A speech about the significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the history of our monasticism, delivered at the solemn meeting of the Moscow Theological Academy, which took place on September 26, 1892

The Moscow Theological Academy, which today has the honor of welcoming you as its visitors, has been located within the walls of the Lavra, under the roof of St. Sergius, since 1814; therefore, it has been 78 years already. Such a long period of time gives the Academy the right, and at the same time makes it an obligation, to consider the Lavra its home place. Considering the Lavra its native place, the Academy cannot but take a heartfelt part in all its joys. Yesterday the Lavra had the great joy of celebrating the five-hundredth anniversary of the death of St. Sergius, in other words, the great joy of giving praise and thanks to the saint of God for the fact that for five hundred years he kept the monastery he created in prosperity with his prayers to God - and the Academy, sharing this great joy of the Lavra, wants to declare its participation in action. As an educational and scientific institution, the Academy is a representative of the scientific word, and its characteristic way of declaring participation may consist in the use of this latter dedicated to the hero of the celebration. So, let it be permitted to offer to your favorable attention some readings, some conversations about St. Sergius of Radonezh. In order to expound in detail the holy and wonderful life of St. Sergius, it would take too much time; Moreover, this holy and wonderful life of his is more or less known to everyone. Selecting the most particular of what can be said about St. Sergius, in our first conversation about him we will talk about his significance in the history of our Russian monasticism. This significance is extremely great, and yet in a strange way it is not noticed at all, or almost at all, so that speech about it is very desirable for establishing a correct and proper view of St. Sergius and for giving him all the glory that is due to him. The name of St. Sergius is usually pronounced together with the names of St. Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk. By this they want to declare an admission - and a completely fair one - that the Monk Sergius was as great an ascetic as the Monks Anthony and Theodosius. But besides the fact that Sergius was the same great ascetic as Anthony and Theodosius, he also has in the history of our monasticism exactly the same significance as the second of the last two, that is, Theodosius. The Monk Theodosius was our leader in strict monasticism after we accepted Christianity from the Greeks and after we borrowed from them, along with Christianity, not entirely strict monasticism. The Monk Sergius was the restorer of strict monasticism among us, after it, having been introduced among us by the Monk Theodosius, then over time again gave way to a less strict monasticism. True, strict monasticism is, firstly, a person’s complete renunciation of the world, and therefore a complete renunciation of all acquisitions, all property. The canonical rule prescribes: “monks should not have anything of their own,” 1 and the interpreters of the rule, Zonara and Balsamon, explain it: “those who combine monastic life, that is, those who take on monasticism, are considered dead to the world: just as the dead have nothing, so the rule requires that monastics should not acquire anything.” Secondly, the canonical rules teach 2 that monastic communities must reproduce that original community of all Christians, about which in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is narrated that the entire multitude of believers had one heart and one soul (IV, [32], and this is only possible under the condition that, as was the case in the original community of all Christians, no one called anything his own, but everyone had everything in common: otherwise, strife and discord between people is inevitable. quarrels, as Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom say 3, and unanimity between people is impossible, as the Monk Theodore the Studite says 4 Thus, true monasticism should be a strict community, in which none of the monks had absolutely nothing of their own, but they had everything in common - a community about which the Monk Theodore the Studite commands his successor as abbot in the monastery: “yes.” you preserve in every possible way so that the brotherhood has everything in common and inseparable and no one has anything private (even) down to the needle” 5 . We consider it necessary to make some, so to speak, note to our words: when we say that true monasticism should be a strict community life, we do not at all want to say that it consists of one community life, but we want to say that it cannot exist without a community life (and at the same time, of course, we mean monasteries, and not lonely hermits) and that it is precisely this external structure of monastic life that is necessarily conditioned and certainly required by what monasticism must be from the inside. Monasticism was a strict community in the first days of its existence. Saint John Chrysostom writes about contemporary monasteries: “they don’t say there: this is mine, this is yours; These words, which are the cause of countless strife, have been expelled from there.” 6 But then monasticism, which is not entirely true, appeared to true monasticism in order to enter into a struggle with it, in order to never yield to it complete victory over itself, and in order to at times gain an almost complete victory over it. Monasticism is an exclusive and deliberate path leading to the kingdom of heaven; All believers want to achieve the kingdom of heaven; and therefore there were a lot of people who wanted to become monks. But true monasticism is very difficult. In the complete absence of private property, life in the communities of true monks was arranged not so that it represented the same coolness for everyone, but so that it represented the same “all sorrow and oppression” for everyone - the same poverty of food for everyone, the same thinness in clothing for everyone, the same hard work for everyone, the same duration of church prayers and vigils for everyone. And people who wanted to follow the right path leading to the kingdom of heaven, and at the same time finding this path too difficult for themselves, decided, so to speak, to smooth it out: they formed the conviction that monasticism would still remain the true path of salvation, if to a greater or lesser extent they made it easier for themselves, just as later they formed the conviction that even the mere putting on of monastic clothing can save a person. They introduced a lighter, not entirely strict, monasticism. The thing was that a rich man took monastic vows and entered a monastery, but did not join the community of monks, so that, having renounced all property, he submitted to all the requirements of the community regarding clothing and food, work and public prayer, but set up his own special cell in the monastery and in his own special cell, remaining the complete owner of everything that he had before, he fed and dressed himself as he wanted, and did not participate at all in the general monastic works and participated in public monastic prayers at his own discretion. These people, who wanted to reach the kingdom of heaven through monasticism, were joined by people who wanted to become monks not for monasticism itself, but only so that, as the canonical rules say, they would be honored with monastic clothing and in order to receive the glory of piety from the revered attire 7: it is clear that these people, who took on monasticism not for themselves, were for monasticism as much as possible lightened. The now indicated two classes of rich people were joined by poor people who began to become monks in order to acquire support for themselves with the help of monastic clothes, that is, as monks, to beg for their support from Christ-lovers: it is clear that these people were also for the same monasticism as light as possible. At first, special living cells were set up in communal monasteries, and then entire monasteries became special living cells. Each monk in these monasteries, living in his own cell and having his own separate household from the others, was the same special cell attendant as the worldly cell attendants and lay cell attendants, who live wherever they can in whole settlements. Each monk of a special monastery had his own cell, either built by himself or purchased as a ready-made one; if purchased, then either from the heirs of the previous owner or from the monastery itself, depending on whether the previous owner refused the cell to the heirs or the monastery. All the income that the monastery received was divided among the brethren in a certain proportion by hand or in person, and then each fed and dressed himself in his own cell and was generally a complete special owner. In the monastery there were hieromonks (or lay priests), who received a special payment for performing services or who served as hired servants, and the rest of the brethren participated in public prayers as much as they wanted, and any deviation from these prayers could be excused by economic needs. If we are not mistaken, we currently do not have special monasteries in Russia (until recently there were special monasteries for women, but now, it seems, they no longer exist). But these special monasteries still exist in Greece, they still exist on Athos - of the 20 Athonite monasteries, 12 are currently communal and 8 special (their Greek name is idiorhythms, - ἰδιόρρυθμοι, μοναστήρια ίδιδρρυθμα, and the Russians living on Athos learn the name of regular monasteries). These monasteries present a truly sad sight. Not to mention the fact that the monk-owner represents the same incongruity as a living dead, or in other words - that he is a feigned and deceptive dead - in these monasteries there is absolutely nothing similar to the fact that, following the example of the early Christian church, all the brethren of each monastery had one heart and one soul. On the contrary, the poor monks in them are consumed with envy of the rich monks and servilely grovel before the latter; and the rich monks treat the poor with contempt and treat them as serfs, so that instead of brotherhood with one soul and one heart, lordly arrogance and servile humiliation reign in them. As for the monastic exploits, in these monasteries, in the words of one Russian who lived on Mount Athos for quite a long time, “the matter of salvation is left to the will of the one being saved and therefore everyone lives as his conscience allows him; has money, eats and drinks what he wants (he even eats meat), dresses as he wishes, and no one has the right to interfere in his affairs.” The monks of the communal monasteries of Athos speak about the special or regular monasteries of their Holy Mountain only with a shake of the head, a shrug of the shoulders and deep sighs. That in Russia the life of the monks of separate monasteries was no better than it was and is in Greece, one teaching of the 16th-17th centuries, which has survived to this day, lets us know about this, dedicated to the types or forms of monastic life. The teaching does not describe in detail the special life - which, in the interest of history, one cannot help but regret - but it is inscribed: “The teaching about the general life of the monastic existence (i.e., the real, true) rite of the saving sojourn of the holy fathers and about the self-made, about the svarobotsky and bad monastic life, that is, about the special and self-willed life, and about the monastic life of the desert good life,” and then it (the teaching) says that the monks, who do not even want to hear about the common God-devoted life, instead “keep the Svarobotsky life, and throughout their entire life they boil down about every thing and talk in vain and love to maintain the damned self-will and justification and originality and laziness.” By calling the life of the monasteries the Svarobotsky life, the author of the teaching makes it clear that a distinctive feature of the life of the monasteries of the monasteries consisted of quarrels or quarrels over acquisitions and the division of income, because of fighting off benefactors and benefactors from each other, etc., therefore, that in the monasteries of the monasteries there was a most deplorable struggle for the means of subsistence. Monks who wanted to be saved by an easier way of living a special life appeared very early, for the fourth ecumenical council, which took place in 451, already speaks of people who put on the monastic dress not for monasticism itself, but to satisfy the goals of their ambition, 8 while it must be admitted that people who wanted to become monks in an easier way appeared earlier than people who wanted to use monasticism to achieve secondary goals. In the first half of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, among his other instructions regarding monastic life, also made an order that under no circumstances should monks have their own homes in monasteries or that there should not be so-called cells in monasteries 9 . In subsequent times, but in view of this order of Emperor Justinian, not only did monastic life remain in cenobitic monasteries, but most of the monasteries turned from monasteries of mixed communal-segregated monasteries into completely separate monasteries, so that common life, which is the true way of monastic life, became only a rare exception among the Greeks, and monastic life, which was invented and introduced by lovers of facilitated monasticism, became decisively dominant. When exactly monasticism reached such a state, we cannot say; but although the positive evidence we know about this relates only to the second half of the 12th century, 10 it should be accepted as more than probable that this happened even before we adopted Christianity from the Greeks, i.e., before the end of the 10th century. Be that as it may, but having borrowed Christianity from the Greeks, along with Christianity we borrowed from them monasticism exclusively in the form of monasticism, and dormitory was introduced to us about 75 years after our adoption of Christianity by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk. Biography of Rev. Theodosius is an unknown but named chronicler and reverend. Nestor is not directly told that when he introduced the Studite Rule in his monastery, he introduced this communal rule in place of the one that had hitherto been in the monastery. But this, firstly, must be assumed, and secondly, regarding this we have positive indirect indications. If the original charter of the Pechersk Monastery had been cenobitic, then it would have been the Studian one, so that Theodosius would not have needed to introduce the same charter in the monastery another time: the fact is that in Greece, in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which our monasticism came, in those very few monasteries in which there was a cenobitic charter, it was precisely the Studian charter. For this, Rev. Nestor, talking about the teacher. Theodosius, how, after being appointed abbot of the monastery, he wanted to be a servant of the brethren entrusted to him, among other things he says that, while the brethren indulged in sleep during the night, the blessed one took the live divided (for the brethren) and, having ground (on hand millstones) a part of each brother, placed (each part) in its place, that is, at the door of each brother's cell 11. But if in the Pechersky Monastery, before the introduction of the Studite Charter, each brother was given his share of grain in his hands, so that everyone himself would prepare flour and bread from the flour, then from this it is clear that in the Pechersky Monastery before the introduction of the Studite Charter there was a special life, for this manual distribution to each monk of his share of grain, so that everyone would grind it himself and bake his own bread from it, is precisely special living or represents part of the special living orders. From the fact that at first there was a special residence in the Pechersk Monastery, and then St. Theodosius introduced the common life, apparently, it does not follow directly that before Theodosius there was a separate life in all our monasteries and that the common life was first introduced among us only by him - Theodosius. But in fact, this follows directly, and we also have indirect indications and evidence regarding this. The founder of the Pechersk Monastery was the Monk Anthony; Saint Anthony was undoubtedly a man who preferred true monasticism to half-true monasticism, or strict monasticism to light monasticism; but if he had seen before him and in Kyiv not only private monasteries, but also communal ones, then he would have introduced in his monastery not separate living, but communal living. Lecturer Nestor says that when the teacher. Theodosius came from his Kursk to Kyiv with the goal of taking monastic vows in one of the latter’s monasteries, but was not accepted into any monastery because of his poverty. This attribute goes specifically to special monasteries, about which we have evidence that those wishing to become monks were accepted in them only with contributions of money or the so-called contribution 12, while the communal Studite Charter directly prohibits taking money from those wishing to become monks 13. Finally, if before Rev. Theodosius had cenobitic monasteries, then he would not have needed to write out the cenobitic regulations from Constantinople, but could have taken it from one of the Kyiv monasteries; but in fact it was he who ordered him out of Constantinople. So, initially, together with the adoption of Christianity, we borrowed monasticism from the Greeks in a not entirely our own, not entirely authentic and true form of separate life; and in its own, completely authentic and true form of community life, it was introduced to us about 75 years after we adopted Christianity - Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk. But the hostel, having been introduced by the teacher. Theodosius, we did not have the destiny to completely supplant separate living and then forever remain the only form of our monastic life. If this were so, then our monasticism would be unparalleled in its height in the entire Christian Orthodox Church. But this was not the case. Introduced by the teacher. Theodosius in his Pechersk Monastery, the hostel was borrowed from the latter by the best monasteries that had previously existed and began to be borrowed by the best monasteries that were newly established, and thus became a form of monastic life in our best monasteries (while single living remained a form of life in the worst monasteries). But it did not become a form of life in the best monasteries forever, and not for a particularly long time. Introduced by the teacher. Feodosius, a strict community life, not too long after him, gave way in the monasteries, including Pechersky itself, to a non-strict community system, in which some things were common, but in which each monk was provided and allowed to have his own private property. The lax community life seemed to last in the monasteries for quite a long time (in the Pechersky Monastery it lasted until the invasion of the Mongols) 14. But then this too gave way to complete singularity of life, so that our monasteries again became what they were from the beginning of our Christianity until St. Feodosia, t.f. uniquely and exclusively special. But how, three quarters of a century after our adoption of Christianity, God raised St. Theodosius of Pechersk, so that he would be our leader of strict monasticism, so three and a quarter centuries after St. Theodosius God raised the venerable. Sergius of Radonezh, so that he would be our restorer of strict monasticism. However, if Rev. Theodosius was the leader of strict monasticism throughout Rus', then Venerable. Sergius was its restorer in one half of Rus'. During the time of Rev. Feodosia, all of Rus' was one whole; during the time of Rev. Sergius, they were divided into two halves: northeastern Moscow and southwestern, topographically Kyiv, politically Lithuanian. Rev. Sergius was the restorer of strict monasticism in Moscow Rus'. People who for the first time introduce in any area of ​​life something better in place of the worst, or who restore this best after it existed and disappeared, are called transformers (in secular language, instead of the Russian word transformer, the foreign word reformer is used). And as Rev. Theodosius was a transformer of our monasticism, and after him, St. Sergius was a transformer of monasticism (some have in us a blind hatred for the word transformer; let them know that their blind hatred should extend to people like St. Theodosius and St. Sergius). All good things come from God; all the more so, in a deliberate way, everything is exclusively good from God: and this is precisely the truly transformative activity, which consists in replacing the worst in any area of ​​​​life with the best. Ordinary people, the human crowd, are not struck by the evil that exists in any area of ​​life - they look at it as something normal or natural: but God sends his chosen husband, whom he endows with exceptional moral vision to discern evil, exceptional moral sensitivity in order to be struck by it, and exceptional will to determine to eliminate it - and God's chosen husband, God's deliberate messenger becomes (if circumstances permit) or a preacher of transformation or the very transformer in one or another area of life. The Monk Sergius was the chosen man of God, destined to restore strict monasticism in northern Moscow Rus'. He felt an attraction to monastic life in his early youth and, having devoted himself to reading holy books, among which, as one must think, he mainly read the lives of ascetics and patericons, he, while still a youth and before being tonsured as a monk, came to know what true and strict monasticism should be; and having reached knowledge, or at the same time as he reached knowledge, he made the decision to become a true and strict monk. Having the opportunity, after burying his parents, to fulfill his intention to become a monk, the Monk Sergius, who was at that time a 22-year-old youth, did not go to some monastery, but retired into the desert. All our monasteries of that time were in cities and villages, but the dwelling of the strictest monk should be a desert far from worldly human habitations, and so, wanting to be such a strict monk, the priest. Sergius did this unusual thing so that instead of a monastery he could come to monasticism in the desert. When in the desert near before. Sergius was made up of people who wanted to work together with him, the monastery, he, restoring strict monasticism among us, introduced a hostel in the monastery. Regarding this restoration, Rev. Sergius of strict monasticism in Moscow Rus' asks the same question as regarding the first establishment of strict monasticism in Rus' by St. Theodosius of Pechersk, that is: is it true that the Rev. Sergius did not have common life in the monasteries of Moscow Rus' and that he was the first to introduce it? - That this is really so, first of all, it should be accepted on the basis of the same conclusion that we indicated above, speaking about the Rev. Feodosia Pechersk. There is no doubt that St. Sergius was a zealot for true monasticism and that if he had to choose between true monasticism and not quite true monasticism, he would choose the first. But if this is so, then if before him, in the monasteries of Muscovite Rus', along with single living and communal living, he (Sergius) would have introduced in his monastery at its foundation not the first, but the latter - not single living, but communal living, while he initially introduced single living in his monastery 15. Then, in our manuscripts we read the message of the unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople to the unnamed Russian abbot, in which the patriarch praises the abbot for having organized a monastic life in his monastery, which does not exist in Russian monasteries 16: the abbot is undoubtedly the Venerable Sergius, and by the monastic life of which there was no such thing in Russian monasteries, we must understand the introduced Ven. Sergius in his monastery hostel. Further, we have more direct evidence: we are told who is the first after St. Sergius introduced a community life in Moscow monasteries, which had not existed in them before 17. Finally, the author of the laudatory word for St. Sergius, who is the same as the author of his life - his disciple Epiphanius the Wise, calls him the “initial hostel” 18, that is, the first leader of the hostel in Moscow monasteries. The Monk Sergius, as it is necessary to think, reached the knowledge and conviction that true monasticism is a community life, even before he began to build his monastery, at the same time as he reached the knowledge and conviction that the strictest monasticism is desert living. If he did not act in such a way as to directly make his monastery a communal one, but first made it a separate habitation and introduced a hostel in it only after some time, then he did so as required by prudence. He wanted to introduce a hostel in his monastery with the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople in his hands, which approved and blessed his intention, which he later received. But when he founded his monastery, he was a 25-26 year old youth who had become known as a hermit among the surrounding monks, but who still had too little authority or importance to appeal to the highest church authorities for the required approval. More or less within a short time after the founding of the monastery, he became famous as a great ascetic; his fame as an ascetic earned him the close friendship of St. Metropolitan Alexei; St. Alexei delivered or solicited for him a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, which approved and blessed his intention to introduce a hostel in his monastery 19: - then he began to bring his intention into execution. To introduce a dormitory in a monastery meant venturing into such an innovation, to which the vast majority of monks should have reacted with decisive unsympathy and positive hostility, for people who were accustomed to a very relaxed monasticism could not at all like “this idea” of introducing strict monasticism, where monastic life is a cool and free life for some, and a life, if not cool, then free for others, would turn for everyone into a life filled with sorrow and cramped conditions and subject to harsh discipline. In particular, they should have rebelled against Rev. Sergius with his innovation abbots or abbots of monasteries. The abbots of private monasteries were a kind of good landowners: they received half of all monastic income 20 and lived for their own pleasure, while in common monasteries they were threatened with complete equality in everything with the brethren of the monasteries, with the exception of excelling before the brethren in work and virtue. And there is no doubt that a fierce battle would have risen and been heard against St. Sergius with his innovation. In the old days, we had a terrible word to call innovators who dared to encroach on existing abuses: a heretic. No matter what obvious and blatant abuses protests were raised, the defenders of abuses had a harsh word ready for the protesters, who were innovators: “You bigots are starting a new heresy..., you have a demon in yourself, you bigots”... 21. The Monk Sergius did not want a fight to be raised against him, not because he was afraid of it: he was one of those people who are ready and glad to endure any unfair fight, but because, as one should think, so as not to cause confusion in the Church of God. For this reason, he wanted to receive his intention, before bringing it into action, the blessing and formal approval of the then supreme leader of the Russian Church - the Patriarch of Constantinople. His friend St. Alexei, being as much a zealot of true monasticism as he himself, fully sympathized with his intention to introduce a dormitory in his monastery, and therefore obtained a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, which approved and blessed his intention to introduce a dormitory in his monastery. The Monk Sergius did in relation to the hostel only that he introduced it in his own monastery. He did not imagine himself as an authority that could order that the community life be introduced in other monasteries, and as for the actual authority in the person of St. Metropolitan Alexei, although she fully sympathized with him, at the same time she did not find it possible or convenient to resort to her decrees and coercive measures to establish community life in our monasteries. However, having done as little as possible for the community, St. Sergius became its restorer in our monasteries: good prevailed over evil by its own strength. Rev. Sergius, who introduced a dormitory in his monastery, and his monastery, in which he introduced a dormitory, soon became famous throughout Russia, through their example they became silent preachers of the fact that the true form of monastic life should be a dormitory; Heeding this preaching of the example of St. Sergius and his monastery, the subsequent best founders of monasteries, many of whom were personal disciples or interlocutors of St. Sergius, began to found monasteries other than communal ones; Following the example of the best new monasteries, the best old monasteries began to accept hostels. And thus, thanks to St. Sergius, the hostel was restored in Moscow Rus', just as thanks to St. Theodosius of Pechersk it was originally established throughout Rus'... So, these are the proper ideas one should have about St. Sergius of Radonezh! He is a great ascetic in the host of our Russian ascetics; but, besides this particular, so to speak, dignity, or besides this particular height, he also has an unusually important general significance in the history of our Russian monasticism: after St. Theodosius of Pechersk, who was our introductor of true monastic life in the form of community life, he was our restorer of this true monastic life. The significance of St. Theodosius of Pechersk in the history of our monasticism is duly recognized by everyone: and let the significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh also be duly recognized! But if St. Sergius was the restorer of true monastic life among us, then we would not have honored his memory in a worthy manner if, at the end of speeches about him, we had not turned from the past to the present and ended these speeches with good wishes for our modern monasticism. The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk introduced among us true monasticism in the form of community life, and it, having existed among us for not a particularly long time, completely disappeared, to again give way to a not entirely true monasticism in the form of community life. The Monk Sergius of Radonezh restored true monasticism among us, but even after him it was not so that this monasticism remained with us forever. And after him, as after Theodosius, it fell, and if after the falls it rose again, it no longer reached the height at which it had been placed by him. We would be unfair to our modern monasticism if we said that it is at the same level of decline to which monasticism reached or to which it fell in other former times; but we would be flatterers and liars if we said that it is at the height absolutely due to it and that nothing more remains to be desired in relation to it. Without going into detailed speeches about the shortcomings of our modern monasticism, for which this is neither the place nor the time, but being prompted by the memories of the great man and the great saint of God, who once restored true monasticism among us, we earnestly wish our modern monasticism to rise to the height to which it was raised by St. Sergius. Council of double rights. 6. See in the History of Orthodox monasticism in the East by P. S. Kazansky, I, 16. See in our history of the Russian Church, vol. I sex. 2, p. 503. Kazansky ibid. I, 16. Chalcedonsk. personal Ave. 4, Double personal right 2. Novella 133, ch. 1: Μηδένα (μοναχῶν) παντελῶς ἰδίαν ἔχειν οἰκησιν, μηδέ τὸ καλούμενον κέλλιον ε ἲ η κατὰ τὸ μοναστήριον. Belonging to Balsamon and read in the interpretation of the 41st rule of the Council of Trullo, - in Ralli and P. I, 405, cfr of our History of the Russian Church, vol. 1 floors. 2, p. 502. “Brothers who are in favor, the blessed one took the divided life and crushed each part and put it in its place.” Balsamon or unknown in the note to the 24th chapter of the 1st title of the nomocanon of Fotiev in Rally and P. I, 63. See my history of the Russian Church, vol. I half 2, p. 504. See our History of the Russian Church, vol. I half. 2, p. 522. For people who are not familiar with the history of monasticism and this so-called singular life, it may remain incomprehensible to read in the life of the Monk Sergius, that when monks came to him who wanted to labor with him in his desert, he told them: “I accept you with joy, just try to create for yourself your own cell” and that later, having become the abbot of the monastery, he (Sergius) built one for a fee. the monk of his monastery enters the cell. But this, incomprehensible to people unfamiliar with the history of monasticism, speaks of a special monastic life or indicates the features of this life. See our just published book: “St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him,” page 33. Namely, that this first was Archimandrite John of the Petrovsky Monastery - Nikon. years. under the year 1377, IV, 73 (“Ivan, Archimandrite Petrovsky, was the first head of the general life in Moscow.” And about the Venerable Demetrius of Prilutsky, the interlocutor of St. Sergius, it is reported that he was the first to introduce a hostel within the Vologda region. About the elder brother of the Rev. Sergius Stefan, it is said in the life of Sergius that he, having retired from the venerable one, desert, came to Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery and found himself a cell in the latter (“and you will find a cell”): this means that in the Epiphany Monastery, like in all Moscow monasteries before St. Sergius, there was a special residence and that Stefan bought himself a cell (and the expression: “you will find” means: he found a cell that could be bought). Lithographic Lavra edition of the life of St. Sergius L. 351 rev. See our mentioned book: “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him” page 22 sqq. On the division of income in special monasteries, see the letter of the unknown metropolitan in the Act. Exp., vol. I, no. 381, and in Pavlov’s Monuments of Ancient Russian Canon Law, no. 128. See in the History of the Russian Church by Rev. Macarius XI, 175. You might be interested in: