II. Макариевские соборы 1547-го и 1549-го годов

Metropolitan Macarius convened two councils, in 1547 and 1549, at which he canonized in two or two sessions, as we will see below, most of them not completely again, a whole host of saints, representing the number of 39 individual persons. When asked about the motives that forced Met. Macarius to accomplish such an unusual task as canonizing so many saints at once, we will answer briefly here, leaving a more detailed answer for another place. After the Turks captured Constantinople, which was the second Rome (we assume that the reader is familiar with the doctrine of Christian Rome moving from place to place), and after the disappearance of the Greek kings, the Russians began to look at their Moscow as the third Rome and at their sovereigns as the successors of the Greek kings. Very soon the great princes of Moscow decided to be crowned with a royal crown and take on the title of kings, but finally Ivan Vasilyevich IV, led mainly by Metropolitan. Macarius, decided to do this (the crowning of Ivan Vasilyevich with the royal crown took place on January 16, 1547). But when the Russian state from a great principality became a kingdom, that is, having replaced the Byzantine Empire as the only Orthodox kingdom on earth, it ascended to the highest level in the Christian political world: then the Russian Church, ascending together with the state, took, according to the ideas of our ancestors, the leading place among private Orthodox churches. Having taken the leading place among private Orthodox churches, the Russian Church had to take care to bring itself in line with its external high position in its internal qualities. In order to bring the Russian Church, in its internal qualities, into conformity with the external high position it occupies, Metropolitan. Macarius decided to undertake a radical reform of it, its great renewal, which he accomplished through the council of 1551 or the so-called Stoglavoy. But before undertaking the work of renewing the church, Macarius considered it necessary to take care of something else. The strength and glory of any church are its saints. Showing his favor to the Russian Church, which was destined for a high lot, God glorified it with a numerous host of saints. Meanwhile, a very significant part of these lamps of hers and these prayer books for her remained until then not glorified in a proper way. 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 so, Met. Macarius, wanting to undertake the task of renovating the church with the ready help of all Russian miracle workers, began with this general solemn glorification of those of them who had remained hitherto not glorified, or more precisely, as we will see below, little, insufficiently glorified. This is the short answer to the question: what prompted Met. Macarius canonize many saints at the same time. But the main question for us is: on what basis did Macarius carry out his canonizations of saints or why did he recognize famous ascetics of piety as deserving of canonization and entitled to it? The answer to this question, which is not subject to any doubt, is that the only basis for Macarius for the canonization of saints was the same as in the previous time, namely, the glorification of ascetics of piety with the gift of miracles; and as for the assumption of any other collateral (indirect) grounds on which Makariev’s canonizations of saints could be recognized as deviating from the previous ones and representing something new in the sense of weakening the rigor in the matter of canonization and renouncing the previously accepted basis, then it cannot be considered valid at all. Here is evidence that leaves no doubt that the basis for Macarius’ canonization was the glorification of saints with the gift of miracles. In the decree of the council of 1547 on the celebration of the saints who were canonized by him (the council), it is said on behalf of the metropolitan with the bishops and other members of the council: “I have been ordered to celebrate now by the new miracle worker in the Russian land, that the Lord God has glorified them, his saints, with many and various miracles and banners” 159, i.e., they have ordered to celebrate because the Lord glorified them... Moreover, the saints are called miracle workers, so the basis for canonization would be clear even without this “what,” meaning “because.” In his speech to the Stoglavy Council, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich speaks of the reason that made him want the canonizations carried out at the council of 1547 to be carried out: “I looked up in memory and my soul longed and was jealous, as great and inexhaustible wealth from many times under our ancestors was hidden and consigned to oblivion: great lamps, new miracle workers by many and ineffable miracles are glorified by God” 160 (implying: they remain without proper church celebration). After the council of 1547, it was decided to canonize other ascetics of piety, if there were among them those who should be honored with this, and for this purpose, according to the testimony of the same speech of the tsar to the Council of the Hundred Heads, the bishops were instructed to “know to torture and search for the great new miracle workers the sacred cathedrals and abbots and sacred monks and monks and hermits and princes and bolyars and God-fearing people, where miracle workers became famous for their great miracles and signs, from many times and in what years” 161, that is, the bishops were instructed to carry out inquiries and searches regarding the right to canonize ascetics of piety as miracle workers. At the council itself in 1549, according to the testimony of the same speech, the bishops presented the canons of new miracle workers and their lives and miracles and were testified by all consecrated councils 162, i.e., records were presented about the miracles that were testified, the authenticity of which was discussed, by all members of the council. That at the council of 1549, canonizations were carried out on the basis of glorifying ascetics with the gift of miracles, this is evidenced in the speech of the gift with the most indisputable clarity. But it is necessary to assume that the cathedral of 1547 was based on the same foundation as the cathedral of 1549, for to assume that one cathedral had one foundation, and another another, would mean to assume something completely incongruous. In the edition of the life of Metropolitan. Jonah, in which the story of the councils of 1547 and 1549 is read, the following is said about the reason that made Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich want the canonization of saints to be carried out: “desired with all my soul, God raised him as a memorial, like (hedgehog) in the Russian land of the Tsar’s power, to seek the premium wealth of his brother, like from many times and to this day, hidden and consigned to oblivion, the great luminaries, the newest miracle workers, having seen them all with their royal eyes, and having heard them from many well-known eyewitnesses, are glorified by God by many and ineffable miracles and all those who come to them with faith from every manifold ailment, healing, and all the righteous wrath of God through their prayer We turn to mercy and all the good needs are corrected through their prayers”... 163 In a laudatory word he led. book Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, written on behalf of Metropolitan. Macarius, following the council of 1547, at which the prince was canonized for church-wide celebration, directly testifies that at the council the metropolitan sought “to know with every test about the miracles that happened from his (the prince’s) honest shrines” 164. So, there can be no doubt that the basis for canonization at the councils of 1547 and 1549 was for Metropolitan. Macarius is the same as always before and after him, namely, the glorification of deceased ascetics of piety with the gift of miracles. Turning to the councils of 1547 and 1549, we must first of all say that the largest part of the Metropolitans canonized at the councils. Macarius of saints were not completely new saints, but already recognized saints, for whom local celebrations had already been established, and what Macarius did in relation to these (already recognized) saints consisted - firstly and mainly in the fact that he turned local celebrations into general or church-wide ones, - secondly and partly in the fact that he either expanded local celebrations, making them from local in the narrowest sense of the word local in the broadest sense, or solemnly and Conciliarly confirmed these last (local in the broadest sense of the word) celebrations. Therefore, the matter of canonization of Metropolitan. Macarius at the councils of 1547 and 1549 should represent a whole host of Russian saints in such a way that over time we have formed (accumulated) a large number of saints, for whom local celebrations were established and that in relation to this formed number of saints, Met. Macarius did what we have just indicated at the councils. As for the new ascetics, who had not yet been celebrated at all, a very small number of them were canonized at the councils. In the named life of Metropolitan. Jonah, after his words that we have cited about the reason that made Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich want the canonization of saints to be carried out, reads: “And it was not legalized to celebrate everywhere with this great luminary, but where ever their honorable shrines with holy relics were celebrated, they were glorified; and for this reason, the Christ-loving Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan proclaims to the most God-loving Metropolitan Macarius of All Russia and asks for good advice from him, out of much reverence and love, having a desire in his mind, so that with this newest miracle worker he will establish a festival in the holy churches of God everywhere, just like the previous ones in the Russian land proclaimed a new miracle worker”... 165. We said above that we must assume a decree of the metropolitan, by which, before the council of 1547, a certain number of locally revered saints were declared to be saints of the general church. Apparently, the decree of the metropolitan that we are supposed to have preceded the council, and his decree from the council, are exactly the same thing, so that the question seems to arise: why did Macarius, in his decree that preceded the council, along with the saints whom he renames or raises in it from local to general church ones, not rename as general church saints those saints whom he elevated to such at the council? 1547. In fact, the decree before the council and the decree of the council are not the same thing, but two completely different things. There were a certain number of locally revered saints, regarding whom the church authorities accepted it as indisputable that they should be recognized and proclaimed as general church saints, and without any inquiry about them they were recognized and proclaimed as such saints, precisely recognized and proclaimed through the decree of the metropolitan, supposed by us, preceding the council. But then there were local “saints, regarding whom it was not a settled question that all of them should be renamed as general church saints, but on the contrary, the question had to be resolved: which of them should, on the basis of data about them as miracle workers, be renamed from local saints to general church saints: this was done by the council of 1547, and then by the council of 1549. As we said, at the council of 1547, and, perhaps, at the council of 1549, not all the local saints who had lived until then, about whom there was speech at the council, were renamed into general church saints, some were still left as local saints, and either the local celebration in the narrowest sense of the word was replaced by a local celebration in the broadest sense of the word, or it was simply the former establishment of this latter celebration is confirmed. In making its distinction between the saints who were elevated from local to the general church and who were still left local, the council, of course, was guided by something. And since the basis for his decisions in our case was the glorification of the deceased ascetics with the gift of miracles, it is necessary to think that he based his distinction on the recognition of some ascetics as having a greater gift of miracles, in others - a lesser one, on the recognition of some ascetics as more glorious, others as less glorious, miracle workers. As for the replacement of local celebration in the narrowest sense of the word with local celebration in the broadest sense: it consisted in the fact that instead of celebrating in only churches or monasteries in which the bodily remains of saints were located, celebration was established in entire cities in which (and in the vicinity of which) there were churches or monasteries. If we assume that no change was made in relation to other saints, but only a pre-existing local celebration in the broadest sense of the word was confirmed, then one would have to think that this was done to give the celebration greater firmness. The Council of 1547 took place on the 26th of February, 166, which this year was on the first Sunday of Lent or on the week of Orthodoxy, according to the ancient and old - on a national Sunday, a gathering. It is remarkable that the tsar was not present at the council, for he was completely absent from Moscow 167. He probably did not want to be present because he would not add a zemstvo element to the matter in the strictest sense of the Church, which is the canonization of saints. Which saints were canonized by the council of 1547, we know from its decree on the celebration of the saints canonized there, which has survived to this day. But since the three currently known lists of Decree 168 do not completely agree with each other, we also do not know the saints canonized by the council with complete accuracy. According to one list, 11 saints were canonized for the general celebration throughout the Russian Church and 9 saints for the local celebration; according to another list, 12 saints were canonized for the general celebration and the same 9 saints for the local celebration; according to the third list, 14 saints were canonized for the general celebration and the same 9 saints for the local celebration 169. The saints canonized by the council for the pan-church celebration, common to all three lists, are 170: 1. Metropolitan Jonah 171, March 30th, 2. Archbishop John of Novgorod, September 7, 3. Paphnutiy Borovsky, May 1st, 4. Nikon of Radonezh, November 17th, 5. Macarius Kolyazinsky, March 17th, 6. Mikhail Klopsky, January 11th, 7 and 8. Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky 172, April 17th, 9. Pavel Obnorsky, January 10th, 10. Dionysius Glushitsky, June 1st, 11. Alexander Svirsky, August 30th. 173 According to the list, in which there are 12 saints intended for the general church celebration, the one who is extra compared to the previous ones is: 12. Grand Duke Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, November 23rd, In the third list there are two extra ones versus the second list: 13. Bishop Nikita of Novgorod, April 26, and 14. Savva Storozhevsky, December 3rd 174. With the name of each saint destined for the pan-church celebration, the decree of the cathedral adds: “sing and celebrate everywhere,” and then, at the end of the entire list of saints, it is prescribed regarding them: “and which saints are commanded to celebrate everywhere, and you would celebrate those saints according to the previously laid down (var. pre-written) charter of the saints father and according to this our conciliar charter.” The listed saints are distinguished in the decree, of course, not without intention, by the epithet attached to their names, which is either “the great wonderworker” or “the new wonderworker.” Great miracle workers are called: Metropolitan. Jonah, John, Archbishop of Novgorod, Paphnutius of Borovsky and Macarius of Kolyazinsky; all others are called new miracle workers. The saints designated by the cathedral for local celebration in all three lists are the same 9, namely: 1. Maxim the Holy Fool of Moscow 175, August 13th, regarding the celebration of which it is said: “sing and celebrate in Moscow,” 2–4. Prince Konstantin and his children Mikhail and Theodore of Murom, May 21st, “sing and celebrate in Murom”, 5 and 6. Prince Peter and Princess Fevronia of Murom, June 25th, - “sing and celebrate in Murom w 176, 7. Bishop of Tver Arseny, March 2, - “pie and celebrate in Tver”, 8 and 9. Procopius and John, the holy fools of Ustyug (the days of remembrance are not indicated in the decree, the first is on July 8, the second on May 29), “sing and celebrate in Ustyug.” Among the 23 saints canonized by the cathedral - taking the largest number of 14 canonized for the general church celebration, there are five new saints, for whom there was no local celebration before, real or in the sense of veneration recorded in the monthly words, and who were canonized by the cathedral for the very first time. They are: Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod, “who ended on January 30, 1108, the establishment of the celebration of which Met. Macarius, if our information is reliable, as we discussed above (p. 54), should be understood as the restoration of an ancient celebration that once fell into oblivion; Savva Storozhevsky, founder of the Storozhevsky Monastery, which is located in the Moscow province, near the city of Zvenigorod, died on December 3, 1406; Mikhail Klopsky, the holy fool of Novgorod, who labored in the Klopsky monastery, which is located 15 versts southwest of Novgorod, died around 1456 177; John, the holy fool of Ustyug, who died on May 29, 1494 or 1512, 178, and Alexander Svirsky, the founder of the Trinity, Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, which is located in the Olonets province, 36 versts south of the city of Olonets, who died on August 30, 1538, or just 14 years before the council of 1547. One of the new saints on the list is considered dubious; this is Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod 179. And as if he really was canonized not at our council or even at the council of 1549, but some time after this second council. If he had been canonized at some council, then following his canonization his life would have been written. Meanwhile, the oldest of the four existing lives of him was written at the end of 1557 - beginning of 1558, 180, before the discovery of his relics, which took place on April 30 of the last year. Thus, it seems more likely to think that he was canonized after the discovery or simultaneously with the discovery of the relics. Regarding the activities of the council of 1547, we only have the particular information we cited above that it was sought “with every test about miracles that happen from honest cancer” led. book Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky. But knowing what was done by the cathedral, and considering the information about the activities of the cathedral in 1549, it is not difficult to indicate this activity in a conjectural manner. What was done at the council, firstly, was that a church-wide celebration was established for some of the saints who had previously been honored locally and for some of the saints who had not previously been venerated; secondly, what was done was that local celebration was confirmed for some of the saints who had previously been revered locally, and that one saint, who had not previously been revered, had the same local celebration re-established. Consequently, at the council the questions were raised and resolved: which of the saints who were previously revered locally and which of the saints who were not previously venerated should have a church-wide celebration; to which of the saints previously venerated locally should the local celebration be confirmed, and to which of the saints not previously venerated should this latter celebration be established again. The basis for resolving these issues now, as we said above, was Met. Macarius at both councils the degree of glorification of the saints for the gift of miracles; therefore, it is necessary to think that the activity of the cathedral, as we are told in the laudatory speech to Alexander Nevsky and what, according to positive information, the cathedral of 1549 was engaged in, consisted in researching the miracles of saints or in inquiring which of them was a miracle worker to what extent. The Council of 1549, in addition to researching the miracles of saints, was also engaged in witnessing the lives and canons of those saints whom it canonized, as far as the lives and canons of these saints were written before it. It is more than likely that the council of 1547 did the same, as far as the lives and canons of the saints it canonized were written. The purpose of the testimony was to see whether the canons were suitable for serving according to them, and whether the lives were suitable for reading them at services. Following the cathedral of 1547, Metropolitan. Macarius ordered to write a word of praise. book Alexander Nevsky, who was canonized at the cathedral; it is very likely to believe that the cathedral recognized the ancient legend about him as inconvenient for reading in the service of Alexander and that Macarius’s order to write a commendatory word was precisely the consequence of this conciliar recognition. No decree has reached us from the council of 1549, and we know about its existence from the messages about it from Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in his speech to the Stoglavy Council. Without direct information about the saints canonized by our council, we obtain this information indirectly. As we have mentioned more than once above, there is an edition of the life of Metropolitan. Jonah, in which the story of the councils of 1457 and 1549 is read. The editors actually speak about one council of 1547, but give a list of saints canonized by this council, which includes not only those saints who are known to us by the decree of the council of 1547, as canonized by this last council, but also many others. In all likelihood, we must accept, as they do, that many other saints are saints canonized by the council of 1549, which the author of the edition of the life unites or combines into one place with the council of 1547, and thus we find saints canonized by the council of 1549. The list of saints canonized by the council of 1549, now obtained in this way, is the following: 1. Niphon, Archbishop of Novgorod (moreover, his name is read only in one of the two known lists of life and not in the text itself, but together with the name of Bishop Nikita of Novgorod written on the field), 2. Euthymius, Archbishop of Novgorod, 3. Jonah, Archbishop of Novgorod, 4. Jacob, Bishop of Rostov, 5. Stefan, Bishop of Perm, 6. Vsevolod-Gabriel, Prince of Novgorod-Pskov, 7. Mikhail Yaroslavich conducted. Prince Vladimirsky, appanage prince of Tver, 9–11. Anthony, John and Eustathius of Vilna or Lithuania, 12. Evfimy Suzdalsky, 13. Grigory Pelshemsky, 15. Euphrosynus of Pskov, and Regarding the council of 1549, we have no information about how it canonized the saints - whether all of them for a general church celebration or, like the council of 1547, some for a local celebration. The first is considered more likely; but in fact, the second is just as possible, and in general there is no reason to lean one’s opinion in one direction or the other 181. Of the 16 saints canonized by the council of 1549, 12 are saints for whom there was already a local celebration and 4 are new saints or canonized by the council for the first time. These last saints are: the archbishops of Novgorod - Nifont, who died on April 8, 1156, and Jonah, who died on November 5, 1470, Gregory of Pelshemsky, the founder of the Bogoroditsky Lopotov Monastery, which is located in the Vologda province, 7 versts from the city of Kadnikov, who died September 30, 1441, and Euphrosynus of Pskov, founder of the Spaso-Elizarov Monastery, which is located 25 versts from Pskov, died on May 15, 1481. In the list of saints of our cathedral, just as in the list of saints of the cathedral of 1547, one is considered doubtful. 182 This is Niphon, Archbishop of Novgorod, whose name, together with the name of Bishop Nikita, as we said, is read only in one of the two known lists of the life of Metropolitan. Jonah, and not in the text itself, but written on the margin. But there are some indications that speak for the likelihood of attributing his canonization to your cathedral in 1549. The Life of Nifont was written by the famous Pskov cleric Vasily, a monk named Varlaam, when a celebration had already been established for him, Nifont, which is directly stated in the Life. But at the conclusion of the life, its author turns to Nifont with a prayer for Metropolitan. Macarius, who established his celebration, and about the Archbishop of Novgorod “name” 183. This “name” should most likely be understood in such a way that when Vasily wrote the life of Niphon, the Novgorod department remained idle due to the change of archbishop, which is why the name of the archbishop remained unknown (which means “name”). But the Novgorod department remained idle from December 21, 1550, when Theodosius was deposed, until June 14, 1551, when Serapion Kurtsov was installed, and then from October 29, 1552, when Serapion died, until November 22 of the same year, when Pimin was installed. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich reports information about the activities of the cathedral in 1549, as we indicated above, in his speech to the Stoglavy Cathedral. The Tsar says that at the end of the council of 1547, he turned with prayer to the saints of the Russian kingdom - to the metropolitan, archbishops and bishops, and to each of them in their work entrusted to them - in cities and in monasteries and in deserts and in villages, he is known to torture and search for the great new miracle workers of sacred cathedrals and abbots and priests and monks and hermits and princes and bolyars and God-fearing people, where miracle workers became famous for their great miracles and signs, from many times and in what years - and that the saints soon fulfilled his - the king's commission with spiritual joy and with heartfelt desire 184. At the council of 1547, the bishops came with evidence of the rights to canonize a certain number of saints as miracle workers. These saints were canonized by the cathedral. But the tsar and the metropolitan knew that in addition to those canonized by the council, there were also a significant number of saints who were celebrated locally or who at least enjoyed local veneration. Collect information about these last saints, as miracle workers, with a careful check of private news about miracles or about individual cases of miracles of each, and also to find services to the saints and their lives, as far as both were written, and entrusted by the tsar and metropolitan to the bishops. As we see, the Tsar and the Metropolitan order the bishops to check the information about miracles as thoroughly as possible. Regarding how the very matter of canonization of saints took place at the council, the king says in his speech: “And in the 19th year of my age, i.e. in the year 1549, by our order, archbishops and bishops and honorable archimandrites and abbots gather in this reigning city to us and to our father Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia, the canons of new wonderworkers and their lives and miracles at the council are laid down and witnessed by all sacred councils and handed over to the churches of God to sing and glorify and celebrate, like other saints from the ages who truly pleased God, every month the day (day) and date (day) of their repose and the discovery of their venerable relics” 185. Thus, at the council, firstly, the lives and canons were testified, as far as they existed, and secondly, miracles. Regarding the lives and canons, one should probably think that the matter with them was not so that they were read at the council itself, but so that, on behalf of Metropolitan. Macarius, they were read by the bookish or learned people who were with him, and only reviews or reviews of these latter were presented to the cathedral. Since we know the lives and canons of the saints canonized at the council of 1549, which would have been written after the council, new ones instead of the old ones, we must think that the existing lives and canons, having been examined, were considered satisfactory. As for the testimony of miracles, it is necessary to think that the records about them were read at the council itself, for only from its own direct acquaintance with the records could the council be convinced of their reliability or doubtfulness. But since the council dealt not with the people themselves who experienced the miraculous power of the saints, and not with the witnesses of the miracles themselves, but only with the records of the testimony of one and the other, it is obvious that certain of his convictions could not be in the proper sense of the word direct and had to have through them a greater or lesser faith in the reliability of the witnesses. Above, we promised to return to the revered dead, whose names are read as saints in the pre-Kariev month-books, but about whom it is unknown that they were canonized in the pre-Kariev time, and who were not canonized at the Makariev councils. This is what we will do now. We said above that a church-wide celebration of the seven saints was established in our country, or was established by itself, long before Met. Macarius and that 15 saints were canonized by Macarius for a church-wide celebration before the council of 1547. Therefore, these 22 saints canonized for the general celebration represent saints who were undoubtedly canonized before the council of 1547. At the councils of 1547 and 1549, 39 saints were canonized, and since 9 new saints were canonized, 30 of the former saints and venerated deceased included in the calendars were canonized. Subtracting 52 undoubtedly canonized saints from the 67 that make up the total number of pre-Mongol saints and the revered deceased included in the pre-Mongol monthly calendars, we get 15 pre-Mongol saints and deceased who were not canonized for the general celebration before the council of 1547 and who were not canonized at the councils of 1547 and 1549. But since the celebration of one saint undoubtedly ceased after the Mongol invasion, it was led. book Mstislav Vladimirovich, about whom we are talking about Domongolsk. No. 6, and since we speak twice about establishing the celebration of another saint, namely Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod (pre-Mong. No. 4 and Council of 1547 No. 13): then we get not 15, but 13 saints and dead included in the monthly calendar. They are the following (being listed in the order in which they appear on our list): 1. Igor Olegovich, Prince of Chernigov (list No. 7), 2. Avramiy of Bulgaria (No. 11), 3. Dovmont, Prince of Pskov (No. 21), 4 and 5. Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod, and his mother Anna (Nos. 26 and 27), 6. Mstislav Rostislavich, Prince of Novgorod (No. 28; 7. Theodore, Archbishop of Rostov (No. 41), 8. Metropolitan Cyprian (No. 48), 9. Isidor Tverdislov Rostovsky (No. 50) 186, 10. Efrem Smolensky (No. 58), 11. Euphrosyne, Princess of Suzdal (No. 59), 12. Nikolai Kochanov Novgorodsky (No. 61), and 13. Metropolitan Photius (No. 64). Regarding these 13 persons the following should be said: It is positively known about Dovmont, Prince of Pskov, that a local celebration was established for him before Metropolitan. Macaria; about Igor Olegovich, Avramiy of Bulgaria and Ephraim of Smolensk the same should be thought with all probability. We talked about the first and second above; as for Ephraim of Smolensk, the service to Abramius of Smolensk is known, written during the time of the Tatar yoke, in which, together with Abramius, prayer is extended to Ephraim 187; Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich and his mother Anna were commemorated in Novgorod in 1439, and Prince Rostislav Mstislavich was commemorated there more or less shortly after 1439. But if it was not a celebration, but a commemoration in the exact sense of the word, then it remains unknown to us when it turned from a commemoration into a celebration; It is positively known about Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius and Princess Euphrosyne that they established celebrations after Metropolitan. Macarius and, consequently, their names were included in the pre-Kariev monthly books in an arbitrary manner by manuscript scribes; When local celebrations were established for Archbishop Theodore of Rostov, Isidor Tverdislov and Nikolai Kochanov remains unknown. The celebration of Isidora is currently a church-wide celebration; the celebration for Nikolai Kochanov remains local to this day, and the celebration for Archbishop Theodore seems to no longer exist. Concluding our speech about the saints who were undoubtedly canonized by the Makarievsky councils, we must say, or, as we have already said, repeat that after the council of 1549 we had 61 of these saints, namely 22 canonized before the councils and 39 canonized at the councils. Act. Exp. Vol. I, No. 213, p. 203. Stoglav, ch. 4, Kazansk. ed. page 43. At Klyuchevsk. in Old Russian Lives, p. 461. At Klyuchevsk. ibid.. p. 238. approx. 1; we had Volokolamsk at hand. RKP. No. 632, in which the given place is l. 64. – That “the establishment of a celebration of a famous saint at the councils of 1547 and 1549 was not conditioned by the existence of the life of the canon, which could be sung and read in church on the day of his memory,” as V. O. Klyuchevsky claims, – ibid. p. 223 fin., and where we disagree with him, despite all our recognition of the merits of his wonderful book, this is evident: firstly, from the fact that at the council of 1547 some saints were canonized who still had no lives and canons, and vice versa, such saints who already had lives and canons were not canonized; secondly, from the fact that some saints who had lives and canons were not canonized for a general celebration, as would follow according to Klyuchevsky. – page 226, and to the local one. There is no information about the time of writing of the services for at least half or even more than half of the saints canonized at the council of 1547 for the general celebration (of which there are at least 11, and at most 14), and there is no doubt that most of the services unknown in time of their origin were written after the council of 1547. Before the council of 1547, there were lives and services of: Euphemia Archbishop of Novgorod, Stephen Bishop of Perm, the Venerables: Euphemia of Suzdal Savva of Vishera and Euphrosynus of Pskov, and however they were not canonized at the council of 1547, but were canonized already at the council of 1549: this must be understood in such a way that despite the existence of their lives and services to them, the metropolitan verified their right to canonization as miracle workers only through a search carried out after the council of 1547. Bishop Arseny of Tver was canonized at the council of 1547, confirming for a local, and not a general, celebration, despite the existence of his life and service. It is assumed that the life of Arseny and the service to him remain unknown to the metropolitan and the cathedral. it is impossible, because the Bishop of Tver was present at the council, and it is necessary to understand the matter in such a way that Arseny was recognized as not a sufficiently great or famous miracle worker in order to be canonized for the general celebration. However, at the end of his study, when summing up the general results, V. O. corrects himself and admits that “miracles were a necessary condition for the church glorification of the saint” - p. 423 fin. See the decree of the council, which we now quote below. On February 13, 1547, he married Anastasia Romanovna and on February 17 went on foot on a pilgrimage to the Trinity, from where he returned to Moscow on March 5, - Nikon. years. VII, 54. The first list, which is a copy of the decree sent to the Vologda and Belozersk tithes of the metropolitan diocese, is printed in Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 213, p. 203; the second list, which is a copy of the decree sent to the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, is in the Lavra manuscript Λ; 241, l. 1; the third list, which is a reworking of the decree into a historical note, was printed by Karamzin, IX vol. approx. 87 (Volokolamsk manuscript, from which Karamzin took, the former No. 137. The current one is 362, is currently in the library of our Academy). The last list is recognized as the most reliable on the basis, as it seems, that it sums up the general results (after listing the general church saints: “those 12”; after listing the local saints: “those 9”), But the results belong, in all likelihood, to the scribe who turned the decree into a note, and therefore do not at all speak for the greatest reliability of the list (read in a manuscript that cannot be recognized at all trustworthy regarding its serviceability). The first list is a decree sent to the Vologda and Belozersk tithes, printed in the Acts of the Expedition; the second list is a note printed by Karamzin; the third list is a decree to the Trinity Monastery. In the order in which they are counted in the lists of the decree, which have preserved the original appearance of this latter. In designating the day of remembrance, Metropolitan. Jonah's council made a mistake, because Jonah died not on the 30th, but on the 31st of March. In the Volokolamsk manuscript, Zosima and Savvatiy are separate from one another; the first – April 17, the second – September 27. The relics of St. Alexander of Svirsky were found in 1641 while digging ditches for the foundation of a new church, see the detailed “The Legend of the Finding and Translation of the Relics of St. Alexander”, attached to his life, published in Moscow in 1856, fol. 81 rev. (year of discovery in the description of the monastery, attached to the life, fol. 121 vol.), Nikitenko in his Notes and diary reports that while he was in the Svirsky monastery in 1834, he was shown the coffin into which the Monk Alexander was transferred immediately after his relics were opened. “This is a kind of trough,” says Nikitenko, hollowed out in a thick piece of wood, with a special a place for the head,” vol. I, p. 333 fin. (But this is hardly the coffin in which St. Alexander was buried and from which his relics were transferred to another coffin (coffin) after their relics were found). The relics of St. Savva of Storozhevsky was found on January 19, 1652, see Historical description of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery by S. Smirnov, M. 1846, p. 26 beginning. The relics of Maxim, the holy fool of Moscow, supposedly found incorrupt in 1547, were kept under wraps until 1698 (sic); uncovered or opened in the last year, they burned in the fire of 1737, so that at present they represent a certain number of bones, which are stored in a cypress ark about an arshin long, up to three quarters wide. See the book of St. Io. Kovalevsky: Foolishness about Christ and Christ for the sake of the holy fools of the Eastern and Russian Church, M. 1895, p. 207 sqq. We came across news that seemed to be local to Murom, that in 1552 Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich ordered Peter and Fevronia of Murom to be celebrated everywhere; but to what extent the news deserves little faith, cfr second addition on p. 261 (in July 1552, during the campaign against Kazan, the tsar was in Murom and here, among other things, he prayed at the tombs of Peter and Fevronia, as they say in the Nikon Chronicle, - VII, 130, in the Royal Book, - p. 237, but that at seven he ordered Peter and Fevronia to be celebrated everywhere, the chronicle and the book do not say this at all). In the appendices to the IV book of the Proceedings of the Vladimir Scientific Archival Commission, published in 1902, there is an article by Mr. Titov, reported by Mr. Dobrynin: “Historical review of the city of Murom”, from the unclear speeches in which the first and the notes to which of the second seem to imply that the relics of Peter and Fevronia are not hidden (as asserted, for example, by Semenov in Geographical-statistical dictionary under the river Moore and gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 438), and at the autopsy, for although it is not directly said that they are at the autopsy, it is said that they are transferred from one place to another - page 25. At the autopsy or under cover, the relics are in the Murom Annunciation Cathedral. See Klyuchevsky, page 212. According to some lists of his life, John died in the summer of 7002 (1494), according to others, in the summer of 7020 (1512), and if it is true that he died in the year. book Vasily Ivanovich (1505–1533) and Rostov Archbishop Vassian (1506–1515), then the error should be seen in the first lists. The relics of Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod, discovered in 1588, rest at the autopsy, - Rev. Macarius Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod, I, 71, et c. Tolstoy in the book: Shrines of Antiquity of Veliky Novgorod, pp. 24–25 (the latter retells the story of Nikita’s life about the discovery of his relics). Markell, former abbot of Khutynsky, see Collection. years. III, 158. For all the lives of Nikita, see Rev. Makaria in East. VII, 447 fin. sqq. There is news that seems to relate to our question, but one that itself remains incomprehensible. In the second questions of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich to the Stoglavy Cathedral, a proposal is made to the cathedral: “Yes, about the Pskov miracle worker Euphrosyne, and about the Smolensk miracle worker Abramie, lay at the cathedral, how they should celebrate,” in response to which proposal the cathedral decides: “To celebrate them, like other holy reverend fathers, sing at vespers Blessed is the man and other services according to the divine charter are all complete” (chapter 41, question and answer 5. Kazan edition 168). With his proposal, the king seems to make it clear that at the council of 1549 some special definition was made regarding Euphrosynus and Abramius against other saints, but, on the other hand, the council in its answer seems to make it clear that for some reason there was only a misunderstanding, and in any case it remains completely unclear to us what kind of special definition could be thought of here. One thing in the council’s response is clear, this is that all the miracle workers for whom celebration was established at the council of 1549 were established with a celebration with “Blessed is the man” or polyeleos. In 1563, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, listing the Novgorod miracle workers, names: Nikita, John, Euthymius and Jonah, but does not name Nifont - Act. East. vol. I, no. 168, p. 320, col. 1 fin. (probably because he lay not in Novgorod, but in Kiev, i.e., that for this reason he was less revered in comparison with the previous ones). The Life is published in Ancient Monuments. Russian literature Kushel.-Bezborodko, IV, 1; now indicated in it – page 8 fin. fin. Isidor Tverdislov, holy fool of Rostov. At the councils of 1547 and 1549 he was not canonized for general celebration; but in 1563, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible commemorates him among the general Russian saints (Act. Ist. vol. I, no. 168, p. 320, col. 1fin.). Consequently, he was canonized for the general celebration between 1549–1563 (it is very possible that at the same time as Peter, Tsarevich Ordynsky, above p. 110). See Philaret in Russian Saints under August 21st. Even in 1609, a resident of Smolensk called Ephraim one of their saints - Act. East. vol. II, no. 265, p. 317, col. 2. But at the present time it seems as if he is no longer celebrated in Smolensk. At least, in the Historical and Statistical Description of the Smolensk Diocese of an unknown author, nothing is said about the celebration. You might be interested in: