VI. Общее обозрение канонизации святых в Русской церкви

In view of the fact that many lack the correct concept of canonized or real saints, we consider it necessary to begin a general overview of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church by answering the question: which saints are canonized or real saints? 509 Some recognize as canonized or true saints only those saints for whom a common or church-wide celebration has been established. Others include local saints as general church saints, but not all, but only those whose canonization time is positively known. But not only the first, but also the second is completely unfounded. A canonized or real saint is any saint for whom a celebration has been established and celebrated, whether it be general or local, whether the time of establishment of the celebration is known or unknown to him (by unreal saints we mean saints for whom a celebration has not been established or who have not been canonized, but who are recognized as saints and revered as such by the people). A saint for whom a common celebration has been established is recognized by the church as a greater saint; a saint for whom a local celebration has been established is recognized by the church as a lesser saint, just as there are greater and lesser saints and among church-wide saints: but then the saint for whom a local celebration has been established is as much a real saint as the saint for whom a church-wide celebration has been established. This celebration is celebrated for local saints not in the entire church, but only in some or even very few places; but in some or a few places it is performed by him as a real saint. - is performed in exactly the same way as it is performed to the general church saints throughout the church. Church-wide saints are those who are recognized by the church as prayer books for people before God; but the same or exactly the same prayer books for people before God are also local saints, for the church turns to them, as to the first ones, with prayers, “that standing before the throne of the Lord God they may intercede for the salvation of our souls” 510. In general, and in a word, local saints are exactly the same saints as the general saints, and relate to the general saints in the same way as among the latter, the lesser saints relate to the greater saints 511. As for the unknown time when celebrations were established for some local saints, they hesitate to recognize such saints, as it seems, because with this uncertainty of the time when celebrations were established, there may be an assumption about their incorrectness, namely, about an unauthorized popular establishment, in addition to and without the knowledge of the subject ecclesiastical authority. But if this is so, then even allowing for the possibility of cases of unauthorized or incorrect establishment of celebrations, we must nevertheless recognize all existing local saints as real saints. Firstly, if, on the basis of this uncertainty of the time when the celebrations were established, local saints were not recognized as saints, then some of the general church saints would have to be not recognized as saints, for the time of establishment of the celebration is unknown to some of them 512. Secondly, even if we assume that some celebrations were incorrect from their initial establishment, being unauthorized, then they ceased to be incorrect after they, having ceased to be unauthorized, were recognized and accepted by the church. By allowing cases of unauthorized establishment of celebrations, which were later recognized by the church, we do not mean cases in which incorrect celebrations or celebrations that should have been established were established, but cases in which correct and deserving celebrations were established in the wrong way. But in order for celebrations that were incorrect not in their essence, but in their establishment, to turn into correct ones, for this, obviously, it was necessary that their incorrect establishment be replaced by a correct one. And this last thing happened when the church accepted and recognized them. In general, the question of whether the establishment of a celebration of a saint is doubtful or certain has exclusively and only historical significance; As for the dogmatic-legal or canonical meaning, then, as is obvious to everyone, the position here has its indisputable and undeniable force: every saint who is formally recognized as a saint by the church is a real saint, for every such saint is precisely a canonized saint. 513 The possibility cannot be denied that between the celebrations of local saints, the time of which is unknown, there are incorrect ones in their very essence, as we see examples of the discovery and termination of such celebrations in previous times. But until the church discovered such celebrations and stopped them with its power, they remain what they are, for no one’s private court can take place here and every private court must follow the court of the church here. So, to the question: which saints are canonized or real saints, the answer is that they are all those who are recognized as saints by the church (for recognized by the church and therefore canonized by it), not only general or generally celebrated, but also local, and among the latter, not only those for whom the time of establishment of celebrations is known, but also to whom it is completely unknown; in a word, all saints without exception, for whom there is a general or local celebration recognized by the church 514. But if there are people who do not recognize real saints as saints, then, on the other hand, there are people who recognize fake saints as saints. In various places in Russia there are known a considerable number of deceased people who enjoy the glory of saints among the people and to whom the people show more or less zealous veneration, visiting their graves and holding memorial services for them at their graves. Not only ordinary people, but many of the people who make up the highest class against them, some even of the deliberate hagiographers, equate these deceased with real saints or even mistake them for real saints. But this is completely unfounded and completely wrong or flawed. A real saint is only one who is formally called and proclaimed a saint by the church and not one who only enjoys the glory of a saint among the people. The latter someday, perhaps, will become a saint if he is recognized as such by the church; and while this latter is not there, he is in no way a saint, but only a revered deceased. People who believe in these departed ones, as worthy prayer books before God, can turn to them with their private and secret prayer (cfr about this below): but as for their public veneration, such veneration should not be a prayer to them by performing services for them and singing molebens, but a prayer for them, by singing dirges for them (and if it happens that these unrecognized by the church or unreal saints prayers are sung instead of funeral services, then this happens due to abuse, which is subject to appropriate punishment and, of course, termination) 515. Let us begin to review the rules that guided our church in the matter of canonization of saints, and the orders that it observed in this case, as well as folk customs regarding the veneration of saints. 1. The only common basis for considering deceased ascetics of piety as saints, otherwise for their canonization, was in our church the glorification of ascetics with the gift of miracles, either during their lifetime, examples of which are known, or, as was most often the case, after death, with the majority of miracles being performed at their tombs and from their relics. Our first saints were the passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. But the passion-bearers who suffered violent death at the hands of Svyatopolk were not two, but three - along with Boris and Gleb, the third brother Svyatoslav was killed last. If not all three, who suffered exactly the same violent death, were canonized, then the reason for this was that God glorified not all three, but only the first two with the gift of miracles. At the graves of Boris and Gleb, buried in Vyshgorod, miracles soon began to occur; but Svyatoslav’s grave, where miracles could have been performed, was absent, for, killed during the flight to Hungary somewhere in the Carpathian mountains, he was not brought to Russia, but was buried at the site of the murder, and so, although he was exactly the same passion-bearer as Boris and Gleb, but was not revealed like a wonderworker from God, he was not canonized with them. Then, in the very history of the canonization of Boris and Gleb, which we have conveyed in detail above, it is made absolutely clear that they were canonized not as passion-bearers, but as miracle workers, although it must, of course, be understood that they became miracle workers because they were passion-bearers. Before Boris and Gleb should have become our holy baptizers of Rus'. book Vladimir. But regarding the fact that he did not become our first saint, we are given a completely clear statement that the basis for our canonization was the glorification of the gift of miracles. We are clearly told that he led. book Vladimir was not canonized for quite a long time because the Lord did not want to glorify him as a miracle worker (above). Our third saint after Boris and Gleb was Pred. Theodosius of Pechersk. But he was our great ascetic and the father of true monasticism among us, together with Rev. Anthony, before whom he was inferior, like a student before a teacher. If he (Theodosius) was canonized and before him or together with him, Anthony was not canonized, who was awarded this veneration no less than half a century after him: then the only way to explain this is the assumption that the Lord wanted to glorify him (Theodosius) with the gift of miracles and did not want to glorify Anthony with the same gift at the same time. In Rostov in 1164, for the same reason, digging ditches for the foundation of a new church, the relics of bishops Leonty and Isaiah were found, and while the first of them was canonized in 1190, the second received this honor only after a long time. The only explanation for the fact that in 1190 both bishops were not canonized, but only the first, may be the assumption that by 1190 only the first of them became famous for the gift of miracles. Now the four examples we have given, relating to the pre-Mongol period, clearly prove that during this period the only common basis for considering deceased ascetics of piety as saints was our glorification of ascetics with the gift of miracles. But to assume that a deviation was subsequently made from the rule that was accepted among us at first and which was observed among us for quite a long time at first, would be incredible in itself, for a deviation would mean a weakening of the strictness in recognizing deceased ascetics of piety as saints, and the weakening of this strictness would be an inexplicable matter. That there was no retreat at all - that in all subsequent times the only common basis for canonization remained the same glorification with the gift of miracles as in the pre-Mongol period, this is confirmed to us by positive evidence, which we have in the same way for the subsequent time as for the pre-Mongol period. We said above that in the Greek Church the veneration of saints by saints or hierarchs was initially, until the 11th century, performed on a different, so to speak lighter, basis, in addition to the gift of miracles, and that then, from the 11th century, it began to be performed on the same basis as other saints, glorification by the gift of miracles (p. 17). But if the later Greek Church was inclined to reduce the foundations, then it would be incredible to assume that our Russian Church, contrary to it, had an inclination to expand them (the foundations). The news about the Macarius Councils of 1547 and 1549 positively testify to you that the Russian Church did not have such an inclination and that in the middle of the 16th century, as in the pre-Mongol period, the only common basis for your canonization was the glorification of the deceased with the gift of miracles. Above we talk deliberately about this and, in order not to repeat ourselves, we refer the reader there. From the end of the 5th century we find clear evidence that the glorification of the gift of miracles was recognized by us as the only basis for canonization, in the canonization of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk. In 1589, Rev. For Joseph, a local celebration was confirmed by the cathedral, and at the same time a reservation was said or made: “And forward, the Lord God and the Most Pure Mother of God will glorify the saint of his great miracle worker Joseph with miracles, and then sing and celebrate (him) in all holy places and in cathedral churches.” As we said above, the cathedral’s clause should not be understood in the sense that until 1589, at the tomb of St. Joseph did not perform miracles at all, but in the sense that until then he had not glorified himself with miracles enough to be canonized as general or church saints. Rev. Joseph was a man who had great merits to our church, as a most zealous fighter against the heresy of the Judaizers, who wrote such a famous creation in defense of the church from heretics as his Enlightenment, and if, with all his merit to the church, they did not find it possible to canonize him among the general church saints, due to the insufficiency of miracles at his grave: then it is clear that miracles were considered the only basis for being considered a saint. the face of the saints. That during the 15th century there was no change regarding the grounds for canonization and, as always before, the only basis for this was the glorification of miracles, we have clear evidence of this from the end of the century, namely from the year 1690. In 1690, the Solovetsky monks turned to Bishop Athanasius of Kholmogory with a request to establish a local celebration in their monastery, one of the founders of the latter, Venerable. Herman. The bishop fulfilled the request of the monks and in the charter for the celebration of Herman, among other things, writes that festivities in honor of saints can be held only under the condition of reliable testimony about miracles (see above). But if under the condition of reliable evidence of miracles, then it is clear that it is not otherwise than under the condition of the presence of the latter 516. So, the only common basis for reading the deceased ascetics of piety as saints was in our church from its very beginning and until later times the glorification of ascetics with the gift of miracles 517 . But few cases and exceptions should be accepted. The Baptist of Rus' led. book Vladimir was canonized after his coffin, at which miracles could have happened, was buried under the ruins of the Church of the Tithes during the Mongol invasion, and was canonized not in Kyiv, but in Novgorod. And therefore, in all likelihood, one must think that he was canonized not as a miracle worker, but precisely as the baptist of Rus', having the right to the title of equal to the apostles (see above). In the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, local celebrations were established for quite a few Novgorod bishops-archbishops (above), about the working of miracles from whose relics there is no news, and one can think that the establishment of celebrations for them is an analogy with the initial establishment in the Greek Church of celebrations for saints as saints (even if they were not miracle workers), which we pointed out two and a half pages ago and which we are talking about above. The Greek Church canonized martyrs differently than ascetics, and still canonizes martyrs, namely, it recognized and recognizes them as saints eo ipso or for the martyrdom itself, without requiring them to be blessed with the gift of miracles (above). As for our Russian Church, we know one example from which it follows that the few martyrs who were among us, along with all other saints, were canonized only under the condition of glorification with the gift of miracles. In Kazan there were three martyrs who suffered death for the faith of Christ: John, a Russian from Nizhny Novgorod, who was captured by the Tatars and tortured by them in 1529, and Stefan and Peter, baptized Tatars, tortured by their Mohammedan relatives in 1552. In 1592, Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes (the subsequent patriarch) made a presentation about them to the patriarchs. Job, but did not seek for them that they should be canonized as saints, but only that honor should be given to them in a worthy manner as revered dead, as discussed below. That is the matter is obvious, it should be understood in such a way that the martyrs were not glorified by the gift of miracles, and that therefore, despite the fact that they were martyrs in the strict and precise sense of the word, the Metropolitan did not seek for them to be considered saints. 518 Regarding the present Synodal period, we have positive information about the canonizations of saints for the general celebration and do not have positive information about the canonizations of saints for local celebrations. For the general celebration and in the present Synodal period, as always before, saints are canonized only under the condition of glorification from God with the gift of miracles. Without having a single decree of St. Synod, which would set out the grounds for canonization for local celebration, we cannot say anything positive about these recognized and accepted saints. The Synod grounds for canonization for local celebration. In the realm of probable, we assume that in relation to the canonization of local saints, as well as general ones, St. The Synod does not deviate from the ever-present practice of our church, which was to canonize for local celebrations only under the condition of glorifying the ascetic with the gift of miracles. 519 When we say that the only general basis for counting the deceased ascetics of piety among the saints was in our church the glorification of the ascetics with the gift of miracles: then we mean that, in addition to this condition or otherwise, if not under this condition, the deceased ascetics of piety were not canonized in our church as saints. But, on the other hand, in addition to or beyond this condition, no second condition was required for the relics of the ascetics to be found incorrupt. The relics were opened for the purpose of being the subject of honor as a shrine; open they were honored as a shrine. But they did not constitute a necessary condition for the ascetic to be canonized: in the case of the presence of miracles, the ascetic could be canonized even without their (relics) being present; on the contrary, with their presence, but without the presence of miracles, the ascetic could not at all be canonized. That the incorruption of relics was not a necessary condition for canonization or was not required as a necessary condition for it, this is clearly shown by the actual history of the canonization of our saints: some of our saints were canonized before the discovery of their relics; some of our saints were canonized some time or another, and even a very significant one, after the discovery of their relics; the relics of quite a few of our canonized saints have never been discovered 520. And the most decisive and most convincing evidence that the presence of the relics of saints was not recognized as a necessary condition for canonization is presented to us by the history of the Macarius Councils of 1547 and 1549: at these councils, during the canonization of very many saints, no speeches were raised at all about their relics, whether the latter had been discovered or not, and the only talk was about whether the saints were miracle workers. All five saints canonized during the present Synodal period for the general celebration were canonized at the same time as their relics were discovered. However, the general rule is that in order to be considered a common saint, incorruption of relics is required; in none of the five cases of canonization of St. The Synod did not express, and thus from the five cases, apparently, the conclusion does not follow that regarding the canonization of saints for the general celebration of St. The Synod made a new demand. As for canonization for the local celebration, of the 14 saints canonized for this celebration in the present Synodal period, the relics of 12 saints are kept under wraps and only the relics of two are being opened (Job of Pochaevsky and Theodosius of Totemsky). 2. The history of the canonization of a significant part of the ascetics of piety, who were canonized as saints, began from the bottom of their death: the ascetic during his life acquired great fame among people, and as a result, immediately after his burial, the veneration of his memory began, expressed in a certain certain way. The veneration of other ascetics of piety, which preceded their actual canonization, began some time or another after their death according to some supernatural signs and indications. Finally, other ascetics of piety were canonized without this previous veneration: the ascetic died and his memory fell into oblivion among people; but then, one time or another after his death, God unexpectedly glorified him with the gift of miracles, and he was canonized. The veneration of the deceased ascetics of piety consisted, on the one hand, in the fact that prayers were offered for them at their graves, and on the other hand, in the fact that some monuments, so to speak, were erected in honor of them, so to speak, over their graves, along with which some material or visible honoring of them (the ascetics) was also connected. The offering of prayers consisted of the fact that Christians who were zealous for the memory of the ascetics came and sang dirges about them at their graves and that on the days of their repose funeral liturgies were performed for them and that their names were inscribed in synodics or memorials for constant commemoration at litias and masses. The author of the legend about the discovery and discovery of the relics of St. Mitrofan, which we briefly conveyed above, says: “The memory of the Christian and pastoral virtues of St. Mitrofan was honored in Voronezh from the time of his death: zealous people came to his burial place and asked to perform memorial services for him.” This was how it was in ancient times in relation to those ascetics whose memory began to be honored from the very time of their burial. As for the singing of funeral liturgies on the days of death and the constant commemoration at litias and masses: sometimes this was a voluntary matter, depending on private zeal, sometimes it was directly prescribed and laid down. Above we talked about the order of Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod to sing the funeral annual liturgy for Jacob Borovitsky (p. 88) and about the order of the Trinity Abbot Arseny to sing the same funeral liturgy for Stefan Makhrishchkom (p. 113). Here is the third order known to us about this, which also speaks of the constant commemoration of the departed at litias and masses. In 1592, Kazan Metropolitan Hermogenes (the subsequent patriarch) represented Patr. Job that the Kazan martyrs John, Stephen and Peter, whom we mentioned above, “in the great Synodik, which is read on the week of Orthodoxy, have not been written to this day and their eternal memory is not sung and the Synodics of the Foundry and the Everyday (Proskomedia) have not been written” and asked for a decree from the Patriarch. On the basis of the decree received from the patriarch, which we do not have in our hands and in which, as one should think, nothing was said about the big synodik, “the martyr John, Stephen and Peter was commemorated (by the metropolitan) Genvara on the 24th day, in memory of Saint Xenia, without translation, with the cathedral, serve the metropolitan requiem and mass himself, as well as in all the churches of the saints both for monasteries and for secular ones, write them (in synodics) and commemorate and commemorate (sic) at litias and masses” 521. In explaining the zeal that prompted people to make funeral prayers for the ascetics, the author of the Tale of the Finding and Opening of the Relics of St. Mitrofan, mentioned above, says in the appendix to this last one that zeal can only be explained “as the confidence arising from experience that to the one who prays on earth for St. Mitrofan, this saint in heaven answers with his prayer for him and thus the heavenly the prayer book benefits the earthly prayer book.” The arrangement of some monuments over the tombs of ascetics, combined with their material honoring, consisted of the following. If the ascetic was buried in the church, that is, under the church (under its floor), then on the floor of the church, above the grave site, there was a tomb or tombstone, which had the appearance of a shrine with relics, an imitation of which it was or the appearance of a coffin, a monument 522, and if the ascetic was buried outside the church, in an open cemetery or graveyard, then a small building was placed over the grave - a tent or chapel 523, and in the tent on the grave there was the same tombstone as above. Then, in both cases, the tombstone was covered with a veil and a candle was placed in front of it. (The construction of tombs or tombs is spoken of in the orders of Archbishop Theodosius and Abbot Arseny, which we have now indicated, and also in the order of Patriarch Philaret on the transfer of the body of St. Adrian of Poshekhonsky from the empty place in which he was buried to his monastery 524. Sometimes, instead of coverings, full-length images of ascetics were placed on tombstones, just as their images are written on the upper boards of real or canonized saints. In both cases, it was not uncommon to place in front of the tombstones, or in general in the churches and tents in which they were located, half-length images of ascetics or their icons in the sense of portraits (the images were precisely portraits or, in the absence of similarities, in any case had the meaning of the latter, for real icons are only images of canonized saints, but they were called icons because this word, following the Greeks, served to designate both real icons and portraits, what is its proper or true meaning). This honoring of ascetics through monuments or visible signs was an exact reproduction of the same honoring of princes, kings and generally noble people, which consisted precisely in the fact that tombstones were placed over their graves and on their graves, covered with covers or full-length images of them, that candles were placed in front of the tombstones or on their tombstones, and that in churches or in tents in which they were located tombstones, their waist icons were hung in the sense of portraits 525. But if our way of honoring princes, kings and noble people had a more secular character, so to speak (except for the fact that the candle on the coffin or in front of the coffin constituted an offering to God for the soul of the deceased, cfr in Nikon's Helmsman, chapter 59, § 5, l. 600): then honoring the ascetics of piety in the same way had a completely different, purely and deliberately religious, character: the tombstones above the graves and on the graves of the ascetics were close to the crayfish containing the relics of saints; the images of ascetics placed on tombstones were taken for sacred images, and half-length images of ascetics or their icons in the sense of portraits were not only close to real icons of actual saints, but were almost, and sometimes completely, identified with them. Such an identification, on the one hand, could easily take place due to the fact that in their appearance the icons-portraits were no different from real icons, and on the other hand, it should have been facilitated by the fact that in the old days we did not have a special name for portraits, but that, following the Greeks, we called real icons and portraits by the same name: two different objects that bore the same name could easily be mistaken for the same object in essence 526. To what extent was the custom of covering tombstones over the graves and on the graves of the deceased with full-length images of them and placing their icon-portraits in churches and in tomb tents - it is understood that those who did not always deserve this name regarding the similarity with the originals, we cannot say positively; but it seems likely to think that it was very widespread: images and icons constituted a manifestation of the highest veneration for the dead, and in most cases, of course, it was the case that people sought to demonstrate this highest veneration for their dead. If at present we do not know many examples of the existence of images and icons, then we can assume that a significant number of them were hidden and destroyed in the past century as a result of the persecution that arose from time to time against both of them 527. As for the present time, we do not know of examples of icons and portraits of the revered dead being placed in churches and tomb-tents, and we believe that this is considered not permitted. But covering tombstones over the graves or on the graves of the revered dead with full-length images of them is now very common, or at least not at all unusual. The legal and correct way to prayerfully honor the revered dead, as we said above, was to serve memorial services and funeral liturgies for them. It goes without saying that this was the case. However, an abuse was also allowed, which consisted in the fact that instead of funeral services for the deceased, prayers were sung to them, as if they were real saints. And taking into account the darkness of previous times, one can think that abuse was allowed and not particularly rare 529. There were a few who were exceptions, ascetics whose canonization was preceded by neither a period of veneration nor a period of oblivion, and who were canonized almost immediately or within a very short time after the death of each of them. Divided into two classes, these were either ascetics who became famous as miracle workers during their lifetime and who were canonized immediately or shortly after their death precisely as such living or, so to speak, lifetime miracle workers (Theodosius of Pechersk, Sergius of Radonezh, Cyril of Belozersky); or the ascetics who were glorified by God by many miracles immediately or in a very short time after their death and whose canonization was therefore accomplished exceptionally quickly (princes Boris and Gleb, Metropolitan Peter and some others after the third of them). 3. Miracles were gradually performed at the tomb of the ascetic, beginning more or less soon after his death, or they suddenly began to occur a long time after his death: but a significant number of miracles accumulated, or at least a certain number of them appeared; about the miracles, which were diligently recorded, were reported to the subject church authorities with or without the addition of a direct petition for the canonization of the ascetic; The church authorities were convinced of the truth of the news about miracles, for which they carried out a “testimony” of them, i.e., an inquiry about them, and when they were convinced of the truthfulness and simplicity of the miracles, they canonized the ascetic or performed his canonization, setting a day for celebrating his memory. Thus, the complete process of canonization consisted of: recording miracles; reporting about them to the church authorities with or without joining a direct petition for canonization; inquiry by the church authorities about the truth of miracles, and, finally, the very canonization of the ascetic or his very canonization, with the appointment of a day for the celebration of his memory. a) The monasteries, whose founders and abbots included the majority of the ascetics who were honored as saints, were in two ways interested in having their ascetics, glorified by God with the gift of miracles, be canonized: firstly, through this canonization they (the ascetics) were awarded the glory that was due them and the care of which was the duty of the monasteries; secondly, awarded with the glory that was due to them, it was through this glory that they greatly contributed to the material well-being of the monasteries, calling pilgrims to them and attracting the generosity of benefactors to them. In addition to the monasteries, the church authorities were also interested in recording miracles performed at the tombs of ascetics, which was necessary for their canonization, since increasing the number of saints served to increase the glory of the church, on behalf of which, as one should think, it was charged to those responsible for the deliberate care of recording the miracles performed at the tombs of ascetics. For all these reasons, monasteries usually kept careful records of the miracles performed at the tombs of their ascetics. Depending on the skill of the note-takers, these records were sometimes very detailed, detailing stories of miraculous healings, and sometimes very incomplete, saying only briefly that such and such a person received a miraculous healing from such and such an illness. And since the art of recording, together with all literary art, has not flourished at all among us, there are far more bad records than good ones. But it is clear that the literary merit of the records did not matter in relation to their reliability 530 . b) The abbots of the monasteries reported to the subject ecclesiastical authorities about the miracles performed at the tombs of the ascetics who rested within the walls of the monasteries, on the one hand, being prompted to this by one or the other of their interests now indicated above, or both together, and on the other hand, because this, as one should think, constituted their duty (according to the above and similar to how it constitutes their duty at the present time). If some monastery abbots added to reports of miracles performed at the tombs of ascetics, direct requests to canonize the ascetics: then, of course, one must think that they were especially strongly motivated to seek the glorification of the ascetics by one or another of the interests we have indicated. However, a reservation must be made. In all likelihood, not only those few abbots of monasteries about whom we know this positively, but also many others, made requests to the subject church authorities to canonize the ascetics. It is even very likely to assume that direct requests for the canonization of ascetics constituted a generally accepted custom and a generally established rule. We do not know how the abbots of the monasteries were obliged to inform the subject church authorities about the miracles that took place at the tombs of ascetics - whether about each miracle separately or about such a number of them at once, which in their opinion gave the right to petition for the ascetic to be canonized. If about each miracle separately, then the request for the canonization of the ascetic, of course, could not accompany the report of the very first miracle that took place at his tomb, and in this case it would be necessary to present the matter in such a way that practice had established some rule regarding the number of miracles after which it was permissible to initiate a petition for the canonization of the ascetic 531. The proper ecclesiastical authority for the abbots of the monasteries, to which they were supposed to report the miracles performed at the tombs of the ascetics, was their diocesan bishops. But only a representative of the highest authority of the church, which was the metropolitan - the patriarch, had the right to canonize general or all-church saints, and in the news about these general or all-church canonizations, it seems to us that the abbots of monasteries turn with their requests for the canonization of ascetics directly to this representative of the highest church authority. However, it should be understood not that they turned to the representative of the highest authority (the metropolitan - the patriarch), bypassing their bishops or in addition to the latter, but in such a way that they asked the bishops for permission to do this, and that only in the news we are deliberately not told about this, as a circumstance that should be assumed by itself. We said above that in recording the miracles 532 performed at the tombs of ascetics, on the one hand, the monasteries, within whose walls the tombs of ascetics were located, were interested, and on the other hand, the church authorities, as guardians of the glory of the church. We know a time when this highest interest of the church forced our church authorities to deliberately and diligently seek out ascetics of piety who would be worthy of being considered saints. This is Makarievsky time. c) The church authorities, having information about such a number of miracles of any ascetic, which gave him the right to be numbered (made his canonization obligatory) as a saint, carried out a “testimony” of miracles or made an inquiry about their reliability. 533 This was done in such a way that investigators were sent to the monastery in which the relics of the ascetic were located, or to the city, to the village, if there was a rare case of finding relics in the parish or at the parish church, sometimes representing an entire commission consisting of four or three people (above), sometimes limited to two and one, and that the investigators carried out the inquiry at the very place where miracles were performed. By miracles we mean miraculous healings at the graves of ascetics from various diseases, and the inquiry consisted of investigators questioning the healed themselves, their spiritual fathers and all their acquaintances, in the latter case, if not always, then sometimes carrying out a so-called general search. Patriarch Filaret Nikitich informed Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich that the investigators sent to inquire about the miracles of St. Macarius of Unzhensk (“for the testimony of Macarius, the miracle worker of Unzhensk”), “they asked all the healed people and witnesses about them, and during their healing, their relatives and their spiritual fathers and other people who know those healed people and know about their healing, put before them” 534. At the council of 1547, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich with Metropolitan. Macarius instructed the bishops “in all the areas entrusted to them, in cities and monasteries and in deserts and in villages, it is known to torture and search for the great new miracle workers, sacred cathedrals and abbots and sacred monks and monks and hermits and princes and boyars and God-fearing people” 535. In 1624, by decree of Patr. Philaret, Metropolitan Macarius of Novgorod, entrusted one of his boyar sons, together with one abbot, to carry out an inquiry into the miracles of St. John and Loggin of Yarengsky “to find the roundabout monasteries and the sovereign’s black and monastic volosts and all sorts of people with all sorts of investigations” (above) 536. In 1629, Metropolitan Cyprian of Novgorod sent an inquiry into the miracles of St. Artemy Verkolsky “by the roundabout abbots and priests and deacons” (above p. 128). In 1625–1628, Abbot Philip of Kirill, who, on behalf of Metropolitan Varlaam of Rostov, carried out an inquiry into the miracles of St. Kirill Novozersky, interrogated all citizens of Belozersky and Belozersky district authorities and the archpriest, i.e. Belozersky, and priests and many people of all ranks (above). And in itself it is necessary to assume and is positively evidenced to us that canonization took place only after reliable inquiry about the miracles of the ascetics 537 . But still, in relation to the rigor of inquiry about miracles, the history of the canonization of our saints seems to need to be divided into unequal halves, namely, the first half from the beginning of Christianity to the council of 1667 and the second half from the council of 1667 to the present. Between the instructions of the council of 1667 we read: “Do not dare to venerate the incorruptible bodies that are found in the present time, except for reliable testimony and the conciliar command, as saints: many bodies are found intact and incorruptible not from holiness, but as if they were excommunicated and under the oath of the bishop and priest having died, or for the crime of divine and sacred rules and laws, goals are insoluble; and whomever you want to venerate as saints, about such found bodies is worthy of testing (testing) in every possible way and bearing reliable testimony before the great and perfect council of bishops” 538. In this instruction, the council of 1667 obviously wants to say in relation to the previous time that its severity was not such that it did not leave anything great to be desired. Let us assume that in its verdict on the preceding time, the council of 1667 allows itself some excessive, so to speak, pickiness; however, it can hardly be argued that his sentence was completely unfounded. And thus, having, on the one hand, the verdict of the council of 1667 about the time preceding it and knowing, on the other hand, that the time following the council in relation to the rigor of inquiry about miracles does not leave us wanting anything more, we must, as said above, divide the history of the canonization of our saints in relation to the rigor of inquiry about miracles into two, if not much, then at least a little, differing from one half to the other - the first from the beginning of Christianity in Russia before the cathedral, 1667 and the second from the cathedral of 1667 to the present. d) What the rite itself consisted of, how the very celebration of sainthood or canonization was carried out, we have no positive information regarding this at all, because not a single private canonization is mentioned at all by what rite it was performed. In all likelihood, one should think that the very representative of the church authority who performed sainthood or canonization - whether it was the diocesan bishop or the metropolitan patriarch - did not perform a rite or celebration similar to that performed by the Pope of Rome, and that the whole matter on his part was limited to a definition and decree (as is the case at the present time), and that the celebration was performed only at the location of the coffin with the bodily remains of the canonized saint Regarding this last celebration, one should think, as nothing else can be thought, that it consisted of a possibly brightly furnished festive service to the new saint, and, according to the instructions of the orders of the church authorities known to us and closely related to this, 539 should be supposed to be a deliberate convening of the entire surrounding clergy with the entire surrounding population and more or less generous alms to the poor (of which in the old days we had even more, than now, and who flocked to such celebrations, no doubt, in huge numbers), and partly on the basis of the same orders, partly by itself, it is likely to think that the diocesan bishop himself came to celebrate the celebration or sent his special representatives. e) The day for the annual celebration of the saint was usually assigned to the day of his death, if it was known; if not, then the day of the discovery of the relics (if one took place), birthday, day of the angel. Some saints were celebrated not once a year, but several times - on the day of their death, on the day of the discovery of their relics, on the day of the transfer of their relics (if this happened), on their birthday, on the day of the angel. Take the example of the monks of the Volokolamsk monastery, who in 1589, at their cathedral, arranged for the monastery to celebrate in their monastery. Joseph three times a year (and two times out of three, different from other saints - on the days of special events in the life of Joseph, see above) shows that the right to assign other celebrations to the saint, in addition to those appointed by the church authorities during his canonization, was granted to the monastic brotherhoods. There are several examples of the fact that the celebration of a saint, instead of once, was established two or three times. In some cases, this means that the celebration was established, fell into oblivion, or ceased and was established again (the celebration of Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod, above); in other cases it means that after a local celebration had been established, a general celebration was then established (many saints of the councils of 1547 and 1549, pp. 101 sqq and 104 sqq); in third cases, this means that the local celebration of the saints, established by the diocesan bishops, was confirmed by the head of the Russian Church - the Metropolitan (some saints of the same cathedrals, see the same pages); finally, in some cases this seems to mean that unsuccessful attempts were made to convert local saints into common ones (we said above that this is how the second canonization of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk should be understood, and probably the secondary canonization of Avramius of Chukhlomsky should also be understood). A necessary condition for an ascetic to be canonized as a saint was glorification through the gift of miracles. But, on the contrary, one should not present the matter in such a way that all the ascetics, glorified by the gift of miracles, were canonized as saints: they indicate a fairly significant number of such ascetics who are not canonized as saints, some of whom, perhaps, are still waiting for their hour, and some of whom, perhaps, are not destined for this hour (as, according to the unknown fate of God, the relics of some saints are glorified by incorruption, while others are not glorified) 4. The recognition of any ascetic of piety as a saint required that a service be compiled for him and that his life be written. The service was needed so that the celebration of the saint could take place; and as for the life, it was needed as a justifying document regarding the fact that the canonized saint was a true saint. Devotees of piety were canonized as saints because miracles were performed at their graves. But miracles, as Nikon Montenegrin teaches 540, are twofold: true, which God performs through his saints, and false, which, to deceive people, the devil produces through his tools. True saints are known from their lives, by their deeds: therefore, for such and such knowledge of them and for such and such assurances about them, their lives are necessary. In addition, the lives of the saints, in the form of abbreviated or prologue tales about them, were necessary for reading at their services 541. Very often, if not most of the time, it happened that the life of a saint and his service were ready for his canonization. We said above that the canonization of some saints was preceded by a period of “veneration” that began from the day of death. The question of the canonization of these saints was almost a foregone conclusion and consisted only in this: soon or not soon it (canonization) will take place. The lives and services of, if not all of these saints, then a significant majority of them, were prepared before their canonization, for it was much more convenient to perform the latter with the prepared lives and services than without them. The church authorities, which were to canonize the ascetic, in any case needed to have biographical information about this latter, so that in the absence of his life, this information had to be presented orally; but, of course, much preferable to oral information, which in any case could not reach the people, was a deliberately compiled biographical note, which was a life. Equally, it was much better for the saint to begin celebrating his own service immediately after his canonization, rather than for this celebration to be carried out for a more or less long time, before the preparation of his own service, according to a general celebration 542. It goes without saying that services to saints, compiled before their canonization, could not have public use, for it is impossible to perform public services to a saint who has not yet been recognized as a saint. But their private use was allowed: people who had faith in the non-canonized ascetics, as worthy prayer books before God, could make prayers for them at home or in their cells (cfr above p. 179, which says the note written on behalf of the Holy Synod on the canonization of St. Mitrofan regarding the calling of his intercession in prayers to God before his canonization, according to private zeal). We know of one example of official recognition by church authorities of such domestic use of services written to non-canonized ascetics. Monk Joseph of the Volokolamsk monastery Fatey or Photius, a student of the modern arena. Joseph, the ascetic of the monastery Cassian the Bosom, wrote a service to Joseph and presented it to Metropolitan Macarius: “the great lamp, the ecumenical teacher, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Macarius,” reads the news in the inscription of the service, “looked up to this service and blessed Elder Fatey in his cell to pray for it until the celebration of the conciliar presentation.” In the description of the death of the Tver Bishop Akakiy, who was one of the tonsures of the Volokolamsk monastery, which followed in January 1567, we read about the same thing: “The Lord began to thank Elder Fatey, a disciple of the great Elder Cassian of Kosovo, who was moved to such a great deed, compose the eve and all the service to the Venerable Abbot Joseph; and even then, the Bishop is happy that having composed Fatei, he famously committed Macarius to the Metropolitan of All Russia and received a blessing from the Metropolitan, who prayed for it in his cell until the celebration of the conciliar exposition; and then again the bishop began to say the troparion to the venerable abbot Joseph (i.e. compiled by Fatey): Like the faster is the fertilizer and the father the beauty..., and again the Lord began to say to the Monk Joseph the kontakion: Lives of worldly troubles and rebellion" 543... If the life of the ascetic and his service were prepared before canonization, then when the case for this latter was initiated, they were presented to the church authorities, which examined them,, if necessary, corrected and approved them. It is reported about the council of 1549 that the canons of new miracle workers and their lives were laid down or presented to them, which they testified to! were “all sacred councils,” that is, all those present at the council 544. Patr. Job with the council, on the occasion of the canonization of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, the troparion and kontakion and stichera and canon and the entire service to Joseph were presented in 1591, and the patriarch, together with the council, testified to them and with his blessing they were corrected 545. To the same Patriarch Job with the council, on the occasion of the canonization of St. Cornelius of Komel, the stichera, canon and life of Cornelius were presented in 1600, and the patriarch listened to the stichera, canon and life together and found that they were “written in the image and likeness of other saints 546. Patr. Joachim with the cathedral, on the occasion of the canonization of St. Nikander of Pskov, the life of Nikander and the service to him were presented in 1686, which were read at the council by his order and received approval from him 547. We don’t know how thorough the conciliar testimonies of the lives and canons were - more likely, they were not particularly thorough: but the lives and canons that have survived to this day make it clear that the most modest requirements were placed on them: more or less, the lives and canons were written “in the image and likeness” - and it was considered sufficient 548. (We cited above the notes about the services of St. Alexander Oshevensky) and Anthony of Siysky, read in the charter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral: “But if you don’t sing according to the general menaion, for the reason that the syllable (of your own service) is bad for good..., and the syllable is bad, it is better to sing according to the general menaion.” Of the new church historians, Rev. Filaret says about the services to Russian saints that many of them are poor and... thoughts and feelings, - History of the Russian Church, third period, § 38, approx. 2 fin., and Rev. Macarius speaks of them: “all in general (they) are of very low dignity, and some are extremely poor both in content and in external processing: it is clear that our church hymnals were only literate people, without any scientific education, and sometimes not quite literate” - Ist. R. C. VIII, 61. For a very bad review of Archbishop Philaret, in particular about the service of the Yaroslavl princes Vasily and Constantine, see Russian Saints under the 3rd of July. And about the services, so to speak, extravagant, in which the saints who died peacefully are glorified as martyrs, and in which the Russian desert ascetics are taught such church and social acts that they never even dreamed of, thanks to the fact that these services represent the first services transferred to the Russian saints that came across or, due to some absurd whim, taken to the Greek saints, see in Descriptions of manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra Library No. 541 and Klyuchevsky in Lives p. 433. In one of the manuscripts gr. Uvarova, former Tsarskogo, a very awkward troparion and kontakion are read to the reverend himself. Sergius of Radonezh, - from Stroev No. 396, from Archimandrite. Leonida No. 1819, l. 289 and vol. As for the lives of the saints, not to mention the very low literary merit of most of them, not to mention the fact that some of them are copied in an amusing and unamusing manner 549 , in the very content of some of them there is something that forced Metropolitan. Philaret to say that “there are legends about the lives of saints that came from wrong lips,” see volume IV of the Collection of his opinions and reviews No. 447, p. 139, and what makes Archbishop Philaret say that “to repeat all the stories (read in the Lives; indiscriminately, without verification, is a sin before the conscience and a shame before the enlightened mind,” - preface to the Russian saints 550: in a word, there is something in relation to which the prescription of the Regulations: “to look at the stories of the saints, whether they are certain, is false fictitious stories that say what did not happen or are contrary to Christian Orthodox teaching or idle and worthy of laughter stories, and such stories should be denounced and prohibited with the announcement of the lies found in them” should be recognized as a prescription that has significant applicability). 5. Saints are divided into two classes - general and local. The first are those saints who are celebrated throughout the Russian Church; the latter are those saints who are celebrated either only in one province (after the previous celebration in one region) or even in one monastery, one church. We took the division of saints into local and general from the example of the Greeks, who in ancient times, as we said above (page 19 sqq), the largest part of the saints were local saints, who had a lot of local saints even at the time we adopted Christianity, and among whom this division of saints into general and local remains to this day. In the first three centuries of Christianity, in Rus', before the establishment of the Grand Duke's throne in Moscow and before the transfer of the metropolitan see to the same Moscow, only three saints were canonized in our country for general celebration throughout the whole earth, namely, our first three saints: princes Boris and Gleb and Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk, - the last one for the general celebration, as if not quite complete (above), all the rest of your saints of these first three centuries were local saints, - either entire well-known regions, regional, or individual monasteries and churches. In Moscow, to Metropolitan. Macarius, two saints were canonized for the general celebration, and two saints, in all likelihood, without deliberate canonization, but themselves became common saints: the first two saints were Metropolitans Peter and Alexy, the second two saints were Sergius of Radonezh and Kirill Belozersky; and then, all the other saints of these two and a half or a quarter centuries were also local saints in the broadest or narrowest sense of the word. But Moscow, recognizing itself as the center of a single Russian state, began to consider regional saints as its own and began to celebrate them at home - it is understood, in the cathedral church of the metropolitans, the Assumption Cathedral. By becoming Moscow saints, local saints thereby became, to some extent, common saints (for Moscow was the only or common representative of all Rus'). Common saints in the sense we have now indicated, in addition to the named common saints in the proper sense, by the time of Metropolitan. Macarius was 15 (see above). Metropolitan Macarius, for the reasons and motivations that we indicated above, before the council of 1547 established a common celebration in the proper sense of the word for the now mentioned 15 saints and then at the councils of 1547 and 1549 he established the same general celebration for another 30 saints. After Met. Macarius, that is, actually after the council of 1549, and before the establishment of St. The Synod was almost the same as from the beginning of Christianity to Macarius: a comparatively very small part of the saints were canonized for the general celebration, and the largest part of the saints were canonized for the local celebration. After the council of 1549 until the establishment of St. The Synod of All Saints canonized up to 150 - we say up to 150 because the exact number of all canonized saints, which we specifically discussed above, remains unknown to us. Of this number, about 150 are in the current Church Charter as common saints and only 15, and two of these saints (Mercury of Smolensk and Prince Theodore Yaroslavich) or maybe even four (also Nil of Stolbensky and Kirill of Novoezersky) were canonized as general saints only in the later, Synodal, time. The right to canonize common saints belonged to the head of the Russian Church, the Metropolitan - the Patriarch; the right to canonize local saints belonged to the diocesan bishops, but in reality it was the case that sometimes they were canonized by diocesan bishops, sometimes by the same head of the Russian Church - the Metropolitan - Patriarch. While the head of the Russian Church was the metropolitan, he was dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople: but the metropolitans had the right to canonize saints in the districts of their metropolises. This right belonged to them from ancient to modern times and has not been taken away from them in Greece to this day. In 1339, Metropolitan. Theognostus turned to the patriarch with a request for permission to canonize Metropolitan. Petra. But there was a special reason for this completely optional request - the desire to give special firmness and solemnity to the canonization of St. Peter, and the patriarch in his response to Theognostus makes it clear that he could have canonized Peter without asking him, the patriarch. As for the right of diocesan bishops to canonize local saints, then, in all likelihood, it was not absolute, so that bishops could canonize saints without asking the metropolitan patriarchs and contrary to their consent, but was limited, so that bishops could canonize saints only at the request of the metropolitan patriarchs and with their consent; Apostolic canon 34 and the Antioch Council canon 9 prescribe that they should not do anything important without the consultation of the metropolitan with the council of bishops of the region, and the canonization of saints, of course, belonged to important matters 551. However, it is not positively known, but only with all probability it should be assumed only in relation to ancient times; As for the later times, starting from the half of the 16th century, we know about this in a positive way. Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod addressed Metropolitan with a request in 1544. Macarius, what should he do regarding Jacob of Borovichi, at whose relics miracles were performed (above). The Nikon Chronicle, compiled in the middle of the 16th century, conveys the legend about the establishment of the celebration of St. by Bishop John of Rostov. Leonty and letting him know about the order that existed in her time, directly says that the bishop established the celebration with the blessing of the metropolitan 552. Bishop Afanasy of Kholmogory, in his letter of 1690 on the canonization of local saints Herman Solovetsky, clearly says that “without the blessing of the Holy Patriarch, no way this (thing) can take place” 553. To the question: why canonization for a local celebration was sometimes carried out not by diocesan bishops, but by the head of the church, the metropolitan - the patriarch, can be answered: firstly, what did this mean when the canonization was carried out on the personal initiative of the metropolitan - the patriarch; secondly, that the reasons that prompted persons who sought the canonization of any ascetic, instead of the diocesan bishop, to turn to the metropolitan himself - the patriarch - to apply, it must be assumed, only with the knowledge and consent of the diocesan bishops, were: the hope that, in addition to the local celebration, the ascetic could be canonized for a general celebration; the desire to give greater firmness and solemnity to the canonization; the consideration that it is easier for a local saint, canonized by the head of the church himself, to become a general saint. We cannot say how many local saints were canonized by the diocesan bishops and how many by the metropolitan patriarch himself. But it is likely to think that the majority of local saints, regarding whose canonization there is no information, were canonized by local bishops, for their canonization could be carried out without any written documents, through oral orders alone (see above about the establishment by the Novgorod Archbishop Jonah of the local celebration of St. Savva of Vishera) 554. Let us conclude our general overview of the canonization of saints, as well as our entire study, with speeches dedicated to the relics of saints. We have people who have the zeal of God beyond reason, who claim that the relics of saints are always and certainly completely incorruptible, that is, completely intact bodies, not in the least destroyed or damaged. They assert this for the same reason why people like them asserted this in the 15th century, namely, for the sake of the human unbelief they imagine, for the sake of their opinion about ordinary people, that “anyone (a saint) who is not in the body is not holy among them (ordinary people)” 555. But they lie to ordinary people, who in reality treat relics with the same reverence and zeal, whether the latter represent whole bodies or only bones and small remains and particles of bones. Decisive and clear evidence of this is provided by those cases when the relics of saints were brought to us from the East in the form of small remains of their bones: our people rushed to pay veneration to them with the same faith with which they venerate whole bodies 556. So, a deliberate misrepresentation of the matter for the prostates of the people is not necessary 557, but the correct idea should be such that the relics of saints are sometimes more or less whole bodies, sometimes just bones. The very name of the remains of saints as relics means that our ancestors meant by them primarily bones, for the word “relics” means precisely bones. In 1472, in Moscow, on the occasion of the reconstruction of the Assumption Cathedral, the coffins of the metropolitans were opened to inspect their bodies, and the result of the inspection is written in one chronicle: “Ion was found whole, but Photea was found whole, but not all, only the legs in the body are united, and Cyprean is all decayed, the relics are united” 558: completely it is clear that “one relic” means: only bones. In 1667, the relics of St. Nina of Stolbensky, and Metropolitan Pitirim of Novgorod was informed about them: his (Nile’s) holy tomb and body were given over to the earth, and all his holy relics are intact” 559; it is clear that the words: “and all the relics are intact” mean: and all the bones are intact 560. In 1677, the Suzdal governor inspected the church of the village of Kidekshi, located 4 versts from Suzdal and making up the governor’s estate. book Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, the tomb of Yuriev’s son Boris, who was buried in it in 1159, and wrote about his inspection to the Archbishop of Suzdal, who was in Moscow, that “the relics lie in the tomb, the bones are intact” 561. The expression of old legends about the relics of saints: “imperishable relics” is understood in the sense: the body is whole, undestroyed; but in fact it actually means: the bones are whole: the Suzdal voivode we just mentioned in his notice to the Archbishop of Suzdal about the inspection of the tomb of Boris Yuryevich first says that in the tomb “there are relics, the bones are intact,” and then that in the tomb there are “imperishable bones” 562. Our old teachers did not preach this teaching at all, that the relics of saints are always and certainly whole bodies, but they inexplicably said that they could be just bones, and reproached those who preached the aforementioned teaching. Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk in his Illuminator writes about the relics: “These bones are seen as dust and earth, but both are fearful of demons, and they enlighten the blind, and heal lepers and the paralytic, and heal all sorts of diseases... if we see someone from the saints, or a bone from his body, or dust from his tomb: then the imams are honorable and holy, and with fear we bow down and kiss kindly" 563. Metropolitan Daniel in one of his words writes about the relics: “Truly the miracle is glorious, for naked bones exude healing” 564 . Zinovy ​​of Siena in the Truth Testimony writes about the relics: “The miracle is truly glorious: bare bones are dry for all sorts of ailments and illnesses, healing and driving away demons...; Is it not clear that the bones of sinners defile those who touch them, but the holiness of the dead bones that touch them sanctifies rather than defiles”? 565 Zechariah Kopystensky in his Palinodia, explaining the word or name of the relic, writes: “relics, that is, the bones and bodies of saints...; relics, that is, parts of the bones and bodies of saints" 566. In one “lexis” or alphabet book, containing an interpretation of “Slovenian words simply,” the word relic is interpreted: “relics of saints” 567 . For reproaches to the preachers of the mentioned teaching, see the compiler of the 2nd Sofia Chronicle under the year 1472 568. Those who preach the above-mentioned doctrine want to think and assert that it is precisely the incorruption of relics that constitutes proof of the holiness of the saints. But if this were so, that is, if the church accepted this way: then many saints whose relics remained and remain undiscovered would not have been canonized, many saints would not have been canonized before the discovery of their relics, and many saints would not have been canonized only after one or another, in other cases very significant, time after the discovery of the relics 569. And if some saints were canonized after the discovery of their relics, it was not for their own sake, but for the sake of the miracles that were performed from them. The relics of saints, when they are incorruptible, constitute a miracle, but only in addition to those miracles that are performed through them. Proof of the holiness of the saints are the miracles that occur at their tombs or from their relics, and the relics, whole bodies or just bones, are given to us, to maintain in us the most vivid remembrance of the heavenly prayer books for us, the sacred and holy remains of some saints, which we must honor as such, and are those earthly means (an expression of the Long Catechism of Metropolitan Philaret), through which the Lord most manifests his miraculous power 570. The discovery or acquisition of relics was for the most part an accidental affair: they began to build new, namely stone, churches instead of the old ones under which or near which the saints were buried, and at the same time, while digging ditches for the foundations of new churches, the relics were found. It was not by chance, but deliberately, that the relics of Boris and Gleb were discovered, led. book Olga, teacher Theodosius of Pechersk, Rev. Sergius of Radonezh and perhaps a few others. The news about the discovery of the relics up to and including the discovery of the relics of Macarius of Kalyazinsky in 1521 does not say that permission for this was sought from the church authorities and the matter seems to be that if the relics were opened intentionally, then the decision regarding this was made by the abbots of the monasteries in consultation with their brethren, and if the relics were opened unintentionally, then the same abbots with the brethren with their own authority witnessed them and wore them out from the bowels of the earth. It is likely to think that before 1521 both of these things actually happened. But starting from 1539, when Rev. Daniil Pereyaslavsky made an attempt to discover the relics of Prince Andrei of Smolensk, and for all subsequent time we have evidence that the discovery of the relics was carried out only with the permission of the authorities, and not just the church, but also the civil 571. After the ecclesiastical and civil governments subordinated the discovery of the relics to their joint control, commissions of several persons or individual authorized persons were sent from both governments together to testify the discovered or acquired relics; Unfortunately, for a positive answer to the question: what the testimony consisted of, we do not have sufficient information. If the case was about relics that were found more or less incorruptible, but from which no miracles were performed, then, as one must think, the testimony consisted, firstly, of inquiring whether a substitution had been made, that is, whether the body of another person was being passed off as the relics of a saint 572, - secondly, in verifying the report regarding the degree of incorruptibility of the relics 573, i.e. Are the relics really in the same form as was reported to the government? If the matter was about relics, from which miracles were performed upon their discovery, then in addition to what is now indicated, the testimony should also consist of inquiring about the truth of miracles. Some relics were witnessed not just once, but over more or less long periods of time, two or three times. The second and third testimonies could be carried out for the greatest possible assurance of the incorruption of the relics or to see whether any changes had occurred from the niche over the course of time, and in other cases, the testimonies should not mean the testimonies of the relics themselves, but the investigation of the miracles performed from them. From other relics, miracles began to occur not from the very minute of discovery, but only after a more or less long time after it: to inquire about the miracles that began to occur, a second commission or a second authorized person was sent (after the first commission or the first person sent for the very discovery of the relics). But it could happen that the first time miracles were considered insufficient for the canonization of a miracle worker, then with their further accumulation there could be a need for a second inquiry about them or a third commission, a third authorized person. Since ancient times, the celebration of the discovery of relics has been celebrated in our country in the most solemn manner. How the discovery of the relics is spoken of as a bright and solemn celebration: monk Jacob and Rev. Nestor Prince. Boris and Gleb, the original chronicler of Rev. Theodosius of Pechersk, Pachomius Serbin, rev. Sergius of Radonezh. Here is the description known to us of the celebration of one discovery of a relic, which took place in the middle of the 17th century, namely the discovery of the relics of Cyril of Novoezersky in 1648. Having studied, you will report the discovery of the relics of St. Kirill while digging ditches for the foundation of a new stone church, “the pious sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Russia, consulted about this with his father and pilgrim Cyrus Joseph, the most holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and with the entire consecrated cathedral and with his royal synclite, and sent to Beloozero to the Novoezersky monastery His Grace Markell, Archbishop of Vologda and Great Perm, and commanded him to take the honest, many-miracled relics of St. Cyril the Wonderworker from the bowels of the earth; with the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch and by royal command, the Right Reverend Archbishop Markell, having arrived at the Novozersky monastery, with Archimandrite Athanasius Kirillov of the Belozersky monastery, and of that Novozersky monastery with Amphilochius abbot, with priests and deacons and the sacred cathedral and monks and a multitude of people 574, singing the all-night vigil and during the prayer petition, he dug the coffin and opened it, finding the relics of the Venerable Father Cyril the Wonderworker, like fragrant incense or like fragrant cypress... 575; the bishop, with the archimandrite and the abbot and with the entire consecrated cathedral, took up the honorable relics from the old coffin, and having transferred them to a new coffin and brought them to the old church in honor, with candles and candiles, with psalms and songs and spiritual songs and popular praise, and having waited for them until the church of stone is completed.” 576. Let us add here as an appendix extracts from the reports of the investigative commissions that examined on behalf of St. Synod of the relics of new saints - Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov and Innocent, Bishop of Irkutsk. The relics of St. Demetrius were examined in the dinar of 1757 by a commission consisting of Metropolitan of Rostov Arseny Matseevich, Metropolitan of Suzdal Sylvester Glovatsky and Archimandrite Gabriel of Krasnopolsky, who sat at the Moscow Synodal Office of Simonovsky 577. In the report to the commission of St. The Synod reads about the relics: “The hair on the head down from the cap on both sides, as well as on the bridle, the sails are small from the underseat, they are intact and unharmed, and under the hat, which (which?) edge of the irshitsa (fur edge) stuck to the forehead, whether there is one, it is impossible to find out, the head from the neck in the composition is listed a little behind (sic), hopefully from the weight poured earth (on the saint’s tomb) and shora (crushed stone); the lower and upper lips and the cartilage of the nose and face are taken by the earth, but the compositions of all this are intact and are not separated from each other in the slightest; the hands folded on the front fell off, the right one was intact and the veins were visible intact, and the left one was separated at the elbow and the veins, which are visible, were cut off, and on the right hand there were four fingers - on the index finger, on the middle finger and next to it, and on the little finger, two fingers were broken, of which one has a nail, and they are in special silver the reliquary was placed, at the legs of the legs and in the knees the compositions are also visible, the veins are intact, but the body is not on them, but on the other compositions, and then on the thighs, in part there is no part, in his (his?) leg feet the bones of which (other?) have separated, but the legs have not decayed.”... In its final review, the commission says about the relics that “part of some of the relics are incorruptible bodies, and parts and naked parts turn out to be bones” 578 . The relics of Saint Innocent were examined in January-March 1801 by a commission consisting of Bishop of Irkutsk Veniamin Bagryansky and the vicar of Kazan, after the Bishop of Perm. Justin Vishnevsky. Brief information about what was found by the inspection commission is reported in the decree of St. Synod of December 1, 1804, by which the relics of Innocent are read as perfect holy relics 579, and precisely consist of the following: the mentioned bishops with other invited people “inspected the incorruptible body of Bishop Innocent with due attention and caution; according to which it was revealed that the head, chest, ribs, back and legs, all intact and with the flesh as if dried, from which comes the fragrant smell, characteristic of relics and felt by many” 580. Lists of the venerated dead What the essence of the revered dead is, we talked about this above - pp. 42 and 271 fin. aqq. But besides the truly revered dead, there are also, so to speak, imaginarily revered departed ones, namely, those who are not actually revered, but who are included in the old and new catalogs of saints by the compilers of these latter. We will give a separate list of the truly revered deceased and a separate list of the deceased who are not actually revered, but only included in handwritten calendars and catalogs of saints. We are no more able to distinguish all the dead belonging to the first class from all the dead who belong to the second class, just as we do not have the opportunity to distinguish all the canonized saints from all the venerated dead, which we talked about above. And therefore it is quite possible that we placed this or that number of the deceased belonging to the first class in the second class and that, on the contrary, we placed this or that number of the deceased belonging to the second class in the first class (it is likely that, following our sources, we err more by promotion from the second class to the first than by demotion from the first class to the second). And here, as in the separation of canonized saints from the venerated dead, authenticity could be achieved in the only official way. We said above, page 223 sub fin., that until the middle of the 16th century, examples of liturgical books were very rare in our country, in the monthly words or calendars of which a more or less significant number of our Russian saints would be recorded. From the beginning of the 17th century, after it became customary to include Russian saints in the month-words of liturgical books more or less fully, your book people became concerned about compiling as detailed lists of Russian saints in the broad sense of the word as possible - lists in which not only actual or real saints would be included, but also revered deceased ones, and among the latter, not only those who actually were revered, but also those who were only recognized were worthy of veneration. Such complete lists of Russian saints in the broad sense of the word were not included in the calendars of liturgical books, but the monthly calendars or calendars in which they were included began to be written separately from the liturgical books, as special or independent books (books). The two currently known oldest and, together, the most complete lists of our calendars with the names of Russian saints refer - one to the year 1621, the other, as is likely to be assumed, to the space of time between 1606-1625, and both, by their similarity, suggest the same, it is not known when, but in any case before the year 1621, the original appeared 581. In 1657, an unknown monk of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, in all likelihood Simon Azaryin, made an extract from the calendar, in which Russian and other Slavic saints (the latter - very few) were written along with the Greek ones, only the first, so that exclusively Slavic (more precisely: Russian-Slavic) calendars appeared, over which Slavic saints are read inscription: “Extracted from the calendar, also with the chronicler, monthly about the feasts of the Lord and the Theotokos, which by the grace of God in Holy Russia are celebrated beyond the Greek statutes, and how many holy venerable fathers and martyrs and noble princes pleased Christ God in a good life and ascetic labors, for whom in Rus' they create a feast for them and pray they call, in the same way, in Bolgareh and Serbekh and others of a single Slovenian language" 582 . In the second half of the 17th century, it is unknown - by whom and unknown where, a topographical catalog of Russian saints was compiled, understanding this word in the same broad sense of not only actual saints, but also revered deceased, which, in some lists, has the title: “A book, a verb description of the Russian saints, where and in which city or region or monastery or desert live and create miracles of every rank saints", in other lists - an extremely long title, beginning: "A book containing a collection of all Russian holy miracle workers, and each of them in which city or monastery or desert or village lived, and in what year they died, and where their holy relics are buried" etc. 583, in the third lists the title: "The Tale of the Russian the holy saints of God, where and in which city or region, and in a monastery or in the desert, he who worked for a living and created miracles and in which he flew,” and numerous lists of which, supplemented by different persons and in different places, represent some diversity 584. In the same, probably the second half of the 17th century, the collection of troparions and kontakia of Russian saints and Russian venerated deceased was made unknown, which is inscribed: “Troparia for new wonderworkers, who are not in the Rule and in the Psalter with the following” 585 and in which, together with the venerated dead who had troparion and kontakia, a certain number of venerated departed who did not have troparia are recorded and kontakia in general - which is one of the catalogs of Russian saints and old Russian venerated dead, although in relation to the venerated dead it is less complete than other catalogs. Finally, at the beginning of the 18th century, icon painters compiled an extensive iconographic Original, in which the list of Russian saints, meaning by saints not only real saints, but also revered departed ones, was given possible completeness 586. Now the indicated five monthly collections, which contain or which represent lists of Russian saints and Russian revered deceased, serve as sources for compiling lists of these latter, i.e. revered dead, for the old days. The sources do not distinguish between the truly revered dead and the dead who are included in them only as considered worthy of veneration; dividing them into two classes was done by ourselves, and regarding the veneration of the truly revered dead, we are guided by testimonies and instructions for the later and for the most recent - the present time (quoting the books in which we find these testimonies and instructions) and, as we said above, we do not at all consider ourselves free from the error of putting the dead of one list in another list. The first, second, third and fifth collections, being equally more or less complete, agree with each other regarding the majority of the venerated deceased, differing in a few of the latter, located exclusively in one or another collection (and in the first and third collections, known in many and different time lists, in one or another list), so that the largest part of the names of the deceased in both one and the other list is taken from all of them. And thus, regarding the majority of the names of the deceased, it must be assumed that they are taken from all four indicated monthly collections. As for the names of the deceased, which are not in all four collections, but either in some or in one of them, then here, without indicating in each case the collections or collection in which or in which the name is located, we will do this only in some cases when it turns out to be necessary 587. We indicate the sources of information about the newly revered deceased in each given case (with the exception of a few cases when we have information ourselves, directly) 588 . I. List of the deceased, actually revered Avksentiy and Onufriy Pertsovsky, who founded the Trinity Hermitage around 1490, which was abolished by Pertsov or Persona, which was located in the Gryazovets district of the Vologda province (Ist. Ier. V, 517; in Veryuzhsk. p. 365). Avramiy, hieroschemamonk of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, who died on July 19, 1852. He belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 93. Avramy Mirozhsky, founder of the Spaso-Mirozhsky Monastery, which is located near Pskov, died on September 24, 1158. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but in fact, in all likelihood, he belongs to the number of only revered (and, moreover, more nominally than really) deceased (neither in the History of the Hierarchy, -V, 69, nor in the History of the Principality of Pskov, Metropolitan Eugene, - III, 75, nor in Count Tolstov in the Shrines and Antiquities of Pskov, - p. 66, nothing is said about the celebration of his memory). Avramy Paleostrovsky. See Cornelius and Abramius. Avramiy and Kopriy of Pechenga, who founded the abolished Pechenga Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery around 1490, which was located in the Gryazovets district of the Vologda province (Ist. Ier. V, 543; in Veryuzhsk. p. 363). Agapit, hieroschemamonk of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, who died on September 17, 1825. Over his coffin, through the diligence of one admirer of his memory, a hearse was built with his image minted (?) on the top board of the latter; belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, - Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 90. Agapit Markushevsky, the founder of the abolished Markushevsky Nikolaevsky monastery, which was located in the Totemsky district of the Vologda diocese, died a violent death on May 21, 1584 (East. Ier. V, 51). Since his relics are hidden in the church of his former monastery (Veryuzhsky, p. 545), one should think that he is revered (although Veryuzhsky does not say this directly). Adrian of Monzensky, the founder of the abolished Monzensky Annunciation Monastery, which was located in the Buysky district of the Kostroma province, died on May 5, 1619 (Ist. Jer. VI, 1025; book: Holy saints of God and ascetics of Kostroma, p. 43). Adrian Sestrensky. See Zosima and Adrian. Alexandra Elder, in the world Agafia Semyonovna Melgunova, founder of the Diveyevo convent, located in the Ardatovsky district of the Nizhny Novgorod province, 24 versts from Ardatov, died on June 18, 1789, whose memory is highly revered in the mentioned monastery. See in Church Gazette of 1897 No. 1, article: “Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery”, p. 21, col. 1. Alexander Vochsky, founder or one of the abbots of the abolished Preobrazhensky Vochsky Monastery, which was located in the Soligalichsky district of the Kostroma province on the river. Voche (now the village of Korovnovo), unknown when he lived (Reverend Sergius Complete Monthly Book, vol. II, appendix. 1st ed. p. 58 and 2nd ed. p. 547: about the monastery see Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs col. 865). Alexander-Peresvet and Herodgon-Oslebya, warrior monks sent by Rev. Sergius of Radonezh with Grand Duke Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy at the Battle of Kulikovo, buried in Moscow, near the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary “on Stary Simonovo” in a government tent under the bell tower. Initially, stone plaques without inscriptions lay on their graves; Metropolitan In 1794, Plato erected a monument over them with an inscription (Descriptions of the manuscripts of the Trinity Lavra No. 252, Snegirev’s Life of Metropolitan Plato, M. 1850, part I, pp. 77 and 128, cfr of our book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Lavra he created, p. 95, note 45). Alexei, hieroschemamonk and ascetic of the Moscow Simonov Monastery, who died on March 28, 1812 (Blessed Demetrius Mesyatseslov, March 28, 1st edition, issue III, p. 100). Alexey Stefanovich, holy fool of the Rostov Boris-Gleb Monastery, who died in 1781. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but in fact he is only a revered deceased, see in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1893, No. 15, the article: “On biographical information about the reader Alexei Stefanovich, the holy fool of the Rostov Boris-Gleb Monastery.” Ambrose Optinsky, an ascetic of the Optina Hermitage, located in the Kozelsky district (4 versts from the city of Kozelsk) of the Kaluga province, died on October 10, 1891. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Amphilochius, hieromonk and ascetic of the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, who died on May 26, 1824 (Gr. Tolstov Ancient Shrines of Rostov the Great, p. 57, also E. Poselyanina Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century). Amphilochius of Rekonsky, an ascetic of the Rekonsky (restored by him) monastery, located in the Tikhvin district of the Novgorod province, died on August 9, 1865 as a 125-year-old old man. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Andrei Meshchovsky, the holy fool of the city of Meshchovsk, Kaluga province, died on June 28, 1812 and was buried in the St. George Meshchovsky Monastery. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Andrey, the holy fool of Totemsky (the city of Totma, Vologda province), who died on October 10, 1673 and was buried near the city Church of the Resurrection. “His memory is celebrated (of course, by singing the funeral liturgy and requiem) on October 10, the day of his repose” (Veryuzhsk. p. 680 sqq). Anna, Princess of Yaroslavl, by monastic name Anastasia, buried in the Church of the Peter and Paul Monastery in the city of Yaroslavl, now a parish, is probably the second wife of the prince. Theodore Rostislavich Black, in the world called Anna 589, by origin a Tatar (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbose, No. 239; about the origin - Karali, vol. IV, col. 69–70). Anthony, Bishop of Vologda, appointed abbot of the Dorogobuzh Boldin Monastery in 1585, died on October 26, 1587. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but there is no talk about celebrating him from Fr. Veryuzhsky (p. 502) and one Vologzhanin we knew, posing as a person who knew the matter well, assured us that memorial services were being served for the bishop, and not prayers were being sung for him. Anthony Alekseevich, the holy fool of the city of Zadonsk, Voronezh province, who died on October 29, 1851 and was buried in the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery. He belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 93, also E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Anthony of Zaonikievsky, one of the first abbots of the Vladimir Zaonikievskaya Hermitage, located 12 versts from Vologda, which was founded by Ven. Joseph of Zaonikievsky in the second half of the 16th century (His memory in some calendars is recorded under the 23rd of July, in others - under the 3rd of November), - Ist. Jer. IV, 134, Veryuzhsk. 607. Anthony, Archbishop of Kamenets-Podolsk, who before Kamenets was for some time the Bishop of Voronezh, died in retirement in the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery on March 29, 1827. According to Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, – 1st ed. issue IV, 2 div., p. 95, “there is a tradition (?) about him in the monastery, as about the incorruptible saint of God who rests”; belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, -ibid. Anthony of Krasnokholmsky, founder of the Krasnokholmsky or Bezhetsky St. Nicholas Monastery, which is located near Red Hill, a provincial town in the Tver province, Bezhetsky district, died on January 17, 1481 (Filaret Russian Saints, January 17; about the monastery - East. Ier. IV, 807). Anthony, abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery from 1603 to 1612 (Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs) or from 1 (505 to 1613 (Description of the Solovetsky Monastery by Archim. Meletius. For veneration, see Ratshin, p. 4 beginning; not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Anthony of Chernoozersky, founder of the abolished Antonieva Hermitage on the Black Lakes, which was located in the Cherepovets district of the Novgorod province, lived unknown when (Hist. Ier. III, 103). Arkady Novotorzhsky or Vyazemsky, student of Rev. Ephraim, the founder of the Novotorzhsky Boriso-Gleb Monastery (East. Jer. III, 420, Philaret Russian Saints, January 28th. Otherwise called Vyazemsky because he was from the city of Vyazma, Smolensk province and that he initially fought the feat of foolishness in his native city, see Historical and statistical description of Smolensk diocese, St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 309. At Rev. Sergius and after him at Barsukov, erroneously - Vyaznikovsky; at Rev. Dmitry, erroneously buried in Vyazma; Arseny hieromonk, mistaken for Metropolitan of Rostov Arseny Matseevich. In the city of eastern Siberia, Trans-Baikal region, Verkhneudinsk, a chapel was built in the cemetery over one grave, which is mistaken for the grave of Rostov Metropolitan Arseny, who was allegedly exiled to captivity in the Nerchinsk region in the second half of the 18th century, but was then returned with honor and died, according to local legend, with the miraculous death of a righteous man on the road, and on which they are still committed funeral services (see the book by I. Zavalishin: Description of Western Siberia, Moscow, 1862, p. 314). In fact, in Verkhneudinsk the grave is not of Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich, who was not exiled to Siberia and was not returned with honor at all, but of a certain exiled hieromonk Arseny (see Ikonnikov in Experience of Russian Historiography, p. 74 note 2, and 1215 fin.). Afphonius, Metropolitan of Novgorod, who occupied the see from 1635 to 1053. That he was a revered deceased in former times is evident from the fact that in the St. Sophia Cathedral of Novgorod, on one of the pillars, there is his image; that he remains a revered deceased even in the present time is evident from the fact that Novgorodians often serve requiem services over his coffin (Tolstov’s book Shrines and Antiquities of Veliky Novgorod, pp. 21 and 36). Afanasy Vysotsky 1st, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh, founder of the Serpukhov Vysotsky (Moscow province monastery. He died (it is unknown when after 1401, under which he is mentioned as alive) not in his monastery, but in Constantinople; but we think that in the monastery his memory is revered. Athanasius Vysotsky 2nd, successor at the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery of its founder Athanasius 1st, who died on September 12, 1395 (Filaret Russian Saints, September 12th). Athanasius-Eleazar. See Eleazar (Athanasius) and Nazarius (Lazarus). Athanasius, Dionysius, Ignatius, Cornelius, Leonidas, Theodore and Ferapont, students of St. Alexander of Svirsky, buried in the Ostrovsky Vvedensky Oyatsky Monastery (East. Ier. V, 378; “in the Back Desert on the Oyat River, in the Monastery of the Vvedensky Vvedensky of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the Svir River 5 fields along the Oyat River up (from) the village of Arkhangelsk Sermax,” - Book spoken by Count Tolstov, No. 466. About Sermaksky churchyard, located at the confluence of the Oyat and the Svir, see Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary). Afanasy Syandemsky, founder of the Syandemskaya Assumption Hermitage, which is located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, died around 1550. Over the grave of Athanasius in the desert church there is a shrine with his image, and in addition there is another image of him in the church. See the book: Syandemskaya-Uspenskaya hermitage, historical and statistical notes. Moscow, 1860. Afanasy Cherepovetsky. See Theodosius and Athanasius. The Bogolep youth, the Chernoyarsk wonderworker, died in 1632 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, July 29, 1st edition, issue IV, p. 3761 and was buried in the cathedral church of the city of Cherpoyarsk, Astrakhan province. Varlaam, disciple of St. Metropolitan Alexy, founder of the Vladychny Serpukhov (Moscow province) monastery, who died on May 5, 1377 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov on May 5, 1st ed. issue III, p. 228). Varlaam Keretsky, who labored during the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible (1533–1584), rests in the village of Kereti, which is located in the Kem district of the Arkhangelsk province, on the western shore of the White Sea. Varlaam, Archbishop of Tobolsk, see below. Razumovsky Count. Varlaam Uleiminsky, who founded the St. Nicholas Uleiminsky Monastery in 1460, which is located 10 versts from the holy fool of Uglich, Yaroslavl province, died in an unknown year. For the life of Varlaam, see Klyuchevsky, p. 318 fin.; about the monastery in East. Jer., vi. 466. Barsanuphius and Savva of Tver, abbots of the abolished Sretensky Savvinsky Monastery, which was located in the Tver district of the Tver province, died - the first around 1416, the second around 1467 (Filaret Russian Saints March 2). Basilisk of Siberia, see below. Razumovsky Count. Vasilissa of Nizhny Novgorod. See Theodora. Vasily of Mangazeya, who died in 1602, whose remains are now in the Trinity Turukhansky Monastery of the Yenisei province - see below in the appendices. Vasily Mirozhsky, abbot of the Pskov Mirozhsky Monastery, killed by the Livonians during the invasion of the city of Pskov on March 4, 1299. (Collected years. IV, 182 fin., History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 75). Vasily the Novgorodian, John the Candlebearer and Onuphrius the Hermit, disciples of Zosima of Solovetsky, whose tombs are located in the Solovetsky Monastery, in a special tent (in Count Tolstoy’s Book of Verbs Nos. 328–330: about veneration in Ratshin, p. 4 beginning: not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Vasily Spaso-Kamensky, the holy fool of the Spaso-Kamensky monastery, who lived unknown when (Hist. Jer. IV, 332: at Veryuzhsk. p. 303). Vasily, Nikon and Tikhon Sokolovsky, who labored near the present village of Sokolov, which is located in the Zvenigorod district of the Moscow province, 12 versts from New Jerusalem (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, p. 66 fin. See also in the Moscow Church Gazette 1897 g., No. 7 p. 90, article: Archaeological travelogue, - the village of Sokolovo, Zvenigorod district, colloquially “Tikhon-Nikon”). Vassa of Nizhny Novgorod, see Theodora. Vassa of Pskov-Pecherskaya, the wife of the first builder of the Pskov Pechersk Monastery, Jonah, who died in the monastery around 1473 (The Tale of the Beginning and Foundation of the Pechersk Monastery, l. 2 vol., History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 77). Vassian of Kargopol, founder of the Kargopol Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery (otherwise: the Strokinsky Hermitage, which is in the swamp), which is located in the Kargopol district of the Olonets province, who lived no later than the first quarter of the 16th century (East. Ier. IV, 344). Vassian of Krestimorovsky, founder of the abolished Krestimorovsky Transfiguration Monastery, which was located in the Arkhangelsk province near the White Sea, lived unknown when (Hist. Jer. VI, 1017). Vassian Ryabovsky, founder of the abolished Trinity Ryabovsky Monastery, which was located in the Kalyazinsky district of the Tver province, died on February 12 or May 21, 1497 or 1509. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but in fact he belongs to the number of revered deceased, see the legend about him in the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1894, No. 8 (it is said that in the past his memory was revered with memorial services, but nothing is said about the current veneration of memory). Vassian and Prokhor Yastrebsky, the founders of the abolished Yastrebsky monastery, which was located in the Vladimir district of the Vladimir province, who lived in the second half of the 16th century (Ist. Jer. VI; 840, gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 417). Vera Alexandrovna, an unknown and mysterious in her origin, silent woman and ascetic of the Syrkov Monastery located near Novgorod, died on May 6, 18 (-?) year. See about her E. Poselyanina Russian ascetics of the 19th century. Gabriel Zabludovsky, a baby, according to the popular opinion, confirmed by a court verdict, suffered martyrdom from the Jews on April 20, 1690 and was buried in the town of Zabludov (Grodno province, Bialystok district), whose relics, discovered in 1740, are now in Slutsk Trinity (Minsk province) monastery (East. Jer. VI, 149; Philaret Russian Saints, April 20; Archimandrite Nicholas Description of the Minsk Diocese, p. 109; Rev. Dimitri Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue III, p. 157). Gabriel Petrov, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, who occupied the see from 1770 to 1800, died in retirement on January 26, 1801 and was buried in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. Metropolitan Gregory of St. Petersburg writes in a letter to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow dated September 7, 1857 that “many serve (according to Gabriel) memorial services with dental problems and receive healing” (he makes it known that Gabriel’s body, examined on the occasion of the alterations carried out in the cathedral under Metropolitan Seraphim, 1821–1843, was found incorrupt), see letter to Christian. Readings of 1898, vol. 5th, May, pp. 669. 590 Galaktion, the holy fool of the Ferapontov Beloozersky monastery, who died in 1506 (East. Jer. VI, 855; Philaret Russian Saints, January 12). Gideon, an ascetic of the Serpukhov Vladychny (Moscow province) monastery, who lived in the 14th century (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, May 5, 1st ed. issue III, p. 228). Gennady Olonetsky, a student of Alexander Svirsky, labored and died in the Back Nikiforovsky desert, which is located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonetsky province (East. Jer. VI, 1000). George, recluse of the Zadonsk Bogoroditsky Monastery, died on May 25, 1836. His body rests in the monastery tomb and on the top board of his tombstone hearse there is a silver plaque with his image; belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, - Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 92. George, the holy fool of Shenkursky, who lived in the 15th century, died on April 23 of an unknown year (Filaret, Russian Saints, April 28). Gerasim Boldinsky, who founded the Boldin Holy Trinity Monastery in 1528, which is located in the Dorogobuzh district of the Smolensk province (Historical Jer. III, 413; Historical and statistical description of the Smolensk diocese, p. 291). David (Moscow), who built the Ascension David (named after him) hermitage in 1515, which is located in the Serpukhov district of the Moscow province (East. Jer. IV, 1). Daniil Achinsky, who labored in the city of Achinsk in the Yenisei province and died on April 15, 1843. About this Siberian ascetic, see the book of the famous Guslitsky abbot Parthenius: “The story of the life and exploits in God of the deceased elder Daniel, who labored in the Siberian country, within the city of Achinsk,” first published in 1856 and then reprinted many times among the publications of the Athos Panteleimon Monastery, also by Archpriest. Putintsev in Tales of Some Siberian Ascetics and E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Daniil Shuzhgorsky, the founder of the abolished Shuzhgorsky monastery, which was located in the Belozersky district of the Novgorod province, who lived unknown when after the first quarter of the 16th century (Hist. Jer. VI, 731). Dimitry Gorsky, ascetic of the Kharkov province, Starobelsky district, Osinova settlement, died on December 15, 1828. See the story about him by A. Kovalevsky under the title: “The Ascetic of Piety Demetrius of Gorsky,” printed by the Panteleimon Monastery among its publications. Demetrius of Tsilibinsky, founder of the abolished Tsilibinskaya Arkhangelsk Hermitage, which was located in the Yarengsky district of the Vologda province, 28 versts from Yarengsk down the Vychegda River, revered by a disciple of St. Stephen of Perm, therefore, lived in the second half of the 14th - first half of the 15th century. In the first edition of the book, we placed him among the saints as a dubious saint. Book about. Veryuzhsky confirms the validity of our doubts, allowing us to see in him a revered deceased (p. 348). Dimitri Svyatoslavich, Prince Yuryevsky, who died after accepting the schema in 1269 and was buried in the Yuryevsky (Vladimir province) Cathedral (Karamz. IV, 70; gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 392). Diodorus Yuryegorsky, founder of the abolished Yuryegorsky Trinity Monastery, which was located in the Onega district of the Arkhangelsk province, died on November 27, 1633. (Hist. Jer. VI, 829; in the III book. Read. General. History and Ancient. 1878 article: Christianity within the Arkhangelsk diocese, p. 16). Dionysius Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Dionysius, schemamonk and recluse 591 of Pereyaslavl, who, after the devastation by the Poles, rebuilt the Pereyaslavl Nikolaevsky monastery, in the swamp, in the city of Pereyaslavl, Vladimir province, died on April 15, 1645 (East. Jer. V, 199). Domnushka Sibirskaya, see below. Razumovsky Count. Dorofey or Dositheus of Verkhne-Ostrovsky or Pskov, the founder of the abolished Verkhne-Ostrovsky Peter and Paul Monastery, which was located on Lake Pskov in the Pskov province, died on October 8, 1482 (History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 78; East. Jer. III, 528 fin.). Dorofey Yugsky, founder of the Dorofeevsky Yugsky or Yuzhskaya Hermitage, which is located in the Rybinsk district of the Yaroslavl province, 15 versts from the city of Rybinsk, died in 1622. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but it is much more likely that he is only a revered deceased. Evdokia, in monasticism Euphrosyne, the wife of the leader. Prince Dimitry Ivanovich Donskoy (f May 22, 1889), builder of the Moscow Ascension Monastery, died on July 7, 1407. In the first edition of the book we placed her among the saints; Now we have in our hands the book: “Grand Duchess Evdokia, monastically Venerable Euphrosyne,” published in 1857, from which we learn that her memory is celebrated with memorial services for her, and therefore - that she is not a canonized saint, but only a revered deceased. Evdokia, the holy fool of Suzdal, who died on December 22, 1776 and was buried in the Vasilyevsky Monastery, which is located in the city of Suzdal (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, December 22, 1st ed. issue II, p. 48 fin.). Eupraxia, sister of St. Metropolitan Alexia, former treasurer of the Moscow Conception Monastery (East. Jer. IV, 140). Eupraxia of Staroladoga, abbess and ascetic of the Staroladoga Assumption Monastery, located in the Ladoga district of the St. Petersburg province, died on September 28, 1823. See E. Poselyanin about her in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Euphemia Grigorievna, an old woman who died on January 15, 1860 and was buried in the Zadonsk Bogoroditsky Monastery According to the Reverend. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, - 1 above. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 95, she is reverently revered in Zadonsk and the surrounding area. Euphrosyne 592, in monasticism Eupraxia, princess of Pskov, wife of Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich (great-great-great-grandson of Vladimir Monomakh through Mstislav the Great and Mstislav the Brave), killed by her stepson on May 8, 1243 and buried in Pskov St. John the Baptist Convent (Novgorod. 1st Chronicle in Collected Summer. III, 54, Step. Quarter I, 353). In the first edition of the book we placed her among the saints; but in fact she is only a revered deceased, see “Description of St. John the Baptist Monastery of Pskov”, printed without indicating the place and year of printing, but signed by the Dorpat censor on August 18, 1821, p. 7 (the memory of the princess on October 16 is celebrated in the monastery by singing the funeral vigil and funeral liturgy). Euphrosyne, see Theodosius. Euphrosynus of Andogsky, an ascetic of the abolished Andogskaya Assumption Hermitage, which was located in the Cherepovets district of the Novgorod province, who lived in the 17th century, called either by his family name or by his place of birth Kurzhesky (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbose, No. 344; about the monastery - East. Jer. III, 93). Euphrosynus, abbot of the abolished Savvatiev Monastery, which was located in the Tver district of the Tver province, died on March 2 around 1460 (Philareta Russian Saints, March 2). Euphrosynus of Sinoezersky, the founder of the abolished Sinoezerskaya Trinity Hermitage, which was located in the Ustyuzhensky district of the Novgorod province, who died at the hands of the Poles on March 20, 1612 (Ist. Jer. VI, 108 fin.). Euthymius, in the schema Eusebius, abbot of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, who died in 1745. In 1846, while digging ditches for a new cathedral, “his coffin was found with an incorrupt body and transferred to the tomb,” located under one of the monastery churches; belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, - Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 89. Euthymius of Korelsky (Arkhangelsk), founder of the Korelsky Nikolaevsky monastery, which is located in the Arkhangelsk district of the Arkhangelsk province, 34 versts north of Arkhangelsk, on the very shore of the White World, who died, as one must think, in the last years of the 15th century (Filaret, Russian Saints, April 18; in III book. Reading. General History. and Ancient 1878 article: Christianity within the Arkhangelsk province, p. 52; about the monastery - Ir. IV, 629). 593 Catherine, sister of Bishop Pitirim of Tambov, who was the second abbess of the Tambov Ascension Convent founded by Pitirim, died between 1739–1749. According to Rev. Demetrius, “the memory of Catherine, the sister of Saint Pitirim, is reverently honored by the residents of Tambov,” - Mesyatseslova vol. IV, 1st department, p. 375. Eleazar (Athanasius) and Nazarius (Lazarus), abbots of the abolished Forerunner Monastery, which was located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province (Ratshina Complete Collection of Historical Information, p. 423, and Rev. Sergius Complete Monthly Book, II, June 4). Elisha of Sumsky, a monk of the Solovetsky Monastery, who lived at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries, died outside the monastery while fishing in the Vyga River and was buried in the village that belonged to the monastery, now Posad, Sumsky or Sum. Inquiries about the miracles performed at the tomb of Elisha were carried out twice - in 1668 and in 1710, but nothing is said about the establishment of his celebration. Currently, “they serve him prayer services, but also pannikhidas, when pilgrims with the name of the saint wish to remember their departed relatives,” - Patericon of Solovetsky, p. 40. We accept it as most likely that prayer services (strangely combined with pannikhidas) are served to Elisha only because of abuse, and therefore we place him not among the canonized saints, and the revered dead. Local memory - June 14th. All information is in the Solovetsky Patericon, pp. 37–40. Zosima the Elder, founder of Zosimova or Zosimina, popularly known as Izosimova, hermitage, which is located in the Alexander district of the Vladimir province (in 1722 and again in 1764 it was closed, since 1867, assigned to the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, restored) who died around 1713 (see book: Zosimina hermitage of the Alexander district of the Vladimir diocese, I. Korsunsky, Sergiev Posad, 1895). Zosima and Adrian Sisters, who founded, unknown when, the abolished Sisters Monastery, which was located in the Volokolamsk district of the Moscow province (East. Jer. VI, 96). Zosima of Siberia, see below. Razumovsky Count. Ignatius Lomovsky, founder of the abolished Spaso-Lomovsky Monastery, which was located in the Poshekhonsky district of the Yaroslavl province, died on December 28, 1591. In the first edition of the book, we placed him among the saints, but in fact he is only a revered deceased, see the article: “Reverend Ignatius the Wonderworker and the Spaso-Lomovskaya Monastery founded by him in Poshekhonsky district,” printed in the 50th issue of the Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette for 1892 and reprinted in the 52nd issue of the Church Gazette for that year same year. Ignatius Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Hilarion of Gdov, the founder of the abolished Ozersky Intercession Monastery, which was located in the Gdov district of the St. Petersburg province, died on March 28, 1476 (Ist. Jer. V, 582; History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 77; Ratshin Complete Collection of Historical Information, p. 479). Elijah the holy fool of Danilovsky - the city of Danilov, Yaroslavl province. buried in a former monastery, the present village, Troitsky Kolesnikov, which is located 3 versts from the city, lived until the second half of the 17th century (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbose, No. 240). Innokenty Okhlebishin, student of Rev. Nila Sorskogo, founder of the abolished Innokentiev (after his name) Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, which was located in the Gryazovets district of the Vologda province, 12 versts from the city of Gryazovets, died on March 19, 1521. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but the absence of speeches about celebrating him from Fr. Veryuzhsky (p. 386) lets us know that he belongs only to the number of revered dead. Innocent, Bishop of Penza and Saratov, author of the famous Outline of Church History (in two parts, St. Petersburg, 1817). died on October 10, 1819 and was buried in the cave church of the Penza Cathedral. “Over his tomb, pannikhidas are sung almost daily at the request of those who honor his memory” (see I. Barsukov’s bibliographic note on the life of Innocent, belonging to the Yuriev Archimandrite Photius, published in No. 12 of the Russian Archive for 1895, p. 490, also by E. Poselyanina of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century). Innocent, archimandrite and ascetic of the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, who died on February 27, 1847 (Gr. Tolstov Ancient Shrines of Rostov the Great, pp. 57–58). Irinarch, recluse of the Rostov Boris-Gleb Monastery, died on January 13, 1616. In the first fall of the book we placed him among the saints; but it is much more likely that he is only a revered deceased. Irinarch, abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery, died on July 17, 1628 (Solovetsky Patericon, p. 81; Filaret, Russian Saints, July 17). Herodion-Oslebya. See Alexander Peresvet. Isaiah and Nikanor were desert dwellers who labored until the second half of the 18th century, “on the streams of the ocean sea” (in Count Tolstov’s Book of the Verbose, No. 316), namely on the western shore of the Kola Bay of the Northern Ocean (see in Semenov’s Dictionary, pp. Ruchevsky Bay), after the initial burial at the site of their exploits, they were transferred to the Anthony of Siysky Monastery (see in III book Read. General History and Ancient 1878 article: Christianity within the Arkhangelsk province, p. 52, and Historical information about the St. Anthony Monastery, pp. 68–69). Isidore of Dorpat, former priest in Dorpat of Livonia (Yuryev), at the church of St. Nicholas, who suffered along with 72 people of his flock of German Catholics on January 8, 1472 (Recently a local saint, see in addition). 594 Jacob Talibsky, an ascetic of the Paisiev and Nikolaevsky Starotorzhsky Galich (Kostroma province) monasteries (the second is currently female), buried under the altar of the cemetery Boriso-Gleb church of the latter monastery, who lived in the 15th century (see the book: Holy saints of God and ascetics of Kostroma, p. 124). Jacob Bryleev, an ascetic of the Predtechensky Zheleznoborovsky Monastery, which is located in the Buysky district of the Kostroma province, contemporary with the founder of the monastery, Rev. Jacob, buried in the Bryleeva Desert belonging to the monastery and located 4 versts from it (Memorial book for the Kostroma diocese by V. Samaryanov, Kostroma, 1868, p. 114; Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs, col. 884). Jacob and Theophilus of Omuch, the founders of the abolished Assumption Omuch Hermitage, which was located in the Demyansky district of the Novgorod province, died on October 21, around 1412 (Filaret, Russian Saints, October 21). Jacob Porkhovsky. See Theophilus. Jeremiah, in schema monasticism John, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, died in retirement after 27 years of schema monasticism, in the 86th year of his life, on December 6, 188 4, in the Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery, in one of the churches of which he was buried. Obituary of Rev. Jeremiah, published in No. 39 of the Church Gazette, published under St. The Synod, for 1898, assures that “the memory of the deceased is sacredly revered in Nizhny Novgorod.” Ioannikiy Zaonikievsky, former abbot of the Zaonikievsky hermitage, which is located 12 versts from Vologda, who lived at the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th century (together with Anthony of Zaonikievsky, he is recorded in some calendars under the 23rd of June, in others - under the 3rd of November), - Ist. Jer. IV, 135; at Veryuzhsk. page 607. John Borisovich, priest of the city of Yelets, Oryol province, died on December 20, 1824 and was buried in the Yelets Trinity Monastery. See about him in E. Poselyanin in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. John, martyr of Kazan, suffered on January 24, 1529, see about him above, pp. 269 and 272. John Vlasaty of Kargopol, who labored in solitude in the place where the Assumption Convent now stands, located half a mile from the city of Kargopol (Ratshino Complete Collection of Historical Information, p. 421, and in Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary of the Assumption Convent, - vol. V, p. 365, col. 1). John, the recluse of Pskov, died on October 22, 1616 (Pskov. 1st Chronicle in Collected Years. IV, 332, History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 80). But since it is unknown at which church he was buried, it is more likely that he was not venerated. John the Hieroschemamonk, a recluse of the Svyatogorsk hermitage, which is located in the Yzyum district of the Kharkov province, died on August 11, 1867 (Blessed Demetrius Mesyatseslov, August 11, 1st ed., 2nd ed., IV issue, p. 73, also E. Poselyanina Russian ascetics of the 19th century). John, the recluse of Sezenovsky, who labored in the village of Sezenov, Lebedyansky district, Tambov province and died on December 14, 1839 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, December 14, 1st ed. issue II, p. 34, also E. Poselyanina Russian ascetics of the 19th century; in Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary, chapter Sezyovo. There is “The Life of John, the Sezenovsky Recluse”, owned by A. N. Muravyov). John Solovetsky. See Vasily. John Maksimovich, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, died on July 10, 1715 (Blessed Demetrius Mesyatseslov, July 10, 1st edition, issue LV, p. 42, Archpriest Putintsev Tales of Some Siberian Ascetics of Piety, p. 13, also Zavalishina Description of Western Siberia, M. L862, page 314). 595 Ioann Nikiforovich Chepolosov, the passion-bearer of Uglich, is the seven-year-old son of a Uglich townsman, who was killed and hacked to pieces on June 25, 1663 by one of his father’s workers out of enmity towards the latter. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints; but in fact he is only a revered deceased, see Guide to the churches of the cities of Uglich and Lavrov, printed in Yaroslavl, in 1869, p. 80 (requiems are sung). Joasaph Gorlenko, Bishop of Belgorod, died on December 10, 1754 and was buried in the St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Trinity (in the History of the Hierarchy and in Stroev in the Lists of Hierarchs - Nicholas) Monastery (in which his body rests incorrupt and open. Most Rev. Dimitri Mesyatseslov, December 10, 1st ed. vol. II, pp. 27–29, and Rev. Arseny Chronicle of Church Events under the Year 1752, 2nd ed. p. 719. - Currently, Belgorod is a district city of the Kursk province, and the bishops of Belgorod have become Kursk since 1787). Joasaph Skripitsyn, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, after a three-year reign, deposed from the throne on January 3, 1542, died on July 27, 1555 (as accepted) in the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery, in which his relics rest in secret in the Serapionskaya adjacent to the Trinity Cathedral tent. Joasaph, schemamonk and recluse of the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery, who died around 1560. His relics were discovered in 1597, when the monastery was destroyed by the collapse of the mountain above it. After the monastery was moved to a new location, the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord with the chapels of St. John the Theologian and St. Nicholas the Wonderworker was built over his tomb in 1598. In the first aisle, his relics are hidden, over which a requiem service is currently being celebrated daily (Reverend Demetrius Mesyatseslov, 2nd ed. issue III, p. 86). Joasapha, abbot of the Pskov Snya(e)Togorsk monastery, on May 4, 1299, during the Livonians attack on Pskov, killed along with 17 monks of the monastery (Collected years. IV, 182 fin.; History of the Principality of Pskov III, 75). Job, in the schema Jesus, the founder of the Golgotha-Crucifixion monastery on Anzersky Island, which is located 4 versts from Solovetsky Island, died on March 6, 1720 (Solovetsky Patericon, p. 109; Rev. Demetrius Mesyatseslov, March 6. 1st ed. issue III, p. 22). Job Ushchelsky, the founder of the abolished Ushelsky monastery, which was located in the Mezen district of the Arkhangelsk province, on the Mezen River, died a violent death at the hands of robbers on August 5, 1628 (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbals, No. 509). Jonah Klimetsky, the founder of the Elimetsky Nikolaevsky Monastery, which is located in the Petrozavodsk district of the Olonets province, on the island of Lake Onega Klimetskoye, died on June 6, 1534 (Filaret Russian Saints, ß June; East Jer. [V, 530; Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary pp. Klimets monastery; in Reading History and Ancient, book IV, article by E. V. Barsov: Olonets monastery, p. 2 sqq). Jonah, the first builder of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, who lived in the second half of the 15th century and died in an unknown year (East. Jer. V, 546; The Tale of the Beginning and Foundation of the Pechersky Monastery, M. 1831, l. 3, and History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 77). Joseph, Metropolitan of Astrakhan, killed by Stenka Razin’s accomplices on May 11, 1671 (Barsukova Sources of Hagiography, col. 275). Juliania, Princess Vyazemskaya, wife of Prince Simeon Mstislavich, suffered death for chastity in 1406 in Torzhok from Smolensk Prince Yuri Svyatoslavich, whose remains are in the Torzhkov Cathedral (Karamz. vol. V, 106–107 and note 196, gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 353) Juliania Lazarevskaya, the virtuous wife of the Murom nobleman Yuri Osorin, died on January 2, 1604 and was buried in the village of Lazarevskoye, which was the patrimony of her husband, which is not far from the city of Murom (Vladimir province). Righteous Juliana of Ulyanovsk, unknown when she lived, revered in the village of Ulyanovsk, Solvychegodsk district, Vologda province (V. Dimitri Mesyatseslov, December 21, 1st ed. issue II, p. 47). 596 Juliana. In Novgorod, righteous Juliana, the mother of the holy fool Nikolai Kochanov, is revered. Over her body, buried in the cemetery of the former Yakovlevsky Cathedral, near the present Panteleimon (Nikolo-Kochanovskaya) Church, located on the Sofia side of the city, a chapel was erected, in which every year on the day of her repose, December 21, a memorial service is held for her. See Rev. Macarius Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod, I p. 199 sqq, and gr. Tolstov's Shrines and Antiquities of Veliky Novgorod, p. 102 sqq. Julia, sister of St. Metropolitan Alexia, former abbess of the Moscow Conception Monastery (Ist. Jer. IV, 140). Karp Medushsky, a peasant of the village of Medushi, Kovrov district, Vladimir province, who lived in recent times, left behind the glory of a “righteous man”, over whose grave, located near the church, memorial services are often held and as a sign of veneration of which a chapel was built in the church in the name of Sts. martyrs Karp and Papila (Blessed Demetrius Mesyatseslov, 2nd edition, issue II, October, p. 88). Cassian Muezersky, the founder of the abolished Muezersky Trinity Monastery, which was located in the Arkhangelsk province, in the Kem district, on the island of Lake Muya, lying southwest of Kem (see Semenov's Geographical and Statistical Dictionary for the words Muezero and the large German map of Russia by Kipert), who lived unknown when. According to the compiler of the Historical Description of the Solovetsky Monastery, Archimandrite Meletius of this monastery (Moscow, 1881), the relics of Cassian rest in the former monastery, hidden in a chapel, - Ch. XIII, p. 292, from which we can conclude that he is revered. Cassian, abbot of the Spaso-Kamensky and Kirillov-Belozersky monasteries, who died in the first monastery between 1469–1479 (East. Ier. IV, 332, in Veryuzhsk. p. 803; about the year of death - Stroev’s Lists of Hierarchs). Cyprian Storozhevsky, the founder of the abolished Nikolaev Storozhevsky or Storozhensky monastery, which was located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, who lived unknown when until the end of the 17th century (Hist. Jer. VI, 830). Cyprian of Suzdal, a hermit (fool), who labored near the village (former monastery) of Voskresensky, which is located in the Kovrov district of the Vladimir province (on the Uvodi River) and under the church of which he was buried, died on October 2 (1), 1622–10 (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbals, No. 390. - Ananias Fedorov in the Historical collection about the city of Suzhdal, Time, book XXII, p. 194 fin.: “imperishable relics”). Cyprian of Troy, founder of the abolished St. Nicholas Troy (on the Path) monastery, which was located in the Poshekhonsky district of the Yaroslavl province, who lived until the half of the 16th century. We don’t know whether he is revered at the present time, but he was revered in the middle of the 18th century, see Descriptions of Slavic and Russian manuscripts belonging to I. A. Vakhrameev, compiled by A. A. Titov, third edition, appendix. page 40 sqq. Cyprian of Ustyug, builder of the Ustyug Archangel Monastery, died (as accepted) on September 29, 1276 (East. Jer. III, 312; Karamz. III, note 186 sub fin.: Philaret Russian Saints, September 29; in Veryuzhsk. p. 53). Kirill, the founder of the Astrakhan Trinity Monastery, who died around 1576 (V. Dimitri Mesyatslov, March 19, 1st edition, issue III, p. 53, and issue IV, section 1, p. 259; see also the book by A. Shtylko: Illustrated Astrakhan, printed in Saratov, in 1896, p. 19 fin.). Kirill and Maria, parents of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh, buried in the Intercession Khotkov Monastery, which is located 10 miles from the Lavra towards Moscow. Kirill Syrinsky, founder of the abolished Syrinskaya or Sylinskaya Assumption Hermitage, which was located in the Kargopol district of the Olonets province, lived unknown when (Hist. Jer. VI, 339). Konstantin and Kosma Kosinsky, founders of the abolished Kosin or Kosinsky Nikolaevsky monastery, which was located in the Starorussky district of the Novgorod province, who lived (as is accepted) in the half of the 13th century (Hist. Jer. IV, 786 and in the Dictionary of Semenov words. Kosino). Kopriy Pechenga. See Abramius and Coprius. Kornily Olonetsky (Lodeyno-Polsky), the founder of the abolished Kornilieva (Podansky) Hermitage, which was located in Lodeyno-Polsky, a district of the Olonetsky province, who died after 1588 (the Podansky Hermitage, which is mentioned in the History of the Hierarchy - V, 446, there is another, for it is located in the Povenets district of the Olonetsky province), see. essay by E. Dokuchaev-Baskov “Ascetics and monasteries of the Far North” in Christian. Readings 1890, No. 8. Kornily Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Corniliy and Avramy of Paleostrovsky, builders of the Paleostrovsky Nativity Monastery, which is located in the Petrozavodsk district of the Olonets province, on an island in Lake Onega, who lived at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 5th century (Ist. Jer. V, 450; Philaret Russian Saints, August 24). Cornelius of Pereyaslavl, an ascetic of the former Pereyaslavl Borisoglebsky monastery, on the Sands, who died on July 22, 1698 (Philareta Russian Saints, July 22; East Jer. III. 424 beginning). 597 Corniliy of the Pskov-Pechersky, abbot of the Pskov Pechersky Monastery, killed, by order of the Terrible, on February 20, 1570 (The Tale of the Beginning and Foundation of the Pechersky Monastery, fol. 4 vol.). Cosma Kosinsiy. See Constantine and Cosmas. 598 Ksenia, Princess Yaroslavl, wife of Prince. Vasily Vsevolodovich, mother-in-law of Prince Theodore Rostislavich Cherny, buried in the church of the Peter and Paul Monastery, now a parish (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbs, No. 239, Karamz. vol. IV, col. 69). Xenophon Robeysky, the founder of the abolished Xenophon Robeysky hermitage, which was located in the Novgorod district of the Novgorod province, died on June 28, 1262 (East. Jer. IV, 878). Xenophon of Tutansky, abbot of the abolished Tutansky monastery, which was located in the Tver district of the Tver province, who lived at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century (see my book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, p. 101, and Rev. Demetrius Mesyatseslov, January 26, 1st ed. issue II, p. 165). Lavrenty Komelsky, student of Rev. Cornelius of Komel and his second successor as abbess in his monastery, who died on May 16, 1548. In the first edition of the book we placed him among the saints, but Fr. Veryuzhsky, by his silence about the celebration of him (p. 447 fin.), lets us know that he belongs to the number of only revered deceased. Lazarus of Murom (Murmansk), founder of the abolished Murom (Murmansk) Assumption Monastery, which was located in the Pudozh district of the Olonets province, died (as is accepted) on March 8, 1391 (East. Jer. V, 114). 599 Lazarus-Nazarius. See Eleazar (Athanasius) and Nazarius (Lazarus). Levkiy of Volokolamsk, the founder of the abolished Assumption Levkiyevsky hermitage (after his name), which was located in the Volokolamsk district of the Moscow province, who lived (as is accepted) at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century (Ist. Jer. V, 10; Ratshin, p. 284; Stroeva Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries, col. 251). Leonid Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Leonid Poshekhonsky, student and associate of Rev. Adrian of Poshekhonsky, who died in 1549. In the first edition of the book, based on what appears to be a very unreliable catalog of Fr. K. Yaroslavsky, we placed him among the saints; but in fact, in all likelihood, he should be classified among only the revered dead. Leonid Ustnedumsky, the founder of the abolished Ustnedumsky Bogoroditsk Hermitage, which was located in the Ustyug district of the Vologda province, died on July 17, 1 ῦ 54 (Hist. Jer. VI, 580; in Veryuzhsk. p. 668). Leonty Karikhovsky (Novgorod), founders of the abolished Karikhiv monastery, which was located in the Novgorod district of the Novgorod province, died on July 18, 1492 (East. Ier. IV, 355). Lucian Alexandrovsky, the organizer of the Lucian Hermitage, which is located in the Alexander district of the Vladimir province, died on September 8, 1654 (Hist. Jer. V, 27; Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs). Makariy Glukharev, the famous Altai missionary (1830–1843), who was a strict ascetic all his life, died as abbot of the Volkhov Optina monastery, Oryol province, on May 18, 1847. According to one of his biographers, writing in 1860, “hosts of pious people gather at the place of his burial and serve funeral services for him,” see the article by priest in the August book of the “Wanderer” for 1860. A. Lavrova: “Archimandrite Macarius, Head of the Altai Church Mission,” p. 67. Macarius of Optina, ascetic of the Optina Hermitage, died on September 7, 1860. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century (Metropolitan Philaret, who respected him, made a remark to the Censorship Committee for allowing his letters to be published without clearing them of absurdities, see Alphabetical index to the collection of opinions and reviews of Philaret, p. 177, col. 2). Macarius of Oredezh, founder of the abolished Oredezh Assumption Hermitage, which was located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, a student of Alexander Svirsky (East. Ier. V, 370). Maxim the Greek, a famous writer and sufferer, who arrived in Russia from Athos in 1518, died in the Trinity Monastery of Sergius on an unknown month and day of 1556 (Memory in the Trinity Monastery on January 21, on the day of remembrance of St. Maxim the Confessor). Maria Shvarnova, Czech, converted Catholic, wife of a leader. book Vsevolod Yuryevich, who founded the Princess of the Assumption Convent in Vladimir, died in her monastery after being tonsured as a monk on March 19, 1206 (Laurentine years under 1206; Rev. Demetrius Mesyatseslov, March 19, 1st ed. issue III, p. 56). Maria Pskovskaya. See Martha. Maria, mother of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See Kirill and Maria. Mark of Pskov-Pechersky, the first elder of the Pskov Pechersky Monastery, who lived in the middle of the 15th century (The Tale of the Beginning and Foundation of the Pechersky Monastery, fol. 24 vol.; History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 77). Mark Sarovsky, ascetic of the Sarov Hermitage, which is located in the Temnikovsky district of the Tambov province, died November 4, 1818 (by Rev. Demetrius on November 4, also by E. Poselyanin in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century). Martyriy Zelenetsky, founder of the Zelenetsky Trinity Monastery, which is located in the Novoladozhsky district of the St. Petersburg province, died on March 1, 1603 (East. Ier. IV, 155). Martha of Pskov, by her worldly name. Maria, the wife of Prince Dovmont (daughter of Grand Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich), who took monastic vows after the death of her husband in the Pskov St. John the Baptist Monastery and died in 1300 (History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 76). Matthew Alexandrovich Konstantinovsky, cathedral archpriest of the city of Rzhev, Tver province, died on April 14, 1857 and was buried in the cold cathedral of the city. See about him in E. Poselyanin in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century (N. V. Gogol, as is known, belonged to the admirers of Father Matthew). Meletiy Leontovich, Archbishop of Kharkov, died on March 1, 1840. Rev. Arseny in the Chronicle of Church Events says about him in 1840 that his memory, as a shepherd famous for his piety, extraordinary meekness, generosity and humility, is reverently honored by the residents of Kharkov, and reports that in front of the icon at his tomb an unquenchable lamp glows, the sacrifice of his zealous admirers. And G. E. Poselyanin in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th century says that “it is not uncommon for persons who honor the memory of the saint, asking for his afterlife intercession, more than once manifested in extraordinary phenomena, to serve funeral liturgies and requiem services for the deceased ascetic,” - page 81 beginning. Misail, Archbishop of Ryazan, suffered martyrdom from the pagan Mordovians on April 19, 1655 (Reverend Demetrius Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. III issue, p. 178). Mitrofan, schema monk of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, who died on February 27, 1793. His tomb in the monastery tomb, located under one of the monastery churches, through the diligence of one of his relatives, is decorated with a silver convex image of him: he belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics - Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 89. Mikhail, Prince of Yaroslavl, son of Prince. Theodore Rostislavich Cherny from his first wife, buried in the church of the former Peter and Paul Monastery, now a parish (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbose, No. 239). Moses Belozersky, “a perspicacious monk at the Bela Lake settlement in the Trinity Monastery,” who lived at the end of the 15th century (Filaret, Russian Saints, February 23). Nazarius (Lazarus). See Eleazar (Athanasius) and Nazarius (Lazarus). Nathanael, hieroschemamonk of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, who died on June 30, 1849 and was buried in the monastery tomb, located under one of the monastery churches. He belongs to the number of locally revered ascetics, Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 2, p. 92. Nektary Bezhetsky, founder of the abolished Vvedensky Bezhetsky Monastery, which was located near the city of Bezhetsk, Tver province (Filaret, Russian Saints, April 3; about the monastery - East. Jer. III, 468). Nikanor is a desert dweller. See Isaiah and Nicanor. Nikifor of Olonetsky, founder of the Zadne-Nikiforovskaya Spasskaya hermitage, which is located in the Olonetsky district of the Olonets province, student of Alexander Svirsky (Hist. Jer. VI, 999). Nikodim Kozheozersky or Khozyuzhsky, a solitary hermit who lived near the Kozheozersky monastery, which is located on the peninsula of Lake Kozhe or Kozho, in the Onega district of the Arkhangelsk province, 120 versts southeast of the city of Onega, on the Khozyuge river, died on July 3, 1639. In the first edition of the book we included him among the saints. But at present we have in our hands the article: “Kozheozersky Monastery”, published in the Moscow Gazette of 1852, Nos. 88 and 84, and written on the spot on the occasion of the resumption of the monastery. From the complete silence of the article on the celebration of the memory of Nicodemus, it necessarily follows that he is not a canonized saint, but only a revered deceased. 600 Nikon Sokolovsky. See Vasily, Nikon and Tikhon. Nil, schemamonk and ascetic of the Nile Forty Hermitage, who died on July 19, 1870. See about him, published in the Soulful Reading of the 1884 guide and taken by the Panteleimon Monastery as one of its publications, the article by L. Zhovalevsky: “The ascetic of the Nilo-Sora desert, Hieroschemamonk Nil.” Nifont of Telegov (Vologda), who founded the abolished Telegov Trinity Monastery in 1553, which was located in the Ustyug district of the Vologda province (East. Ier. VI, 363). Oleg Romanovich, Prince of Bryansk (in the monastery Leonty), who died around 1280 and was buried in the Bryansk Petri-Paul Monastery founded by him, which is located in the city of Bryansk, Oryol province (Blessed Sergius in the Month of the Word, II, September 20, gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 100; about the monastery - Ier. III, 460). Onufriy Katromsky, the founder of the Katromsky Nikolaevsky monastery, which is located in the Kadnikovsky district of the Vologda province, lived unknown until the second quarter of the 16th century (Hist. Ier. IV. 358; in Veryuzhsky p. 575 Onufry Pertsovsky. See Auxentius and Onuphrius. Onuphrius, the holy fool of Romanov, unknown when, labored in the city of Romanov-Borisoglebsk, Yaroslavl province and was buried at the Transfiguration Church of the city (Reverend Demetrius Mesyatseslov, June 11, 1st ed. issue IV, p. 52). Onufry Solovetsky, See Vasily. Oslyabya-Herodion. See Alexander-Peresvet. Paphnutius of Balakhninsky, abbot and ascetic of the abolished Trinity Monastery, which was located near the city of Balakhna, Nizhny Novgorod province, who lived in the 17th century (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 382). 601 Pachomius, the ascetic of Zadonsk, who lived in recent times (Blessed Demetrius Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue III, p. 386). Pachomius, the founder of the abolished Kenskaya Spasopreobrazhenskaya Pachomiev Hermitage, which was located in the Kargopol district of the Olonets province, who lived in the 16th century (with Rev. Sergius; about the monastery - East. Ier. IV, B 61). Pachomius, who was also on the Great Lake, or Svyatolutsky. Companion of Rev. Dionysius of Glushitsky (and according to East Jer., - III, 698, his brother), who restored with him the Svyatolutsky monastery, which was located on the southeastern shore of Lake Kubenskoye and on the site of which is now the Svyatolutsky graveyard (Semyonov’s Dictionary), who died in an unknown year. According to one, apparently local, testimony that we came across, “the tombs of St. Pachomius indicate it, but his memory is sacredly revered by the local residents,” see Additions to the Church Gazette of 1895 No. 30, p. 1060. Pelageya Ivanovna Serebrennikova, holy fool of the Diveyevo Monastery, located in the Arzamas district of the Nizhny Novgorod province, died on January 30, 1884. See E. Poselyanin about her in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Peresvet-Alexander. See Alexander-Peresvet. Peter the Wonderworker, an ascetic of the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery, who lived around the middle of the 15th century (East. Jer. IV, 332; in Veryuzhsk. p. 303. He, as one must think, is called Ustinsky, because before the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery he asceticised at the mouth of the Kubina River, which flows into Lake Kubevo - Rev. Sergius the Complete Monthly Book, II, appendix. 3rd; gr. Tolstoy in the Book of verbs, A" 272). Peter of Uglich, priest and ascetic of the city of Uglich, Yaroslavl province, died in September 1866 and was buried in Rybinsk, in the Sophia Convent. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Peter Cherepkovsky, priest of the village of Cherenkova, which is located in the Solvychegodsky district of the Vologda province, suffered martyrdom from the Poles and was buried at the church of the village (Veryuzhsky, p. 628). Peter the Martyr of Kazan, mentioned above. Pimen Savelov, Bishop of Vologda, died on May 26, 1753 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, May 26, 1st ed., issue III, p. 395). Pimen, Archbishop of Novgorod. See Yuri Svyatoslavich. Pitirim, the second bishop of Tambov, after a 13-year reign, died on July 28, 1698 and was buried in the cathedral. “A hearse was built over the grave of the saint, the top board of which was silver gilded with a cast image of him in full height. His memory as a saint of God is honored with special reverence not only by the residents of Tambov, but also by the entire Tambov diocese,” Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 1st ed.. IV issue, dep. 1, pp. 854–75, see also brochure prot. Io. Kobyakova: Saint Pitirim, the second Bishop of Tambov (biographical sketch), published in Tambov, in 1885, and in the Church Gazette published under the Holy Synod, 1898, No. 26, article: “Saint Pitirim, the second Bishop of Tambov”, p. 978 (according to the last article, from the beginning of the thirties of the last century, when they began to record the miracles that took place at the tomb of the saint, “there are more than two recorded miracles, in addition to many unknown and unrecorded ones” - p. 980, col. 2). Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on November 11, 1812 and was buried in the Spaso-Bethans Monastery, located three and a half miles away from the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. Already in 1834, there were rumors that healings were taking place at Plato’s tomb, see the letter of Bishop Pavel of Kostroma to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow dated July 22, 1834 in the preface by S.K. Smirnov to the autobiography of Metropolitan. Plato, published in Soulful Reading of 1887, Nos. 8 and 9, and as a separate book. In the letters of Metropolitan. Philaret to the governor of the Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony, we find: in a letter dated January 8, 1852: “Information about those who received benefits from St. Plato must be recorded in the monastery, and, moreover, try to ensure that the recording is simple and accurate, as those benefited say,” - print. ed. letters vol. PI, p. 121, No. 844; in a letter dated March 16, 1864: “The glory of the grace of God, which appears through Saint Plato,” - IV, 421, No. 1533; in a letter dated November 26, 1866: “I am comforted by the news of God’s good deed through Saint Platov, glory to Him who glorifies His saints,” - IV, 499, No. 1659. In Sergievsky Posad they believe that Plato especially helps children in illness, for he loved children alive. Polycarp of Bryansk, founder of the abolished Polikarpov Spassky Monastery, which was located in the city of Bryansk, Oryol province, died on February 23, 1699 (East. Jer. V, 588). Procopius the holy fool of Vyatka, who died on December 21, 1628 and was buried in the Tryphon Monastery (East. Jer. VI, 437, approx.). Procopius of Usyansky, it is unknown when he lived until the second aspen of the 17th century, whose relics are located in the parish church of the village of Veryuzhskoye, in the Velsky district of the Vologda province - Veryuzhsk. page 546 sqq. See about him above pp, 159 and 200. Prokhor, in the schema Tryphon, Bishop of Rostov, who died on September 7, 1327 and was buried in the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery. In the first edition of the book we included him among the saints. But now we have positive and reliable information that memorial services are being held over his tomb, therefore, that he is a revered deceased, see the book: “Yaroslavl Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, which is now the Bishop’s House,” compiled by the sacristan of the monastery, Hieromonk Vladimir and published in Moscow, in 1881, p. 93. Prokhor Yastrebsky. See Vassian and Prokhor. Razumovsky Count, the Siberian Fool, so nicknamed. Archpriest Putintsev in his book: “Tales of some Siberian ascetics of piety” assures that in Siberia the memory is more or less revered: Varlaam, Archbishop of Tobolsk, who occupied the see from 1768 to 1802 and died on December 27 of last year (buried in the Tobolsk Cathedral), hermits Basilisk and Zosima, of whom the first died on December 29, 1824 (and was buried in the convent of the city of Turisk, Tobolsk province), and the second died on October 24, 1833 (upon returning from Siberia to Russia in the Odigitrievskaya maiden community he founded, located in Vereisky district Moscow province, 60 versts from Moscow - about him see also in the Memoirs of Archimandrite Pimen, abbot of the Nicholas Monastery on Ugresh, Moscow, 1877, p. 297 sqq), and the holy fools of Domnutka and the so-called Count Razumovsky, who labored at the end of the first - beginning of the second half of the last century (About Basilisk and Zosima, see also E. Poselyanin in the 2nd edition of Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century). Roman Kirzhachsky, the first abbot of the built venerable. Sergius of Radonezh of the abolished Kirzhach Vvedensky Monastery, which was located in the current provincial town of Kirzhach, Vladimir province, died in 1392 (East. Ier. IV, 382). Savva Stromynsky, an ascetic of the abolished Stromynsky monastery, which was located in the Bogorodsky district of the Moscow province, who lived at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century (Reverend Dimitri Mesyatseslov, 1st ed. issue IV, p. 333). Savva Tverskoy. See Barsanuphius. Savvaty, the founder of the abolished Savvaty Hermitage, which was located in the Tver district of the Tver province, died around 1430 (Filaret, Russian Saints, March 2). 602 Serapion Kozheozersky, founder of the Kozheozersky Epiphany Monastery, which is located in the Onega district of the Arkhangelsk province, on the peninsula of Lake Kozhe, died on June 27, 1611 (Filaret, Russian Saints, June 27). Serapion of Pskov, faster and student of St. Euphrosyne of Pskov, who died on September 8, 1480 (History of the Principality of Pskov, III, 78). Serapion, Metropolitan of Sarsk and Podonsk, who died in retirement in the Makariev Kolyazin Monastery on May 2, 1653 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, May 2, 1st ed. issue III, p. 213; Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs). Seraphim of Sarov, ascetic of the Sarov Hermitage, died on January 2, 1833 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatslov, January 2, 1st ed. issue II, p. 109, as well as E. Poselyanina Russian ascetics of the 19th century). Sergius Shukhtovsky, who labored at the parish Shukhtovsky church, which is located in the Cherepovets district of the Novgorod province, died on May 19, 1609 (East. Jer. VI, 668–69). Simeon schemamonk, founder of the Beloberezh Nikolaev Hermitage, which is located in the Bryansk district of the Oryol province (in 1764 it was closed - East. Jer. III, 468, then restored), who died in 1741 (Blessed Dimitri Mesyatseslov, 2nd ed. issue III, November, p. 73). Simeon, the first bishop of Tver, died on February 3, 1289 (Philareta Russian Saints, February 3). Simon Todorsky, Archbishop of Pskov, died on February 22, 1754 and was buried in the Trinity Cathedral. In a letter to Rev. Philaret of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky dated June 22, 1844, who was in the last year Bishop of Riga, Vicar of Pskov, among other things reads: “Here is one of the most pleasant news, although not entirely new: Simon, Archbishop. Pskovsky, reveals himself to the world in holiness of life and glory before the Lord; in the past year there were several healings at his coffin and he appeared, inviting funeral services to be performed at his coffin; the zealous fulfill his will,” see Letters of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, to A.V. Gorsky, M. 1885, No. 57, p. 158. Unfortunately, we have no further information whether healings continue at the tomb of Simon and the singing of memorial services for the deceased. Solomonia, monastically Sophia, Grand Duchess, divorced wife led. book Vasily Ivanovich, who died in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery on December 16, 1542 (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of Verbose, No. 388). Sofia Olelkovna, Princess of Slutsk, who died on March 19, 1617, whose relics openly rest in the Slutsk Trinity Monastery of the Minsk Diocese (Arch. Nicholas Description of the Minsk Diocese, p. 110; Rev. Dimitri Mesyatseslov, March 19, 1st ed. issue III, p. 58). Stefan, an ascetic of the Nikolaev Korelsky Monastery, who lived in the 15th century, see the article by Rev. Makaria: Christianity within the Arkhangelsk diocese, printed in Reading. General East. and Ancient 1878, book. III, p. 52. Stefan, like him on Osinki. See the following word: Stefan Solovetsky. Stefan, the Solovetsky laborer, who lived unknown when, whose tomb is in the Solovetsky Monastery in the same tent with other locally revered ascetics of the monastery (Ratshin, p. 4 of the beginning of Gr. Tolstoy takes him for one person with that Stefan the laborer, about whom in the Book, the verb description of the Russian saints, it is said that he “was on Osinki by the ocean of the sea (and) died in the summer 7000,” – No. 314. Not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Stefan the Tatar martyr, who is below and by which we should mean that Stefan the Kazan martyr, about whom is above. Timothy, the holy fool of Pskov, who found the icons of the Mother of God of Tenderness and Hodegetria, for which in 1569 the Svyatogorsk Assumption Monastery was built, located in the Opochsky district of the Pskov province, 40 gates northeast of the city of Opochka (the same one in which A.S. Pushkin was buried), see Historical Dictionary about saints Tikhon Sokolovsky. See Vasily, Nikon and Tikhon. Tryphon, Archbishop of Rostov, died in retirement in the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery, December 30, 1468. In the first edition of the book, we placed him among the saints, but now we positively know that he should be classified among the revered dead only, see the book: “Yaroslavl Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, which is now the Bishop’s House,” compiled by the sacristan of the monastery, Hieromonk Vladimir and published in Moscow, in 1881, p. 93. Tryphon of Perm. In the Perm province and district there is the village of Chusovskoy Gorodok, otherwise Uspenskoye, in which there was the Assumption Monastery, abolished in 1764, founded in the second half of the 16th century by Rev. Tryphon (see East. Jer. VI, 718 fin., and in Semenov’s Dictionary words. Chusovskaya Gorodok). In the appeal of the parish trusteeship of the village to benefactors for help, published in No. 184 for 1900 of the Kurier newspaper, it is said that the founder (sic) of the village was “famous for miracles and healings, the Reverend Father Tryphon, b. 1543, d. 1613, 70 l.”, that is, it is given as if to know that Tryphon belongs to the number of revered deceased (although, however, the entire appeal was written with such rhetoric that it does not arouse complete faith in itself). Philaret, Metropolitan of Kiev, died on December 21, 1857 and was buried in the Pechersk Lavra, in the church above the St. Anthony Caves. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on November 19, 1867 and was buried in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. Philip of Rabang, founder of the abolished Spasopreobrazhensky Rabang Monastery, which was located in the Vologda district of the Vologda province, 82 versts northeast of Vologda, died on November 15, 1457. In the first edition of the book we included him among the saints. But oh. Veryuzhsky, whom we did not have in our hands at that time, by his silence about any celebration of his memory - page 218, makes it clear that he is not a canonized saint. Philip Yankovsky (Ustyugsky), who founded in 1654 the Filippovskaya Znamenskaya Yankovsky (many mistakenly: Yankovsky) desert, which is located near the city of Ustyug, Vologda province (Ist. Jer., VI, 593; in Veryuzhsk. p. 690). Philotheus in the schema of Theodore, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, who died in the Trinity Monastery of Tyumen on May 31, 1727 (Blessed Demetrius of the Month, May 31, 1st ed. issue III, p. 408). Khariton Kudinsky (Toropetsky), founder of the abolished Kudin monastery, which was located near the city of Toroitsa, Pskov province, lived unknown when (Hist. Jer. IV, 878 fin.). Christopher Solvychegodsky or Koryazhemsky, the founder of the abolished Christopher Mother of God hermitage, which was located in the Solvychegodsky district of the Vologda province on the Koryazhemka river, who died between 1572–1582 (Ist. Jer. VI, 606; in Veryuzhsk. p. 491). Yuri Svyatoslavich 603, Prince of Smolensk, and Pimen, Archbishop of Novgorod. In the church of the former Venevsky Nikolaevsky Monastery, a parish since 1782, located near the high road from Tula to Venev, 15 versts from the second, buried: Prince of Smolensk Yuri Svyatoslavich, who, after the murder in Torzhok of Prince Vyazemsky Simeon and his wife Juliania (see above the words Juliania), fled to the steppe and found refuge and a grave in the mentioned desert monastery, dying there on September 14, 1407, and Archbishop Pimin of Novgorod, who was exiled to the monastery by Grozny and who died there on September 25, 1571. According to the assurance of one witness known to us, “the memory of these two men is highly revered by the people and many funeral services are held at their tombs (located in the church”), see Kharichkov’s article: “Venev Monastery”, published in the Historical Bulletin of Suvorin, 1895, May, p. 549. In the above, read on the tomb of Prince Yuri and not particularly long ago, it is completely silent about his atrocity and says about his removal from Torzhok, that “the most good God put into the soul of this righteous one to leave the vanity of this age and look for a place to save his soul” (The inscription is fully given by Kharichkov). Theodora of Nizhny Novgorod, by the worldly name Vassa or Vasilissa, the wife of Suzdal Prince Andrei Konstantinovich, after the death of her husband (in 1365), became a monk, founded the abolished Conception Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, died in 1378 and was buried in the Nizhny Novgorod Transfiguration Cathedral (Nikoi, years. IV, 78; Degrees, book I, 486; in Karamz, vol. 4; Feodor Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Theodore, a student of Paisius Velichkovsky, who died in 1822 in the Svirsky monastery (Reverend, Philaret History of the Russian Church, period V, § 43). Feodor Kuzmich, a Siberian elder, whose identity still remains mysterious 604, died in Tomsk on January 20, 1864. Despite the fact that he did not go to church, did not confess or receive communion, and that just before his death he refused confession and communion, on his grave cross it was written: “here is buried the body of the great, blessed elder Theodore Kuzmich” and “immeasurable worship” was given to the place of his burial, see Kuznetsov-Krasnoyarsky’s article: “Elder Theodore Kuzmich”, published in the Historical Bulletin of Suvorin, 1895, May, p. 550 sqq (His Eminence Tomsk Parthenius, who saw the elder, said about him that “he is hardly not in delusion,” and the rector of the seminary, after a conversation with him, assumed about him “that he is either a Uniate theologian from Western Russia or a mystical philosopher and Freemason,” -ibid.: and very it is possible that the Siberians were in great and miserable delusion at the expense of the old man...). Feodor Ivanovich, Prince of Starodubsky, - Starodub of Ryapolovsky, which is now the village of Klyazemsky town in the Kovrov district of the Vladimir province, killed in the Horde on June 23, 1330 and buried in the village of Aleksin, which is located 15 versts from the Klyazemsky town (Gr. Tolstoy in the Book of the Verb, No. 207). Theodosius, in monasticism Euphrosyne, wife of the leader. book Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who died in Novgorod on May 4, 1244 and was laid in the Yuriev Monastery, next to her son Theodore Yaroslavich (Reverend Macarius Archaeological Description of Church Antiquities in Novgorod, I, 420). It happened that he was driving. Princess Vladimir died not in Vladimir, but in Novgorod, as one should think, in such a way that death overtook her in Novgorod, when she was in the latter to visit her son Alexander Yaroslavich, who reigned there (cfr. Novgorod; 1st chronicle under 1240, - in Collected years. III, 53. But the description of Vladimir Dormition Cathedral, read in Lavra Manuscript No. 810, she, like her son Theodore Yaroslavich, above p. 123, lies in Vladimir, in the St. George Country Monastery). Theodosius, the first Archbishop of Astrakhan, on December 18, 1606, died on the road from Moscow to his home in the city of Tsaritsyn, in 1608 he was buried in Kazan, in the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, in 1617 he was transferred to Astrakhan and laid in the Assumption Cathedral (Reverend Plato Lyubarsky Collection of antiquities of the Kazan diocese, p. 197; Stroeva Lists of hierarchs). Theodosius of Glushitsky, ascetic of the Dionysian Glushitsky Monastery (East. Ier. III, 702 beginning). Theodosius and Athanasius of Cherepovets, founders of the abolished Cherepovets Resurrection Monastery, which was located in the city of Cherepovets, Novgorod province, lived unknown until the half of the 15th century (Ist. Jer. VI, 656). Feofan Govorov, Bishop of Vladimir, died in retirement in the Vyshenskaya desert of the Tambov province, Shatsk district, on January 6, 1891. See about him E. Poselyanina Russian ascetics of the 19th century. Feofan Novoezersky, archimandrite and ascetic of the Kirillov Novoyezersk monastery, located in the Kirillov district of the Novgorod province, died on December 3, 1832. See about him in E. Poselyanin in Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century. Theophilus Omuchsky. See James and Theophilus. Theophilus and Jacob of Porkhov, who founded the abolished Theophilus Assumption Hermitage at the end of the 14th (allegedly) century, which was located in the Porkhov district of the Pskov province (Ist. Jer. VI, 848 fin.). Ferapont Movzensky. A solitary ascetic of the Buisky forest in the Kostroma province, and then an ascetic of the Annunciation Monza Monastery, which was founded near the place of his exploits by the Ven. Adrian (see in the same list above) and who was called Ferapontov by his name - Ferapont (abolished in 1764), who died in 1598-1599 (Klyuchevsk. Old Russian Lives of Saints, p. 329; book: Holy saints of God and ascetics of Kostroma, p. 117). Ferapont Ostrovsky. See Athanasius. Thomas, the holy fool of Solvychegodsk, buried in the Vvedensky Monastery of the city of Solvychegodsk, Vologda province (about Thomas himself in the Most Rev. Sergius in the Complete Monthly Book, vol. P, appendix 3; about the veneration of his memory in Ratshin, p. 62 and in Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary under the words. Solvychegodsk). II. List of deceased persons not actually venerated, but whose names are included in the catalogs of saints Abraham Abbot, who reposed in the year 6000 (492!), is among the saints of the city of Kyiv. - Unknown. Avramiy, abbot of the All-Merciful Savior, March 2 (at the Most Rev. Serbia). -Unknown. Avramiy, Penezh miracle worker, June 21 (in the calendar with the chronicler of the Moscow Theological Academy, l. 321). Perhaps the founder or one of the abbots of the Monastery of Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was located on the Penezhsky portage of the Dvina region, in the current Arkhangelsk province (East. Jer. V, 619 fin). Avramy, Abbot Spassky, also in Yaroslavl, September 23 (in the calendar of Count Uvarov). In the Yaroslavl Spassky Monastery there were abbots from the time of its foundation at the beginning of the 13th century until the beginning of the 14th century, but among them only one is known by name - Prokhor, who was installed as bishop of Rostov in 1311 (see Stroev in the Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries). A number of archimandrites are known almost completely, but among them there is no Abramius (see ibid.). Agafia Vsevolodovna, lead. princess, wife of the leader. Prince of Vladimir Georgy or Yuri Vsevolodovich, the sons of Georgiev: Vsevolod, Mstislav and Vladimir, his daughters-in-law, the wives of his first two sons, Maria and Christina, and his daughter Theodora, who died during the capture of Vladimir by the Tatars on the 7th (erroneously in the catalogs the 3rd) February 1238 (the wife of Vladimir’s third son, unknown by name, probably died during the capture of Moscow by the Tatars, which was on the way from Ryazan to Vladimir, and her husband, who was sitting on an estate in Moscow, was taken prisoner by the Tatars). Adrian, the hermit of Solovetsky, who lived in the first half of the 17th century, - Patericon of Solovetsky, p. 77. Akakiy, Bishop of Tver, died in Moscow on January 14, 1567 and was buried in the Tver Zheltkov Monastery. Alexander, Bishop of Pereyaslavl, new wonderworker, May 14th (at the Most Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Saint Alexander, Wonderworker of Tver, August 20th (at the Most Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Alexey. In the Synodic of the Week of Orthodoxy, which belonged to the Vologda Bishop's See and is now in the St. Petersburg Public Library, - Collections of the Library described by A. F. Bychkov No. LIX, pp. 156–170, among other things, the eternal memory is proclaimed to “Alexey Yasin, who was killed for the house of the Holy Mother of God and with his retinue (i.e., his wife?) and his son John,” l. 167 rev. Ananias, icon painter, monk of the Novgorod St. Anthony Monastery, died on June 17, 1581 - ιό. Anastasia is righteous. See Gabriel the righteous. Anastasia, abbess of the Uglich Epiphany Monastery, who suffered death along with 35 nuns of her monastery from the Lithuanians on April 10, 1609. In the first edition of the book, we included her among the saints. But the “Guide to the Churches of the City of Uglich,” owned by L. Lavrov and published in Yaroslavl in 1869, with its complete silence about her in speeches about the Epiphany Monastery (pp. 101–104), makes it clear that she does not belong to the number of truly revered deceased. Anastas of Korsun, a famous Greek who helped St. Vladimir to take possession of Korsun, brought by the sovereign to Kyiv and received from him the Tithe Church and the tithe given to the church, in 1018 he surrendered to the Polish king Boleslav and fled with the king from Kyiv to Poland. He is included among the saints, as “a saint who lived a godly life in Russia,” in an extract from the calendar of 1657, read in two manuscripts of the Moscow Theological Academy (No. 201 l. 330). Andrew, the hermit of Solovetsky, who lived in the first quarter of the 17th century, - Patericon of Solovetsky, p. 74. Andrei Konstantinovich, Prince of Suzdal, who died as a monk and schema-monk on June 2, 1865–10 in Nizhny Novgorod (to which his father had moved the capital of the reign) and was buried in the local Spassky Cathedral (cfr Nikon. let. IV, 8, and Resurrection let. in Collected years. VIII, 13). Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny, his companion, “the reverend fathers, icon painters of glory, reposed in the summer of 6938 (1430) and were laid in the Andronikov Monastery.” Search for Rev. Sergius of Vladimir “On the time of the death of the icon painters Daniel and Andrei, the Andronikov elders,” see his Historical Description of the Moscow Spaso-Andronikov Monastery, M. 1865, appendix. page 8. Andrei Vasilyevich, Prince of Uglich, installed by his brother as leader. book Ivan Vasilyevich to prison, died in prison on October 7, 1493 and was buried in Moscow near the Church of Boris and Gleb. If it is true that Andrei Vasilyevich was buried at the Church of Boris and Gleb, then later he was transferred to the common burial church of the princes - the Archangel Cathedral. Anna Vsevolodovna (Yanka), princess, daughter of the lord. Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich, who became a monk as a virgin, for whom her father built a special monastery - St. Andrew's Yanchin, which ceased to exist during the Mongol invasion, and who died on November 3, 1113 (in the catalogs her death is supposed to be on May 18, 1086, but 1086 is the year, and the 18th May is probably the day of her tonsure). Anthony of Korelsky, see Basilides and Philix. Anthony of Kozheozersky, an ascetic of the Kozheozersky monastery, contemporary with the founder of the latter, Venerable. Serapion, who died in the year 7000, i.e., probably, as round numbers should be understood most, in an unknown year, June 27th. See previous list next. Serapion Kozheozersky. Anthony on the Kupla, Vologda Wonderworker, March 6. One must think that he is an ascetic of the Alexander Kushtik monastery, for no other Kushtik monastery is known. Anthony Bishop of Rostov, a miracle worker, who occupied the see from 1328 to 1336 (under the Reverend Sergius). Anthony and Phillips. See Basilides and Philix. Anthony, pierced by an arrow. The monk of the Chudov Monastery, during the procession of the cross, which on July 2, 1451, on the occasion of the siege of Moscow by the Nogai prince Mazovsha, was carried out along the wall of the Moscow Kremlin by St. Metropolitan Jonah, struck by a Tatar arrow immediately after he predicted deliverance from the enemy to the besieged (see gr. Tolstov No. 471; cfr Karamz. V. 200). Anurius (Iannuarius), student of Rev. Zosima of Solovetsky (with Rev. Sergius. Not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Arkady Dorogobuzhsky, student of Gerasim Boldinsky and recluse of his monastery. Arseny, Archbishop of Suzdal, originally a Greek, formerly of Galasun (Elasson), who died on April 29, 1630. 605 Arseny, Novotorzhsky miracle worker, (with Rev. Sergius). – Unknown (Maybe mistakenly instead of Arkady, about whom see in the previous list). Athanasius in Murom (monastery) in Kargopol district; the relics are hidden, there is a troparion and a kontakion (at Rev. Sergius). About the former Murom or Murmansk monastery, the remaining parish of which is located in the Pudozh district of the Olonets province, see the previous list. Lazar Muromsky (Murmansky). Athanasius (aka Stakhy?), the holy fool of Rostov, buried in a tent at the Ascension of the Lord, where Isidore the Blessed (according to other lists - in a tent of the Epiphany Monastery, in which Pimen was buried. At the Most Reverend Sergius, cfr Count Tolstov Ancient Shrines of Rostov the Great, p. 77, and his Biography saints of God who lived within the current Yaroslavl diocese, p. 41). Bogolep Kozheozersky. See Loggin. Boris Daniilovich, prince, son of Daniil Alexandrovich of Moscow, died in 1320 and was buried in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral (at the Most Reverend Sergius; about death and burial in the Collected Years. IV, 49, V, 216, and VII, 198). Varlaam Abbot of Makhrishchi, disciple of Ev. Stefan of Makhrishchi, who died in the summer of 6900 (1392). Probably, of course, that Varlaam, who, in an improper sense, was a student of Stephen of Makhrishchi, abbot from 1557 to 1570, who in the last year was installed as bishop of Suzdal and who died in retirement in the Makhrishchi monastery on August 21, 1685 (See Reading. General History and Ancients of 1878 book III, article: Makhrishchi Monastery of St. Stephen, p. 10 fin.). Another Makhrishchi abbot Varlaam is mentioned under the year 1517 (Stroeva Lists of Hierarchs). Bartholomew student of the Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See my book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, page 71 fin. Bartholomew the Blessed (builder of the Simon Monastery), John the Golden and Ignatius the Iconist (monks of the same monastery), “who was in the summer of 6950 (in other lists: 6908), - honor them in the life of Job, Metropolitan and Joseph of Volotsk (implied: Answer to the curious and a brief story about the holy fathers who were in monasteries like those in Rustei of the land), and were placed in the Simonov Monastery in Moscow.” Basilides and Philix, “the venerable fathers of the Korelsky monastery at the edge of the sea, who were in the summer of 7000.” For information about the monastery, see the previous list below. Evfimy Korelsky. Basilides and Philips are mistaken for the children of Martha, the Novgorod mayor, Anthony and Philips, who drowned in the ocean not far from the site of the monastery and on whose tombs Martha built a monastery. But the epithet “venerable fathers” indicates that they were monks, which the children of Martha were not (cfr in Read. General History and Ancient. 1878, book III, article: Christianity within the Arkhangelsk diocese, p. D)21. Vasily Ivanovich, leader. prince. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, l. 308, between the 4th and 7th of December it is written: “In the summer of 7047 (1539) the blessed Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, in the monastery Varlaam, reposed, and at the time of his repose the church was filled with many fragrances.” Vasily the holy fool of Solvychegodsk - Unknown (in Veryuzhsk, p. 693). Prince Vasily (Mstislavich, son of Mstislav Mstislavich the Udal, grandson of Mstislav Rostislavich the Brave), who reposed in the summer of 6726 (1218), whose relics (whose) were hidden in the St. Sophia (Novgorod) Cathedral. See Rev. Macarius Archaeological description of church antiquities in Novgorod, I, 74. Vasily Sukhiy, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See my said book, page 71 beginning. Vassian, a student of Cornelius of Pskov, who was killed by Ivan the Terrible on February 20, 1570, suffered along with his teacher (at the Reverend Sergius). Vincent of Vologda (with Rev. Sergius). -Unknown. Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, leader. prince, deceased May 19, 1125 and buried in the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. Vladimir Georgievich, prince. See Agafia Vsevolodovna. Vsevolod Georgievich, prince. See Agafia Vsevolodovna. Gabriel the Righteous and his sister Anastasia the Righteous, the Vasilevskys, (of the city of Vasilev) miracle workers. – Unknown. In Filimonov’s Original, Gabriel is called Prince Vasilievsky: “Reverend Gabriel, Prince Vasilievsky, May 26.” Since our Vasilevo saints are placed between the saints of the cities of Yuryevets Povolgsky and Balakhna, which indicates the area where to look for the city, Vasilevo, then it is likely that one can see in the latter the present settlement of Vasilevo, which is located on the Volga, in the Balakhninsky district of the Nizhny Novgorod province, 48 versts up from Balakhna, and which, in the old days, was a city, until the beginning of the 17th century it belonged to the Shuisky princes, see in Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary sl. Vasilyev (that there were four monasteries in the settlement until 1764 - ibid., and about one of the destroyed monasteries - East. Jer. III, 502). Gideon, ascetic of the Serpukhov Vladychny Monastery, disciple of the founder of the monastery, Rev. Varlaam. Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod, but was demoted from the see and died and was buried in the Moscow Miracle Monastery on December 4, 1505 (at the Most Rev. Sergius). Gennady, Chernigov icon painter, who lived in the middle of the 17th century (with Barsukov). Saint George the Righteous, Muromsky, husband of Juliania Lazarevskaya, - under the 2nd of January in the Original of Filimonov. George, holy fool of Novgorod, November 3rd. - Unknown. George Svyatoslavich, a prince killed in the summer of 6562 (1054), and according to the year and month of his death, this is not murdered, but died a natural death (February 19, 1054) Yaroslav the Great, by the Christian name George, son of Saint Vladimir. Georgy (Ugrin), “like the one who suffered with St. Prince Boris and appeared with him in miracles in a vision, on May 2” (from the Reverend Sergius). Georgy. In the Synodic of the Week of Orthodoxy, which belonged to the Vologda Bishop's See and is now in the St. Petersburg Public Library, - Collections of the Library described by A. F. Bychkov No. LIX, pp. 156–170. among other things, eternal memory is proclaimed to “George Otilbey, the new confessor, much tormented by the Gentiles for the Christian faith,” l. 167 rev. Gerasim, hermit of Solovetsky and disciple of St. Zosima (not in the Solovetsky Patericon). German Kozheozersky. See Loggin. Herman the wondrous, student of the Rev. Kirill Beloozersky, who died in the summer of 7016 (1508). Since Rev. Cyril died on June 9, 1427, then Herman could only be his student in the improper sense, as an ascetic of his monastery. Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow, died a martyr on February 17, 1612. Gerontius, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on May 28 (incorrectly in the catalogs: May 5), 1489. In the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, according to the inventories of the beginning of the 16th century and the year 1627, there was an icon of Metropolitan Gerontius - Russk. Historical Bibliot., ed. Archaic. Comm., vol. III, coll. 314 and 420: one should think that the icon, as a portrait icon, was painted shortly after the death of the metropolitan and that for the first time after his death he was actually revered as a deceased person in the cathedral (in the RKP. Rumyants. Muz. No. 364 there is a brief tale about Metropolitan Gerontius along with legends about Metropolitan Philip the 1st and Macarius, and in RKP gr. Uvarova, former Tsar, No. 896, l. 302, there is an instruction on how to write the metropolitans: Theognostus, Cyprian, Photius, Gerontius and two Philippi). Gleb Vsevolodovich, Prince of Smolensk, whose relics are hidden in the Smolensk Cathedral (in the Tsar’s Church No. 396, fol. 295, under the 6th of July: “on the same day the memory of the holy noble Grand Duke Gleb Vsevolodovich, also in Kyiv, the miracle worker,” and then the instruction that he “is written over, curly, brada dole Vlasieva, and narrower,” - l. 303; in the Original Filimonov under the 7th of July: “The Holy Blessed Prince Gleb Vsevolodovich; azure, with a green cap on the head, black creases, a cross in one hand, a sheathed sword in the other"). -Unknown. Gregory, abbot of the Golutvin Monastery in Kolomna, student of Venerable. Sergius. See my book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, page 54. Gregory the Venerable, at the Golden Stone 606, - under the 24th of November in Filimonov’s original. - Unknown. Gregory the priest, Demetrius, Artemy and Euphrosyne in the village of Kitov, located 3 versts from the city of Shuya, Shuya miracle workers (Artemy with the Most Reverend Sergius, the other three with everyone). See gr. Tolstoy, No. 394, and in the article by St. N. Milovsky: Uncanonized saints of the mountains. Shuya, placed in Chten. General East. and Ancient, 1893 book. II. Gregory, Bishop of Suzdal, miracle worker 607. Rev. Sergius indicates two Gregori, bishops of Suzdal, from the beginning of the 15th century and 1571, but in the History of the Hierarchy and in Stroev’s Lists of Hierarchs there is not a single Suzdal bishop Gregory. Gregory the holy monk of an unknown place was placed in the RKP. former Tsarskogo No. 396 under the 4th of November, - l. 277 (since in the kontakion it reads to Gregory: “the martyr is dressed in an unknown crown from above,” then it is likely that in the name of his sacred monk one should see an error instead: the sacred martyr Troparion to this completely unknown Gregory begins: “The Divine thy cancer is present, we call thy”...). Gury the Venerable Martyr and Jonah the Holy Martyr of the Trinity (Trifonov) Pechenga Monastery, who suffered death from the Finnish Swedes who attacked the monastery. December 25, 1590 (Ist. Jer. IV, 588). Gury, abbot of the Nativity Monastery of Shalotsky, also on the Molog River near Ustyuzhna Zhelezny. About the abolished monastery, which was located in the Ustyuzhensky district of the Novgorod province, see Ist. Jer. III, 760 and VI, 720. Since the monastery was called the Guria Desert (Shalatskaya), our Guria should be considered its founder; when he lived remains unknown. David Svyatoslavich, Prince of Chernigov, died in 1123. For the miracles that accompanied his death, see Step. book I, 284 (Karamz. II, note 228). Needed: Kanevsky; see about this bishop, who lived in the middle of the 12th century, my History of the Russian Church, vol. I, floors. 1, ed. 1 p. 568, ed. 2 p. 689. Damian, in the schema of Diodorus, the hermit of Solovetsky, who died on November 27, 1683, - Patericon of Solovetsky, p. 76 Daniil Cherny. See Andrey Rublev. Dimitri Vsevolodovich prince. The son drove. Prince Vsevolod Yuryevich, nicknamed the Big Nest, died on January 6, 1227 and was laid in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral (see Laurentian years under 1227). Dimitri, nicknamed Red (which means handsome, handsome), son of the Galich prince Yuri Dmitrievich, died in Galich on September 22, 1440 and was buried in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral (Resurrection let. in Sobr. let. VIII. 109–111, Karamz. V, 160 and note 291). Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy, leader. Prince of Moscow, died on the 19th (incorrectly in the catalogs: 9th) May 1389. Demetrius the Worker, blessed monk, reposed in Nizhny Novgorod and was placed on the upper seat near the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos of Kazan on the left. – It is unknown when he lived. Demetrius, another, abbot at the Savior on Khutyn, on February 11th (“other” means: special from Demetrius of Priludky, who is also on February 11th. At the Most Reverend Sergius). Unknown, because in the list of abbots of the Khutyn Monastery there is not a single abbot named Demetrius. Dionysius, Metropolitan of Moscow, died in exile from Moscow from Boris Godunov in Novgorod, in the Khutyn Monastery, in the summer of 7092 (1583), October 15th. In fact, he left the department only on October 15, 1586, and died in the Khutyn Monastery at an unknown date. Dionysius the Venerable, Novgorod Wonderworker (from the Most Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Dionysius the recluse, also in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, in the Nikolsky Monastery, in the swamp. Before the History of the Hierarchy, - V, 199, died on April 15, 1645. Dorotheus of Pskov, elder of the Intercession (abolished) monastery, who received a vision during the siege of Pskov by Batory in 1581 (from Count Tolstov No. 4G9). Dorotheus of Radonezh, great worker, disciple of St. Dionysius, Archimandrite of Trinity, who reposed in the summer of 7130 (1622). See about him in the life of Archimandrite. Dionysius, owned by Simon Azaryin, ed. 1834 p. 53. Dosfei, the recluse of Solovetsky, who lived unknown when (not in Barsukov’s Patericon of Solovetsky). Evdokia Alexandrovna, princess. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, l. 333 fin., among the saints whose days and months are not described, that is, the days and months of whose death are unknown, is the Grand Duchess Eudokea, lying in Vladimir, “in the flesh and visible.” This is Princess Evdokia, daughter of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, buried in the Vladimir Dormition Convent, along with Nevsky’s two spouses, see Karamz. vol. IV, col. 58 and approx. 110, also Dobrokhotova Ancient Monuments in Vladimir Klyazemsky, p. 62, and hieromon. Joasaph Church-historical description of Vladimir monuments, page 50. In the description of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral of the half of the 17th century, to which is added the legend about the relics of princes and princesses buried in Vladimir and about which see above in the note to pre-Mongol No. 11, about Princess Evdokia it is said that in At the Assumption Monastery, “the coffin is stone, and in it lies the Grand Duchess Evdokeia in the flesh.” Eupraxia, blessed princess in Pereyaslavl Zalissky (need: Ryazan), wife of St. Prince Theodore, who herself rushed from the heights of her church for her purity from the Batu Tatars with her son John. See Karamz. vol. III, col. 167 beginning Euphrosyne. See Gregory the priest. Euthymius of Arkhangelsk 608. In the former Tsar's manuscript No. 136, fol. 389, reads: “A story, briefly collected, about the discovery of the relics of St. Euthymius of Archangelograd, the new miracle worker, and about his miracles.” The story tells that in 1647, in Arkhangelsk, in the voivodeship courtyard, while digging a hole, the coffin of an unknown person was found in the ground at a depth of one cubit, at which signs and wonders began to happen; from this they concluded that the coffin conceals the remains of a holy man: having taken it out of the ground, the governor carried it to the Church of the Origin of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross and, burying it again at the church, placed a tomb over it (how the name of the deceased, whose coffin was found, was found out is not stated in the story). Since we have not met this Euthymius anywhere else, we think that he has been forgotten in Arkhangelsk and. does not belong to the number of truly revered deceased (cfr article by Rev. Macarius: “Christianity within the Arkhangelsk Governorate”, published in the 3rd book of the Reading. General History and Ancient for 1878, p. 52 fin. and note; Filaret, - under the 18th of April, mistakenly confuses him with Euthymius of Korelsky). Elena, whose last name was Devochkina, was the first abbess of the Moscow Novodevichy Convent, who reposed on November 18, 1547. Elisha, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See my book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra he created, page 71. Epiphanius the deacon, the wise, disciple of the Venerable. Sergius of Radonezh. Ephraim, Bishop of Rostov, reposed in the year 6000 (492!). There were two bishops of Rostov who bore the name of Ephraim: the first was a contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh, who † in 1125; the second occupied the department from 1427 to 1454. Venerable Zechariah, on the Tura River in the city of Tyumen, appearing in the summer of 1707 (at the presence of Rev. Sergius). He was probably a monk of the Trinity Monastery located in Tyumen (Tobolsk province) (about which - Ir. VI, 461). Zechariah the holy fool, Shenkur miracle worker, in the year 7000 (1492). -Unknown. Zinovy, student of Rev. Maximus the Greek, in the Otne Desert. Famous writer, author: “The Truth of Testimony.” Ivan Danilovich Kalita, leader. prince. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. The Academy, under March 31st, recorded: “The repose of the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich of Moscow in the summer of 6849 (1341), according to the prophecy of St. Metropolitan Peter,” - l. 313 rev.. Ignatius of Glubokoretsky (in the calendar of Count Uvarov). - Unknown. Ignatius, Bishop of Smolensk, in the summer of 6800 (1292). He lived not at the end of the 13th century, but at the beginning of the 12th century. Ignatius iconographer. See Bartholomew. Izyaslav Andreevich, prince, son of Andrei Bogolyubsky. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, l. 333 fin., among the saints, the days and months (deaths) of which are not described, i.e. unknown, are: “the children of Andrei Georgievich Bogolyubsky: Izyaslav, Mstislav and Gleb” (the latter is a canonized saint, see above p. 134), about whose relics it is said: “their relics are in Volodymyr, visible and venerated by all” (But in modern Saints description of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, which we spoke about in the note to pre-Mongol No. 11, says differently, namely: “in the same (left) country (of the great church) in the corner lie in the flesh the children of the blessed Grand Duke Andrei Georgievich Bogolyubsky Izyaslav, Mstislav and Gleb: one of them (of course Gleb) we see and We worship with all, the funeral is not rotten, but all is new”, l. 4). Hilarion is the head of the monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos of the Dorothea Hermitage on the Moche River of Yuryevets of Povolgsky (with the Most Reverend Sergius). 609 Unknown (about the closed desert - East. Ier. IV, 56 fin.; the Mocha River, flowing through the present Makaryevsky district, flows from the left side into the Volga much below the city of Yuryevets and a little above the settlement of Puchezh). Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kiev, famous, installed in 1051, died no later than 1055. Hilarion, Metropolitan of Suzdal, died on December 14, 1707 (at Barsukov). 610 Elijah, a holy fool for Christ's sake, also a former wonderworker in Belegrad (in the calendar of Count Uvarov). - Unknown. Elijah Archimandrite of the Solovetsky Monastery, wonderworker, reposed in the summer of 7150 (1642). This Elijah, by the name of Pestrikov, appointed abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery in 1645, awarded the rank of archimandrite in 1651 and died on July 1, 1659, was an opponent of Nikonov’s correction of books, about which see History of the Russian Church by the Most Reverend. Macarius vol. XII, 631. Based on what has just been said, gr. Tolstoy suggests that his name was included in the catalog of saints by a schismatic (No. 334 iin.); however, we know that even if he is not honored in the Solovetsky Monastery, then his tomb is located there in a special chapel, together with the tombs of the deceased, the place of the venerated (see Ratshin, p. 4 beginning. It is not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Irina, princess, wife of St. Constantine Svyatoslavich of Murom. Irinarch, sexton of the Trinity Sergius Monastery (at the Most Rev. Sergius). He lived during the siege of the monastery by the Poles and was honored with the repeated appearance of St. Sergius, see about him in the life of St. Sergius, published in 1646 by Simon Azaryin, ch. 70, l. 143 rev. Herodion, the holy fool of Solvychegodsk, is Unknown (in Veryuzhsk, p. 693). Saint Isaac, who lived behind Lom in the Vologda district. Unknown, unless there is one - Ignatius Lomovsky, about whom see above, p. 325. Isaac the Silent, student of St. Sergius of Radonezh. See about him in my book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra he created, p. 68. Isaiah, Bishop of Novgorod, reposed in the summer of 6600 (1092). Since among the bishops of Novgorod, the list of which is fully known, there was no Isaiah: then this Isaiah who never existed is either St. Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov, who died around 1090, or arose from some misunderstanding. Jacob, abbot of the Life-Giving Trinity in Stromyn. It is unknown when he lived; The Stromynsky Monastery, as we indicated above, was located in the Bogorodsky district of the Moscow province. Jacob, martyr (in some lists erroneously: abbot) of Bulgaria, and the relics were transferred to the city of Vladimir on April 24 (in other lists: March 7). - Unknown. Jacob of Kostroma, whose name in some calendars appears under March 21st, is unknown (among Rev. Sergius). Jacob the blessed laborer, in the Moscow Novodevichy Convent under the church (at the Reverend Sergius). By a male laborer in a nunnery we should mean a lay worker who has worked in it for free and with joy for a lifetime or for a certain period of time. Jacob, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See our book about him: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra he created, p. 71. Joachim, a recluse with St. Nicholas in the Shartom monastery in Suzdal (now Shuisky) district (Vladimir province), was exiled to the Solovetsky monastery by Archbishop Joseph of Kiev of Suzdal (under Rev. Sergius). See about him in Reading. General East. and Ancient 1893, II, in the article by priest. N. Milovsky: Uncanonized saints of the city of Shuya. The absurd news that he was exiled by Archbishop Joseph to the Solovetsky Monastery (since the archbishop could only exile to the monasteries of his diocese) is a not entirely clear re-interpretation of the fact that Joseph himself was exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery in 1684. Ioannikiy, student of St. Sergius of Radonezh. See page 71 in my book. John, Bulgarian martyr. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, under April 2, and in the calendar of the year. Uvarova No. 686 under April 1, it is written: “The suffering of the Holy Great Martyr Ivan, also in Bolgareh.” If this is not John, the martyr of Kazan, about whom we spoke above, page 269, then it remains unknown. Saint John, the Wonderworker of Verkhoturye (by Rev. Sergius). Maybe, of course, the monk Jonah, who in 1604 founded the Verkhoturye Nicholas Monastery, located in the city of Verkhoturye, Perm province (East. Ier. III, 531). John the Golden. See Bartholomew. John of Kyiv. See Cleopatra. John, the holy fool of Mozhaisk, in the year 7000. - Unknown. John the Tsar: “the discovery of the body of Tsar Ivan, June 10” (by Rev. Sergius, I, ed. 1 p. 295, ed. 2 p. 357 beginning). Under Tsar Ivan, of course, of course, Grozny, who died 18th March 1584th goal. We don’t know what the discovery of his body means: in any case, it was not entirely expected that Grozny was included in the catalog of saints... Metropolitan John in a white hood, in the summer of 6000 October 25th. Of course, the pre-Mongol Metropolitan John the 2nd, who arrived in Russia to take the see before 1077 and died in 1089, about whom the chronicle speaks with the greatest praise, saying that “there was no such (metropolitan) before in Rus', nor will there be another after him.” The adoption of a white hood by John probably has the meaning that among the pre-Mongol metropolitans he represented an exceptional metropolitan. John, Prince of Ryazan. See Eupraxia. John, the holy fool of Solvychegodsk. – Unknown (in Veryuzhsk. p. 693). Saint John, the righteous, and his sister (wife), the holy and righteous Mary, who was the ruler of the great city of Ustyug; Their relics were placed at the Church of the Ascension of the Lord in the Posad in the summer of 6000. See Veryuzhsky, page 47 (it was previously celebrated by him in the Church of the Ascension, but now they are in oblivion, although there is still an image of them located on the outside of the church wall, opposite the place where their tomb was previously in the church - mentioned in 1683 - under the window, in a niche behind the mica). The year of death is unknown, and the time of life is the second half of the 13th century (Karam. III, note 186, and IV, note 106). The Lyubets Synodikon records “Prince John of Pupimla, passion-bearer and miracle worker, killed by the Tatars for Christians.” See in the IX issue of the Chronicle of the Archaeographic Commission’s activities the article: “On the Chernigov princes according to the Lyubets Synodik,” page 27 fin. John Sukhoi, Yaroslavl, unknown when lived until the second half of the 15th century. In the Novgorod 4th Chronicle and in some copies of the Resurrection Chronicle it is read under the year 1463 that after miracles from the tomb of Prince Theodore Rostislavich and his children began in Yaroslavl in that year, “Ivan Sukhoi began to work miracles throughout the Yaroslavl estate,” -Collected. years. IV, 149 beginning, and VI, 277 fin. Job, Archimandrite of Vladimir, recorded in the synod of the week of Orthodoxy of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral - Vivliof. VI, 437. In the Lists of hierarchs and abbots of the Stroev monasteries, Archimandrite Job of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery is listed, the former lead. ich. Vasily Vasilyevich (1425–1462). Job, the first Patriarch of Moscow, who died on July 19, 1607 611. Joel, the holy fool of Danilov's Sloboda (located unknown where) on February 6th (by Rev. Demetrius, 1st edition, issue II, p. 190). Jonah and Nectarius of Kazan 612, bolyars and disciples of St. Gury the Archbishop, with him their relics were found, reposing in the summer of October 7104 (1595) on the 4th day. These are the boyars who died as monks, about the discovery of whose relics, together with the relics of Guria and Barsanuphius, we spoke above. Jonah of Pechenga. See Gury. Karion, Bishop of Yuryevsky, located among the saints of the city of Kyiv. Probably, of course, Marin, who was appointed bishop from the monks of Pechersk and is mentioned under the year 1095. Venerable Karp, buried in the Znamensky Monastery in Moscow (with the Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Cassian of Komel (with Rev. Sergius). Contemporary Rev. Cornelius of Komel (in Veryuzhsk, p. 444). Kirill, hermit of Vologda. He labored unknown when on the shores of Lake Kubenskoye and was buried in the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery (see Count Tolstoy No. 278; Veryuzhsk. p. 693). Cyril, Novgorod abbot, who died (as if) in 1299 (by the Most Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, issue IV, section 2, p. 234). Kirill, Bishop of Rostov, reposed in the summer of 6000. There were two Cyrils one after another, bishops of Rostov - the first was installed in 1216, left the see in 1229 and died on April 17, 1230; the second was installed in 1230, died on May 21, 1262. Which of the two, of course, remains unknown, since one or the other can be understood. Kyriakos, the hermit of Solovetsky, who lived unknown when (not in Barsukov’s Patericon of Solovetsky). Cleopatra, holy and righteous, and her son John, also in Kyiv, October 19 (in the calendar of gr. Uvarov). – Unknown. Constantine, builder of an (unknown) monastery, reposed in the summer of 6800, July on the 29th day. Between the saints of the city of Novotorzhsk. Cornelius, head of the Spassky Monastery, Kozheozersky wonderworker in the city of Mangazeya and Yenisei (at the Most Rev. Sergius). According to the History of the Hierarchy, - VI, 1012, the abolished Kozheozersky Spassky Verkhotursky Monastery, founded by Ven. Cornelius, was located near Mangazeya and Yenisei, on the shores of Lake Kozhera (the now defunct city of Mangazeya was located on the Taz River, flowing into the Taz Bay of the Northern Ocean, at the latitude of the Arctic Circle itself, where is now the Tazovskoe village or Tazovskoye winter hut, and Mangazeya and Yenisei were the region, see Russian. Historical. Bibliography, published. Archeogr. Com., vol. II, no. 188, col. 815 sqq). Cornelius, recluse of the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery, in the calendar with the chronicler Moscow. Spirit. The academy was placed between the saints, the months and dates of whose death are unknown - l. 335 rpm, and in RCP. former Tsarskogo No. 396 - under the 22nd of November, - l. 303 rev.. Leonid, associate of Adrian Poshekhonsky, March 5 (at Rev. Sergius). Leonty, Venerable Stromynsky (with Rev. Sergius). The first abbot of the Stromynsky monastery, installed by the builder of the latter, Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See our book: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, page 46. Leonty, the holy fool of Ustyug, in the first edition of the book you placed among the saints on the basis of the list of metropolitans. Evgeniy, not only does not belong to the number of saints, but even the truly revered dead: locally, in Ustyug, he is not known at all (and Father Veryuzhsky does not have him), but he is only recorded among the saints of the city of Ustyug in the Book of Saints. Reverends Loggin, German and Bogolep, heads of Lake Kozher, the city of Mangazeya and Yenisei. See now above next. Kornily Kozheozersky. Luke, Bishop of Belgorod, mentioned under the year 1089. Luke, Bishop of Rostov, called in some lists of the Book of Saints of Vladimir, since Vladimir belonged under him to the diocese of Rostov, established on March 11, 1185, died on November 10, 1189. Macarius Vysokoezersky, founder of the abolished Vysokoezersky monastery, which was located in the Lodeynopol district of the Olonets province, died in 1683, see Barsukov col. 335 (about the monastery - East. Jer. III, 681). Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on December 31, 1563 Together with the icon of the Metropolitan, Gerontia was in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, according to the cathedral inventories indicated in the speeches about it, the icon of the Metropolitan. Macarius, and regarding this second it seems probable to think the same thing that we expressed as probable about Gerontius (for an indication of the short story about Macarius, see the same place, and for the story about his death, see Klyuchevsk., p. 221). Macarius the hermit, on the Mya (from Barsukov: on the Chme) river from Novgorod 40 fields. It is probably, of course, unknown when the living founder of that abolished Makarievskaya hermitage, which was located in the Luga district of the present St. Petersburg province, 60 versts west of Novgorod and 20 versts south of Luga, and about which in Ist. Jer. V, 41. Macarius student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. See my said book page 71. Macarius is the abbot of the Chernigov (necessary Montenegrin) Monastery of the Georgian Mother of God on the Dvina River, the new wonderworker of Kholmogory (under the Reverend Sergius). About the foundation in 1603 by the monk Macarius of the Chernogorsk monastery, which was later named Krasnogorsk and which is located in the Pinezhsky district of the Arkhangelsk province, see East. Jer. GV, 793; also see in Semenov’s Geographical-Statistical Dictionary under the following. Bogoroditsky Krasnogorsk Monastery. Maxim, Metropolitan of Kiev, died on December 6, 1305 and was buried in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. Margarita Alekseevna, the blessed princess and leader. princess, daughter of the king and leader. Prince Alexei Mikhailovich, (who died) as a monk in the Assumption Monastery, Alexandrov Sloboda, was buried under the hospital church. Margarita, by the worldly name Marfa, Alekseevna, was born on August 26, 1652, took monastic vows on May 29, 1699, and died Mary the righteous. See John the righteous. Maria princess. See Agathia. Mark the hermit on Lake Epiphany, who died in the summer of 7000. In 1630, he settled for solitary asceticism on the island of Lake Belavinskoye, which is located in the Kadnikovsky district of the Vologda province; Subsequently, on the site of his exploits, the Belavinsky Epiphany Hermitage was built, see Veryuzhsky, p. 691, also in East. Jer III, 404. Martin of Turov, a monk of the Turov Boris and Gleb Monastery, who lived in the middle of the 12th century, is mentioned by Philaret in Russian Saints under the 27th of June (a legend about him by the Most Rev. Macarius in Ist., III, 300). Martha the righteous, holy fool, reposed on March 1st, was buried in the cathedral church in the Ivanovo Moscow Monastery (at the Reverend Sergius). – Unknown. Mitrofan, Bishop of Vladimir, suffered martyrdom during the capture of Vladimir by the Tatars on February 7, 1238. Mikhail (Mikhalko) Georgievich, leader. Prince of Vladimir, who died on June 20, 1177 (at Rev. Sergius). Michael verizhnik in the monastery of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary and St. Nikola, like the sovereign on the Klyazma River, in the Mstera volost, is the new Vyaznikovsky miracle worker. The abolished monastery was located in the Vladimir province, 10 versts from the city of Vyaznikov, 30 versts from the Oka River, 40 versts from the city of Gorokhovets (see Barsukov, col. 365). When Michael asceticised remains unknown. Mikhail, the holy fool of Solvychegodsk.-Unknown (at Veryuzhsk. 693). Mikhail Alexandrovich, Grand Duke of Tver, reposed as a monk and in the schema in the summer of 6907 (1399), extremely virtuous, recorded in the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academies between saints, the month and date of whose death are unknown, - l. 333 rev.. (In the calendar with the chronicler of the Moscow Spiritual Academy and in the calendar of Count Uvarova No. 686, under May 19, Prince Mikhail Uglitsky is recorded. Judging by the month and date, this is Ignatius, in monasticism John, Prince Uglitsky, about whom see above p. 153). Mstislav Andreevich, prince. See in the same list Izyaslav Mstislav Georgievich, prince. See, Agathia. Mstislav Mstislavich, nicknamed the Brave, Prince of Toropetsky, reigned in Galich, died as a monk and schema-monk in 1228 and was buried in Kyiv in the now defunct Church of St. Cross (Karamz. vol. III, note 326, col. 118). Nahum, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. Nectary of Kazan. See Jonah and Nektarios. Nectarius, abbot of the monastery of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos, Tver's new wonderworker, 15 versts from the city, - under the 7th of April in Filimonov's Original. Nestor, the hermit of Solovetsky, who lived in the first half of the 18th century, - Patericon of Solovetsky, p. 77. Nikita Solovetsky, who lived in the first half of the 17th century (in Barsukov; not in the Solovetsky Patericon). Saint Nicephorus, Borovsky miracle worker. This is Nikita, a student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh, who was the abbot of the Serpukhov Conception Monastery and ended his life in retirement in the Borovsky Pokrovsky Monastery, on Vysokoye. See my said book page 60. Saint Nicephorus, disciple of Tikhon of Kaluga. Tikhon's successor as abbess in his desert, which is located in the Kaluga district of the Kaluga province. Nicephorus, the hermit of Solovetsky, who died in 1605, -Paterikon of Solovetsky, p. 78. Nicholas Metropolitan, Kiev Wonderworker, who reposed in the summer of 6614 (1106. With the Most Reverend Sergius). He is mentioned under the years 1097 and 1101, and died before December 1103, for in this December 1103 his successor was already present. Nicholas, Bishop of Tmutarakan, “and now it is called (as if) the Astrakhan kingdom.” He occupied the department between 1078–1094 (About the Tmutarakan principality and the Tmutarakan diocese, see our History of the Russian Church, vol. I, half 1, ed. 1 p. 568, ed. 2 p. 682). Venerable Nikon, Novgorod Wonderworker (with Rev. Sergius). -Unknown. Nikon and Dionysius, venerable fathers, whose relics are unknown where, Novgorod saints (with the Most Reverend Sergius). Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow, died on August 17, 1681 and was buried in the Resurrection Monastery, called New Jerusalem (at the Most Reverend Sergius). Oleg Igorevich (Ingvorovich) Red, noble prince of Ryazan, killed by the Batu Tsar for confessing Christ in the summer of 6747 (1239). The murder was not in 1239, but shortly after Batu’s capture of Pereyaslavl of Ryazan, which was the capital of the Ryazan princes, which was on December 21, 1287, and during which the prince was captured by the Tatars. According to the legend, Batu wanted to convert the prince to his charm, but he called him godless, for which he suffered a cruel martyrdom - at Karamz. vol. III, 357. Karamzin confuses this Oleg with another brother, also named Oleg, who was also captured by the Tatars, but who, upon release from captivity, died in 1258, ibid. etc. IV, approx. 90, see D.I. Ilovaisky History of the Ryazan Principality, p. 134 beginning. and 136. Pavel the venerable father, who suffered from the Polish king for Christ in Vilna on May 3rd (at the Most Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Pavel Kolomensky. In the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy under the 8th of January, - l. 309 fin., recorded “The Repose of our Reverend Father Pavel Kolomevsky.” If this is not Pavel Komelsky, whose memory is on January 10, then it is an unknown ascetic (and there is no reason to think about Pavel, Bishop of Kolomna). Paraskeva, Rzhevskaya abbess (with Rev. Sergius). -Unknown. Patrick the Hieromartyr, who was also the custodian of the cathedral churches (in Vladimir), suffered from the Tatars for church utensils (which he hid from their robbery), was buried in the so-called weight of Sineg on the Holy Lake, near the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord, in the summer (implied: suffering) 6919 (1411) July - on the 3rd day. See Karamz. vol. V, approx. 211, also in gr. Tolstoy No. 410 (But Patricius was buried not on the Holy Lake, but in Vladimir, and on the Holy Lake he hid from the Tatars and Metropolitan Photius lived for some time. According to one piece of news, Patricius’ body was laid in the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral at the front doors, see Bychkova Description of the collections of the Public Library, I, 122). Pachomius, who was also on the Great Lake, a miracle worker. He labored at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century on Lake Kubenskoye, which goes by the name of the Great, together with Venerable. Dionysius Glushitsky (who, according to the History of the Hierarchy, was a brother), restored the Svyatolutsky monastery, located on the southeastern shore of Lake Kubenskoye. See East. Jer. III, 698 and VI, 69, in Veryuzhsky p. 212 and in Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary sl. Svyatolutsky churchyard (Ratshin, - p. 73 beginning, claims that the tomb of Pachomius is hidden (sic) in the church of the former monastery, from which it should be concluded that he enjoys local veneration; but Veryuzhsky directly denies this, saying that nothing is known about the place of his burial - p. 214). Pimen is a recluse and verizhnik of the Rostov Epiphany Monastery. Lived in the 17th century. See gr. Tolstoy in the Lives of the saints of God who lived within the current Yaroslavl diocese, p. 41, and in the Book of the Verb, 235. Pimen, Metropolitan of Tsaryagrad, new miracle worker, September 10th. This is the famous Pimin, Metropolitan of Moscow, who was installed without permission in June 1380, died in Chalcedon on September 11, 1389 and was buried in Constantinople, which is why he is called Metropolitan of Constantinople. The self-proclaimed metropolitan, who with his installation caused the greatest and most seductive turmoil in the Russian Church, was included in the catalog of saints by some extreme ignoramus, who belonged to those enemies of the truth about whom the Council of Trullo speaks in the 63rd canon: he took the adventurer and scoundrel, one must think, for a sufferer. Rostislav Mstislavich, leader. Prince of Kiev, who died on March 14, 1167 and was buried in the Kiev Feodorovsky monastery, which has not existed since the invasion of the Mongols. Savva, a holy priest and priest, who was in the Vladimir district, on the river Laiduga Malaya (in other lists: Lavdrug, Ladoga) in the village of Moshku, a new miracle worker, reposed in the summer of 7100 (1592). The village of Moshok is now in the Sudogodsky district of the Vladimir province, 32 versts (southwest) from the district town, see Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary. Midge. Savva, the worker of Solovetsky, who lived in the first half of the 17th century, -Paterik of Solovetsky, p. 77. Savva Stromynsky, abbot of the abolished Stromynsky Assumption Monastery, which was located in the Bogorodsky district of the Moscow province, believed to have lived at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th century, recorded in some calendars under the 20th of July (see article by gr. M. V. Tolstov. “A few words about the Assumption Dubensky Monastery”, placed in the 1st Book of Readings General History and Ancients for 1861). Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, reposed in the summer of 6584 (1076) of the month of December on the 27th day and was supposed to be in Pskov. This is the Grand Duke Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, the son of Yaroslav the Great, who was laid not in Pskov, but in Chernigov. Svyatoslav, named Gabriel in baptism, Vsevolodovich, Yuryevsky miracle worker, who reposed in the summer of 6700 (1192) of the month of February on the 3rd day. Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Prince Yuryevsky, ruled from 1247. Prince of Vladimir, died on February 8th, not 1192, but 1253, - Karamz. vol. IV, approx. 83. Serapion Bishop of Vladimir, famous preacher, died on June 12, 1275. Serapion Kurdov, Archbishop of Novgorod, who died on October 59, 1552, is recorded in the Saints with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy under April 7th, - l. 314. Serapion, head of the monastery of St. Mother of God, like on Lamech, in Izborsk district, Pskov new wonderworker, June 12th (at the presence of Rev. Sergius). – Unknown (Perhaps, instead of Lamech, you should read Malech and understand one of the abbots of the Nativity of the Theotokos Monastery, Venerable Onufriev Malsky, about whom see above, p. 151). Sergius schemamonk and Varvara schemanun, parents of the reverend. Alexander of Svirsky, who took monasticism and were buried in the Ostrovsky Vvedensky Oyatsky Monastery, which is located in the Novo-Ladoga district of the St. Petersburg province (from Count Tolstov No. 465; about the monastery - East. Ier. V, 378). Simeon, Prince Vyazemsky, husband of the chaste Juliania, killed because of her by the prince. Yuri Smolensky in 1406. See previous list next. Juliana. Simeon the Golden-Domed, “a new martyr and confessor, killed for the Orthodox faith,” recorded in the synod of the week of Orthodoxy of the Moscow Dormition Cathedral - Vivliof. ΛΤ, 450. Simon, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on April 30, 1511 (at the residence of Rev. Sergius). Simon the Silent, student of St. Sergius of Radonezh, formerly the former Archimandrite of Smolensk. See in my quit: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, pp. 16 and 68. Sisoy is a canonarchist (under the Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Sophrony, Bishop of Suzdal, died in Moscow on September 18, 1654 and was transferred to Suzdal in 1716 (pre-Reverend Sergius). Spyridon and Faust the hermits, Vologda miracle workers, the first - on December 5th, the second - on March 28th. – Unknown. Elements of Rostov, see Athanasius. Saint Stephen, who founded the Gusin Monastery, is recorded in the calendar with the chronicler of Moscow. Spirit. Academy under January 13th, - l. 309 rev. There is Lake Gus, lying on the border of the Vladimir and Ryazan provinces, and the Gus River, emerging from Lake Gus in the first province and flowing into the Oka in the second province, and Gusevsky Pogost, located in the second province at the confluence of the Gus River into the Oka (see Semenov's Geographical and Statistical Dictionary). Perhaps there was a Gusin monastery near the lake or river, about which there is absolutely no information. Stefan on Cuban Lake. Vologda Wonderworker, April 27th (at Rev. Sergius). - Unknown. Stefan, abbot of the monastery of the Savior in Kostroma, July 14th (at the presence of Rev. Sergius). There were two Spassky monasteries in Kostroma: Zaprudensky, about which see Ist. Jer. VI, 203, and that under the elm or in the Garter, not mentioned in the History of the Hierarchy. The first was closed during the establishment of the states, the second at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. Which of the two monasteries Stefan was abbot and when he lived remains unknown. Stefan, brother of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh, under the 14th of July (in the Moscow Monthly Book, placed by Zacharias Kopystensky, in his Palinodia, published, ed. col. 854). See about him in my indicated book, pages 2 sqq, 7 sqq, 19 sqq, 33 sqq. Blessed Stephen, the newly-minted Rostov (with Rev. Sergius). See gr. Tolstoov in the Lives of the saints of God who lived within the current Yaroslavl diocese, p. 41, § 5, and by Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslov, 2nd ed. issue IV, p. 102. Stephen, holy archbishop, reposed in the year 6000. Placed between the saints of the city of Vladimir Klyazemsky, this should be Stefan, Archbishop of Suzdal, consecrated in 1658, in 1661 who was in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, in 1666 returned to Suzdal, on July 2, 1678, deprived of his rank and imprisoned first in Novgorod Lisitsky, and then in the Joseph Volokolamsk monastery, in which he died (Conciliar decision on sending Stephen to the Lisitsky monastery - in Bychkov in the Description of collections, I, 148). But it is unlikely that by Vladimir one should not mean Vladimir of Volyn, and by Stefan this last bishop, who died on April 27, 1094. Stefan the martyr, a Tatar, was quickly martyred for the holy faith in the Ira 613 (sic) country (at the hands of the Most Reverend Sergius). - Unknown. Timothy the Reverend, also on Lake Kubenskoye, in the Vologda district (with Rev. Sergius). Unknown (in Veryuzhsk. p. 693). Venerable Titus, the hermit who lived on the Volga River, Yuryevets of the Volga region (Kostroma province). - Unknown. Tikhon Karachessky, founder of the abolished Odrin Nikolaevsky monastery, which was located 3 versts from the city of Karachev, Oryol province, lived unknown when, see Rev. Dimitri Mesyatslov, 1st ed. issue IV, dept. 1, p. 66 (about the monastery - East. Jer. V, 360). Tikhon Karashevsky, founder of the abolished Resurrection Monastery, which was located in the village of Karat, Rostov district, Yaroslavl province, lived unknown when, see Ist. Jer. III. 615 fin., and in Semenov’s dictionary sl. Karash. Trofim, the holy fool of Suzdal, reposed in the summer of 7000 and was laid in the church of St. John the Baptist in the square; memory of September 9th day (in other lists: 19th day). – Unknown Reverend Farus. In the former Tsar’s manuscript No. 39 (5 under January 3rd) “the memory of our venerable father Farus, the Vologotsk miracle worker” is recorded, and it is reported that “Venerable Farus is written in the image of a gray-haired, bald, brad rus, narrower than Dmitry Prilutsky, a venerable robe,” - fol. 800 fin. We cannot guess from what actual name it was converted This, not found in the calendar, is the name Farus. Philip the hermit, who was on the ocean sea near Zaitsky Island (Archim. Leonida Holy Rus', V. 433). The two Zayatsky Islands - Big and Small - belong to the group of Solovetsky Islands (see Semenov's Geographical and Statistical Dictionary for the words Zayatsky Islands) and on the first of them there is a desert with a church. Andrew the First-Called (see Description of the Arkhangelsk province by S. Kosma Molchanov, p. 280, and Description of the Solovetsky Monastery by Archimandrite Meletius, p. 98). When the hermit Philip lived remains unknown. Philip I, Metropolitan of Moscow, died on April 5, 1473 (On the discovery of the metropolitan’s incorruptible body in 1479 and the expectation that it would not be glorified by miracles, see above p. 302. That for some time the Metropolitan was truly a revered deceased, this is made clear by the 2nd Sophia Chronicle, - Collected years. VI, 197–198. See above about Metropolitan Gerontius and in the manuscript of the former Tsar mentioned there for more on the writing of his image - fol. 295). Christina princess. See Agathia. Yaropolk-Peter Izyaslavich, grandson of Yaroslav the Great, Prince of Vladimir-Volyn, died a violent death on November 22, 1086 and was buried in Kyiv in the Church of St. Apostle Peter, which he himself began to build and which, having been completed after his death, probably ceased to exist during the Mongol invasion. Yaroslav Vladimirovich, leader. prince. See George. Yaroslav-Theodore Vsevolodovich, Grand Duke of Vladimir, a new miracle worker, who died a necessary death in the Horde on September 30, 1246. Princess Theodora. See Agathia. Theodore Ioannovich, Tsar, died on January 7, 1598. Feodor Vsevolodovich, prince, in Vologda. – Unknown (in Veryuzhsk. p. 698). Theodore, Bishop of Vladimir (Vladimir Klyazemsky), who occupied the see from 1276 to 1280. Feodor Yuryevich, Prince of Ryazan, killed by Tsar Batu in the summer of 6745 (1237) on the Voronezh River, near Nikola the Wonderworker of Zaraisk (for refusing to present his wife Eupraxia to Batu). See Karamz. vol. III, col. 167 Above words. Eupraxia; about the crypt located in front of the bell tower of the Zaraisky St. Nicholas Cathedral, in which the prince is buried with his wife and son, see Semenov’s Geographical and Statistical Dictionary sl. Zaraysk). Theodore, holy bishop, Russian wonderworker, October 3rd (in the word: Russian, it would most likely be seen as erroneous from: Rostov; but Theodore, Archbishop of Rostov, not on October 3rd, but on November 28th). Theodore the martyr, killed in Bolgareh, also on the Kama and on the Volga, for the faith, Jerusalem guest and philosopher, in the year 1323 on April 21 (at the Most Reverend Sergius). See Nikon, years. III, 127, Voskresensk. years. in Collection years. VII, 199. Theodosia, nun of Murom, daughter of Juliania Lazarevskaya, - under the 2nd of January in the Filimonov Original. Theodosius, worker of the Monzen monastery. Pupil of the Rev. Adrian Monzensky, about whom see in the previous list. Theodosius, Metropolitan of Moscow, after being removed from the see, died in October 1475 in the Trinity Sergius Monastery, in which he was buried. In the calendar, gr. Uvarova No. 686 under October 15th records his death as a “new miracle worker.” Theoktist, Bishop of Chernigov, installed from the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery on January 11, L113 and died on August 6, 1123, is with Philaret under August 6. We know of isolated examples, in explanation of which we cannot say anything satisfactory, that real saints, canonized for church-wide celebration, were commemorated for the repose of their repose, and that at the memorial services of the so-called ecumenical or general annual commemorations, eternal memory was proclaimed to them with the rest of the departed. This is the reverend. Nikon of Radonezh, student of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. In the calendar of the canon of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra of the late 16th century, that is, written after the council of 1547, at which Nikon was canonized for the general church celebration, under the 17th of November it reads: “On the same day, the reverend abbot Nikon, disciple of Sergius, reposed, and we commemorate him for his repose,” - Descriptions of manuscripts of the Lavra library No. 278. in the consolidated charter of the Trinity Sergius and Kirillov Belozersky monasteries, written at the beginning of the 17th century, according to the Trinity charter on Saturday Demetrius, at the ecumenical requiem, the litany proclaims: “we also pray for the forgiveness of the sins of those who have passed away in blessed memory, our reverend father abbot Nikon and your servant who passed away in this monastery, holy father and our brethren and Orthodox Christians everywhere, of whom we make remembrance,” - Description. Synod. RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 400, l. 30 rev., page 380 beginning We know examples that saints who were canonized for a local celebration, outside the places in which they were supposed to be celebrated, were commemorated for their repose along with the other deceased. In 1557, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich sent a commemoration of the Russian great and appanage princes to Patriarch Joasaph of Constantinople. In this commemoration it is written that “remember at the prayer service, as well as the well-pleasing saints”: 1) Vladimir Equal-to-the-Apostles, 2) Boris and Gleb, 3) Mikhail of Chernigov, 4) Alexander Nevsky, 5) Theodore of Smolensk and Yaroslavl with his sons, 6) Mikhail of Tver and 7) Vsevolod of Pskov, and that all other princes should be remembered at funeral services (see memorial in Reading. General History and Ancient. 1897, book III, Mixture, p. 25); meanwhile, at the council of 1547, which was under Ivan Vasilyevich himself, the following were canonized for local celebration: Prince Konstantin of Murom with his sons and Peter and Fevronia of Murom. We take the words from the troparion to the local saint, Rev. Archimandrite of the Trinity Lavra Dionysius. When the council of 1547, which established local celebrations for many saints, prescribes for each of the saints: the new miracle worker, such and such, should sing and celebrate there, when, when establishing local celebrations in subsequent times, the same thing is prescribed for individual saints: then for whom is it commanded and for whom should these saints be taken and the only one who can be accepted as not real saints? Unknown e.g. the time of establishing celebrations for the current common saints: Vel. book Georgy Vsevolodovich. Mercury of Smolensk, book. Theodore Yaroslavich, Nil Stolbensky (the time of establishment of the celebrations of the largest part of those saints who, according to the life of Metropolitan Jonah, became universally revered saints by the council of 1547 is unknown). In honor of many local saints, the time of the establishment of which remains unknown, chapels were built in churches and the churches themselves were built. It would be strange to raise the question of whether the saints are real or not. Other hagiographers classify some of the revered dead as real saints on the grounds that legends about them are in the Prologue. But the Prologue contains tales not only about real saints, but also about the revered dead. The inscription of the index to the Russian legends of the Prologue reads: “The class of names in alphabetical order of Russian saints and founders of monasteries, whose Ovii are collectively witnessed and celebrated in their memory, Ovii are not testified, but are written in this book for the sake of knowledge, instead of chronicle and paterical narratives, for the benefit of those who honor and listen. Let us note here by the way that our calendars - Godfather, Modern, General Russian and others, trying to give the most complete lists of Russian saints, included in their monthly calendars, as real or canonized saints, a very large number of not real or canonized saints at all, but only revered (really or imaginary) deceased, and that the lists of saints given by calendars have just as little authority - and others would not be averse to referring to of them, how little the compilers of calendars have the right to create or canonize saints (and if spiritual censorship tests the month-words of calendars, then by its testing it does not in the least increase their authority, for here there is only ejus culpa, the reason for which is ejus ignorantia, and nothing more...). In 1856, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow sent to St. Synod report with an opinion on the report (that is, regarding the report to the same Holy Synod) of Bishop Philaret of Kharkov about permission for him to begin describing the lives of the saints of the Russian Church. In the report, the Metropolitan writes among other things: “It takes a lot of caution to compile a correct list of saints, because among the saints, generally recognized according to ancient tradition and by church definition, there are those who are locally revered and who have not received the correct church approval,” see Collections of opinions and reviews of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, vol. IV, no. 447, p. 139. Under local Metropolitan Philaret means the venerated dead to be venerated and not receiving correct church approval (and Archbishop Filaret, who wrote his book about the “Russian saints” after this report, does not at all separate the venerated dead from the real saints in it.) From the half of the 17th century we know another example: miracles were recognized as insufficient for canonization of any saints, that is, not only general, but also local. At the grave of Patr. After Job was transferred from Staritsa to Moscow, several miracles occurred (see the life of Job, printed in the XIII volume of the Russian Historical Library, published by the Archaeological Commission, col. 945), and Patr. Joseph began to testify to miracles, that is, to carry out an inquiry into their authenticity, but did not have time to finish with his imminent death (Job’s coffin was brought to Moscow on April 5, 1652, and Patriarch Joseph died 10 days later, on April 15, having fallen ill on the very day the coffin was brought - Act. Exp. vol. IV, p. 77, col. 2 sub fin. Which goes without saying witnessing miracles, and not the body, is evident from the fact that Patr. Joseph shook me before I could finish: it took several minutes to witness the body). If after Joseph Patr. Job was not canonized, then it is necessary to understand this in such a way that miracles, either due to their small number (four miracles are recorded) or due to their quality, were considered insufficient for Job to be canonized. They claim that at the end of the 17th century we realized that miracles cannot always serve as decisive proof of the holiness of this or that saint, and that this idea, relying on Nikon the Montenegrin, was quite clearly expressed by the council of 1678, convened by Patr. Joachim in the case of Anna Kashinskaya. But what is being asserted is an extremely strange kind of misunderstanding. Neither Nikon the Montenegrin says at all (Pandect word 43), nor the council of 1078 repeats after him that miracles cannot always serve, etc. Nikon says, and the council repeats after him, that miracles are true from God and false, to deceive people, from the devil, and that when it is necessary to recognize someone as a saint, one must be careful not to mistake the last miracles for the first and that in order to resolve the issue of What kind of miracles should be served by the life of a miracle worker, for true miracles can only be performed by a person of holy life. But when we talk about miracles, it goes without saying that we are talking about true miracles, and it goes without saying that we assume in this way to distinguish true miracles from false ones (cfr now the indicated letter of Bishop Athanasius to the Solovetsky Monastery: “reliable testimonies about life and miracles”). Of the two Synodics of the week of Orthodoxy, printed in part VI of Vivliofika Novikov, the second Synodikon, beginning on page 481, is the Synodikon of the Kazan See, which is evident from the fact that it records Epiphanius, Archbishop of Jerusalem (p. 490 beginning), buried in the Kazan Transfiguration Monastery (East. Jer. V, 631 beginning), and that it deliberately records the soldiers who fell at Kazan (p. 496 beginning sqq). This Synodikon actually includes the Kazan martyrs and confessors John, Stephen and Peter (p. 496 beginning, ahead of the soldiers who fell near Kazan). If it were customary to canonize saints on the basis of incorruptibility (in one sense or another) of relics, then quite a number of fake saints could be canonized. For forging relics by passing off the remains of one person as the relics of another would not be too difficult, that is, it would not present too great a difficulty. It is true that one can create miracles; But there are such miracles, the incompetence of which can no longer be doubted. If everyone knew that a person was blind from birth or for a long time and suddenly regained his sight, then, of course, this is a miracle not invented; the same if a person was mute for a long time, weakened, etc. In the old days, we demanded that those deceased be recognized as saints, at the tombs or at whose relics three miracles would occur: the deaf began to hear, the dumb began to speak, the blind saw, see in the Description. Synod. RKPP. Gorsk and Nevostr. No. 153, l. 296 vol., p. 283 beginning, also Klyuchevsk. Lives, page 424 beginning. They were canonized before the discovery of the relics: St. Theodosius of Pechersk, leader. book Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy, Metropolitan. Peter, Moses, Archbishop of Novgorod, Savva of Zvenigorod, Maxim, Holy Fool of Moscow, Alexander Svirsky, Nil Stolbensky. They were canonized some time or another after the discovery of the relics: Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov, Prince. Vsevolod-Gabriel of Pskov, Prince. Roman Uglichsky, Evfimy Suzdalsky, Stefan Makhrishchsky, Arseny, Bishop of Tver, Savvaty Solovetsky, Varlaam Shenkursky or Vazhesky, Martinian Belozersky, German Solovetsky. The relics were not discovered: Anthony of Pechersk, Dmitry of Prilutsky, Kirill of Belozersky, Nikon of Radonezh, Dionysius of Glushitsky. Joseph of Volokolamsk, Cornelius of Komel and most of those many saints about whom the expression is used that their relics are hidden, which expression in most cases means that the relics were not discovered (and in a minority of cases it means that the relics were discovered, but now they are again hidden or hidden again). See Collection of antiquities of the Kazan diocese by Plato Lyubarsky, published by Orthodox. Interlocutor in 1868, p. 67. – In the legend and discovery of the relics of St. Macarius of Kolyazinsky is reported that until these relics of his were found and brought into the church, a censer with an incense was brought daily to the tomb or the chapel that was erected over his grave. – RKP. Undolsky No. 336, l. 24 vol., and it is likely that in such cases, that is, when the revered deceased was buried not under the church itself, but outside it, and a tomb or chapel was placed above him, this was done for the most part. Tombstones, which, as one must think, did not have a specific name strictly assigned to them, are called differently: tombstones (Nikon years. V Ι 41, and Resurrection years. in Collected years. VIII, 171 fin.), crayfish (above p. 88), coffins and tombs (above p. 113). The word “cancer” is from the Greek word ἄρχα through a permutation of letters (as Latin: armus and Slavic: early, German: Arbeit and Russian: work, Varangian: Aldoga and Russian: Ladoga); and the Greek word ἄρκα is the Latin arca, which means: box, chest, coffin (Barron: Arca, in quam mortuus ponitur, omnes jam σαρκοφάγον vocant). The Bulgarians say rakla instead of cancer, which is the Greek ἄρχλα, used instead of ἄρκα. The buildings were called tents, chapels, tombs and tombs (sometimes, in contrast to gravestone tombs, entrance tombs - Degrees, sq. P. 233). The word “tomb,” used in the meanings we have now indicated, actually meant a tent or crypt under a church for burying the bodies of the dead or for placing coffins with the bodies of the dead on top of the ground. We do not indicate the tombstones known to us above the graves or on the graves of ascetics (as we did for the first edition of the book), because this means pointlessly indicating a part of the whole. It should be accepted as a general position that as soon as an ascetic became revered as deceased, a tombstone was placed over his grave or on his grave, and that in fact there were very few exceptions to this general position. The Grand Dukes of Moscow and the Russian Tsars before Peter the Great were buried in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral: in this cathedral you can see the tombstones built over their graves. Currently, not a single tombstone has an image of the royal person buried under it, but, according to Maskevich, they were at the beginning of the 17th century, see Tales of contemporaries about Demetrius the impostor, published by Ustryalov, part II, ed. 3, p. 57 (according to Maskevich, the images on the tombstones of princes and kings were embroidered on velvet, and the images of ascetics were usually written on boards: the difference, on the one hand, is explained by the fact that the preparation of embroidered images was much more expensive and difficult than those painted on boards, and on the other hand, perhaps, it should also be explained by the fact that embroidered images were considered after princes and kings belonging only to real or canonized saints: on the coffin of Solomonida, the divorced wife of Prince Vasily Ivanovich, there was an embroidered image of her. Of the half-length images of princes and kings or their icons in the sense of portraits (and called icons), five are still intact in the Archangel Cathedral, namely the kings: Fyodor Ivanovich, Mikhail Fedorovich, Alexei Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich and Prince Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin - Shuisky, see Snegirev Monuments of Moscow Antiquities, pp. 76 and 77. – Noting here that the kings were depicted in our portraits with a radiance around their heads or a halo (Bullfinch. ibid. 76) in the likeness of the Greek kings. About these latter, Simeon of Thessalonica says that they, following the saints, are depicted with a radiance around their heads (φέγγω and) “as having received the anointing of the kingdom,” - answer to Gabriel of Pentapolis XVIII, in Patrol. Minya t. 155, col. 869. We have not seen any indication of this that waist-length icons in the sense of portraits that belonged to noble people were hung in churches or in tent-tombs. But we also came across clear indications that on the tombstones of noble people their full-length images were supposed to be displayed; but one unclear indication known to us seems to refer to these last images. In the manuscript of the former Volokolamsk Monastery, now the Moscow Theological Academies No. 681, containing the charter regarding monastic depositors, it is said about the coffins of the Khovansky princes buried in the Volokolamsk Monastery that “on them (are) tski and large candles,” - l. 21 fin.: by tskas or boards it seems that we should mean the upper boards of tombs with the images of princes on them, for if these were just boards, then the deliberate mention of them would be incomprehensible. Be that as it may, but that the tombstones of noble people were covered with veils and that candles were placed in front of them or on them, this is a positively known matter - in addition to the now indicated Volokolamsk manuscript, see also, for example. at To the east, in Description. Blush. Music No. 387, l. 56, p. 585, col. 1 (the very tombstones of noble people, in shape exactly the same as the tombstones of princes and kings in the Archangel Cathedral, were preserved in Moscow in the Petrovsky, Novospassky and other monasteries). The custom of painting icon-portraits of deceased ascetics, i.e. their portraits, called (like all portraits) icons, goes back to ancient times: in the Patericon of Pechersk, in the story about the Constantinople painters who painted the great church of the Pechersk Monastery, it is said about such icon-portraits of the Venerables Anthony and Theodosius of the Pechersk. Icon-portrait of Rev. Pachomius of Nerekhotsky was written the next year after his death due to the fact that the monk, appearing in a dream to one monk, ordered “to write an image of his likeness.” There is news that Theodore, Archbishop of Rostov, painted icon-portraits of his uncle, the Venerable. Sergius of Radonezh. Rev. Dionysius Glushitsky painted icon-portraits of St. Dimitry Prilutsky and Kirill Belozersky. Icons-portraits of Rev. Nil Sorsky and his student Innokenty Okhlebinin were written immediately after the death of both. – The perfect identification of the icon-portrait of the deceased ascetic with real icons of actual or canonized saints is reported in the legend of St. Isaiah, Bishop of Rostov. The relics of Isaiah were found in 1164, but after this discovery of the bones he was canonized or canonized only in 1474. During this period of time, as the legend about him says, his image was revered and worshiped by everyone, and his tomb was concluded in great neglect. This means that the tomb of Isaiah, as an uncanonized saint, which was known to everyone, was not venerated, but that his portrait icon was not separated from the real icons and that, being hung or accepted together with the real icons, it was venerated on an equal basis with the latter. Another, later one. An example of mixing an icon-portrait of a revered deceased with real icons, whereby the revered deceased turned out to be unworthy of his name and his glory or an imaginary revered deceased, is indicated in the Description of documents and cases stored in the Archives of St. Synod, vol. I, col. 450. Can indicate those that have survived to this day: a) full-length images of the revered deceased: Cyprian of Ustyug, Prochorus, in the schema of Tryphon, Bishop of Rostov, Roman of Kirzhach, Demetrius of Tsilibinsky - for all, see the lists of truly revered deceased; b) half-length images or icons: John and Mary of Ustyug. - above p. 142, Cyril of Velsk, - above p. 150, Procopius of Ustinsky, - above p. 159, (but since all four of them had celebrations before, which ceased or were stopped later. And yet we do not know when exactly their icons that survived to this day were painted: it is possible that the icons were painted after the establishment of celebrations or as real icons), Anthony, bishop Vologda, Ignatius Lomovsky - for both see in the list of truly revered deceased, Nektary, Archbishop of Tobolsk (in the Nilova Stolbensky desert, in which the archbishop died in retirement on January 15, 1667), - East. Jer. V, 207. – In the Moscow Assumption Cathedral in the first half of the 17th century, as can be seen from its inventories, there were icons of the metropolitans: Theognostus, Cyprian, Photius, Gerontius and Macarius, see Russian Historical. Library published by Archaeogr. Commission, vol. III, coll. 314. 828 and 369. This must be understood in such a way that icons-portraits of metropolitans were placed in the cathedral as revered dead (Metropolitans Theognostus, Cyprian, and Photius, having been revered dead for a long time, were canonized in the last century, and Metropolitans Gerontius and Macarius, having been one or another for some time time venerated dead, the stream ceased to be them and only remained in the catalogs of venerated dead, see below for a list of former venerated dead). Known to us - quite possibly, far from completely and even only partially - full-length images of the revered deceased on their tombstones made in modern times are: Metropolitan Platon of Moscow in the Bethany Monastery, made together with the tombstone more or less shortly after his death on November 11, 1812; led Princess Evdokia, in the monastic life of Euphrosyne in the Moscow Ascension Monastery, made in 1821–22: Pitirim, Bishop of Tambov, in the Tambov Cathedral, made in 1843; three monks of the Zadonsk Mother of God Monastery, made in an unknown manner to us exactly when, but more or less a short time after the death of each of the three, the times of which are: 1793, 1825, and 1836, see for all in the list of truly revered deceased, and the names of the Zadonsk monks are: Agapit, George and Mitrofan. For positive evidence of the existence of abuse, see Klyuchevsky in the Lives of the Saints, p. 388 sub fin., and in the Description of the manuscripts of I. A. Vakhrameev, compiled by A. A. Titov, no. III, append, page 49. - The cleric of the Suzdal Cathedral, Anania Fedorov, in his Historical Collection about the God-saved city of Suzhdad, assures that Patr. Joseph allowed to sing not only requiem services, but also prayer services at the tomb of Solomonida, in the schematic monasticism of Sophia, he led his divorced wife. book Vasily Ivanovich, buried in the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, see in the Vremennik General. East. and Ancient book XXII, p. 56. But since the patriarch’s order to sing memorial services for Solomonida - Sophia and at the same time sing prayer services for her would be obviously absurd, for this would mean at the same time praying to her and praying for her (although simple priests sometimes allowed themselves such absurdity, see, for example, Veryuzhsky p. 872): then it is necessary to understand the matter in such a way that funeral services she was instructed to sing herself, and her prayers to her angel. Oh St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, is informed that in 1705 he wrote the troparion and kontakion for the ascetic Cornelius, who was venerated (and venerated) in Pereyaslavl, see Philaret of the Russian Saints under the 22nd of July; but one must think that he composed it not for a public prayer, such as prayer services, but for a private or home prayer, which will be discussed below. Anania Fedorov assures that he is making an extract from the patriarch’s charter. Joseph to Archbishop Serapion of Suzdal, which he literally has as follows: “You, son, wrote to us the patriarch that in the current year 7158 (1650), by our decree and by letter, you, son, in Suzhdal in the Pokrovsky nunnery of the Grand Duchess Sophia testified to the relics of the Grand Duchess Sophia, and (implied: according to the testimony it turned out that) the blessed great Princess nun Sophia was buried under the cathedral church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos and lies hidden. And we, listening to your reply, indicated to you, son, to send our grammar: and how our grammar will come to you, son, and you would order to lay a cover over the tomb and sing panakhidas and prayers, as the beginning is being carried out, but did not order the tombs to be dismantled and the earth to be torn up” (“Until here, assures Anania Fedorov, from the patriarchal grammar”). Until we find the original of the letter, we remain in our opinion that Anania Fedorov, inserting the words “and prayer services” into the patriarchal letter, passes off as prescribed by the patriarch what was done in his time without permission and through abuse (if the patriarch had recognized Sophia as a local saint, which is usually accepted on the basis of what was actually abused: then, along with the singing of prayer services, why would he have left her and singing dirges for her and if he had recognized Sophia as a local saint, would he not have expressed himself differently and with a clarity that would not leave any doubt?). If there is a life of Sophia-Solomonida, her canon and stichera (see Barsukov’s words. Sophia-Solomonida and Stroev’s in the Biblical Dictionary, p. 344 fin., 356 and 439): even this does not prove that she was ever formally recognized as a local saint or was canonized as such (she was expected and desired to be considered a saint, but this might not have followed at all). About the present tense gr. Tolstoy says: “Now requiem services, and not prayer services, are held over the tomb, in St. The princess is depicted on icons and her memory is celebrated on December 16” (Book of the Verb, No. 388). If he were to assume that the memory is celebrated by serving the princess, then again it would turn out that in general she is recognized only as a revered deceased, and one day a year as a local saint! One must, however, think that the memory of the princess is celebrated by a service commemorating her, for the Reverend. Sergius, who, as a local bishop, should know the matter exactly, in the 2nd edition of his Monthly Book says that “only dirges are sung about the princess” (volume II in part I, under December 16th. However, regarding dirges, it is possible that they are sung in the manner of dirges for Anna Kashinskaya in such a way that they represent both dirges and prayer services at the same time). In the lives and in the records of miracles one comes across complaints that, due to negligence, miracles were not recorded for a long time. But in this (to put it vulgarly) blame or in this reference to negligence it is more likely to understand the absence of miracles themselves. – The accomplishment of each individual miracle was solemnly celebrated and each was deliberately announced to the general public. In 1372, a miracle occurred at the tomb of St. Metropolitan Peter and, “then seeing the Metropolitan (Alexy) ordered to call, and decided on the eve of prayer with all the gathering,” - at Karamz. V, approx. 137, col. 56 sub fin., Nikon. years. IV, 33. In 1462, a miracle took place at the tomb of St. Metropolitan Alexia, and Met. Theodosius arranged a bright celebration for this occasion, see his legend about the miracle in Sofia Vremennik Stroev, II, 80 fin., and in the Collection. years. VI, 325 fin. In 1463, miracles began to occur from the relics of Prince Theodore of Yaroslavl and his sons David and Konstantin, and according to the legend about this manifestation of the relics, the abbot of the Spassky Monastery, in which the latter lay, with all the priests and with the Prince of Yaroslavl, “began to call and preach their wondrous miracles everywhere,” to Makaryevsk. Minea under the 19th of September, printed. ed. col. 1257, and in the Degree Book, in which the word is missing: call, I 398. In 1474, a miracle occurred at the tomb of Metropolitan. Theognost, and when they reported him to Metropolitan Gerontius and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, then, says the chronicler. pointing out the existing custom, the Metropolitan led. the prince, “possessed with unbelief, did not order the bell to ring and the whole city to glorify him,” - Collected. years. VI, 198 subfin. In 1491, a miraculous sign was seen in Vladimir over the church in which Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky was buried, and on this occasion they called “all over the city” to Vladimir, - Collection. years. VIII. 221. In 1519, several miracles took place at the tomb of St. Metropolitan Alexy, and when the archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery announced them to the Metropolitan, Varlaam led them. Prince Vasily Ivanovich, then led. The prince and metropolitan with the bishops and archimandrites and abbots and “with all the cathedrals” came “with psalmody and with candles and scandiles” to the Miracle Monastery and “created prayer songs and gave great praise to Almighty God in honor of his saint and the wonderworker Alexy and celebrated lightly,” - Nikon, years. VI, 220–21, Voskresensk. years. in Collection years. VI, 267. In 1572, a miracle took place in Novgorod at the tomb of one righteous maiden, and “the bells of that ruler (of Novgorod) rang all day long,” - 2nd Novgorod. letop. Collection years. III, 172. Around the same time as the Novgorod miracle, a miracle took place in the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery at the tomb of Prince Joasaph, and the archimandrite of the monastery ordered all the bells to be rung. - Veryuzhk. 325. Just as it is in the Latin Church, in which two miracles are required for beatification and two more miracles for canonization, or four miracles in total. To witness the relics of the saints and to inquire about the miracles performed during them, bishops sometimes assembled many authorities. Between 1560–1570, to witness the relics of Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh, Bishop of Perm-Vologda Joasaph ordered all the abbots of his diocese to appear, see Konoplev in Saints of the Vologda Region, p. 33 fin. In April 1673, Archbishop Simon of Vologda wrote to Metropolitan Pavel of Sarsk that, according to the decree of the patriarch on the testimony of the relics of Galaktion of Vologda, he would begin to carry out labor, “as the eternal path is written, and (that) until that time the authorities cannot be collected from the monasteries with water,” - in Veryuzhsk. p. 623, note. It is not impossible to assume that there were cases of being made saints by deception and for money, namely, that a clever and brave abbot appeared in the monastery, who composed several miracles that supposedly happened at the tomb of the founder of the monastery and reported them to the authorities in charge, that the authorities in charge sent one investigator or a commission of investigators of two or three persons to verify the news of miracles, that the abbot bribed the investigator or investigators, and that Thus, the founder of the monastery was canonized. It is not impossible to assume this, but it goes without saying that this can only be affirmed positively with indisputable evidence in hand. Regarding attempts to deceive relics, we do have such evidence. See Letters of Russian sovereigns, vol. I, p. 27, col. 2 beginning Stoglav chap. 4, Kazansk. ed. page 44. The investigators looked for those who were healed, who were alive, put them in front of them and asked them firmly with a kiss of the cross, “who was sick with what kind of infirmity and how old and how someone was healed by the miracle workers - whether here at the miracle workers’ graves or in their houses or walking along the way,” then their tales were again “searched for” or verified by their family and tribe, and the testimony of relatives - “all sorts of devious local people” and clergy, see article Π. V. Znamensky: Sergius Shelonin, published in Orthodox. Review 1882, vol. I, p. 296 fin. To carry out interrogations of the healed and their relatives and circle people about them, the abbot and the boyar's son did not call one and the other with others to themselves, but they themselves toured their places of residence: this, obviously, in order to save them from red tape and wasting time. - And that in carrying out inquiries about miracles, the officials sent by the investigators appointed to bring to them (the investigators) persons healed and persons who could testify to healings allowed themselves to abuse, this is clear from the instructions of the Rostov Consistory given to its officials, who were entrusted with bringing to the investigators persons who had received healing at the relics of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. The instructions instruct officials: “while in this package, do not fix insults and taxes on anyone and do not take district carts without money, do not touch bribes for omission of the ordered for fear of appropriate fines,” see Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette of 1880, No. 1, p. 6. Some people claim that in our country, carrying out a search or inquiring about miracles has become more and more complicated as time has passed, and that it has finally turned into a long, complex and sometimes petty investigation, bearing all the traces of clerical formalities. But all this is one of the most complete nonsense. belonging to some. In fact, there was no complication in carrying out a search for us and it remained the same for us from ancient to modern times, as it remains the same at the present time (complications are created partly, probably on the basis of the general provisions that everything in history becomes more complicated over time, and partly, perhaps, because they actually read about a very complex search in the Catholic Church, and if in confirmation of the words: “a petty investigation that bears all the traces clerical formalities”, demand positive evidence, then people who see sleep would find themselves in a truly deplorable situation). As for the need for witnessing and verifying miracles, there are known, although few, examples of miracles copied, that is, copied from the lives of other saints, see Klyuchevsk. p. 275 fin., and in general it is made known that there were fanciful or fictitious miracles, see for example. Life of Trinity Archimandrite Dionysius, owned by Simon Azaryin, according to ed. 1834 p. 67. According to the publication of the acts of the councils of 1666 and 1667 by the brotherhood of St. Istra Cathedral of 1667. 8, in the Addendums to the Act. Historical vol. V, p. 488. We understand the orders of the Novgorod Archbishop Theodosius on the celebration of the transfer of the relics of Jacob Borovitsky, above p. 88. and the order of Patr. Philaret about the burial of the body of Adrian Poshekhonsky in the monastery, - above p. 154. - Giving alms to the poor and feeding them at all kinds of festivals was our ancient custom, see my History of the Russian Church I, 2.750 sub fin.. As for giving alms to the beggars in particular and feeding them at the holidays we are talking about, the monk Jacob and Rev. Nestor testifies that he led. book Yaroslav did both at the celebration of the establishment of the memory of Boris and Gleb; the latter writes: “The lover of Christ (prince) create a great feast on the holy holiday not only for the bolyar, (but) for all people, especially for the poor and all the widows and all the poor, for the reason and in my own name to give to them.” That at special church festivals you had huge crowds of people even in ancient times, this is reported to us by the monk Jacob or his additional one, in the story about the consecration in 1115 of a stone church dedicated to Boris and Gleb in Vyshgorod, see above p. 50, note. We said above that, probably, due to the lack of biographical information, Jacob Borovichsky was not suddenly canonized (p. 89). There was no biographical information about John and Loggin of Yarenga, and therefore the investigators who were sent to inquire about their miracles were instructed to ask local residents and the local clergy “how long ago those miracle workers appeared in Yarenga and where their relics came from from the seashore and who brought them and from whom those miracle workers’ names were known and how long ago miracles and miracles were taught from them.” to be,” see the above article by Znamensky: Sergius Shelonin, published in Orthodox. Review l882, vol. I, p. 296. Currently, there are ready-made services and lives of, if not the majority of the currently revered deceased, then a significant part of them, see Barsukov in Sources of Hagiography. See Stroev in the Bibliological Dictionary, page 157 fin. and 288. – There were people who rebelled against the compilation of canons for still unglorified saints, as well as against the compilation of their lives. In one of the collections of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery one reads an article “about the vanity of young people who create new canons and lives of saints.” The unknown author of the article is armed against the monks” who “strive for the glory and name of the earthly ones from those who are in charge before everyone and compose canons and lives (of the deceased). I won’t glorify them to God yet.” At the end of the article, the author exhorts the compilers of canons and lives: “do not write new canons and lives of a human individual at home and in monasteries in cells, imbecility, without church blessing,” see Zhmakin in the essay: “Metropolitan Daniel,” appendix. p. 90. Rev. Daniil Pereyaslavsky, according to the testimony of his life writer, “often used verbs in teaching (to his disciples), not commanding anyone to write about the holy fathers, unless he was notified from God or from the authorities,” see Sources of Barsukov’s hagiography, col. 147. On the other hand, we know examples of how representatives of the church authorities themselves wrote or commissioned the writing of canons and troparia with kontakia for uncanonized saints. Yes, Patr. Job commissioned the writing of a service for Prince Daniil Alexandrovich, see above p. 190: Bishop Alexander of Vyatka (1657–1674, † retired in 1678) wrote a service for Loggin of Koryazhemsky, - in Veryuzhsk., p. 486 fin.: Metropolitan of Novgorod Cornelius (1674–1695, † on rest 1698) wrote a canon to Martyriy Zelenetsky, the founder of the Trinity Zelenetsky Monastery, which is located in the Novoladozhsky district of the St. Petersburg province, who died on March 1, 1603, - Ist. Jer. IV, 166 fin.: St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, wrote a troparion and kontakion to Cornelius of Pereyaslavl, who labored at the abolished Borisoglebsky Pereyaslavl Monastery, which is on Peski, and died on July 22, 1698, see Blyuchevsk. p. 349, approx. 2. There are known examples of services and troparions written to recently deceased people who had not yet had time to become venerated dead or for whom there could be no hope for this at all - in general, people who, according to modern concepts, should be honored with laudable church or secular words, but not with services and troparions. The Novgorod Archbishop Jonah instructed Pachomius Serbin to write a service to Metropolitan Jonah either for the next year after his death, which followed on March 31, 1461, or even in the very year of his death, about which the life of the archbishop says: “after the Dormition of the Venerable Metropolitan Jonah, Archbishop forced Pachomius, also of the Holy Mountains, Mnikha priest, write off the following of his memory and service of the canon to the holy Metropolitan Jonah, knowing his virtues, for this reason his memory canons are mailed, equally with the saints,” see in Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature Kushelev-Bezborodko, vol. IV, p. 33, col. 2. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich wrote a troparion to Prince Semyon Romanovich Pozharsky, who on June 28, 1659, because of unreasonable courage, was captured by the Tatars and was executed by the latter for a daring insult to the khan (about captivity and execution, see Solovyov in Ist.. vol. XI, ed. 2, p. 59, for more details see Kostomarov in article: “Hetmanship of Vyhovsky,” published by Kozhanch, 1863, p. 167 sqq. Stoglav chap. 4, Kazansk. ed. page 45. See Stroev in Bibliologist. Dictionary, page 158 will accept. (The Volokolamsk manuscript, from which Stroev made an extract, is currently No. 381 and is in the library of our Academy). Acts Exped., vol. II, no. 222, p. 379. See Klyuchevsk. page 392. About the fact that the compilers of some lives borrowed material for themselves from the lives of the Greek saints of the same name as Russian saints, see Mr. Kadlubovsky in the essays on the history of ancient Russian literature indicated in the addition to page 3 of the lives of saints. “The life of Ephraim of Perekom is depicted almost literally in the words of the life of Alexander Svirsky; to Procopius, the holy fool of Ustyug, his biographer transferred the entire story from the life of Andrea, the holy fool of Tsaregrad.” – Klyuchevsk. p. 432 fin., and see also in his pages 269, 298 and 304, about the lives of Alexander Svirsky, Alexander Oshevensky and Joasaph Kamensky. By unamusing copying we mean, for example, that the author of the life of St. Alexander Svirsky was literally copied out of the Life of Epiphanius by St. Sergius of Radonezh story about the appearance of the Mother of God to the latter. In particular, Filaret, like some others, is quite rightly armed against depicting in pictures the journey on a demon to Jerusalem of John, Archbishop of Novgorod. In the apostolic canon: nothing important in Greek: μηδὲν περιττόν. Περιττός - superfluous, in application to management affairs it means extraordinary, going beyond the ordinary affairs of the current administration. “Ivan, Bishop of Rostov, with the blessing of Theodore, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, instituted the celebration of Saint Leontius, Bishop of Rostov, the Wonderworker of Rostov, in the month of May on the 23rd day,” - II, 191 fin. See Klyuchevsk. p. 424. The certificate of the Archbishop of Rostov asking permission from the Metropolitan to establish a local celebration of Paisius of Uglich, see above on p. 152. In the news of the establishment in 1715 by the Archbishop of Veliky Ustyug of a local celebration of Maxin of Totemsky and in 1716 by the Bishop of Vologda of the same celebration of Joseph Zaonikievsky does not say that the archbishop and bishop should ask permission for this from the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne (in Veryuzhsk, pp. 599 and 667). Perhaps the request for permission should be implied, or perhaps in the exceptional time of interpatriarchate the bishops allowed themselves greater freedom of action than what belonged to them in ordinary times. She should be too surprised if we have any information at all about the canonization of saints for local celebrations. Not to mention the fact that the decrees of the metropolitan patriarchs blessing such a celebration are hidden in the archives or have completely disappeared, in many cases the matter could have been done without any decrees, having been carried out solely by oral means. One or the other bishop came to Moscow for a council or, as in the second half of the 18th century, for a series of services: he verbally asked for the blessing of the metropolitan-patriarch to locally celebrate the deceased; He verbally taught the blessing to celebrate, and the matter ended (for an indication of a similar practice, see Veryuzhsk., p. 623, note). And finally, it cannot be decisively denied that a number of local saints were canonized by the diocesan bishops themselves, without asking for the blessing of the metropolitan patriarch. As for these last canonizations, if they actually exist, then they are not invalid in their essence, for diocesan bishops have the right of local canonization, and they are only incorrectly performed in relation to the existing administrative order, which we talk about above. However, if there were such a case that the diocesan bishop, without the knowledge of the higher authorities, canonized some deceased person for a local celebration, without having sufficient grounds for this; then, after discovering the case, the highest authority, of course, can destroy the canonization (and if somewhere some deceased person was arbitrarily passed off as a saint: then it is very clear that this is an abuse that the bishop is obliged to stop with his power and for which the perpetrators are subject to proper punishment). See eg. book: “Following the Athos shrine through the Vitebsk, Mogilev and Pskov provinces in 1866,” published in St. Petersburg, in 1867. Meanwhile, it is extremely harmful in relation to the common people, for who does not know that free-thinking people, adopting it to the church itself, allow themselves to draw very unfavorable conclusions about the latter. The Greeks do not at all preach the teaching that is preached among us by people who have a zeal for God not according to reason (and with the teaching of these people, in view of the undoubted fact that the relics of the largest part of the ancient Greek saints are bones, we would have to either declare these relics to be infirmities or assert that the ancient Greek saints are a different matter and our Russian saints are a different matter...). Act.Exped. vol. IV, 156, p. 207. The words we quoted from the report of Metropolitan. Pitirimu about the relics of St. Nil Stolbensky is read in the decree of Pitirim in the Nilov Monastery on the arrangement of the shrine and the position in the nave of the found relics of the monk. Regarding the position of the relics in the reliquary, the Metropolitan gives instructions to the abbot of the monastery: “And when our letter comes to you, you would order a reliquary to be built on those miracle-working relics, and in that reliquary, in the middle under the miracle-working relics, put a quilt of paper cotton quilt, two inches thick, and line it with muslin or something else.” it is appropriate, and in the middle of that shrine on the sides and on top of that the paper cover is lined with smooth lath, whatever color is appropriate, and on top of that satin, put those miracle-working relics in that shrine, and on top of the relics in the entire shrine, put cotton paper, quilted an inch three inches thick, and on top of that, put a cover of velvet or satin or whatever is appropriate, and on the cover, order to embroider an image of that Venerable Nile the miracle worker, or sew a cross across the entire cover.” See Anania Fedorov Collection about the city of Suddal in the Vremnik General. East. and Ancient, book. XXII, p. 91. Ibid. In this sense, of course, about the relics of St. Nile Stolbensky says in the newest descriptions of the Stolbensky monastery that they were found incorrupt. That the word: “relics” primarily and in its own way did not mean the whole body, but a part and particle of the body, is evident from the fact that this word was used in the common sense of a particle of a sacred object: to disassemble some sacred object “on relics” was used in the sense or said in the sense of disassembling some sacred object into particles, see Srezievsky in Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language under the words. power. And about the use of the word: relics, the singular number: relics, in the general sense of remnants, remainder, see Sreznevskaya there and Vostokov in the Dictionary of the Church Slavonic Language under the same word (words of the 84th, according to our current account - 95th, rules of the Council of Carthage: τὰ λείψανα τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας, - the remains of idolatry, in the ancient Slavic translation - according to some lists: the relics of idolatry, according to other lists: the relics of idolatry). Word 6th, Kazansk. ed. p. 285, and word 7th, ibid. page 311. See Zhmakin’s dissertation: “Metropolitan Daniel and his works,” appendix. page 9 beginning Kazansk ed. page 426 beginning and 471. Parts 2nd section 11 first, ed. in Russian East. Bible coll. 887 and 890. See lexis in Read. General East. and Ancient 1884, Prince. II, page 9 sub fin. Collection years. VI, 196. – And our new teachers do not preach the mentioned teaching. St. Demetrius of Rostov in his Search, - parts of the 2nd chapter. 15th: “About the relics of the saints”, speaks of the relics partly as whole bodies, partly as bones (“a holy man, a friend of God, and the bone is holy...; the bones of saints give healing to believers...; about the bones of the righteous the psalmist says: the Lord protects all their bones...; are the bones of the vile tormentors like the church of the holy martyrs?”). Stefan Yavorsky in the Stone of Faith, - part 1, third dogma: “On the relics of saints,” exactly like St. Demetrius speaks of relics partly as whole bodies, partly as with bones, and differs from Demetrius only in that, based on the ancient patristic evidence he cites, especially John Chrysostom, he deliberately says that the relics of saints are also just bones. Metropolitan Plato, in the preface to the service to Prince Daniil Alexandrovich and in the life of the prince (at the end), speaks of relics both as bodies protected from corruption by God and as bones (“their bones and dust and the very place are honorable..., from their tombs and the bones of the dead many good deeds flow to the faithful..., the Holy Spirit himself blesses their memory and their bones”...). A. N. Muravyov, who wrote, as is known, under the censorship of Metropolitan. Philareta, says in his Journey to Russian holy places: “The Latin word reliquia (as relics are called in Latin) expresses remains; consequently, one should not always look for complete relics and attach any special opinion to it..., – part 2, ed. 6, p. 15 (what exactly was Metropolitan Philaret’s viewing of the first half of the second part of the Travel, in which the words we now quote are read, see Letters of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A. N. M., Kyiv, 1869, Nos. 188 and 190, pp. 292 and 297: Muravyov himself writes in a note: “Vladyka continues to analyze my Volga region journey,” p. 300), and whoever is familiar with the language of Metropolitan. Philaret, he cannot help but suspect that what is given directly belongs to him, having been written by him to replace the more drawn-out and less accurate speech of the author). Metropolitan himself Philaret took as the text for the word about the incorruption of holy relics, which he said in the Lavra on September 25, 1821, the words of the prophet Isaiah: And your bones will become fat and will be like a watering city and like a spring, its water will not fail - LVIII, 11, and in the word, citing the saying of Sirach about the bones of two the prophets that they will prosper from their places - XLIX, 12, and the psalmist about the bones of the righteous, that the Lord protects them - XXXIII, 21, speaks about the bones of the pious and the bones of the righteous (“After death, the bones of the pious become fat and prosper with the glory of their virtues.... In the sacred remains of the Righteous One (i.e., St. Sergius) before us we see with one’s own eyes there is still an image of how the bones of the righteous grow fat and prosper in the tombs) - ed. words of 1874, vol. P, XLV, p. 15. Finally, there is a book: “Dogma of the veneration of holy relics, according to Stephen of Yavorsky,” published by the Athos Panteleimon Monastery (the latest third edition - Moscow, 1890). In this book, not only is Stefan Yavorsky fully reproduced with that deliberateness of his, which we pointed out, but as if the deliberateness is even intensified somewhat (Archbishop Philaret does not speak out directly, but does not speak out directly “when he reproaches Metropolitan Eugene for the fact that this in his Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, citing from the Teraturgima of Athanasius of Kalnofoysky catalogs of saints who are resting in the caves, issues certain answers from Kalnofoysky, “whether the whole body of the saint lies or only his bones” - Russian Saints, August 28th, approx. 206, 3rd ed. p. 557). If this were so, then all the deceased, whose bodies turned out to be incorruptible, would be canonized. However, this is not the case. Of the deceased, whose bodies turned out to be incorruptible, but who (not being, it is understood, glorified by miracles) remain not canonized, we point out, in addition to others not entirely reliably known to us, the Bishop of Belgorod (which, since 1787, Kursk) Joasaph Gorlenko, who died on December 10, 1754, whose incorruptible body openly rests in Belgorod Trinity Monastery, in the crypt under the cathedral monastery church, see Rev. Demetrius in Mesyatseslovo on December 10th, to Metropolitan Pavel Konyuskevich of Tobolsk, who died in retirement in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra on November 4th, 1770, whose incorrupt body rests openly in the crypt under the great Lavra church, see him in the same place on November 4th, and on Princess Slutskaya Sophia Yurievna, who died on March 19, 1617, whose incorruptible relics rest in the Slutsk (city of Sludka, Minsk province) Trinity Monastery, see Archimandrite. Nicholas Historical and statistical description of the Minsk diocese, St. Petersburg. 1804, p. 110. § 2. That the incorruption of bodies without the working of miracles was not and is not recognized as proof of the holiness of the dead, let us point out two examples that constitute evidence of this - the first, dating back to the end of the 15th century, the second - to the beginning of the 18th century, already to the current Synodal period. In the month of August 1479, on the occasion of the transfer to the newly built Assumption Cathedral, the body of Metropolitan Philip, who died 6 years and 5 months ago, was found incorrupt: for 12 days the body was not buried, apparently in anticipation of whether miracles would follow from it; but miracles did not follow, and despite its incorruption, after 12 days it was buried - Voskresensk. letop. in Collection years. VIII, 203. In the Kyiv towns of Gotva and Sorochintsy (Gotva instead of Goltva, which is a town in the Poltava province, Kobelyak district: Sorochintsy is a town in the same province, Mirgorod district), while digging a grave for burying the dead, two rotten female bodies were found that stood in churches - one about ten years old, the other about fifteen years old. Kyiv Archbishop Varlaam Vanatovich in his report to St. He wrote to the Synod on November 23, 1724, that he himself saw both bodies - that they were truly incorruptible and intact, “as it is usual to see incorruptible relics, but until now not a single reliable evidence of their miracles had been found,” then he ordered in the same churches where they stood to dig deep holes and bury them “honestly” with the usual lithium, “for simple people, especially the Little Russians, such bodies as God-pleasing worship, venerate and idolize customs.”.., see Description of documents and files stored in the Archives of St. Synod, vol. IV, no. 510/61, col. 526. All-Russian Patriarch Hermogenes should also be added to Bishop Joasaph Gorlenko and Metropolitan Pavel Konyuskevich. Oh Patr. We read Hermogene from gr. M.V. Tolstov in his stories from the history of the Russian Church, taken from an unspecified source: “the relics of the holy martyr Hermogenes, in 1653 (need: 1652), when they were transferred (from the Chudov Monastery, where the patriarch was buried) to the Assumption Cathedral, were found incorrupt and therefore laid on top of the platform, in a box upholstered in purple velvet, next to the copper a tent built for the Robe of the Lord; in 1812, enemies - robbers took them out of the box, thinking that treasures were hidden there; after the expulsion of Napoleon’s hordes from Moscow, the relics of the saint of God were found on the floor of the church, in their former complete incorruption: they rest now in the same place, in that box,” Prince. IV, p. 204 note; Now the above is literally repeated in the additions to the “Book, verb description of Russian saints, No. 170. Gr. Tolstov is repeated by the priest of the Assumption Cathedral, Gr. Istomin in his Index of Shrines and Sights of the Cathedral; cfr also by A. N. Muravyova in the 1st part of Travel to Russian Holy Places, in speeches about the Assumption Cathedral, and Archimandrite. Apollos in an article about Patr. Hermogene, published in No. 3 Readings of the General. East. and Ancient for the third (1847) year, Mixtures p. 28. But it is strange that about the case with the relics of Patr. Hermogenes during the invasion of the French, N. Rozanov does not say anything in his History of the Moscow Diocesan Administration, in the section: “Restoration of the Shrine in the Kremlin” (after the French), read in Book II of the third part, page 24 sqq (In any case, it is true that the remains of Patriarch Hermogenes are not in the ground, but on top of the ground, in a wooden coffin lined with velvet, - Snegireva Monuments of Moscow Antiquity, p. 24, col. 1 fin. – The bodies of two more from the class of hierarchs, namely, Metropolitan of Kyiv Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky, who died on July 26, 1676, who died on July 26, 1676, were found incorrupt, but we do not know whether they were buried in Chigirin. but then transferred to the Lubensky Mgareky Monastery, see Moscow Curious Monthly Book of Ruban for 1770, p. 97 (Mesyatseslov, as if making it known that the body at his time was on top of the ground, says: “Joseph was buried in the Mgarsky Lubensky monastery, where to this day his body has not yet decayed is visible”), and the famous Archbishop of Belarus Georgy Konissky, who died on February 13, 1795 and was buried in Mogilev, turned out to be incorrupt in 1875, see Rev. Sergius Monthly Book of the East, 2nd ed. vol. II, second account p. 555 beginning. The body of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich, who died on December 10, 1289, was left uncovered in the coffin (placed in a tomb under the church) for four and a half months, although during an inspection carried out after this, it was found intact and fragrant, but was not opened, but was covered. In some copies of the Hypatian Chronicle it is read about this under the year 1288: “This blessed prince Volodymer, named in holy baptism John, son of Vasilkov, was enclosed in a coffin, and lying in the coffin his body was not covered from the 11th day of the month of December to the 6th day of the month of April;. The princess was not able to console him (to be comforted), but when the bishop Evsegeniy and with all the krylos came, he opened the coffin, and saw the body whole and white, and the fragrance from the coffin was quick and the stench was like the aroma of valuable things; and so he saw a miracle, and having seen it, he glorified God, and his coffin was smeared in the month of April on the 6th day, on Wednesday of Passion Week.” – The body of the Galich prince Dmitry Yuryevich the Red, who died in Galich on September 22, 1441, was brought to Moscow for burial in the Archangel Cathedral, after cutting the tarred log in which it was transported, it was found on the 23rd day from the death of the prince, contrary to expectations, to find one bones, completely unharmed: however, they were not left at the autopsy, but were buried in the ground - Nikon. years. V, 153, Resurrection years. in Collection years. VIII, 111, Kings. letop. p. 233. The Goltvinsky relics were discovered in 1709, and the Sorochinsk relics - shortly after the Swedish battle, i.e. the Battle of Poltava, which took place on June 27, 1709, see stored in the archives of St. Synod case of 1744 on unattested relics, ll. 235 and 420. - In 1700, in the Gadyach protopopia, in the town of Lyutenka (Poltava province, Gadyach district; while digging ditches for the foundation of the church, the incorruptible relics of an unknown person were found, who in a dream vision to one resident of the town called himself Autonomous. By order of Metropolitan of Kyiv Varlaam Yasinsky, the relics were again buried in the ground, - the file of 1744 on the unattested relics of saints, kept in the archives of the Holy Synod, l. 236. - In 1850, in the Chernigov province, in the village of Tuligolovo, Glukhov district, while digging ditches for the foundation of a church, the body of the village priest Maxim Fomin, who died in 1801 or 1810, was found intact. year. After ten days of standing in the open air, with no change in the body, the coffin was laid in the wall of the new church. See Archbishop Philaret, Historical and Statistical Description of the Chernigov Diocese, book 7, p. 329. In support of the belief that the saints, after their repose, work miracles through some earthly means, the Long Catechism refers to the fact that, according to the testimony of the 4th book of Kings (XIII, 21), the dead were raised from the dead by touching the hands of the prophet Elisha. And the final and, we believe, convincing speech to the preachers of the mentioned doctrine is that it is strange to preach the doctrine when we positively know about the relics of quite a few Russian saints that they are not whole bodies, but bones. At the request of the abbot of the Novgorod Anthony Monastery, Kirill Zavidov (1580–1594), for permission to open the relics of St. Anthony, Metropolitan Alexander of Novgorod (on the see from 1576, metropolitan from 1589, † in 1591) answered: “It is appropriate to tell about such a great matter to the autocratic tsar and the most holy patriarch, since the ancient wonderworker was born, and what the autocratic tsar and the most holy patriarch command about this, “before,” adds the author of the legend about the discovery of the relics of Anthony, from whom we take it, “the custom is such that without the Tsar’s command such a great work was begun,” - RKP. foundation. librarian Moscow Spirit. Academician No. 96, l. 214. Then we have evidence of the discovery, with the permission of the government, of the relics of Cyril of Novoyezersk in 1648, about which now below, and of Daniil of Pereyaslav in 1652, and than See above p. 130. The Council of 1667 made a deliberate and strict (cited by us above - p. 285) order that the relics should be opened only with government permissions. There were abuses until a later time, but they were persecuted precisely as abuses, as we will discuss below. And it must be thought that it was precisely to prevent substitution that it was forbidden to remove the discovered coffins with relics from the earth until the arrival of government commissions or authorized representatives, who themselves had to do this. – It is said that to verify the authenticity of the relics, they were compared with those icon-portraits that we mentioned above (this is said in the legends about the discovery of the relics of Alexander of Svir, Macarius of Unzhensky, Adrian of Poshekhonsky). But since, on the one hand, it is impossible to think that portrait icons are distinguished by great similarity to the originals; since, on the other hand, it is difficult to accept that the relics, if they are found and in the form of whole bodies, retain the features of former living people to the point of full recognition: it is more likely to think that this means of inquiry was not actually used, but was only invented, in order to better convince people, by the compilers of legends; if in fact it was used, they could lead to positive results only with a preconceived readiness to see similarities (the relics of Macarius of Unzhensky, the authenticity of which were supposedly assured in this way, turned out to be imaginary and, moreover, were brushes). The only real way to find out the authenticity of the relics was to see that they were found precisely in the grave in which the body of the deceased was buried, for whose relics they were presented, for the graves of the deceased, whose relics were acquired, were always known reliably and accurately (and that is why it was forbidden to remove coffins with the acquired things from the ground until the arrival of government commissions or authorized representatives). That other compilers of the lives of saints and legends about the discovery of their relics allowed themselves freedom in testimony regarding the state of the relics in which they were found, this, by the way, shows the example of the compiler of the legend about the discovery of the relics of St. Daniil of Pereyaslavl: bones were found, as was reported from the Danilov monastery to the patriarch, and the compiler of the legend says that they found the saint “like a living being,” see above note. About the deliberate convening of the clergy and people in cases like ours, see above. It is not said in what condition the relics were found. Word on the discovery of the relics of St. Kirill on Thu. General East. and others 1864, book. III, pp. 7–8. The legend about the discovery of the relics of Daniel of Pereyaslavl says that the Metropolitan of Rostov, sent to open the relics, celebrated the all-night vigil as usual, served the Divine Liturgy, and that after the liturgy he went to the tomb of the saint (see additional information about the relics of the saints in the appendices). Above we mentioned the decree of St. Synod of 1722 regarding abuses of the tombs of saints whose relics were not opened. We present this decree here. “On March 15th (1722), by decree of His Imperial Majesty, the Holy Governing Synod, having seen from the cases now found in the Synod that there appeared in some at the Pereyaslavl Zalessky monastery a suspicious, certified from the church, veneration of coffins as shrines, in addition, having learned that in many other places in the city cathedral churches and monasteries there are such tombs and shrines, which are placed over the bodies of the unrecovered saints venerated by the church and, for the sake of their remembrance only, should be empty with the covering of the image, but not so contained, but instead of bodies, carved (and) hollowed out logs are placed in them, which are covered with covers, as if they are the very sacred bodies that few even know exist; and those who are not aware of this, especially common people, coming to those crayfish and tombs and, out of their ignorance, counting them as the most holy bodies, approach with great fear and kiss the covers placed in those decks with much fasting, expecting the bodies themselves to be there, through which there is considerable suspicion and unpardonable criticism from the heterodox. And the Holy Synod, having reasoned quite about these things, (commanded) these carved and hollowed logs, which were placed as if some kind of deception, were taken from the tombs and sent to St. Synod urgently, so that in future there will be no such deception anywhere; and cover these tombs and shrines with boards on which icons of those saints would be depicted. And about that from St. the governing Synod, both to the Synodal members and to all dioceses to the bishops, to send His Imperial Majesty decrees immediately.” The decree was printed by A. A. Titov in the description of one village in the Yaroslavl province and from it reprinted by Ikonnikov in the Experience of Russian Historiography - from the latter, from which we take it, page CLXII note. Above, based on Muravyov, we say that the inspection took place in February 1757. But in the manuscript of the report, which we have at hand, it is read that the inspection took place on January 15, 1757. Manuscript containing the report of the commission of St. Synod, was definitely delivered to us by the late professor of the Yaroslavl Seminary I. I. Korsunsky. Collection of laws vol. XXVIII. D; 21, 540, p. 724. Between St. Demetrius of Rostov and Innokentiev of Irkutsk, according to the chronological order of establishing celebrations, takes the place of Ven. Theodosius of Totemsky. We do not know the reports of the commissions testifying to the power of Theodosius; and in the decree of St. The Synod of September 30, 1798 about the appearance of his relics only says that “with three testimonies performed on his (Theodosius) body, this body turned out to be incorruptible.” The Saints of 1621 were written in the Koryazhemsky Monastery, which is in the Vologda province, in the Solvychegodsky district, 15 versts east of Solvychegodsk (in 1868 it was assigned to the Solvychegodsky Vvedensky Monastery); are currently in the Undolsky Library (belonging to the Moscow Public Museum), - No. 287. The calendar, written somewhere unknown between 1606–1625, is currently in the St. Petersburg Public Library, - No. 51. For both lists of calendar, as well as for the calendar in general with detailed records of Russian saints, see. Rev. Sergius, Complete Monthly Books of the East, vol. I, ed. 1 page 290 sqq, ed. 2 pp. 852 sqq. The work of an unknown Trinity monk, in all likelihood Silon Azaryin, which has not received distribution, is read in two manuscripts of the fundamental library of the Moscow Theological Academy: No. 201, pp. 302–340, in No. 203, pp. 247–277, of which the second number contains the draft list, and the first number contains the white list. That the extract was made by 1657 is evident from the fact that from the repose of Rev. Sergius (in the year 1392) until the time it is completed, it is supposed to be 265 years, - No. 201 l. 327 rev. Metropolitan Plato, who did not know the use of the word: “chronicler” in the special sense of short individual records about something (in this case, biographical records about saints) crossed out the words: “like the chronicler” and hung at the top: “like the chronicler”, and the amendment, since there are no calendar calendars in real chroniclers, turned out to be very unsuccessful (A. N. Muravyov, it is not clear - for what effect who claims to have found our extract in the dome (!) of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral - in the preface to the month of September, Lives of Russian Saints, betrays himself by citing its title based on Platonova’s unsuccessful amendment). The title is given in full in the Sources of Barsukov’s hagiography, - preface: pp. X-XI. We know the lists of the “Book of the verb” or “Book containing” or “Tale”: three libraries of the Moscow Theological Academy, fundamental number 209 (not the 17th century, as Count Tolstoy accepts, in the preface to the publication of the Book of the Verb, and not the beginning of the 18th century, as accepted by Rev. Sergius, - Complete Monthly Book I, ed. 1 p. 310 beginning, ed. 2 p. 380 fin., and the end of the 18th century, for the water years in the paper on which the manuscript is written, 1781 and 1782), schismatic No. 207 and numberless, donated by Pogodin: two libraries of the Society of History and Antiquities. – Nos. 212 and 231; two Novgorodians who were with the priest. Philaret (preface to the Russian saints); one by one: Tolstoy (Description of Stroev Dept. V. No. 81), Public Library (see gr. Tolstov ibidd.: isn’t it the same with the previous one?), Kiev-Sophia (Blessed Sergius ibid. I, 310 beginning), Pogodin libraries (? id. ibid.), libraries gr. S.P. Rumyantsev, Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (written off from the previous one), library gr. Uvarov (Description of Archim. Leonid No. 1551), libraries of Savvaitov (Barsukova Sources of hagiography, preface and appendix), Vakhrameev (Description of Titov No. 77) and Titov (see ibid. p. 53 sub fin.). In Tsarsky's manuscript No. 396, pp. 254–304. Published by G. D. Filimonov under the name “Russian consolidated icon-painting original of the 18th century” in the Bulletin of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum for 1874. We use the calendar through the volume of the Complete Monthly Book of the East by Rev. Sergius, namely, Part I. containing the monthly book, in which, along with the actual saints, a considerable number of revered deceased are included (index to Russian local saints and revered departed monthly book - in the appendices: 1st ed. p. 199. 2nd ed. p. 657) and in part III of the 3rd appendix, 1st ed. pp. 58–70, 2nd ed. pp. 546–578. which is entitled: “Russian saints who are in the handwritten calendar, but not canonized.” The main sources for the past 19th century: Monthly Book of Rev. Demetrius and then - “Russian Ascetics of the 19th Century” by E. Poselyanin (1st edition in two books that make up the appendices to the months of March and July” of the Russian Pilgrim of 1900; 2nd edition, significantly expanded, with portraits and drawings, in one volume, St. Petersburg, 1901. Which ascetics or ascetics are mentioned not in both editions, but in the 2nd one, we notice this directly). Under Anna, by the monastic name Anastasia, of course, not the second wife of Theodore Rostislavich, but the first, for the son of Theodore Rostislavich Mikhail, whose mother she is called (see appendices, p. 463), was from the first wife, and not from the second, from whom the sons David and Konstantin (in the Genealogical Book, as in Karamzin, she is called Maria, and not Anna, whose name is the Degree Book, - I, 395 beginning, and after her Karamzin is given to his second wife, a Tatar. One might think that in Yaroslavl, - the indicated 463rd page of appendices, the name of Anna-Anastasia was transferred from the second wife of Theodore Rostislavich to the first, in an erroneous way, Ratshin for some reason calls Anastasia the aunt of Prince Mikhail, that is, the sister of his mother, - Complete Historical Collection. information page 557). A stain on the memory of Metropolitan. Gabriel is constituted by his relationship with Metropolitan Platon of Moscow. The latter writes in his autobiography, obviously referring to Met. Gabriel, that during the Synod in Moscow in 1797 (on the occasion of the coronation of Emperor Paul), he, Plato, suffered such temptations from his brothers that it is difficult to explain everything in detail. In the calendar with the chronicle, located in the manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 201, the following general remark is read about the later hermits (we don’t know whether it goes to the newest hermits): “These all, having one image, have a heavy burden on themselves and are chained to the wall with chains, eating dry food, fish and oil and fast and soft I don’t touch the food, and their life is known to God alone, many people come to them and I delight in their life and crawl from them, they say, to the great reception,” - l. 335 rev. (The decree of the Holy Synod of February 21, 1722 prescribes: no one should be kept in monasteries, as well as bigots and those with mats, - Descriptions of documents and affairs of the Holy Synod, vol. II, part 1, no. 245, col. 395). In a letter from Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow dated November 20, 1823, it reads: “In the discourse of the blessed princess nun Euphrosyne, I spoke with members of St. Synod: but I did not receive a decisive answer to this from them. They spoke pro and contra, presenting a similar example of the blessed princess nun Anna, who rested in Kashin, for whom prayers were also sung, even churches in her name in some places were consecrated, but after one bishop forbade the singing of prayers, and now, as you know, they sing memorial services, and, what is most strange, they read a prayer about the end of them, which is read only by one saint. Would you like to know my opinion on this subject? I advise you to write about this in detail to the book. A. N. G. (to Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn). Maybe he will talk about this matter with me, and probably he will report to the sovereign. No harm can come from this,” see the letter in the February Book of Christian Reading for the 1898th move, p. 201. The letter makes it known that Met. Filaret wished and sought that prayers were held for Princess Euphrosyne instead of memorial services for her, or that she be recognized as a local saint, and that he referred to the previous time when prayers were held for the princess (see regarding this matter in the Archives of the Holy Synod of 1744, No. 80, about the relics not attested, l. 565. – Information Metropolitan Seraphim, by whom and how the singing of prayers to Princess Anna Kashinskaya was prohibited, were not particularly thorough, and it is also not entirely unnoticeable that regarding the great strangeness known to him, he limited himself to just pointing out the latter). – We have been informed for certain that at the present time, no later than 1869, prayers are being sung to the princess: therefore, sometime after 1857 and before 1869 she was canonized as local saints (in fact, she was restored to their rank). The Korelsky Nikolaevsky Monastery is mentioned in the 1st Novgorod Chronicle as existing under the year 1419. But to this indication the death of the founder of the monastery, Ven. Euthymius (if only he was the founder of the monastery) must be attributed to an earlier time than the end of the 15th century. It remains unclear to us that Rev. Macarius speaks about St. Euphemia as the founder of the Korelsky Nikolaevsky monastery in his article: “Christianity within the Arkhangelsk province”, published in the 3rd book of Readings for 1878, and the new does not speak about him as the founder of the monastery in his article: “Historical and statistical description of the Nikolaevsky Karelian third-class monastery”, printed in the 1st book of the same Readings for. 1879 (in the last article the Right Reverend says: “When, by whom, by what motive or occasion, and with whose hierarchal blessing was the Nikolaev Karelian Monastery built, this, as in ancient times, more than a whole century before this, arrived by deliberate research not openly, and now, but the documents stored in the monastery could not be discovered due to the repeated burning of the monastery with its property and archival files” - the beginning of the article). Isidore Yuryevsky (Derptsky) with 72 Russians who suffered with him was canonized for local celebration at the end of 1897, as reported in the 3rd year of 1898 (from January 17th) No. published under St. The Synod of Church Gazette reads: “With the blessing of the Holy Synod, it has been established to perform annually, on January 8, the festive glorification of the holy Yuryev martyrs, Presbyter Isidore and with him the seventy-two who received the martyr’s crown in the city of Yuryev in 1472 for their devotion to the Orthodox faith,” - page 100 beginning. About the first glorification, which took place on January 8, 1898, the same Gazette reports: “On January 8, on the day of remembrance of the Hieromartyr Isidore and with him 72, who suffered for the Orthodox faith in the city of Yuryev in 1472, at the site of their martyrdom, in Yuryev, their first solemn church glorification took place. On the eve of the holiday, January 7th, an all-night vigil was held, during which the life of the Hieromartyr Isidore was read in the church and the word was spoken by (one) priest... The next day, His Eminence Agafangel (Bishop of Riga) performed a liturgy in the Assumption Church, at which one archpriest "said a sermon on the meaning of this holiday. After the liturgy, during a prayer service for the Yuryev martyrs, a procession of the cross came out of the church presenting banners and icons, among which stood out the icon of the Hieromartyr Isidore, decorated with flowers." The procession had three stops: the first - “on the town hall square, in front of the city council building, where several centuries ago, after interrogation, the Yuryev confessors of the Orthodox faith were convicted”; the second - “on the banks of the Omovzha (Embach) river, where, according to legend, the Yuryev martyrs were lowered under the ice into the river”; the third - “in front of the Assumption Church, near the river. Upon the return of the procession to the church, “the prayer service (to the martyrs) was completed.” and the usual many years are proclaimed,” p. 100 fin. We sometimes came across assurances that the body of Metropolitan John Maksimovich was preserved incorrupt and that it was found as such in 1826 by Archbishop Eugene of Tobolsk, who on one occasion inspected John’s coffin. But Archbishop Eugene, in a letter to Archbishop Avramiy of Yaroslavl dated June 19, 1826, writes about what he found upon inspection of the coffin: “the mantle and cassock are completely intact, either from the cold, because the crypt is completely covered in ice from the inside, as is the coffin, or from the massiveness of this matter, but the bodies, only bones, are intact, however, they all fell apart and everything black and partly moldy,” see letter in the March Book of Russian Antiquity of 1886 (part XLIX), page 591 fin. Rev. Dimitry, referring to the 20th No. of the Vologda Diocesan Gazette of 1871, which we do not have at hand, says: “Near the village of Ulyanovsk, named after Juliana, there is the Ulyanovsk Solvychegodsky Monastery, in the church of which a chapel of St. was built in memory of the pious Juliana. Martyr Juliana." But this Ulyanovsk Solvychegodsk monastery, which no one talks about, arouses our bewilderment (and if we assume that here, of course, is the closed Ulyanovsk Hermitage, founded by St. Stephen of Perm and located not in Solvychegodsk, but in the Ust-Sysolsk district - East. Jer. VI, 467, then righteous Juliana will arouse bewilderment). In 1745–46, the Pereyaslav Consistory reported to St. Synod that the relics of Cornelius, who died in 7201 (1693), were at the autopsy, but that then, on the orders of those sent from St. The Synod of Hieromonk Ovsyannikov is hidden - that a stone tomb was placed over his relics and his image was painted in 1714 - that there is a troparion and kontakion for him (which are attached to the report) and that requiem services are sung over him, see stored in the archives of St. Synod case of 1744 about the relics “examined, l. 403 et al.. There is no date under the report, but it was signed by Archimandrite Anthony Platkovsky of the Danilov Monastery, and he was the Danilovsky Archimandrite from December 27, 1744 to June 15, 1746. By Hieromonk Ovsyannikov we mean Hieromonk Varlaam Ovsyannikov, who, at the establishment of St. Synod was made his assessor and chief secretary, and in 1723 he was put on trial, so his arrival in Pereyaslavl should be assumed between 1721–1728, see about him in Chistovich’s work: Feofan Prokopovich and his time, pp. 97, 168 and others. So that the troparion and kontakion of Cornelius were written to St. Demetrius of Rostov and for Demetrius to testify to his power, this is not stated in the report of the Consistory. Cosmas the holy fool of Verkhoturye, who labored in the city of Verkhoturye, Perm province, died on December 8, 1680 and was buried in the fence of the Verkhoturye Cathedral. See about him from Rev. Demetrius in the 2nd edition of the Monthly Book on December 8th. It is remarkable that in one case about the Murom monastery of the second half of the 17th century, there is no mention at all of St. Lazarus of Murom (although the Church of Lazarus' Resurrection is mentioned, which was located “in a monastery, beyond the field”), and instead of Lazarus it is spoken of the Venerable Wonderworker Athanasius of Murom, see Readings. General East. and Ancient 1887, book. III, Varia, pp. 54 sqq (61, 62). But in the Description of the life and miracles of the holy Venerable Nicodemus, the Khozyug hermit, the Kozheozersk miracle worker, printed in St. Petersburg in 1860 (in the Synodal Printing House, in Slavic font), the afterword is read: “The Venerable Father Nicodemus has been canonized by our Orthodox Church and is shown alongside them in the Prologue, printed in Moscow in 1662; his memory is appointed to be celebrated on July 3rd on the day of his repose, with the singing of verses of the 8th canon (? sic), the creators of which were Metropolitan Macarius of Grevensky and Abba Theodosius.” That Nicodemus is shown in the Prologue does not necessarily mean that he is a canonized saint (about which see above, p. 565 fin.); in the same way, this does not mean that there is a service for him (see above, p. 288 sqq). But if a celebration is performed for him (which the afterword does not directly say), it is done with the knowledge, and not due to the ignorance of the subject authority, which would force us to assume legal canonization, then, of course, he should be recognized as a real local saint (On the service to Nicodemus, Khozyugsky, compiled by Metropolitan Macarius of Greven and the Serbian Abba Theodosius, who were in exile in the North, see Stroeva Bibliographic. Dictionary, p. 198, and a brochure about Nicodemus, Nicodemus, St. Petersburg, p. 15, Metropolitan Philaret speaks of it as a meaningless work that should not be approved for publication, see the Index to the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Philaret, ser., 447 col. Metropolitan Filaret wrote in one letter to the governor of the Lavra, Anthony: “In St. Petersburg they are unhappy that the Right Reverend of Nizhny Novgorod arbitrarily built a church at the tomb of (Reverend Paphnutius of Balakhninsky),” named after. Index to the Collection of Opinions and Reviews of Metropolitan. Filareta, p. 235, col. 2. Until 1778, Savvaty of Tverskoy was celebrated and prayers were held as a saint. In 1778, there was a ban on the celebration and singing of prayers, but or, despite the ban, the celebration - the singing was not stopped or was then resumed - and in 1849, a new ban took place (as if, however, it also remained ineffective; in 1778, the Tver Consistory ordered that the tomb of Savvaty, located in the church, be lowered into the ground and bury, and in 1849 the Holy Synod allowed this tomb, which had not been lowered into the ground after 1778, to be left in the church untouched, only without any image or cover on it), see Essay on the history of the Savvatyevsky Monastery, now the village of Savvatyevsky, Tver district with a preliminary biography of the founder of the monastery Savvaty, the ascetic of Tverskoy and Orshinsky, op. L. Mitropolsky, Tver, 1897, pp. 76 sqq, 103–121. Assurances regarding the book. Yuri Svyatoslavich of Smolensk, that in the Venevsky monastery he tried to please God with a righteous life, see Nikon. years., V, 12 fin., and Degrees, book., I, 565. About the absurd legend that circulated between Siberians and non-Siberians that Fyodor Kuzmich was none other than Emperor Alexander Pavlovich, who had disappeared from the throne and from the people, see article H. K. Schilder: “Funeral Year”, published in the April book of “Russian Antiquity” of 1897, and in his own work: Emperor Alexander the First, see life and reign, vol. IV, St. Petersburg, 1898. What is mysterious for us is read in the letter of the late Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret to the governor of the Lavra, Anthony, dated January 17 1852: “I don’t refuse to write about the Siberian elder: but I have little hope of success; It’s a pity that there is no closeness between those to whom this matter is closer: Vladyka of Novgorod does not answer me.”..., printed. publications of letters, part III, p. 123, no. 845. Archbishop of Suzdal, formerly of Elasson, Arseny is one of the deceased who are not included only in catalogues, but are actually revered. According to the testimony of the archpriest of the Suzdal Cathedral, in which the archbishop is buried, he “enjoys the greatest respect and reverence of the townspeople (Suzdal) and pilgrims” and for him “almost funeral services are constantly being celebrated,” see the article by A. A. Dmitrievsky: “Arseniy of Elassonsky Archbishop”, published in the January book of Proceedings of the Kyiv Academy for 1898, p. 73 beginning. (the testimony is the archpriest’s answer to the question addressed to him by Mr. Dmitrievsky). – According to gr. Tolstova, - Books of verb No. 385, “(Arseny’s) relics were found (once) incorruptible, transferred to a new coffin and buried in the same place.” Gregory the Monk at the Golden Stone is not a Russian deceased, recorded in some catalogs among the revered dead, but a Greek saint - Γρηγόριος ἐν τ ῇ Χρυσ ῇ Πέτρα. See about him in Nicodemus in the Synaxarist under November 24th. In the second half of the 18th century, between the wall images of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral there were images of the Hieromartyr Gregory of Suzdal and St. Gregory of Suzdal, see Historical description of the cathedral, composed by Archpriest. A. Levshin and published in 1783, pp. 199 and 216, Nos. 131 and 246. In 1680, by order of the Metropolitan of Novgorod, the abbot of the Anthony of Siysk Monastery testified and transferred the bones of Euthymius of Arkhangelsk to somewhere and ordered his image to be painted; but in 1683, Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory wrote in his letter to the abbot of Siysky that, while in Arkhangelsk, he, the archbishop, saw the tomb of Euthymius and his images, but did not see reliable evidence about him, which is why he demanded that the abbot send to him, the archbishop, “all the authentic writings about him (Euphemiah).” How the matter ended remains unknown. See in Read. General East. and Ancient 1878, book. III, same article by Rev. Macarius: “Historical information about the Anthony Siysky Monastery”, p. 69 sub fin. – In 1895, a student at the St. Petersburg Spirit. Academy A. Kononov suggested that the Society of History and Antiquities publish in its “Readings” some canonization acts about St. Euphemia of Arkhangelsk, see in Book IV. Readings for 1896, minutes of the Society, p. 22, § 7. It would be interesting to know what kind of acts these are and whether they do not represent the “scripture” that Archbishop Afanasy asked the Abbot of Siysk. About Hilarion, the head of the Dorotheev Hermitage, see the message of V. A. Samaryanov: “Reverend Hilarion on Motsa Rec, the founder of the Dorotheev Hermitage,” read at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature on December 14, 1889 and printed in the appendices to the reports on the meetings of the Society. According to this message, Elder Hilarion lived during the reign of Theodore Ioannovich (1584–1598). To the question: is his memory revered or not revered in the present village of Dorofeyev, which has replaced the desert, Mr. Samaryanov answers: “One cannot help but regret that at the church of the village of Dorofeyev, founded on the site of the abolished desert, created by the Venerable. Hilarion, there is no surviving legend about where the laborious body of the founder of the former desert rests; but there is no doubt that the name of Rev. Hilarion is remembered in the prayers of the local church clergy.” Metropolitan Hilarion of Suzdal is one of those included only in catalogues, but in fact, very revered deceased, see in the article by Dmitrievsky, which we indicate in the addition to page 348 about Archbishop Arseny of Suzdal, the same testimony of the archpriest of the Suzdal Cathedral (which also contains the remains of the Metropolitan). In the second half of the 18th century, between the wall images of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral there was an image of Patriarch Job, see Historical description of the cathedral, composed by Archpriest. L. Levshin and published in 1783, p. 214, No. 229. We do not talk about Jonah and Nektarios of Kazan above (p. 119), omitting the speeches about them that were in the first part of the book. On October 4, 1595, they did not repose, but their bodies were found along with the bodies of Archbishop Guria and Bishop Barsanuphius (and while the bodies of the archbishop and bishop were left for autopsy, their bodies were again buried - P. Lyubarsky, as quoted on page 119). The Aryan country, from which Stephen the Tatar martyr was, is supposed to be, by slip or mistake, “the place is the Aryan country. And Stefan the martyr of the Arsk country is the Stefan we are talking about above,” cfr Stepenn. book II, 265–266. You might be interested in: