Maxim the Greek, Holy Mountain

Contents Maxim's life before his arrival in Russia Maxim's call to Russia and his first works in Moscow Maxim's life before his arrival in Russia Maxim the Greek, monk of the Athos Vatopedi monastery, was probably born around 1480. 1 His fatherland was the country of the warlike Arnauts, Albania, and his birthplace was the main city of this region, Arta. But he was not Albanian by birth, but Greek. His parents were Manuel and Irina. There is news that his father was a commander 2. From an early age, God's Providence destined Maxim to face difficult trials, and thus, as it were, prepared him for the bitter suffering that he was to undergo in the later years of his life. We understand the sad fate of the Greeks, enslaved by the weapons of Mohammed. Maxim's fatherland, Albania, longer than other Greek regions, defended its freedom with the help of Venice, the only European power, which, defending its possessions in the east, tried to stop the spread of Turkish rule. But neither the courage of George Skanderberg nor the help of the Venetian Republic saved Albania. - So it was natural that Maxim’s first feelings in his fatherland were the sad sensations of humiliation and slavery of his compatriots. These disastrous circumstances can serve as an explanation for the sad feeling that was expressed in Maxim’s writings when remembering his fatherland. Here is one such passage, which well characterizes both the plight of the Christian East and Maximus’s mournful view of it. “Now more than ever,” says Maxim, it is fitting for us to repeat with the blessed prophet and king David: “Thou, Lord, keep us from this generation and unto the ages.” Why? Because, as he further says, wickedness walks around (Ps. 11:8-9). Wherever you look with your mind’s eye, you see how the darkness of the Christian-fighting wickedness of the Ishmaelites increases and covers everything.” – Following this, Maxim turns his attention to the growing successes of Mohammedanism, from its very appearance to the conquest of the capital of Eastern Orthodoxy. This involuntarily arouses in him the thought of the approaching kingdom of Antichrist. Having expressed this thought, he continues: “When, more than now, could it be possible to see or hear the apostasy of peoples from the pure and immaculate Christian faith into various godless heresies and into the Hagarian unbelief against Christ? - and where is now the splendid beauty and glory of the former faithful in Jerusalem, Alexandria of Egypt, Libya and Antioch, which has now risen in good faith? Where is the warmth of the divine zeal of our God-bearing and equal-to-the-apostles fathers, who shone with fasting in the monastery, in Thebaid, and in different countries and mountains? Where are the various peoples of the East, from whom the light of good faith, having begun to shine under the divine Apostles, reached us, the inhabitants of Europe? Hasn’t the darkness of Hagar’s wickedness covered almost all of them, and some have already bowed to his evil faith, while others are depressed, embittered, corrupted mentally, and are always corrupted in different ways? But what am I not talking about the most important of all that is heard and seen: where is the incomparable height and glory in government and wisdom, in all the virtues, good institutions and in the Orthodox faith, the powers of the Orthodox Christian kings who reigned in the famous and venerable city of Constantine the Great? Where is that universal light of good faith, which, like the sun, shone on the entire universe - through the equal-angelic saints who served as bishops in this city? Haven't all these things been enslaved for quite some time now by the Ishmaelites? “And there is no deliverance for us from anywhere, but our affairs are getting worse and worse, and our enemies are coming to greater glory” 3. Maxim spent the first years of his youth among his fellow believers and compatriots, and, of course, received an initial pious upbringing from his parents 4 . But he should have received a more complete education and development of his powers not in the Greek land. There were no schools or mentors here then. As for the Albanian region in particular, it was not previously distinguished by the success of education. Probably, family ties and the then general desire of the Greeks from the devastated land of their fathers to the west opened up the opportunity for Maxim to take advantage of the lessons of his compatriots in the country of their resettlement. In the fifteenth century, nowhere could more methods of mental education be found than in Italy. The patronage of the sciences of the sovereigns and the free institutions of some cities attracted many Greeks here, even before the fall of Constantinople. And this nationwide disaster intensified their migration. Excited curiosity has long since revealed in Italy a desire for the treasures of Greek literature. Therefore, the courtyards of sovereigns, the departments of universities, the friendship of the rich and noble, and the kindred patronage of compatriots who had previously managed to arrange their affairs in this country were open to the learned Greeks. It is not for nothing that Vissarion of Nicaea called Venice the second Constantinople for the Greeks. In another republic, Florence, they received the warm hospitality of the patrons of the sciences and arts, Cosma (Cosimo - editor's note) and Lawrence (Lorenzo - editor's note) Medici. Rome, Naples, Milan also, one before the other, invited enlightened Greek newcomers to their place. – Libraries were established everywhere in the most noble cities of Italy. Popes, sovereigns and wealthy citizens rushed to save Greek manuscripts from destruction by the ignorant Turks. And the art of typography opened up access for everyone to the study of ancient monuments. Italy was the first to begin printing Greek books. Ancient Greek and Roman literature was predominantly developed in Italy, and the main direction of education was philological. But there were also enough admirers of philosophy, among whom, as before, there were heated debates about the superiority of Plato or Aristotle, and about the possibility of their agreement among themselves. Young Maxim, visiting different cities of Italy, apparently devoted more of his time to studying the ancient monuments of his language. He calls the ancient Hellenic writers his first teachers 5. The desire to get to know them briefly brought him closer to the famous typographer, Aldus Manucci in Venice, as Maxim himself explains in a letter to one of the Russian princes. Answering his question: what do the signs of anchor and fish mean, exhibited by this printer on his printed books, Maxim speaks together about Ald’s deep knowledge of ancient languages, and adds: “I knew him and saw him in Venice, and often went to him on book business, when I was still young and wore secular dress” 6. Aldus Manucci was not only a typographer, but also a scientist, well educated in the school of the ancients, and he himself left many works related to ancient philology. He always had a community of scientists with him who helped him print books from ancient manuscripts 7 . Maxim also points to his philological education in the legend, which calls him a student of John Laskaris, who was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, but a philologist 8 . – With the help of such leaders, having familiarized himself with the verbal works of ancient Hellas, Maxim himself, subsequently, often cited ancient poets in his writings 9 . Proving the certainty of righteous retribution in the future life, he referred to remarkable legends from Greek mythology: about the descent of Odysseus into hell and the vision there of noble Greeks in the Champs Elysees, and the evil ones in torment; about Minos and Rhadamanthus the judges, about Cocytus and Acheron, the rivers of fire 10. He knew the sweetness of the “good speech of Kekropida”, i.e. Attic eloquence 11, and well understood the difficulty of learning the Hellenic language. “The grammatical teaching of the Greeks,” he wrote to one of the Russians who wanted to get acquainted with grammar, “is not very easy. It serves as their introduction to the study of philosophy. And therefore it is impossible in a few words, in a short time, to understand its power: but one must sit with it, with a good teacher, for a whole year, freed from all everyday troubles and worries, maintaining sobriety, abstaining from all rest, and from pleasure in food and drink” 12. – Maxim’s good philological education served him later in his numerous translations from Greek, distinguished by their strict clarity, and in checking other people’s translations. It opened up a way for him to quickly discern the characteristic features of a writer; it introduced him to the principles of sound criticism and helped him easily distinguish the genuine from the fraudulent in the writings of the ancients 13 . Having lived for quite some time in Latin countries, with the dominance of the Latin language among scientists at that time, Maxim naturally had to become acquainted with the Latin language. A monument to his knowledge of this language, among other things, can be the explanation of personal names borrowed from the Latin language 14. Maxim did not shy away from getting acquainted with philosophy: but in general he did not acquire a good knowledge of this science, and did not like it when, thinking of honor, they called him a philosopher 15. Referring philosophy to the so-called “external punishment” or education, although he called himself a student of it, he admitted that he was not content even on the threshold of it 16. Of the ancient philosophers, he gave primacy to the sublime Plato, 17 and did not like Aristotle, on whom scholastic philosophy was then predominantly based. He especially condemned the unreasonable application of dialectics to objects of faith 18: but he loved and respected philosophy, purified from willful speculations. Philosophy, he wrote, is something sacred: “because it speaks of God and His truth and Providence, on everything that extends and is incomprehensible. And although she does not succeed in everything, because she does not have the inspiration that the saints had. Prophets, but shows the virtues of chastity, meekness and wisdom, and generally adorns morals with good rules” 19. As a disciple of the Gospel, he demanded that philosophy be the servant of Gospel truth 20 . But Maxim did not always so correctly understand the relationship of philosophy to the truth of the Gospel. He himself repeatedly admits that in the summer of his youth, fascinated by modern philosophy in Italian schools, he thought differently about many things. Devotion to Aristotle, Plato and other pagan sages was the reason for the extreme shock of the dogmas of faith in the thoughts of the then sages of Italy and their disciples. “I myself am a reliable witness to this,” writes Maxim; Not only was I a listener of such teachings and a witness of their action in Italy and Longobardy, but I myself was once involved in them: and if not for the Lord, who cares about the salvation of all, had mercy on me and soon visited me with His grace and illuminated my thought with His light, then I would have perished long ago along with the preachers of wickedness who were there” 21 . What exactly was the reason for the young seeker of wisdom’s temporary deviation from the path of truth? As far as can be judged from the remaining works of Maxim, the reason for this passion was the dreamy promise of astrology to reveal the future to man, supported by the philosophy of that time. He later had the opportunity to act against such dreams in Moscow. Then he wrote to his friend: “I learned from experience that none of those who listened to astrological teaching could maintain pure faith in God, and some completely perished, falling into atheism. Oh, how many people suffer from such a disease in Italian schools and in Galia, whom only the fear of punishment from the pope forces them to hide lawlessness within themselves! and further, “Having learned through many years of experience the emptiness of astronomy, I considered it unfair to remain silent before you about the harmful influence of this teaching” 22. Indeed, Italy in the 15th century suffered severely from the disease of unbelief, and, as usually happens according to the law of God’s justice, for the rejection of pure faith it was given over to pathetic superstition. This is what a contemporary of Maximus the Greek, from the sons of Italy itself, says: “sins and atrocities in Italy have multiplied because this country has lost faith in Christ. Then they believed that everything in the world, and especially human fate, is only a matter of chance. Some thought that everything was controlled by the movement and influence of the stars, rejected the future life and laughed at religion. Philosophers found it too simple, suitable only for old women and ignoramuses. Some saw it as a deception, a human invention. This was the case throughout Italy, and especially in Florence. All men and women turned to pagan morals, became poets, astrologers and all kinds of superstitions” 23. The faith in the primates of the Western Church itself was shaken: Bembo, the papal secretary and cardinal, even in the sacred college of cardinals, under Pope Leo X, counted up to fourteen pagans in their beliefs 24. And Maxim, in his wanderings through Italian cities, quite often met such people. In Ferrara he knew Kobezmik, who, surpassing others in learning, was infected to such an extent by pagan beliefs that, dying, he said to his friends and disciples: “Rejoice with me, beloved. Tomorrow I will find peace for myself in the Champs Elysees, together with Socrates, Plato and all the heroes.” Maxim saw another similar wicked man in Padua. “And who does not know,” he adds, the Angel Politian, who was in Florence, who surpassed others in all wickedness, and pitifully cast out his soul” 25? We can add to this that in Florence, where Maximus lived for a long time, under the Medicis, a whole society of admirers of Plato, or the Academy, was formed, in which respect for the Greek philosopher extended to pagan worship of him. And at the head of this society for a long time stood a Latin priest, Marsilius Ficinus 26. But if in Italy the seeker of wisdom, instead of showing him the path to the truth, found in some the temptation of unbelief: then here the Lord showed him a person who helped him strengthen in his original religious convictions and in his spiritual and moral direction. It was Hieronymus Savonarola 27. Hieronymus Savonarola was one of those people who, amid the prevailing passion for pagan ideas and beliefs in Italy, were strict preachers of Christian truth and denouncers of their depraved contemporaries. He was born in Ferrara in 1452; I received a strictly moral upbringing; prepared himself for medical service, but at the same time loved to read the theological works of Thomas Aquinas. Early in his soul, grief arose over the damage to modern morals and the decline of the Church. The preaching of one Augustinian monk completed his victory over himself - and he, who had never intended himself to be a clergyman, at the age of 23 decided to renounce the world forever: he secretly left his father’s house, went to Bologna, and there he entered a Dominican monastery. About fourteen years later, by order of his superiors, he was engaged in duties, either as a professor or as a preacher, in different cities of Italy. Finally, fate brought him to Florence, where he had previously worked for about four years, but without much success. Here in the center of Italy, among a living population, capable of being carried away by all sorts of ideas, sensitive to the action of a strong word, Savonarola was destined to fully develop his activities. He entered the Dominican monastery of St. Mark, was appointed confessor and preacher: but, sensing his calling, he decided to leave confession for preaching, and soon afterwards became the abbot of his monastery. The people were in awe of him. The power of conviction, extraordinary vividness of imagination, severity in denunciation, the swiftness and unexpectedness of the most striking turns of thought and word, all this strongly attracted crowds to his pulpit. Let us add to this the strict ascetic life, the undaunted frankness of Savonarola’s character, and the political relationships in which he placed himself, and we will understand the powerful influence of the conductor on the minds and hearts of his listeners. The experiences of this influence are almost incredible. Here's an example of one of them. Florence was infected with various vices akin to the spirit of pagan times. Pagan wickedness manifested itself with particular force during the carnival. Gambling houses, lists, spectacles and all places where idleness and debauchery found shelter were especially lively at that time. Luxury and sensual pleasures completely drowned out the voice of faith and the Church. Jerome could no longer endure this outpouring of wickedness. He called upon all the forces of his extraordinary talents, and with one word of divine truth, without any extraneous aid, he brought the Florentines to the point that, touched by the convictions of their spiritual leader, they voluntarily began to bring to him everything that only served as an instrument of their pagan amusements. And soon the monastery of St. Mark turned to a storage area where all the accessories of luxury and worldly pleasures were collected: seductive paintings, smart dresses, novels, poems, maps, etc. By order of Savonarola, all this was put into one bonfire and, in the presence of a large crowd, was put on fire, along with the image of the carnival. The zealot of piety himself was present at this, and after the destruction of everything, he immediately knelt down and fervently thanked God, who had crowned his feat with such success. This was in 1497. The following year he repeated the experience of his jealousy. But this was already one of the last proofs of his powerful influence on the Florentines. – Savonarola’s irreconcilable enmity with the powerful house of Medicis, interference in the political affairs of Florence, and attacks on the abuses of the papal throne were the reason for accusing him of impudent thoughts and blasphemy against the faith and the Church. And Pope Alexander VI, after some hesitation, in 1497 excommunicated Jerome and, forbidding him to preach, demanded him to come to Rome. Savonarola, not pleading guilty to violating church laws, did not want to go to Rome and demanded a new trial of his case. This irritated Alexander even more, and shook the trust of the Florentines in Jerome. His enemies took advantage of these circumstances, and on May 23, 1498, Savonarola, accused of various ecclesiastical and civil crimes, in the presence of a large gathering, was burned at the stake, along with two of his followers. Maxim, as can be seen from his narrative, found Savonarola still in the flourishing period of his power and glory: and everything about this extraordinary man amazed the young Greek. “He was,” writes Maxim, “filled with all wisdom and understanding of the inspired scriptures, and external punishment, i.e. philosophy. He was a great ascetic, adorned with divine zeal. Seeing that the city of Florence was most suffering from two ungodly iniquities: extortion and inhumane taxation, he took the good and godly intention, on the basis of the divine Scriptures, to destroy this evil with one teaching word. Many listeners from the noble and first citizens of the city often gathered to him, and, having fallen in love with him, they began to ask him to preach to them in the cathedral church itself. He took upon himself this feat with zeal and began to offer them in St. Pentecost, every day, a teaching word, from a high pulpit, standing for two hours, and sometimes more.” The fruit of this sermon, Maximus notes, was the correction of an entire half of the inhabitants of Florence, and as proof of this, give the example of one poor woman who, having found a wallet with 500 gold coins on the street, did not take advantage of her find, but brought it to Savonarola. “But while one half of the city corrected itself,” continues Maxim, “the other remained deaf to his teachings, and even began to be at enmity against him. But he, imitating the meekness and long-suffering of our Lord and Savior, endured everything courageously and did not stop his reproofs. No praise was heard from his lips, not even by those invested with church authority, but not imitating the Apostles in life and not caring for the flock of Christ. And he denounced them without fear, and often said: if we lived worthy of the Gospel of the Savior Christ, then the nations of other faiths would naturally turn to the Lord, looking at our life as equals with the angels - and this would be for our salvation and the enjoyment of eternal blessings. But we, on the contrary, do not live according to the commandments of the Gospel, and do not correct ourselves, and do not care about others in order to lead them to piety. And what should we expect from the righteous Judge? What shall we hear from Him except this condemnation: woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you do not enter, nor leave those who enter to be taken in (Matthew 23:13). Having then spoken about the pope’s anger at Jerome and Savonarola’s disdain for the condemnation and curses of the wicked Alexander, Maximus makes the following, characteristic in relation to himself, remark about the intrepid preacher: “I think he already decided then in his soul: if necessary, then to die for piety and for the glory of God. For in whomever the fire of zeal for God is kindled, he is ready not only to renounce his property, but also to sacrifice his very life.” With unwavering respect for Savonarola, Maxim also looks at the history of his last conviction. “The pope’s champions,” he continues, “decided to put Jerome to death. Having elected some general (of the Dominican order), named Joachim (Turrian), they gave him, on behalf of the pope, the power to deprive Jerome of his leadership, and, according to research, as disobedient to the Roman Church and her slanderer, condemn him to be burned. He, having arrived in Florence and presenting the papal letters to the highest city authorities, demanded Jerome to appear before him for trial, and subjected him to cruel torture. Jerome boldly answered all the crafty questions of the unjust judge. And when, based on these answers, the judge could not accuse him, false witnesses were presented on the part of the lawless, who previously did not want to submit to his teaching. Based on their slander, his enemies condemned him and his two employees to death: hang them, and then set their bodies on fire. Such was the end, Maxim concludes, of the lives of these three reverend monks, and such was the reward for their deeds of piety from the most reverend Pope Alexander, who with his untruths and malice surpassed every lawbreaker. “But as for me,” adds Maximus, “I am so far from the opinion of these unrighteous people about Jerome and his comrades that with joy I would be ready to rank them among the ancient defenders of piety, if they were not Latins by faith: because I found in them the same fiery zeal for the glory of Christ the Savior and for the salvation and correction of the faithful; and this is not by hearing from others, but by seeing them myself and being present at their teachings many times. And not only did I find in them the same zeal for piety as in the ancient men, but also the same wisdom, the same understanding and knowledge of the God-given scriptures and the same experience in external teaching. Jerome was especially distinguished by all this, standing in the pulpit for two hours, and sometimes more, preaching, pouring out streams of teaching in abundance, not holding a book in front of him and borrowing from it the evidence of his words, but drawing them from the treasury of his rich memory, filled with God-wise explanations of the Holy Scriptures” 28. Such sympathy of Maximus for Savonarola, such respect for his life, teaching and unfortunate fate, and Maximus’s own testimony that he repeatedly witnessed his denunciations and instructions, give us the right to assume that the living and receptive soul of the young Greek could not help but derive from this acquaintance many useful impressions. And if he had already experienced the fascination with the prevailing false ideas in the cities and schools of Italy, or if he still had to struggle with them for a long time in his soul, in any case, the accusatory and edifying word of the famous preacher and the example of his life should have had a beneficial effect on it, purifying, or at least timely protecting his mind and heart from serious falls. – It is worthy of note that in Maxim’s own character, in his activities with us, and in his very fate, there were many similarities with the traits that he himself portrayed in his legend about Savonarola. This is a strict way of life, zeal for the truth of Christ, courage in exposing modern vices, directness in word and action - and for all this persecution from ungodly people!... There is evidence that in addition to Italy, Maxim also visited France for science. The famous Prince Kurbsky, who always boasted of his personal acquaintance with Maxim, is called his student of the famous John Lascaris, who studied philosophy with him in Paris 29. From Maxim’s writings one can only see that he was familiar with the state of the local schools and the prevailing direction in them. So he writes that in the schools of Gaul, as well as in Italian, respect for vain astrology prevails 30. In another legend, he tells with pleasure that in Paris, without any payment, theological and philosophical teachings are taught to all amateurs, that teachers there receive an abundant allowance from the generosity of the sovereign, that all sciences flourish there, not only “our pious theology and sacred philosophy, but also all knowledge related to external education.” But when he then adds that there are a lot of lovers of education in these schools, as I heard from some 31: then this makes me doubt that he personally was in Paris and visited the university there. He could have heard about this famous school from his compatriot John Laskaris, who was indeed a teacher of the Greek language in Paris, and then, for about five years, was an envoy from King Louis XII of France in Venice (1503–1508) 32, where Maxim lived for quite some time. No! It was not the University of Paris that completed the education of Maximus the Greek, but Mount Athos. In Italy, in Gaul, he could receive a philological and philosophical education; but he could only gain theological enlightenment, confirmation in the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, in the east. What disposed Maxim to devote himself to monastic life? who showed him the way to Athos? – remains unknown. It is probable, however, that Maxim, having already felt a thirst for enlightenment and having become acquainted with the means to satisfy this sacred thirst, was himself looking for such a monastery that would provide convenience not only for monastic deeds, but also for further mental improvement. He could also hear about Athos, about the many precious Greek manuscripts in its monasteries, from his mentor John Laskaris, who, on behalf of Lawrence de Medici, went there for manuscripts and took out up to 200 ancient books 33. Maxim arrived on Athos around 1507 and entered the Annunciation Vatopedi Monastery, where he was tonsured. The Vatopedi Monastery was indeed rich in scientific treasures at that time, especially for those seeking theological education. We can conclude this from the many manuscripts that were taken from there to Moscow under Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich, and which to this day form the adornment of the Moscow Synodal Library. – Between them are the works of Basil V., Gregory the Theologian, Ephraim, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and others, in the lists of the 9th-12th centuries. The oldest copy of the Gospel, which the Synodal Library possesses, dates back to the 8th century and also belonged to the Vatopedi Monastery 34 . From the same manuscripts it is clear that, even during Maksimov’s stay on Athos, there were still lovers of philosophy in Vatopedi who studied the works of Aristotle and interpreters on him 35 . Learned travelers of the past century and this one speak highly of the Vatopedi library as the best on Mount Athos 36 . And to this day, up to 400 manuscripts have survived in this monastery, and among them there are more than three hundred theological contents 37 . The Vatopedi monastery was one of the most populous on Athos: the number of brethren in it extended to 300 people 38 . The rules of monastic life were depicted from some aspects by Maxim himself, at the request of the famous prince - monk Vassian Patrikeev. “The way of monastic life in St. grief,” he says, “is divided into three ranks: communal, special or Lavra, and monastery.” – Without saying anything about the latter, Maxim further shows in what ways the first two are similar and in what ways they differ. “In cenobias, or cenobitic monasteries, work, property, and food are all common to everyone. In the laurel, i.e. in the monastery of St. Athanasius, and in the Annunciation Vatopedi Monastery, work inside and outside the monastery is common to everyone, in judgment and in merit; and the alms that are collected go into the monastery treasury and are spent on the needs of the monastery, with due frugality: but there is no common meal, but two loaves of bread are given to each person per day, and one on Wednesdays and Fridays. Only those who contribute to the monastery are exempt from general monastic work: which is not allowed in the monastery. In the monasteries and laurels there is a general custom: the abbot does nothing without consulting with the chosen brethren, the number of which extends to 15 or 20; and in every monastic service he himself works together with the brethren” 39. Maxim, in the form of obedience, was repeatedly given instructions from the monastery to go and collect alms. The Vatopedi Monastery, especially indebted to the generosity of the Palaiologos, like other Athonite monasteries, under Turkish rule, could no longer be supported by its own funds. Justifying with his zeal the trust of the brethren, Maxim, for his part, used these wanderings and relationships with strangers to sow the word of edification among them. Having subsequently suffered misfortune in Russia, he wrote to Metropolitan Macarius: “Wherever I was sent from the holy monastery of Vatopedi, at the command of my reverend fathers, to collect alms, everywhere, with the assistance and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, I preached the Orthodox faith in purity, and was always released into the Holy Spirit. the mountain back with honor: nowhere was I imprisoned in bonds or prisons” 40. Summoning Maxim to Russia and his first works in Moscow In labors for the monastery, in the exploits of monastic life and in the studies of scientists, Maxim spent about ten years on Athos 41, when at that time an unexpected invitation was received from Russia in the name of one of the elders of the Vatopedi Monastery. In a letter to the prot, or abbot, in charge of Karei, Simeon, the Grand Duke of Moscow, Vasily Ioannovich, asked to send to him for a time a book translator, the Vatopedian elder Savva. This elder was probably pointed out in Moscow by the Vatopedi hieromonk Neophyte, who was returning from Russia. With such a request, merchants Vasily Kopyl and Ivan Varavvin were sent from the Grand Duke (in mid-March 1515) 42 . But Savva, due to old age and illness in his legs, which is quite common on Athos, and due to the length of his priestly service, refused to go to Russia. - Meanwhile, those sent to... The prince still had to be in Constantinople 43: things slowed down. - Finally, Rev. Simeon, with the consent of the Vatopedi brethren, decided to replace the elderly Savva with the monk Masim. Hegumen of Vatopedi Anfim, in letters to c. the prince and the metropolitan 44, testified about him that he was “well-versed in the Divine Scripture and capable of explaining and translating all sorts of books, both church and so-called Hellenic, i.e. pagan. True, he wrote, Maxim does not know Russian, but only Greek and Latin; but we hope that he will soon learn the Russian language.” For this purpose, perhaps not without intention, the third brother Lawrence from the Bulgarians was sent from Vatopedi, together with Maxim and Hieromonk Neophytos 45 . Their journey was not quite hasty: they had to spend some time in the Crimea, where those sent from. the prince had his own affairs 46. Finally, on March 4, 1518, they arrived in Moscow. What prompted the. prince to look for a book translator on Mount Athos? According to the testimony of the “legend about Maxim the Greek,” Vasily Ioannovich, some time after his accession to the throne, found in some of his chambers many Greek books, which none of the Russians could then understand. So the desire to know what is in these books was the reason for calling the learned Greek to Moscow. Indeed, some information has reached us about the wealth of the grand ducal library in the 16th century, precisely in the reviews of learned Germans who had the opportunity to see and even examine it. It was seen by the Lutheran pastor I. Wetterman, taken from Derit in 1565 by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. He says that this library was kept near the royal chambers, like a precious treasure, under two vaults, that it contained Hebrew, Greek and Latin books, received from the Patriarch of Constantinople, and which lay for a hundred years or more without any use. Between them, Wetterman found several authors known from the instructions of other writers, whose works were not then found in the West. – Not only saw, but also examined this library by another German, unknown by name, from whose comments only some extracts have been preserved. He testifies that there were up to 800 manuscripts in it, some purchased, some received as gifts; Most of them are Greek, but there were many Latin ones in between. In the mentioned extract, only the names of the rarer ones, related to ancient classical literature, Latin and Greek, and to jurisprudence, were preserved 47. Probably the elders of Vatopedi also heard that between the manuscripts in. the prince is from ancient Hellenic literature: that is why in the review of Maxim it was found necessary to mention that he is capable of translating such works. But, without a doubt, in the grand ducal library there were most of all church writers - and with them. the prince wanted to meet; Therefore, Metropolitan of Moscow Varlaam took part in this matter 48. The Grand Duke received Maxim very cordially: he assigned him a stay in the Chudov Monastery, and support from his court 49. From the moment Maxim agreed to go to Russia, he began to enjoy a salary from. prince 50: now he was provided with the attention of the Grand Duke in everything. He was also received very favorably by Metropolitan Varlaam. The High Hierarch of Moscow was an elder of holy life; he was not a writer, but he himself worked in icon painting; loved the splendor of God's churches, and willingly followed good advice to improve the state of the church 51. After inspecting the grand-ducal library, Maxim was entrusted with translating the interpretation into the psalter. The Psalter was the book most used in the hands of our ancestors. From there they began to become acquainted with literacy. She was most often addressed in church services. She also served for home pious exercise, and for the solitary ascetic and simple layman. – We have already translated interpretations of this book, from the most ancient times: one is assigned to St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the other belongs to Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus. But in the library. The prince also found a consolidated interpretation of various fathers and teachers of the Church. It is compiled from the explanations of the most ancient church writers: among them there is no later than St. Maximus the Confessor (VII century) 52. Since Maxim was not yet versed in the Russian language, and even less familiar with the peculiarities of our church language, they gave him two translators who knew Latin. They had to convey into Church Slavonic what they heard from him in Latin. Both of them were from among the interpreters whom the government used to communicate with foreigners. They were: Dimitri Gerasimov, who studied in Livonian schools as a child, and visited various embassies at the courts: Swedish, Danish, Prussian and Viennese, and Vlasiy, who was an intermediary in relations with Herberstein, was sent to Denmark and to Charles V 53. Two scribes were appointed to assist the translators: Mikhailo Medovartsev and the monk of the Trinity Sergius Monastery Silouan. The difficulties that such complex work presented did not prevent the work from being completed quickly and peacefully. The zeal of the workers and the excited attention of the government to their labors prevailed over everything. “But there was a difficulty of a different kind.” The consolidated interpretation combined the explanations of fourteen or fifteen different interpreters, who differed among themselves both in the direction of interpretation and in the very explanation of certain psalms. Moreover, among the interpreters there were several persons recognized as heretics in the ancient Church; for others, Orthodoxy was considered at least dubious. Not in the 16th century, and at another time, it might seem strange to an Orthodox reader, along with the names of St. Basil V. and John Chrysostom, see Origen, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia. What could have been admitted by the Greek in a more educated time, the justice of what St. said was still realized. Cyril of Alexandria: “Not everything that heretics say should be run away and turned away. They profess many things just as we profess them” 54. To eliminate such and similar difficulties, Maxim decided in a letter to V. to the prince, which was supposed to serve instead of an introduction for other readers, to first provide historical information about the interpreters and their directions, and to make comments regarding the Orthodoxy of some. Maxim distinguishes three main directions between the interpreters of the Psalter. Some adhered to an anagogical explanation, others to an allegorical one, and still others to a literal one. The first tries to raise thought from the earthly to the heavenly, seeing in events and external, historical persons the secrets of the spiritual world 55. Among the interpreters of this kind, Maximus includes: Origen, Didymus, Apollinaria, Asterius and Eusebius. He especially finds it necessary to reveal the correct view of Origen. “How much at the beginning,” writes Maxim, “he was famous for his wisdom and the correctness of his dogmas, so much later he aroused hatred and disgust towards himself by his rejection of the right dogmas. But let’s not be embarrassed,” continues the judicious Maxim, “let’s not consider his interpretations soul-destroying. They were written even before he turned to the worse, when he was still abundantly saturated with the highest inspiration of the Spirit of the Comforter, and with us, the Orthodox, he took up arms against the heretics, valiantly defeating their hordes with his two-edged sword, and tore apart their false teachings like the fabric of a spider. Gregory, the great theologist, was so amazed at the wisdom and power of his words that he called him the touchstone of all his contemporaries, distinguished by wisdom, 56 and then, together with Vasily, having read all his books, made a selection of the most elevated dogmatic passages from them, and compiled from this a book called philocalia (Philokalia), which has been preserved to this day.” – Indeed, according to the testimony of Eusebius, the interpretation of the psalms was begun by Origen in Alexandria, therefore, before he was convicted of false teaching. But it must be added that in Maximov’s translation the name of Origen rarely appears: the interpretations belonging to him are sometimes given under the names of other writers: Eusebius, Didymus, Theodore, sometimes they are left without any inscriptions at all, and many are probably omitted altogether 57. However, it is impossible to attribute all such omissions or changes in the names of interpreters to our translator: they could depend on the manuscript from which Maxim translated 58, and on the will and reasoning of the Russian copyists. From among other interpreters of the same direction, Maxim notes about Didim that he does not know either the time when he lived or his title, but in his interpretation he finds him Orthodox, not verbose and thoughtful. Confining himself to such a review, Maximus does not say a word about Didymus’s relationship with Origen, which darkened his glory in the ancient Church. – As for Eusebius, bishop. Caesarea, then Maximus finds that it is no lower than 59 Didymus, both in other respects and in its interpretation. Knowing the various opinions about the Orthodoxy of this bishop, he adds that in his interpretations Eusebius stands for the truth everywhere, and in particular clearly distinguishes what relates to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, what to humanity, and what belongs to both. – In his judgment about Apollinaris, Maximus is content with the review of Philostorgius, who, himself belonging to the Arians, testifies to him that he was a follower of the doctrine of the Consubstantial. – And the question about Asterius is resolved, in accordance with the opinion of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, distinguishing him from the same name Asterius from the Arians. – Maxim finds it necessary to do this about all the interpreters classified in this category, and makes reassuring remarks regarding their Orthodoxy. There was no need to make such reservations when pointing to interpreters classified by Maximus in the second class, or who adhered to an allegorical explanation, by which he means the correct explanation of the prophetic psalms relating to Christ the Savior, and the application of other psalms to His person and to the Christian Church. Approving of these interpreters, Maxim notes that they can best serve the edification of the Orthodox, because they extend their teaching to morals. Among such interpreters he includes St. Basil V., John Chrysostom, Athanasius and Cyril - Alexandria, and Hesychius. The last one was less known than the others. Maxim could not provide any historical information about him; He only notes that he was a monk, that his interpretations are the sweet honeycomb of a spiritual bee, that he understands and explains well the prophecies regarding Christ and the Church. Finally, Maxim also lists the interpreters who followed the literal, historical explanation. He includes Theodoret, two Theodoros and Diodorus among them. About Theodoret, however, he rightly notes that he repeatedly resorts to allegory and is concerned about the benefits for moral teaching. He also finds it necessary to say about one of Theodoros, namely that, with a literal explanation, he never forgets the prophetic meaning of the psalms. But about another, Theodore of Antioch, says with surprise: “I don’t know what happened to him - everywhere he sticks to only letters, attributes everything to the Jews, and tests the words of prophecy according to grammar.” This Theodore is the famous bishop of Mopsuestia. – Where the extracts from the interpretation of this Theodore stop, precisely with Ps. 80, begins the explanation of Diodorus, who also, as Maximus notes, interprets more literally, and relates what was said in the psalms to the Jewish priests; but sometimes he explains it allegorically, and refers some prophecies to Christ 60. These are the comments about interpreters that Maxim prefaces as he begins to read his interpretation of the Psalter! Although the distribution of interpreters into classes is not always strictly justified by the nature of their interpretations, and the very distinction between the first two directions in interpretation is not entirely clear 61: but it cannot be denied that Maxim, despite the paucity of historical aids, correctly determined the character of many, and understood their affinities; and in his remarks he gave the readers some guidance on how to look at the various interpretations in the book he proposed, and how to use them; pointed out the one-sidedness of some, and showed where to look for undoubted understanding of the word of God. The government, having summoned Maxim to Moscow for book work, did not release his companions until he presented the translation entrusted to him. It was necessary to spend a year and five months of tireless labor 62 to complete this double translation of a huge book, first from Greek into Latin, then from Latin into Church Slavonic. Having completed this work, Maxim hastened to present it to the Grand Duke, with a message decorated with the flowers of oratory. Here the sayings of the Greek philosopher Plato and the Greek emperor Justinian, and historical examples of ancient sovereigns and shepherds of the Church, and praise of piety and truth, wisdom and meekness of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan of Moscow found a place. Then, having shown the dignity and importance of the book, and introduced those writers whose interpretations were collected in it, Maxim considered it necessary to talk about his translation. “It would behoove,” he wrote, “for a book filled with such merits to have a translator more experienced in the art of words, who could not only adequately convey the thoughtful sayings of godly men, but also repay what was stolen by time, and correct what was damaged by the ignorance of the scribes. For although we ourselves are Greeks, and studied from famous teachers; but we are still standing nowhere down, at the foot of Mount Tabor, with nine disciples, as yet incapable, due to the coarseness of our minds, of being participants in the magnificent visions of the Enlightener Jesus, which are awarded only to those who have shone with high virtues. I say this because the Greek language, due to its abundance in the meaning of words and in the different ways of expression invented by ancient rhetoricians, presents quite a number of difficulties in translation, to overcome which we would still need a lot of time and effort. However, as much as God gave us from above and as much as we ourselves could understand, we did not stop working to convey what was said clearly and correctly and also correctly and intelligibly; and what was damaged by the scribe, either from longevity, where possible with the help of books, or by their own guess, they tried to compensate or correct. Where we couldn’t do anything, we left it as it was” 63. At the same time, Maxim did not deny that there could be errors in the translation due to oversight and misunderstanding, and asked, if possible, to correct them, but so that the corrector himself had a strong knowledge of the Greek language, was well acquainted with grammar, rhetoric and the meaning of Greek words. In conclusion, Maxim asked the sovereign for a worthy reward for his employees: interpreters and copyists; and for himself, as the only mercy, he asked permission to return to the Holy Mountain, together with his returning companions 64. “Deliver us,” he wrote, from the sadness of a long separation, return us to the comfortably honest monastery of Vatopedi, which has been waiting for us for a long time. - let us make our monastic vows where we made them, before Christ and His terrible Angels, on the day of tonsure. Let us go quickly in peace, so that we can announce to the Orthodox there about your royal virtues, so that the poor Christians of those countries may know that there is still a king in the world who not only rules many nations, but also flourishes with truth and Orthodoxy, like Constantine and Theodosius the Great. May the Lord grant us another time to reign, having been freed by you from slavery to the wicked.” Maxim's intense requests to return to Athos already show that he had reasons to fear that the government would not agree to this; and on the other hand, they make it clear that he was not so fascinated by the favorable circumstances surrounding him in Russia as to forget his wretched Athos. The Grand Duke handed over the translation presented to him for consideration by the Metropolitan. – There was no one in Moscow then to judge the merits of a book by the choice of interpretations, or to judge the accuracy of its translation, by the lack of education in the clergy. But the clarification of the spiritual and historical meaning of many psalms, the revelation of the prophetic meaning of others by the unanimous testimony of the great fathers of the Church, the abundance of edifying thoughts, the multitude of heterogeneous information conveyed by this collection of paternal interpretations, the clarity and intelligibility of the translation, all this provided, beyond any doubt, an approving review of the work of Maximus 65. However, there was a side here about which a different kind of judgment could be expressed. While translating the interpretation, Maxim touched upon the translation of the text of the Psalter and corrected it in places. This was sometimes caused by inaccuracy, sometimes by the ambiguity of the previous translation. Let's present a few of these fixes. Ps. 2, 1. It used to be read, as it does now: how are the nations staggering? Maxim wrote to himself: the pagans are in such a rage (ἐφρύαξαν)? – 37, 21. I persecute charity; - holding on to goodness - 61, 5. Otherwise, reject the price of my consultation; - in both cases, the honor (τιμήν) of my consultation is rejected. – 67, 15. The heavenly kings will always differ on it; - when the Heavenly kings divide on her. – 76, 11. This is the betrayal of the right hand of the Most High; - this is the use of the right hand of the Most High. 101, 8. Zabdekh (now: bdekh), and bykh, like a bird specializing in this place; - I forgot and was, like a slave (στρουθίον), who is special here. – 140, 2. May my prayer be corrected, like incense before you; - like incense before you. – Subsequently, as we will see, Maxim made even more corrections to the translation of the Psalter, bringing its language closer to the common language in grammatical forms and in words. But no deviations from the accepted text caused condemnation of Maxim’s case. Metropolitan Varlaam not only did not harbor any distrust of the monk of Svyatogorsk, but even before the end of the work entrusted to him in... The prince himself asked Maxim to supplement, also with a translation from Greek, an interpretation of the book of Acts. We already had a consolidated interpretation of various fathers and teachers of the Church on this book, but only up to the 13th chapter. Among the Greek manuscripts in Moscow, apparently, there was no continuation of this code from which to complete its translation. But another interpretation was found, unknown by whom, compiled in the form of comments from one person, and not from many. It was with this explanation that they wanted to compensate for the incompleteness of the first. And Maxim, with the help of one of the interpreters given to him, Blasius, managed to finish this short work, even before translating the interpretation to Psalm 66. So, neither by the relationship of Metropolitan Varlaam to Maxim the Greek, nor by the very essence of the matter, one could expect a different judgment about his main work, presented in. to the prince, except for the favorable one. Indeed, the Metropolitan was not slow in giving the most favorable review of him. “Not many days later,” says “The Tale of Maxim,” “the Right Reverend Metropolitan comes to the royal chambers, with the entire consecrated cathedral, accompanied by a cleric who carried the newly translated Psalter; and everyone at the council approves of it, calling it a source of piety. Then in. The prince joyfully accepted this book and honored the worker not only with great praise, but also with special reward.” A further consequence of the successful completion of this assignment was that the Grand Duke of Maxim’s companions, a year and a half after their arrival in Moscow, released some to Athos, others to Constantinople, and he himself was disposed to remain in Moscow for new works 67 . Russia knew how to appreciate the merits of the scientist Afonogorets! Concluding the review of Maxim’s first works in Russia, we consider it useful to place here a letter from one of his collaborators on the translation of Psalms 68. It complements our information about how they looked at Maxim in Russia from the very beginning, what questions they turned to him with, and how prudently and carefully he offered his comments. First, we must note that here we are talking about one strange image on the icon, which in the 16th century was the subject of controversy and controversy: the Lord Jesus Christ was represented with a royal crown on his head and in holy clothes, in the image of King David. There is a cross in front of him; at the top of the cross there is a “young lad”, also in royal vestments and a crown; below him, a white seraph nailed to the cross; at the end of the horns of the godparents there are two purple-shaped cherubs. At the foot of the cross is the head of Adam. Here is the letter itself: “I strike the Sovereign Grand Duke, Mister Mikhail Grigoryich, your nurse with my forehead.” “Showed me, sir, your image of a sub-yach is unusual, which, unlike one city, is not painted in the entire Russian land; and spoke to me, sir, in your word, so that I could advise wise people about this. And I, sir, asked about this a monk of the holy mountain, named Maximus, a man who taught the Greek scriptures, and Latin, not the ceiling, but much, but not the ceiling; and the custom of many lands knows Greek, and Latin, and French, and Alamanian. And now, sir, he is translating the Psalter from Greek to the Grand Duke, and Vlas and I are sitting with him, alternating: he speaks in Latin, and we speak in Russian as a clerk; and there are 24 interpreters in it. And he, sir, advertised, I have not seen de-and I am in that likeness of an image in any land, I recognize de-and, then the icon painters here have compiled it on their own. Yes, sir, I did not blaspheme: only about Seraphim, who was called the soul of Jesus, and was nailed, then, as if from heresy, the Seraphim and the soul are incorporeal, and the incorporeal cannot be nailed. And about Adamli the head of the advert: walking across the sea and relying, where the Lord is crucified, then de-Indikoplov's story 69, but not true. And the head of Adam was truly placed in the place of Golgotha, brought by the wave of God, just as the great saints write: Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea. And this de-and language was not found in the Holy Scriptures, it is known where and how it was brought. And the Latins say that Adam, because of his sin, was expelled from paradise, and died and was buried in Hebron, where Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Sarah, and Rebekah, and Rachel were buried in the cave of the abyss; and Golgotha, which is a place of execution, is called, they say, not from Adamli’s head, but from the executed heads in that place; and they also say about Adam’s head, it was laid right there, brought from Hebron. We, sir, will follow not the Latin, but the Greek. And of course, sir, said Maxim, it is too excessive to write such images, it would be a temptation for non-believers and our peasants; The peasants are compelled to write those images and venerate them, which the holy fathers ordained and commanded at the council, and their holidays ordained. And whoever wants to, take lines from writing and write images 70, and he can compose countless images. And there was, sir, a great speech about that image even under Archbishop Gennady; and the posadniks put it on the icon painters, and became a large icon painter, Pereplav, with other icon painters, and rivers: we, sir, are painting those images from the old workshop samples from which we studied, and were taken from the Greek ones. But the writings, sir, were not offered to anyone about this. And the Pskovites then listened more to the iconographers, and not to the archbishop: like the soldiers who were on the ships with Paul, they listened more to the science cleric, and not to Paul (Acts 27:11). And what, sir, is the scripture about that now written down 71, and Maxim, sir, did not blaspheme him, but advertised: the writer got everything from the scripture, and did not write from himself. And about the soul of Jesus, who is about the nailed Seraphim, he praised the writer, who was protected by irresponsibility 72; If he had not protected himself by ignorance, he would have been called a heretic. Yes, sir, he blasphemed about this: Jesus was the only Son of God; but you say many Jesuses are written on one icon: in the image of David, Jesus Christ, - and in the armor of another Jesus Christ, and on the same icon,” and so on. Here are the reasons for such a conclusion. Maxim the Greek died in 1556. Three years before, K. Kurbsky saw him in the Trinity Sergius Monastery (modern name - “Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius” - editor’s note) “already anointed in the years of excellent old age.” Tales of K. Kurbsky. Ed. 2. p. 39. – Maxim arrived in Russia in 1518; Before that, he spent ten years on Athos; and arrived here after a “many” stay in Italy. While living in Italy, he had the opportunity to repeatedly hear the sermon of Hieronymus Savonarola, who died in 1498, in Florence. Judging by the impression it left in the soul of Maxim, it must be assumed that the inquisitive Greek was already sufficiently developed to appreciate the moral dignity of the Dominican preacher. We believe that at this time Maxim was already about 20 years old. The “Tales of Maxim the Greek” that have come down to us (in the manuscripts of the Trinity St. Lavra, containing his works No. 1. l. 17, and No. 2. l. 553, and in the Maximov Psalter, translation of l. 1.), are generally very scant in information about the first years of Maxim’s life. The compiler of legend No. 2 directly says: “We do not know his birth.” In No. 1 the legend is the same, but in some places it is supplemented. It says here: “his birth was from Arta city. Art is a city from the reigning city, i.e. Constantinople) eighteen days and half a day to Jerusalem. And from Arta to Jerusalem it’s the same. Father Manuel and mother Irina, Christians, Greeks, philosophers” - In the legend included in the translation of the Psalter and belonging to the deacon of Kamenets-Podolsk, and then to the monk Isaiah (c. 1591), it is noted: “Maxim, the son of a governor, a monk, by birth a Greek.” Rk. Troitsk Serg. Laurel. Op. Maxim the Greek. No. 2. word 2 on the God-fighter dog Moamef. l. 69 rev. In his Confession of the Orthodox Faith, published in the History of the Russian Church by M. Plato, T. II. P. 303., Maxim says about himself: “I am Greek and in the Greekness of the earth, born and raised.” In the legend about Maxim, placed at the river. Synodal Bible No. 157 (previously catal.), it says that he studied in his homeland, in Palestine and in Italy. – Here, under the name Palestine, of course, also Maxim’s fatherland, Albania. In his letter to Metropolitan Daniel, mentioning his polemical writings against the Greeks, i.e. pagans, calls them this way: “written off as by the Greeks, who was my teacher before, and not even now.” Rk. No. 2. sl. 27. l 125. rev. Vostokova described. Rumyantsev. Museum. With. 369. Guinguené, Histoire Littéraire d'Italie. T.VI. p. 328. Tales of K. Kurbskago. About the Florentine Cathedral. 296. For information about where Maximus could study with Lascaris, see below. Rk. No. 2. Sl. 69. Words are beneficial to the soul. 327 rev. “let you not suffer what was spoken by the wise Meonid (on the field: Omir), saying: the husband is foolish, he will always fall into trouble, then there is a chul.” Sl. 37. Sixteen lines, composed in Iroic measure, and a legend about them. l. 144 rev. “Just as Omir the wise says, laying down the law of love of hospitableness, it is necessary to love a guest who lives with us, but wants to let him go.” – Sl. 6. For Hellenic charm. l. 25. vol. “like the fabulous Calliopia says (on the field: Book of Omir).” Rk. No. 2. sl. 69. l. 329 rev. - In another case, precisely in the word about the Nativity of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, Maxim, in denouncing mythology, points out mythological legends about the gods that are contrary to pure morality: about Zeus, Pallas, Semele, Aphrodite, etc. 24. vol. East Description of Rumyantsev. museum. With. 370. See the word of incrimination of the false copying of Aphroditianov. Rk. No. 2. sl. 10 See 108. Interpretation of names Eg. "Innocent is a Roman proverb, but the interpretation is aphoos (ἀθῶος) whoever says in Russian is innocent. Sergei is a Roman proverb, but its meaning is unknown to me. Flavian in Roman is Russian, not with the tongue, but with the hair." Collection of the Synod. bib. No. 791. l. 123 rev. In a letter to Feodor Karpov, Maxim wrote “but don’t call me a philosopher, for God’s sake, because I am a monk, the most ignorant of all.” The word is incriminating in part of the Latin slander, and in it also on the almanac RK. No. 2. sl. 136. l. 573. See also Sl. 76. l. 383. “Plato is the first external philosopher.” – Sl. 77. Message to F.I. Karpov. l. 396. vol. Sl. 135. word in Latin. l. 561. vol. “No dogma is firmly established in them, neither human nor divine, unless Aristotle’s syllogisms confirm this dogma and unless it agrees with artistic testimony.” Sl. 77. l. 397. “A philosophical thing is sacred and great, and truly divine without a little something.” Sl. 136. l. 573. Don’t be afraid of me for the sake of rebuking external punishment, which is useful and not attested to by everyone who has risen in piety. It is not that his disciple is so ungrateful, even if he is not so happy with the great things ahead of him. But I despise the worn-out, inexperienced mind of those who seek it. It is too much for them to undergo piety (i.e., external punishment, or philosophy) and to receive communion wisely, which helps those who choose to establish the Christian faith, and, as the divine Paul says, captivating every mind in Christ, and forcing it everywhere, and like leading a slave of the Gospel truth and not deceiving it. having given it over to him, having rejected the truth, and through his entire life to Aristotle and Plato and the rest of the Hellenic line, he saw them who were adjacent and who were visiting them, and all of them who were breathing. No matter how much corruption of dogmas and evil is born in the thoughts of his students, not a single word is enough to imagine. The witness of all these is reliable not only as a hearer and witness in Italy and in Longobardy, but also as a former informer. And if God didn’t care about everyone else... Sl. 77. towards the end of o. 404. vol. 405 These are the words of Dominic Beniveni, Canon of St. Lawrence, and the brother of the famous Italian poet Hieronymus Beniveni. Boringer, d. Vorreformatoren. 2. Halft. S. 766. Πλήθωνος νόμων συγγραφής τά σωζόμενα, par C Alexandre. Paris 1858. Préliminaire. pag. LXXXVII. Reviews from other contemporaries about the moral and religious state of Italy at the end of the 15th century. and the beginning of the 16th, see Gieseler Lehrbuch d. Kir changeschichte. II, 4. S. 507–509 Words 136. l. 573. vol. From Maxim’s speech itself it is clear that he no longer found this Florentine scientist alive, who died in 1494. Guinguene T. III. p. 362. About the life and fate of Jer. For Savonarola, see Perrens, Hier. Savonarole nach Originalurkunden und grösstentheils ungedruckten Schriften. 1858. – Bóringer Vorreformatoren. 2 Half. S. 747. 1858. Rk. No. 2. Words. 50. l. 180 rev. and the next Tales of the book Kurbskago village 296. Rk. No. 2. words. 71. l. 404 rev. Börner, de doctis hominibus Graecis. 1750. p 202 203 Mathaei accurate Codicum Graecorum mmss. Bibliothecarum mosquensium ss. Synodi notitia et recensio. 1805. see Codd. 40. 54. 281. 135. 142. 152. 272. 300. 348. 349. 337.360. Typograph. in f. Cod. 6. The works of Nikephoros Blemmides belong to the later ones - codd. 186. 289. 320. and Patr. Filothea cod. 336. – For the oldest copy of the Gospel, see Mathaei ep. Ad Thessalonicenses p. 268. Mathaei I. c. cod. 6. On this manuscript the year 1517 is directly indicated, and it is said that it belongs to the Vatopedi monastery. Also kept is the handwritten list of Gennady, Patriarch of Constantinople, containing an abbreviated interpretation of some of Aristotle’s books. Cod. 7. In addition, other secular works, such as this. Plutarch cod. 387. Moschopula grammar cod. 310; Greek lexicon. Typographer. in fol. cod. 21. See the review of the scientist Villoizon, who traveled to the east in 1785, in Révue de Bibliographie, par Miller et Aubénas. 1844. p. 833. Vladimir Davidov’s Travel Notes 1840. Part 2. p. 210. Grigorovich, Essay on a trip to Europe. Turkey s. 58–62. The Legend of St. Mount Athos Joachim Abbot Panteleimonov m. in 1560, placed. in Readings of the Society of History. 1846. No. 4 p. 20. The story of the monk Maxim to Elder Vassian about St. grief of residence. Rk. No. 1. l. 14. vol. No. 2. sl. 14. l. 99. vol. Another noteworthy place in this message is where Maxim speaks about himself before arriving in Russia. “There is nothing deceitful or blasphemous about the Orthodox faith, yours and mine, below yourselves, below your writings. “On the contrary, inaccurately here you have written words that are sufficient for great heresies, but also before the very nobles of the words ... we reproduced our Orthodox faith brighter and without accusation, by the grace of the worshiped divine Paraclete, having been enlightened and strengthened.” This is followed by the above words. In both Lavra lists there is an obvious omission after the verb verb. To the synod. lists No. 491 (according to the previous catalogue) after: verbs, stands Lyakh. If there is no mistake here, then this word indicates unknown to us relations between Maxim and the Poles. In a message to Tsar Ivan Vasulevich, Maxim asked for a vacation to Mount Athos, “where,” he wrote, “for ten years I worked physically and mentally, for hope, so that my cursed bones would be laid there.” Rk. No. 2. l. 588. Completely assembled. letop. T.VI. Art. 257. They set off with the ambassador of the Turkish Sultan Selim. Full collection years., ibid. “The same winter (1515–1516) Vasily Andreev, the son of Korobov (sent with the Sultan’s ambassador), came from Constantinople to Moscow, and Kopyl and Varavvin remained in Constantinople.” This is probably what the evidence from the “legend of Maximus the Greek” is based on. the prince wrote about sending Maxim to the Sultan himself and to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Act. East. T. I. No. 122. and Time Book of the Society. Histor. T. V. Mixture with. 37. Full collection years. T.VI. c. 261. In one of his works, No. 2. sl. 31. l. 130 rev. Maxim talks about one act of philanthropy on the part of a Mohammedan, which he noticed in the Crimea “living in Perekop.” Klossius, about the library in. K. Vasily Ioannovich and Tsar Ioann Vasilyevich. In the magazine Min. Nar. Enlightenment 1834. Part II. dept. 2. p. 397. The first story, Wettermanov, is borrowed from the Livonian chronicle of Nienstedt, now published in Monumenta Livoniae antiqua. 1839. T. II. r. 67. The second - unknown, taken from the note of Prof. Dorpat. Dabelova. Maxim himself in the message in which he represented V. to the prince his translation of the psalter, he writes about his challenge. “This is the inspiration of God - and now raise up your power to surpass the interpretations of the psalms, which for many years were imprisoned in the book depository, but gave no benefit to man. Thy kingdom... abiy advice to the Most Reverend about the Lord to your father, Mr. Barlaam the Metropolitan, informs. And this is what she also understands (i.e., agrees with) and most diligently acquires. And we received his prayer and blessing, in quick letters, not idle, to the boss and the monk, in St. woe to those who remain, he called from the honest monastery of Vatopedi a certain one, existing from the honest priests who were in it”, i.e. Savva, etc. Rk. No. 2. sl. 76. l. 384. Full collection years. T.VI. With. 261. That is why Maxim, who enjoyed the favor of the Grand Duke until 1525, later wrote that he enjoyed it for nine years. Vir sanctae vitae, Herberstein writes about him. Ed. Starzevsky p. 20. For Varlaam’s labors in decorating churches, see Complete. personal letop. T.VI. With. 254. 261. 262. 280. Description of glory. manuscripts Moscow. Synod. libraries II, 1. p. 83 et seq. For translators, see History. State Ross. T. VII. From the words of Gerasimov, Pavel Joviy wrote his remarks about Russia, from the words of Blasius, John Fabre. Adelung, Uebersicht der Reis in Russl. S. 185. Maximus calls this a manifestation of exaltation, that is, of high and inspired contemplation. Ὠ ριγένης ἡ πάντων ἡμῶν ἀχ ό νη . Suidae Lexic. ed. Bernhard T. 2. pars. 1. p. 1274. Euseb. Histor. Eccles. VI. c. 24. To compare the Slavic translation with the Greek, we use a.) the consolidated Greek interpretation (catena) of the psalter, ed. Corderius 1643 T. 1 - 3. But first we consider it our duty to note that although the original Slavic translation was close to this edition, it is not the same with it; – and b.) the manuscript of Maximov’s translation, which belongs to the Lavra library; she is the beginning from Psalm 55, written 1555 – 1560 – When comparing the manuscript with the mentioned edition, it is revealed that the passages cited in this edition from Origen’s interpretation are often found in the manuscript under other names, or left without a name, or omitted. So eg. Three brief extracts from Origen's interpretation of Ps. 56. at Corderia T. 2. r. 112. 113. 119, are not in the manuscript. - Ps. 57. Corder. p. 130. Found under the name Didyma; r. 131. Under the name of Origen; r. 136. Attributed to Didymus. - Ps. 59. Interpretation of Origen by Corderius r. 154., placed in the manuscript under the name of Theodore; r. 178. 180 - under the name of Eusebius, - and another without the name of the interpreter, etc. And in Greek manuscripts, Origen's interpretations are often confused with Didymus's. See eg. Cursus Patrologiae Graecae T. XII. opp. Origenis p. 1481. 1483. et. T. XXXIX. opp. Didymi. p. 1419. 1421. 1423. So according to the Synodal list. Description Synod. Rk. II, 1. p. 85. In both Lavra lists the particle is not omitted. Rk. No. 2. sl. 76. After this, Maxim reports comments about those fathers and teachers of the Church whose words, not always, but in places, are given in interpretation. See Description. Slav. Hand. Synod. bib. II, 1. p. 86 Perhaps this is why in some places, during the interpretation of Eusebius, there is an inscription. By erection, or in Greek χατ ᾿ ἀναγωγ ή ν. See ps. 103. Also in ps. 147. and in the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom. How busy Maxim was with this work and how in a hurry to finish it can be seen from his following words in his polemical work against the Latins. Refusing a lengthy refutation of their opinions, due to lack of time, he writes: “I have idleness below my breath, I am engrossed in the labor of reciting the psalms.” Rk. No. 2. words. 135. l. 557. vol. For example, Maxim cites several damaged phrases, which obviously required correction, and were, according to their meaning, corrected during translation. “Grant to me and the brethren who are with me a return to the holy mountain, for all who ask, if you please.” Due to these advantages of interpretation, it was also used by people who soon became hostile to Maxim, such as for example. Metropolitan Daniel in his words. So in the 6th word about the ineffable mercy of Christ, he cites from the interpretation translated by Maximus an explanation of Ps. 68, 6., with the names of Athanasius, Theodore, Theodoret, Eusebius and Didymus; also on ps. 40, 5. 21, 1. – Rk. Moscow. D. Academy No. 197. l. 208 rev. and the next In the library of the Trinity Lavra of the Republic. intelligent apostle No. 4. c. l. Here, at the end of the interpretation on the book. Acts, l. 153 it is said “by the help of God and by the command of His Holiness Barlaam, Metropolitan of All Russia, the interpretation of the Acts of the Saints was written by the Apostle, from the thirty-first of her conception to the end of her conception. 51. And translated from Greek into Russian by the monk Maxim the holy Mount Athos, the great monastery of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, Vatopeda monastery, and Blasius the interpreter, Latin and German, in the most famous and glorious city of Moscow, into the kingdom of the pious and Christ-loving Basil, God's by the grace of the sovereign and autocrat of all Russia and the Grand Duke, in the fourteenth year of his state, in the summer of March 7027.” – This signature, apparently, was transferred from the original manuscript of this translation. Because the Lavra list, as it was said not much higher on the same sheet, was written in 7028 - About the ancient, incomplete translation of the interpretation into the book. Acts. see Description Slav. Hand. Synod. librarian II. 1. P. 154. etc. Nikonov. years. T.VI. With. 224. Maxim's companions were released on September 11, 1519. This letter is in the Synod. Hand. No. 569. XVI century. It was written, apparently, by Dimitri Gerasimov, to clerk Misyur-Munekhin in Pskov. those. Kozma Indicopleustos, so named from his journey to India. those. represent the content of certain church stichera on the icon. Of course, an explanation written by someone about what is depicted on the icon in question. those. topic that he did not take responsibility. You might be interested in: