[Rec. at:] Georgievsky V. Florishcheva Hermitage: Historical and Archaeological Description

Currently, we have quite a lot of descriptions of cathedrals, monasteries and even parish churches with monuments of ancient writing and art stored in them, but, of course, even most of them are waiting for their descriptors. At the same time, one often has to observe the completely natural, but not particularly desirable phenomenon that while some of the cathedrals, monasteries and parish churches continue to remain completely unknown with their book and monumental treasures, others already have two, three or more descriptions. Florishcheva hermitage of the Vladimir diocese can consider itself positively happy in this regard. For a long time, they began to talk about it in the press, both in passing and deliberately, and even such prominent scientific and literary figures as P.M. wrote about the manuscript collection in its possession. Stroev, E.E. Zamyslovsky, N.A. Artleben and A.E. Viktorov. Before the learned world had time to become acquainted with the Florishchevsky manuscripts according to the latter’s catalogue, “through diligence and dependence” Archimandrite. Anthony, the current rector of the Florishcheva Hermitage, the above-mentioned, rather voluminous (XV + 416 pp.), work of the head of the “Church-historical ancient repository” in Vladimir provincial was published. Having spoken in a few words about the significance of the monastery for the local region and listed in detail in the introduction to the book its sources and manuals, the author then acquaints the reader with the beginning of the Florishcheva Hermitage and its subsequent fate, and extensively sets out the ancient biography of its first builder, not unknown in the history of our church, Metropolitan Hilarion of Suzdal, presents a rather detailed chronicle of the monastery abbots, indicating what was good or bad for each of them was made for the monastery; describes churches and other buildings and, finally, surveys the sights of the sacristy and churches and monasteries attached to the desert. In the form of an extensive appendix to the book there are: I) a description of the manuscripts of the Florishcheva Hermitage; II) catalog of early printed books; III) thirty-two numbers of charters and acts relating to the history of the monastery, as well as an index of personal names, geographical names and objects found in the work in question. A lover of historical reading, our church antiquity and ancient Russian writing, will undoubtedly say a big and well-deserved thank you to Mr. Georgievsky for all this. In the interests of the author, who plans to soon begin other similar publications 1 , we will make only a few comments, first of all, regarding the external side of his present work. The first half of the book, which tells in a hagiographic tone about the life and exploits of the improvement of the Metropolitan Hermitage. Hilarion and a number of his successors, by their nature and partly their content, do not put up well with the second. Perhaps it would be better to highlight it completely and publish it separately as edifying reading; The appendices with their introduction would then constitute a second, not large, but special in content issue. Both publications in this form would have had an incomparably greater distribution than now, each with its own specific circle of readers. In the list of “materials, articles and notes” presented in the introduction to the book on the issue of the Florishcheva Hermitage, neither subject nor chronological order was observed by the author. Since, for some documents, the latter had to be resorted to more than once in the description itself, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions, it would be better not to mention them at all in the introduction. Likewise, in the description of the monastery sacristy, the objects are the most ancient and remarkable, for example: some altar gospels, St. vessels, etc., are in second place for the author, described by him after things that are not ancient, precious only in terms of material and the luxury of their decoration. The greatest scientific interest in the book is, without a doubt, the description of manuscripts with a catalog of early printed books from the Florishcheva Hermitage. Based on the inventory of the same manuscripts compiled in 1881 by A.E. Viktorov 2, Georgievsky, I decided to carefully check it against the manuscripts themselves and, where necessary, correct and supplement. Indeed, several manuscripts, mainly musical ones, are briefly described again by him; Extracts from manuscripts made by Viktorov are expanded in places, sometimes the titles of the articles contained in them are given in more detail, with a few exceptions, the pages of the latter are included. But, unfortunately, the additions to our descriptor are not always successful, and what’s even worse, can lead, on occasion, to completely erroneous conclusions. Let us point out as an example one of the explanations he made in the description of collection No. 102, the most interesting, in our opinion, in its composition and content of all the collections of the Florishchevsky Library. Viktorov described the named manuscript (p. 258–261), he also provides a table of contents of the articles included in it, although not with such completeness and clarity as would be desirable. By the way, the late bibliographer dully marked “a petition to Tsar Alexy Mikhailovich from the Great Council of Archpriest Michael.” A person somewhat familiar with the persons and events of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, after reading this, may wonder: does the petition belong to the former Chernigov archpriest Mikhail Stefanov Rogov, the famous Iosifovsky inquiry officer and publisher of Cyril’s book? It is natural to seek a solution to the bewilderment from Mr. Georgievsky, in whose description (p. 230, l. 120) the same document is, indeed, indicated more fully, namely: “Petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of the Great Council of Archpriest Michael, appointed to the Siberian bishops, for the acceptance of his children into the service of the sovereign.” From the “Note on the Life of Archpriest Ivan Neronov” it is known that Patr. Nikon “cursed Archpriest Mikhail of Chernigov insolently and removed the scuff from him for the fact that in the book of Cyril of Jerusalem in two lines it was not deeded that there would be no torment for Christians 3 ... Among the manuscripts of the Arkhangelsk Theological Seminary there is a chronograph of the Russian edition, from the signature on the leaves of which, as well as the quotation marks of cinnabar in the margins, it is clear that it was at one time the property prot. Mikhail Rogov and in 7161 he was given a contribution to the Kandalazhsky Nativity Monastery 4. Appointment of Archpriest Michael to the Siberian bishops, which is mentioned by Mr. Georgievsky, does not fit well with the news just given and is, in essence, only the result of an oversight by the descriptor when familiarizing himself with the monument. Let us quote the petition literally, especially since it is small, has not yet been published anywhere and, perhaps, will be useful in explaining the mysterious fate of the ill-fated publisher of Kirill’s book. “To the Tsar Sovereign and Grand Duke Alexy Mikhailovich, the autocrat of all the great and small and white of Russia, your ever-present pilgrim, Archpriest Michael, beats with his forehead your sovereign, the Great Cathedral. The all-merciful Lord has deigned to place his heart on your great sovereign to have mercy on me. The bolyarin and gunsmith Bogdan Matveevich informed me of this benevolence of yours during the enthronement of the bishop of the Siberian state, the name of the river, as if you, the great sovereign, out of your great mercy, wanted to take my children into ranks, they can be pleased and pleased with them. And I, having tenderly thanked God for all the blessings of the giver and the orphan nourisher, I look forward with hope to the event of the unchangeable word. By the same token, falling humbly at the foot of your feet, I pray that in response to my humble request, from the height of your throne, look with your merciful eye and according to your true royal word, I will certainly take my children into the rank, in which you, the great sovereign, will worthily appear and order. Dear great merciful Tsar, please have mercy” 5! It is clear that the petition is not about the appointment of the archpriest of the Great Cathedral to the Siberian bishops, but that the latter received the news of the promotion of his children at the installation of someone else, presumably Cornelius, consecrated on June 24, 1664, “in the Siberian state to the episcopal throne.” Insufficiently attentive attitude to the matter on the part of the descriptor, we partly explain the shortcoming in his book that the documents he printed in the appendix are, as it were, external appendages, not used by the author, and meanwhile, some of them are not devoid of archaeological interest. So, for example, in almost all patriarchal and metropolitan charters for the construction and consecration of the churches of the Florishcheva Hermitage and the monasteries attached to it, the following instructions are read: ... “the boundaries of the outside of the church should be cut off with a special article, so that the outer doors would be in the porch and the entrances to the boundaries would be from the porch, and there would be no entrance from the church into the boundaries; but the limits will be made within the same church walls on one sign, and those limits will not be hallowed. And the tops of that church and the borders should not be tented and the altars should be made round and triple; and in the church and within the altar walls there would be royal doors in the middle, and on their right side the southern ones, and on the left the northern ones... And the royal doors would not be on the same beam... And the antimension of the old altar should be placed in a new stone church in the altar in the capital of the eastern country in a box, covered with a board” 6... All these details in the structure of ancient Russian wooden churches are curious and important for an archaeologist, and they should be noted and put into scientific circulation. Apart from the elimination of a few typos, the original text of which not everyone is able to restore, 7 the publication can be said to be impeccable and even luxurious: printed in an excellent font, on excellent paper and supplied with dozens of good drawings of monasteries, churches, items of sacred utensils, vestments, etc. It is clear from everything that Fr. archim. Anthony, who restored its ancient charter in the desert, decorated the churches and other monastic buildings inside and out, brought the monastic economy, library and archive into exemplary order, did not spare funds for the publication, which owes its birth entirely to him 8 . This does great honor to the enlightened publisher and gives us the right to point him out to others as an example worthy of imitation. Brief description of church history. ancient storage facilities at the brotherhood of St. Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky in Vladimir. gub., p. 8. Vyazniki 1895; Wed Historical and archaeological described. Florishchevoy Desert pp. 165–166. Inventories of manuscript collections in book depositories of northern Russia, pp. 225–278. St. Petersburg, 1890 Mater. for history Schism, vol. 1, p. 155. A E. Viktorov, Inventory of hands. collected, p. 30, no. 36. Rukop. Florishch. empty No. 102–675, l. 118 and about: sn. handwritten Collection Moscow Synod. bibliot., No. 130, l. 159 and vol. Described. Florishch. empty, pp. 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 315, 342, etc. For example, according to golfabra vm. on Gulfabra, house-building vm. after inspection, chrome vm. Khomova, Atlatorsky vm. Alatorsky, Vybochetoe, etc. Ibid., pp. 85, 275, 316, 343, 378, 380, etc. The discrepancy between the chronological data in the titles and ends of some of the documents printed in the appendix is ​​especially striking. Si. Nos. 2–4, 19, etc. Described. Florishch. empty, pp. IV–V, 110–113. You might be interested in: