Глава четвёртая. Просвещение.

1. – Our enlightenment is book reading. In the pre-Mongol period, we did not borrow real enlightenment from the Greeks and did not create it for ourselves; In the same way, at the time we are considering, we did neither one nor the other: both then and now our only enlightenment was, after acquiring the art of reading, the own book erudition of everyone who wanted it, that is, one’s own, greater or lesser, erudition in church teaching and other books translated from the Greek language and generally constituting the presence of our so-called written language. As long as handwriting remained the method of distributing books, and printing did not become, as has been the case with us throughout our time, the possibility of book reading in relation to the number of people who would be in possession of it should have been extremely limited. Among private people, only very rich people who belonged to the noblest boyars could compile libraries of four books; but these people did not consider book reading and caring about it their business. And if one of them started a small library of books for himself, then this library did not go on, in order to gradually increase in size and so that, having become accessible to everyone, it would represent in a greater or lesser sense a public library, but usually disappeared along with the person who started it and who, before his death, withdrew books from churches and monasteries. The opportunity to become well-read in books was almost exclusively limited to state-owned libraries of books, which were gradually established and compiled at episcopal departments and monasteries. But even within the very narrow limits within which the possibility of book reading existed, due to the fact that the center of our historical life did not remain constantly in one place, but, having first been in the south, then moved to the north, we had to create this opportunity for ourselves twice. During the pre-Mongol period, libraries of four books were compiled at episcopal sees and in monasteries; but the largest part of the episcopal sees was in the south, and by the monasteries in which libraries of books were compiled, one should almost exclusively mean southern monasteries. To what extent the Mongols managed to destroy the libraries of Southern Rus' during their invasion, we do not know; but whether they destroyed them completely or only to a small extent, for Northern Rus' it was indifferent: the libraries of Southern Rus' were for it, and for Northern Rus' only their own libraries could matter. Having no or almost no monastic libraries at all, Northern Moscow Rus' began its historical life with only the libraries of episcopal departments, of which there were an extremely limited number. The following dioceses belonged to Northern Rus': Smolensk, Novgorod, Rostov, Vladimir and Ryazan. Of the five cathedral libraries of these dioceses, about two - Ryazan and Vladimir, in all likelihood, one must think that they were completely destroyed by the Mongols, and about the third - Rostov, that it was destroyed by them, at least in part, so that only two and a half libraries remain. Thus, two and a half libraries, which can be assumed with confidence, represented almost the entire possibility of book reading with which Northern Muscovite Rus' began its historical life after the Mongol invasion! After this possibility, so to speak, completely homeopathic, the possibility of anything real came extremely soon. The first monasteries that began to take care of establishing real libraries of four books were the monasteries of St. Serius of Radonezh and St. Cyril of Belozersky, and this was only at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th centuries. Since the time of Saints Sergius and Kirill, who were together the true planters of monasticism in Northern Moscow Rus', the business of establishing libraries in monasteries has finally begun. The best monasteries, which were founded after them by the hands of their students or not their students, looked at the example of their monasteries; and in the same way those best monasteries that were founded before them began to look at their example. It became a custom among individual wealthy monks, as was the case in the pre-Mongol period, to acquire books as private property in order to leave them behind to monasteries as a fitting legacy, which greatly (and perhaps even more than the direct concerns of the monastic authorities) contributed to the increase in monastic libraries. Thus, the real opportunity for book reading came in Muscovite Rus' only at more or less close to the end of the time we are considering. We do not have any positive information at all about monastery libraries for the now indicated end of our time; but with considerable confidence it can be asserted that the majority of the monasteries that claimed some “gravity” in the monastic “ladder” of bureaucracy—and there were quite a few such monasteries—possessed larger or smaller libraries of books. When the monks of Muscovite Rus' became jealous of compiling libraries, the very task of compiling libraries became much easier and cheaper: as a material for books, from the second half of the 14th century, expensive glassine began to be replaced by less expensive paper; At the same time (or somewhat earlier than that), the slow method of writing books - the charter - began to be replaced by a faster method - the semi-ustav, which was later joined by a very fast method, which, as such, received the name cursive 277. So, in relation to the possibility of book reading, which was a means of our ancient and old enlightenment, Muscovite Rus' did not go further from where Kievan Rus' stopped, but again repeated the history of this latter: it started with almost nothing and only very slowly created the opportunity for itself. In other words: this circumstance that the center of the mental life of Rus' was first in one place and then transferred to another, in relation to our possibility, had the consequence that we had to do the same thing twice. The libraries of episcopal sees and monasteries represented the only means of real, more or less, erudition; Consequently, this real erudition was possible only for monks and for those who had access to episcopal and monastic libraries. But with the present, one should not completely forget about the unreal, as it still has its own meaning. And therefore, we should not completely forget about those libraries that private rich people could compile for themselves, and which could serve both themselves and those wishing from their circle of acquaintances 278 . At the time when the opportunity for real erudition was created and appeared in Moscow, the possibility of some erudition arose for people, even those who were not rich. With replacement of glassine paper 279 and the statutory writing of semi-regular and cursive books became significantly cheaper, and although poor people were not yet able to acquire entire libraries of books for themselves, they began to be able to acquire individual books for themselves, and to satisfy their desire for erudition, such individual books appeared that to some extent replaced entire libraries, these are collections compiled from scattered, varied extracts from books 280. Answering the question about the possibility of being well-read in books does not mean at the same time answering another question: how widespread was this erudition in reality among those of our literate people for whom it was possible. It is very difficult to answer the last question, because we do not have solid data on the basis of which we would be able to give one or another positive answer. Among the literate people for whom erudition was available were almost exclusively monks; On the basis, it seems, that the monks should have been diligent readers of books, we have formed the idea that they were in fact such readers: how fair is this, however? From the fact that the monasteries had libraries of books, it does not at all follow that all the monks were diligent readers of them: The abbots of the monasteries took care of the establishment of libraries, partly out of a real consciousness of the need for them, partly without this consciousness at all, out of simple competition with others. The establishment of libraries was greatly promoted by individual book monks with their posthumous contributions. But this says absolutely nothing about most monks. We, for our part, are of the decisive opinion that the desire for book reading was neither universal nor too extensive or widespread among our monks, and that only comparatively very few among them were engaged in it and indulged in it. The desire to be well-read could be established among the monastic community if the consciousness was established among monks that being well-read is their obligatory task and their indispensable duty. But those who cared about creating the opportunity for monks to be well-read did not at all rise to such a consciousness: in erudition, which we did not at all impute to all monks as a duty, and of which all of them were not capable, and for the simple reason that among them we must assume a very significant percentage of completely illiterate people, which we will talk about below - in the chapter on monasticism, we saw nothing more than a spiritually beneficial and holy deed, only desired from the most perfect and chosen among the monks. And one should in all probability think that the percentage of these most perfect and chosen among the monks who strived for book reading was as small as the percentage of the most perfect and chosen is generally small. The voluntary, very weak desire of the monks for book reading, to a greater or lesser extent, should have been supported by external motivations. Nowadays, not everyone seeks enlightenment for enlightenment’s sake; To some extent, this was similar to this in old Rus'. When in our monasteries, i.e. In the monasteries of Northern Moscow Rus', book erudition began to take hold, then they began to desire and seek it from candidates for abbots and bishops. And for ambitious people who were thinking about abbot and episcopal positions, this should have been an incentive for them to take care of acquiring book knowledge and creating for themselves the glory of well-read people. But if one must think that book reading was not very widely spread among monks, then one must think that among lay priests and among laymen, within the limits of an extremely insignificant possibility for them, it was spread even much less widely. For priests, as shepherds, erudition would be no less, but even more obligatory, than for monks; but from the very beginning they appeared to us as shepherds, not in the sense of shepherding the laity with the word of teaching; This duty was not at all recognized by them among us, and yet family life with its worries and vanities created for them an excuse that was considered sufficient in the fact that they remained completely bookless. Among lay priests, the priests of diocesan cities had the opportunity to acquire real book knowledge through the use of cathedral episcopal libraries: and it is more than likely that such priests were considered only a few. The priests of district and rural cities could acquire some erudition through these kind of encyclopedias, which were collections: and almost to the same extent, probably, the owners of such encyclopedias were so few in number that they were famous throughout their entire districts. The laity - the boyars - represented the class in which Vladimir attempted to introduce enlightenment, and one must think that in the pre-Mongol period, without becoming enlightened people, they were not completely bookless people; but in our time, they have undoubtedly become, for the most part, ingenuous service people (the bearded and great-haired ancestors of Pushkin’s “not very cunning mustaches”), who have forgotten about all bookishness and about all sorts of books, having long ceased to be considered a lordly matter. Chronicle news directly lets us know that the Grand Dukes Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy 281 were very sparse in their books. and his grandson Vasily Vasilyevich Dark 282: what to think about the boyars? 2. – Translated writing. We said above that already our pre-Mongol ancestors had at their disposal a very good supply of translated writing. At the time we are considering, the availability of our writing increased extremely significantly, so that it became completely rich. But, unfortunately, it must be said about this wealth that in its composition or choice it was very one-sided, mainly reduced to Christian, and mainly to monastic-ascetic, moral teaching, and that the department of books devoted not only to worldly, but even to ecclesiastical, real, and not fantastic-apocryphal, knowledge; with the exception, however, of dogmatic theology or Christian doctrine, it was extremely meager. We owe the translations of books from the pre-Mongol period to the Bulgarians and partly to the Serbs. We owe the translations of books of our time to both and, as it seems, to the most recent one, because in later times, in the 14th-15th centuries, the Serbs gained some advantage over the Bulgarians in terms of mental movement and bookishness. As for ourselves, as much as is known, and at present we have done almost as little regarding translations as in the pre-Mongol period, and the little we have done was not so much done by ourselves, but on our orders and hires. We have very insufficient positive information about translators and translations. But one must think that the latter primarily belonged to the monks and that the deliberate place where they were performed and from where we received them was Athos 283. We provide a detailed bibliographic review of the translated writing of the time we are considering below, in a special appendix. And here we will give only a more or less general overview of it. At the head of translated writing are the books of Holy Scripture or the Bible. In relation to these books, the concern should not have been multiplication, but preservation, since in the pre-Mongol period we had all of them (with the exception, as one must think, of the books of the Maccabees, which, having not been translated by Methodius the first teacher, probably remained untranslated even after him). But according to the proverb that “the first pancake is lumpy,” what happened in relation to these books is that we did not completely preserve them, but we lost some of them. In ancient and old times, the books of the Holy Scriptures or the Bible were not necessarily written all together among us, since with the method of manuscripts the entire complete set of these books would have been manuscripts that were too large and too expensive, but in parts or in groups and individual books, as a result of which the loss of some of the books was possible. At the end of the 15th century, the fact that the Judaizing heretics had the Bible in its entirety prompted Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to make inquiries: in what composition the Orthodox had it, and he did not find among the latter, besides the books of the Maccabees, nine more books of Holy Scripture: eight books - from the first Chronicles to the book of Esther (2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, 2 Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Esther), written, as one must think, in the form of a special part of the Bible or a special section of biblical books, and the ninth - the Wisdom of Solomon. Gennady decided to make up for the shortage of books of the Holy Scripture that he discovered and did it in such a way that he translated eight books from the Latin Vulgate (with the help of one foreigner - a Catholic monk and also, perhaps, with the help of two embassy interpreters or translators - the same ones who later translated the Explanatory Psalter with Maxim the Greek), and partly took the ninth book, namely Esther, in the finished translation made by someone in his own time from Hebrew (precisely the first nine chapters, which are in Hebrew; it is not without probability that one can think, as we said above, that the translation belonged to the Judaizers and was borrowed, either by Gennady himself or before him, from their Bible), and partly (the last seven chapters of the book, which are not in Hebrew) translated from the same Vulgate. At the same time, Gennady filled, although imperfectly, the deficiency that existed with us from the very beginning, namely, he translated the first two books of the Maccabees from the same Vulgate (and not all three because the third is not in the Vulgate). So that in the future the books of the Holy Scripture would no longer be lost, Gennady made a complete edition of the Bible, that is, he prepared a manuscript in which it was placed in its entirety. (In some other books of the Holy Scriptures, Gennady made corrections and additions according to the Vulgate; see more about his Bible in the bibliographic review below). According to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, we had in the Slavic language in the pre-Mongol period: the Sixth Day of John, Exarch of Bulgaria, an abbreviated interpretation of the book of Job by Olympiodorus of Alexandria, two interpretations of the Psalter - one, assimilated by Athanasius of Alexandria, the other, belonging to Theodoret of Cyrus, [on the Song of Songs of Philo of Carpathia], a consolidated one, compiled by an unknown, interpretation on most of the 16 prophets and Hippolytus of Rome (Portuena) on the prophet Daniel, interpretation on the epistles of the Apostle Paul, belonging to or assimilated by the Abbot of Tricca 284, interpretation on the Apocalypse of Andrew of Caesarea. At the time we are considering, the following new interpretations appeared in Slavic (without mentioning the fragmentary ones found in manuscripts): John Chrysostom's conversations on the book of Genesis, called the Six Day Book in the translation, the Six Days of Severian of Geval, consisting of six words about the creation of the world, a lengthy interpretation of the book of Job by Olympiodorus of Alexandria, a consolidated interpretation of the Psalter, translated by Maximus the Greek, a consolidated interpretation of the Psalter, compiled by one Western bishop (Brunon, Bishop of Gerbipolensky or Würzburg in the 11th century, translated by order of the Archbishop of Novgorod, after Metropolitan Macarius, in 1535), a consolidated interpretation of the first 50 psalms, compiled by Nikita of Irakli, an interpretation of the book of Ecclesiastes of the unknown, conversations John Chrysostom on the gospels of Matthew and John, Theophylact of Bulgaria's interpretation of all four gospels (the Blagovestnik), Gregory the Two-Speaker's discourse on the gospels of Luke and John, the interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, partly consolidated (up to chapter 13), compiled by an unknown person, partly belonging to one unknown person (from chapter 13 to the end) - the first half of which was translated no later than the 15th century, and the second – by Maxim the Greek (see. above 1 half of this volume pp. 679–680), a summary interpretation, compiled by an unknown person, on the conciliar messages. On dogmatic theology, the following were translated into the Slavic language in the pre-Mongolian period: The exact outline of the Orthodox faith of John of Damascus, Catechetical and occult teachings of Cyril of Jerusalem, words against the Arians, Athanasius of Alexandria, two words about theology and a few words on the Lord's holidays of Gregory the Theologian. Now this was completely enough to acquire knowledge of the truths of the Christian faith. But if we were concerned not about need, but about the completeness of the translation into the Slavic language of what existed among the Greeks in this most important department of Christian writing, after this, much more should have been translated. The works of the fathers can be called as worthy of translation: words against Eunomius (5 in number) of Basil the Great (about the deity of the Son and the Holy. Spirit), the great catechetical word (Λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὁ μέγας), which is an excellent systematic exposition of the dogmas of the Christian faith and words against Eunomius (12 in number) by Gregory of Nyssa, two extensive books on the Trinity by Cyril of Alexandria, an essay “Against Pagan Fables” (which also contains an excellent abbreviated presentation of the dogmas of faith) by Theodoret of Cyrrhus. In later times, the Greeks had extensive and important theological and dogmatic compilations: “Theological Armor” (Πανοπλία δογματική) by Euthymius Zigaben († after 1118) and “Treasure of the Orthodox Faith” ( θησαυρὸς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως) Niketas Choniates or Acominatus († after 1206). But the Bulgarian and Serbian monks of our later, post-Mongol time, who worked on translations of books from Greek, did not show their concern for delivering Greek theological and dogmatic writing to the Slavic Orthodox world in the fullest possible composition of its most important. None of what we have now indicated was translated by them, and the only thing that was translated by them in our department of dogmatic theology were the works of the “dark in mind” (very difficult to understand) theologian Dionysius the Areopagite, who philosophized according to Plato (i.e., a later writer known under the name Dionysius). Instead of extensive works of dogmatic content, translators of our later times, caring for the simplest between literate people and illiterate people, translated a whole series of brief summaries of Christian doctrine and brief interpretations of the Creed. Much dogmatic is scattered in church words, of which a very large number have been translated in our time, and as deliberately dogmatic words one can point to the two six words of John Chrysostom about the incomprehensible (in denunciation of the Anomean heresy) and against the Jews (all 12 words are read in the collection of words of Chrysostom, known as Margarita). The dogmatic department should include accusatory and polemical works against heretics. Among the works of this kind, the works against the Latins had the greatest practical importance, and at the time we are considering we had in Slavic translation: three messages against the Latins of Patriarch Photius, works against them by Gregory Palamas and Nilus Cabasilas. Of the other heresies that existed and the other religions that existed, there were writings against the Armenians, against the Jews and against the Saracens or Mohammedans; There were also writings against ancient heresies that had already ceased to exist. If we take as a translation the writings of St. Maximus the Greek related to our department, then after many words against the Latins, he wrote one word each against the pagans, Jews and Armenians, three words against the Mohammedans and two words containing private denunciations against the Lutherans. In the department of moral theology or moralizing we include: firstly, deliberate works of moralizing content, secondly, church words, and thirdly, the lives of saints with the so-called Patericon. This department, extremely extensive in Greek church literature, was already very rich in our country in the pre-Mongol period, not only in comparison with other departments, but also in an unrelated manner, in itself. At the time in question he achieved the greatest wealth, so as to completely satisfy every desire. From deliberate works of moralizing content in the pre-Mongol period the following were translated: several treatises by Methodius of Patara, [vol. n. Stoslovets of Gennady of Constantinople], Answers of Anastasius of Sinai, Ladder of John Climacus, Pandect of Antiochus of Jerusalem, Chapters on Prayer; Nile of Sinai [and Pandects and Taktikon of Nikon the Montenegrin]. At the time we are considering, moralizing works were translated, and namely, predominantly moralizing-ascetic ones, of a very long series of fathers, going back to the number 25, and counting the non-fathers of a number of writers, going back to the number 30. (The fathers in the chronological order of their lives are: Abba Isaiah of Scete, Evagrius of Pontus, Macarius of Egypt, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Cassian the Roman, Nile of Sinai, Mark of Scete, Diadochus of Photiki, Abba Zosima of Palestine, Isaac the Syrian, Barsanuphius the Great, Abba Dorotheus of Palestine, Maximus the Confessor , Abba Thalassius of Libya, Theodore of Edessa, Philotheus of Sinai, Simeon the new theologian, Nikita Stiphatus, monk Philip, Peter of Damascus, Stephen of Thebes, Gregory of Sinai; neo-fathers: Deacon Agapit, Emperor Basil the Macedonian, Greek philosophers, in Christian adaptation, - Epictetus and Menander the Wise - About the writings. see all in the bibliographic review). Of the church words in the pre-Mongolian period, there were in the Slavic language: a small selection of words of Gregory the Theologian, a huge selection of words of John Chrysostom, extending to more than two hundred in number, a collection of 106 words of Ephraim the Syrian, known under the name of Parenesis, a collection of 124 words of Theodore the Studite, known as the Small Catechism, 51 teachings on Sundays of the year, compiled by the Bulgarian Bishop Constantine. At the time we are considering, the following were translated: a new huge selection of words from Chrysostom, a new very large selection of words from Ephraim the Syrian, a very large collection of words from various fathers and church preachers, partly known, partly unknown, the Teaching Gospel, compiled by Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople and consisting of 75 words for Sundays of the year and for holidays. In what composition regarding the months and what completeness regarding the numbers we had in the pre-Mongol period in the Slavic language the Chetya-Minea, containing the lives of the saints, this remains reliably unknown; Likewise, it remains unknown how many and what kind of Patericon were translated then. At the time we are considering, we had the Chetya-Minea of ​​all 12 months in such completeness that the lives of all the days of the year were read in them, and the Paterikov had at least six translations (Egyptian, Scete, Sinai, alphabetic, which bore the names Limonis or Limonar and Eldership). In the history department, in the pre-Mongolian period we had: the so-called Palea and the chronographs of George Amartol and John Malala. At the time in question, they added: in addition to the sacred history that Palea represented: About the three captivities of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and Titus) unknown and About the Jewish War of Josephus; according to non-sacred history: a short chronicler (χρονογραφία αὑντομος, which in Slavic was translated “Chronicle soon”) of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, from the creation of the world to Emperor Nikephoros I (ἀπό Γενικνῶ, † 811), continued after the author until the emperor John Komnenos († 1143) and representing one bare chronology of persons; the chronicle of Symeon Metaphrastus from the creation of the world to 963, continued by an unknown author until 1059; chronicle of John Zonara from the creation of the world to 1118. (translated not entirely); chronicle of Constantine Manasseh from the creation of the world to the emperor Nicephorus Botaniates (1078–1081) 285. In a strange way, it is remarkable that not a single church history proper (Eusebius, Socrates, etc.) was translated into Slavic. Perhaps the people in whose hands the task of translating the books was, considered the lives of the saints a sufficient source of information on church history, or perhaps they were guided by the consideration by which the Monk Maximus the Greek refused to translate the church history of Theodoret for Metropolitan Daniel, i.e., that church histories tell of the heresies that arose in the church and set forth the very false teachings of heretics. A special section in the sacred history of the Old and New Testaments consists of apocryphal tales: in the Russian writing of the time we are considering, we find this section very abundant, so that it should almost be said that the apocryphal-historical dominated in our history, following the Greeks, over the present historical. In the translated literature of our time, we are considering, we find a special department of church archeology, namely, a number of short articles devoted to the interpretation of the church, about worship and about the performers of the latter. In addition to books related to the field of church knowledge and teaching, we find at the time in question in the Slavic language books related to the field of knowledge and outside the church, worldly. In terms of grammar, a brief (very and far from complete) grammar of the unknown, which was learned by John of Damascus and in which the speech of the original about the Greek language was turned into the Slavic language or applied to this latter, was translated under the name “Book of Philosophy about the Osmich Parts”. [This can also include Old Russian explanatory dictionaries or the so-called. Alphabets and ABC books, short editions of which appeared in the 15th and 16th centuries]. (The Bulgarian-Serbian writer of the first half of the 15th century, Konstantin Kosteichsky (philosopher), compiled “The Tale of Writing”; but it remained unknown here in Moscow). In philosophy, the Dialectic, which actually belongs to John of Damascus, was translated (under the name Lubomudiya, a book of philosophy), treating in 68 chapters (according to the division of the original) philosophical general concepts, categories, and terms (expressions adopted in it). According to mathematical or astronomical geography, the Christian topography of the whole world (Χριστιανικὴ τοπογραφία παντὸς κόσμου) Cosmas of Indicopleustos (Ἱ νδικοπλεύστης, i.e., a sailor to India, which was translated in Slavic as Indikoplov), an Egyptian-Alexandrian merchant and then a monk of the first half of the 6th century, who sets his task to refute the opinion of pagan astronomers about the sphericity (roundness) of the earth and to scientifically prove (justify) the opinion about its flatness, which was accepted by most of the fathers and seemed to be based on Holy Scripture. To the mathematical geography in the book there is added a chapter from zoological-physical geography: On the animals of India and on the island of Taprobane (Ceylon). We said above that our pre-Mongol ancestors could draw physical-meteorological and natural-historical information from the Inscription of Faith of John of Damascus, from the Six-Days of John the Exarch [which included almost the entire Six-Days of Basil the Great] and from Palea. In the time we are considering, nothing new appeared in this regard (with the exception, perhaps, of a certain number of small articles; and John the Exarch, translated in our time, by Severian of Gebalsky, already used it). Instead, numerous deliberate guidelines appeared for a special kind of natural-supernatural science, namely, the science of predicting the future by natural signs or the science of omens. These include: Lunniki - guides to foretell the future by the moon, Gromniki - guides to foretell the future by thunder, Kolyadniki - guides to foretell the future by the day of the Nativity of Christ. In medicine, in the previous period, we only had articles that consisted of indicating which days of the month and year one should and should not bleed, and at what times of the year what should be eaten. During the time we are considering, however, towards the end of it, a whole real medical book appeared in our Slavic-Russian translation, namely, a medical book translated by order of Metropolitan Daniel from German (under the name of Dobrokhotny Vertograd). Currently, in non-church, maritime, literature there is a very extensive department of written works, the special purpose of which is to give people pleasure (artistic pleasure) and which are known under the name of novels. Far from being so extensive and formerly of its kind compared to the present one, this department existed in ancient times and is known in the history of our old writing under the name of the department of stories. Our ancestors of the time we are considering had a number of these stories, intended for entertainment, in Slavic translation from Greek. So, in the time we are considering, the availability of our translated writing increased very significantly compared to the pre-Mongol period and, if we mean not the corresponding variety of choice, but the simple quantity, it became very, and one might say, extremely rich. The increase in cash occurred gradually and, therefore, has its own history. We cannot give this story because we have no relevant information at all. It is necessary to distinguish two things here: the translations from Greek into Slavic by the Bulgarians and Serbs and the receipt of translations from both by us. It seems likely to think that the actual work on translations by Bulgarian and Serbian translators proceeded with actual, greater or lesser, gradualism, starting from the Mongol invasion itself, and constituted an uninterrupted continuation of the previous activity in this regard, since the event of our private history, such as this invasion, could not have any influence on it. But as for the receipt of translations by us, here it seems most probable to accept not a continuous gradualism, starting from the Mongol invasion itself, but something somewhat different, namely, that for the first fairly long time after the invasion, concerns about acquiring translations were comparatively very weak, - that they really began approximately from the second half - from the end of the 14th century, and that after that we were simultaneously concerned about acquiring what was translated before, and about acquiring what was translated again. From the general overview we have presented, it is clear what the availability of translated writing, which reappeared after the Mongol invasion, provided. In terms of dogmatic theology (in the department of Christian doctrine), it did not add anything important to what had already been translated in the pre-Mongol period; According to church history, it also did not give anything (deliberately), as was the case in the pre-Mongol period. After significant completion of interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, its main and most abundant contribution belongs to moral theology or Christian moral teaching, which contribution should be divided into two sections: church words represented the department of general Christian moral teaching; the deliberate moralizing works of the fathers are a department of moral teaching primarily and almost exclusively monastic-ascetic. The very significantly increased department of apocrypha, as is self-evident, could not have a positive meaning, but only a more or less negative one. The newly appeared translations of works belonging to the field of non-ecclesiastical, secular sciences contributed too little to the study of these latter sciences: from a brief grammar bearing the loud name “book of philosophy on the eight parts,” one could learn almost only that speech has eight parts and that nouns have three genders; According to the Dialectic of John of Damascus alone, it was impossible to teach oneself philosophy; The topography of Cosmas Indicopleustos represented a whole system of mathematical geography, but it was an anti-scientific system 286. Regarding the possibility of book learning or other means of education, Muscovite Rus', as we said, had to repeat again the work of Kievan Rus': it did not go further from where the latter had stopped, that is, it did not continue to further expand the opportunity that it had managed to create, but had to start again almost from the same beginning from which it began in Kyiv. And thus, the external history of our unique education, such as book erudition, was twofold for us: first, its opportunity was created in Kievan Rus', and then again in Moscow Rus'. Regarding internal qualities, the formation of Muscovite Rus' did not and could not surpass the formation of Kievan Rus. The means of this education were the same - book reading; therefore, it should also be the same in its qualities. We talked about our pre-Mongol ancestors that, due to the lack of any interest in history, they could not have any desire to read the historical books that they had, that from reading books of biblical, interpretive and dogmatic content that required a biblical, interpretative and dogmatic content prepared by deliberate teaching, they should have been deterred by the fear of getting harm instead of benefit, and that mainly and almost exclusively the area of ​​their erudition should be limited to books of moral content, meaning by these the latter are not only deliberate such writings and church words, but also the lives of saints. We need to think exactly the same about our ancestors of the post-Mongol or Moscow period. If, in relation to the pre-Mongol period, we ourselves only assume that reading books with serious theological content should have been avoided by our bookish people for fear of harm to themselves, then we have direct and positive evidence about the existence of this fear among them in the Moscow period 287 . That even the Bulgarian and Serbian scribes, who were much higher than ours, considered moral books to be their main area of ​​study, is evident from the fact that they, having taken so much care in translating these books, cared so little about translating books of dogmatic and historical content. So, in the Moscow period, as in the Kiev period, we had a very small class of people in Rus' who had the opportunity to be book-ready, and the erudition of this small class of people was very limited, so that it did not reach any real theological knowledge, which, therefore, we did not have both in one period and in the other. However, what has just been said should be understood about the majority of our book-read people, and not about all of them without any exception. From the majority, there still stood out a few who, rising above his general, very low, level, extended so far in book reading that with its help they achieved real, more or less, theological self-education. How large the number of such units was, we, as is clear, do not know at all and can only indicate those of them that we know about, as such exceptional units, from their surviving literary works. From our part of the pre-Mongol period, we know more than one similar unit. 3. – Our own (original) writing. We turn to our own written productivity or to our original writing of the time we are considering. Without science, it is impossible to write scientific essays. And from this it naturally follows that just as similar works were not written in our country during the Kievan period, so they could not have been written during the Moscow period. Among non-scientific written works, church sermons should occupy the first place in our country. The main duty of the pastors of the church is the duty to teach the flock or laity the truths of the faith and the rules of Christian morality, which is why they are called shepherds; and church preaching is one of the obligatory means of this teaching. But, without constituting a science, preaching constitutes an art in which, although one can practice without deliberate training in it or without studying the science of it, however, in this latter case one can exercise only with very great difficulty. By freeing themselves from labor, our pastors freed themselves from the obligation to teach their flock through church preaching. And as a result of this, church sermons, as works of our writing, represent in their quantity an extremely insignificant department of this latter (except for preachers who do not belong to the Russians themselves). During the time we are considering, we have even fewer church preachers than in the pre-Mongol period, namely, only one preacher, to whom should be added another preacher in the improper sense, who declared himself such not in deliberate words or teachings, but in several (very few) random so-called speeches 288. Church sermons as written works constitute one part of the teaching department of church writing, the other part of which consists of teaching copies directly intended for reading. In pre-Mongolian writing this second part of the teaching department does not yet exist at all, but in the writing of our time it already exists, from which it follows that our time is, in any case, superior in this regard to the pre-Mongolian period. In fact, we find the following: quite a few of our metropolitans and some, a few, of our bishops, caring at least for the small fulfillment of their pastoral duty to teach, addressed the clergy and flocks under their charge with the word of their teaching through their pastoral epistles, which epistles represent a whole series, although not very long. From one of our metropolitans, namely Daniel, we have a rather long series of teaching messages addressed to individuals; one of our metropolitans, and precisely the same Daniel, representing among our bookish people an exceptionally well-read and literary man, compiled a number of entire treatises of moralizing content. Church teachers in the improper sense, which were the representatives of monasticism, left behind a number of teaching messages, partly of a public, but mostly of a private nature. Finally, the highest pastors of the church - metropolitans and bishops - left behind a number of special teaching messages that can be called political and in which they, the pastors, express their readiness or their direct desire to serve the sovereigns and the state 289. The teaching department of writing of the time we are considering consists of what is now indicated. Adding to the department everything that fits more under its heading than under any other, we must name another, so to speak, secular, teaching book, which, having been composed more than once, and belonging to several unknown and from an unknown class of teachers, contains the science for worldly people about good Christianity and about good Christian citizenship (social and domestic life with housekeeping and economic management) and which is known under the name Domostroi. The other main department of our writing of the time we are considering, as well as the pre-Mongol period, was narrative-historical writing, in the area of ​​which the works of our book people were expressed: compiling the lives of saints, keeping chronicles and compiling individual historical tales. In relation to the lives of saints, the special historical circumstances of the time had the consequence that, although very few in number in the pre-Mongol period, they were now written in such large numbers that they formed a department of writing that was comparatively extremely extensive. The lives of the saints determined a special type of writing from them - liturgical canons for the saints, of which almost as many were compiled as the lives themselves. In two pilgrimages - Daniel and Anthony, the pre-Mongol period gave examples of pilgrimage literature, and book wanderers to the holy places of our time left behind a certain number of pilgrims. In addition, we have descriptions of simple journeys from the present time. The theological or theological thought of the Russians (which in the proper sense they did not have) worked too little for any theological questions to be raised between them. However, at the time we are considering, some, sui generis, such questions were raised, and people who considered themselves competent gave their answers to them. These answers can be called the theological department of writing, although they are not talking about the dogmas of faith, but only about opinions of a theological nature. At the time we are considering, our church life managed to reach such maturity or, in general, such a state that there was a reaction and protests against the abuses that existed in it. This really was the case, and the write-offs related here can be called the reformation department of writing. The emergence of schisms and heresies among us in the time we are considering required accusatory writings against both. Such works were actually written, and they constitute a polemical department of writing, remarkable in that in its merits it is the most important department of writing. In the currently presented sections we do not include scriptures related to the improvement of monasticism. But it will be more convenient to talk about them in the chapter on monasticism, in connection with the history of this latter, and therefore we will talk about them there. Likewise, about the writings relating to ritual disputes, for the same reason of greater convenience, let us say in the chapter on worship. Since in every written language there is a greater or lesser amount of random things that do not fit under any headings, we will add a mixture section at the end of the review. Church sermons and so-called speeches, pastoral letters. Metropolitan Daniel. Teaching messages that do not belong to pastors (representatives of monasticism). Domostroy. Of the church preachers from whom the very sermons or words have been preserved to this day, as we said above, only one is known. He is the 13th century Vladimir Bishop Serapion. Together with this one undoubted preacher, we must talk about another one problematic preacher, from whom we have no words, but about whom we have evidence that seems to identify him as a preacher. ↓ This second preacher is the Rostov bishop of the same 13th century, Kirill. The eldest in time is Cyril, who occupied the department from 1231. to 1262 Under the first of the two years, a rather lengthy commendable entry about him is read in the Laurentian Chronicle, which, among other things, says that not only residents of Rostov itself, but also those coming from surrounding cities gathered in the Rostov Cathedral Church of the Mother of God. “Partly to look at her decorations, which she owed to our bishop, and partly to listen to “his teachings from the holy books.” The expression of the entry: “the hedgehog teaching from the holy books” can be understood in two ways: either that Cyril composed his own words, using the works of his fathers for this, or that he simply pronounced (read) his father’s words in church. It’s much more likely that it’s the first, because there wouldn’t be anything remarkable about the second. However, it is not impossible that the second thing, and that what was remarkable in the eyes of the author of the record, who belongs to the ranks of panegyrists and, therefore, inclined to create remarkable things, was either the diligence with which the bishop was engaged in pronouncing the fatherly words, or the skill with which he pronounced them 290. Bishop Serapion of Vladimir was installed in his cathedra by Metropolitan Kirill III from the archimandrites of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery at the end of 1273, before that famous council, the actions of which have been preserved to this day and the bishops present at which were directly convened by the metropolitan specifically for his installation. (The acts of the council are inscribed: “Rule of Kuril, Metropolitan of the Russians (and) the bishop who met: Dalmata of Nougorod... for the installation of Bishop Serapion of Vladimir.” After a very short stay at the see, he died on June 12, 1275. Currently, five church words are known, which are assimilated to Serapion by their very inscriptions and which should be assimilated by him with certainty, and two words that, without being assimilated by the inscriptions, can be recognized as his words with a greater or lesser probability. If Serapion positively assimilates the last two words and counts all the words as seven, then this will still not be much. Meanwhile, he testifies more than once to his listeners (in words undoubtedly belonging to him) that he has spoken and speaks to them many times and that he always sows the divine word into the field of their hearts. It follows from this that not all of Serapion’s words have been preserved or have yet been discovered, but only some of them. Considering the supposed multiplicity of his words with his very short stay at the episcopal see, one must imagine the matter in such a way that immediately after occupying the see, he devoted himself to the work of teaching through church preaching with all zeal and that he conducted it with possible intransigence. In the outline of the Rules or acts of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1273. Metropolitan Kirill expressed his desire and desire to cleanse Russian church life from various inherent shortcomings, the cause of which, among other things, was the disorder of the shepherds and the custom of unreason, that is, the negligence of the highest shepherds - the bishops and the lack of learning of the flock. One can therefore think that when electing a candidate for the idle Vladimir See at the same time as convening a council for this purpose, the Metropolitan took care to choose a candidate who gave hope of showing the image of a true shepherd. - That he took from the latter a deliberate solemn promise in this sense, and that Serapion, taking care to fulfill the promise in a worthy manner and justify the hopes placed on him, by the way, devoted himself with all zeal to the work of teaching the flock through church preaching. (Serapion’s repeated reminders to his listeners about the grave wrath of God that befell the fatherland in the person of the Tatars seem to have as their theme the words of Metropolitan Kirill, read in the acts of the Vladimir Cathedral: “What profit have we received,” etc. - see above the first half of this volume, p. 66). All seven words of Serapion, that is, both undoubtedly belonging to him, and assimilated only with probability, represent in their size and nature short teachings. Since the words or teachings present great uniformity in relation to their general content, this latter can be indicated, namely: in five words (the first three undoubted and both probable) there is, so to speak, a summary (general) conviction of the listeners of sinfulness and a call on them to awaken from the sleep of sin, to repentance and correction. Two words (the fourth and fifth, undoubtedly) contain a private denunciation of some of the superstitions that dominated the people, which led them to the murder of living people and to the desecration of the bodies of dead people. In particular, the content of the words is as follows. In the first word, which, as it is given to know, is not the first in reality and which is unknown - whether it is the first in relation to the others revealed (for these latter we know only the order in which they are read in manuscripts, but not the actual one, which is not visible from them), the preacher says that, according to the Lord in the Gospel, in the last years there will be signs in the sun, in the moon and in the stars, cowards in places and famines. - That what the Lord said has now come true with the last people, for many times we (the preacher and the listeners) saw the destruction (i.e., eclipse) of the sun and moon and the changing of the stars, and even saw with our own eyes the earthquake (which happened throughout all of Rus' in 1230) 291, but that from all this we did not repent at all. - That, finally, by God’s permission, an unmerciful tongue came upon us, which devastated our land, captured cities, destroyed holy churches, etc.; “Now, brothers,” the preacher turns to the listeners, “he who knows (sees?), let us fear this terrible rebuke,” and exhorts them to repent, to retreat from nasty and unmerciful judgments, from bloody rezimianiye (usury), from all robbery, theft, robbery and unclean adultery, from foul language, lies, slander, oaths (false) and slander and other satanic deeds. At the same time, the preacher reproaches the listeners for telling them a lot and seeing little fruit from his accusatory speeches. In the second word, the preacher expresses to his listeners his bitter complaint that he has told them many times, wanting to correct them, and does not see any change in them. - That the divine word always (constantly) sows in the field of their hearts, and does not at all see that the seed is accepted and bears fruit: “I pray you, brothers and sons,” he appeals to the listeners, “change for the better, be renewed with good renewal, stop doing evil”; Now, at the age of forty, languor and torment (Mongolian) are approaching and the heavy tributes on us, famines and pestilences do not stop, so that we cannot eat our fill of bread and sorrow has dried up our bones: and who brought this on us if not our iniquity and sins, our disobedience and our repentance? The ancient great city of Nineveh, full of lawlessness, God wanted to destroy like Sodom and Gomorrah, and it repented at the voice of the prophet Jonah and got rid of destruction: what are we going to say to this (that is, say in justification of our unrepentance) - what we did not see, what did not happen to us, what does not the Lord our God punish us with, wanting to save us from our iniquities? In the third word, the preacher says that the Lord, out of His love for mankind, called us to Himself with all sorts of executions, but we remained deaf, and that then, moved by His rage, He sent His terrible scourge upon us - an unmerciful and fierce tongue, which devastated our country in a terrible way (the preacher paints a picture of the devastation caused by the Mongols in our country during their first invasion). But since from this last point we did not turn to repentance, continuing to remain what we were, the Lord continues to execute us with all sorts of executions. “What should we do,” asks the preacher, “so that the evil that torments us will cease?” And he answers that the greatest commandment of the Master himself is that we love each other, that we love our neighbor as ourselves, that we keep our body pure and not defile it with fornication, that we do not think high-mindedly and do not repay evil for evil. The fourth and fifth words, as we said, contain a private rebuke to the listeners for their superstition, which led them to the murder of living people and to the desecration of the bodies of dead people. Serapion's stay at the Vladimir department coincided with a three-year or longer shortage of grain in Russia; His flock, like all Russians of that time, superstitiously accepted that sorcerers controlled the abundance and poverty of life, and that harvests and famines came from their sorcery - and they also believed that hunger was caused by the proper burial in the ground of strangled and drowned people. As a result of this, they put to death, by burning with fire, those people whom they took for sorcerers, and threw out of the ground the bodies of the strangled and drowned people who had recently happened: our two words are dedicated to denouncing the listeners for this superstitious murder of living people and for this superstitious desecration of the bodies of dead people. In the fourth word, Serapion denounces the listeners for the murder of the Magi, and assures them that sorcerers and sorcerers, with the help of demons, can act, by God’s permission, only on those people who believe in them and fear them. But that they cannot act on those who hold firm faith in God and that executions, as the word of God teaches us, are sent to people from God. In the fifth word, which has its own deliberate inscription: “about lack of faith,” having denounced the listeners for the murder of the Magi and for raking out the bodies of the drowned and strangled from the ground and saying that executions are sent to people from God, Serapion exhorts the listeners to turn away the wrath of God from themselves by repentance and abandonment of their evil deeds, for which he then reproaches them, comparing them with the filthy (under by which the Tatars should probably be understood) and finding that the latter are better than them. In the sixth word (the first of the probable ones), which is inscribed: “The Word about the End of the World,” the preacher speaks about the signs of the approaching end of the world, and finds that the written end is accepted and the spoken signs come true, and therefore exhorts the listeners to repentance; then he reproaches them for their unrepentance, despite the executions of God that befall them, and again exhorts them to the same repentance. In the seventh word, which is inscribed: “A word about the rebellion of this life,” the preacher speaks about the vanity, unreliability and variability of earthly life and exposes the domination of all untruths and all sin in people. In literary terms, Serapion's teachings are very well composed; so good that, being translated into Russian, they can be recognized as modern good teachings. The only drawback that can be considered is that they do not adhere to a strictly consistent order in the presentation of individual thoughts. But if the teachings are good as teachings, then one should not, however, exaggerate their merits and pass them off as examples of spiritual eloquence. Brief teachings, no matter how good they are in themselves, cannot be such examples. The task of church eloquence, like any other, is not to tell people that they should not do this and that: they know this very well without any saying, but to convince and persuade them not to do; but with the help of a short teaching this goal is not achievable, because it is impossible to persuade and convince in two or three words, even if the words are very strong. Let us imagine that some political or judicial speaker would dream of convincing his listeners of something with the help of such speech as our short church teachings, and we would find it funny. As a type of church sermon, short teachings owe their origin precisely to people who, having the zeal to teach, did not find in themselves the full ability to do so and who wanted, at least, to remind, if they could not really convince. Without being a real conviction, of course, the reminder is not useless; but one should not assimilate the dignity of another. Serapion wrote short teachings and did not write lengthy words, no doubt, because he felt capable of doing one thing and did not feel capable of doing another. Finding his teachings good, as they really are, it would be wrong and unfair to identify them with real good words. From a literary point of view, Serapion’s teachings are quite remarkable in a negative way in that they do not contain church-preaching rhetoric in the bad sense of the word. The ability to compose only good teachings, and not real words, for a simply literate person is very remarkable. To explain this bewilderment, Serapion gives in his teachings some reason to suspect that he was not just a literate person, but as an exception among our bookish people, he received somewhere and from someone at least some real education 292. (Why don’t we include Metropolitan Theodosius among the preachers, although sermons remain from him, see above the first half of this volume, p. 524). In addition to teachings belonging to a famous person, such as Bishop Serapion of Vladimir, we find unnamed teachings in manuscripts, which, judging by the language, belong to our time (and not the most ancient) and which, based on the content, should be recognized as Russian. How many of these teachings we have encountered, in literary terms, very, very few satisfactory, these are not teachings in the proper sense, pronounced in the church, but cell writings of monks, which were only given a form or given the name of teachings. Some of our monks were animated by a sincere desire to teach, while others were animated by an ambitious desire to do the same; but due to their illiteracy, neither one nor the other was able to write extensive moralizing treatises: and so one and the other composed small and tiny treatises, which were given the form and name of the teachings. So, there are three hundred too many years between our bishops and only one church preacher! 293 However, as we said above, there is nothing too surprising in this. We adopted Christianity from the Greeks when they had long ceased to consider it obligatory for bishops to teach the people through church preaching, and when their bishops had practiced very little in this preaching. But if in Greece the bishops were long ago freed or freed themselves from the duty of teaching the people through church preaching, then all the more so were the bishops freed from it or freed themselves here in Russia, where in the absence of real enlightenment the fulfillment of this duty would be extremely difficult. From the very beginning, it became customary for us that bishops should not write or deliver church sermons; and as it went, it continued for many centuries, for it would be something completely unnatural that someday later the bishops, changing the established custom, would themselves want to create very difficult work for themselves: and therefore we find preachers among us only in the form of very few exceptions. If during the time we are considering we find only one such exceptional bishops, then, of course, this is already too few; but exceptions are just that: exceptions, and there might even be none at all. This complete lack of church preaching in our country should not be looked upon as a circumstance worthy of great regret. Our uneducated bishops could only compose extremely unsatisfactory sermons, and, consequently, their own preaching would have very little meaning and significance; Meanwhile, they had at their disposal, in Slavic translation, a very extensive paternal preaching literature. For bishops, church preaching is an obligatory way of teaching the people the truths of the faith and the rules of Christian morality; but, as we said above (and as we will say again), the main method of teaching is not this, but the schooling of children, which bishops should take care of. It is worthy of every regret that there were no schools for teaching Christianity (as there are very few of them now); but if, along with the schools, there was no church sermon, then this last one is just not a particularly great regret... The shepherds of the church, who, according to the commandment of the Apostle, must teach in time and in time, may present themselves with special, deliberate cases when an instructive word on their part appears as something completely appropriate and at the same time desirable. But since it is not at all easier to compose words and teachings for particular cases than general words and teachings, it is clear from this that in this kind of preaching, which by its very origin is not obligatory, but only desirable, and which without general preaching would have represented a strange anomaly, our bishops practiced no more than in general preaching, that is, they did not practice evenly and completely not at all. However, here we still know one exception, this is Metropolitan Macarius, who, without distinguishing himself with the works of general preaching, left behind two monuments of our private preaching in two teachings or two speeches spoken to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich at his crowning with the royal crown and at his marriage to Anastasia Romanovna. The crowning of Ivan Vasilyevich with the royal crown should have been performed with all possible solemnity; a holy teaching or so-called speech was required by this solemnity: and Metropolitan Macarius composed a teaching or speech to greet the newly crowned king. The marriage of Ivan Vasilyevich with Anastasia Romanovna was no longer the marriage of a Grand Duke, but of a God-crowned Tsar; the saint's teaching was supposed to enhance his solemnity: and Metropolitan Macarius gave him this desired solemnity through his teaching or his speech to the distinguished newlyweds. We have already indicated the content of the teachings or speeches above (see the first half of this volume, p. 850), namely, the first or first of them talks about royal duties, and the second or second talks about Christian, royal and marital duties. In relation to literary merit, the teachings do not represent anything outstanding and nothing particularly remarkable, but they are coherent enough to be called completely decent. There is also a third speech by Metropolitan Macarius, which does not quite fit here, but which would be in its place only if it were delivered as the only representative of a special class of panegyrist-political speeches. This is the speech spoken by the Metropolitan to the Tsar upon the latter’s victorious return from the captured Kazan. We talked about the content of the speech above (p. 850 first half of this volume); the same must be said about its literary merit as about the merit of the two preceding speeches. The pastoral teaching letters of our metropolitans are divided into three classes: some are addressed in a circular manner (encyclically) to all the subordinate clergy and to all the laity; the other - to the clergy and laity of famous places; still others - to famous gatherings of people. The first class of messages has been preserved from the metropolitans: Saints Peter and Alexei and from Daniel; second class - from St. Jonah (to Vyatka, Novgorod and Pskov), Gerontius (to Vyatka) and Simon (to Great Perm) 294; third class - from Metropolitan Macarius (to the royal army in Sviyazhsk). We talked about all the messages above, in the first half of this volume 295. In addition to the teaching epistles belonging to metropolitans, one such epistle is known, belonging to a bishop, and specifically addressed by the latter to all the priests of his diocese. In the inscription of the message according to some of his copies 296 it is attributed to Bishop Kirill, and in all likelihood one must think that it belongs to that Rostov Bishop Kirill, whom we talked about a little higher (p. 146 here) and who occupied the see from 1230 to 1262. Until Metropolitan Kirill III appeared in Suzdal Rus' after the Mongol invasion, the Bishop of Rostov was the representative of the Russian Church here. It was precisely this temporary church leadership that could have served as a special incentive for Cyril to address his teaching message to the priests subordinate to him, that is, that he wanted to show himself as a temporary head worthy of his position. In a very short message, the bishop tells the priests about the divine height and great responsibility of their calling and exhorts them to be worthy of this latter in their lives and behavior, and partly gives them instructions on how to teach and spiritually discipline their spiritual children. It is difficult to assume that Bishop Kirill’s address with a district message to the priests subordinate to him was his own innovation, and it is much more likely to think that, as a temporary deputy metropolitan in Suzdal Rus', he wanted in this case to imitate the example of previous metropolitans. And from this it follows that the metropolitans of the pre-Mongol period already had the custom of addressing the clergy or the clergy and laity with district messages, and that St. Peter should not be considered the initiator in this regard 297. We know the following pastoral teaching letters of metropolitans and bishops of a political nature: Metropolitan Kirill to the people of Novgorod regarding their quarrel with the Grand Duke Yaroslav Yaroslavich, the entire council of bishops and the entire clergy seditiously against the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich to his cousin Dmitry Yurievich Shemyaka (written in oblivion in Moscow metropolitan, before the installation of St. Jonah as metropolitan), a conciliar message to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich III on the Ugra by Metropolitan Gerontius and a special message to him there from Archbishop Vassian of Rostov, two messages from Metropolitan Macarius to Ivan Vasilyevich IV during his campaign against Kazan. We talked about the letters of Cyril (not preserved in full and in their original form), Gerontius and Macarius above, in the first half of this volume, and here we will only talk about the letters of the cathedral-bishop Shemyak and Vassianov to Ivan Vasilyevich. The Epistle to Shemyaka, very extensive in scope, contains a little bit of pastoral teaching. The bishops tell the seditious prince the story of the futile struggle with Vasily Vasilyevich by his father Yuri and his older brother Vasily (Kosoy), in order to show him that to whom God has not assigned the kingdom, he strives in vain to receive it; then, they make an extract from his final letters with Vasily Vasilyevich and reproach him that he did not fulfill anything in his final agreement with the latter; Having admonished him so that he would sincerely humble himself before the Grand Duke and correct himself in everything according to his letters, the bishops finally turn to him with a real pastoral-educational admonition or teaching. But having cited from history three (not entirely successful, not quite relevant) examples of how God punishes kings for pride, they end their teaching with a disclaimer: “We would have, sir, written a lot to you from the divine Scripture, but you yourself, sir, as God gave you reason, understand the divine Scripture in a subtle way.” It may very well be that Shemyaka really understood the divine Scripture in a subtle way; but if the bishops felt able to offer him a lengthy teaching, they would hardly have stopped there, and it is more than likely that they cite a plausible excuse not to spread the teaching because they do not feel enough in themselves to offer it. We have had occasion to meet reviews of our message in which it is recognized as an example of convincing spiritual eloquence; It is extremely difficult to agree with such reviews (the bishops begin the message with a lofty and distant speech about the fall of the first man Adam; but this highly distant speech, even in a pompous way, is unsuccessful, and the sudden transition from it to what happened in our times - to the history of Yuri Dmitrievich can completely amuse the reader). Bishop Vassian wrote a message to Ivan Vasilyevich on the occasion of the invasion of Russia by the Khan of the Golden Horde, Akhmat. The Grand Duke somehow aroused the Khan’s anger against himself (but not by the fact that he was clearly planning to overthrow the Tatar yoke), and the latter, deciding to punish the obstinate henchman, moved with an army towards Russia to the upper reaches of the Don. From here, through the current provinces of Tula and Kaluga, he turned to the north-west and camped on the banks of the Ugra River, which flows from the left side into the Oka, 15 versts above Kaluga. The patriotic part of Russian society was warmly inspired by the thought and hope that if the Tatars gave a battle like the Kulikovo one, the shameful yoke would finally be overthrown; but Ivan Vasilyevich was not Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. He sent an army against the Tatars and went to the army himself, but did not think of entering into battle with the enemies; for some time, under plausible pretexts, he even returned from the army back to Moscow. In the capital, together with its inhabitants, our Archbishop of Rostov Vassian, who was very close to the sovereign, as his (former) confessor, and who stood at the head of the patriots, sat under siege. The archbishop met the Grand Duke with cruel reproaches, calling him a runner to his face and telling him: “Give me an army in my hands and see if I, an old man, will hide from the Tatars”; public opinion cried out so loudly and fearlessly against the behavior of the sovereign that he was finally forced to return to his regiments. But he still did not think about giving the Tatars a battle, but, yielding to the cowardice of himself and his advisers, he began attempts to settle matters with them peacefully and sent envoys to the khan with humiliating peace proposals. When rumors reached Moscow about these shameful efforts of the Grand Duke, Vassian wrote him his admonishing message. Having told the sovereign that on his arrival in Moscow, obeying the prayers and good thoughts of the metropolitan, his mother, princes and boyars, he gave his word to stand firmly for Orthodox Christianity and for his fatherland against godless insanity and that, according to rumors reaching Moscow, he humbles himself before the khan and prays to him for peace and again listens to his former debauchees who whisper to him in ears not to resist the enemies and betray Christianity to them, the archbishop then extends his admonitions to the sovereign: he shows him what dishonor and what great shame his flattering and cowardly advisers want to bring upon him. Exciting him to courage, he testifies to him that, according to even the pagan philosopher Democritus, a prince, first of all, must have strength, courage and bravery, reminding him of the examples of the ancient Russian princes - Igor, Svyatoslav and St. Vladimir, who took tribute from the Greek kings, Vladimir Monomakh and others, who fought so hard and so hard with the Polovtsians for the Russian land, and especially the example of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, who struck Mamai; Without remembering Demetrius’s previous sins, the merciful God granted him a glorious victory over Mamai for his determination to fight for the faith, for the church and for Orthodox Christianity until his death. The Archbishop inspires the sovereign with the confidence that if he, with pure repentance for his sins and with the same determination, dares to attack the Christ-hating adversary standing before him, then God will not only grant him victory in order to deliver the new Israel from the new Pharaoh, but also to enslave the enemies under our power. Not completely processed and not completely flawless on the part of external oratory, the message, nevertheless, since it is not an interweaving of rhetorical phrases, but an outpouring of sincere patriotic inspiration, is filled with great power of persuasiveness, and as a feat of civil courage on the part of the Archbishop of Rostov, it represents something that our clergy can rightly be proud of. According to the chronicle, the Grand Duke did not listen to the beliefs of the Vassianovs and continued to work to buy peace from the khan. But, at least, it should be mainly explained by the influence of the message that the Grand Duke again did not leave the army, and the Lord, merciful to us, finished the rest: winter came, terrible frosts set in, despite the flight of our troops, the Tatars fled, and this flight was the end of their dominion over us... Metropolitan Daniel, as we said much above (in the first half of this volume), is a dual man: in his social morals, he was not at all a shepherd-teacher, for he was distinguished by such servility before the sovereign that he not only allowed the latter, but also treacherously violated solemn oaths for his sake, and such merciless and implacable hatred for his enemies as one can imagine. But, at the same time, to fulfill the pastoral duty of teaching by word, he did as much as any of the metropolitans, so that in this last respect he decisively stands out from the ranks of other metropolitans. Whether out of a sincere love of books or out of an ambitious desire to be known as a learned man, which would ease the path to the bishopric, Daniel tried in an exceptional way to acquire extensive book reading. Through this erudition, having placed himself in the opportunity to be a teaching person, he really wanted and tried, after he took the metropolitan see, again for one or another reasons unknown to us, to make of this opportunity such a use that, in relation to teaching, would acquire for him the right to an outstanding place among other metropolitans. Firstly, he compiled an extensive collection of teaching treatises; secondly, he with great zeal was engaged in the work of teaching in the form of private messages to people who were looking for teaching words from him, so he wrote a relatively large number of these messages, private in form, but deliberately teaching in content. We will talk about Danilov’s collection, the content of the treatises included in which is not only moralizing, but also partly simply dogmatic, partly dogmatic-polemical, in the polemical section (see pp. 221–224). According to the conditions of our bookishness, a unique feature of the collection should be recognized that it is a large, real book. And since our book people produced only three real books related to the field of theology: our collection and two polemical ones, and since the collection partly has a common content with the latter, partly is in direct connection with them (namely with the Illuminator of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk): it seems to us most convenient for all three large books of theological content to be discussed in one place. We have reason to think that not all, and perhaps not even significantly all, of Metropolitan Daniel’s private messages of moralizing content have reached us 298. In any case, the number that has come down to us is comparatively very significant, namely twelve. If we were to judge by the present time, then, of course, it would not be God knows how much; but when judging the book works and written productivity of the time we are talking about, we must completely forget about the standard of the present time. For bookish people of that time, composing written works was such a great task that even the author of one work, similar to the epistles of Daniil, already acquired the full right to the title of writer. And thus, twelve epistles are not a little for that time, but a lot. And if we assume that we do not have everything written by Daniel in our family, we will find that he worked extremely diligently in the matter of teaching through private messages. Of the 12 epistles of Daniel, nine are addressed to the laity and three to the monks. The messages addressed to the laity are written on the following moralizing topics: 1) “as if this life is charming, as if a dream is coming by” (in Zhmakin’s indicated work IV), 2) about the fear of God, the introduction of which in oneself is the beginning of salvation (in Zhmakin IX), 3) about the Last Judgment, the remembrance of which keeps a person from sins (in Zhmakin VIII), 4) about spiritual attention and sobriety and care (namely about the constant observation of a person over himself in relation to the moral state of Zhmakin XIV), 5) that the holy apostles and God-bearing fathers focused human life on two lives - the monastic life and the married life, and that those who come to a legal marriage must keep the marital bed undefiled (in Zhmakin VI), 6) about chastity and purity (in Zhmakin XI), 7) about the same chastity and purity and mixed about many other things, which embrace almost all Christian moral teaching (in Zhmakin XIII), 8) about the dangers of treating and talking with wives and effeminate husbands (in Zhmakin X), 9) about prodigal thoughts (in Zhmakin XVIII) 299. If, together with the metropolitans and bishops, we did not have a single priest among the writers of our moralizing department, then there would be absolutely nothing surprising in this. It has not at all become a custom for bishops to deliver church sermons, and such preachers appear among them as an exception and only one of them: naturally, it has not become a custom for priests to deliver sermons, and it is not surprising that among them we do not even find a single exception. The priests, as is clear, had no need or motivation to write teaching messages to their flocks. There remains a third type of teaching: writing private teaching messages. Seeing among the bishops the representative of this type of teaching is no more than one (the now mentioned Metropolitan Daniel), and here we would have no reason to be surprised if we did not see a single priest. However, here, as a random exception, we find one. This one is the famous temporary favorite of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, priest Sylvester, known for two of our kind of teaching messages, one of which, however, does not undoubtedly belong to him, but is only assimilated with probability. One message, undoubtedly, was written by Sylvester to the Kazan governor and governor, Prince Alexander Borisovich Shuisky - Gorbaty (appointed to his place after the Tsar captured Kazan, which was October 2, 1552); the other, probably, to an unknown person who fell into disgrace with the Tsar, by which they mean the same Prince Shuisky (who fell into disgrace the following 1553). In the first epistle, Sylvester, in response to the prince’s desire to receive teaching writings from him, teaches him good Christian morals, the duties of a good ruler and judge; inviting the prince to proclaim to the priestly rank of the newly conquered and new Christian region that they, the priests, would have church deanery in accordance with the charter and that their own residence would be in accordance with hierarchical punishment and according to tradition, he goes into detail about the duties of the priestly rank. In the second letter, in response to a request from an unknown person to intercede for him, recognizing himself as powerless to intercede, he gives spiritual instruction that sorrows are sent to us by God’s Providence for our correction and that we must endure them without complaint and with trust in God 300 . Both messages are significantly extensive in scope, and especially the first of them, the most extensive, is written with diligent floridity, but with that floridity that is formally cold in nature, when phrases are typed without feeling, and with those techniques common to this last floridity in the old days, that the expansion of speech is achieved through digressions that do not go to the point 301. Imitating and competing with the literary representatives of Greek monasticism, the same representatives of our Russian monasticism should have exercised with greater or less zeal in compiling those extensive and deliberate copies (treatises and books) of a moralizing and moralizing-ascetic nature, of which so many were produced in Greece. But such extensive and deliberate copyings were completely inaccessible or beyond the capabilities of the literary representatives of our monasticism; they could demonstrate their teaching ability only in more or less brief copying, in which they actually showed it. These short moralizing texts were composed by representatives of our book monasticism for two reasons: either without any external challenge, out of their own zeal, to extend their teaching word to the whole society, some part of society and to individuals, or in response to requests addressed to them to teach this teaching word. The writings composed in response to challenges, in their external form, as is self-evident, are messages addressed to famous persons. As for the writings composed out of one’s own jealousy, they are either words impersonally and generally addressed to the whole society, or the same messages addressed to famous individuals. Since very few impersonal teaching words, the authors of which are positively known to us, have survived, we will first talk about the messages. The Epistles, having been written, as we have now made it known, either on the own initiative of those who wrote them or as a result of challenges addressed to them, are divided into two classes according to the nature of the teaching they contain: those addressed to government officials and teaching them as such; others are addressed either to private individuals for the purpose of their private teaching, or even to government officials, but for the purpose of teaching them not as rulers, but as private people. Messages of the first class have survived to the present day: from the Venerable Kirill of Belozersky, from the abbot of the Pskov Elizarov or Euphrosyne Monastery of Pamphilus, from the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, from the elder of the same Elizarov Monastery Philotheus and from one unknown monk. Two messages have been preserved from St. Kirill: to Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich and to his brother, Prince of Mozhaisk-Belozersky, Andrei Dmitrievich. Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, who revered St. Cyril as a strict ascetic, sent him and his brethren his alms, and, asking for his prayers, sought a teaching word from him. Giving thanks to the prince through a message for one of the sends of alms, the Monk Cyril extends some teaching to him. After a general reminder of the great responsibility of sovereigns, appointed by the Lord as shepherds over people (implying bodily ones) and after a general admonition not to deviate from the path leading to destruction, the monk instructs in particular the Grand Duke to hate the love of power and pride and brotherly hatred, which is contrary to the greatest commandment of Christ about love for one’s neighbors. And he begs him to show mercy and compensation to the princes of Suzdal, who were driven away by him from their inheritance 302. The Monk Kirill wrote to Prince Andrei Dmitrievich, appanage prince of the Belozersk region, on the same occasion as to his brother, the Grand Duke. Extending his teaching to him, he exhorts him to see that the judges appointed by him judge righteously, so that there are no taverns in his estate, which is a great destruction to souls, and tolls, which are unrighteous kuns, so that there are no robberies and thieves; diligently attend church yourself and stand in it with appropriate reverence, and teach others the same regarding standing in church 303. A message has been preserved from Abbot Pamphilus, written in 1505 to the Pskov governor of the Grand Duke, and containing an exhortation to the latter to stop with his authority what was happening in Pskov on the night of the feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist or on the so-called Midsummer Day, “an idol, idol, as the abbot put it, celebration,” which consisted of well-known, common throughout Russia, amusements, which really represented a remnant of paganism, and in collecting (which was done on the very day of the Nativity of the Forerunner) herbs and roots for preparing poisonous herbal drinks and for sorcery 304. Between the messages of St. Joseph there are two messages related to our class - both to the brother of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, the Dmitrov appanage prince Yuri (George) Ivanovich. One message was written to the prince as a result of his request for written teaching, the other - on the occasion of the famine that occurred in the Dmitrov region. In the first letter, the Monk Joseph teaches Yuri Ivanovich: duties towards his subjects - to be merciful to them and caring for them; duties towards the Grand Duke - to remain faithful to him and duties towards oneself - to maintain bodily purity 305. In the second letter, Joseph represents and proves to the prince that he has a duty to take care of the food of his subjects 306. Two messages from our class have been preserved from Elder Philotheus: one to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, the other to the Pskov clerk of the Grand Duke Misyur - Munekhin. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, as I have said more than once above, our ancestors began to look at their Moscow state as the third Orthodox Roman kingdom. From these ideas about the high role that had become Moscow’s lot, it followed that she herself, in turn, would deliberately take care to become worthy of the high role. Now inspired by the above-mentioned ideas about Moscow and at the same time relying on them, Elder Philotheus turns to the Grand Duke with his exhortations to attend to some corrections of himself, the church administration and the church-moral life of society. “The Church of Old Rome, says Philotheus, fell through the unbelief of the Apollinarian heresy, and the doors of the second Rome, the city of Constantine, were cut with axes and ocords by the Hagarian grandsons, and now the conciliar and apostolic church of the third new Rome, your sovereign kingdom, to (all) the ends of the universe in the Orthodox Christian faith, shines more than the sun, and let your power know, pious to the king, that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox Christian faith have come together into your one kingdom - you are one Christian king in all the heavens: it behooves you, the king, to hold this with the fear of God, fear God who gave it to you.” The last words mean: you must, sir, take care that you yourself become worthy of the name of the king and that your state becomes worthy of the name of the kingdom. Philotheus exhorts the great prince himself: firstly, do not rely on gold and wealth and glory, exchange stinginess for generosity, and unmercifulness for mercy and comfort those who cry and cry day and night, deliver the offended from the hands of those who offend; secondly, not to offend God’s holy churches and honest monasteries - (not to take away from them) what was given to God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, as a keepsake for the last generation. In the words about the Grand Duke’s hope in wealth and about the consolation of those who cry, the elder means that after the complete confiscation by Vasily Ivanovich in 1510. will or previous freedom in Pskov, in this city with its region, according to the Pskov Chronicles, a completely predatory reign began, and the robbery was partly in addition to the Grand Duke, as abuse on the part of his governors and clerks. Partly, and not in addition to him, for, according to the chronicles, from the existing management system “the treasury of the Grand Duke began to multiply in Pskov” 307. What exactly is meant in the words about not offending churches and monasteries remains unknown, perhaps the plan to rob the churches and monasteries of the Novgorod diocese, which was carried out after the death of the Grand Duke in 1536. and about which see above, the first half of this volume p. 735. Elder Philotheus’ further admonitions to the Grand Duke are as follows: Βο - firstly, that people do not lay upon themselves the right to sign the honorable cross and that he should take care of this. We will talk about this below in the chapter on worship. Secondly, so that he, the prince, fills the holy cathedral churches with bishops, so that the holy church of God does not become a widow under his reign. Here the elder understood that the Grand Duke left the Novgorod episcopal see unfilled for a very long time after the deposition of Serapionov. Thirdly, so that he would eradicate the bitter weeds - the abomination of Sodom, which has multiplied not only in the worldly, but also in others, “about them,” says the elder, “I will keep silent, let him understand,” i.e., among the highest monastic clergy 308. In a letter to the clerk Misyuryu-Munekhin, Elder Philotheus rebelled against the measures that were taken by the government on the occasion of the raging pestilence in Pskov and which consisted in the fact that cordons were set up on the roads, that empty houses were sealed, that priests were forbidden to go to the sick, and that the bodies of the dead were not buried in cemeteries at churches, but were taken far away out of town. Condemning the measures taken and especially the prohibition for priests to go to the sick for their dying instructions with the holy mysteries, the elder teaches the clerk that the pestilence is a revelation of the wrath of God, which should not be resisted in vain by human measures 309 . The monk, who remains unknown by name, addressed Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, between 1547 and 1551, a message in which he exhorts the sovereign to eradicate evil lawlessness among the highest boyars and in the monastic clergy - the sin of Sodom and in which he reminds him that the Russians do not have a true sign of the cross in essence 310. Epistles of the second, above-mentioned class or private nature have survived to the present day: from St. Kirill of Belozersk, from St. Nil of Sorsk and from St. Joseph of Volokolamsk 311. From the Monk Kirill, our class has preserved a message to the brother of Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, appanage prince of Zvenigorod-Galich Yuri Dmitrievich. The prince's wife was seriously ill, and he sent alms to the Monk Kirill, asking him to pray for the sick woman. In a message of gratitude for alms, St. Cyril instructs the prince to look at the misfortune that befell him as a manifestation of God’s mercy and love for him, which calls him to repentance of his sins. Exhorting the prince to do this last thing, the monk says that whoever gives alms and orders God to pray for himself, but does not lag behind his inappropriate deeds, there is no benefit from his alms, and the Lord does not favor the offerings of such a person. Expressing his firm hope that God will raise the princess from her sickbed in the event of the prince’s diligent and repentant appeal to Him, the monk exhorts the latter not to grieve even then if God called his wife to Himself. For, he says, this should be understood in such a way that for the sake of her virtue, the Lord wants to rest her from this short and painful life in that ageless bliss. (A significant part of our message is devoted to the prince’s decisive dissuading from his intended journey to him - Cyril, for a visit to the prince, as he directly explains to the latter, would have brought him human praise, and the latter, because of its extreme danger for the monk, he wanted - as he also directly says - to escape at all costs. We will return to this part of the message when we characterize the Monk Cyril as a representative of monasticism) 312 . 8 or 9 teaching messages have been preserved from the Monk Nilus of Sorsky. All of them were written to the monks. But two of them contain moral teaching that applies as much to the laity as to the monks. These two messages are: to the monk Cassian, in the world of Constantine, Prince of Mavnuk or Mankup, and to Vassian the Oblique. Cassian, a foreigner in Russia, who is still a mysterious person, endured many sorrows and troubles before and after his arrival. In his message to him, written precisely about these sorrows and troubles he endured, the Monk Neil teaches him about the necessity of suffering and disasters for a person in this life, as representing the only path to eternal bliss in the future life 313. In a letter to Vassian the Oblique, written shortly after his involuntary tonsure, the Monk Nil, consoling a man who had suddenly been subjected to the cruel vicissitudes of fate and from the most noble boyar, suddenly becoming a humble monk, extends a teaching about the insignificance of this life, about the perishability and fragility of everything earthly 314. Between the epistles of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk there are two that relate to our department of epistles. This is precisely a message to an unknown nobleman about pardoning slaves 315 and a message to another, also unknown, nobleman about his slave, who was tonsured a monk. In both epistles, in the first deliberately, and in the second unostentatiously, the Monk Joseph teaches the proper treatment of masters with slaves and proper care for them in relation to the body and soul. He points out to the masters that slaves are equal with them in the eyes of God, as baptized with the same baptism and as redeemed with the same blood of Christ - that after this short-term life, an eternal life will come, in which there will be neither masters nor slaves and in which the former will be called to account for the latter 316. And in itself it is possible to think in a positive way, from direct evidence, we know that the teaching messages that have survived to us from the representatives of our monasticism do not constitute everything that was actually written by them in our family. But how to think about the quantity that has not reached us, whether to consider it very large or not particularly large, this is a question that is difficult to answer one way or another. That the best representatives of our monasticism would have the zeal to teach, there is no doubt about it: but how rich, along with zeal, were they (possessed) the ability to do this? We, for our part, consider it more probable to assume a scarcity, rather than an excess or even a sufficiency of skill; and therefore, about the amount of what has not survived to us, we consider it more likely to think that it is not particularly large. Much earlier we spoke about the teaching monks in our monasteries, who, through their deliberate work and feat, chose the task of teaching the laity through private moral conversations with them. It must be thought that the best among these deliberately teaching monks were primarily engaged in composing teaching writings, either in the form of words or in the form of our messages. We read an entry in the chronicle about the messages of one similar teaching monk that have not survived to us or are still unknown to us. Namely, in the Nikon Chronicle, under the year 1383, it is written: “The same year the blessed elder Paul passed away, living a wondrous monastic life; and he was a great book and a great philosopher, and had much name for silence and silence. Whenever there was time for conversation, he was wise and very useful, and his word was dissolved with divine salt, and he was much virtuous and Wonderful to everyone, who was known by his nickname, Paul the Tall. The Pechersk Monastery was founded honestly in Novgorod in Nizhny, and many mourned for it, since it was a consolation and spiritual refuge for many who came to it. Not only the presbyters and monks, but also the laity grieved for him, but also the metropolitan and the bishops, and that Dionysius, Bishop of Suzdal and Gorodets and Nizhny Novgorod, grieved over him, he was well-known and well-behaved by a good custom and well-disciplined in the Lord and is sweet and comforting and useful to everyone” 317. In terms of literature, the following should be said about the messages we have cited: the messages of St. Kirill of Belozersky are very simple and not at all processed; Hegumen Pamphilus and Elder Philotheus have oratorical aspirations, but in general the matter boils down to the fact that their messages, oratorical in intention, are not so in reality; Reverends Nil of Sorsky and Joseph of Volokolamsk, without deliberately worrying about oratory as such, write quite well, because they have the ability to write well enough. Finally, the message of the unknown monk to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, very extensive in volume, represents an oratorical work that, as one must think, was recognized in its time as an example of the most brilliant eloquence. It would indeed be very good if it were not so verbose, and if the flow of thoughts in it were more orderly. The author sets out to write to the king about the sodomy that prevailed in the highest, secular and spiritual society, as much a formidable accusatory word as the formidable accusatory speeches of the prophets. And, compiling it mainly through extracts from the latter, although not always and not in everything that go to the point, he actually manages to compose such an accusatory word that should have made a very big impression. In general, the message is a wonderful oratorical work, despite its major shortcomings. We said above that we have very few short teaching words, the compilers of which were known to us. Exactly - we know such words and only one; this is the elder of the Volokolamsk monastery from the half of the 16th century. Photius (word) “collected from the divine scriptures, it is extremely useful, so that all Orthodox peasants, especially monks, do not use foul language with their tongues, and then again utter a motherly bark to your brother: son of a whore, what a man of our holy Christian faith loves” 318. Proving the sinfulness of obscene barking or swearing for a Christian, Elder Photius says that we, who have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are called sons of God and brothers in Christ and, therefore, that the one who barks obscenely at another barks obscenely at the one who is called the son of God and is our brother in Christ, - that if Jesus Christ forbids calling a brother a freak, then all the more our swearing is prohibited - that with the mouth with our own, which we defile with obscene language, we glorify God and accept the Body and Blood of Christ. Then the elder cites extracts against foul language from the fathers: Macarius the Great, one unnamed father (it seems from the Patericon), Isaac the Syrian, John Climacus, Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the new theologian and Nikon the Montenegrin 319. Domostroy, which is a teaching and guidance book for a worldly person regarding his entire life, with Christian piety at the head, or, as it were, his Christian-everyday Enchiridion, was first adopted by the famous priest Sylvester mentioned above, on the basis that in some of his lists the last chapter is “The Message and Punishment of the Father to the Son,” which, undoubtedly, is a teaching or spiritual teaching testament priest Sylvester, written by him to his son Anthimus. But much more likely is the newest opinion that Domostroy was written earlier than Sylvester, and that he owns (perhaps) only that edition of our Enchiridion, in the copies of which his message and punishment are read. It is very possible that Domostroy was written not at once and not by one person, but in several stages by several persons. Much higher we mentioned a moral and educational article, with the inscription: “For the instruction of all peasants,” which is read in a manuscript of the 14th century and which with a high probability should be attributed to the pre-Mongol period (I volume 1 half, p. 679 note 2/825 note). This article represents the prototype of Domostroy and, as it were, its embryo: from the pre-Mongol period to the 16th century, it gradually, that is, in several stages, could have been created in the form as we know it. The book outlines the ideal of a pious Christian and a good citizen in all respects (social, family and economic), which our pre-Petrine ancestors had and which real people should have imitated whenever possible. Divided into 63 chapters, Domostroy is not distinguished by a completely systematic presentation, but can generally be divided into three parts: first, it sets out the rules regarding faith and piety or regarding “righteous living”, befitting “God-fearing people” (the first 15 chapters); then the rules regarding family life are set out: “how to live as an Orthodox Christian in the world with wives and children and household members and how to punish and teach them” (chapters 16–26), and finally - the rules regarding keeping a house and running the entire household (“about house building” - the remaining chapters from 27). We will return to the contents of the book, which, as a literary work, is very satisfactory, written in a clear and comprehensible language and does not suffer from a lack of rhetorical verbosity and lack of verbosity (if I may say so), when we talk about the morals of our ancestors of the time we are considering. Read in some lists of Domostroy and belonging to the priest Sylvester, “Message and Punishment from Father to Son” is to some extent the same Domostroy, only in an abbreviated form. Divided into the same three parts as the large or real Domostroy, the epistle contains: firstly, a statement of duties in relation to public and domestic piety and to deliberate servants of piety - priests and monks. Secondly, Sylvester’s story to his son about his own life, which was supposed to serve as an example for the latter to follow. And thirdly, teaching various tips of everyday prudence. In literary terms, Sylvester's message, written in a simple language in the sense of approaching the simplicity of colloquial speech, and at the same time very coherent, lively and expressive, is not only good to a sufficient extent, but, one might say, good in a remarkable way. Reading the message, we imagine a man with a convincing word, who for some time had such a great influence on the young Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. Lives of saints (and legends about revealed icons). Chronicles. Private historical tales. In the pre-Mongol period, a very small number of our saints were glorified through the lives of us. Real lives, not counting the short stories that make up the Patericon of Pechersk, only five were written: the martyred princes Boris and Gleb, St. Theodosius of Pechersk, St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk, St. Leonty of Rostov and St. Abramius of Smolensk. One should not imagine things in this way, if only the number of saints who would be worthy of glorification through their lives, and all of us in the pre-Mongol period consisted of only the indicated five. If in the Pechersk Monastery we see a whole host of ascetics, then, of course, during our period God did not limit his grace to just one place in the entire Russian land, that is, this Pechersk Monastery 321. The extreme small number of saints glorified among us in our period must be explained by two reasons. On the one hand, our ancestors borrowed from the Greeks a very numerous host of saints, before which they, being blinded and suppressed by him, seemed to humble themselves, so that they dared to replenish it with their own saints only with great caution. On the other hand, regarding the possibility of writing lives, they had too little and meagerly this scribe's cane, which would be able to write lives that are somehow worthy of their name. For both reasons now indicated, and in the time we are considering, a little more lives of our saints could have been written in our country than in the pre-Mongol period. But the special historical circumstances of our time called upon our ancestors to become concerned with glorifying their saints through their lives with deliberate diligence. After the Council of Florence and soon followed by the final destruction of the Byzantine Empire by the Turks and their capture of Constantinople, the high role of the representative of Orthodox Christianity passed, according to the ideas of our ancestors, to our Russia; a representative of Orthodox Christianity had to be decorated with what constitutes the crown of this decoration - a host of saints: this forced our ancestors not to hide and hide the glory of their saints, but with deliberate effort to bring it to the light of common knowledge and vision. In the course of two hundred years from the invasion of the Mongols to the Council of Florence, we had only one or two more lives of saints written than in the pre-Mongol period, i.e. six or seven. Immediately after the Council of Florence - the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, we began intensive writing of the lives of the saints, which continued until Metropolitan Macarius inclusive, so that over the course of one hundred and twenty-five years from the council until his death, up to 49 lives were written, and if we count separately editions of the same lives, up to 52; In addition, the following were compiled: funeral eulogies for 5 saints, an entire patericon of the Volokolamsk Monastery and up to 7 new editions of previous lives]. In the most precise way, during these one hundred and twenty-five years, the history of writing the lives of saints is as follows: immediately after the Council of Florence, they began to write lives with as much haste as possible; After some time, this rush subsided and the writing of lives began at an even, gradual pace, forced against the previous time; Metropolitan Macarius and the bookish Russian people of his time, under whom our sovereign formally assumed the crown of the Byzantine kings and our state formally took the place of the Byzantine empire, for this very reason, as we talked about above, showed concern for writing the lives of the saints even incomparably greater than as was the case immediately after the Council of Florence. The lives of the saints should be historical stories about the lives and exploits of people who became famous for one and the other, and, apparently, writing them as such stories is very simple. But in reality, the lives were not only historical stories about saints, but were to a much greater extent something else. Every business begins with what it should be, and deviates from its straight path only gradually. In ancient times, among the Greeks, the lives of saints were indeed historical stories about their lives and exploits, and therefore among the most ancient Greek lives one can find truly beautiful ones for the edification that is represented by what is historically narrated in them, that is, these lives and exploits depicted in detail in them. But the false opinion that oratory and rhetoric are more edifying than an unartificial story led to the fact that the lives began to become more and more artificial and, finally, completely turned into an artificial processing of historical material, which was provided by the lives and exploits of the saints. When we adopted Christianity from the Greeks, hagiographies had already become exactly this type of verbal works among them. But with such a literary transformation of the lives, the ease of writing them turned into a very great difficulty, almost equal to the difficulty of composing church words. During the Kievan period, we had such a situation with the writing of lives that the earliest compiler of them was at the same time the best in quality (Reverend Nestor). This could not have happened during the Moscow period. In Kyiv, the establishment of book literacy began with an attempt to introduce real education, and although the attempt failed, at least its fruit and remainder was relatively high literacy (it would be more accurate to say - literacy). Muscovite Rus' began with complete illiteracy, and then gradually created literacy in itself. True, Moscow had Novgorod and Rostov, which, apparently, could have been its leaders in this case. But literacy did not have time to sufficiently spread to Novgorod and Rostov from Kyiv in the pre-Mongol period, and after the Mongol invasion they found themselves not in such a position as to be the leaders of Moscow, but in such a position that together with it they could only establish in themselves the same thing as it. It was extremely slow for Moscow to become so literate that it could cope with the task of writing the lives of the saints. It is true that in the first two hundred years of the time we are considering, from the Mongol invasion to the Council of Florence, we find among our writers the lives of one saint that is even outstanding. But this one (monk Epiphanius the Wise, about whom below) should be recognized as an accident and as a person who acquired his exceptional art of writing lives not in Russia. And what we see is not accidental, testifies to the extremely low level of writing ability among the bookish people of Moscow. In 1326 Metropolitan St. died Peter, and it was decided to write his life. There is no doubt that due to the political motives that we indicated above [p. 150 1 half of this volume], they must have really wanted the life to be written as satisfactorily as possible: and yet they did not find a person at all who would write a life in any way satisfactory, and were forced to be content with a very unsatisfactory life. A little over 50 years after the death of St. Metropolitan Alexei (1378), it was also decided to write his life, and again they did not find a person who could write the latter in any satisfactory manner and had to be content with a life that was even lower in quality than the life of St. Petra. We said that the Council of Florence prompted our ancestors to become concerned with the glorification of their saints through the writing of their lives; but if a happy accident had not helped our ancestors, their concerns could have remained fruitless concerns for a more or less long time. This happy incident was that immediately after the council, a Serbian monk who had a special ability to write lives (named Pachomius - about him below, p. 176 ff.), whose services we used. Finally, in the second half of the 15th century, the Moscow book people turned out to be so strong in their bookishness that among them there were, one after another, individuals who together formed a whole, relatively long series of individuals who took upon themselves the writing of the lives of saints, and who finally made hagiography a common branch of our writing, so to speak, completely acclimatizing and naturalizing it among us. And in the second quarter of the 15th century, Metropolitan Macarius and a society imbued with the same desires already found enough hands to carry out extensive hagiographic work. This should not be imagined in such a way that from the second half of the 15th century Russians began (became capable) of writing exclusively good lives, but in such a way that they finally found the difficulty of writing lives surmountable for themselves. That, in one way or another, overcoming the difficulty, they began to write them, and that, just as people who have not had any craft for a long time finally introduce it to themselves, they mastered for us, as we said, this branch of writing. As for the literary merit of our lives, starting from the time they became a common form of our writing, this merit varies, and the general review of it, as one can naturally assume from the state of our bookishness, is far from positive, but very negative. There are very few lives that are very good in the sense of those unartificial historical news that the Greeks had in ancient times; There are not many lives that are good enough in the sense of the artificial processing of the historical material they were subject to, which in general became the lives of the Greeks in later times; but a much larger part of the lives, representing this artificial processing, are unsatisfactory to varying degrees. Regarding the artificial processing of the Lives, i.e. Regarding the rhetorical presentation of historical material or regarding the replacement of this latter, in case of its deficiency, with rhetoric, our compilers of lives did not have to be creators or inventors, but only borrowers from the numerous collection of Greek lives. As borrowers, most of our compilers of hagiographies are unsatisfactory to varying degrees: some use rhetoric beyond measure, others use it beyond measure and at the same time inappropriately, others combine individual rhetorical phrases into whole speeches in such a way that it comes out rhetorically incoherent. In general, the unsatisfactory nature of most of our lives lies in the fact that their compilers display varying degrees of ineptitude in the use of rhetoric. There are also such lives, the compilers of which very simply resolve the task of use for themselves, namely, they compose lives using verbatim extracts from other lives, going and not at all going to those saints whose lives are described 322 . Before the writing of the real lives of the saints was established among us (and partly even after that), we had a special, peculiar to us, hagiographic writing. Not daring to write real lives, the book monks of some monasteries took care to somehow perpetuate the memory of the founders of the monasteries or (which is only a very few exceptions) the famous ascetics who were among them, and wrote about them, so to speak, formless in terms of literature and unadorned with hagiographic oratory, in which artless and at the same time, for the most part, disorderly stories were told for the sake of memory. “a little something” about the saints, and who later served as material for the compilers of real lives. The history of writing our Lives consisted not only in the fact that they were written, but also in the fact that quite a significant number of them were corrected and remade after writing. Some lives in their original form turned out to be unsatisfactory in relation to hagiographic oratory, too meager in relation to historical information, or both; therefore, new editions of them were compiled in order to improve them in one or the other respect or in both together. Some Lives in their original form were more or less satisfactory, but over time the demands on the Lives as works of oratory increased, and therefore new adaptations were undertaken to satisfy this demand. Lives that were revised once are quite numerous, but there are also those that were revised up to three times. In later times, perhaps rhetorical and possibly lengthy praise of the saint was considered a necessary part of the life, as its (the life’s) final part. Meanwhile, some of the lives that were previously written did not have these praises, or had too few of them that satisfied later requirements: And to the lives that did not have praises, they were added, and the praises that were recognized as unsatisfactory were subject to alteration. Finally, there are few cases where several lives of the same saint were written, independent of one another. That the lives represent an extremely meager source of information on the general history of the fatherland, church and civil, we spoke about this above. But about the lives of the time we are considering, it must be said that their reliability, even in relation to the private lives of those saints to whom they are dedicated, is far from unconditional. We are able to believe some lives from the chronicles, and we find that they make gross mistakes; Comparing several editions of the same lives, we sometimes find that in later editions historical facts are deliberately more or less altered, that is, rewritten. A considerable part of the lives were written long after the death of the saints and, moreover, in such a way that their compilers had no other source than oral tradition: naturally, the compilers of the lives had to reproduce the history and at the same time the legend. The purpose of the Lives is not history, but edification, and later times directly provided the compilers of Lives with wide freedom to remake historical facts in accordance with the purposes of edification... 323. The extent to which the compilers of lives were free in relation to history can be seen from the fact that some of them simply take stories for their saints from the lives of other saints. However, one important reservation must be made in relation to the lives as a source of church and civil history. An indispensable part of them consists of records of the miracles of saints; in these records, without hagiographic rhetoric, but with natural simplicity, various incidents that happened to monks and lay people (their personal stories) are told about the miracles that took place. And between these stories there are those that represent an important source for the history of monasteries and for the history of world social life. In the course of two hundred years from the invasion of the Mongols to the Council of Florence, as we said, we had seven or eight lives written. These lives are the essence of: Varlaam of Khutyn, Kirill of Turov, Metropolitan Peter, Bishop Ignatius of Rostov, Stephen of Perm, Sergius of Radonezh, Metropolitan Alexei and, perhaps, Nikita of Pereyaslavl 324. We said that one of the compilers of our lives is a person who stands out from the ordinary. This is the compiler or - as in this case it is appropriate to put it - the author of two lives: St. Stephen of Perm and St. Sergius of Radonezh, monk Epiphanius, known with the nickname of the Wise. After an unknown how long wandering in the East and life in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Athos 325, he was a monk of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, which he came to during the very time of its founder, the Venerable Sergius, more or less at the end of his life († September 25, 1391) and in which (having the rank of hieromonk and at the same time being the confessor of the brethren) he died in 1420–21 326. Epiphanius was endowed with extraordinary abilities in general, and in particular with exceptional oratorical talent. If he had remained in Russia all his life, it is very possible that, not feeling able to make use of his talent, he would not have become a writer of hagiographies. But his stay in the East, where, as is likely to be thought, he was carried away not only by a pious pilgrim feeling, but also by the desire to acquire some real education, had the consequence that he wrote two lives that were not only good, but, so to speak, too good. For Greek hagiographers of later times, the lives of saints became perhaps a rhetorical presentation of some historical material; but still, the Greek writers of hagiographies did not forget absolutely every measure in rhetoric 327. Far leaving behind the Greek writers, the Serbian writers did just that. We don’t know how to explain this, whether it’s the national Serbian character, their tendency to speak red and verbose, or something else, but this is just a fact. One has only to read the lives of Saints Sava and Stephen of Serbia, written by Hieromonk Dometian, to see what Serbian hagiographic rhetoric is and how far it leaves behind the same Greek rhetoric. In the second half of the 14th century, when Epiphanius lived on Athos, the Serbian rhetoricians were at the apogee of their glory, so that the Bulgarian rhetoricians bowed before them and sought to learn from them: and one must think that he got into science precisely with them, so that, while developing his oratorical talent, at the same time he was infected from them, to the latter’s detriment, with an extraordinary passion for rhetoric. The two lives written by Epiphanius, extensive in volume, would have been very good if they had not been spoiled by the most intense and completely drowning the reader with its abundance of eloquence, representing a continuous series of endless and artificial rhetorical amplifications and such a set of synonyms with epithets that would not be possible even for a deliberate synonymous dictionary, and allowing itself many, very large deviations from the actual subject of speech 328. However, about the cunning rhetoric of Epiphanius, it must be said that, despite its abundance, it does not suffer from another drawback - awkwardness, that, on the contrary, for the most part it is very complex, so that it should be taken for something very remarkable in its own way (for something made according to a bad and tasteless model, but by the hands of a good craftsman). Then, it must be said that the life of St. Sergius suffers from rhetoric to a much lesser extent than the life of St. Stefan: the latter, older than the first by 15 years, Epiphanius wrote when he was in full possession of his mental strength and oratorical abilities, and the first oratorically he completed it from rough notes made without oratory, only before his death, when, with a decline in strength and abilities, he could no longer be that brilliant (in his way) orator that he was in his flourishing time. From our subsequent literary people, Epiphanius was hailed as the wisest and wisest, and indeed, as far as we know, none of the later compilers of lives equaled him in the skill of oratory. (In the life of Stephen, along with his unattainable eloquence, Epiphanius was supposed to amaze our subsequent bookish people with his scholarship, which, in addition to some learned digressions, he especially shows in his speeches about Stephen’s invention of the Perm alphabet and which consists in the fact that, making a not entirely successful application to the Permians, he reproduces Khrabrov’s scholarly apologetic note about the invention of Constantine and Methodius of Slavic writings. And in relation to eloquence, his original idea, which none of the later ones dared to imitate, consists of three laments for St. Stephen, with which he ends his life, namely: the lament of the Perm people, the lament of the Perm church, when the widow was crying for her bishop, and the lament and praise of the monk). Of the remaining six lives written in the course of our two hundred years, we have already spoken about two - Metropolitans Peter and Alexei - as short and very unsatisfactory. The lives of Varlaam of Khutyn, Cyril of Turov and Ignatius of Rostov (?) are even more brief and even more clearly indicate how little developed in our time the ability to write the lives of saints. Only the life of Nikita Pereyaslavsky, which can only with probability be attributed to our time, and not to the later, represents a real (not particularly high in quality) life in the sense of processing. The life of Metropolitan Peter was redone, in order to improve it, by the third-party hands of the Bulgarian scribe, Metropolitan Cyprian, in our time. There is a second edition of the Life of Varlaam Khutynsky, representing an attempt to disseminate and improve the first, which should also be attributed to our time. In our time, three historical legends were written that are accepted as lives, namely: the legend of the martyrdom in the Horde of Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov and his boyar Theodore 329, the legend of the valor of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky and the legend of the martyrdom in the same Horde of Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy. But these tales, by their original purpose, are not lives, but historical tales, and were more or less converted into lives only later. As historical tales, and not hagiographies, they do not strive in literary terms to become what the latter should have been, and if they are not alien to the desire for eloquence, like the legend of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, then eloquence is not hagiographic. The Serbian monk who came to the aid of the Russians after the Council of Florence was the Athonite monk Pachomius. How he got to Russia remains unknown. It is believed that he was deliberately summoned by our government for the literary activity in which we find him among us; but this does not seem likely. They call in famous people who have already become famous; but the age of Pachomius at the moment of his arrival to us in Russia should be considered not older or not much older than 30 years old, and at such years people do not yet have time to become famous; at the same time, his literary talent was, in essence, not at all such that he could become famous for it on Athos. Finally, if the government had deliberately summoned him, they would have immediately locked him up for his work, but meanwhile we don’t see this at all. Based on what has just been said, it is read in the inscription of one of the lives compiled by Pachomius that he came from the Serbian land to the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich 330. it is more likely to understand not that he was caused by the government, but that he came to us of his own volition. This motivation could have been the hope, and in fact it was justified, to make advantageous use of our ability to write. He arrived in Russia around 1440. (in any case, between the years 1438 and 1443) 331. His permanent place of stay in Russia throughout his very long life in it was the Trinity Sergius Monastery, in which, some time after his arrival, he was awarded the rank of hieromonk 332. It is unknown when he died, but after 1484. and probably more or less soon after 333. Immediately after Pachomius settled in the Trinity Monastery, he was entrusted with literary work here, namely, to shorten the life of St. Sergius, written by Epiphanius. When he made a reduction, supplementing it with a legend about the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius and stories about his 12 miracles, it was found that the reduction was still extensive 334, he was instructed to make a new reduction. Simultaneously with the time [he began] to deal with these abbreviations or after them, he wrote a service to St. Sergius and a short prologue to his life. At the end of the second reduction, he supplemented the original Life of Epiphanius with those additions that he made to the first reduction, and, in accordance with the size of the life, he gave them a new, extensive presentation 335. When he had fulfilled everything that was desired from him in relation to the Monk Sergius, he was entrusted with writing the life of Sergius’s disciple and successor as abbess in the monastery of the Monk Nikon, together with a service to him 336. The literary activity of Pachomius consisted of the now indicated for 10 years or more, until 1450. or a little further 337. ↓ Metropolitan Jonah, shortly after his accession to the cathedra (December 15, 1448), established a church-wide celebration of the memory of St. Alexis, and Pachomius was entrusted by them - the metropolitan with the council of bishops - to write a legend about the discovery of the relics of the saint and a service to him, as well as to compose a new life of him instead of the existing one written by Bishop Pitirim. Following these literary works of Pachomius in time can with some probability be considered the reworking into a hagiography of the legend about the martyrdom in the Horde of Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov and his boyar Theodore, together with the compilation of a service for them, the writing of a laudatory word for the feast of the Intercession of the Virgin and the compilation of a canon for Saints Boris and Gleb 338. All three works, as it is likely to be thought 339, were entrusted to him by the government, for which the motives could be; in the first case, the concern is to introduce the second pair of our martyrs after Boris and Gleb in the proper, so to speak, manner into the host of our saints, for although they were previously recognized as such, they did not yet have a real life (which the existing legend did not have) and deliberate service. In the second case, the concern is to deliberately glorify the holiday established in Russia and our Russian one. In the third case, there is a desire to show one’s special zeal for the leaders of our saints. After Pachomius had completed what was just mentioned, Muscovite Rus', in the closest sense of the word, did not find hagiographic works that could be assigned to him; but his pen, which became free here, was given work in Novgorod. He was summoned by the Novgorod Archbishop Euthymius, and under his successor, soon after the call of the deceased Archbishop Jonah (March 10, 1458), in a very short time he multiplied his hagiographical works by reworking the existing life of Varlaam of Khutyn (the second existing edition), supplementing it with a word of praise to the saint and a story about one new miracle that took place at his relics, and compiled a canon for him - that he wrote the lives of Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga, Savva of Vishersky 340 and the now mentioned Archbishop Euthymius with canons for all three, and that in addition he wrote four more canons (to the Monk Onuphrius, in whose name there was a church in the Otney Desert, the place of tonsure of Archbishop Jonah, on the Novgorod holiday Signs of the Mother of God - two canons 341 and just now, - March 31, 1461, - to the deceased Metropolitan Jonah). Pachomius was summoned from Novgorod to Moscow to fulfill the government's instructions: Metropolitan Theodosius (Jonah's successor on May 3, 1461) and Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich († March 17, 1462) ordered him to go to the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery so that he could collect information about St. Kirill and compiled his life. After this, for the ten-year space of time from our last life, there is no information about the literary activity of Pachomius. In 1472 On the occasion of the reconstruction of the Assumption Cathedral by Metropolitan Philip, the relics of St. Peter the Metropolitan, in memory of which event an annual holiday was established: Pachomius was instructed to write a word for the transfer and a canon for the established holiday (he wrote two canons). Between 1472 and 1484, at the request of Bishop Philotheus of Perm, he wrote a canon to Stefan of Perm. Not earlier than 1484, it is unknown at whose request, he wrote the life of Archbishop Moses of Novgorod 342. Finally, in addition to all of the above, one well-known manuscript gives him the life of the Novgorod Archbishop John 343. Thus, Pachomius Serbinus enriched our hagiographical literature, not to mention his numerous canons and his words. Four lives, newly edited or reworked (counting, among other things, the abbreviation of Sergiev’s life - both in one life), and 6 or 7 lives newly written, and a total of 10 or 11 lives. That is, he alone wrote as many lives as there were none written among us during the two hundred years from the Mongol invasion and before! The Russians used the services of Pachomius because they were forced to do so by necessity, by the lack of their own people capable of writing. But at the same time, they undoubtedly had a very high concept of his writing ability; the biographer of Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod directly speaks of him as a writer “skilled in book syllables” 344. Meanwhile, in fact, Pachomius was not a brilliant and outstanding writer, but rather an ordinary one and only possessed an unusually fast pen. And the unscrupulous haste with which he baked his works, looking for quick earnings or already being that way by nature, even had the consequence that he wrote worse than he could have written. His new editions of previous lives are the most superficial alterations, done in the most haste. Some of his original lives, such as the life of Moses of Novgorod, can be said to be below any criticism. The life of Kirill Belozersky is recognized as the best of the latest lives; but it cannot be considered too good: the image of St. Cyril, as attractive in its own way as St. Theodosius of Pechersk, was undoubtedly still fresh in the memory of the monks of the Cyril Monastery, contemporary with Pachomius, and however, he cared little about depicting this image in its vital integrity and with living colors 345. It is remarkable that Pachomius, being a Serb, is not at all an uncontrollable Serbian orator; Of course, like any sworn writer of hagiography, he speaks, but speaks comparatively modestly. Perhaps this should be explained by the fact that oratory, a set and intricacy of phrases and words, requires a lot of time, and he wrote hastily; perhaps because from the very arrival in Russia, from the assignment given to him by the Trinity monks to shorten the life of St. Sergius, he realized that Serbian oratory would not be to the taste of the Russians, and would not have the proper price for them. Regarding respect for historical truth and reality, Pachomius did not give our subsequent hagiographers a high example: he did not at all find it difficult, as far as we can believe him, to remake reality in order to achieve greater, in his opinion, edification by reworking, and in general he was ready to write as he was ordered 346... Our own real hagiography began approximately in the middle of the 15th century, that is, at the same time as Pachomius came to us. However, we should not imagine things in such a way that his visit to us was in vain and that we ourselves would have done what he did with our own hands. Our hagiographers began timidly and unsure of themselves, and if the government had turned to looking for people among them to carry out the work they wanted, then, of course, no one would have dared to offer themselves as a person capable of performing these works; They began not with the goal of being able to write as much as Pachomius wrote, but with the goal of producing one hagiography every lifetime. On the contrary, it is necessary to think that the writing activity of Pachomius greatly contributed to the inspiration of our bookish people. If this Serb produced so much, then our bookish people, looking at his example, could dare to try to produce at least a little. From the half of the 15th century until Metropolitan Macarius, we had the lives of up to 15 saints written, and if we count separately editions of the same lives, up to 18, namely: Prince of Yaroslavl Theodore the Black (two lives), Dimitri Prilutsky, Bishop of Rostov Isaiah (two editions), Zosima and Savvaty of Solovetsky 347, bishop Tver Arseny, Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod, Dionysius Glushitsky 348, Mikhail Klopsky (two editions), Avramiy of Rostov, Gregory of Pelshem (two editions), Euphrosynus of Pskov, Paphnutius Borovsky, Princes of Yaroslavl Vasily and Konstantin, Pavel Obnorsky 349. Between these lives there are very good ones, such as: Dionysius Glushitsky and Dmitry Prilutsky 350, and extremely bad ones, such as: one of the lives of Prince Theodore the Black and the life of princes Vasily and Constantine. Under Metropolitan Macarius, it finally happened that the Russian state had already formally taken the place of the Byzantine Empire as the third Orthodox Roman kingdom, along with which, according to the ideas of our ancestors, the Russian church had already formally taken the place of the representative of Orthodoxy among other private Orthodox churches. The consequence of this was that our ancestors for the second time had an intensified desire, which manifested itself this second time in the most intensified superlative degree, to see their church adorned, in accordance with the position it occupied, with all the glory of the saints that was given to it. (Which together would serve as proof of her rights to the position she occupied). It is difficult to say whether by our time Russian book people have accumulated the ability to write the lives of saints; but, in any case, they have now acquired sufficient boldness to do this. Enough, so to speak, they got used to this matter: and, no longer forcing them to resort to the help of foreigners, they rose up in a whole large host in order to hasten to satisfy the desire that animated the society. During the 20-year reign of Metropolitan Macarius, almost one-third more lives of saints were written than in the entire previous time since the Mongol invasion, and if we count the new editions of the previous (and partly written under him) lives, then almost twice as many. The newly written lives are divided into two classes: the lives of saints who were canonized at the councils of 1547 and 1549, and the lives of saints who were not canonized at these councils. Of the first class of lives, 14 were written, namely: Metropolitan Jonah, Alexander of Svirsky, Macarius of Kalyazinsky, Maxim the Holy Fool of Moscow, Procopius and John of Ustyug, Konstantin of Murom and his children, Peter and Fevronya of Murom, canonized at the council of 1547, and: Savva of Storozhevsky, Nikita Novgorodsky, Niphont of Novgorod, Vsevolod of Pskov, Ephraim of Perekom, Euphrosynus of Pskov (another life) 351, Euthymius of Suzdal, canonized at the council of 1549 352. There were 20 lives of saints who were not canonized at the councils, namely (in topographical or regional order of saints): Joseph of Volokolamsk (two lives), Cassian the Bosom of Volokolamsk, Photius of Volokolamsk, Stefan of Makhrishch, Serapion of Novgorod, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky, Philip of Irapsky, Savva of Krypetsky, Igpatiy of Prilutsk, Joasaph of Kamensky, Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh, Isidor of Rostov, Theodore and Pavel of Borisoglebsky, Avramiy of Chukhloma, John of Suzdal 353, Euphrosyne of Suzdal, Cosmas of Yakhromsky, Daniil of Pereyaslavsky and Isidor of Yuryevsky (Dorptsky) 354. Along with these lives of the saints, several funeral words were also written for them (Joseph of Volokolamsk, Nikita of Novgorod, John of Novgorod, Jonah of Novgorod, Nikola Kachanov of Novgorod) and even a whole small Patericon (of the Volokolamsk Monastery) was compiled 355. ↓ New editions of the previous lives were compiled up to 7, namely: the life of Alexander Nevsky three editions (the third - in the Degree Book), the life of Metropolitan Alexei - two editions (the second - in the same Degree Book), the life of Nikon of Radonezh - one edition, the life of Demetrius of Prilutsky - one edition. Lives written under Metropolitan Macarius himself were compiled in new editions: Metropolitan Jonah - one (in the Degree Book), Nikita of Novgorod - two. ↓ The awakener and main culprit of the extraordinary hagiographical movement was Metropolitan Macarius. But he not only awakened him, but he himself took great care to ensure that the movement expressed itself in action: on his personal instructions and blessing, no less than 11 lives were written (saints canonized at the councils of 1547 and 1549: Metropolitan Jonah, Savva of Storozhevsky, Alexander of Svirsky, Nikita of Novgorod, Niphon of Novgorod; uncanonized: Joseph Volokolamsky one life, Stefan Makhrishchsky, Daniil Pereyaslavsky, Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh, Savva Krypetsky and Isidor Yuryevsky with some probability can be considered the life of Macarius Kalyazinsky) 356. The new editions of the Lives, placed in the Degree Book, should be assimilated by the initiative of Macarius, if not directly, then at least in the sense that the entire book owes its existence to this initiative. Under Metropolitan Macarius, the self-confident boldness of our bookish people reached the point that under him we even had our own sworn writers of the lives of the saints and their canons, capable (that is, actually ready), like Pachomius Serbinus, to supply as many of them as they wished. These were: the Pskov priest Vasily, in monasticism Varlaam, and the monk of the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery Gregory. Vasily-Barlaam wrote, partly on behalf of Metropolitan Macarius, partly on his own initiative, six new lives (Niphon and Nikita of Novgorod, Vsevolod of Pskov, Euphrosynus of Pskov, Savva of Krypetsky and Isidor of Yuryevsky) and one new edition of the life of a previously existing one (Alexander Nevsky) and, in addition, three canons (Sava, Euphrosynus and George of Bulgaria). Gregory wrote the lives of the three Suzdal saints mentioned above - Euthymius, John and Euphrosyne and the fourth - Cosmas of Yakhroma 357 and no less than five canons (four now named and also Theodore of Suzdal) with one service (to the new Russian wonderworkers). The lives belonging to one of these sworn writers of lives: Vasily-Varlaam of Pskov, cannot be rated any high in quality, and the lives belonging to the second, Grigory of Suzdal, should be rated very low. Of the numerous lives written during the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, up to 10 lives can be called good or at least satisfactory: these are in their qualitative order, as far as we can be their judge: Daniel of Pereyaslav, Alexander of Svir, two lives of Joseph of Volokolamsk, Cassian and Photius of Volokolamsk, Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh, Fyodor and Pavel Borisoglebskikh, Avramy Chukhlomsky. Almost the same number of lives should be considered very bad, namely: Serapion of Novgorod, Isidor of Rostov, Joasaph of Kamensky, Konstantin of Murom, Peter and Fevronya of Murom and all four lives belonging to Gregory of Suzdal. a) to Metropolitan Macarius. 1. Life of Leonty of Rostov. Six editions. The first partly dates back to the time of Bogolyubsky, partly to 1194–1204. Klyuchevsky, p. 10. – The second – unknown when. – The third around 1467. and until 1514, – ibid., p. 12 fin.. – Gradual increase in information, – ibid. page 14. 2. Life of Isaiah of Rostov. Two editions. The first, shortly after 1474, - Klyuchevsky, p. 24 beginning; second unknown time, – ibid., p. 26th start. 3. Life of Abraham of Rostov. In Klyuchevsky pp. 26–38. 4. Life of Bishop Ignatius of Rostov† 1288 Life of Tsarevich Peter (not a life, but a note ibid., p. 42 fin.). Both were written by the same author shortly after 1322, no later than the half of the 14th century. – Klyuchevsky, pp. 38–39, 42 sub fin.. 5. Life of Nikita the Stylite of Pereyaslavl around the beginning of the 15th century, - Klyuchevsky pp. 46, 48. Photius was looking for relics because he read the life. The nature of the life, - ibid., p. 44 fin.. Additions of the 16th century, ibid., p. 282 fin.. 6. Life of Abraham of Smolensk, - Klyuchevsky, page 52 (maybe not before the Mongol invasion, but immediately after the invasion). 7. Life of Varlaam Khutynsky: 1) initial, brief, first half of the 13th century, - Klyuchevsky, pp. 58 fin., 61; 2) second edition – beginning of the 15th century, ibid., p. 140 fin. – 142 beginning; 3) Pakhomievo – 1460, alteration of the second, ibid., pp. 121, 142 (as composed ibid., p. 143); Likhudov ibid., p. 356 note 4. 8. Life of Arkady Bishop of Novgorod († 1163). Brief, close to his time - Klyuchevsky, p. 64. 9. Life of Alexander Nevsky († 1263). The original belongs to a contemporary, Klyuchevsky, p. 65 fin., life of the saint, ibid., p. 69 fin., characteristics, - p. 68, three Makariev editions - two unknown ones and Vasily of Pskov, - pp. 238, 251, 258, the fifth under Patriarch Job, - p. 312 fin.. 10. ↓ The Tale of Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy († 1319) by a contemporary, - Klyuchevsky, p. 71, 15th century edition, p. 170 (/characteristic), 17th century edition, p. 354. [See. below No. 25]. 11. Life of St. Peter the Metropolitan († 1325–26): Prokhorovo – Klyuchevsky, p. 74 fin., Kiprianovo – p. 82. 12. Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh († 1391): Epiphanievo – Klyuchevsky p. 88 fin. (before 1418), 98 sub fin. (characteristics p. 102), Pakhomievo (writing - p. 131), 114, 129, Simon Azaryin - p. 351. The Tale of St. Sergius - Nikon Chronicle, IV, 203-239. 13. Life of Stephen of Perm († 1396) Epifaniyevo – Klyuchevsky, p. 92 fin. sqq. 14. Lives of Metropolitan Alexei († 1378): Pitirimovo, mentioned since 1447, Klyuchevsky p. 134 fin., Pakhomievo - ibid., p. 136. 15. The legend of Michael of Chernigov († 1246): ancient - Klyuchevsky, p. 146, Pakhomievo ibid., p. 147. Macarius V, 140. 16. Life of Moses Archbishop of Novgorod († 1363): Pachomius – Klyuchevsky p. 147 fin. and the unknown, p. 149 fin.. Brief entry - p. 150. 17. Life of Nikon of Radonezh († 1427) Pakhomievo - Klyuchevsky, p. 152. 18. Life of Archbishop Euthymius of Novgorod († 1434) Pakhomievo - Klyuchevsky, p. 153 fin. (contemporary). 19. Life of Savva Vishersky († 1461) Pakhomievo - Klyuchevsky, p. 156 (contemporary). 20. Life of Kirill Belozersky († 1427) Pakhomievo - Klyuchevsky, p. 158. 21. Life of John Archbishop of Novgorod († 1186), assimilated by Pachomius - Klyuchevsky, p. 161 fin. (riding a demon). When - page 164. The relics were found in 1439. 22. Life of Demetrius Donskoy († 1389), shortly after his death, Klyuchevsky, p. 169. 23. Life of the book Theodore the Black of Yaroslavl († 1298): a short record and two lives of the 15th century. (monk Anthony and Andrei Yuryev), Klyuchevsky, p. 171 (copied, good rhetoric). 24. The Legend of Princes Vasily († 1268) and Constantine († 1309) Yaroslavsky, Klyuchevsky, p. 175, monk Pachomius, first half of the 16th century. (copies and composes). 25. A legend about Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy († 1399), written around the middle of the 15th century, Klyuchevsky, p. 177 (biography, not a life - p. 179 fin.) and another - p. 180, brief (also a biography, not a life). [See #10 above]. 26. Life of Arseny Bishop of Tver († 1409), monk Theodosius, at the end of the 15th century - Klyuchevsky, p. 181 (according to brief notes of contemporaries - p. 182). 27. Memories of Archbishop Jonah of Novgorod († 1470) - Klyuchevsky, p. 184, contemporary. 28. Life of Demetrius of Prilutsk († 1392), abbot of Prilutsk Macarius, at the beginning of the second half of the 15th century. (after 1450), Klyuchevsky, p. 188 (full biography). 29. Life of Dionysius Glushitsky († 1437) – Klyuchevsky p. 193 (based on monastic notes), monk Irinarch, late 15th century, very good, p. 195 fin.. 30. Life of Gregory of Pelshem († 1442) late XV-early XVI centuries, Klyuchevsky p. 196. 31. Life of Zosima and Savvaty of Solovetsky († 1478) by Metropolitan Spiridon, based on the notes of Dosifei, - Klyuchevsky, p. 199. 1503. 32. Life of Paphnutius Borovsky († 1477), Archbishop of Rostov Vassian, brother of Joseph, Klyuchevsky, p. 204. 33. The Legend of Michael Klopsky († 1452) - Klyuchevsky, p. 209. Two editions before Tuchkovsky 1537, Tuchkov 1537, on behalf of Macarius ibid., p. 232. Canon of Presbyter Elijah, - ibid., p. 232 fin.. b) Lives written on behalf of Macarius or in his time. 1. Life of Mikhail Klopsky, new edition 1537. Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov. Klyuchevsky p. 232 (Tuchkov’s secular education – p. 233 fin.). Writing of prophecies - page 235. Macarius, VII, 434. 2. The Life of the Bulgarian Martyr George, written by Presbyter Elijah in 1539. Klyuchevsky p. 235 fin.. Contradiction with the Bulgarian - pp. 236–237. Macarius, VII, 435. 3. The Life of Alexander Nevsky after the Council of 1547: one edition, compiled in Vladimir, consists of an addition to the ancient tale of miracles - Klyuchevsky, p. 238, probably by the monk Michael of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, who wrote the canon to Alexander ibid.; the other - the priest Vasily of Pskov ibid., pp. 239, 251, 258 (copied), the third in the Degree Book - ibid. p. 239. Macarius, VII, 439. 4. ↓ Life of Metropolitan Jonah: two editions, one in the Degree Book, the other in the Menaions, after the council of 1547. Klyuchevsky, p. 240. Third edition: complete set of news, - p. 241. Late? Macarius, VII, 440. 5. Life of Metropolitan Alexei: edition (third after Pitirimova and Pachomieva) help. in Menea, Klyuchevsky, p. 245, another in the Book of Degrees, p. 245. 6. Life of Maxim the Holy Fool of Moscow - Klyuchevsky, p. 245 fin.. 7. Life of Nikon of Radonezh, - second edition, Klyuchevsky, p. 247 (distribution by Pachomius - p. 247). 8. Life of Savva Storozhevsky, monk Markell, written around 1550, Klyuchevsky, p. 248 (247). On behalf of Metropolitan Macarius, p. 248. Macarius, VII, 447. 9. Chronicle of the Pskov Pechersky Monastery 1531, Klyuchevsky, p. 249. Omitted. 10. Life of Euphrosynus of Pskov priest Vasily, 1547. Klyuchevsky, p. 250 fin.. First Life - p. 252, no later than 1510 - p. 254. 11. Life of Prince Vsevolod of Pskov Priest Vasily, 1550–52, Klyuchevsky, pp. 250 fin., 257. 12. Life of Savva Krypetsky priest Vasily, 1555, Klyuchevsky, pp. 251, 258. 13. ↓ Life of Nikita Bishop of Novgorod Priest Vasily, Klyuchevsky, page 252 beginning. On behalf of Macarius. Macarius, VII, 450. After 1558. – Tsarsky’s manuscript, – No. 133, p. 61 fin. [Cm. below No. 18]. 14. Life of Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod Priest Vasily, Klyuchevsky, p. 252 beginning. On behalf of Macarius, page 260 beginning. (The Tale of Niphont Patericon – pp. 260–261). 15. Life of Isidore Yuryevsky (Derpt) priest Vasily, Klyuchevsky, p. 259. 16. The Life of Alexander Svirsky, a monk of Herodion, a contemporary, written in 1545 on behalf of Archbishop Macarius and Theodosius, Archbishop Klyuchevsky, p. 262 (detailed and interesting). Tsar's manuscript No. 78, p. 41 fin.. 17. Ephraim of Perekomsky, copied from the life of Alexander Svirsky, Klyuchevsky, p. 263. Not earlier than 1552. 18. Lives of Nikita, Bishop of Novgorod: 1) monk Markell, Klyuchevsky, p. 264. 2) Abbot Joasaph (as he composes), p. 265. 3) Oration on the discovery of the relics of Nikita (1558) by Zinovy ​​of Otensky, p. 267 fin. (critique, p. 268). – [Wed. above No. 13]. 19. Word on the discovery of the relics of Jonah by the Archbishop of Novgorod, Zinovy ​​of Otensky. Klyuchevsky, p. 267. 20. A word of praise to Archbishop John of Novgorod in the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 268. 21. A word of praise to Nikola Kochanov of Novgorod, 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 268 fin.. 22. To Zosima and Savvaty Solovetsky, two words from Lev the Philologist and a preface to the life of Maxim the Greek. Klyuchevsky, p. 269. 23. Life of Demetrius of Prilutsky: Abbot Macarius around the half of the 15th century. and another in the Makarievsky Menaions (Klyuchevsky p. 270), and the third, p. 271, half of the 16th century. 24. The life of the prince-monk Ignatius of Prilutsky. Klyuchevsky, p. 271. Half of the 16th century. 25. Life of Pavel Obnorsky: lengthy shortly before 1538, brief half of the 16th century Klyuchevsky, pp. 271–272. (Writings from Ancient Sources, p. 272). 26. Lives of Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky 1547 Klyuchevsky, p. 272. Monk of the Ferapontov Monastery. 27. Life of Philip of Irapa, Elder Herman, late first half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 274. 28. The life of Prince Joasaph Kamensky no earlier than 1547. (miracles, written off). Klyuchevsky, p. 275. 29. Life of Avramius Chukhlomsky, Protasius, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 276 (based on ancient notes). 30. Lives of Procopius and John the Fools of Ustyug, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 277. 31. Life of Stephen of Makhrishchi, abbot Joasaph, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 278 fin.. On behalf of Metropolitan Macarius (ancient record, p. 280). Macarius, VII, 452. 32. Life of Gregory and Cassian of Avnezh, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 278. Hegumen Joasaph Danilov Monastery, p. 279. (/There is something important, p. 280). Macarius, VII, 451–452 and VIII, 46. 33. Life of Isidore of Rostov, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 280 fin. (writes off). 34. The story of the founding of the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery by Theodore and Paul, half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 281 (good). 35. Life of Daniil of Pereyaslavl, written by a student in 1553. on behalf of the Tsar and Metropolitan Macarius (very good, best). Klyuchevsky, p. 282. Macarius, VII, 451 beginning. 36. The life of Prince Andrei of Smolensk, buried in Pereyaslavl, copied from the life of Daniil of Pereyaslavl. Klyuchevsky, p. 282. 37. Life of Euthymius of Suzdal monk Gregory, first half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 284. 38. Life of Euphrosyne of Suzdal monk Gregory, first half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 284. 39. Life of John Bishop of Suzdal monk Gregory, first half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 284. 40. Life of Cosmas of Yakhromsky monk Gregory, first half of the 16th century. Klyuchevsky, p. 284. 41. The life of Prince Konstantin and his children Theodore and Mikhail of Murom. Klyuchevsky, p. 287 (fiction and lies). 42. Life of Peter and Fevronya of Murom. Klyuchevsky, p. 287 (legend). 43. Life of Macarius Kalyazinsky, 1546–47, Klyuchevsky, p. 289. (In addition to the lengthy one, there is a brief interesting one and a third one from Dosifey Toporkov). 44. Life of Serapion, Archbishop of Novgorod. Klyuchevsky, p. 290 fin. (copied. Description of the Lavra Manuscripts. No. 636 and No. 783). 45. Lives of Joseph of Volokolamsk: 1) Savva Cherny, Bishop of Krutitsky, in 1546, with the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius, Klyuchevsky, p. 292. Macarius, VII, 437. 2) Funeral homily of Dosifei Toporkov - Klyuchevsky, ibid. 3) Unknown ibid. (guesses about the author, p. 293). 46. Patericon of Dosifei Toporkov. Klyuchevsky, p. 294 (curious). 47. Life of Cassian the Barefoot of Volokolamsk. Klyuchevsky, pp. 295–296 (without rhetoric). 48. Life of Photius of Volokolamsk, student of Cassian Bosogo, Klyuchevsky, p. 295 (Vassian. Without rhetoric). 49. Note about Theodosius of Novgorod by Evfimy Turkov, Klyuchevsky, p. 297 beginning. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 512, sheet 213. c) Lives written under Macarius, in alphabetical order of saints. * Lives of those canonized at the councils of 1547 and 1549. ** On behalf of M. Makaria. There are 33 lives of all, because Joseph of Volokolamsk has two lives. There is no life of Jacob of Rostov, canonized at the council of 1549. New editions of the lives under Metropolitan Macarius: Michael of Klopsky (under Joasaph), Alexander Nevsky two editions, Metropolitan Jonah two editions, Metropolitan Alexei three, Nikon of Radonezh, Nikita two except Vasilyeva, Demetrius of Prilutsky. The history of our chronicles for the time we are considering remains insufficiently known. Before the invasion of the Mongols, two chronicles were kept in northern Rus': the all-Russian chronicle, or more precisely, the great reign, written in Vladimir and called after the Suzdal region, and the private Novgorod chronicle, written in Novgorod. The second chronicle was continuously continued until the half of the 15th century (after which it was replaced by private chronicle records, compiled in one place to compile a new Novgorod chronicle, at the end of the 16th century: in print - the second Novgorod chronicle). As for the continuation of the first or Suzdal Chronicle, whether it was or not, as such a deliberate continuation, we are not able to say. Not having it in its original form, we have it in a chronicle compiled in the 16th century, during the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, and one of two things can be assumed: either that such a deliberate continuation was not kept, but only private chronicles were kept (in monasteries) 358 and chronicle records, which in the 16th century. and were brought together in one place, or that a continuation was made, but that it did not reach us in its original form, having been replaced by a chronicle that was made in the 16th century. and which was compiled in such a way that our continuation was supplemented from private chronicles kept at the same time. In itself, the second assumption seems more likely, because, firstly, it is difficult to admit that our princes, for whom the chronicles, until autocracy was established in the Moscow house, represented a very important document in their genealogical accounts, did not take care of maintaining such a documentary book, and secondly, it is not entirely easy to admit that the princes did not care about maintaining and recording the history of their land, leaving this matter solely to the unreliable zeal of private people 359 . Be that as it may, in the 16th century, under Metropolitan Macarius and, as one must think, on his instructions, together with the king or without the king, a chronicle was compiled that covers the time from the Mongol invasion to 1558. and which is preceded by a consolidated chronicle of the pre-Mongol period. This collection is the so-called Nikon Chronicle, to which Schlözer gave its real name in a very unfortunate way 360. Since the compilers of the code, neither in the preface to it (which does not exist) nor in it itself, do not indicate from which chronicles and generally on the basis of what sources they compiled it, then nothing positive can be said about it. In addition to the chronicle we assume is official, so to speak, 361 there were more or less numerous chronicles kept in monasteries, which we know positively 362, there could be chronicles kept continuously or fragmentarily at episcopal departments, there were separate legends (chronicle records) about remarkable persons and events. We said much above that what we read in the Nikon Chronicle about Metropolitans Cyprian and Photius in some cases makes it clear and partly directly indicates the people who wrote in their presence, in their courtyard, and in all likelihood should assume that at the metropolitan see a chronicle was kept, if not constantly, then fragmentarily, from time to time. There is no doubt that the compilers of the Nikon Chronicle are in close connection with the compilers of the Degree Book (about which below pp. 193–195), and these latter directly say that they collected historical material in the most diligent way, looking for it in stories not only written, but also verbal, i.e. oral or folk epics. To what extent the compilers of our chronicle were diligent in collecting material, we can give one example. In additions to the original chronicle, under 990. 363, the compilers talk about the philosopher Mark the Macedonian, whom Vladimir sent to preach Christianity to the Bulgarians: it turns out that this Mark the philosopher was taken from the family traditions of the boyar families of the Philosophers 364. Out of carelessness and inattention, or guided by the desire to create a compilation with impartial completeness, compilers sometimes include several legends about the same persons that disagree with each other. Whatever the reason, this is fortunate for us, for some of these tales are very important for us (for example, the story about Mityai, which does not belong to his direct enemy, together with a story belonging to his direct enemy). (The largest part of our chronicle collection, known as the Nikon Chronicle, namely, from 1114, from the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, to 1554, was prepared in illustrated form, equipped with pictures, and the text of this illustrated edition was somewhat expanded compared to the simple edition. The text of the illustrated edition, without reproducing pictures, was printed in in the form of three separate chronicles, which are given names: the Royal Chronicler, the Ancient Chronicler (two parts) and the Royal Book: Polenova Review of Chronicles, p. 58 sqq. Likhachev N. Paleographical meaning of paper watermarks. In addition to our vault, we have from the 16th century. two more chronicle collections, one of which, with some probability, can also be assimilated by the initiative of Metropolitan Macarius. These vaults are the essence of the so-called Sophia Vremennik, compiled in Novgorod, but containing not just the Novgorod chronicle, but also the general Russian one, which began with the original chronicle and was brought up to 1538. 365, and the so-called Resurrection Chronicle, which begins with the same chronicle and is brought up to 1541 according to some lists, and until 1560 according to others. 366. There seems to be some possibility of assimilating the Sophia Temporary on the initiative of Metropolitan Macarius, namely, to think that it was compiled on the initiative of Macarius, when he was Archbishop of Novgorod. (The code is inscribed: “The Sophia timebook, which is called the chronicle of the Russian princes,” etc. If it had not been compiled on behalf of the Sophia authorities, i.e., the Archbishop of Novgorod, then why on earth would it be called Sophia? But in 1538, Macarius was the Archbishop of Novgorod). (Another chronicle was compiled in the 16th century, which somewhat foreshadowed all three above. This is the so-called (from its small part) Tver Chronicle, compiled in 1534. 367 by one Rostov book man, beginning like the three previous sets with the original chronicle and ending until 1499). During the reign of Metropolitan Macarius, according to his plans and orders, our first attempt at a real guide to the history of Russia, both civil and ecclesiastical, was compiled. This is his so-called Degree Book. In our chronicles, which tell their story year by year or year by year and do not make any particular division (breakdown) of this latter. In addition to what the years show, the reader does not have the opportunity to review and remember events, so that, having read in them a weather story about the reign of some prince, he must, in order to achieve the now indicated goal, himself compose tablets and lists of events. Macarius sets one of the goals of his Degree Book to give in it the history of Russia, in which it would be possible to review and remember: the narration in it is chronological, as in chronicles, but each event constitutes a special section in it, and the book is preceded by a detailed table of contents of all these sections, so that the reader receives in it a guide to history, possibly outlined in a concise manner. In the chronicles, church history is almost completely absent. The power book gives this last story as best it can and as it understands it. Understanding it as an image of the grace of God manifested in the church or as an image of the God-given glory of the latter, our book, after extracts from the chronicles, and a continuous list of the succession of metropolitans is given, contains the lives of those metropolitans who are canonized, the lives of princes canonized, the lives of the most famous saints among monastics, stories about miraculous icons. The goal of the compilers of the Degree Book was not only to reproduce the chronicles, which had already been done in the code known as the Nikon Chronicle, but in general to write history; therefore, they supplement their chronicles from any other sources from which they can, and conduct their story not in such a way that it represents a literal reproduction of the chronicles, but in such a way that it represents a more or less free presentation of them, and they, the compilers, tilt it in a certain direction, namely, so that the history of our land turns out to be as much as possible the history of its glory as an exclusive and chosen land (not stated directly, but implied: destined to be and became the third Roman kingdom). As for sources other than chronicles, in the preface to the story about St. Vladimir, the unknown compiler of the book or one of its unknown compilers, says that he used, as we have already cited, stories written and verbal, i.e. not only written legends, but also oral folk epics. It should, however, be noted and deliberately noted that this good side - the greatest care in collecting material - also has a downside: the compilers of the book did not possess criticism at all and were not at all inclined towards it, and therefore, diligently, but not at all legibly, when collecting material, they filled it to a very sufficient extent with legends (sometimes too legendary). Regarding the tendencies of the book, to the general things just said, the most particular should be added that although Russia is not directly called the third Roman kingdom in it, the legends invented in connection with this about the origin of our sovereigns from Augustus Caesar and about the crowning of Vladimir Monomakh with the royal crown can be read in it 368 . The Degree Book received its name from the fact that the presentation is divided in it according to the times of the reign of those great princes who were the direct ancestors of the house of the Moscow sovereigns and who represent a line of degrees of descending kinship, which is why the sections of the book (the reigns of the mentioned great princes) are called degrees in it. Since the direct ancestors of the house of the Moscow sovereigns constitute only a certain part of the total number of great princes, hence the degrees in the book should have appeared incomparably less than how many great princes there were in total. But the number of degrees also decreases against the real one due to the fact that they begin not with the pagan Rurik, but with the first Christian sovereign - Saint Vladimir. All degrees from St. Vladimir to Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, to whom the book is brought, counting with the inclusion of this latter, - 16; but in the book there are more than one of them - 17: an extra degree against the actual one appeared in such a way that the immediate ancestor of the Moscow sovereigns, the appanage prince of Moscow Daniil Alexandrovich, who was not a Grand Duke, is given a place in the book in the form of a special degree. From what has just been said, it is clear that the order of degrees in the Book of Degrees is as follows: 1) St. Vladimir, 2) Yaroslav the Great, 3) Vsevolod Yaroslavich, 4) Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, 5) Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, 6) Vsevolod Yurievich, 7) Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, 8) Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, 9) Daniil Alexandrovich, 10) Ioann Danilovich Kalita, 11) John Ioannovich, 12) Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, etc. The Degree Book does not fail to talk about all the other great princes, but speaks about them under our degrees (which are divided into chapters, with the latter sometimes subdivided into titles): namely, about the great princes who preceded St. Vladimir, starting with Rurik, under his degree, and about the other great princes under the corresponding degrees. We said that the narrative in the Degree Book was brought up to and including Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible (who constitutes the 17th degree). This cannot be said in what exact year of the reign of Ivan the Terrible it was completed, because we do not have such copies of the book as to which it could be confidently accepted that they contain it in its original form, as it came out of the hands of the compilers, and do not contain larger or smaller additions made later. It is accepted as probable (but not particularly probable, it seems, in itself) that it ended in 1559 369. That the Degree Book was compiled with the blessing and command of Metropolitan Macarius, this is directly and clearly stated in it in the preface to the story about St. Vladimir. In view of the very significant breadth of the book, it is more than likely to think that it was compiled not by one person unknown to us, but by several such unknown persons. The above-mentioned Pskov priest Vasily, a monk named Varlaam, makes it known in his life of Alexander Nevsky that he was responsible for the compilation of one or another part of the Degree Book 370. Selected historical tales. Individual historical legends, more or less soon after they appeared, were recorded in the chronicles. It may very well be that not all legends, after being recorded in the chronicles, continued to be written in a separate form; It may very well be that the legends preserved only in chronicles have not all been preserved in such a way that their initial appearance in the form of individual legends can be recognized: and from this it follows that perhaps we currently do not know all the individual legends that were actually written. Currently known such legends are the following: 1) about the murder of the Chernigov prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich and his boyar Theodore in the Horde, 2) about Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, 3) about the murder in the same Horde of the Tver prince Mikhail Yaroslavich, 4) about Archimandrite Mikhail - Mitya, 5) about Battle of Kulikovo, 6) about the invasion of Moscow by Tokhtamysh, 7) about Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy, 8) about the invasion of Russia by Temir - Aksak (Tamerlane) and about the transfer from Vladimir to Moscow of the miraculous icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, 9) about the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, 10) about the Lithuanian war Grand Duke Vytautas with Khan Temir - Kutluy (Timur - Kutluk), 11) about the invasion of Moscow by Edigei, 12) about the Council of Florence 371. Of the 12 legends listed, five relate to our historical figures, that is, about two princes killed in the Horde, about Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, about Archimandrite Mikhail - Mitya and about Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy. The tale of the murder of Mikhail Vsevolodovich was written for the reason that he attracted the wrath of Batu with his exceptional zeal for the Christian faith and that thus the story of his Christianly valiant death had every right to be immortalized in the memory of the Russian people as the story of a truly martyr’s death. Mikhail Yaroslavich was executed in the Horde not for his Christian faith, but because of the intrigues of his rival, Yuri Danilovich of Moscow. But, firstly, his death was also a martyr’s death at the hands of the unfaithful enslavers of the Russian land, worthy of the memory of posterity, and secondly, as the legend written about him, about which we are talking 372, directly and fairly says, it was a death for Christians: if Mikhail had not gone to the Horde, summoned to trial by the khan, then a lot of Christian blood could have been shed from the Tatars in the Tver region. Both tales are simple, unadorned historical narratives or stories of sad events. Subsequently, when the church celebration of both prince martyrs began (the first was church-wide no later than the first half of the 15th century 373, and the second was local until the council of 1549), the legends were more or less altered so that in form and literary merit (rhetorical decoration) they approached the real lives of the saints 374. The legend about Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky, according to the intention of its author, was supposed to be a legend about the courage and life of the prince, that is, about his life and about his military exploits 375. Alexander Yaroslavich was a brilliant Russian prince of his time and a brilliant warrior, who won several famous victories over the Germans (Swedes and Livonians), who glorified the Russian land among other nations (who glorified the “Slovenian language”), so formidable to enemies that even Tatar women allegedly frightened their children with them, saying: “Be silent, Grand Duke Alexander is coming.” And so, among his contemporaries and even among people close to him, there was a bookish man who, for the glory of his fatherland, wanted to perpetuate his memory in posterity and write his history (his tale of chivalry). Unfortunately, the author's means of the unknown person were extremely unsuitable for his enterprise. He assures us that Alexander was an extraordinary man, who filled the whole world with his glory - that Western knights came to him on purpose to see him and then spoke about him: “traversing countries and languages, I have not seen such a thing, either as a prince or as a prince.” We wait with great interest that an extraordinary man will be shown (depicted) to us, and we find only a very meager narrative about him and bare assurances that “God gave him the wisdom of Solomon” and that “his bravery (was) like the Caesar of the Roman Eupasian, who captured the entire Judean land.” However, while placing our story very low and very much regretting that its author did not have great talent, we should still be grateful to the latter for his diligence in the memory of Alexander, because his meager narrative is still not completely useless. Subsequently, in order to give the tale the form and literary merits of a life, it was altered several times, for the later lives of Alexander are precisely his (the tales) alterations 376 . The brief tale about Archimandrite Michael-Mitya is a completely unique example of a deliberate historical narrative about a clergyman who is not canonized, i.e., an example of a simple historical narrative, and not a life. As we have already said above, this must be explained by the extraordinary celebrity of the extremely outstanding personality Mitya 377 in his time. Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy is the culprit of the Kulikovo victory over the Tatars, the most famous of all victories ever won by the Russians. But the purpose of the legend about him is not to describe the Battle of Kulikovo - there are deliberate legends about this latter, but to give his biography and precisely - in order, without touching on his state activities, to depict his pious Christian morals and his pious Christian life. That is, to give a story about him, which in the closest sense is called a life. The origin of a legend of this kind should be explained by the hope that Dmitry Ivanovich would be canonized by the church. Since it was compiled for some private clergyman, one must think that this unknown person was animated by aspiration. The legend, which strives to be eloquent and actually achieves its goal to some extent, and, in any case, is not bad in terms of literary 378, is not a more or less modern work, as it is taken by others, but a later one, belonging to the times of Ivan Vasilyevich III - Ivan Vasilyevich IV and most likely - the latter 379. The sad celebrity of Tver Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich was that during his reign, Tver had to finally and completely resign itself to Moscow. But for the people of Tver, his memory was dear as the last, albeit unfortunate, fighter for their Tver land, and this memory of his was immortalized in his special life, which tells about his military prowess. Moreover, they are patriotically silent about his failures, about his Christian virtues and about his death in the monastic schema. Subsequently, on the basis of our life 380 another life was written, which is known only in fragments and which, somewhat supplementing (and partly misinterpreting) 381 our life from the side of historical information, its main task probably had the improvement of the literary side (in relation to which our first life is good, but not sufficiently decorated) 382 . About the famous Battle of Kulikovo we have a historical legend and an epic legend, but the first, processed in three editions, which, perhaps, can be taken as three separate legends. The original edition of the historical legend, read in the Sophia Vremennik (in the Collection of Chronicles, vol. VI, pp. 90–98), in the Resurrection (- ibid., VIII, 34-41) and in the 4 Novgorod Chronicles (- ibid., IV, 75-83), is a story about the battle with the preparations that preceded it, remarkably well composed (decorated and rhetoric, but moderately and decently). The second edition, read in the Nikon Chronicle (IV, 86–127), representing a rhetorically processed dissemination of the first, on the one hand complements it with two fictions - that Dmitry Ivanovich, before leaving for battle, prayed before the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God (which was still in Vladimir at that time) and that at the moment of this departure Metropolitan Cyprian was in Moscow (who arrived there only eight years later). and a half months after the Battle of Kulikovo), whom the author forces to give many advisory and admonishing speeches to the Grand Duke. On the other hand, it adds quite a lot of details that can be taken as reliably historical 383. The third edition, read only in a separate form and assimilated in manuscripts by priest Sophony or Sophrony of Ryazan, or (which is much more likely) by Sophony of Ryazan, Bryansk boyar 384, partly distributes, partly shortens the second edition, mainly introduces into it some lyrical element, through the depiction of individual poetic paintings, composed in imitation of the Lay of the Regiment Igor and mostly through direct borrowing from him. – The epic legend is a word of praise or a song of praise to Dmitry Ivanovich, slavishly copying and, as far as possible, literally reproducing the Word of Igor’s Campaign. Regarding the Moscow lyricists and epics, we must say with regret that we find extremely little of our own poetic inspiration in them 385. The invasions of Russia - Moscow by Tokhtamysh, Temir - Aksak and Edigei were important historical events in their formidability. Since Temir-Aksak did not reach Moscow, turning back from the upper reaches of the Don, his invasion, perhaps, would not have been described in a special story. But the deliberate reason for compiling the latter was that Moscow attributed its salvation from him to the supernatural intercession of the Mother of God, the Vladimir miraculous icon of which was then transferred to it (Moscow) from Vladimir. In terms of literature, all three tales are simple historical narratives about the underlying events 386. The legend of the war between Vytautas and Khan Temir-Kutluy contains a story about the complete defeat that the Grand Duke of Lithuania suffered from the khan. Apparently, Russian chroniclers did not care about Vitovt’s victories or defeats; but there were special reasons that forced them to write a legend about our defeat. Going against the khan, Vitovt boasted that, having defeated him, he would not only put his henchman in the Horde, but also take possession of the land of Seversk, Veliky Novgorod and Pskov and would take tribute and dues from all the great Russian princes (as from the henchmen of his henchman). It was this boast of the Lithuanian Grand Duke, offensive to the honor and pride of the Russians, that forced our chroniclers to compose a story about the shameful defeat that Vytautas suffered from the khan 387. The legend about the Florence Cathedral was written by the Suzdal hieromonk 388 Simeon, who went to the cathedral with Metropolitan Isidore in the retinue of Bishop Abramius of Suzdal. The legend does not contain any detailed history of the cathedral, for which Simeon did not have enough information at all and, in all likelihood, would not have had enough authorial means, but it gives some general, relatively reliable, not entirely free from legend, outline of this story, which has as its goal the moral teaching that the union adopted by the Greeks at the council was, on their part, a matter of shameful betrayal of Orthodoxy. The actions of the Council of Florence were twofold, consisting: firstly, of theological debates carried out in solemn cathedral sessions, and secondly, of negotiations between the Latins and the Greeks and the consultations of the latter among themselves, which took place in addition to the cathedral sessions. Not knowing either Greek or Latin, Simeon could only see how the debates took place, but not understand what they consisted of, and then receive some general information about them from questioning. Not belonging to the members of the council, he could not directly know about the negotiations and meetings, but could learn something about both only through intelligence and by collecting rumors that were circulating. Compiled by Simeon on the basis of such sources, his general outline of the history of the cathedral could to some extent result in a mixture of truth and legend and in addition to his direct intention. But it’s as if he partly adds this direct intention, forcing his eyes, looking through the glasses of zeal for Orthodoxy, to see something that actually did not exist. We said above that although Isidore arrived in Ferrara much later than the Greeks, but that the solemn sessions of the council, due to the reasons that we indicated [1 half of the volume pp. 439–440], began only after he appeared. Thus, Simeon could begin his sketch of the history of the cathedral from its very beginning (understanding the word cathedral in the sense of a formal unction). He begins with an introduction in which he assures that he received the blessing to describe the cathedral from Mark of Ephesus with the other three metropolitans who fought in Orthodoxy, and in which he provides some information about the composition of the cathedral, and then conveys the history of the latter as follows. The Greeks elected three saints for debate with the Latins: Mark of Ephesus, Bessarion of Nicaea and Isidore the Russian. At the first three sessions of the council, Vissarion and Isidore had conversations “and nothing would be between them” (Greeks and Latins) or, as the later edition of the legend explains, “there would be nothing between them” 389. At the fourth meeting, Mark of Ephesus began to speak, and extended his denunciations to the Latins (if not in full, then largely composed by Simeon himself) 390 with such boldness and such strength that it was as if the pope, cardinals and all the Latins had hastily left the place of council meetings or fled from the council. After this, the pope began to try to bribe the Greek emperor and all the bishops who were with him with gold and silver; Mark tried diligently in this case to oppose the pope, but his efforts were unsuccessful; he could only indignantly dismiss the pope's strenuous efforts to bribe him. After 17 completely fruitless council meetings took place in Ferrara and after the emperor and patriarch decided to return home, some Greeks, bribed by the pope, advised the latter to move the cathedral to another place, further from the seashore and beyond the mountains from it, so as to make it more difficult for the emperor and patriarch to return back and so that they, if not for the sake of gold, then for the sake of necessity, agreed to change Orthodoxy: this is what the pope did, moving the cathedral to Florence. In this last one, he did not give the Greeks gold (implying: for maintenance), as he promised, and forced them to suffer unction with need. After many unctions, which also could not lead to anything due to Mark’s irresistible firmness, some of the Greek bishops turned to intensified efforts to persuade the defender of Orthodoxy to yield. When all the efforts of the bishops were in vain, and one Latin philosopher, named Ivan, was struck by sudden death for slandering Mark, the emperor himself tried to do the same, but he had equally little success. And after this, the Greeks were divided in two: on the one hand, Mark with 12 metropolitans, on the other, the emperor, the patriarch and all the others. The emperor and the patriarch (the second, until he died) with their like-minded people, for almost three and a half months, consulted every day and every day how to arrange a union with the pope and how to bend Mark to him. Finally, the pope began to angrily send to the emperor, demanding that the matter of unification be ended and, reproaching him that he could not bring Mark to obedience. The emperor answered the pope that he should try to do the latter himself. The pope actually sent to Mark, but “not with evil, but with great honor,” ordering a large dish and a golden ladle to be filled with gold and, when presenting these gifts to him, ordering to ask him to come see him - the pope and take great honor from him: but Mark did not allow the pope’s ambassadors into his chamber, and the one who was the main one between them, the Florentine Archimandrite Ambrose, predicted death in 40 days, which is what happened. Then,” says Simeon, ending the story somehow ex abrupto, “they “unctioned” the union of churches even without Mark, and describes how the celebration of unction took place and how all the metropolitans cursed the pope according to Fryag law and how the emperor himself knelt before him. Simeon concludes his narrative, after noting his own suffering from Isidore, with a story about the shameful failure that befell the Metropolitan’s attempt to introduce union in Moscow and with praise for the staunch guardian of Orthodoxy, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich. The personal fate of the author of our story, Hieromonk Simeon, is somewhat dark and mysterious. He suffered persecution from the Metropolitan, was put in prison several times on his orders, and on his way back to Russia, fleeing from Venice, he was again captured by him in Smolensk and brought to Moscow in irons. One would expect that a man who suffered so much from the metropolitan, a traitor to Orthodoxy, would be greeted in Moscow as a martyr. And yet, this did not happen at all, but what happened was that, freed from the glands in Moscow, he was immediately sent as a prisoner to the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergius 391. This gives reason to suspect that he was guilty before the Metropolitan not only because he did not want to be like-minded with him and dared to reproach him for his betrayal of Orthodoxy. Not without reason, therefore, it is assumed that he wrote his story driven by a personal impulse to justify himself and prove that the only reason for the persecution of him by the Metropolitan was what was now indicated. Simeon assures that not only did he begin to write the legend with the blessing of Mark, but that he defended him in Rome 392 from the metropolitan and released him to Russia with his blessing and punishment, “you can go and preach to all the Orthodox, so that they may (contain) the tradition of the saints of the apostle and the commandments of the saints, the father of the seventh council” 393. Simeon could deliberately point to this love and trust, actually or only supposedly acquired from Mark, as proof of the impeccability of his behavior 394 . Descriptions of holy places and travel notes. From the time we are considering, we have six descriptions of holy places and three travel notes. Well-known descriptions of holy places are as follows: 1. Novgorod monk Stefan (Stephen of Novgorod) description of Constantinople, since this latter was a holy place or because there was a shrine in it, visited by the author in 1353. 395. 2. Smolensk hierodeacon Ignatius description of Constantinople and Jerusalem with Palestine, visited by the author during the years 1389–91 396. 3. Unknown place of the clerk Alexander description of Constantinople, in which the author was between 1391 and 1397 397. 4. Trinity Sergius Monastery Hierodeacon 398 Zosima's description of Constantinople, Athos and Jerusalem with Palestine, visited by the author during the years 1419–1421. 5. An unknown place of the guest or, in the present day, the first guild merchant Vasily, a description of Jerusalem - Palestine dating back to 1466 399. 6. Description of Jerusalem - Palestine by an unknown admirer, dating back to 1531 400. The four descriptions of Constantinople in relation to its shrine are not superior in dignity to the already existing description compiled by Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod; and the four descriptions of Jerusalem and Palestine are significantly lower than the Pilgrim belonging to Abbot Daniel. Thus, our descriptions, being the fruit of sincere zeal or author-worshipping vanity, did not represent what was required by need, and what would have supplemented the existing writing for our ancestors. We do not find it necessary to talk about each description separately. Descriptions of Constantinople in relation to its shrine are compiled according to the model of the description of Anthony, namely, they list, starting with St. Sophia, one after another, the churches of the city, in which this or that shrine was located - relics or icons, and which were visited by descriptors: I went to such and such a church (monastery) and saw and kissed this and that, and from there I went to such and such a church (monastery), etc. Descriptions of Jerusalem and Palestine, having Daniel as their model and leader, are partly described by the saints the places, without giving anything new against the latter, partly simply list them, showing their distance from Jerusalem. The same cannot be said about our descriptors as about Abbot Daniel, namely, that they try to avoid fabulousness. Monk Stefan, not wanting to believe his own eyes, but wanting to believe women’s fables, claims that in St. Sophia there are 365 doors (according to the number of days of the year), as well as thrones (equally, his story about the pakhir, which was dropped by Russian admirers while bathing in the Jordan, and which ended up in Constantinople, in the altar treasure of St. Sophia). Hierodeacon Zosima, who had a very high opinion of himself and his description and generally claimed to be the second abbot Daniel 401, nevertheless, assures that near the oak of Mamre he saw the gates of hell, and that on the island of Cyprus he saw the cross of a prudent thief, held by the air. (The wanderer of the Novgorod monk Stefan contains a description not only of Constantinople, but also of Jerusalem, where he was also; but his description of Jerusalem is a simple abbreviation of Pilgrim Danilov. The description of Hierodeacon Ignatius is read as included in the Nikon Chronicle, as part of his travel notes, which are now discussed below). The description of Athos, read by Hierodeacon Zosima, is very brief and consists only of the naming of twenty-two Athos monasteries. It is strange that neither Zosima talks at all about Athos, and that no one else has written a description of it. Perhaps this should be explained in such a way that in general Athos was more or less known to the Russians, but that they did not find it necessary to describe it in particular. Without having greater significance for their contemporaries, the descriptions are not scientifically useless for us: we find in them some important historical notes for us and we can also derive some benefit from their topographical indications. (In the “Russian Philological Bulletin”, published in Warsaw by A.I. Smirnov, 1885, No. 1 (volume XIII, year 7) it is printed: “The Walking of Archimandrite Grephenius [Agrephenia], the monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos.” [About 1370 Also published in the XLVIII issue of the Orthodox Palestine Society]. [The visit of the holy monk Barsanuphius to St. the city of Jerusalem in 1456, 1461–1462 was published in the XLV issue of the Orthodox Palestine Society. M. 1896]. (In 1558, Archdeacon Gennady of Novgorod was sent to the East to write down the local customs - 2 Novgorod Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles III, 159). [Wed. 1 half volume pp. 847–848 and pp. 894]. [The journey of the merchant Vasily Pozdnyakov, 1558–1561, published in the XVIII issue of the Orthodox Palestine Society]. Three travel notes belong to: the above-mentioned hierodeacon Ignatius, the unknown by name official of the Suzdal Bishop Avramiy, who accompanied Metropolitan Isidore to the Florence Cathedral, and the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin. Ignatius, together with his Smolensk bishop Mikhail, accompanied Metropolitan Pimin on his third trip to Constantinople, undertaken on April 13, 1389. Departing from Moscow, the Metropolitan instructed his companions to keep travel notes: this is what our hierodeacon did, keeping a diary of the route (which lay through the Horde to Azov) from Moscow to Constantinople. The diary not only lists the places the Metropolitan traveled, but also partly describes, which descriptions are not entirely uninteresting. A very interesting addition to the diary is a description of the coronation of Emperor Manuel, which took place while Ignatius was in Constantinople, and which he saw with his own eyes. An unknown official of the Suzdal Bishop Avramiy, who accompanied Metropolitan Isidore with the latter to the Florence Council, compiled a diary of the Metropolitan’s journey there and back, along with a diary of the cathedral itself (noting the days on which its solemn sessions took place) 402. Like Ignatius, the author of our diary not only notes the places through which we passed, but also describes them. The Western cities of that time, which had nothing in common with our Russian cities of that time, must have led the Russian people to great surprise. While our cities were the same wooden and dirty villages and differed from the latter only in the number of houses, Western cities had excellent stone construction, excellent pavement in the streets, fountains with water running to all parts of them, luxurious merchant shops, and were decorated with such intricate things as clocks on city towers with more or less complex mechanisms. Our churches and monasteries of that time were extremely modest in their construction, while in the west they were often magnificent; we had no mention of such public institutions as almshouses and hospitals, but in the west they often took the form of entire huge palaces. Our unknown author expresses his surprise at the unprecedented wonders of Western cities in his descriptions of these cities. In addition to the now indicated interest, the diary, very accurately and generally very well compiled, has important historical significance. (It is very strange that, despite his accuracy, the author of the diary did not write down the death of Patriarch Joseph in Florence) 403. The Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin, an exceptionally enterprising man, worthy of a good American today, decided in 1466, taking advantage of one opportunity (the trip of an ambassador from the Grand Duke to the Shah or Sultan of Shemakha), to make his way to India in order to buy goods there at a cheap price that were expensive in Russia. Afanasy's hopes were completely deceived and, having suffered misfortunes even at the very beginning of his journey, he spent about six years traveling to India only to return home with nothing. But the fruit of this unsuccessful and at the same time famous journey were his notes about the countries he saw (Persia, India and partly Turkey), which, although not distinguished by too high dignity, were, however, very remarkable and interesting for their time 404. Departments of theology, reformation and official-publicistic. By theological works we mean works written with the aim of resolving theological questions that arose in society, and namely, questions that were raised by the Orthodox themselves, and not by heretics from outside. We know of two such works: the Epistle of Novgorod Archbishop Vasily, dated 1347. 405, to Bishop Theodore of Tver about the earthly paradise and the Word or treatise of Metropolitan Daniel about God's destinies and about dying babies. We have already spoken about Vasily’s message above [1 half of the volume pp. 166–167]. A dispute arose in Tver about whether the earthly paradise planted by God, in which Adam resided before the Fall, perished or did not perish. Having learned about this discord, the Archbishop of Novgorod wanted to fulfill the divine commandment about helping each other (bear each other's burdens - Gal. 6:2), which primarily applies to bishops, and to imitate the example of the apostles and ancient great saints, who constantly wrote letters to one another, which is why he wrote his letter to Theodore. Contrary to the opinion held by the Bishop of Tver that the earthly paradise has perished and that the saints are in a mental paradise, the Archbishop of Novgorod persistently (and passionately) proves that this paradise has not perished, and that the saints are in it. The evidence cited by Vasily is of three kinds: evidence borrowed from books, namely - partly truly - church, partly apocryphal, general metaphysical provisions, so to speak, that go to our question, and eyewitness testimony. “And behold, brother,” he writes to Theodore, citing evidence from the book, “in Prolosus the archangel Michael is revealed to all in the miracles of the archangel, as if, instead of the righteous Enoch, (the archangel) put him in heaven with honor; and behold, the holy Elijah sits in paradise; found V17; (him, paradise) Saint Agapius took part of the bread; and Saint Macareus lived from the saint in paradise for 20 seasons; and Saint Euphrosynus was in paradise and brought three apples from paradise and gave them to his abbot Vasil, from which there were many healings... when the repose of our Lady Theotokos approached, the angel brought a branch from paradise, revealing where it should be” 406... Leads Basil and other testimonies that say that God has prepared paradise for the saints - that they are in paradise, but which do not directly say what kind of paradise this is. The general position on which our defender of the earthly paradise rests is that nothing created by God can perish until a new heaven and a new earth come, and that, therefore, the earthly paradise and hell, appointed to serve as a place of residence for the righteous and the other for sinners, did not perish. The eyewitness testimony that Vasily refers to is the assurance of his Novgorod merchants that they, merchants, traveling the seas to trade, saw both hell and heaven. “The torment is in the west,” he writes to Theodore about his merchants’ self-vision of earthly hell, “many of my children from Novgorod see this: on the breathing sea there is a never-ending worm, a gnashing of teeth and a river of lightning Morg, and water enters the underworld and again comes out three times a day.” And regarding the fact that his merchants happened to reach paradise by sea, Theodore tells the following: “That place of holy paradise was found by Moislav the Novgorodian and his son Yakov, and all of them there were three jumas (vessels), and one of them died, having committed a lot of fornication, and then two of them were carried by the sea for a long time by the wind, and brought them to the high mountains; and seeing on that mountain the Deesis was written in wondrous azure and velma amazed beyond all measure, as it was not created by human hands, but by God’s grace; and the light was self-shining in that place, as it was not possible for a person to confess; and having remained in that place for a long time, he did not see the sun, but there was a bright light, shining more brightly than the sun; goldfinch (pole, pole) up that mountain, seeing the light and the voices of rejoicing; and he quickly clasped his hands and laughed and ran away from his friends to the present voice; did nothing, returning to their own, but with great joy they fled from them; they were filled with fear and began to think within themselves, saying: “Even if death happened, they would have seen the brightness of this place” (i.e. that is, no matter what, but we will see...), and sent the third to the mountain, tying him with a tent by his leg, and wanted to do the same thing, and splashed joyfully and ran, in joy forgetting the traps on his nose, they detained him with the trap, and in that hour they were found dead; They ran back, it was not given to them to see that indescribable lordship and the joy and rejoicing of the one who heard there; and those, brother, husbands,” the archbishop concludes his story to the bishop, “and today the children and grandchildren are good and healthy.” The destinies of God, or, what is the same thing, the providence of God, as we see its actions on people, seem mysterious and incomprehensible to the human mind: very often wicked people prosper, while pious people suffer and suffer. Some people live to a natural old age, while the life of others is cut short by sudden death halfway through its course or earlier; In the latter respect, the fate of dying babies is even more incomprehensible: a person is born in order to live, and dies immediately as he is born: for what is he born? These questions deliberately occupied the Russian society of Metropolitan Daniel’s time, and in response to them he wrote his Word about God’s destinies and about dying babies. First of all, Daniel offers to the inquisitive the teaching that “it is not fitting for us (limited) to test the incomprehensible and unthinkable and unexplored nature and being of God, as well as about his divine destinies.” Answering the question about the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the pious, he says that some wicked are not as wicked and other pious are not as pious as they seem to us - that God really calls the wicked with his bounty to them on the path of repentance and leads the really pious through suffering to greater perfection. To the question about the premature death of people, Daniel answers with the words of Athanasius of Alexandria, that “we are dying with reverence by a bitter (premature) death, we have a small shortcoming and we will get rid of such an evil death, so that we will truly be honored with great honors, and the rest, as well as we will be wise in sight; sins, dying by such a death, all from this is partly mercy they will gain, but again they will receive some benefit for those who see, seeing whom they admire in vain.” Condemning parents for their crying about their children dying as infants, Daniel points out the threefold purpose for which this latter happens according to the will of God: God takes some infants to Himself, so that when they come to Him clean, they become chosen vessels of salvation; In His mercy, He delivers other babies from a life in which, as He foresees, they would become an instrument of Satan; He delights the third babies with death for the sake of their parents, “for having seen this,” says Daniel in the words of Athanasius of Alexandria, their parents will come into fear and thus, being touched, will become chaste.” Reproaching and simultaneously consoling parents crying for their babies dying unbaptized, Daniel, based on the same Athanasius of Alexandria, says that although they are not worthy of the kingdom of heaven, they do not go into torment (and therefore, that their fate is still better than the fate of people who live a long life in order to then inherit torment). To our two works a third can to some extent be considered; This is a message from Elder Elizarov of the Monastery Philotheus, which we talked about above, to the Pskov clerk of the Grand Duke Misyur-Munekhin, also mentioned above, about the predictions of astronomy of that time and about the misconceptions of astrology then widespread among us. Nikolai Nemchin, who lived in Russia, about whom we spoke much above [l half of the volume, pp. 683–688], speaking about the Monk Maxim the Greek, sent his message to the clerk, one of the prominent people of Russian society in the first quarter of the 16th century, in which he defended astrology and in which he reported that, according to the prediction of Western astronomers, in 1524. the entire universe must happen to the city and kingdom and countries (and) together to all earthly creatures there will be a change and change 407. The clerk sent a message from Nicholas to Elder Philotheus so that he could express his opinion about him. And the latter, fulfilling the clerk’s wish, wrote his message to him. Regarding the prediction of Western astronomers, based on the fact that in 1524. If a completely unusual combination of “transitory stars” (planets) happens, Elder Philotheus answers that, according to the clear words of the divine scripture, every creature is renewed by the Holy Spirit and that the stars are neither sensual nor animals and, therefore, cannot have any influence on the earth. Regarding the errors of astrology and specifically the belief in evil days and hours, Philotheus says that all these blasphemies are fables and fables - that if God created evil days and hours, then why would He torment sinners - that the stars, sun and moon, being neither sensory nor animal and being carried by angelic invisible forces, cannot have any influence on the days and hours. Elder Philotheus develops his evidence very little, or better yet, does not develop it at all. A significant part of the message is a digression in which it is proven that the kingdom of ancient Rome has fallen, that the Latins are heretics who fell into the Apollinarian heresy (through unleavened bread) and that our Moscow is the third Orthodox Rome. We know of works of a reformation nature, that is, those in which the voice is raised against the abuses that existed in the church and in its life: firstly, the letter of the Tver monk Akindinus to Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich against the collection of fees by the metropolitan and bishops for appointments to church degrees; secondly, the writings of Vassian the Oblique against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries. We talked about the message of Akindinus and the writings of Vassian above [1 half of the volume p. 111, pp. 123–125, pp. 650–665]. Our department may include the Writing about the widowed priests of the Rostov priest, Georgy Skripitsa, directed against the resolution on widowed priests belonging to the cathedral of 1503. We also talked about him above [1 half of the volume pp. 621–622] 408. ↓ 1 2 A very interesting official and journalistic work for its time, issued by the government regarding the installation of Theodosius as metropolitan and regarding the decision taken at the same time to appoint Russian metropolitans in Russia itself for the future, there is “The word chosen from the holy scriptures, hedgehog in Latin” 409, etc., which we also partly talked about above [1 half volumes pp. 516–517]. The contents of the work, or as it is more accurately called today, are brochures: history of the Council of Florence 410 with the previous history of Isidore’s arrival in Russia and the subsequent history of the Grand Duke’s rejection of the union brought by Isidore from the cathedral, we are talking about placing St. in Isidore’s place. Jonah, a speech about the arrival from Rome and the rejection by the Grand Duke of Isidore's disciple Gregory, a historical and polemical excursion about the fall of the Latins from Orthodoxy, a speech about the installation of Theodosius as metropolitan. The purpose of the essay or pamphlet is to prove that the Russians had the right to install Theodosius themselves, and what they had the right to do at the same time, and the general verdict is that in the future they will install their own metropolitans in Russia itself. At the Council of Florence, the Greeks shamefully betrayed Orthodoxy (for the purpose of showing which the history of the council is offered), the Russian Grand Duke, when releasing Isidore to the council, used all his efforts to force the metropolitan to return from the council as Orthodox, and after his return he decisively rejected the union he had brought. After some time, the pope made a new attempt to introduce a union in Russia by sending Isidor’s student Gregory, but the Grand Duke rejected this as decisively as Isidor himself. Thus, the Russian Grand Duke appeared as a guardian and protector of Orthodoxy, interceding in this case for the Greek Emperor, who had the duty to be a guardian and protector, and who shamefully changed his duties: And through this, the Russians acquired the right to elect their metropolitans themselves - they became higher than the Greeks, but having become higher, they could not receive more (they had every right to refuse to receive) metropolitans from those who had become their inferiors. The work does not yet say quite directly that after the Council of Florence, Russian Orthodoxy became superior to Greek Orthodoxy, and that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Russian sovereign took the place of the Byzantine emperor as the only Orthodox king; but this is not stated directly with sufficient clarity. In relation to Orthodoxy and Christianity, it is stated about Russia that it has greater Orthodoxy and a higher Christianity, although it is not added to: than that of the Greeks 411, and then Christianity - Orthodoxy of Russia is portrayed as the most blooming and shining, and it is implied that it is not like that among the Greeks. The Grand Duke is not called the successor of the Byzantine emperors, but is called the divinely crowned king, which title is constantly assigned to him, and it is even stated about him that the Emperor of Constantinople John Palaiologos openly recognized him as the king - his brother. Explaining why the pope and the emperor did not begin the cathedral in Ferrara for a long time, the author claims that the reason for the delay was the expectation of Metropolitan Isidore from Russia, and they were waiting for Isidore supposedly because the emperor told the pope: “in White Rus' there is a great sovereign, my brother, Vasily Vasilyevich, to whom the kings of the East will listen and the great princes and lands will serve him, but for the sake of humility piety and the majesty of the mind of good faith is not called a king, but a great Russian prince of his lands of Orthodoxy” 412. As a literary work, our Word is very good and composed with the skill and dexterity required of this kind of pamphlets. Who was its author remains unknown. As we said above, it does not seem likely to us that Pachomius Serbinus would have assimilated it for several reasons, and mainly because it was written better than how Pachomius wrote it. The author of the Word allows us to see himself as a person who went with Isidore to the cathedral, therefore, he was either Hieromonk Simeon, who wrote the history of the cathedral, which can be considered the most probable 413, or an unknown compiler of travel notes, or someone else from among the persons who accompanied Isidore to Italy 414. The polemical works against heretics and schismatics that we have from the time we are considering are: 1) short write-off of St. Stefan of Perm against Strigolnikov, 2) an extensive essay by St. Joseph of Volokolamsk against the Judaizers, 3) several words or treatises of Metropolitan Daniel, read in his collection and directed mainly against the same Judaizers, and partly against Vassian the Oblique, and 4) an extensive work by Zinovy ​​of Otensky against Theodosius Kosoy. We postponed speeches about the collection of Metropolitan Daniel to our department, not only in relation to words that deliberately or directly concern us, but in its entirety. St. Stephen, about whose brief copy we spoke above [1 half of the volume pp. 293–294, pp. 402–404, p. 880], was faced with the task of proving the impossible, that the fee charged by bishops for appointments to church degrees is something legal. He was not able to make the impossible possible, and his writing off is in no way particularly convincing. It does not represent anything remarkable in terms of literature: Stefan compiled it at the request of the Archbishop of Novgorod, addressed to him on his visit to Novgorod; It is likely that he made it during his short stay in Novgorod, that is, he wrote it too hastily to take care of careful literary finishing. The works of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk and Zinovy ​​of Oten and the collection of Metropolitan Daniel have as their external distinctive feature the fact that they are very large written works - entire real books. Their internal distinguishing feature is that they are written works that must be recognized in a truly theological way - by scientists. Through their own book reading, the majority of our literates, who made up the class of our educated people, acquired a very, very low theological education; but in the form of exceptions, we do not know how frequent or rare, there were individual individuals (units) among them who managed to achieve such erudition that it turned into actual learning (eruditeness). In Joseph, Daniel and Zinovy ​​we see before us precisely such exceptional units who demonstrated their learning in written works. The first and last among them, as writers, together with learning, possessed extraordinary literary talent, and as a result, in their accusatory works against heretics, they gave us such written works that, among other works of our writing, should be given a very special and completely their place, as works of theological scholarship, remarkably good for the time when they were written. The accusatory work of the Monk Joseph of Volokolamsk against the heresy of the Judaizers, called due to its vastness a book on them, and currently known under the name of the Enlightener, in its external form consists of a historical introduction and 16 treatises, to which the name of the words is given. The introduction, entitled: “The Legend of the Newly Appeared Heresy of the Novgorod Heretics - Alexei the Archpriest and Denis the Priest and Theodore Kuritsyn and others like them,” sets out the history of the heresy from its first planting in Novgorod by the Jew Skharia, who arrived from Kyiv, to its prosperity in general in Russia under the heretic - Metropolitan Zosima after the latter allowed a council against some of its proselytes in 1490. In all likelihood, one must think that the introduction was written not under Zosima, but after his deposition from the pulpit; but the Monk Joseph ends the story in it with what is now indicated, allowing himself to finish it later, on the one hand, because it was our triumph of heresy that prompted him to decide to compile his accusatory book against heretics (which resulted in a natural transition from the introduction to the words) and that he needed the further history of heresy for further speeches. And on the other hand, as we must assume, because our introduction is a reworking of a private historical note on heresy, actually compiled during the reign of Zosimas 415. In 16 treatises entitled, firstly, the teaching of the Judaizers is exposed and refuted, namely, both the teaching of the heretics themselves in the strict sense of the word, and the free-thinking people they seduced from the path of true Christianity and Orthodoxy. Secondly, they refute doctrines (opinions) favorable to heretics, so to speak, of a church-disciplinary nature, which were either preached by them themselves or held by Orthodox Christians who wanted to treat heretics differently than how Joseph and people of the same way of thinking treated them. 11 words out of 16 are devoted to refuting the teachings of heretics and the freethinkers they regurgitated (descended from them); they go in this order: in 1 word the doctrine that God is one and not trinity is refuted; in the 2nd word - the teaching that Christ has not yet been born, but will only be born, and that the Christ whom Christians call God is a simple man, and not God; in the 3rd word - the teaching that one must keep and preserve the law of Moses, make sacrifices and be circumcised (namely, that the law of Moses was not given for a time only, but forever, and therefore could not be abolished, as Christians teach); in the 4th word - the teaching that God was able to save people not through his own descent to earth and not through incarnation from a wife and the trick of the devil, which is humiliating for Him and unworthy of Him, but in another way - through the mediation of angels, prophets and righteous people: in word 5 - the teaching that one should not write on the icons of St. Trinity, since Abraham saw God with two angels, and not the Trinity; in words 6 and 7 - the teaching that one should not venerate icons; in the 8th word - the teaching that the scriptures of the fathers are false, based on the fact that the fathers claimed that with the end of 7 thousand years the end of the world would follow, when in fact this did not happen; in the 9th word - the teaching that the apostolic writings are false, based on the fact that the apostles proclaim in them that Christ was born in recent years, while one thousand five hundred years have already passed since His birth; in the 10th word - the teaching that the writings of St. are false. Ephraim, since he allegedly preached the imminent coming of Christ, but this turned out to be a complete lie; in the 11th word - the teaching that monasticism is a human invention, contrary to the commandments of God. We have already said much above [1 half of the volume pp. 606–607] and now we have said that the Monk Joseph in his Enlightenment refutes not only the teachings of the Judaizing heretics in the strict sense of the word, but also the opinions of free-thinking people who, without falling away from Christianity, were only more or less infected from them, so to speak, by Protestantism and neologism. Rejecting the deity of Jesus Christ, the Judaizers, of course, rejected not only the worship of icons and not just monasticism, but also all of Christianity with all its sacraments and institutions. If, from the most common Christianity, so to speak, Joseph defends the veneration of icons, monasticism and the custom of writing the Trinity on icons, based on the belief that the Trinity appeared to Abraham, then he defends precisely against the now-mentioned free-thinking people. It is strange, apparently, that free-thinking people, who did not reject the trinity of the Divinity, acquired from the Judaizers the free-thinking attitude to think that it was not the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, but God with two angels, and one would think that Joseph was engaged in an idle refutation here. But that the first was real, and that Joseph is not engaged in an idle refutation, is clear from the fact that we find the teaching he refuted to be held by free-thinking people in the middle of the 16th century. (see above 1 half of the volume pp. [830–841] about Artemy, the former abbot of Trinity). If the Monk Joseph defends against the Judaizers separately from the other fathers and deliberately the Monk Ephraim the Syrian, then the reason for this, in addition to the difference from the other fathers of his teaching, about which he was defended, was the great authority that he had in the eyes of our ancestors and that the Judaizers, as Joseph directly says, with shaking his authority, hoped to shake the authority of all the other fathers 416. The doctrines favorable to the Judaizers, which Joseph refutes in his remaining 5 words, are: in the 12th word, that although the saint will be a heretic, if he does not bless or curse one of the Orthodox, then divine judgment will follow his judgment; in the 13th word, that one should not condemn either a heretic or an apostate; in the 14th word that one should not search and find out much about heretics and apostates if they themselves do not confess their heresy and apostasy; in the 15th word that if a heretic or apostate repents, then as soon as possible he should be allowed to enter the church and partake of the divine mysteries. In this word, Joseph completes the history of the heresy of the Judaizers from Metropolitan Zosima to the council of 1504, which serves to justify the behavior he defends regarding heretics, since from this story being told it is clear that the latter were unrepentant and only wanted to resort to feigned repentance in view of executions. In word 16, Joseph refutes the doctrine that one must accept the repentance of heretics and apostates even if they bring it only after exposure and condemnation. The last four words, as we said above, were directed by Joseph against the so-called Trans-Volga elders, who held such views on the attitude towards heretics of the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Christians that in this case they were very at odds with Joseph and with the majority of representatives of the spiritual authorities. 12 word, that although the saint will be a heretic, but that if he does not bless or curse one of the Orthodox, then his judgment will be followed by divine judgment, is directed against Metropolitan Zosima. This latter, having taken the pulpit, initiated a persecution against the zealots of Orthodoxy, and among other things used against them the means of excommunicating the laity from communion and depriving the clergy of the priesthood; but since, in view of rumors and suspicions about his own heresy, those who were subjected to our punishment from him could recognize this latter as invalid, he preached the indicated teaching. That the teaching really achieved its goal, being recognized by the Orthodox - that it really confused and stopped them, and, therefore, - that there was a deliberate need to refute it, this can be seen with sufficient convincing from the fact that Joseph considered it necessary to deliberately refute it through his letter to one of the bishops (Suzdal Niphon) 417. Our 12th word is read only in very rare lists of the Enlightener, but most of it is omitted from them. This omission must be explained by the fact that the word had its practical meaning only in relation to the person of Zosima and that when the presence of the heretic in the metropolitan see became a long-standing event, they did not see the need for it. Based on the fact that the history of the heresy of the Judaizers is told by the Monk Joseph in two parts and that there are lists of the Enlightener that contain only the first 11 words, they think that the last one was written by Joseph in two parts and that it was originally issued by him as part of our 11 words, to which the remaining five were added later. But the Monk Joseph himself forces us to accept as most likely that the Enlightenment, as such as a book, was written by him at one time 418. Meanwhile, now other explanations can be given for this: the fact that the history of heresy is presented in two stages can be explained by literary considerations and polemical calculations, as we have indicated; and the existence of the Enlightener’s lists only in the volume of the first 11 words can be explained by the existence among the readers of the latter of persons who did not sympathize with Joseph regarding what he wrote in the remaining five words (who shared in this case the views of the Trans-Volga elders) and who therefore did not write them for themselves. Along with what has just been said, that it seems most likely to think of the Enlightener as a book, something else is positively known about him, namely, that a fairly significant part of what is read in him is an adaptation of what Joseph had previously written in private messages or in the form of private messages. Thus, the 1st word on the trinity of the Divinity constitutes a treatment of Joseph’s message about the Trinity to Archimandrite Vassian, the 12th word on the invalidity of the curse of the saint - a heretic - is a minor treatment of what is set out in the letter to Niphon of Suzdal; 13 word against the doctrine of non-condemnation of heretics and apostates - a somewhat more significant treatment of what is contained in the letter to Andronikov’s Archimandrite Mitrofan; 15 and 10 words against the teaching about the speedy acceptance of repentant heretics into the church and about the acceptance of repentance of heretics, brought even after condemnation, have as their subject the same thing as the message to the Trans-Volga monks about obedience to the conciliar decision. The teaching of the Judaizers that God is one, and not trinity, that the Messiah has not yet come, but will only come, and that the law of Moses was given by God not for a time, but forever, the Monk Joseph refutes the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, proving that God preaches himself in this Scripture not as one, as the heretics claim, but as trinity - that Jesus Christ appeared on earth at the very time when according to him (Scriptures) evidence that the Messiah had to come, that the law of Moses, according to his (Scriptures) clear speeches, was only meant to be until the Messiah, who is Jesus Christ. The assurances of the Judaizers, aimed at undermining the truth of Christianity, that the Apostles and Holy Fathers, and in particular Ephraim the Syrian, tell lies in their writings, are refuted by the Monk Joseph, proving that the Apostles speak of the coming of Christ in the last years not in the sense that He came shortly before the end of the world, but in the fact that He came long after the beginning of the world - that the Holy Fathers assign seven to the existence of the world of indefinite centuries and nowhere do they say that his death would come after a certain seven thousand years - that Ephraim the Syrian speaks of the Last Judgment of Christ as already approaching only because “the Divine Scripture usually speaks of the future as if it were present” 419 . Against the objection of the Judaizers that God was able to save man not through the embassy of His Son to earth, but in another way, the Monk Joseph proves that the justice of God in relation to the devil, to whom He did not want to do violence, but whom He wanted to outwit with His wisdom and His divine cunning, demanded that He save man the way He did - through the embassy to earth in the form of man of His Son, Who, having been accepted by the devil for an ordinary person, he was brought to death on the cross, which brought about the redemption of people. The free-thinking Christian opinions borrowed from the Judaizers that one should not worship icons and that monasticism is a human invention contrary to the commandments of God, the Monk Joseph refutes the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, not the sacred Jewish historians and the works of the fathers (real and only accepted by him as such), proving in the first case that in the Old Testament God did not prohibit, but positively legitimized the worship of created things, and that in the New Testament icons originate from Jesus Christ and the apostles, and in the second case - that the virgin and desert life, which is what monasticism consists of, existed in the Old Testament and that in the New Testament monasticism, as such, was established by the apostles. The incorrect opinion, borrowed from the Judaizers, that it was not the Trinity that appeared to Abraham, but God with two angels, is refuted by the Monk Joseph himself with the Mosaic narrative about the epiphany that happened to Abraham. Joseph refutes the teaching of Metropolitan Zosima about the validity of the curse imposed by the heretic saint with extracts from the fathers, rules of conciliar and city Greek laws. Joseph defends his own teaching about merciless and inexorable severity towards heretics and the permissibility of resorting to cunning (“prudent cunning”) to discover them with the same testimonies of the fathers, the rules of conciliar and city Greek laws, and then also historical examples of the behavior of the fathers. The Monk Joseph had the most thorough reading in the Holy Scriptures and the widest reading in the works of his fathers and, in general, in all of our writing at that time. He possessed very extraordinary and very remarkable mental abilities and the same talent as a writer. The happy combination of equally rich means - natural and acquired, and the latter, of course, should be attributed to the full merit of the Monk Joseph, had the consequence that he wrote a book that was truly remarkable for its time. He refutes heretics and freethinkers with all possible learning that we have the right to demand from a man of his time. He conducts his argument very cleverly and very witty, trying to present it in such a way that it acquires all its evidence. Finally, outwardly he presents it in such a way that there is almost nothing left to be desired: simply, we do not speak coherently and intelligently, and at the same time, in a lively and expressive language. In order to judge the degree of thoroughness of the argumentation of the Monk Joseph, one should not forget that he was the most decisive conservative in his direction. It is very likely to think that in his time not all of our book readers blindly believed in everything that could be read in our books; it is very likely, for example, that the Monk Nilus of Sora would not have proved, on the basis of the evidence existing in our writing, that monasticism was established by the apostles: but for that Joseph was precisely Joseph. To what extent his theory of atonement, as God’s trickery of the devil, belongs to the fathers, we are not competent to say; He himself cites only one passage from Chrysostom, in which God the Father says to God the Son: “It is worthy for Thee to clothe Himself with corruptible man and to receive all of Adam in Himself; It is worthy for Thee to be crucified and to suffer and to be taken to hell and from there to take man away, and as the devil has outwitted Adam, so it behooves Thee to outwit the Devil with His wisdom.” 420. But what does this theory have to do with Joseph’s theory about the permissibility of wise deceits for people, namely for the Orthodox in relation to heretics (although in the latter case he does not refer to the example of God Himself, saying in the first that “there are many in the divine Scriptures the cunning and deceit that the Lord God Himself created” 421 and that the original theory (which is the same as the Western one, it is known whose: the end justifies the means) was personally sympathetic to him, there can be no doubt about it. Like most conservatives, St. Joseph has a decisive inclination and extraordinary courage to say that everything that is not ours is bad. Proving the superiority of monasticism over married life, he does not find it difficult to say: that “bishops living with their wives and possessing a worldly image,” as was the case before the sixth ecumenical council, “happily and unpreparedly and did something glorious in their lives, “neither miracles nor signs” 422, i.e. Joseph finds it possible to say this about the times when the church was spreading and was established in the world and when it was internally formed! But where there was no place for either conservatism or liberalism, such as his first three words, here we must give him full honor and all due praise. Regarding Joseph’s evidence in favor of possibly harsh measures against heretics, which he considered necessary to use against them together with the majority of representatives of the spiritual authorities, we have already spoken above [1 half of the volume pp. 580–582]. We had to meet, so to speak, disappointed opinions about the Monk Joseph, complaints against him that he was deceiving expectations. If you take a thick book written at the beginning of the 16th century, you will be delighted that such a book could have been written in our country at this time; but you begin to read it, and the delight disappears - it turns out to be nothing more than a collection of simple extracts from fathers. This opinion is completely unfair. The Monk Joseph theologizes on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers: but how could things be otherwise, and aren’t today’s truly educated theologians doing the same thing? And to assert that all of Joseph’s theology consists only of bare extracts from the fathers, without any participation of his own theological mind, means to prove that the book has not been read at all 423. The teaching collection belonging to Metropolitan Daniel consists of 16 words or treatises of dogmatic and moral content 424. Together with Joseph and Zinovy, representing among our writers an exceptionally book-read person, a real scientist, Daniel cannot be classified, together with the first two, among our exceptional writers. His collection constitutes a very thick book (handwritten, because it was not published), but it belongs to him in the latter as the author in the proper sense of the word, comparatively speaking, very little: most of the book consists of bare extracts from the works of his fathers. Metropolitan Daniel takes on one topic or another, dogmatic or moral; makes his own explanation about it, and then gives a more or less long series of extracts from his father’s works related to its subject, and precisely, as we said, completely bare extracts, placed one after another, so to speak, completely mechanically, not connected with one another in any way or in the least artificial way. These are all the words of Metropolitan Daniel. But besides the two now indicated parts - some of their own explanation about matter and a more or less long series of extracts on it from the works of the fathers, all words also have a third part, which, like the first, belongs to Daniel’s own authorship and which, having the special name of “punishment” and very rarely being, and sometimes not at all, in a logical connection with the subject of the word, always contains moral instructions or reproofs to the readers. Thus, all the words of Metropolitan Daniel consist of three parts: his own introduction, extracts from the fathers, and his own - but in an inappropriate or real sense - conclusion. The middle part of each word is incomparably larger than the other two, which are generally more or less brief. Why Metropolitan Daniel compiled his so-called words in the strange way we have now indicated, i.e. why he, instead of compiling his own treatises on the basis of the fathers or at least through a simple selection from them, gives groups of bare extracts from them, he himself does not answer this question, leaving the matter to our assumptions. Perhaps he did not feel strong enough literary to write his own treatises, and in this consciousness of his impotence, he found an outlet for himself in his desire to share with others the fruits of his learning or his bookishness in offering the teachings of the fathers in this strange way that we find in him. Perhaps he consciously and intentionally preferred direct or bare extracts from them to his own presentation of the fathers: with his own presentation of the fathers, he was in danger of conveying them more or less inaccurately, more or less distorting them, and in simple extracts they were offered in their completely authentic form, so that these extracts were, so to speak, documentary references from the fathers on certain issues of religion and morals. No less, if not more, strange in the words of Metropolitan Daniel are these third parts of them, called “punishments.” Representing accusatory pastoral teachings, they are glued and tacked onto words for the most part out of the blue, neither to the village nor to the city, and should have constituted something completely different from them and separate. Two assumptions can also be made to explain this second oddity. In order to publish the teachings separately, it was necessary to process them so that each of them was on its own special topic, and did not constitute a mixed something about this, that and everything. Feeling himself capable only of the latter, which is what we actually find punishments for, and not the former, Daniel added them to the words, since in this type of addition now their indicated shortcoming would be less striking and since in this form, that is, without claims to independence and independent meaning, they would find a greater excuse for themselves. On the other hand, the teachings, very caustic in their accusatory tone, if published separately, would represent something very sharp: wanting to weaken this harshness, Daniel could have attached them to the words with the intention of, so to speak, somewhat hiding them behind the latter. Be that as it may, but, without being a brilliant writer in his words, Daniel is precisely such a book reader in them: in this last respect, he is not only not inferior to his teacher, the Monk Joseph, but, perhaps, even somewhat superior to him. The dogmatic and moral question-subjects about which the words of Metropolitan Daniel are devoted are the following: 1) about the incarnation of the Son of God, against the heretical opinion that after the incarnation He had the same nature of divinity (against docetism - word 5), 2) about the mystery of redemption, and namely, that in sending His Son to earth for this purpose, God showed His inexpressible mercy to people (word 6) and that at the same time He outwitted the evil cunning devil with wisdom (word 7), 3) about the Providence of God, since it is incomprehensible to the human mind in its manifestation on people (word 11), 4) about firm observance of the faith and moral commandments of the Gospel (word 12), 5) about the immutable observance of all church traditions, written and unwritten, legitimized by the apostles and fathers (word 3), and in particular the tradition of marking your face with a cross and turning to the east in prayer (word 4), 6) about the need to confess your thoughts to your spiritual fathers (word 11), 7) about running from false prophets and teachers and from what they are known (word 1), 8) “about the hedgehog of the world and who is in the world”, in affirmation of the truth that salvation is also possible in the world, as in monasticism (word 13), 9) “as it is absurd to be hostile to one another, and as there is not good in the world everywhere” (word 2), “if we do any evil to our brothers, we will fall into slavery” (word 10), “judge not, lest ye be judged” (word 9); 10) about the impermissibility of divorces of husbands from wives without legal guilt and about the impermissibility of legally divorced persons from entering into a second marriage (words 14 and 16); 11) about obedience to authorities and about behavior towards the enemies of God - heretics (word 8). Quite a significant part of the words were composed by Metropolitan Daniel for deliberate reasons; he was prompted to compose another part, on the one hand, perhaps, by the questions addressed to him, which he speaks about directly (at the beginning of the first word, unless these questions are a writer’s invention), on the other hand, by general jealousy or a desire to show zeal for the fulfillment of his pastoral duty to teach. The word about the incarnation, refuting docetism, is obviously directed against Vassian the Oblique, who in his wisdom adhered to our heresy unreasonably. The words about the sacrament of atonement, obviously, should be understood as being recognized on the part of Daniel as a necessary addition to Joseph’s treatise on this subject, read in the Enlightenment 425. The words about running away from false prophets and teachers and about keeping traditions are directed against the freethinkers of that time, whom Judaism produced. Part of one word (8) - about behavior towards the enemies of God - heretics, and harsh measures against them are justified, was written in defense of the doctrines regarding this point, contained by the Monk Joseph and his entire party. Speeches about obedience to authorities may have a deliberate reason for the fact that the too harsh power of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich was criticized in society as despotism. For three words against divorce there was a sufficient general reason that in our country, due to the special way of concluding marriages, divorces were very frequent in the old days; but perhaps Daniel wanted to prove with these words that, having allowed the Grand Duke to divorce, he saw himself forced to deviate from the strict requirements of the church only prompted solely by the need of the state. When Metropolitan Daniel composes words on the topic: “how absurd it is to be at enmity with each other”; “If we do some evil to our brethren, we will fall into such a state”; “Judge not, lest ye be judged”: that, of course, does very well. But, remembering how he actually showed himself in relation to Maxim the Greek, you involuntarily say: doctor, heal yourself. There can be no doubt that contemporaries who did not directly belong to his party said the same thing. We do not know to what extent contemporaries had the right to turn to Daniel with our reproach regarding his denunciations of various private vices in the society of that time. But these denunciations, generally very caustic, sometimes depicting vices for us in clear and vivid pictures, are important for us in historical terms, as representing morally descriptive material. Zinovy ​​Otensky, a monk of the Novgorod Otensky Monastery, wrote a very extensive accusatory essay on the heresy of Theodosius Kosoy, to which he gave the title: “Demonstration of Truth,” connecting with this title the idea that the work contains evidence, a discovery of the truth regarding the quality of Kosoy’s teaching, i.e., regarding his falsity and heresy 426. According to the author, we owe as much remarkable as extensive composition to a simple case or a happy accident. Three clergy members of the Spassky Monastery from Staraya Rusa came to Zinovy ​​at the Otensky Monastery - two monks of the monastery and one layman living in it, and turned to him (Zinovy) with an urgent request to tell them their opinion “about the current”, as they put it, teaching, i.e. specifically about the teaching of Theodosius the Kosy, with which they were more or less carried away. Fulfilling the request of the choir, Zinovy ​​undertook a series of interviews with them, at which he extensively refuted the heresy of Theodosius and which he reproduced in “Truth Testimony.” From its external side, the “Truth Testimony”, representing a reproduction of the interviews that took place, is divided into 10 sections, which are entitled the comings of the kliroshans, that is, the comings to him - Zinovy ​​for these interviews; departments or advents (little corresponding to parts of the matter of interviews) are divided into chapters, of which there are 56 in total in the work. However, the tenth or last advent and the last ten chapters contained in it are not devoted to speeches about the heresy of Theodosius the Oblique. One can very much doubt that the essay was actually written by Zinovy ​​only as a result of the choir members coming to him, for to write an overly serious essay for just one random reason is something not particularly natural. It is much more likely to think that Zinovy ​​intended to write the essay independently of any external random occasions, but that he only timed the essay so to speak to coincide with the random arrival of the kliroshan, so that, taking the form of interviews, he would have greater freedom of presentation, and so that in these interviews, interrupted and resumed, he would have a ready-made external division for his book 427 . Based on what has just been said, one can very much doubt that the book is an accurate reproduction of the interviews that took place. This latter can also be highly doubted on the basis of its internal signs: Zinovy’s conversations with the kliroshans do not contain anything random and randomly disordered, but have the appearance of his lectures to them, pre-thought out both in general and in particular. Zinovy ​​makes it known that his interviews with choir members took place in 1564. 428: from this it follows that his work did not appear in its present form earlier than this year. The content of Zinoviev’s accusatory essay is as follows: First - the introduction or introduction. The Kliroshans called the teachings of Theodosius a new teaching to Zinovia; they said about him that he was nicknamed Oblique because of the physical defect of strabismus - that he was a former slave of one of the Moscow boyars, who fled from his master to become a monk in Beloozero and at the same time stole the latter’s horse - that, having been captured on charges of heresy, he fled to Lithuania and there, having abandoned his monasticism, he married a Jew. This information provides Zinovy ​​with material for his introduction: if the teaching of Kosoy is new, he says, then, obviously, it is false, for after Jesus Christ and the apostles there can be no new teaching; from a person with corrupted eyes, the teaching can only be corrupted; a slave and a person of such bad moral qualities as Kosoy cannot be a true teacher. That is, Zinovy ​​wants to tell the choir members and the reader that already on the basis of external signs it is clear that the teaching of Kosoy is a false teaching. Having asked the clergymen what exactly is the teaching of Kosoy, and briefly showing that it represents such blasphemy that cannot be found not only among any heretics, but even among the enemy of the Christian faith Bakhmet (Mohammed), Zinovy ​​begins his denunciation, which consists of defending Orthodox Christianity against its rationalistic subverter. Here we find in Zinovy, in the order of his presentation, the following: 1) he proves the existence of God. Theodosius Kosoy did not doubt the existence of God, but Zinovy ​​finds that his heresy inevitably leads to atheism, and therefore begins with proof of what, in his opinion, heresy should have led to the denial; 2) proves the trinity of persons of the Divine; 3) proves that the New Testament replaced the Old, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; 4) explains the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, namely, proves the necessity and possibility of His incarnation; 5) defends the veneration of icons and the cross, the veneration of saints and their relics and the singing of their services, the building of churches; 6) explains the words of Basil the Great, read in the preface to his Lenten (Lenten) books: “we have been seduced by an evil custom, and the corrupted human tradition has caused us great evil” 429, which Kosoy referred to as proof that the external church with all its institutions constitutes human tradition 430; 7) makes an interpretation (commentary) on the Word of Basil the Great “about sound faith and pious glory” 431, to which Kosoy also referred; 8) proves in various places from Basil the Great that the latter did not reject church rules at all and that the 70 canonical rules bearing his name really belong to him; 9) proves that monasticism is not a human tradition and defends the custom of our Russian monasteries to own estates. After what has now been stated, the tenth coming, which contains the last ten chapters of the book, as we said, contains speeches that are not related to the heresy of Theodosius the Oblique. For the last time, along with the wingers, one resident of Novgorod came to Zinovy, who, not being carried away by the heresy of Kosoy, wanted to offer him (Zinovy) several questions of a liturgical, canonical and church-archaeological nature. The answers to these questions constitute the content of the last coming and the last ten chapters, with the exception of the answer to one question randomly proposed by the clergy, namely, as if only the 6th Ecumenical Council ordered the painting of icons. Having begun his defense of Orthodox Christianity against the false teaching of Theodosius in order to prove the truth of the existence of God, Zinovy ​​of Otensky, obviously, had to begin his proofs not from the Holy Scripture, the authority of which people who reject the existence of God, of course, do not recognize, but from natural reason. This is what Zinovy ​​does. But using evidence from natural reason where they were necessary and the only possible, he also uses them where there was no special need for them and where he could get by with evidence from Holy Scripture alone. This inclination of Zinovy ​​to evidence from natural reason constitutes his distinctive, highly characterizing feature. (Not without some reason one can suspect that Zinovy ​​proves the existence of God not so much out of a real awareness of the necessity of this, but rather out of a desire to show his competence and strength in the field of philosophy). Another distinctive feature of Zinovy, which characterizes him just as much, is that he presents his evidence both from natural reason and from Holy Scripture and from anything else, in a formal scientific manner, through the construction of syllogisms (premises and conclusion or conclusion), and in general with school techniques. According to the distinctive features we have now indicated, Zinovy ​​is the only person among our writers of the time we are considering. It would be interesting for us to know whether Zinovy ​​became a philosophizing theologian with school techniques solely through book reading or whether he had some chance opportunity to receive some real education. Unfortunately, we cannot answer this question with anything positive. Read in some copies of the “Truth of Testimony” and made by someone else’s hand, the historical notice that the book is precisely his (Zinovy’s) work, assures that he was a student of the Monk Maximus the Greek 432. But this testimony can hardly be taken as doubtful. On the issue of patrimonial ownership of our monasteries, Zinovy ​​completely disagreed with Maxim and belonged to the side opposite to him; but it is not easy to allow Maximus’s disciple to disobey his views in this case, and it is also not entirely easy to admit that a person who in this case belonged to the Josephites would want to become Maximus’s student. According to some information that Zinovy ​​reports about the East, one could conclude that he was there and, therefore, one could assume that it was there that he managed to receive some education. But at the same time it would be necessary to assume that he knew the Greek language, and yet he clearly says in the book that he did not possess such knowledge. He makes it known that he had teachers and calls the latter people “enlightened in the divine”: however, this is not entirely definite and, using a high syllable, to which he was specially inclined, he could also call simple good book readers that way. The general impression from the book, that is, from all the techniques in it and from the entire tone of the author, is that we have before us a person who has a real, more or less, education. However, the impression is such that it does not resolve the question: whether we have before us a person who received an education from teachers, or who has reached, risen to it only through his own reading of books. For our part, we are more inclined to see in Zinovia a self-taught scientific thinker. But whether we see in him this or that, in any case, we have before us an extraordinary person, who either found the means to acquire some education from teachers or who himself wanted and managed to educate himself to some extent. For some philosophical self-education, our only deliberate means was the Dialectic of John of Damascus, translated into Slavic. But, firstly, this Dialectic was precisely a means, and was not nothing at all: secondly, the philosophical metaphysical-ontological is sufficiently scattered in the works of our fathers. Zinovy ​​proves the truth of the existence of God with the following provisions: firstly, all living beings that make up the population of the earth are not original, therefore, there is God, their Creator; secondly, all peoples, rightly or wrongly, believe in God, therefore, this belief is implanted by God into human nature; thirdly, everything that makes up material, inanimate nature is not without beginning and not original, therefore, there is God, the Creator of everything; fourthly, the four elements of the world are opposed and destructive to one another, and yet, without destroying one another, they are in harmony, in balance with one another: therefore, there is a God who supports them in this state. Zinovy ​​proves the trinity of persons of the Divinity with arguments from reason and the evidence of Holy Scripture. The arguments from reason are: the first is 433 that God is a living being, that as such a being He must have a word and a spirit, but that just as He Himself is eternal, so also His Word and Spirit must be eternal. The second argument, mediated through Holy Scripture, is that God created man in His image and likeness, but that man, who is the image and likeness of God, has a soul, word and spirit. On the question of the sacrament of atonement, Zinovy ​​proves with arguments of reason: firstly, the need for the redemption of man precisely by the Son of God, and secondly, the possibility of this particular redemption. Zinovy ​​proves the need for the redemption of man precisely by the Son of God by drawing conclusions from the position he affirms that man is the most perfect of all God’s creations, the highest of all the angels: only the highest can intercede for anyone. Consequently, only the Son of God could intercede for man; a person could be redeemed only at an appropriate and appropriate price (what he was worth), but only the redemption accomplished by the Son of God himself could have such a price (for angels are of less value than man). The possibility of the redemption of man by the Son of God himself, precisely the possibility of the Son of God descending to earth and incarnating in the unclean womb of the Virgin, Zinovy ​​proves by the fact that for God there is nothing unclean - that He purifies with His holiness everything that He touches. Theodosius Kosoy rejected existing Christianity not on the basis of evidence from reason, not as a rationalist in the proper sense of the word, but on the basis of the books of Moses, which he recognized as the only God-given and God-inspired books. Therefore, Zinovy, when using arguments from reason, mainly refutes it with the same books of Moses, proving that they preach not one God, but a Trinity - that they proclaim the mystery of the redemption of man 434, that they prohibit idols, but not icons, etc., i.e. he does the same thing as St. Joseph in his Enlightenment. Not recognizing the books of the Holy Scriptures as the New Testament, Kosoy, however, referred to them, claiming that these very books call Jesus Christ not God, but man. Therefore, Zinovy ​​proves that, according to the preaching of our books, He is the God-man, and not a simple man. Kosoy referred to Basil the Great as proof that, according to the teachings of this famous church father, all church statutes and rules constitute human traditions. Refuting Kosoy’s reference to the words of Basil the Great: “We have been seduced by the most evil custom, and the corrupted human tradition has caused us great evil,” Zinovy ​​proves that Basil the Great means in these words not church statutes and rules, but civil pagan laws written by pagan philosophers, who leave other moral crimes of people unpunished and thus serve as the cause of corruption. Zinovy ​​cites the word of Basil the Great “about sound faith and pious glory” because it represents a direct and clear refutation of Kosoy’s slander against Basil the Great, and also, one must think, because it contains a statement of sound faith written by such a famous father of the church. From a literary point of view, Zinovy’s work would be good, and perhaps even very good, if it did not suffer from one important drawback, namely, the fact that in most of the book he repeats himself too often, conducting his speech as if he were explaining a lesson to small schoolchildren, as a result of which he becomes boring, and sometimes, one might say, even unbearably boring. Zinovy ​​has one section in his book where he does not have our repetitions; this is a commentary on the now mentioned Word of Basil the Great about sound faith and pious glory: and this department should rightly be recognized as very good. The peculiarity of Zinoviev’s language is that, striving for accuracy and expressiveness, or simply striving for originality, he uses his own words, partly taken from the ancient language, partly (and it seems, mostly) composed by himself. Conducting his reasoning in a philosophical manner, so to speak, Zinovy ​​is sometimes quite or very heavy in the construction of his speech. Defending the truths of Christianity and Orthodox church institutions against Theodosius Kosy, Zinovy ​​defends our Russian patrimonial ownership of monasteries against his reproaches. This last defense cannot be considered satisfactory. Declaring a certain inclination towards sophistry and beyond, he appears to us here as a perfect and not at all brilliant sophist 435 . The main idea of ​​this defense is that the Lord and the apostles gave the commandment about non-covetousness not only to monks, but to all people, i.e. Zinovy ​​wants to forget, without being embarrassed by Basil the Great, whom he knew so well, that monks deliberately stand out from all people and take a voluntary deliberate vow of non-covetousness. [Wed. 1 half volume pp. 826–830]. (The monk, unknown by the name of an unknown monastery, wrote at the request of the Lithuanian-Russian Orthodox, among whom Theodosius preached his heresy. The Orthodox sent the monk a list of Theodosius’s heresies and asked him to write a refutation of them. Fulfilling the request, the monk wrote a refutation in the form of a letter to the petitioners, to which he gave the title: “Verbose Epistle,” since it is very extensive. (Printed in the Kharkov “Spiritual Messenger” for 1865 and then by A. N. Popov in the 2nd book of Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities for 1880). Further about Metropolitan Macarius, who stands at the turn of the time we have taken with his famous Chet-Minea, which contains all of our previous writing 437. Then a review of the literature on writers and its general characteristics. Then about writers from the Slavs and Greeks: Metropolitan Cyprian 438, Photius 439, Gregory Tsamblak 440 and Maximus the Greek 441. 1. – Tales of Maxim the Greek. 1) The legend about Maxim the monk of the holy mountain of the Vatopedi monastery (the latest; the author himself did not know anything about Maxim). Beginning: “Dare for a thousand years ago, in the fourth and tenth year of the year’s circulation of the Russian land, I held the scepter to the pious and ever-memorable sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich”... Lavra manuscript of the Works of Maxim the Greek No. 201, word 134, sheet 553 verso, (compiled by a person who did not personally know Maxim: “We don’t know his birth, but only from the books created by him that the teachings of philosophy were accepted in Western countries...”, sheet 554. About the request of the translators from the patriarch, etc., he lies about the transport of books by the Greeks to Italy from Kurbsky (Preface to Margarit; with alteration), and, therefore, the legend was compiled (Kurbsky †). 1583) at the end of the 16th or the beginning of the 17th century? Selects the story of Maxim from his works and, not knowing the matter, lies (Maxim, counting from 1515, says that he enjoyed the favor of the Grand Duke for 9 years; the author writes: “And he spent 9 years, he was depressed, translating books,” page 555, ver.); and was admitted to communion by Metropolitan Joasaph - lies, is this further from the Chronograph or to the Chronograph from here? From the conclusion it is clear that the legend was written quite a long time after the death of Maxim). The same legend is in another Lavra manuscript of the Work of Maxim No. [200] with some additions (see Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, book 18, 1859, p. 145 note b). [Wed. from S. A. Belokurov in the study: “On the library of the Moscow sovereigns in the 16th century,” M. 1899, pp. XXIX-XXXVIII]. At Tolstov, Dept. III, No. 74, sheet 150, p. 609: “The legend of Maxim the philosopher, who was a monk of the holy Mount Athos, the glorious monastery of Vatopedi of her honorable Annunciation, and how he came to Moscow” - one with this or special? [Cm. Belokurov page CCCI]. In the library of the Society of History and Antiquities Dept. I, 311 225, sheet 405, page 108: “The legend of Maxim the philosopher, who was a monk of the holy Mount Athos, the glorious monastery of Vatopedi, where he suffered for many years for the truth” - one with this or special? [Cm. ibid. page CCXLIII]. 2) Beginning: “Maxim, the son of the voivode, a monk of Greek origin, philosopher, saint of the Holy Mountain, consecrated monastery of the Mother of God of the great Vatopedi.” This legend is the “Preface in Brief” to the translation of the Psalter made by Maxim for Nil Kurlyatev - Lavra Manuscript No. 62, sheet 1 (Compiled by the scribe of the manuscript, the monk Isaiah, sheet 2, back beginning?). Compiled after 1591 (The information is very brief; it talks about the testimony of the book of works of Maxim the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius with the council, and the testimony of the canon to the Paraclete by Patriarch Job). See Synodal manuscripts No. 192, p. 581. [Cf. 1 half of the volume, p. 667 and in S. A. Belokurov, pp. I-VI Appendices]. 3) In the Academic Manuscript of the Works of Maxim No. 153, on the front white sheet, it is written: “Arta 442 hail from the Reigning City 18 days and half a day to Jerusalem on the way 443, and from Arta to Jerusalem only halfway, Arta is halfway between Jerusalem and Tsarigrad. Maxim’s Greek birth from the city of Arta, father of Manuel and Irina, Christian Greeks and philosophers.” The same in Lavra No. 200, sheet 14. [Cf. 1 half volume p. 666]. 4) The legend is known about the arrival of Maxim the Greek to Rus' and how he endured until his death. Synodal manuscripts No. 192, sheet 26, page Descriptions 579 (Later, with a lie; there is excess against previous legends (about suffering in the Joseph Monastery, about staying in Tver and relations with Akaki and about Akaki himself). [See Belokurov pp. XVII-XXVIII]. 5) In the Rumyantsev Museum, the manuscript Collected Works of Maxim No. 265, on sheet 283, page 379: “Predmova before the blasphemous reader” (in which there is some news about Maxim, and it is told for what reason he wrote the word in Latin). [Cm. ibid., pp. CCXLVIII]. 6) In the Lavra manuscript No. 740, sheet 173, there is a note: “On Maxim the Greek, the stone was signed by the tonsured black deacon of the Kamensky Monastery with the nickname Ethiopia, but he said reliably that the stone was inscribed: Maxim the Greek, the nickname faded from the board” (The last two words were read by guess by the Lavra library). 2. – Maxim’s book works before his imprisonment in the Joseph Monastery (until 1525). 1) Translation of the explanatory Psalter. Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, book 18, 1859, p. 175 sqq. About the actual translation process ibid. letter from Dmitry to Misyur, page 190. Descriptions Synodal manuscripts No. 71 sqq. (He translated the Psalter with the greatest zeal, so that at that time he had no idleness to breathe - Kazan edition, word XII, part 1, p. 237). That he was called in to translate the Psalter - Kazan edition II, 378. 2) Translation of the Commentary on the Apostle (unknown author), completed in March 1519. Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, book 18, 1859, p. 187. (This Apostle is listed in the Lavra Library No. 118, in sheet). The former consolidated explanatory Apostle in the Academic Library No. 17 (in 1501 given by Metropolitan Simon to the Trinity Monastery, then belonged to Metropolitan Varlaam (was his brother in custody?). [Cf. 1 half of the volume p. 680 note 1]. Collection of manuscripts of Count Tolstoy, Section I, No. 297, p. 192. – B Lavra Library No. 118 (About the translation: “with the help of God and the command of His Holiness Barlaam, Metropolitan of All Russia, an interpretation of the Acts of the Holy Apostle from the 31st conception to the end of the 51st conception was written, and translated from Greek into Russian by the monk Maxim the holy mountains of Athos and the great monastery of the Annunciation of the Most Holy. Mother of God of Vatopedia monastery, and Blaise the Latin and German interpreter in ... Moscow to the kingdom of the blessed ... Vasily in his fourth and tenth year, in the summer of March 7027.” – For more on translations, see below p. 236, nos. 18 and 19 and p. 242 no. 1. 3) Correction of Triodion. See Maximus's Confession of Faith, first word, in the appendix to the History of the Right Reverend Plato, pp. 293 fin. and 295 (corrected through Mitya and Vlas, did not yet know Russian. There are “sedel” and “sedev”. Consequently, he corrected at the invitation (for, not knowing the language, he would not have done it of his own free will). And in general he corrected books (liturgical books, of course?), corrupted by the prescriptive ibid. p. 300 beginning ("and other inspired books corrected”). Ibid. pp. 304, 306, 308. 4) Translation of Metaphrast's Life of the Mother of God (in 1521, Vasyan's Debate with Metropolitan Daniel, - Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1847 No. 9, Mixture, p. 9 col. 2; in 1531 it was 10 years since the translation was made). 5) The word against those who strive for stargazing was written in 1523. Tsar's manuscript No. 242, sheet 290, page 211. In the Kazan edition, the word XVIII, part 1, page 399. This word is the first epistole to Mr. Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov on the law of the stars; compare in the Kazan edition, part 1, pp. 357 and 427. [Cf. 1 half volume p. 685, note 1]. 6) Mr. Fedor Karp Ivanovich. Read your message to me (the second message about star law). Written in 1524 (According to the Izmail captivity of Constantinople, written in 64, - Kazan edition p. 363). Tsar's manuscript No. 242, sheet 322, page 211. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 488, sheet 176. In the Kazan edition word XVI, part 1 page 347. 7) The word about how by the providence of God, and not by the stars and the wheel of happiness, all human things are arranged (Kazan edition word XVII, p. 377 part 1) was written, in all likelihood, at the same time. This word, written to all Orthodox Christians, is, as it were, an addition to the two previous messages written to a private individual. The thoughts are the same as in the message to Feodor Ivanovich, therefore, at the same time; there is an indication of German demons p. 386 fin. Kazan edition. But the name Nikolai is not there: isn’t it written after? Maxim sent a word to Alexey from Tver about stargazing (Kazan edition, part 2, p. 383; isn’t it written there?). 8) Message to Feodor Ivanovich Karpov (word in Latin), Kazan edition, part 1, p. 235, word XII, written during the translation of the Psalter (see in the Kazan edition, pp. 237 and 239). One message to Maxim Karpov, - Tsar's manuscript p. 224, sheet 373 ver. 9) Epistle to him (in Latin). The Kazan edition of the word Χ III, part 1, p. 267, was written shortly after the previous one (this is the second (promised) part of the previous message (this is shown by the title itself, which is the same in both words), compare in the Kazan edition p. 253 fin. (the images are symmetrical) with pp. 294–298, and pp. 237 and 239 (I have no idleness to breathe) with p. 320 (as it was not the imam who foretold (i.e. in the first part) the time). 10) To Nicholas the Latinist about the origin of St. Spirit, - Kazan edition word XIV, part 1, p. 323. 11) To him about the Roman Church and with conviction to turn to Orthodoxy - Kazan edition word XV, part 1, page 341. 12) The word in response to him, when the Latins separated from the Greeks, is the Kazan edition of the word XXV, part 1, page 509. All these three words, in all likelihood, were written before 1525, around the same time as the words about the same matter (Latins) to Feodor Ivanovich Karpov. (That the last two were written after the first cfr Kazan edition pp. 339 fin. and 340 (three messages from Nicholas, three and a response) and the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd words). That at the same time with the words to Feodor Ivanovich is clear from the fact that in the third word to Nicholas (Kazan edition word XXV, p. 509) there are places literally similar to the second letter to Karpov or the Kazan edition word XIII, page 267. 13) Against the flattering copying of Nikolai Nemchin about the copulation of Orthodox Christians and Latins, - Kazan edition, part 1, p. 213, word XI, in all likelihood, at the same time, i.e. before 1525. 14) The word is partly incriminating of Latin slander, in it also on the almanac, etc., - Kazan edition, part 1, p. 457, word XXII, until 1525 (The prediction from the Almanac about the global flood was spread by Nikolai Nemchin, - see Kazan edition, part 1, p. 455, word XXI, on Nikolai Nemchin's word). John Stoffler predicted that in 1524. the world will perish from a new flood, and it will terrify all of Western Europe. See Etudes, Popular readings of Schleiden in Russian translation (Moscow, 1861), to the sixth reading, note 1 p. 216 (referring to Bayle, Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch, Art. Stoffler. The same prediction that Nikolai wrote about to Misyur Munekhin? Nikolai wrote to Misyur Munyokhin that in 32 (i.e. in 7032) there will be an undoubted change and change in the universe of countries and peoples and regions, etc., etc. See Shchapov, The Split of the Old Believers, p. 158, an excerpt from the Solovetsky Chronograph. 15) Message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about German charm, the verb fortune, and about its wheel, - Kazan edition part 1, word XX, p. 446, until 1525 (admired by the teaching of Nikolai Nemchin p. 447fin.). 16) A word on Nikolai Nemchin, charmer and stargazer, - Kazan edition, part 1, word XXI, p. 455 (about the unexpected death of Nikolai). 17) Advice to the Orthodox cathedral on Isaac the Jew, sorcerer and sorcerer and charmer, - Kazan edition part 1, word III, p. 51 (Isaac, in all likelihood, lived in Moscow, and, therefore, the advice was written before 1525; after, far from Moscow, Maxim would not have known about him. After his condemnation, Maxim would hardly have poked his head in with his advice to the cathedral bishops. If before 1525, then before Daniel, that is, before 1521, under Daniel he would not have bothered with advice. 18) to the Gospel of Matthew, translation by the monk Selivan. Descriptions Synodal manuscripts No. 82 and No. 83. Translation made before 1525, under the supervision of Maxim? John the Hen in the legend about Archimandrite Dionysius (printed edition of 1834, p. 119) says that “Evangelical and Apostolic Conversations (?)” were translated in the Trinity Monastery during the reign of John IV, with the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius, by Selivan, a student of Maxim the Greek, and Maxim corrected them all with his own hand). The Mother Hen is lying. For Selivan's preface to the translation of Chrysostom's conversations, see Lavra manuscript No. 200, containing the works of Maxim the Greek, special inserted notebook, sheet 8 sqq. About the translation into Russian, Selivan says: “This soulful book was translated from the wisest Hellenic language into the Russian language in the summer of 7032 (1524) in the Mother of the City, in the most famous and notorious Moscow under the faithful and pious Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, self-driving rulers of all Rus', in The 20th year of his reign and under our sacred lord Danil, Metropolitan of All Rus', by the intention and providence and protors and command (that the protors and the care of Metropolitan Daniel - Selivan repeats this in another place, page 10) of that saint himself, in the second year of his priesthood, with the mind and punishment (i.e., under the supervision and guidance) of the wisest Elder Maxim” and so on, folio 8 verso and 9 (Maxim at that time already knew the Russian language, folio 9; praises to Maxim ibid.; Selivan says about himself at the end of the preface, folio 11 verso: “we pray, and do not forget us who write this, and by his own labor and then the great sinner Selivan, the monastery of the life-giving Trinity and the venerable the wonderworker Sergius” and so on). 19) Conversations of Chrysostom on the Gospel of John, translation by Maxim with the collaboration of Selivan. Synodal manuscripts Nos. 84–86; about the translator p. 123. Kurbsky speaks about Selivan’s collaboration with Maxim in the translation of Chrysostom in the preface to Margarit, - Kurbsky’s Life in Lithuania, part 2, p. 309, note fin.. In the preface to the printed edition [Moscow, 1665, see P. Stroev’s Description of early printed Slavic books] Royal manuscript No. 192, [p. 311], it is said that they were transferred in 7032 (1524). with the blessing and zeal and diligence of Metropolitan Daniel. 1) Wrote a letter to Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Shuisky (son of the famous temporary worker Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky during Grozny’s early childhood). Having learned a lot about the prince’s prudence and meekness (previous acquaintance with Shuisky, - Kazan edition p. 418), he asks: 1) “It is not this that I ask to go to this honest ... mountain (on Athos), - we know that I myself, since such a request of mine is not kind to you, is below favorable, - but I ask ...: grant me the communion of the most pure and life-giving Christ’s mysteries, I have not been a part of them for 17 years” (Kazan edition, part 2, p. 418); 2) “give back to me the Greek books that came with me from there (from Athos)” (ibid. p. 419). Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky another time at the head of the Boyar Duma on January 3, 1542 (Karamzin, vol. VIII, p. 44); Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky himself soon renounced power, giving it to his relatives (/Karamzin, vol. VIII, p. 47 fin.); The Shuiskys' reign lasted until 1543. (/Karamzin, ibid. p. 50), however, Pyotr Ivanovich, temporarily falling into disgrace in 1543. (ibid. p. 51), then among the first boyars. 1525171542. Was the message written during the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich Shuisky himself, and therefore not to another of the Shuiskys, but to Pyotr Ivanovich, as the son of a temporary worker? Maxim does not say positively 17 years, but “for 17 years already,” that is, he wrote in 1541? Therefore, the letter was written in 1541 or 1542. However, in 1542 Ivan Vasilyevich was still busy with business - Karamzin to volume VIII note 130. [Cf. 1 half of this volume pp. 813–814]. 2) Confession of the Orthodox faith of Maxim the monk St. mountains, which also informs, etc. - Lavra Manuscript No. 201, word 1, sheet 6, by the Right Reverend Plato, part 2 p. 285; Kazan edition I, 1. Written to the bishops and boyars who ruled during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible (Plato p. 298: “to the faithful and Orthodox judges and princes I make these my answers”); written before 1544 (or 1543), because it is mentioned in the disclaimer about the book correction (Plato p. 303), written in 1544. (according to other lists in 1543). This confession of faith was sent along with a letter to Pyotr Ivanovich Shuisky. In his letter to Shuisky, Maxim does not ask to go to Athos, but only asks for communion. But even here it is not directly asked, but only reproaches, why are they holding him by force if they do not demand that part of the art of the saint exists in him? scriptures (Plato p. 298); his request, not clear, and here is the same, that they be honored with the sacrament (imitate the shepherd who, leaving 99 sheep, went after one, show me love and meekness... may he save and not destroy (the sacrament) human souls - Plato p. 301). – It was written after the death of the king’s mother Elena, because when he says: “I continually pray to the Master of all” about the king and his brother, he does not mention her. Written before the epistle to Metropolitan Daniel, the epistle mentions the Confession - Kazan edition, part 2, page 375. And Metropolitan Daniel died soon after his deposition, in the same year 1539, therefore, the Confession was written when Daniel was still in the cathedra? 3) A disclaimer about the correction of Russian books, - Lavra Manuscript No. 201, word II, sheet 78, in the Right Reverend Plato, part 2 p. 302, Kazan edition III, 60. To the boyars who ruled during Grozny’s childhood. Written in 1544 (we have been obsessed with it for 19 years, - Plato, p. 302) or in 1543 (Lavra Manuscript No. 201, sheet 78, 18 years; Synodal Manuscript No. 191, p. 524: 15 years). He asks to be released to Athos (/Plato p. 321). Why, not hoping for this request to be satisfied before, does he make it now? Having seen favor towards yourself from the Shuiskys or from one of the strong people? [Wed. 1 half volume p. 816 note 4). 4) To Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich (calls him Tsar) with a request to let him go to Athos (p. 356). At the same time as Maxim himself, the Athonite Vatopedi monks asked the king for the same thing p. 357. Muravyova Relations with the East I, 47. Kazan edition part 2, word XXVIII, p. 346. Probably not earlier than 1545, i.e. not earlier than the sovereign’s 15th birthday, when Maxim could hope for independent activity on his part and give him instructions that are here. [Wed. 1 half volume p. 817 note 2]. 5) Another message to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich (does not call him Tsar) with a request to release him to Athos, - Kazan edition, part 2, p. 376, word XXXI. Also not earlier than 1545; sends the king several notebooks of his works as evidence of his Orthodoxy p. 379. That collection of works that is in manuscript No. 42, Joasaph (to the king, of course, without a preface)? Ivan Vasilyevich began to show experiments in independent activity in 1543. Karamzin, vol. VIII, p. 50. [Cf. 1 half volume p. 816 and note 4]. 6) ↓ To Metropolitan Macarius with a request to be released to Athos (p. 366), not immediately after Makariev’s enthronement, but after quite some time, because he speaks (praises) about his activities in the rank of metropolitan. At the same time as Maxim, the Patriarch of Constantinople asked for him (p. 366). Kazan edition part 2, word XXIX, page 357. See below No. 9. 7) Message to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich from Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople with a request to release Maxim to Athos, Lavra manuscript No. 201, sheet 121 ver. (The message was written by the patriarch and the council of bishops who elected him patriarch). Dionysius was elected patriarch on Saturday Lazarev, April 17, 1546. (Easter April 25), Crusii Turcograecia p. 165 fin.. – 1545 Royal manuscript p. 207, sheet 106. [Cf. 1 half volume p. 817 note 1]. 8) Message to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich from Patriarch Joachim of Alexandria, with a request to release Maxim to Athos, April 4, 1545. Lavra manuscript No. 201, sheet 120 fin.. Karamzin to volume VIII note 386. [Cf. 1 half volume p. 817 note 1]. 9) A disclaimer about book correction. I offer a witness to you, my masters, for my soul - Lavra manuscript No. 201, sheet 85 ver., word 12; by the Right Reverend Plato, part 2, p. 323, was written to some bishop (“your holy reverence” by Plato, p. 330; “holy master” ibid. fin.; “the saintly deign to teach me” ibid. p. 336). To Metropolitan Macarius, along with a letter of petition, above No. 6? (It must be; Maxim writes to the protosingella: “I pray you, read my message yourself (means the message that is appended to the article by Filaret in Moskvityanin?), he wrote it to the Eminence, and in that you understand all my falsehoods and the truth” (Kazan edition, part 2, p. 383); but in the message itself there are only bare assurances of one’s innocence, and there is no evidence; They, therefore, were attached to the message separately). [Wed. 1 half volume p. 816 note 1 at the end]. 10) To Alexey [protosiggel], - Kazan edition part 2, word XXXIII, p. 382, ​​among other things asks: “for God’s sake, I conjure you by Jesus Christ, do not leave you without the sacrament” (p. 385). The priestly deacon sacristan Vassian mentioned in this letter, at the end, is the same one who was Macarius’s clerk in Novgorod, and who signed the Addendum to the Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 28, p. 30 col. I fin.. This letter was written together with the letter to the Metropolitan that follows it. [Wed. 1 half volume p. 816 note 1 ]. 11) To Metropolitan Macarius in the appendix to the article of Archbishop Philaret Maxim the Greek, Muscovite 1842. No. 11, part VI, page 91 sqq. This is a message in the Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 37, p. 367. See below p. 259, No. 21. Important. The Metropolitan wrote to Maxim and sent money. He suggested that Maxim take communion secretly, pretending to be sick, p. 93. Protosingell and the Metropolitan’s vessel guard, the monk Alexey, wrote to Maxim about slander against him (to whom Maxim’s letter was considered “to Adashev”); the Metropolitan asked Maxim to send him his works; asked Metropolitan Maxim about the Greeks (p. 95), wrote to Maxim that he could not help him (p. 96 was written as if during Daniel’s life and, therefore, not to Joasaph?). The message speaks of protosyncellus Alexy and the service book of Metropolitan Andrei Semyonov, with whom he sends 10 notebooks of his compositions to the Metropolitan, [Cf. 1 half volume pp. 815–816]. 12) Maxim sent notebooks from Tver to Alexy protosingellus metropolitan, and to Metropolitan Macarius, with weapons on Latin heresies and Jewish stubbornness, and on Hellenic charm and astronomy (Kazan edition part 2, p. 383), therefore: 1) ↓ The Sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord I. Christ, also in Judea, - Kazan edition part 1, word II, p. 39. 2) ↓ The word is incriminating about Hellenic charm, - Kazan edition, part 1, word V, p. 62. 3) ↓ A word of praise to the apostles Peter and Paul, in the same denunciation of the Latin three great heresies, - Kazan edition, part 1, word X, p. 180. 4) ↓ A word against those who strive to predict with stargazing about the future and about human autocracy, - Kazan edition, part 1, word XVIII, p. 399 (See about this word above, in works written before 1525, p. 234, No. 5). This word refers to, i.e. this word is sent to some unknown person in the message that Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 87 ver., p. 369, col. 1?). 13) In the same notebooks to Alexei there was a “teaching on morals” (ibid. p. 383): what exactly are the contents of this article? In the confession of faith sent to the boyars, Maxim says: “I think in my writings for myself and every faithful monk to live and live according to God’s holy commandments... and let them deviate from all covetous greed and untruth and theft of other people’s estates,” etc. (by the Right Reverend Plato, p. 292). And with the same notebooks, Maxim also sent a notebook of unknown content, compiled on the orders of Alexei (ibid. p. 382 fin. and 383 beginning about tafyas). 14) Maxim sends to the unknown George (Kazan edition, part 2, p. 424): 1) ↓ Two words on the Hagarians, – Kazan edition, part 1, word VI and VII, pp. 77 and 131. 2) Words against the heads of Samuel the Jew, – Kazan edition, part 1, word IV, p. 55. That the words on the Hagarians were written precisely in Tver is evident from the fact that Maxim sent Theory the remains of the 1st word (p. 424), i.e. Maxim sent them to George during the writing itself, wrote half of the word and sent it, then the other half. If the word had been written before, then Maxim would have had no need to send it in half. But from the beginning of the first word on the Hagarians it is clear (Part I, p. 77) that Maxim began to write it immediately after he wrote words on Jewish evil and Hellenic impiety and Latin heresies; therefore, these last words were also written in Tver. In Tver, these works were written before the Confession of Faith sent to the boyars, about which is above, and before the letter to Metropolitan Danil, in which he mentions them - Kazan edition, part 2, page 371. In the Confession of the Right Reverend Plato, page 292: “with my writings I denounce every Latin heresy and blasphemy of the Jews and pagans, I destroy and corrupt, as my very scriptures testify.” The purpose of writing these works, in addition to zeal for the Orthodox faith, there is no doubt, was also to present to the Russians evidence of the purity of their faith and their zeal for Orthodoxy. That the words: on the Jews above p. 239 No. 1, on the Hellenic charm above No. 2, on the Latin three great heresies above No. 3 and on the Hagarians above George No. 1 were written at the same time, this can be concluded from the fact that in the collection of his works Maxim places these words side by side (Academic manuscript No. 42, words 5–9). With other notebooks to Alexei (which is higher), Maxim sent a notebook, in it there are chapters 27, to the great ruler himself (i.e., the king), - Kazan edition, part 2, p. 383, or Chapters instructive for those in command of the faithful, - Kazan edition, part 2, word VIII, p. 157 (that these chapters are the notebook, in it there are also chapters 27, see List works of the Maximovs, Metropolitan Joasaph, Academic, manuscript No. 42, word 25, sheet at the top, 264 turns). By the way, these chapters were sent by Maxim to the Tsar in the message, which Kazan edition part 2, word XXXI, page 376 (see the end of the message)? [Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 808]. Relations to Akaki Tverskoy. 1) Akaki from Joseph’s Monastery, – Historical Acts vol. I, no. 216, p. 411, col. 1. About the lack of learning of Akaki, - Descriptions of Synodal Manuscripts No. 192, p. 580. After the fire that happened in Tver in 1537. July 22, wrote: a) A word about what speeches the Bishop of Tver would have made to the Creator of all, the burned former cathedral church and its entire courtyard, etc. - Kazan edition, part 2, word XX, page 260. b) A brief summary of the former Tverskoye fire, including praise for the renovation of church decoration, - Kazan edition, part 2, word XXI, p. 290. About the Tverskoye fire, - Bethany chronograph sheet 560 revolution at the very top of the inscription; Sofia 2nd Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles VI, 303 beginning. c) The composition of being was signed on the pulpit, - Kazan edition, part 2, word XXIV, page 295. d) Speeches from the pulpit to the priest and deacon ascending on it, - Kazan edition, part 2, word XXIII. (For the magnificent pulpit made by Archbishop Macarius for the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral in 1533, see Complete Collection of Chronicles, vol. 6, p. 291). 2) Misunderstandings with Akaki because of the speech: “Lord, you were our refuge.” In Psalm 89, verse 2, according to the old translation, was incorrectly read: “The Lord will be our refuge” (and in the Ostrog Bible: “The Lord will be our refuge”); Maxim corrected: “Lord, you were our refuge.” Akakiy found that Maxim, with his translation, preaches that the Lord was previously our refuge, but that now we no longer have refuge in God - Kazan edition, part 2, word XXXIX, p. 421 (Maxim defends the correctness of his amendment). How did the debate about this start? Maxim, when he was allowed to go to church, hearing there the reading: “Lord, you were a refuge for us,” reproached him for it and demanded that they read: “Lord, you were a refuge for us,” and thus a debate arose about this subject? The debate took place when Maxim lived in Tver “for many years” (p. 423). In the translation of the Psalter, made by Maxim himself for Nil Kurlyatev: “The Lord will be our refuge” (Lavra manuscript No. 62, p. 99) Why is this? In a letter to Gregory, Kazan edition, part 2, page 423, Maxim says that Akaki “comforted him with all contentment for many years” (is it true, or did he praise him involuntarily, so that it would not be worse?); “It is not powerful for me to forget his (i.e. Akakievo) care for many children and his salary, Gregory” p. 423. This deacon Gregory was a close person to Akaki (Kazan edition part 2, word XXXIX) and interceded for Maxim before the bishop? Gregory was a friend of Maxim (p. 424, copied Maxim’s works; Maxim amicably rebuked him for drunkenness - Kazan edition, part 2, word XXXIV, p. 386). In the Legend of Maxim (Lavra Manuscript No. 201, word 134, sheet 553 ver.): “he was in captivity for 22 years (less than 22 years; from 1531 to 1551 only 20 years) in the city of Tver in the bishopric, and the unspoken fate of the lover of mankind, Christ God, was weakened by the bishop of Tver, Akakios, according to with the blessing of the Right Reverend Jaasaph the Metropolitan (Joasaph was not allowed to receive communion for Maxim; he asked this permission from Macarius, see above letter to Macarius), going to the church and receiving the most pure and life-giving mysteries of Christ” (sheet 556). After Maxim was allowed to write, one time he did not have gratifying ink and cinnabar - Kazan edition, part 2, word XL, page 425. Is this by chance, only for the time he speaks of (or is this a simple excuse?), or because the allowance he was given was too meager, so there was nothing to buy ink and cinnabar with? When Maxim’s Greek hood wore out (this was during the last time of his stay in Tver), he asked Alexey to send a new one - Kazan edition, part 2, word ΧΧΧ III, p. 386. There was nothing to get one for himself? While in Tver, Maxim enjoyed the favor of Alexei and the priest Sylvester; was in correspondence with Alexey (Kazan edition, part 2, p. 383); says that he (Alexey) has diligent care for his (Maksimov’s) good (ibid. p. 382). He calls Sylvester his benefactor (ibid. p. 379), asks him for one widow, and therefore hopes for his favor (ibid.). The message to Sylvester is the first experience of relations with him? Does he write simply because he has heard a lot about his mercy, and not because he was previously acquainted with him (cfr p. 380 fin.)? He sends his essays to both of them (see letters to them). See "This word was written by a monk in prison, shut up and grieving, in the image of which he consoled himself and strengthened him in patience, in the year 7040 (1532). Do not grieve, do not grieve" ... Tsarskaya page 208, page 109 verso and page 221 beginning; Kazan edition part 2, word XLIX, p. 452. Tolstoy p. 109. 1) At the request of Nil Kurlyatev, he translated the Psalter in 1552. Lavra manuscript No. 62 (see here the notice of Nile himself). 5. – Generally about Maxim’s works. In the Lavra manuscript No. 200, on the 1st sheet of praise for the book of Maxim: “This book is sweet for the pious, accusatory for the wicked, terrible for us sinners, punishing for every age and generation,” etc. and another right there: “There is also a punishing book for the theologians, and an enlightening one for the naturalists, those who compete for weapons, fear those who remain silent”, etc. Autograph of Maxim (Greek psalter, written in 1540) in the Novgorod Sofia Library - see Evgenia Historical Dictionary, word Maxim, edition 2, part 2, page 39 [now in the Petrograd Theological Academy]. In the Lavra Manuscript No. 200, the empty space on the back of sheet 13 and on sheet 14 was written by whose hand? (Here are the Greek letters and their numerical meaning in Greek: ᾱ- ῡ πρῶτον, etc.). Is it not Maxim himself? (If so, then the postscript here about Artegrad and Maxim’s parents, page 14, and the postscript to the preface: “those who read, pray for me, the accursed one,” would have belonged to him). Between these notes on the back of the sheet are 14 verses to Theodore Tveritin. Does this show that sheets 12–15 were written in Tver, and not at Trinity, and were only woven into the Trinity manuscript (like the preface to the translation of Chrysostom into Matthew)? The first collected works of Maxim the Greek were compiled by Maxim himself. This first collection is represented by Academic manuscripts - No. 42, which belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph, and No. 153. The preface to this collection: “The preface, briefly stating the power of this book. This newly-written book is the gift of the all-holy and worshiped Spirit,” etc., written by Maxim himself. This preface, according to some copies (see Kazan edition, part 1, p. 7), is inscribed: "Preface, briefly describing the power of this book. In the 10th thousand years I have reached the fortieth year, when Maxim began to compile this book." 7040–55001540. 70401532. The praises that he writes in this preface to his works are the same (and in the same words) as in the epistle to Alexei [Kazan edition part 2, p. 383], to George (ibid. part 2, p. 424 fin.), to priest Sylvester (ibid. part 2, p. 379 fin. “inspired to me by the Holy Spirit” compare with the beginning of the preface), to Metropolitan Macarius (ibid. part 2, p. 364), in the Confession of Faith (ibid. part 1, p. 30; Plato p. 292). In 1532 that is, during the author’s lifetime, only the author himself, i.e. Maxim, could compile the collection. The whole style and style of the preface shows that it is Maximovo. This can be seen below: 1) from the fact that, concluding the preface, he says: “I am the first and worst of them (sinners)” (cfr in the Confession of Faith, Kazan edition, p. 31, in Plato 293: and according to my life). Another would not expose his personality here, because for another it would be completely inappropriate (and funny). In list No. 153, at the end of the preface, after the amen, the following is added: “Those who read, pray for me, the accursed one” (It is clear that Maxim himself says this). In Lavra No. 200 the same, sheet 13 (attributed by a different hand, at the top). 2) The book is called a book. Of course, I wouldn’t call another big book a book, but Maxim calls it that out of humility. Manuscript No. 42, which belonged to Metropolitan Joasaph († July 27, 1555), copied from Maximus’s own manuscript? Aliens, inserted speeches (not only strangers), are sometimes indicated in it by signs unknown to Russian scribes: (sheets on the top markings 71 revolution, 72 and revolution, 73, 82, 86, 87 revolution, 88 revolution, 89 revolution, 100, 102, 103 revolution, 108, 109, 136 revolution, 140, 144, 145, 147, 206 revolution, 289 revolution, 366 revolution, 345 revolution, and others). However, these signs could have been in the manuscript, even if it was not written directly from Maximova’s own handwriting. These signs are also in all later lists. On leaves 111, 112, and 118, there is a cinnabar sign ∻ Is it foreign or from our scribes? One of the hands that edited the manuscript, namely the one on leaves 43 revolution, 49 revolution, 54 revolution, 71, 81 revolution, 104, 107, 108, 122 revolution below, 123 revolution below, 125 below, 129, 147 revolution, 148, 152 revolution, 171, 178, 187, 187 revolution, 208 revolution, 335, 346 revolution below, 367) isn’t it Maksimova? The letter “n” in many places has a Greek form (see sheets typed in italics): the hand is accustomed to writing in Greek. On the sheets there are 221 turns and 222: actimon and phipoctimwn were written by a person who knows Greek. The letter “n” was also written in the form n by Russians who did not know Greek. See Collections of state charters of the Rumyantsev Museum, vol. II, p. 105 signature of priest Bogdan. On sheet 367 on the margin with the same hand: “Look diligently and correct yourself” (Maximovo?). But why is the lie in Greek not corrected on sheet 364? In the table of contents, in both lists, i.e., both No. 42 and No. 153, from chapter 48 is attributed by other hands, therefore, the table of contents written by Maxim himself (and, consequently, the original collection of works compiled by Maxim himself contained 47 chapters? And in the Tsar’s manuscript No. 241, p. 206, after chapter 46 the count of chapters is interrupted (hence, this is the end of the original table of contents), and p. 200 fin. (in the table of contents of the 1st binding chapter 46 is shown, i.e. this table of contents is copied from the original table of contents), and No. 243 too. In the Legend of Maxim, in his translation of the Psalter for Nil Kurlyatev (Lavra Manuscript No. 62, folio 1 ver.), it is said that the sacred book of Maximov was testified by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and Metropolitan Macarius with the cathedral. Maxim presented to the Metropolitan that collection of his works, which in Nos. 42 and 153? And he made this meeting to present it to the Metropolitan? Trinity did not like the works of Maximus until Archimandrite Dionysius. In the Life of Dionysius, printed. 1834, p. 119 sqq. Lishki in Rumyantsev manuscripts Nos. 264 and 265. 1) Praise to the primeval Adam No. 264, sheet 45, p. 368. 2) The word of a certain person is faithful to make the mind wise. Ibid., sheet 48, p. 368. 3) The teaching of Chrysostom (which one?). Ibid., sheet 49, p. 368. 4) The Tale of St. Let us glorify Father Cosmas about the vision. Ibid., sheet 56, p. 368. 5) Word of Niphon. Ibid., sheet 59 ver., p. ibid.. 6) About the Sibyls more than in the Lavra, leaves 64 turns - 66 turns. 7) Marya’s Prayer to the Egyptians, sheet 66 ver., p. ibid.. 8) Interpretation of the place in the Acts of the Apostles about St. Paul, the Areopagus, and the unknown god. Ibid., sheet 68, p. ibid.. 9) From Gregory the Theologian, sheets 68 ver., 69, 82 ver., p. ibid.. 10) About internal fasting, sheet 69, p. ibid.. 11) On kneeling, sheet 70 ver., p. ibid.. 12) “On the life of the decrees about fasting and the resolution of the whole summer” and here are the rules of some councils and the interpretation of names: metropolitan, bishop, archimandrite, folio 71 ver. p. ibid.. 13) About the installation of a hierarch on the eagle. Ibid. sheet 82, page ibid.. See Academic Manuscript No. 175, sheet 38. 14) A short message to someone when presenting a word to the astrologers, sheet 87 ver., p. 369, col. 1. Found in Lavra manuscript No. 201. 15) About Alda Manucci, sheet 99, page ibid. (to Prince Vasily Mikhailovich. Is it not to Vasily Mikhailovich Vereisky, who was married to the daughter of Andrei, Sophia Fominishna’s brother (Karamzin vol. VI, p. 45 fin.) and lived in exile in Lithuania (ibid. p. 153), therefore, could be interested in foreign books?). 16) Tales of Origen sheet 100, about Job sheet 103, about Melchizedek sheet 106, p. ibid.. 17) About translations from Svida, sheet 107, p. ibid.. 18) About Satan, sheet 107, page ibid.. 19) Teaching that it is powerful and easy to be saved in worldly life, sheet 122, p. 370, col. 1. Available in Lavrskaya and Kazanskaya. 20) Joseph the Judean testimony of Christ Jesus, folio 131 ver., p. ibid.. 21) About Plato the philosopher, sheet 135, p. 371 col. 1. 22) A message of comfort to a certain princess grieving over the death of her son, sheet 169, page ibid.. 23) From the book of explanations that there is an apostolic residence, sheet 170 ver., p. ibid.. 24) About the Catholic Dominican and Franciscan monastic orders (to Akakios of Tver), sheet 177, p. ibid.. 25) Comforting message to the unknown, sheet 189, p. 372. 26) Translation of passages from the 2nd book of Ezra (Karpov’s letter and response about Leviathan?), sheet 200, p. ibid.. 27) Prayers and spiritual instructions to a certain nun, sheet 202 ver., p. 372. 28) About fasting, to a certain lady, sheet 208, page ibid.. 29) Prayer of Mary of Egypt, sheet 219 ver., p. ibid.. 30) Extracts from Chrysostom, sheet 239 ver., p. ibid.. 31) From Athanasius of Sinai, sheet 246, page ibid.. 32) Prayer from blood flowing from the nose or lips, sheet 251 ver., page ibid.. 33) From the Patericon of the monastery about St. Macarius, sheet 252, pp. ibid.. 34) St. Basil, as it is not appropriate to celebrate on the day of heel, sheet 254, page ibid.. 35) Interpretation of some allegorical images, sheet 260 ver., page ibid.. Available in ours. 36) How contemporaries looked at Maxim’s works (they were indignant), sheet 262, p. 373. 37) Prayer against blasphemous thoughts, sheet 273, page ibid.. 38) Instruction in abbreviation for everyone overwhelmed by the sea of life, sheet 274, page ibid.. 39) The Tale of St. Cyprian and Justina, sheet 280, pp. ibid.. 40) Brief answer to the Holy Council about them, they are also slandered (byvago?), sheets 288–295, pp. ibid. (What is this?). Written to the king, see end. – Published in the appendix to the article by Philaret Maxim the Greek, Moskvitian 1842. No. 11, part VI,. page 84 sqq (written soon (maybe not soon) after the Tver fire and as a result of the slander that Slovesa aroused with his writing on behalf of (the fire, etc.). Works written before are indicated. 41) Teachings from the prophecies of Isaiah, sheet 295, page ibid.. 42) The same, to some noble person, sheet 296, p. 373 (Maxim’s benefactor), the same as No. 15, Prince Vasily Mikhailovich (sheet 296 ver.). 43) Message to some princess, sheet 298, p. ibid. (same as No. 22). 44) Joachim the Patriarch of Alexandria, who showed a miracle in exposing the Jews, sheet 300, page ibid.. 45) Message to Grozny. Beginning: Let lying and caressing and envious disposition disappear from every pious thought, sheet 302, page ibid.. 46) Interpretations of words from prophecies, psalms, etc., sheet 305, p. ibid.. 47) Confession of Faith of Nikon the Montenegrin, sheet 316 (This extract probably does not belong to Maxim). 48) From the eldership of spiritual healing (prescription against sins), sheet 320 ver., p. 374. 49) About Goliath and David No. 265, sheet 348, p. 380. Also Synodal manuscript No. 191, sheet 613, p. 574. 50) An excerpt from Maksimov’s letter about sending some painful labor to someone (and about hating him), sheet 349, p. 380. 51) Translation of the Book of Esther (Maksimov? Divided into 30 chapters, in Greek?), sheet 356 ver., p. ibid.. 52) Question and answer (about what?), sheet 381 revolutions. In Tsarsky in No. 244 and in Lavrskaya No. 200 there is an extra one against Lavrskaya No. 201: 1) Sheet 373 ver. Message from Fyodor Karpov to Maxim. At the end, Maksimov’s answer: about leviathan. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 420. 2) Sheet 377 ver. of Basil the Great The word about the hedgehog cannot be nailed down in everyday life. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 424 („translated by Maxim the Greek”). 3) Sheet 310. Basil the Great About St. Martyr Varlaam (it is directly said that it was translated by Maxim). Lavra No. 200, sheet 350, chapter 88. 4) Sheet 422 rev. Memories of St. Mount Athos, as it was called. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 458. 5) Sheet 425 revolutions. About the Iversk merchant. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 460 ver. 6) Sheet 428. About the Vatopedi monastery. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 463. 7) Leaf. 429 revolutions. About the appearance of the image of the Virgin Mary to one (unknown place) to the old man. Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 465 ver. 8) Sheet 436 rev. Miscellaneous. By the way: “from the rules” (i.e., cathedral ones. Extracts about monks (nothing special) with comments). Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 474. 9) Sheet 444 revolutions. The conclusion and the alphabet are mysterious (not mysterious; but the numerical meaning of the letters is shown). Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 480. In Lavra No. 201, chapter 105 (folio 471) it has just begun: “Paul the Thebean told this tale to the great chief of the monks” and nothing more. In Joasaph’s, these words form the conclusion of chapter 51, Praises to the ancient martyr, whose name is unknown (that is, did Paul speak about this unknown martyr?). After “the chief of the monks” is added with cinnabar: “that is, Anthony” (should be: “Antony”, as in the Academic list No. 153). 6. – Classification [of the works of Maxim the Greek]. I) Polemical: a) against Gentiles and heretics (Jews, pagans, Mohammedans, Armenians, Latins, Lutherans); b) against books translated from Latin into Russian; c) against astrology; d) against old Slavic apocryphal books and superstitions. II) Moral (to monks, rulers, all Christians). III) On questions of church practice. V) About various objects and actions of church ritual appearance. VI) Explanations of passages from St. Scriptures, liturgical and other books. VII) Essays related to the matter of correcting books. VIII) In defense of Greek Orthodoxy. IX) Words of praise to the saints. XII) On natural history and physiology. XIII) On grammar and lexicography. XIV) Panegyrics to persons and words of gratitude to the Lord regarding events. XVI) In resolving casuistic-theological issues. a) against infidels and heretics: A word about Christmas. Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and the same applies to Judea. Kazan edition part 1, word II, p. 39; Lavra manuscript .V 201, chapter 5, sheet 18. In Joasaph word 5. (The word seems to have nothing to do with the preaching of Isaac the Jew, because there is no appeal to Isaac in it; the word was written not due to any external special motives, but because Maxim decided to write a series of words against all the main infidels and heretics). The word exposes Hellenic prelest. Kazan edition part 1, word V, p. 62; Lavra No. 201, chapter 6, sheet 22 ver. In Joasaph word 6. (Written also without any special external prompting, see the beginning of the word). 3) Mohammedan: α) The word is incriminating against the Hagarian delusion and the nasty dog ​​Moamef who conceived it. Kazan edition part 1, word VI, p. 77; Lavra No. 201, chapter 8, sheet 41. In Joasaph word 8. β) Word 2 about the same to the faithful, on the atheist dog Moameth and a legend partly about the end of this century. Kazan edition part 1, word VII; Lavra No. 201, chapter 9, sheet 61. In Joasaph word 9. γ) Answers by Christians against the Hagarians who blaspheme our Orthodox Christian faith. Kazan edition part 1, word VIII, p. 151; Lavra No. 201, chapter 46, sheet 195 ver. A word on Armenian evil. Kazan edition part 1, word IX, p. 169; Lavra No. 201, chapter 45, sheet 151 ver. 5) Latins: α) A word of praise to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, in the same reproof against the Latin three great heresies (purgatory fire, Filioque and unleavened bread). Kazan edition part 1, word X, p. 180; Lavrskaya No. 201, ch. 7, sheet 28. β) A word against the flattering copying of Nicholas by a German, he was also copied about copulation by an Orthodox Christian and a Latin (what Nicholas asserted in his copy is refuted, that the Latins are as Orthodox as the Greeks with the Russians, and there are no obstacles to union; Maxim exposes three Latin heresies: Filioque, purgatory and unleavened bread). Kazan edition part 1, word XI, p. 213; Lavra No. 201, chapter [47, sheet 161 turns]. γ ) Word in Latin, as if it is wrong for anyone to add or subtract anything from the divine confession of the immaculate Christian faith. Kazan edition part 1, word XII, pp. 2.35; Lavra No. 201, chapter 135, sheet 556 ver. δ) The word is in Latin... (like the previous one). This and the previous one to Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov: in both, Nikolai’s arguments in favor of the Filioque are refuted at length. Kazan edition part 1, word XIII, p. 267; Lavra No. 201, chapter 53, sheet 201. ε) To Nicholas the Latin, a word about the procession of the Holy Spirit (refuted by the Filioque). Kazan edition part 1, word XIV, p. 323; Lavra No. 201, chapter 79, sheet 413 ver. η) Word in response to Nicholas the Latin (about when and how the Latins excommunicated from Orthodoxy and when they invented their new dogmas: Filioque, purgatorium, unleavened bread). Kazan edition part 1, word XXV, p. 509; Lavra manuscript No. 201, chapter 78, sheet 405. (Written under Metropolitan Daniel, - Kazan edition p. 530; Nicholas was going to convert to Orthodoxy ibid.). a) A word on the Luthors. Only icon veneration is discussed (that is, it is defended). The heretics to whom the word is written are not called by name, and there is no acceptance of them. To people more moderate and restrained than the Russian rationalists of the 16th century, who said that honest holy things should be revered, but it is not appropriate to bow to anything except the one God. Kazan edition part 1, word XXIII, p. 485; Lavra No. 201, chapter 63, sheet 288. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 241, p. 372, col. 2: “a word about the veneration of holy icons against the iconoclast Luthor who appeared in Nemtsekh.” β) A word on the blasphemers of the Most Pure Mother of God. Against those who say: then the Mother of God was holy and glorious when she carried Emmanuel in her womb, and when she gave birth and milked Him, she became like one from other women. Kazan edition part 1, word XXIV, p. 495; Lavra No. 201, chapter 35, sheet 138. b) against books translated from Latin into Russian, filled with incorrect thoughts: 1) The words are opposed to the heads of Samuel the Jew. Kazan edition part 1, word IV, p. 55; Lavra No. 201, chapter [52, sheet 198 ver.]. The chapters of Samuel the Jew were translated by Nikolai Nemchin (ibid.), in Novgorod in 1504. for Archbishop Gennady (Tsarskaya No. 461, sheet 154). [About Samuel the Moroccan Jew, see 1 half of volume p. 606 note 1] in his essay he tries to prove that Christ is the true Messiah (in Gresse II, 107). 2) The letter to a certain man (George) is instructive on the vows of a certain Latin sage (against Lucidarius). Lavra No. 201, chapter 54, sheet 248 (same chapter III, sheet 499). In Lavra No. 201 only part is against Lucidarius; the other part, see in Lavra No. 200, sheet 370: “The teacher and the student are talking. This book is called Lusidarius, that is, the enlightener.” About Lucidarius in the Chronicles of Tikhonravov, Book I, Section II, 33. In the form of a dialogue between teacher and student, Christian teaching about the world, about people, animals, countries and in general about what the curiosity of a literate person required an answer to (and Damascene has about various subjects of natural science). Maxim about the book: “in many cases he lies and writes against Orthodox tradition.” [Kazan edition part 3, word XXVIII, pp. 226–236]. 3) ↓ The word is opposite to John Lodovik, the interpreter of the sacred books of St. Augustine, Bishop of Ipponia. Lavra No. 201, chapter 51, sheet 191. Against astrology, which Louis defends by Greek pagan writers; against the authority and reading of these latter, of whom Louis calls Plato the most holy; in defense of the translation of the 70 (this is the main thing: chapters 7, 12, 13, 14, 15) and against Aquila, Symmachus and Phaedotion, which Louis follows, and the Hebrew text; against paradise in heaven, created before the creation of all things, etc. and so on, chapters 21 (each for a specific error). There is something important. For Louis, see Descriptions of Synodal Manuscripts No. 191, p. 543. 1) Mr. Fyodor Ivanovich Karpov (Karpov’s assertion that Christians need the charm of stargazing is refuted). Kazan edition part 1, word XVI, p. 347; Lavra No. 201, chapter 77, sheet 393 ver. 2) The word is that by God’s providence, and not by the stars and the wheel of happiness, everything human is arranged. Kazan edition part 1, word XVII, p. 377; Lavra No. 201, chapter 72, sheet 345. In Joasaph 13. 3) A word against those who try to predict with stargazing about the future and about human autocracy. Kazan edition part 1, word XVIII, p. 399; Lavra No. 201, chapter 53, sheet 231 ver. The first letter to Karpov, Kazan edition 1, 357, 427. In the Lavra No. 200 and No. 201 and in the Synodal Descriptions No. 191, the insertion made by Maxim after (or the scribes, it’s not okay, it should be in the 2nd, which was written after 1525 in Tver), about Nikolai Nemchin’s paper about the beginning of the Turks, etc. See. Synodal Manuscripts of Description No. 191, sheet 174, p. 537 ("the church in abiding love eternal even until the years of the Lord" ... Lavra No. 200: "V54; zfos" (7576), Lavra No. 201: "V54; sfos" (6576). Lavra No. 200, sheet 322 ver. and No. 201, sheet 225 ver. It can be seen that Maxim wrote against Nicholas before 1525. 4) The word is partly accusatory of Latin slander, and in it also of the almanac, which exalted the flood of all-dimensional existence, which was once remembered as the most destructive. Kazan edition part 1, word XXII, p. 457; Lavra No. 201, chapter 136, sheet 571. 5) The message to a certain prince is instructive about the charms of the stars and comforting to those living in sorrow. Kazan edition part 1, word XIX, p. 435; Lavrskaya [No. 201, chapter 88, sheet 436]. In Joasaph 36. 6) Message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about German charm, the verb fortune, and about its wheel. Kazan edition part 1, word XX, p. 446; Lavra No. 201, chapter [89, sheet 440]. In Joasaph 37. Above, section I, section II, No. 3 (p. [249]) and below in section II (moral), section 3, No. 1 (p. 252). d) against old Slavic apocryphal tales and Russian superstitions: 1) The word is incriminating and depravingly false in its description of the wise Aphroditian of Persia. Lavra No. 201, chapter 10, sheet 68. In Joasaph 10. Word of Aphroditean, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 525, sheet 302; Volokolamsk manuscript No. 644, sheet 217. Printed by Tikhonravov in Monuments, vol. II, p. 1 (based on a 13th-century manuscript). 2) The legend of the ever-essential and glorious birth of the Only Begotten Son and the Word of God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ask me for an explanation of Epifaniev’s stupid question and the holy fool’s stupid answer. Lavra No. 201, chapter 118, sheet 528. 3) A legend against those who say that Christ was placed in the priesthood. Lavra No. 201, chapter 144, sheet 590. (Tales about the priesthood of Christ were printed by Tikhonravov in Monuments, vol. II, p. 164). About the priesthood of Christ in the Epiphanius Life of the Mother of God, - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 656 [231], sheet [30 ver.]; ibid. No. 515 [152], sheet [374]; and in the Writing of Athanasius to Pankov about the tree of the cross. 4) The saying that it is not at all proper for those who speak to pay heed, for there is nothing else more than the Divine Liturgy for them who have not had time to come to the reading of the Divine Gospel. Lavra No. 201, chapter 86, sheet 431 ver. In Joasaph 34. (About the composition of the liturgy; in the proskomedia he speaks of one lamb prosphora). 5) A legend to those who say that the sun did not set throughout Bright Week, and for this reason they say one day throughout Bright Week. Lavra No. 201, chapter 95, sheet 464. In Joasaph 42. 6) A word on the insane charm and godless wisdom of those who philosophize, as burials for the drowned and murdered are fruitful in the cold of earthly vegetation. Lavra No. 201, chapter 31, sheet 129. Serapion of Vladimir. (They did not bury the drowned and the dead, but removed them from the field with stakes; the buried, if there was a cold in the spring, were thrown out of their graves). For this reason, the Impostor was taken out of the grave (and shot from a cannon), - Karamzin, vol. XI, p. 176 fin.. 7) Answer to the questioner, to whom, first of all, the letter was sent from heaven. Lavra No. 201, chapter 39, sheet 145 (Answer: the letter was sent from heaven to no one else). 8) The Legend of the Sinful Handwriting. Lavra No. 201, chapter 21, sheet 108 verso; Kazan edition part 1, word XXVI, p. 533. (Against the legend that Adam gave the devil the handwriting of the eternal work. For Adam’s handwriting, see Tikhonravov in Monuments, vol. I, pp. 4, 16 and 12). 1) Teaching to a monk about the correction of monastic life and what is the power of the great schema. Lavra No. 201, chapter 20, sheet 106; Kazan edition part 2, word XII, page 220 (223 fin.). An exhortation to the monks to decorate not the outer cupola, but the internal one, and walk worthy of the vows given. There is no mention of patrimonial ownership. The first incriminating one? See the beginning. 2) The word about unfeigned repentance, and in it also about a certain monastic residence, is extremely useful for those who listen to it with faith. Lavra No. 201, chapter 73, sheet 353; Kazan edition part 2, word IV, page 119. In Joasaph 19. General exhortations to avoid sin and keep the commandments of Christ (as indicated by the doctrine of the beatitudes). Partly against the patrimonial ownership of monasteries and the unmercifulness of monks towards their peasants, pp. 122, 125, 126, 129 fin. sqq., 136, 144. The futility of dying repentance, pp. 137, 139 beginning. I want mercy, not sacrifice, p. 144. Written before 1525 (beginning: [“by the death of] the quiet and saving [refuge] of Pentecost”). 3) A word about repentance. Lavra No. 201, chapter 80, sheet 419 ver. An exhortation to the monastic soul. Kazan edition part 2, word V, page 148. In Joasaph 16. Monasticism does not mean that a person lives in a monastery and wears monastic robes. Live by your labors p. 149. 4) Contestation about a well-known monastic life, the faces of the contestants Philoctimon and Actimon. Lavra No. 201, chapter 74, sheet 365. Kazan edition, part 2, page 89 (95). In Joasaph 20. With force about the mercilessness of the monks towards their peasants. 5) The insatiable belly of countless evils is guilty of monasticism. Lavra No. 201, chapter 70, sheet 344. Kazan edition, part 2, p. 153. In Joasaph 17. Briefly. There is something about non-covetousness. 6) The story is terrible and memorable and about perfect monastic residence. Lavra No. 201, chapter 50, sheet 180 ver.; Kazan edition part III, p. 178. Praise for Latin monasteries and against our monasteries. About Savanarol page 194. 7) ↓ The word is reminiscent of the correction of monastic life for certain honest nuns. Lavra No. 201, chapter 91, sheet 444. In Joasaph 38. See also [p. 258] section XI (Messages) No. 4. 1) The word expounds at length with pity the disorder and disorder of the kings and rulers of the last century of this. Lavra No. 201, chapter 13, sheet 90; Kazan edition part 2, word XXVI, page 319. In Joasaph 26. About the robbery of rulers and judges who build houses at the expense of those oppressed by them, collect wealth and feast. First Commandment: Love the Lord God p. 330. 2) The chapters are instructive for those in authority who are faithful. In the Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 191, sheet 134 ver., p. 531, it is unfairly noted that these chapters are for Vasily Ivanovich. Lavra No. 201, chapter 66, sheet 293; Kazan edition part 2, word VIII, p. 157. In Joasaph 25. Against external piety p. 161. The duty of bishops to appear before kings, p. 174. Denunciation of bishops, p. 174 fin.. Cf. above [page 240, no. 15], and below [here] in the next section no. 7. 3) The message to the rulers is true, - Kazan edition, part II, page 338. 4) About truth and mercy. Lavra No. 201, chapter 145, sheet 590 ver. (briefly). 5) About kindness and advice. Lavra No. 201, chapter 146, sheet 591 (briefly). 6) The tale of Menander the philosopher (briefly). Synodal manuscripts No. 191, sheet 129, p. 530. 1) A conversation between the soul and the mind on question and answer, about where passions are born in them, about divine Providence and about astrologers. Lavra No. 201, chapter 68, sheet 310 ver.; Kazan edition part 2, word II, p. 52. In Joasaph 14. About the love of money, growth, covetousness p. 57. Against star law p. 59 sqq, 73 sqq. therefore, until 1525. Against external piety p. 68. The whole half is against star law. [See page 239]. 2) Words are useful to the soul; those who listen to them greatly communicate the mind to their souls. Lavra No. 201, chapter 69, sheet 325 ver.; Kazan edition part 2, p. 5. In Joasaph 15. There is a little against the monks, pp. 20, 35, 40, 45, against excess malice, pp. 30, 31, 32, oppression of the poor, pp. 44, 45, alms to the poor is nothing, p. 32 fin., external piety, p. 41. 3) “What kind of speech would a certain bishop (Joasaph of Tephera) make to the Creator of all the burned former cathedral church and its entire courtyard,” etc. Lavra No. 201, chapter 67, page 304; Kazan edition part 2, word XX, p. 260. In Joasaph 21. 4) Words like from the person of the Most Holy Theotokos to the covetous and nasty and filled with all sorts of malice, and the canons with all sorts of different things to please those who hope. Lavra No. 201, chapter 92, sheet 451; Kazan edition part 2, word XV, page 241. In Joasaph 39. 5) The legend to those living in sin is persistent, and the canons are with all sorts of prayers of the saints who pray to God all day, hoping to receive salvation. Lavra No. 201, chapter 117, sheet 527 verso; Kazan edition part 2, word X, page 213. 6) The legend that it is worthy for us to fulfill our vows. Lavra No. 201, chapter 18, sheet 103 verso; Kazan edition part II, p. 214. They swear to eat meat on Monday and on the same Monday they get drunk p. 218. About the drunkenness of priests and monks p. 219. 7) The word about God’s unspeakable providence, goodness and love for mankind, including those who take covetousness. Lavra No. 201, chapter 49, sheet 171. Kazan edition part 2, p. 185. External piety p. 199 beginning. Against the extortion of judges and rulers p. 199 (shame on the Poles, Germans and infidels p. 201). About the judicial field p. 201 sqq. Covetousness of all and bishops p. 206 and all sorts of abominations p. 206 sqq. Sodomy p. 208. Against external piety p. 210. 8) A word on those who are drowned and perished without their minds by the godless, vile sin of Sodom in eternal torment. Lavra No. 201, chapter 124, sheet 532 verso; Kazan edition part 2, p. 251. 9) Whatever words Peter spoke, he rejected Christ and wept bitterly. Lavra No. 201, chapter 4, sheet 17. In Joasaph 4. 10) On the general charm of the sleepyheads dreamed in a dream. Lavra No. 201, chapter 71, sheet 344. In Joasaph 18. 11) Words exhorting to repentance. Lavra No. 201, chapter 100, sheet 469 (briefly); Kazan edition part 2, page 247. In Joasaphovskaya 47. 12) About repentance. Lavra No. 201, chapter 147, sheet 591 (chapter 149, sheet 594 is the same). 13) The story of the parable of the garden about the youth, as they say, he who bore a son did not die. Lavra No. 201, chapter 42, sheet 148 ver. (briefly). 14) About how it is appropriate to enter the holy churches of God. Lavra No. 201, chapter 37, sheet 143 ver. (in two translations). These poems were written by Maxim to test the learning of the Greeks coming to Rus'. See Rumyantsev Museum No. 265, sheet 226 ver., p. 377. 15) Speeches like from the pulpit to the priest and deacon ascending on it. Lavra No. 201, chapter 120, sheet 529; Kazan part 2, p. 295. Maxim’s message to someone who wants to renounce the world and go into the monastic Life, who is stuck, but is already overcome by need, and I also ask him (Maxim) for parables and ganations and dark words. Lavra No. 201, chapter 26, sheet 123. III) On questions of church practice: 1) A story about the resolution of the Lenten vow. Lavra No. 201, chapter 16, page 102 (See Kotoshikhina, p. 66: during the Great and Dormition fasts, they ate nothing on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and once on other days). 2) A word for those who want to leave their lawful wives without guilt and go into the monastic Life. Lavra No. 201, chapter 84, sheet 426. In Joasaph 32. 3) Maxim’s message to a certain prince, asking him why he didn’t eat quickly on Monday. Lavra No. 201, chapter 122, sheet 531. 4) About marshmallow (about their non-eating of meat). Lavra No. 201, chapter 139, sheet 585 ver. 5) Statement of three certain demands necessary for every book zealot (answers to three questions from one unknown person): 1) ↓ if there are truths, those who are wisely killed in battles from the wicked by a pious warrior will participate in the possessions of the righteous, that is, the kingdom of heaven (the answer is affirmative); 2) what is the use of the edge-grain prescribed by certain canons; 3) is it permissible to eat pork meat (answer: not only pork, but all kinds, everything is clean for the clean, the Law of Moses is not obligatory for Christians, abolished by Christ and the apostles (important against schismatics). Lavra No. 201, chapter 94, sheet 459. [Kazan edition part 3, word XXXV, pp. 245–259]. 1) Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, in the same and partly wine-making about the passion of Spasov. Lavra No. 201, chapter 2, sheet 12. In Joasaph word 2. 2) A song of thanksgiving to the Most Holy Trinity, spoken throughout the Bright Week of Holy Easter. Lavra No. 201, chapter 3, sheet 15. In Joasaph 3. 3) Canon of prayer to the divine and worshiped Paraclete. Lavra manuscript No. 62, sheet 176 (after the canon, prayer to the Holy Spirit). In Joasaph, after extracts from the prophets, on the upper border of folio 408 (canon and prayer). 4) Singing for the honest Dormition of the Mother of God. Folded by Maxim. Tsarskaya No. 265, sheet 306, p. 243. [In the Lavra Manuscript No. 62] the Sunday Midnight Office, folio 200, the canon of the Trinity, the creation of Mitrophan, folio 201, the Sunday choruses of Gregory of Sinaita, folio 206, the daily Midnight Office, folio 210, and the Saturday Midnight Office, folio 215, placed in the appendix to Maximov’s translation of the Psalter for Neil Kurlyatev, Lavra Manuscript No. 62, hasn’t it been corrected by Maxim (at the request of the same Neil)? Cleared of the Serbisms of Cyprian, which Nile speaks of in the preface to the translation of the Psalter? V) Essays written in response to questions about various objects and actions of church ritual appearance: 1) A story about how to sign the sign of the cross. Lavra No. 201, chapter 85, sheet 429 ver.; No. 200, chapter 46, sheet 281. In Joasaph 33. “By the union of three fingers, that is, the finger and the hedgehog from the middle and small, we confess the mystery of the three God-originating hypostases - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God three; and over the course of the long and middle two natures came together in Christ, that is, himself We confess the Savior of Christ”... In the Lavra Manuscript No. 200, according to the scratching: “by the union of three fingers, that is, the finger and the hedgehog from the middle and index... by the bending of the small and near that existing thing.” 2) To those who dare to say three words of alleluia through church traditions, and fourth: glory to you God. Lavra No. 201, chapter 114, sheet 522 ver. In Joasaphovskaya 27. “A word for those who dare”... There is this word in the collection of Evfimy Turkov, written in 7070 (1562) - Volokolamsk manuscript No. 514, sheet 501 (isn’t it a bound notebook?). 3) The story of the raising of the Most Pure Bread of the Mother of God. Lavra No. 201, chapter 130, sheet 549 ver. (Compare the same story in the Psalter of Metropolitan Cyprian, page 190). 4) The legend about the consecration of water at the dawn of the Holy Epiphanies. Lavra No. 201, chapter 87, sheet 434. In Joasaph 35. 5) ↓ Saying a line talking about the heavenly world and the salvation of our souls. (To Akaky Tverskoy. It is refuted that the supernal world refers to angels. In the second part of the message about “God was born, and for this reason he was exhausted from nature”). Lavra No. 201, chapter 113, sheet 520. In Joasaph 30. 6) The legend about the sacred image of the Savior Christ, it is also called despondency. To Akaki Tverskoy? (About the image of Spasov, painted by order of Pope Gregory Dvoeslov, as a result of a vision). Lavra No. 201, chapter 30, sheet 128 ver. 7) The legend about the crown of Spasov and the retinue that is in His hand and about the name of the Mother of God. Lavra No. 201, chapter 55, sheet 252. 8) The legend of wedding crowns. Lavra No. 201, chapter 40, sheet 145. 9) The legend that under the cross on the church, a new moon is planted in it. Lavra No. 201, chapter 34, sheet 137 ver. Also see the Rumyantsev addition. The answers to questions about the icons of Nikolai Lyubchanin (Tsarskaya No. 314, sheet 161, and No. 377, sheet 26 verso) do not belong to Maxim? A letter to Grozny about barber shaving. VI) Explanations for some places in the books of Holy Scripture, in liturgical books and others: 1) (Explanation) from the Gospel of John (words: as if the whole world itself could not contain the books that were written, unless the miracles of Savior were written one by one. Chapter 21, Art. 25). Lavra No. 201, chapter 115, sheet 524. In Joasaph 28. 2) Interpretation from Psalm 102, line: your youth will be renewed like an eagle. Lavra No. 201, chapter 29, sheet 127 ver. 3) The legend is partly based on Psalm 18. Lavra No. 201, chapter 33, sheet 134 ver. (To some honest father, folio 136 ver.). Lavra No. 200, sheet 393: “to the same monk.” The same Synodal No. 191, sheet 31, p. 522. 4) An epistle to a certain friend, in it an interpretation of certain sayings, inconveniently understood, in divine scripture. Lavra No. 201, chapter 93, sheet 452 ver. In Joasaph 40. Interpretation of passages from Psalms 1, 2, 3, 25, 33, 31, 141. 5) Interpretation of some places in the psalms (attached to another, 107, chapter). Beginning: Psalm 41. The abyss calls upon the abyss. Interpretation. The abyss of spiritual labors calls upon the abyss of the mind of God. Lavra No. 201, sheet 479. (Explanations of passages from psalms 41, 45, 48, 52, 55, 56, 57, 67, 72, 75, 80, 81, 82, 87, 105, 109, from biblical songs 2, 3 (see Rumyantsev Museum no. 264, sheet 11 ver. and sheet 22, pp. 366 and 367, and sheet 26 ver., against star knowledge, to a certain friend, until 1525, for Nikolai Nemchin p. 367 col. 4, then passages from the akathist to the Mother of God). Knew Bulgarian, sheet 479 (khlyabiya). 6) The saying of this speech: go, my people (Isaiah, 26, 20). Lavra No. 201, chapter 15, sheet 100 ver. 7) Roman Church interpretation of the Lord's Prayer (i.e. the Lord's Prayer) questions and answers. Lavra No. 201, chapter 143, sheet 499 ver. (Translation from Latin?). Is it maximum? The caption doesn't say. 8) Interpretation of the 4th voice of the Irmos, the first songs. (Three standing strong ones born from the Virgin). Lavra No. 201, chapter 150, sheet 594. 9) The statement of some somewhat perplexed sayings in the word of Gregory the Theologian (Nifrakinstia, these statutes). Lavra No. 201, chapter 44, sheet 149. VII) Essays related to the matter of correcting books: 1) Confession of the Orthodox faith of Maxim the monk from the Holy Mountain, in which he informs every Orthodox priest and prince about Christ Jesus, that in all things he is most truly an Orthodox monk, etc. Kazan edition, part 1, word 1, page 23; Lavra No. 201, chapter 1, sheet 6. In Joasaph 1. Defends himself against the fact that he is a heretic and an enemy of the Russian state. To the bishops and boyars during the childhood of Grozny, - Kazan edition pp. 33, 36. A request in general terms pp. 38 fin.. 2) The word is informative about the correction of Russian books, which also say that the flesh of the Lord after the resurrection of the dead was indescribable and so on. Lavra No. 201, chapter 11, sheet 78; Metropolitan Plato part 2 p. 302; Kazan edition part III, page 60. Asks to go to the Holy Mountain. To the princes. In Joasaph 11. Written in 1543 or 1544. Kazan edition p. 61. Mention of the previous page 61 fin.. 3) The word is indicative of book correction. Lavra No. 201, chapter 12, sheet 85 verso; Metropolitan Plato part 2 p. [323]. Kazan edition, part III, p. 79. In Joasaph 12. In one of the Synodal lists, description No. 191, p. 524, sheet 39 in the margin, it is written: “this was written to the Bishop of Tver.” Nonsense, - Metropolitan Macarius. 4) A statement about how it is appropriate to observe the confession of the Orthodox faith (about the symbol of faith). Lavra No. 201, chapter 48, sheet 169. (It was in the symbol: from the Virgin Mary instead of the Virgin Mary; tea instead of tea; the life of the future century instead of the life of the future century). In Rumyantsevskaya No. 264, sheet 136 ver., p. 371 col. 1, to Gregory (i.e. Deacon Tverskoy?). 5) About incense. Lavra No. 201, sheet 526 (Beginning: Blessed John Chrysostom interprets the incense offered so that my prayer will correct this). 6) ↓ Interpretation of the line of Psalm 89: “The Lord was our refuge.” Lavra No. 201, chapter 19, sheet 105 (There are people who are embarrassed about me by this proverb..., the same as in the letter to Gregory. 7) A collection of passages translated by Maxim in his own way into the Psalter. Lavra No. 201, chapter 107, sheet 473 ver. Also see [page 255] in Section V, Article 5. VIII) Writings in defense of Greek Orthodoxy: 1) A legend to those who deny the installation (and) swear by their handwriting to the Russian metropolitan and the entire sacred council, not to accept the installation of the metropolis and dominion from the Roman Pope of the Latin faith, and from the Patriarch of Constantinople, like a filthy king in the region of the godless Turks, and not to accept the one installed from them. Lavra No. 201, chapter 97, sheet 467; Kazan edition part III, p. 154. In Joasaph 44. 2) The legend about how the holy things are never desecrated, even if they have been in possession for many years; they are a city away from the filthy. Lavra No. 201, chapter 41, sheet 145 verso; Kazan edition part III, p. 156. IX) Words of praise to the saints: 1) Praise for Saint John, called the Great. Lavra No. 201, chapter 101, sheet 469 ver. In Joasaph 48. 2) Praise for blessed Thomaidi, who was killed by the sword from her father-in-law. Lavra No. 201, chapter 102, sheet 469 ver. fin.. In Joasaph 49. 3) Praise for a certain victorious martyr, her name is Potamia, which is interpreted as a river. Lavra No. 201, chapter 103, sheet 470. In Joasaph 50. 4) Praise goes to a certain wonderful ancient martyr, whose name is unknown. Lavra No. 201, chapter 104, sheet 470 ver. In Joasaph 51. 5) Preface to the lives of the miracle workers of Solovetsky. Lavra No. 201, chapter 106, sheet 471. (Written at someone’s compulsion, sheet 471 fin. and sheet 473. This is not praise, but a warning: Maxim, by someone’s (will?) corrected and supplemented the life of the Solovetsky miracle workers. The monastery on Pechenga, which is mentioned here, was founded in 1533, - see in the History of the Hierarchy, part 4, Kola or Kolskopechensky and Kurbsky about Theodoret). 1) About Spiridonia, miracle workers. Lavra No. 201, chapter 22, sheet 111 ver. 2) Joseph the Jew says that the pious thought of the autocrat is a passion, and this is revealed from supernatural patience, hedgehog to the bitterest torment, by the Maccabees, who were tortured by Antiochus. Lavra No. 201, chapter 23, sheet 112 ver. 3) The Legend of Judas, traitors to Apollinaris. Lavra No. 201, chapter 83, sheet 424 ver. In Joasaph 31. 4) Maximus the Greek, a story of a self-witness about the torment of a certain newly-minted martyr in the Grecious land. Lavra No. 201, chapter 96, sheet 465 ver. In Joasaph 43. 5) About Belshazzar, king of Babylon. Lavra No. 201, chapter 116, sheet 527. 6) ↓ About Christopher. Lavra No. 201, chapter 138, sheet 585. 7) About the archangel, a governor in Russian, what his life will be like in the correction of the zemstvo (about Belisarius, the governor teaches by the example of Belisarius). Lavra No. 201, chapter 151, sheet 594 ver. 8) About the Sibyls, how many of them there were. Lavra No. 201, chapter 131, sheet 551 revolutions, and chapter 142, sheet 589 (To someone, sheet 551 revolutions). 9) The story of a council that wanted to establish that priests and deacons and subdeacons would be without wives (another title: the statute on how to live as a priest and deacon. About Paphnutius, who rejected this proposal). Lavra No. 201, chapter 17, sheet 103. 1) To Nikolai the many-teaching Nemchin. Before the small days, you told me to always have a memory of you, that is, to send prayers for you to the Savior Christ (he convinces me to convert to Orthodoxy). Kazan edition part 1, word XV, p. 341; Lavra No. 201, chapter 32, sheet 132. 2) To Metropolitan Daniel, already deposed (about reconciliation and forgiveness). Lavra No. 201, chapter 27, sheet 124; Kazan edition part 2, word XXX, p. 367. About his activities before Russia p. 370 fin.. 3) To a certain friend, sitting in prison, and I asked how to get rid of the evil temptation that occurs in a dream from the temptation of Satan, and about the freezing of cold thoughts and prodigal thoughts, and from cowardice. Lavra No. 201, chapter 123, sheet 531 ver.; Kazan edition, part II, p. 248. To Vasilan, when he was sitting in Joseph’s [monastery] (Kazan edition, p. 250: “I can’t dig” - master Vasilan?). 4) Message to some honest nuns (together with a word of remembrance about the correction of monastic life, which [see above p. 251] in moralizing to monks No. 7). Lavra No. 201, chapter 90, sheet 443 ver.; Kazan edition part II, p. 394. Extensive; beautiful. Against external piety. Against patrimonial ownership. 5) Mr. and brother George. Kazan edition part 2, word XL, page 424. 6) To Gregory the deacon (about his drunkenness). Kazan edition part 2, word XXXIV, p. 386. 7) To him about “Lord, you were a refuge.” Kazan edition part 2, word XXXIX, p. 421 (the same as above in the essays on the matter of correcting books [p. 256] No. 6). 8) The message is comforting to Prince Demetrius about patience in sorrow. Kazan edition part 2, word XXXV, page 388. 9) To Prince Pyotr Ivanovich Shuisky. Lavra No. 201, chapter 148, sheet 591 ver.; Kazan edition part II, p. 415. It is not asked to go to Mount Athos, because it is objectionable, but the sacraments are p. 418. Written in 1542. ibid.. 10) To Metropolitan Macarius. Lavra No. 201, chapter 14, sheet 96 verso; Kazan edition, part II, p. 357. Instructional and asks for communion and [that he be] released to Athos. About his activities in Vatopedi before Russia p. 364 fin.. Written while the Ecumenical Patriarch was asking for Maxim, p. 366. In the Synodal Description No. 191, sheet 537, p. 564: the verb Lyakh. 11) To Grozny. Lavra No. 201, chapter 109, sheet 486 ver. fin.; Kazan edition part 2, word XXVIII, p. 346. In Joasaphovskaya 24. (Here it is inscribed in general: “A word to the ruler of the earth,” and begins without directly addressing Grozny: “There are many slaughters and other things.” Good. Instructive. Against external piety p. 349. Slandered by Prince Vasily Ivanovich p. 355. Request to return to Athos p. 356). 12) To Grozny, when he was already king. Lavra No. 201, chapter 141, sheet 587 ver. Kazan edition part 2, word XXXI, p. 376, cfr I, 34. Petition for return. He lived on Mount Athos for 10 years before traveling to Russia. 13) To Grozny, don’t shave your braids. Lavra No. 201, chapter 137, sheet 583. 14) To Alexey about tafyas. Lavra No. 201, chapter 140, sheet 586; Kazan edition part 2, word XXXIII, page 382. (Not to Adashev, see message 21). 15) To Sylvester's priest. Lavra No. 201, chapter 132, sheet 552 verso; Kazan edition II, p. 379. 16) To a certain nun, in it he teaches not to grieve for the dead. Kazan edition part 2, word XLI, p. 425. 17) To the young man Mikhail Vasilyevich, [son of] the son of Prince Peter Shuisky, about Christopher. Kazan edition part 2, word XXXVIII, p. 420 (same as in historical [p. 257] No. 6). 18) To the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich (in translation, Psalter). Lavra No. 201, chapter 76, sheet 383. 19) Advice to the Orthodox cathedral on Isaac the Jew, the sorcerer and sorcerer. Lavra No. 201, chapter 98, sheet 467 ver. In Joasaph 45. 20) Comforting message to friend Konstantin. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 34, p. 367, col. 2. 21) To an unnamed metropolitan. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 37, p. 367. (To Metropolitan Macarius. Message to Alexy along with this (in the letter to Alexy Maxim mentions the message to the Metropolitan, - Kazan edition part II, p. 383); but together with the message to Alexy Maxim sends to the Tsar a notebook, in it there are chapters 27: and this is not with Joasapha, when Ivan the Terrible was small, and under Macarius. The message about the tafyas, as it turns out from a comparison of this message with that one, was written not to Adashev, but to Alexei protosingellus and the metropolitan guardian Alexius, about whom here (and in that very message: Reverend Father ... Father Alexei). 22) In the Kazan manuscript No. 310, sheet 704: “Maksimo responded to the king about faith, he was very strong against the Latin heresy.” Beginning: “Always good congratulations (preceding all honors, honest Zhigimonte.” Descriptions of manuscripts [of the Solovetsky Monastery in the Kazan Theological Academy] part I, page 496. XII) On natural history and physiology: 1) The legend of strufokamel and its egg. Lavra No. 201, chapter 43, sheet 148 ver. 2) The legend about the tawny owl bird. Lavra No. 201, chapter 99, sheet 469. In Joasaph 46. 3) Seven degrees of human living. Lavrskaya No. 201, sheet 253 (short). X III) On grammar and lexicography: 1) About Greek vowels and consonants, syllables, superverbal Greek and Slavic signs, etc. Lavra No. 201, sheet 525 fin.. See Synodal No. 191, pp. 575 and 576. 2) Interpretation of (proper) names of Greek and Hebrew and Roman. Lavra No. 201, chapter 108, sheet 481 ver. Did Maxim speak Hebrew, or did he have a Greek interpreter of Jewish names? Probably the latter. 3) Explanation of words: pandok (pandects), leviathan, tristat. Lavrskaya No. 201, sheet 291 ver. 4) About grammar. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, p. 370 (brief). XIV) Panegyrics to persons, words of gratitude to the Lord regarding the events: 1) A brief summary of the former fire of Tver, the same and praise for the renovation of church decoration, the former God-loving Bishop of Tver Akaki. Lavra No. 201, chapter 81, sheet 421. In Joasaph 22. 2) A word of thanksgiving to our Lord Jesus Christ about the former glorious victory in the Crimean... in the summer of eight thousand and forty-nine. Lavra No. 201, chapter 75, sheet 377 ver. In Joasaph 23. Maximovo's build was the signature on the ambon. Lavra No. 201, chapter 119, sheet 529. XVI) In resolving theological issues: 1) A legend against those who say that through carnal copulation and birth the human race would multiply, even if the forefathers had not sinned. Lavra No. 201, chapter 82, 422 turns fin.. In Joasaph 29. 2) The legend, which is the first sin in human nature. Lavra No. 201, chapter 38, sheet 144 ver. 3) Statement of three certain penalties necessary for every book zealot (see [p. 253] in III on questions of church practice No. 5, the first penalty). Lavra No. 201, chapter 94, sheet 459. 1) On Nikolai, the charmer and astrologer (about the death of Nikolai). Lavra No. 201, chapter 28, sheet 127 ver. 2) From the book of verbs Suids. Lavra No. 201, sheet 253 (about talent). More from Suida, see Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 30 ver., p. 367 col. 1. In general, about Maxim’s translations from Svida ibid. sheet 107, page 369, col. 2. 3) Solving one cryptographic signature (solved: “Karpafos” instead of “Philippos”). Lavrskaya No. 201, sheet 525. 4) The monk wrote these words in prison, closed and grieving, with them he consoled himself and confirmed himself in patience, in the year 7040. Lavra No. 201, chapter 36, sheet 143. (Tsarskaya No. 244, chapter 93, p. 221 beginning, much more complete and the translation is not the same). Kazan edition part 2, word XLIX, page 452. 5) Parable. Someone was born on the face of the field, in the darkness of the night, not wrapped in a shroud, not washed with water, etc. (The answer follows: Antichrist). Lavrskaya No. 201, sheet 291 ver. 6) There is a louse in the pigeon. The dove is a simple bird, good-natured and free from lice (a louse in a dove is a sin from the action of the devil in the soul of a common man). Lavrskaya No. 200, sheet 417. 1) Gennady, Patriarch Scholaris of Constantinople, dialogue or conversation (Patriarch Gennady with a Turkish man. Translation not by Maximov, but by one of his students (see the preface, here about Maximus’s relationship with his students), only made from Maximov’s Greek book). Lavra No. 201, chapter 56, sheet 253. Translation of Kurbsky, see Synodal manuscripts No. 191, p. 568. 2) The debate is copied from the book of Damascenes, which also describes the fortune-telling of a Christian by sracin, or magmetan (translation of the same as the previous one, or of Maxim himself? Translation of Kurbsky, see Synodal manuscripts No. 191, p. 567). Lavra No. 201, chapter 57, sheet 263. Maxim was also going to translate from Damascus. See the Disclaimer about the correction of Russian books in Plato, p. 319 fin. and 320. 3) Divine John Chrysostom's word on the pentacostum about the Holy Dus. There are truly many other graces that participate (whose translation is not stated). Lavra No. 201, chapter 58, sheet 267. See Synodal No. 191, page 569. This is not the word of Chrysostom. 4) Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. And if these decrees are light, they are the law, and the kings are for government (whose translation is not said. In the Russian translation in the publication of the Creation of the Holy Fathers, part V, p. 40 sqq). Lavra No. 201, chapter 59, sheet 276. 5) Moral teaching from the conversation of the 29th Hebrew Epistle (Chrysostom. Alexander Vasilich [Gorsky] noted on the field: translated from Latin). Lavra No. 201, chapter 60, sheet 279. 6) Chrysostom’s moral teaching from the 30th Hebrew Epistle about the Latins is extremely useful. (On the field by Alexander Vasilich [Gorsky]: from Latin). Lavra No. 201, chapter 61, sheet 282 ver. 7) Moral teaching from the conversation of the 8th Hebrew Epistle (Alexander Vasilich: from Latin). Lavra No. 201, chapter 62, sheet 285. 8) Saint Maximus the Confessor. Beginning: It is impossible for a sinner to escape future judgment. (Small. Whose translation is not said). Lavra No. 201, chapter 65, sheet 292 ver. Others say that Maksimovo. 9) This word is not mine from Maxim, but from Cyril of Jerusalem. Beginning: I’m afraid of death, because I have a mountain, I’m afraid of Gehenna, because there is no end. Lavra No. 201, chapter 110, sheet 491. – Rumyantsev Museum No. 265, sheet 318, p. 379, it is said that it was translated by Maxim in 1542. The same in Academic Manuscript No. 195, sheet 283. 10) St. Gregory the Theologian on love of poverty. What time does not help nature, it does not cover for the sake of the living flesh, the humble flesh. Lavra No. 201, sheet 519 (several extracts from Gregory the Theologian on love of poverty), at the end to extracts from the prophets that make up chapter 112 [see. now], below No. 12). In Lavra No. 200, folio 422 verso: “at the baptism of the Lord Gregory the Theologian, chapter 23.” Beginning: The heretic is by the majesty of the burden (short extract). 11) John Chrysostom about the departure of the soul from the body. Let us take care, brethren, for that hour to come. Lavra No. 201, chapter 121, sheet 529 fin.. 12) Extracts from the prophets (first the minor ones, then the major ones; from the major ones with interpretations of Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Theodoret. To expose the vices of the Russian society of that time?). Lavra No. 201, chapter 112, sheet 502 ver. – In Joasaph, after chapter 51, on a special notebook, without chapter designation, sheet along the top line 381. 13) Message from Domnik, Archbishop of Venice, ambassador to the Most Holy Patriarch of Great Antioch, Cyrus Peter, and about his others. Lavra No. 201, chapter 125, sheet 535 ver. Dismissal of Patriarch Peter to Domnik ibid. Chapter 126, sheet 536 ver. Herman the Patriarch to the stiff-necked Latin teaching. Beginning: Having known slaughter, love, true Orthodoxy ibid. Chapter 127, sheet 544 ver. Confession of the Pope, brought by the respondent of his Fremenuria to Patriarch Herman ibid. chapter 128, sheet 545 ver. (in the list of works of Maxim Rumyantsevsky Museum No. 264, see sheet 320 ver., p. 373, col. 2 fin.). Answer from Patriarch Hermann and the Council to those sent from the Pope by Fremenur ibid. Chapter 129, sheet 545 ver. Testimony that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (from the fathers). Ibid. sheet 546 ver. And these chapters are translated by Maksimov? 14) Explanatory Psalter, Explanatory Apostle, simple Psalter for Kurlyatev, Chrysostom on the evangelists Matthew and John, Metaphrast’s Life of the Theotokos. See about them above. 15) The word of Simeon Metaphrast about the miracles of St. Michael the Archangel of Khoneh. Translated by Maxim (Lavra No. 664, sheet 17, September Menaion, number 6). In the Makarievskaya Menea on September 6. 16) The miracle of Archangel Michael, which took place in the Holy Mountain (i.e. Mount Athos). Lavra No. 664, sheet 11, September Menaion, 6th, isn’t it Maximovo? 17) Lavra No. 200, sheet 443 verso, brief information about Gregory the Theologian and the word Easter; from sheet 444 like the saints of our father Gregory, Archbishop of Constantinagrad the Theologian, for Easter and for the Last Day (sic) word 1 (with interpretation of Nikita of Irakli). The entire first word and the beginning of word 2, sheet 451. 18) Lavra No. 200, sheet 452 of Khrus isolated from the historical word about the cross of the Lord. Translation by Maksimov? 19) From Chrysostom about negligent bishops and the rezoimites. Rumyantsev Museum No. 264, sheet 31 verso, p. 367, col. 1. 20) Patriarch Joachim in Osten’s book says that Maxim in 1521. (according to other lists in 1542) translated the rules of the apostles and councils from Greek into Slavic. See Metropolitan Eugene Historical Dictionary, [under the word] Maxim, edition 2 p. 37 fin.. What does Joachim mean? Helmsman Vassyanova, who Tolstoy's manuscript Section 1, No. 169, p. 92? 21) About the monasteries of Mount Athos. Lavra No. 200, page 13 verso (by the way it is said: “and all (Athos monasteries) have no property, and they feed and clothe themselves through their labors; they have no villages, only grapes and a garden”). Maximovo? 22) The word of Constantine Porphyrogenite... the story... about the miraculous... image sent to Abgar. Translation by Maxim. Tsarskaya No. 265, sheet 336, p. 243. From Suida translations into Varia [see. higher]. II. Translated writing from the Mongol invasions to Metropolitan Macarius. (Bibliographic review). About the collection of the books of Holy Scripture by Athanasius the Great through Jophalius the deacon, see Zinovy ​​of Otensky, page 355. About the Bible translators, the word is the Macarius Chetya Menaion of August 20. About the book of Judith, see Zinovy ​​of Otensky, p. 777 fin.. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon was translated on Mount Athos by Hieromonk Gabriel in 1412, - Grigorovich's Manuscripts according to the description of A.E. Viktorov, p. 40. Ezra, see Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener, pp. 271, 272 beginning. Gennady's edition of the Bible. (According to the Description of the Synodal Manuscripts of Gorsky and Nevostruev, Nos. 1–3). The four preliminary articles are taken from some German edition of the Bible (the first - page 3 and the second - page 7 are taken from the Bible of the Judaizers?). Two books of Chronicles, three books of Ezra, books: Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon and two books of Maccabees, together with the prefaces to them by Jerome, were translated from the Vulgate. In the first preliminary article, 1 and 2 Kings are called Samoil's books, and in the text itself (p. 31) 1 is called Samoil's, and 2 is called 2 Samuel. The Prophet Jeremiah is significantly expanded from the Vulgate (chapters 1–25 and 46–51: p. 91), the Prophet Ezekiel is somewhat expanded from the Vulgate (chapters 45 and 46: p. 104). The book of Proverbs is given at the end in order according to the Vulgate (p. 66). The same with Jesus Sirach and the prophet Jeremiah (pp. 80 and 98). The Book of Esther has 16 chapters, the first 9 chapters are translated from the Hebrew (taken from the Judaizer's Bible? See page 181), and the remaining 7 from the Vulgate. [Wed. in Sobolevsky pp. 433–436]. Theodore, a newly baptized Jew, translated the Psalter and the book of Esther: Philaret Archbishop Review p. 146. The text in the lists is divided according to the Vulgate into chapters, but without its (Vulgate) division into verses: page 10. The translation of the Pentateuch belongs to ancient times: page 13. The translation of the books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth is ancient, although there are less traces of this antiquity in the forms of the language than in the Pentateuch: page 25 beginning. The translation of the four books of Kings is much more imperfect than the Pentateuch and other previous books (p. 34), and one can conclude that their translator is not the same person as the one who translated the previous biblical books (p. 39). The translation of the book of Job, with the exception of the first chapters, later corrected, has signs of great antiquity (p. 59 fin.). The translation of the Psalter is very ancient: page 62. The translation of the book of Proverbs is undoubtedly ancient: page 72 beginning. The translation of the book of Ecclesiastes seems newer in language than the translation of Proverbs: page 73 beginning. Translation of the book Song of Songs - Ancient: page 76. The language of the book of Jesus son of Sirach has been significantly updated: p. 82. The translation of the prophets is ancient, but it should be understood by more than one translator, namely, the translator of the last 4 minor prophets should be accepted as special from the translator of the 4 major ones - and the first 7 minor ones: p. 118. Translators from Latin: Dominican Veniamin (p. 128) and Mitya interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov (translator of Nicholas de Lira: p. 79). [About them, see Sobolevsky pp. 39–40, 183–189, 254–259]. In the absence of Greek Bibles and people who knew Greek, Gennady completed the translation work with the help of Latin and German Bibles. The copies of the Gennadian Bible that have survived to this day are 1499, 1558, 16th century. Ryazan They used the Ostroh Bible publishers, corrected according to the Greek version of the Gennadian Bible. 2. Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. [Wed. below pp. 275–276]. Conversations of Chrysostom on the book of Genesis [See. below in the section “Books and treatises in alphabetical order of authors” under the word John Chrysostom]. The Shestodnevs of Basil the Great and Severian of Gevalsky [See. ibid. under the words: Basil the Great and Severian of Gevalsky]. ↓ Interpretations of some passages from the books of Genesis and Exodus [See. ibid. s. v.: Interpretations]. From Theodoritov’s “Explanations of Difficult Places” something on the book of Genesis [See. ibid. s. v.: Theodorite]. George Pisidas Praise to God about the creation of all creation [See. ibid. s. v. George Pisida]. Interpretations of Olympiodorus of Alexandria and others, full translation [See. ibid. s. v.: Interpretations]. Summary interpretation, translation by Maxim the Greek [See. ibid]. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin pp. 356, 358. [Cf. in Sobolevsky p. 262 sqq]. Explanatory Psalter of Brunon [See. ibid.]. In the manuscript of the fundamental library of the MDA No. 18 Commentary on the 50 psalms of Nikita of Herakleia or Serres of what time? See Description of the Solovetsky Manuscripts, No. 19, p. 31, sheet 10. Volokolamsk Manuscript (in the MDA library) No. 430. Basil the Great Commentary on some psalms, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 428. Interpretation of the unknown [See. below s. v.: Interpretations]. Interpretation of Philo of Carpathia [See. ibid. and below in the “Afterword”]. Summary interpretation of Basil the Great, Theodoret, Cyril, Chrysostom [See. ibid. and s. v.: Basil the Great]. Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus "Tale(s) 14 about the prophecy of Ezekiel. (In Greek in Minya t. 81, p. 808: Ἐρμηνεία (divided) ε ί ς βιβλία ις ': 16). Chrysostom - Discourses on Matthew and John, translated by Maxim the Greek and Selivan. Theophylact of Bulgaria - Interpretation of all four evangelists. In the MDA manuscript No. 23 on John, 1456. [See ibid. s. v.: Interpretations and Sobolevsky p. 22]. Gregory Dvoeslov Conversations on the Gospels (on Luke and John). [See ibid. s. v.: Grigory Dvoeslov]. The teaching gospel [See. ibid. s. v.: Teaching Gospel]. Interpretations of Theophylact of Bulgaria - mentioned by Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel, pp. 329, 330, 334, 335. The explanatory gospel is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener, p. 564. A summary interpretation extending to chapter 13, translated no later than the 15th century. (Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers XVIII, 187) and from ch. 13 interpretation of the unknown, translated by Maxim the Greek (ibid. In the Makaryevsky Minaions under June 30, “The Interpretive Apostle” is this? About the time of translation Synodal manuscript No. 96, p. 158 (not ancient). - Interpretation of the first 13 chapters in the MDA manuscript No. 17, written before 1501, and in manuscripts of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 117, XV century). Eusebius of Emesa - Commentary on the book of Acts, - Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel p. 414 note 3. In Greek by Minya t. 86, r. 561. From the consolidated interpretation? A consolidated interpretation, translated simultaneously with the interpretation of 13 chapters of the book of Acts, - Synodal manuscript No. 96. (In Lavra manuscript No. 117, 15th century). Basil the Great on the first letter of Petrovo, - Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel, page 410 note 4. From the consolidated interpretation? (In the pre-Mongol period there was an interpretation not only for the first five epistles, which is in the manuscript of 1220, - Synodal No. 95, but for everything, - ibid. No. 96, p. 162 sqq). Interpretation of the unknown on the epistle to the Galatians (from a consolidated, special, different from the previous, interpretation on the epistles?). [Cm. below under the words John Chrysostom and Interpretations]. Hippolytus of Rome “On the Revelation of John the Theologian.” [Cm. ibid. s. v.: Hippolytus]. 3. Books and treatises in alphabetical order of authors 444. From the Chet-Minya of Metropolitan Macarius (where months and dates are displayed) with additions. [Augustine’s blessed works and life, - in Sobolevsky pp. 195–198]. Agapit deacon head to Emperor Justinian. Synodal manuscript No. 202, sheet 33, page 622, 15th century. In Greek by Minya t. 86, r. 1164, 72 chapters. See “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Alexander Patriarch of Constantinople is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightenment, p. 578. [Ammonia Mnich, the story of the murdered St. fathers. The older Russian list is parchment. MDA No. 7, XIV century]. Andrew of Crete is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener, p. 238. In Greek in Minya t. 97: 21 words and several canons. [Pre-Mongol period – I.R.Ts. vol. I. 1 half pp. 720/887]. Anton the Great is mentioned by Nil Sorsky at Arkhangelsk p. 178. [Athanasius the Great debate with Arius, - in Sobolevsky pp. 199–201. Questions and answers to Prince Antiochus, see Arkhangelsky A.S. To the study of ancient Russian literature. Works of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Literature (Review), St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 18 and Works of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Literature (Extracts), v. I-II, Kazan 1889, p. 9 sqq]. Book of Barlaam and Joasaph of the Indians. November 17. Barsanuphius the Great († 563). In Greek, Minya t. 86. Archbishop Philaret in Patristic III, 166. See Zhmakin in Metropolitan Daniel p. 601 [taken from Nikon the Montenegrin]. Lavra manuscript No. 181, sheet 347 – teaching; No. 182, sheet 122 verso – teaching; No. 190, sheet 251 - answers; No. 770, sheet 372 – answers 38. Academic manuscript No. 59. Nil Sorsky at Arkhangelsk p. 151 beginning. Basil of Amasia's message to a monk who has fallen into despair, a collection from the royal years. “Oh, alas for me, that I am an imam.” May 26. Synodal manuscript No. 206, p. 648, 16th century. About the author ibid.. ↓ 1 2 Vasily the Great. Metropolitan Daniel according to Zhmakin: Epistle to Bishop Zapolsky 331, 531; Interpretation of 1 Epistle of Petrovo – 410; to Amphilochius about St. Spirit – 430; Sayings – 500; to Amphilochius two canonical epistles - 524, on the prophet Isaiah - 611. Book of Fasting, page 667. In the Slavic translation there were only Books of Fasting, 349 and two more words 350, - and the other works that Zinovy ​​Otensky lists were not known. How does he know? From life? [Wed. History of the Russian Church, vol. I, 1 half, pp. 721/888]. Joseph of Volokolamsk is mentioned in the Illuminator, pp. 170, 336, 380 fin., 465, 515. Nil of Sorsky in Arkhangelsk p. 138 fin.. – The book is words for those who want to live a monastic life. June 30. – Prohibitions for monks and nuns. December 31st. – A book about fasting. January 1 Synodal manuscript No. 202, sheet 186, p. 623. Academic manuscript [MDA library] No. 30, 1st half of the 16th century. – Six-day – see Archbishop Filaret. Chernigovsky in the Review of Spiritual Literature p. 112. Academic manuscript No. 145, No. 31. – Epistle to Caesarea by Bolerina about crumpling. February 29. – (From Basil the Great, what was translated during the time of Kurbsky and Artemy, see at the first one). [Wed. in A.I. Sobolevsky, pp. 15, 269–270; Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 23–37]. Vasily the New - book and Life. March 26. Basil of the Greek King Glavizna on moral teaching 66 to his son King Leo. August 31st. Synodal manuscript No. 203, p. 634 fin.. In Greek by Minya, t. 107, p. XXI. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 103. See “The Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. [In Sobolevsky p. 20]. Gennady Scholaria Dialogue about faith with a Mohammedan, - Synodal manuscript No. 191, p. 566 (translation by Prince Andrei Kurbsky?). ↓ George Pisis Praise to God about the creation of all creation. June 30. Translation by Dimitri Zugraf 1385, see Synodal manuscript No. 331, p. 767; Stroeva Dictionary p. 85; Porfiryev, History of Literature I, 198 fin.. About the translation in 1385 - Nikon Chronicle IV, 146 (Why is it written down in the chronicle? Was the translation completed in Russia?). Herman, Patriarch of Constantinople. Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener p. 339 (Messages, words and explanation of the liturgy). “Stisi” see “Chief” by Metropolitan Daniel. [Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 15]. Gregory of Akraganti. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 499 fin., 516 sub fin., 536 beginning. In Greek, Minya t. 93 (Ten words on the book of Ecclesiastes). ↓ Gregory Bishop of Amirite book - His debate with Yervan. December 19. See Zhmakin in Metropolitan Daniel, p. 332, (347). Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 193. Academic manuscript No. 159. Gregory of Amiritsky was translated by some Father Anthony, - Academic manuscript No. 64 (into Russian). See Stroev Dictionary p. 18 fin., 19 (Andronius on Mount Athos for the disciple of his monk Afanasy Rusin before 1432). Life of Gregory of Omiritsky - book Yervan; about Afanasy Rusin in Stroev ibid. page 27. Manuscript 1432 – ibid. page 20. [In Sobolevsky pp. 19, 31]. Gregory the Theologian book containing 26 words. January 25. – Only 16 solemn words were known, Zinovy ​​Otensky, p. 350. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 76, 191, 335, 336, 338, 381, 386, 390. [Cf. History of the Russian Church vol. I, half 1, pp. 722–724/890–891. In Sobolevsky p. 270; Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 37–41]. ↓ Gregory Dvoslovets. The legend of the prosphora for the dead. “Souls can do much.” 17 August. – Book Conversator, questions and answers to Peter the Archdeacon about the lives of the holy fathers in Italy. (Academic manuscripts no. 34 and no. 158). Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator pp. 337, 592. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 385. – A book from the Gospel tales, and there are 38 chapters in it. March 11. – Conversations on the Gospels, – Synodal manuscript No. 149. In the Vilna Public Library, according to Dobryansky’s description, manuscript No. 3 is from the 14th century. Translated from Latin in the 14th century, - Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 149, p. 235 sub fin., - in southern Rus' - p. 239: personal, retinue, hell, 241: advocate. – [Wed. I.R.Ts., vol. I, 1 half, pp..../.891–892]. ↓ 1 2 Gregory of Nyssa question about Makriin. February 29. – An excerpt from an essay on the resurrection. Synodal manuscript No. 155, sheets 201–209, pp. 292 fin.. – An excerpt from an essay on the structure of man (chapters 25–27). Synodal manuscript No. 155, sheets 185–195, p. 292. – The Word against Eunomius, – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 333. – Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener, p. 337. [Cf. Volume I, half 1 p. 724/892]. ↓ Gregory Palamas against the Latins. Synodal manuscript No. 175, p. 471, XV century. Academic manuscript no. 81. Gregory of Sinai's words are different. In Greek, Minya t. 150, rub. 1237 (λόγοι διάφοροι). 11 February. Description of Synodal manuscripts No. 172, XV century. Ascetic. Nil Sorsky at Arkhangelsk, p. 151 beginning, 174. Academic manuscript No. 49, glassine. [Wed. in Sobolevsky pp. 15–16. About his life - page 19. In Arkhangelsky To the study of literature, pp. 141–142]. Gregory of Thessalonica, Conversation with Jews and Turks, – Lavra manuscript No. 116, sheet 347. Damasus Pope - Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener p. 338. Diadoche (half of the 5th century) of the head. – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 475 (in Min t. 65: Κεφάλαια ῤ περὶ πνευματικῆς τελειώσεως ). [In Sobolevsky p. 16]. ↓ Dionysius the Areopagite book. October 3. Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 107, with interpretations of Maximus the Confessor; translation 1371. For another translation, see Piskarevsky manuscript No. 45. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 653. Zinovy of Otensky p. 500 fin., 676. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 337, 462, 472, 515. Manuscript of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, which belonged to Metropolitan Cyprian - in the library of the MDA No. 144. [In Sobolevsky, p. 20]. Diopter, see below under the words Philip and Mirror. Dioscorus and Eutychus. Message about the sin of Sodom. August 31st. Dorotheus Abba (about 620) is a book with 25 words. June 5. Synodal manuscript No. 147. In the Chudov Monastery there is a manuscript from the 14th century, ibid. p. 224. Academic manuscripts Nos. 59 and 60, 154, 157. See Philaret Patristic III, 206; “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsky p. 151 beginning [In Sobolevsky p. 16]. Evagrius of Pontus. From 380g. and after († 399). Are the words read below (p. 280) his and taken from one of his ascetic writings? In Greek, Minya t. 40. ↓ Gospel teaching, Synodal manuscript No. 209, p. 658; about translation p. 667. Academic manuscript No. 13. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 335, 346, 351. [In Sobolevsky p. 21]. Eulogue and the Tale of Angels, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 475. Eusebius of Emee on the Acts of the Apostles, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 414. ↓ Euseus of Pamphylia - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 128, 462, 465, 475. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 652, 653. [See. below the Word]. [Euphemius the Great’s life – in Sobolevsky, p. 19]. Epicteta's Enchiridion in alteration. Title: Like Resha, Epictitus the Philosopher. Beginning: “The ova that are in us, but the ova is not in us.” Synodal manuscript No. 154, sheet 115, p. 285, late 15th – early 16th centuries; No. 202, sheet 47, p. 622, XV century. [In Sobolevsky p. 16]. ↓ Epiphany of Cyprus on heresies, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 336. - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 337 fin.. - About the names of the prophets and where they came from and how they died, and where their relics lie. May 9. [Pre-Mongol I.R.Ts., vol. I, 1 half, pp. 725/893]. ↓ Ephraim the Syrian book Patericon. January 28. What is in Academic Manuscript No. 36. Nil Sorsky at Arkhangelsk p. 178. [Cf. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 42–53]. Mirror - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 391. [See. below Philip]. Golden Matitsa, collection. Porfiryev Literature I, 200. The Golden Chain is a book, and there are 98 chapters in it. July 31. Porfiryev Literature I, 200. Lavra manuscript No. 214, 16th century. St. Zosima (half of the 5th century) Conversations about rage. Zhmakin has Metropolitan Daniel, p. 475. Lavra manuscript No. 181, sheet 316, and others, see Index. In Greek, Minya t. 78, r. 1780. [In Sobolevsky p. 16]. Izmaragd – a collection of words, see below, [p. 271, under the word John Chrysostom]. [ Hilarion “on the rejection of the world” and others. Older Russian lists: 1) parchment of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 1548, XIV century; 2) Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 753, XV century; 3) her own No. 757, XV century]. Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, on the revelation of John the Theologian. December 31st. Isaac the Syrian book, and there are 91 chapters in it. May 31. Synodal manuscript No. 131, p. 156. The MDA has a manuscript from the 14th century. Piskarevskaya 1472, No. 59: Words of fasting, numbering 91. Academic manuscript 109, 151. In Greek by Minya t. 86: περὶ λογισμῶν. Synodal manuscript No. 131: “Words of fasting.” Isaac the Syrian was translated from Greek into Bulgarian in 1389, see Archimandrite Leonid's article on Metropolitan Cyprian, page 22 beginning. Stroev Biblical Dictionary p. 109 (Zacchaeus). Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 359. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsk p. 151 beginning, 166. [In Sobolevsky pp. 16–17, 25; in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 138–139]. Isa and I am Abba: Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 601. In Greek in the Patrology of Minya t. 40: λόγοι κθ ’ and περὶ ἀσκήσεως καὶ ήσυχίας . Hesikh and I, the presbyter of Jerusalem († 432) to Theodulus the Word about sobriety and virtue. 11 February. In Greek, Minya t. 93: λόγος ψυχοφελης περὶ νήψεως καὶ ἀρετῆς, two hundredths. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 662, 685. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsk p. 178. [In Sobolevsky, p. 17]. ↓ Jacob Zhidovin. December 19. [Cm. below page 295]. John of Damascus book - Heaven. December 4th. – The book is in eight parts. December 4th. Porfiryev Literature I, 195, – Philosophy. Porfiryev Literature I, 196. – Joseph Volokolamsky in the Enlightener pp. 194, 238, 337, 381. [In Sobolevsky pp. 20–21; Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 96–125]. ↓ John Chrysostom Discourses on the Book of Genesis. Athonite translation 1426 Synodal manuscripts No. 61 and No. 62. Stroev’s Dictionary p. 121, Jacob. – Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, pp. 345, 394. Synodal manuscript No. 82. Not in the Makarievskaya Chet – Menaion. – On the Gospel of John, – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 611. Synodal manuscript No. 85. Not in the Makarievskaya Chet-Minea. – On the Acts: Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 335. (Not Chrysostom, but the summary, see Synodal manuscript No. 96, p. 154). – On the Epistle to the Corinthians, – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 407. Zlatostruy. February 29. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin page 324. – Book of Margaret. September 14. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin page 350. Zinovy Otensky page 249 beginning, 772 beginning, 945 sub fin.. Synodal manuscript No. 126, page 119. Porfiryev Literature I, 199. Translated by the Bulgarian monk Dionysius (my Brief Essay [the history of the Orthodox churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian or Moldo-Walash, M. 1871] p. 172) in the half of the 14th century, - Starine I, 52 beginning. Academic manuscript No. 33. – The Book of Smaragd, and it has 159 chapters. 31 July. Synodal manuscript No. 230, p. 53. When compiled p. 82 fin.. Porfiryev Literature, 1,200 beginning. Academic manuscript No. 46. – Collection of words called Chrysostom. Porfiryev Literature, I, 199 beginning. Academic manuscript No. 146. – Lenten words (Fastreden), written on Mount Athos in 1451 – my Brief Essay p. 514. Porfiryeva Literature p. 199. Academic manuscript No. 47 (Lenten Celebrant). “Tenderness” is a collection of words that Chrysostom assimilates. Synodal manuscript No. 61, p. 46, cfr pp. 48 and 49, XV century. Mentioned in the Illuminator of Joseph of Volokolamsk pp. 159, 180, 184, 187, 194, 217 fin., 237, 316, 337, 377, 378, 381, 391, 412, 448 beginning, 459, 472. Under November 13 [in Makarievskaya Chet-Mineya] a large collection of words of Chrysostom. Not all of the works of John Chrysostom were translated - see Zinovy ​​\u200b\u200bOtensky p. 350. [Cf. I volume 1 half pp. 729–741/898–899. In Sobolevsky pp. 21, 271; Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 54–83, and the Works of the Church Fathers. IV, Kazan, 1890]. ↓ John of Nicea about the Armenians: Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 514, 575. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 324, 337, 416, 430. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 198 verso; No. 191. ↓ Josephus the Hebrew (Flavius) about the captivity of Jerusalem. February 29. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 123, 128, 167, 454, 471. Academic manuscript No. 12, sheet 447. Served as one of the sources for the Russian chronograph of 1512. Translated in Constantinople in 1399 by the sinful Elder John, see Stroev's Dictionary p. 399 and 400. [In Sobolevsky p. 24]. Joseph the Songwriter is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener, p. 238. Cassian the Roman († 435) works of February 29 (it is not clear which ones). Stroev Dictionary p. 415. Synodal Manuscript No. 203, p. 633. There is a manuscript from 1421, - Stroev Dictionary p. 28 and 415. Lavra Manuscript No. 189, sheet 353, 17th century, about reasoning and 8 conversations about 8 evil thoughts; manuscript No. 674, 17th century, sheet 157, the same; No. 756, XV century, sheet 460, the same; No. 760, XV century, sheet 167 – the same. See “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsky p. 149 note, 150 note [In Sobolevsky p. 17]. Caesarius, brother of Gregory the Theologian, is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightenment, p. 339. [In Sobolevsky, p. 22]. Cyril of Jerusalem book, - see Zinovy ​​of Otensky pp. 351, 959. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 173, 575. [Cf. Stories of R.Ts. vol. I, 1 half pp. 742/901. In Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, p. 20]. Clement student ap. Petra. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 31.3, 460, 472, 508. The helmsman's book. February 29. Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener pp. 516 sqq, 568. Cosmas Indicoplov book. August 31st. Academic manuscript No. 102 and No. 103. ↓ Articles about the Latins. 31 August fin.. Debate of Panagiota with the cardinals, 30 June. See pp. 293–295 below. Leontius of Cyprus, - Stroev Dictionary p. 414 fin.. In Greek in Minya t. 93 (Four words and lives of John the Merciful and Simeon the Fool). [Leo the Wise, - in Sobolevsky, p. 23]. Macarius of the Venerable Chief 150. February 11. In Greek, Minya t. 34, Ὁ μιλίαι πνευματικαἱ numbering 50 and Ἀσκητικἀ 7 words (seven). See “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator p. 190, 482 fin.. Nil of Sorsky in Arkhangelsk p. 178. – Chief figures of St. Macarius and other saints. December 31st. ↓ Maximus [Confessor] to Elpidius the priest of chapter 400 (Chapters on love). February 11. Description of Synodal manuscripts No. 154, p. 283, late XIV or early XV centuries. On the translation of Maximus, Nile and Theodore of Edessa, ibid. No. 154, p. 286 fin.. In Greek in Minya t. 90, Κεφάλαια περὶ ἀγαπῆς (four hundredths). Academic manuscript No. 49 glassine. – Messages – February 29. In Greek, Minya t. 91. – Maxim supposedly the Confessor of the book of the verb Helmsman, reksha Ruler of the soul, – Synodal manuscript No. 202, sheet 1, 15th century; about the author p. 622. The word of fasting (on question and answer) of Maxim was translated on Athos in 1425–1426, - Stroeva Dictionary p. 122 (for Eusebius - Ephraim Rusin; about him, see ibid. on Index Eusebius). In Greek: λόγος ἀσκητικὸς κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν, p. 912–956. – Maxim the Confessor – Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 350 and “Chief”. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 217, 381, 382, ​​390. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsk p. 151 beginning [In Sobolevsky p. 17]. Mark of the Venerable Skete chapter 70 about those who are proud of the works of righteousness (about those who imagine themselves to be justified by works). 11 February. See “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. In the Synodal Manuscript No. 165, sheet 298 (Descriptions p. 443) there are excerpts from the works: about the spiritual law and about those who think of being justified. In Greek, Minya t. 65, r. 905–964: Ἐγχειρίδιον περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ, chapters 201, and Ἐγχειρίδιον Chapter 211. Menander is wise. Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheet 279, 15th century. (In Lambetius: V, 237: Γνώμαι μονόστιχοι Μενάνδρου. Beginning: Ἂ νθρωπον ὄντα δεῖ φρονεῖν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ). It is with the Judaizers, Synodal Manuscript Nos. 1–3, p. 137. In Greek in Boisson's Ἀνέκδοτα, I, 147 and 153. A polysyllabic scroll about holy icons. December 31st. See about him in Zhmakin in Metropolitan Daniel p. 326. Zinovy of Otensky p. 980, 990. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 295, 542 fin.. Nikita of Irakli, Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 500. See above “Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures” [p. 265]. Nikita Stifat († about 1050 or 1058), Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 475, 601. (In Greek in Minya t. 120: Πρακτικῶν κεφαλαίων ἑκατοντάδες τρεῖς ). [In Sobolevsky p. 17]. Nikephoros [Callista] Xanthopoula the Meat-Eating Synaxarion, Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 395. Synodal manuscript, M 185 p. 507 (N. Callistus on the Suppers of Christ). [In Sobolevsky pp. 17, 21. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 143–146]. Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 128 (Chronicle). [Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, message to the prot of the Holy Mountain. The oldest Russian list is the Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 756, XV century]. Nikon Montenegrin book. April 30. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 379. Joseph in the Enlightener p. 62, 528 beginning, 537. Porfiryev, Literature I, 201. About the complete translation, my Brief Essay p. 514. [Cf. I volume 1 half of I.R.Ts., pp. 748–749/910–912. [In Sobolevsky p. 21. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature pp. 143–146]. Neil Kavasil, - Synodal manuscript No. 175, p. 471. About the translation, p. 476. Academic manuscript No. 81. Nile of Sinai (Fast, † about 450) chapter 150 on prayer. (/Pre-Mongolian). 11 February. Synodal manuscript No. 154, sheet 91 verso (Descriptions p. 284): about prayer (153 chapters); No. 165, sheet 258 (p. 441 fin.): from parables to monks, sheet 265: about eight thoughts, sheet 276 back: about dispassion of soul and body. Academic manuscript No. 49 glassine. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 691, “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel; Nil Sorsky at Arkhangelsk pp. 138 fin., 153, 159. For translation, see Maxim. Wu Ming t. 79. [Wed. I volume 1 half of I.R.C. pp. 749/912. In Sobolevsky pp. 17–18. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 126–132]. St. Niphon's book. December 23. ↓ Patericon. See Porfiryev Literature I, 203 fin.. About the Patericon, see Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 153, p. 267. [I.R.Ts. vol. I, 1 half pp. 749–750/912–914]. Patericon of Sinai. June 30. Translated again for Metropolitan Macarius by one Greek (Dositheos Osifity in 1528, corrected the language, what the amendment consisted of, see Stroev Bibliology. Dictionary p. 94 fin. sqq. - Egyptian. June 30. - Hermitage of the Holy Mount Sinai (About Eulogius the stonecutter. About Anthony the leper). December 31. Another holy fathers. December 31. The third teaching of the saints, how to seek silence with all diligence. Eldership? Words from Lemonis, September 1, 4 and 7, 15th century, sheet 178. Literature I, 204. In Greek in Min t. 87. – Pechersky 3 May. Peter of Damascus (half of the 12th century) Collection of divine scriptures. 11 February. Synodal manuscript No. 164, XV century; Nos. 165, 166. About the time of translation ibid. p. 448, No. 140, p. 187. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 444. Nilus of Sorsky at Arkhangelsk p. 178. In the “Philokalia” he is mixed with Peter, Bishop of Damascus, who lived under the emperor Constantine Copronymus, a contemporary of John of Damascus, martyred by Oualid, the son of the Arabian leader Ishima. In the inscription placed in the “Philokalia” there are 24 short words or alphabet according to the Synodal Greek manuscript of the 15th century. from the Iversky Monastery (/Matth. CCCVI, fol. 210): Πέτρου μοναχοῦ, τοῦ δαμασκηνοῦ. – In one Greek manuscript of the works of Peter Damascene one can read the signature (discovered by Lekel in one Paris manuscript): πάθη ταῦτα, φησὶν, ἐνίκησε καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα, ἅ τινα ???? ?54; ςχξὲ ἔτος ίνδ. ε ’ (66651157). – In the Synodal Greek manuscript of the 16th century. from Vatopedi Monastery (Matth. CCCXXII) fol. 12: τοῦ ὁσίου Πέτρου τοῦ δαμασκηνοῦ. – In the Slavic language in the Synodal Library, Savva shows only the Memoir to his soul: No. 650, 15th century, sheets 155–257; No. 849, XVI century, 212 sheets; No. 653, XVII century, sheets 99–200; No. 456, script. 1649, sheets 279–378 (Vostokov has a 15th century manuscript, No. SHS, p. 236, the same). In Greek: Ὑ πόμνησις πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν by Matt. CCCVI, according to Savva No. 319, sheets 239–396. This Recollection, it seems, is what in the “Philokalia” constitutes part 1 of the work of P. Damascus. In the “Philokalia” at the beginning it reads: “having written this instruction to reprove my damned souls.” In the ancient Slavic monthly books, the memory of Peter Damascene [9] February (Works of the Russian Academy, part 5, p. 217). [In Sobolevsky p. 18]. Pisid Georgiy see Georgiy Pisid. Psellos Michael book Mirror. February 29. (That is, the monk Philip with a preface by Psellus?). See Philip below. [Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 19]. Bee book, has speeches from the gospel and various saints. 31 July. Synodal manuscript No. 312, p. 530 (p. 555 fin. sqq. Special edition). See Porfiryev Literature, 1, 201. Special - Piskarevskaya manuscript No. 85, sheet 288. [Cf. I.R.C. vol. I, 1 half, pp. 752–753/916–917]. ↓ Riklad - The word is presented from the Latin Riklad about the Sratsyn faith and about Bakhmet. July 31. See Vostokov Description of the manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 273 col. fin. [In Sobolevsky p. 325]. Severian Gevalsky's Six Days, - Stroeva Dictionary p. 413 fin.. Synodal manuscript No. 203, p. 628. Manuscript 1459, Report of the Rumyantsev Museum for 1867–69 p. 25 beginning [In Sobolevsky pp. 21–22]. Simeon Metaphrastus, - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 499 fin. [In Sobolevsky pp. 265–268, 310]. Simeon Abbot the New Theologian († around 1030 or 1050). A book about the beginning of life for those who have renounced the world. There are 22 words in it. In Latin there are 33 words. In Greek, Minya t. 120. Synodal manuscript No. 164, XV century; Nos. 165 and 167–169; about the time of translation of the Description p. 448. Academic manuscript No. 49, glassine; more No. 154. – Punishment for those who came to monasticism. December 31 (Same as above or different?). About the 12 chapters. From 12 to 49 pm. Greek: Κεφαλαία πρακτικὰ καὶ θεολογικὰ καὶ ἠ θικά. About prayer. Λόγος περὶ τριών τῆς προσευχῆς τρόπων . 11 February. Nil Sorsky near Arkhangelsk p. 151 beginning, 170; Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 331. [In Sobolevsky p. 18; Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 139–141]. [A word briefly against those who stand up for the sacred, mobile and immovable things of the church and take away their souls against the salvation - from Sobolevsky pp. 193–194]. A word about Bible translators. 20 August. [In Sobolevsky p. 189]. Eldership, Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator p. 318. Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 375, (492, 602 beginning). Academic manuscript No. 185. Stephen the Monk of Thebes about those who have renounced the world. December 31st. Timothy, presbyter of Constantinople, on heresies, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 336. [Cf. I.R.C. vol. I, 1 half, p/.921]. Interpretations: some places in the Pentateuch, - Synodal manuscript No. 110, p. 29. Academic manuscript No. 40. - Olympiodor of Alexandria and others on the book of Job. Athos complete translation 1412 Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 63 (p. 55 fin.). About the ancient, shortened translation ibid. No. 1–3, pp. 57 fin.. Stroeva Dictionary pp. 45–46, Gabriel (Khilendarsky). – Attribution to the Psalter, chronicler in brief. 20 August. – Consolidated interpretation of the Psalter. Translation by Maxim the Greek. Synodal manuscript No. 71. – Explanatory Psalter of Brunon, Bishop of Herbipolis. 20 August. Synodal manuscript No. 77. On the translation by order of Macarius in 1536. see Collected Chronicles VI, 298 fin. [In Sobolevsky pp. 189–191]. - Explanatory Ecclesiastes. 31 July. In Greek there is Olympiodor of Alexandria, in Minh t. 93, r. 477, and Gregory of Akragantsky. There is Μετάφρασις of Gregory of Neocaesarea in the Patrology of Min t. 10, r. 988. – Interpretation of Philo of Carpathia on the Song of Songs. Synodal manuscript No. 1–3, p. 74. (In the Chudov Monastery there is a manuscript from the 14th century). [On this, see the note below in “Additions and Amendments”]. - To Isaiah the prophet Vasilyevo, Feodoritovo, Kirillovo and Chrysostomovo. May 9. (From the interpretation of the 16 prophets by the priest Ghoul? Yes. See Synodal manuscript No. 78–81, p. 113). – Theophylact on the Four Gospels of the Synodal Manuscript Nos. 87–94. There are lists from the 14th century, ibid. pp. 134, 136. – Explanatory Gospel of Matthew. November 16. Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin page 329. – Explanatory Gospel of Mark. April 25. - Interpretation of the Gospel of St. Luke Feofilaktovo. October 18. – Interpretation of Luke and John in the list of 1434, – Archbishop Philaret in the Review, p. 112. – Interpretation of the unknown on the Gospel of Luke, – Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, page 600 fin. - Interpretation of the Gospel of St. John. September 26. In Academic Manuscript No. 23 it was written in 1456. - Intelligent Apostle. June 30. Lavra manuscript No. 117; Synodal manuscript No. 96, XV century. (consolidated interpretation). – Interpretation of the unknown on the Epistle to the Galatians, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 600 fin.. – On the Epistle to the Hebrews, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 331. Lenten celebrant. Academic manuscript No. 47, 1524. and No. 48, 1499 Teaching gospel see Teaching gospel. Philip the monk (1095) Diopter. Synodal manuscript No. 170, 15th century; about ancient lists ibid. page 459 note. Academic Manuscript No. 166. See Psellos above. (For the translation of Dioptra in the 14th century, see I.R.Ts. 1 volume 1 half pp. 724–725/892. In Sobolevsky pp. 22–24]. Philon Zhidovin, Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 79 sub fin., 452, 475. In Greek in Minya t. 92, r. 69–80. Philotheus of the monk of Sinai (beginning of the 9th century) 44 chapters on guarding the heart. 11 February. In Greek, Minya t. 98, r. 1369. Academic manuscript No. 49 glassine. “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Nil Sorsky in Arkhangelsky p. 163. [In Sobolevsky p. 18]. ↓ Photius of the Patriarch of Constantinople, message to the eastern bishops about the Holy Spirit. August 31 fin.. Epistle to the Romans about St. the Spirit and the unleavened bread brought from them. August 31st. – To the Archbishop of Venice about St. Spirit. 31 August fin.. Khrus the solitary word is historical about the finding of the cross. “Command of your patronymic.” September 14. See Zhmakin in Metropolitan Daniel, page 327. Royal books, Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 603. See Stroev Dictionary p. 66 fin., Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 147 verso (some historical books). Falasia abbot minds ten. Four hundred chapters to Paul the Elder. 11 February. “Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 338. In Greek by Minya t. 91 Description of Synodal manuscripts No. 165, sheet 359, p. 444, 16th century. Academic manuscript No. 160. [In Sobolevsky pp. 18–19]. Theodore of Edessa (IX century) active chapters (100 chapters). Synodal manuscript No. 154, sheet 68 ver., p. 283, late 15th – early 16th centuries; No. 208, p. 654. For translation, see Maxim. Academic manuscript No. 57. See “Chief” by Metropolitan Daniel. There is a manuscript from 1421, - Stroeva Dictionary 28 and 415. [In Sobolevsky p. 19. About his life - ibid.]. Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, legend 14 about the prophecy of Ezekiel. July 21. Excerpt from the essay De Graecorum affectionum curatione. Synodal manuscript No. 155, sheet 179, p. 292, XIII century; ibid. No. 54, p. 6. – Explanation of difficult passages, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 416. In Greek in Minya in Patrology t. 80, r. 76 (places from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc.). [Wed. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 87–88]. (Cf. above Books and Treatises). Abraham Ia, Bishop of Ephesus (at the Presentation of the Lord). “Elma words at the end of the third psalm.” February 2. Not in Min, not in Filaret in Patrology and in Kondogon. In the Lavra manuscript No. 365, sheet 139 - the same word, No. 674 sheet 3 - the same word. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, about the Most Holy Theotokos and Simeon and Anna. “Many great people.” February 3. Wu Ming t. 39, r. 44 (Εὶς τὴν ὑπαπαντήν). Anastasia St. Sinaisky. Don't slander the priest about Holy Communion. “Do not judge, brothers, I pray.” April 5th. About confessing sins to your spiritual father. “It is not good at all and it is useful to confess sins” April 20. - Don't judge me. “Speech of St. Anastasius.” March 12. - About the executions of God. “For he is a lover of mankind and a righteous Judge and God.” April 28. - For the Transfiguration. “Like this place is scary.” 6 August. – About Psalm 6. December 31st. Wu Ming t. 89, r. 1077. – November 13. Wu Min ibid., p. 1116. Anastasius of Sinai at Minya t. 89. There are only two last words about Psalm 6. (Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 379. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 382 beginning, 515). [Wed. I.R.C. vol. I, 1 half, pp. 720/886–887]. Andrew of Crete (Jerusalem). For the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “As long as there is peace.” September 8. “It’s bad for us.” September 8. - “We always have to.” 15 August. - “You are such a god of this honest man.” 15 August. - For the Exaltation of the Cross. “We are celebrating the Feast of the Cross.” September 14. - On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. “An ordinary word calls us together again.” 15 August. “The sacrament is real.” 15 August. – In Greek, the words of Andrew of Crete (Jerusalem) in Minya t. 97, r. 805 sqq. There are 21 words in total. Antiochus St. about anger. “Great goodness is for a man.” October 25. – Antiochus of Jerusalem has no words except those 130 that are in the Pandect Patrology of Minya t. 89. (Hence the following words are from Pandect). - About gluttony. “Everyone needs to eat.” November 6. - From what noble spiritual father. “There is a sign for those who have it.” February 18. - About the injury. “Those who suffer, with each other.” January 31. - About bribery. “Bribe-taker and rizo-taker.” October 13. – About whispering and slander. “Paki is a whisperer and a slanderer." October 19. – On the cleansing of sins. “It behooves us first to be a cleanser.” February 20. - About sleep. “Penezhe eteri verovasha.” February 26, – About idle talk. “Idle talk and idleness.” December 29. - About contradiction. ,,Balance and stupidity." December 29. - About covetousness. „The Lord said: no one." October 14. - About the hope of future benefits. "Aspirations for the future." October 14. - About alms, love of poverty and love of strangeness. November 20. - About drunkenness. October 7. - About slander. October 22. – Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightenment mentions the book of Antiochus of Jerusalem, p. 62). [Wed. 1 volume 1 half I.R.C. pp. 720/887]. Archbishop Arkady in memory of the martyr Nikita. “He is calling us again.” September 15. Not in Min in Patrology, in Filaret in Patristic and in Kondogon. In the Lavra Manuscript, Arcadius, Archbishop of Cyprus, see Index. Arcadia St. bishop for the renovation of the Church of the Great Martyr George. “He is calling us again.” November 4th. Asterius, Bishop of Amasia, to the Hieromartyr Phocas. “Sacred slaughter.” September 22. In Minya Patrology t. 40, r. 300. (Total words 21). Athanasius of Alexandria on breaking the law. “No one does the same.” January 12. - Don't judge me. “Thinkingly, brethren.” March 2. – (Interpretation of the words: do not judge, lest you be condemned - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 415). - About Melchizedek. “Melchizedek is a king like Rehom.” May 22. - At the Presentation of the Lord. “Even the real one” February 2. Wu Ming t. 28, r. 973. Forged. - John the Baptist. “The field has dried up” June 24. Wu Ming t. 28, r. 905. Forged. - About the icon of the Lord. October 11. Wu Ming t. 28, r. 805. Forged. – Athanasius the Great is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener pp. 334, 452 fin., 465. [Cf. from Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature p. 18 and Works of the Church Fathers, c. I-II, page 9 sqq]. Athanasius, Archbishop of Constantinople, at the Presentation of the Lord. “Rejoice greatly, daughters of Zion.” February 2. Athanasius of Constantinople, who † around 1289, has no words - Minya Patrology t. 142. Barlaam the hermit’s teaching “Listen, brethren.” November 17. From the life of Barlaam and Joasaph? In Greek at Minya t. 96, r. 860. Basil the Great about deserted ones. “Be careful that the enemy does not deceive you.” January 8. (From fasting?). - About pride. “Have you showered yourself with wealth?” February 26. Basil the Great Πρὸς τούς πλουτούντας at Min t. 31, p. 277. – About virtue. “Brethren, let us be doers of good.” July 13. - About drunkenness. "Let's run, brothers." July 27. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 444. – About envy. “Let us flee, brothers, from envy.” 10 August. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 372. – About remembering human nature. “Great wisdom, brother.” August 1st. - About obedience. “Beloved, yes.” November 3. Περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης at Min t. 31, r. 525. – About fasting. “Blow the trumpet, say, on the new month.” January 1st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 164. – Second about fasting. “Pray, pray, my people.” January 1st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 185. – May the servants not offend their masters. “How great is the purchase of the rabbi.” June 6. - About the mobile human life. "Human Life". January 1st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 540?– About polynomy. “Whatever else desires.” June 11. - How easy it is to be a monk. “It’s a good thing for a monk to have.” December 8th. - About the vain life. “A lot of sighing.” June 12. - About vanity and despondency. "There is much sighing and despondency. December 27. - Teaching by a monk. "Many from men." January 1st. - Teaching about good deeds. “Learn to be a faithful man.” January 21. - To the lazy and praise to the doers. “I didn’t want it, brothers.” 31 July. - “Don’t be jealous.” September 3 – Yes, no one despairs of salvation and falls into sins. “No one walks more sinfully in malice.” June 26. - Oh, pay attention to yourself. January 1st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 197. – Conversation, Gospel of Luke: “I will destroy my barns.” January 1st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 261. – About judges. “The Holy Great Tsar Constantine Speech.” December 31st. - To those who have entered the monastic order. “You desire a heavenly life.” March 7. - To lazy workers. December 31st. - About baptism. August 31st. Wu Ming t. 31, r. 424. – Conversation at Christmas. "Christ's Nativity". December 25. [Wed. in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 34–37]. Basil of Seleucia of Savria on the Exaltation of the Cross. “Everything from worse to better.” September 14. In Greek, Minya t. 85 no. Gennady Patriarch about the fear of God. “What do you require, man?” February 19. - About the kingdom of heaven and endless torment. “Like friends think of people.” August 27. George the Exarch praises the Mother of God. “A good beginning for us.” November 21. - At the entrance of the Virgin Mary. “Good wine for us.” November 21. Herman, Archbishop of Constantinople, word on the entrance of the Mother of God. “This is another cathedral.” November 21. Gregory of St. to those holding anger. “Don’t give me room, brethren.” 30 August. - About the exodus of the soul. “I want to tell you a little parable.” February 2. Gregory, Archbishop of Thessalonica (on the Dormition of the Virgin Mary). “My conversation today.” 15 August. Gregory the Theologian on the Nativity of Christ. “Christ is born, glorify.” December 25. - About the cross of the Lord and about the crosses of thieves, how I wasted away. June 30. - Oh St. Martyr Cyprian, Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 350 (Gregory the Theologian’s funeral eulogy for Basil the Great, see Zinovy ​​of Otensky p. 561 beginning, funeral eulogy for his brother, ibid. p. 963; some historical narratives about Constantine the Great, - ibid. p. 567 beginning). [Wed. in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 38–41] 446. Gregory of Neocaesarea on the Annunciation. “Today are angelic songs.” March 25. Gregory of Nyssa about Meletius of Antioch. “Grow in us the number of apostles.” 12 February. – “Our Father”, Zinovy of Otensky p. 974. – On the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, - Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 324. Gregory the Pope on the Nativity of John the Baptist. “At the time John heard it in prison.” June 24. - About alms. “Understand in everything, children.” March 11. · About hospitality. “The man is still rich.” January 25. - About the Last Judgment. “Outdated in the summer.” November 14. - About the death of the righteous. “St. Gregory told us.” January 25. Dionysius St. about those who desire (for the dead). Beginning: “Sometimes many lovers of Christ came to Holy Father Deonysius.” Synodal manuscript No. 230, p. 66 beginning and No. 330 p. 755 (ancient). St. Evagrius, don’t blame him. “You see, what a sin.” September 27. Evagrius of Pontus, † about 399, in Min t. 40 fin.. See Kondogon II, 607. The words must have been taken from the ascetic work Μοναχὸς ἢ περὶ πρακτικῆς, see Kondogon p. 608 fin.. Consequently, the words must be classified as ascetic. - About overeating. “The firstfruits of fruitfulness are the color.” March 13. - About tenderness of the soul. “Oh, soul.” November 23. - “The elder’s speech: grief of the soul.” October 27. - About eight thoughts. "The first meal." March 5th. - Teaching to the monks. "Befits a monk." April 14. – A word about the humble and the exalted. “You are about to transform.” January 12. - About obedience. “Hear, monk.” February 29. - About vanity. “Vanity is a wordless passion.” April 15. - “Chastity is being created.” November 4th. Eusebius of Pamphylia (Alexandria) about David’s repentance. “For that Nathan.” December 26. - bishop, how to honor the weeks. November 13. - About the hedgehog to praise God to the sick and about Job. 13 November 447. Epiphany of St. about the life and the Nativity and the Dormition of the Most Pure Mother of God. “More famous and true than the Mother of God.” September 8, Cyprus, praise to the Mother of God and the Incarnation of the Lord. "Shining bright Mother of God." December 26. Ephraim the Syrian St. about monks who do not submit to the abbot. “If my brother comes to the monastery.” June 25. From Parenesis word 19?. - About the fear of God and fearlessness. “Blessed, brethren, is man.” May 31. - About long-suffering. “Blessed is he in truth.” 16 July. - About reading books. “Brother, when he finds you.” May 18. - To the monks. “Brother, strive.” 5 February. - About the cross. “Every holiday.” September 14. “It is not proper for a monk to have many robes.” “To live in peace.” March 8. - About the benefit of the soul and humility. “Yes, you are the leader, love.” March 6. - To the rich about alms. "Keep the wealth." February 8. (Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 348). - About repentance. “How long, oh friend.” January 28. - About teachers. “Do not desire to own souls.” June 23. - About dispassion. “Not having the fear of God in you.” July 26. - Praise about repentance and the cross. “We will honor nothing.” December 24. - About the prosphora who was tempted. "Someone is a monk." September 30. - Praise to the Forty Martyrs. “I want the image of a martyr.” March 9. - For the Transfiguration. “From the field comes harvest and joy.” 6 August. (Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 324). – About judgment and repentance. “Come, all brethren.” December 24. – As if holding on to the monastic life and the worldly, he cannot be saved. “Let’s listen to the teachings.” October 30. - About asceticism. “Let’s sweat.” 17 February. - About the three youths and about those who say that it is an evil time to be saved. “Let us consider it.” December 17. “As if he is not worthy of listening to those who swear evil.” “I hear a parable.” March 3. - To the rich. “Hear, you rich people, inspire.” March 16. “It is not proper for a monk to move from place to place.” “Follow the Lord Christ.” June 10. - About punishment. “Oh, my friend.” February 18. - About the benefits of the soul. “Fear, brother, temporary conversations.” August 26. - About worldly vanity and about the next century. “Time is already telling us.” April 30. - About the trial. November 13. - About repentance. November 13. - Praise the cross. November 13. - About reasoning. December 31st. - About doing good. December 31st. (Word 10 – Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener). [Wed. I volume 1 half of I.R.C. pp. 725–726/893. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature pp. 42–53 and Works of the Church Fathers issue. III, pp. 88–118]. Hilarion St. teaching. “Let us sweat, brothers.” December 31st. - To those who have renounced the world. December 31st. - About the benefit of the soul. “I pray you, try.” October 21. - Blessed. “As if you have a body.” January 18. Isa and the monk about goodness. “Remember, brothers.” July 3. Hesychia of the Presbyter of Jerusalem at the Presentation of the Lord. “Yes or you do not know, like the spirit of a prophet.” February 2. – Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. “Good for summer flowers.” June 29. - (Hesychia?) About the good pleasure of God. “Always the Byzantine city.” May 11. John of Damascus on the communion of the body of Christ. “We see many people accepting the body of Christ.” March 25. - On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. "Memory of the Righteous" 15 August. – About icons. “Before slaughter, many began.” December 4th. (Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 331, 411, 430). - On the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “Come, all of you.” September 8. - About the deceased. “Already clean and sweet from food.” December 4th. – Broadcasts and responses to the Annunciation of the Archangels and the Mother of God. March 25. – Joseph of the broadcast and the Virgin Mary. [Wed. in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 96–125]. John Chrysostom about opposition to all. “As long as you have the fire of lust.” March 22. - “If anyone is pious.” 11 February. - “If you have any knowledge about sin(s).” June 5 and November 21, - If they do not reproach, let them not be reproached. “If you vilify me with frost.” January 13. - About obedience. “As long as someone understands your field.” September 15. - About alms. “If you are already full.” April 27. - John the Baptist. “The fruit of the holiday is timely.” June 24. - For the Transfiguration. “God created the first man.” 6 August. - Believe for worship. “During this time the Evangelist Luke spoke.” January 16. - About anger. “Incrimination of wrath.” September 19. – From Matthew: “Take My yoke upon you.” March 12. - Commendable, for the Annunciation. “Today the righteous Sun appears to us” March 25. - For example, do not listen to the lying teacher and prophet. “Listen to the false prophet.” October 24. - About retribution for someone according to deeds. “To all of us, brothers.” 4 August. – The story of Christ’s coming to the sea (Chrysostom?). “The Lord fulfills everything.” January 3. - On the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “Every man wants.” September 8. - So don’t offend the widows. “In Konstantin grad byashe.” November 19. – About the vision of the Apostle Paul. “There is a husband in Constantine City.” November 16. - The Council of the Apostles. “Today also the influx of the Holy Spirit.” June 30. - On the Annunciation and on Ariana. “In the first week, this Orthodox Church.” March 25. - Teaching. “Be aware.” November 15. – A word about lies and slander. “Yes, I pray you leave.” January 30. - On Epiphany. “Let the mouth be opened this day.” January 6. - “Today, beloved.” January 6. “Today is the Savior of the world.” January 6. - About the coming of Christ from the sea to the Jordan. “Today salvation comes true.” January 4. – About those who wear garments (cuts?) on orphans. “Until you are satisfied”? May 27. - On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. “We must, brothers.” 15 August. - About repentance. “As long as we can breathe.” July 20. - “When the soul will be embraced.” June 22. - About those who let their wives go. “Whenever the husband delights.” 11 August. - It is fitting to pray for those who create misfortune. “As much as you pray for your soul.” January 29. - About bishops who do not care about people. “Bishop, without taking care.” 4 July. – Even after death, alms are good. “It is also on its last legs.” July 19. - About obedience and praying with faith in every place. “For Paul did not pray holy in the church.” April 18. - Commendation to John the Baptist. “Like external feats.” May 8. - For the Annunciation. “Through righteousness the sun has risen.” March 25. - About confession of sins. “Confess all your sins.” September 30. – Where does a perfect Christian strive (recognize?) from. "To a true Christian." 6 February. - On the eve of Epiphany. “The Source of Gospel Teachings.” January 5. - To the Cathedral of John the Baptist. “The Source of Gospel Teachings.” January 7. - On Christmas Day. “Jesus will be born in Bethlehem” December 17. - Commendation to John the Baptist. “John in Ephesus Asiystem” May 8. - To those who say: there is no flour. “Don’t be afraid.” June 16. - About the muza and the kingdom of heaven. “Everyone I love.” November 13. - About alms. “For you give to the poor into the hand of Christ.” January 27. “Through almsgiving and faith sins are cleansed.” November 12. “Charity almsgiving is wise.” November 11. - Gracious. “There is already alms.” August 8. - About humility. “I pray you, children.” May 31. – It’s not appropriate to condemn monks. “Many are mad.” March 14. - On Epiphany. “Men who love Christ.” January 6. - It is not proper to repay evil for evil. “Learn, brothers.” 4 July. – Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. “Heaven and earth roar I see the present.” June 29. - It’s not like preaching deities to the infidels. “Don’t give something sacred to a dog.” 4 June. - About evil wives. “There is nothing like the earth.” July 19. - On Christmas Day. “Now of my nature.” December 25. - “It is impossible for the brave to appear powerfully.” January 26. - About misfortunes. “Nothing is righteous.” 13 February. - About the divine mysteries and about those who receive communion and about the patience of adversity and about the blessed Philogony. “The custom that is coming to the king of the earth.” December 20. - Oh, the queen has appeared. November 13. – About repentance on Cheese Tuesday. December 31st. - About congregational prayer. December 31st. – About the Trinity and creation and about judgment. December 31st. - On Epiphany. “Let us listen to the voices of the Father again from heaven.” January 6. - Punishment for priests. “Oh, come on, O presbyter.” November 25. – To behead the head of the Forerunner. “Paki Herodia is furious.” August 29. - Commendation to John the Baptist. “Pakistan has come to us from heaven.” May 8. - For the Annunciation. “Packs of joy of the gospel.” March 25. - To the Council of the Archangel, praise to the Mother of God. “The Annunciation is once again joyful.” March 26. - About prayer, how to pray briefly. “Befits one who prays.” May 20. - About repentance and retribution. “Think, brothers.” January 31. – About Job and love of poverty. “Listen to what the scripture says.” January 24. - About repentance. “The holiday is coming” December 21. - For the Transfiguration. “Come, friends” August 6. - Prophet Elijah. “The progeny are all.” July 20. - About everyday rebellion and repentance. “Understand, brethren.” 30 July. “It is fitting for a teacher to do the same.” “The Lord says: Every scribe.” 8 July. – Gospel of John. “The Lord said: I am the door.” November 13. - About alms. “The Lord said: make for yourselves friends from mammon.” January 24. - What books to listen to and honor. "Speech of St. John." September 16. - On the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “A bright day today.” September 8. - For the Transfiguration. “Hear now our lord.” 6 August. - How to honor a priest. “Hear Paul speaking.” June 1st. - About communion and alms. “Hear and learn.” December 26. - At the Presentation of the Lord. "Advice to the righteous." February 2. - As if we are concerned about the eternal. “Rebuke the one who sins before everyone.” 6 July. - John the Baptist. “To this visible sun.” June 24. - About bread. “The essence of many words.” December 28. - About alms and slaves. “Tatsi to the slave.” March 27. - John the Baptist. “We are creating a celebration.” January 6. - About the benefit of the soul. “The same, brothers, let us imitate the patriarchs.” August 31, – “Let us also be like the Samaritan’s wife.” December 7th. - About Herod and the babies. “I always wanted to.” December 29. - About the Jews who angered God in the desert. “If you want, let me show you from the Scripture.” 5 July. - On Christmas Day. "Christ, the righteous Sun." December 17. - For the Annunciation. “We celebrate the royal mysteries today.” March 25. - About alms. “Man, send wealth.” April 13. - For the erection of the Cross. "What a river." September 14. - On Christmas Day. “That this is today a sign of prophecy.” December 25. - “What is the horror of these things, for there is a church in heaven.” 7 February. - To transfer the relics of the first martyr Stephen. "Sensual sun". August 2. - To the beginning of the indictment. “Chudna of the Orthodox.” September 1, – About tenderness of the soul. “Let it be written in your thoughts.” 12 August. - “Like two robberies.” February 9. – To behead the head of the Forerunner. “How did this man love the desert.” August 29. – Many words and teachings on November 13th. (Metropolitan Daniel’s references to the words of Chrysostom, see Zhmakin, pp. 347, 351, 411,414. The alphabetical index of the Greek beginnings of Chrysostom’s words in Mattei in the “Description of Synodal Manuscripts.” Andriatis of Chrysostom, see Zinovius of Oten, p. 365 beginning). [Wed. I.R.C. I, 1, pp. 729–741/898–899. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature pp. 54–83 and Works of the Church Fathers, c. IV, Kazan, 1890] 448. John the Merciful about Peter the Publican. “In Africa and Phrygian this be.” September 22. John Metropolitan of Euchaitis. Praise to the three saints. “Back to us John, like Chrysostom of tongue.” January 30. In Zinovius of Otensky, see page 682. John Mnich and the presbyter (Eubean) for the annunciation of Joachim and Anna. “The great apostle of divine mysteries and teller.” September 9 and December 9. John and Archbishop of Thessalonica to the Great Martyr Demetrius. “Every deed, word and mind.” October 26. - On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. “When the time has come to leave the body.” 15 August. Julian Bishop of Tavia see Julian. Cyril of Alexandria about the exodus of the soul - “I am afraid of death.” November 13. [Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 271]. - At the end of the three youths. “The guilt of time will come.” December 17. - For the Transfiguration. “He knows how to be kind to his brothers.” 6 August. – To the Council of Saints Father 318 from the holy books. 16 July. – On Palm Feast, – Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin, page 324. – About the Mother of God and the Holy Fathers of the Council of Nestorius in Ephesus. 16 July. – About Abraham and love of strangeness. November 13. – Cyril of Alexandria is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Enlightener p. 338 fin. [Wed. Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 83–86]. Cyril Archbishop of Jerusalem on the feast day of St. Epiphanies from the Hedgehog to Corinth. January 5. – (Jerusalem?) In the week before Pentecostia. “The word is bright for us.” March 12. - On the eve of the Nativity of Christ. “The purity of the co-nurser.” December 23. - On the eve of the Nativity of Christ. “For we hope in Jesus Christ.” December 24. - About the Mother of God and the saints father. March 12. [Wed. in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature, pp. 21–22] 449. Kozma Vestitor praises Joachim and Anna. "Yesterday the Mother of God" September 9. - About Chrysostom. “Afterwards, like flying” January 27. - About Chrysostom. “Hearing everything to us.” January 27 450. Lucian, presbyter of Jerusalem - for the transfer of the relics of the first martyr Stephen. “Stefan is fulfilled.” August 2. Blessed Macarius. “As if one does not want to do according to the law.” January 19. - About those who have renounced the world. December 31st. Maximus St. about love. “Everything is accomplished.” October 23. Mark of St. Also, leave man's sins behind. “When the Lord spoke to his disciples.” July 19. Teachings from the words of Father Moses. “Whoever commits sin by sharing.” December 15th. Nektarios, Archbishop of Constantinople: For good reason, on the first Saturday of St. We celebrate the memory of the martyr Theodore during Lent. 17 February. St. Paul's bishop, who gives himself alms. “We will understand and know.” January 23. Paul's teaching on love. “I pray you, brothers.” July 24. Pantoliv of the Byzantine Presbyter on the Exaltation of the Cross. “The cross will rise again.” September 14. Peter the monk about this temporary life. “Excite, soul.” February 28. - For the rich and for the poor. “About richness of blindness.” 31 October. Alexandria. “Those who leap from their height will leap.” April 7. Proclus of the Archbishop of Constantinople - on Epiphany. “Today, beloved.” January 6. - Commendation to John the Baptist. “Others are evangelists.” May 8, - John the Theologian. “Friends and evangelists.” September 26. - Praise of St. Andrey. “The apostolic fishing net is strong.” November 30. - On Epiphany. “Christ appeared to the world.” January 6. Sevirian of Bishop Gavalsky about the tree of the cross. “They are looking for something from where.” September 14. Synodal manuscript No. 131, sheet 368, pp. –173 fin.. Simeon of Mesopotamia somehow had in his mind the day of origin. November 13. Semeon Metaphrastus about the miracle of the Archangel Michael, translated by Maxim. “And about other saints.” September 6. - On John the Evangelist. “Like a little angel makes a man rejoice.” September 26. (Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 441). – About Dionysius, translated by Maxim the Greek. October 3. Stephen of St. “Do not have friendship with your wife.” September 9. Tarasius, Archbishop of Constantinople - at the entrance of the Virgin Mary. "Bright and glorious." November 21. Timothy the Presbyter of Jerusalem about Simeon. “Behold the beloved.” February 3. Christopher St. Bishop of Alexandria. “To be like this life.” August 31st. Julian Bishop of Tavia - on Epiphany. “The ruler of the building.” January 6. (Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 348). Theodore Bishop of Edessa about the pillar. “A certain pillar in Edes.” January 7. Theodore the Studite - about working people for God's sake. "Brothers and Fathers" November 11. - “Nothing is contrary to whoever wants it.” September 11. - John the Baptist. “Glory to a certain great voice” June 24. – About the third acquisition of the head of the Forerunner. “The third appearance of the Forerunner’s chapter.” May 25. [Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 19]. Theodoret Bishop [of Cyrrhus] about the passion of a certain nameless man. "In the days of Julian the criminal." June 22. - About the consideration of any case. “I will be known to the beholder.” June 15. [Wed. in Arkhangelsky To the study of ancient Russian literature pp. 87–88]. Theophilus of Alexandria on the exodus of the soul. November 13. b) Unnamed (according to the initial words). On the week of Epiphany. “The holiday is already gone.” January 13. About the kingdom of heaven and eternal torment. “When you come into a great city.” January 15. About the conquest of every person. “If someone annoys you, keep silent.” 13 February. Confession of sins. “If you find a spiritual husband.” April 2. About language storage. “Whatever you want in this life.” 20 August. About vows and prayer. “If you promise anything to God.” April 29. Commendation to the Apostle James. "Good worker." October 9. About the outcome of the soul. "Blessed John" October 29. Just put your trust in God. “Blessed is man, brethren.” July 2. About repentance. “Imitate the Prodigal Son.” December 19. The week before Christmas. "The Divine Apostle and Evangelist Matthew." December 19. On the Annunciation of Virginity. "Brothers and Fathers." March 25. As if to submit to power. “Brothers, obey in everything.” July 29. For the one who wants to take tonsure with his property. "One brother." December 21. It is useful to create memories of the dead. “There will be someone.” November 9. How to honor your father and mother. “Be zealous, brethren, for good deeds.” June 28. About sinners buried in churches. "There's a certain nun." January 14. About the young man who forged the cross. “A certain young man is cunning.” September 23. About Murina the woodcutter. “There is no time in Cyprus.” September 8. About repentance. “Someone is a bishop.” September 5. About a certain priest who baptized his wife and felt blessed. “Someone is a monk.” September 29. About God's untestable destinies. “Byasha is a certain otkhodnik.” November 21. About those laid in churches. “Someone Valentian.” January 15. Commendation to Clement of Rome. “The Great and Ineffable” November 25. Commendation of Archangel Michael. "Great and many." September 6. About pride. “Are you great in strength?” December 31. Prophet Habakkuk - against those who offend. “See, you are offended.” December 2. Be called dispassionate for the sake of birth. “In the beginning was the Word, but not the Word without a word.” 31 July. About the narrow path to the kingdom of heaven. “We pay attention to ourselves.” December 20. At the Exaltation of the Cross. “In time it is later.” September 14. In memory of Cosma and Damian. Gospel of Matthew: “At the time Jesus called.” November 1st. About the kumerkari who showed mercy to his wife. “There was someone in the city of Tire.” October 26. Don’t judge God’s long-suffering. "In the days of Leon and Alexander." January 5. Apostle James on Christmas Day. “In those days the commandment came forth.” December 25. About love. “Love, if love be the greatest.” June 18. On the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Beloved, today is the firstfruits of our salvation” December 9. Basil of St. about slander. “Someone ask St. Basil” October 29. On Christmas Day. “The righteous Sun shines upon us today.” December 25. About those who swear to lies in the name of God. “I remember and say to you.” August 23. About the temporal age and about the kingdom of heaven. “The time of my departure” December 22. On the Transfiguration from the Gospel. “All the lord’s holidays.” 6 August. Bishop to all Orthodox Christians. “To all who exist” December 31. In memory of the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica. “All the virtuous.” October 26. At the Presentation of the Lord. “Every feast of the rulers” February 2. Commendation to the Evangelist Luke. “All verbal nature.” October 18. About widows and orphans. “All widows and orphans.” August 29. To those in sorrow. “Have all joy.” June 9. Everyone who looks at his wife sins. "Everyone who has seen." May 11. About the decisions of bishops. “Avvas has entered.” November 12. About prayer. “We know there is.” March 14. What is the sign of a perfect Christian? “Vera is right.” March 15. For the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “In the summer of writing” September 8. At the Exaltation of the Cross. "In the seventh summer." September 14. For the Nativity of John the Baptist. "On the feast days of the saints." June 24. About obedience. – “I tell you a thing” October 25. About the title of God. “I call us to the Lord God.” 25 February. About the resurrection of Christ. “I have fulfilled it to our Lord.” December 31st. About the resurrection of the Lord. “Fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ.” March 28. For the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers. "Our Lord and Master." December 19. After the Nativity of Christ. “David the Prophet and King” December 31. Before the Annunciation of the Saints, Father. “Yes, you are the leader” March 24. Before the Transfiguration of the Lord. “Yes, you are the leader, brothers.” August 5th. Before the Dormition of St. Mother of God. “Yes, you are the leader, brothers.” 14 August. On the eve of the Nativity of Christ. “Yes, you are the leader, brothers.” December 5th. Before the Epiphany. “Yes, you are the leader, brothers.” January 5. On the eve of the Presentation of the Lord. “Yes, you are the leader, love.” February. From the apostolic acts about the dead. “Let thirds happen.” November 9. About the miracles of Clement of Rome. “Wonderful is God in the saints.” November 25. About deacons. “It is fitting for a deacon to do everything.” May 28. At the Presentation of the Lord. “Today, brothers, the lawgiver.” February 2. At the Exaltation of the Cross. “Today, brothers, let’s have fun.” September 14. On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. “Today, brothers, the mother of our God has reposed.” 15 August. About prayer. “There is always good, brothers.” August 19. About the priest. "Must eat pop." May 24. On the week of St. forefather. “They are of old and before the law.” December 16. About monks who do not want to be with monks and are subject to monastic labor. “Friends are in seclusion.” December 10. On Christmas Day. “The maiden celebration is today, brothers.” December 25. At the conception of St. Anna. “When the time of prophetic preaching draws near.” December 9. About prayer. “Whenever the heart speaks to you.” April 5th. At the Epiphany of the Lord about the temptation of the devil. “The people of Elma are going to the streams of Jordan.” January 6. From the apostolic charter: how a Christian should live. “Reksha to Moses the lawgiver.” February 24. In the week before Epiphany, the Gospel of Mark. "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." January 5. About the abbot expelling demons. “A certain abbot.” October 20. About holy icons. “Imzhe ubobnotsii.” October 11. About the calling of God into the kingdom of heaven. “Indeed by applying.” May 19. On Christmas Day. Gospel of Matthew. “I am born to Jesus.” December 25. For the Annunciation. "Red Day". March 25. At the Exaltation of the Cross. “Red day and bright holiday.” September 14. For the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “Let’s go to the birthday party.” September 8. Don't be offended by the person's face. “Hypocrisy and people-pleasing.” February 3. On the conception of John the Baptist. “Darlings, it’s a good day.” September 23. For the beheading of the Forerunner's head. “Love ye, brethren.” August 29. On the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. “The celebrations are many and varied.” 15 August. Commendation to the Council of the Apostles. “Requires a lot of exercise.” June 30. Don't blame the monks. "Multiple from the insane." November 27. About those who do not want to repent. “There are many from those who sin.” July 17. It is not proper to condemn a sinner. “A man is holy because he alone sins.” December 16. Praise to John the Baptist. "The beginning of worldly joy." June 24. On Christmas Day. “The beginning of spiritual joy and gladness.” December 25. About the majestic. “Don’t be arrogant, man.” 9 July. About work and the kingdom of heaven. “Don’t be lazy, brothers.” 21 August. About virtue. “Don’t be lazy to visit the sick.” June 27. About repentance. “Don’t despair, man.” July 18. About work (and) about the kingdom of heaven. “Don’t be lazy about your salvation.” January 13. About repentance. “Don’t be ashamed to confess.” July 3. Praise to the holy apostles Peter and Paul. “No one will sin.” June 29. Not to condemn, but to be kind to the one who sins. “No one truly.” September 9. About pride. “Let no one seek glory.” August 28. For the Annunciation. “Now it is like this, brethren.” March 25. About the most pure mysteries. “Now he wants to begin.” December 25. About sadness. “I have given myself over to immeasurable sadness to carry no good.” 8 July. About the abbot, he was tempted by Christ in the form of a beggar. “There is no one in common life.” October 18. On the week of Christmas. “About this blessed David.” December 26. On the week of Christmas. Gospel of Matthew: “By the wise man who departed.” December 31st. About repentance. “I spoke with all my heart.” December 1st. About those who speak flatteringly. “Every saying is unrighteous.” August 27. For Christmas and about the star. “Christ was taken away from Persian.” December 17. For the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers. “Of those, the great Moses.” December 19. In memory of John the Theologian. “Paki will come to us from heaven.” September 26. About truth and untruth. “The first thing God created was truth” April 6. About Andronitsa and his wife Athanasia. “Father Daniel told us.” October 9. About a demon dancing in front of a monk. “Reverend Father told the brethren.” October 19. About anger. “Isak the monk told me.” September 3. About the abbot praying for the brethren, so that they may be with him in paradise. “John Climacus told.” September 24. About a Christ-loving merchant. “Someone told a wondrous thing.” October 28. About the narrow path that leads to life, and about the wide one that leads to eternal torment. “Strive, brothers, in the hard way.” 15 August. About punishment. “Befits a bishop.” November 7. For the Nativity of John the Baptist. “It is like this, brothers.” June 24. About the benefit of the soul: “It behooves us, brothers.” April 26. On the conception of John the Baptist. “As bad as it gets.” September 23. Commendation for the Intercession of the Virgin Mary. “As bad as it gets.” October 1st. About death and judgment. “Let us take care, brothers.” May 12. Let the wives be silent. “Listen, wives, to the commandments of God.” June 3. How appropriate it is for children to honor their parents. “Listen to the commandments of the Lord.” 9 August. Yako is not worthy of condemning a priest. “Listen again.” 25 August. To the power of the world. “Make you king.” November 26. About repentance and forgiveness of sins. “A certain fast woman two.” May 5. Just come to the church. “Strive, brothers and sisters.” August 18. To the rich who do not give alms. “Why are you grieving, man?” June 30. To find the head of the Forerunner. “The righteous will comprehend.” February 24. About a presbyter who fell into adultery. “A certain presbyter.” September 25. On St. Epiphany. “It is like this, brethren.” January 6. Praise to John the Baptist. “An ever-flowing source.” June 24. For the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “The time has come.” September 8. On Christmas Day. “Come on, brothers.” December 25. About the young robber, who was saved by John the Theologian. “The great disciple of Christ, John, has come.” September 26. Commendation to the Evangelist Luke. “Come, O sons of sanctification.” October 18. About marriage and fornication. “Come, smart ones.” 24 August. To the judges. “Be quite clear about it.” May 16. About good wives. “God Speech to Eve.” July 23. In memory of the martyr George. “The Lord said: everyone who confesses.” April 23. About the establishment of St. apostle Peter and Paul. "Speech Peter and Paul." March 21. Commendation of St. Nikolai. “Behold, brethren, a bright festival.” December 6th. At the Presentation of the Lord. “Behold, the prophet proclaims.” February 2. On the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers. “Behold, brethren, honorable memory.” December 19. About the bribe of those who judge. “Here saith the Lord.” May 23. About the Dormition of Sisoy. “Sisoi in the saints.” December 11. Commendation for the Intercession of the Virgin Mary. “The sweetest of times is spring.” October 1st. In memory of the holy apostles Peter and Paul. “Have you heard, brothers, in the gospel?” June 29. On the Sign of the Mother of God. “Hear ye!” November 27. O my worldly children. “I hear some worldly people living lazily.” June 25. About judges who accept bribes. “Hear, judges of all the earth.” December 31st. From the books of Enoch the righteous. “Hear, my child.” December 31st. About peace and love. “Humble yourselves, brothers.” August 18. About good morals. “The fear of God will drive away evil.” May 13. About the holy and life-giving Trinity. “I am everywhere and I do everything.” 31 July. About the passion of God. “Be afraid, brothers.” August 5th. About priestly honor. “Would you like to know?” June 19. What is it like to live as a Christian? “Everyone is a Christian.” September 21. For the Epiphany of the Lord. “Christ the Lord is a great light.” January 6. About the kingdom of heaven. "The kingdom of heaven is eternal." January 17. About prayer. “Calling the Church of God.” 15 July. To every Christian. “Children, my beloved.” June 20. About alms. “Someone in Constantinople.” September 18. The word in the parable is about the body of man and about the soul and about the resurrection of the dead. “Someone is a man.” September 28. About evil-tongued. “A man kindles quarrels.” July 18. For even after death, alms are pleasant to eat. “Man, if you haven’t achieved it yet.” April 2. About the wife who came to Neophytos to confess. "Honest Neophyte." October 18. About virtue, by acquiring it a person will be saved. “Four are the essence of virtues.” October 9. On Joachim and Anna Zechariah the prophet. “As the prophet David writes.” September 9. For the introduction of the Virgin Mary. “As the prophet writes.” November 21. About alms and humility. “As it is fitting to give alms willingly.” July 2. Before the Exaltation of the Cross there are two teachings. September 13. On the Exaltation of the Honest Cross. September 14. On the week of St. forefather word with poetry. December 16. About Eulogia Monas and the paralytic beggar. September 12. Prophet Zechariah to the unmerciful. September 5. About confession. November 13. How worthy it is for everyone who believes to stand at the church with fear. May 17. About the blacksmith who moved the mountain. October 6. On the eve of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. September 7. About those who are baptized and read books. August 31st. About the gracious scholastic. October 8. Commendation to Archbishop Cyril and Methodius. October 14. Praise to the martyrs Sergius and Bacchus. October 7. Commendation to the Apostle Thomas. October 6. About the robber who saved himself with tears in 10 days. October 17. About the elders who saved the harlot by teaching. September 14. Three lessons for the holidays. September 1st. About a young man who lures the dead. September 2. Collections of words: The Teaching Gospel [see above p. 269], Collections of words of Chrysostom [see above p. 271]. 5. Articles of dogmatic and moral content. Creations of Dionysius the Areopagite [see above p. 269]. Basil the Great to Amphilochius about St. Spirit [see above p. 267]. In Zhmakin in Metropolitan Daniel, p. 430, note 4. Original in Patrology of Min t. 32, p. 68–217: Περὶ τοῦ ἁ γ ί ου Πνεύματος πρὸς .... Ἀμφιλόχιον ..., ἐν κεφαλαίοις λ ’ (30). Gregory of Nyssa's word against Eunomius and about the resurrection [see above p. 269]. Zhmakin ibid. p. 333. Taken by Daniel from his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Polysyllabic scroll [see above p. 272]. (There is a lot of dogma in the words [pp. 277–292].) Anastasius, Patriarch of Aniochi, and Cyril of Alexandria - A brief presentation of faith by question. Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheets 105–106, p. 321, 16th century. Academic manuscript No. 198, sheet 1. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 169: Cyril of Alexandria questions and answers about the Trinity - is it the same or special? In Greek, Minya t. 89, r. 1400–1404. Confession of the holy consubstantial and life-giving Trinity. Beginning: “I believe and confess one God.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 104 ver., 105, p. 321, 16th century. About the Holy Trinity and Faith. Beginning: “Above all and with all and for the sake of all, it is fitting for a true Christian to see that there is God.” Synodal manuscript No. 316, sheet 11, p. 571. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 168 verso (Inscribed by Athanasius of Alexandria about the Holy Trinity). A brief statement about the Orthodox faith of John the philosopher to someone who asked him. Beginning: “You asked me for a good word, collected and known.” Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 21. Questions from a wise man about faith and answers from a true believer of Christ. Beginning: “Question: Human, what kind of person are you?” Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 43 ver. Church teachings, questions and answers about the holy faith. Beginning: “Question: What is God and why is God and whenever God is said.” Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 163 ver. St. Maximus' exposition on faith, and soon to question and answer every Christian. Beginning: “Question: How many natures do you profess.” Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 170 ver. If you want to know what God is and how to worship him, hear and listen intelligently and weigh the truth. Beginning: “Father and Son and Holy Spirit, one holy, one will.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 106 ver. – 107 ver., p. 321, 16th century. Dogmatic and moralizing questions and answers. Beginning: “Can a sorcerer kill a person.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 566, sheets 45–69. Questions and answers about the faith of peasants, how a peasant should believe, what kind of faith a peasant wants to be. Beginning: “I believe in the Holy Trinity, the Divinity is one nature, but in Christ we are one Holy Trinity.” Synodal manuscript No. 268, p. 300. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 172 verso. St. Gregory the Theologian's interpretation of the Creed. Beginning: “Differently, speech, bozi are not innii.” Description of the Synodal Manuscripts No. 64, sheet 147, page 59, 1546, and No. 67, page 62 fin.. In the [Description of Manuscripts] of the Rumyantsev Vostokov Museum No. 8, page 11, page 104, the interpretation of the symbol belonging to the unknown must be the same. Gennady Archbishop of Constantinople (Slovo, Stoslovets?) about “I believe in one God.” Zinovy ​​Otensky, p. 974 beginning. Stoslovets, see “The Chief” of Metropolitan Daniel. Interpretation of the symbol. Beginning: “Not as many think, saying, as there are two beginnings.” Synodal manuscript No. 185, sheet 165, p. 506, 16th century. The Creed, delivered by the apostles in parts, - Synodal manuscript No. 77, p. 105. About ordeals. Synodal manuscript No. 165, sheet 263, p. 444, 16th century. The word of a certain father to his son is soul-helping. Beginning: “My son, my child, incline your ear” See I.R.Ts. I vol. 1 half p. 680, note sub fin/.p. 826 note. Lavra Golden Chain No. 11, sheet 7 revolution – 11 revolution. Synodal manuscript No. 62, sheet 429, p. 47; Serbisms, therefore, were brought to Russia (translation from Greek), from Athos - signature. Academic manuscript No. 162, sheet 163 ver. The pity of righteous salvation is like the teaching of the pity (mother?) [pity] of her son. Beginning: “My dear child, my dear child, my bones.” Lavra collection of the 16th century, No. 794, sheets 362–369. The word of the holy fathers about punishment. Beginning: “Seek first, brothers, all wisdom and meekness.” Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 91. In Greek, brief statements of faith in Minh t. 98, r. 1227 sqq. For the Greek Shorter Catechisms in Questions and Answers, see Lambetius vol. VIII, pp. 752, 753 beginning. In the Moscow Synodal Library on the Description of Mattei No. 280, sheet 299; No. 150, sheet 391; Printer. bib. No. 4, sheet 99, p. 300. Interpretations: on the creed, - Mattei Typograph. bib. No. 24, sheet 38, p. 314. To the Lord's Prayer, - Mattei Typographer. bib. No. 24, sheet 57, p. 314; No. 48, sheet 41, p. 326; Bandinius Biblioth. Laurent., Plut. VII, p. 263, col. 2. – On “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us,” – Bandinius ibid.. 6. Against the Latins and other heretics. Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria to the Archbishop of Benet. Beginning: “Nowhere is it written to the First Throne of Akichi, Rexha of Benet.” Lavra Golden Chain No. 214, sheet 375 ver. Herman the Patriarch to the stiff-necked Latin prayer and kind teaching. Beginning: “Having come to know, in love, true Orthodoxy.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 100 ver., p. 321. In Popov’s Polemical Works, p. 151, about the original, p. 153. [Cf. in Sobolevsky p. 20]. Articles about the Latins in the Synodal Manuscript No. 177, p. 478; Lavra manuscript of the 15th century, No. 760; in the Makarievsky Menaia under August 31 [see above p. 272]; in Academic manuscripts 81, 175, 198, 235. Photius Patriarch three epistles against the Latins [see above p. 276]. About Fryazekh and about other Latins and about those who philosophize with them, like the pope who agree in these heresies. Beginning: “The Pope and all Western countries are Christians outside the Ionian bows.” – Synodal manuscript No. 177, sheet 338, p. 479. In Greek by Hardt V, 390 fin.. The legend of the Popes, where the story began. Beginning: “In the summer of 54; єфх7є to the kingdom of Nero, when the holy Apostle Peter was killed in Rome,” Synodal manuscript No. 177, sheet 327, p. 478, 17th century. Confession in brief, how and for the sake of what matter he left us in Latin. Beginning: “In the summer of 54; ssp7* at the seventh council Andrean was Pope, then Leon, also Stephen.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 107, p. 321, 16th century. The legend of the Latins, how they retreated from the Orthodox. Synodal manuscript No. 177, sheet 333, p. 479, 17th century. About the retreat of the popes and their lives, what is the matter. Synodal manuscript No. 195, p. 594, sheet 78 ver. (small). “It is fitting that according to Christopher the first, the confessor of his corrupt confession was written in Latin in the Roman Church” (A brief account of the excommunication of the Latins). In the collection of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery of the second half of the 15th century, see Scientific Notes of the 2nd branch of the Academy of Sciences, book V, description of the collection of Archimandrite Varlaam, page 17, sheet 96–97. About the hedgehog, in Latin, they have their own popes and about the image of Robert the false pope on the banner. Synodal manuscript No. 195, sheet 78 ver., p. 594. Gregory Palamas' writings against the Latins. Synodal manuscript No. 175, XV century. [see above p. 269. Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 20]. Nilus Cabasilas' writings against the Latins. Synodal manuscript No. 175, 15th century; more No. 178. Niketas Chartophylax (Patriarch Photius) message, - Popov Review of polemical writings against the Latins, pp. 118–121. Enifany of Cyprus on heresies, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 336 [see above p. 270]. Academic manuscript No. 187, sheet 247 (Righteous standard); No. 195, sheet 36. Timothy, presbyter of Constantinople, on heresies, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 336. Unknown about heresies, Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 336. About heretics under Emperor Michael III, Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightenment pp. 595–596. About the heresy of Varlaam and Akindinus under Emperor Andronicus ibid. p. 596. From Nikon the Montenegrin, see Lavra manuscript No. 760, sheet 229 ver. [Cf. Sobolevsky p. 20]. Gregory of Amirite debate with the Jews [see. above p. 268]. Archbishop Gennady translated against the Judaizers. Faith and opposition of baptized Jews in Africa and in Cartagena (Διδασκαλία Ιακώβου νεοβαπτίστου). Synodal manuscript No. 156, sheet 190, p. 308, 16th century; Academic manuscript No. 176, Stroeva Dictionary p. 399. [Cf. above p. 271]. Jacob's book of the Jews - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin pp. 326–327. Riklada about the Sracin faith [see above p. 274]. John of Nicea about the Armenians [see above p. 271]. Against the Armenians. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 76 ver. sqq. Works of Maxim the Greek against infidels and heretics. [Wed. in Sobolevsky pp. 20, 21, 191–193, 216–217]. 7. Monastic rules and Patericon. Patericon placed in the Menaion of Macarius [see above p. 273]. Limonar [see ibid. p. 273]. Patericon of Ephraim the Syrian [see ibid. page 270]. Grigory Dvoeslova Conversation about the life of the fathers [see ibid. p. 268]. Basil the Great On fasting [see ibid. page 267]. Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople - Tradition to his disciple, who carefully sat in his cell - Lavra manuscript No. 756, sheet 19 and others. Fatherland - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 375. Fatherland (Paterikon) - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 591, 592. Life of Pankratius of Tauromenia, see Zinovy of Otensky, p. 997. The eldership is mentioned by Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener, p. 318. [Cf. in Sobolevsky p. 18, 441]. 8. Interpretations of the church and services. A word about church legend. Beginning: “The Church is an earthly heaven.” Lavra Golden Chain No. 11, sheet 30 rev – 34 rev; Academic Manuscript No. 235, near the beginning. Interpretation of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Beginning: “The Church is heaven on earth.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 111, p. 321, 16th century. In the Tsar's manuscript No. 423, sheet 165, it is inscribed: The Legend of John the Theologian; in Synodal Manuscript No. 206, sheet 84, p. 649, attributed to Hesychius; is inscribed: “The service is interpreted by John Chrysostom, interpreted by Sychios (Hesychius).” (Is it in Academic Manuscript No. 19?). In Greek by Hardt II, p. 325 fin. (attributed to Basil the Great). Church legend. Beginning: “Churches are a place of prayer, a holy place.” (From the interpretation of Herman the Patriarch). Synodal manuscript No. 163, XIII century, sheet 237–261, p. 420. Imagination of the Church. Beginning: "What is the top of the church? The Head of the Lord. The altar is the Sepulcher of the Lord." Lavra Golden Chain No. 11, sheets 36–37. In Greek by Hardt, III, 149 in a 12th-century manuscript. Decree on the church and for all (sic) church gifts, question and answer. Beginning: “Rtsi mi: what is a bishop and what is a priest.” Lavra Collection No. 794, 16th century, sheets 307, ver. – 311. Synodal manuscript No. 239, sheet 208, p. 167. The word of revelation of our holy father Gregory the Theologian about the holy service has been interpreted. Beginning: “The Reverend Father gathered to Saint Gregory the Theologian.” Lavra Golden Chain No. 11, sheet 28, ver. – 30. Synodal manuscript No. 106, sheet 199. Interpretation of the divine service. Beginning: “I say to the deacon: bless, master, what (that) is to the invisible Father.” Synodal manuscript No. 158, sheet 117, p. 322, 16th century. See also ibid. No. 206, sheet 88, p. 650. The meaning of the Divine Liturgy. Beginning: “The antiphons are the prophetic speech of the holy litury.” Synodal manuscript No. 316, p. 589. St. Stephen - about the all-night vigils in St. week and on the Lord's holidays. Beginning: “Do not neglect the creation of the song of the hour.” Synodal manuscript No. 208, sheet 245 ver., p. 655, 16th century. (See “Chief” by Metropolitan Daniel). The word of St. Basil is the meaning of the student rank. Beginning: “What is a priest and according to what desire the priest speaks.” Lavra Golden Chain No. 11, sheets 34–36. There are in many Synodal: Synodal manuscript No. 206, p. 650; No. 316, p. 589. In Greek by Hardt, III, 84 and 286. Academic manuscript No. 175, folio 176 verso. Explanation of the Cherubic Song. Beginning: “Personal service will tell the secret of divine vision.” Synodal manuscript No. 64, p. 59, 16th century. Gregory of Nyssa, a word about “Our Father,” - Zinovy ​​of Otensky p. 974 beginning; Filaret in Review p. 72. There is Maximus the Confessor in Min t. 90, r. 872. About prosphora and wine. Beginning: “There is bread and cup in truth.” Synodal manuscript No. 206, sheet 87, p. 649 fin., XVI century; Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 40 verso; No. 235 (near the beginning). The rule of the holy fathers is how to put on the holy surplice. Beginning: “The surplice is the truth.” Synodal manuscript No. 204, sheet 369, p. 646, early 16th century. A question about the sacred gifts of the church. Beginning: “Rtsi mi: what is a bishop, or what is a priest?” - Synodal manuscript No. 239, p. 167. “What is the cutting of the head of a priest”, St. Father Vasily. Beginning: “What is a priest (and) why does the priest say.” Synodal manuscript No. 204, sheet 370, p. 646, beginning of the 16th century; No. 330, p. 755. Interpretation of church things and an explanatory service - Makarievsky Chet-Minea on August 31. The rite of renunciation of the Armenian heresy, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 327. Theodore the First Presbyter translated several liturgical works of Patriarch Philotheus into “Russian” - Stroev Biblical Dictionary p. 300. His translations are in the Lavra Manuscript No. 284. Isn’t he the Archpriest of Annunciation under Ivan Vasilyevich III and Metropolitan Photius? Klyuchevsky. Lives page 449. The rite of the royal wedding was translated in Moscow in 1562, - Stroev Bibliological Dictionary p. 142 beginning. Archbishop Theodore of Rostov translated from Greek “Water Baptism” [the rite of minor blessing of water], – Pavlov’s Monuments col. 795 beginning of notes [See I.R.C. vol. II, 1 half p. 256]. Matthew Vlastar Syntagma, written in 1451, – Safarika Geschichte d. Südslaw. Literat. Ill, 218 beginning (my Brief Essay p. 514). Academic manuscript No. 53, 17th century. It was translated (for the second time?) in 1542, see Stroeva Dictionary 106 beginning. In the New Jerusalem Monastery, a list of the 14th century, Stroev Dictionary, p. 358 fin.. The idea of ​​a consolidated Helmsman appeared in the Joseph Monastery to contrast it with the Helmsman of Vassianova and in general in the types of struggle with the Trans-Volga people? About Cormorant Helmsman, see A. S. Pavlov’s course, p. 117 and Notes of Kazan University, 1864. The bishops and the Grand Duke had a helmsman: Gennady of Novgorod to Prokhor of Sarsky from Khrushchev Sources XVII. “The Righteous Standard” was compiled during the reign of Dmitry Alexandrovich? (Preface). That “The Righteous Standard” is not a Russian collection is evident from the remark made about the Bogomils. In later times, in the 17th century, the Helmsmen were called Zonars, manuscript of the Vilna Public Library according to Dobryansky’s Description No. 242, afterword. Zinar, the holy father and apostle ruled with God, a collection about bishops and monks and about worldly people. Academic manuscript No. 53. See Vostokov Description of manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum p. 329 col. 1 fin. and No. 239. Balsamon's interpretation of the rules in the translation by Maxim the Greek, see Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel, page 209 note. Nikita of Irakli The correct testaments are mentioned by St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator p. 500. Constantine the Great to kings and princes is mentioned by St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator pp. 601–602. [Wed. in Sobolevsky pp. 24–25]. About the Greek Helmsman of Metropolitan Photius in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, see Description of the manuscripts of Undolsky col. 444. About the “nomo-eve” of it, see the manuscript of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra No. 730, sheet 462 [Descriptions part III, p. 122]. Was the Laptev summary of the Helmsman written under Metropolitan Macarius? (Kalachov about the Helmsman, Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1847 No. 4, p. 3, § 2, ends with the installation of Metropolitan Macarius). Contents of the summary Helmsman of the Assumption Cathedral at Snegirev Monuments of Moscow antiquity p. 45 sqq. The original of the master helmsman Macarius from V. M. Undolsky [See. Description of manuscripts No. 27, col. 31–32]. Vlastarev's syntagma was translated in 1542, see Rosenkampf. Bychkova A. F. Description of collections of the Imperial Public Library I, p. 355 fin.. Maxim the Greek translated the Helmsman's Book in 1521, - Popova A.N. Description of Khludov's manuscripts p. 202; in Moskvityanin 1842, No. 11, article by Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov about Maxim the Greek, note 14. Temporary book (Greek?), Metropolitan Daniel at Zhmakin p. 350 fin.. Chronograph. Extracts from it ending in 908 - Lavra manuscript No. 1, sheet 160, XIV century. “Historians for God in Brief”, chronology from Adam to Leo the Wise (from Adam to R. X. 5555). Synodal manuscript No. 163, sheet 261, p. 421. Manasseh Chronicle, - Stroeva Dictionary p. 413 fin.. For the Russian chronograph of 1512. Manasseh served as one of the sources. Chronicler of Nikephoros in Kormchay 1282, - Filaret in Review, p. 76. Academic manuscript No. 195, sheet 388. Chronicle of John Zonara, translated in 1344. and abridged (Chronicles) in 1408, my Brief Essay pp. 507 and 513 fin.. Chronographs. See about them Porfiryeva Literature I, 211. Epiphanius the Wise read chronographs - in Klyuchevsky’s Lives of the Saints, p. 91. In the legend about the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, compiled in the middle of the 15th century, a Russian chronograph is mentioned, the Vladimir polychron, Klyuchevsky's Life p. 177 fin., 178 beginning. Simeon Metaphrast by Popov in [Review] of chronographs I, issue 2, page 16 beginning. Chronograph written in 1485 by Io. (Ivashka) Black, (about whom St. Joseph in the Illuminator p. 81 beginning and Gennady somewhere) - Piskarevskaya manuscript in the Rumyantsev Museum No. 162, Descriptions p. 38. Sacred and ecclesiastical history: Josephus about the captivity of Jerusalem [see above p. 271]. Eusebius Pamphilus [see ibidem, p. 270]. Amartol, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin p. 432. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 128. [Cf. in Sobolevsky pp. 22, 23, 25]. History of the Old Testament with Apocrypha. Lavra manuscript No. 769, sheet 1 back - 18, 16th century. Apocryphal articles about the fall of Adam, his death, the tree of the cross, etc. Lavra manuscript No. 298, sheet 365, 17th century. (No. 660 is about the same thing, but different, it seems). Synodal manuscript No. 330, p. 753 (about the creation of Adam). About the flood and Noah, about the pagans, about Moses, about the tablets, about the prophets. Lavra manuscript No. 192, sheet 161, XV century. Apocryphal. The word from the books of Enoch the righteous, before the flood and now is alive. Beginning: “Hear, my children, before all things were not, the Lord established the ages of creation and then created all creation.” Synodal manuscript No. 202, sheet 335, page 626 fin.. In some lists with the name of the presbyter Jeremiah. The word is not from the well-known book of Enoch – ibid.. In Greek in the Easter Chronicle Περὶ τῆς προφητείας Ἐνωχ in Minh t. 92, p. 104. About Melchizedek. Beginning: “Melchil is king, like Rekohom, having two sons, one Melchil by his own name, and the other Melchizedek.” Lavra manuscript No. 732, sheet 306, 18th century. (From Palea?). Apocryphal. Apocrypha about Asenath, the wife of Joseph, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 656. A word about the Psalter, like the copy of the Psalter David the king. Lavra manuscript No. 805, sheet 76; No. 794, sheet 246. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 551, sheet 256 verso (Apocryphal). In Greek, Minya t. 92, r. 244 is: τὸ πῶς συνέστη ὁ ψαλτήρ . Look. Chronicles (apocryphal), – Synodal manuscript No. 317, p. 592. Solomon's courts. Lavra manuscripts No. 256, sheet 55, late 15th century. and No. 729, sheet 182 (From Palea?). Apocryphal. Synodal manuscript No. 326, p. 682 (The Courts of Solomon and David). About Solomon's chalice. Lavra manuscript No. 729, sheet 203 ver., XV century; No. 793, sheet 396. Apocrypha or from the life of Constantine? Gospel of Nicodemus. Beginning: “In the name of the Holy Trinity, the firstfruits of the work of our Savior Jesus Christ, which Theodosius the Great found in Jerusalem.” Lavra manuscript No. 145, sheet 201, word 69, beginning of the 15th century. [In Sobolevsky p. 23]. About the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ (which Prov called a friend of Christ). Lavra manuscript No. 769, sheet 62 ver., 16th century. Word for the Nativity of Our Lord Isa. Christ from Euphrodithian about the former miracles in the fingers of the earth. Beginning: “Christ was taken away from Persian.” Lavra No. 792, sheet 279, XV century; Volokolamskaya No. 525, sheet 302. In Greek by Hardt, II, 326: γενομένων. Apocryphal. Decree how the Lord created the brotherhood of the cross. Beginning: “At that time the king was raging, his name was Semiklia, and he loved to hear speeches about Christ.” Lavra manuscript No. 794, sheet 274 ver., 16th century; No. 769, sheet 62 ver. Apocryphal. About the entry of Christ onto the Mount of Olives, Synodal manuscript No. 330, p. 753. Pilate's letter to Tiberius and Tiberius' signature to Pilate. Lavra manuscript No. 765, sheet 248 and No. 786, sheet 101 verso (the message in both is without a beginning; the signature is only in the first). On the heel of Holy Week, a word about the trial of Tiberius by Caesar and the death of Pilate and the captivity of the Jews. Beginning: “The former books were carried by Pilate to Rome to Tiberius Caesar.” Synodal manuscript No. 232, sheet 312 ver., p. 117. Apocryphal. About Judas and the Jews. Apocryphal legend about Judas. Synodal manuscript No. 185, sheet 177 ver., p. 507, 16th century; Lavrskaya No. 188, sheet 107 ver. and No. 214, sheet 423 ver., both 16th century. The Sermon on the Crucifixion of Our Lord Isa. Christ for Easter. Beginning: “The Lord says: command that you sing at the crucifixion of the Lord” (“Holy God” was sung by Joseph and Nicodemus during the transfer of the body of Christ, according to the “pronouncement” of the Savior). Lavra manuscript No. 787, sheet 26, 16th century. and No. 780, sheet 504. Cfr of Archimandrite Porfiry Travel to Egypt, 1856, p. 133. Apocryphal. About the martyrdom of our master Jesus Christ. Beginning: “The torment of our master Ivc. Christ.” From Latin. Synodal manuscript No. 203, p. 636 fin., late 15th century. About the cross of Christ and about the crosses of thieves. Lavra manuscript No. 794, sheets 397 ver., 398 ver. and 399 (about the head of Adam at the root - sheet 403). Apocryphal. Avgar's message to Christ. Inscription: Remembrance of the image of our Lord not made with hands Isa. Christ. Beginning: “It’s appropriate for us to talk about this a little.” Lavra manuscript No. 785, sheet 386, 16th century; Academic Fundamental Chet-Minea August 16 December. In Greek, Mattei No. 9, sheet 192. The word of the image of the Lord God our Savior not made by hands Isa. Christ. Beginning: "The Message of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A stone fell from heaven in Holy Jerusalem and in the church. Lavra manuscript No. 791, sheet 251. Apocryphal. Epistolia of God the Father, – Synodal manuscript No. 231, p. 104 fin. sqq. The writing of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, which I remember writing in Hebrew and philosophical, with which I buried the body of Jesus. “In the year of the great King Theodosius 17, he changed from Jewish to Greek, which happened under Pilati Pontstem.” “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.” Lavra manuscript No. 786, sheet 73 ver., 16th century, and No. 774, sheet 61. In Greek by Hardt V, 292 fin.. The names of the Lord, numbering 72. Whenever you read them, you will be undefeated in the army and the enemy will always be delivered from all. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 419, sheet 204. Apocryphal. Athanasius Mnich of Jerusalem writing by Pankovi about the tree of reason, good and evil. Beginning: “You told me things, how you taught us many things about the tree.” Lavrskaya Zlat. Chain No. 214, sheet 381 revolutions. The Word of John the Theologian about the repose of our Lady Theotokos and the ever-virgin Mary. Beginning: “Holy and most glorious of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, according to custom, incense is entered upon the holy tomb of our Lord.” Academic fundamental manuscript of the Chet-Menaia Augustus, sheet 455 ver. (In Greek Fabr. X, 284; Eambec. VIII, 406; Gieseler II, I, S. 131; Thilo, Acta Thomae p. XVI; Hardt II, 157). Epiphanius, hieromonk of the Kallistratov monastery, about the life and upbringing and flight testimony of our most pure and blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Beginning: “O truly, the true Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin Mary, many prophecies have been written.” Lavra manuscripts No. 171, sheet 390, XV century, and No. 176, sheet 221, XV century. (About the priesthood of Christ, about which separately ibid. No. 734, sheet 35). Apocryphal. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheets 374–394 and No. 656, sheets 30 revolution – 49 revolution (more complete). Academic Library Chet-Minea August sheet 528, September number 8. Prayer of the Most Pure Mother of God to her Son and God. Lavra manuscript No. 785, sheet 293, 16th century; Synodal manuscript No. 313, p. 547. Names of the Mother of God 72. “Kupina, rod, root.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 419, sheet 207. The Walk of John the Theologian, - St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator p. 508. Question of John the Theologian. Beginning: “After the Ascension of the Lord, this Ivanna ascended Mount Tabor and looked up to heaven.” Lavra manuscript No. 660, sheet 411 ver., 17th century. In Greek by Lambetius VIII, 90. John the Theologian's question to Abraham about righteous souls. Beginning: “Speech of John: Father Abraham, you are in paradise, you also receive righteous souls, tell me, father, with whom the righteous souls are satisfied in paradise?” Lavra manuscript No. 323, sheet 823 ver., 16th century. (Volokolamsk manuscript No. 521, sheet 69, beginning: “I went up to the Mount of Olives”). The Walk of the Apostle Thomas, - St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Illuminator p. 508. Act of St. Apostle Thomas. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheet 424. Apocryphal. Walking ap. Philip, - St. Joseph of Volokolamsk in The Illuminator p. 457. "Paul spoke on the mountain: you will take up a sign. Interpretation. The sign is the cross." Apocryphal. Lavra Golden Chain No. 214, sheets 389–392. St. Gregory's word about angels. Beginning: “Az Gregory saw an angel and said to him: point out to me, angel” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 419, sheet 117. Apocryphal. (Having mentioned the angel, the guilty one outweighs the enemy before the court - sheet 119). Hippolytus of Rome's tale of binding the devil for a thousand years. Synodal manuscript No. 1, sheet 90, page 160, XV century. The word of John Chrysostom from Isaiah's prophecy about the last time of those who repent (sic). Apocryphal. In the Lavra Collection of the 16th century, No. 794, sheets 267 fin. – 271. Methodius of Patara about the first generation and the last. Beginning: “Let everyone know that Adam and Eve were virgins of the best.” Lavra manuscript No. 769, sheet 18 ver., 16th century. About Macarius of Rome, that three monks went to the east. Beginning: “The three elders from the monastery of St. Asclepius told us.” Lavra manuscript No. 704, sheet 64 ver., XV century; No. 709, sheet 255 ver., 17th century. Apocryphal. Life of Theodore Tyrone. Lavra manuscripts No. 648, sheet 357, 16th century; No. 723, sheet 391, 16th century; No. 791, sheet 221 ver., 16th century; No. 794, sheet 247. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 521, sheet 123. Apocryphal. The torment and passion of the Great Martyr George. Beginning: “At that time there was a king from Persia, named Dadian, an idolater.” Lavra manuscript No. 723, sheet 436, 16th century. Apocryphal. The Word of Chrysostom, how the Paulicians withered away. Beginning: “Create the devil, for there is only one literate person, having great wisdom.” Lavra manuscript No. 794, sheet 342 ver., 16th century. Apocryphal. Questions like those from (about) Matthias John Chrysostom. Beginning: “Question: Rtsi mi kako is the earth” (very wonderful). Lavra manuscript No. 794, sheet 341, 16th century. Questions and answers. Beginning: "What is man? Adam." Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheet 472. Apocryphal. Questions and answers. Beginning: “Who is Fisan, the hedgehog says Okin, and the name of the one who wrote the cross of the Lord.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheets 473–477. Apocryphal. (Why are various church services sung - 473. When the Lord was a deacon, a priest - 473 revolution). Canon to the Monk Maroy. Spiritual Bulletin 1863, January, p. 82. Prayer from the shaker (to Archangel Michael and Sisinnius). Spiritual Messenger 1863, January, p. 79. The Tale of the Sibyl Kingdom. Beginning: “Between the south and the west, beyond the Nile River, beyond the Politar land, there is a mountain, its name is rock” Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 1039. Apocryphal. Parable about the city of Babylon. Beginning: “There was King Axerxes in the Babylonian kingdom, with glory and majesty above many kings.” Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 55. Apocrypha about Alexander the Great, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 656. About Tsar Daryan, - Lavra manuscript No. 769, after page 35 ver. Questions from St. Ephraim about (to?) St. Vasily. Beginning: “In a week God created heaven and earth” Lavra manuscript No. 794, sheet 335 verso, 16th century. Life of Andrei the Fool, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 656, sheet 288 (not all, without the beginning); No. 520, sheet 41 revolutions (not all). In Greek, Hardt V, 404, cod. DLII. (Holy Fool - σαλός, hence Sallos?). Conversation of three saints. Collection of the 18th century, owned by N. P. Delitsyn. Solovetsky Monastery manuscript No. 925. Trinity - Sergius Lavra No. 256; No. 794, XVI century, sheet 331. Descriptions of Synodal manuscripts, section 2, part 2, p. 631, no. 203. Prayer of the Evangelist Luke, - Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 457. 12. About books true and false and about the veneration of books. About books true and false. Synodal manuscripts No. 319, p. 600 No. 322, p. 640; No. 325, p. 679; No. 330, p. 742; No. 185, sheets 11 ver. and 160, pp. 505 fin., 506; No. 191, sheet 641, p. 577 fin. sheets 646 ver. and 648, p. 578. (About their books one should honor and pay attention, and they should not be heeded or honored). See Pypin and Spasovich History of Slavic Literatures, 2nd edition I, 68. Porfiryeva Literature, I, 225 note [Pavlov’s Monuments col. 104, 114, 789–796]. On the veneration of books of words, teachings and articles: a) Chrysostom - The Word is what the reader should listen to and pay attention to. Beginning: “Speech of Blessed John Chrysostom: I sit reading the words of God, first pray to him.” Synodal manuscript No. 133, 16th century, p. 178; No. 153, p. 271, late XIV or early XV century; Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 5 ver. fin. b) Ephraim the Syrian from the word 99, when you value the honor of a book, honor it with diligence and pain. Similar to the previous one. Synodal manuscript No. 138, 17th century, p. 184. c) Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian and others (choice from-) about how the divine scriptures should be read, - Synodal manuscript No. 146, 17th century, p. 213, manuscript sheets 671–680. d) Venerable Nestor, – Lavra list pp. 65–66. e) Punishment of the holy fathers. If anyone who is a lover of God and a reader of God wants to delight his soul, he will listen to the holy books. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 656, sheet 263. f) The Word of Chrysostom about book teaching and about veneration for every person. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 460, sheet 31 ver. Beginning: “Listen, brothers, and understand, children, how much you believe in one God.” g) A word about Chrysostom’s book works. Beginning: "What they acquire is by delving into the divine books. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 566, sheet 513 verso. h) Ephraim the Syrian, how the holy books are worthy of honor with all diligence. Brothers, whenever an evil thought finds you, draw your sword. Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheet 6. i) Lavra Izmaragd No. 204, sheets 5 back – 9 back. Several articles about reading books (a lot). 13. Articles on the alphabet, grammar and philosophy. ABC books. Explanatory alphabet: a) Explanatory alphabet, composed by prayer, speak before the image of the Lord. I fall to you, O merciful Christ. Synodal manuscripts No. 850, sheet 513; ibid. 789, 794. b) The ABC is clear about Adam. I will be called Adam. Ibid, sheet 788. c) The ABC of our knowledge and the servant of God. In other words, I am a performer. Ibid., sheet 790 ver. d) beginning: I am the Lord God first. Ibid., sheet 792. e) A complex explanatory alphabet about the resurrection of the Lord before all saints. I am risen. More divine than the grave. Ibid., sheet 793. f) Preface briefly to the first textbook of this little book of alphabet. The good and all-good God has created all things with His wisdom. Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 549 (there is no alphabet itself). ABCs and grammars of the late 16th century. see Academic Manuscript No. 35. John of Damascus, a philosophical book in eight parts (grammar). Synodal manuscript No. 156, sheet 113, p. 308. Academic manuscript No. 39. Grammar. Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheets 519, 534 verso and 564: Preface to the bottom of the grammar, and especially the punishment for teaching. With God's help, be brave with your teacher. (A few more prefaces follow.) (Beginning of grammar). Troparion tone 3 of the right clination. Apostle St. Philip. - Grammar. Beginning: Right inclination. Your martyr, Lord, Mamant. – Academic manuscripts No. 39, No. 147–150. John of Damascus. Dialectics. Synodal manuscript No. 156, sheet 121, p. 308. Konstantin Kostenchsky. About spelling. Starine, book I first. It’s reasonable to talk about external philosophy, but don’t make mistakes. Beginning: “In fasting and thirst and in abstinence.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 520, sheet 79. ABC books. See Porfiryeva Literature I, 286. Interpreter Dimitry Gerasimov in 1522 translated the book Donatus from Latin, from Artemyev (Description of the Kazan University manuscript), p. 317 fin., CXXXX. What sciences (alphabet and grammar) were studied in Rus' in the 16th century? (mentioned about all free tricks), - Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences, vol. IV, p. 257 note. In the Degree Book, Part I, Metropolitan Michael, that he told teachers how to teach children (opinions of the author of the book, 16th century). Zinovy ​​Otensky (Academic manuscript No. 61, pp. 799 and 800) says: “our Russian language does not have philosophical teaching and grammar.” [Wed. in Sobolevsky p. 122]. 14. Astrology, physics, geography, natural science, medicine. Gromnik in the twelfth month. Collected by King Heraclius from the cosmos. Beginning: “March, the animal verb Aries.” Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheet 265, 15th century. For the Greek thundernik, see Lambetius, VII, 198. See Porfiryeva Literature I, 284 (Superstitious and fortune-telling books). See John Lawrence Lida: Περὶ διοσημειῶν. Περὶ βροντῶν. Ἐφήμερος βροντοσκοπία. Καθολικὴ ἐπιτήρησις πρὸς σελήνην. Περὶ κεραυνῶν. Ἐφήμερος τοῦ παντὸς ἐνιαυτοῦ and so on in Minya Patrology t. 85, p. 273–382. Fortune telling psalter, - Piskarev manuscript in the Rumyantsev Museum No. 156, sheet 330. About the annual signs for the day on which the Nativity of Christ will happen. Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheet 267 ver., XV century. Element of the twelfth month. Beginning: "March. I will exhaust the warriors to the fullest extent of their weapons." Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheet 268 ver., XV century. For the Greek lunar, see Lambetius, VII, 198. About happy and unhappy days. Beginning: “On the first day of the moon Adam was created quickly.” Lavra manuscript No. 321, sheet 1235 ver., 16th century; No. 214, sheet 330, XVI century. (in Greek similar to Hardt III, p. 208). About the heavens (nine). Synodal manuscript No. 59, p. 43 fin.. About heaven and earth in Academic manuscript No. 198. About the twelve winds. Beginning: “It is known that there are twelve meadows with rivers around the earth.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 414, sheet 162. About the thunders and about the millions and about the thunder - the loud noise of shibaniy. Beginning: “Thunder and mlnia come as a result: the multiplied wind.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 414, sheet 162–165. Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 159. Gennady Patriarch of Constantinople about the heavenly blessing, for there is a likeness of God. Beginning: “The arc is the image of the divine likeness.” Academic manuscript No. 175, sheet 161. About thunder and lightning, about a flying star, about the waters of the sea, about birds, animals, fish. Lavra Collection No. 769, sheet 78 ver., 16th century. Agricultural and medical calendar. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 515, sheets 509–510. Signs of thunder. If it starts at noon, then there will be a lot of life. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 419, sheet 119 ver. In Greek Ἰ ανουαρίου. ἔαν ὲστί ὴ σελήνη ὄρθη, πολλοὶ κάρποι (si luna recta, multi fructus), - in Hardt III, p. 149 fin.. For astrological forecasts in Serbian manuscripts, see Safarik in Geschichte d. Südslawisch. Literat. III, S. 201, No. 102; 222 sqq., No. 162 (many). The Elites want to come to my humility, having the wisdom of astrologers and astronomers and mafimats, and I do not accept it. Tsarskaya No. 412, sheet 85 ver., p. 501. Gregory of Nyssa about the structure of man [see above p. 269]. George Pisis praises God about the creation of all creation [see above pp. 268-451]. About the latitude and longitude of the earth. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 419, sheet 215. Cosmas of Indikoplova Christian topography. Porfiryev Literature, I, 212 fin.. About animals, birds, fish, stones and trees. Lavra Paley No. 729, sheets 155 revolutions – 182 revolutions. Mattei Description Greek Synodal manuscript No. 399, sheets 138–139, p. 258. About birds and fish. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 558, sheet 328 ver. About a lion, a deer, an eagle. Volokolamsk manuscript No. 491, sheet 150 ver. About the phoenix, - Synodal manuscript No. 316, p. 578. About wisdom, there is a hedgehog about a bird, a peahen. Beginning: “It is useful to wear a peacock’s head; it makes a person wise.” Synodal manuscript No. 850, sheet 458 (No. not according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev). The translation is about the eagle stone, which has strength and blessings in itself. Beginning: “The old experts who discovered.” Synodal manuscript No. 850 (not according to Gorsky and Nevostruev), sheet 458. Galinovo on Hippocrates. Lavra Collection No. 762, XV century, sheet 270 ver. Therapeutic book (“The Good Vertograd”), translated from German by order of Metropolitan Daniel in 1534, – Zhmakin, page 278; printed, see ibid.. See Florinsky V.M. Russian common herbalists and healers. Kazan, 1880 (From the Scientific Notes of Kazan University for 1879 and 1880). About sowing, bleeding, planting on certain days of the moon. Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheets 260–261, 15th century. About bloodletting. Animals about lunar days, about convenient zodios, good, evil and in between. Oh cunning one. About the hair-drinkers, about the old Bzhur. Lavra manuscript No. 762, sheet 270 ver., XV century. See Lambetius VII, 198. In greek: ? ''s Boissonade III, 409. Instructions to Dmitry Gerasimov to get the Book of Osmia and the Peacemaking Circle in Rome. The herbalist is mentioned in the Illuminator of Joseph of Volokolamsk, page 628 fin.. [Cf. in Sobolevsky pp. 22, 23, 52, 69, 137–143, 225, 441]. Porfiryeva Literature I, 214 beginning. Pypin and Spasovich History of Literature, 2nd edition I, 61 notes. [Speransky M.N. History of ancient Russian literature, 2nd edition, M. 1914. Arkhangelsky A.S. From lectures on the History of Russian Literature. Literature of the Moscow State (late XV-XVII centuries). Kazan, 1913 Sobolevsky A.I. Translated literature of Moscow Rus' of the XIV-XVII centuries. Bibliographic materials St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 218–222, 233 sqq and others. Pypina A. N. For lovers of book antiquities. Bibliographic list of handwritten novels, stories, fairy tales, poems, etc., especially from the first half of the 18th century. M. 1888]. [The word paper is related to the late Greek words β ό μβαξ, β ό μβυξ, βάμβαξ cotton, which are similar in sounds to it, Turkish - pambuk, pamuk, Persian pambah, Armenian bambak, Georgian bamba cotton, comes together with them from some unknown word, probably a Turkic language of Central Asia. Paper originally appeared in Asia and from there moved to Southern and Western Europe. In Asia it was made from silk (China), from hemp and from fibers of various plants similar to cotton and cotton; in Europe they began to make it from rags or flax. Here, initially the paper came out thick and loose with a shaggy and fibrous surface; such paper is called bombitsina (before the appearance of the works of Briquet, Karabachek and Wisner in 1884–1889, it was considered to be made of cotton). Over time, with the improvement of manufacturing, paper in Western Europe began to be made thin and smooth. The name ten has appeared for a folded sheet of paper since the 15th century. – In relation to writing, they distinguish: charter, semi-charter and cursive; the first, having existed among the Slavs for several centuries, turned into a semi-ustav, which in turn turned into cursive writing. "The letters in the charter are distinguished by the greatest simplicity of outline. In them we usually see straight lines, more or less regular angles, parts of a circle, ovals. Each letter is separated from the other. Each letter always has the same general shape; in other words, the difference in the outline of the same letter by the same scribe is insignificant. - Letters in the semi-charter are already losing their simplicity outlines. The place of straight lines is taken by broken ones; the regularity of angles, circles, ovals is reduced or lost. Each letter has several forms; in other words, the same scribe writes the same letter in two, three, four ways. - Letters in cursive writing are distinguished by an even greater complexity of outlines and an even greater number of forms. They can be written separately from one another, but they can also be connected to each other. or in another way. It goes without saying that there is a letter that is something between a charter and a semi-charter; it can be called a charter turning into a semi-charter. In the same way, there is a letter intermediate between semi-usta and cursive. This is a semi-charter turning into cursive" See A. I. Sobolevsky Slavic - Russian Paleography, first course, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 28, 29 and 35; cf. N. P. Likhacheva Paleographical meaning of paper watermarks, part I, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. VII-XXIX]. Prince Vladimir of Galitsky paid 8 hryvnia kuna for the prayer books: according to Sreznevsky’s account, this is 80 rubles. Manual for Rural Shepherds 1873, II, p. 17). (We began to use paper under Simeon the Proud - Karamzin IV, 172 fin.). (For the collections of Vasilko Danilovich, see the Ipat Chronicle, p. 608 fin.. Another great collection ibid. 609 [Cf. I. R. Ts. vol. I, 1 half of p. 755/921]. During Tokhtamysh’s invasion of Moscow, a great many books burned in Moscow: Collected Chronicles vol. IV, 87 fin.; VI, 101 fin.; VIII, 46 beginning; in Karamzin, vol. V, note 96. Many Greek books burned in a fire on June 21, 1547, - Degree Book II, 247. Nikon Chronicle VII, 56: icons, not books). Nikon Chronicle IV, 186. [In the story of Simeon Suzdal “how Pope Eugene composed the 8th Council” we read among other things: “at the same time, the great prince was young, like a madman, and unlearned, but wise in mind and fearing God”... See Historical and literary review of ancient Russian polemical works against the Latins by Andrei Popov. M. 1875, p. 357]. [In addition to Athos, Constantinople was such a place. About the works there and here, see A.I. Sobolevsky Translated literature of Moscow Russia of the XIV-XVII centuries St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 8–14, 24–32]. In volume I it is said [page 719/886] that the interpretation of Ikumenia was on the first five epistles of the Apostle Paul. This is a mistake. It was for everything, only for the rest except the first five it was not preserved in manuscripts of the pre-Mongol period. (Epiphanius the Wise read chronographs, - Klyuchevsky V. O. Lives, p. 91). [Cosmas Indicopleustes - the famous Byzantine geographer, merchant from Alexandria, later became a monk and, between 535 and 547, compiled interpretations of the Song of Songs and Psalms, an extensive description of the earth, astronomical tables and Christian topography (Χριστιανικὴ τοπογραφία ). The oldest Greek lists of the latter date back to the 9th and 10th centuries. It was widely spread in Rus', where it bore the titles: “Books about Christ, embracing the whole world” or “Books of Kosma, called Indikoplov, chosen from the divine writings by the pious and everywhere glorified by Cyrus Kosma.” Lists of translations earlier than the 15th century. have not been encountered, but one fragment of it was found in a collection of the 14th-15th centuries of the former Novgorod Sofia Library. In the 16th and 17th centuries, K.’s work enjoyed unquestioned authority in Rus' and was included in the Menaion-Chetia of Metropolitan Macarius (August 23–31). A superb facsimile from a 16th century manuscript. published by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing (St. Petersburg, 1886), which reproduced numerous drawings decorating the manuscript. For miniatures on the manuscripts of Cosmas, see Kondakov History of Byzantine art (pp. 86 ff). The literature is listed in Krumbacher's Geschichte der Byzantiner Literatur. Munich, 1889, § 70]. In [Ivan] Preobrazhensky’s dissertation [The moral state of Russian society in the 16th century, based on the writings of Maxim the Greek and his contemporary monuments, Moscow, 1881] p. 20. (Priest P.F. Nikolaevsky, Russian sermon in the 15th-16th centuries, J.M.N. Pr., 1868, parts 137, 138). Another priest is Sylvester [of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral]. The word about heavenly powers, which is not a church word, but an article, does not belong to Bishop Kirill; Nor does anything else belong to him, assimilated to him by Philaret [Archbishop of Chernigov] in the Review [of Russian Spiritual Literature, 3rd edition 1884, p. 57]. Polish chronicles in Pertz [Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis recudi fecit G. H. Pertz. Annales Poloniae (Annales Poloniae ex recensione Arndtii et Roepellii in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis recudi fecit G. H. Pertz). Hannoverae, 1866], they say, p. 25, 41 fin., 95 fin., about earthquakes in 1257 and 1259. Studied with Latin teachers in Galicia, where these teachers were? (For a note on the teachings of Bishop Serapion - N. Ya. Aristov, see volume 2 of the Proceedings of the 3rd Archaeological Congress in Kiev, Kiev 1878, pp. 41–48. The word of Serapion in the manuscript of V. M. Undolsky, see the essay by A. E. Viktorov, p. 40). Teachings of Simeon of Novgorod - see Synodal manuscript No. 321, p. 626. The letters to Novgorod of Metropolitans Theodosius and Philip [about whom see in the first half of this volume, pp. 524–526 and 532–538] are businesslike. (In one collection of Undolsky’s library there is “the teaching of the All-Russian Metropolitan Theognost”, No. 1411, sheet 259, in Viktorov’s Essay on the collection of Undolsky’s manuscripts, p. 54. Printed by N.K. Nikolsky in book 1 of volume VIII (1903) of the News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences Teachings of the Metropolitan Macarius Lavra manuscript No. 739, sheet 615 (p. 131); against those talking in the church, Zhmakin appendix p. 84). [Wed. 1 half of this volume p. 851 notes]. It is published in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, book 1. (The teaching received by Cyril, a bishop or metropolitan, is a conciliar teaching on the week of Orthodoxy. Pavlov A. S. Monuments of Canon Law, col. 111. No. 3. And if it is a teaching on the week of Orthodoxy, then St. Peter was the first to write teaching letters). [Wed. 1 half of volume II p. 120]. See Zhmakina V. Metropolitan Daniel and his works. M. 1881, p. 274. [In the epistles of Metropolitan Daniel there are no such sharp external signs and names that would set boundaries for the various parts of the epistle, as, on the contrary, is strictly observed in the words of the Collector. In messages, the reader himself has to mark its individual parts, which in most cases can be numbered three. The first part usually develops the idea of ​​the table of contents of the message, then follows a section, always relatively extensive with all other parts of the message, representing extracts from the patristic and other works, which is usually followed by the third part, consisting of various moral instructions, sometimes not at all related to the general subject of the message. In the form of the messages of Metropolitan Daniel there is a lot of confusion, uncertainty, disorder, and in literary terms they are lower than the messages of St. Joseph of Volotsk. Just as in the “words” Metropolitan Daniel, when presenting evidence, is a copyist, a simple copyist, whose thoughts during work remain completely without a trace for the work, so in the epistles one notices the same lack of initiative of the author in the use of patristic testimonies, which he almost never receives his own, personally belonging to the author, illumination. Zhmakin V. Metropolitan Daniel and his works. M. 1881, pp. 290–292. – For Metropolitan Daniel’s motivations for teaching, which may be assumed, see the first half of this volume, pp. 737–738]. Messages in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1874, book 1, page 88 sqq. Did Shuisky-Gorbatov really fall into disgrace several times, as in the message? (In the Proceedings of the 8th Archaeological Congress in Moscow in 1890, vol. II, M. 1895, pp. 175–182, an article by D. P. Lebedev “An Unknown Moscow Preacher of the Half of the 16th Century” was published. The author suggests that the word spoken to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich in 1541 the occasion of the victory over the Crimean Khan, belongs to Sylvester, whose call to Moscow dates back to 1541 (Soloviev vol. VI, edition 3, p. 51). The word belongs to Maxim the Greek Lavra manuscript No. 200, sheet 158 ver.; sheet 377 ver. It begins: “Whoever speaks of the power of the Lord will hear the praises.” him”, in Lebedev p. 177). Solovyov, History of Russia vol. IV, p. 6. Both messages in the History of Hierarchy vol. IV, pp. 403, 413. Message in the Supplements to Historical Acts I, No. 22 and in 1 Pskov Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles vol. IV, 278 (under 1505, to the governor). In Khrushchev’s Study on the Works of Joseph Sanin, p.] 95. (In the Volokolamsk manuscript No. 535, sheet 64, a message to Georgy Ivanovich - is it?). 1 Pskov Chronicle in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 297 fin., also ibid. 282, 288, 304. Message in the Orthodox Interlocutor 1863 Book I, pp. 343 fin.. Message in Additions to Historical Acts vol. I No. 23. [Wed. 1 half of volume II p. 770, note fin. ]. Message in the Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1874. book I, page 69. That it was written after 1547 is evident from the fact that the sovereign is a divinely crowned king; as for before 1551, there was no legislation on the sign of the cross. It does not belong to Sylvester, for why on earth would he write a letter to the king when he was face to face with him? And the warehouse is not Silvestrov. And the opinion that the message is the speech with which Sylvester moved the king to correction (ibid.) is absurd: the message is not about the correction of the king himself, but about his correction of one vice in society. Sylvester included it in his collection because he considered it an example of eloquence. (In the “Collection of the Archaeological Institute”, book 4, section 1, pp. 90–130, there is an article by Professor N. Barsov: “On the question of the author of the letter to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich.” The author does not recognize the word by Silvestrov and considers it likely that Vassian Toporkov would have appropriated it). “Is the messenger comforting to the elder Alexandra” (Stroev, Dictionary, p. 288) of Elder Photius of Volokolamsk? Is it a teaching moral? Message in the History of Hierarchy, IV, 408 fin.. In Arkhangelsky [A. S. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev. Their literary works and ideas in ancient Russia, part I, St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 77. In Arkhangelsky, ibid., p. 88. Printed in Supplements to Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 213. From Khrushchov [Research on the writings of Joseph Sanin, the Venerable Abbot of Volotsk. St. Petersburg, 1868, pp.] 90, 93. Also: Volokolamsk manuscript No. 573 (1) to someone who asked for useful teaching and 2) about keeping the commandments) and No. 500 (to a certain lover of Christ). (I have not reviewed all of the teaching epistles of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk (four educational epistles to nobles). P.S.P. sheet, vol. XI, p. 83. From Archbishop Philaret in Review, § 72: “you wrote many teaching books and sent them to the bishop.” Volokolamsk manuscript No. 564, sheets 249–253. (Basily Archbishop of Novgorod, a word about truth and untruth, - in the Synodal Library by Archimandrite Savva, p. 178 fin.. His Paschal in the Monuments of Canon Law by A. S. Pavlov col. 807 fin., 818 fin.). [Wed. The history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church by E. E. Golubinsky, 2nd edition, M. 1903]. After the Mongol invasion, a number of pre-Mongol saints were glorified. (The lives of the saints were written to show off, - Epiphanius's Life of St. Sergius, page 2, verso. [“Do not write new canons and the lives of the human individual at home and in monasteries, in cells, in immaturity, without church blogging,” see Zhmakin, Metropolitan Daniel, page 90 of the Appendix]. Chronicle of Pachomius's word on the transfer of the relics of St. Petra. [See] about the prologue lives of St. Vladimir (my History Ι volume 1 half, pp. 214/246), St. Olga (Makaria I, 87 and 276) and St. Anthony of Pechersk (Makaria VIII, 31 notes and Bychkov's Description of the collections p. 143). [Wed. in The History of the Canonization of Saints according to the 2nd edition pp. 56–57, 59–60, 63–64]. Lavra illustrated life of St. Sergius, sheet 366 ver. (Epiphanius knew in Greek: arcuda - life of St. Sergius, page 78, verso; monastery of St. Sergius - lavra. What was in the East - letter to Kirill Belozersky in the “Orthodox Interlocutor”). [About him, see E.E. Golubinsky: St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him, 2nd edition, M. 1909, pp. 3–11 note]. He did not live in the Rostov St. Gregory Monastery, which is evident from the fact that he does not know Stefanov’s life in the monastery very well. And he had learned conversations and disputes with Stephen during the latter’s stops and visits to the Trinity Monastery on his way to Moscow from Perm. [Wed. St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 2nd edition, M. 1909, pp. 3–7 note]. (How the Greek patriarchs treated poorly written lives (burned them) - in Rally and P. II, 453). Klyuchevsky, Lives p. 93; Macarius, V, 231. (The Life of Mikhail of Chernigov was written not by Bishop John, but by Father Andrey, - Klyuchevsky Lives of the Saints; Sreznevsky Monuments of Writing and Language p. 57. Lime of the Academy of Sciences X, 195). In Klyuchevsky, page 119 note. In Klyuchevsky, pp. 118, 119 fin. (list 1443). In 1443 not yet a hieromonk: Klyuchevsky p. 120 note, 125 (from the chronicle dating back to 1472). (The loud and not entirely clear title of logothete, which Pachomius wore, may simply mean clerk, i.e., that in the Athos monastery from which he came to Russia, he was a clerk or clerk). Klyuchevsky, p. 116 fin.. Klyuchevsky, p. 120 beginning, 117 fin. [Wed. Venerable Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 2nd edition, M. 1909, pp. 7–11, note]. Klyuchevsky, p. 120 (borrowings from the life of Nikon in abbreviation; but vice versa?). Klyuchevsky, pp. 120 fin., 136. There was no one except the government to entrust, therefore, complete probability. Was Savva’s life compiled later? Klyuchevsky, pp. 156 fin., 157 beginning. Klyuchevsky, p. 126 fin.. Archbishop Sergius, who lived in retirement in the Trinity Monastery and who wanted to make amends for Moses, whom he had insulted? Klyuchevsky, p. 127 fin.. See also Klyuchevsky, page 154, note 1 (excellent review). Cfr Klyuchevsky, p. 161. (That Pachomius Serbinus did not write particularly well, rather poorly, the Russians could hardly fail to see this. They were probably surprised in him not by the fact that he wrote well, but by the fact that he wrote very quickly, whereas for them it took a whole life to write one life). (In the Lives of Zosima and Savvaty there are interesting stories in relation to the corruption of monastic morals - Klyuchevsky, p. 203 beginning, Volokolamsk manuscript No. 659). In the response of the council of 1504. the Grand Duke about the estates are called as Saints Dionysius and Demetrius of Vologda). Grigory Pelshemsky, Pavel Obnorsky? The life of Dionysius Glushitsky is important in the sense of a historical source - Klyuchevsky, p. 195 fin.). It should be taken as a new life, and not just a new edition. Of the saints who were established at the council of 1647. general celebration, there were no lives of: 1) Metropolitan Jonah (written in 1547), Macarius, VII, 440. 2) Macarius of Kalyazin (written in 1547). The former lives of Alexander Nevsky, Nikon of Radonezh and Paul of Obnor were redone (Makariy, VII, 430 beginning). Seven were left without alteration: John of Novgorod, Zosima and Savvaty of Solovetsky, Dionysius of Glushitsky, Mikhail of Klonsky, Paphnutius of Borovsky and Alexander of Svirsky (written in 1545 by Macarius VII, 430 beginning). From the locals. Probably, there were previously the lives of Arseny Tverskoy and John the Fool. The Council did not care about the lives of these saints (Macarius, VII, 442). Council of 1549. There were previously the lives of nine saints: Euthymius of Novgorod, Jonah of Novgorod, Stephen of Perm, Mikhail of Tver, Avramiy of Smolensk, Savva of Vishera, Gregory of Pelshem, martyrs of Lithuania, John of Sochava (Makariy, VII, 445). Written again: Euphrosynus of Pskov, Vsevolod of Pskov, Savva Storozhevsky, - ibid., 445. Written after 1552: Euthymius of Suzdal, Ephraim of Perekom, Nifont of Novgorod, Nikita of Novgorod, - ibid.. 447 fin.. Jacob of Rostov is missing). The life of Prince Andrei Smolensky is literally copied from the life of Daniil Pereyaslavsky. The life of Vladimir in the Degree Book is not a life, but only as it is called (historical narrative). The Life of Olga, assimilated by Sylvester, - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities 1874, I, p. 108. The Tale of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, from Klyuchevsky, p. 249. See Philaret's Review, p. 207. We do not count the lives written on behalf of Macarius when he was Archbishop of Novgorod (new edition of the life of Michael of Klopsky and the life of George of Bulgaria). [Wed. below Appendix page 186 1 2 ]. For such private chronicles, see Stroeva [Bibliological] Dictionary, p. 361. (For the chronicle of 1450, see Philaret of Chernigov in the Review, p. 148 beginning. In the legend of the Tver prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, compiled in the half of the 15th century, a Russian chronograph, the Vladimir Polychron, and V. O. Klyuchevsky are mentioned. Lives, pp. 177 fin., 178 beginning. One of the letters concerning the quarrel between Vitovt and Photius speaks of the chroniclers of Kiev, Vladimir and others). The compiler of the Tver Chronicle, written on behalf of the Tver Prince Boris Alexandrovich († February 10, 1461), in the preface to his work says that the names of the great princes before Alexander Mikhailovich, the appanage Prince of Tver, who lost the grand-ducal throne in 1327, are taken from the first chronicler: ...as the Volodymyr polychron indicates by degree (sic) reality" (Collected Chronicles XV, 465). These words can be understood about a simple list of the great princes that was kept in Vladimir; but it is more likely to understand them about the real chronicle. (Nikon Chronicle III, 155 was not written in Moscow yet, for the capture of Alexander Tverskoy is called an evil thought put in by the devil). [Schlözer explains the reason for this name: “I called it Nikon’s list only for the reason that it was signed, at the bottom on sheets, from page 1 to 37, by the famous Patriarch Nikon:.. with his own hand and in the following words.... And that it was not collected in Nikon’s time, but that most of it is much older than those times, you can see” and so on... Russian Chronicle according to Nikon's list, part I, St. Petersburg, 1767]. (For the fact that the chronicle under Grozny is compiled by the government, see Acts of the Expedition, vol. I, no. 289, p. 354, col. 1 beginning and fin.). Stroev has the page indicated above, the Lisitsky Monastery chronicle. – (Church chronicler in one of the Novgorod monasteries in the 16th century. Karamzin IX, note p. 87). Nikon Chronicle I, 95. See Genealogical book, Novikov edition, II, 393 fin., 394 beginning. In the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles it was published under the name 1 and 2 Sophia Chronicles. [Originally it was published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences under the title: “Russian Chronicle according to the Sofia list of the great Novagrad”... part I. St. Petersburg, 1795, and then by P. M. Stroev in 1820: “Sofia Vremennik or Russian Chronicle from 862–1534,” M., 2 parts.]. The Resurrection Chronicle is not the second Sophia Vremennik, for chapter 3 in it, inscribed: “Sofeysksh vremennik, a hedgehog is called”, etc. (Collected Chronicles VII, 266), is taken from the present Sofian Vremennik (also in the Tver Chronicle, - Collection of Chronicles, XV, 26). But it already contains an extract from the Sofia Temporary Book (previous note). How did you get there? Entered after? Legends and fables in the history of the capture of Kazan by Ivan the Terrible. Russian Remarks 1, 166 (the book ended with some real ending for the compilers, but there is none here). [In the Moscow Miracle Monastery there is a manuscript of the Degree Book with a note that it was “collected by the humble Athanasius, Metropolitan of All Russia.” On the attitude of Metropolitan Athanasius to the Degree Book, see P. Vasenko’s study “The Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy and its Meaning in Old Russian Historical Writing,” Part I, St. Petersburg, 1904, p. 199 ff]. In Filaret's Review, p. 205, Kazan History. (In the Bauze library, which burned down in 1812, there were two Degree books, one from 1551, the other from the time of Ivan the Terrible - Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of 1862, book II, Catalog of Bauze Manuscripts, No. 286 and No. 287). Ivan III's campaign against Novgorod? (The campaigns of Ivan IV to Kazan were not written in the form of separate stories, but were directly entered into the chronicles. About Metropolitan Photius, in the Nikon Chronicle V, 98 and in the Degree Book, there is not a legend, but a brief entry). Batyev's army? (Lavrentyevskaya, 1 Novgorodskaya, Ipatskaya; in 1 Pskovskaya the numbers of cities taken are different than in other chronicles. The Tale of St. Sergius - Nikon Chronicle IV, 203-239. The Tale of Arseny Tverskoy, - Klyuchevsky, p. 181 beginning. The Tale of Isidore Metropolitan, - Nikon Chronicle, V, 124 sqq). Nikon Chronicle III, 124. Macarius VIII, 30 note 35. (The legend of the murder of Michael of Chernigov, - Laurentian Chronicle, 447 fin., - briefly; Ipatan Chronicle, 528, - briefly, another 536 fin.; Nikon Chronicle III, 19 fin.: the story is not Pachomiev. For lists of the Pachomiev story, see Klyuchevsky, p. 146 note 2. - U Macarius is an ancient story, in the Nikon Chronicle there is another, Nikonovskaya in Makariy, V, 409; Klyuchevsky, 146 fin.. In the Resurrection Chronicle - Collection of Chronicles VII, 152 fin.. In the Sofia Chronicle - Collection of Chronicles V, 182, the same as in the Resurrection Chronicle (But. not like in Nikonovskaya?). In Degree Book I, 340). “Let’s say courage and his life,” the author begins his narrative: Laurentian Chronicle of 1263, p. 453. (The legend of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky by Klyuchevsky, p. 66. In the Laurentian Chronicle, p. 453 without end. In the Sofia Chronicle - Collection of Chronicles V, 176. In the Voskresenskaya, ibid., VII, 146. In 2 Pskov, ibid., V, 2 with omissions. Volokolamsk manuscript MDA No. 576, sheets 1–9). On the relationship of the legend to the Novgorod Chronicle: (someone borrows from someone else), but the one writing in the Novgorod Chronicle is as much a contemporary as the author of the legend [see. in V. Mansikka in his work: "The Life of Alexander Nevsky. Analysis of the edition and text" (Monuments of ancient writing and art. CLXXX. St. Petersburg, 1913. Compare N. Serebryansky Old Russian princely lives. Review of editions and texts. M. 1915)]. [For both stories about Mityai-Mikhail, see 1 half of the volume, pp. 226–243]. Filaret [Chernigovsky] in Review, p. 115: brilliant eloquence. (The story is in the Collection of Chronicles IV, 349; VI, 104; VIII, 53. Nikon Chronicle IV, 184. Klyuchevsky, p. 169). Regarding the attitude towards the Nikon Chronicle: there was an ancient legend, from which the Nikon Chronicle abridges, and then a new (our) legend was compiled on the basis. (Or in the legend we directly have an adaptation of an ancient legend)? It is in the Nikon Chronicle. He studied literacy with Metropolitan Theognost (instead of Novgorod Archbishop Vasily). (The tale of the murder of Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy, - Klyuchevsky, p. 71. Original in the Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius, November, and Tulupov, - Lavra manuscript. No. 671, sheet 129. Alterations: in the Sophia Chronicle - Collection of Chronicles V, 207; in the Resurrection, ibid., VII, 188. In the Nikon Chronicle III, 116 not in the form of a separate story. Degree book, I, 425). (At the feast of Nikola Tysyatsky - p. 97, at the mouth of Voronezh - 88, also on p. 97 watchmen; more: 98; journey to Sergius - 98 fin. Surozhans - 101, allegedly armed by the Monk Sergius - 104 beginning, and more and more (but the spread is undoubted: in some places he repeats it verbatim), Dmitry Bobrokov, signs - 107, vision of Thomas Katsyugei - 109 and others, (instead of two hundred thousand warriors he composes four hundred thousand), as he composes - 119 beginning - p. 118 killed). Sophrony in the Tolstoy manuscript, Zephaniah in Stroev; Bryansk boyar - in the Tver Chronicle, p. 440. He is already in the 15th century, - Description of Synodal Manuscripts No. 217, sheet 180 ver., p. 5 (Instead of Jogaila Olgerd), it is more likely that he is not a Ryazan, for a Ryazan would not talk about the shame of his prince. (Karamzin to vol. 5, note 65. On the monuments that glorified the Battle of Kulikovo, I.P. Khrushchov’s abstract was published in volume II of the Proceedings of the 3rd Archaeological Congress, pp. 277–283). (The story of Takhtamyshev’s coming to Moscow: Nikon Chronicle IV, 131–138; Collection of chronicles IV, 84–90, Novgorod; VI, 98–103, Sofia; and VIII, 41 fin. – 47, Voskresenskaya - The story of the finding of Temir-Aksak (and Vladimir): Nikonovskaya chronicle IV, 258–264; Sophia Chronicle, Collection of Chronicles VI, 124; Resurrection Chronicle, VIII, 65; Degree Book I, 535. - The Tale of the Invasion of Edigei: Nikon Chronicle V, 17; Resurrection Chronicle, Collection VIII, 82 fin.). (Tale in the Nikon Chronicle, IV, 279–283; Sofia - Collection of Chronicles V, 251 (briefly) and Resurrection, Collection of Chronicles VIII, 72 (briefly). In the personal life of the Monk Sergius, he is in priestly, and not in monastic clothing, and Pachomius calls him a priest. Popov [A. Historical and literary review of ancient Russian polemical works against the Latins] p. 365. In Pavlov [Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemic against the Latins, St. Petersburg, 1878] p. 200 sub fin. and 203: [“at the fourth gathering, Marco began to speak in a quiet voice to the pope, and to the gardinal, and the artzibiscup, and the biscup, and to the entire Latin language, and I said to him: “Hear, honorable Pope and teacher of the Latin language, how you are talking and calling the eighth gathering, and remembering yourself at the beginning, and not calling the Tsar in any word (the council), and calling your council the 8th (the eighth), and denying the seven saints council, and not calling the patriarchs your brothers, and remembering Latin in the beginning, and remembering Orthodoxy later? The Pope doubted him and remained silent for a long time (great is the pride and riot of the Latin, and it was impossible for him to humbly answer the voice of his humility, but he was able to answer the humble voice of his words), but to the holy and great Mark I still spoke in a quiet voice ... “Mark to the king says: “If you take enough gold and silver for the king, then you will receive dishonor and from everyone you will receive reproach and reproach; if you despise gold for the king and the patriarch, and go to your own land, and the father of the seven saints’ council of the commandments without sinning, then you will receive mercy from God and receive a blessing from the holy father, You will also receive honor and glory. If you do not listen to the king, but you have taken enough gold and silver, then in the end you will receive dishonor: what is it that the Christians are calling them to now? Hear, the king, the pope also says: He remembers Latin, but does not remember Christianity, and at the beginning he does not remember you, and he does not call you patriarchs his brothers, do not remember the seven holy cathedrals. at the beginning, what shall a Christian be called? Remember the Eighth Council, and not remember the seven holy councils first?...”]. Illustrated life of St. Sergius, page 343 ver. (Simeon of Suzdal, having fled from Isidore from Venice, came to Novgorod, and not to his Suzdal or Moscow. Why? Suspicious). [Wed. 1 half volume p. 444 note 1, p. 451 note 1]. Pavlov [Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemic against the Latins, St. Petersburg, 1878, pp.] 199 beginning. In Pavlov, page 199, the beginning is clearer in the life of St. Sergius, page 335. [Wed. 1 half volume pp. 430–458]. (In the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education 1895, July, article by F. Delectorsky: “A critical-bibliographic review of ancient Russian legends about the Union of Florence,” pp. 131–184). Stephen was in Constantinople, as he says in his description, in the sixth year of the reign of Patriarch Isidore (Buchiras); and Isidore was installed as patriarch on May 17, 1347, see Miklosic Acta patriarchat. Constantinop., I, 256 beginning - Stefan called his description the Wanderer: “The Wanderer of Stefan the Novgorodian.” [Published by Sakharov in Travels of Russian People in the Holy Land]. [Printed in the XII issue of the Orthodox Palestine Society]. The clerk Alexander was in Constantinople under Emperor Manuel and Patriarch Anthony. Manuel took the throne and Anthony the see (secondarily) both in 1391; Anthony died under Manuel at the beginning of 1397, see Mikloshevich ibid. At the end of his description, the clerk makes a historical remark that can serve to accurately determine the time of his stay in Constantinople, namely, he says that “Tsar (Tsarevich) Kalachan (Kaluyan) Andronikov’s son (Manuel’s nephew) came from the Turks to Constantinople, and (that) Tsar Manuel left from Greece and Fryaz and drove out the Turks.” [Published by Sakharov in the indicated work]. In the description, Zosima sometimes calls himself a hieromonk. [Published in the 24th issue of the “Orthodox Palestine Society”]. [The description is known from one list, Synodal No. 420 (by Archimandrite Savva in the Index for viewing the Patriarchal Library p. 178; Buslaev Historical Reader col. 750; Filaret Archbishop of Chernigov Review of Spiritual Literature p. 149 beginning. Published by Archimandrite Leonid in the 6th issue of “Orthodox Palestine Society”]. The description can be read in the Volokolamsk manuscript No. 387, sheets 632–648. [Published by M. A. Golubtsova in Readings of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1911, book 4]. He fears that among his readers there will be “others of the air” who will marvel at the “height of his words.” He titles his description: “Book, verb xenos, that is, wanderer.” [Ancient Russian] Vivliofika, [2nd edition], VI, 27. According to one manuscript, the diary was brought all the way to Suzdal. [Cm. by A. S. Pavlov Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemics against the Latins, St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 91, note 2. Cf. 1 half volume pp. 438–439]. Article by Sreznevsky in issue 2 of Book II of the Proceedings of the Second Branch of the Academy of Sciences. Stroeva Dictionary, page 36. (Earthly paradise in southwestern Russia, - Golubeva S. T. Peter Mogila, vol. I, p. 175 fin., 177 note). Orthodox Interlocutor 1861 book 2, pp. 81 and 85. (It is typical as a bold protest amid the depression of that time. Zavolzhets). In Popov [Review of works against the Latins] p. 360. Hieromonk Simeon, but in a new edition. Popov [A. Review of works against the Latins] p. 364 fin.. In Popov [ibid.] page 364 fin.. The author presents the event in Dorpat with crosses as a fact; but Simeon could have done this too. Eloquence in Simeon's Word. If it weren’t for him, then June 6 (the day the act was signed) would have been corrected to July 6, like the compiler of the notes (hence, not the last one) and like in reality. (For an unknown essay on the message of Dr. Nikolai Nemchin to Archbishop Vassian of Rostov, see the article by V. Zhmakin “Monument of the Russian anti-Catholic polemic of the 16th century.” in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1880, October, pp. 319–332). In the introduction, everything about Zosima is in the past tense, but once, page 61, in the present (Introduction from a letter to someone?). Kazan edition p. 459. Our word represents a somewhat processed part of the message to Nifont. Kazan edition p. 569 fin.: “at the beginning of sowing books.” Kazan edition p. 445 sub fin. Kazan edition p. 184. (The theory of God’s trickery of the devil was taken by Joseph from Gregory of Amirite, from a debate with Yervan (manuscript of the Moscow Academy of Fundamentals. No. 31, conversation 4; in Min in Patrology t. 86, p. 621 sqq). Kazan edition p. 178. Kazan edition p. 497. (Characteristics of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk as a scientist, from Dositheus Toporkov. Who Joseph used in the Enlightenment is indicated in the article: “The Enlightener of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk” in the Orthodox Interlocutor of 1859, III (the article seems to be very lying). For writings on the heresy of the Judaizers, see the first half of this volume in the text and in additions). Daniel himself gave his collection of treatises the name of the collection. He entitled it: “The sinful and evil monk Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia, Collection (in later manuscripts: Collection), collected from the divine scriptures.” He considers one exaggeration insufficient and cites new evidence from the fathers in support of this exaggeration. The full title or title of the work is very extensive and is as follows: “The truth is a testimony to those who asked about the new teaching and urgently again to those who asked about the right wisdom and about the two commandments, the first and second, like on the tablets written by God, and about the divine glory, like in the book of Genesis and like in it about the prototype of the future, and about certain apostolic verbs and about justifications, such as Christianity, and about human tradition, written by Basil of Caesarea, and about sound faith and about pious glory, such as in Lenten, and about other information, such as in Christianity. Perhaps they are even making up monks, because naming their contemporaries by name, as Zinovy ​​does, means handing them over to the police. Perhaps the Spassky Monastery was invented, because not in all manuscripts: Starorussky. (Artificiality is visible in other places: Zinovy ​​both knows and does not know about Kosoy). Kazan edition pp. 56 and 57. This is what Min has t. 31, r. 653 fin.. The original is from Ming t. 31, r. 676, Περὶ πίςτεως. “This book was compiled by the feat and labors of a certain monk Cyrus Zinovy, who lived in the Russian land, the glorious and great Novagrad in the monastery called Otnya Hermitage, a disciple of the former elder Maxim the Greek.” At the creation of man, God consults with the Son (about this mystery of redemption). [Cm. 1 half of this volume p. 827]. (That the author of the “Multiple Message” is not Zinovy ​​Otensky is clear from what he says (lies) about Artemy). [Cm. 1 half of this volume pp. 760, 848–854]. [Cm. ibid. pp. 322–323, 329–331, 347–355]. [Ibid. pp. 389–393; Wed pp. 405–406, 408–410. In addition to the words and messages of Metropolitan Photius indicated here, see also]: (1) District message to the Pskovites on observance of the laws of the Orthodox faith, distance from church rebels and patronage of the Orthodox coming from Lithuania, Historical Acts vol. I, No. 20, p. 40. 2) Pskovites on observance of the rules in worship, non-funeral services for suicides, non-eating strangulation and non-collection of growth, ibid. No. 22, p. 45. 3) Pskov residents are allowed from kissing the cross, allowing the charter of Konstantin Dmitrievich to be canceled, ibid. No. 23, p. 48. 4) Letter of excommunication against a thief who stole treasures kept in the church, ibid. No. 256, p. 485 col. 1. 5) To the Pskovites about the lambs, alleluia, etc., - by the Right Reverend Macarius History vol. IV, 377. [In Pavlov’s Monuments these messages are numbered 41, 43, 44, 48 and 59]. In the Makarievsky Menaion, the book Photios or the collection of messages of Photius under December 31. 9 messages of Photius to Pskov on July 31. For the original writings of Metropolitan Photius, see Stroev’s Bibliological Dictionary, the word Photius, p. 284. A study of the teachings of Metropolitan Photius, showing their relationship to Greek sources, A.B. Vadkovsky in the Orthodox Interlocutor 1875, March and September and in the 2nd edition of the collection “From the History of Christian Preaching” by Metropolitan Anthony, St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 322–367. In Porfiryev in the History of Literature, 4th edition p. 475). [Cm. 1 half volume pp. 374–383]. (About Gregory Tsamblak, see the article by Metropolitan Macarius in the Readings of the 2nd department of the Academy of Sciences of Language and Literature, 1856 and 1857, p. 212 and the study of A.I. Yatsimirsky: Gregory Tsamblak. An outline of his life, administrative and book activities. Publication of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. With 14 photographs. St. Petersburg., 1904 - Yatsimirsky cites words found in the Romanian church language that supposedly point to the West - page 56. On the contrary, the words point to the East. For the Romanians, the iconostasis is tympla, i.e. from the Greek Τέμπλον, while the Latins did not use templum in the meaning of the altar barrier; crumpled). [Cm. first half of the volume pp. 665–697, 711–726, 803–817]. Among these books and treatises were the following, regarding which E. E. Golubinsky subsequently marked on the side with a colored pencil: “Domong,” which is why they are highlighted. – Anastasius of Sinai: Joseph of Volokolamsk in the Enlightener p. 382 beginning, 515 [I.R.Ts. vol. I, 1, pp. 720/886]. – St. Antiochus book. December 24 [ibid. pp. 720/887]. – Athanasius of Alexandria book on Arian. May 2 [ibid. pp. 720/887–888]. – John Exarch of Bulgaria book. July 31 [ibid. pp. 727–728/895–897]. – John Climacus Ladder. March 30 [ibid. pp. 741/899–900. In Sobolevsky p. 25]. – Cyril of Jerusalem The Catechumen and Secret Teaching. March 12 [ibid. pp. 742/901]. – Methodius of Patarsky, a book about things and autocracy. June 20 [ibid. pp. 745/905–906]. – Nile of Sinai (Lenter Chapter 150) about prayer. [Ibid. pp. 749/912]. – Paleya explanatory, Synodal manuscript No. 316, p. 578 fin.. Simple – No. 318. See Porfiryeva Literature I, 208 [Cf. I. R. Ts. vol. I, 1 half, pp. 749/912]. - St. Sylvester and St. Anthony interpretation of the Holy Trinity and all creation. January 2 [ibid. pp. 741–742/901]. - Explanatory Psalter of Athanasius with songs. 20 August. – Psalter, interpretation of Theodorite. August 20 [ibid. 719/885]. - The apocalypse is sensible. September 26. It contains sant (sanctus) instead of saint, see Synodal manuscript No. 105, p. 194 [ibid. pp. 719/886]. – Message from Patriarch Photius to Michael of Bulgaria. July 31 [ibid. pp. 755/921]. – Book of Theodore the Studite. November 11 [ibid. pp. 755–756/921–922]. [From the category of “words” by E. E. Golubinsky, the following words were excluded as they relate to pre-Mongol times: “Word on the Epiphany of Gregory the Theologian. “Yesterday was a holiday.” January 6. - The Word of Chrysostom on the honor of a priest. “God-bearing Ignatius commands.” March 10, – Chrysostom’s teaching on prayer. “Everyone can see it.” October 26"]. [Further, E. E. Golubinsky indicates the following words of “Gregory the monk”, “Gregory the presbyter” and “Gregory the monk presbyter”, attributed to Gregory Tsamblak: “About alms. “If you are jealous of Christ God.” June 7. – Apostles Peter and Paul. “A luminary has shone for us today.” June 29. - On the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. “Let him begin.” September 8. - Punishment. “We can’t be lazy.” September 27. - A word of praise to the three youths and how temptations and misfortunes find the saints and about communion. “From the prophet ovi ubo.” December 17"]. [Further, E. E. Golubinsky noted: “Euphemius of Patriarch Ternovsky is the story of the renovation of the Church of Christ. “In the blue way.” September 13. – Word on the entrance of the Mother of God. “Have fun for everyone.” November 21”] (Word to Constantine and Helena, - Metropolitan Daniel in Zhmakin, p. 417). [Further E.E. Golubinsky noted: “John the Exarch [of Bulgaria] has a word about those buried in churches. "To John the Great" January 16"]. Further, E. E. Golubinsky noted: “Bishop Clement’s word of praise to the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica. “Nasta, brothers, a bright celebration.” October 26"]. [E. E. Golubinsky also noted: “The priest’s thoughts about those who want to become monks. “Many people are leaving.” March 17. - To those who shepherd the flock of Christ. “Don’t bury talent.” January 21"]. You might be interested in: