maxim called the Grand Duke a persecutor and wicked tormentor, just as the former persecutors and wicked tormentors were. We spoke above about this accusation, which should be considered the true and only reason that the Grand Duke flared up with terrible anger against Maxim and felt irreconcilable hatred towards him. Thirdly, Maxim said: the Grand Duke gave the land to the Crimean Khan, and he himself, frightened, fled from the Turkish Sultan; But how can he not run away: if the Sultan goes, then he must either pay the harach (tribute) or run away. This accusation is incomprehensible, namely, it is not clear in it who it refers to: but he himself, frightened, ran - to the Grand Duke or Khan. If to the Grand Duke, then we cannot at all indicate a case that would be understood. If it is against the khan, then the accusation should be understood as follows: Maxim laughed at the Grand Duke for giving his land to the Crimean Khan, and on the contrary, when he fled from the Sultan, he tried to justify it, saying that he could not help but run, because, etc. As for the Grand Duke handing over his land to the Khan, there is no doubt, of course, the sudden and terrible invasion of Moscow by Khan Magmed-Girey in 1521, when the Grand Duke was leaving Moscow for Volokolamsk and when he saw himself forced to buy peace from the Khan at the cost of the obligation to pay him tribute. That Maxim could speak more or less critically about the behavior of the Grand Duke in this case is entirely possible. The criminal crime of which Maxim was accused at the council of 1525 was witchcraft. “But you are Maxim,” says the accusation, “with magical Hellenic cunning you wrote vodka on your palms and spread your hands against the Grand Duke, and also against many others, using magic.” This absurd accusation shows what Metropolitan Daniel, with the approval of the Grand Duke, was capable of inventing against Maxim, and what kind of faith other accusations of 1475 deserve... Thus, at the council of 1525, Maxim was proclaimed by Daniel and - which should mean - the Grand Duke, a church heretic and a serious political and criminal criminal. As such, he was sentenced by the council to excommunication and life imprisonment in a monastery. For imprisonment, Maxim was sent to the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, i.e., to the monks who were supposed to harbor the same hatred for him as Daniel himself, and, therefore, who could be quite reliable and properly harsh as his guards. We do not know whether it was ordered from the Grand Duke and Metropolitan to subject Maxim to torture in prison or whether the Volokolamsk monks wanted to do this out of their own hatred of him, but he himself, meaning, as we should think, his stay in the Volokolamsk monastery, assures that in the dungeons “he was killed by scum and smoke and famine” 1476. Accused together with Maxim of state crimes, Archimandrite Savva of Novospassky was exiled to the Volokolamsk Vozmitsky Monastery in 1477. Maxim spent six years in prison at the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery. Then, in 1531, he was called to Moscow to a new council to listen to new accusations and to be sent to the dungeon of another monastery. Having managed to ensure that Maxim was sentenced to life imprisonment, Daniel achieved his goal in relation to him, which was to destroy him, and, apparently, should have left him alone. But the Metropolitan acted differently. Perhaps he was afraid that Maxim’s well-wishers might not be able to justify him in the eyes of the Grand Duke and return him the sovereign’s favor; Perhaps he generally found that the more accusations you have against the enemy, the surer and safer the case. Be that as it may, but having put Maxim in prison, Daniel did not leave him alone at all: he undertook a diligent search for new charges against him. When the efforts were crowned with success, the Metropolitan considered it necessary to subject his enemy to a second conciliar trial in order to make his condemnation as lasting and irrevocable as possible. By 1531, Daniel managed to get the Grand Duke to hand over his other enemy, Vassian, to him, and it was at the council that was convened to condemn this latter that Maxim was to appear for a second trial. This circumstance makes it clear that in 1531 the Metropolitan did not have the slightest reason to fear that the Grand Duke would return his favor to Maxim, and, therefore, makes it clear that the main reason why the Metropolitan wanted a second trial of Maxim was generally his irreconcilable hatred of the enemy. The record of the council of 1531 indeed testifies that this hatred was irreconcilable and indomitable. It is necessary to think that Maxim, by his behavior in the Volokolamsk monastery, greatly contributed to ensuring that she not only did not weaken, but also reached the last degree of her strength and intensity. At the council of 1531, Maxim was especially insistently accused, among other things, of the fact that, having been imprisoned in the Volokolamsk monastery for the sake of conversion, he did not show repentance and correction at all and claimed that he was imprisoned without guilt and that he did not know a single sin. The destroyed enemy did not at all think of reconciling himself and had the courage to speak of his innocence, thus accusing his judge: naturally, the judge’s hatred of him could not weaken at all. The mistake made by Maxim when correcting the service for the Ascension and which became known to the metropolitan before the council of 1525, indicated to the latter where to look for new accusations against him. We turned to his correction of liturgical books and to his translations from Greek, and indeed found several points incriminating him. Then, they discovered a heretical opinion behind him, in addition to those heresies that he introduced into his books and into his translations. The changing circumstances of the time gave the metropolitan the opportunity to bring charges against him, which could not be brought at the council of 1525. Finally, the monks of Volokolamsk came forward as accusers against him during his life in their monastery. The first group of charges that were brought against Maxim at the council of 1531 were the following: 1) In 1521, not yet knowing the Russian language well, Maxim translated, on behalf of the Grand Duke or Metropolitan Varlaam, the Metaphrastic Life of the Virgin Mary and made three language errors in the translation, introducing heretical thoughts 1478. At the council, Maxim recognized the mistakes as heresies and with an oath denied the blasphemous teachings that they gave. But since he had previously defended the correctness of his translation, the council wanted to find and decided that his repentance was insincere and that he was really guilty of those heretical opinions contained in the translation. 2) Correcting the translation of liturgical books, Maxim, firstly, made several editions of private passages from the existing Slavic text in accordance with the Greek text that he had at hand; for example, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in chapter 8 it was read in the previous Slavic text: Philip’s speech (to the cathedral): if you believe with all your heart, you are powerful; answering the speech: I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ, but these words were not read in the Greek text that Maxim had at hand and he made amends for them 1479; all such issues were indicated as four 1480; secondly, he made several unsuccessful amendments to the language of 1481. The releases of private places that Maxim allowed himself to do were indeed a very important matter; but, as he assured, he made a report about them to Metropolitan Varlaam 1482, and, in any case, he himself did not directly put his translation into use and whether or not to allow release depended on the church authorities. As for the unsuccessful amendments to the language, Maxim did not defend them at all and asked for forgiveness for them 1483. Searching for his imaginary heresies in the books corrected by Maximus, the council did not find it difficult to include even a simple scribe's slip among these heresies. The rules (anathematizations) of Cyril of Alexandria read: “if anyone does not call the Most Pure Mother of God the Virgin Mary, let him be cursed”; in one of the lists of Vassian’s Helmsman, in the final edition of which Maxim had some participation, the particle “not” was missing and the word “if anyone scolds” was written. The Council and regarding this obvious omission of the scribe interrogated Maxim why he and Vassian wrote this in their rules. While correcting our liturgical books, Maxim, due to ignorance of the Russian language, made several errors in the amendments regarding this latter. In turn, he found several very important errors in the existing translation of books. On the latter basis, he condemned this existing translation as unsatisfactory. But, as we said above, the Russians, due to their then views on themselves and on the Greeks (our Orthodoxy is higher than the Orthodoxy of the Greeks) and according to their then understanding of the matter (our miracle workers were saved from old books), could not a priori admit the thought of this unsatisfactoryness of the old translation and should have seen in its censure by Maximus a deliberately unfair blasphemy against the Russian Church. Thus, in this case, not only Metropolitan Daniel would have accused Maxim, but also every Russian with real Russian views of that time. However, if this is so not only in relation to Daniel alone, but also to all the Russians of that time, then they themselves gave Maxim the right not to take into account their then views, for they themselves entrusted him with the correction of the books. A person is entrusted with correcting books; he finds errors in the books, and then those in charge do not want him to talk about the presence of errors in the books and blame him for this. However, in the present case, Maxim’s real fault is that he exaggerated the faultiness of our books and that the translation in them was not at all as unsatisfactory as he wanted to imagine, which he himself very clearly proved when later, in the form of his justification, he wanted to prove the opposite. It is not entirely clear that the Metropolitan remained unaware of Maxim’s censures of the existing translation of books before the council of 1525. Be that as it may, after this council, Maxim’s former scribe Mikhail Medovartsev and some other persons made a statement to the Metropolitan in 1484 that Maxim spoke too poorly of the previous translation of our liturgical books, and with them of all other church books, saying that in Rus' there are no (any serviceable) books - neither the Gospel, nor the Apostle, nor the Psalter, nor the rules, nor the statutes, nor paternal, nor prophetic. Maxim was accused of such censure of our books at the council. In his defense, he replied that he did not say what he said now, but said that here in Rus' the books are not straight, and some books have been spoiled by translators, and that they need to be translated again. If Maxim’s answer is correctly conveyed to us, then it largely confirmed the accusation made against him. The heresy that was discovered for Maxim, in addition to those found in his books, was the following: “Many times to many people Maxim said this: Christ ascended to heaven, but left his body on earth, and then the body walks between some mountains, in an empty place, and from the sun it burned and turned black like the main thing.” According to the record of the council, the truth of this accusation was confirmed by many witnesses. If this is true, then it is clear from this what kind of witnesses brought accusations against Maxim and what absurdities about him the Metropolitan was disposed to believe. From Maxim’s explanations it turned out that he said something similar “to a certain speech that dashing infidel people say”: that is, he conveyed someone else’s lies as lies, and it was internalized by himself 1485. At the council of 1525, Daniel could not say anything about the fault of Maxim, which was the whole point, that is, about his polemic against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, for this year the Grand Duke did not yet want and did not find it necessary to impose his veto on the polemic and left it with him as a representative of Vassian. But by 1581, the Metropolitan also got Vassian into his hands in order to try him, among other things, for polemics; therefore, now the time has come for open speeches towards Maxim. Our accusation against him is read in the record of the council in the following form: “But you, Maxim, reproach and blaspheme the holy cathedral and Alostol churches and monasteries of God, that they have wealth and people and incomes and villages: and in your monasteries in the Holy Mountain and in other places in your land and in churches and monasteries there are villages, and it is written in the scriptures of the fathers, - they were ordered keep holy churches and monasteries; Yes, Maxim, you reproach and blaspheme the holy wonderworkers Peter and Alexei and Jonah (y) metropolitans of all Russia and the venerable wonderworkers Sergius and Varlaam and Cyril and Paphnotius and Macarius, but you say this: before they held cities and volosts and villages and people and judged and duties and dues and tributes they took and had much wealth, other than them You can’t be a miracle worker.” What Maxim answered in his defense, nothing is said in the record about the cathedral. But, in any case, it is not true that he rebelled against the patrimonial ownership of cathedral churches and monasteries - he, like Vassian, rebelled against the patrimonial ownership of the latter alone. Then, it is more than likely that the accusation that Maxim did not recognize our miracle workers as miracle workers is either the metropolitan’s own simple conclusion from his polemic against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries or his assimilation of what was largely true in relation to Vassian: Maxim was a harsh and ardent man, but not at all capable of such unfounded extremes as his Russian friend was capable of. The metropolitan needed the exaggeration so that Maxim’s polemic against patrimonial ownership would have the meaning of criminality in the eyes of anyone. Based on the reports of the Volokolamsk monks, Maxim was accused at the council of: 1) that, having been sent to the monastery to confess and repent with diligent lamentation and tears about his heretical blasphemies, he did not show the slightest repentance and said about himself: I have no guilt on myself, in vain they imprisoned me without guilt; 2) that he continued to boast of Hellenic and Jewish magic tricks and sorceries and that he continued to destroy much of Christianity. What general judgment about Maxim was pronounced by Daniel after the council of 1531, the record about the latter does not say this, but this is partly revealed from the words of the metropolitan, addressed to Mikhail Medovartsev with reproach that he had been concealing Maxim’s known guilt for a long time: “For so long a time (you covered up) Maxim the monk Greek, and an unknown and unknown man, a newcomer from Tours. lands, and translating books and writings, blasphemous and heretical, and sowing and spreading Jewish and Hellenic teachings and Arian and Macedonian (sic) and other destructive heresies to many people and nations.” These words show that Daniel’s hatred of Maxim, without being at all weakened by the latter’s six-year suffering, retained all its strength, as if he had just managed to get the enemy into his hands 1486. At the council of 1531, Maxim, exhausted by six years of severe suffering, sought mercy from his judges, most earnestly asking forgiveness for those of his wines that he could to some extent recognize as faults, such as erroneous amendments in the liturgical books of 1487. But, alas! together with the metropolitan who was irreconcilably hostile to him, the Grand Duke, in whose hands his own fate actually lay, remained just as irreconcilably hostile to him. And after the new council, confirmedly accused, he again had to go to prison, only changing the place of the latter: instead of the Volokolamsk monastery, which was needed for Vassian, he was sent to the Tver Adolescent Monastery, under the supervision of the Tver Bishop Akaki, who was also one of the Volokolamsk tonsures. After 1531, Maxim remained alive until 1556, and spent 20 of these 25 years in prison - half in prison, half not in prison. In total, he lived in Russia for 38 years, and 26 of them were in prison, including 16 in prison. Such was the fate of Maxim in Russia, who came to us to fulfill one temporary book assignment, so that he could then return home generously gifted by the Grand Duke! It is impossible to imagine anything more tragic. Of course, the tragic is the lot of natures like Maximova: you have the courage to create enemies for yourself when expressing your convictions, and you have the readiness to suffer. But enemies created by courage are not all capable of the same hatred: by the will of Providence, Maxim’s misfortune was that the metropolitan see was occupied by his enemy, capable of hatred as cruel and irreconcilable as Daniel. In 1531, as we said, Daniel triumphed in complete victory over his enemies: he took control of the Grand Duke and Vassian the Oblique. How he managed this last thing, we cannot say anything reliable: Vassian was in great proximity to the sovereign, and then we see him at the church council court in the same complete power of the metropolitan as Maxim. In the record of the council against Vassian, there is no indication at all that the Metropolitan would resort against him to the same means as against Maxim, that is, to slander him before the sovereign as the latter’s detractor; Consequently, the Metropolitan managed to get his hands on it in another way. It seems plausible to think the following. The Grand Duke kept Vassian with him not so much out of sincere affection for him, but out of the calculation, so that through him he could frighten and keep the defenders of the fiefdom in possible submission to himself; but Daniel, during his ten-year stay at the department, managed to prove his unconditional obedience to the Grand Duke to such an extent and at the same time managed to acquire such complete favor from him that the sovereign finally felt himself, so to speak, morally obliged and at the same time had an inclination to express his trust and favor in him through such a decisive sign as handing over his enemy to him. The Grand Duke could be at a loss because he himself deliberately patronized Vassian in his polemic against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, using him as his weapon. But Vassian was not an irreproachable man: both regarding his polemics against patrimonial ownership and regarding other things, he could be presented as so guilty as to be subject to church trial and condemnation. This guilt of Vassian gave the Grand Duke an excuse for wanting to hand him over to the Metropolitan. Betrayed by the Grand Duke to the Metropolitan and subjected to a conciliar trial by the latter, Vassian was accused at the council of the following in 1488: 1) He, Vassian, dared to do something that had not happened since centuries: he encroached on the great book of the sacred rules of the apostles, conciliar and fathers, a small certain part that suited his feeble-mindedness, writing out from it, and scattering everything else. The Metropolitan understands that Vassian excluded from his Book of the Helms the laws of the Greek emperors relating to the church, which, according to his - the Metropolitan's ideas, were included in the Helmsman by the holy fathers and councils and have the same meaning of authority and inviolability as the canonical rules themselves. Vassian, in his defense, said that Metropolitan Varlaam and the Holy Council forced him to create a new Helmsman. 2) He - Vassian wrote in his Helmsman: “there is in the holy rules the opposite of the gospel and the apostle and the holy father of life,” and also wrote in it many other blessed things - he spoke about the rules that they were written from reason, and not from the Holy Spirit, and called them crooks, and not rules. Recognizing the Slavic translation of the rules as incorrect, Vassian actually wrote in his Helmsman about this particular translation: “there are in the holy rules,” etc., i.e., according to our Slavic translation of them. Regarding Vassian's review of the rules, that they were not rules, but distortions, the persons who denounced him directly showed that the review referred to the Slavic translation of 1489. About this latter, Vassian, who was unbridled in his tongue, could indeed utter a similar review, and, as the record of his trial assures, he even repeated it before the metropolitan and the bishops in 1490. It is fair to blame himself, as if he spoke about the rules that they were written from the devil, and not from the Holy One. Spirit, Vassian did not recognize, and should most likely think that it was a slander against him: he believed that the Greek original rules did not contradict his way of thinking, but confirmed it; and therefore, he had no motivation to rebel against the rules in their original. 3) He called the miracle workers who owned villages and peasants troublemakers and, in particular, did not want to honor the new miracle workers who were revered by everyone: Macarius of Kolyazinsky and Metropolitan Jonah. Vassian gave an answer in the sense that both are true 1491. Why he did not want to honor Metropolitan Jonah, when he was not a monk, but a bishop, and when, in his own opinion, bishops were allowed to own estates, this is not explained in the record of the council. 4) In his Book of the Pilot, instead of a complete confession of faith, the Orthodox placed an incomplete one. The Metropolitan, if we are not mistaken, understands that what was read in the handwritten Helmsmen, “The Interpretation of the Image of the Holy Faith, which is: I Believe in One God”..., was placed in an abbreviated form in the Basaan Helmsman (and, as one must think, the acronym did not belong to Vassian and his collaborators, but was taken by them as a ready-made one, that is, as a ready-made abbreviated edition of the Interpretation). Vassian replied that this place was written and ruled by another Helmsman on his behalf, and that let this other one be asked 1492. 5) He defended, together with Maxim, the heretical thoughts admitted by the latter in his translation of the Metaphrastian Life of the Virgin Mary, that is, he defended, together with Maxim, the correctness of the wrong places in this translation of his. It is quite likely that this was so, and Vassianov’s fault here was his ignorance. He gave an answer that does not recommend him at all, namely: “I have nothing to do with Maxim and did not say anything to him” 1493. 6) He spoke about Russian liturgical books: “the books here are all false, and before Maximus, according to those books they blasphemed God, and did not glorify or pray, but now I know God through Maximus and his teaching” 1494. What Vassian answered to this accusation remains unknown; but the inadmissibly extreme harshness of reviews was generally in his nature. 7) In the rules of Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria it is written: “If anyone does not call the Most Pure Virgin Mary the Mother of God, let him be cursed,” and he, Vassian, wrote in his Helmsman: “if anyone calls the Holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God, let him be anathema.” That is, the Metropolitan did not find it difficult to create a grave heresy for Vassian, as well as for Maxim, from a simple scribe’s slip. Vassian replied that he did not blaspheme the Lady Theotokos and that perhaps there had been a typo. 8) He – Vassian called and recognized Jesus Christ as a creature, and not as God. Regarding this heresy of Vassian, a witness was brought forward against him, who accused him completely convincingly, as if he had heard blasphemous speech from him with his own ears. Vassian himself resolutely denied the justice of the accusation, and with full confidence one must think that it was completely unfair, arising from an intentional or unintentional reinterpretation of some careless and thoughtless words of his, of which he was too capable. If he had recognized Jesus Christ as a creature, that is, a simple man, then he would not have recognized the divine origin of the Christian faith and would have had to deny it as such. And if this were so, then, firstly, Vassian’s full way of thinking about Christianity could not have been hidden, and then he would have been a heretic in no way a joke, which the Metropolitan would not have failed to prove, and secondly, he would then have denied monasticism, and consequently, all his activities, which consisted of polemics and propaganda against false monasticism for true monasticism, would have represented complete nonsense. That Vassian’s assimilation of our heresy was absurd, intentional or unintentional, a false accusation against him, this is most clearly seen from his other heresy, which he did not renounce. 9) This other heresy of Vassian, unknown how it appeared - created by himself or learned from someone, was that he recognized the flesh of the Lord as incorruptible until the resurrection. Concerning this, in the record of the council on it we read: “And the Metropolitan asked Vasyan: You yourself philosophized (and) taught others your wisdom, saying this: the flesh of the Lord is incorruptible until the resurrection: otherwise it is contrary to the gospel and the apostle and the saints, the father of the teachings, then an ancient incorruptible imaginary heresy, cursed by all the ecumenical and local councils; and Vasyan answered: I, sir, as I said before, so I say now: the flesh of the Lord is incorruptible; and the Metropolitan said to him: where have you heard and seen (written) what you say - the flesh of the Lord is incorruptible from His incarnation until His resurrection? And Vasyan said: and I heard and saw (written) thus; and the Metropolitan said to him: from whom did you hear and where did you see it written like this; and Vasyan said: otherwise God knows, but you, whoever wants to look will find.” From what we have now presented it is clear that Vassian was not innocent. But if the Grand Duke had not wanted to hand him over to the Metropolitan, then he would not have been subject to the conciliar court. And if the Grand Duke wanted to extradite him, it didn’t matter - even if he was completely innocent, he could have been presented as extremely guilty. We want to say that Vassian was subject to trial and condemnation not because he was guilty, but because he was an enemy of the Metropolitan, and that the Grand Duke handed him over to the latter as such. After the cathedral trial and condemnation, Vassian was sent to captivity in the Maximovo place - in the Joseph Volokolamsk monastery, in which he died unknown when until 1545 1495. In addition to facilitating the capture of Shemyachich, another deliberate service that Metropolitan Daniel had to provide to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich was to allow the sovereign to divorce his first wife and enter into a second marriage. Vasily Ivanovich's first wife was Solomonia or Solomonida Yuryevna Saburova, whom his father married him shortly before his death on September 4, 1505. Having lived with his wife for 20 years, Vasily Ivanovich did not have children from her. Not wanting to leave the throne of the Grand Duke to his brothers and wanting to get a direct heir in the person of his son, he decided to divorce her and enter into a second marriage. The motive for divorce was one that church rules do not allow at all, but Metropolitan Daniel found it possible or was forced to give this permission: on November 28, 1525, Solomonia was forcibly tonsured a nun in 1496, and two months later, on January 21, 1526, the Grand Duke married Elena Vasilievna for the second time. Glinskaya. There is a later legend about the second marriage of Vasily Ivanovich, which assures that the Grand Duke wrote a letter to the four patriarchs, asking them for permission to divorce, and that on this occasion the Athonite monks voluntarily, without being asked by the sovereign, held the largest cathedral from the entire Mountain - that the patriarchs decisively refused the request, and that the monks passed some kind of sentence (remaining unknown, since in the printed list of the legend the message of the monks to the Grand Duke is read in an unfinished form) - that after the refusal of the patriarchs, Metropolitan Daniel said to the Grand Duke: have no sorrow, sir, we will take it upon ourselves with the whole council to grant you what you want. When asked: how to think about a story, we find it difficult to answer anything positive. There is in it undoubtedly false, absurdly legendary, and at the same time - some factual indications that seem to force us to assume that the source of the later author was something modern 1497. And that from the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, no later than 1520, an embassy actually went to the Patriarch of Constantinople for something unknown, we know this reliably, from an official source: in the inventory of the royal archive of the second half of the 16th century it is stated that the archive contained “lists of the ruler of the Tver Nile (a Greek by birth, who occupied the department from August 24, 1509 to April 3, 1521), that he was sent to the patriarch in Tsargorod” 1498. If, indeed, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request for permission to enter into a second marriage: then he applied after his father proclaimed about the patriarch that the Russians had him - a patriarch who was alien and renounced, so that we would see before us at the same time both recognition and non-recognition of the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Subsequently, as we will discuss below, this was indeed the situation in which matters stood. We said above that we have almost absolutely no information about the church and government activities of Metropolitan Daniel. The word “almost” contains the limitation that we know one thing. At the beginning of his reign, Daniel, with the consent of the Grand Duke, carried out a new census of the parish churches of his metropolitan diocese, in order to make a new distribution of taxes on them - churches that were depleted of parishioners compared to the previous one should have their tribute reduced, and for churches that had more parishioners, this tribute should be increased 1499. Metropolitan Daniel established a local celebration of two saints: in 1521 Macarius of Kolyazinsky and in 1531 Paphnutius of Borovsky. There will be deliberate speeches about this in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on worship. Archbishop Macarius, who was later the famous metropolitan, was appointed by Daniel to the see of Novgorod in 1526, and took care to introduce a cenobitic rule of monastic life in all the monasteries of his diocese. There are indications that Macarius did this with the full approval of the metropolitan. As a disciple of the Monk Joseph, Daniel should have been an ardent champion of the common life against the willful “little dwelling” of the special, which he really is in his writings. But we don’t know of any indications that he would take care of introducing communal life in the monasteries of the entire metropolis, or at least his metropolitan diocese. During the reign of Metropolitan Daniel, there was a successful preaching of Christianity by one of the foreigners who lived within our fatherland, namely, the Lapps living on the Kola Peninsula; but since this preaching continued under Metropolitan Macarius, in the chapter about the latter we will talk about it. On December 4, 1533, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich died, leaving his heir to the throne (the subsequent Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible) as a three-year-old child (born on August 25, 1530). [One chronicle accuses Metropolitan Daniel of having, with Vasily Ivanovich’s widow Elena, killed this sovereign’s brother in prison: “7045 (1537) years ago they caught Prince Ondrea Ivanovich, the Grand Duke’s brother, Grand Duchess Olena and Metropolitan Danil, and they put him in an embankment prison, and put a great burden, and put him to death - Collection of Chronicles III, 200.] On his deathbed, the Grand Duke ordered his princess and children (heir Ivan and his brother Yuri) to his father, Metropolitan Danil. According to the meaning of this order, the Metropolitan was to be the head of the boyar Duma in order to manage state affairs, just as St. Alexy stood at the head of the boyars during the childhood of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. In fact, nothing like that happened. The Metropolitan not only did not become the head of state affairs, although he was used in them as a tool when it was necessary (during the capture of the brother of the late Grand Duke, Staritsky Prince Andrei Ivanovich); but also in relation to his own ecclesiastical region, he had to allow such orders and actions on the part of the Grand Duchess and the Boyar Duma that encroached on the rights and benefits of the clergy and one of which was directed, as it were, personally against himself. In 1531, Vasily Ivanovich provided Daniil with Vassian Kosogo, and very shortly after his death, the Grand Duchess and the boyar duma, taking some step towards implementing Vassian’s preaching against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, issued an order that in the future, monasteries under no circumstances should acquire patrimonies by purchase and would not accept them as a heart-to-heart contribution without the permission of the government 1500. In 1534, the China Town Wall was built in Moscow, and in Novgorod a city circumferential wall was built on the Sofia side. Both in Moscow and in Novgorod, the collection of money for the construction of the walls was carried out from all citizens, and in both one and the other, along with the laity, a lesson was laid down for the entire clergy, in Moscow - with the metropolitan, in Novgorod - with the archbishop at the head 1501. The chronicler makes a remark about Novgorod, which quite likely applies to Moscow: “and (before) the sacred face was not coupled with a simple child in any matter.” In 1535, money was taken from Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod and from the monasteries of the Novgorod diocese to ransom our prisoners from the Crimean Tatars in 1502. It is likely that the collection was made from bishops and monasteries and in all dioceses. In 1536, the government made a private encroachment on the property rights of the Novgorod clergy: a boyar's son and a clerk were sent from Moscow with the order to take away the harvest from all the monasteries around the city and from all the city churches and give them for use or rent to the same monasteries and the clergy of the same churches, which is worth 1503. That is, the owners of the wives were made their tenants, so that they would pay rent money to the treasury. “This happened,” says the chronicler, without explaining the matter particularly clearly, through the slander of a certain wicked and insane person.” On April 3, 1538, Vasily Ivanovich’s widow Elena died, leaving the boyar duma to govern the state for her 8-year-old son, and this event had the consequence that Metropolitan Daniel had to sadly part with his see. In the boyar Duma, immediately after the death of the princess, a sole usurper appeared, seizing all state power into his own hands; this was the eldest among the boyars of the Duma, Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Shuisky. About six months later, Prince Ivan Fedorovich Belsky, who during the reign of Elena was imprisoned and who was released from prison by him, Shuisky, became his rival. Between the two rivals, the Metropolitan, either preferring the better to the worse or for other reasons, sided with Belsky. However, Shuisky soon managed to defeat Belsky and put him in prison again. One might think that the Metropolitan managed to make peace with Shuisky after this, for he, having gotten rid of Belsky, left him, the Metropolitan, alone. But then some change occurred: Vasily Vasilyevich Shuisky died, transferring power to his brother Ivan. The second brother hastened to drive Daniel from the pulpit, which took place on February 2, 1539, 1504. Driven from the see, the Metropolitan was sent or retired to the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, lived another 8 years and ended his life on May 22, 1547, 1505. So, Metropolitan Daniel, as a moral personality, is a far from bright man: an ambitious, searching, in the place of a metropolitan, a humble servant and slave of the Grand Duke to the point of forgetting his duties, capable of such acts of servility that required treacherous oath-breaking, filled with merciless hatred for his enemies and ready to use any means to destroy them, and finally - in private in his life, he belonged to those people who love to live well (and, as it seems, also self-interested 1506. But the same Metropolitan Daniel, as we said, occupies a completely outstanding position among our other metropolitans as a teacher, not in deed, but in the written word: he wrote not two or three teachings, like other metropolitans, but a whole large book of teaching words and a whole book of teaching messages. To be a teacher through writing, without being a teacher in practice, is completely possible, and this is often the case in a teacher’s or teacher’s environment, because, firstly, there are theoretical truths of teaching, in which the teacher’s morality remains aside, and secondly, practical truths can be taught, whether one’s own desire to fulfill them exists or not. But, in any case, if a person devotes himself to the work of teaching in an exceptional and deliberate manner, then this cannot but be recognized as very remarkable. Two motives can be assumed in this case: simple love of fame and a sincere desire to benefit others, although not in deed, then in word. It would hardly be reasonable to assume one last impulse in relation to Daniel, but we do not have sufficient grounds to assume only one first impulse. If we suppose both impulses together; if we assume that Daniel was partly driven by the love of fame, and partly by a sincere desire to compensate for his lack of teaching through deeds with teaching through the word: then, in any case, this latter teaching should be imputed to him as a very considerable merit, which to a fairly significant extent should atone for his moral shortcomings in our eyes. The subject of Metropolitan Daniel's teaching words and messages are: firstly, theoretical theological or doctrinal truths, the deliberate disclosure of which, in his opinion, was required by the circumstances of the time; secondly, moral Christian teaching, addressed to the laity, with a sharp denunciation of the vices of modern society, and thirdly, specifically moral and disciplinary teaching, addressed to monks. We will return to detailed speeches about the writings of Metropolitan Daniel later, that is, in the second half of the volume. In place of Daniel, who was deposed by Shuisky, the abbot of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, Joasaph, was installed as metropolitan in 1507. At the moment of Daniel’s overthrow, six bishops were in Moscow. How they ended up here - whether they were deliberately summoned by Shuisky precisely in order to depose Daniel and install a successor for him, or having gathered for some other business, remains unknown; more likely, it seems, the first 1508. Be that as it may, with the bishops present, the installation of a new metropolitan could be accomplished very quickly. And it really happened extremely quickly: Joasaph was elected metropolitan on the third day after the deposition of Daniel, February 5, and was consecrated on the seventh day, February 9. The surviving record of the election of Joasaph assures that the bishops did not perform only a simple rite of election, proclaiming the candidate who was indicated by them, but carried it out in a real way, namely, that they elected three candidates: Archimandrite Jonah of Miracles, our Joasaph and Abbot of Novgorod Khutyn Theodosius, and then from the three candidates one valid one was elected by drawing lots in 1509. If this is true, then with probability one must think that the three candidates were all equally pleasing to Shuisky and were directly indicated by him. In the surviving rite of Joasaph’s installation as metropolitan, what is remarkable is the confession of faith that he pronounced at this installation. In this confession, he does not deny the Patriarch of Constantinople, as in the region of the godless Turks of existence, but says: “in everything I follow and according to the original agreement with the All-Holy Ecumenical Patriarch, like Orthodoxy, who cherishes the true and immaculate Christian faith, ordained from the saints by the Apostle and betrayed by the God-bearing Fathers, and not as Isidore bring from the new blasphemy of the prosperous unsacred Latin council" 1510. How to explain this recognition on the part of Joasaph of the intactness of Orthodoxy among the Greeks of his time - whether it was the influence of the ideas of Maximus the Greek or something else, we cannot say. One way or another, even after him, the Russians remained with their previous opinion that the purity of true Orthodoxy was damaged among the later Greeks and that they, the Russians, remained the guardians of this purity of Orthodoxy 1511. Joasaph occupied the metropolitan see for a very short time, only three years without a month, and was deposed from it by the very Shuisky who had appointed him. Having been appointed by Shuisky, he declared himself, like Daniil, a supporter of Belsky. We don’t know what prompted him to do this; but with a high probability one must think that it was not some personal calculations, but concerns for the good of the state - that in Shuisky he saw an unworthy ruler, which he really was, and that in Belsky he hoped to see a better ruler. Having united with several boyars, Joasaph managed to ensure that Belsky was released from prison and took Shuisky’s place at the head of the government. This was in the month of July 1540, 1512, i.e., a year and a half less a month after he, Joasaph, occupied the metropolitan see. Shuisky gave in. But the boyars and boyars’ children loyal to him staged a real armed conspiracy to overthrow Belsky, and another year and a half later, on the night of January 2-3, 1542, the latter was captured by force in order to be sent into exile and then killed. Together and simultaneously with Belsky, Joasaph was expelled from the pulpit and sent into captivity in the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery in 1513. During the year and a half of Belsky's reign, Joasaph, according to the chronicles, was his assistant in governing the state in 1514. Karamzin speaks of Belsky and the time of his reign with great praise 1515. Maybe he's right; however, the positive grounds on which he relies in this case cannot seem to be considered completely sufficient and as if only the fact that Belsky was really better than Shuisky can be affirmed with certainty. And thus, about Joasaph, as a statesman, we cannot say anything definite and decisive, except that by replacing Shuisky with Belsky, he replaced the worst with the best. What we know about the church and government activities of Joasaph during his short reign is that in 1540, with his blessing and command and together with the blessing of the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius, the priest of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral Agathon compiled the Great Peace Circle, containing Easter calculations for the full 532-year indiction, and together a guide to these calculations or, as it were, a textbook of Paschal 1516. If the assumption is true that Metropolitan Joasaph wrote the life of Archbishop Serapion of Novgorod, who was demoted from the cathedral because of a quarrel with the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk: then he did not particularly favor the latter. And that, in any case, to a greater or lesser extent he did not favor Joseph, which circumstance serves to characterize him in some way, this can be seen from his comments on the acts of the Stoglavy Council of 1517. With a significant probability, Metropolitan Joasaph needs to learn the release from the prison term of the Monk Maximus the Greek, which also serves to characterize him. We will talk about this below in the chapter on Metropolitan Macarius. The libraries of the Trinity Sergei Lavra and the Moscow Theological Academy preserve up to 23 manuscripts (except liturgical ones) that belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph. This gives reason to assume that he belonged to the number of deliberately bookish people of his time. And the beautiful writing of most of the manuscripts makes it clear that he was a lover of books in the sense of a lover of elegant, luxurious publications. If you believe the testimony of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, then in his life Joasaph, like Daniel, belonged to the number of people who love to live well 1518. Exiled to the Cyril Monastery, Joasaph was later transferred, after 1547, to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery in 1519. In 1551, he was sent here to review the resolution of the Stoglavy Cathedral. In one of his comments on the resolutions of the council, he reveals praiseworthy care to ensure that taxing people or peasants are not suppressed by the burden of taxes 1520. In the Trinity Sergius Monastery, Joasaph died (as they say) on July 27, 1555, 1521. In place of Joasaph, who was expelled from the see, Novgorod Archbishop Macarius was installed as metropolitan. What happened to Macarius was no more what happened to his two predecessors: he successfully survived the turmoil of boyar autocracy and remained at the see until his death, ruling the Russian Church for a comparatively long time - twenty-two years without two and a half months. When we mentioned Macarius above, we added the epithets to his name: famous and most famous. And indeed, he represents the highest pastor of the Russian Church, the most famous of all who came before him and who came after him. He is famous in the field of our writing, although he himself was not a writer in the proper sense of the word; but he is especially famous in the field of supreme pastoral activities. In the field of writing, in addition to much that was written according to his plans and instructions, he is famous for such an enterprise as collecting all the monuments of paternal writing that existed in our country in one place, with the aim of publishing a kind of universal library; in the field of pastoral activity, he is famous for such an act, unprecedented either before or after him, as convening a council to cleanse our church, if possible, from all its shortcomings and vices and for its complete renewal. In his great thoughts and deeds, as we will say below, Macarius was a spokesman for the demands of his time. But, firstly, not everyone and not just anyone can be such an exponent, but almost as many chosen people as those who rise above their time, and secondly, one can only be a bad and false exponent, whereas he was a most worthy and sincere exponent. We said much above that our information about the most famous of our shepherds, Metropolitan Macarius, is far from sufficient. In the old days, we did not write biographies of famous people, but only the lives of saints, which is why we do not have a deliberate legend about him. There is a legend about his weakness, death and burial (written, as one must think, as material for his future life, regarding the necessity of the appearance of which the author of the legend had hope); but this legend is limited only to his dying illness and burial and, while providing two biographical information about him, says absolutely nothing about his activities 1522. As for the chronicles, the Novgorod-Pskov chronicles, fortunately, talk about his activities in the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod, and the Moscow chronicles say absolutely nothing about his activities in the rank of metropolitan, so we learn about the latter as the only one of its best preserved monuments. From what class Macarius was by origin, and from what place by his birth, remains unknown 1523. He was born, according to the testimony of some lists of his spiritual charter, in 1481–82, 1524. He accepted monasticism and became a monk in the Pafnutev Borovsky Monastery in 1525. He was appointed archbishop of Novgorod from the archimandrites of the Mozhaisk Luzhetsky or Luzhkovsky monastery in 1526. One of the chronicles assures that Macarius, being Archimandrite of Luzhetsk, managed to acquire the very great love of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich 1527. In the Mozhaisk St. Nicholas Cathedral, it is unknown from when until the 16th century there is a miraculous image of St. Nicholas, to which sovereigns had the custom of going to worship in 1528: during his trips to Mozhaisk, Vasily Ivanovich could have met Macarius, as the first person in the local city clergy, which was the archimandrite of Luzhetsk. As for the means by which Macarius acquired the love of the Grand Duke, our general ideas and information about his moral character do not at all allow us to think that flattering servility was in the first place between them, as is the case with Metropolitan Daniel. The activities of Macarius in Novgorod show that he was an ardent supporter of the communal life of the monks, and, therefore, gives reason to assume that he introduced or maintained a strict communal life in his Luzhetsky monastery. And this could have been the initial way in which he attracted the favor of the sovereign, for Vasily Ivanovich, who expressed his readiness to the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk to remain a deliberate steward of his monastery with the orders he had established in the latter, looked at himself as if he were a called and sworn patron of the strict communal life of the monks. Then, the chronicle tells us that Macarius had a special gift for teaching and edifying conversation, that “he was given wisdom from God in the divine scripture (to talk) in many stories, (so that it was) easy for everyone to understand” 1529. But if all our princes of old were seekers of educational monastic conversations, then in particular he was Vasily Ivanovich, who (with his other moral shortcomings or despite these other shortcomings) revered monasticism to such an extent that he wanted to die only in monastic robes. Macarius was installed as archbishop of Novgorod on March 4, 1526, 1530. Before his installation, the Novgorod department remained unfilled for 17 years in 1531, from the very time Archbishop Serapion was overthrown in 1509, having quarreled with the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk. What was the reason for this completely unusually long delay on the part of the Grand Duke to give the Novgorodians an archbishop is not clearly visible; but in all likelihood one must think that the reason was the impression that the sovereign had from Serapionov’s behavior. Since 1478, when Novgorod was finally conquered by Ivan Vasilyevich, the Novgorodians were deprived of the right to elect their own archbishops, and these latter began to be sent to them from Moscow. But Serapion, the third of the Moscow archbishops, regarding his quarrel with the Monk Joseph, behaved towards the Grand Duke so highly and self-consciously that it was as if he was the ruler of the former independent Novgorod chosen by the Novgorodians themselves. And in all likelihood, one must think that Vasily Ivanovich, most sensitive to such manifestations of height and self-consciousness, wanted to delay for an unusually long time in installing a new archbishop in Novgorod for the purpose of letting Moscow forget that this Novgorod was formerly a famous free city. If this is really the case, then it is necessary to assume that, having finally decided to give Novgorod an archbishop again, the Grand Duke chose Macarius because he was not afraid to meet in him, in relation to himself, like in Serapion, a reborn free Novgorodian. In this sense, the choice of the sovereign was unmistakable: Macarius was not a man of obstinate exaltation and did not at all have such a view of his episcopal power that I, in my monk, am free to knit and decide. Vasily Ivanovich escorted Macarius to Novgorod with expressions of his complete and deliberate favor towards him. In addition to the fact that he was very fond of the newly appointed archbishop, there were also his personal circumstances that should have aggravated his favor towards the latter. Less than a month and a half before the consecration of Macarius as great archbishop, the prince entered into a second marriage (January 21, 1526), ​​in the hope of having an heir from his second wife, whom he had not had from his first wife for 20 years. In his ardent desire to obtain an heir, he had to diligently seek and ask for prayers from respected shepherds, and this was precisely Macarius, whom he really earnestly asked for these prayers, commanding him to proclaim in litanies a deliberate petition for the granting of the fruit of the womb to the Grand Duchess 1532. The Grand Duke expressed his favor towards Macarius by sending him to the see, returning to him the entire treasury of the old Novgorod archbishops and giving him his boyars in 1533. By the treasury of the old archbishops, understanding this word not only about money, but also about any material or tangible property, we must mean the treasury that Ivan Vasilyevich took from Novgorod during his conquest in 1478 (and which, as follows from our news about it, was kept in the treasury of the Grand Duke in a separate and inviolable integrity). As for the fact that before Macarius the Novgorod department did not have a sufficient number of boyars, one must think that a significant part of the boyars of the department lost their boyarhood, having fallen into disgrace with the Grand Duke along with Serapion in 1534. The extremely long-term absence of an archbishop, as is self-evident, was a highly unpleasant circumstance for the Novgorodians. Not to mention the fact that such a state of lack of power should have offended their pride to the extreme, it was too inconvenient in a practical sense, regarding obtaining priests (which they probably installed from all the neighboring bishops, depending on the proximity - from Smolensk, Tver, Rostov and Vologda), and also regarding the bishop's court (which, probably, was for them in Moscow itself with the metropolitan). From this it is clear that the Novgorodians should have welcomed the installation of an archbishop in the person of Macarius with the greatest and liveliest joy. They declared this joy by the fact that when Macarius arrived to them, they literally came out to greet him with the entire city 1535. But their joy should have been fulfilled and overflowed when they saw that after an endlessly long wait they had received in Macarius such an archbishop, of which, since the most ancient times, they had had very few. An exceptional person enough to harbor the great thought of healing the church from all its shortcomings and vices, Macarius did not belong to those, so to speak, only theoretically exceptional people to whom the words of Scripture refer: physician, heal yourself. He showed himself to be as worthy a shepherd as possible, and he showed himself to be such at the Novgorod pulpit. The Novgorod-Pskov chronicles speak of some special deeds of Macarius in the rank of archbishop; they undoubtedly testify to us that Macarius spoke from the ranks of ordinary bishops when they make general comments about the time of his reign as a blessed time 1536. But the chronicles do not give us a detailed description of him as a shepherd, limiting himself beyond the narration of his special deeds to brief and fragmentary indications. Based on the fact that the chronicles tell us about him in detail or briefly and on the basis of the instructions that we find in the acts preserved from him during the time of his archbishopric, we receive such an image of him as a shepherd who, in all fairness, should be called truly bright. He extended his zeal for the fulfillment of pastoral duties so far that, acting as an initiator, he wanted to introduce the best into his diocese besides the entire metropolis 1537; in relation to the clergy, he was a strict guardian of the former cathedral decrees about him, which were harsh for the latter, but made for the common good of the church, 1538, and at the same time they did not burden him with taxes, but relieved him of them, and did not betray his officials to robbery, but tried to protect him from the latter 1539; in his personal behavior regarding the clergy, he was not a formidable ruler, but a real, meek and benevolent shepherd 1540; in his relations with his secular flock, he was: a socially ardent representative for the disgraced city and for the disgraced individuals in it before the Moscow government; privately - a benefactor of the needy 1541; finally, being equally pleasing to both priests and laity, he was the most zealous beautifier of the national shrine of the Novgorodians - the cathedral archbishop's church of St. Sophia. Apparently, Macarius is not especially praised by the fact that he did not burden the clergy with taxes and protected them from the robbery of his officials - that in his personal relations with him he was not a formidable ruler, but a real meek shepherd. But for his time this is his greatest praise. To what extent the bishops were then inclined to oppress the clergy with taxes and to what extent they were inclined to look at him with authority is shown by the examples of Macarius’s closest predecessors at the Novgorod department of Gennady and Serapion. The first one was not curbed by the strictest conciliar prohibition of his inclination to extortion; and the second clearly and frankly expressed the view of the clergy that they are his lackeys and slaves. That Macarius was an ardent intercessor for the disgraced Novgorodians before the Moscow government, the chronicles insist on this. One of them writes that he was “a great man of intercession” 1542, the other writes that when he was in Moscow in 1534, he did a lot of sadness about the victorious people from his archbishopric, many of whom were in disgrace with the sovereign Grand Duke 1543. As for the success of the petition, the chronicle says about 1534 that “the sovereign prince great (actually Grand Duchess Elena for the young John) showed the mercy of the archbishop for the sake of sadness to many” 1544; in general, the chronicles present this success in such a way that to call it Makariev’s times were at times quiet and cool for Novgorod 1545. Macarius occupied the Novgorod archbishop's see for 16 years. Let's talk about his special deeds during the time of the archbishopric, which we know from chronicles and from his own acts that have survived to the present day. In a very short time after occupying the see, Macarius undertook to reform the way of life in the monasteries of the diocese. In our Russian monasteries, following the Greek monasteries, there were two types of life: communal living or coexistence, in which the monks did not have or should not have had anything of their own, and singular living, in which, on the contrary, the monks had nothing in common, and each had everything of their own. The true form of monastic life is communal living, and singular living is a pitiful abuse, invented by people who wanted to be monks solely by name and appearance. But in our country, as in Greece, communal living existed only in some of the best monasteries, and the decisively dominant type of life for monks was communal living. This was how it was throughout Russia; This is how it was in the Novgorod diocese. The reform of monastic life in the Novgorod diocese undertaken by Macarius was to introduce communal living in all possible monasteries. That Macarius was a zealot for the true monastic life-community against the false life-single life is not surprising: in this case he could have been a disciple of the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk; he could have been no one’s disciple, but like Joseph, an independent champion of the truth and an opponent of lies. But when he undertook his reform, he acted as the most remarkable initiator, which we indicated above. Metropolitan Daniel, under whom the reform took place, was also a champion of communal living, like a disciple of St. Joseph, and, however, he did not at all think about introducing it in all Russian monasteries, or at least in all the monasteries of his metropolitan diocese. The chronicle makes it known that, going from Moscow to Novgorod, Macarius asked the Metropolitan for a blessing for his enterprise in 1546. He began to implement it after he had looked around the department a little, in the second summer of his priesthood, in 1527–28, 1547. He probably feared that if he acted solely on his own behalf, the Novgorod monks would object to him that he was demanding from them something that was not required from monks in the rest of Russia, and he asked the Grand Duke to back it up with his imperative writing of 1548. We don’t know whether the Grand Duke fulfilled Macarius’ request, but in any case, he managed to achieve a brilliant result. There were more than 22 monasteries in Novgorod and its immediate surroundings; Of these, there was a hostel only in four monasteries 1549, and in all the rest there was separate living. Macarius summoned the abbots of the separate monasteries and began to meekly exhort them to introduce communal living, as the holy fathers commanded. The fruit of the meek and, as must be understood, convincing admonitions was that out of 18 city and suburban “eminent” monasteries, 16 introduced a community and that only two stubbornly remained with the previous order. Following the city and suburban monasteries, other monasteries of the diocese began to establish hostels. From the words of the chronicle it seems to follow that these other monasteries heeded the admonition of the archbishop just as readily as the city-suburban monasteries; however, she does not provide numerical data about them 1550. Along with the reform of the life of the monasteries, Macarius destroyed one abuse in them, which had already been prohibited before, but continued to remain in the Novgorod diocese. The Council of 1503 decided that in the future nuns should not live in the same monasteries with monks; but in Novgorod even before Macarius it remained as it was before the council of 1503. He took the nuns to special monasteries and installed abbesses over them instead of abbots 1551. Another special work of Macarius, which we know about, was that he made efforts to establish Christianity among the foreigners of the diocese, who, having been baptized long ago, remained more pagans than Christians even before his time. These foreigners were residents of the Vodskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod region, lying from Novgorod to the north (part of the current St. Petersburg province from the Luga River to the east and some part of the Novgorod province from Volkhov to the west and then the eastern strip of Finland to 64 degrees in the north), consisting of Finnish peoples - Vodi (from which the name of Pyatina, in St. Petersburg province), Karelov and other small ones. Most Karelians were baptized in 1227-1552, and Vod was probably baptized even earlier; but even three centuries after baptism by the time of Macarius, living in isolation from the real Russians, whose settlement was not among them, and, taking advantage of the negligence and connivance of the priests, as well as the carelessness of the highest church authorities, both of them, with all the foreigners in general, continued to zealously adhere to the faith of their fathers. It was reported to Macarius that Vod and Karelians do not visit churches to pray and do not go to priests for confession, but pray in their vile prayer places to trees and stones, - that they eat sacrifices and drink drinks to vile demons, calling Chud arbuis (priests, magicians) to their vile public prayers, - that they do not observe Christian fasts, - that they lay down their dead with their arbuys in the mounds and along the colonies 1553, and not in churchyards near churches, - that first they call the arbuys to newborns to give names and then priests, - that on their eves or house holidays they call the same arbuys who cast (conjure, slander) them over the canons (kutias and festive meals), - that many people live with them married life is illegal, without a church wedding. Having learned about such a religious state of the foreigners of the Vodskaya Pyatina, Macarius decided to exterminate their paganism. He asked permission for this from Grand Duchess Elena and the boyars - This was in 1534, a few months after the death of Vasily Ivanovich - and sent his house hieromonk to Vodskaya Pyatina 1554, accompanied by two of his boyar children. The hieromonk, as we read in Macarius’ letter of 1555, sent with him to the clergy of the Vodskaya Pyatina, had to go around the entire Pyatina and do the following: firstly, in all parishes, call all parishioners to him and force them in his presence to ruin and finally destroy all the nasty places of worship located in villages, hamlets and forests. Secondly, to sing prayers in all parishes and send local priests with holy water to all the villages of the parish, so that they sprinkle it on all Orthodox Christians, young and old, both places and their homes 1556. In the event that any parishioners showed disobedience and unrepentance, Macarius orders his boyar children to accompany the hieromonk, to give them strong bail, “urgently” to his archbishop’s court (setting dates to appear in court before him – the archbishop) and threatens them with the great disgrace of the sovereign and his final eruption (sic) without mercy. The hieromonk was charged with the duty of calling the arbuis and their disciples or assistants to him everywhere, in order to firmly teach them to renounce their bad deeds, and then give them over to the local priests for deliberate instruction and supervision. Regarding the future tense, Macarius prescribes in his charter: against those arbuis who do not stop arbui, the priests must report to the boyar children, on whose estates the arbuis will be exposed in their activities, and these have to present them to him - the archbishop; against those parishioners who will not stop paganism, the priests must report to him - the archbishop. To the priests themselves, if they do not take care of the lost Christians and do not teach and punish them, Macarius threatens in the letter that they will ultimately be cast out from him without mercy. The hieromonk appointed by Macarius, fulfilling the assignment entrusted to him, made two, one after another, trips around the Vodskaya Pyatina. It is impossible to believe the testimony of the chronicles that Macarius’s attempt to eradicate paganism among the foreigners of Pyatina and completely establish Christianity among them was a complete success, for it was impossible to eradicate paganism by just eradicating prayers, and one can have only the most modest ideas regarding the ability and readiness for teaching of local priests. The evidence of the chronicles and documentary testimony of 1557 is not at all confirmed. But Macarius laid a good beginning, without which nothing can happen and after which it remained for his successors to continue, as the latter did, at least during his time at the metropolitan see in 1558. We said that Macarius distinguished himself as the most zealous beautifier of the national shrine of the Novgorodians - the Church of St. Sofia. To decorate St. To Sofia he did the following: 1) Thirteen icons of the main tier of the then iconostasis (“large Deesis”), corresponding to the second upper tier of the current iconostasis, which were - the icon of the Savior with the Mother of God and the Forerunner and the icons of the 12 apostles, he covered with silver gilded vestments and provided with gilded lamps (not small ones for oil, but large ones for candles 1559; 2) The current so-called local icons, which in his time did not yet stand in the iconostasis, but outside it, he decorated with rich carpets and two of them, the most revered, it seems, were also covered with silver gilded vestments 1560; 3) He arranged magnificent royal doors and a magnificent curtain or curtain from various taffetas in the altar arch (which was not yet obscured by the current local icons and was all opened in 1561; 4) He built a magnificent pulpit 1562 (in the form that pulpits had in his time and which has nothing in common with the present one 1563); 5) Above the main entrance doors to the church from the outside, he ordered a new and better wall letter to be made than what was before, 1564; 6) He poured a bell, huge for its time, into the church, “like a terrible trumpet sounding” 1565. Letting one know about the dignity of the decorations made by Macarius in the church and the impression they made on the Novgorodians, the Novgorod chronicles express each of them as a great, wonderful and sculpted sight. We will return to these decorations from their archaeological and technical side later. Besides St. To Sophia, Macarius showed his concern for another revered shrine of the Novgorodians. Thus, he renovated and decorated the miraculous icon of the Sign of the Mother of God 1566 with forge and monists. And according to the testimony of the chronicle, he generally showed great care and diligence about the churches of God 1567. Macarius wanted to leave a memory of himself in Novgorod not only in the magnificent decorations of St. Sofia, but also in monumental non-church buildings. However, in this case, for his passion for the vain search for fame, he was punished with failure. A self-taught, cunning engineer came to Novgorod from Pskov and, looking at the Volkhov, said: although this river is very wide, if someone gave me the means, I would put a mill on it. When Macarius was informed about the speeches, he was seduced by the thought of such a famous thing as setting up a mill on the Volkhov: “before, the chronicle says, care and great diligence began about the churches of God, (the desire) even to the very things, even if this thing was to be done, even if there was no such thing from the beginning of the city, even if that thing was for the house of St. Sophia.” The cunning man, on the orders of Macarius, actually installed a mill on the Volkhov, spending what must be considered a huge amount of money on the construction of a special kind of dam. But the very first spring flood of the river completely destroyed the entire structure. This unsuccessful construction of the mill, by the way, shows how much love Macarius enjoyed among the Novgorodians: they very much doubted that a mill could be built on Volkhov, and, nevertheless, as if to please the archbishop, they helped him build his mill with the whole city in 1568. In praise of pastoral zeal, Macarius says the following. In 1585, in Novgorod and Pskov, the Kazan Tatars, who were the people (household servants) of the former Kazan Tsar Shig-Aley who lived in Russia, were thrown into prison, on whom the government had been burned for something. The men, more than 150 in number, were all killed in prison, but the women were left alive. Macarius begged the Tatars from the government “for his burden” (for his care) and distributed them to the priests so that the latter would baptize them and marry them off in 1569. Apparently, the love for Macarius of the white clergy of his diocese is contradicted by the fact that when in 1535 a new archbishop's house was built in Pskov, then, according to the chronicle, the monasteries mossed the upper rooms and piled up the rubble, and the parish priests did not help the archbishop in anything 1570. But most likely this should be explained not so that the white Pskov clergy did not love Macarius, but so that they wanted to abuse his kindness, hoping for impunity. We said above that in 1535 money was taken from Macarius and the monasteries of the Novgorod diocese to ransom our prisoners from the Crimean Tatars. The chronicle says about the feelings with which Macarius made the donation of money: “and the God-loving Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, Vladyka Macarius and the shepherd of the verbal flock of Christ, heard this (order about money), and soon moved to this spiritual matter and commanded to collect seven hundred rubles: I will remember the word of the Lord: if there is gold let us betray you, we will find another place in that place, but for a human soul there is no price to pay for treason” 1571. Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich “deeply loved” Macarius when he was Archimandrite of Luzhetsky. Macarius maintained this love for himself from the sovereign in the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod until his death, which followed on December 4, 1533. Summoned to Moscow along with some other bishops immediately after the death of Vasily Ivanovich (in January 1534), he, according to the chronicle, was awarded the most favorable attention from Grand Duchess Helena in 1572. But in 1536, as we said above, due to the slander of some crafty and insane person, harvests from the Novgorod city and suburban churches and monasteries were taken into the treasury: this clearly shows that Macarius was attracted by the dislike of the government. We have no information in what relationship he was with the latter during the rest of his stay at the Novgorod department; but judging by the fact that the chronicles present the time of his reign as a quiet and cool time for Novgorod in relation to the calm on the part of Moscow, one must think that after a short disgrace he again enjoyed the same favor in Moscow. In the rank of Archbishop of Novgorod, Macarius began his literary activity. As we have already made it known, this activity did not consist in the fact that he himself was a writer, but in the fact that he instructed others to write and translate, and that he conceived such an enterprise as collecting in one place all the important (fatherly and educational) books found in the Russian land. Of the 16 years during which he occupied the Novgorod department, 12 years he devoted, among other things, to his last work, and also in Novgorod, on his instructions, some works were written and some translations were made. We will talk about this later. So, at the see of the Archbishopric of Novgorod, Macarius showed himself to be the most worthy and most worthy shepherd. Reading the Novgorod-Pskov chronicles undoubtedly convinces us that he, being a very exceptional archbishop, enjoyed the greatest love of both the Novgorodians themselves, that is, the inhabitants of Novgorod, and his entire flock. It is said about him that during his time as Archbishop of Novgorod, “many for the sake of his virtue throughout Russia, the fame of him arose” 1573. We have evidence that his fame even reached beyond the borders of Russia. In 1541, Patriarch Herman of Jerusalem sent two of his hieromonks to Moscow to ask for assistance to pay off the great debts that he had to make, saving the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which he had restored, from the infidels. The patriarch addressed Archbishop Macarius with a special letter of petition and sent him a special “commemoration” (consisting of more than 30 pieces of various Jerusalem shrines 1574. From the archbishop of Novgorod to the metropolitan of all Rus', Macarius was installed in the place of Joasaph two and a half months after the overthrow of the latter by Shuisky. Karamzin and, it seems, Solovyov intend to suspect that Macarius reached the metropolitan see in a not entirely direct way. The first, pointing out that Shuisky’s main assistants in the overthrow of Belsky, and with him Joasaph, were the Novgorod boyar children, says: “loving worldly honor, Macarius, perhaps, rendered services to the Shuiskys in Novgorod and won over its inhabitants to their side, in the hope of taking the place of Joasaph” 1575. And the second, without expressing it directly, as if with intent, points to a new circumstance that became known after Karamzin, that Macarius had connections with the Shuiskys before occupying the metropolitan see in 1576. For our part, we find the suspicions completely unfounded and unfair. If the Novgorod boyar children, like all Novgorodians, were supporters of the Shuiskys, then a satisfactory explanation for this is given without the assumption that it was the archbishop who persuaded them to side with the latter in 1577. As for Macarius’s connections with the Shuiskys, all that is known about them is that one of the Shuiskys, who had fallen into disgrace, approached him with a request to intercede with the Grand Duchess Elena in 1578. But at that time it was customary to turn to the protection of bishops even without connections with them, because “sorrow” was considered their duty, and the disgraced Shuisky, having no connections with Macarius, but being only acquainted with him, could ask him for intercession simply because he knew him as a bishop who was deliberately disposed to petitions, and together as a bishop who enjoyed very great influence with the empress. It may very well be that the Novgorod boyar children proposed Macarius as metropolitan; but they could do this not due to the machinations of the latter, but because in an impeccable manner he acquired the great love of his Novgorod flock and that they, the boyar children, considered him a worthy candidate, which he really was. If Macarius had been looking for a metropolitan see, he would have tried to get it from Shuisky after the overthrow of Daniel. He himself, in his spiritual letter, speaks of his ordination: “in the summer of 7050, the first throne, the great lord, Joasaph, Metropolitan of All Russia, left the Russian metropolis and went to the Cyril Monastery to live a silent life, and we do not know by which the destinies of God were chosen and forced to be humbled not only by the entire council of the Russian metropolis, but and by the pious and Christ-loving Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich himself, the autocrat of all Russia, I, the humble one, am denied many times, according to the testimony of the divine scriptures, and was not able to disobey, but was forced and placed on the great throne of the Russian metropolis" 1579: without suspecting Macarius in lies, we are strongly inclined to think that the matter was really as he presents it in the words just cited, that is, that he not only did not look for the see of the metropolis, but on the contrary was forced to take it. Before he was installed, two metropolitans were deposed from the see in the most shameful manner, and the second of them in such a way that his very life was endangered. In this state of affairs, it was natural that all ambitions would fall silent, and that everyone would lose the desire to take the place of metropolitan. And in such cases, when no one is willing to take a place, they usually remember the most worthy, demanding that they sacrifice themselves. Since Macarius was the most worthy, the bishops could approach him with a request that he agree to take the see, which neither of them, nor anyone else at all, was willing to do. If we assume that when choosing a successor to Joasaph, the bishops were driven not only by selfish motives, then in this case their choice should have settled on Macarius. Under these circumstances, the position of the Metropolitan was extremely difficult, and not everyone could cope with it. But if the greatest hopes could be placed on anyone, it was precisely on the wisest among them (not at all, however, in the sense of Jesuitism) Archbishop of Novgorod. Macarius says that he was denied many times “according to the testimony of the divine scriptures”; Apparently this makes no sense; but as one must think, by this he points to the fact that he was looking for pretexts for himself to renounce the metropolitan see in the canonical rules that prohibit bishops from moving from one see to another. Macarius was named metropolitan by a council of 8 bishops on March 16, 1542; delivered on March 19. At the moment of this delivery, if you believe the above testimony, he was 59–60 years old. We have already said above that the same misfortune that befell his two predecessors did not happen to Macarius - that he remained in the department until his death and ruled the Russian Church for a very long time, perpetuating his memory with famous deeds. From March 19, 1542, when Macarius took the throne and when Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich was in his 12th year, the present autocratic boyar rule lasted until the end of the next 1543. Prince Ivan Shuisky, who overthrew Belsky and Metropolitan Joasaph, soon after disappeared from the scene, having been overcome by death or at least illness, and his place, as the arbitrary rulers of the state, was taken by three of his relatives, with Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Shuisky at their head (who, having been the Pskov governor until 1541, marked himself as the most outrageous robber 1580. The people who surrounded the boy sovereign and hated the Shuiskys managed to ensure that on December 29, 1543, he unexpectedly ordered the capture of Andrei Shuisky and the shameful death penalty. The place of the Shuiskys was not taken by newer formal temporary officials, but now control of the state passed into the hands of a nameless crowd of people close to the sovereign, among whom the latter’s maternal uncles had the greatest influence. Princes Glinsky. This continued until the end of 1546, when the 16-year-old sovereign began to rule independently. There is no doubt that during these five years, amid all sorts of unrest and intrigues in the boyars and at court in general, the position of the metropolitan was extremely difficult and painful. As for his activities at this time, we know about it that under the Shuiskys he saved the life of one of the sovereign’s favorites, whom the latter wanted to get rid of, and that after them, in the coming era of opals, he tried as much as possible to limit the abundance of these opals and, if possible, to bring peace and silence to the court sea, which was agitated by intrigues. The Shuiskys noticed that boyar Fyodor Semyonovich Vorontsov managed to sneak into the sovereign’s special love. Wanting to get rid of their favorite, they and their supporters and accomplices suddenly grabbed him in the palace in the presence of the Grand Duke himself (September 9, 1543) and dragged him out of the palace in order to kill him. Sent by the sovereign to intercede for Vorontsov before the Shuiskys, the metropolitan managed to achieve his goal, but what a pleasant time the sovereign’s childhood years were for him, it is clear from the fact that the violent supporters of the Shuiskys gave him pushes and that one of them tore the hem of his robe with their boots 1581. The whole gang of rulers of the state that replaced the Shuiskys, getting rid of the supporters of these latter and all their enemies and envious people, used the sovereign as their tool to mark themselves with a continuous and long row of opals. The chronicles speak of only one disgrace, which was removed through the efforts of the metropolitan in 1582. But the Monk Maximus the Greek, who wrote to Macarius immediately after this era of disgrace ended, says that he interceded for everyone who was offended and valiantly endured those who madly opposed him out of jealousy 1583. The same Maxim depicts the previous state of the state as a state of a fierce storm, which the Metropolitan tried to tame and bring into silence with his quietness and meekness 1584. It would be completely unfair to blame Macarius for the fact that Ivan Vasilyevich received too bad an upbringing. There is no doubt that he watched with the greatest contrition of heart as the boyars and all their favorites intentionally and unintentionally spoiled and corrupted the sovereign. But he did not have the opportunity to snatch him from their hands in order to become his teacher himself. After the 13-year-old Grand Duke, in the person of the executed Andrei Shuisky, eliminated the temporary usurpers of power, his reign under the leadership of his favorites, for three years until the end of 1546, consisted of him traveling around his villages for fun or, under the pretext of devotions, taking pleasure trips to monasteries - that, obeying the suggestions of the actual rulers, he pronounced sentences of disgrace or execution on the boyars. In December 1546, at the age of 17, Ivan Vasilyevich suddenly began a new reign. On December 12, he returned from a long pleasure trip to his villages and monasteries. And the next day, December 13, at a council with the metropolitan, he decided to get married and first be crowned with a royal crown, with which decision the famous glorious era of his reign began. From the very moment of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Moscow great princes began to consider themselves the successors of the Byzantine emperors or kings. We have already discussed the reason for this opinion of themselves above. The Roman kingdom, in which Christ was born, is destined to exist on earth until the end of time, in order to be the guardian of Christ's church; but according to the destinies of God, this kingdom did not have to constantly remain in the same place, but had to make several moves: first it was in ancient and present Rome; then it moved to the second Rome - Constantinople; finally, after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, it moved to our Moscow, which became the third Rome and the second Constantinople: such were the ideas of our ancestors. As we saw above, already Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark, under whom the capture of Constantinople by the Turks took place, is called the blessed and divinely crowned king. But the great princes of Moscow did not suddenly decide to formally lay on themselves the crown of the Byzantine kings and to formally proclaim themselves kings: in their actions they were generally very unhurried and cautiously prudent, they had the custom of waiting for all sorts of views to mature enough and ripen in the consciousness of society. Half a century after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, during the reign of Vasily Ivanovich, who was a blood descendant of the Byzantine kings through his mother, the Russian people began to speak with particular insistence that their Moscow was the third Rome and that their Moscow sovereign was the only Christian king in all the heavens 1585. At this time, new rights of our great princes to the royal crown were also invented, namely, that this crown had been bestowed upon them by the Greek Emperor Constantine Monomakh and that they descended from Augustus Caesar in 1586. And so, the son of Vasily Ivanovich, Ivan Vasilyevich, finally decided to formally assume the rank of tsar through a solemn crowning. Who took the initiative for this decision cannot be said positively. But we think with complete confidence that it belonged not so much to Ivan Vasilyevich himself, but to Metropolitan Macarius. In December 1546, the sovereign was only a 16-year-old youth; It is true that this young man was far from ordinary, but, in any case, 16 years old is too incredible an age for such an important decision as accepting the rank of king. At the same time, he was raised in such a way as not to think about anything serious, but to indulge solely in fun and amusement. As for Metropolitan Macarius, being one of those people who found that the time had come for Russia to become a real kingdom, he could hasten it by placing a royal crown on the sovereign with the very important intention of trying to make a good revolution in him. The sovereign was brought up by the boyars around him in such a way that, completely forgetting about his duties, he indulged only in fun and amusements. And Macarius could be inspired by the hope that the thought of the high rank of king would have a beneficial effect on him - that it would morally awaken him and force him to change and become a different person. We think that the actual history of how the sovereign made the decision to place the royal crown on himself testifies that the initiative mainly belonged not to himself, but to the metropolitan. We have already partially conveyed this factual story above. On September 15, 1546, the Grand Duke took a pleasure trip through his villages and monasteries and spent there until December 12. Having returned to Moscow on this last day, the next day, December 13, he saw and consulted with the Metropolitan, the result of which meeting-council was his decision to be crowned with the royal crown in 1587. If the Grand Duke himself had made the decision, it would have been very strange that before announcing this very important decision to the boyars and the people, he undertook a carefree and cheerful journey. It is clear that during this trip, on which, according to the chronicle, the Grand Duke only knew that he could amuse himself and his retinue with a mad ride on the Yamsk carts, to the terrible aggravation of the peasants of the places through which he passed in 1588, he had nothing serious on his mind and, therefore, that the decision was unexpectedly made by him upon his return to Moscow, on a date with metropolitan It may seem strange and not particularly probable that the Metropolitan, in one meeting and suddenly convinced the Grand Duke to such an important decision as the one we are talking about. In fact, there will be nothing too strange in this if we assume that the meeting lasted not five minutes or half an hour, but was a deliberate and long meeting for serious speeches, and that the Metropolitan, having accepted his intention to make an attempt to convert the sovereign to the path of good, managed to take possession of it from his favorites for the whole day. An exceptionally impressionable and strong nature, Ivan Vasilyevich was capable of immediately breaking himself and suddenly turning from worries about fun to thoughts of a royal crown. The ceremonial crowning of the sovereign with the royal crown took place on January 16, 1547. After this wedding, he married Anastasia Romanovna two and a half weeks later, on February 3. Macarius's hopes for the correction of the sovereign were indeed justified, and perhaps even to a greater extent than he expected. By placing the royal crown on himself, Ivan Vasilyevich not only decided to become a different person than he had been before, but also to some extent to make his state a new and better state than before. He decided to change himself, because, becoming a king from a Grand Duke, he became a different rank, a higher and, as it were, much more responsible sovereign. But at the same time, he himself became a king from a grand duke, and his state became a kingdom from a grand duchy. Consequently, it had to be renewed and become better in accordance with its new higher role. For this reason, having decided on his own change, the sovereign realized the need for renewal of the state, so that for the latter, as having taken a new highest degree of dignity, a new and better period of existence would begin. God sometimes promotes the happiness of people through misfortunes so that the sovereign is finally strengthened in his resolve, not especially for a long time after his crowning with the royal crown. On June 21 of the same 1547, a terrible misfortune happened in Moscow - a terrible, unprecedented fire, which, as a manifestation of the formidable wrath of God, had a stunning effect on him. In 1550, the sovereign celebrated the solemn new anniversary of his subsequent best life and the subsequent period of better life for the state. He convened church and zemstvo councils and, having asked the first, together with his boyars, for forgiveness for his previous faults and sins, through the second he addressed the whole earth with a prayer to leave each other their enmities and hardships. In the presence of both councils, he commanded his boyars and clerks to make peace for a period of time with everyone they had offended; made a solemn promise regarding the future that he himself would be a judge and defense, (to) ruin untruths and return thefts. And finally, which was supposed to relate not only to his reign, but to constitute the renewal of the earth for all subsequent times, he ordered that his grandfather’s code of law be corrected and the great commandments written (regarding the structure of the court) so that this court would be righteous and without promise in all matters 1589. The Emperor somewhat slowed down with this celebration of a kind of new year, as one must think, because, on the one hand, the Metropolitan’s offer to accept the royal crown took him by surprise, so that he could not immediately gather his strength to actually realize his intention to become a new man. And on the other hand, because he wanted to appear before the representatives of the people surrounded by a halo of military glory, for which he undertook two campaigns near Kazan (from December 11, 1547 to March 7, 1548 and from November 20, 1549 to March 25, 1550, both ending, however, unsuccessfully). The sovereign was also thinking about another renewal of Russia, namely, about the material renewal of its industrial life through the call from Western Europe of all kinds of masters and artisans. But these thoughts of his remained unfulfilled in 1590. So, Metropolitan Macarius, who did not have the opportunity to be Ivan Vasilyevich’s educator, rendered the greatest service to the state by bringing about the moral correction of Ivan IV, influencing his noble ambition. That he placed the royal crown on Ivan Vasilyevich, this in itself does not constitute his special merit, for our sovereigns would have placed this crown on themselves without him; but that he hastened to place it on Ivan Vasilyevich, with the intention of having a beneficial effect on the latter, in which he was not deceived, this should be recognized as an undoubted and very important merit 1591. Placing the royal crown on Ivan Vasilyevich, Macarius thought in relation to the state to carry out the moral correction of the sovereign. But along with this royal crown, he also had extremely important church thoughts. By the destinies of God, our Russian state was destined for the high role of becoming the third Orthodox Christian kingdom. Consequently, our church, together with the state, was destined for the high role of becoming the leader among all private Orthodox churches. From the moment the Grand Duke accepted the royal crown, our state formally took the place and entered into the rights of the third Roman kingdom. At the same time, our church also took its high position in the same way. But the lamp placed on the candlestick must shine; the elevated person assumes the moral duty to ensure that his internal qualities correspond to his external position. And so, Macarius, a chosen man, placed at the head of the Russian Church at a time of great need, was most vividly animated by the consciousness of this moral duty. The Russian Church, in its internal qualities, had to correspond to the external high position that it occupied; but he found that the church was far from having this correspondence: and he decided to carry out its renewal, just as the newly crowned king decided, under his influence, to carry out the renewal of the state. The next year after the sovereign celebrated the aforementioned celebration of the state new year, Macarius convened a great council to cleanse the Russian church of all the vices and shortcomings that existed in it and to correct and improve its life in all respects, so that from there it would become a truly new and, as far as possible, blameless life. This council, which received the name of the Stoglavy (from the division of the book of its decrees into 100 chapters) and the like of which has never happened either before or since, constitutes the act of Macarius, which gives him the indisputable right to the most honorable place among all the highest shepherds of the Russian Church, as the most famous of their entire series 1592. But before undertaking the work of renewing the church, Macarius took care of something else. The strength and glory of any church are its saints. Showing his favor in the Russian church, which was destined for a high lot, God glorified it with a large host of saints. But a significant part of these lamps of hers and these prayer books for her remained until then solemnly not glorified, and another significant part, although glorified, was only locally. So the saints, not being saints of the entire Russian church and remaining for the latter in the sense of the whole as if non-existent - not adorning its common sky, were absentmindedly revered only in certain regions, districts and cities. The new position of the church demanded that, in proving its rights to it, it should be adorned with all the spiritual beauty that was given to it, and that it should be maintained at the height of its standing by the prayers of the entire host of its miracle workers. And Macarius, wanting to undertake the task of renewing the church with the ready help of all Russian miracle workers, began with this solemn glorification of those of them who had remained hitherto not glorified, or who, having been privately glorified, constituted only local saints, for which purpose he assembled two councils - in 1547 and in 1549. Of the saints who had hitherto only been local, Macarius at his councils proclaimed twenty-two as general church saints or general saints of the entire Russian Church. Of the ascetics who had hitherto remained completely unglorified, Macarius proclaimed eight such general church saints, or in total he proclaimed thirty as general church saints at both councils. Having proclaimed all or most of the former local saints as general church saints, Macarius proclaimed nine new local saints in their place, so that at both councils a total of 39 saints were proclaimed by him. Before Macarius, there were 22 common saints in the Russian Church. Having proclaimed 30 new such saints, Macarius more than doubled their number. We will talk in detail about Macarius’ process of canonization of saints at councils in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on divine services, and we will give lists of both former and new saints (in the meantime, we will point the reader to our study: “History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church,” published in the Theological Bulletin for 1894). We turn to the cathedral, which was convened by Macarius in 1551 to renovate the Russian church and which is called Stoglavogo. Despite all the exceptional fame of the Stoglavy Cathedral, our contemporary chroniclers did not say a single word about it, so if its very deeds had not been preserved, then we might not even know about it in 1593. We find some historical information about the cathedral in its very actions. It was convened at the beginning of 1551, namely, it was solemnly opened in the royal chambers, in which all its meetings took place, on the 23rd of February. It was attended by all the bishops of the metropolis, numbering 9, many archimandrites, abbots and monastery builders, hermits and spiritual elders from simple monks, archpriests and priests “with all - as they say in the deeds - the consecrated cathedrals of the entire Russian kingdom” 1594. The king opened the council with two speeches to him - a short oral one, which he said himself, and a lengthy written one, which he submitted after the first and was read at his order. The Tsar’s oral speech is as follows: “I beg you, my holy fathers, if I have found grace before you, strengthen love in me, as in your dear son, and do not be lazy, speak a word of piety with one mind about our Orthodox Christian faith and about the welfare of God’s holy churches and about our pious kingdom and about the organization of the entire Orthodox peasantry, for I wish and rejoice and agree to be a champion of faith with you, to the glory of the holy and life-giving and inseparable Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to the praise and glory of our pious faith and church statutes, we command the same and all discord from now on to be far away, but all agreement and unanimity are contained in us" 1595. In a lengthy written speech, the king brings public repentance for the many and serious sins of his past first youth, when, according to him, he sinned before God and before people with every crime that was too weak to write in scripture and utter in human language. And when he, also wisely with the boyars, that is, submitting to the influence of his favorites, allowed many (of his subjects) to be ill-consumed by internecine misfortune and for all kinds of violence to be inflicted on the poor peasants; giving thanks to God that He turned him to the path of good and awakened in him hatred for all his previous evil deeds. The Tsar points out the many grave disasters to which Russia was then subjected and speaks of the need for general repentance and correction for the entire earth, so that God’s long-suffering, which called for repentance through executions, would not finally cease, and so that the Russian kingdom would not be desolate, as many kingdoms in ancient and modern times were desolate for their sins. Exhorting the shepherds to be the first to set an example of repentance and correction and to pray together for the aversion of the disasters sent by God, the sovereign again and in an intensified manner repeats his prayers to them to work for the true and immaculate Orthodox Christian faith and to establish and explain (it), as the holy fathers betrayed, according to divine rules, so that there will be no attempt through the divine rules in any of our Christian laws without reproof, i.e., let absolutely no violation of the laws and no abuse of 1596 remain unresolved. Before inviting the cathedral to address his concerns, the tsar presented him with his zemstvo code of laws and his statutory charters, of which he ordered the first to be corrected, and the second to be written in the previous 1550, also with the blessing of the cathedral. Declaring to the representatives of the church that he wanted to have them as advisers in zemstvo affairs and needs in 1597, the sovereign asked the members of the cathedral to read the law book and letters and judge whether everything written in them was in accordance with the rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers and with the previous Russian laws, and then, for the immovable fortress, approve them with their signatures 1598. The task of the council was to be that, while renewing the Russian church, it should cleanse it of all the shortcomings that existed in it. A detailed and separately comprehensive list of these latter was drawn up in advance and presented to the council ready-made: the tsar submitted to him 69 questions, which contained an indication of the shortcomings that were subject to his judgment, and precisely - 37 questions were submitted at the very opening of the council and 32 at some time. The activities of the council consisted of passing judgments regarding the shortcomings indicated in the king’s questions, with some addition of shortcomings not indicated in the questions. The cathedral completed its very extensive studies, the fruit of which was a whole large book of decrees, in an extremely short time: it was inaugurated on February 23, and on May 17 it speaks of the “new cathedral code”, as a ready-made and approved code of laws of the Russian church, according to which the trial of 1599 should be carried out in the future. But since the conciliar code, before it was approved, was sent to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery for consideration by Metropolitan Joasaph and the other authorities who were here in retirement, as well as all the local cathedral elders: then two to one and a half weeks should be deducted for this message. The great idea of ​​renewing the church through conciliar legislation belonged to Metropolitan Macarius. Meanwhile, in the actions of the Stoglavy Council we find that it was as if the entire initiative for its organization belonged not to the metropolitan, but to the tsar. The preface to the deeds says that “the sovereign autocrat, the meek Tsar Ivan, crowned with wisdom and wisdom and maintaining the kingdom in perfect piety, (having been) illuminated by the grace of the Divine Spirit, his womb was greatly inflamed and with a warm desire he moved not only about the dispensation of the zemstvo, but also about various church corrections, and announced to his father His Eminence Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia, and a council of God’s servants was ordered soon” 1601. In his speeches addressed to the council at its opening, the tsar expresses himself in such a way that it is as if he was the one and only responsible for its convening in 1602. Finally, the list of questions containing an indication of the shortcomings of church life, against which the council was supposed to take action, was compiled not on behalf of the metropolitan, but on behalf of the tsar and was submitted to the council by the latter. Regarding this circumstance, that the actor instead of the metropolitan is the tsar, one must think that the cession of the former place to the latter was partly involuntary, partly intentionally voluntary. The young Tsar, with whom the Metropolitan managed to make an unexpected moral metamorphosis, had youthful ambition and vanity: set on a new path by outside efforts, he wanted to assimilate this to himself and wanted to accept and present himself as the true and actual culprit of everything new that began from the time of the moral change that happened to him. Satisfying this desire of the sovereign, the metropolitan had to cede to him the primary external role in organizing the council and write in the preface to the Stoglavnik that he convened the council at the suggestion of him, the sovereign (and Ivan Vasilyevich also wants to take the initiative to organize the councils of 1547 and 1549 to himself 1603. But he must accept that the involuntary concession completely coincided with the voluntary desire of the metropolitan. If he himself was animated by the great thought of the need to renew the church, then it does not at all follow from this that all the higher clergy - bishops, archimandrites and abbots of monasteries, or at least the majority of this clergy - were animated by the same thought. The renewal of the church meant the eradication of all abuses in it, and all the information that we have about our clergy at that time strongly makes us think that the majority of them were in favor of preserving abuses, and not for eradicating them. True, in the preface to the acts of the Stoglavy Council it is said that the bishops, having received an invitation to the council, were enveloped in unspeakable joy and, like unpaired eagles with light wings, rushed to Moscow in 1604: but either one should see in these words one of the rhetorical passages common in official writings, or understand them not about internal feelings, with which most of the bishops appeared, as well as archimandrites and abbots, but about the external guise, which they all found prudent and necessary to take on. Thus, if Macarius, convening a council to renew the church, had acted on his own behalf, he could have aroused a very great murmur against himself among the higher clergy. But when the king himself acted in his place and for him, this murmuring could not take place. At the conclusion of his oral speech to the council, the tsar said: “from now on we command all discord to be abolished, but all agreement and unanimity to be contained within us” 1605. With these words, the sovereign obviously commands those present to abandon any disagreement with the metropolitan, that is, to abandon any attempts at contradiction and opposition to him in taking measures to eradicate the abuses of 1606. Questions containing indications of shortcomings in church life, regarding which the council should have made its decisions, were written on behalf of the tsar and were transferred to the council by the latter; but the metropolitan clearly makes himself visible in their compiler. Firstly, they represent such knowledge of the shortcomings of church life that the tsar acquired it in 1551, which is absolutely incredible; secondly, they indicate the shortcomings of life and the peculiarities of the customs of the Novgorod-Pskov church 1607, knowledge of which in 1551 the tsar undoubtedly could not have possessed at all, and which identify Macarius as the former Novgorod archbishop 1608. But, to give justice to the king, it must be said that he reacted to Macarius’s thought about the need to renew the church with the greatest sympathy and that in this case he was the most zealous assistant to the metropolitan. His ideas about himself as a king made him care for the church an even greater duty than caring for the state, for his first duty as a king was to care for the church - and he was sincerely imbued with the consciousness of this duty. When he tells those present at the council that he greatly desires and rejoices and agrees to be a champion of the faith with them, he expressed precisely those feelings with which he was truly animated. Very remarkable and brings the greatest honor to the king and the following. The actions of the council had to be carried out with his direct participation, which he considered necessary in order to protect the metropolitan from any opposition; but so that this participation does not turn to the detriment of the correctness and in general the quality of the resolutions of the council, he declares to those present at it: “if I am contrary to you except for the divine rules, you will not keep silent about this, if I am a disobedient, forbid me without any fear, so that my soul and all those who are subject to us may live, for may the true Orthodox peasant law be blameless” 1609 . The questions to the council, having been written by the metropolitan, were presented by him to the king. The sovereign with his advisers, among whom the priest Sylvester was specially competent in church affairs, could more or less lay his hand on them - change and supplement them. But what exactly should be understood in questions to the sovereign, we have no opportunity to indicate this 1610. We consider it completely unfair to assign exclusively to him the indication of all the abuses in the higher clergy, for we have every reason to think that the Metropolitan himself was sincerely inspired by the desire to destroy them all. Likewise, the harsh tone of the speech in some cases does not necessarily indicate, in our opinion, that the edition of the speech belonged to the tsar: the Metropolitan, who wanted to eradicate the abuses, of course, did not have feelings of love for them, and, therefore, he could express himself in a harsh manner. Only in those cases when harshness takes on a tone, so to speak, journalistic, should one see the hand of the sovereign, for while Macarius had no inclination towards this tone, it was very strong in Ivan Vasilyevich). We said above that the council completed its very extensive studies in an extremely short time. To explain this extraordinary speed, it must be assumed that Macarius not only compiled a list of questions indicating faults and shortcomings in the area of ​​church life that were subject to correction and elimination, but also had answers to the questions ready, so that the council did not so much make its decisions as consider and approve the decisions already made. In any case, we have absolutely no positive information about how exactly things happened at the council regarding the writing of decrees. The resolutions of the council, as we said, make up a whole large book (large in manuscript; in print according to the Kazan edition - 429 ridiculed pages). This book, which does not have any proper name or title of 1611, is called the “conciliar code” of 1612 in the official acts of Metropolitan Macarius and Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, as well as their contemporary and subsequent ones. And from the scribes it was called Stoglavnik, since it is divided into one hundred chapters 1613. Under the second name, with a grammatical change in the word in Stoglav, it is known in scientific literature. The general content of the book is the following: a brief historical notice about the time of the opening of the cathedral, about the persons present at it and about the subjects of its activities; a preface to the acts of the council, which states how the king, illuminated by the grace of the Divine Spirit, expressed to the metropolitan his desire to convene a council for various church corrections; two speeches of the tsar to the cathedral at its opening - a short oral one and a lengthy written one. The tsar’s third speech to the council, submitted in writing (and partly spoken orally?), along with how he presented the zemstvo judicial code for the latter’s consideration and submitted to it the first 37 questions about church malfunctions and shortcomings that were subject to its discussion. These first 37 questions; resolutions of the council in response to half of these questions; the second 32 questions of the king along with the answers to them, precisely in such a way that immediately after each question the answer to it is given; resolutions of the council in response to the other half of the king's first questions, together with a number of resolutions on such subjects that are not indicated in the questions. Finally, comments on the resolutions of the council made by Metropolitan Joasaph. The resolutions of the council represent answers to 69 questions submitted to it by the tsar - 37 questions at its very opening and 32 some time later. The main content of the Stoglavnik consists of answers to the first 37 questions, which contain the most important thing regarding which the council should have made its decisions; and the answers to the second 32 questions, less important in content and short in scope, all together make up only one chapter in it (the 41st). The arrangement we indicated in the Stoglavnik of the answers to the first questions is not what one would expect, i.e. that the answers to the questions are not placed in one row, but fall into two halves, separated from one another by the second question-answers. In all likelihood, it should be explained in such a way that it was in this order that the conciliar definitions were issued. Why the council, having given answers to one half of the first questions, wanted to hesitate in answering the second half, the question of this cannot be answered positively, but only presumably. The second half of the answers contains very important definitions about the hierarchal or bishop's court and about monasteries with monks: one might think that the council wanted to discuss these definitions as thoroughly as possible, and therefore wanted to have as long a time for them as possible. The private order of answers does not correspond to the order of the questions, i.e. the questions are read in one order, and the answers in a different and different order. Regarding the presentation of the resolutions of the council in the book of its acts or in the Stoglavnik, the following should be said: firstly, the resolutions are presented without observing a strict systematic order; secondly, in cases where the complexity of the objects required many regulations. These latter are combined into one place to represent groups (divine services, holy court, monasticism), however, not all are combined in full, so after that additional decrees are read. Thirdly, decrees on some subjects are read several times (supervision over the clergy, crown duties, icon painting). In general, it should be thought that, without worrying about strict systematization, which was not one of the deliberate concerns of our legislators of ancient and ancient times and was a task beyond their strength, the council set out in writing its decisions in the order in which they were actually pronounced or approved by them. As for the repetitions, they, without constituting the merit of the presentation, indicate that the council returned to some matters several times. The division of the book of acts of the council into chapters, of which, as we said, there are 100, hence the name Stoglavnik or Stoglav, requires some comments. In this division we find: firstly, what is placed under the chapters is not related to the essential content of the book, namely the historical notice of the council, the preface to the book and the speeches of the king (the first four chapters). Secondly, that in some cases one resolution of the council is divided into several chapters, namely, that the evidence cited by the latter to confirm itself from the canonical rules, from the laws of the Greek emperors and our great princes is separated into special chapters from the resolutions themselves. Thirdly, that in some cases two completely different definitions are combined into one chapter. Regarding the first case, i.e., that what was stated above under the chapters is not part of the conciliar decrees itself, in all likelihood one must think that the intention of the editor of the book in this case was his desire to protect the book from the arbitrariness of subsequent copyists. By placing what was indicated under the chapters, he seemed to firmly number it, and thus deprived the scribes of the opportunity to omit all this as unimportant, which, otherwise, they could easily do. By placing evidence cited in support of them under chapters that are separate from the resolutions themselves, the editor of the book, as is likely to be thought, was driven by two motives - firstly, now indicated above, in order to deprive the scribes of the opportunity to omit evidence, and secondly, in order to make the latter visible with special force. Repeatedly and with special insistence, the council says that it acted in its decisions not arbitrarily and not arbitrarily, but in accordance with the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers and with the sacred rules: therefore, it had to attach special importance to the evidence that it cites, as pièces justificatives, and wished that, on the one hand, they could not be omitted by copyists, and on the other hand, so that readers They paid all their attention to them: through the provision of evidence under special chapters, both of these goals were achieved. Combining two different decrees into one chapter, of course, cannot be considered an editorial merit, but the editor did this in cases where the decrees are too short to be compiled into separate chapters. Since the answers to the second 32 questions together make up one chapter (41st) in the Stoglavnik, it is clear that everything that has now been said about the division into chapters applies to the answers to the first 37 questions. In the form of polemics with schismatics, who have Stoglav on their side regarding some points of dispute with us, Metropolitan Platon in his History of the Russian Church suggested that the council of 1551 only wrote its decrees in response to the tsar’s questions, but that the prepared decrees, due to some dubious circumstances, were not approved either by the council itself or by the tsar, and that, thus, these decrees, which remained without approval, did not receive the force of real laws and were not published as such 1614 . The opinion of Metropolitan Plato, in order to bring it into closest conformity with the interests of the controversy, modified so that Stoglav represents the draft notes of the council of 1551, redone after him by some private individual, was strongly defended by some of our scientists until the not too long ago 1615. But at the present time there can no longer be any dispute or doubt that the council not only wrote its decrees, but also approved and promulgated their collection as a legislative code, and that we have a collection of decrees, as such a code, in a book called Stoglavnik or Stoglav. Firstly, we know a long series of modern official evidence that the council of 1551 issued its “conciliar code”, according to which church administration and the church court of 1616 were to be carried out in the future. Secondly, we have absolutely clear official evidence that this conciliar code is precisely the code or book that bears the name Stoglavnik or Stoglav 1617. We will not present here in detail the resolution of the Stoglavy Council. These decrees embrace church life so broadly that, in presenting them, it would be necessary to deliberately depict this latter. But to deliberately depict life in an episodic manner here would be completely inconvenient and inappropriate; The second half of the volume will be devoted to this deliberate depiction of life in all its forms. Here we will limit ourselves to a brief and general indication of what was done by the Stoglavy Council, so that we can get some general idea of ​​its activities. Metropolitan Macarius, as we said above, suggested that the task of the council was to accomplish through it a complete renewal of the Russian Church, so that the church, having been cleansed of all shortcomings in all areas and particular types of its life, would then become a new and reborn church and begin a new, better period of its existence. An attempt to implement this extensive task is represented by the resolutions of the Stoglavy Council. These decrees have as their subjects: church services, diocesan bishops' administration and court, the life of the higher and lower parish clergy, monasticism and monasteries, and the Christian life of the laity. In relation to worship, the cathedral strives to achieve in its instructions: - so that all church services, general and private, are performed in full and strictly according to the rules; - so that they are performed correctly; - so that public worship takes place in an orderly manner in the sense of the orderliness of its performance by those singing and in the sense of the orderliness of the presence of those praying at it; – so that the text of liturgical books is freed from the errors contained in it; - so that these liturgical books are as correct as possible in terms of their preparation by scribes; - so that uniformity and correctness are established in church rites; – that icons are painted satisfactorily and properly by icon painters; finally - so that the structure of churches (actually, altars) is appropriate, in accordance with the needs of worship. Regarding diocesan administration, the activities of the Hundred Glava Council consist of: - in establishing much more active supervision than before over the lower parish clergy through the establishment of new supervisory bodies; – in limiting the arbitrariness of bishops and their officials in collecting various duties from the clergy and laity; – in protecting the lower clergy from extortions by district diocesan officials (tithes); - in the orders regarding parish churches, which tended to ensure that these churches should not stand without singing. Regarding the diocesan court, the decisions of the Stoglavy Council consist of: - in eliminating the so-called secular bishop's officials from intrusion into the area of the bishop's court, which constituted the spiritual court in the proper sense of the word; - in placing the court of these secular episcopal officials, as far as it was given to them, under such control of publicity and public supervision that it became, as far as possible, a fair court. In relation to the life of the higher and lower clergy, the Council of the Hundred Heads points out the shortcomings of this life of both classes of clergy, turning in the first case to the conscience of the bishops themselves, and in the second case entrusting the eradication of shortcomings of care to the overseers newly established by him. In order to prepare and elect, as far as possible, worthy candidates for the priesthood, who are given detailed instructions regarding their duties, the council took care of the establishment of better literacy schools than those that existed before, and prescribed greater strictness of election to the bishops than before. In relation to monasteries and monks, the concerns of the Stoglavy Cathedral were: – in eradicating abuses in the management of the property and income of monasteries on the part of their abbots and in establishing strict control over this management; - in exile from the monasteries of drunkenness and debauchery; - prohibiting abbots from having special meals in their cells and so-called tours of their estates; – in the prohibition for monks and nuns to live in the same monasteries and for laymen to live in special monasteries; - in prohibiting monks and nuns from living in the world: the first - as priests, the second - as prosphora guardians at parish churches; – in prohibiting monks and nuns from wandering around the world; - in taking measures against the builders of new monasteries, who did this not for God, but to deceive people and for their own belly. Regarding the Christian life of the laity, the Stoglavy Council, after general admonitions in this sense, makes instructions: - against the moral vices of the time (judicial kissing of the cross on a lie and Sodom fornication), – against immoral customs (cutting beards, which had an immoral purpose, and washing men together with women in baths), - against everyday customs that are contrary to Christian law (eating strangled animals), - against the game of grain, corresponding to the current game of cards, – against Tatar mania in clothing (wearing tafiyas on heads), - against popular entertainment, which represented a remnant of Hellenism or paganism, – against magic or witchcraft and against superstition, - against the then entertainers of the people - buffoons, - against the scoundrels, pretenders and deceivers wandering around the world. We do not know whether it is clear or not clear from the general overview of the events of the Stoglavy Council that is now presented, that Metropolitan Macarius was animated by a sincere desire to accomplish, through his medium, the possible complete and possibly real renewal of the Russian Church. But reading the book of the Acts of the Stoglavy Council in its original form undoubtedly convinces us of this noblest sincerity of desire. At the same time that our council was convened in Moscow, in the West, in the Roman Catholic Church, the Council of Trent was taking place, which had the same goal as ours. With full right we can say that in terms of motives, our council is incomparably higher than the Roman Catholic one: while that was a forced act on the part of the popes, ours, on the contrary, was a most voluntary act on the part of the representative of our church. Not all measures that were taken by the Stoglavy Council or the Metropolitan through the council to eliminate shortcomings in church life can be considered completely sufficient. In order to eliminate copyist errors from the liturgical books, the cathedral imposed the responsibility on the archpriests and the oldest priests to examine all the books that were both in churches and on sale, which, obviously, was a completely impossible task. But apart from the introduction of book printing, which the Metropolitan and the Tsar then began to take care of, it was impossible to come up with any truly effective measures. Realizing the unsatisfactory nature of the schools in which candidates for the priesthood were taught to read and write, the council ordered the establishment of better schools. However, these best schools had to be the same private schools as before, and in reality could not become the best. But one cannot blame Metropolitan Macarius for the fact that in this case he was not able to rise above his time and could not think of the government schools of 1618. But if some of the measures taken by Metropolitan Macarius cannot be considered too valid, which should not be held against him, then about other measures it must be said that they bring him true and truly greatest honor. These are the measures he took to eliminate shortcomings and abuses in church administration and court. The frankness with which he acknowledges and expresses these shortcomings and abuses, and the zeal and determination with which he strives to eradicate them, represent something that could most urgently be recommended to all subsequent times, right up to our present. If what Macarius legitimized at the Council of the Stoglavy regarding the church court had been preserved after him, then his legalizations would have been the greatest benefit for the lower clergy and together for the laity, insofar as these latter were subject to church court. And what he legitimized regarding the supervision of the lower clergy could, to some extent, serve as an example for the present time (we mean the sending of deliberate exarchs by bishops to dioceses - Kazan edition p. 317). One should speak with the greatest praise about the laws of Macarius regarding monasteries with monks. (When he was Archbishop of Novgorod, having raised the issue and diligently tried to introduce a hostel in all monasteries of the diocese, Macarius in the resolutions of the council does not prescribe mandatory introduction of a hostel in all monasteries of the metropolis, but only diligently, however, not deliberately and not at length and as if only in passing, recommends it to the desiring abbots and monks of special monasteries 1619: this must be understood in such a way that in this case he encountered decisive resistance from those archimandrites and abbots who sat at the council). Macarius not only did not restore the verdict decreed by the council of 1503 that bishops should not charge fees for appointments to church ranks, but he also acts as his direct opponent. This must be explained not by the fact that he was a selfish man - he was not such at all - but by the fact that on the basis of the evidence that existed in favor of the payment (which is given in the Stoglavnik - chapters 87-89) he considered it legally existing, and the resolution of the council of 1503 illegally and unfairly encroaching on the rights of bishops. That is, Macarius did not rise to the point of finding what was legal, contrary to the canons, like Nilus of Sora, illegal. There is one more point in Stoglav’s legislation, which seems to cast some shadow on Metropolitan Macarius, and which must be mentioned. In the royal questions it was proposed for the council's consideration: what to do with those Russians who are captured by the Crimean Tatars and who find themselves unable to redeem themselves from captivity (question 10 of the first 37). The council sentenced that such prisoners should be redeemed by the royal treasury, “and how much of that captive’s ransom from the royal treasury will be disbursed in a year, and then scattered on plows (taxes) throughout the entire land, no matter who it is, for everyone, even if such redemption is called common alms” (chapter 72). In response to this verdict of the council, Metropolitan Joasaph made a remark in which he asked the king that the peasants be exempted from paying money for the repayment, since they (already) had a lot of burden in their taxes, and that the money for it be collected from the metropolitan and from the episcopal treasuries and, according to the schedule, from all monasteries (Kazan edition p. 427). But Joasaph’s proposal was not accepted by the council, and his sentence remained in the form in which it was originally decided. The reason for not accepting Joasaph's proposal must be one of two things: either that Macarius himself, along with the other members of the council, did not want to accept it, or that, contrary to his wishes, he had to yield to the reluctance of the other members of the council. We cannot, that is, we do not have data, speak out positively; but based on the general information that we have about Macarius, we think with complete confidence that not the first, but the second case should be assumed. (Concerned about the introduction of correctness and uniformity of forms in the rituals, Macarius prescribed in Stoglav that the fingers for the sign of the cross and for the priestly blessing should be double-fingered and that the song of Hallelujah should be proclaimed not strictly, but purely. How to understand the simplicity and ignorance that, according to the council of 1667, Macarius discovered in this case, we will talk about this below, in deliberate speeches about our instructions of Macarius. But when some of our scientists extend this simplicity and ignorance to everything that Macarius wrote in Stoglav, and to his entire activity in general, then they, either through ignorance or deliberately, are outrageously unfair to the most famous of our church leaders). The resolutions of the Council of 1551, in order to be put into effect, had to be officially promulgated. But this publication could not be carried out in such a way that the book of the acts of the council in its original form was distributed everywhere where it was necessary. At that time we did not yet have printing, and the book of the acts of the cathedral is so extensive that it would have been completely impossible to produce the required number of handwritten copies. Therefore, instead of the original book of acts of the cathedrals, extracts or extracts from it were published, which in official acts are called orders of 1620 and to which some scientists gave the name of order lists. Currently, we know of two such extracts, one of which is addressed to the parish clergy with its district authorities, and the other to the monks. Both are known to us, sent by the Metropolitan to two places in his diocese (the first - to Vladimir and Kargopol, the second - to Simonov and Joseph Volokolamsk monasteries), and since both of them in both cases are one and the same (i.e. the same one sent to Vladimir and Kargopol and the same one to the indicated monasteries), then one should think, how completely probable it is in itself, that one extract was prepared, known to us, for distribution to all parish clergy, and one, also known to us, to all monasteries, and that the bishops sent them to their dioceses. The first of the extracts, divided into 57 paragraphs, briefly sets out the legislation of the Stoglavy Council, mainly related to the parish clergy (about the bishop's court, about bishop's duties, about worship, about priests and their behavior and duties, about the laity and their vices and behavior of 1621; in the second extract, chapters (nine) are literally reproduced from the book of acts of the council with part tenth), relating to monasteries and monks 1622. How long it took for the extracts to be sent out, and at the same time how long it took for new laws to be put into effect everywhere, is evident from the fact that the metropolitan sent out extracts in his diocese no less than until 1558 (the extract was sent to Kargopol by the metropolitan on February 2, 1558). We have news that in those places where the resolutions of the council were promulgated quickly, they were not put into effect all at once, but gradually, although, unfortunately, we do not know what exactly this gradualism consisted of. At the end of 1553 there was a council in Moscow for the heretic Matthew Bashkin, about whom we will talk below. In the record of this council, on the 25th of October, it reads: “there was a speech between the tsar and the sovereign, the Grand Duke, with his father Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia, and with the archbishop - Novgorod or Rostov - and with the bishops and the bolyars and with the entire sacred assembly about the previous conciliar code on various matters and chineh, (and according to the book of the cathedral) - which affairs have been corrected and which have not yet been corrected; and the Tsar Sovereign said to his pilgrims: May God advance and other matters be corrected” 1623. At the beginning of 1555, there was a cathedral in Moscow to establish a diocese in the newly conquered Kazan. The Nikon Chronicle, in its news of this council, makes it clear that it also discussed the implementation of the decrees of the Hundred-Glave Council, namely, it is expressed: “all the archbishops and bishops and archimandrites and abbots sat down about the many different rites of the church and about many deeds to strengthen the Christian faith” 1624 . We said that the sovereign reacted to Macarius’s thought about the need to renew the church with the greatest sympathy and that he was his most zealous assistant in this case. It is necessary to think that he used all his autocratic and categorically strong influence to eliminate opposition to the metropolitan on the part of the members of the council when drafting new laws. But he did not limit himself to this and wanted to actively help the Metropolitan not only in drafting laws, but also in ensuring that the laws were executed. Even at the council, he submitted his “writing”, in which, confirming the latter’s regulations regarding monks, he declares that if these regulations are despised by some disorderly and disobedient ones, then from the saints about this they will be subject to great prohibition and excommunication, and from him, the sovereign, (they) will be in exile and in worldly punishment 1625. At the end of 1551, he issued his order to the priestly elders, who were established to supervise the clergy and who were entrusted with supervising the court of bishops' tithes, and to the zemstvo elders and kissers, who had to help the priestly elders in the latter case, so that both of them fulfilled the duties assigned to them properly 1626. In April 1552, the sovereign instructed two of his officials to see to it in Moscow that priests and monks did not go to taverns and get drunk, and he also instructed them to click on auctions so that Orthodox Christians, young and old, did not do everything that is prohibited by the instructions of the council (“they did not swear in the name of God in a lie, and did not kiss the cross on the crook of the they would not swear by other dissimilar oaths, and they would not bark obscenities, and they would not reproach each other with foul speeches with their father and mother,” etc. 1627. Speeches about the Council of the Hundred Heads should end with the question: to what extent was this renewal of the church, which constituted the great goal and task of Metropolitan Macarius at its convocation, really accomplished? Alas! The sad answer to the question is that the update did not take place at all. Macarius put into effect the resolutions of the council, but immediately after it almost everything legalized by him was forgotten and everything went on as before, as if the council had never happened at all, the actions of which had turned into a simple historical monument. After Macarius, a number of the same Macarii would have been needed so that the old would not have time to come to life again, but this did not happen... The only result is that a famous figure, who worked fruitlessly, still remains a famous figure, and the consolation is that the histories of other countries and churches are full of examples of similar figures... Immediately after the Council of the Hundred Heads completed its actions, the tsar with the metropolitan and bishops decreed a conciliar verdict on the bishops' and monastic estates. Therefore, we will now talk about all the legalizations of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich regarding church real estate during the reign of Metropolitan Macarius. Beginning with the council of 1503, opponents of patrimonial ownership of monasteries from among the monastics themselves preached that encroachment on the right of this patrimonial ownership is something acceptable from a moral point of view and from the point of view of church law. The sermon had the consequence that the sovereigns, being excited by it, decided to commit an attack in the interests of the state. When the idea of ​​direct confiscation of patrimonies from monasteries met with decisive rebuff from the clergy at the council of 1503, the sovereigns were left to turn to measures to limit the right of patrimonial ownership. This is what they did, and these measures were extended along with the monastery estates and to the bishop’s estates. Ivan Vasilyevich III decided on some measures to limit the right of bishops and monasteries to acquire estates; after Vasily Ivanovich, who did not enact any new measures of restriction and only preserved and protected the measures of her father, Grand Duchess Elena and the boyars enacted these new measures (above p. 735, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1503, corr.). Finally, Ivan Vasilyevich IV decreed even new and very decisive measures. However, the adoption of these new and decisive measures dates back to the time after the death of Macarius and to the end of the sovereign’s own reign. As for the time of Macarius, partly new measures of no particular importance were adopted, partly the previous measures were confirmed, and partly the abuses committed during the boyar rule of the sovereign’s childhood were eliminated. The first known legalization of Ivan Vasilyevich in our category concerns episcopal and monastic suburban settlements. Sometime before 1550, the sovereign decreed that the new bishops' and monastic suburban settlements should impose all taxes and court charges on the city people, that is, that they should pay all city taxes and correct all city duties, and that they would be subject to the jurisdiction not of the bishops and monasteries themselves, but of the city governors. In September 1550, the sovereign made secondary decrees on settlements, namely the following: old settlements should be kept by bishops and monasteries in the old manner according to previous charters; They should not build new settlements; in old settlements, do not add many new courtyards: if a son wanted to move away from his father, or a son-in-law from his father-in-law, or a brother from his brothers, then build a new courtyard for this, but do not build new courtyards for newly arriving people (who, it is understood, should be settled only in the courtyards of those leaving); if for one reason or another the old courtyards are vacated, then call them new Slobozhans from rural arable and uncultivated people, as was before, and not from city townspeople, with the exception in the latter case of non-taxable Cossacks. Slobozhans are free to leave settlements within the legal period (Yuriev Day) in order to become townspeople or rural residents 1628. Following the legalization just given regarding settlements is followed by our verdict on estates, which took place immediately after the end of the Council of the Hundred Heads. Just before the council or while it was taking place, some of the monastic opponents of patrimonial ownership of monasteries had conversations with the tsar about monastic fiefdoms, in order to present their views to him (hegumen of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery Artemy, about whom we will talk below). The tsar himself knew very well that in the monasteries great abuses were taking place with the estates and that they did not in the least contribute to maintaining a truly monastic life in them, and he expressed himself very sharply about this 1629. The writings of St. Maximus the Greek against patrimonial ownership of monasteries, which so vividly depict the whole contradiction between the monks’ complete renunciation of the world and this patrimonial ownership, no doubt were very well known to him. Thus, Tsar Ivar Vasilyevich not only could have wanted the confiscation of estates from the monasteries in the interests of the state, but he could also have been sincerely convinced that this confiscation would be useful for monasticism itself. But, one way or another, however, in view of the irresistibly firm stand for the estates of the vast majority of the monks themselves, he did not at all dare to express the idea of ​​​​taking away the estates from the monasteries. There is no doubt that he would not have dared to do this even if the metropolitan had been opposed to the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, for in this case the metropolitan would have kept his convictions only to himself, not daring to declare them and not thinking about implementing them. But the Metropolitan was a sincere and ardent defender of the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, although he was also an equally ardent opponent of the abuses and evil with which this patrimonial ownership was actually associated. This circumstance should have had the consequence that the sovereign should not think too decisively about measures to limit the right of patrimonial ownership of monasteries. And after Macarius, he did not dare to take these decisive measures very soon; Moreover, he should have had no inclination to think about them in front of him, for he had feelings of the deepest respect for him - Macarius. Finding it possible to think only about measures of restriction, Ivan Vasilyevich extended these last measures, like his predecessors, to both monastic estates and bishops’ estates. He had in mind to pronounce his verdict on the estates immediately after the Council of the Hundred Heads, and therefore did not make any proposals in this sense at the Council itself. At this last stage, measures were taken to ensure that bishops and abbots of monasteries did not plunder estates belonging to departments and monasteries, and that both did not abuse the income from estates, and then, after the solemn and deliberate confirmation of the very right of estate ownership, only one measure was taken to limit this right, which in the proper sense cannot be called a measure. It consisted in the order of the council to the archimandrites and abbots of those monasteries that had enough land and villages, so that they would not bother the pious king and would not ask him for unnecessary things 1630. In the conciliar verdict, which took place immediately after the end of the Stoglavy Council, namely on May 11, 1551, the following was decided: 1) For the future, bishops and monasteries should not buy estates from anyone without reporting to the sovereign, and no boyars should give estates to monasteries heart to heart without the same report; in case of violation of this, the patrimony is taken away into the treasury without money, and if it is purchased, the buyer will lose his money. This point of the sentence confirms the legitimation made by Grand Duchess Elena with the boyars. 2) If the estate is given to a monastery according to the soul without any conditions, then it is not redeemed; if it is given with the condition that the family or heirs are left with the right to redeem it, then, according to the laws of Ivan Vasilyevich and Vasily Ivanovich, this redemption should take place in the future, and precisely, as it is also said in Stoglav (Chapter 75, Kazan edition p. 342), the heirs must contribute the amount at which the patrimony will be valued in the spiritual or given charter. 3) The legitimation of the two previous sovereigns, so that in some newly acquired areas the estates would not be sold to monasteries, and would not be given heart to heart without reporting to the sovereign, remains in full force for the future. Those estates that, in violation of this legalization, were given away on a heart-to-heart basis without a report, should be taken over by the sovereign and, having paid money for them, given to estates. The first half of this point is itself implied in the first point; but the sovereign repeats it as a justification for the second half of the point. 4) Local and black lands that bishops and monasteries forcibly took possession of for debts or that were unjustly recorded for them by land surveyors should be returned to their former owners. 5) Carry out an investigation about the villages and volosts and fishing grounds and all sorts of land and quitrent villages, which after the death of Vasily Ivanovich, during the tsar’s minority, the boyars gave to the bishops and monasteries, and do it as it was under Vasily Ivanovich, i.e., take away everything given after him to the bishops and monasteries again 1631. At the Council of the Stoglavy, at the proposal of the tsar, a verdict was made about his - the tsar's abuses of monasteries and parish churches (about giving bread and salt and money and wax for candles and honey for kutya and wheat for prosphora). Vasily Ivanovich and after him Elena assigned other monasteries and parish churches not permanent or eternal rugs, but temporary ones, for certain years. After the death of Elena, during the sovereign’s early childhood, monasteries and churches managed to turn these quarrels from temporary to permanent. Then, during the same childhood, the sovereign boyars gave new rugs (permanent and temporary) to the monasteries and parish churches. The king made a presentation to the cathedral about these abuses. The latter gave it up to the tsar to turn the temporary abuses of his father and mother, made permanent after them, back into temporary ones, and to cancel the abuses given after them, but at the same time interceded with the sovereign for the poor monasteries and churches 1632. The resolution of the Stoglavy Council on rugs was confirmed in the conciliar verdict on the estates, and at the same time, unless there was an editorial inaccuracy in the verdict, with the extension of the abolition also for the time of the sovereign’s mother, namely: 1) all rugs given to monasteries and churches after Vasily Ivanovich, set aside and issue only those rugs that were under him and under Ivan Vasilyevich; 2) all the curses made after Vasily Ivanovich from temporary to permanent should be converted back into temporary. In 1557, the sovereign issued an additional law regarding the redemption of estates given to monasteries per soul. It is as follows: If a person who gives a patrimony to a monastery to his liking with the condition that it can be redeemed by the heirs, sets in his spiritual charter a redemption price that is too high: then the heirs can protest against this and demand appraisers (“measurers”), but not otherwise than at a time when the spiritual charter has not yet been revealed and approved. If they protest after this, then they must pay for the estate the redemption price that was set in the spiritual 1633. There is a response from Metropolitan Macarius to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich “about immovable things given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings,” in which the Metropolitan most energetically and with an extensive presentation of arguments protests against the sovereign’s desire to acquire for himself the immovable estates of the metropolitan see and which constitutes a very considerable mystery 1634. As the only probable explanation of this riddle, the following seems to us: At the end of 1550, the tsar sentenced the boyars to place in the Moscow district a thousand people, the children of the boyars, the best servants, and 28 people of the boyars and okolnichy, who should be ready to be sent, that is, always be in Moscow, at court, and who did not have estates and estates in the Moscow district 1635. Since this placement required a huge amount of land, it is likely that the sovereign, who was in difficulty with his state lands, wanted to buy from the metropolitan the estates of his see, which were located precisely in the Moscow district. If the metropolitan protests extremely energetically against the desire of the sovereign, which did not involve any kind of predation, it is probably because he saw in this a very dangerous precedent: having bought patrimony from the metropolitan in one place, the sovereign could then express a desire to buy all church patrimony in general. At the beginning of 1555, as we mentioned above, a diocese was established in the newly conquered Kazan (taken on October 2, 1552). The region of the diocese was formed from the city of Kazan with the surrounding uluses, from the city of Sviyaga or Sviyazhsk with the mountain (right) side (Volga), from the city of Vasil or Vasilsursk and from the entire Vyatka land in 1636. The Bishop of Kazan was given the title of Archbishop and assigned a place under the Archbishop of Novgorod and above the Archbishop of Rostov in 1637. The first archbishop of Kazan was installed on February 3, 1555, Gury, abbot of the Selizharov Trinity Monastery. For the maintenance of the archbishop it was assigned: a tithe from Kazan, Sviyazhsk and Cheboksary customs duties, a certain salary in the amount of 865 rubles and the provision of bread and all table supplies in kind in 1638. In the initial establishment, the Metropolitan, all bishops and monasteries helped the archbishop with money and bread in 1639. Regarding the conversion of the Tatars to the Christian faith, the archbishop was given instructions: “by all sorts of customs, as possible (i.e. in every possible way, as much as possible), accustom the Tatars to him and bring them to baptism with love, but do not lead them to baptism through fear” 1640. The establishment of the Kazan diocese served as the immediate reason for the tsar and the metropolitan to become concerned about establishing book printing in Moscow. If you believe one not particularly reliable testimony, then it was supposed to invite typographers from abroad to Moscow back in 1547 1641. When at the Council of the Stoglavy it was discussed that book scribes wrote liturgical books too unsatisfactorily, it could not help but occur to the Tsar and Metropolitan that the only real way to help him in this case was to establish book printing, which others had already had for a long time and which, as they knew in Moscow in 1642, was already used by the Greeks. However, the thought remained a thought. When the Kazan diocese was opened and when, in order to supply its newly built churches with liturgical books, the tsar ordered the latter to be bought at auction, from book scribes: it turned out that only a few of the books were in good working order and that most of them were filled with clerical errors and errors (“corruption from those who prescribed”). This circumstance prompted the Tsar and the Metropolitan to become decisively concerned with the implementation of the idea of ​​​​introducing book printing in 1643. The strongly accepted idea, due to circumstances unknown to us, was put into practice only seven years later: already under the month of February 1556, the “master of printed books” Marusha Nefediev 1644, born Novgorod 1645, was mentioned, and the printing of the first book began only on April 19, 1563. One well-known Legend about the beginning of book printing in Moscow says that the first printing experiments in Moscow before 1563 were carried out instead of real letters in “certain small and unskillful styles” 1646. It is very possible that Marusha Nefediev learned typographic skills only by ear and self-taught, and that he spent whole years learning how to cut out letters and then setting up printing itself. A slowdown could also have occurred because the introduction of printing was strongly opposed by many of those ignorant leaders and teachers in 1647, i.e., bishops and archimandrite-abbots who forced the actual first printers to flee from Moscow in 1648. These actual first printers, who laid the foundation for book printing in our country, were the deacon of the Moscow Gostun Cathedral (located in the Kremlin, on the palace square) Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Timofeev, a native of Mstislav, who learned their art unknown where and from whom. As we said, they began to print the first book, which was the apostle, on April 19, 1563; This was the last year of Macarius's life, and the printing of the book was completed after his death, March 1, 1564, 1649. Under Metropolitan Macarius, after the council of 1549, a number of other saints were canonized. We will talk about this in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on worship. So, the administrative activity of Metropolitan Macarius, representing a famous and extraordinary activity, consisted mainly in the fact that in 1551 he convened a council to renovate the church and that then he took care of putting into effect the resolutions of the council. Under Metropolitan Macarius, the Monk Maxim the Greek received freedom. It is to this latter that we now turn to complete our speeches about it. Above, we noted that the Monk Maxim, after the second conciliar trial of him, which took place in 1531, was sent to prison instead of Joseph's Volokolamsk Monastery in the Tver Otroch Monastery, in order to be under the supervision of the local Bishop Akaki. Maxim stayed in Tver for exactly 20 years, until 1551. It must be assumed that all the time that Daniel remained at the pulpit, which was until February 2, 1539, he was kept in this prison, for the latter all this time retained his irreconcilable hatred of him 1650. One must, however, think that in Tver from the very beginning the imprisonment was not as cruel and severe as in the Volokolamsk Monastery. Akaki was one of the monks of Volokolamsk 1651; but, as can be seen, he was not one of those “despicable” Josephites who were capable of hating opponents of patrimonial ownership with such merciless hatred as Daniel had for Maxim. Maxim himself speaks of Akaky that he favored him, reposed him with all contentment for many years, that it is impossible for Maxim to forget him - the bishop's many years of care and salary to him. It is true that Maxim speaks this way about Akaki to a person very close to the latter 1652. But he was a man incapable of flattery, and if he had no reason to be grateful to the bishop, then instead of speaking flattery, he would not have said anything. Be that as it may, we positively know that in Tver, from the very beginning of his stay there, Maxim was given a pen and ink and paper, and was allowed to write essays. There is a collection of Maxim’s works compiled by himself; in the preface to this collection, he says that he began to compile it in the fortieth thousand years, that is, in 1532 1653: and this is the second year of Maxim’s stay in Tver. There were misunderstandings and disagreements between Maxim and Akaki, but it seems that they did not have a harmful effect on the fate of the former. In Tver, as one must think, Maxim was engaged in revising the translation of the psalter; During this revision, among other things, he made the amendment that verse 2 of Psalm 89, which previously read: “Lord, be a refuge for us,” wrote: “Lord, thou art a refuge for us.” Akaki, according to some reviews, a man with little literacy knowledge, 1654 was embarrassed by Maxim’s correction and said: “Here Maxim, with his writings, philosophizes that we have no refuge in God.” Maxim wrote an acquittal letter on this occasion to one person who was close to him and together to the bishop in 1655. On July 22, 1537, there was a big fire in the Tver Kremlin (city), from which it burned out; along with all the other buildings, the bishop's cathedral located in it burned down, as it seems - just renovated by Akaki, and burned so that they did not have time to save absolutely nothing from it - no icons, no vessels, no books 1656. Instead of appearing on this occasion as a comforter to the extremely upset bishop, Maxim used it in his own way: putting external piety in place of true Christian piety, our ancestors were distinguished by the greatest zeal for the beautification of churches - and Maxim, explaining why the Lord did not spare the most beautifully decorated church, which was the cathedral, wrote in the form of a conversation between Akaki and the Lord merciless, like speeches ancient prophets, a denunciatory word on our pharisaical external piety. But even this cruel attack of Maxim against Akaki, which finds its excuse in his uncontrollably ardent zeal for the truth and righteousness of God and in his good intentions, but which he could not have allowed himself, achieving the same goal in other ways, did not make the bishop his irreconcilable enemy: it is very likely that Akaki became angry and complained about him, but then had the generosity to forgive him 1657. In general, this little-educated bishop, who was the benevolent patron of Maximus at a time when most people who were well-educated treated him with strong hatred for his extremely harsh denunciations, represents a very remarkable phenomenon and should have been remembered in history with the warmest word. But Akaki deserves truly great gratitude for allowing Maxim to write essays from the very first time of the latter’s stay in Tver. If Acanius had not given this permission immediately upon Maximus’s arrival in Tver, and had Maximus received it only after Daniel’s overthrow from the pulpit under Joasaph or under Macarius, we could have lost a significant part of the works of the famous church publicist. In Moscow until 1525, as we said above, Maxim wrote against Latinism, propagated by Nikolai Nemchin, against astrology, against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, in defense of the Patriarch of Constantinople and Greek Orthodoxy. Whether he wrote anything else then remains unknown. But in all likelihood one must think that most of his other numerous works were written by him in Tver. In these other works, which represent a very large variety in terms of content, two groups of them stand out in their importance: firstly, a number of words against non-Christian faiths (one against paganism, one against Judaism and three against Mohammedanism) and non-Orthodox Christian confessions (one against Latinism in addition to the previous ones, against Armenianism and the newly appeared Lutheranism one at a time). Secondly, a series of moral, accusatory and teaching words addressed to the Russians themselves. In the first series of words, Maxim wanted to deliver to the Russians a kind of brief guide to polemical theology for interviews with all non-Christians and non-Orthodox Christians. In the second series of words, he is a prophet-accuser of the Russians themselves. Our ancestors of that time were unshakably firm in their Orthodoxy and no propaganda, no matter how armed with knowledge and art, could be dangerous for them. But to the unaccountable, unshakable firmness, it was not useful to add some conscious clarity, so that our ancestors could not only close their ears from any speech that spoke of their faith, but to some extent would be able to give answers to their opponents. And this is what Maxim wanted to achieve with his words against non-Christian faiths and against the Christian confessions of non-Orthodox people. He understood very well that the refutation of Mohammedanism was of greatest practical importance for the Russians, since they had the most active and frequent relations with its representatives 1658; and therefore it was he who wrote against him with particular deliberateness. The terrible disaster that befell Maxim in Russia, apparently, should have prompted him to write works that were only pleasing to the Russians, in order to regain their favor and thus achieve freedom and leave to Athos. But the “fire of jealousy, like Bose,” that burned in him was so strong that it made him forget about himself. He looked at himself as a prophet, whom God's grace sent from the Holy Mountain to preach God's truth to the Russian people 1659: and imprisoned, he wanted, without thinking about himself, to fulfill his prophetic mission, as his due need, that is, as a duty assigned to him by God, with all zeal and with all fearlessness. After the treatises against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, the largest part of the moral, accusatory and teaching words addressed to the Russian himself was written by Maxim in the Tver conclusion. Between the accusatory and instructive words of the Monk Maxim, addressed to the Russians themselves, two should be deliberately named, these are: “The word more extensively expounds with pity the disorder and lawlessness of the kings and rulers of the last century of this” 1660 and “The chapters are instructive to those in charge of the faithful” 1661. In the Word, Maxim denounces and laments the predatory rule of the boyars during the early childhood of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, and in the Chapters written for the latter shortly after his crowning with the royal crown, he teaches the newly crowned tsar about what a truly good sovereign should be and what his concerns should be. The word is distinguished by such extraordinary courage and such merciless harshness of denunciation and scourging that you involuntarily see in Maxim an ancient prophet - those Isaiah and Amos, by whose example, in his own words, he tried to be animated 1662. And the chapters, with complete fearlessness and unfettered teaching, are distinguished by such a wonderful quality of this latter that the best statesman of any time in the best sense of the word would happily sign under them. In general, these two works of Maxim are two political pamphlets of such significance and importance that alone they could constitute the most honorable glory of a person. (We are confident that after Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, none of our sovereigns was given anything similar to the instructive Chapters that Maxim addressed to him). We said above that Maxim appeared to us as a preacher of true Christianity against false and pharisaical Christianity. This sermon is the main thing in his accusatory and teaching words addressed to the Russians themselves. The inevitable consequence of the lack of education among the people must be such a perversion of the Christian faith that external piety is put in the place of true piety, so that the former, which in itself, without the latter, has absolutely no meaning and is complete nothing in the strictest sense of the word, all saving power is absorbed. The view is established that prayer and fasting (in the sense of not eating on certain days of fasting) constitute what, without anything else, leads a person into the kingdom of heaven, and people create for themselves such a concept of piety that, without caring about morally good deeds, they diligently take care of frequent and prolonged prayers and strict observance of fasts. This sad case of perversion of Christianity occurred with our ancestors. Maxim found in us the greatest zeal for prayer, along with the same zeal for its places - churches, the greatest severity in observing fasts, but at the same time he found that this alone was all piety in us: and he, who was the personification of fiery zeal against all lies, raised his prophetic voice to preach about true piety. That it is not prayer and fasting, but a proper Christian life and especially deeds of love for others that constitute this true piety, - that in the Old Testament God spoke through the mouth of the prophets: I want mercy, and not sacrifices, the mind of God, and not burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6), - that in the New Testament the Savior gave two commandments about love for God and neighbors, saying: in this both commandments the whole law and the prophets hang (Matthew 22:40), and also saying: not everyone who says to Me: Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven: but do the will of My Father who is in heaven (Matthew 7:21) - this is the subject of Maxim’s unceasing and tireless and most urgent preaching in his accusatory and teaching words addressed to the Russians themselves. “Good,” says Maxim, truly good and very saving, is prayer and fasting, for one calms and mortifies carnal troubles and purifies thoughts, and the other unites with God and spiritualizes and makes the one praying soberly God-like; but if we do not have the virtues commanded to us by our Savior, then prayer and fasting are imputed to nothing before the righteous Judge 1663... Who forgets the divine statutes that prescribe for us generosity, mercy, sacred love, goodness, truth, quietness, meekness and good chastity and venerable humility, and who thinks to be faithful only from not eating certain foods and from listening to one’s own ears of divine words: he was blinded by the eyes of his soul and fell far from the sacred council of saints, for the Lord is pleased not with those who hear the law, but with those who always diligently keep it; without this observance, everything else is useless - abstinence from food and long exercise in prayers 1664. Do we not think through strict fasting and vigils and singing to please God and, above all, to avoid that terrible judgment? But He crowns (at His judgment) those standing at His right hand for love of mankind and generosity to the poor alone, for He says: “Whatever you did from the least of these My brethren, you did it for Me; He also reproaches those standing on the left, not because they did not correct the great fasts and vigils and did not glorify Him with long songs, but because they never showed any kindness towards the poor, whom they are not ashamed to call His brethren. For the sake of the good deeds shown to those living in troubles, then the Righteous and merciful, the Merciful and the Humane-loving, will crown the righteous, and He is silent about other corrections and spiritual deeds, I mean - many fasts and prayers and all-night standing and departures into distant and uninhabited deserts, although to show us that without philanthropy and mercy for those living in troubles, all this is useless and nothing which is not imputed to them, for He Himself says: I want mercy, and not sacrifices, the mind of God, and not burnt offerings 1665... Let it be known to us pious people that as long as we remain in sin, i.e. in transgression of the divine commandments of Christ God, then even though we read all the prayers of the saints and troparia and prayer canons all the days and hours, we gain nothing at all, for the Lord Christ himself tells us, as if reproaching us: that you say to Me: Lord, Lord, and do not do what I command, that is, as long as you continue to transgress My commandments, in vain you call on Me with many and lengthy prayers; one prayer is favorable to Him and pleasing and saving for us, this is to retreat with all our soul from every transgression of His holy commandments and strengthen ourselves in the fear of Him, doing all truth with spiritual joy and unfeigned love” 1666. Maxim has three deliberate words against the Pharisaic piety of the Russians - two very brief and one comparatively quite lengthy. The last passage we cited: “Let it be known to us pious”..., is read in one of these words. Let's make some more extracts from the other two. In “Words, like from the face of the Mother of God, to the covetous and nasty, filled with all sorts of malice, and the canons to please those who wait with all sorts of different songs,” Maxim makes the Mother of God speak to the imaginary righteous man he denounces: “O wise creature of God! Then I will be pleased with what you often sing (to me): “Rejoice,” when I see that you are in fact fulfilling the commandments of Him who was born of me and abstaining from all malice, fornication and lies, pride and flattery and unrighteous theft of other people’s property; and while you hold on to all this and (in all this) abide with the delight of your heart, rejoicing in the blood of the needy wretched (your brothers) and unsatisfiedly sucking out their brains with double interest (on loaned money) and a terrible burden in work: then for me you are no different from a foreigner - a Scythian and Christ-killing people, although you boast of baptism. I do not at all listen to you, although you sing countless canons and stichera to me eloquently, for hear that the Lord wants mercy, and not sacrifice, and the mind of God, and not burnt offerings. Like a pig, you are insatiably satiated with all kinds of illicit deeds and, like a predatory wolf, you steal other people’s gains and extort from poor widows and abound and pour yourself over with all sorts of lawless deeds, playing with grain like a Christ-hating Tatar and getting drunk and always enjoying the harp and nasty prodigal songs and completely rejecting the fear of God from your thoughts: and Do you think to please me with the multitude of canons and stichera that you sing to me with a high cry? Do you not hear the preacher clearly saying that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God? And if they do not inherit the kingdom of God, then it is obvious that there will be eternal bitter torment under the earth. So, do not deceive yourself, but if you want to avoid torment and receive the kingdom of God along with all the righteous, then completely retreat from all your lawless malice, and love the opposite of virtue with all your soul, hiding in your thoughts the fear of God, love and desire for heavenly blessings, for otherwise it is impossible for you to get rid of torment and please the terrible Judge" 1667... In his speech on the fire of the Tver cathedral church, Maxim forces Akaki to ask the Lord: why was He angry with His slaves, when they incessantly celebrated spiritual holidays for Him with the red-voiced singing of godly priests and the noise of good-voiced, light-noisy bells and various fragrant stench, and when He and His Most Pure Mother were magnificently decorated with icons with gold and silver and precious stones - and puts into The mouth of the Lord answered the bishop: you (not only do not please Me), O people! but you also anger My bellies most of all by offering Me the noise of harmonious singing and bells and the valuable decoration of icons and the fragrances of various stinks. If you bring all this to Me from your lawful achievements and righteous labors and right thoughts, like ancient Abel: then your gifts are dear to Me and I will look upon them and reward you with divine gifts, for I am a righteous giver and will not leave even a cup of cold water without reward. If you bring this to Me, O people, from unrighteous and abominable profits, from covetousness and theft of other people’s property, then not only will My soul hate your gifts, as mixed with the tears of orphans and poor widows and the blood of the wretched, but it will also be indignant at you, as offering unworthy of My truth and humane thoughts, (and I will do with your gifts what or I will destroy them with terrible fire or give them over to the plunder of the Scythians... Fear the parable, stop committing lawlessness, try to implore My righteous wrath with Nineveth active repentance, because I am God, who does not want lawlessness, who hates all its workers - I will destroy their name from the earth, but I love the righteous and in the present (age) I protect them, and in the future I will glorify them. What kind of service do I want from you? Is it that I see myself written on the icon wearing a golden crown, and while alive I am completely dying from hunger and frost, while you yourself eat sweetly and always get drunk and decorate yourself with various clothes? Satisfy Me in that in which I am poor, and I do not ask you for a golden crown: My adornment and My gold-wrought crown is visiting and contented food for the poor and orphans and widows, while on the contrary, their poverty of necessities is an annoyance to me from you and the most extreme dishonor, even if you constantly thundered in My churches with countless voices of good-willed singing, for I do not want sacrifice, but mercy. What pleasure do I have from your red-voiced singing 1668 (when they ascend to Me) along with the sobs and sighs of My beggar, crying out to Me from terrible hunger? I am called the judge of widows and the father of the orphans and the representative of the tender poor: be like Me and be diligent about them in word and deed. Since you boast of stinks and good-noisy bells and say that you reverence Me brightly, then diligently and with attention hear this saving teaching of Mine and firmly imprint it on your hearts: it was not in order to look for good-noisy bells and chants and valuable stinks that I came down to earth, O people! and I put on your image, but desiring your great salvation, which for me there is nothing more precious; That’s why I commanded you to write My saving commandments in books, so that you could understand how to please Me. But you decorate the book of My words, outside and inside, very richly with silver and gold, but you neither accept nor want to fulfill the power of My commandments written in it, and on the contrary, you act as if you consider everything written in it to be a lie and vanity” 1669. Preaching true Christianity to the Russians, the Monk Maxim at the same time, with all possible force, castigated the most important vices that dominated among them. We will return to speeches about this later, when we talk about the moral state of Russian society in our time. Before the overthrow of Metropolitan Daniel from the pulpit, which happened on February 2, 1539, the Monk Maxim lived in the Tver Otrochiy Monastery as a prisoner, in prison. When and by whom he was released from prison to live in the monastery as one of its monks and, so to speak, in the freedom of its four walls, remains unknown; but it seems probable to think that this freedom was granted to him more or less soon after the overthrow of Daniel by his successor Joasaph. There is a letter from the Monk Maxim to Prince Peter Ivanovich Shuisky 1670, the son of the temporary worker mentioned above, written in 1542 and, as one must think, no later than the very first months of the reign of Metropolitan Macarius 1671. But in this message Maxim does not ask for release from prison, which makes it clear that he has already been released from it. Regarding the way of thinking and mood of Metropolitan Joasaph, we do not have any detailed information; but that he did not belong to the number of supporters of Josephiteness and at the same time that he belonged to the number of admirers of the Monk Maximus, we have some indications of this 1672. Having freed himself from the prison of the monastery, the Monk Maxim, naturally, had to strive with his thoughts to free himself from another, most extensive, prison, which was for him all of Russia. But at first he did not find it at all possible to declare these thoughts of his. In the now-mentioned letter to Prince Peter Ivanovich Shuisky, written in 1542, he says: “I do not ask for it, so that I may be released into this honorable and much-desired Holy Mountain for all Orthodox Christians - I know myself, since such a request of mine is not kindly and favorably presented to you” 1673. Without asking for leave to Athos, he first asked for something else. Condemned by Metropolitan Daniel to imprisonment, he was at the same time declared a heretic, subjected to church prohibition and excommunication from the communion of the holy mysteries. He first asked for admission to the communion of the holy mysteries. Now the aforementioned message to Pyotr Ivanovich Shuisky is a petitionary letter to the boyar Duma, containing our request; it is very likely that, simultaneously with the message to Shuisky, he sent a pleading message-scripture addressed directly to the Duma itself, but this latter remains unknown to us; in a letter to Shuisky, Maxim expresses his request: “I ask from your magnificent lordship that you grant me the communion of the most pure and life-giving mysteries of Christ, which I have not been part of for 17 years” 1674. To the messages addressed to Shuisky and the Duma (if there was a second message), Maxim attached an acquittal, under the title: “Confession of the Orthodox faith of Maxim the monk from the Holy Mountain, which informs every Orthodox priest and prince about Christ Jesus, that in all truth there is an Orthodox monk, observing the entire Orthodox faith whole and unconditionally and immaculate” 1675, in which, in addition to announcing his Orthodoxy, which consists in presenting the Orthodox teaching of the faith, he is justified from the accusations brought against him regarding his correction of our liturgical books and which were significant not only in the eyes of Metropolitan Daniel, but also of the entire Russian society. At first, Maxim was not successful with his request, but he soon achieved it, and this was thanks to Metropolitan Macarius, who had the greatest respect for him. As we said, Maxim addressed a message to Pyotr Ivanovich Shuisky and a petition to the boyar duma no later than the very first months of Macarius’s reign. Soon after this, he began to have relations with the metropolitan. We do not know whether it was that Macarius himself turned to Maxim with an expression of his respect for him and with an offer of financial assistance, or Maxim turned to him with his request, only the Metropolitan answered Maxim for the first time that he kissed his bonds, as if he were one of the saints, but could not help him, because the one who tied him was alive, that is, Daniel, who alone had the right to loosen it. Whether on the advice of Macarius or on his own, Maxim wrote a letter to Daniel, in which he asked him for permission from the unjustly imposed ban of 1676. But Daniel, who feared that if he expressed his readiness to lift the ban, Maxim would demand a new conciliar court that would acquit him - Maxim and, therefore, accuse him - Daniel, refused to lift the prohibition and pointed out to Maxim as a means to achieve his goal - to pretend to be dangerously ill (for, according to the canonical rules, those under the ban, in the event of a mortal illness, should be honored with the sacrament - 1st Ecumenical Council canon 13). Then Maxim wrote a message to Macarius, in which he said that he was not looking for judgment, but mercy, and did not reject the sacrament without judgment - that he was not taught to partake of the divine mysteries in secret and with falsehood from the holy apostles and reverend fathers, and that “even if he is bound by God in truth, (that) he cannot allow, he cannot live a living being who has bound him, but unrighteously both through passion and wordless anger what is connected will not only be resolved from something else powerfully, but it will by no means have the power of a souza” 1677. We don’t know what happened next - whether Macarius convinced Daniel to lift the ban from Maxim or he did it with his own authority; but the ban was lifted from Maxim. This happened, as can be concluded from what follows, no later than 1543 or the second year of the reign of Macarius 1678. Freed from the ban, Maxim immediately began to try to ask for leave to Athos. But, alas! in this case, all his efforts were completely in vain. If already in 1525, it was decided not to let him out of Russia, because he “was a reasonable man and knew our good and dashing spirit and came there (in Greece) to tell him everything” 1679; then, all the more, he could not be released when he lived in Russia in order to perfectly know all its dashing things, and for another 20 years, and when, based on what these 20 years were for him, there were the most complete reasons to fear that he would expose all this dashing things to the shame of the whole world. Maxim turned to the sovereign and the boyar duma with a request for leave to Mount Athos in 1544 or another year after he was freed from the church ban of 1680. When the request remained unheard, Maxim decided to act through his Vatopedi monks. These latter convinced the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria to write about Maxim to Moscow and at the same time wrote 1681 themselves. And when the eastern requests were received in Moscow and remained without any action, he himself again addressed messages to the sovereign and the metropolitan in 1682. Turning to Moscow with vain requests for leave to Mount Athos, Maxim lived in the Tver Otrochy Monastery until 1551. In this last year, the abbot of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery Artemy, an admirer of his way of thinking and his direction, begged him to come to the Trinity. In the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, after 5 years of life there, Maxim died in 1556 (unknown month and date), having lived, despite all the suffering he endured, to a very advanced age. We will make a detailed review of the written works of the Monk Maxim in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on the literature of the time period we have taken. During the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, the existence of a rationalistic (anti-Trinitarian) heresy was discovered in our country, and with it heretical free-thinking, which represented more or less Protestantism. Followers of heresy and people infected with free-thinking, as far as both were open, were subjected to church council trial and condemnation and then civil punishment. The existence of heresy and freethinking together was discovered in the following way. In Lent 1558, the boyar's son Matvey Semyonov Bashkin 1683 came to confession to the priest of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, named Simeon. Both at confession itself and in subsequent home conversations about faith, the new spiritual son seemed to the priest an unusual person, because he asked him many perplexed questions, expressed views on Christian morality that seemed strange to him, and interpreted the apostle in a depraved (incorrect) way. Suspecting the purity of Bashkin's way of thinking, Simeon spoke about his perplexed questions and depraved interpretation of the apostle, in Peter's Fast of the same year, to his fellow priest Sylvester, a well-known favorite of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. Sylvester, who had already heard that there was bad fame about Bashkin, reported him and Simeon to the sovereign. The latter ordered the capture of Bashkin and since at the moment of the denunciation he was going to go from Moscow to Kolomna, before his return he ordered him to be given to two elders of the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, so that they would examine his life and interrogate him. At first, Bashkin professed himself to be an Orthodox Christian and did not want to admit to any wrongdoing; but then the wrath of God overtook him: he began to rage terribly, hang out his tongue and shout in different voices; Having come to his senses after this, he heard the terrible voice of the Mother of God, commanding him to repent and reveal his like-minded people - this is what he did, writing out all his heresies with his own hand and indicating his like-minded people 1684. Bashkin himself turned out to be a rationalist heretic. But in his slander of like-minded people, he indicated not only rationalist heretics like himself, but also people more or less infected with heretical freethinking, which had the character of Protestantism. And thus, the existence of one and another class of heretics was simultaneously discovered. There were two groups of rationalist heretics, about whom we will talk first, two groups were discovered: this was Bashkin with his comrades and then the monk of one of the Trans-Volga monasteries, Theodosius Kosoy and his students. The heresies of Bashkin and Kosoy, if they did not represent exactly the same heresy, were, in any case, very close to one another. Both of them rejected the trinity of the Godhead and did not recognize Jesus Christ as God; both of them rejected the entire external Christian church as a later (after Christ) human creation or invention. However, this identity of heresies or their very close similarity to each other is only accidental, for they are different in their origin: one has one source of this origin, the other has another. Bashkin was infected with rationalistic teaching, as he himself showed about himself and in which there is no reason not to believe him, from two Poles who lived in Moscow or, perhaps, Russians from Lithuania - Matvey the pharmacist and Andrei Khoteev 1685. Regarding the rationalism of the two Poles or Lithuanian Russians themselves, we cannot say anything definite. It is known that Western preachers of Unitarianism or anti-Trinitarianism found their main refuge in Poland and Lithuania and that it was possible for them to exist here as a special sect. But, as far as we know, they began to appear here no earlier than 1551-1686, so it seems that the rationalism of the two named cannot be derived from them. Be that as it may, but, accepting the fact that Bashkin’s seducers were two Poles or two Lithuanian Russians, we must admit either that our information about the beginning of Western unitarianism in Poland-Lithuania is insufficient 1687, or that the rationalism of Bashkin’s seducers must be derived from another, unknown to us, source. As for the rationalistic teaching of Theodosius Kosoy and his disciples - the Trans-Volga elders, it was a modified continuation of the heresy of the Judaizers. We said above that the council of 1504 put an end to the existence of the Judaizers sect as a sect, but that individual followers of the heresy managed to escape from the police searches that were carried out before the council. Many or some of these individual followers found refuge in the deserts of the Trans-Volga region, where the heresy continued to exist, in order to later appear in the form of Christian rationalism, freed from everything Jewish. On the issue of the attitude of the church and state towards the Judaizers, the Trans-Volga elders, headed by the Venerable Nil of Sorsky, opposed the majority of our clergy, who had at their head the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk. The latter demanded the death penalty for the most important heretics and did not want to accept the repentance of the heretics who were left alive, which they brought after condemnation; on the contrary, the Trans-Volga elders and the Nile were against the death penalty for heretics and stood in favor of accepting their repentance, expressed at any time. The representatives of the majority treated the opinions of their opponents with the greatest and most passionate hostility; but these, in turn, treated the opinion of the majority with the same hostility. When the latter’s opinion won a decisive victory, the anger and revenge of the Trans-Volga elders for the defeat they suffered were expressed in such a way that they wanted to be, as it were, harborers of heretics, giving them complete freedom. That this was indeed the case, positive evidence of this is given by the news about Vassian Kosom. There is no doubt that Vassian was not at all a Judaizer, and that in general he was completely Orthodox (except for the fact that in his unreasonable hyper-Orthodoxy, so to speak, he adhered to an imperishable-imaginary heresy); but when two monks who adhered to Judaism were discovered in his desert, he used all his efforts to close and save them 1688. [The Jewish prayer book read in two manuscripts in the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, which was used by the Judaizers (above p. 604, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 1259, corr.), one must think, was brought to the monastery by these latter.] The freedom granted to heretics in the deserts, as is self-evident, was a secret in relation to the government, spiritual and temporal. And therefore, it is necessary to think, it was expressed there in such a way that it was customary not to ask anyone about their way of thinking, and that everyone was left there in this regard to themselves. Thus, in the deserts of the Trans-Volga region, after the council of 1504, the heresy of the Judaizers found refuge, and it was its rationalism, having been purified from Judaism, that appeared in the form of the Christian-rationalistic heresy of Theodosius the Oblique. We cannot say positively who was the converter of the Jewish heresy into Christian rationalism - whether Theodosius Kosoy himself or someone else before him; but it seems most likely to think the first 1689. Let's return to Bashkin and his heresy. Having become infected with rationalism from the Poles or Lithuanians Matvey the Apothecary and Andrei Khoteev, Bashkin traveled to the Volga region to meet the rationalists there in 1690. This acquaintance may very well have had the consequence that, hitherto more or less different from the Volga residents in his heretical opinions, Bashkin became closer and united with them. We made it known above that Bashkin was seduced into rationalism by our Poles or Lithuanians, not alone, but with his comrades. These comrades were shown by Bashkin to be two people - probably Moscow residents, brothers Grigory and Ivan Timofeev Borisov 1691. Captured during Peter's Fast in 1553, Bashkin and his now-mentioned comrades were conciliarly tried and convicted in December of the same year. After the conciliar condemnation, all three were sent for life imprisonment to monasteries: Bashkin to Josephov of Volokolamsk, one of the Borisovs to Valaam, the other, unknown to which one, in 1692. Neither Bashkin’s own confession of repentance in 1693, nor the act of the cathedral trial of him in 1694, has survived to us, or at least one and the other remain unknown to this day. We find a statement of the heretical teaching of Bashkin and his comrades: in the letter of Metropolitan Macarius to the Solovetsky Monastery about the former Trinity Abbot Artemy (about whom we will talk below in 1695 and in the letter of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to the Monk Maxim the Greek in 1696. Since the Metropolitan and the sovereign set out the teaching in a literal manner in a similar way, then one must think that they reproduce the exposition from the same source, in all likelihood, from the conciliar act. The Charter and the Epistle present the teaching in the following form: 1) The Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ is unequal to His Father; 2) the natural and holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ and His honest and holy blood are considered nothing, but only simple bread and simple wine; 3) they will deny the holy and catholic apostolic church, saying that it is a council of the faithful - this is only a church, but this one that was created is nothing; 4) the divine flesh of Christ, the imagination and the most pure Mother of God and all His holy holy icons will be called idols; 5) repentance is considered nothing, saying: as soon as (a person) stops committing sin, if the priest does not repent, then he has no sin; 6) fatherly traditions and their lives impute fabulousness and the father places pride in the seven ecumenical council of saints, saying that they all wrote themselves, dividing themselves, so that they could rule over everything, both royal and saintly; 7) all the divine Scriptures (the holy fathers) are expounded in fables, but the apostle and the gospel do not truly (but in their own way) expound (explain, interpret). In the metropolitan’s message to the Solovetsky Monastery about Artemy, after the formal presentation of Bashkin’s heresy that we transmitted, some additional information is read regarding his teaching about the face of Jesus Christ. They are as follows: “Matvey Bashkin separated the only begotten Son from the Father and called the Son unequal to the Father, and said this: “and what I do rudely to the Son and at the terrible coming the Father can deliver me from torment, and what I do rudely to the Father and the Son will not deliver me from torment”; and Matthew prayed to the only God the Father, but put aside the Son and the Holy Spirit” 1697. Priest Simeon gives us a description of Bashkin’s moral teaching and behavior, and at the same time some characteristics of him as a living person, in his report about him to the Metropolitan. The priest writes: “Matthew (Bashkin) was at my confession during Great Lent, and he said in confession: I am a Christian, I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and I worship the image of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Most Pure Mother of God and the great miracle worker and all the saints written on the icon, and then me with great oaths and prayer He begged to be accepted to confession, and I accepted him; Yes, here he told me: your deed is great, it is written: there is nothing greater than love, than to lay down your life for your friends, and you lay down your lives for us and watch over our souls, so that we will repay you on the day of judgment; and after that he came to my yard (at home) and the people had gospel conversations, and found what was written there, as if you (be?) a Christian, and taught me to say: for God’s sake, use me spiritually, it is necessary, deed, what is written in those conversations, honor, but don’t rely on a word, and it would be accomplished by deed (i.e. do not limit yourself only to knowing what is written, but strive to fulfill it in practice), but everything began from you, before the priest began to show you and teach us; Yes, here in the Gospel there is: “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, for My yoke is good and My burden is light”: otherwise, what need does a person have to be humble, meek and quiet? then everything that lies on you, first of all, you should do and teach us; and after that he sent a man for me and I came to him, and he taught me to say: in the Apostle it is written: “The whole law ends in words: love your sincere as yourself; some and bondage, on others - runaway, and on others - smart, and on others - full, and I thank my God, I say that I had complete bondage, then I tore everything up and, sir, I hold my own voluntarily: it’s good for him and he lives, and not good and he wherever he wants, but it’s good for you, father, to visit us often and about everything punish, how we ourselves should live and keep people with us, without tormenting us” 1698... In the words just quoted, Bashkin is portrayed to us as a man with an ardent religious feeling and, together with a deep and living moral feeling, - as a man who was persistently and urgently occupied with the thought of his moral self-improvement. And this completely unusual thing, such as the granting of freedom to slaves, shows in him a person capable of high religious passion. Such a person, naturally, should have had an inclination to listen to preaching against outwardly ritualistic, dead Christianity. But, having inclined his ear to the sermon of Matthew the Apothecary and Andrei Khoteev, Bashkin was carried away by them, with his, as one must think, carried away nature, too far... Bashkin's coming to confession to the priest Simeon shows that he was taken while he was on the path of returning from unbelief to faith. If he came to the priest for confession and begged him to be admitted to it with great oaths and prayer, if he urgently asked the priest to use him spiritually: then it is clear that he was burdened by unbelief and sought to reconcile himself with faith. Having been captured, Bashkin first locked himself in his heresies, and then, struck by demonic possession, began to repent. We think this should be understood in such a way that at first he locked himself out of fear, and then, from painful thinking about whether to open or not to open, he reached mental illness (from a nerve disorder) and decided to sincerely repent. Why Bashkin, despite his sincere repentance, was nevertheless sent to life imprisonment, we cannot say. Perhaps the Josephine principle prevailed at the council that repentance is not accepted from a captured heretic (and if this is so, then the council strongly does not recommend it and, first of all, of course, the metropolitan, for Bashkin, who decided to seek the truth in the church, himself sought to be captured); perhaps they knew (managed to recognize) his unstable character and were afraid that he would again fall into heresy in order to act as its propagandist. There is no doubt that the official presentation of Bashkin’s heretical teachings presented above does not at all care about accurately depicting his teachings, without capturing the teachings of Kosoy. We have positive indications of this in the very presentation of 1699. But in general we do not have the opportunity to depict Bashkin’s heresy in a truly accurate way. We turn to Theodosius Kosoma. Historical information about Theodosius, who received the nickname Oblique from the physical defect of strabismus, is that he was a close and official slave or a servant of one of the Moscow noble boyars (housekeeper, butler), - that, having fled from his master, he took monastic vows on Beloozero, - that before being convicted of heresy, he spent a more or less long time in monasticism, - that as a monk, his former master 1700 also pleased him a lot. As a result of a slander by Bashkin or other trans-Volga residents stipulated by the latter, Kosoy was caught at the end of 1553 or in 1554 1701. Brought to Moscow for trial and imprisoned in one of the local monasteries, he managed, before or after his trial, to be freed from imprisonment and fled to Lithuania in 1702. We also do not have the act of the conciliar trial of Kosy, if only there was one, just as we do not have this act of the trial of Bashkin. We find information about his heresy in two polemical works against him. One of the works was written by the monk of the Novgorod Otensky Monastery in 1703 Zinovy; the other - by a monk unknown by name and of an unknown monastery. In 1566, two monks of the Old Russian Spassky Monastery and a third layman, all half-infected with the Kosoy heresy, came to Zinovy, who in not entirely reliable news is called a disciple of the Monk Maxim the Greek, who himself calls his teachers enlightened people and who, representing a very remarkable phenomenon for the 16th century, was a man in the proper sense of the word, two monks of the Old Russian Spassky Monastery and a third layman came to him, all half-infected with the heresy of Kosoy, and urgently asked him, as a learned man, to say his opinion about the latter. In response to the request of those who came, in the form of an interview with them, Zinovy ​​wrote a very extensive accusatory essay on heresy, to which he gave the title: “Truth testimony to those who asked about the new teaching” 1704. A monk unknown by the name of an unknown monastery wrote at the request of the Lithuanian-Russian Orthodox, among whom Theodosius preached his heresy. The Orthodox sent the monk a list of Theodosius’s heresies and asked him to write a refutation of them. Fulfilling the request, the monk wrote a refutation in the form of a letter to the petitioners, to which he gave the title: “Verbose Messages,” since it is very extensive 1705. The year 1566, when three half-infected with the heresy of Kosoy came to Zinovy, was the 12th or 13th year of the latter’s stay in Lithuania. By joining the society of local anti-Trinitarians, he could more or less change his teaching from the way he preached it in Moscow. And thus, in the Truth of the testimony of Zinovy ​​​​of Otensky, it is not the Moscow, but the Lithuanian teaching of Kosoy that is actually conveyed to us, although it may very well be that there was no difference between one and the other teaching. As for the verbose Epistle, there is reason to believe that it was written during the very first time that Theodosius was in Lithuania. The teaching of the latter is presented in it completely in accordance with the Truth, but, firstly, it does not contain one very important point, and secondly, there are several unnecessary points. In the Truth of the testimony of Zinovy Otensky, the teachings of Kosoy are conveyed in the following form: – God is one, not trinity. – Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian religious society, is not God. – It is proper to worship God in spirit, and not in outward appearance. The entire external church with its hierarchy, sacraments, worship and institutions represents a later human (not coming from Christ) tradition and fabrication and as such must be rejected (bishops and priests are false teachers, idolatry priests and maniacs, i.e. flatterers, saints; one should not go to churches, for they are idols; do not come to priests, do not sing prayers, do not demand prayers from the priests, do not repent to them and do not receive communion from them, do not burn incense, do not offer funeral services to bishops and priests, do not remember after death: all this is a human tradition; do not crush crosses and icons, for they are idols; do not call upon saints for help and do not venerate their relics; monasteries and all their statutes are human tradition). – True Christianity does not consist in deeds of external piety (which are a simple human invention), but solely in fulfilling the commandment of Jesus Christ to love one’s neighbors. – On earth you should not call yourself a father, but in heaven you should call yourself God the Father (in the verbose Epistle: you should not honor your parents or name your fathers, for it is written: “Do not call yourself a father on earth, your only Father is God”). How exactly Kosoy thought about Jesus Christ is not entirely clear in the Truth. Zinovy ​​wants to think and insists that he considered Him to be a simple person. But Zinovy’s interlocutors, for their part, seem to insist that Kosoy considered Him to be a created being, superior to a common man, or, at least, a common man gifted by God with supernatural gifts 1706. In the verbose Epistle, there is a missing point in the teaching about God and about Jesus Christ, and then there are extra points: about all the faiths that are in all languages, Kosoy says that all people are one with God: the Tatars and the Germans and other languages; Christians should not have authorities and they should not fight; You should not give alms to the poor, for they are dogs, and it is written: it is not good for a child to take away the bread and damage it with a dog. Regarding the omission, one must think that at the first stages of his stay in Lithuania, Kosoy did not find it convenient to preach his doctrine of monotheism. As for the extra points, if they were not learned by Kosom from other anti-Trinitarians, one must think that Zinovy’s interlocutors either dropped them into oblivion or did not recognize them themselves. The heresy of Theodosius the Oblique represents the transformation of Judaism into rational Christianity. He accepts, together with the Judaizers, that God is one; but he does not consider Jesus Christ to be some kind of deceiver, but accepts him as the messenger of God, who, instead of the old Mosaic covenant, established his new covenant. The Old Testament consisted of honoring one God and observing the rituals prescribed by God. Jesus Christ, establishing his New Testament, abolished rituals and ordered the worship of God in spirit, and in place of rituals he gave a new moral commandment about loving your neighbors as yourself. As far as one can enter into the process of Kosoy’s thoughts, he learned the Jewish doctrine of monotheism on the basis of the following: both Jews and Christians equally recognize the books of Moses as divinely inspired books; but in these books God preaches quite clearly about himself (i.e., as Kosoy found) that He is one; God, who declared himself one through Moses, could not later become threefold, etc. But, accepting the Jewish teaching about monotheism, Kosoy at the same time considers the Jewish Mosaic Law to be abolished and accepts the new covenant of Jesus Christ as the true New Testament, replacing the Old, on the basis that the first represents something incomparably higher than the latter - that the commandment to love your neighbors as yourself convinces him of the authenticity and truth of the New Testament. Basing his teaching on monotheism on the books of Moses, Kosoy called them the pillar books of the faith. He did not reject the Holy Scripture of the New Testament, but interpreted it in his own way, that is, so that it appeared as if it spoke of Jesus Christ only as a man. At the same time, he did not recognize the Epistle to the Hebrews, which speaks with indisputable clarity about Jesus Christ as God, as the authentic writing of the Apostle Paul. He declared the scriptures of his fathers to be fables, but he found in them some truth among lies, that is, something, as it seemed to him or as he wanted to imagine, speaking for him, and he uses this something to confirm himself. We do not know to what extent Kosoy independently studied the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and the writings of the fathers in order to collect weapons against supernatural Christianity with all its external structure. But, in any case, he had to oppose him more or less well armed with the weapons that were possible. We said above that the Jews carefully collected the entire arsenal of weapons against Christianity that could be found and that this arsenal more or less completely came into the possession of our Judaizers. Consequently, in addition to his own efforts, Kosoy could have ready what he needed. Indeed, as far as we know the evidentiary side of Kosoy’s polemic against supernatural Christianity, we find in him a polemicist with knowledge and, one might say, erudition. How great was the number of people infected with the rationalistic heresy of Theodosius the Oblique, we do not know in a positive way. But only the elders of the Trans-Volga monasteries are called such, and, therefore, in any case, one should not think about too many people. As for the number of these elders, it is said that on the basis of Bashkin’s denunciation and subsequent searches, many 1707 were taken. But by many taken we must understand not only the disciples of Kosoy, but also people of heretical free-thinking, who, without rejecting supernatural Christianity, more or less deviated from the purity of Orthodoxy, and about whom we will now talk below. In general, it seems most likely to think that the number of real students of Kosoy among the Trans-Volga elders was very small. We turn to the above-mentioned heretical and free-thinking people who did not reject supernatural Christianity. We said above that the heresy of the Judaizers spread among us in two forms: in the form of a real heresy, or, more precisely, a real apostasy, which consisted in the complete denial of Christianity, and in the form of more or less heretical freethinking, which did not reach the complete denial of Christianity. Some of the real Judaizers managed to hide from the government searches carried out before the cathedral of 1504; all the more so should a more or less significant part of the heretical and free-thinking people have hidden from them, since for the latter it was much easier. The real Judaizers, in one number or another, found refuge with the Trans-Volga elders. In a similar way, one or another part of the heretical and free-thinking people found refuge with them. But Bashkin, making his denunciation of his like-minded people who were in the Volga region, did not limit himself only to real like-minded people, such as the Unitarians or Anti-Trinitarians with Kosoy at their head, but also pointed to these heretical-free-thinking people who did not deny supernatural Christianity or only more or less deviated in their opinions from the purity of Orthodoxy. As a result of Bashkin’s slander and as a result of the searches carried out on the basis of the slander, one or another number of these heretics, who represented our Protestants, were brought to the cathedral court and condemned. The free-thinking people we are talking about appeared in such a way that the preachers of Judaism in relation to some of those they seduced had incomplete success - not having time to seduce these others into real Judaism, they only managed to infect them with more or less free-thinking. It is clear that the preachers managed to infect one more, another less, with free-thinking, and that they infected everyone to their own extent; and from this it is clear that among those infected with free-thinking there could not be unity and uniformity (a certain system) in the way of thinking and in points of deviation from Orthodoxy, but that each of them was on his own. The combination of one or another number of free-thinking people in one place, such as the Volga region, forces us to assume that a unification took place among them in relation to the way of thinking - either general, all into one, as if into a sect, or private - into a certain number of groups. Whether this was really the case, or whether, as during the initial local separation, everyone was on their own, we cannot say with certainty, because we do not have reliable evidence regarding this. But in itself, obviously, the latter seems most likely; and equally the latter is supported by evidence that is either not entirely definite or not entirely reliable, such as we have in 1708. [By “last” we must mean that “it really happened.”] Be that as it may, there is not a single individual among the Trans-Volga elders infected with free-thinking, whose free-thinking opinions were reliably known to us. We have an extract from the cathedral search about just one of these elders, but the only search tells us only the accusations that were brought against the defendant, but does not make it possible to decide which of the free-thinking opinions that he had internalized really belonged to him. This only elder, about whom we will speak, is the former abbot of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery Artemy. Artemy, who had his homeland unknown where and what class he belonged to by birth, was tonsured by the Monk Cornelius of Komel (whose monastery is located in the Gryazovets district of the Vologda province, 5 versts south of the city of Gryazovets). In 1536, with the blessing of the Monk Cornelius, he moved from the latter’s monastery to one of the hermitages located in the vicinity of the Kirillov Belozersky monastery, namely, the hermitage called Porfirievoy (Perfiryeva, Perfilyeva), which, in all likelihood, was founded by that Belozersk hermit Porfiry, who from 1521 to 1524 was the abbot of Trinity Sergius Monastery and which was driven out of the place in 1709 for boldly denouncing Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in one uncommendable act. In 1548, Artemy had such a reputation, one must think - at the same time both as a monk of a strict life and as a man of bookish teaching, that he was invited to become the abbot of the Cornelius Monastery in 1710. Before 1551, his fame in both of the now indicated respects reached Moscow and, at the request of the brethren of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, he was called from the desert to be installed as abbot of the monastery, to which, despite his decisive reluctance, he was installed by order of the sovereign between May 1 and May 17, 1551, 1711. Having spent only six and a half months in the involuntary abbess of the monks, whose morals were extremely distasteful to him, and having marked himself there by transferring the Venerable Maxim the Greek to the Trinity from Tver, he again withdrew into the desert in 1712. When Bashkin was convicted of heresy and taken into custody, Artemy, as a teaching man, was summoned from the desert to speak to him with books. But Bashkin, as well as others, began to slander him, Artemy, that “he does not obey the peasant law.” Because of slander, he “escaped unknown” from Moscow to the Volga region; but was brought and subjected to a cathedral trial in 1713. At the council, as the extract from the search about him reports, Artemy was accused by Bashkin and other witnesses of the following. “Bashkin wrote and spoke (against him) many blasphemous accusations: about icon worship and about the communion of the body of Christ and what-deeds in the Gospel and in the Apostle are not written (but) and that-deeds are not necessary to keep, and about the tradition of the saints father “The former Ferapontov abbot Nektariy testified: “Artemy told him about the Trinity: in Joseph Volotsky’s book says not much that God sent two angels to Sodom, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit; Yes, Artemy does not curse the Novgorod heretics and praises the Latins and does not fast.” In addition to what has just been said, Nektarios accused Artemy of many blasphemous and other heretical wines. The former abbot of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, Jonah, wrote to Artemy that he blasphemed about the sign of the cross: “there is nothing in it, before they put this sign on their foreheads, but now, by their own will, they put large crosses on themselves, and at the council there was a word about that sign of the cross, but they did not achieve anything.” The cellarer of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, Adrian Angilov, pointed out to Artemy that he said: there is no benefit in singing requiems and masses for the dead, this will not relieve them of torment. Trinity monk Ignatius Kurachov wrote about Artemy that he heard from him how he laughed at those singing the canon of Jesus and the akathist to the Mother of God, saying that they only know how to shout: “even Jesus, still Jesus”; “rejoice, rejoice.” Abbot Simeon of Kirillov wrote to Artemy that he said regarding the capture of Bashkin: “I don’t know what is heresy; They burned Kuritsyn and Rukavoy, and now they don’t know why they burned them.” Finally, Metropolitan Macarius himself accused Artemy of saying that at the council against Bashkin, Artemy called the latter’s heresies not heresies, but his simple stupidities, saying that there are no heretics now and that heretics should not be judged in such a way as to put them to death 1714. If we were to accept everything that has now been stated as fair, or if we were able to distinguish the just from the false in what has been stated, then we would know what Artemy’s heretical opinions were (although we would still know not quite definitely, since he is accused not quite definitely and dully). But we have good reasons not to accept the first and do not have the opportunity to do the second. Artemy himself did not plead guilty to anything, rejecting most of the charges as lies, and regarding the rest, giving an explanation in the sense that he had been misinterpreted or that his behavior had led to unfair conclusions about his opinions 1715. But if it must be accepted as a fact that Artemy was not innocent, for he later himself admitted his guilt 1716, then we have reason to believe that he was guilty and not of everything that he was accused of. Kurbsky, who also considers Artemy completely innocent, probably on the basis of the zeal for Orthodoxy, which he showed later, living in Lithuania, to which he fled from imprisonment in Moscow Russia, claims that he was a victim of slander, namely, that, being among the opponents of the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, he was slandered by covetous bishops and monks full of all wickedness, who were afraid that he did not return the sovereign’s former great love for himself and so as not to incite the latter against them 1717. And indeed it turns out to be possible to assume that Artemy, not being the only victim of slander, was to a greater or lesser extent slandered. There is his letter to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, written, as one must think, while he lived in Moscow, having been summoned there to speak books with Bashkin. From this message we learn that, brought from the desert to take the place of abbot of the Trinity Monastery, which was at the very time the Council of the Hundred Heads was taking place, he had speeches with the tsar about monastic fiefdoms - that the defenders of the fiefdom of the monasteries, since he was his opponent, suspected that he advised the sovereign to take away villages from the monasteries and that as a result of this there was great enmity against him from these defenders 1718. Kurbsky considers Artemiev’s main slanderer to be the former Ferapontov abbot Nektariy 1719; but it is not at all incredible to assume that the main slanderer was Bashkin. Having been taken into custody, Bashkin was given until a council was assembled against him, under the supervision of two elders of the Volokolamsk monastery in 1720: after he came or was brought to repentance, he could be taught by the Volokolamsk monks, who were the defenders of patrimonial ownership of monasteries par excellence and κατ ’ ἐξοχήν to slander Artemia. Thus, we repeat, about the only Trans-Volga elder, whose heretical and free-thinking opinions are communicated to us in detail, we remain reliably unknown to us what exactly constituted these opinions of his. (In addition to his certain, and, moreover, temporary, free-thinking, Artemy, as an Orthodox preacher about the preference of the commandments of God over human traditions, is our second preacher of this kind after the Monk Maxim the Greek and a disciple of this latter. As such a preacher, we will return to him in the second half of volume 1721. After detailed, although far from insufficient information about the heretical and free-thinking opinions of one of the Trans-Volga elders, we have specific indications of individual heretical and free-thinking opinions held by many or some of our elders and in general among people infected with the free-thinking that came from Judaism. About Bashkin’s like-minded people, by which, perhaps, we should mean not Kosoy’s disciples, but those freethinkers we are talking about, it is reported that some of them “themselves said to themselves (to the council) that they did not venerate the holy icons, and before that they laid it under punishment (sic) that they would not venerate the holy icons in the future” 1722. It is reported about one of the Artemievs’ students that he tormented the council about miracle workers and called Saint Nicholas a simple man 1723. Kurbsky assures that some of Cyril’s monks contained the heresy that the conciliar epistles were written not by the apostles, but by elders, church elders, and that the title of apostle was attributed to them for the sake of honor in 1724. About one of the free-thinking people, it is even stated, however, very suspicious regarding the authenticity, that he, approaching the Oblique, although not belonging to the number of his disciples, did not call Christ our God Almighty and said that we sin more against God by calling Christ Almighty 1725. The general ideas that one should have about the Trans-Volga elders, infected with heretical free-thinking, and about all free-thinking people in general, who constituted the offspring of Judaism, is to imagine them as people who more or less deviated towards Protestantism - people who more or less rejected the appearance of the church and everything that such heretics call human tradition. But establishing any clear definiteness of ideas, given the meager data we have, is impossible. Freethinking, sown in our society by the preachers of Judaism, found refuge, among other things, in the deserts of the Trans-Volga region. However, it was not concentrated in them alone, but remained to a greater or lesser extent, completely unknown to us, scattered in other places. As a result of Bashkin’s denunciations, having been discovered in the Volga region, it was discovered later or at the same time in other places. Kurbsky says: “following the order of the Tsar, the Metropolitan ordered to bring these scolders everywhere, wanting to torture them about splitting them, they outraged the image of the church, and wherever they were found, they were immanded everywhere and escorted to the main Moscow place (i.e., to Moscow), especially from the deserts of Zavolsk, because even there this scolding vegetated.” 1726. How great was the number of free-thinking people who were open in the Volga deserts and in other places remains unknown. Zinovy ​​of Otensky speaks about our free-thinking people and together about the disciples of Kosoy, that many were caught 1727; but this “many” is very vague, for it could equally be used about the number of persons, either limited to ten or reaching hundreds. Considering that the official and semi-official news and the chronicle do not speak at all about the many people taken in 1728, it seems most likely to think that the number of many free-thinking people taken was several dozen. In particular, the following are known: Artemy, the former abbot of Trinity, with three of his disciples, one of whom lived with him in the desert and was taken with him in 1729, and the other two were monks of the Novozersky monastery and were taken in 7065, i.e. 1556–7 1730, monk Savva Shah 1731, Theodoret, baptist of Lapps, about whom, as such, we will speak below and who, before being taken, was on the archimandrite in the Suzdal Euthymius Monastery 1732, monk of the Solovetsky Monastery Isaac or Joasaph Belobaev 1733, bishop of Ryazan Cassian. The latter was not convicted of freethinking in the search, but he exposed himself and, so to speak, was convicted by God. When the Trans-Volga elders were brought to the council and with them the now mentioned Isaac Belobayev, who was an elder or teacher of Cassian in monasticism, he began to defend all the heretics, and especially his former teacher, and began to blaspheme the book of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk against the Novgorod heretics: but he suddenly lost his arm, leg and tongue (i.e., paralysis happened to him), so he was forced to was to leave the bishopric and go to a monastery (one of the Trans-Volga 1734. Artemy, with the first series of openly heretical and free-thinking people, was conciliarly condemned no later than January 24, 1554, 1735; but, as can be seen from what has been said (about two disciples of the Artemiev monks of Novoezersk), the search continued later, at least until 1656–57, 1736. We do not know whether all the heretical freethinkers found guilty were sentenced to the same punishment. But the punishment known to us, to which all or more of the guilty were sentenced, consisted of life imprisonment in monasteries in 1737. Among other convicts, the former Trinity abbot Artemy was sent to the Solovetsky Monastery for imprisonment. From Solovki he fled to Lithuania and here, having repented of his errors, he marked himself with a zealous fight for Orthodoxy against Theodosius Kosoy and his comrades and against local heretics in 1738. Together with Artemy, Kurbsky calls Theodoret, Savva Shah and Isaac Belobaev completely innocent (if we consider him as one person with Joasaph Belobaev), and presents the matter in such a way that when real heretics were discovered in Belozerye, the covetous bishops and monks took the opportunity to get rid of those named, who were preachers of non-covetousness, and slandered them in heresies 1739. It seems not incredible to assume that in relation to the others, except Artemy, there is in Kurbsky’s words the same part of the truth as in relation to him, i.e. that they were guilty, but that the bishops and monks hostile to them, with the help of slander against them, tried to present them as more guilty than they actually were. (Theodorite, after a year and a half imprisonment in the Cyril Monastery, received freedom from the Metropolitan - Kurbsky p. 137, and then in 1557 he was sent by the sovereign to Constantinople to ask the patriarch for an affirmative letter in the rank of king). At the same time that a conciliar trial against heretics and heretical free-thinking people began in Moscow, one person was subjected to a similar conciliar trial, who disturbed the church world of Russian society with his excessive and unreasonable, as it was found, zeal for Orthodoxy, which had some relation to the same heretics and heretical free-thinking people. This excessively and unreasonably zealous person, who attracted the conciliar court, was the Duma sovereign clerk Ivan Mikhailovich Viskovaty, who rebelled against the innovation, as it seemed to him, in the writing of icons. On June 21, 1547, there was a great fire in Moscow, which we mentioned above and in which, by the way, the royal court Cathedral of the Annunciation burned out in the Kremlin with all the icons in it. Icon painters from Novgorod, Pskov and other cities were summoned to paint new icons at the cathedral, and the cathedral priest Sylvester, a well-known favorite of Grozny, was entrusted with overseeing them. When the icons were painted and placed in the cathedral and when they began to go to see them, Viskovaty found that many of them were an invention that was new and contrary to the cathedral rules on icon painting. He believed that the 7th Ecumenical Council did not allow anything to be painted on icons other than the image of the Savior according to His carnal gaze or appearance, except the Crucifixion of the Lord and other than the images of the Mother of God and the saints 1740, i.e. nothing but historical portraits, so to speak, reproducing reality; Meanwhile, the new icons depicted: God the Father or the Lord of Hosts according to the vision of the prophet Daniel in the form of a gray-haired old man; the Holy Trinity in the form of three angels; The Savior is symbolically in several forms - in the form of an angel with wings, sitting on top of a cross in armor, in the form of a young youth, dressed in armor and having a sword in his hand, in the form of King David; The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and entire plots of many icons were taken not from the materially visible world, these are the icons: The Eternal Council, God Rest from His Works, The Only Begotten Son, the Word of God, Come, let us worship the Trinitarian deity, I Believe in One God, written in two different forms (in the church in one form, on the porch in another) and some others. Seeing in the new icons an invention that was new and contrary to the cathedral rules, Viskovaty most energetically took up arms against them: he came to the cathedral and addressed the crowds of people who had gathered to view the icons with the harshest denunciations against them - he “screamed” against them, as the cathedral act about him in 1741 puts it. Why he did not act in such a way as to, instead of crying out to the people, come to the metropolitan and the latter express his doubts about the icons, for which the council later reproached him, is not visible: perhaps he had the intention of arming public opinion against Sylvester. When the heresy of Bashkin and the free-thinking of Artemy were discovered, Viskovaty, who believed that Sylvester was in consultation with Artemy (he had Artemy on probation before being appointed abbot of the Trinity, and then he gave a good review of Artemy), and who knew that another priest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Simeon Bashkin, had a spiritual son, suspected that they were being carried out through the new icons heretical thoughts of Bashkin and Artemy: in the depiction of Jesus Christ in the form of an angel, he suspected deceit to deny the equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father, and His image on the cross with clenched hands seemed to him to hide the wisdom of those who claimed that He (Jesus Christ) had not cleansed us from sin and who considered Him to be a simple man. And after his cries against the new icons to the people, Viskovaty did not act in such a way as to go with his statements about them to the Metropolitan: he wanted to make these last ones to the cathedral. Perhaps he was counting on and wishing to attract conciliar condemnation of Sylvester. Be that as it may, the matter immediately after Viskovaty gave him an official motion took such a turn that from an accuser he turned into an accused. At the end of 1553, a council was convened against Bashkin, and Viskovaty made his statements against the new icons in one of its first meetings (it seems, in the very first), on October 25. But the Metropolitan gave him a decisive answer that he was thinking about icons incorrectly, that the new icons were painted according to ancient models, according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, and expressed a threat to him, lest he, having rebelled against the heretics, himself become one of the heretics. Some time later, in the month of November, Viskovaty submitted to the Metropolitan a “list” or a lengthy “confession”, in which he outlined the reasons why he doubted the new icons, and asked the Metropolitan and the cathedral for admonition and, for what he had sinned, forgiveness. The Metropolitan sent a confession to the sovereign asking what he ordered to do with her, and the sovereign ordered her to be examined at a council. The council had two sessions to hear the confession, gave a written answer to it as lengthy as it did, and sentenced Viskovaty, on January 14, 1554, for three years of embarrassing Orthodox Christians with his shouts against new icons, to a three-year penance: one year to cry outside the church doors, asking the incoming faithful to say prayers for themselves, confessing their sins; another year - listen to the divine scriptures (that is, leave the church at the end of the Liturgy of the Catechumens); third year - stand in church with the faithful, but do not receive communion (holy mysteries) 1742. As a matter of fact, Viskovaty was right, and was wrong only in that he referred to the 7th Ecumenical Council. Not the 7th Ecumenical Council, but partly the 6th Ecumenical Council, mainly the fathers and teachers of the church, who before and after the 7th Ecumenical Council defended icon veneration from iconoclasts, indicating the purpose and purpose of icons and eliminating the objections made against them, say that icons should be an image of real persons and real events, so that icon painting is, in the strict sense of the word, historical painting (it was, so to speak, history in colors 1743. But Greek icon painters had long since stepped out from these narrow confines to freedom of creativity, and for a significant part of the icons against which Viskovaty rebelled, numerous existing samples could be indicated, which is what the Metropolitan made in his response to Viskovaty. from Western painters. But the icon painters painted them from their existing originals, and the Metropolitan thought that these originals were taken from ancient Greek examples. The cathedral agreed with some of Viskovaty's private comments and ordered the icons of 1744 to be corrected in accordance with them. In the history of this, so to speak, campaign of Viskovaty against the new icons, it remains completely incomprehensible that the Tsar and the Metropolitan allowed him to cry out against them for three whole years. Viskovaty's behavior strongly suggests that he was at enmity with Sylvester and wanted to bring trouble to the sovereign's favorite. And the Metropolitan’s behavior towards Viskovaty makes it clear that he was extremely dissatisfied with the latter for bringing the matter to a public conciliar discussion. In 1547, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible took the title of Tsar and was solemnly crowned with a royal crown. Ten years after this, in 1557, by a unanimous decision, as it must be assumed, with the metropolitan, he turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to confirm him in the rank of king. In 1556, Metropolitan Joasaph of Eugrip and Kizi came to Moscow from the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius for alms. With this Joasaph, in the following year 1557 (January 30), the former archimandrite of the Savior-Euthimius Monastery Theodoret, whom we mentioned above, was sent to Constantinople to ask the patriarch for an affirmative letter to the sovereign in the rank of king. The successor of Patriarch Dionysius, Joasaph II, sent in 1562 the affirmative letter requested by the sovereign, which, having been written in 1561 (unspecified month and date), was signed, in addition to Joasaph himself, by 32 metropolitans of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, one archbishop and three bishops in 1745. The matter of this patriarchal affirmative letter in all likelihood should be understood in such a way that Ivan Vasilyevich, having been crowned with a royal crown from his metropolitan, on the one hand, did not find it necessary to seek the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and on the other hand, did not hope to receive this blessing, since for the patriarch to recognize the Russian sovereign as tsar, the successor of the kings of Constantinople, meant, as it were, to abandon the hope of restoring the Greek kingdom in Constantinople, and that the patriarch, through Metropolitan Joasaph, himself invited the sovereign to confirm him in the rank of king with his letter. Not finding the letter he needed, but at the same time considering it very useful, Ivan Vasilyevich, on the advice, as we must assume, of the Metropolitan, hastened to take advantage of the patriarch’s offer. As for this latter, he had a good idea, on the one hand, to stand in relation to the Russian sovereign, so to speak, in the footsteps of the pope, and on the other hand, to create a large temporary or part-time source of income for his department. The Patriarch asserts in his letter that a royal wedding cannot be performed not only by any metropolitan, including the Moscow one, but that among the patriarchs only two have the right to do this - the Roman and the Constantinople, and in a private letter attached to the letter he proposes to the sovereign that his ambassador - the patriarch (the same Metropolitan of Eugryp and Kizis Joasaph), as his exarch, repeat over him on behalf of his - the patriarch's royal wedding in 1746. If Moscow had recognized the teaching of the patriarch that the right of the royal wedding belongs exclusively to him, and if they had agreed that his ambassador would repeat the wedding of Ivan Vasilyevich, then they would have created for themselves the same dependence on the patriarch in which the Western emperors were from the pope, and for the wedding of each subsequent sovereign they would have to pay him a more or less significant amount of money. Having paid generously for the letter received (not only to the patriarch himself, but also to all the bishops who signed it), Ivan Vasilyevich did not at all recognize the teachings of the patriarch and did not at all express a desire to be crowned king again by his ambassador. A year and eight months after Theodoret was sent to Constantinople, in September 1558, the Novgorod archdeacon Gennady and the merchant Vasily Poznyakov were sent to the East to distribute alms. This embassy is remarkable in that, according to the testimony of the 2nd Novgorod Chronicle, Archdeacon Gennady, along with the distribution of alms, was also entrusted with the task of “writing customs in those countries” in 1747. [Archdeacon Gennady and Vasily Poznyakov were sent with alms as a result of a request to the king for alms from the Alexandrian Patriarch Joachim. The elders of the patriarch, who arrived in Moscow on January 20, 1558, spoke here about the great miracle that happened to the latter, namely, that at the request of the Alexandrian Pasha (Egyptian Sultan), incited against Christians by the Jews, he drank a deadly poison and remained completely unharmed. It is likely that the desire to find out in detail about the miracle that happened to the Patriarch of Alexandria was one of the reasons for sending Archdeacon Gennady along with Poznyakov. And the miracle could have interested the Tsar and the Metropolitan both in itself and in connection with the question of whether the purity of true Orthodoxy among the Greeks was damaged or not damaged.] If the archdeacon had fulfilled the order and if his notes had reached us, then we could see what the order was, and if not see, then guess: for what purpose it was given. But the archdeacon died in Constantinople without fulfilling the order of 1748. True, his companion Vasily Poznyakov left behind notes, but notes containing not a description of Greek customs, but a story about his visit to the Patriarch of Alexandria Joachim in Egypt and then an ordinary pilgrimage or worship description of Sinai and Jerusalem 1749. Thus, only assumptions can be made about the purpose for which the instruction was given to Archdeacon Gennady to write the customs of the Greek countries. The only probable thing that can be assumed is that the Tsar and the Metropolitan wanted to know to what extent the opinion that we then had about the Greeks, that they had been corrupted by the purity of true Orthodoxy, was correct. But to another question: why the tsar and patriarch wanted to know - whether because they doubted the validity of the opinion or that, on the contrary, being confident in its validity, they wanted to have as much evidence as possible, it is difficult to answer and speculatively. It is possible that neither the first nor the second, but simply wanted to satisfy their curiosity. It was then preached and accepted among us that among the Greeks “the Orthodox faith was distorted by Makhmet’s charm from the godless Turks” 1750: both the Tsar and the Metropolitan could be curious to what extent the faith was distorted and what exactly this distortion consisted of. It remains for us to tell us about the literary activity of Metropolitan Macarius, or, more precisely, about his activity in the field of literature. We will talk about this activity of his here briefly, since we will talk about it at length and in detail in the second half of the volume, in the chapter on writing for the period of time we have taken. We said above that Macarius was not a writer, and that he is not famous in the field of literature as such. However, a reservation must be made to these words: he was not a deliberate and real writer, but still left behind some literary works. And therefore, in the present case, before his non-author’s activity, the speech should be about the author’s activity, expressed in these certain literary works. But even before speaking about Macarius’s authorial activity, we must also touch upon the issue of his non-written pastoral and teaching activity. We said above that the chronicle imparts to Macarius the gift of teaching and edifying conversation - that, according to its testimony, he was given wisdom from God in the divine scripture to speak in many stories, so that it would be easy for everyone to understand. Since the chronicle speaks of Macarius’ teaching ability on the occasion that, having arrived for the first time in Novgorod in the rank of archbishop, he addressed the people with a teaching word in St. Sophia: then others want to understand her testimony in the sense that she speaks of Macarius’s inclination towards church preaching. Then they point to other evidence. The hegumen of the Novgorod Khutyn monastery, Theodosius, who was later Macarius’s successor at the archbishop’s see, in one of his letters to him, written while he, being an archbishop, was in Moscow, says: “It is most desirable for us to be near you and see the great shepherd, in the Church of Holy Sophia of the Wisdom of God.” sitting on his throne and teaching the honey-flowing river pouring out and attacking the soul(s)” 1751. Comparing this second testimony with the first, they want to think that Macarius diligently practiced church preaching, but that he spoke his words impromptu or without writing - that they remained unwritten and thus did not reach us. If this were really so, then Macarius would represent not only a remarkable exception for his time, but a very notable exception for all subsequent times up to our present. But all this is nothing more than fantasy. About the use by Macarius of the gift of edifying and teaching conversation, which was inherent in him, one should think that it did not consist in public and real preaching, but in private conversations with people. In exceptional cases, Macarius could and, as we know, actually spoke real words or teachings; but, there is no doubt, he did not speak impromptu at all. If Macarius had had the ability, incredible for a man of his education, to say words impromptu, and if he had had the custom of doing this, incredible for his time, then, on his instructions or without his instructions, the words would undoubtedly have been recorded and would have come down to us in writing. As for the above appeal to Macarius by Archimandrite Theodosius, it represents nothing more than an exquisite compliment of 1752. The few literary works of Metropolitan Macarius are: two teachings and one speech spoken to the sovereign, and three messages addressed - two to the same sovereign and one to his army. The teachings were spoken by the Metropolitan to the sovereign: one at his wedding with the royal crown, another at his marriage to Anastasia Romanovna; the speech was delivered before the sovereign upon his victorious return to Moscow from the third and last Kazan campaign (October 29, 1552). Of the three messages, the first one is addressed to the army, namely from May 25, 1552: it is addressed to the army located in the city of Sviyazhsk, which a year ago was founded 20 (then) versts from Kazan, as a guard and operational fortress against it; two messages to the sovereign were written during his third Kazan campaign: one, dated July 13 of the same 1552, when the sovereign was in Murom on his way to Kazan”; another, from an unknown date after August 18 until September 1, when the sovereign set out from Sviyazhsk just before Kazan. The sermon to the sovereign, spoken at his crowning with the royal crown, contains admonitions to him about observing the royal duties and about zeal for the royal virtues 1753. The sermon to the sovereign at his wedding contains instructions on Christian, royal and marital duties 1754. In the welcoming speech to the sovereign upon his return from the Kazan campaign, God is glorified, who granted the sovereign a bright and glorious victory, and the sovereign himself, who showed great efforts to achieve this victory in 1755. The message to Sviyazhsk was written on the occasion that the local governors sent to the sovereign with news about the raging scurvy and pestilence in the city and about the unfortunate outcome of our forays against the enemies. Since at the same time rumors reached Moscow about the bad behavior of the garrison stationed in Sviyazhsk, the Metropolitan saw in the misfortunes that befell him God’s punishment for his sins and decided to pastorally admonish and expose the people who had brought upon themselves, and with them on the state, heavenly punishment. Having taught the Sviyazhsk soldiers instructions on Christian virtuous life, the Metropolitan strictly reproaches them for the natural and especially unnatural debauchery (sodomy) that was rampant among them. In his letters to the sovereign, the Metropolitan inspires and exhorts him to stand courageously and firmly against the enemy 1757. Postponing until further detailed speeches about the now mentioned literary works of Metropolitan Macarius, we will only note here, as serving to characterize him from the moral side, that in his teachings to the sovereign and partly in his epistles to him, he instructively speaks to him about royal and Christian virtues in general with all unflattering fearlessness. The glory of Macarius in the history of literature, as we said, is his publishing activity and another activity that we cannot describe in one word and which consisted in the fact that he, representing, as it were, the ancient Count Rumyantsev, tried to achieve the fulfillment of the book and literary needs of the time with the help of others. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Russian state took the place of the disappeared Byzantine Empire; and together with the state, the Russian Church took a leading position among all private Orthodox churches. But every church is based on the teachings of the apostles and fathers. Consequently, the Russian Church, in accordance with the requirements of its new position, had to have full knowledge of the treasury of apostolic patristic writing that was accumulated in it and which it had at its disposal, and had to put itself in the position of using all of it. And so, Metropolitan Macarius, satisfying this need determined by the times, conceived a relatively great undertaking of collecting in one place all the holy books found in the Russian land. He realized his idea in such a way that he took the plan of the Chetiih-Minea - that under the days of the months he placed not only the prolos (short) and mena (lengthy) legends about the holidays and lives of the saints, but also all the words that existed on the days and all the creations that belonged to the saints of the days, as far as he could find both. And that he placed the church teaching works of unholy and nameless writers at the ends of the months in the form of additions. Having been inspired by the thought of the high position of the Russian Church long before the time he became metropolitan, Macarius began his enterprise while he was the archbishop of Novgorod, working on its implementation for 12 years in Novgorod, he finally completed it in Moscow and not earlier than 1552 1758, so in total he worked on it for about 20 years. The fruit of the labors was 12, according to the number of months, huge volumes, which are called the Great Makaryev Chet-Mina. Since Macarius worked on collecting not directly himself, but with the help of others, on his own part there was not so much work as waste and worries. But there is no doubt that the enterprise cost him enormous amounts of money and required a lot of care; he himself speaks about the Novgorod time of collecting the Menaions: “I wrote these holy books in Veliky Novegrad, as I was an archbishop there, and I wrote and collected them and collected them in one place for twelve years, with many estates and many different clerks, not sparing silver and all kinds of honors” 1759 ... Macarius’ great enterprise had no practical significance. If we had had book printing in his time, and if this book printing had been in such a position that his Chet-Minea could have been printed, then rich people would have started buying them, in order to thus acquire entire libraries of their fathers’ works. But under Macarius we did not yet have printing, and after the introduction of printing we never had another Macarius, and no one ever had the bold idea of ​​printing his Chet-Minea. Copying huge collections was completely beyond the means of any private people. Having no practical significance, the Chet-Minea of ​​Macarius had a moral significance: these 12 huge volumes testified that the Russian church possessed paternal literature in full abundance. As for the second, above-mentioned type of activity of Metropolitan Macarius, it was devoted to the history of the church and state. Macarius established solemn church celebrations for all Russian saints whom God glorified as such. He also showed diligent care about spreading their glory among people, the means of which is their lives. Some of the saints he canonized did not have lives at all until then, and he took care that the lives were compiled; others had lives, but they were unsatisfactorily compiled, and he took care that the lives were processed in a more satisfactory manner. The Lives, first written and corrected on behalf of Metropolitan Macarius, number up to 10. His diligent care for the Lives also had the general significance that it greatly revived hagiographic writing among us - that this diligent care for the Lives awakened the same care in others. The state, which had entered a new, higher period of political existence, had to take care of its past so that, on the one hand, this past, which became the property of history for it, could be well known historically, and on the other hand, so that it could have a meaningful idea about this past, which led it to the present. Metropolitan Macarius took care of satisfying both of these needs. For the first purpose, on his instructions, a chronicle was compiled that would represent as complete a collection of chronicle news as possible (about all of Rus' with the exception of Novgorod, which had its own separate historiography); this is the so-called Nikon Chronicle (very unfortunately named by its current name due to the fact that the handwritten copy from which it was printed belonged to Patriarch Nikon). For the second purpose, an experiment of real history was compiled on the same instructions from Macarius; This is a Degree Book, so named because the narrative is arranged in it according to degrees or according to the reigns of sovereigns. (We highly suspect that the Sophia Vremennik, which has the same relation to the historiography of Novgorod as the Nikon Chronicle to the Historiography of the rest of Russia, was also compiled on behalf of Macarius). One large translation from Latin is known, made on behalf of Metropolitan Macarius; this is precisely the translation of the consolidated interpretation of the Psalter compiled by Brunon, Bishop of Gerbipolensky or Wirtsburg (XI century), made by the embassy interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov, whom we mentioned above as a collaborator of the Monk Maxim the Greek, in 1535 1760. Above, in two places, we promised to say in this chapter dedicated to Metropolitan Macarius: firstly, about the baptism of the Lapps, which began during the reign of Metropolitan Daniel, but continued under Macarius; secondly, about the attempts of the popes to attract us - Russians - to an alliance with the Roman Church, which began from the time of the marriage of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich with Sophia Fominichna in 1472 and which continued until the time of Metropolitan Macarius and beyond. We are now fulfilling our promises. Lapps or Laplanders, a very small, i.e. very few, people of the Finnish tribe, in ancient and old times lived within the boundaries of our fatherland not only on the peninsula that forms the northwestern corner of Russia, which, being formed by the bay of the Northern Ocean - the White Sea, is called Lapland after their name, and after the city of Kola located on it - the Kola Peninsula, but also along the southwestern coast of the White Sea, going into in the south, more or less far from the Arkhangelsk province to the Olonets province. To this day, the Lapps living in Lapland or on the Kola Peninsula have survived; and as for the Lapps on the southwestern coast of the White Sea, they have already become completely Russified. The second Lapps, now no longer existing, were baptized in full or not completely at an unknown time, more or less long before Metropolitan Daniel in 1761, and we are talking exclusively about the first Lapps who have survived to the present day and live in Lapland or on the Kola Peninsula. Under the year 1526 it is read in the chronicles: “On the same summer 34 (i.e. 7034 from S.M., which is the year 1526 from R.X.) I came to the sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in Moscow Pomortsy and Lopian from the Okiyan sea, from the Kandolzhskaya Bay, the mouth of the Neva River, from Dikaya Lopi, and they beat the sovereign Grand Duke with their foreheads, and asked the antimis and priests to consecrate the church and enlighten them with holy baptism; and the sovereign prince the great ordered to send a priest and a deacon from the cathedral church to his pilgrim archbishop Macarius from Novagorod; and while they were there they consecrated the Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist, and baptized many Loplyans in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, into our Orthodox Christian holy faith" 1762. The Lapps, which are mentioned in the above news of the chronicles, lived in the upper reaches of the Kandalaksha Bay of the White Sea, in the area where the village of Kandalaksha is now located, located at the confluence of the river into the bay, which the chronicles call the Neva and which is now called Niva (the largest village on the peninsula after the city of Kola, having 74 households and representing one of the main industrial centers of the Arkhangelsk province - Semenov Geographical-Statistical Dictionary, word Kandalaksha). Who persuaded the Kandalaksha Lapps to accept Christianity, so that they built a church before baptism, remains unknown. But it is necessary to think that it was some kind of hermit or there were some hermits either from the Solovetsky Monastery or from an unknown monastery from the mainland. Herberstein, who was in Moscow for the second time precisely in 1526 (from April 26 to November 11) writes: “The special concern of the spiritual (Russians) is to bring some people to their faith; The hermit monks had already long and persistently sowed the word of God among them, attracting a significant part of the former idolaters to the faith of Christ. And now they set off to different regions lying to the north and east, which they reach with great difficulty, enduring hunger and endangering their lives, and do not expect or seek any benefit, but only strive to do a work pleasing to God, and so that the souls of many, carried away astray (sometimes confirming the teaching of Christ by death), are returned to the right path and won by Christ” 1763. Ambassadors from the Lapps to the Grand Duke were supposed to arrive in Moscow when Herberstein was in it, and it must be assumed that, as modern preachers of Christianity among the pagans, he was pointed to the unknown enlighteners of our pagans. The Lapps turned with their request to the Grand Duke himself, and not to the Archbishop of Novgorod, as one should think, because they sent their embassy when Macarius had not yet been appointed archbishop of Novgorod or when he, being ordained archbishop, had not yet come to Novgorod. (Having been installed as archbishop of Novgorod on March 4, 1526, he arrived in Novgorod five months later on July 29). If the unknown hermits, who disposed the Lapps to accept Christianity, did not themselves baptize them, then it is necessary to understand this in such a way that they did not have the rank of priesthood. Under the year 1532 it is read in the chronicles: “The same winter, Loplyan came to Veliky Novgorod from the Murmansk Sea, from the Kola River, from Tutolomi, and beat the sovereign Archbishop Macarius with his forehead and asked the antimis and priests to consecrate the Church of God and enlighten the samekh with holy baptism; and the God-loving Archbishop Macarius sent a priest and a deacon from the cathedral church of St. Sophia, and they consecrated the Church of God - the Annunciation of the Holy Theotokos and the Wonderworker St. Nicholas, on the Fast of Philip, and the same many baptisms, behind the Holy Nose, Loplyan, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in our Orthodox and holy faith " 1764. The Lapps, who are mentioned in our second news of the chronicles, lived in the area of ​​​​the present city of Kola, which is located on the shore of the bay of the northern ocean, between the mouths of the Kola and Tuloma rivers - in the chronicles of Tutoloma, flowing into the bay not far from one another, and two churches, erected by the Lapps and consecrated by the priest, were precisely in that village or camp (volost), which later became the city of Kola. The same thing should be said about the unknown preachers of Christianity to the Kola Lapps as we said above about the preachers of Christianity to the Kandalaksha Lapps. When the chroniclers say that the Kola Lapps lived beyond the Holy Nose, they do not reveal a particularly good knowledge of topography and their words must be understood in the improper sense that they are much further than the Holy Nose. At the same time or after the Kola Lapps were converted to Christianity by unknown hermits, to the Lapps who lived west from Kola to the Norwegian border, along two rivers flowing into the northern ocean - the Paz, which almost throughout its entire course serves as the border between Russia and Norway 1765, and the Pechenga, which flows parallel to the Paz 100 versts from it to the east and 250–300 versts to the west of Kola, a hermit known by name appeared preaching Christianity. This is Saint Tryphon of Pechenga. The Monk Tryphon, a native of an unknown exact place in the Novgorod region in 1766, in the summer of his youth wanted to strive for the feat that many in his time struggled with, namely, the feat of living in the desert, and to which he wanted to add another feat - bringing to Christ those who wandered in the darkness of paganism, the desire of which, according to the above testimony of Herberstein, At that time many hermits became animated. For both exploits, he went to the western part of Lapland, bordering Norway. Having learned the language of the Lapps, he addressed them with his sermon and, after an unknown amount of effort, persuaded them to accept Christianity in 1767. Not having the rank of priesthood, the monk did not baptize Lapps himself, but, having prepared a building for the future church for future Christians, he went to Novgorod to the archbishop for a priest who would baptize the catechumens and consecrate the church. The time when the baptism of the Pazo-Pechenga Lapps took place, not indicated in the life of St. Tryphon, can only be determined approximately. At the church that the monk built for those he converted (placing it on the Pechenga River, 7 versts above its mouth) and which was consecrated in the name of the Holy Trinity, he built a monastery, and about this monastery, calling it an honest monastery, in which many monastic couples lived together, says the venerable Maxim the Greek in the preface to the life of the Solovetsky wonderworkers of 1769. Having labored for a more or less long time among the Pazo-Pechenga Lapps after their conversion to Christianity, the Monk Tryphon died, according to his life, at the age of 88, on December 14, 1582, 1770. In addition to Tryphon of Pechenga, another enlightener of Lapps is known by name, this is Theodoret, about whom we have already spoken several times above, a monk of the Solovetsky Monastery, after the Solovetsky Monastery, he lived in several other monasteries and places, before 1556 he was the archimandrite of the Suzdal Euthymius Monastery, and in this last year he was tried and convicted for freethinking and sent to prison for a short time. In 1557, he was sent by Ivan the Terrible to Constantinople to the patriarch for an affirmative letter in the rank of king and, finally, for something (for petitioning allegedly about the famous Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbsky) he was allegedly executed by the sovereign. Now the aforementioned A.I. Kurbsky, who provides detailed, but not particularly thorough and reliable, information about Theodorite, assures that he was the baptist of the Lapps living near the mouth of the Kola River. But we positively know that the local Lapps were baptized before Theodoret, whose missionary activity among the pagans should be dated back to approximately the year 1545. Without believing that Kurbsky completely invented this activity of Theodorite, it will be necessary to think that he was the baptizer of one or another number of Lapps of the eastern part of the Kola Peninsula, who lived along the Ponoya River, which flows in the middle of the eastern part of the peninsula from west to east and flows into the White Sea in its northern upper reaches, and from the Ponoya River - up to the Holy Nose and down to the Tersky and along the Tersky coast 1771. As for the baptism of these Ponoi or Terek Lapps, there is a known letter from Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich dated February 20, 1575, given in the name of a certain elder Theognost, from which it turns out that some of our Lapps were baptized quite a long time before this year, and that the other part remained unbaptized this year. The Tsar writes in his letter that the elected baptized and unbaptized Lapps of this area beat him with their foreheads, that in advance, at their - the Lapps' request, he - the sovereign ordered them to build a church of the apostles Peter and Paul on the Ponoye River and supplied it from himself with everything necessary - that they - the Lapps built the church and were baptized themselves, and others did not have time to be baptized, because that church was deserted by the powerful There was no one to protect the people of violence and to protect the people of that church, as well as themselves, from strong people, and that now they - the Lapps - ask him - the sovereign, so that he would order those who were not baptized among them to be baptized, and the old and sick and crippled from among the baptized to be tonsured into the monastic rank at the aforementioned church and to build a church and to establish a government between them - Elder Theognostus. According to the request of the Lapps, the king instructed the elder Theognostus, who had to make certain collections from the Lapps instead of swearing, to build the church of the apostles Peter and Paul in the old way and to establish or sentence a priest to it, who would, for a certain fee, correct the needs of the Lapps (and himself to firmly protect them from any strong people, violence and sale 1772. In 1581, the church of the apostles Peter and Paul, who continued to stand without singing, that is, for which Elder Theognostus did nothing for one reason or another, was entrusted by the sovereign to the management of the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergius (who wanted to use the fishing grounds in half of the Ponoya River, given by the Lapps to the church in 1773). We turn to the attempts of the popes to attract us, the Russians, to an alliance with the Roman Church. We said above that Pope Paul II and Cardinal Vissarion, having decided in 1469 to offer the hand of Sophia Fominichna to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, dreamed little about the new attraction of Muscovite Rus' to the Florentine Union, since the convincing example of Isidore was still too much in their living memory, and that they arranged the marriage mainly out of the desire to attract the Moscow sovereign to the alliance of Western sovereigns against The Turk, about whom they worked hard 1774. But one must think that they sent the princess to Moscow with much greater dreams regarding the union than with which they offered her hand to the Grand Duke. The fact is that the sovereign sent to Rome to look at the bride and then bring her to Moscow, his money master Ivan Fryazin (an Italian from Vicenza Jean Battista Volpe) assured the pope and cardinals that the grand duke, having refused to recognize the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople after he fell to the barbaric yoke of the Turks, wants to proceed to the Union of Florence and recognizes the pope as governor Christov 1775. How the papal legate Anthony, who accompanied the princess, behaved in Moscow, absolutely nothing is known either from Russian chronicles or from the Vatican acts of 1776. It is possible that he did not start talking about union at all, having been strongly warned about this by the sovereign’s bailiffs, who met the bride in Yuryev (Dorpt). If he started it, he should have immediately received a completely categorical answer that although the Grand Duke really does not recognize the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, he, nevertheless, does not even think about recognizing the authority of the Pope of Rome 1777. After the information received regarding Moscow's dispositions and sentiments from Anthony, it would seem that the popes' attempts to attract us to an alliance with the Roman Church should have stopped. But even after Anthony, there continued to be people who assured the popes that the Russian sovereigns were ready to begin a union with them, and who excited the popes to make attempts to attract the sovereigns to the union. On the other hand, the sovereigns themselves, although they directly and decisively responded to the papal proposals that, just as in advance with God’s will from their ancestors they held the Greek law tightly, and then with God’s will they wanted to hold their own law tightly (see below), they behaved in such a way that they seemed to support some hope for a favorable end to the attempts. They not only did not shy away from favors or diplomatic relations with the popes, but zealously supported the latter, declaring that they wanted to be in friendship and harmony with the popes. These relations, firstly, flattered their pride, like relations with the head of the Western European world; secondly, they needed to maintain good relations with the popes through sendings so that from the time of Ivan Vasilyevich’s marriage to Sophia Fominichna, our sovereigns began to order artisans, technicians and artists from the west, mainly from Italy, and that the popes, in the event of bad relations between the sovereigns and them, could greatly prevent them from calling the people they needed. According to what has just been said, starting with the marriage of Ivan Vasilyevich to Sofya Fominichna, we began to have quite active relations with the popes, and the popes thought and tried to attract our sovereigns to an alliance with the Roman Church, and the sovereigns, not at all thinking about this alliance and being resolutely against it, maintained relations for other reasons we have indicated. We will convey information about these relations, which, however, is far from different in completeness, in the chronological order of these latter. Together with the Pope's legate Anthony, who after an 11-week stay in Moscow was released from it on January 26, 1473, 1778, or after him, the sovereign sent him to Venice to complain about the improper behavior in Moscow of the Venetian ambassador Trevisan, Anton Fryazin, nephew of Ivan Fryazin. From Venice Anton went to Rome and returned to Moscow on April 25, 1474, 1779, as we learn from a Polish source with some business from the pope to the Grand Duke in 1780. A little after Anton’s return, on July 24, 1474, the Grand Duke sent to Italy, partly on the matter of the same Trevisan, partly, probably, about what Anton had brought from the pope, partly for a good architect, his ambassador, Semyon Tolbuzin, with whom the same Anton Fryazin was appointed to accompany and who returned from Rome on March 26, 1475, bringing with him by the famous architect Aristotle Fioraventi 1781. (Aristotle was simultaneously made offers from the Grand Duke of Moscow and from the Sultan of Turkey: if he preferred the first, who was far below the Sultan in terms of power and splendor, then it is not impossible to suspect the influence of the pope here). In 1483, for some reason unknown to us, a rumor spread in Poland that the Grand Duke of Moscow had sent ambassadors to the pope to ask him for royal or royal dignity 1782. This rumor, which persisted for a long time, reached Austria, and the ambassador of the German Emperor Nikolai Popel, who was in Moscow in 1489, represented here that only one emperor has the right to give royal dignity and that the Grand Duke, if he wants to receive the latter, must turn to him - the emperor 1783. In 1488, the Grand Duke sent Greeks traveling from Constantinople - brothers Dmitry and Manuel Ivanov Ralev to Rome, Venice and Milan. Returning from Italy in the winter of 1489–90, the ambassadors brought with them from Venice the doctor Mister Leon the Jew (who very soon suffered an unfortunate fate) “and other Fryaz masters - wall and plate, cannon and silver” 1784. On July 9, 1490, the ambassador of the Grand Duke Greek Yuri Trachaniot returned from Rome, it is unknown when he left Moscow in 1785. In the summer of 1494, the ambassadors of the Grand Duke Greek Mapuylo Angelov and Danilo Mamyrev returned to Moscow; In March 1499, the Grand Duke sent his Greek ambassadors Dmitry Ivanov Ralev and Mitrofan Fedorov Karacharov to Italy “about his needs,” who returned at the end of 1504, bringing with them “many silversmiths and cannon and wall makers” 1787. One or the other of the ambassadors who went to Italy in 1494 and 1499, or perhaps both of them were in Rome for some negotiations that did not lead to anything. Pope Clement VII wrote in 1524 to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich that, as he had heard, under his predecessor Pope Alexander, who occupied the throne from 1492 to 1503, Russian ambassadors came to Rome on certain matters, but that, unfortunately, nothing was done (Tui legati componendarum rerum causa in urbe Roma versarentur, sed nihil fuise conclusum 1788. It is likely that the negotiations were about the joining of the Moscow Grand Duke in the alliance of Western sovereigns against the Turks, with whom our great princes had no desire, but were not at all averse to talking about war with them (attracting the popes with their feigned readiness to join the alliance of Western sovereigns and postponing this accession under various pretexts). Nothing is known about relations with the popes of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, who took the place of his deceased father on October 27, 1505, until 1511. Then, Paul Jovius says in his work De legatione Moscovitica that while the Lateran Council was taking place (which began in May 1512 and lasted until March 1515), Grand Duke Vasily, who was in the midst of a war with Poland, wanted, through the Danish king John, to send an embassy to Pope Julius II, but what happened almost on the same day with the death of the king (20 February 1513) and the pope (February 19, 1513) postponed his intention to send the 1789 embassy. At the aforementioned Lateran Council, a crusade of Christian sovereigns against the Turks was decided. The fallen and the Grand Duke of Moscow were invited to participate in the campaign through a letter written on behalf of the council on November 29, 1513, 1790. On September 8, 1514, the Poles won a brilliant victory over the Russians near the city of Orsha. The Pope in Rome solemnly celebrated this victory as the victory of his Catholics over heretics, and thereby, according to Paul Jovius, alienated Grand Duke Vasily and all his people from himself in 1791. After this, relations resumed in 1517. The pope kept busy trying to organize a crusade against the Turks, which was decided at the Lateran Council in 1513, and in order to encourage and convince the sovereigns to form a military alliance, he sent his legate, a monk of the Domnikov Order, Nikolai Schomberg, a German from Prussia, to their courts in 1515-1516. Nikolai Schomberg had a brother, Dietrich Schomberg (called in our chronicles and embassy affairs Theodoricus Szymbork, Theodrich Schembork), whom in March 1517, the Master of the Prussian German Order Albrecht sent to Moscow to the Grand Duke to conclude an offensive alliance against the King of Poland in 1792. Nikolai Schomberg entrusted his brother Dietrich with efforts to attract the Grand Duke to the alliance of Western sovereigns against the Turks and together to attract him to an alliance with the Roman Church. Dietrich Schomberg was answered to his efforts: “Our sovereign and the pope want to be in friendship and agreement about matters about which; and just as before, our sovereign, with God’s will, firmly held the Greek law from his ancestors, so now, with God’s will, he wants to hold his own law firmly” 1793. But Nikolai Schomberg (apparently, the fellow, as they say, is not a fool) informed the pope that the matter of attracting the Grand Duke to the indicated alliances had been brought through his efforts and labors to the point that there was some hope for a favorable ending. As a result of such a report from Nicholas, the pope in 1518 decided to send him to Russia. But for some reason the embassy did not take place (perhaps it was rejected by Schomberg himself, who knew from his brother about the true state of affairs and did not at all hope to lead it to that favorable ending, the hope for which he fraudulently presented to the pope in 1794. In 1519, King Sigismund of Poland, who was at war with Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, asked the pope for mediation between him, the king and the Grand Duke. In Rome, after the matter was discussed by a committee of cardinals, it was decided in September 1518 to send an ambassador, Bishop Zacharias of Gardenia, to Moscow. But for some reason the embassy, ​​like the previous one, did not take place. The ambassador of the King of Poland, in order to induce the pope to take on the role and troubles of a mediator, assured him that the Grand Duke was disposed to proceed to an alliance with the Roman Church, and the Pope began his letter to the Grand Duke, which was to be presented to him by Bishop Zechariah: “After it was conveyed to us by people worthy of faith that your nobility, moved by divine inspiration, has in mind to return to the alliance and obedience to the Holy Roman Church,” etc. 1795. In 1520, the Genoese Pavel Centurion arrived in Moscow, with a letter of recommendation from the pope, in order to try to open a new trade route to India. Not having had time to achieve his goal, in some completely incomprehensible way, during his stay in Moscow, he formed a conviction about the possibility of uniting the Russians with the Roman Church. Having appeared with this conviction in the pope, he was sent last to the Grand Duke as his ambassador, who had to work for a union, and was supplied with a letter from the pope, written on May 25, 1524, in which the Grand Duke was strongly convinced to proceed to an alliance with the Roman Church. The Grand Duke responded to the pope’s letter with his own letter, marked April 1525, in which, completely silent about the church union, he writes: “You sent us captain Paul, a Genoese citizen, with a letter in which you write to us so that we deign to be with you and with other Christian sovereigns in an alliance against the infidels and so that our ambassadors can mutually walk on both sides and see prosperity ours. But we, by the will of God, just as we stood for Christianity before, so now we stand and henceforth, by the will of God, we will stand against the infidels for Christianity, as the merciful Lord will help us in this. And we wish to be in alliance with you and with other Christian sovereigns; We equally agree that our ambassadors can travel on both sides and see our mutual well-being.” Sending with Paul his messenger to the pope, the famous embassy interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov, and asking the pope in a message to let him go back without delay, the Grand Duke also writes to the pope: “If it pleases you to send your messenger to us: then send him and through him please inform us about how you arranged the matter, so that with us both you and other Christian sovereigns will stand against infidels, and what you have decreed, let us also issue it with your letter, through your messenger” 1796. Dmitry Gerasimov returned from the pope in July 1526, bringing with him the papal ambassador - Bishop John of Scaren 1797. Together with Bishop John, the Grand Duke sent to the pope, at the end of 1526, his ambassadors - Eremey Matveev Trusov and clerk Timofey Semyonov Lodygin (in the chronicles called Sharap Lodygin), who were the last ambassadors to the pope Vasily Ivanovich 1798. In the first half of the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, until 1563, when Metropolitan Macarius died, there were no attempts on the part of the popes to attract us to an alliance with the Roman Church: but a funny and incomprehensible comedy took place, in which efforts were made on behalf of the sovereign himself to ensure that he was accepted into submission to the Roman Church. Above we mentioned the German Hans Schlitt or Schlitten, namely, that in 1547 he was sent by Ivan Vasilyevich to Western Europe to recruit artisans, artists and scientists for Russia, that with the necessary people he had recruited, he arrived in Lubeck to go further to Russia by sea, but that the people of Lubeck, who did not want to let the people he brought into Russia, put him in prison under some pretext, and the people mentioned were forced to go bankrupt, and that, finally, after a year and a half in prison, he managed to escape from it. Whether everything in this story about Schlitt, which belongs to himself, is true remains unknown: it is possible that the only truth is that he was in prison for debts. Having escaped from prison, Schlitte, in an incomprehensible way and for an incomprehensible purpose, set out to bring his client, the Moscow sovereign, without asking him and without his consent, into submission to the Roman Church. We said that for an incomprehensible purpose, because when Schlitte would have come to Ivan Vasilyevich with the news that without his - the sovereign's demand and consent, he - Schlitte had arranged for his subordination to the Roman Church: then he - Schlitte would have been awaited either by the scaffold with an ax or the gallows with a rope. One can only think that, representing himself exclusively as a madman, Schlitte hoped that by subjugating the sovereign without his consent and the knowledge of the Roman Church, he would delight him and be duly rewarded. Be that as it may, Schlitte wondered about this thought. Then, again, it remains incomprehensible that he did not want to carry out his idea himself, but entrusted this task to someone else. On August 1, 1550, in the city of Minden (which is located in northern Germany, on the Weser River, southwest of Hanover), he accepted into the service of the Moscow sovereign a certain Austrian nobleman Johann Steinberg or Stemberg, on whom he entrusted the execution of his idea of ​​​​subordinating the sovereign to the Roman Church 1799. He probably assured Steinberg, who, as one must think, was in the same field as him, that the sovereign desires and seeks submission and that if the thought is fulfilled, the greatest rewards await them. There was also a person who offered his money to conduct the business, this is a certain Austrian Count Eberstein. Having secured an urgent letter of recommendation to the Pope from Emperor Charles V (dated September 13, 1551), the same letter from the papal nuncio under the emperor, as well as other influential persons under the emperor, Steinberg went to Rome (after October 21, 1551, which marks some of the letters of recommendation). In Rome, with his statements about the desire of the Moscow sovereign to join the Roman church, at first he was received very favorably. But then things changed. The King of Poland learned about his efforts - Steinberg - to bring the sovereign of Moscow into an alliance with the Roman Church. The king understood the matter in such a way that Ivan Vasilyevich expressed his readiness to submit to the Roman Church, wanting to receive a royal crown from the pope; and since he, the king, did not really want the sovereign of Moscow to become king like him, he began to most energetically oppose the execution of Ivan Vasilyevich’s imaginary plan. At the court of the pope, two parties were formed: the Russian, which stood for accepting the Russian sovereign into submission to the Roman Church, and the Polish, which resolutely opposed this. The struggle between the parties dragged on for two years until the end of 1553, and the mysterious case ended with Steinberg disappearing somewhere without a trace in 1800. This episode in itself is extremely interesting (and since it still remains mysterious, it is desirable that someone deal with it as deliberately as possible), but in the history of the Russian church it actually does not matter, because strangers played tricks at the expense and expense of Moscow completely without its consent and knowledge. Karamzin claims that after various wanderings, Schlitte returned to Moscow in 1557 in 1801. If this is true: then either the sovereign remained completely unaware of his idea to subordinate him, the sovereign, to the pope, or he paid for his idea with his head in 1802... After what we have just told, for the time before the end of 1563, when Metropolitan Macarius died, what is known about the relations of the popes with Moscow is that in 1561 the pope (Pius Ι V) invited or only intended to invite Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to send his ambassadors to the Council of Trent in 1803, which was to be renewed. Macarius held the chair of the Russian metropolis for twenty-one years and nine and a half months. He died, as we have already made clear above, at a ripe old age, being 82 years old, on December 31, 1563, 1804. Ending with where we started, we must repeat that with his great plan to make it possible to completely renovate the Russian Church, so that the latter, in the entire volume of its life, would be cleansed of all shortcomings and vices, Macarius occupies a completely outstanding position among all the highest pastors of the Russian Church, who were before him and after him, as exceptionally famous among all of them. Of these highest shepherds, only one can be equated to him to some extent, this is Cyril Ι II, standing at the other end of the time period we have taken, the first metropolitan after the Mongol invasion (and probably Mikhail Mityai could also be equated if he were destined to become a metropolitan). As a renovator of the church, Macarius should not be presented as a reformer, which we have already partly made clear above. He was ardently opposed to shortcomings and abuses, which were recognized as such by the common voice and common opinion of all, or the so-called sensus communis in the broad sense of this expression; but he did not belong to the number of some people of that time who, towering above everyone, wanted to see shortcomings, abuses and irregularities where everyone did not see them: he was not against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, but for it; he did not restore the resolution of the council of 1503 on the non-payment of fees for appointments to church degrees; he did not cancel the definition of the same council about widowed priests; in his behavior towards Bashkin, he almost acted according to the rule that the repentance of a heretic brought after he has been convicted of heresy is not acceptable. For all of the above, Macarius is usually considered a Josephite, or at least a Josephite. But, as we said above, the Josephites defended what the decisive majority of the clergy was for, and, therefore, one could hold the same convictions and views with the Josephites and at the same time not belong to them as such. In their convictions and views, the Josephites were nothing more than representatives of the decisive majority of our clergy, so in this sense this decisive majority was Josephite. Forming the majority of a special party, the Josephites differed from him not in their convictions, but in their moral character: their servile servility in general and before the secular authorities in particular and their, as expressed in Daniel, merciless and irreconcilable hatred of people who dared to fight against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries. There is no doubt that in this sense Macarius was not a Josephite at all. He had an extremely happy and blessed character, which made him a true man of peace and peacemaking, but he kept peace with people and established it between them not at all through servility to them, as his behavior towards the sovereign undoubtedly suggests, in which we do not see the slightest shadow of servility 1805. As for his relations with opponents of the patrimonial ownership of monasteries, we have already talked about his relations with the Monk Maximus the Greek. An ardent defender of patrimonial ownership, he had such great respect for this ardent opponent of patrimonial ownership that he wrote to him: “he kisses your bonds, like one of the saints” 1806. The traits of Macarius’ individual moral character, as far as we know them, we have indicated above. He is portrayed to us as a meek man, merciful to those in need, diligently interceding for those under attack, peace-loving and peace-making, and, finally, as a generous and mercifully benevolent patron of the book and working people. “Oh God!” Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich exclaims in one of his messages, “if only the Russian land were happy, if there were rulers of Tazi like the Right Reverend Macarius 1807: here is a real and fair epigraph to the biography of Metropolitan Macarius! It is absolutely impossible to make the assumption that the Russians actually accepted Patriarch Mitrofan, to whom they addressed their request, as Orthodox and that they did not know about his Uniate status. We are not saying that they would not have had any incentive to approach the Orthodox Patriarch with a request for permission to install a metropolitan themselves, but if they themselves, immediately after the patriarch occupied the department, tried to find out in detail whether he was Orthodox or Uniate, which they had to do, then, in any case, Isidore, when he was tried in Moscow, of course, represented to his judges that the patriarch was a Uniate like him. The message with its address to the person of the patriarch and with an indication in its text of 1441 (about the same message, with an address to the person of the emperor and with an indication of the later year in the text, see below) has been preserved or is known in two lists: according to one of them, it was printed in Acts of History vol. I No. 39 and reprinted in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 62; for another list, see Collected Chronicles vol. VI, p. 162, note. The message says that from the baptism of Russia by Vladimir “we now have four hundred and fifty years and three years”; and now the specified event happened, according to the chronicle, in 988. One charter in Acts of History, vol. I, p. 119 col. 1, and Pavlov in Monuments, col. 638 beginning, another letter from the Right Reverend Macarius in History, VI, 367 beginning and from Pavlov ibid., col. 654. Cfr message of St. Iona to the Nevsky Prince Alexander Vladimirovich, in which he justifies his appointment by previous examples - Acts of History vol. I, p. 95 col. 2nd beginning, Monuments of Pavlov col. 560. The Grand Duke in a letter to Emperor Constantine with notification of the appointment of Jonah (Acts of History vol. I, p. 84 col. 1 fin., and in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 582), and Jonah in a letter to the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich - with notification of his appointment (Acts of History ibid. p. 95 col. 1 and Monuments col. 559) says that before this last event there were no dispatches to Constantinople regarding the replacement of the metropolitan see due to the Uniatism of the emperor and the patriarch. But the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan could have a desire to remain silent about unsuccessful parcels (and this could be done before Emperor Constantine, because during his brother’s reign he did not live in Constantinople, but on his own estate). In the second edition, the message is read in the 2nd Sophia Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 162, printed by the Most Reverend Plato in History, I, 302, and is known to us from another manuscript of the MDA library, - No. 235. The indicated 2 Sophia, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 167. The message is reported in Acts of History, Vol. I, note to No. 63 (and Satarov gives an indication in the preface to the Journey of Simeon of Suzdal to Italy). It was published in full by the late A.N. Popov in the Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 332 (we knew it from the MDA manuscript No. 81 of the fundamental ones). There is only a monthly date: “written in Constantinople in the month of June on the 26th day.” See the handwriting of Daniel with the renunciation of Isidore, given to Metropolitan Jonah, by the Right Reverend Macarius in History, VI, 369, and in Pavlov's Monuments, no. 72. In one of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library one reads the form of raising the names of the eastern patriarchs at the liturgy performed by our metropolitan - Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 331, sheet 237 ver., p. 771. This form, which was not actually used, but constitutes a private work of the southern Russian scribe, makes it clear that some in southern Rus' recognized Patriarch Gregory Mammu as their actual patriarch. In a message to the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich, in which he informs the prince of his appointment, - Acts of History vol. I, p. 95 col. 1 fin., Monuments of Pavlov col. 560. In the district message to the Lithuanian bishops on the occasion of the appearance of the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory in Lithuania, - Acts of History, vol. I, p. 113 col. 2, Monuments of Pavlov col. 622. Now the above is read in the message of the Grand Duke to Emperor Constantine, containing notice of the appointment of Jonah as metropolitan - Acts of History vol. I, p. 84 col. 2, Monuments of Pavlov col. 579. Jonah himself affirms this in several of his letters to Lithuania, see Pavlov ibid. col. 539 fin., 561, 646. Nikon Chronicle V, 215, even assures that the patriarch not only blessed Jonah to be Isidore’s successor, but also “gave him a letter.” It is very doubtful that this is really the case, as the prince and the metropolitan claim. Firstly, it is in itself incredible that the patriarch and the emperor appointed Jonah to be Isidore’s successor: such an appointment would have been something completely unusual, and they, the patriarch and the emperor, could not and did not want to foresee that Isidore would leave Russia so quickly, as actually happened. Secondly, and based on positive data, the matter seems very doubtful: Emperor John, under whom Jonah came to Constantinople, the Grand Duke asks for the appointment of not Jonah, but someone else, as metropolitan. To Emperor Constantine, who might not know the matter, he says that Jonah was appointed as Isidore’s successor, however, he says, not at all asserting it as something reliable, but in a strange and suspicious manner towards him - in a manner referring to rumors to the prince: “and I have heard about this from many.” In a message to the Kyiv prince Alexander Vladimirovich, - Acts of History, vol. I, p. 95, in Pavlov in Monuments col. 560. Acts of History vol. I, p. 86 col. 2, and by the Right Reverend Macarius in History VI, 362 fin., Monuments of Pavlov col. 539 and 647 sub fin.. Nikon Chronicle V, 215, Degree Book II 78 (the year in the last one is 1447 incorrect). At the Most Reverend Macarius, – VI 15: December 5; if this is not a clerical error or a typo, but an amendment, then we don’t know on what basis it was made. Collection of Chronicles VI, 167. Jonah himself in his letters to Lithuania says that he was installed by all Moscow Russian bishops - Acts of History vol. I, p. 113 col. 2 and by the Right Reverend Macarius VI, 362, by Pavlov in Monuments col. 623 beginning and 647. But it should not be understood in a completely precise sense. According to the testimony of the Resurrection and Typographical Chronicles (the first is in the Collection of Chronicles VIII, 122 beginning, the second is p. 256), he was installed by four bishops: Rostov, Suzdal, Kolomna and Perm, and two bishops - Novgorod and Tver - sent letters of freedom. Constantine was given the imperial crown in the Peloponnese, where he was despot, on January 6, 1449; he arrived in Constantinople on March 12. Frantz, lib. III, cap. 1 start. Frantz, lib. III, cap. 1 fin.. The message was printed in volume I of the Acts of History twice, No. 41 and No. 262, and in Pavlov, in Monuments No. 71. In the known lists of the message there is no date of the year under them, but only the date of the month, and since its text says that 21 years pass from the death of Photius, who died on July 1 or 2, 1431, then it must be attributed either to 1451 or to 1452. But it makes it clear that it was written after the deposition of Grigoriev, during the non-existence of the patriarch in Constantinople, therefore, in 1452. Here he says that Emperor John Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph appointed Jonah to be the successor of Isidore. “How could we send our envoys to the Tsar’s City about the announcement of the unification of God’s Holy Ecumenical Church and about Orthodoxy and about the installation of a metropolitan.” In one of the lists in the title of the message it is noted: “the messenger (letter) of Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich to the Tsar of Constantinople about Metropolitan Jonah, but it did not go,” see Acts of History vol. I, No. 263, note at the end. See Stasyulevich’s article: “The Siege and Capture of Byzantium by the Turks” in the Scientific Notes of the II Division of the Academy of Sciences, book 1” p. 99 note and 121 fin.. Since Jonah was canonized, his life was written. But it was written a long time after his death - under Metropolitan Macarius, and is not distinguished by an abundance of information, see about him in Klyuchevsky in Old Russian Lives, p. 240. One of its three editions is read in the Degree Book, II 69 (about writing in 1547, see Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 261, sheet 237, p. 259). According to his life, Theodore Odnoush gave the Odnoushevo churchyard, in which he lived, to the house of the Most Pure Mother of God of Moscow or to the metropolis; but according to the acts, the Odnoushevo wasteland was granted by Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to Metropolitan Daniel in 1527, see Gorchakov On land holdings, appendices p. 27 fin. (currently the birthplace of St. Jonah is considered to be the village of Odnoushevo, located 9 versts from Soligalich and one verst from its village, which is also called Odnoushev and also Vershki). In the “Answer to the Lustful”, which constitutes chapter 10 of the spiritual charter or monastic charter. If only we correctly understand the life, which says: “pay attention to the divine books and scriptures.” The author of the life, in view of what we have just said, actually claims that Jonah was appointed bishop after the death of Photius. Archimandrite Macarius in the Collection of church-historical and statistical information about the Ryazan diocese. M. 1863, p. 104 fin.. In the above-mentioned Answer to the curious and in the message to Ivan Ivanovich Tretyakov (the contents of which see in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 8, Mixtures p. 7). Degree Book II 82. About the boyar Vasily Fedorovich Kutuzov, see the Nikon Chronicle - V, 213, and in the Sofia Vremennik Stroev - II 59. The later words of praise from St. Jonah, written under Metropolitan Macarius, speaks differently about the reason for his anger at Paphnutius, namely, that once he made some kind of church order with the bishops and that Paphnutius acted in his monastery contrary to the order. According to the story, when Paphnutius, summoned to Moscow by the Metropolitan for explanations, answered him “unsmoothly and inappropriately, as befits smoothly and befittingly of great power,” the Metropolitan “beat him with his staff,” beat him with his staff, and ordered him to be put in prison, from which Paphnutius was released when he brought repentance and asked for forgiveness - manuscript. MDA from Volokolamsk No. 632, sheet 180, see also Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 261 sheet 237. p. 260 (printed in addition to Rosenkampf, who is listed in the Description, also in Kalachov’s article “On the meaning of the Helmsman,” appendices p. 4, p. 8). Under Jagiella, who was chosen from the Grand Dukes of Lithuania to be the King of Poland in 1386, and under his successor Vladislav of Varna, the Grand Dukes of Lithuania were separate from the kings (Skirgailo, Vytautas, Svitrigailo, Sigismund and our Casimir); but Casimir, Vladislav's successor, chosen from the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, having become king, remained at the same time as Grand Duke. In the Right Reverend Macarius VI, 362, in Pavlov in Monuments col. 647. Contractual document in the Acts of Western Russia, vol. I, No. 50. In it, among other things, it is decided that in the event of disputes between the king’s henchmen and the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan will be the arbitrator - p. 64, col. 1. See Jonah's letter to Casimir in Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 49. In Acts of History, vol. I No. 43, and in Pavlov in Monuments No. 64. (The separation of two messages merged into one place is in the latter. The boyar with whom the message was sent is probably the metropolitan clerk Vasily Carlo who was sent to the king). Message in Acts of History, vol. I No. 47, and in Pavlov No. 66. The Metropolitan informs the prince that the king wrote before him his sheet with his great salary and that he wants God’s Church of ecclesiastical justification to do everything in the old way. But it is likely that the king’s promise that accompanied his request to the metropolitan was not particularly decisive; otherwise he, the Metropolitan, would not have had the need to write his now indicated messages. The charter in Acts of History, vol. I No. 42, and in Pavlov No. 67. Prince Alexander Vladimirovich was present at the writing of the charter and is mentioned among the witnesses (second after Svidrigail, who probably also stood for the subordination of Orthodox Lithuania in ecclesiastical terms to Moscow). Jonah’s request to Casimir about Galicia in Acts of History Vol. I, 260, and Pavlov No. 68. That it was not given to him is clear from the fact that - when the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory appeared in Poland in 1459, then from Moscow the convictions to remain faithful to him - Jonah were addressed only to the Lithuanian bishops without the Galician ones - Acts of History, Vol. I No. 272, and Pavlov No. 84. Daniel’s handwriting dated October 28, 1451 and Jonah’s farewell letter to him from the Right Reverend Macarius VI, 369, in Acts of History vol. I .V 52, in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 72. In Degree Book, II. 87 fin., erroneously – five and a half months. Nikon Chronicle IV, 65 fin. See Klyuchevsky in Old Russian Lives, p. 134, also in the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 410, sheet 410 verso, p. 442 fin.. In his spiritual will, Yuri Dmitrievich († August 19, 1434) leaves Vyatka with cities and volosts in the common possession of his sons - Collection of charters and agreements I, 106 col. 1. 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 181. It is said that the Vyatchans finished off the Grand Duke with all his will, as he needed. Perhaps in words the Vyatchans really surrendered to the entire will of the Grand Duke, but this did not happen at all in reality. It seems that Jonah alludes not only to the first, but also to the second when he says: “And now we have heard that they are not worthy of the great priesthood of God, but have become priests in foolishness, and such are the piles of heretics,” - Acts of History vol. I, p. 498 col. 2, Pavlov col. 606. Certificate in Acts of History vol. 1, no. 261, and in Pavlov’s Monuments no. 73. Certificate in Acts of History vol. I, no. 267, and in Pavlov’s Monuments no. 77. Certificate in Acts of History vol. I, no. 44, in Pavlov's Monuments, no. 65. The charter is in Acts of History vol. I, No. 60, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 90. G. Pavlov dates the charter to 1461; but on the same basis that he has, it can be dated back to before 1453. See Acts of History vol. I, No. 53. Two more well-known letters of Jonah can be included in our category of letters: 1) to the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery on the observance of monastic vows and with the news of the installation of Hieromonk Paul as archimandrite of the monastery, dated March 11, 1433, when Jonah was ordained to the metropolis - Acts of History vol. I, No. 37, at Pavlov's No. 61; 2) to the Bogolyubov Monastery about the obedience of the brethren to the abbot and about observing monastic vows, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 265, in Pavlov 75; and also, in part, three more letters: 1) for children who do not obey their mother (some princes), - Additions to the Acts of History vol. I. No. 11; 2) to Prince Yuri Semyonovich - Lugvenevich on the occasion of the death of his princess, - Acts of History Vol. I. No. 46, and 3) to parishioners of some church about obedience to the spiritual father, - Pavlov No. 130. No. 412, sheets 25–26, Description p. 500. In the message to Prince Alexander Vladimirovich, which is indicated above, St. Jonah makes it known that he undertook this first journey at the request of the king. On February 9, 1451, they were given one charter in Novogrodk, Lithuania, - Acts of History Vol. I, No. 48, in Pavlov No. 69. From the words of Jonah himself, we know that he was this time in Kiev, and here in his cathedral St. Sophia Church performed a solemn “unction” - see the message quoted in the next note. In the Right Reverend Macarius VI, 364, in Pavlov col. 649. In the penitential letter of Theodosius, which we indicate now (cfr in the Collection of Chronicles VI. 234, the file of Archimandrite Gennady). It may very well be that Theodosius was guided by the message of Metropolitan Photius to Pskov dated August 12, 1419, in which it is written: “if the eve of the Nativity of Christ or the Epiphany happens on Saturday or in a week, fasting does not happen” (in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 414), but his reference to this leadership, which Jonah recognized as disrespectful, is deliberately kept silent. We will return to speeches about the conclusions that can be drawn from this assumption later. Which, according to a very unexpected and very curious message from the 2nd Sofia Chronicle, took upon herself intercession not at all for nothing: “the metropolitan wanted to remove the rank from him, but the great princess grieved him from the metropolitan, and took the village of Petrovskoe from him out of sorrow,” - Collection of Chronicles VI, 181. Theodosius’s letter of repentance in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 57, and Pavlov’s in Monuments No. 74. Certificate in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 268, and Pavlov in Monuments No. 78. Nikon Chronicle V, 207 sqq. Cfr Solovyov History vol. IV, edition 4 p. 51 (vol. III of the same edition p. 371). Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 49. Solovyov’s History vol. IV, 4th edition p. 76 sub fin.. (Novgorod ambassadors asked for dangerous letters from the Grand Duke and the Metropolitan, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 53). Acts of Western Russia vol. I, p. 64 col. 1, Collection of charters and treaties I, 144. Moscow was taken from Shemyaka on Christmas Day 1446; He died in Novgorod in July 1453. Certificate in Acts of History vol. I, no. 40. The charter was preserved without a beginning, having been merged with another charter - Acts of History vol. I, No. 43 (begins on p. 87, col. 1 beginning: “You know, sons, how things have become”...), and in Pavlov No. 64 (where it begins is marked). Charter in Acts of History vol. I, No. 53. (Another, not printed, letter to Euthymius about Shemyak, Tsarsk. No. 366, sheet 198, Description p. 366). Letter about Ivan of Mozhaisky to the Smolensk Bishop Misail in Acts of History vol. I, No. 56. History of the Polish State of Bandtke in Russian translation, II 42 sqq. Callistus III, having appointed Gregory on July 21, 1458, died very shortly thereafter on August 6 of the same year, so that he did not have time to write the appointed letter to Gregory. This letter to the latter, given by Callistus’ successor Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) on September 11 of the same year, 1458, is in the appendices to volume VI of the Chronicles, p. 319; Pius's letter about Gregory to Casimir of Poland in the Slavic translation - in the 2nd Sophia Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles vol. ibid., p. 167. - Something not entirely clear is the titular abbot of the monastery; but Pope Pius, in his letter to Casimir, specifically says that before his appointment as metropolitan, Gregory was “an opate of the monastery of St. Demetrius of Constantinople” (the monastery, of course, of course, the one in which Isidore himself was abbot - see above p. 423 [electronic version - footnote No. 842, corr.]). The Grand Duke spoke through the ambassador to the king: “So that you, brother, do not take that Gregory from Rome to yourself for our father on the common metropolitan for Jonah, and so that you do not repair new things, and so that you do not destroy our antiquities, dear brother, our antiquity is from our ancestor Grand Duke Volodymer, who baptized the land Russian, - the election and one (?) Metropolitan's exaction of our ancestors, the great Russian princes and ours to this day, and not the great princes of Lithuania: whoever we love will be with us throughout Rus', but we don’t need a metropolitan from Rome, I don’t need it,” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, p. 58 col. 2. A letter of delivery or recommendation with the abbots is in Acts of History vol. I, .V 45, and in Pavlov no. 80. That it was written before Grigoriev’s arrival in Lithuania is evident from the fact that the latter is not yet named in it by name and that Jonah, as he says, himself wanted to go to the local Orthodox, but was held back by illness. About Vassian of the Trinity from other letters of Jonah to Lithuania we know that he was sent in particular to the widow of Prince Alexander Vladimirovich († 1455) Nastasya with her sons Semyon and Mikhail and to Prince Yuri Semenovich Golshansky, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 62 and No. 73, in Pavlov No. 88. The Epistle in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 66, and Pavlov No. 85. From its contents it is clear that it was written before Grigoriev’s arrival in Lithuania and that it is in close temporal connection with the embassy there of Abbots Vassian and Cassian (speeches about illness and a promise to come). The words about Gregory: “who today, as we hear, has come to the metropolis,” should be understood either as meaning that he set out from Rome or that he arrived in Galicia. The message was written, as one must think, on December 20, not 1459, but 1458. Two district epistles of Jonah to the Lithuanian bishops - Acts of History vol. I, No. 63, in the Right Reverend Macarius VI, 361, in Pavlov No. 81 and No. 87 (the first in time is the one that Pavlov has in second place); message of the council of Moscow bishops to the bishops of Lithuania - Acts of History vol. I, no. 61, and Pavlov no. 83; Jonah's letter to Bishop Misail of Smolensk - Acts of History vol. I, No. 62, and Pavlov No. 88, I; Jonah's letter to Bishop Euthymius of Chernigov - Acts of History vol. I, No. 273, and in Pavlov No. 88, II. That Casimir, through a special embassy, proposed to Vasily Vasilyevich to accept Gregory instead of Jonah, Jonah himself speaks about this in the district letter to the bishops, which was printed by the Right Reverend Macarius and which is in Pavlov No. 87, and in the letters to Misail and Euthymius, see also 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 169. Manuscript in Acts of History vol. I, no. 65, and Pavlov no. 86. There is no date under it; but the bishops of Moscow, who sent a message to the bishops of Lithuania from our council, wrote the latter on December 13, 1459, in Acts of History vol. I, no. 272, and in Pavlov no. 84. It is in Acts of History No. 65 and Pavlov No. 86. Solovyov History vol. IV, edition 4 p. 95 fin. sqq. The last invitation is in Acts of History vol. I, No. 271, and in Pavlov No. 82 (The voluntary letter, printed without the name of the bishop in Vol. I of Additions to the Acts of History, No. 12, does not belong to this Moses, as the Right Reverend Macarius assumed - VI, 41, but to his successor Gennady, see Pavlov No. 92). Mohammed II deliberately asked how the emperors acted when confirming the patriarchs, in order to act in exactly the same way, see Crusius in Turkogreece Πατριαρχικὴν ἱστορίαν, p. 108. In Pavlov's Monuments col. 711 beginning (The last words: “Orthodoxy has been destroyed” Ivan Vasilyevich puts into the mouth of the Patriarch of Constantinople). As for the time of Metropolitan Jonah, the council of Moscow bishops in its message to the council of Lithuanian bishops dated December 13, 1459 says: “due to our sin and God’s permission, now the Tsaryagrad church has wavered, has retreated from our Orthodoxy and has become tongue-tied”... ibid. col. 633 fin.. Metropolitan Jonah himself, in his letter to the same bishops from the same year, speaks of his journey to Constantinople after the death of Photius: “and he reached the Reigning City, flourishing in the former piety of Greek Orthodoxy”... ibid. col. 646. News of the beginning of the patriarchate in Russia, - Supplement to Acts of History vol. 2, no. 76, p. 189 col. 2. About the assurance and baptism of Russia in the Nikonovskaya Kormcha, sheet 10. The case concerned one Patriarch of Constantinople, and not all four. Acts of History vol. I, no. 263. In the summer of 1454, Metropolitan Ignatius of Constantinople was in Russia for alms, see 1 and 2 Pskov Chronicles under this year. Maybe the patriarch sent the order and scripture with him. See in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1861, book. I, p. 210. What is somewhat suspicious in the testimony of Paisius is that, according to him, having come for the second time from Constantinople, Cassian was released by the Grand Duke to take his tonsure on Kamennaya, while he returned to the Kamensky monastery from Kirillov in 1468-69, which was after the death of Vasily Vasilyevich. Nikon Chronicle V, 217, 1 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles, V, 270. “The word is chosen from the holy scriptures, even in Latin,” in Popov’s Historical and Literary Review of Old Russian polemical works against the Latins, p. 382. In Tatishchev, IV, 693, erroneously or incorrectly - March 17. Collection of Chronicles V, 273 beginning. In Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 33 col. 2 (cfr in Klyuchevsky in Lives p. 121). Collected Chronicles VI” 196. It is not entirely clear which of the two is a canon or a word of praise; cfr Vostokova Rumyantsev Museum No. 397 sheet 161, p. 595. Theodosius, by the name of Byvaltsev (1 Sofia Chronicle under 1454 and 1466), was installed as archbishop of Rostov from the archimandrites of the Moscow Chudov Monastery in the month of June 1454 (Typographical Chronicle p. 258); in the Chudov Monastery he was an archimandrite for 10 years (his own legend about the miracle at the tomb of St. Alexis, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 326 fin.). See the letter from the bishops who were in Moscow during the election of Theodosius by Jonah to Bishop Gennady of Tver, in Acts of History vol. 1, no. 69, and from Pavlov, in Monuments no. 93. In the directly modern legend: “The Word was chosen from the holy scriptures into Latin,” it is said, in Popov’s Historical and Literary Review, p. 393, not that Theodosius was chosen during Jonah’s life for the sake of Gregory, but that for the sake of the latter they hastened with his appointment - Theodosius. The aforementioned “The Word is Chosen,” for the sake of effect, does not present the matter with Jonah’s letter addressed to Theodosius quite as it was, namely, it claims that the letter was written by Jonah secretly and that it was acquired after his death – in Popov, p. 393. May 9 according to the Typographical Chronicle, May 3 according to the 1st and 2nd Sofia Chronicles; the first number seems more likely because May 9 was the 40th day according to Jonah. They were not present at the dedication and expressed their consent to the installation of Jonah of Novgorod and Gennady of Tverskoy by means of voluntary letters, - Nikon Chronicle V, 288. The free and sworn letters of the second, with a statement of our obligation, are from Pavlov in Monuments, No. 92 and No. 94 (the first without end and in Acts of History vol. I, No. 274). About the first man’s voluntary charter, with the same statement of obligation, in the metropolitan’s letter to him dated July 8, 1461, Acts of History Vol. I, No. 275, and Pavlov No. 95. T. I, No. 64. With the restoration of the anonymity of the original, reprinted in Pavlov's Monuments, No. 125, col. 873. Acting in the most disgraceful manner, the publishers included the name of Theodosius in the charter without any reservations, thereby misleading researchers (and, unfortunately, they did this more than once). Based on the expression of the archbishop in the letter: “I am appointed archbishop of Rus',” Pavlov assumes that he was a stranger in Rus', therefore, the Greek Dionysius, who was the archbishop of Rostov from 1418 to 1425. But a natural Russian could express himself in a similar way. Here we correct the printed reading of the chronicle, in which: “but you don’t want a priest.” 2 Sofia Chronicle under 1465, – Collection of Chronicles VI, 186. Metropolitan Theodosius owns two ecclesiastical words: for the Nativity of the Mother of God, known only by instructions, see Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part 16, p. 213, and commendable to the apostles Peter and Paul, extracts from which are published in the News of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II, pp. 325–328. But if his unknown word is just as little his own work as the known one, then his rights to be considered among our church speakers are very small. This famous word of his, as far as it is known from the printed version, is a literal borrowing from Gregory Tsamblak (with the exception of the beginning: “I want - a thought”). Metropolitan Theodosius also owns written works: the legend of the miracle that happened at the tomb of St. Alexia, - Collection of chronicles VI, 325 fin., and kontakia and ikos for the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, see Klyuchevsky in Lives, p. 169 note 1. And an excerpt of his teaching message to the Pesnoshsky monastery has also been preserved, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 276, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 96 (one half of what has been preserved seems to represent something apocryphal, and the other is a literal borrowing from the letter of St. Jonah to the Bogolyubov Monastery). The first charter in Acts of History vol. 1, No. 275, and Pavlov in Monuments No. 95; about the second - in Jonah’s response letter to Theodosius - in Pavlov No. 99. That Jonah did not send the sworn letter to Theodosius himself is clear from our letter to him from the latter. Certificate in Acts of History vol. I, No. 77, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 97. 1 Pskov Chronicle under 1464, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 227 and 228. Probably to console the Pskovites, the Grand Duke gave their ambassador such a strange thing as a camel! The same chronicle under 1465, - in the Collection of Chronicles, p. 229. Certificate in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 277, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 98. The first successor of St. Stephen was Isaac, installed - according to one chronicle on September 8, 1397 (Sofia Temporary I, 418, or what is the same 2 Sofia Chronicle - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 138). According to another chronicle - January 20, 1398 (in Karamzin to vol. V note 254, col. 101), mentioned among those who participated in the installation of the Novgorod Archbishop Simeon (Sampson) on March 22, 1416 and then, it is believed, probably on the basis of local legends, left the department (priest Io. Veryuzhsky Historical legends about the lives of saints laboring in the Vologda diocese, p. 328); the second successor was Gerasim, installed unknown when, mentioned under 1441 (Acts of History vol. I, no. 39, p. 74 col. 2, 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 161 col. 1) and in an unknown year before 1447, died a violent death - according to one local legend, strangled for something from his household, in another way - strangled by an omophorion from his servant Vogulich (Veryuzhsky ibid. p. 331 fin.); the third successor was Pitirim, appointed from the archimandrites of the Moscow Chudov or unknown monastery, mentioned since the end of 1447 (Acts of History vol. I, No. 40), killed by the Vogulichs on August 19, 1456; the fourth successor was our Jonah, installed probably in 1459 and died in 1571. Typographic Chronicle p. 260; in Karamzin under 1463 (in volume VI note 629, col. 88) the same is given. In 1459, Jonah was in Moscow - in Acts of History Vol. I, 61 No. 272, in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 83 and No. 84. And since after August 19, 1456, when Pitirim was killed, he could not have been dedicated before 1457, it is incredible to assume that he was just sent to Perm and then again summoned to Moscow, and, therefore, it seems likely to assume that the year 1459, in which he was in Moscow, was the year of his dedication. In Acts of History and Pavlov’s second act. According to local legends (Veryuzhsky ibid. p. 338) and according to some chronicles (for example, Arkhangelogorodskaya, p. 136), St. Pitirim was killed by the Vogulichs in his cathedral city of Ust-Vym; but Chronicles 1 and 2 of Sofia say (under 1455): “the wretched Gogulichi fought Great Perm (and) then killed the bishop of Perm Pitirim.” An unknown chronicle, to which the Right Reverend Macarius refers (without quotation, – VI, 320), says that Jonah “additionally baptized” Great Perm. See Acts of History vol. I, no. 207 (about Cherdyn - Vivliofika XVIII, 220). See the story about the reasons for Iosifov’s coming to Russia in the letter of petition for him from Metropolitan Theodosius to the Novgorodians and Pskovites, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 78, also an extract from the letter of Patriarch Joachim to Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, read in one of the Novgorod Sophia manuscripts, - in the Chronicle of the Studies of the Archaeographical Commissions, issue III, section 3 p. 40. According to the patriarch in the message, “the Church of the Resurrection is gray from top to bottom, and gray as if one could see the sun and stars through it.” Theodosius's desk letter in Pavlov's Monuments, No. 135 (the Nikonovskaya, 2 Sofia, Arkhangelogorodskaya and Typografskaya chronicles mistakenly attribute the dedication to March 4, 1464, and 1 Sofia erroneously to April 4, 1462). Making inquiries in the History of Jerusalem by Gregory Palamas πόλεως Ἱ ερουσαλήμ , ἐν Ἱ εροσολύμοις , 1862) we find that Joachim occupied the patriarchal chair from 1442 only until 1453, when he was replaced by another, and that nothing is said about any earthquake in Jerusalem during his time at the see - p. 469. Whether Joseph was named metropolitan before going to Russia or was named by Joachim himself is not clearly visible from the letter of Metropolitan Theodosius and from the message of the patriarch (there is a letter from the Jerusalem Patriarch Joachim to our Metropolitan Gerontius dated July 1480. – Acts of History vol. I, No. 89; and since no other Joachim is known at this time, is this Joachim not the same as our Joachim, and isn’t the latter’s death in Kafa a myth?) He wrote an urgent letter of petition about him to the Novgorodians and Pskovites (quote in the third note above) and, as one should most likely think, he wrote the same letters to the bishops of the metropolis (about Joseph’s visit to Novgorod - in the Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 80, p. 59 col. 1, and in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 710).– That the Metropolitan collected a lot of alms in Russia, – Nikon Chronicle VI, 2.– He sold permits in Russia, representing a kind of indulgence, which are still sold in Jerusalem to fans. (See the message of Patriarch Joachim to the Grand Duke in the Chronicle of the Activities of the Archaeographical Commissions, and his authorization letter to the Grand Duke himself - in Acts of History, Vol. I, No. 72). – According to the Nikon Chronicle, VI, 2, he did not reach his land with the alms collected in Russia, i.e., probably, he found it inconvenient to come to Jerusalem and chose to stay with the money in Constantinople. Living in this latter, he served our government by communicating news, about which below. - Metropolitan Theodosius, in his letter to the people of Novgorod and Pskov, expresses the views on himself that were then prevailing in Moscow: “he is the Patriarch of Jerusalem - writes the Metropolitan - go to our land, having heard our true holy faith, indestructible, south from the God-enlightened Vladimer in the Russian lands for many years promulgated and filled with God’s will and blossoming with piety, like the light of the sun...; “I send this letter to you,” the Metropolitan says to the people of Novgorod and Pskov, “glorifying and magnifying the name of the Lord, who has proclaimed piety in our Russian lands.” Karamzin has to vol. VI, note 629, year 1475, and the Typographical Chronicle p. 286 beginning (since Theodosius died between October 1 and 4, then perhaps he came to the Trinity on a pilgrimage on September 25, the feast of the repose of St. Sergius). When and from where he was appointed bishop of Suzdal remains unknown; mentioned as such under 1455, - Acts of History vol. I. No. 7, and in Pavlov, No. 74. In Pavlov, col. 705 fin.. When exactly Gregory sent the embassy to Constantinople remains unknown and its time should be determined by the fact that it was sent to Patriarch Simeon (message to Novgorod by Ivan Vasilyevich, who calls Simeon Simon - Acts of Expedition I, No. 80, in Pavlov in Monuments No. 100). Simeon occupied the patriarchal chair for the first time, during the life of Gregory, for a very short time, less than a year; but this year, which should be 1468-69-70, cannot be precisely determined. We settle on 1470 as the most likely one. (We note here, by the way, and just in case, that a certain Manuel went as an ambassador from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch - the indicated message from Ivan Vasilyevich, and that there is a messenger letter from the Greek Manuel to Metropolitan Jonah: Tsar. No. 366, sheet 228 ver., Description p. 367). The indicated message to Novgorod from Ivan Vasilyevich. The Most Reverend Macarius in History, IX, 37 sqq, based on sources that we do not have at hand. The news was reported from Constantinople by that Joseph, Metropolitan of Caesarea Philippi, who was ordained metropolitan by Theodosius - the indicated message of Ivan Vasilyevich. The one we refer to above. You need to read it in Pavlov, and not in the Acts of the Expedition, because in the latter it is printed with an omission (made God knows why, because what was omitted is already read in Karamzin - to volume VI, note 35). This supposedly reasonable man has the shameful glory that he was the culprit of the sultans imposing tribute on the patriarchs. In the message of the Grand Duke there is a pass, cfr of His Eminence Macarius in the place indicated above. Dangerous letter of the Metropolitan in Acts of History vol. I, No. 279. Certificate in Acts of History vol. I, no. 280. “Veliky Novgrad, the housekeeper of the house, Vladyka Pimin, the great, the strong, dishonored him with dishonor, tortured him at the fortress, tortured him and plundered his entire treasury, and ended up selling him for 1000 rubles,” - 1 Pskov Chronicle under 1471, in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 236 beginning. Charter, written on March 22, 1471, in Acts of History vol. Ι, No. 181, and by Pavlov in Monuments No. 102. In the contractual document of the Novgorodians with the king we find: firstly, that they, first of all, oblige the king: “and keep you, the honest king, the governor of the Settlement (in Novgorod) from our faith from the Greek, from the Orthodox peasantry”; secondly, that they are making a deliberate decree: “and from us, honest king, you cannot take away our Greek Orthodox faith, and where we like Veliky Novgorod in our Orthodox peasantry, we will install a ruler of our own free will; and you, honest king, should not build Roman churches in Veliky Novgorod, neither in the suburbs of Novgorod, nor throughout the entire Novgorod land,” - Acts of the Expedition Vol. I, No. 87. During the Grand Duke's campaign against Novgorod, the Metropolitan wrote him a letter for the Novgorodians, asking him to have mercy on them if they confessed (Acts of History Vol. I, No. 282). But, as it seems, this letter is only a formal fulfillment of the priest’s duty to intercede, rather than anything else. A year and 8 months before the start of the construction of the new cathedral, there was a fire in the Moscow Kremlin, from which one of the chapels of the old cathedral burned out so much that it crumbled - 2 Sophia Chronicle under 1470 fin., in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 190 fin.. But the legends about the construction of the new cathedral do not indicate this circumstance as one of the reasons why the Metropolitan decided to build new cathedral. These legends about the construction of the cathedral are read: in the Nikon Chronicle, - VI, 37 sqq and 56 sqq, and in the 2 Sophia Chronicle under the years 1472 and 1474, - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 194 and 198. The first chronicle contains an official legend, the second - a private one (the historian sees a rare case here compare the official with the private...). With the exception, perhaps, of one case, namely, that in Rostov in 1160 a stone cathedral was built in place of a burnt wooden one not by Andrei Bogolyubsky, to whose table the city belonged, but by the citizens of the latter themselves. In Karamzin to volume V, note 254, col. 98. See gr. Tolstoy Ancient shrines of Rostov-Veliky, edition 2 p. 28. Bishop of Rostov Cathedral in Ustyug (see Vol. 1, half, p. 113, electronic version - footnote paragraph No. 225, corr.). And that Metropolitan Philip was a good master, see his letter to his servant, sent to trade in the goods of the Most Pure Mother of God, in Acts of History vol. I, 79 (in the words: “whatever came to the Church of God to help”; perhaps, of course, it was the construction of a new cathedral). “Metropolitan make a great effort, collect silver from all the priests and monasteries for the church establishment, and collect a lot of silver,” - 2 Sophia Chronicle under 1472. Before his death, he bequeathed to give free rein to these slaves, bought for the construction of the cathedral, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 53. Consequently, he bought them, it was not the property of the department, but personally for himself. While a new shrine was made in place of the old shrine, the relics were preserved in a temporary shrine, being laid out in the cathedral itself for worship. – The Sophia Chronicle dates the transfer of the metropolitan shrine to the second year of construction of the cathedral. But in this case, its foundation would have to be dated back to 1471, because in 1473, Metropolitan Philip, while making the transfer, died earlier than it took place (April 5). And the chronicle itself says that the cathedral fell in 1474, in the third summer of construction (and Pachomius Serbinus, in his speech on the transfer of the relics of St. Metropolitan Peter, says that it fell in the second summer after the repose of Metropolitan Philip). Whose own name was Zoya, and who received the name Sophia (renamed) already here in Russia (the 2nd Sophia Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 196, calls her Zinaida). Thomas's other daughter Elena was previously married to the last Serbian despot Lazar Brankovic. Nikon Chronicle VI, 8. – Pierling in his essay La Russie et le Saint-Siège, – I, 133 sqq, claims that the initiative for marriage negotiations came not from Rome, but from Moscow itself, namely, that the Greek Yuri, who, according to our chronicles, on February 11, 1469 came from Rome from Cardinal Vissarion with an offer of marriage Sophia, was not sent to Moscow by Vissarion, but, having been sent from Moscow to Rome, brought an answer to the proposal from Vissarion. Although this is not entirely expected, it cannot, however, be decisively denied (and if the words of 1 Pskov Chronicle about Yuri the Greek are understood to mean that he was a boyar not of Sophia, but of the Grand Duke - Collection of Chronicles IV, 244: then they will serve to reinforce what Pirling claims). In this case, one should think about the motives that forced Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to make an offer in the same way as about the motives that forced him to accept it without delay, as our chronicles present the matter (and a thorough study of the question of initiative belongs to civil history). And the pope’s legate, who came with Sophia, as can be seen from our chronicles, did not start talking about faith in Moscow. However, since Sophia was raised in adherence to Catholicism, they could have some hope that she would manage to win over her husband in favor of union with Rome, or that, at least, in her children she would prepare people inclined to this union. Let us return to some speeches about this below, in the chapter on Metropolitan Macarius, when we talk about the popes’ attempts to attract us into an alliance with the Roman Church, which took place after the marriage of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to Sophia, up to and including the said metropolitan. Ambassador Pope Anthony Bonumbre, bishop of the city d’Accia, according to Pierling, was not a cardinal at all - ibid. r. 155 sub fin.. Regarding the presentation of the cross to the ambassador, Pierling says that on la portait devant lux comme en triomphe, en vertu d’un privilège accordé au légat par le Pape (they carried it before him as if in triumph, by virtue of the privilege given to the legate by the pope) - ibid. r. 170. Describing Sophia’s stay with the legate in Pskov 1, the Pskov Chronicle says: “he was his lord with her, not according to our rank, he was dressed all in a scarlet robe, having on him a scarlet doll (is this a cardinal’s robe?), ... and also a cross in front of him and a tangible crucifix (?), as everyone can see, the spitting image is worn in front of him, on a high tree, there is a mountain stuck” - Collection of Chronicles IV, 245. Nikon Chronicle VI, 50. “Then, being afraid of the legatos, Metropolitan Philip studied a lot, from the books of the word, he called Nikita Popovich from the books, and he called Nikita Popovich from the books; he will not give a single word of answer, but he will say: there are no books with me,” - Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 197. - Nikita Popovich, perhaps, is that priest Nikita Semeshkov, the son of the archpriest of the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, who in 1474. was appointed bishop of Kolomna - Nikon Chronicle VI, 65 beginning. Certificate in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 82, and Pavlov in Monuments No. 101. Certificate in Acts of History Vol. I, No. 283, and Pavlov in Monuments No. 103. Message in Acts of History vol. I, no. 278, and in Pavlov no. 104. That during the reign of Metropolitan Philip, widowed priests remained priests in the world, this can be seen from the chronicle’s story about the wedding of Ivan Vasilyevich with Sofia Fominichna: “the wedding of (the Grand Duke) Archpriest Osei of Kolomna, who was not the local (Moscow) archpriest and did not command his confessor, who were widowers,” - 2 Sophia Chronicle in Collection VI, 197. 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 232, 2 Pskov Chronicle ibid. V, 35. In the first, it seems in an unclear way to know that it was not just about widowed priests; but here there is only some broadcasting of the chronicler. 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 234 (then the chronicler both covertly and directly accuses Jonah of the passion of love of money). He was buried in the Assumption Cathedral and his coffin is the coffin that is currently mistakenly passed off as the coffin of Metropolitan Athanasius, buried in the Novospassky Monastery, see Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 24, col. 1, § 3 fin.. Gerontius was appointed bishop of Kolomna from the archimandrites of Simonov unknown when until 1455, under which he is mentioned as such (Acts of History vol. I, no. 57 and Pavlov’s Monuments no. 74); Archimandrite Simonovsky mentioned it at the end of 1447 (Acts of History vol. I, no. 40). On April 4, there was a fire in the Moscow Kremlin, and the metropolitan courtyard burned down. The shock caused to the Metropolitan by the fire seems to have been the cause of his sudden illness (which seemed to have been a blow) - Nikon Chronicle, VI, 52 sqq. Gregory died in September - early December 1472, - 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 246. Makarievsky Chet-Menya month of August, synodal No. 183, sheet 765. Spyridon’s own testimony that he was appointed metropolitan by Patriarch Raphael in September 1474 or 1475 - in his “Exposition on the Orthodox Faith,” about which see the Right Reverend Macarius IX, 64 sqq (precisely the testimony - p. 66 note. The patriarchate of Raphael, famous for his illiteracy, and also known for his devotion to wine and his extremely pitiful fate, is attributed by some Greek chronicles to the time already following the arrival of Spyridon in Lithuania - to 1477-1480 or to 1481; About the arrival of Spiridon in Lithuania, the Typographical Chronicle under the year 1476 (p. 286): “that same summer, a metropolitan came from Tsariagrad to the Lithuanian land, with the name Spiridon, and by birth Tveritin, he was appointed patriarch by reward, and by the command of the Tsar of Turkey” (in Karamzin to vol. VI note 629, col. 93, - the same thing). Imprisoned in Lithuania, Spiridon in 1482 sent an embassy to the Moscow Grand Duke, about which in the 2 Sophia Chronicle under our year (Collected Chronicles VI, 233) it reads: “that same summer a gentleman came from Lithuania from the Metropolitan, who was also a monk here, and he is called Sotona for his agility him, and went to Constantinople to become a metropolitan in Rus' and came to Lithuania, the king seized him and put him in captivity, and from him (pan) the great prince said: ““As many, as he said, relics were brought from the patriarch to you, but the king took it all to himself,” the prince held that master for a long time (maybe trying to get the relics from the king) and let go, rivers: ""do not raise an army, nor fight with the king about this." Released from prison in Lithuania or having escaped from it, Spiridon later appears in the same prison in Moscow - in the Ferapontov Monastery, where he died after 1503. In his above-mentioned Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, written immediately upon his arrival in Lithuania, he calls himself Metropolitan (Archbishop) of “Kyiv (and) All Rus',” from which it would seem that he was appointed metropolitan not of Lithuania, but of Moscow. But it is impossible to assume that he was installed in Constantinople in the place of the living Gerontius, or that in general he could have any hope, having been installed in Constantinople, to be received in Moscow. And therefore, regarding our title, used by him as Metropolitan of Lithuania, we must think that he used it as an inheritance from Gregory the Bulgarian, i.e., that he appropriated this title to himself. (And in Moscow, at the end of his life, Spiridon styled himself the Metropolitan of All Rus' - an afterword to the life of the Solovetsky Wonderworkers, which was written, actually edited, by him in 1503, published in Undolsky’s Bibliographic Research, p. 58). Contemporaries speak with great praise of his scholarship (in the sense of that time) and his talent as a writer and even call him a pillar of the church of his time (Dosifei of Solovetsky in Undolsky ibid. p. 59 and Gennady Archbishop of Novgorod in Klyuchevsky in Lives p. 200 note). As a writer, what he was, we will talk about him in the second half of the volume. The Nikon Chronicle, expressing itself in a way that is not entirely understandable to us at the present time, says: “then (at the moment of Philip’s death) it (the church) was still raised to a large belt up to half, where arks for the saints began to be made on all three walls” - VI, 53. The Sofia chronicle says about the masters: “I did not understand the strength in that (stone-building) business, I dissolved the lime liquid with sand, otherwise it is not adhesive, but inside (between the inner and outer cladding) the same small stone is collected, and poured inside the wall and lime is poured, like dough mortar, because the work is not strong: like the pull of that stone will bend into place and the rule of the wall will twist,” Collected Chronicles VI, 195 beginning. According to the same chronicle, the Pskov masons, summoned by the Grand Duke after the fall of the cathedral, inspecting the unsuccessful work of the Moscow craftsmen, “praised their work for doing it smoothly, but blasphemed the work of lime, which was too thin to dissolve, otherwise not gluey,” - ibid. page 198 fin.. Nikon Chronicle VI, 58 beginning. About Aristotle (whose surname or nickname is not correctly Fioraventi, as we usually call him, but Fioravanti) in detail in the 2 Sophia Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles VI, 199; some additions to the Typographical Chronicle p. 292. Cfr in Pierling in La Russie et le Saint-Siège, I, 200. Details in the Typographical Chronicle p. 293 sqq. And the bodies of other metropolitans were transferred to the cathedral on August 27. The Assumption Cathedral was consecrated on August 12, 1479, and on October 26 of the same year the Grand Duke went to Novgorod, from which he returned on February 13 of the following 1480 - Nikon Chronicle VI, 109. The chronicle conveying the history of the dispute makes it known that the charmers told the Grand Duke about the Metropolitan before his trip to Novgorod, and that the first dispute took place after his return from the latter. – The first troops against Akhmat were sent from Moscow on June 8, 1480; he fled on November 11 of the same year. 2 Sophia, – Collection of Chronicles VI, pp. 221 and 233. Recently, a message to Metropolitan Gerontius about our dispute from Bishop Romanov Torg, in Moldavia, Vasily, written on February 2, 1484 and brought to Moscow by some Mikhail Yakovlevich, became known, see Description of handwritten collections of the Public Library, I, 507, sub fin.. The matter, in all likelihood, should be understood in such a way that The bishop was informed about the dispute in Moscow by Russian ambassadors who came to the matchmaker of your Grand Duke (since 1482), the Moldavian governor Stefan, and that he, the bishop, wrote a letter without being asked by the metropolitan, but having his own zeal to confirm (testify) to the latter that one really should walk against the sun. He writes in the epistle: “in the Greek law, it is poor (nothing) acts (does not act) in the holy church according to the sun, or, lord, mustache (everything) according to the censer (i.e., like a deacon walks, censing): and whoever has to act according to the sun in the Greek law, and he is a curse (- t) from the first council of 318 God-bearing fathers, like those in Nicaea; Our Latins do things like that.”... Mikhail Andreevich was the cousin of Ivan Vasilyevich, the grandson of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. Nikon Chronicle VI, 106, and Typographical Chronicle p. 290; also 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 33 fin.. 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 234 (in which we also talk about what was prescribed in the then Charter regarding our case). 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 236; the same in the Typographical Chronicle p. 307. Sophia Chronicle ibidd.. Acts of History vol. I, no. 97 and no. 98. Those letters that are in Acts of History vol. I, No. 261, and Pavlov No. 73. Karamzin tries to turn Ivan Vasilyevich's cowardice into wise prudence; but far from being particularly successful. In Acts of History vol. I, no. 90. For Vassian's message, see the second half of the volume, in the chapter on enlightenment. Typographical Chronicle p. 304 fin. – April 4, 1473 there was a big fire in the Moscow Kremlin, during which the metropolitan courtyard burned down - Nikon Chronicle VI, 52. Instead of the burned courtyard, Metropolitan Gerontius erected a new courtyard, of the buildings of which are mentioned: his brick courtyard gates, built in the same 1473; a stone chamber, founded in 1473 and completed by the autumn of 1474; the house church of the Deposition of the Robe, founded in 1484 and consecrated on August 21, 1486, – Nikon Chronicle VI, pp. 55, 59, 119 and 121. The main source of information about heresy is the so-called Illuminator of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, a directly contemporary historical and polemical work, which we will discuss below. We will quote it from the Kazan edition of 1855. From Mikhailovskaya Street (which is on the Sofia side, probably from the Church of the Archangel Michael): Enlightener p. 44. St. Joseph in the Illuminator, page 44: “I came from Lithuania to another Jew whose names were: Osif Shmoilo Scary Mosey Hanush.” What are the names and nicknames here, it’s difficult to decide. No more than five people came, but whether less, and if less, how many exactly remains unknown. Enlightener page 43 sqq. Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich stayed in Novgorod for a very short time, and only 4 months and 8 days, leaving him on March 15, 1471. But for the Jews to leave Novgorod with him, this does not seem likely, because in this case they would not have had time to sufficiently teach the priests Alexei and Dionysius about Judaism. For the same reason, it does not seem too likely to think that they left before the invasion of Novgorod by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, which took place in June-July 1471 (and Tatishchev’s news that Skhariya along with others was executed by Ivan Vasilyevich in Novgorod - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847, IV, 109, is a real and, moreover, meaningless apocrypha: it is impossible that Gennady and the Monk Joseph kept silent about this, and then the first would not have discovered heresy randomly only in 1487). Reverend Joseph is called by name, except for Archpriest Gabriel: Ivashka Maksimov, son-in-law of the priest Alexei, his father priest Maxim, Gridya Kloch, Grigory Tuchin, “his father had great power in Novegrad” (if the name was Grigory, then he was a posadnik), priest Grigory, his son Samsonka, Gridya clerk Borisoglebsky, Lavresh, Mishuk Dog, Vasyuk Sukhoi, son-in-law of priest Dionysius, priests Theodore and Vasily Pokrovsky, priest Yakov Apostolsky (from the Church of the Apostles), Yurka Semenov son of the Long, Avdey and Stepan Kriloshane, priest Ivan Voskresensky, Avdokimka Lyulish, deacon Makar, clerk Samukha, priest Naum, p. 44 fin.. Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod, in a letter to Joasaph, former Archbishop of Rostov dated February 1489 (Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847 No. 8): “That charm here has spread not only in the city, but also throughout the village; and all from the priests who were made priests by heretics...; Yes, for this reason, they put them on the butt, so that anyone, as powerfully as possible, can be brought into their heresy, even though they are already spiritual children.” The same by St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator, p. 600 beginning. See also the message of Gennady to Nifont of Suzdal in Khrushchov’s Study on the Works of Joseph Savin, sources p. XXIII (priests and clerks from Oyat infected with heresy, - omitted about them in Khrushchov, see partly in Karamzin, to vol. VI note 324, col. 51). Joseph in the Illuminator page 50 sqq. Gennady of Novgorod, in a letter to Metropolitan Zosima, written in October 1490, says that “three years have passed, and the fourth has come” after the first discovery of the sect was made - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 380, p. 482 col. 1 sub fin., in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 776 sub fin.. Gennady ibid., Acts p. 479. col. 1 start. Monuments col. 767 beginning: “from the Jews the heresy spread in the Nougorod land, and they kept it secretly, and then they began to cry out drunk, and when I heard it”... Theophilus, whom we spoke about above, having been installed as archbishop on December 15, 1471, was demoted from the see on January 24, 1480; he was succeeded by Sergius - the first not from Novgorod, who occupied the department for a very short time - from September 4, 1483 to June 27 of the following 1484; Sergius's successor was Gennady. Gennady in the above mentioned message to Zosima. Denialism, as one of the sectarian dogmas, which was of no small importance in the history of sectarians, is deliberately spoken of by Gennady in his epistles (especially to Joasaph of Rostov) and by St. Joseph in the Illuminator (especially p. 600). Gennady in a letter to Bishop Prokhor of Sarah (quote now below): “sent (I am) a letter” and I have the original to the Metropolitan, what priest Naum said, and also a notebook, according to which they prayed in the Jewish way, and there you will see everything that was done and (how) the psalms were turned into their custom: and if only priest Naum did not put in repentance and in “I didn’t want to embrace Christianity again, otherwise how could I make it powerful?” He, in a letter to Joasaph, the former Rostov (quote above): “(about all the teachings of the Judaizers) their comrade priest Nahum firmly expressed to me, and he also brought psalms to me, according to which they ruled themselves in the Jewish way.” [By the psalms by which the heretics ruled in the Jewish way, Archbishop Gennady, in all likelihood, means those imaginary psalms that we are talking about on page 604 sub fin., electronic version - the first paragraph after footnote No. 1259 and further, approx. corr.] Priest Gregory with his son Samsonk, priest Eresim (Gerasim?) and Gridya, clerk of Borisoglebsky. Gennady in the above message to Zosima, Acts p. 479 col. 1, Monuments col. 767, cfr letters of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan to Gennady from 1488, which are now quoted below. Reverend Joseph in the Illuminator, page 52: “Then Archpriest Alexey and Theodore Kuritsyn had such boldness in their name to the sovereign, as if they were no one else.” Gennady in his letter to Zosima ibidd., and in his letter to Prokhor, which is given above. He wrote to Prokhor at the same time as he sent a search to the Grand Duke and Metropolitan. About the contents of the message, with excerpts from it, see Khrushchov ibid., Sources p. XVI fin. (and about the time of writing - in his message - Gennady to Nifont of Suzdal, - ibid. p. XXII). In the message to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, which is now indicated above and which was sent in January 1488. The list of messages to Nifont was sent by Gennady to Philotheus of Perm - see Khrushchev ibidd. XXIII fin.. Grigoriev's son Samsonka. 2 Sophia Chronicle under the year 1488, - in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 238: “the same winter, the Novugorod priests traded with whips, Vladyka Gennady sent them from Novgorod to the Grand Duke, because the drunks quarreled with the holy icons, and sent them (the Grand Duke) again to the ruler.” The Grand Duke’s letter to Gennady, together with the metropolitan’s letter to him repeating it, in Acts of History vol. I, No. 585, and in Pavlov’s Monuments No. 114. In a letter to Joasaph of Rostov, he writes: “and through the prayers of the Most Pure Mother of God and his (the Grand Duke’s) sovereign thunderstorm with his boyars (vicars) they thoroughly searched him.”... Gennady in a letter to Zosima from October 1490, – Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 380, p. 479, and Pavlov’s Monuments col. 768. In a letter to Joasaph the former of Rostov. “That trouble began, according to Gennady, from the place when Kuritsyn arrived from the Ugric land” - in the indicated message to Zosima, p. 480 col. 2 fin. (Sent to Hungary in 1482, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 117, Kuritsyn returned from it unknown when until 1488, - Karamzin to vol. VI note 273. Comp. Collection of the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, v. V, M. 1893, pp. 291 and 296). Zosima was nicknamed Bradaty. In 1471, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, going to Novgorod, took with him his mother’s clerk Stefan the Bearded, who could speak from Russian chronicles, so that he could figure out the Novgorodians’ betrayals of the former great princes. The learned clerk may have been Zosima's brother or even a relative. Bishop of Kolomna Gerasim Smerdkov died 12 days before Gerontius on May 16, 1489. Gennady's message to Zosima in Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 380 and Pavlov in Monuments No. 115, I, message to the council of bishops in Pavlov No. 115, II. They were written after the installation of Zosimas as metropolitan, which took place on September 26, 1490, and before the Council on Heretics, which took place on October 17 of the same year. The Metropolitan proposed to Gennady to send a letter of freedom not only for the installation of the Bishop of Kolomna, but in general with the expression of his consent to all matters that are to be carried out by the Metropolitan conciliarly, so that this general letter of freedom, once given, would eliminate the need for private letters of freedom for each individual case. Such a letter was given by Gennady to Metropolitan Gerontius, and Zosima suggested that the archbishop only renew it in his name - the Metropolitan's own person. In his letter to the bishops, Gennady assures that under Gerontius he did not himself give this general charter, but that it was taken from him; maybe he is telling the truth, but we know that other bishops of that time gave such letters (without knowing, however, at their own request or at request), - Pavlov No. 106 and No. 109 (Archbishop of Novgorod, then Metropolitan, Macarius gave such a letter to Metropolitan Joasaph in 1539, - Acts of the Expedition vol. 1, no. 184, IV, p. 162). If Gennady had not been present in Moscow of his own free will, he would have acted completely illegally; then he makes it known that his absence did not depend on him, but on the will of the Grand Duke. To three of the six bishops present in Moscow, Prokhor of Sarsk, Niphon of Suzdal and Philotheus of Perm, Gennady had already written about heretics before. That Dionysius was condemned by the council due to the fact that he appeared as an accused in the search for the Gennadievs, this is confirmed by one chronicle entry. The record says that when the bishops who were in Moscow once came to the Archangel Cathedral to perform a memorial service for the princes buried in the cathedral and saw Dionysius standing in the altar dressed in a robe, they said to him: “come out, man, from the holy altar, you are not worthy to serve together with the holy bishops; speeches that were not similar came to you even under Gerontius, the Metropolitan of All Rus', and not only to you, and the lists of your affairs in the letters of Gennady, Archbishop of Nogorod, came to you.” See Pavlov’s entry in Monuments col. 786 fin. (where it is attached to the teaching of Zosimas with the council). Zachariah or Zakhar was the abbot of one of the monasteries of the Pskov region (Nemchinov, located in the Kholmsky district - Metropolitan Eugene History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 129). Not recognizing the reality of the priesthood, he did not receive communion himself for three years and did not give communion to his monks. When Gennady found out about this latter, he sent him under the leadership of another monastery. Released by the archbishop from under the authority of the last Grand Duke, he, instead of returning to his monastery, went to Moscow. Here he, perhaps, switched from Strigolism to Judaism (the certificate of the Grand Duke for him, as Gennady pointed out this circumstance, makes one suspect that he was under someone’s protection like the patronage of clerk Kuritsyn, and the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk directly says that the Judaizers attracted him to their heresy - Enlightener, p. 52); maybe he only united with the Judaizers due to the same hostility towards the church as them, or maybe - neither one nor the other. From Moscow, he sent out to all cities many letters against Gennady (why against Gennady alone, and not against all the bishops, but it is clear and not clear) in which he called him a heretic (Gennady’s letters to Zosima and to the council of bishops). 4 Novgorod, in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 158 (also Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 55). Calls by name: the Novgorod archpriest Gabriel, Denis the priest of Arkhangelsk, Maxim the priest Ivansky, Vasily the priest Pokrovsky, Makariy the deacon Nikolsky, Gridka the clerk Borisoglebsky, Vasyuk Denisyev’s son-in-law, Samukha the deacon (deacon?) Nikolsky, - 4 Novgorodskaya, ibid. (Joseph in The Illuminator p. 55). In a letter to Zosima in 1490, he writes: “By their faith, Ano Fryazov holds what a fortress! The ambassador of the Tsarsars (Nikolai Poppel, who came to Moscow on his way to Pskov and Novgorod, in 1486 - Karamzin, to volume VI note 339, more about him in Adelung’s Review of Travellers) told us about the Spanish king, how he cleared his land, and from those speeches he sent a list to you.” In Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1847 No. 4, p. 110. We base our distinction between some heretics and other heretics on the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, who says that they were sent from the sovereign to Novgorod to Gennady, and others are condemned by him to imprisonment - Enlightener pp. 55, 56 and 570. - One chronicle entry reports that the monk Zakhar was sent to imprisonment to the bishop of Suzdal (the aforementioned Nifont, who was appointed bishops on December 9, 1484), and priest Denis in Galich (Kostroma province), see Pavlov in Monuments. col. 788, note. Enlightener, page 55. Regarding how the helmets were burned, on the heads themselves or removed from the heads, Joseph expresses himself vaguely: “then commanded that you burn the helmets that were on their heads.” We consider it most likely to assume the latter. One might think that the idea of ​​these helmets was given to Gennady by the familiar practice of the Catholic Inquisition. Catholics put special cylindrical caps on heretics, similar in shape to our monastic kamilavkas, with images of devils on them, see in the German archaeological Dictionary of Müller and Mothes II 579, Fig. 821. 2 Novgorod Chronicle, in Collection of Chronicles III, 143 fin. Message to the quarrelsome or about obedience to the conciliar decision, - MDA manuscript No. 171, page 252, verso (In Karamzin to volume VI, note 565). The same in the Enlightener, p. 571. In 1505, the Grand Duke said to the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk: “And Ivan dei Maximov and my daughter-in-law reduced me to Judaism” (Epistle of the Venerable Joseph to Archimandrite Mitrofan of Andronikov in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847 No. 1; incorrect printed reading corrected according to the original from which it was printed - manuscript MDA No. 171 sheet 10 back beginning). The assurance of Zinovy ​​of Otensky in his “Truth of Testimony” that many nobles and the officials of the Grand Duke have crept into heresy, in all likelihood, should mainly be understood specifically about our time - Kazan edition p. 964 fin. Message from Gennady to Joasaph, former Archbishop of Rostov. Enlightener, page 61 and all 12 words. Cfr in the message of St. Joseph to Nifont of Suzdal the answer to the question: “if a Christian heretic is cursed,” will divine judgment follow him,” in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847 No. 1, and in Pavlov’s Monuments, col. 827. Shortly before the deposition of Zosima, the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk wrote a letter to Niphon of Suzdal (quote in the previous note), strongly convincing him, probably as the most authoritative and powerful among the bishops before the Grand Duke, to rebel against the heretic metropolitan. It may be that Niphon really contributed to the deposition of Zosima, but hardly in a way to prove his heresy, for it would be very difficult to prove it, while proving it is very dangerous. - Recently, a short teaching against the Judaizers was opened, issued by Metropolitan Zosima with the council of 1490 (Pavlov, - in his Monuments No. 116), and some researchers, on the basis of this teaching, with they firmly accept that Zosima was unfairly accused of heresy. But if in our teaching we see proof of Zosima’s Orthodoxy, then for a long time everyone knew an even stronger proof, this is the very council of 1490. If Zosima found himself forced to condemn the heretics at a council, then it is not surprising that he also issued our teaching with the council. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk accuses Zosima of being a Judaizer (in his letter to Niphon of Suzdal and in the Illuminator - p. 54 sqq), but to think that Joseph would accuse him without sufficient grounds, wanting to believe only empty and absurd rumors or gossip, seems morally impossible: in a persistent and apodictic-decisive manner (like this in Joseph) to blame someone, and even more so against the head of the church himself, such a terrible accusation as belonging to the most evil heresy, based only on rumors and gossip caught in the air, means to be a truly terrible person (and morally ugly); and we absolutely cannot recognize the Monk Joseph as such a person, no matter what opinion we may have about his shortcomings. He refers not only to his brother Vassian, Archbishop of Rostov (in a letter to Nifont), about whom, perhaps to some extent, the ill-wishers of both brothers spoke fairly, that he was a man “light in mind, light in mind,” but also to other reliable witnesses, and, referring to these last witnesses to Nifont, he is also called on himself: “otherwise, just as you yourself heard,” and moreover, directly putting aside the assumption that he was based only on rumors and gossip, he is called upon to prove with these witnesses the justice of his accusation against the Metropolitan before those of the people obliged to stand guard over Orthodoxy, who, defending themselves, said: “We have not heard anything from him (Zosima).” Suspecting the Monk Joseph, we would have to assume that he is not only based on rumors and gossip, but also invents facts on his own. Moreover, he does not hesitate to talk about his inventions not only in a private letter, which is the message to Nifont, but also in a public essay, what the Enlightener is like: In the letter to Nifont, he says that the children of the deceased Archpriest Alexei and his son-in-law do not leave the Metropolitan and sleep with him, and in the Enlightener he talks about the Metropolitan’s cruel persecution of those zealots of Orthodoxy who dared to denounce him. If Zosima had been Orthodox, then what reasons could he have had for preaching the doctrine that “if a heretic curses a Christian, then divine judgment will follow him”? And that he really preached this doctrine is clear from the fact that Niphon asked Joseph about him (as the latter testifies in his letter to the former). After the Monk Joseph, speeches about the heresy of Zosimas should have been expected from the chroniclers. Why the chroniclers do not talk about him, we cannot say. But, in any case, their silence does not constitute such a mystery that nothing could be explained in explanation: Zosima’s heresy was not one of those secrets that are known to absolutely everyone; the chroniclers might not have known about him, and therefore not say anything about him. But another thing can be assumed to explain their silence, namely, that they did not want to put on the pages of Russian History the sad fact that the see of the Russian metropolitanate (which, according to their ideas, became so high after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks) was occupied and desecrated by an evil heretic. Nikon Chronicle VI, 140: “On the spring of May 17, Metropolitan Zosima left the metropolis not of his own free will, but holding on to excessive drinking, and so he went to Simonov’s cell, and from there to Trinity in the Sergius Monastery.” The same in the Resurrection Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles V Ι II 228, in 4 Novgorod, - ibid. IV, 164, in the Typografskaya, - p. 335 fin., and in some chronographs (in the Degree Book it is silently said that Zosima was deprived of the throne of the Russian metropolitanate “for some stumbling block”, - I, 477 and II 155. - The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk accuses him of sodomy). - At that time, our bishops, who voluntarily or involuntarily left their sees, descended into monastic life in order not to be called bishops and not to act anything bishopric (see. about this below), and about the abdication of Zosima himself, Gennady of Novgorod in his voluntary letter for the election of his successor Simon says: “Father Zosima Metropolitan, for the sake of weakness, left the table of the Russian metropolitanate and, having come to the holy great cathedral church in front of everyone, placed his omophorion on the throne and named the Lord God as a witness, as it was impossible for him to act in a holy manner as a metropolitan be named, and go to a monastery for a humble monastic life” (in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 834 fin.). Meanwhile, in the chronicles we read under the year 1496; “at the same time, the former Metropolitan Zosima, at the Trinity in the Sergeev Monastery, received the Divine Mysteries on the orlets in the entire hierarchical rite.” As to how to understand Zosima’s admiration for the rank of hierarch, we cannot say anything. Enlightener, page 571 sqq. That Cassian was appointed archimandrite of the Yuriev Monastery after the deposition of Metropolitan Zosima from the see, this must be concluded from the fact that nothing is said about the participation of the metropolitan in the matter of his installation. That Ivashko was circumcised is discussed by Joseph in the Illuminator, page 51. According to the testimony of Joseph, - ibid., and Gennady in his letter to Zosima, he ran away (ran away) somewhere, and we assume that it was to Lithuania. As the second one reports in the same message, he was a book scribe by trade and we actually know two manuscripts written by him - the Piskarev collection according to the catalog compiled by Viktorov, No. 162, chronographic and Tsar's No. 181, Ladder of John Climacus (the first manuscript was written in 1485 in Moscow, the second in 1487, unknown where). As can be seen from the story of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk about the struggle of the Orthodox against Zosima, - Enlightener, page 60 sqq. “Archpriest Alexei and Feodor Kuritsyn have such boldness towards the sovereign, like no one else: they are devoted to the study of stars and many fables and astrologers and sorcery and witchcraft” - Enlightener, page 52. The nameless author of the life of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk claims that he was present at the council of 1490 (Nevostruev’s edition, p. 33). But this assurance should be considered unfair: 4 The Novgorod Chronicle, which lists in detail those present at the council and names the elders Paisius and Nil, does not name Joseph, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 158. In July 1497, he wrote one exchange charter for the Grand Duke, Collection of charters and agreements I, 333. Joseph's Message to Mitrofan, Archimandrite Andronikovsky, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847 No. 1 (and how to understand the confession made by Grand Duke Joseph that he knew about heretics, see below). These hesitations are discussed in Joseph’s letter to Mitrofan. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk was strongly in favor of the death penalty for heretics. But one should not at all imagine things in such a way that he was the first to suggest this execution and that the heretics were committed to it solely at his insistence. When in 1503 the Grand Duke spoke to him for the first time about heretics, he was already deciding for himself the question of whether to execute them or not (with the death penalty, for none of the Orthodox were against non-death execution - Joseph’s letter to Mitrofan); therefore, it was first proposed not by Joseph at all, but - as must be understood by the metropolitan with the bishops (Archbishop Gennady, for example, most energetically spoke out for the death penalty back in 1490 - letters to Metropolitan Zosima and to the council of bishops). Paisius and Nil, who rebelled against the death penalty for heretics, were exceptional people; about non-exceptional people it is quite possible to think that they were all for the death penalty. The credit for this instruction must be attributed chiefly, if not exclusively, to Joseph. Of course, what the Grand Duke promised to do to the Monk Joseph should be supposedly done (Joseph’s letter to Mitrofan. Enlightener, page 576 fin.. 1 Sophia and Resurrection Chronicles under the year 1505 (September), - Collection of Chronicles VI, 49 and VIII, 244: “Even in winter, the Great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich and his son the Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich of all Russia with his father with Simon the Metropolitan and with the bishops and with the whole cathedral searched heretics and ordered the dashing ones to be executed by death: and he burned in a cage the clerk Volk Kuritsyn and Mitya Konoplev and Ivashka Maksimov on December 27, and he ordered Nekras Rukavov to cut his tongue and in Novgorod in Veliky he burned him; the same winter of Archimandrite Cassian of Yuryevsky burned and his brother (Ivashka Cherny) and many other heretics burned; and some were sent to prison, and others to a monastery.” In short, in the annals of Nikon, 1 Pskov and 2 Sofia. When exactly the council took place, the chronicles do not say, but they talk about the executions of heretics following the news of the month of November. According to Joseph of Volokolamsk, some of those left alive had their tongues cut: “the sovereign commanded that the tongues of those who were left should be put on fire, the tongues of those left should be cut and executed with other executions,” - Enlightener 577 beginning. Venerable Joseph in the Illuminator, p. 597 sub fin. and in a later letter to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, excerpts from which are from the Right Reverend Macarius, beginning VI, 156. Joseph’s message to the Trans-Volga residents in response to their message to him, which has not reached us, about obedience to the conciliar definition (MDA manuscript No. 171, sheet 250, cfr in Khrushchev’s Study on the Works of Joseph, p. 194), as can be seen from the instructions contained in it, was written at this time. The mentioned later letter of the Monk Joseph to Vasily Ivanovich is from the Right Reverend Macarius ibid. page 155 sub fin.. An excerpt from Joseph’s message to Vasily Ivanovich and the response to this message from the Trans-Volga people, printed in Novikova’s Vivliofik XVI, 423 and 424, refer to our time. He brought it closer to himself, probably after the death of the Nile, which took place on May 7, 1508. And the opinion that Vassian was present at the council of 1503 and after it was left in Moscow is not based on anything. About Vassian’s sorrow for the heretics to the Grand Duke, see Letter about dislikes between the Volga residents and the Josephites in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part 10 p. 506, and in Vassian’s own writings, Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, III, 198 sqq. That the mourning was successful is evident from the fact that those released were heretics and then sent back to prison. Mentioned in the second and third notes above, the message of the Monk Joseph to Vasily Ivanovich, dating back to the years 1511–1512, is from the Right Reverend Macarius. The Life of St. Joseph, belonging to Bishop Savva of Krutitsky according to the edition of Nevostruev, p. 38 (cfr message of the Novgorod Archbishop, after Metropolitan, Macarius to the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in the Additions to the Acts of History vol. I, No. 25, p. 23 col. 1). Enlightener page 46 and then words 1, 2 and 3. Nikolai Andreevich, who died in the rank of archpriest of the Moscow Church of St. George in Gruziny (for the “curious development of the case” regarding the publication of the study, see History of the MDA by S.K. Smirnov). These monuments are: firstly, simultaneous and identical messages to Gennady from the Grand Duke and Metropolitan Gerontius (Acts of History vol. I, no. 285, and in Pavlov, no. 114), which speak of heresy from the words of Gennady himself, and secondly, a letter from Gennady to Zosima (Acts of the Expedition vol. 1, no. 380 and in Pavlov, No. 115). 4 of the Novgorod Chronicle under 1491, - in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 158. Joseph in the Illuminator p. 51, Gennady in the message to Zosima. – Acts of the Expedition vol. I p. 480 col. 1 sub fin. and in Pavlov's Monuments col. 771 start. (Ivashko Cherny, brother of Archimandrite Cassian, and Ignat Zubov). – If Joseph were to be understood in the literal sense that the Judaizers are “Jewish sacrifices to the priest,” then he, of course, would be telling a lie, because the Jews do not make sacrifices in the proper sense since they do not have a church. But it would not be a stretch to understand his words about sacrifices in an improper sense - about the Shabbat blessing of bread, wine and spices (by the rabbi in the synagogue or a place that replaces it, for all those praying, and by every owner of the house for all household members) and about the slaughter of certain animals on certain holidays (a lamb on the Passover holiday and a rooster and a chicken on the day of atonement). And when, in contrast to this mystery, Rudnev points out that the Judaizers were not clearly afraid to blaspheme Christ, or the Mother of God, or curse at icons (p. 123 beginning); then he understands the evidence about the latter incorrectly: Those who were Judaizing Christ and the Mother of God blasphemed and swore at the icons not publicly, but among themselves and in their meetings, and only did not manage to keep complete secrecy regarding this. See Hahn'a in Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, III, 25. See Graetz ’a Geschichte der Iuden von der ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, VIII, 208 and 444 beginning. Graetz ibid. IX, 68 note, 70 beginning. Reverend Joseph to Mitrofan Andronikovsky: “If, sir, I was in Moscow (at the council of 1503), then, sir, our sovereign, the great prince Ivan Vasilyevich of All Rus' spoke to me alone about church affairs, and after that he began to talk about the Novgorod heretics and said this: “" and the language of dei knew the Novgorod heretics and you forgive me for that." Another time, according to Joseph, the Grand Duke said to him: “And I knew their heresy" (sic), and he told him that the archpriest Alexey held the heresy and that Theodore Kuritsyn held. When the Grand Duke told Joseph that the heresy was held by Archpriest Alexei and that of Fyodor Kuritsyn, then it is necessary to understand this in such a way that he told him in which types of witchcraft Archpriest Alexey was especially strong and in which Kuritsyn. See Narbutt Dzieje narodu Litewskieho, VIII, 490, and Graets'a Geschichte der Iuden, IX, 464 (Graets, who has as his source for the history of the Jews in Poland and Lithuania the special historian of the local Jews Chatsky, knows about our sect of the Judaizers and says nothing about the existence of any sect in Poland and Lithuania, which was a mixture of Judaism and Christianity). 4 Novgorod Chronicle, in Collection of Chronicles IV, 158. On Kabbalah see Graetz ’a, VII, 73 sqq; what has been said now is 82. The Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk, as we said above, affirms this in a positive way. But Joseph was not at the council of 1490 and could consider Zechariah to have joined Judaism based on the sole conclusion that he was condemned along with the Judaizers. Gennady of Novgorod, in his letter to the council of bishops in 1490, strongly advises that no speeches be made with heretics at the council, and in explanation of his insistence he openly says that the fathers of the council, perhaps, will not be able to argue with them - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 784. And in a letter to Joasaph, the former archbishop of Rostov, he makes it known that heretics had better collections of Christian writers than the Orthodox (and than he himself - Gennady). See Graets'a VIII, 158 sqq. About Metropolitan Zosima, the Monk Joseph claims that he said: “something is the kingdom of heaven, and something is the second coming, and something is the resurrection of the dead, there is nothing of that: someone died, someone else died, that’s where he was.” – Enlightener p. 68 fin. (also epistle to Nifont of Suzdal, Pavlov col. 821 beginning). Since the Jews believed and believe in the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment and the future life, we do not know what to think about this materialistic unbelief of Zosimas (was it not that our unbelief attacked him only in a drunken state, and that with the above words he consoled himself in the drunken despair of salvation?) Enlightener, page 315 fin.. Enlightener, pp. 52, 59 (places given above). The unknown author of the life of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, who wrote before 1566, reporting those ideas about the Judaizers that remained about them in his time, says: “they say of the sacred Christian rule of those who rejected and practice atheism, lying to the divine books of those who teach imputation and the evil custom of following, star law, sorcery exercising,” Nevostruev’s edition, p. 32. See Karamzin to volume VI, note 324, col. 51, and in Khrushchov’s Sources, p. XXIII (priest from Oyat). Enlightener, page 49 fin.. Page 533 fin., 576, 587 fin., 599. See the message of St. Joseph to Mitrofan Andronikovsky. “And personally,” the Grand Duke promised Joseph, “I will send throughout the city, and order them to search for heretics and eradicate them.” See the message of the Monk Joseph to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich about the heretic Klenov - Khrushchov, page 263. Enlightener, page 59 fin. That in Novgorod and the Novgorod region Judaism spread mainly among priests, this is said by Archbishop Gennady and the Monk Joseph, and this is confirmed by Metropolitan Zosima and the council of 1490 in his teaching against the Judaizers - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 785. Zinovy Otensky, as we indicated above, in his “Truth of Testimony” says that many nobles and from the official grand dukes (i.e. Ivan Vasilyevich and his son Vasily Ivanovich) crawled into the Jewish heresy - page 964 fin.. See in part 19 of the Addendum to the edition of the works of the holy fathers the article: “On the Slavic translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, corrected in the 15th century according to the Jewish text.” See about the collection in Book V of the Scientific Notes of the II Branch of the Academy of Sciences, in the article by Archimandrite Varlaam: Description of the collection of the 15th century of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, page 43 sqq. – Not without some probability one can think that the first nine chapters of the Book of Esther, included by Archbishop Gennady in his complete Bible, read in translation from the Hebrew original, were taken by Gennady from the Bible of the Judaizers, to which the content did not present an obstacle - Description of the synodal manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 1-3, p. 53. (“The translation was made,” say the descriptors, “near Poland or by a native of those countries, as can be judged by some expressions and figures of speech approaching the Polish language,” p. 55). In the teaching against the Judaizers of Metropolitan Zosima and the council of 1490, it is said that they secretly wrote some kind of writings (of course, apologetic-polemical or vice versa - in Pavlov col. 785); but it is unreasonable to expect that these writings would somehow be preserved and could be opened. Nicholas De Lira, a native of the town or town of Lira (Lуra, Lure) in northern France (Nicholas De Lira - i.e. Nicholas of Lira), is believed to be a Jew by his origin, and by his rank a Franciscan monk, was a professor at the University of Paris and became famous for his interpretations of the Old Testament, set out in the form of conversations (postillae, - Postillator); † 1340. His polemical work against Judaism in the original is inscribed: De Messia ejusque adventu praeterito tractatus, una cum responsione ad Iudaei argumenta XIV contra veritatem evangeliorum. It was published for the first time in Venice in 1481, and then many times. The Slavic translation is in the Tsarsky manuscript No. 461 and in one manuscript of the Vologda Theological Seminary (Stroeva Bibliological Dictionary, p. 86). Nikolai Nemchin, about whom we will talk below, when we talk about the Monk Maxim the Greek. Samuel was a Moroccan Jew who converted to Christianity in 1085; his work, written by him in Arabic and translated from Arabic into Latin in 1339, is inscribed in Latin: Rabbi Samuelis Marochiani de adventu Messiae, quem Iudaei temere expectant, liber scriptus post annos 1000 ab ultima eversione Hierosolymae sub Tito imp., id est post annum 1072 a Natali Domini. It is in the Patrology of Minya, t. 149 p. 337. Slavic translation in the same place as De-Lira’s translation. From September 20, 1490 to May 17, 1494. Zosima's notice about the Paschal for the eighth thousand years is in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1860, part II p. 334 and in Pavlov's Monuments No. 118. That he sent out Paschal throughout the metropolis until December 7001, this is evident from the letter of Archbishop Gennady to the clergy of his diocese, under which the latter sent it throughout the diocese his Easter calculation - the Metropolitan's and his own, made for 70 years: the letter was written on December 21, 7001, and it says that the Metropolitan sent out Paschal throughout the metropolis - a letter from the Right Reverend Macarius, vol. VI, p. 380, and from Pavlov ibid. No. 119. The consultation about Paschal with the archbishops, bishops and the entire council, about which Zosima writes in his notice, should have taken place in the year 7000 (September). In some chronicles cited by Karamzin, it actually reads that “in the summer of 7000, that is, the beginning of the eighth thousand, the month of September,” the Metropolitan assembled a council of archbishops and bishops, archimandrites and abbots, at which “the holy peace circle began” (not the peace circle, but the Paschal for the eighth thousand, for the peace The 532-year circle began in 6917 from S.M. or in 1409 A.D., - to volume VI note 618). For the metropolitan’s sending of the Easter calculation he made to Gennady of Novgorod, see the latter’s letter mentioned above; about sending to Philotheus of Perm - in Karamzin, to volume VI, note 620. Nikonovskaya Chronicle VI, 131, 4 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 160 fin., Typographical Chronicle p. 325. Until Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark († 1462) Vologda belonged to the Novgorodians, and from this time on the Grand Duke began to belong to Moscow (the city itself, but as for the volost, not all of it, but only the larger or smaller part - Collection of charters and agreements I, 204. cfr Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 57). Regarding the joint ecclesiastical authority over it of the metropolitan and the archbishop, the matter should probably be understood in such a way that the churches that existed in the city before its transfer to the state power of Moscow remained with the archbishop, and the churches that were built after that were metropolitan ones. - In 1493, after a fire in Moscow, in which the metropolitan courtyard burned out, Zosima erected three stone cells in the courtyard with basements, - Nikon Chronicle VI, 137–138. 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 268 fin.. – We mentioned above that Metropolitan Zosima, together with the council of bishops in 1490, issued a short teaching against the Judaizers. He attached to the teaching a decree on renounced books, i.e., on such books that Orthodox Christians should not read (renounced - forbidden), taken by him, as noted at the end of the decree itself, from the Prayer Book or Breviary of Metropolitan Cyprian. Having the inscription: “The Legend of Izosima, Metropolitan of Russia, about the renounced books,” the decree was printed in Pavlov’s Monuments, - No. 117. - Relegated from the see of the metropolis, Zosima, according to the chronicles, went to his cell in the Simonov Monastery, and from the Simonov Monastery to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, - Resurrection and 4 Novgorod chronicles in the Collection of Chronicles IV. 164, and VI, 228. Typographical chronicle p. 335 fin.. We cited above a note from the chronicles about one of his extraordinary acts, from which it is clear that in 1496 he was in the Trinity Monastery, - p. 577 (electronic version - footnote No. 1203, approx. corr.), A description of the manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra, speaking about the manuscript of the Lavra library that belonged to Metropolitan Zosima (No. 122, Explanatory Apocalypse of Andrew of Caesarea), claims, based on the History of the hierarchy, that Zosima died in the Kirill Belozersky Monastery. But the reference to the History of the Hierarchy (“History of the Russian Hierarchy, edition 2, pp. 100 and 101” of an unspecified volume, by which, obviously, we should mean volume I) is erroneous, and the author of the History, listing in the description of the Kirillov Monastery the remarkable people buried in it, - vol. IV, p. 402, does not name Zosima. According to some catalogs, he had the nickname Chizha, see Bychkova Description of the collections of the Public Library, I, 68 fin.. He was elected metropolitan on September 6, 1495, and much earlier - in January of the same year, he acts in Moscow, due to the non- existence of a metropolitan, as a senior in the clergy, although he was not a senior (in the Assumption Cathedral he blessed the daughter of the Grand Duke Elena, who was going to Lithuania to marry Alexander - Nikon Chronicle VI, 142, 4 Novgorod chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 165). From this it follows that he was already destined by the Grand Duke to become a metropolitan. Typographic Chronicle p. 337 (Karamzin has note 326 to volume VI - the same). Nikon Chronicle VI, 144, 1 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 39. Typographical Chronicle p. 338 (Karamzin ibidd.. It does not say directly that he drove around the city, but says only and vaguely that “the donkey was then driven by the Metropolitan Mikhailo Rusalka”; but by this “then,” inferring from subsequent times, one must mean driving around the city). And to present the matter in such a way that Archpriest Alexei and Fyodor Kuritsyn, who had extremely great influence on the Grand Duke, pretending to be zealots of Orthodoxy, encouraged him to eradicate the abuse that existed in the church, is obviously impossible: this would not be in their interest at all. The Judaizers could reproach the bishops for charging fees, but they could not possibly have the desire to declare this custom, to the apology of the church, for abuse. The publishers of the works of Vassian Kosy, a disciple of Nilov, claim that he was against the collection of our fees by bishops - Orthodox Interlocutor of 1863, part 3, p. 98. But on what basis they claim this remains unknown to us (if based on the words on p. 110, then they are not about the usual payment for appointments, but about obtaining places through bribery). The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, called by the Grand Duke to the council of 1503, in a letter to Mitrofan Andronikovsky makes it known that he was in Moscow on Easter of that year (although, however, from the letter of the Venerable Joseph it is not clear that the council began even then, which could have begun much later). The verdict of the council in the Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 382. Mikhail Ivanov, son of Alekseev, Gostenok. 1 and 2 Sofia Chronicles in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 49 and 244, Nikon Chronicle VI, 170. (Month in the first two chronicles; according to 1 Pskov Chronicle, in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 278, the Grand Duke sent Gennady an order to go to Moscow on Onuphrius’ day, i.e. 12 June; and that on May 16 he was still in Novgorod, see Legal Acts of 1838 No. 387. – There is no reason to assume that the accusation against Gennady was slander on the part of the Judaizers, for whom the council was being prepared, for it would not be difficult for the archbishop to justify himself from slander. But what exactly did they report or try to convey to the great one. Prince, these are very possible). Vassian Kosoy directly assimilates to Joseph the conciliar verdict on widowed priests (Orthodox Interlocutor of 1863, part 3, p. 207 beginning). But it may very well be that Vassian attributes the sentence to Joseph on the sole basis that Joseph later defended him in a special case. Meanwhile, Joseph could defend not because the sentence was his, but because he was a man capable of defending, and that this was entrusted to him. Before our council, an order was made against the marriage of monks with nuns by Metropolitan Photius, but the order was only private, in letters to Novgorod and Pskov. In simultaneous and identical messages to both cities from 1410, he orders: “and in which monastery the monks would not have monks here, but the monks would live alone in monasteries without monks, and the monks would live separately in the monastery of the oprishna,” - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 275 fin. and 284. It is in the Acts of the Expedition vol. I No. 383. In it itself only the month is shown, but there is no date; this is the last one in the 2nd Novgorod Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles Ι II, 144 beginning. [The Day of Unction on September 1 is indicated in two more chronicles: Collected Chronicles III, 184, and IV, 277, note.] For the times of these metropolitans, see Pavlov's Monuments col. 231 fin., 430 and 433. Nevostruev's edition p. 36 fin.. They will be made - divided, divided, συμμερ ί ζονται: 1 Cor. 9:13. Skripitsa’s protest, which has the title: “Writing by the widowed priest Georgy Skripitsa from Rostov Grad about the widowed priests” was published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities, 1848 No. 6, Mixture. It is usually accepted that Skripitsa submitted his protest to the council itself; but this is not visible from anywhere and in itself it is completely incredible: it is simply a literary work written against the definition of the council (and it itself speaks of the definition as having already taken place, although not with complete clarity that it took place some time ago). Chapter 79, Kazan edition p. 349. The article “On the combination of the second marriage of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia”, assimilated by its inscription to Paisius, the elder of the Ferapontov Monastery, if it really belongs to Paisius, then not ours, but another, later one. - The Kirillov Monastery is currently located in the district city of the Novgorod province Kirilov, which received its name from it - the monastery, and the Ferapontov Monastery, now defunct, was located in 14 versts north of Kirillov. 2 Sofia Chronicle under 1484 in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 236. A letter about the reasons for the dislike between the elders of the Kirillov and Joseph monasteries, printed in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part 10, page 505. In 1479, Paisius, together with the Rostov Archbishop Vassian, baptized the son of the Grand Duke and future successor Vasily in the Trinity Monastery. And in 1480, like Vassian, he wrote a letter to the Grand Duke on the Ugra. I volume 2 half, page 596, electronic version - paragraph of footnote No. 1392 and footnote No. 1392, note. corr. In the life of St. Cyril of Belozersky, written by Pachomius Serbin between 1462 and 1470, it is stated that Cyril not only in his thoughts was against patrimonial ownership, but in fact did not want to allow his monastery to own patrimonial lands. Since this last is not true, for it is documented that Cyril accepted the deposits of the estates and purchased them: then one should think that the disciples of Cyril, from whose words Pachomius wrote, turn into an actual fact what was only in Cyril’s thoughts. That Cyril’s view of patrimonial ownership remained in his monastery among some of his disciples until the time of Paisius and Nil, this is evidenced precisely by the life of Cyril Pakhomiev. The legend about the residence of the monastery and “About monks circling for the sake of acquisitions” (extract from the latter from Pavlov in the Historical Essay on the Secularization of Church Lands in Russia, p. 64 note). The contemporary witness who informs us of the proposal of the Monk Nilus to the council is the author of the above-mentioned letter on the reasons for dislike, ibid. p. 505, says that “when the council on widow priests and deacons was held, Elder Nil began to say that there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the monks would live in the deserts and feed themselves on handicrafts.” But the Monk Nil was only against patrimonial ownership, and not for all the monks to live like a monastery, as he himself lived and in what sense the word “desert” should be understood in this case. What Nile should have proposed to the council and how he should have motivated his proposal, we indicate this on the basis of what we read about monastic life in his Tradition about the residence of the monastery and, in general, on the basis of what is known about his thoughts on the subject. The unnamed author of the life of St. Joseph assures that the latter left the cathedral before Nile made his proposal and that on this occasion he was again summoned to Moscow, Nevostruev's edition p. 39. Perhaps this was indeed the case; but we do not have the inclination to give evidence of perfect faith (it was in vain to deliberately wait for Joseph’s departure, since it would not have cost him anything to return, due to the proximity of his monastery to Moscow). Letter on the reasons for dislike, ibid. p. 505. Life of St. Joseph, owned by an unknown person, Nevostruev edition p. 40 sqq. 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 216 (cfr in Karamzin to volume VI appendix 201). In 1478, the Grand Duke took ten volosts from the archbishop and half of the volosts from the six monasteries richest in estates, - 2 Sofia Chronicle ibidd.. How much he took in 1500 remains unknown. In the Nikon Chronicle, under the last year, - VI, 157 fin., it reads: “that same summer, with the blessing of Metropolitan Simon, the Great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich in Novgorod the Great took the church lands for himself from the rulers and monasteries and distributed them to the boyar children on the estate.” In the 1st Pskov Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles IV, 271 beginning: “On January (1500) the great prince took church estates in Novgorod and distributed them to the boyar children on the estate - monastery and church estates, with the blessing of Metropolitan Simon.” A somewhat later witness, Metropolitan Joasaph, in his comments on the resolutions of the Stoglavy Council, makes it known that the Grand Duke summoned many Trans-Volga hermits to the council (Stoglavogo chapter 100, Kazan edition p. 429). If this is true, then it is not incredible to think that - with the goal of having as many votes as possible against patrimonial ownership at the council. In Pavlov’s “On Secularization”, p. 47. The Council cites the following evidence in its extract: from the book of Genesis, ch. 47, which says that the Egyptian priests had their own lands, inviolable for Pharaoh, and that Pharaoh himself paid them tribute; from the book of Leviticus, ch. 22 and 27, where it is said that the Jews brought houses and fields as gifts to God, according to the commandment of Moses, and that the Jewish Levites had cities, towns and villages that could not be sold or given away and had to remain their possession forever; from the life of Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great, which says that Konstantinov’s mother Elena and he himself gave the churches maintenance for the sake of the city, village, grapes and lake, and that the sovereign firmly commanded that church estates remain completely inviolable forever; evidence from the Helmsman's Book: the Council of Carthage rules 32 and 38, the fourth council rule 24, the fifth council rule on those who offend the holy churches of God (forged - printed in Pavlov's Monuments, No. 15), the Sardician Council rule 14, the seventh council rules 12 and 18, Justinian rules 14, 15 and 30; saints that talk about the ownership of villages: Spyridon of Trimifuntsky, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Savva the Bishop and the Wonderworker, and the paternal book: The Conversator, Simeon the New Theologian; testimonies about the saints who owned the villages: Gelasius the Wonderworker, Athanasius of Athos, Theodore the Studite; Russian testimonies, saints Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, Varlaam of Novgorod, Dionysius and Demetrius of Vologda owned villages, as well as saints Peter, Theognostus and Alexei; under the great princes Vladimir and Yaroslav and under all subsequent great princes, saints and monasteries held cities, volosts, villages and lands and waters and fisheries. The extract was printed in full in Pavlov’s “On Secularization”, page 42 sqq. In March 1504, the Grand Duke gave Simon two uncondemned letters for his metropolitan estates, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 139. As for Joseph, after the council of 1503 he is acting with full influence at the council of the following 1504. - About the curse on those who offend the churches of God and monasteries, read in the Novgorod synodikon (Pavlov ibid. p. 51 beginning), one must think that it was not introduced by Archbishop Gennady after 1500, but earlier, being directed against the inclination of the Novgorodians to plunder churches and monasteries. – In one synodal manuscript a lengthy Word is read (called short in the inscription) “against those who are in sacred things, movable and immovable, prefabricated churches stand up,” written on behalf of some archbishop by some Western scientist living in Russia, in the month of February 1505, - Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 320, sheet 196 ver., p. 609 fin.. We consider it absolutely probable that the Word was written for our Archbishop Gennadius by that Dominican Benjamin, who translated for his complete Bible some books of Holy Scripture from the Latin Vulgate (and about whom there is a note in the Description of Manuscripts I, 128. As for before 1505, in the month of February of this year Gennady was still in the pulpit). But it may very well be that it was written not about the council of 1503, but against the same Novgorodians. Both legalizations, unknown in their original form, are mentioned in the cathedral verdict on the estates of 1551 - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 227, and Stoglav according to the Kazan edition, chapter 101, p. 430. Moreover, the second legalization is assimilated to Ivan Vasilyevich only by some lists of the verdict. In the following presentation, insofar as it is not supplied with quotations, the following sources must be implied: the life of St. Joseph, written by Savva, Bishop of Krutitsky, edition of Nevostruev p. 38 sqq, and the letters of St. Joseph to Boris Vasilyevich Kutuzov and to Ivan Ivanovich Tretyakov, the first in Bethliofik, XIV, 177, the contents of the second in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 8, Mixture, and Khrushchev p. 219. According to Joseph, Fyodor Borisovich, before trying to rob his monastery, had already robbed three monasteries in his region - a message to Boris Vasilyevich Kutuzov. Serapion was installed as archbishop of Novgorod from the abbots of the Trinity on January 15, 1506. According to the life of St. Joseph, belonging to an unknown person (in fact, some lists of the latter), at the council of 1503 he was Joseph’s assistant in the defense of the monastic fiefdom, Nevostruev’s edition p. 44 beginning. About this pestilence, which began in the fall of 1505 and lasted three years, see 3 and 4 Novgorod Chronicles in the Collection of Chronicles III, 244, in IV, 136. The year is indicated in the second letter of permission to Joseph, about which and the quotation of which see below. According to the 2nd Sofia Chronicle, Joseph began to beat the Grand Duke with his forehead on Fyodor Borisovich in the winter of 1507 - Collection of Chronicles VI, 249. That Joseph, having passed from under the authority of the Volokolamsk prince to the authority of the Grand Duke, did not pass from under the authority of the archbishop to the authority of the metropolitan, this is clear from the following: 1) in the life of the Venerable Joseph, belonging to Savva, Bishop of Krutitsky, it is read that the Grand Duke told the aforementioned messengers of Joseph that the transition took place without a blessing archbishop: “Have no little care about this, but abbot Joseph, write: you did not leave the borders of the Novgorod archbishopric, but I took the monastery from appanage violence,” - Nevostruev’s edition p. 43; 2) Metropolitan Simon, in his letter of permission (second) to Joseph, speaks of his transition from the authority of one prince to the authority of another and says nothing about the transition from the authority of an archbishop to his own metropolitan authority - quote below; 3) Serapion, in his letter of excommunication against Joseph, makes it his fault that he abandoned his sovereign for the great state, and says nothing about the refusal of him - the archbishop, see. Joseph's message to the Metropolitan in Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 209; 4) Serapion excommunicated Joseph as his monk just two years after his transfer from the power of one prince to the power of another (it is quite clearly stated that during these two years Joseph remained under the authority of the archbishop: Joseph’s letters to Kutuzov and Tretyakov); 5) in the letter of Serapion to Metropolitan Simon, which is read in the life of Serapion and which in fact does not belong to him, but was composed by the author of the life himself, the matter is clearly presented in such a way that Joseph, having transferred in civil terms from the power of the Volokolamsk prince, in church terms remained under the authority of the Novgorod archbishop. - The message in a separate form was published in Volume IV of Monuments Kusheleva-Bezborodko, see p. 211, col. 1st fin.– 2nd beginning; finally 6) it is known that even after Joseph the Volokolamsk monastery was under the authority of the Novgorod archbishops, see for example Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 389, signature on the manuscript written in 1553. If Prince Fyodor Borisovich, having learned about the transition of Joseph from under his power to the power of the Grand Duke, reported to Serapion, “that without your knowledge and blessing Joseph the monastery refused you,” as Bishop Savva says in the life of Joseph, Nevostruev’s edition p. 44: then the prince either did not yet know the matter in an exact way or, deliberately increasing Joseph’s guilt in the eyes of Serapion, wanted to arouse greater anger of the latter against the former. When the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles say that Joseph from the archbishopric of Novgorod refused to go with the monastery to the metropolis, - Collection of chronicles III, 147, 184 and 247, IV, 136 and 282, VI, 24: either out of ignorance of the matter, or out of a deliberate desire to increase Joseph’s guilt (and what is said in one chronicle is repeated by everyone others), or, finally, what seems most likely to us, they, so to speak, mean the archbishopric and metropolis from their civil side and want to say that Joseph left the principality of Volokolamsk, which is in the Novgorod archdiocese, and went over to the great reign, which is in the metropolis. (The typographical chronicle, understanding the archbishopric precisely from the civil side, expresses itself: “Joseph abandoned his, Serapion, archbishopric from Prince Fedor and the monastery to the Grand Duke without his knowledge,” p. 352). Finally, when the author of Serapion’s life says the same thing as the chronicles, he contradicts Serapion’s own written letter to Metropolitan Simon (see above), and does this out of a desire to increase Joseph’s guilt. According to the life of an unknown person, Archbishop Gennady made Joseph his vicar over the Volokolamsk churches - page 47. Since Joseph’s monastery was new, and Vozmitsky’s was old, or at least older (Joseph lived in it for some time as a youth), and in any case an archimandrite: it is very likely that Joseph’s admiration for the power that Archimandrite Vozmitsky considered his own was the reason for his enmity against the first. Joseph calls the main one between them a certain Krivoborsky (a great, as one must think, consistory businessman). In Lent 1509, see Joseph’s message to the Metropolitan in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko IV, 209. Two years later - Joseph’s letters to Kutuzov and Tretyakov. This said the 134th rule of the Council of Carthage, as it was read in the Helmsman of Joseph's time; This also says the 4th rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Message to the Metropolitan with our complaint in Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 208. Serapion calls Joseph's transition from the power of the Prince of Volokolamsk to the power of the Grand Duke in his letter of excommunication, either mixing his power with the power of the prince or meaning that Joseph did not seek protection from him - the archbishop, but turned to the protection of the Grand Duke, a retreat from heavenly and coming to earthly, and the Grand Duke understood Serapion in such a way that Volokolamsk he called the prince heavenly, and him, the Grand Duke, earthly (Joseph’s letter to Kutuzov). The first letter of permission from the cathedral to Joseph, given even before Serapion’s arrival in Moscow, in the MDA manuscript from Volokolamsk No. 535, sheet 381 verso; see about it and an extract from it from Khrushchov, page 214 fin.. The author of the life of Serapionov, in a letter written by him on behalf of the archbishop to the metropolitan, makes the first say: “otherwise, sir, you know that I have sent many ambassadors and letters to you, beat you with your forehead, so that you yourself favor, and the sovereign Grand Duke I was sad that they would order me to be in Moscow: and you, sir, dragged my ambassador through the winter and let him go with nothing,” - Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 211. What the author of the life means here is not entirely clear; but since his words cannot be attributed to the time after Serapion excommunicated Joseph, for in Lent 1509 Serapion excommunicated Joseph, and three weeks after Easter in the same year he was demanded to go to Moscow for a council (2 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles III, 184; Typographical Chronicle p. 352: “in the month of May,” and Easter in 1509 was April 8): then, if he is telling the truth, one must understand him in such a way that before excommunicating Joseph, Serapion wanted to personally bring a complaint against him to the Metropolitan and Grand Duke, but that this was dismissed. He answered the Grand Duke: “I didn’t hit you with my forehead so that you would send me to Novgorod as an archbishop” (Savin’s Life of St. Joseph, p. 48), and generally “gotten over” with him at the council (Joseph’s letter to Kutuzov). This is how this rule was read in the Helmsman of Simon's time, according to the abbreviation of the canons of Aristinov (Greek original: τὸν μὴ ἐλεγχθέντα, κοινωνίας στέρ ή σας ἐπίσκοπος, στερεῖται καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς ἑτέρων ὀμοίως, - in Rally and Π III, 608). In the current Book of Rules, according to the full text of the latter, it, while maintaining the same meaning, is read slightly differently (and it is not the 134th, but the 147th). We do not have a conciliar verdict on Serapion. As for the condemnation, the author of the life of Serapionov, in the letter he wrote on behalf of the archbishop to the metropolitan, says: “the sinner was excommunicated from the church and removed from his rank,” - in the Monuments of Kushelev-Bezborodko, IV, 211, fin, and Joseph in his letter to Kutuzov says that the metropolitan and the bishops “did not bless (him) and excommunicated him from the priesthood and was defrocked,” - Vivliofika XIV, 198. That he was condemned on the basis of the 134th rule of the Council of Carthage and mainly for guilt against the sovereign, this is clearly made clear in the second letter of permission of the council to Joseph, - Acts of History vol. I, No. 290 (with a rather large and important omission) and in Vivliofik XIV, 198-201 (where she reads as if it was placed by Joseph in a letter to Kutuzov - without omission), and the first is directly stated in the Life of St. Joseph by Savvin, - Nevostruev's edition p. 49 beginning. – In the message written on behalf of Serapion to Metropolitan Simon by the author of his life, it is made known that along with him, his bishop’s officials, who were involved in the intrigue, were subjected to severe punishments from the Grand Duke: Monuments to Kushelev-Bezborodko IV, 211, col. 1 beginning, cfr below about the installation of the subsequent Metropolitan Macarius as archbishop of Novgorod. Charter dated July 8, 1509, see Acts of History. We have presented the case mainly based on the exculpatory messages of the Monk Joseph himself; but for Joseph to distort the factual side of the matter, this cannot be allowed, for he wrote to people who knew the matter very well in their own right. Several times we referred to Serapion’s letter to Metropolitan Simon, which is read in the life of the former and which should be considered the work of the author of the life himself. This imaginary message of Serapion decisively serves to convince of his guilt, for the author of the life, composing a message with the aim of showing the grave guilt of Joseph before Serapion, does not at all prove the latter. “What, sir, are you saying,” writes the imaginary Serapion to the Metropolitan, that I did not mark out the guilt of your much-praised Joseph? Otherwise, it is his first fault that the holy Church of God’s Wisdom escaped from my borders, like the second Judas from the face of the apostles, surrendered with the monastery, but did not tell me this matter and did not announce his grievances to us in any small way, he did not receive our blessing in the slightest from us.” But this first fault is the only one that Serapion points out, and to what extent it was serious can be seen from what we said above. Accusing Joseph of having, with his false words, created hatred between them - the archbishop and the metropolitan, the imaginary Serapion writes: “hear, sir, and consider wisely the same in the Holy Council of Carthage, rule 17 (need: 11): "" A celebrant, if he is excommunicated by his bishop, the metropolitan (and) bishop will not come from that region he is forbidden; if he does not fall to them, he will not humble himself, but he will create a schism, proudly, and bring the holy thing to God, and he will again begin to serve, and he will be cursed": why is he (Joseph) not guilty of such a rule? Didn’t he create a schism? etc. Meanwhile, Joseph acted exactly as the rule of the council commands (that the epistle does not belong to Serapion himself, but was composed for the indicated purpose by the author of the life, it is clear from the fact that the imaginary Serapion speaks in it, either as still in the pulpit, or as already condemned and imprisoned. As for the author of the life, the descriptor of the manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra with a very high probability suggests that he is Metropolitan Joasaph, see Descriptions 636 and 783). And Serapion’s issuance of a false letter of excommunication against Alexey Pilemov to close his participation in the intrigue against Joseph, which the latter, of course, does not invent (in his letter to Kutuzov), belongs to the category of such acts regarding which there cannot be two opinions... Giving, although not entirely complete faith, what Joseph says about Serapion, it will be necessary to imagine him by his hotly-wrong character of small proportions as Nikon. As the people who stood for Joseph in the matter with Serapion, the chronicles name: him - Joseph's brother, Archbishop of Rostov, Vassian, bishops: Suzdal, Ryazan and Perm, and from the boyars Vasily and Ivan Andreevich Chelyadnin, - Collection of Chronicles III, 148 beginning and 184 fin.. In one legend about Serapion’s quarrel with Joseph, which aims to justify the former, it is read: “Serapion, the archbishop, sent Joseph an unblessing and excommunication, although he brought Joseph to correction and frightened him; Joseph, especially at Serapion, at his archbishop, began to be indignant and blasphemed and, admiring his pride, approached his brother, light (sic) because he was the lightest in mind and reason. Vasyan Rostov Archbishop Simon Metropolitan, a meek and quiet husband, and bypassed him with caresses and flattery, and brought the Archbishop of the Holy Reverend Serapion from the throne and shut him up in a monastery in Ondronikov,” - Bychkova Description of the collections of the Public Library I, 93 sub fin.. Those who knew the matter, accusing Joseph, accused the Metropolitan with Council of Bishops, that they, fearing the Grand Duke, became weak and judged wrongly, see in part 10 of the Addendum to the works of the Holy Fathers the article: “Relations of the monks of the Kirillov Belozersky and Joseph Volokolamsk monasteries, in the 16th century,” p. 525. The messages to Kutuzov and Tretyakov are just such exculpatory messages. Cfr message to Joseph by Ivan Ivanovich Golovnin, printed in the study of A. S. Arkhangelsky; “Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev”, I, appendices p. 18 fin.. From the Andronikov Monastery, Serapion was soon transferred to the Trinity Sergius Monastery, where he died on March 16, 1516. About his reconciliation with Metropolitan Simon, see now below. Whether he and Joseph were reconciled with each other personally, and not in absentia, this constitutes an unresolved question: the lives of Joseph answer the question in the affirmative, and the life of Serapion - negatively, cfr from Khrushchev p. 237 fin.. We encounter the denunciation of the vice of early drinking before Simon in the letters of Metropolitan Photius to Novgorod and Pskov. In simultaneous letters to both cities from 1410, the Metropolitan writes: “and at the feast, if it is shining, those who have to drink before dinner, do not give them the bread of the Mother of God,” - in Pavlov’s Monuments col. 273 and 279; in a letter to Pskov from an unknown later year, he writes: “Why do you write that some priests in you drink before dinner on holidays and on other days: another priest who drinks before dinner, and such a one will be punished first and second and third, so that he may stop; and therefore, if you begin to be careless, you will abstain from the priesthood for 40 days,” – ibid. col. 434. [The Council of the Hundred Heads exhorts the priests to forbid early eating and early eating for ordinary people and to abstain from them themselves: “And whoever ordinary people have to drink before lunch, you (priests) also forbid such people, and do not give prosvir and the Mother of God’s bread, until they correct themselves, and they themselves would be priests themselves, without sending the rule, early drinking and eating (at) inappropriate times were not touched in any way, let it not be from you that the world will be tempted,” - Stoglavy chapter 24, Kazan edition p. 119. Let us return to the sin of early eating and early drinking in the second half of the volume.] Messages in Acts of History vol. I, no. 112. Before his death, by order of the Grand Duke, he called Serapion from the Trinity to take forgiveness with him - Nikon Chronicle VI, 190, 2 Sophia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 252 beginning (in the description of the royal archive of the second half of the 16th century it says “farewell record of Metropolitan Simon at his death” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, p. 346, box 150. – Typographical Chronicle, pp. 354 beginning and 355, on some basis claims that in the spring of 1511 Simon left the metropolis and moved to Trinity and that he died on January 28, 1512. According to this chronicle, p. 355, Serapion was released by the Grand Duke to Trinity in the last year on May 15. The testimony of the Typographical Chronicle is accepted by Stroev in the Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries). Varlaam was the Archimandrite of Simonov from 1506 (see Continuation of Vivliofika V, 100). Herberstein came to Russia in 1517-1526; for the first time I stayed in Moscow from April 14 to November 21, for the second time - from April 26 to November 11. We use his comments on Starczewski's edition in Historiae Ruthenicae scriptores exteri saeculi XVI, vol. I. Our passage reads from Herberstein: “metropolitans and also archbishops (and bishops) were once elected by a council of all archbishops, bishops, archimandrites and abbots of monasteries: they searched through monasteries and deserts for the man of the most holy life and elected him; but they say about this (current) sovereign that he has the custom of calling a few (few) to himself and from among them he appoints one at his discretion,” p. 20, col. 1. Nikon Chronicle VI, 190, 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 252. Kazan edition of the works of Maxim, I, 51, No. III. He strove to corrupt the good faith in word and deed and convert it into his own delusion - page 52 beginning. “You will betray the flock of Spasov who has troubled the flock”..., p. 54. The Most Reverend Macarius believes that the Council of Isaac, to which Maxim wrote, was formed around 1520 - History VI, 166: but on what basis is not clear. Maxim’s expression given in our extract: “to our land” would rather indicate that he wrote having already lived quite a bit in Russia, when, willy-nilly or not, he accepted it as his second fatherland; but it does not seem reliable to rely on this expression for the reason that “our” could easily have been put instead of “your” by later copyists. There is hardly any reason to doubt the validity of the well-known assurance of Zinovy ​​​​of Otensky that Vassian, living, by the will of the Grand Duke, in Moscow, in the Simonov Monastery, did not want to eat at the monastery table, along with other monks, but received the Grand Duke's table from the sovereign's kitchen - Testimony of Truth, Kazan edition p. 899 fin. sqq. The message of Maximus the Greek: “to a certain friend of his, sitting in prison,” was in all likelihood written to Vassian when he was imprisoned in the Joseph Monastery. But in this message it is made clear that Vassian did not accustom himself and did not want to force himself to manual labor, which he charged other monks with as a means of support - Kazan edition II, 250 (“I can’t dig”). The general, very commendable review of Vassian by Prince Kurbsky, that he “carried out a cruel and holy life in the world, like the great and glorious ancient Anthony” (Tales of Kurbsky, edition 2 p. 4 fin.), as belonging to a very biased person of the party, does not deserve special faith. When Vassian lived in Moscow, in the Simonov Monastery, it was reported to the Grand Duke that heresy had been noticed among the monks of his desert: he demanded a witness to be tortured and, in order to bring the accusation against the monks, did not hesitate to allow the witness to die under torture - see the letter about the dislike of the elders of Kirill and Joseph in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part 10 p. 507. How he renounced, when he found it necessary for himself, his most sincere friend Maxim the Greek, we will see below. When Vassian was resettled from Nilov Skete to Moscow, this remains unknown. The opinion that he was present at the council of 1503 and since then remained in Moscow cannot be accepted at all. Let us assume that Ivan Vasilyevich, at whom the council of 1503 was held, returned his blessing to Vassian, but elders who were famous for their lives were usually summoned to councils, and such an elder, in any case, Vassian could not yet have been in 1503. The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk makes it known that Vassian came to Moscow after the council of 1503 (see Joseph in Vassian himself in the “Collection of Holy Rules and Many Books” - Orthodox Interlocutor of 1863, part III, pp. 206 and 207, § 11 and § 12), and the author of the letter about the reasons for dislike between the elders Kirillovsky and Iosifovsky makes it quite clear that he was summoned to Moscow already by Vasily Ivanovich and after the death of Nile, which happened on May 7, 1508 (Additions to the work of the holy fathers X, 505 fin.). One might think that Vassian was summoned by Vasily Ivanovich to Moscow only after the death of Dimitri Ivanovich, for whom he suffered, and this latter took place on February 14, 1509. [Vassian’s “Collection of the Holy Rules and Many Books,” to which we refer in this note, is its afterword or final summary, which we talk about in the next note] See the works of Vassian for their printed edition, which is indicated in the following note below, pp. 188 beginning, 197, 193, 207 fin.. These treatises are: 1) “The word in response against those who slander the truth of the Gospel and about monastic life and about the structure of the church”; 2) “Collection of Vasyan, a disciple of Nil Sorsky, on Joseph of Volotsk from the rules of the saints of Nikan from many chapters”; 3) “A meeting of a certain elder to remember his promise to reject the world.” The last treatise has no independent origin, it was written by Vassian regarding his Helmsman, which is now discussed below, and placed in this Helmsman. Vassian combined the first two treatises, which had an independent origin, into one place, in order to make, so to speak, a complete edition of his works; he introduced this complete edition with a preface and appended to it an afterword or final summary. A unique complete edition of Vassian’s works was published in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1863, part Ι II, pp. 102 and 180. The discussion about the inappropriateness of monasteries to own estates, published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1859, book 3, whose proper title is: “Conversation of the Venerable Sergius and Herman of Valaam Wonderworkers,” cannot at all be understood by Vassian, for he was not the kind of person to resort to forgery and to refer to some conversations of Joseph the Beautiful. In the “Collection of a Certain Elder,” which, as we said above, was written by Vassian about the Helmsman and placed by him in his edition of this latter, he claims that in the 3rd and 4th rules of the fourth ecumenical council, the 11th and 17th rules of the seventh ecumenical council and in the 2nd rule of Cyril of Alexandria, monks are not ordered to enter into worldly affairs, neither in villages, nor in anything similar. See Pavlov in Historical Essay on the Secularization of Church Lands in Russia, p. 17 fin.. It was brought by Ivan Vasilyevich from Novgorod to Moscow during the conquest of the first, see Undolsky Description of the Slavic manuscripts of the patriarchal library in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1867, book 2, p. 56 col. 2. Reproducing in his Helmsman the canonical rules from the Sofia Helmsman, Vassian says that he wrote the first with the Helmsman of the Simon Monastery in another Helmsman brought from Athos (postscript at the end of the Helmsman, see the Right Reverend Macarius, VIII, 150 note). This must be understood in such a way that from the two Helmsmen he called, he took a plan for presenting the rules, which are given not in the chronological order of the councils, as in the Sophia Helmsman, but in the systematic order of their content according to the titles and chapters of the Photius title. See it in Pavlov in Monuments No. 15. The helmsman's book compiled by Vassian raises a very puzzling question. He needed to find out whether the well-known canonical rules were read or not read in our ancient Helmsmen, and instead of making a simple reference in the Helmsmen, he began compiling his own Helmsman: what is this for? We are not yet able to answer the question, except that some people have a custom of doing things differently from what everyone else would do, and that instead of walking a mile straight, they take a ten mile detour. (To think that, in addition to pursuing his special goal, Vassian considered it desirable to replace the chronological presentation of the rules of the conciliar with a systematic one in general for the convenience of using the Helmsman does not seem at all probable, since there is no reason to assimilate to him general concerns about the convenience of using the Helmsman, and if he takes a new plan for the arrangement of the rules, then, one must assume, because he somehow found the latter preferable for his special purpose.) – Contents of Vassian’s Helmsman, which currently knows five lists that do not completely agree with each other: according to the list of the Rumyantsev Museum - from Vostokov, in the Description of the Museum, No. CCXXXVI, p. 313; according to the list of the Public Library - from the Right Reverend Macarius in History, vol. VIII, p. 150, note 185; according to the list of the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery - in the Description of the Manuscripts of the Monastery, compiled by Mr. Shlyapkin and published in the IV issue of Monuments of Ancient Writing (St. Petersburg, 1880), No. 16, p. 53 fin.. (The remaining two lists are located: in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Moscow Public Museum, in the Piskarev collection). Having finished in his Kormcha the table of contents of the facets (title) of Fotiev's nomocanon, Vassian made a remark regarding the 11th facet (title), in which about monasteries and monks: “on this facet 11 even monastic villages are called in the rules, but not a monk commands them to rule, but the villages given to them from the prefabricated church are kept by the bishop from the prefabricated churches iconomist and are fed from him with all kinds of needs by command from their bishop or by alms from lovers of Christ, if they are not satisfied with their handicrafts” (by the Right Reverend Macarius, VIII, 154, note). See Pavlov On Secularization, p. 74 sqq, and the Most Reverend Macarius, VIII, 154 sqq. “The village area, if it is inhabited again, will have good income, for this reason, for the sake of good income, let it not be sold,” - from the Right Reverend Macarius, VIII, 154 fin.; in the original: τὸ ἐξώχωρον προάστειον, ἐὰν εὐπρόσοδον καταστῆ, ὡ ς διὰ παροίκων οἰκισθὲν ἐκ νέου, τοῦτο μὲν τὸἐξώχωρον, διὰ τὸ εὐπρόσοδον, οὐκ ἐχποιηθήσεται, - in Rally and P. II, 595 (a rural estate, if it becomes profitable, having been repopulated by peasants [slaves], then such a rural estate, for the sake of its profitability, should not be alienated, that is, if a rural estate, hitherto not inhabited and not cultivated, and therefore unprofitable, is populated and will be cultivated and thus becomes profitable, then...). Vassian proclaims this in the “Collection of a Certain Elder,” which, as we said, was placed by him in his Helmsman, see Pavlov On Secularization p. 74. – And in the Greek Helmsman contemporary to Vassian the same thing was in Photius; but he does not refer at all to the Greek Helmsman, which would mean the modern one, namely Photius, because the Greek Helmsman contemporary to Vassian did not have authority in the eyes of the Russians. In the Reverend Macarius, VIII, 156. Acts of History vol. I, p. 479 fin., in Pavlov's Monuments col. 263. Orthodox Interlocutor 1863, part III, pp. 192 sqq, 207. See the letter of the Monk Joseph to Vasily Andreevich Chelyadnin (in Khrushchov, p. 260), whom Joseph asks to obtain permission from the sovereign to speak and write against Vassian. Joseph wanted to receive permission to write against Vassian in order to respond to the latter’s reproach that he, Joseph, by forbidding the reception of repentant heretics, was like the heretic Novatus. But from the letter it is clear that he could not write against Vassian at all. - There is an article by the Monk Joseph, bearing the title: “As it is not fitting for the holy churches and monasteries of God to create insults and violence and to seize property and acquire them,” which is read in the Volokolamsk manuscript MDA No. 659, sheets 532–566, and the contents of which are transferred to Historical sketch of the secularization of church lands in Russia by A. S. Pavlov, pp. 55–59. But the article is not directed against Vassian, who denied the right of monasteries to own estates, but against the Volokolamsk prince Fyodor Borisovich and others like him, who, without denying the right of monasteries to own estates, only encroached (and arrogated to themselves the right to encroach) on monastic property. By the Most Reverend Macarius, VIII. 150 note. That the Helmsman was really finished by Vassian in 1517, as he says in the postscript to it, this is confirmed by the evidence made against him at the council of 1531 - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 9, Debate of Daniel with Vassian, p. 2 col. 2. Now the said debate, p. 2, col. 2 sub fin.. A thorough search for legends and news about Maxim has recently been undertaken by S. A. Belokurov, and all the legends (one newly found with the previous ones), together with all the news about Maxim, were published by him in the appendices to his research, which bears the title: “On the library of Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century” (Moscow, 1898). A note by an unknown contemporary can be read in a separate form in the Trinity Lavra manuscript No. 200, sheet 14, in the MDA manuscript No. 153, front white sheet, and in some other manuscripts, see Belokurov, ibid. appendices page CCXXXVIII. Nil Kurlyatev calls Maxim the son of the voivode (“this was Maxim the son of the voivod”) in the afterword to the translation of the psalter corrected for him by Maxim, see this afterword in the Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, part I, p. 19, no. 13, sheet 299. Maxim was born around 1475, about which now, and his homeland - the city of Arta, which belonged not to the Empire of Constantinople, but to the special principality of Epirus, was taken by the Turks on March 24, 1449. Maxim found Hieronymus Savanarola alive in Florence, who was burned on May 23, 1498. Judging by the deep impression that the latter made on him (see below), one must think that he saw him as a more than 20-year-old youth. Maxim died at Trinity in 1556, and Prince Kurbsky, who saw him here in 1553, says that he was “already anointed in the years of excellent old age” (Tales of Kurbsky, 2nd edition p. 39 fin.), i.e. gives reason to assume that he was approximately 80 years old. Works of Maxim the Greek, Kazan edition III, 123. That Maxim began to study the sciences “from his youth,” the Vatopedi monks say in a letter about him to Metropolitan Varlaam, Acts of History vol. I, no. 123, p. 170 col. 1 fin.. In the dedicatory message to Grand Duke Vasil Ivanovich, in which he presented him with a translation of the Explanatory Psalter, see Additions to the works of the holy fathers XVIII, 184. Works of the Kazan edition 1, 463 fin.. Ibid. I, 427 and 463 (Longobardy). See Saty Νεοελλην. Φιλολογίαν, page 92. In the famous Platonic Academy, founded for the purpose of studying Greek philology and philosophy by Cosmas Medicis about 1440, there seem to have been no famous Greek professors in Maxim's time; but there were famous professors from the Italians themselves: Angel Politianus, about whom Maximus speaks (Kazan edition 1, 463 fin.), but whom he probably did not capture alive († 1494), and Marsilius Ficinus, whom he could still find alive († 1499). Kurbsky, according to his assurances - from the words of Maxim, says that the latter studied philosophy with the glorious John Lascar in Paris - Legends, 2nd edition p. 296. But since Maxim himself makes it clear that he has not been to Paris and knows about it only by hearsay - Kazan edition III, 179 sub fin.: then it is necessary to think that Kurbsky did not quite understand Maxim and that the Parisian professor had him He studied not in Paris itself, but in Venice. In a letter to Prince Vasily Mikhailovich (probably Vereisky, who was married to the niece of Grand Duchess Sophia Fominichna, the daughter of her brother Andrei) with an explanation of the front vignette on the books printed by Manucci, consisting of an anchor and a fish, see Vostokov’s Description of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 254, sheet 99, p. 369, and Stroev in the Bibliological Dictionary, page 206. Kazan edition III, 201 fin.. Ibid. I, 239: speaking directly about Rome, he does not say that he was in it. See in the Addendum to the Works of the Holy Fathers XVIII, 156. Kazan edition I, 463. Kazan edition I, 463. Maxim also talks about his attitude to astrology, but expresses himself very vaguely. Having reasons to fight against her in Russia, which is discussed below, he writes in one of his messages against her: “through the art of many years, the blasphemy of stargazing by knowledge...; by art I understood this: not a single one, I listened to the blue (astrological) teaching, preserving pure faith in God,” - Kazan edition I, 374 and 375. How to understand the word here: by art, in the sense of either one’s own experience or one’s own observation, is not visible; more likely, it seems, the latter. Kazan edition III, 194 sqq. See the letter of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to Athos, as a result of which Maxim arrived in Russia, in the Temporaries of the Society of History and Antiquities, book V, Mixture, page 32. Kazan edition II, 377 fin.. Kazan edition II, 365 beginning. Ibid. II, 370 fin. (In the words of the letter to Metropolitan Macarius: “even before the nobles themselves,” etc. - Kazan edition II, 364 fin., Maxim means the Russian nobles who made up the boyar duma, to whom he wrote before the metropolitan). That Maxim preached the Orthodox faith in any other Orthodox countries, except for Greece itself (territories inhabited by Greeks), this cannot be assumed, because he knew only Greek and Latin (and Italian). About the library of the Grand Duke, see the above-mentioned study by S. A. Belokurov: “On the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century.” As for the “who,” in all likelihood, these were the Greeks who served at the court of the Grand Duke and remained from those many Greeks who arrived in Moscow with Sophia Fominichna. Regarding the ideas, if they consisted of indicating some special needs of the time, and not simply indicating the general importance of the psalter as a liturgical book and cetiary, we do not find it possible to say anything. (Maxim himself, in his message to the Grand Duke, which constitutes the preface to the translation - see below, does not indicate any special needs of the time - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 71, sheet 1, p. 84). Before sending the Grand Duke to Athos for Savva, the Vatopedi monk was in Moscow for alms (Relations of Russia with the East, I, 22 sub fin.): it was he, as one must think, who pointed to Savva. The Grand Duke sent two thousand rubles to commemorate his parents and with a request to pray for the fertility of his barren wife Solomonia, - from Muravyov ibid. page 23. The charter of the Grand Duke proto with the council about Savva, dated March 15, 1515, in the Temporary of the Society of History and Antiquities, book V. Mixture, page 31. The request in it: “that naturally they would send to us together with your people (sent to Athos) from the Vatopet monastery of Elder Savva a book translator for the time being, and thus naturally serve us, and We, God willing, having granted him a favor, will release him to you again.” According to the Nikon Chronicle, VI, 203 fin., and according to the 2 Sofia Chronicle, in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 257, ambassadors to Athos - Vasily Kopyl Spiachiy and Ivan Varavin were sent together with the ambassador of the Turkish Sultan and with our ambassador to the Sultan Vasily Andreev Korobov, the same March 15, by whom the letter was signed. Kopyl alone went to Athos, and Varavin remained in Constantinople for the needs of the Grand Duke - Nikon Chronicle p. 205. The message of the Vatopedi monks to Metropolitan Varlaam, - in Acts of History, vol. I, No. 122. Their same message to the Grand Duke, but without end, - in the Vremennik, ibid. page 32. The indicated message to the metropolitan, Nikon Chronicle VI, 212 and 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 261. Why exactly two monks were sent with Maxim is not clearly visible: probably, in order to, by giving his embassy the greatest possible solemnity, to position the Grand Duke for a possible increase in the “award” that he promised for the work of translation, and to control Maxim regarding this last one. One of Maxim’s companions was in Moscow before sending the Grand Duke an embassy to Athos, and perhaps he was directly invited to accompany the translator who was coming to Moscow. Letter to the Grand Duke of the Patriarch of Constantinople Theoliptus, sent with the Metropolitan of Zikhniy, who arrived with Maxim (Nikon Chronicle VI, 212) dated July 1516 - Acts of History vol. I, No. 121. Maxim himself mentions his life or stop in Perekop - Kazan edition III, 174 beginning. Nikon Chronicle VI, 212, 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collected Chronicles VI, 260. – In the above acts (sent to and from Athos) it is said that Savva, a book translator, was called to Moscow and Maxim went to it for a while, but it does not say directly that it was for the translation of the explanatory psalter. That this is exactly the case is evident: 1) from the fact that immediately upon arriving in Moscow Maxim began translating the psalter and that after completing the translation he began to ask to go to Athos, as having completed the work for which he came; 2) from Maxim’s direct evidence that this particular translation was the purpose of his coming to Moscow: in the preface to the translation, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 71, sheet 1, p. 84, and later, - Kazan edition II, 378. It is quite possible that Maxim brought the library of Greek books of the Grand Duke to the knowledge, making an inventory of them, as follows from the speeches of one legend about him (and if there were so many of these books in the library that there was something to put in order); It may very well be that he compiled a list of Greek books that were not translated into Slavic, as some claim, based on evidence unknown to us (almost representing a simple misunderstanding). But he was called to Russia for neither one nor the other. Two monks accompanied Maximus from Vatopedi; but two more companions joined him to travel to Moscow for alms: from Athos, the pro-abbot of the Panteleimon Monastery and from Constantinople, from the Patriarch, the Metropolitan of Zikhni. The Grand Duke showed equal favor to the entire partnership of Maxim: Nikon Chronicle VI, 212, 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 260 fin.. The embassy Latin interpreters assigned to Maxim were: Dimitri Gerasimov, nicknamed the Small, and therefore, when he reached a ripe old age, the Old, and Vlasiy. The first of them, used not only as an interpreter in Moscow and in embassies, but also for independent embassies, is known for his translations from Latin and German for the archbishops of Novgorod - Gennady (from the Latin of the book of De Lira, which we mentioned above, and from the German inscriptions of the psalms) and Macarius (after the Metropolitan - from the Latin of Brunon's explanatory psalter) and letters to the first (about hallelujah and the white hood). The second, a peer of the first, participated with the first in translations made for Gennady (translation of the inscriptions of psalms). From the words of Gerasimov, Pavel Jovius wrote his Tale of Russia in Rome in 1523, and partly from the words of Blasius, John Fabre wrote the same Tale in Tübingen in 1525. Gerasimov’s letter to clerk Misyur-Munekhin in Pskov, written while he and Vlasiy were translating the psalter with Maxim, and in which he speaks about this translation, see Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers XVIII. 190 sqq. Maxim himself speaks about his collaborators during the translation in a dedicatory message to the Grand Duke, - Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 71, p. 87. [Dmitry Zaetsov or Zaitsov, who in 1493 accompanied the Grand Duke’s ambassador to the Danish king Greek Dmitry Ralev Paleologus, one might think, is our Dmitry Gerasimov. Karamzin in History (VI, 142) and Bychkov in the Index to the Chronicles (words by Zaitsov) call him a clerk, but the chronicles do not call him a clerk, and meanwhile, that Gerasimov went as an ambassador to Denmark, Pavel Jovius speaks about this, conveying information about him from his words, in his De legatione Moscovitica. As for Gerasimov’s age, in 1523, when he was ambassador to Rome, he was over 60 years old (Paul Job ibid. and Turgenev in Historica Russiae Monimenta, t. I, p. 132), and in 1535, when he translated the psalter to Brunon for Archbishop Macarius, he was in venerable old age (see excerpt chronicles in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 299 beginning), therefore - in 1493 he must have been no longer young in order to be sent with the ambassador. In addition to the translations we have indicated, Gerasimov also owns a translation of the Latin grammar of Donatus (Donatus), see Volume I of Studies in the Russian Language, published by the Academy of Sciences (V.I. Yagich), page 813. – To the words on the 5th line from the bottom of the note: “letters to the first about alleluia and about the white hood” you need to add: and in response to his – the archbishop’s question: “How seven thousand years pass and the signs of completion never appear” - Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 189, sheet 328 ver., p. 515.] About Medovartsev, see Klyuchevsky in Lives, p. 163 note, and Stroev in the Bibliological Dictionary, p. 93. As for Selivan, in the entry on one list of the Conversations of John Chrysostom translated by him into the Gospel of Matthew, it is reported that he became a student of Maxim: “It is also known that this monk Selivan (originally an Old Russian) was not a disciple of Maxim, but for the sake of teaching, for the sake of obedience, he learned this art from him - translate books from the Hellenic Greek dialect into Russian, and also by the command of the pious autocrat, the Russian land is forced to quickly study,” see Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, part I, No. 138, pp. 163–164. In the Slavic translation, it is a huge sheet volume of a thousand and a half sheets (usually written in two halves, ten kathismas in each). Kazan edition I, 237. The interpreters Dimitry and Vlasiy translated, taking turns or alternating with one another, - now the above-mentioned letter of the former to Misyur - Munekhin. Maxim himself in a message to the Grand Duke, about which below. We had in Slavic a consolidated interpretation of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which was not complete, ending with chapter 12 or concept 30 (this interpretation is in manuscript MDA No. 17, which was given in 1501 by Metropolitan Simon to the Trinity Monastery, and later belonged to Metropolitan Varlaam, i.e., probably, the latter was taken from the Trinity precisely on the occasion of Maximov’s translation). Maxim translated the interpretation of the unknown from chapter 13 or from 31 to the end, see Additions to the work of the holy fathers, part 18, page 187 sqq (translated with Blasius, a Latin and German interpreter, and completed it in March 1619, see the postscript on the Trinity Lavra manuscript No. 118, written in 1520). See Description of the synodal manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 71, p. 83 fin. sqq, and Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part 18, p. 177 beginning sqq. With this urgent request, Maxim ends his message attached to the translation of the psalter - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts p. 87, Additions p. 185. It was then easier for foreigners with intelligence and talent to enter Russia than to leave it,” as Karamzin puts it in his skillful language, VII 112 fin.. When Maxim prayed to the Grand Duke for himself, his companions were still in Russia (as can be seen from his prayer); when they were released remains unknown, because this is not recorded in the chronicles (and on September 11, 1519, the release of the Zikhni Metropolitan and Progumen Panteleimon was recorded, but not the Vatopedi monks sent with Maxim). That Maxim began to correct our liturgical books not on his own initiative, as one might think and as we, for our part, thought and had the opportunity to speak out in print, but precisely on behalf of the Grand Duke, is clear from the fact that, having begun this task, when he did not yet know the Russian language, he used the help of interpreters Dimitri and Blasius (Kazan edition I, 33 sub fin.). If Maxim was helped in his work by the sovereign’s officials, then it is clear that he performed the work with the knowledge of the sovereign and on his instructions. We also know that Maxim’s former scribes Mikhail Medovartsev and Elder Selivan helped Maxim in correcting his books (see below the trial of Maxim). And this again clearly shows that the correction was carried out on behalf of the Grand Duke. Yes, without knowing the Russian language, Maxim would not have started on his own initiative and of his own free will to correct the books. Finally, in his Confession of Faith, he directly says that he corrected the books, obeying the command of the Grand Duke - Kazan edition I, 37. That Maxim began correcting the books immediately after translating the psalter is evident from the fact that he began it while still in need of interpreters, whereas in 1521 he no longer needed them (this year he translated the Metaphrastic Life of the Virgin Mary without interpreters, see below). To Maxim, when he confirmed the discovery made by the aforementioned Greeks, the Russians said: “Greatly, about man, you are annoyed by this deed with the most reverend wonderworker who has risen in our land, they are blessed with holy books of God and living and after their repose they became famous for their holiness and all kinds of miracles in action,” - Kazan edition Ι II, 88. Such a Greek, according to Herberstein (Starchevsky p. 30, col. 1 fin.) was Yuri, nicknamed Maly, who died in 1513 (Vivliofika XX, 16). Nikolai Lyubchanin, master's degree, arrived to serve in Russia in 1491 with the Tsar's ambassador Yuri Delator, see Monuments of diplomatic relations of Russia with foreign powers, I, 46, 416, cfr Karamzin VI, 133–138. In 1518, the Tsar's ambassadors, on behalf of the Margrave of Brandenburg, asked that he be released to his homeland, but he was not released - Monuments page 416. He should not be confused with Nikolai Lyuev or Boolev, for he died much earlier than 1533, in which the latter was alive (see below) and should not at all be mistaken for the same person with Nikolai Schomberg or Sambir, who was the papal ambassador to Moscow in 1518 (see Kazan edition of the works of Maxim, I, 214 fin.). [In 1517–1518, it was not the papal legate Nikolai Schomberg who was in Moscow, but his brother Dietrich Schomberg, see below pp. 866–867, (electronic version – footnote paragraph No. 1792, corr.). The Tsar's Ambassador Francis da Collo, who was in Russia in 1518, one of those mentioned in the previous note, speaks of him: Maestro Nicolo Lubacense - professor di medicina et di astrologia et di tutte le scienze fondatissimo (Master Nikolai of Lubeck - a thorough professor of medicine and astrology and all sciences), - in Karamzin VII, note 358. That the Russians considered him a wise man and were amazed at his wisdom, see Maxim, Kazan edition I, 236, 271. This is evident from the fact that for Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod Nikolai translated from Latin the book against the Jews by Samuel the Jew, which we mentioned above (see the works of Maxim the Greek, Kazan edition I, 55) and that for Metropolitan Daniel he translated a medical book entitled “The Kindly Vertograd.” (See Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, April 1864, report of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 42). Regarding Nicholas’s written propaganda, one must think that he did not publish public works, which, of course, would not have been allowed to him, but wrote private notes for presentation to various authority figures. In the former Volokolamsk, now Moscow Theological Academy, manuscript No. 551 reads a lengthy (sheets 262–295 ver.) answer of an unknown person (but not Maximov) to “a message from a certain doctor and great rhetorician (sic) named Nicholas, from the German region” to Vassian, Archbishop of Rostov († August 28 1515) about the union of churches. Maxim Kazan edition I, 215. Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov-Dalmatov was made a okolnichy in 1517 and died, remaining the same okolnichy, in 1530 - Vivliofika XX, 19 and 24. He served in the Ambassadorial Prikaz, see Karamzin in volume VII notes 42 and 306 and Monuments of diplomatic relations with foreign powers, volume 1, in Index'e Karpov. For his very intelligent and wonderful literary letter to Maxim, see the latter’s work in the Kazan edition, III, 274 note. It is also clear from the letter that he was an admirer of knowledge and learning. Maxim's hints that Karpov sought to acquire real education from foreigners - the Kazan edition. I, 371, 375. Kazan edition of the works of Maxim I, 236. This treatise, written in two steps, is in two letters to Karpov, in the Kazan edition, part I, pp. 235 and 267, No. XII and No. Χ III. Kazan edition part I, pp. 323, 509 and 341, No. XIV, XXV and XV. Kazan edition part I, p. 213, No. XI. That the word was written after the death of Nicholas - page 214 fin., and if further Maxim addresses him as if he were alive, then this is a simple rhetorical prosopopoeia. (And the word of praise to the apostles Peter and Paul, which included denunciations of three great Latin heresies, - Kazan edition I, 180, X, was written later, in Tver, and without any external reason, but because Maxim undertook to write a series of accusatory words against all unbelievers and wrong believers). These are the three great heresies that Maximus speaks of in his eulogy to the apostles Peter and Paul. They believed on the basis of those Greek polemical works about which - 2 half of Volume I, p. 691 (electronic version - footnote No. 1548, corr.) sqq. See the testimony of Francis da Collo above. Maxim, in his first word against astrology to Karpov, after reading some of his lists, says about Nikolai Nemchin that he was insatiably attached to astrology and exercises in it, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 191 sheet 174, p. 537. (The same in the Trinity Lavra Manuscript No. 200 and 201). A monk who was an abbot - Kazan edition I, 447 fin.. Maximus calls our astrology the science of the Latins and Germans; but this does not need to be understood in such a way that he points to Nicholas, but can be understood in such a way that, not knowing the real source of our astrology, he supposedly derived it from the Latins and Germans on the basis that it was dominant among the latter. Kazan edition I, 399 and 347, No. No. XVIII in XVI. The first epistle in other manuscripts, as printed, is read as revised from a private epistle into a public work. But its original origin is revealed from the instructions of Maxim’s second epistle to Karpov, cfr pp. 347, 357 and 375 from p. 427 and with the entire content of the first, as we accept, epistle. According to the testimony of the Tsar's manuscript No. 242, sheets 290 and 322, the messages were written: the first in 1523, the second in 1524. Ibid. I, 337 and 457, Nos. XVII and XXII. Maxim partly and in passing touches on astrology in his other works; for example, in the Conversation of the soul to the mind... and on the astrologers. – ibid., II 58 fin. sqq, and in the Words opposite to John Lodovik, - Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev No. 191, sheet 223, p. 543. Kazan edition I, 402. See the letter of Nikolai Nemchin to the clerk Misyur-Munekhin in Shchapov in the Russian Schism of the Old Believers, p. 158. In 1523 or 24, Nikolai Nemchin suffered a sudden death, and Maxim wrote a short epigram on his death: “You hastened to foretell the end of your life, O Nicholas, obeying the stars, but you were not able to predict the sudden ruin of your life, foretell below: what is the craziest of your madness,” etc. - Kazanskoe Vol. I, 455, No. XXI. Kazan edition II, 220. Kazan edition II, 89, No. III. Kazan edition III, 178, No. XXVI. Kazan edition II, 149. Kazan edition II, 119, No. IV. The words in the table of contents in parentheses are from manuscripts. Ibid. II. 394, No. XXXVI (the word is preceded by a message). The short Words about repentance are partly directed against patrimonial ownership and against the insatiable belly and countless evils of those who are guilty of monasticism - ibid. II, 148 and 153. Kazan edition III, 154, No. XXII. Kazan edition III, 156, No. XXIII. At Starchevsky r. 20, col. 1. 2 Sophia, in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 264: the metropolitan, leaving the department, “went to Simonovo, and from Simonovo was exiled to the Vologda district to Kamenoye.” According to the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles, Varlaam was deposed on December 17, 1521, and Daniel was installed on February 27, 1522: according to the 2 Sophia Chronicle, the first was deposed on December 18, 1522, and the second was installed on February 27, 1523. The Sophia Chronicle, apparently, is supported by the testimony of the scribe and then student of Maximo-Greek monk Selivan, who in the preface to his translation of Chrysostom’s conversations on the Gospel of Matthew writes that the translation was completed in the summer of 7032, in the second year of Daniel’s priesthood (Trinity Lavra Manuscript No. 200, sheet 8). But we have indications that force us to consider the testimony of the Nikon and Resurrection Chronicles most likely, and for Selivan in his September 7032 year we mean the months September-December 1523. Daniel, in the second month of his stay at the department - March, dedicated two bishops on the 23rd and 30th numbers (Nikonovskaya and Resurrection Chronicles): the dedications of bishops are usually performed on Sundays, and now the indicated dates were on Sundays in 1522, not 1523. Since Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich arrogated to himself the right to appoint abbots to monasteries, the Monk Joseph, who was with his monastery under his special and exclusive patronage, shortly before his death wrote him a letter in case he, the sovereign, himself wished to appoint a successor to Joseph. Convincingly asking the Grand Duke not to send a new abbot from among those tonsured in other monasteries, but to appoint one from his own brethren of his monastery, the Monk Joseph names in his letter to the sovereign ten big brothers who, in his opinion, are worthy of being appointed abbot and among whom is not Daniel. Joseph's letter to the Grand Duke in his life, written by Savva Krutitsky, Nevostruev edition p. 59. Now mentioned Savva, p. 63. Daniel was nicknamed Ryazan by his place of birth (Sava in the Life of Joseph) and did not have a family surname. On this basis, it should be concluded that he was not one of the boyars, but one of the simple ones. Herberstein claims that Daniel was appointed metropolitan when he was about 30 years old (Starchevsky p. 20, col. 1); but at the same time it would turn out that he was elected abbot for 24 years, which is completely incredible. Since, on the other hand, Herberstein himself saw Daniel in 1526, his words cannot be taken as completely absurd testimony: one must think that he was deceived by Daniel’s youthfulness by ten years or more. In Savva's Life of Joseph, p. 61 fin. and 65. See the study by V.I. Zhmakin: “Metropolitan Daniel and his writings,” p. 663 fin. sqq. Herberstein near Starchevsky district. 45, col. 2. Daniel’s enemies spoke about him after the capture of Shemyachich: “but the Metropolitan does not remember that he wrote a letter to Shemyachich and put his hand to that letter, but took it to the image of the Most Pure One and to the miracle workers and to his soul,” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 172, p. 144 col. 2. Herberstein, p. ibid., Typographical Chronicle 318 fin.. Herberstein says about Daniel that he was a hefty and corpulent man (robustus et obaesus), with a red face - that, apparently, he was devoted more to the belly than to fasting and prayer vigils, and that when it was necessary to appear among the people for services, he gave his face pallor by fumigating himself with sulfur - in Starchevsky r. 20, col. 1 sub fin.. Record of the Council of Maximus of 1531, - in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847 No. 7, p. 8 col. 1. Selivan's preface to the translation in the Trinity Lavra manuscript No. 200, sheet 8. Epistle of Maxim to Daniel, already deposed, - Kazan edition II 372 sqq. “On the combination of a second marriage, the creation of Paiseino, the elder of the Ferapontov Monastery,” about which see below, and some chronographs behind it, - in Karamzin to volume VII, note 279, Kurbsky, edition 2 p. 5 fin. (speaking directly about Vassian, but not speaking directly about Maximus). See Acts of History vol. I, no. 173: a letter at the request of Vassian dated September 14, 1526, and the sovereign married for the second time on January 21 of the same year. In the investigative case about the boyar Ivan Nikitich Bersen, who was accused as Maxim’s accomplice of blasphemy against the Grand Duke, we read Maxim’s testimony: “Yes, Maxim said,” Bersen asked me: “Does the Grand Duke want to let you go to the Holy Mountain?” and I said: “I ask the Grand Duke a lot and he will not let me go”; and Bersen said to me: “And you won’t be away from us”; and I said to him: “Why won’t he let me go? The sovereign took us from our brothers on the basis that he would let us go back”; and Bersen said: “We hold opinions on you, you came here, and you are a reasonable man, and you here recognized our kindness and dashing, and I came to tell you everything,” - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 172, p. 142 fin. This is such a great fear of Maxim's retellings in Greece about our orders that it was decided not to let him go, obviously indicating that Maxim declared himself to be too strong a detractor of our orders. In the case of Maxim, Fyodor Zharenny, the crusade clerk of the Grand Duke (Typographical Chronicle p. 381), was accused along with the aforementioned Ivan Nikitich Bersen. This Zharenny informed Bersen, as the latter pointed out to him, that the Grand Duke sent to him the abbot of Trinity (not Porfiry, who left the abbot in September 1524, but Arseny Sakharusov or Sukharusov, who was installed in January 1525 - Typographical Chronicle p. 381) with the words: “just lie to me about Maxim, and I will please you." True, at the confrontation with Berseny, Zharenny claimed that he told him something completely different, namely, that the Grand Duke sent the abbot to him, Zharenny, so that he would tell the whole truth against Maxim: but the greater probability is on the side of the testimony about Zharenny Berseny, - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 172. p. 144 col. 2 Record of the council of 1531, see what is said now below and the following note. Both entries, bearing the same general title: “The Debate of Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow and All Rus' with the Monk Maxim the Holy Mountain,” were published in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 7. In the inventory of the royal archive of the second half of the 16th century, it appears that some Greek embassy letters were taken from the former Spassk archimandrite Savva - Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, p. 341, box 61. Consequently, he had something to do with the embassies of the Grand Duke in Constantinople: it is likely that he was given the opportunity to translate the letters. These speeches were actually spoken by Skinder, about whom is now below - Karamzin VII, 79 sub fin.. Karamzin. VII, 90, Solovyov V, 4 editions 354 beginning. If you believe the testimony of Maxim, which he gave when interrogated with Bersen, then he did not see Skinder, but only heard about him - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 172, p. 143 col. 2. See Soloviev, vol. V, 4th edition, p. 350 sqq. According to the presentation of the accusations against Maxim in the record of the council of 1531, it should apparently be included among the accusations of the council of 1525 that Maxim reproached our monasteries and churches for their patrimonial ownership. But since in 1525 the Grand Duke Vassian had not yet been handed over to the metropolitan, one must think that in this year the polemic against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries had not yet been presented to the former as a subject of condemnation. Then, we do not cite the accusation that Herberstein puts forward as the only reason for the sovereign’s anger at Maxim, which resulted in his imprisonment in 1525, namely, the accusation that he condemned the defectiveness of our liturgical books. Herberstein reads about the catastrophe that happened to Maxim in 1525: “we learned in Moscow that, at the request of the Grand Duke, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent one monk named Maximilian (i.e. Maxim) to put in order and correct all the books, canons and private decrees related to the faith. When the monk did this and, having found (in the books) many important errors, announced to the sovereign that he was a real schismatic, not following either the Roman or Greek rites: then soon after such a statement, although the sovereign (hitherto) was very disposed towards him, he, as they say, disappeared and, according to many, was drowned,” - from Starchevsky r. 30, col. 1. But precisely regarding our point of accusation, the record of the council of 1531 directly makes it clear that it was not cited at the council of 1525: at the council of 1531, the Metropolitan reproaches Mikhail Medovartsev for not reporting the blasphemies of Vassian and Maximus against our books before the council of 1525 - records p. 10 col. 1 sub fin.. On this basis, it should be thought that Herberstein received information about the catastrophe that happened to Maxim from people who did not know the matter in detail and who told him their own assumptions in the form of positive news. Kazan edition II, 365. Typographical chronicle p. 386. As for the fate of the monk of the Trinity Selivan, who was given to Maxim as a scribe and became his student: then Kurbsky, calling him a man skilled in both wisdom - external and spiritual, assures that Metropolitan Daniel “in his episcopal house put him to death with an evil death in a few short days” - Legends 2nd edition p. 42, and the entry is on one of the translated lists from the Greek Conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew assures that he, together with his teacher Maxim, was imprisoned in the Volokolamsk Monastery and in the monastery, “strangled in the smoke, died.” - Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy, part I, No. 138, pp. 163–164. But from one message about him, read in the inventory of the royal archive of the second half of the 16th century, it follows that it is unknown when (before the council of 1531, at which he no longer appears) he died a natural death - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 289, box 27, p. 337 col. 2. Firstly, the story of Metaphrastus that, at the consultation of the priests, the Most Pure Virgin was betrothed to Joseph, as he could preserve her virginity intact, in the original ends with the words: . Maxim translated these words: “copulation before betrothal.” The translation was literally accurate; but from the ambiguity of the unsuccessfully used preposition: before and from the not entirely successful rendering of the word: συνάφεια in the word: copulation, the blasphemous meaning was obtained that the carnal copulation of Joseph with the Virgin took place before the betrothal. The real meaning, we think, which is not a particularly successful phrase, is that the combination of Joseph with the Virgin extended only to betrothal, consisted only of betrothal, without going into marriage, i.e. that Joseph really preserved the virginity of the Virgin (Mikhail Medovartsev, when he heard that there was talk about the blasphemous word: copulation, replaced it in his list of the life of the Mother of God with the word: conference!). Secondly, the words of Metaphrastus about the Virgin: ὅ τι σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς οὐδαμῶς ἐχοινώνει were translated by Maximus: “like the seed of a man who did not partake,” i.e. instead of: as if, because, it was unsuccessfully used: aki, which means: as if, as if. Thirdly, the words of the Evangelist about Joseph cited by Metaphrastus: ἄτε ο ὕ τω δίκαιος ὤ ν (Matthew 1:19) Maximus translated: “like the righteous one,” and again instead of: as in an unfortunate way it was used: like. – Greek original of Metaphrast The Life of the Virgin Mary is published only in excerpts: Patrology of Minya t. 115, col. 532 sqq. The first of our three passages is not in printed Greek, but it is taken by Metaphrastus from the word for the Nativity of Christ, assimilated by Gregory of Nyssa (in which the story of the betrothal from some apocrypha is given - ἀποκρύφου τινὸς ἱστορίας ), and this word in Patrology Minya t. 46 and our place in it col. 1140; second and third places in the most passages of Metaphrastus – col. 583 and 535. – That the life was translated by Maximus ten years before our council on him, see. record of the council of Vassian the Oblique, - in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 9, p. 9 col. 2. These words are indeed not read in all Greek copies; see the learned editions of the New Testament showing the differences (in the gospel of St. Metropolitan Alexis, these words are written on the margin). Now the one we have indicated and three more are the following: great holiday at Trinity Vespers; in the Gospel of Luke, ch. 8, Art. 15, words: this Jesus shouted: having ears to hear, let him hear (about which the same must be said as about the words of the book of Acts) and in the 8th member of the Creed the words: true. Two of these amendments are indicated: firstly, where in our books it was before: the deity is impassive, Maxim inde (in one place, corr.) corrected: the deity is fearless, and in inde (in another place, corr.) - the deity is fearless; secondly, Maxim and Vassian wrote in their books and rules: “even though God is truly despised, faith and honor are despised.” According to the record of the council of 1531, Maxim said that he made a report to Metropolitan Varlaam about one issue, namely, the great holiday at Trinity Vespers. But with probability one must think that he did the same in relation to other issues. According to the record of the cathedral, Maxim tried to lay the blame for the releases on his scribe Mikhail Medovartsev. If this were true, then it would not be particularly good or plausible on Maxim’s part. But the releases did not represent anything malicious; Maxim had no obstacles to explain the true reason why he made them and therefore, not only bearing in mind the moral character of Maxim, but also what has just been said, we highly doubt the validity of the testimony of the recording. Archpriest Athanasius, Protodeacon Ivan Chyushka, and Priest Vasily submitted to the Metropolitan a record against Maxim regarding his extreme reproaches to the old Russian books of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Nikita Choniates in his “Treasure of the Orthodox Faith” speaks of heretics who were of the opinion that Christ, after His resurrection, left His body on earth and ascended to heaven only as a deity, see A. I. Lebedeva Essays on the History of the Byzantine-Eastern Church from the end of the 15th century to the half of the 15th century, p. 577 beginning. In another place, the Metropolitan, forgetting how Maxim got to Russia, equates him with those Greeks (and Buckwheat) who trudged to Russia for alms: “let’s go eat,” he tells him, “from the Holy Mountain from the Turkic Empire to the pious and Christ-loving sovereign... alms for”... See himself, Kazan edition II, 370. A record of the 1531 council of Vassianus, belonging to the same unknown author as the records of the councils of Maximus, in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847 No. 9. According to the testimony of Mikhail Medovartsev, Vassian said: “the rules here were twisted, not the rules,” - record of the Council of Maximus in 1531, p. 10 col. 1 start. The Metropolitan asked, according to the recording, Vassian at the council: “before me, the metropolitan and before the bishop, before the current council, did you call the divine rule - was it wrong?” – page 11 col. 1. The conciliar interrogation of Vassian regarding Macarius and Jonah in the recording reads: “and the metropolitan asked: but you, Vassian, spoke about miracle workers: Lord! what kind of miracle workers are they! they say Makar worked miracles in Kolyazin, but the peasant was a rural man; and Vasyan answered: I knew him (Makariy † 1463), he was a simple man, but he will be a miracle worker, but as you like with him, whether this miracle worker will be or not a miracle worker; and the Metropolitan said to him: if you want to judge the saints..., and Vasyan said: otherwise, sir, God knows that you and yours are miracle workers...; and the Metropolitan asked him: “We have heard from many reliable people that all Orthodox worship the honest tomb and holy relic of Saint Jonah, Metropolitan the Wonderworker, but you, Vasyan, are the only one who does not worship him and do not honor him, as it is worthy to bring honor to the saints; and Vasyan answered: I don’t know whether Jonah is a miracle worker,” - page 11 col. 2 start. This other one, who more or less helped Vassian in compiling his Helmsman and was his scribe, is the monk Isaac Sobaka, who, as one must think, belonged to the outstanding professional calligraphers of his time (in 1523, the authorities of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery commissioned him to prepare a luxurious copy of the Teaching Gospel, Lavra Library No. 100), after 1544 he was an archimandrite Chudov Monastery (after Jonah Sobina, who was appointed bishop in 1544), Acts of History vol. I, no. 204, p. 380, col. 1. Record of the Council of Maximus 1531 p. 9 col. 1 fin.. Record of the Council of Maximus 1531 p. 10 col. 1. See in Zhmakin’s study: Metropolitan Daniel and his writings, p. 232. About the violence of tonsure: Kurbsky, - not particularly reliable, edition 2, p. 4, and Herberstein, who was in Russia the next year after the divorce and, therefore, deserves complete faith - in Starchevsky r. 18, col. 2 (chronicles: Nikonovskaya, 2 Sofia, Typografskaya, 1 Pskovskaya under 1523, do not talk about violence). The legend, printed in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1847, No. 8, is inscribed: “An extract from the sovereign’s letter that was sent to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich about the combination of a second marriage and about the separation of the first marriage for the sake of childbearing, the creation of Paiseino, the elder of the Ferapontov Monastery.” In the legend we find the following. Vasily Ivanovich, intending to divorce his first wife, began to consult about this with the elder Vassian, that is, Kosy, whom he had in the greatest proximity to him. When the elder decisively announced to the sovereign that this was an impossible matter, the latter was filled with anger and rage against him and ordered him to be placed in custody in the Chudov Monastery. After this, the sovereign and Metropolitan Daniel taught the Chudov Archimandrite Jonah (1518–1544) to bring charges against the Holy Mountain residents who lived in the Chudov Monastery, Maxim and Savva, and against the students of Maxim Selivan and Mikhail Medovartsev, and with all these against Vassian, so that everyone could be condemned collectively, “so that there would be no presentation and denunciation of them.” during copulation (and?) marriage.” Having sent all those named into captivity (Maxim to Tver, Vassian to the Joseph Monastery, Savva to Zosimin, Selivan to Solovki, Mikhail Medovartsev to Kolomna), the Grand Duke sent epistoles to the four patriarchs. The patriarchs responded with refusal, saying: “It is not appropriate for you, the sovereign, to do this, since the rules of the holy fathers forbid the worldly child,” and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Mark described the great prince with ferocity, prophesying to him that if he enters into a second marriage, then his heir from this marriage will be a great tyrant and tormentor of all his subjects (from this it is clear that the legend was compiled no earlier than the second half of the reign Grozny). At this time, the monk of the Ferapontov Monastery Gavril was on Mount Athos. This monk proposed on his own behalf to the Athos people the question of separating the sovereign’s marriage, and the latter, being filled with great gratitude to the sovereign for his benefit to them, formed a cathedral in the Vatopedi monastery from the entire Mountain, consisting of twelve thousand people. Having passed a verdict at the council, the Athonite people sent an epistole to the Grand Duke with the aforementioned Gabriel, who was taken to Russia by the Grand Duke’s ambassador Ivan Kolychev, who went to Crimea (Karamzin VII, 78). What sentence the Athonites decided remains unknown, because in the printed list the stories of their epistle to the Grand Duke have no end. [The message of the Athonite monks to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, read without end in the printed list of Paisin’s works, is read with end in the life of Maxim the Greek, compiled in the first and second quarter of the 18th century and printed by S. A. Belokurov in the appendices to his study: “On the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century,” page LXI sub fin.. The verdict of the monks regarding the desire of the Grand Duke to enter into a second marriage was: “in the rules of the holy fathers there is no combination of a second marriage, we do not command and we forbid it,” - page LXIV fin..] The author confuses the councils of 1525 and 1531; then, he has some nephew of the Grand Duke Lakovrich. But there really was Patriarch Mark of Jerusalem at that time (see. Le Quien'a Oriens Christian., III, 516) and the author is not mistaken in calling (in the epistole of the Athos people) the Turkish sultans of that time Selim, † 1520, and Suleiman, † 1566 (there are words in the legend of an unknown foreign language: drukele (dryukele), urdukele (yurdukele) - rekshe Orthodox Christians, ardaril - rekshe cap, kelevderii). Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 289, p. 339, box 36 fin.. See Acts of History, vol. I, No. 129. That this happened at the beginning of the reign of Metropolitan Daniel is evident from the fact that some monasteries had not yet shown the metropolitan the letters of grant of the former metropolitans (beginning of the act). See Milutin On the Immovable Property of the Clergy in Russia, p. 439, and Pavlov's Historical Sketch of the Secularization of Church Lands in Russia, p. 102. 2 Sofia Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 292 and 293. Karamzin has note 80 to volume VIII. See Zhmakin’s study: Metropolitan Daniel and his writings, page 247. Relegated from the pulpit on February 2, Daniel gave a letter of renunciation only on March 26. This should be understood to mean that at first they did not bother to take the letters from him, and then they turned out to be needed for his successor, who could not be considered legitimate without that. He actually blesses and forgives in a letter retroactively his future successor, who was appointed long ago. As for himself, Daniel states that the reason for his removal is that “having considered his understanding, he is weak for such a task and his thought is sinful and he has not understood himself sufficiently in such holy undertakings.” He renounces not only the department, but (as always happened in the old days and as a matter of course) also the entire episcopal action and naming: the letter in the Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 185, p. 163. Deacon Fyodor Zharenny, among other things, testified: “the Metropolitan is angry with me because (he) did not give him that money if he did not serve” (Acts of the Expedition vol. I, No. 172, p. 144, col. 2 beginning and note 6), i.e., he did not pay the sovereign’s money when the metropolitan did not serve services for which the sovereign’s payment was due (cfr Supplement to the Acts of History vol. I, pp. 190, 195, 202, 204). His last name was Skripitsyn, who was appointed abbot from the elders of the same Trinity Monastery in 1529. The record of the election of Joasaph says that the six bishops who were in Moscow made the election, “having with them the will and desire of the God-loving Russian bishops” (the rest who were not in Moscow - Acts of the Expedition vol. I, no. 184, II, p. 161 col. 2). If the record tells the truth in this case; then the bishops who were not in Moscow, having been invited to it to elect a new metropolitan after the deposition of Daniel, would not have had time to send their letters of freedom in those three days that passed from his deposition to the election of Joasaph. Consequently, together with the bishops who were in Moscow, they were invited earlier and, without appearing in person, sent the aforementioned letters. Not one record of the election of Joasaph has been preserved, but two: the first says that he is now elected in the manner indicated on February 5; in the second, that he was elected on February 6 “according to the scriptures of the book” - Acts of the Expedition ibid. II p. 161, and I, p. 158, col. 1 fin.. This contradiction probably needs to be reconciled so that in the second case we mean not election, but erection, cfr Royal Book, p. 77. Acts of the Expedition ibid., p. 162 col. 1. One might think that the order of the ordination of Joasaph included the old confession of faith, which was used among us until the time when a new opinion about the Greeks was proclaimed among us, and that it was only added to it about Isidore, for in this confession, among other things, it reads: “and neither did I do anything out of need, either from the king (i.e., the emperor of Constantinople) or from the great prince.” ibidd. page 162 col. 1 sub fin.. See Solovyov vol. VI, edition 3 p. 36. According to the story of the Royal Book, the conspirators, having arrested Belsky, approached the metropolitan house and began to besiege it by throwing stones. The Metropolitan fled to the Trinity Compound; but the boyars sent the boyars’ children there after him, who almost killed him. The Metropolitan sought refuge in the sovereign's palace, but the boyars came here for him and took him to send him into exile - page 102. According to the testimony of Ivan the Terrible, Joasaph was expelled from the metropolis "with great dishonor" - in Tales of Kurbsky, edition 2, page 184. Nikon Chronicle VII, 33, Royal Book p. 100. A copy of the Peacemaking Circle, written by Agathon himself, is in the library of the Trinity Lavra, No. 736; there is a list in the MDA library, - fundamental library No. 104 (for historical news, see the deliberate “historian chronicler” of the book, - Lavra manuscript sheet 27, Academic manuscript sheet 29). Kazan edition p. 428 fin., - a picky and unfounded remark on what is said about Joseph at the end of chapter 1, - p. 20 fin.. In the famous teaching letter to the Kirillov Monastery, Grozny writes: “Is it better to be in Kirillov as Metropolitan Joasaph feasted at Trinity at Trinity (see now below) from the kriloshan?” and then he says that in the Cyril Monastery itself, Joasaph was trying to get more cooks - Acts of History vol. I, no. 204, p. 383. Joasaph’s own comments on Stoglav’s decisions regarding monasteries make it possible to see in him a lover of a good table. - Stoglav chapter 100 (“and in the great monasteries there would be all sorts of kvass - both old and stale and sour and sweet and nutritious and nutty and simple: whose nature will lift up, such will rest according to weakness