Joachim, Patriarch of Moscow

Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII His birth, upbringing, military service, tonsure as a monk, life in the Mezhigorsky and Iversky monasteries; archimadriteship in the Moscow Miracle Monastery. Joachim, the penultimate patriarch of Moscow, was born in 1620 1 By his origin, he belonged to the family of Moscow nobles Savelov 2; but what the names of his parents were, and what name he himself bore before accepting monasticism is unknown, 3 just as his initial life in general is little known. “I... was born into this world by pious parents and was raised in the inviolable piety of the Eastern Church in the Orthodox faith,” he says about himself in his spiritual testament. What does this upbringing in inviolable piety consist of - whether it is the fact that he thoroughly studied the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, or simply familiarization with the prayers and rituals of church service - there is no reliable news about this 4. And therefore we think that in his education he did not go further than the ordinary primer of that time, in which, while studying the alphabet, the student became acquainted with the main rules of grammar 5; at least we have no right to assume anything more in the early printed education of Joachim, since there were no schools in Moscow at that time, there were no learned teachers, and Muscovites, according to foreigners of that time, “believed the perfection of learning in writing and reading books” 6 , and in scientific education they saw the source of heresies 7 . Moreover, the political circumstances of the Moscow state at that time were completely unfavorable for the development of the desire for enlightenment in the younger generation, especially the nobles. The difficult and lengthy wars of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, which forced this sovereign in 1653. to collect and enroll nobles and boyars' children into the soldiery, under the fear that otherwise they would be subject to nationalization 8; on the contrary, they called up the younger generation for military exploits. Joachim, as a nobleman by birth, could not and did not avoid military service due to historical circumstances. But military service was not to Joachim’s liking. “Raised in piety,” he did not find satisfaction in his aspirations in the performance of military duties. These duties contradicted his views and aroused discontent in him. This dissatisfaction with his military service could be even more intensified in him by the fact that at that time, among the military commanders in the Russian regiments, there were many people of other faiths - foreigners 10 who allowed themselves to offend not only the national, civil Russian feeling, but also religious - “they laughed, as Joachim himself says in his will, at piety, swore and, out of their charm, blasphemed at the fact that their subordinates “those who honor the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God Mary ask in every possible way for help from all the saints.” Therefore, Savelov, in 1655, at the 35th year of his life, left military service, deciding to take monasticism, “promising and wanting, as he himself says, (in his will) to cry about his sins.” He chose the Kiev-Mezhigorsky Monastery as the place for his exploits. Why his choice fell specifically on the southern Russian Mezhigorsky monastery, and not on any Moscow one, he does not explain; but one can think with almost certainty that this choice was based on the moral superiority of the monks of this monastery, whose exemplary community life 11 was known not only in Little Russia, but also in Moscow 12 . Savelov in the South hoped to find a reliable refuge for his soul, which required solitude, and took monastic vows there with the intention of not leaving the place of monastic vows throughout his life. “When I came to Kyiv for the common life of the Mezhigorsky monastery of the last 7163 years, he says about himself in his will, then I promised and in my great zeal I desired to leave that holy monastery in no way anywhere, either alone in the desert or in a hermitage, to end my life and my sinful body in that promise of my I wanted to bury the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Mezhigorsk Monastery.” But this intention of Joachim was not destined to be fulfilled. In 1657, he moved to the Iversky-Novgorod Monastery, which was then newly established by Patriarch Nikon 14. The reason for this transition of Joachim from the Mezhigorsky monastery to the North is unknown to us, but we must think that it lay not in Savelov himself, who throughout his life retained the strongest attachment to the place of his tonsure as a monk 15, but in Nikon, the then Patriarch of Moscow. Nikon, when establishing the Iveron Monastery in the Novgorod diocese, wanted to give a different, more strict direction to Great Russian monasticism, and therefore by gathering here monks who were distinguished by the strict fulfillment of their vows, it seems that in this case he preferred the South Russian monks, who lived primarily a “common life” and whose piety was tested by many restrictions from the Jesuits and Uniates 16. Naturally, therefore, the assumption is that Joachim, who entered the Mezhigorsky monastery and devoted himself to a strict monastic life and, in addition, possessing, as we will see later, a practical character, could attract the attention of not only the monks of the monastery, but also the Zaporozhye authorities who patronized the monastery, who, in relations with Moscow and with Nikon, could recommend Joachim to the latter as one of the monks who were needed for newly built monastery. And this assumption of ours receives an even greater degree of probability from the fact that Elder Joachim arrived in Moscow and was assigned to the Iveron Monastery in September 1657 - at precisely the time when the newly elected hetman, after the death of 17 Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Ivan Vigovsky was in the most lively relations with Moscow and sought protection and support from the strong Patriarch Nikon 18. How long Joachim stayed in the Iveron Novgorod monastery, we cannot give a definite answer to this due to the lack of historical data; - but, in any case, we must assume that he moved to Moscow even before 1664, when he became famous in the rank of Archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery 19. This must be allowed because otherwise it will be difficult to explain the rise of Joachim, the elder of the Iveron Monastery 20. After Patriarch Nikon, offended by the coldness of the tsar and the intrigues of the boyars, retired from Moscow to his Resurrection monastery 21 and the rights of the patriarch by order of the tsar 22 and the definition of the council of 1660 23 passed to Metropolitan Pitirim of Krutitsa. It was difficult for Joachim, the elder of the monastery, beloved by Nikon and still under his direct supervision - Joachim - we say - if there was still a possibility, to find shelter in Moscow, and even more so to rise. True, Nikon’s enemies could and should have done both, i.e. and shelter and elevate Joachim as a man with a strong practical character and, as they say, not disposed towards Nikon 24. But in this case, we must assume too much tactlessness of Nikon’s enemies, as if for no apparent reason they suddenly began to patronize the unknown Joachim. The rise of Joachim itself presupposes the fame he has already acquired. It can therefore be assumed that Joachim moved to Moscow shortly after Nikon’s removal to the Resurrection Monastery (1658) and even at that time managed to attract attention to himself and earn the favor of the authorities. And he could achieve this all the more conveniently because, as a nobleman by birth, the sympathies of Nikon’s enemies could naturally be directed towards him, who then were in great need of support for their cause among the clergy and did not find a person capable of resisting the adamant Patriarch Nikon. In 1664, Metropolitan Pitirim of Krutitsa was transferred to the Novgorod department; Archimandrite Pavel 25 of the Chudov Monastery was made Metropolitan of Krutitsa, and Joachim 26 was installed in his place. With the elevation to the rank of Archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, the time had come for Joachim to emerge from his former obscurity. He was supposed to be in close relations with the royal court and the highest church authorities, already by his very rank. On the other hand, as a person who had deep practical sense, he now acquired the friendship of the court boyars, 27 and at the same time he received the favor and power of attorney of the tsar himself. Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted him with instructions on the case of Patriarch Nikon, a matter that was of great importance at that time and closely related to the tsar 28. Moreover, there is reason to think that Alexei Mikhailovich, intrigued by the boyars regarding Nikon, either on his own or through the machinations of the same boyars, wanted to see him in his place, i.e. in the rank of patriarch - Joachim, at least one cannot think that Nikon, out of cowardice or even because of the danger of dying a “vain death” - cowardice and fear were not in Nikon’s character - showed before Archimandrite Paul - sent in 1676 with Zhelyabuzhsky to transfer Nikon from the Ferapontov Monastery to Kirillov, that when he was interrogated by Tsar Alexei about his departure to There was a Resurrection Monastery, at that time he told the Emperor that “for humility, he, Joachim, could be a patriarch” 29 . Even if Joachim was not elevated to the rank of patriarch after the well-known conciliar deposition of Nikon in 1666 and Joasaph took the patriarchal chair, nevertheless, the arrival of the Eastern patriarchs to Moscow was not in vain for Joachim. Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch, when they were in Moscow, by appointment of the tsar, lived in the Chudov Monastery, where “they perceived every creation of honor, love of strangers, the virtue of tranquility, good deeds” 30; and in 1667, in gratitude to the abbot of this monastery, Archimandrite Joachim, and at the same time fulfilling the desire of the king, they gave him a letter in which he and his successors in the rank of Archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery were given the right to wear the mantle with tablets and use the bishop’s staff: an honor that until that time only the archimandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery had in Russia 31 and which the archimandrite of the Vladimir Nativity Monastery received from the eastern patriarchs in the same year 1667 32. But even over those archimandrites, Joachim now received a special advantage: he was allowed to wear the silver-plated bishop’s staff of the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletius, donated by Paisius of Alexandria, while neither the Sergius nor Rozhdestvensky archimandrites were allowed to wear silver-plated ones and they had to have staffs of ancient times 33 with a gilded top (shanks). Joachim, apparently, was a favorite of the authorities: but for all that, during the entire time of his archimandriteship, he did not declare himself to be in any kind of independent activity, he was only an executor of the orders of the authorities. Elevation of Joachim to the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod; the state of the Novgorod diocese; the order of P. Joachim on the degrees of abbots and archpriests, on the donation of monastic lands; about the collection of tribute from priests by the church, about relations with the rebel Solovlyans. In 1672, Saint Joasaph died, and in the month of July, Metropolitan Pitirim of Novgorod 34, one of the active culprits in the deposition of Nikon 35, was elevated to the patriarchal throne; He was installed as Metropolitan of Novgorod on December 22, 1673, “by the election and command of Alexei Mikhailovich and the ordination of Pitirim,” Joachim 36. It brought Metropolitan Joachim out of the passive state in which he had been until that time; Now accepting the metropolis into his administration, he had to enter the field of independent activity and energetic activity. This was required by the affairs of his new flock. The Novgorod Metropolis, the oldest of all Russian metropolitanates, did not see active rulers in the person of its archpastors, the predecessors of Joachim. Neither Joasaph 37 nor Pitirim 38 were able to contain the outpouring of anarchy that then engulfed all dioceses in general, especially Novgorod. The spirit of primordial Novgorod freedom now, unrestrained by anything, knew no boundaries and penetrated into all relations of the spiritual administration 39. Disorders reigned everywhere: the spiritual courts were full of them, and they also extended to private relationships. The general disorder of that time was revealed between high-ranking clergy even during the priesthood. The abbots of the monasteries and the city archpriests, not having a definition of their degrees, argued among themselves about who “should stand and sit under whom,” and instead of decorating the church rank, “carrying out a rebellion” gave rise to reproaches from the people 40. The destruction of this reason for cursing the church rank was the first thing that M. Joachim did. Immediately upon his arrival in Novgorod 41, the abbots of the monasteries submitted a petition to him with their own hands asking him to indicate to them the degrees that they should occupy in prayer singing, etc. Joachim “listened to their petitions, and the archimandrites of the staid monasteries of Great Novagrad advised on this and, being assured from the Divine Scripture (?), that the hieromonk of the worldly rank of priest is superior in honor, and especially the abbot’s honor over the worldly is greater,” he decided that the abbots of the most noble monasteries should occupy the highest places even in relation to the Sophia Cathedral archpriest, and the abbots of other monasteries are inferior in relation to this archpriest, but superior in relation to other archpriests, and ordered “this blessing and command to be written in the official book, henceforth for serene approval” 42. Joachim, with his strict view of monasticism, gave him an advantage over the white clergy. At the same time, on the other hand, he could not remain a cold spectator of monastic self-government. The arbitrariness of the abbots and monastery builders, with which they disposed of the monastery lands in view only of their personal interests and “through this they caused great losses and losses to the monastery treasury 43, so that as a result of this the Sofia church tribute was not paid in full, which went to the metropolitan state Order 44, could not, of course, but outrage the new metropolitan, who himself accepted monasticism, as we know, is in order to “cry over your sins.” And Joachim, indeed, as soon as he learned about such disorder, immediately took measures to destroy it. He sent a “memory” to all the monasteries with a special messenger, so that for many years, more than five years, no monastic land should be given to anyone as rent 45. But just as the arbitrariness of the abbots was only a partial manifestation of the general arbitrariness that then dominated the entire Novgorod diocese, so the order of Joachim that we indicated was, so to speak, only the beginning of the activities that he undertook to bring his flock into better shape; although he did not manage to accomplish everything. The Novgorod diocese owed him only the introduction of a certain, uniform church tribute for everyone and the abolition of the custom of sending secular officials from the metropolitan order to collect this tribute. It is true that even before Joachim there were “salary books” there, which indicated the amount of church tribute, and even the same amount, but in practice these books had no application and the amount of duties levied on the metropolitan depended on the arbitrariness of the officials of the metropolitan order. In addition, these officials were clerks and boyar children, too far from understanding the poverty of the then white clergy and who only cared about ensuring that their “ten-ten-ruble income” did not go to waste; on opportune occasions, they were not averse to inflicting losses on the priests and clerks - “to have, from the above-mentioned ten altyns, their extra ten-year income, and travel, and carts.” The clergy, with their extremely meager means - material and moral, could not give a proper rebuff to their oppressors: they, therefore, either meekly dragged out their bitter lot, or decided to resort to unscrupulous tricks to alleviate their fate. Some priests thus concealed peasant households and church lands, since the amount of tribute depended on both, and some decided to do even more - they left their churches and traveled to other parishes with all kinds of shrines. It even happened in the Novgorod diocese that new churches were built, consecrated, clergy were assigned to them: but at the same time they eluded entry in the salary books, and at the same time they avoided any supervision, any administrative dependence. In order to destroy this evil in the life of his flock, Joachim in December 1673 ordered the collection of church tribute to the priestly elders and submitting it to the state metropolitan order, and the children of the boyars and clerks, who, as we said, had previously collected this tribute, ordered the payment of salaries from the state order. At the same time, he ordered the priestly elders to collect accurate information about all the priests who walked in other people’s parishes and newly built churches, as well as to bring to the knowledge the peasant households and church lands hidden by the clergy, and to collect church tribute from the books and therefore not to take dishes and funerals for themselves, for violation he threatened with cruel punishment and execution and prohibition from divine services 46. Joachim, apparently, understood well the life of the clergy and wanted to streamline the administrative and economic state of his diocese. M. Joachim showed no less degree of understanding and reasonable care in relation to the spiritual and religious needs of his flock - to the schism that was intensifying at that time. The Solovetsky monks, carried away by the schism, shortly before being condemned at the Moscow Council of 1667, did not accept the newly printed liturgical books and in their persistence, encouraged by like-minded people who fled from Moscow, and reinforced by the Cossacks from Astrakhan, who fled there after their ataman Razin was captured, they reached the point of open indignation against the government 47: the famous siege of the Solovetsky Monastery began. When rumors of such a state of the Solovyans reached Novgorod, Joachim did not remain an indifferent observer of such an event, but took measures against the rebels on his own side. In 1673, he sent the abbot of the Klop monastery, Macarius, to them “to persuade them to beat the Great Sovereign with their brow in their guilt” 48 . In addition, he sent letters to the Solovyans, with which he summoned them, and especially one of the main culprits of the rebellion, Gerontius, to himself to compare the newly published books with the ancient handwritten ones (charatean) 49 . And although his concerns about correcting the rebels were not crowned with good results, they were nevertheless important for that time in the sense that they revealed the beginnings of a different view of the schism, a different attitude towards it than that which characterized the majority of the then champions of Orthodoxy, and had an effect at least on those of the Nightingales who were less fanatical than others and treated their cause with greater consciousness than others. – The black priest Gerontius, as he himself later testified, “doubted to accept the newly corrected books without a certificate with the ancient charatean” books, wanted to go at the call of Joachim “to receive the testimony” and was only held back by the rebels 50. Patriarchate of Joachim. – The significance of the Moscow High Hierarch. – The general character of Russian society contemporary to P. Joachim is the fermentation of old and new elements. – The decline in the importance of the church hierarchy in society, P. Joachim’s concern for protecting the rights and interests of the clergy in administrative and economic terms from the encroachments of secular people. – Imperfections of the internal church administration and moral depravity of the clergy; P. Joachim's concerns about eliminating these internal reasons for the loss of significance by the clergy in society. Joachim was Metropolitan of Novgorod for a short time. On April 19, 1673, Patriarch Pitirim died, having occupied the patriarchal throne for less than a year, and in his place “by the will of Almighty God and by order of the V. Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich and by the election of the consecrated council, Joachim was installed 51, but was installed not immediately after the death of Pitirim, but more than a year later 52. The reason for such a slowdown in the elevation of Joachim to the patriarchal throne, the reason is all the more interesting because the affairs of the church at that time urgently required a head in church administration, due to a lack of historical data, remains a mystery to us. However, M. Joachim, as already known to the tsar, seems to have been summoned to Moscow at this time and, as metropolitan of the oldest Russian department 53, presided over the sacred council, which at that time was engaged in the affairs of the church 54. At the very least, there is no doubt that he lived in Moscow at that time 55, and in the clergy he held the first place among other hierarchs 56 who lived in Moscow. Only on July 26, 1674, he received the rank of Patriarch of Moscow 57. We consider it necessary to preface this review of the activities of Patriarch Joachim with a few words about the position that the Moscow High Hierarch has long occupied in Russian life, as well as about the character of Russian society contemporary to Patriarch Joachim. In the Moscow state, from its very beginning, the civil life of the people stood in the closest connection with religious life. Therefore, the Moscow High Priest always had a prominent public role; almost on a par with the prince, he was the center around which the life of the entire people revolved, and he had to, while dealing with the affairs of his own, church region, at the same time take an active part in state affairs that concerned not only the internal structure of his compatriots, but also relations with their neighbors. This has been the case since the first Moscow archpastor, St. m. Petra. The rank of patriarch, with which the Moscow high priests were later invested, further elevated their social significance. There was a time when, due to a coincidence of unfortunate historical circumstances, the Moscow High Hierarch (n. Hermogenes) was almost the only leader of the Russian people, the only stronghold of the Russian land, and when he became not so much a church figure as a political one. Without losing the significance of the Patriarch of Moscow, on the contrary, it intensified even more with the accession of the House of Romanov. Mikhail Feodorovich; as you know, he did nothing without the advice and blessing of Father Philaret, who bore the title of “Great Sovereign.” With equal, if not greater importance, the mighty P. Nikon occupied the patriarchal throne under Alexei Mikhailovich. But Nikon did not resist his greatness to the end - through the intrigues of the boyars he was brought to deposition and imprisonment. The importance of the High Hierarch of Moscow from that time on greatly fluctuated. The authority that had been established for him for centuries now more and more lost its strength, its inviolability in public opinion, even from the fact that Nikon’s successors, P. Joasaph, and especially Pitirim, before receiving the patriarchal rank, themselves stood on the side of the enemies of Nikon’s greatness. Moreover, at that time Nikon himself was still alive, whose overthrow, in the consciousness of not only himself, was a matter of injustice, but in many ways aroused sympathy and compassion for the great imprisoner. Joachim was thus forced to ascend to the primate throne of Moscow at precisely the moment when this throne shook after centuries of its steadfastness and could no longer serve the person occupying it with sufficient support. For the Patriarch now, in order to maintain his high dignity, automatic greatness alone was not enough; jealously - despotic protection of his rights was not enough; no, his strength, his authority was now directly dependent on his personal qualities, on his ability to stand above the circumstances of life, without at the same time acting against them historically - the necessary flow. In close connection with this position of the Moscow High Hierarch - the time of the patriarchate of Joachim - is the then state of Russian society itself. Since ancient times, this society has been unfamiliar with independent activities in life. It did not reason and did not know why it lived and how it lived. His life was subject entirely to the guardianship of civil and ecclesiastical authorities. That's what we said in the old days. But such a childish, carefree state has finally passed for the Russian people. The end of the royal dynasty and the troubled time that followed, in which Russian society had to experience so many transformations, awakened in it a sense of civic well-being and the need for a new life. The people elected a new sovereign, Mikhail Feodorovich, but a turn to the old was no longer possible in his life. The beginning of the national revival, with the external situation achieved, had to go forward and forward; awakened popular thought demanded freedom from previous tutelage. Russian thought, now declaring its independence before the newly elected civil authorities (the riots under Alexei Mikhailovich), also declared before the church authorities. The case of P. Nikon, one might say, was one of the bold steps that were taken by Russian self-consciousness on the path of liberation from previous customs. But this very thing, which resulted, as we said, in the decline of the moral authority of the patriarchal government, took away from Russian thought that reliable support to which it was accustomed to turn in all difficult circumstances. She now appeared on the path to emancipated activity, and yet she did not have such steadfastness and sophistication, she did not have the principles to be able to calmly and firmly walk along the newly paved road. She was aware of the insufficiency of what existed; the need for renewal was a settled matter for her, but this renewal required from her energy and strength that she did not have. And now in Rus' a strange, historically natural phenomenon opens up: some are passionately carried away by foreign things, which seemed to them in the form of a saving haven, and, moreover, rush to precisely those foreign things that were available to them in their spiritual weakness, rush to trifles, not even taking into account the fact that these trifles do not at all correspond to their nationality; on the contrary, others, with their narrow mental horizons, seeing in the first desecrators of their native purism, with horror and superstitious fear, turn away from the introducers of novelty and see the only outcome in their position in the strict protection of their antiquity from all elements alien to them: they want to remain with their old national purism, despite the new needs that have appeared and cannot in any way allow the satisfaction of these needs by new elements not destroyed, did not overthrow what they had until now considered sacred, the preservation of which had always been the subject of their special concerns, in which they placed their earthly and eternal happiness. This chaotic state of Russian society finally assumed even terrifying proportions when, after the death of Feodor Alekseevich, civil power also weakened. The people's passions, unrestrained by anything, then reached their extreme limits. Without exaggeration, we can say that the Moscow state stood at that time on the brink of destruction. And it is in this environment that Joachim must act in the rank of Patriarch of Moscow. Joachim, we said, ascended the patriarchal throne when the authority of the Russian high priest was greatly shaken, when the consciousness of the Russian people felt the need for liberation from the guardianship in which it had been almost from the very beginning of its historical life. But this decline in the authority of the patriarch was not an isolated phenomenon: Russian folk thought was then liberated not only from under his influence; no, against him, as the leader of the hierarchy, she put only her best forces - the boyars, and in general she began to act against the entire church hierarchy. And the entire hierarchy at that time had to experience the same moments that its head experienced. The spirit of the times, the revolution in the history of the people, dealt blows to the entire clergy. Civil power no longer considered it sacrilege to take away the excess forces it had accumulated to replenish its own depleted ones. It is known, for example, that homeless clergymen were recruited into the Russian army by order of Alexei Mikhailovich 58; and when the tsar’s treasury turned out to be too insufficient to support the difficult wars that ruined the Moscow state under Alexei Mikhailovich, church property was also subject to taxes. Supplies for the army near Smolensk were collected from church lands, for example, in 1632 and 1634 - they were collected even in greater quantities than from posads and secular estates; the clergy was obliged to supply the army, money was collected from them for the construction of Ukrainian fortresses; it had to pay polonyanichny money for the ransom of prisoners. In addition, the government sent seriously wounded people to monasteries for food; and deprived both monasteries and bishops’ chairs of the so-called tarkhan letters (for various duty-free trades) 59 . But, as naturally one could and even should have expected, this influence of popular life on the church hierarchy was not kept within legal boundaries. Russian thought, which was fragmented at that time, not only did not want to know any restrictions for itself, but also allowed itself to be encroached upon; and in these attacks she went to extremes. Not to mention those clergy who lived on the so-called black land and bore all the corvée duties, and from whom, at the same time, secular gatherings and elders took “every amount in front of the black people twice”, even those priests and clergy who lived on the church’s whitewashed lands, therefore, could be least dependent on secular people, and those - we say - experienced the influence of the new spirit of the time. Lay people took over the church administration - not only economic, but also in the proper sense church, and did not spare the interests of the clergy - they interfered in "the courts of the saints, carried out judgment and punishment in matters often spiritual and did not leave this arbitrariness and after the council of 1667 it was decisively forbidden" to drag priests and monks into secular courts, and to judge them lower by lay people 60 . Among the city judges there were even those who interrogated the priests about the sins of the penitents during trials 61 . This was the case in Moscow, in the patriarchal region, and, moreover, under the head of P. Nikon: what could have happened after this in the dioceses, where the arbitrariness of secular people could meet with almost no opposition? There, the right of the strong reigned in full force and there was no mercy for the defenseless clergy. Voivods, patrimonial owners and secular judges abused their legal rights - they caused “unnecessary delays and losses to the clergy” and “abuse of the sacred rank on the right”; Moreover, they often sent archers and gunners to church estates solely “for their own idle self-interest and many bribes,” or they directly seized church lands and gave them away as their property 62; there was even something like a hunt for wealthy priests: the Kolomna clergy complained, for example, that Major Tsei had comrades who walked around at night, grabbed priests, beat and mutilated them for their own gain 63 . “Our desert,” complained the builder of the Belozersky Filippov Monastery, “without protection from third-party patrimonial landowners and landowners and from their people and peasants in the lands and in all sorts of lands, it has been completely devastated and there is no one to defend and intercede for us” 64. And Markell, Metropolitan of Pskov, depicts the state of his diocese in this way. - “In Pskov and in the suburbs of the district there are one hundred and sixty churches, and the bishops have no will over the churches, the peasants own them, and the churches are all patrimony, and they own those patrimony and remember themselves and self-interest themselves, and are disobedient to the bishop, about which he sends a decree, they do not listen and dishonor...; They are the ones who run the churches, every year they negotiate with the priests for a cheap price, whoever will take the least amount of money, although the priests are drunkards and unruly priests, they accept them, but they refuse good priests and they themselves take advantage of their excess income; and the church elders do not take care of this, and because of this it is a great insult and dishonor to the bishop,” that the bishop does not own the churches, but the peasants own them... and the poor priests and the clerks of their church elders are instead slaves and do not dare say anything against them. 65 Such was the position of the clergy. Joachim took the place of the Russian chief shepherd. It has obviously lost its authority, which belonged to it in ancient times and which should have always constituted its inalienable property. Of course, the following remark may be made to us here: not all clergy suffered a bitter lot at that time, not all Russian people were ready to oppress the clergy. We cannot deny the truth of such a remark. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, as is known, always respected the authority of the church authorities. In this regard, we can also point to the famous Strogonov, thanks to whom the famous compiler of the “Statire” 66 existed even in the remote Perm land. But, on the other hand, in this same respect by secular people for the clergy, one cannot help but see, so to speak, patronage on their part and patronage that stemmed, if one cannot say from egoism, then, at least, from a rather subjective feeling. The main character of that time was visible in the very respect of lay people for the church hierarchy. And for the clergy, thus, a new period of life began, just like for the entire Russian society. But who can determine how this new life of the clergy would have developed during that fermentation in Rus', which we have already briefly spoken about and which we will have to talk about later, and what form the life of the entire Russian society would take? In any case, she could hardly present a comforting picture. Fortunately, at that time the idea of ​​a more strict separation of his rights and interests from the rights and interests of other classes came to the defense of the clergy. P. Nikon also had this idea 67; but it was not Nikon who was destined to implement it, not Nikon, who was involved in important matters and who gave the lower clergy as a sacrifice to his insatiable clerk - Kokoshilov 68. It was implemented by P. Joachim. We already know that, even when he was Metropolitan of Novgorod, he abolished in his diocese the custom that burdened the clergy - collecting church tribute through secular officials. He made the same order now in his patriarchal region in the first year of his patriarchate. Here, too, he ordered his clergy to choose from among themselves “priest elders,” whom he instructed to be in charge of spiritual affairs and collect church tribute, instead of secular officials who burdened the clergy with their exactions 69 , and to collect it, moreover, according to “scribal books,” in a certain quantity, without allowing arbitrariness 70 . Moreover, “having mercy on the priests and deacons who wanted to be appointed under him, so that they would not suffer the same red tape and deprivation of losses” 71 to which they were subjected under the previous patriarchs; At the beginning of 1675, Joachim accurately determined the amount of duties for his proteges and, at the same time, ordered that money from the proteges to be accepted by one clerk and distributed to others by decree, so that the proteges would have no red tape. At the same time, he determined the fees for capital letters of archimandrites, archpriests and others 72. It is obvious that with such orders St. Joachim limited the arbitrariness of his secular officials in relation to the clergy and freed the sacred rank from desecration. But these were private orders that concerned only his patriarchal region and they could not become strictly binding for the officials, on the one hand, because they did not see such curbing of their arbitrariness in other dioceses, and on the other, because Joachim could not suddenly gain great respect in their eyes, so that one order would be a law for them. To curb their tyranny, a stronger means was required. And Joachim did not hesitate to resort to this means. In October 1675, he “convened those who were then in Moscow; saints to the council and conferring with them in large numbers about the correction of the most necessary things according to the order of the sacred rules, with many reinforcements, confirmed, and that both he himself in his government order, and likewise all the diocesan bishops in their orders, should have judges from among the clergy, so that, thus, the secular judges of the spiritual order would not judge anything and would not rule in anything. The same decree was made mandatory for district spiritual courts, according to the cathedral’s definition, and in cities and in bridles, spiritual affairs should be subject to the jurisdiction of archimandrites, archpriests and priestly elders. The cathedral destroyed the travel of nobles and children of boyars around the dioceses for the sake of the church. At the same time, it was forbidden to collect church money: these tributes were ordered to be “collected by the archimandrite, or archpriest, or priestly elders - whoever is ordered or the priests will choose among themselves.” It was allowed to send secular officials only “to disobedient and disobedient people, where such spiritual rank would appear to be opponents and disobedient to the bishop’s command” 73 . But while destroying, in this way, the influence of the secular element in the spiritual field itself, putting a limit to sub-secretism in the diocesan administration, St. Joachim at the same time took care of protecting the rights and interests of the clergy and from encroachment on them by civil authorities. His goal in this regard was to give persons of clergy as much independent position in society as possible. And therefore he firmly adhered to the application of that rule of the council of 1667, which forbade the dragging of priests and monks into secular courts. This rule was confirmed by the council of 1675 74 and since it was not enforced everywhere, in 1686 St. Joachim again sent letters everywhere about the non-jurisdiction of persons of clergy to civil authorities and at the same time requested the same for the royal letter 75. P. Joachim’s concerns regarding this subject were so great that even special cases did not escape his attention. In 1688, when Lieutenant Colonel Iv was sent to the north to search for robbers. Nechaev, he wrote to the Novgorod Metropolitan Korniliy: “if, in Tatin’s and robbery cases, according to the slander of the robbers, people become consecrated and monastic, and he did not order them to be sent to the city court, to the worldly judges for questioning and confrontations and with language; and he ordered those yavyks, for confrontations, to send orders to their metropolises with the ordering officer, and if, at confrontations and for the search, people of the sacred and monastic ranks will become involved in Tatin and robbery cases, and they will not speak their tongues from torture, and such, with your knowledge, (and that only); exposing the priesthood or monasticism, refer to the city court 76 ". And in 1689, to the petition of the Novgorod guest Semyon Gavrilov, who asked that “the consecrated rank be judged in Veliky Novgorod in the official hut,” P. Joachim replied that “he is not doing much and is prejudicing the holy church, since the servants of the church in all matters are subject to the bishop’s court, and the secular judges are to judge them according to the holy rules are not commanded.” And further, he added that in case of persistence on his part, he “is subject to an eternal oath and will be from St. churches in excommunication and all church shrines until death is disgraced 77 ". Thus protecting the clergy from the encroachments of civil officials on the legal side, P. Joachim did not ignore the other side - the economic one, which is closely related to the first - he took care of the material provision of the clergy through a sufficient land allotment for all churches. The need for this allotment was recognized even under Mikhail Fedorovich, and then, by decree of the tsar, the allocation of land to churches began; but it was carried out slowly, and in 1676 it was completely stopped by the verdict of the boyars. The following year, this decision was canceled and patrimonial owners were allowed to assign land to churches from their own dachas at their discretion. This merciful permission, of course, brought the poor clergy out of the extremely unfavorable position into which they were placed by the boyar verdict of 1876, but for all that, it was not freed from the arbitrariness of the landowners 78 . P. Joachim, taking the opportunity of the general survey undertaken in 1681, petitioned the government for the clergy and at his request, at the same time all churches that had not yet received land were ordered to measure out land from landowners and patrimonial lands - from 600 chety 20 chety, from 500 - 100 15 chety, and from 100 and below 10 chety per field, with the addition of arable land to this amount, also hay cuttings - a haystack per 10 chety. At the same time, all the lands recorded in the scribe books behind the churches, but for some reason passed into the possession of private individuals, were ordered to be returned to the churches again 79. P. Joachim paid no less attention to the needs of the clergy in 1685, when the government undertook a new census and land surveying by gross scribes. Desiring that the priests and church clerks, - it is said in one of the letters sent out on this occasion, - from the patrimonial owners and landowners of the church land were not deprived and abused, Joachim ordered, “the priest and the church clerks should watch and closely guard, so that the scribes from residential churches and empty church lands, which are written in the scribe books, to the local and patrimonial they were not assigned to the lands and were not adjoined, and instead of the old church lands that were good and close to the churches, out of friendship, the svotchins and landowners, in bad and distant places, other bad lands and hay fields were not noted and they would not write less than before,” and without keeping silent about a conscientious act, they report to the ten-year-old yards.” Joachim ordered the priests of new churches that were not recorded in the scribe books to contact those scribes with petitions, so that they (by decree of the great sovereigns, as indicated in the data from the local order to punish these scribes) were taken to those churches... and hay cuttings. But since many clergy did not even have extracts from the scribe books about the lands of their churches, St. Joachim gave the strictest orders that these extracts from the decimal courts should be issued “without any delay or delay,” since otherwise those scribes could allow themselves arbitrariness in delimiting the lands. For non-compliance with these instructions, it is said in the patriarchal order, if the elders of the priests and priests and clerks, forgetting the fear of God and despising our decree, not caring about their own and each other’s food about surveying and writing, they will beat the scribes with their foreheads about ownership, who now owns the landowners or patrimonial landowners, or, having plowed up the boundaries and surveyed the boundaries; if someone has taken possession of their land, they will hide it and will not protect their lands, otherwise someone will find out or notify about it,” for this the patriarch threatened to remove them from the parishes and “from now on, for such their guilt, they will wander without places.” In conclusion, Joachim ordered the priests to submit to his government order formalities regarding land surveying and additions to the churches of the lands. Along with this letter, he also sent out to the clergy an extract from the order that those scribes were supposed to follow in the performance of their duties - he sent it “for information” 80, and with this, of course, he dealt a sensitive blow to the land surveyors, giving the clergy the opportunity to see their rights and obligations. However, while protecting the interests of the clergy in this way, St. Joachim did not mean to completely ... destroy his obligatory relationship with the state. The clergy, in his opinion, could not be a privileged caste. He only did not want secular authorities to interfere in diocesan administration, but at the same time recognized the legal obligations of persons of clergy in relation to society, not only from the side of religious and moral duty, but also from the material side. In 1684, for example, when the great sovereigns ordered that Polonian money be collected from the priests, deacons and clerks’ courts in the Yamskaya order and that obedient letters be sent from the patriarchal ranks to the governors and clerks about the collection of that money,” then Joachim did not see any sacrilegious encroachment in this and only, as stated in the modern extract on church duties, “being merciful about the priests and church clerks, he did not indicate to send the money to the governors and clerks in the cities to the governors and clerks from his holy patriarch, the category of obedient letters, in order to pay that money in the cities to the governors and clerks, but indicated to his region from the priests and deacons and clerks’ yards to collect and continue to collect the Polonianic money in cities and districts to the priest’s elders and bring them to Moscow to their government department,” and from there send them to Yamskaya. In his own order, he ordered the delivery of Polonian money from other dioceses. And “from the Yamsk order on the collection of that money to the cities, he did not order letters and messengers to be sent to the governors and clerks, so that the sacred rank would not be subject to unnecessary delays and losses from laymen and clergymen” 81. But not only did the clergy of that time demand protection of their interests from the encroachment of worldly people, they also needed, on the one hand, a radical reform of their internal administration, on the other hand, improvement, correction of their lives in general; he needed this all the more since his own troubles further increased his already difficult position. The lower white clergy were then extremely meager in the means of providing for themselves 82 . Moreover, from time to time it had to pay state taxes. In addition, it paid duties to the treasury order of its bishop from its own and parish courtyards, church lands, and from all its income items, paid crown and funeral money and others, paid hryvnia for Moscow almshouses, “ten-year income” and all “recorded” 83. And all this fell on the clergy not in certain amounts, but depending on how much the diocesan authorities considered necessary to collect. This power was not always merciful to the clergy and often “imposed tribute on priests and church clerks and collected coronal duties and collected all kinds of salary and non-salary income with an increase and caused losses to the church ranks, despite the fact that such “inequality of payments caused confusion among the people” and was the cause of reproaches to the bishop's houses 84. Being poor in material resources, the lower clergy did not, and could not, of course, possess moral qualities; one can say positively that his poverty of this second kind went hand in hand with his poverty of the first kind. Forced to inevitably drag out its miserable existence, often in slavish dependence on the patrimonial owners who owned churches, oppressed by officials, it sometimes almost completely forgot about the height of its duty, in the performance of its sacred duties it saw almost nothing more than a simple means of obtaining its daily piece of bread and allowed itself to treat them with extreme negligence; Church lawlessness, therefore, was found everywhere at that time 85. But the most important, and, moreover, the most widespread evil among the clergy was drunkenness. Priests, deacons and church clerks indulged in this vice - so to speak, with all their remaining free strength - to it they sacrificed all their economic and moral property, which they could dispose of independently. And in this case they went to almost incredible extremes. They not only walked around the circle courtyards and drank to the point of insensibility, and lay drunk in the streets, but also dared, as it is said in the cathedral act of 1681, “with fearlessness, without becoming sober, to serve the Divine Liturgy and other services, and from such disorderly drunkenness they did not come to repentance, and did not stop, and did not listen to the Divine Scriptures and the bishop's prohibition was despised" 86 . After this, the complaint of the above-mentioned Novgorod guest Gavrilov, filed in Moscow, seems not entirely strange, that since “by decree of Metropolitan Cornelius of the consecrated rank, people were not ordered to go to the drinking circle courtyards for drinking,” then “the drinking (in Novgorod) treasury in the drinking circle courtyard is being repaired” 87 . Stopping the drunkenness of clergy caused such damage to state revenues that they considered it necessary to inform the order. Monasticism of that time was no better. In addition to drunkenness, which was as widespread among him as among the white priests, 88 he also had other shortcomings that were unique to him. Unfamiliar with the rules of strict monastic community and following in their content the rules of desert living, 89 the monks of that time, for the most part, deviated far from their vows. They either wandered from one monastery to another, looking for a free life, or they directly left the monasteries for the cities and here, finding shelter in the houses of worldly people, they spent their entire lives and sometimes tonsured their patrons into the monastic rank 90. There were also such examples: monks-swindlers founded new deserts and in the event of an economic blunder, when, for example, they were mistaken in the calculation of acquiring at least one peasant household or the patronage of some patrimonial landowner, they left for new places. In Rus', especially in the north, there were then many such monasteries, at which at other times there would be one black priest, and brethren one or two at a time, but at other times there would be no brethren with everything, and churches stood without singing, at which there was not a single courtyard, only a small number of lands 91. Even the monks of famous monasteries, who always had large material resources and were under the close supervision of bishops, did not imagine the happy fulfillment of monastic vows among their masses. Not to mention the drunkenness, which was facilitated here by the duty-free preparation of wine and all kinds of intoxicating drinks in their beer yards, not to mention the fact that admission to these monasteries was conditioned not only by the desire to be saved, but also by contributions; in these monasteries fugitive slaves sometimes found safe refuge; the monks accepted them “with all theft from their masters.” Their greed extended to the point that they inspired worldly people to prefer donating estates to their monasteries - to prefer giving to relatives, “even if they were poor” 92 . And all these monastic riches were then plundered mercilessly. The abbots took as much money as they wanted from the monastery treasury; The other brethren also took it, if possible, and they all used it at their own discretion for the cell meal and overseas wines, for clothing, etc. 93 . But the arbitrariness of the rich abbots was not limited to this. They extended it to the church-liturgical area, and appropriated to themselves during worship certain actions permitted only to bishops, for example, ascending to a high place during the reading of the Apostle, receiving gifts from priests at the great entrance, illumination, communion of priests, etc. They wanted to represent in themselves something higher in comparison with ordinary hieromonks and showed their primacy even in the presence of bishops 94. Economic complacency aroused in them dissatisfaction with their position! Their worthy competitors in this regard were the “archpriests” at that time. These abbots were among the white clergy, who, just like the abbots of rich monasteries, were not content with ordinary priestly actions during divine services and appropriated the actions of the saints, and allowed “certain different-colored decorations” in their clothes. They did not want to humiliate their “proto” and “protodeacons” by humiliating the simple priests who preceded them” 95. And with all this licentiousness of spiritual people - despite the fact that this licentiousness was the cause of reproaches against the church and greatly undermined the moral significance of the clergy among the people - it almost did not provoke decisive measures against itself from the highest spiritual authorities. True, diocesan bishops often wrote letters about the deanery of the white clergy and monks, but they remained almost without any influence on life. It could not have been otherwise. Without repeating the decline at that time in the importance of church authority in general, these letters of spiritual authorities could not have sufficient power to be necessary and binding for the clergy and simply because the highest diocesan authorities themselves were not alien to some arbitrariness - arbitrary actions, moreover, often very important ones. The hierarchical authorities, taking advantage of their independent position on the one hand, were not only, for example, guided by their own arbitrariness in collecting church taxes from their clergy, causing them many losses, often driving them out of patience, so that very serious clashes occurred between the clergy and tax collectors 96, but also sometimes allowed the purchase and sale of priestly places 97, taking advantage, on the other hand, of their presence within their dioceses estates that belonged to other bishops (and this happened very often at that time: the patriarchal regions, for example, were scattered throughout almost all Russian dioceses), exploited them for their own benefit, which is why there was unprecedented “strife between the saints and confusion among the people” 98 . But this is not enough: some of the bishops, in the absence of control over them from the patriarchs, made various excuses and tricks on their clothes, 99 some even dared to cook the Holy Spirit themselves. miro 100. There were also archpastors in Rus' at that time who looked upon the priests and their other subordinates as their slaves, over whom they were free to do whatever they wanted. Joseph, Archbishop of Kolomna, for example, punished guilty priests with naked whips and said: “Beat much, our dead” 101. As for the common vice of that time that dominated among the clergy - drunkenness, then some saints were not alien to it. It is known, for example, about the same Joseph that he was often “cool” 102. Obviously, the clergy in all their spheres demanded radical reform, decisive measures to correct their lives, and especially since drunkenness, man-pleasing and the desire for power, which then dominated among people of the ecclesiastical rank, reduced, according to the remark of the unknown compiler of the Statir, high honor and dignity into dishonor, reproach and ridicule 103. And P. Joachim, who set himself the idea of ​​protecting the interests of the clergy in view of the turning point that had taken place in Rus' at that time, could not ignore the life of the clergy. At the same council of 1675, at which, as we have already seen above, the cathedral decision of 1667 on the disobedience of clergymen to the secular court and on the collection of church tribute to priestly elders was, among other things, confirmed, the decision of the same council of 1667, which remained without application to life, was confirmed that bishops should govern dioceses, strictly adhering to the scribe books, so that they do not prostrate their power over other dioceses. At the same time, the source of unrest and self-will was destroyed, which consisted in the fact that some fiefs, as we have already mentioned, were subject not to those bishops in whose dioceses they were located, but to others. But according to the conciliar definition, all such estates were subordinate to the local bishop, who was supposed to “be in charge of them, on an equal basis with his diocese, in court and administer spirituality, supply priests, collect church tributes and all bishop’s incomes.” - in the word “own therefore, according to scribe books.” An exception to this rule was made regarding only “house and assigned patriarchal monasteries” and jurisdiction according to spiritual affairs to the regional bishops of the Moscow people who had estates and estates in the provinces. Regarding the patriarchal monasteries, it was decreed: “metropolitans, archbishops and bishops... in the patriarchal debt and assigned monasteries, which in the dioceses will be converted, without the patriarch's blessing and command, they will not send or consecrate archimandrites and abbots and the sacred and monastic order, so that in those monasteries there will be peace in the future, and the bishops will not be saddened by slander and unheard-of words His Holiness Patriarch." However, in order to destroy and prevent excesses in these monasteries, the patriarch could entrust supervision to the diocesan bishops, so that they would report to him “in writing about abuses worthy of humility and punishment and would instruct them in spirituality according to the patriarchal grenades.” The following definition was made about the named Moscow people: “bishops... do not judge them, but judge and deal with all sorts of (spiritual) affairs (only) their people and peasants, so that people of the Moscow rank have estates and estates in different dioceses, and therefore one person among many bishops will be on trial.” Diocesan bishops were obliged only to write to the patriarch when any spiritual matter came to the attention of a Moscow person. Only in one case was the jurisdiction of Moscow people allowed by diocesan bishops, this is when Muscovites submitted petitions to those bishops against the people of their dioceses, and the latter, “without leaving the court,” began to “look for windily.” In addition, at this council, that difficult custom for the clergy was destroyed that the boyars, duma and people of every rank of Moscow, submitting petitions to the patriarch against archimandrites, builders and people of the sacred rank - and non-patriarchal region, received so-called letters of invitation, according to which the latter, i.e. people of the clergy rank, were sent to Moscow for trial and here “for a long time they ate themselves out and incurred great losses, and the petitioners obtained letters in large suits and, after dragging their feet for a long time, made transactions in small matters, not against the suit; and from this all people of spiritual rank experienced great oppression.” The Council, contrary to this custom, decided not to summon to Moscow people of ecclesiastical rank who do not belong to the patriarchal region, based on petitions from Moscow nobles, Duma members, etc., and that the latter, in case of need, deal with their petitions and seek justice from local bishops. Deviations from this rule were allowed only when the local diocesan court turned out to be wrong, or when the petitioner, for some reason, could not go to the metropolitan or bishop” and did not have anyone to send for himself. But in the latter case - according to the conciliar definition - his need was first sought, “why is it not possible for him to go himself, or there is no one to send” and then a letter of invitation was issued and, moreover, for a certain period only, namely for one year; if he did not search at this appointed time, then he not only lost the right to his claim, but also had to compensate, “to eat up the red tape” 104. But such granting of the right to bishops to administer justice and execution in their dioceses did not free their activities from control by the patriarch. Joachim supervised their management and if it turned out that their actions were dishonoring their dignity, he carried out reprisals against them. Joseph, for example, Archbishop Kolomna, who, among other things, subjected, as we have already mentioned, to cruel punishments to his subordinates, he summoned him to the council court. And since Joseph “in a very brutal manner and desire captured the sheep into the food of his bestial devouring, that is, immeasurable bribery and untruth” and could not “provide any justification for his guilt to the fathers of the council and remained dumb before his accusers,” then he was overthrown, and he was exiled to one of the Novgorod monasteries 105 . And in 1687, Joachim established the amount of church duties as a general norm for diocesan authorities. “He knew that in some dioceses of parish old and newly built churches, tribute is imposed on priests and church clerks and coronal duties are imposed and all salary and non-salary monetary incomes are collected with an increase, not against the fact that tribute is imposed and all unsalary monetary incomes are collected in the state patriarchal order, and because of that inequality between the church rank and all ranks unnecessary losses are being caused to people, and there is confusion and murmuring among the people, and petitions to him, the most holy patriarch.” P. Joachim therefore “instructed the metropolitans, archbishops and bishops in their dioceses to impose tribute on priests and clerics, and to collect quitrents and all salary and non-salary monetary income from empty church lands to their bishops’ houses in the same way as ... are collected in his patriarchal state order, so that from the inequality of payments henceforth to the bishops’ houses there was no reproach and petition to the most holy patriarch and there was no confusion or murmuring among the people.” Along with this decree of Joachim, “extracts in tetratech” were sent to the bishops, in which all church duties were calculated and it was indicated how they were spent 106. P. Joachim, restraining the arbitrariness of the bishops in relation to the lower clergy, protected the latter from great burdens, and it should be noted that with the last order on church duties he completed what the church government had been striving for for a long time and which could not be completed 107. While streamlining the administrative and economic life of the clergy, Patriarch Joachim was at the same time concerned about improving the life of the church itself. In 1675, at the council, presiding over His Holiness Patriarch Joachim and speaking to the members of the council about church affairs, he gave a word about the deanery of church splendor and the harmony of rank in priestly service. And already shaved among the Russian bishops, in the church rites there is a certain discord and disagreement and in the clothing worn there is a certain difference in color decoration, indecent to the spiritual rank, and even a new certain invention among some people began from conceit or self-indulgence, or even more from the decision of disorderly conduct..., especially in the divine liturgy itself. “many differences appeared,” then at this council the rite of the liturgy of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom was considered, “the incomprehensible one spoke more clearly” and the equalities included in it were destroyed. The same council, having adopted p. Joachim was given the title “Great Master, Most Holy Joachim, by the grace of God, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,” and having condemned the arbitrariness of the archimandrites and protodeacons, who took upon themselves during divine services certain actions that exceeded their rank, he determined the degrees and advantages in the priesthood and vestments of both the patriarch and the bishops and archimandrites and archpriests 108, just as he forbade those tricks and inventions of new thinking that clergy allowed themselves in ordinary clothes, forbade the monks to have silk clothes, and ordered the white clergy to wear clothes either black or crimson, and “hats of humble colors,” and also “to have a lot of hair cut on their heads called Guments and walk in skufiyas.” In addition, at the same time it was forbidden for bishops to print antimensions themselves and “compile St. myrrh" and distribute for money, and in no way allow "priests to sell church places, below to buy with any trick, below with evil actions and inventions, below to give for daughters in the vein, below to force as a pledge for the great execution of the bishop", and also "to turn into their own use the given St. church vessels or clothing and all utensils." - “To be a priest, according to the cathedral decree, to be chosen, and honestly called from the people, and blessed and commanded by the bishops.” - In general, the council decided “it is dangerous for any bishop in his diocese to watch over and supervise and test and exercise inappropriately under the eruption of the rank of bishop 109.” These council resolutions were sent to the bishops with a strict instruction - to accept them into leadership “without any contradiction.” Let no one dare, wrote P. Joachim in a letter sent on this occasion to one of the bishops, “let no one dare to surpass those who are now appointed here, or to deplete, or to leave, or to change, but to guard everything intact and immovable... If anyone appears to be an acolyte of this level... or the overseer is not dangerous, if the bishop, or an archimandrite, or an abbot, or an archpriest, or a simple person of the sacred rank, even if someone changes little, or begins to slander something, or reproach... let him be under church execution and under the ejection of both his power and honor, deprived of him without any word or knowledge; If anyone, a worldly ruler or a commoner, begins to invent something contrary to this limit, or an obstacle, or what kind of cunning or malice he begins to invent, then excommunication from communion and entry into the church will be prohibited 110. Such strictness of the regulations. Joachim could not, of course, fail to produce the appropriate consequences, but on the other hand, the application of the conciliar definitions that had taken place could not suddenly occur, since they had to meet established habits and destroy these habits. P. Joachim therefore could not consider the matter over even after extracts from the cathedral decrees were sent to the bishops for guidance. And he really did not stop halfway - he strenuously strived for the supposed goal of correcting the life of the clergy and at the same time sometimes resorted to drastic measures 111. And in 1681, he convened a new council, at which all those subjects that were not touched upon at the council of 1675 were discussed 112. This council, as the official document says, was caused by “sincere joy for the welfare of St. the church and about God’s people” of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, who sent the patriarch “a written scroll, in which there are various forgeries of things that require a conciliar judgment. We cannot completely deny the evidence of this; State power this year could and should have taken an active part in church affairs, since the schism, as we will see later, at that time was already ready to carry out almost a coup d'etat because of its cause. But, on the other hand, we do not think that we will distort historical circumstances if we attribute the initiative in convening the said council to St. Joachim, especially since Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, as is known, easily submitted to the influence of St. Joachim even in those cases when he apparently wanted to avoid this 113. In addition, in the conciliar act itself, there is an indication that the tsar had preliminary conferences with the patriarch and the latter, in addition, even earlier called on the state authorities to take part in certain affairs (in the matter of schism) of the church, or more precisely, the assistance of spiritual authorities 114. It is possible, therefore, and even, it seems, necessary to think that this council of 1681 was convened according to the thoughts of Joachim. The Patriarch only wanted “for His Royal Majesty, as the true guardian of the Orthodox faith,” to support his thought with his authority, giving it great force of obligation. At the council, those “providential forgeries” that were sent to the patriarch from the tsar were read and considered “in front of all the Russian bishops.” There were sixteen “forgeries” or royal proposals, and the same number of conciliar responses followed. Let us briefly outline the contents of these proposals from the royal and conciliar responses to them. Prev. 1st. “On the addition of bishops again.” The Tsar proposed that the metropolitans should have subordinate bishops in their dioceses, and the patriarch should have many, as “the head, the father of fathers,” and also that some episcopal sees should be elevated to archbishopric ones; At the same time, a detailed “list of the cities in which to be a bishop and by which he should be called and from which he would have contentment” was presented. The conciliar answer to this was given as follows: “There should be no bishops subordinate to the metropolitans so that in the hierarchical rank there would be no ecclesiastical discord and discord among themselves, and superiority, and in that disagreement and disorganization of St. the church of great harm, and from the people rumors and reproaches.” As for the multiplication of the cathedral departments, the council sentenced “to be eleven bishops again” 115, guided in this case, on the one hand, by the previously too large vastness of some dioceses 116; on the other hand, the strengthening in some places of the schism 117; He also approved that “for the proper episcopal honor, those cities that are eminent in the tsarist state should be called bishops 118.” The second sentence and the answer to it concern schismatics. We will talk more about this. The third proposal is about the improvement of the monastery. The council, approving the dormitory, determined: “drunken drinking should not be allowed in monasteries; abbots to enjoy a common meal; do not keep special drinks and “for guests”; to admit into monasteries those wishing to be saved without contribution; everyone should have the same clothes; neither the abbots nor the brethren “have money” from the monastery treasury; have hospitals for the elderly and infirm among the brethren; Monks should not be released from monasteries without the permission of the diocesan bishop, nor should they be accepted; and to humble the disobedient according to the monastic rite; be careful that monks do not tonsure lay people - for those monks who do not live in monasteries, but go to taverns and secular houses in Moscow and other cities of the patriarchal region, “fence off the former Pyatnitsky Monastery with a standing, high fence” 119 near Sergievsky and exile such lawless people to that monastery; bishops in their dioceses to deal with the wandering monks according to their consideration.” Regarding the monasteries, the council decided: “for those of them who were tonsured outside the monasteries, in private houses and walked from house to house, or, sitting in the streets and alleys, got food for themselves (begged for alms), the bishops should find men’s monasteries with votchinas (since women’s monasteries for the most part without votchinas and monks had nothing to feed on), and install eldresses in them under their direct supervision; to manage the estates of these monasteries - send good old nobles: but so that they are obedient to the bishops and do not interfere in the spiritual management of the monastery. At the same time, the cathedral strictly forbade widowed priests and hieromonks to live in the houses of the laity - at house churches - for church services because they allowed themselves many outrages; The council decided: “to give a blessing for performing services in houses to priests who are not widows and to those widowed priests who learn to serve in houses without the bishop’s blessing, they will be given and exiled to monasteries under a strong authority, while secular people who call such priests to join them will be subjected to penance. Sentence 4th. About the decree of priests in foreign cities - within Polish and Swedish, where there were Orthodox Christians, but where the bishops did not supply priests. The council decided to ordain priests if only “the Orthodox of those places learn to desire this.” Sentence 5th. “Bring all ranks of people in all fidelity, also in all matters of justice, to the assurance of the true promise, before St. The Gospel, according to the official printed book, and in that book many terrible and unforgivable oaths were laid down, which are not appropriate for those deeds. The council answered: “so that the great sovereign may direct that church executions should be abandoned, that people should not be punished, and that they should not be killed with eternal death” - on sovereign affairs, and that he would deign,” instead, “to impose on those people his sovereign’s decree, baptism and fear according to the city laws, who is worthy of what, for what guilt.” Sentence 6th. About keeping a part of the Life-Giving Cross of the Lord and a tunic. The council approved “to be as written in the king’s proposal,” that is, to keep separate parts of that rich treasure, not washed in one place, together in the cathedral church with all the dangers in the prepared ark.” Sentence 7th. About the relics of St. John the Baptist and other saints, who, being gathered in large numbers in the Church of the Annunciation (the palace - in the vestibule), due to the cramped space, lay carelessly and beat without any charity; for a better arrangement and honor,” the king proposed to give them to monasteries, cathedrals and parish churches - to noble places, so that only on Great Friday they would be brought to the great cathedral church for washing. The Council approved this proposal. VIadposition 8th. Since in Moscow some monasteries and monasteries were located between private houses and from these houses “entrances to those monasteries were built and those entrances entered into day and night,” which is why many atrocities occurred, the tsar proposed that “all those entrances to the monasteries should be solidified,” and if, where it is impossible, those monasteries, for the sake of the deanery, should be transferred to other places. The Council approved this too. Sentence 9th. About the beggars. The Tsar, having conducted an examination and ordered the support of the strange and sick in Moscow at the expense of his treasury, suggested to the cathedral that it should be ordered to establish shelters for the poor in the cities, so that the poor would not wander without care and the lazy, who had bodily health, would get to work. The Council answered: “let it be so” 120. Sentence 10th. So that the beggars in the churches do not ask for alms during church singing and that the Christians standing in the church do not cause rebellion. The Council answered in the affirmative. VIadposition 11th. “So that the archpriests, priests and church clerks do not build huts, shops and barns in cemeteries, and block them off into hollows.” The Council responded that the Emperor should order that someone suitable be sent to measure the cemeteries according to the scribe books, clean them and fence them off; The cathedral promised at the same time that “from the patriarch’s order, those spiritual ones will be firmly ordered” regarding the destruction of that nasty “dirty” that they caused with their buildings in the cemeteries. But since the patriarchal order did not then record the cemeteries in the scribe books, as well as the additions to them given during the pestilence of 1654, the cathedral asked “that V. Sovereign indicate that books should be sent, for information, from the zemstvo order to the patriarchal order.” Sentence 12th. So that in monasteries and parish churches during church holidays, no one should be allowed into the churches with all kinds of poisonous grub and kvass and with any drink, so that this does not cause outrage. The Council approved this proposal as “pleasing to God, most of all” because “from this will be the decoration of the church and splendor.” Propositions 13, 14 and 15 and the conciliar responses to them relate to the schism: - we will meet with them in another place. VIrsdlozh. 16th. “In Moscow, in many places, tents and wooden barns have been erected, and in them are placed from the monasteries of St. icons, and are called chapels and keep priests in those chapels and serve prayer services,” the tsar suggested that “there should not be priests at those chapels, unless in many certain decent special places,” and then with his command and with the blessing of the patriarch. The cathedral gave the following answer to this: “so that in the chapels of St. There will be icons that are close to the guards, and the elders will not live at those chapels, and will not have any settlements 121. The Council of 1681 thus filled in the gaps left by previous council definitions. Leaving aside the ecclesiastical-administrative side, he focused his attention primarily on the moral life of the clergy, on due respect for sacred things, on correcting the behavior of monastics; - he discussed precisely those subjects that had not been touched upon before. And this circumstance serves as new evidence that this council took place on the initiative of St. Joachim. P. Joachim achieved through this council a broader development of his thought. The goal that he pursued, as we saw in previous years, was now close to being realized. The council's decrees destroyed what had until that time hampered the restoration of the clergy's fallen importance in society; the church sphere was freed from those elements that cast a dark color on it. It was only necessary to give application to these decisions. And p. Joachim, despite the confluence of many other important circumstances at this time, as we will later see, firmly pursued their implementation. In the same year, 1681, he reported to the Tsar that he should not lead the princes to the faith, but should be under the threat of the state's decrees and under the great reinforcement of the city's execution 122; At the same time he issued his decree on changes in the episcopal departments 123; that is, about their degrees, and at the beginning (February) of the next year, an order was issued regarding the naming of bishops as eminent cities of the royal power and on the establishment of a new episcopal see in Siberia 124. He did not ignore other definitions of this council. Sending out excerpts from these definitions everywhere for information, he explained them, depending on the requirements of local circumstances, or confirmed them, demanded indispensable execution, and at the same time, if it turned out to be necessary, even asked for the assistance of civil authorities 125. Now the monks have not avoided changes in their lives. And they had to abandon their former riotous life and obey the rules of the 126 monastic community. Supervision was also established over them, and it could not be avoided even in small monasteries, since St. Joachim, for greater accuracy, introduced the practice of adding small monasteries to more or less famous monasteries 127. Moreover, P. Joachim from time to time sent special trustworthy persons to different places for observation 128 . This is how St. Joachim acted in view of the terrible revolution that was taking place, as we said above, in Russian society, in view of the decline in the importance of the clergy in which it was then. He protected him from the encroachments of worldly people, but at the same time gathered moral strength and the clergy themselves in order to give him inner strength - to make him capable of taking his proper place in the social organism. If he did not understand clearly, he at least guessed what society demanded and what the clergy needed, and without denying the movement that had taken place in the former, he undertook a transformation in the life of the latter - a transformation that was not limited only to the demands of a greater order in external worship. No, Joachim understood the need for reform in a broader sense, reform directly corresponding to the needs of the time; as we have seen, he cared about improving the internal life of the clergy and their administrative and economic life; in this he saw the best means for restoring and retaining the clergy of his high appointment. At the same time, he also destroyed those customs that, one way or another, degrading the shrine, at the same time undermined the importance of the representatives of the church. And what is especially remarkable is that, striving tirelessly to realize his thought, constantly pursuing the intended goal, he used conciliar authority for this. He seemed to see that it was impossible to conduct business with his personal authority alone, that this required amicable relations alien to the voivode-priestly spirit, both between the most spiritual persons, and between these latter and worldly people. Thus, p. Joachim, without contradicting the spirit of the times, adapted the position of the clergy to the new order, in the newly formed social organism, he assigned a different place for it, somewhat different from the one that belonged to him in the old days, for which it corresponded to the requirements of the time. The constancy with which St. Joachim pursued the assumed goal of protecting the clergy in general from desecration, he manifested himself with no less force in protecting his own dignity. True, P. Joachim did not have to endure a struggle similar to Nikon’s struggle with the boyars: such a struggle was no longer historically possible. For this, the need for a different kind of struggle seemed necessary. There were people among the high-ranking clergy who found the current state of affairs strange to them. They, imagining the greatness of St. Nikon and the loss of their free life, did not want to recognize this as a matter of inevitable necessity and blamed it on the head of the church hierarchy, St. Joachim. In him they saw inappropriate compliance in relation to secular authorities and excessive severity in relation to persons of clergy. Archbishop Joseph of Kolomna, already mentioned above, reviled, for example, the Patriarch and the Tsar for collecting tribute from church property and priestly courts 129. And the royal confessor Andrei Savinov was offended by the patriarch because the latter, having learned about his fury, ignorance, much bribery and his keeping of his wife, put him in humility on a chain. This archpriest once even went so far as to ask “at the Top” to kill “his adversary either with weapons or poison,” threatening otherwise to curse the entire royal house 130 . Savinov, who in former times enjoyed the leniency of the Tsar, etc. Nikon 131, apparently, did not want to submit to the influence of the strict P. Joachim. But there was nothing to be done: neither Savinov nor Joseph, nor anyone like that, was able to throw off the difficult times of that time. P. Joachim boldly followed his own path, relying on the authority of the conciliar. He was not stopped, and individuals could not stop him, both Savinov and the archbishop. Joseph experienced all the disadvantages of his position. They were subjected to conciliar condemnation and were deprived of their holy orders 132. A dark stain, apparently, falls on the personality of P. Joachim regarding his relationship with the former P. Nikon, who was then in captivity. The clever archpastor, according to some, darkened his glory with immoderate and inappropriate severity towards the innocent prisoner. The latter, they say, after his deposition was so weak that he deserved leniency; meanwhile, P. Joachim saw in him as if his rival and enemy and allowed himself to humiliate him more and more. This is how this matter was presented, first of all, to the compiler of the “Life of His Holiness St. Nikon”, his sincere friend Shusherin; This is how it appears to some admirers of Nikon in our time 133. But is such a view fair in relation to St. Joachim towards Nikon? It seems to us that he is not free from addiction. P. Nikon fell; he was deposed by the Council, which, as is known, was attended by the Eastern Patriarchs, and by the Council, as a simple monk, he was condemned to exile in the Ferapontov Monastery (in the Novgorod province). But this conciliar condemnation of Nikon (later withdrawn) in the opinion of many contemporaries was injustice. This is how Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself looked at it. Therefore, he tried to alleviate the situation of his friend in captivity - he arranged for him in the Ferapontov Monastery spacious cells with entrances and exits and large windows into the monastery and beyond the monastery. Moreover, Alexey Mikhailovich received letters and petitions from him through his confessor, Savinov, many times, and he himself repeatedly asked his deposed friend for forgiveness and blessings; he did not allow anyone to remember those actions of his for which he was subjected to conciliar condemnation 134, and in his will before his death he even directly called him the great Master, the most holy hierarch and blessed shepherd 135. As for Nikon himself, he resolutely looked at himself as being persecuted for the truth. Living in the Ferapontov monastery and taking advantage of the free exit from it, taking advantage of the location of the brethren, who saw him as the royal favorite, he built, with the help of monks, on a shallow lake located near the monastery, in the place where the high road passed in winter, a stone island and placed on it a large cross with the inscription “Nikon, by the grace of God, patriarch, erect this cross of the Lord, being in captivity for the word of God and for the Holy Church on Lake Bela in the Ferapontov Monastery in prison” 136. He ordered the same inscription to be carved on all his cell vessels. Moreover, he did not want to call Joachim patriarch; and in replies and petitions, he himself was signed by the patriarch. All this and the like could not, of course, remain a secret for P. Joachim, just as he was not unaware of how cruelly Nikon and the members “who reported against him” dealt with him. And at the same time, all this could not be ignored by him. And indeed, in the very first year of his patriarchate, in response to the Tsar’s proposal to confirm the previous conciliar statement with his sovereign decree, P. Joachim “advised to again give additional articles to the bailiffs in order to put an end to Nikon’s evil plans and nasty deeds. And although this matter did not take place then, nevertheless, it was obvious that a change was about to occur in Nikon’s fate. Soon he really had to test it: In 1675, P. Joachim sent a letter to Archimandrite Nikita of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, in which he ordered him to interrogate the abbot, the cellarer, the treasurer and the main hieromonks of the Ferapontov Monastery with what reason they call Nikon the most holy patriarch, and forbade them to do this in the future under pain of great church punishment 138. And the next year, after the death of the patron Nikon, c. Alexei Mikhailovich, a council was convened, at which it was decided to “correct” Nikon 139. The Duma nobleman Iv was sent to the Ferapontov Monastery by the Emperor. Zhelyabuzhsky and clerk Semyon Rumyantsev, and from the Patriarch Archimandrite Pavel of the Chudov Monastery with orders to investigate the denunciations that were made against Nikon and transfer him to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery 140. Investigators arrived there in June 1676 and in the church they read the decree and guilt to Nikon. Nikon “listened to them with humility and without any contradiction” and gave answers to the accusatory articles: he rejected some, and explained others, for example: “he did not beat the peasant de Fomka with a water tree and he did not die from his beating, but he died his own death... Ivashka Krivozub, who reported him for his theft, was beaten by Nikon with the abbot and the priests. together; Nikon didn’t order his hand to kiss his own will, for V. He constantly prays to God for the sovereign and for the ecumenical patriarchs, but does not pray for Joachim the patriarch because the Vologda Archbishop wrote to the Kirillov Monastery and ordered God to pray for himself, and not for the patriarch, and because from him all kinds of evil were done to Joachim and are now destroying him, in replies and in petitions and in other letters he was written by the patriarch to Nikon because he was not prohibited from doing so; He ordered the crosses to be placed in their places and signed... because he suffered great oppression from the bailiff from Stepan Naumov.” Zhelyabuzhsky and Archimandrite. Paul in the cathedral church told Nikon in every possible way so that he should pray to God for the patriarch and not utter obscene words.” But Nikon remained unshakable, and leaving the church he said: “I will pray for the Great Sovereign and for the ecumenical patriarchs, but for Moscow I will pray to God and will not call him a patriarch” 141. On the same day he was transported to the Kirillov Monastery 142; All his property, according to the inventory, was transported there and, folded in one room, was sealed. In the Kirillov Monastery, Nikon did not find the cordiality of the monks that he was used to seeing in the Ferapontov Monastery; He also did not find those comfortable cells in which he lived in his previous imprisonment; on the contrary, he was placed in the cells of “unpleasant nobles from unusual heat and fumes” and was constantly surrounded by cruel guards 143.” These inconveniences and even more news that the two most faithful people to him - priest Varlaam and deacon Mardari (compiler of his life) would be taken from him and sent to the Monastery of the Cross somewhat shook Nikon. Before his investigators left for Moscow, he asked them to come to him, and when they came to him and began to persuade him to pray for the patriarch, he replied: that “he would call Joachim patriarch and would pray to God for him, if only he would have mercy on him and would not order him to die in vain from overcrowding. With tears, he further asked Paul to beat the sovereign and patriarch with his forehead, so that Varlaam and Mardarius would not be recalled from him 144. Archim. Paul partially fulfilled Nikon’s request - he petitioned the patriarch to build a new cell for Nikon, but “the Holy Patriarch notes Shusherin - for the sake of many spiritual and worldly rights and everlasting annoyances, put these verbs into oblivion” 145. But Nikon's suffering was not limited to this. Those “cruel guards” who transported him from the Ferapont monastery to Kirillov did not notice how Nikon still had two patriarchal seals (one with the image of the resurrection of Christ, and the other that belonged to the Moscow Patriarch Joseph). So, since Nikon could not resist making any use out of these things 146, he had to experience a new trouble; - in July he was supposed to again receive Deacon Iakinen, sent from Joachim, and give him those seals and panagia; however, the same messenger brought a patriarchal letter to the archimandrite of the monastery about rebuilding the stove in Nikon’s cells and about arranging a special cookhouse for Nikon’s needs 147 . Soon after this, fate really wanted to calm down the ill-fated Nikon. Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich was coming of age. His aunt, Princess Tatyana Mikhailovna, with her stories about Nikon's past glory, about the close relationship in which he was with his father and the care with which Nikon preserved the royal family during the pestilence, about the great church that he began to build in the Resurrection Monastery, endeared the good-natured king in favor of the exile and convinced him to visit the Resurrection Monastery, despite the fact that “from many (of course Nikon’s enemies) he was rebuked by the greats” from that. Captivated by the beauty of the monastery, the king ordered the construction of the church, begun according to Nikon's plan, to continue; and soon after, when the Voskresevsky archimandrite died, he inspired the monks to submit a petition for the transfer of Nikon to the place of the deceased archimandrite 148. The delighted monks of the Resurrection Monastery did not hesitate to submit a petition for the return of “their mentor, His Holiness Nikon” 149. Having received the petition, the king immediately communicated the desire of the monks and his intention to transfer Nikon to the Resurrection Monastery to St. Joachim, asking for his consent to this. But Joachim answered: “This matter (the imprisonment of Nikon) was not done by us, but by the great council and the holiest ecumenical patriarchs, and it is not possible for us to do this without their knowledge, and let the king have his own will about it 150. The tsar turned to the means of a council: he convened a council in the patriarchal cross chamber, to which not only the clergy, but also the nobility were invited; at the council, “many people fought against the king, but the patriarch became strong” and - the matter ended in nothing. Fyodor Alekseevich finally wanted to win the patriarch over to his side with requests - he called him to his palace and, together with his aunt (Tatyana), begged him to release Nikon: but Joachim remained adamant: “we do not dare to free (Nikon) without the ecumenical patriarchs, as it was not we who did it,” he answered the tsar 151. Nothing, therefore, could soften the fate of the ill-fated Nikon, nothing except the dying illness that befell him. – Nikon fell dangerously ill, correspondence has already begun regarding the “rite of burial” for him 152. Meanwhile, he himself still did not lose hope of seeing his Resurrection Monastery; he wrote a letter to the brethren of the Resurrection Monastery, in which he informed them of his illness, asked them to intercede for him before the Tsar, and taught them his patriarchal blessing 153. This letter was presented to Fyodor Alekseevich and he assembled a new council, which already answered him: “Be it according to your will, the Tsar.” This was in 1681. Nikon was allowed to move to the Resurrection Monastery, and he was already returning from captivity, but he died on the way (in Yaroslavl) 154 and - only the dead one was brought to his beloved monastery. The tsar himself took part in the burial of Nikon with his entire court and even wanted the patriarch to honor the deceased as the high priest. He called the patron. Joachim to the Resurrection Monastery for burial, but the latter answered: “Be it according to his sovereign will, I am ready, I am going for burial, and at the burial, in any request, I will not call Nikon patriarch, but simply a monk, as the cathedral commanded, if the Tsar wants to call Nikon patriarch, then I will not go” 155. And the patriarch really was not at Nikon’s burial - he was not, despite the fact that the king repeatedly repeated his request and even naively offered to accept responsibility before the Eastern patriarchs if they decided to judge the patriarchs. Joakam for violating the conciliar decree by which Nikon was deposed. Patr. Joachim allowed only Cornelius, Metropolitan of Novgorod, to “perform Nikon’s funeral service as the sovereign commands,” who ordered that a patriarchal burial be performed over the deceased 156. But this order was obviously illegal, according to Patr. Joachim. Nikon for him was nothing more than a simple monk, and therefore he refused to accept Nikon’s precious miter, which the king wanted to give him in honor of the deceased’s soul 157. Moreover, Patr. Joachim even doubted that the tsar would succeed in the petition he had begun then before the Eastern patriarchs for Nikon’s permission from the conciliar condemnation. - When, however, after the death of Fyodor Alekseevich, letters about this were sent from the ecumenical patriarchs to the royal court 158 ​​and when they were then forwarded to him in translation, he did not trust the translation made by order of the kings and, demanding the originals, ordered them to be translated by his interpreter. Only now he said: “I judge this existence to be righteous” and ordered Nikon’s name to be entered in the synodik along with the names of the previous patriarchs, and the permitting letters to be kept in the patriarchal sacristy. “In the same way, the most holy Patriarch Joachim himself, notes the compiler of Nikon’s life - Shusherin - when he is in the Resurrection Monastery, singing requiem services, he remembers Nikon as the most holy patriarch” 159. We have outlined the so-called “unfavorable relations” of St. Joachim towards Nikon, which were accompanied, as they say, by bad consequences for the glory of the intelligent shepherd and the benefit of the Church 160. But is it really possible to look at these relationships this way? Hardly. Not to mention the fact that St. Joachim removes the “black spot” from himself by constantly referring, when refusing to release Nikon, to the resolution of the council of 1667; without raising the question of whether these instructions of his were sincere or insincere and what significance he attached to the orders of that council 161; We will ask ourselves only this question: what would have come of it if Joachim had allowed Nikon to be released? And above all, would this be of any “benefit to the church” in its relationship to the schism? It cannot be denied, of course, that the humiliation of P. Nikov was one of the main reasons for the strengthening of the split; With his deposition, the schismatics were not only freed from the prohibition to censure and condemn his work, 162 but also got the opportunity to offer the Orthodox this difficult dilemma at that time: “if Nikon, your mentor, has found the right path for you, then why will you drive him out? When do students fight against their teacher? If Nikon is an enemy of God and the Mother of God and His saints and you, then why do you keep his motley laws? 163. But the fact happened. Nikon was deposed, the patriarchal throne was occupied by one, another, and finally, a third person - Joachim, who was involved in the deposition of P. Nikon to the extent that he, while still an archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, was the executor of the orders of the highest authority; and it is absolutely incomprehensible to us - how “the relationship of St. Joachim to Nikon was accompanied by bad consequences for the benefit of the church”? On the contrary, it seems to us much clearer and more natural that if St. Joachim had freed Nikon and recognized him as patriarch without the consent of the eastern saints who presided over the council of 1667, then the interests of Orthodoxy would have suffered even more. – The schismatics probably would not have overlooked such an unauthorized deviation of the patriarch from the definitions of the council, which condemned them too, and they would have taken advantage of this, of course, with no less dexterity than they used Nikon’s permission even from the Eastern Patriarchs themselves or subsequently the synodal permission of the same faith 164. Let us not forget that the schism at that time was already so strong that the next year after Nikon’s death it shook the Kremlin walls with its frantic cries. “The unfavorability of the unfavorable relations between P. Joachim and Nikon” will be even more smoothed out if we pay attention to the state of Russian society at that time in general. - Nikon was deposed due to the machinations of the boyars - that’s a fact. There is no further doubt that a new life was dawning for Russian society at that time; as we have already noted above, it then sought to free itself from the guardianship in which it had been before; the awakening thought wanted to be independent in its activities, and in its aspirations it often crossed boundaries. Joachim, as we also saw, understood what had to be done to protect the interests of the clergy and the church; without denying the new direction in society - he wanted the clergy and the church to take their place in public life; wanted to reconcile, unite these two elements, which at that time apparently did not reconcile with each other, - of which one, the civil one, even wanted to absorb the other, the church one. What then? In this state of affairs, would there be much benefit for the church, for the clergy, if p. Joachim freed Nikon from captivity and recognized him as patriarch - Nikon, whom this very new Russian life deposed, using the great council of saints for this purpose? We don’t think that any good will come out of it. P. Joachim obviously had to act in defiance of “circumstances and the obstinacy of the times,” and, therefore, had to sacrifice the interests of the entire clergy for one sufferer Nikon. In addition, let us also remember that the release of Nikon and his recognition as patriarch could threaten St. Joachim with rivalry and church unrest. And fears about this could have arisen all the more easily for St. Joachim, since Nikon himself, as we know, never stopped thinking of himself as a patriarch - moreover, he looked at himself as a sufferer for the Church of God, and his admirers even directly compared him with St. John Chrysostom and Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople.... It could easily have happened under such circumstances that Nikon, having been recognized as patriarch from Joachim, would have encroached on his rights and would have taken the Moscow See. And this assumption, probable in itself, as consistent with the actions of Nikon and the spiritual mood of the kings, becomes almost historically necessary if we pay attention to the news conveyed by Tatishchev in his history - news of this kind - as if “Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, according to the idea of ​​his teacher Simeon of Polotsk, who from p. Joachim had great malice (we will have to talk about this malice later) and intended to perpetrate in Russia the pope and four patriarchs - in Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov and Krutitsy, including Nikon to be pope, and St. Joachim to be p. of Novgorod. And this plan of Polotsk, based on the same news, was almost even carried out,” for the monarch had already agreed to this, if P. Joachim had not averted this 165. He begged all the favorites of the court to stand together with him to reject this plan and, agreeing with them, ordered Andrei Lyzlov to compose a presentation with many circumstances showing considerable harm from this plan for the state..., through which it was eliminated" 166. The plan failed: but what would have happened if it had been carried out? What would have accompanied such an apparently brilliant, but in reality decidedly abnormal rise of church power? Not to mention the gloating with which it would have been greeted by schismatics, who would have seen in this a clear confirmation of their conviction that the Orthodox are papezhniks, not to mention further that the implementation of this plan of Polotsk could indeed be a step towards introducing the idea of papism in Rus', we are not talking about this here because all this will be revealed to us much more clearly only when we become familiar with the schism and the Westerners of that time, – let’s just ask how Russian society, perhaps those same boyars through whose intrigues Nikon was deposed, would look at such a transformation of the church hierarchy. We don’t think that they would leave him alone as a pope, especially since his tough disposition would then have acquired even greater elasticity... And if so, then what turmoil lay ahead for the Russian Church, what humiliation for the clergy! True, P. Joachim is reproached not so much for the fact that he did not want to recognize Nikon as patriarch, but for his severity towards him, for aggravating his already difficult position. But let us be allowed to say that this severity, this constraint of Nikon was necessary at that time, necessary precisely because Nikon, as stated in the order given to Chudovsky Archimandrite Paul, “instead of humility showed pride, and instead of subjugation, repulsiveness, and in that pride and repulsiveness he again taught to apply malice to malice and deceit to deceit, and taught such deeds to tempt people to invent and to bring blasphemy and reproach against the most holy ecumenical patriarchs and to bring the consecrated cathedral, which even a commoner should not think about and taught to regard the latter as more bitter than the former” 167 . Of course, in these words there is a tone of irritability; with all this, one cannot help but see in them a correct description of the deposed Nikon. Nikon really could not come to terms with his position, did not want to acknowledge the triumph of his opponents over him, went against the flow of life, not paying attention to the fact that with such a procession he caused “temptation for people”, he walked this path, without giving himself a clear account of the goal, without discussing whether it was achievable or not. And after this, who can cast a word of condemnation on St. Joachim, who limited the heroic strength of the great Nikon, a force directed in the direction directly opposite to the needs of the time? But having an “unfavorable” attitude toward Nikon’s personality, St. Joachim favored, on the contrary, those deeds of Nikon, those aspects of his direction that corresponded to the needs of the time. We understand, first of all, the correction and publication of church service books. True, this matter was not of paramount importance in the activities of P. Joachim, which revolved around other issues that were more important for that time, nevertheless, it cannot be passed over in silence. The first thing that was done on this subject was under i. Joachim is a correction and publication in 1677 of the “Prologue” or “Synaxarion”, for which he briefly summarizes the sequence of holy lives, sufferings and miracles.” “For the sake of convenience, for those who wish to know, the acquisition of a saint’s memory or paterial narrative or teaching,” they composed a catalogue, “and there is a class in alphabetical order.” The publication of the Prologue, which is an abbreviation of the four of them - the Menaion, made it possible for Russian society to satisfy its pious needs in the right way, without resorting to “selected books”, which were then the only occupation of reading people and filled with all sorts of, often absurd, legends. In it, Christian thought could find saving food for itself every day of the whole year. In addition, the detailed index of its contents attached to the Prologue eliminated the only inconvenience that was inevitable when handling this rather significant two-part work. In addition to this publication, which has a purely edifying character and the above-mentioned correction of the rite of the Liturgy of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, as well as translations of some paternal works - translations made for special circumstances, which we will talk about later, the time of the patriarchate of Joachim was marked by a number of publications of liturgical books themselves. Then the following books were published: Six Days, “and there are Sunday services” (1678), Trebnik (1680), Psalter (1680), General Menaion (1681), Octoechos (1683) and Book of Hours (1688), - published after a preliminary critical review and correction of them “in the right places.” Some of them even contain inserts transferred here from Greek books 168. But the most prominent place in the series of these books published with amendments must undoubtedly belong to the correction of the Apostle and the Rule. In 1679, on November 18, P. Joachim issued a decree so that “the book-certifiers - monk Joseph, Nicephorus and Sylvester with their comrades, compare the book of the Apostle “with the ancient handwritten and charatean apostles, Slavic (Moscow) Kiev, Kuteinsky, Vilna, with the Apostolic conversations and other translations, and The apostle corrected that book “in the right places”, and so that the arbitrary sayings that were in the margins, according to reasoning, were either left or removed from the field in person; those who were in the countries left testimonies and references to other books with the Apostle 169. Upon receipt of such a decree, the inspectors quickly began to carry out the work entrusted to them, “in the month of May of the same year they (already) presented a corrected copy of the Apostle.” In addition, they presented a special extract in which such sayings were recorded that existed in some Apostles, but did not exist in others, or were found only in a single Apostle and were not found in any others 170. After that, for better reasoning, the patriarch ordered the corrected Apostle to be read before himself and before the authorities in the chamber of the cross for the sake of the newly corrected sayings from other translations; The inspectors themselves were invited here. Discussions about the newly corrected sayings and the resolution of “certain doubts” encountered lasted for several hours over the course of four days 171. At the last meeting, it was decided to “advise” about this matter “with the king” and “talk to the boyars.” On the 29th day of June, the metropolitans and bishops and inspectors were again gathered in the chamber of the cross. The Patriarch announced to them that he had consulted with the Apostle on the correction of the Apostle. The sovereign and the boyars spoke about this, and that the sovereign indicated that the correction should be discussed by him - the patriarch and the ruler, and how to translate it more righteously and in agreement with others, and do so. After that, the sayings put down by the reference officers in a special extract were subjected to a second discussion, and some of them, small ones, were decided to remain as before, “and the rest of the sayings, for the sake of agreement with other translations, should be removed and the Apostle printed.” But for the sake of strengthening, according to the decree of the patriarch, the inspectors, monk Joseph and his comrades, still compared with all the translations the written Apostle examined in the council of authorities, and according to the extract, which the statements in the translation were not set aside against the extract of the bysh, they were set aside, and where in the prescription there were errors from the scribes in the written apostle, they were corrected. Along with the correction of the text of the Apostle, the Patriarch also ordered that the calendar be corrected in that Apostle, and he meant to exclude some services to the same saint that were repeated several times 172. “And according to that decree, those saints were celebrated.” We do not know whether this corrected Apostle was printed, just as we do not know what reasons could have prevented its printing. Moreover, neither the extracts in which the references indicated the various readings, nor the written Apostle who was read in the chamber of the cross have survived to our time. And it remains for us, therefore, to judge the significance of the work undertaken by P. Joachim and completed under his leadership only on the basis of those amendments that were made by Joachim’s reference officers on the Apostle - the 1671 edition, the only monument of that enterprise that has survived to us. But judging by these few data, we must give great honor to Joachim’s reformers. From the note preserved under the said Apostle, it is not clear that the correctors had at hand and were guided by the Greek text, 173 however, with the help of ancient Slavic translations and interpretations, they restored a text quite close to the Greek and almost completely similar to the one that is used today and which was established by St. Synod of 1751 174. Is it not here, we note in passing, that we need to look for an explanation of the mysterious phenomenon that the correction of the New Testament during the publication of the Bible in 1751 was insignificant 175, and yet it was neither the Ostrog text nor the original Moscow one? Didn’t Elizabeth’s inquiry officers have at hand a text restored by Joachim’s inquiry officers? And this assumption, in turn, does not give grounds for another assumption - it was Joachim’s reference workers, who restored the text of the Apostle, who also restored the Gospel text?.. But let’s leave the assumptions. Along with the Apostle, we said, the Typikon, or church charter, issued by order of St. Joachim in 1682 176, occupies a prominent place in relation to correction. The circumstances that caused it to be published were not a lack of use of typicopes, but in the fact, as explained in the preface of the statute itself, that “all over the Great Russian Church, there appeared many differences and disagreements in the rites and typices of the church and in the celebrations of saints in psalmody and food stichera, canons, troparia, kontakia and in all sacred rites, and from this there is confusion and rumor in the churches of the Lord: for now, arbitrariness and self-will have been comprehended everywhere; for from different times in the handwritten and printed types... from the prescribers, as well as from the self-important ranks, great discrepancies emerged in the ukases (instructions)” 177 . And this was the reason for such phenomena, not uncommon at that time, that “whoever in any monastery, or church, whatever the rite is, strives to create in the places present 178,” climbed, according to the proverb, into someone else’s monastery with its own charter. One can imagine after this the “absurdity” that accompanied the performance of church services at that time! Therefore, St. Joachim, by the will of the Tsar, with all the Russian bishops, not allowing confusion in the church to be due to disagreement over differences, advised, - and conferred synodally, so as not to transgress the limits of the father and typical provisions, even these good things and with appropriate skill from the beginning laid down... so that everywhere in the sacred and divine church, arbitrariness and disagreement for the sake of different tiles, there was no place for sedition and spontaneity...., but through the unity of the whole church of mind and the dean's typology of God's hymns and readings and celebrations were performed more splendidly 179. After this, priestly monks were elected, “well-versed in types and meticulous in the divine scriptures,” they were ordered to compare many Greek and Slavic handwritten and printed types, and “by examining the selection and the book of the entire church type, each of them, with the deanery coloring with the most ancient type, wrote the following.” The inspectors, the holy monks, worked “in the house of the Holy Patriarch in this work for quite some time.” They compared the ancient handwritten Greek and Slavic types, checked the new Moscow and Greek printed types, as well as the Lvov Aneologion, and finally drafted a new copy of the Charter, guided primarily by the type published under P. Philaret in 1634, as the one that most closely resembled the ancient types. The prepared Typikon was read by the inspectors in the chamber of the cross in front of the sacred cathedral of archpastors, and was also compared with various “translations”. The Council approved this new Charter, “seeing in it the similarity of typology and decorous church decorum with the ancient ones, and ordered it to be sent to the printing house: may all divine services be governed by it throughout the entire Great Russian Church without rebellion 180 . This typikon did not experience the sad fate that the Apostle experienced, corrected under the leadership of St. Joachim. It was printed and came into use, and it should be noted that its text remained almost unchanged in subsequent editions of the Charter 181; it remains in almost the same form to this day. Thus, the critical principle, awakened in the Russian Church according to the new civil life that had begun in Rus', and applied with extraordinary energy by St. Nikon in the matter of correcting books, found support in the person of St. Joachim; but this is not enough. P. Joachim in this case was not only a continuator of the work of P. Nikon, - no, he gave the said principle the most extensive application to church practice. Under him, the historical-critical principle was applied to other aspects of church life. In 1678, P. Joachim convened a cathedral in his cross chamber. At this council, the Russian saints, at the suggestion of the patriarch, “consulted about the needs of the church” - about “so that the church should be preserved in the form in which it was built by St. apostle, and how the ranks and various services and actions of the God-inspired father are decorated.” During the meetings, their attention was focused on the well-known ritual of the procession on the donkey, which took place during the week of Vai, “of this comedy, the games of the Pope,” as one of the remarkable hierarchs of the Eastern Church of that time, Jerusalemite, put it. Dosithea 182. The matter was recognized as “worthy of diligent attention,” especially since this ritual came into use in many dioceses. The fathers of the council decided to investigate “when and by what reason the ritual of eating on a donkey began.” And since, according to a diligent test, verbally and in books, such as church books, like chronicles, the slightest memory of that action was found,” they assumed (there is a powerful way to speculate) “as if not from ancient times, but a little before their lives, during a time of rebellion, there was great confusion in the state, this action was introduced into the church,” they assumed that during the inter-patriarchate or the bishop's action is to perform the custom; and therefore the fathers of the council decided to leave the right to perform this rite to one patriarch in Moscow in the presence of the Emperor, and to deprive all bishops without exception of it. They motivated their definition, on the one hand, by the fact that this ritual, performed in dioceses, supposedly demeans the honor of the Sovereign, since “in other cities the royal personage is formed and the leader of the donkey is not created with great honor” - it is said in the conciliar definition, on the other hand, by the fact that “this matter can hardly be deigned by the patriarch himself.” However, the cathedral, executing the ritual of “lusting on a donkey,” made the following concession to the ingrained custom: “if there is nowhere to be found in rumors, or people’s reverence for the warm love of the glory of Christ urgently desires that action according to the newly introduced custom, then this piety, and our inexperience and stubbornness, condescension is effective, we deign, yes Just to the prepared place, the bishops with the priests and deacons and with all the clergy, according to custom, came and there prepared the image of the Lord’s entry, singing a prayer service and sanctifying it and distributing it to the people, and having taken up the image of the Lord’s entry with their hands, they themselves carried it on foot, singing the usual from the hymns happening." So, in the opinion of the fathers of that council, “the glory due to Christ God will be given, and the honor of the pious autocrat will be preserved, and the desires of pious people will be satisfied, and in the process nothing new (except for the blessed guilt is unbearable in the church) will become commonplace” 183. No less remarkable in this regard is the order given by St. Joachim in 1682 regarding another rite that exists to this day - the rite performed on the Thursday of Holy Week - “washing the feet.” This rite, which was performed in all diocesan cities, took place with particular solemnity in Moscow, where the patriarch himself and the most distinguished clergy took part in it. The royal court, boyars and crowds of people usually crowded into the Assumption Cathedral with special zeal on this day. Everyone's eyes were fixed on the characters, who then represented the humble, heavenly Teacher and His disciples. Everyone wanted to see a visual representation of a great example of humility. But... their holy mood was destroyed in the most sad way. In the picture of humility and devotion they saw the face of a traitor; and what struck them especially unpleasantly was that the role of Judas was given to one of the shepherds. The incongruity of the ritual was obvious; to destroy her, p. Joachim abolished the place of Judas in this rite and thus “took away,” as a contemporary noted, “such chaff from the midst of the great congregational church” 184 . The critical-historical principle of the activity of St. Joachim, which we have indicated, which he applied to church practice in the case of Anna Kashinskaya 185 appears even more clearly and clearly. For more than two centuries, one princess of the ancient city of Kashin slept and no one thought about her; the very church where she rested was so dilapidated that its half-rotten floor no longer covered the place where the princess rested. But during the reign of Shuisky, the fate of the unknown princess changed. The Lithuanian army, which at that time was devastating the Russian land, repeatedly besieged the city of Kashin and always unsuccessfully. “The people of Kashin understand that it is not because of their own strength that the city is respected, but they do not know who will fight against them and deliver those who resist from captivity, since all the city’s lashes will be given to the combatants.” Did this matter become clear soon? The sexton of the mentioned church announced that a woman in a monastic robe appeared to him when he was sick and said: “Why do you impute my coffin to nothing and despise me and simply impute the existence of a coffin. Don’t you see people coming and placing their hats on my coffin and sitting down?” and announced at the same time that she was praying for the people of Kashin to God and protecting them from many dirty tricks. – The coffin of the Venerable Princess Anna (as the wife of Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskaya) began to be venerated honestly and splendidly. But her relics were discovered only in the days of Alexei Mikhailovich, when they were attested to by church authorities and found uninvolved in corruption. When the relics were transferred from the dilapidated church to the stone cathedral, the tsar himself was present with his family and boyars. Upon the discovery of the relics, a series of miracles confirmed their holiness. The unknown princess, named Anna, became the subject of reverent celebration, and her life was written. But Providence was pleased to once again make a change in the fate of the deceased. In 1677, a spiritual commission was sent from Moscow to examine the relics of Prince. Anna 186 and when this commission submitted its inspection to St. Joachim, he summoned the saints who were at that time to his council of the cross. The council listened to that “bishop's inspection”, according to which the relics of the princess were not completely uncorrupted, and checked the life of Anna according to the book of the Degree and chronicles, as well as the “writing of miracles” performed at the relics of Kayagin, and, finding the latter “unreliable”, and in the first “many discrepancies with the books of the chronicles and sedate”, it decided: the coffin with the relics of the blessed one The princesses stand in the same cathedral church where they now stand, sealed with bishop's seals. She will not hold festivals and will not give prayers until the great council is completed.” The cathedral also ordered that icons of the prince be presented to Moscow. Anna and the embroidered cover from the coffin and so that “no more images of her will be painted until the great council.” The matter was obviously of such importance that the patriarch did not dare to finish it without a large council of saints. In 1679, he actually summoned “a great number of bishops to Moscow for the sake of reliable testimony and testing of the relics of the led. book Anna Kashinskaya,” also convened the archimandrites and abbots. At this cathedral, the life of the princess was again read “with a dangerous test and many chronicles and dignified books”; the fathers of the cathedral “diligently over many times, constantly converging” checked the disagreements between the life and the chroniclers, indicated by the previous council, but “nothing else” could, “find many discrepancies, in the lives of the chroniclers and senior books, and the lives in the chronicle books, where the writings of other great princes and princesses and her coming from Tver to Kashin, and where she died and where she was buried and where she was found, only as the daughter of the Prince of Rostov, and not the Kashin boyars and the spouse of St. V. book Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskogo, and how Sophia took monastic vows and lived in Tver in the Sophia Monastery, and when she lived in the city of Kashin, and there she died and was buried, that nothing can be found in the chronicle. And many other differences in the first council described and now revealed to the chroniclers with the life 187. It even turned out that the writer of the life, sexton Nikifor, did not see the chroniclers, but “wrote from the words that he heard from people in the conversation,” which is why he asked for forgiveness at the same time and said that according to those previous words written by the chroniclers, it was not appropriate to believe. Therefore, this council abolished the honoring of the prince. Anna and confirming the decisions of the first council, he decided: - to commemorate, along with the princes and princesses, the princess nun Sophia, the former Grand Duke. Anna, in her monastic form, put aside the world... and her name; and if anyone desires to sing a prayer service for his health and salvation, let them sing requiem services... The church, created (by order of Alexei Mikhailovich) in the name of the leader. book Anna, now called and to be in the name of all saints; and if he had completely pleased God. book Anna, may that name also be revered in that church along with all the saints... And the relic now called led. book Anna will be where they are now brought, and they will stand simple, like other great princes and grand duchesses.” The council also gave orders regarding the lives of the prince, which were then in use. Anna, canons and images of her and ordered by the Reverend. archbishop Tverskoy and Kashinsky (Simeon), or if any other bishop in his diocese appears, they collected (them) and placed them in a secret place” under prohibition. At the same time, the council condemned all those who spread rumors about the incorruption of the relics of the prince. Anna and about the miracles that took place (as if) with them; and also on those who turn out to be opponents of this conciliar saying. So decisive was St. Joachim in applying the critical principle to church practice; he did not consider it a sin, he was not ashamed to directly expose a mistake made out of gullibility, he was not afraid to sincerely declare what historical truth testified to, what true Orthodoxy required - and always requires. The case of Princess Anna Kashinskaya is unprecedented in the annals of church history. It also obscures the bold definition of the great Moscow Council of 1667, which declared the life of Euphrosynus of Pskov to be flattering and deceitful. Unfortunately, circumstances were not favorable for St. Joachim to focus his attention on the application of the critical principle to church practice. At the same time, he was preoccupied with other issues that were of burning importance at that time - first the schism that agitated the capital in 1682, and then the Western Russians and Westerners who grew stronger in Moscow. The attitude of Patriarch Joachim towards the Solovki schismatics, the propaganda of the schismatics after the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery; resolutions of the council of 1081 regarding schismatics; circumstances favorable for a schism in 1082; sermon of Nikita the idle talker; preparations for the cathedral on July 5th; July 5th, Cathedral in the Faceted Chamber. – Measures against schism after the Council of July 5th on the part of the church and civil authorities, publication of anti-schism writings, – “Spiritual Revelation.” The schism, which was the cause of terrible indignation in 1682, was not a new phenomenon in Russian history. – Its beginning, or, as they say differently, its seeds began back in the 15th – 16th centuries. Until the 17th century, these seeds remained only, as it were, lifeless, or more precisely, they invisibly took root in the life of the Russian people, and at the same time they did not encounter opposition from anywhere. In the 17th century in Rus', a revolution took place in the mental life of the people, and the awakened thought gave rise to criticism. Patr. Nikon decided to cleanse the liturgical books from those growths that had been added there by previous scribes and printers. As we know, he succeeded, although not completely, in realizing his idea. The books, although not all and not completely, were corrected and approved by the council. The correction of the books caused a schism, which was condemned at the same council in 1666. But this condemnation did not put an end to his existence. Rooted in old customs and seeing in the new - critical direction of church practice a retreat from ancient Orthodoxy - the schism did not recognize the importance of this conciliar condemnation, but on the contrary even formed the idea that from that time the reign of the Antichrist began 188 and, taking advantage of the troubles that we spoke about, quickly spread everywhere and reached, as we have seen, even an open rebellion against the authorities of the church and civil. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was forced to send an army against the indignant Solovlyans. – During this siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, as we know, Joachim, while still Metropolitan of Novgorod, sent exhortations to the rebels. But the Solovlyans were not quickly pacified. Patr. Joachim was already elevated to the patriarchal throne, meanwhile the rebels continued their indignation and withstood the siege of their monastery - even until 1676. In what relation did Joachim stand to the Solovlyans, being already a patriarch? We find the answer to this question only from the schismatic historiographer Semyon Denisov, and according to his story it turns out that Patr. Joachim was perhaps the main culprit in the final capture of the Solovetsky Monastery. Denisov reports that Alexei Mikhailovich, a week before the capture of the Solovetsky Monastery, before his death, even began to repent that he had caused violence to the Solovki people and asked the patriarch for his blessing to leave the monastery “to live according to the laws of the fathers” - he asked because the Solovetsky miracle workers asked him about it in a dream. “Patriarch Joachim”, the strongest, appeared to these petitions: he was not so much concerned about the royal health, only about the capture of the Solovetsky monastery, but not about the infirmity of his illness, as though he was ruined, he wanted to hear: admonishing him about mercy, do not lie, wanting the miracle workers to break the sweat.” When the king’s illness intensified, and he again began to ask the patriarch for the same thing, then “the patriarch became more hardened than a stone, “despite the king’s illness in flames: “Assure the king to put aside mercy for his father,” “even though the holy place would be doused with blood. The Tsar was very subservient to the Patriarch, because the disease was multiplying so severely, and because he could hardly bear to rest, he could hardly rest. Then the sovereign saw his shepherd, who did not give a healing plaster: “but the spona that makes his health will pay the way to the death tomb,” he sent, without the blessing of the patriarch, a messenger to the Solovlyans, allowing them to live according to their fatherly laws and asking for their prayers for themselves. But this messenger on the way met another messenger who was traveling to Moscow with news from the governor Meshcherinov that the monastery had already been taken. Both of them arrived in Moscow and no longer found Alexei Mikhailovich alive. He died “at the eighth hour of that day,” on which the monastery was taken, precisely on January 29, 189. We conveyed Denisov’s story about the attitude of the patriarchs almost literally. Joachim to the Solovetsky Monastery. Unfortunately, I must say that this, as we have already said, is the only story about the attitude of the patriarchs. Joachim to the Solovlyans, can only give a correct idea of ​​the schismatics’ view of the patriarch, but in no way provides true information about the attitude of the patriarch to the Solovlyans. It has no historical accuracy. We say this because, on the one hand, in this story (we are already leaving aside its general tone) Denisov, obviously with a pre-occupied thought, made a chronological inaccuracy, saying that the Solovetsky monastery was taken by Meshcherinov on the day of the death of Alexei Mikhailovich 190, on the other hand, because in this story a dark case is given about the appearance of the Solovetsky miracle workers to the Tsar and about their a request to allow the Solomonians to live according to the laws of their fathers 191; and finally, because it is unknown from anywhere, and it is doubtful that Patr. Joachim had such a great influence, as Denisov imagines, on Alexei Mikhailovich, as if the latter considered his blessing above the requests of the miracle workers themselves. It is not superfluous to remember here that the siege of the Solovetsky Monastery began even before the patriarchate of Joachim 192 and not due to his influence, and therefore without his influence it could have continued and ended 193. True, Denisov’s story can be confirmed by the fact that, as another schismatic historiographer Savva Romanov reports, the schismatics subsequently, during the Moscow rebellion, reproached the patriarch. Joachim for the destruction of the Solovetsky monastery and asked the sovereigns to order the patriarch to give them an answer - for which he ordered “the Solovetsky monastery to be cut down, hung by the ribs and frozen in the cold 194.” But let alone the fact that this information is again conveyed only by one schismatic historian - the very form in which this reproach of the patriarchs was expressed. Joachim from the side of the schismatics shows all the passion of the latter, their desire to, as they say, hurt the patriarch. Really, who will believe that Meshcherinov hung Solovlyans on their ribs and froze them by order of the patriarchs. Joachim?.. It is clear that the schismatics felt the power of the patriarchs. Joachim in relation to them, perhaps unconsciously. but to the sense of self-preservation, they wanted to impose on him, on his activities, something that actually did not exist, but which, nevertheless, could undermine his authority; wanted to lay the blame for all their disasters solely on him. Where is the reason for this bitterness of the schismatics against the patriarchs? Joachim, if he really was not the culprit of the brutal reprisal against him on the White Sea? We will find an explanation of this circumstance in the direction and nature of the activities of Patriarch Joachim in relation to the schism after Meshcheryanov took the Solovetsky Monastery. The schism was not destroyed by the destruction of its main nest. On the contrary, the siege of the Solovetsky monastery, one might say, was the reason even for its spread. “When the army was preparing to besiege and destroy the city of Kinovia, then from the father of the Kipovinskys, Denisov reports, by a general council, many people, foreigners and Beltsy, left for the seashore and settled in the deserts.” These, of course, were some of the Solovlyans who turned out to be weaker than others and did not want to “suffer through fierce darkness for the ancient laws of piety.” Nevertheless, they too, according to the same historiographer, “like Abraham, the seed was abundant in fruit and life, and in the piety of the ancient church, and in the life of the fatherland, they showed themselves to be firmly standing, and not only in the desert, wilds and thieves, but also around the adjacent cities and weights of piety with the light and having taught and enlightened, the fruit is a hundredfold to the Master brought." Even during the very destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery by Meshcherinov, many of the monks managed to escape and, scattered around the seaside, “by virtuous corrections, many were navratish on the path of ancient pious church laws, many were instructed in saving life” 195. In the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery, the schismatics, who at that time were incited to resist the civil authorities by the Cossacks 196, saw their inadequacy in open resistance and therefore turned to secretive propaganda of their teachings. “In secret, like mice wheat, in the words of Ignatius of Tobolsk, such and these unskillful knowledge of the holy scriptures, many have betrayed” 197. They no longer wanted to meet with the authorities, lived in the bushes, forests and impenetrable wilds, walked secretly through the yards of every rank of people only to persuade 198 and when the places of their hiding became known, they immediately moved 199. But this concealment of schismatics, it is self-evident that on the one hand it did not in the least hinder their multiplication, but on the contrary even contributed to it 200 - on the other hand it not only did not cool their fanaticism, but even more strengthened it. Thinking of themselves as martyrs for the true faith, who were persecuted because they did not want to accept the seals of the Antichrist (the four-pointed cross) and submit to him, in order to avoid eternal fire, they decided to “destroy themselves” by self-immolation “in the churches of bread-drying,” often enduring such death with terrible bitterness and not succumbing to any admonitions 201. A little time passed, the schismatics began to little by little forget the Solovetsky pogrom, and encouraged by the constant increase in their supporters, as well as the fact that the civil authorities, which had brought fear to them, were no longer so energetic in relation to them, just as the church authorities turned mainly to the organization of their internal affairs - the schismatics, taking advantage of this state of affairs, began to little by little publicly declare their existence. Having first retired to the forest and other hidden places, they “little by little began to bring in the same disobedient people, first built chapels, and then petitioned for permission to build churches - in a word, they started deserts, around which entire villages soon grew up 202. Moreover, the zealots of ancient piety from desert places, where church and civil authorities could not keep an eye on them, began to gradually move to the cities and hold prayers in houses; some of them even dared to object to the abbots, archpriests and priests performing Divine services according to the newly published books 203 . And finally, Moscow became unafraid for them. They began to sell “in notebooks, and on sheets and in columns, extracts from the books of the Divine Scripture,” in which “they uttered all sorts of harmful blasphemies and slander against St. church” - to sell not only on the streets of the reigning city, but also near the Kremlin itself 204. The matter of the split obviously became more and more serious. The secret and overt propaganda of the schismatic teachers kindled popular religious enthusiasm. The arousal of religious interests reached the final stage of its development. Simeon of Polotsk depicts it this way: “nowadays men are ranting about theology, youths are also ranting, livestock sellers are bickering in the market places, and drinking in the taverns on the river, and finally the women are doing crazy things, arguing with their husbands and the church 205. Such courage of the schismatics could not, of course, escape the attention of the authorities. And we really see that not only the church authorities, which did not lose sight of the secret schismatic propaganda, but also the civil authorities were greatly concerned about the schism in 1681. The already mentioned council of 1681 recognized the need for joint action against the growing detractors of the church of both authorities. - Fencing St. church, the cathedral decided, at the proposal of the tsar, to increase the number of bishops' sees in those places where the libertines of St. churches,” for example, within Kostroma and in Siberia 206, so that they do not have any objections due to the long distance.” In addition, the council, responding to the tsar’s proposals to consider the matter of schismatic prayers at the council, asked to confirm the resolutions of the council of 1667 on sending stubborn schismatics to the city court. “And now, it is said in the conciliar response, we pray to the rest of the council to the great sovereign Ts. and c. book Feodor Alekseevich, all V. and M. and B. Russia's autocrat: who are debauchees and apostates, according to many church teachings and punishments and according to our bishop's petition for their conversion to true repentance, will appear opposite, St. churches are ancient and such opponents would be indicated in. sovereign... send to the city court and, according to his sovereign’s consideration, who is worthy of what, issue a decree.” At the same time, the council asked the sovereign to send letters about this to all governors, and “from now on, write to all governors and clerks in orders so that this matter will be under his sovereign fear in firmness; to order patrimonial owners and landowners” who have and will have such opponents, to declare to the bishops, and in the case of “who are schismatics according to the bishop’s orders, they become strong; then those schismatics should be sent to the governors as servicemen.” – Now the sale of notebooks at the Spasky Gate has not gone unnoticed. At the proposal of the tsar, the cathedral asked that “v. The sovereign ordered the appointment of a special person, and he is His Holiness. the patriarch will choose a special person from among the spiritual, so that they will also “warn those who appear with such false letters, and order them to bring orders to his patriarch and show humility, depending on their guilt; and to help those elected people, give archers from the guards, when necessary, to the disobedient.” At the same council, it was decided to issue newly printed books free of charge to those who brought old printed ones, and to take them away from those who would conceal uncorrected books 207 . The schism was threatened with great trouble, especially since the patriarch, with his usual energy, took up the implementation of the conciliar decisions 208. True, the schism, given its strength at that time, could not be completely suppressed, nevertheless, it would be forced to retreat into the forests again. But circumstances helped the zealots of antiquity at this critical moment for them. In April 1682, Tsar Feodor Alekseevich died, and after his death, with the accession of Peter, and then his brother Ivan, a terrible unrest followed, accompanied by the beating of many boyars. This turmoil diverted the attention of both church and civil authorities from the schismatics; they could act completely freely at this time. - And they did not miss the favorable circumstances for themselves - at this time they managed to strengthen themselves so much that they were able not only to repel their opponents, but also to attack them. “In the summer of 7190 (1682), says Ignatius of Tobolsk, “the desecrated priest, Nikita the Pustosvyat, brought a time of confusion to the holy church: and this apostate began to spew his poison, and gathered his champions, some monks and stripped priests, and a certain group of villagers and others with them: for the first time among the people of that summer there was green blood hesitation, about certain things of the army, that is, disorder in the foot troops, as if by many nobles we were beaten innocently by them 209. Nikita and his comrades walked through the streets and marketplaces of Moscow with their icons and books and proclaimed to people that only their icons and books were right and that there was no longer Orthodoxy either in Rus' or among the Greeks - “only we, they said, still hold the Orthodox Christian faith” and, defending their preaching, they beat priests and hieromonks and other zealots to death Orthodoxy, who dared to refute their “stupidity 210”. Ignatius of Tobolsk even says that Nikita Pustosvyat even then summoned the patriarch with the authorities to the place of execution, summoned him supposedly for a debate about faith, but in fact in order to accidentally kill both the high priest and all the bishops: “you will find, notes Ignatius, as if above the river, it is a time of confusion, suitable for his evil thoughts” 211. But the fanatics were unable to carry out this plan and it failed, as one can assume, solely because at that time civil interests played the main role. Several days passed - the archers were calmed down, political affairs were somehow settled 212; to please the Streltsy, their beloved Ivan Khovansky, a prince and secret adherent of ancient piety, was appointed chief commander of the Streltsy order. Taking advantage of this, the schismatics, after the end of the Streltsy rebellion, raised their question about the old and new faith on the stage - they raised a new rebellion. The instigator in this case was the famous Nikita Pustosvyat 214. Having the strong Prince Khovansky on his side, he set to work with all his energy, and the first thing he directed his efforts to was to enlist the support of the archers. For this purpose, he even settled in the Streltsy settlement, beyond the Yauza, in the Titovo regiment, where he announced the fall of ancient piety 215. But the most important thing for Pustosvyat at this time was that Khovansky himself took an active part in his case. “Giving time to his malice, he began to advise his like-minded people: how they could establish their faith, and beat everyone who was opposed to their faith, and establish the patriarch according to his will 216. His thought was received with special sympathy, as one might assume, by the archers of Titov’s regiment; at least it is known that the Titoites, among whom, as we said, Nikita lived and who could therefore have been more prepared, worked on the cause of the split more energetically than all their comrades. As for the other streltsy regiments, in them Khovansky’s plan, it seems, did not meet with much sympathy and only produced “a great deal of violence and warfare 217.” Be that as it may, however, Khovansky, perhaps counting on the devotion of the archers, which they expressed to him before 218; and perhaps stimulated to energetic activity by the teachers who flattered him, he did not stop long at meetings regarding his plan and soon moved on to the next. He began to worry about who would draw up a petition and who could give an answer against the authorities 219 - he began to worry about the same thing that Nikita had previously bothered about - about a conciliar dispute with the defenders of Orthodoxy 220 Khovansky announced his intention to the archers, but among the archers “there was no skilled person and a reader of the Divine Scriptures who could file a petition and give an answer to the authorities.” 221. We started looking for such people in the settlement; there were many “skilled narrators of the Divine Scriptures”, there was even “a new Elijah, a zealot for the fatherly traditions and dogma, a reverent monk, skilled in teaching and a strong adamant, Father Sergius,” who sighed and shed a tear when he learned that the archers wanted to stand up for the old faith with their beloved prince. These zealots of piety, under the leadership of Fr. Sergius on the same day began to compile a petition on behalf of all the regiments (streltsy) and Chernoslobodtsy and, having “completed” it, the next day they read it before the five hundredth Titov regiment, which deliberately came for this purpose to the house of the Chernoslobodtsa Kaloshilov with two streltsy, and heard from the latter such a flattering review of their work: “in our days we have never heard such a syllable and a bit of description of heresies in new books” 222. Then this petition was taken into the regiment and read in the meeting of the archers, from whom it was also approved. Khovansky himself was given to know about this. But Khovansky was not content with just a petition; he wanted to acquire a person who would be able to give a verbal “answer against the authorities”; when they told him that “there is a monk (Sergius) who is very skilled in the Divine Scripture and many of the townspeople are diligent in this matter, then he wanted to see them 223. The literate brethren did not have to wait long; Without hesitation at all, she set off under the leadership of Fr. Sergius to his patron. Sergius made an ornate speech. Khovansky, although he listened to him favorably, at the same time directly expressed his judgment about the insolvency of Fr. Sergius, “you won’t be, Khovansky told him, for such a thing” (debate with the authorities). The old boyar, “accustomed to military rank from childhood,” did not recognize Fr. Sergius capable of giving an answer to the authorities, even after the latter expressed hope for the help of the Holy Spirit. Here they reminded Khovansky about Nikita: “the boyar was happy, and he said: I know that priest much, - they have nothing to say against that; he will stop their mouths, and before that not a single one of them can stand against him, but like the leaves of padonia” 224, and then he asked the brethren where she wanted to convene the council. The zealots of fatherly traditions answered that the cathedral should be on the place of execution, or at least in the Kremlin near the red porch and further away, like next Friday (July 23rd). With their last demand, the schismatics expressed all their impatience, certainly not suspecting at all that by doing so they would harm their cause. Meanwhile, this impatience, it seems to us, almost ruined their business at the very beginning. She put Khovansky himself in a difficult, almost hopeless, position and forced him to restrain his like-minded people. This old boyar knew that the council would not pass without unrest among the people, especially since during this council it was proposed to kill the patriarch and all Orthodox bishops; At the same time, he also knew that on Sunday (June 25) the coronation of the kings was scheduled, which, of course, could not have taken place if that council had been allowed, and this could perhaps have resulted in the same turmoil that had occurred shortly before. He now had to either publicly assume the role of a schismatic leader, or use all means to ensure that the council was postponed. – He chose the latter, but could not persuade the literate brethren who came to him 225 to do so and agreed to their demand. Early in the morning of June 23, the schismatics solemnly appeared at the red porch. At their head now stood Nikita “with an honest life-giving cross (Sergius was already in the background at that time - he was holding the Holy Gospel). Khovansky received them in the response chamber and, bowing to the icons and kissing the cross, asked the arriving fathers, mowing for the sake of guilt, priidoste, fathers of honesty 226. Here Fr. himself gave a speech. Nikita, - talking about the fact that they came to beat the great sovereigns with their brows about the restoration of the old faith, so that the patriarch would deign to serve according to the old books and on seven prosphoras and would not use the two-part kryzh, and if he did not, then the great sovereigns would tell him to give testimony from the Divine Scriptures, for which he himself does not serve according to those old books and forbids others, but zealots according to his fathers the dogmate of the true law is cursed and sent to distant confinement, and the Solovetsky monastery ordered to be cut down and hanged by the ribs (the Solovlyans) and frozen in the cold - “they came to demand from the patriarch an answer to everything in the letter, and they supposedly help God in their new books to finally expose all sorts of ideas and many heresies.” Nikita spoke out; Khovansky asked the petition and, having received it, to present it where it should be 227, but he did not insist before the tsars and the patriarch that the schismatics’ desire should be fulfilled on this very day and upon leaving from above he told them: “there will be a petition against that petition for three weeks, and the patriarch asked the sovereigns about this matter until Wednesday.” Nikita wanted, at least, to ensure that the tsars were crowned according to the old books. Khovansky promised him this and even ordered him to bake a prosphora with the image of an old cross for this occasion.” I myself, he said, will bring them to the patriarch and order him to serve as before, and you, Father Nikita, he added, wake him up right away.” The schismatics were successful. Nikita began to fuss over the fulfillment of the prince’s order - he deliberately ordered seven prosphoras to be prepared for a certain skillful widow for Sunday, for the coronation of kings, without, of course, suspecting any guile on the part of his patron. Meanwhile, on the day of “triumph and joy of the people,” on the day of the coronation of the kings, Nikita, with his seven prosphoras, could not reach, due to the extraordinary gathering of people, not only the boyar, but also the cathedral church, and with heartfelt contrition he returned to his brethren! 228 When in this way the plans of the schismatics met completely unexpectedly with such a strong obstacle, Patr. Joachim took advantage of this short time and further interfered with their execution. - Of course, the leaders of the schism were not unknown to him, just as the goals that these leaders had were not unknown: there can also be no doubt that he knew the main support of the zealots of fatherly traditions - he knew that they were mainly counting on the strength of the archers, for whom religious interests, one might assume, were not of great importance at all and who took part in the upcoming rebellion out of their blind attachment to the prince Khovansky, or, most likely, in anticipation of great revelry; the patriarch, we say, could not help but know all this and, without taking anything directly against the leaders of the schism - such as Khovansky and Nikita, he tried to upset their cause by indirect measures. He took advantage of the short period of time to admonish the archers, this support of the rebellion, acting no longer as a high priest, but as a person experienced in civil affairs. He knew the violent nature of the archers, he also knew what could most likely influence this nature 229 and achieved such results in this enterprise that, perhaps, he did not expect. The leaders of the schism saw with grief that “according to the patriarch’s admonition, there was no agreement on orthodoxy in the regiments,” that zeal for the restoration of old piety in their hordes weakened, that among the latter there even appeared distrust of the authority of their leaders and doubt about the rightness of their cause. In the Titovo regiment, in which Nikita lived, and which, as we said above, was especially zealous about the cause of restoring the old faith, therefore, even a special council was appointed at which it was decided to send four elders with a petition to all regiments to select signatures. But even this made little progress in the schismatic cause. In the regimental orders, a “great fight and battle” began between the archers. – Some of them wanted to sign the petition, others, “seduced by the patriarch,” refused and even reasoned like this: “Why should we put (our hands) in for this? “We don’t know how to answer a petition”... “and can the elders even know how to give an answer to a council like this? they will confuse and leave, that’s all, but ours, this is the patriarch’s business.” “We are glad to be here even without hands and to stand for the Orthodox faith and see the truth; and on this the servants decided that they would not put their hands on the petition... to do the truth” 230. The affair between Nikita and his comrades obviously had a very bad outcome. But “zeal for church dogma” gave them strength. They began to act more energetically and decisively. In addition, Khovansky, who had betrayed them before the wedding of the tsars, now again began to act in concert with them. Despite all this, the council scheduled for Wednesday (June 28) after the coronation of the kings did not take place, because the archers were not yet prepared for it. On this day, only regimental electors came to Khovansky - they came to find out what time the cathedral would be, who did not allow the honest fathers to go with them. “The boyar, seeing confusion and inconstancy among them,” finally decided to personally confirm their intentions, and decided to openly express sympathy for their cause. - Having gathered them in the response chamber, he asked three times: “Do all of you regiments unitedly want to stand for the old Christian faith?” and having received an affirmative answer 231, he went “up” to report this to the sovereigns. Returning from there with an order to go to the patriarch 232, he himself went along with the elected officials to demand from the high priest the restoration of the old piety and an answer against the petition. But at that very time, while the boyar was in the chamber of the cross, and the elected and the townspeople who joined them “in the senekh” were waiting for the patriarch, the latter - according to Savva - almost again upset the affairs of Khovansky. With his hospitality (“vodka and red drink and honey”), he so endeared himself to some of the archers that they “requested the faithful” when the time came for the patriarch to leave: “How are we going to answer the patriarch and the authorities”? The Patriarch came out and, turning to those who came, asked: “Why, brothers, come to our humility?” Khovansky and then one elected official explained that they had come to beat him with his forehead about the correction of old piety. Patr. Joachim began to admonish them in a fatherly manner - he began to say that they, as unskilled in the faith, should not be wise about it themselves and were obliged to obey the shepherds - that Patr. Nikon did not spoil the books, but on the contrary corrected them, etc.; but the elected officials soon interrupted his speech and began a debate about faith in their own way, not allowing “the Holy One to utter a single word” and reducing their speech mainly to the fact that they were innocently “burned in log houses.” Other bishops who happened to be with the patriarch at that time began to speak, but this caused even greater confusion and the patriarch ordered them to shut up 233. Having shouted enough, the elected officials finally decided to leave, and those previously appeased by the patriarch and Khovansky himself accepted his blessing, “but not a single one of the zealots of orthodoxy went 234. The question of the hour at which the cathedral should be held, the question with which the elected officials actually came to the Kremlin, thus remained completely unaffected. Savva, only at the end of his story about this day, having already said that “the boyar and the elected officials have gone away,” remarks: “the patriarch also asked for the council to be held until Wednesday.” One might think, therefore, that the elected officials, in the heat of the dispute, even forgot about the council, and Khovansky did not remind about it because he knew about the discord in the streltsy regiments, and only the patriarch, realizing the impossibility of ending the schism without a conciliar consideration of the matter and at the same time seeing that his efforts to deprive the schismatic teachers of support from the regiments and thereby prevent a military mutiny, had already been crowned, although not very much with success - only, we say, the patriarch, perhaps raised the question of the council and “asked for a deadline until Wednesday,” hoping, probably during this week, to further distract the archers from participating in the schism. Be that as it may, however, the council, as we have already said, did not take place on that day, and it was decided to take place on the following Wednesday - July 5th. This week was a time of most energetic activity for all the main participants in the events of this time. The dissenters saw that their fate depended on this time—whether there would be a rebellion or not, whether they would remain victorious or defeated. They walked the streets and market places and everywhere they convinced the people to take part in the restoration of the old faith. The head of the schismatics, Fr., acted most persistently. Nikita. Going out to Red Square, he shouted, as Ignatius of Tobolsk says, with a great cry and with much boldness to the people, “Stand up for Orthodoxy peoples for the true faith”... And the success of his preaching was so great that the regional square became a gathering point where “not only those who can read little words from books, but also ignoramuses, men and women... I wish they could confirm the old faith” 235. Horror spread throughout Moscow, “everything,” exclaims one of his contemporaries, “all out of fear, wondering what was to happen?” 236. The preaching of Nikita and his brethren about the kingdom of the Antichrist further intensified this panic fear 237. Patriarch Joachim did not remain inactive at this time either. – He sent skilled exhorters to the people to counter the preaching of the schism teachers; but this no longer helped the matter: “the people stoned” these exhorters, leaving them barely alive, “not allowing them to speak truth and truth, and impute your fierce beating as champions of the right faith and that defender 238. Patr. Joachim even decided to influence the schismatics with measures of compliance: he ordered that bishops wear staffs without snakes (which tempted the schismatics, as an innovation of Patriarch Nikon); but this not only did not bring any benefit, but also served as the subject of new reproach for the Orthodox from the champions of ancient piety - the latter saw in this compliance of the bishops - “their unnecessary inconstancy 239. - Now the circumstances have apparently developed in such a way that the schismatics’ cause, which was collapsing, received a favorable outcome for them. The dissenters, says one of his contemporaries, “in... This accursed schism was established (so) firmly among the people that (everyone) was ready (to go for it) to death and to all torment, and almost the entire people became enraged 240; they now saw that the ground for the cathedral was ready; All that remained was to decide where the cathedral should be? The dissenters, well understanding where their strength lay 241, wanted to conduct the debate at the Execution Ground, or at least on the Kremlin Square, near the Assumption Cathedral. It was necessary to persuade the patriarch to do the same. For this purpose, Khovansky went “with many schismatics” to the patriarch the day before the date when the council was scheduled to take place, precisely “on the 3rd day of July, on Monday” and even on behalf of the tsars he told him that he “to stop the people’s confusion must talk with the apostates about the faith at the place of execution and not in front of the cathedral church, but their royal majesty will not be there.” But the patriarch answered the boyar that “it would not be possible for this matter to happen without the royal arrival 242. Joachim hoped that the civil authorities, to whom he himself had rendered a great service no more than two months ago—we will talk about this later—would not leave him without their help in these critical moments. Finally, the fifth day of July arrived, Wednesday, the day appointed for the cathedral. By order of the high priest, all the city priests and bishops who were in Moscow appeared early at the Assumption Cathedral for prayer singing 243. But even earlier on this day, the zealots of ancient orthodoxy arose. They began preparations for the council; the regimental electors went to Khovansky to find out about the time of discussions about faith. At the end of the 6th hour a messenger came from them and called the fathers to the council. “I sang a prayer service and was blessed by Father Nikita and took up the cross and St. The Gospel and the Last Judgment, carrying candles before them, walked reverently at the cathedral; In the same way, people carry the Divine books on their heads for testimony and for the denunciation of heresies, love of God, honestly, with reverence... And a multitude of people walked along them, oppressing each other, seeing the monks everywhere protected by humility and the fear of God, and on their heads there is also an image of reverence - old hoods and covered eyes, like the burden of the former holy fathers and marveling at the verb: “They don’t have a fat belly, and not like today’s teachers.” 244. This procession entered the Kremlin with difficulty, on the one hand, due to the sheer number of those who took part in it and, in addition, still “inflamed with love to see the past,” on the other hand, because some measures had already been taken to curb it 245, and stopped in the square near the royal chambers behind the Archangel Church. “The lovers of piety put up leopards and spread the shrouds over them and laid up an honorable cross, St. The Gospel and the Last Judgment of Christ and the image of the Most Holy Theotokos and candles were lit before them.” The Patriarch at that time was in the Assumption Cathedral, “singing prayers with the bishops and many people.” It was at 8 o'clock in the afternoon. The prayer singing was followed by the liturgy, which ended “at the end of the 10th hour.” The Patriarch, notes Savva, wasted time so that he would not bear witness to the people of books.” But we think that he would have made every effort on his part to satisfy the desire of the schismatics if he had been sure that they really wanted to resolve the controversial issue through the testimony of books; if we “waste time,” then not for any other reason, but only because he knew well the spirit of the schismatics, as well as the enormous extent to which this invisible religious excitement could reach over a long period of time. The patriarch could also have meant that many of the zealots of ancient piety, who came simply out of curiosity, tired of the long wait, would disperse. However, no matter what the patriarch’s slowness depended on, in any case, it was deliberate and not devoid of practical tact. Meanwhile, the schismatic teachers were concerned at this time with maintaining jealousy among their like-minded people 246. Benches were brought, placed near the icons, and the fathers began their sermons from these unsophisticated pulpits: they said “from the Divine Scriptures, how to escape from the delights of Nikon, so that your souls do not perish forever,” at the same time they called “churches stables and barns and other inappropriate words 247,” they said, “orally and in notebooks and sitting and standing on benches." The main highlight was Fr. Nikita; A special stage was built for him, and he, who sat on this stage above all people, had the first word 248; the second preacher was Fr. Sergius. This “few-verbal” monk brought to the attention of the people ready-made denunciations of “church changes (for example. Solovetskaya’s petition) for this reason he perhaps “oppressed” Nikita himself much more in reading, so that in the end “the great man was exhausted (for the third day, I will not eat for him”); and he offered to help Savva to help him, but he denied, saying: “Forgive me, father, it’s not mine to teach this, you are called for this 249 - the fathers preached, the people resounded with the Kremlin with their cries and cries 250. The Patriarch decided to once again test the measure of persuasion and to tame at least some of the popular unrest; at the same time, he wanted to show the people the real qualities of their main leader, Fr. Nikita. Before the end of the service, he sent priests to the square to read to the people the patriarchal admonishing teaching, printed the night before in 160 copies, in which, by the way, Nikita’s confession was placed before the cathedral; but the people did not want to listen to him; the teaching was taken away and torn, and the priest himself barely escaped by fleeing to the cathedral, “having on himself the sign of beating 251.” “Then seeing the Most Holy Patriarch, says Ignatius of Tobolsk, that he succeeds in nothing with his teaching, but even more so in the heretics there is a rumor, to proclaim all this to the right-believing king himself, coming to his chamber of the cross: they commanded the cathedral to be, in their sovereign royal faceted chamber 252. How such a royal command struck the honest fathers like a thunderbolt; the inconsistency of their plans for the life of the patriarch and bishops was now obvious, since the kings apparently accepted them under their protection; Nikita and his companions were perplexed; excitement among the people increased 253. Khovansky himself appeared on the scene and directed his activities towards separating the patriarch from the kings in order to remove this obstacle to the fulfillment of his plan. Twice he went to the patriarch, calling him, the first time, as if by royal decree, to the square for a debate about faith, and another time ordering him to go to the royal chambers through the red porch, near which the schismatics were already standing, waiting for him and the authorities to be killed 254. But the patriarch did not succumb to the old boyar’s deception. Having failed here, Khovansky wanted to achieve his goal by acting on the royal house. Being in a close relationship with Princess Sophia, he appeared in the royal chambers and “ostensibly protecting the health of her and the entire royal house, but in fact wanting to frighten her with the ferocity of the Streltsy, he secretly told the Streltsy council about the murders.” This time the princess did not trust him and, having learned from the elected streltsy, whom she secretly called to her (those were called, “Prince Ivan had little love for them”) about Khovansky’s intentions, she began “not with rage, but with humble meekness, the advice to deny him.” Not having time here either, Khovansky thought to fulfill his plan through the boyars. He told them too about the secret plan of the archers, “as if they were united with the patriarch and the authorities, then the sovereigns and the patriarch would not be alive from the people.” The boyars believed him, and went to beg the kings not to attend the council. But the time was shortened; Khovansky, having taken off his mask of mystery, decided to act with direct threats; he announced in front of everyone”: to lead. The sovereigns and empresses of the princesses did not go to the faceted chamber with the patriarch and with the authorities, and if they did, they would not be alive from the people. Sophia, according to Medvedev, remained adamant, and at this time she received sympathy for herself and the other princesses. Prince Ivan turned to the boyars to beg the empresses not to attend the council, adding that otherwise they would face the same fate from the archers as had recently befallen their brethren (during the previous rebellion). The boyars began to ask the princesses to “free themselves and them from needless death.” But the advice of the entire royal house was that Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna and the three princesses should be present at the council. Khavansky was sent to call the patriarch to the council. This time again he ordered Joachim to “go to the faceted chamber through the red porch between the excited people.” But the high priest ordered Archbishop Athanasius to follow this path. Kholmogorsky and other bishops, as well as archimandrites and Moscow priests, and carry old books, both Greek and Slavic, to show the people “that they are ready to show the truth”; and he himself went to the faceted chamber along the vestry stairs” 255. While Khovansky tried, so to speak, to isolate the patriarch and the authorities and still failed to achieve his goal, the patriarch aroused sympathy for himself among the archers, who did not participate in the schism. Those of them who were eyewitnesses of the riot of schismatics and who, perhaps, held back the crowd when the fathers were just entering the Kremlin, “secretly, according to one contemporary, sent to their own, even in piety (Orthodoxy), and soon went to help and defend the true faith... Hearing those archers, they soon came and multiplied and received a strong guard in the house royal (where the council was supposed to be), showing themselves ready to shed blood 256,” wanting to protect their mother church with what they could, and in the way they knew how. The Orthodox were ready for the opening of conciliar debates: it was necessary to invite schismatics to the cathedral. - Khovansky went out to the square and, after praying to the icons standing there, said to the fathers: “you go to the faceted chamber” 257. Sergius opposed this invitation from his patron, expressing a desire for the cathedral to be in the square, in front of the people, and not in the chamber: “What should we do there without the people,” he said. The boyar tried to assure him with an oath that no one would be forbidden to go there, and that the fathers would not face any danger there; but oh. Sergius stood his ground so firmly that only Nikita’s admonitions could bend him. The fathers left their camp and headed to the palace, organizing the same procession as they went to the Kremlin. But as soon as they began to climb onto the red porch, a terrible dump occurred. There was a manual altercation between the people who were also rushing into the chambers and the guard archers 258 - the fathers returned again to their place. A terrible cry arose among the people. After a while, Khovansky came out to the square again and asked the fathers: why don’t you deign to go? The fathers explained the reason. The boyar reassured them, even kissing the cross, that no harm would come to them, and, telling the fathers to go, he ordered that they be allowed into the chamber 259. The fathers went to the chamber as before, “and many of the townspeople went with them 260 and, having entered there, not at all embarrassed by the presence of the queen and princesses, they began to arrange lecterns and benches and put their icons and books on them, holding lit candles 261. Such self-will of the schismatics had a stunning effect on everyone. The cathedral opened - it was already at the end or even after the 11th hour 262. Having arrived so disorderly, the fathers were asked by the Tsar’s Majesty: “Why is it so impolite and unusual for the repository of their state or bishop’s honor to come into the chamber, as if they were of other faiths and those who do not know God and the icons of St. who do not respect that no one dares to do such outrageous things? 263 The fathers answered “that they came to confirm the old faith, therefore, since a new faith has now been accepted, it is not possible to be saved in it.” Next they were asked: “what is faith, and what is old and new?” - to this they did not answer anything and submitted a petition 264, the Duma clerk, by order of the princess, began to read the submitted petition 265 and “his reading was completely harmonious and intelligible.” But this reading was constantly interrupted. Nikita, due to his jealousy 266, could not restrain himself from making various comments during the reading and from annoying the patriarch and the entire council of saints, and his companions encouraged him in this with their shouts and noise. The princess repeatedly ordered them to be silent and strike with her forehead, as befits 267: although on the other hand, as it seems, she herself, by her energetic nature, allowed herself to break the silence, outraged either by the especially harsh expressions of the petition, directed against the Orthodox, or by such points, the absurdity of which was obvious. At the very least, there is no reason why one could distrust in this case, although partly even such a biased witness as Savva Romanov, who directly says that the princess repeatedly “jumped off the throne and addressed words either to schismatics or to Orthodox Christians” 268. What did the patriarch and bishops do while reading the petition? Savva Romanov says that they “didn’t do anything against the petition, they just sat with their heads hanging,” although he then himself noted that the patriarch showed “the whole world” ancient vessels and books, denouncing the zealots of ancient fatherly piety, not allowing them to look at them closer. Orthodox contemporaries, although they say that the patriarch had debates with the furious and that the head of the latter, Fr. Nikita “was exposed in everything as a clear heretic 269, but the details of these debates are not reported; the Uvet only says that the patriarch “takes St. Gospel written by the hand of St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow and Chrysoulus, this is the conciliar act of the most holy ecumenical Jeremiah of Constantinople, written in Greek, when he blessed the Russian patriarch to be in the state, and it is written in it how the saint should follow. apostle to tradition and father of St. hold the teachings, and the symbol, this is the confession of St. faith, everything is written as it is now printed in books; - spoke “to the people ahead, as if they were troublemakers going crazy in vain, and such a great confusion has arisen in the holy church, showing the well-known evidence in the holy ancient books, about their sayings they are ignorant of ignorance, and they have not trusted any government either from God or from man, they are evilly trying to stand up: and he also showed in their books I think they were without sin, but of course they were corrected as it should be, printed under the Holy Patriarchs Philaret 270 and Joseph.” Medvedev repeats the same words in almost the same words, noting only that the patriarch “said this verb to them all tearfully and painfully, and in addition to what was said in Uveta, citing his following speech: “You see, oh children! as if we are followers of no evil and we keep all the old books and in the Holy. The church is a ceremonial joy, and in this we undoubtedly have hope of salvation and I am ready, if the sovereign wants, to die. Do you see in me what untruths are being perpetrated in the church of St. tell me any opposition, and if you find righteousness, take me. I am ready to go not only to wounds, but also to death, for we are Christians and we want to be saved and we wish all people a reliable salvation 271. One might think from this that neither the patriarch nor the other bishops spoke much at the council and limited themselves to only brief and factual refutations of the points of the petition, guided this time, perhaps, by the fact that they saw the complete uselessness of their brief denunciations, and on the other hand, finding the greater denunciation of the rebels not useless. – It is known what Fr. did. Nikita with such a revealing accuser Athanasius, Archbishop of Kholmogory! Be that as it may, however, only the schismatics over time became more and more pathos, and, advocating primarily against the addition of three fingers for the sign of the cross and precisely the glorious blessing, and mixing these two different actions 272, they finally reached an extremely fierce frenzy. According to the reading of the last point of the petition - about the bishop's blessing, when the Orthodox began to present refutations to this point, Nikita and his supporters, being ashamed, as their contemporaries betrayed, of their own petitions and seeing that they had nothing to say against the truth, but still not wanting to admit their inconsistency, used this method of proof - they folded their fingers in their own way and raised their hands, crying out in grief for many hours: sitsa, sitsa: tako, tako: their example was followed by all their supporters present in the chamber. A terrible noise arose, so that the people who were in the square were greatly horrified, and those who were in the chamber - the Orthodox - wondered what would happen from such audacity 273. The empresses rose from their seats and already wanted to leave the chamber, deciding it would be better to leave the kingdom rather than in piety, like foolish pigs, to be trampled underfoot, and only at the request of the patriarch and the entire consecrated cathedral and the royal synclite, and the Streltsy elects again took their places 274. The noise in the faceted chamber continued. But the day has already turned to evening and “the time has come for evening singing.” It was announced to the schismatics that the decree would be given to them on another day 275 and they left the chamber celebrating a supposed victory over the authorities 276 . But Nikita and his associates were terribly mistaken this time. The Patriarch, taking time, “so that the conciliar meeting would be as short as possible, so that in this way the passions of unrest would not flare up to the extreme, one can say that he was quite successful in this. The conciliar meeting was closed, under a plausible pretext, at the very time when the schismatics were just getting into pathos. After the council, he devoted himself entirely to the thought of inducing the civil authorities to pacify the frantic fathers and their associates. And it was all the easier for him to achieve this now that the cause of the schismatics was revealed in all its nakedness, with all the symptoms of civil rebellion and, therefore, naturally called upon the civil authorities to pacify it for the sake of the peace of the state. Patriarch Joachim immediately after the council went to the kings and asked them to take measures on their part to curb the daring rebels. He even turned to Princess Sophia with the same request, knowing her close relationship with the Streltsy 277 and in general her influence on the affairs of government. The kings and especially their co-ruler Sophia took the most energetic measures that same night to prevent unrest, and since the whole matter depended mainly on the archers, it was decided to act primarily on them. They were called up, regimental electors; The princess convinced them not to support the schismatic cause; the elected officials bowed to her convictions and replied that it was not their business to stand for the old faith, but the business of the patriarch and the authorities. Even the elected representatives of Titov’s regiment submitted to Sophia’s influence and refused to confess along with others only because they were afraid of being subjected to violence from their ordinary brethren for this. Sophia released the elected officials, ordering them to talk with their regiments so that in the future they would not start petitions about the old faith. The participation in this matter of the princess beloved by the archers had a strong effect on them; only the Titovites remained the champions of the old piety. But the resourceful Sophia managed to destroy this last support of the schism with the royal cellar. The servants all thus found themselves on the side of the Orthodox and carried their confessions by hand; Moreover, they began to beat the faithful brethren, saying: “You are rebels and have outraged the whole kingdom.” The brothers, “seeing a great dirty trick on themselves,” gave themselves up to flight. But not all fathers escaped “cavo lochitrago the devil” 278. Thus ended the work of the zealots of imaginary antiquity, a work begun by them under circumstances favorable to them and conducted by them, as we have seen, with no small tact. Let us now see what results accompanied this failed schismatic affair. First of all, as one would expect, proper reprisals were carried out against the main figures of the rebellion. – The Sagittarius intercepted their frantic fathers and handed them over to the authorities. Nikita, as the most daring instigator of unrest, who had dishonored the Tsar's Majesty, was brought to the Lykov courtyard and left first on guard, and then executed by beheading. The other fathers are blacks, between them and Fr. Sergius, were taken to the patriarchal courtyard with their books and notebooks; they were seated separately and subjected to admonitions, but through Khovansky’s providence they were freed from death and were only given over to the bishops under strong principles in humility, not having repented of their malice 279 . As for those schism teachers who escaped “the deceit of the cunning devil,” their activities instantly changed. Now they no longer dared to openly walk the streets of the reigning city and, remaining “without help” “with malice in their hearts,” secretly walked through the courtyards of the people of Moscow spreading their charms, and some of them, leaving even Moscow, went with their preaching to other cities and villages 280. They now began to seek satisfaction of their jealousy in secret propaganda. But here they were met with strong opposition. After July 5th, the authorities, both church and civil, felt as strongly as possible the commonality of their interests in relation to the schism, and each of them now began to use the most energetic measures, at the same time placing their measures in the closest relation to the measures of the other government. The kings sent the strictest decrees to the governors and clerks so that they would look for rebels in cities and suburbs and districts and bring them to the orders of spiritual affairs for admonition, while, in case of their resistance, using service people, and those of the rebels who remained stubborn in their errors - to torture forcibly, beat them on a goat with a whip and even execute them with death - to burn, and those who they will repent, although they will be released, but not otherwise than “with written notes that they will not repair the schism in the future, and that the guarantor will look after them; and if they appear in the same abomination, and the bailiffs will not look after them and will not inform them of this, and for that they will face the death penalty, and the bailiffs will receive cruel punishment without any mercy.” And by sending such decrees to the governors and officials, the kings placed their activities regarding the search and prosecution of church rebels under the direct supervision of the diocesan bishops. The bishops, by order of the tsar, had to see that the civil authorities, either for their own gain or for some other reason, did not allow schismatics freedom of action. In turn, the diocesan authorities were charged with an indispensable duty to take measures on their part to eradicate the schism, to admonish the zealots of the old faith in their orders, or to send them out to monasteries for this purpose. This is how the civil authorities began to act immediately after the rebellion on July 5th, and it should be noted that at that time they vigilantly watched the schismatics wherever they wanted to hide, both in the north - in the seaside, and in the south in the settlements of Starodub; and as soon as they managed to accumulate anywhere in significant numbers, they were immediately subjected to severe persecution by the royal decree and they scattered to different places, “running” 281. But these were only private measures, the only ones of local significance. In 1685, twelve decree articles were drawn up, which were approved by the will of the tsars and the boyar verdict and which were supposed to serve as general guidance in dealing with schismatics. By virtue of these decree articles, schismatics were not only subjected to torture for their opposition to the church, but also to burning in log houses for their persistence in heresy (Article 1), but in case of repentance, they were exiled to large monasteries and kept there in great care and behind a strong guard under the supervision of skilled elders and were released from there not before receiving full certification that they had completely abandoned their malice (Article 2), further, those of them who preached self-immolation (Article 3) and rebaptism (Article 4 - they were executed for rebaptism even if they began to offer subjugation) were subject to burning and execution without any mercy, but were subjected to whipping and sent to the bishops and those who either rebaptized out of passion and were guilty of that without all sorts of objections (Article 5) or found themselves in general ecclesiastical opposition recently and during interrogation showed that they did it out of ignorance, or from some kind of coercion (Article 6); “Even those who were stipulated and not caught in the schism were subject to strict supervision and bail, if it turned out that they really adhered to that charm, they were secretly subject to whipping and exile to distant cities (Article 7), where they were to be strictly monitored by governors and officials and any objection to them was to be reported to the great sovereign (Article 10), and if those who were convict would take refuge, or would be somewhere in departure, then carry out a search for the latter through neighbors and spiritual fathers, catch and torture the former, and then issue a decree to both those – based on the search, and to these, based on torture speeches (Article 11); Finally, cruel punishment was threatened for the harborers of the schismatics and for everyone who in any way contributed to their cause - whipping for the intentional patrons of the schism, and for those who acted casually in this case (Article 8) and for those who, taking their opponents into custody in the church, did not report that the latter did not give up their stubbornness, and during interrogation showed that they did not know about their stubbornness, – these were charged a fine of 50 rubles, and in case of insolvency they were subject to exile (Article 9). Finally, the 12th article stated that the estate of schismatics executed or exiled, as well as guarantors exiled due to their insolvency, should be assigned to the great sovereigns and sold according to the valuation: an exception was made only for those guarantors who did not know “the schism of the persons accepted for bail - they could sell their yards at a free price” 282. Meanwhile, the schismatics were thus subjected to severe persecution by the civil authorities, they were subjected, not without the influence of this authority, as we have already said, of the patriarch, the latter himself, for his part, took care that the royal decrees were carried out with all his force, he took care of this, as far as the limits of his power allowed him, of course. Taking advantage of the circumstances of the time, he now directed his efforts to give full application to those decrees of the council of 1681, which remained without any application to life on the occasion of unrest in the capital. Patriarch Joachim now firmly insisted that the diocesan authorities, by virtue of the council's determination and royal decrees, demand from the governors, patrimonial owners and landowners to extradite the schismatics and bring the latter into their spiritual orders, admonish them here and the disobedient, or subject them to monastic humility, or bring them to a civil court. The Patriarch ordered the bishops to use civil laws like oars, which are also convenient for driving away lawless unrest 283 . But, thus consecrating with his authority for the civil authorities the principle of “humbling schismatics with forgiveness and punishment, Joachim clearly realized that he himself and the spiritual authorities in general needed to take care” of their correction through prayer and teaching 284 to act on them with moral measures. Therefore, soon after the rebellion was pacified, he, taking advantage of the presence of many saints in Moscow, convened a council in his cross chamber, at which Nikita’s guilt was condemned, and he himself was subjected to a church curse 285. For the same purpose, by order of Joachim in 1683, in the vestibule of the Chudov Monastery on the wall were displayed “for the everlasting teaching and knowledge of the commandments of God and the Church, and on the board there was an image of the right hand with fingers folded according to the tradition of St. the apostle and with him a word-written notice about the sign of the honorable cross; and then, when there were such daring “disadvantages” who decided to “pierce, scrape and smear” such visual denunciations of schismatic errors, he anathematized these disgraceful people on the week of Orthodoxy, along with Nikita and his comrades 286 . Joachim admonished in this way and executed the spiritual Moscow schismatics. He also used such moral measures against regional schismatics. For this purpose, the decree of the council of 1681 regarding the multiplication of bishops' departments 287 was carried out, and those bishops who had lived until that time in Moscow were also sent to their dioceses. At the same time, they were given printed notebooks from the conciliar statement on the condemnation of Nikita with the obligation to “send them to monasteries and villages and order the priests, in the hearing of all Orthodox Christians in all churches, to write those notebooks of honor throughout the week, so that everyone would know about it” 288 . “The Patriarch from time to time sent special skilled archimandrites and priests to admonish schismatics in places where the schism manifested itself with greater force. For this purpose, for example, by his order in 1687, the archimandrite of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, Ignatius (later Metropolitan of Tobolsk), went to Kostroma and Kineshma 289. The most important thing is what Patr did. Joachim, in order to counteract the cause of schism, is the publication of polemical anti-schismatic works, among which the main place is occupied by the Spiritual Advice 290, “in it all their (the schismatics’) charm, anger and madness are laid bare,” which was sent to the diocesan bishops in many copies so that “these books were sent by them to the cities and monasteries subordinate to them and where there is a large gathering of people happens” and would be read in meetings by the people of God often so that no one would be tempted by deceived people with harmful verbs 291. Uvet constitutes such a major phenomenon both for the time when it was published and for the subsequent one that we consider it not only not superfluous, but also necessary to say a few words about it here, especially since this promises us to clarify some more characteristic features in the relations of patres. Joachim to a schism, and therefore will not be a deviation from our main thought. The schism, condemned by the council of 1666–1667 and then subjected to persecution by the civil authorities, was not determined in its existence by ignorance alone, as was previously thought; Some people still think so. It was, and still is, a reaction in the minds of Russian people, who are not easily susceptible to outside influence, who are slowly moving along the path of development, a reaction to that new direction in Russian life in general and in church-religious life in particular, which began in Rus' in the 17th century and was expressed, among other things, in the correction of church liturgical books. Therefore, from the very beginning of its official existence, the schism tried to find reasonable grounds for itself. Its adherents submitted petitions to the authorities in which they proved the correctness of their cause, showing the reasons why they do not want to have communion with the Orthodox Church and demand recognition of their rights. And the church authorities, which had the responsibility to admonish these erring ones, also from the very beginning of the schism tried to present to the zealots of an imaginary antiquity the inconsistency of their convictions and their demands. As you know, the council, having condemned the schismatics, was also concerned with refuting their opinions - it issued a “rod” written by Simeon of Polotsk, one of the leading people of that time, a champion of Western European education that was then penetrating Moscow. But Polotsky did not understand well, and given his mentality, could not understand the demands of the schismatics and did not give them in his staff answers to what they were mainly pointing at. Having received a school education, Simeon reacted with surprise to the petitions of Nikita and Lazarus, who, according to him, were drowning in the breeze of grammatical reason 292 and limited his denunciations mainly to florid abuse of the ignorance of the “empty saints”, but said almost nothing against them from the Divine Scriptures - he did not strike them with his own weapon - the ancient church liturgical books. The schismatics recognized the rod as an unsatisfactory answer; they could and did object to it, 293 repeating almost the same thing that they had said before. At the council of 1682, as we know, they again submitted a petition, almost identical in content to their previous petitions. – The answer to this petition was Uvet 294. It was published less than two months after the council on July 5, precisely at the beginning of September, it was published for the confirmation of pious people, and for the assurance and appeal to repentance from the delusion of schismatics in the holy church 295. Uvet consists of two parts: historical and polemical; - in the first part, which serves as an introduction to the second, the matter of correcting church liturgical books under Patriarch Nikon and the appearance of detractors of this work, who were then condemned for this by the council of archpastors and whom the pious Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich imprisoned as an ambassador and imprisoned in prison, and others even put on fire, are described in detail. It is further narrated that one of those sent for homesteading, the exiled priest Nikita, repented and was accepted into communion with the church, but he again devoted himself to the cause of the schism and was the main figure in the preparations for the rebellion of 1682 and in the rebellion itself. Here follows a detailed story - about all the furies that the schismatics allowed themselves before the cathedral on July 5th and during the cathedral, and about the reprisal against the furious fathers after the cathedral. The second part of the polemical appeal is nothing more than “a short broadcast and evidence from old books” against the absurd broadcasts of the schismatics, set out “in a row”, according to the order of the articles of the petition submitted at the council of 1682, with the addition at the beginning of comments regarding, firstly, the fact that the petition was submitted without signatures so that there was nowhere to find the rebels, and secondly, that even the most petitions, written by commoners and ignorant people, speak against the schismatics 296 . At the end of this part, after analyzing the last (24) article, the petition was made as a special application, also of a polemical nature, about the finding of St. Joachim in the patriarchal sacristy - in 1682, on September 5th, where he went to give alms for the sake of St. relics to the newly installed bishops, to the newly established bishopric, at the right hand of the apostle. Andrew the First-Called with a clover-like build 297. Further, in the same appendix it is said that in vain the schismatics refer to ancient translations of the holy books and deny their new correction, and here’s why: these books were originally written in Greek, and were already translated from it into the Slavic language; but “translating books into another language (in general) is extremely difficult, and translating from Greek is even more so, since this language in itself is “extremely difficult”, for this reason and according to the common proverb among people: “without spoiling the first thing, without doing something, in our first translations of liturgical books there are many defects, which, although they should not serve as a reason for reproaches to translators, nevertheless must be corrected. In addition, these errors were even increased in the past by illiterate copyists who “did not know the spelling of power,” which was also very difficult, since at that time there were no dots or other signs, with them the light of scripture is revealed. Therefore, just as in former times in books some words were replaced by others, so later, when publishing in type, the books were corrected, but even at that time they were not completely corrected, which the publishers themselves were aware of and “asked those who knew the teaching of the word”: if they had sinned in anything, type and printing, they would kindly correct them in every way. Even Metropolitan Macarius himself was aware of these shortcomings of printed books, and with his special care he wrote twelve great books, less than four. - From now on, the madness of the schismatics has been revealed to everyone 298. But the first part of Uvet is not purely historical. The very beginning of it, which says that only obedience to the laws of the church is accompanied by much peace and that, on the contrary, disobedience to them entails discord and disorder, that therefore everyone should obey it and not pay attention to the seducers, clearly indicates the polemical purpose of this part. The same goal is visible in the very presentation of the matter of correcting books under Patriarch Nikon and in the story about the rebellion of 1682; but in addition, there are often direct denunciations of schismatics and warnings against their deceptions of the Orthodox 299. One can, and seems to have to, think from this that this part was compiled specifically for the reason that the schismatics, having emerged from the Faceted Chamber on July 5, triumphantly and supposedly proclaiming their victory over the authorities, did not give up this idea even after the massacre of their fathers was carried out and seduced the gullible Orthodox. In order to weaken them at this point and present the work of the council of 1682, as well as the work of correcting the books, in which the schismatics saw a departure from Orthodoxy, in their true light, the first part of the Uvet was written: “let every Christian learn this, and let him teach another, having heard it himself, and let it be known to another, having heard and seen it, it is known (reliably) this, i.e., how the book correction happened 300. The fight against the schism, thus, was transferred to the soil of historical criticism, a soil not unknown to St. Nikon, but quite familiar to St. Joachim, under whom it grew stronger and, as we know, has already managed to bear fruit. As for the second part of Uvet, it represents, as we said, an analysis of the schismatic petition of 1682 in the order of its articles, and in its main character it is completely consistent with the first part. And to it, as in the first part, the fight against the schism is carried out on a critical-historical basis - in it the articles of the petition, based on the differences that were noticed by the schismatics in the newly corrected books, in comparison with the books of previous editions, are refuted by references to ancient printed and written books, Greek and Slavic, and these references cover almost the entire rich stock of ancient books that were collected by the patriarch. Nikon, when he undertook the correction of books 301. but the refutations are not limited to this: in the most ancient books, from which well-known passages are cited here, in order to justify by them parallel passages in the newly corrected books, these passages are explained and interpreted, and thus the question is resolved - why they exist in one form and not another - ours, and not the schismatic 302. True, there are also florid rantings and reproaches of schismatics for ignorance and unfamiliarity with grammatical art, but this fruitless oratory does not constitute an essential part here; in addition, it should be noted that it does not belong to Uvet, as his property - the oratorical rantings are borrowed for the most part from the Rod 303. This was the direction adopted by the Orthodox Church in relation to the schism, expressed in Uvet, which can be called quite reasonable, which continues to the present time and one hardly needs to wish for it to change. Uvet undermined the schism at its very roots, and therefore it still serves as the basis for all anti-schism writings. The influence of Western enlightenment in Moscow; innovations of young men educated in Lithuania, the question of the time of the transubstantiation of St. Gifts; learned champions of Latin opinions - Simeon of Polotsk, Sylvester Medvedev; dissemination of the Latin opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of St. Gifts, popular unrest; arrival of the Jesuits in Moscow. The means used by P. Joachim against the papezhniks: relations with the Eastern patriarchs, translation of books sent from the East, publication of “Revelation” and “Conversations”, arrival in Moscow of Likhudov, “Akos”, works of Euthymius. The fanaticism of the papezhniks, a conspiracy for the life of the patriarch. Shcheglovity, his execution, the repentance of Medvedev and Savva the Long. Council on the case of the Popes. – Influence of the “Germans” in Moscow, sale of icons printed on paper sheets; Western teachers, Yan Belobodsky, Quirin Kulman, regimental commanders. The measures of P. Joachim against them, his “testament” to the kings about foreigners. “Young men from the reigning city of Moscow wanted to go to the Polish kingdom for the sake of studying” 304. The young generation of Moscow, not satisfied with Moscow literacy and wanting a broader education, went to look for it in the Lithuanian regions bordering Moscow, then subordinate to Poland. This was around the half of the seventeenth century. In Lithuania, these young men met with Jesuit education 305. But the Jesuits, suppressing in their pupils the desire and ability to find living truth and disposing of being content with mere forms, artificiality, in a word - scholasticism, at the same time tried to make ardent adherents of the papacy out of their pupils. They did not communicate true education in their schools. Yes, they didn’t mean it; - their main goal - both in everything, and especially in the education of Moscow youth - was the propaganda of the papacy. “That’s why the Jesuits have diligence,” is noted in the accusatory word composed on behalf of P. Joachim on Semeon of Polotsk and his followers, who were keen on Western education, - then the Jesuits have a desire to add young students in every possible way to their morals and their churches in following 306. Jesuits, as you know. They did not even allow Orthodox Christians into their colleges unless they first forced them to renounce Orthodoxy and took an oath from them to faithfully serve the Roman throne for the rest of their lives. What could be expected after this from those inquisitive Moscow youths who sought education in Lithuania - who had to buy the right to listen to the liberal sciences at the cost of apostasy from the Orthodox faith?... Of course, their apostasy was only temporary and could have been, and was, feigned: returning to their homeland, they again accepted Orthodoxy. But is it really possible to allow the Jesuits, these great experts on the human soul, to be mistaken in their calculations?.. No. “Whoever studied with the Jesuits,” according to contemporary testimony, “cannot be an Orthodox son of a very Eastern Church 308.” And these young men, “having been there for some time and become accustomed to the Latin scripture and local law, and even more so from the Jesuits admonishing and punishing him, returned to their homes in the reigning city of Moscow, telling some known by their priest and noble husband, the great virtues of those who have, as Belarusians are Christians and Latin in the proclamation of words the Lord’s” “take, eat”... “worship the body and blood of Christ” 309. These educated young men, students of the Jesunts, first of all and most of all turned their attention to the external side of the difference between Orthodoxy and the papacy 310. The Jesuits managed to throw some of their seeds into the center of the Russian land. And these seeds found here soil favorable for their growth. “They (the noble people of Moscow) who heard from them (the young men), as from their sincere ones, were also inspired, even if the words of Christ were fulfilled in the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, and at that time, as if I were the body and blood of Christ, I would worship the body. And so these young men boldly began to bow down during the words of Christ: on this, these noble ones, and so do the same things that follow 311. These were the first harbingers of the unrest that subsequently engulfed the Russian capital. With the subordination of Little Russia to the Moscow state, as well as some Polish cities, under Alexei Mikhailovich, these harbingers began to appear more and more often and with greater force. The Little Russians, having succumbed to the strong hand of the Moscow Sovereign, now received free passage across the Great Russian border and “priests and monastics and laymen began to come from there to the Moscow state, who had previously lived collectively with the Poles and Lithuania, with real Latin parts and wisdom, and who had learned every Latin custom, and, going to church, heard the cry priest of the word of Christ... “Take and eat”... I worship in Latin, which he had previously learned from cohabitation, a lot of teaching and from reading books of Latin and Polish, acquired the habit... But in vain and hearing from them the Latin they accepted about that ranting and the Great Russian people out of simplicity, or, as you say, out of jealousy and reverence (ignorant of this truth) beginning at that time to bow down as the existing body and blood of Christ. And so, little by little, here in great Russia there is worship, not from the church of the saints, but from the teachings of St. Father commanded, but from a foreign, indecent, but more harmful heretical Latin new custom and ranting of the custom” 312. The influence of the West, or more precisely of Catholicism, now obviously assumed much greater proportions. - It captured more than just the noble people of Moscow. The most insignificant circumstance, apparently, nevertheless characterizes the spirit of the Muscovites and in general all Russian people in the best possible way, a circumstance that further strengthened this influence of papism in Rus'. “Then, as time passed, little by little, people began, from the same youths and Little Russians, they were exhorted to rant, think and speak about the ringing of things at the liturgy, as if they were ringing for the words of Christ and for the fulfillment of the mystery, and then most of all people began to worship most diligently, remembering the body and blood of Christ. Whoever was somewhere at that time, either in church, or in the house, or on the road, or in handicrafts, or in the market place, heard the ringing of that one, and everyone, standing up, bowed down to God-like worship, imaginatively and verbally worshiping the body of Christ, it is not known that in the liturgy at that time the bread and wine had not yet been transformed into the body and blood of Christ and as the custom of that Western church has fallen away from piety... And so from the narrative of these young men, who studied with the Lativians and Belarusians, neighboring with the Latins and accustomed to their custom, this custom of these worships is alien to this” 313. Here are the fruits that grew on Russian soil from the seeds of Western civilization around the middle of the 17th century. The West, or more precisely, the Jesuits, took advantage of the need for education that had awakened in Rus' for their own religious and selfish purposes; They did not give the inquisitive Muscovites a true education, but rather a one-sided one, one precisely tailored to their orderly framework and aimed at the detriment of Orthodoxy. The Jesuits' views on Russia were supported by their own pets - the Little Russians. True, these innovations of the first young men who became acquainted with Jesuit education obviously related at first only to the external ritual side of church practice and met with sympathy from the Muscovites, only from the “simplicity, or, as they say, from jealousy and reverence” of the latter. But behind this outer shell came the inner side of the matter. The ringing of bells and worship at the liturgy during the words “receive, eat” entailed recognition in Orthodox Rus' of one of the points separating the Western Church from the Eastern. This means that the matter was not at all as unimportant as it might seem at first glance. The zealots of Orthodoxy of that time saw “here is not a little, but the greatest tradition and custom of the Orthodox tradition and progress” 314. It is not for nothing that P. Nikon, back in 1656, considered it necessary to communicate on this subject with the Patriarch of Constantinople 315 and in his Tablet he placed a refutation of Western opinion 316. The question was obviously coming to the fore, although it had not yet been clarified as it should have been. Only a few had a clear understanding of it. The majority, both noble people of Moscow and the people, had only a vague idea about him. They stopped, as we have seen, mainly on its outer shell, although perhaps they tried to penetrate into the very, as they say, essence of the matter 317. But as time went on, this question never ceased to interest Russian society. In Moscow, learned defenders of the Latin opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts finally appeared. - not like the quiet Moscow inquisitive youths who, having been in Jesuit schools, talked only about bowing and ringing bells during the words “come and eat.” The new champions of this opinion treated it with full consciousness and propagated it, being armed with subtle and resourceful Latin “syllogisms.” In 1664, Hieromonk Semeon of Polotsk arrived in Moscow from Polotsk, a man who, according to even his enemies, was a learned and good-natured man 318 and already familiar to the Tsar 319 . Affectionately received at the royal court and combining deft courtesy and apparent gentleness with a sufficient measure of cunning and cunning 320, he soon acquired weight and importance here. He was entrusted with the resurrection of the royal heir Feodor Alekseevich, and through this he became a constant interlocutor with other members of the royal family and received the power of a court confidant. At the same time, Polotsky considered it not superfluous to gain confidence in himself and favor with church authorities. “Foreshadowed by the Jesuits of the papasages of existence and seduced by them, although he philosophized the Latin new ideas of the right to be, he showed himself to be a follower of Eastern piety” 321 and managed to so win over the elderly P. of Moscow Joasaph in his favor that he, without the slightest fear, “handed over to him all kinds of church affairs to write 322 and allowed” him to write with his in the name of everything you want" 323. Having established his position so well, Polotsky soon began to discover what kind of person he really was. Possessing lively abilities and education, although shallow, but satisfying the breadth of modern requirements 324, he entered the field of literary, or more precisely, oratorical activity, guided mainly by Latin and Polish sources and translating the ready-made 325 and in his writings, intentionally or unintentionally, began to cite “the Latin malice of a certain heresy” 326. Around 1668, by the way, for example, his word “on standing reverently in church” was published, in which he did not express in passing, but also tried to confirm with syllogisms the Latin opinion that we have already mentioned, namely, about the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist with the words “receive, eat” and about the worship of those present at this time 327. In 1670, another of his works, “The Crown of Faith,” was published, which was a complete dogma, a complete course of dogma 328 , which was based on the apostolic symbol, known in the West, but not known in the East 329 , in which indifferentism was noticeable and in which, moreover, in addition to revealing dogmatic truths, it contained many “evil thorns in the West "frozen" under the influence of scholasticism and expressed here in a variety of sophisticated studies about various empty and insoluble questions 330, in which astronomical unreliable fortune-telling was also encountered 331. In 1671, Polotsk published the “Catechism”, in which he, among other things, approved of the way of expressing marital love, which was not used among the Orthodox and known only in the West, a way “very blasphemous and vile and dishonest” 332. During the patriarchate of Joasaph, Semeon published the words “about the search for wisdom,” “about Divine Scripture,” and others, acting on behalf of the church authorities, sometimes even arbitrarily appropriating the authority of this authority to his writings. - But Polotsk at this time had not yet spoken out in full, perhaps encountering opposition from the famous “many learned man” Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, a strict zealot of Orthodoxy, who enjoyed the attention of civil and ecclesiastical authorities 333. Polotsk began to speak out much more directly and openly during the patriarchate of Pitirim. Having once been invited by the patriarch to the chamber of the cross and having met here with Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, he, according to his custom of “asking Epiphanius about many incomprehensible things,” proposed the following question to the latter: “how, father, does your holy thing believe about the transubstantiation of bread and wine at the Divine lepturgy into the body and blood of Christ - the words of Christ: “take and eat” and etc., or the priest’s prayer: “Create this bread - an honest body, etc.?” And when this one answered him that he believed according to the teachings of the Eastern Church, i.e., that transubstantiation is accomplished with the words: “do this..., Simeon directly noted that this is not what the “Western teachers” and “scientists in Kyiv” teach. Epiphanius refuted the Latin opinion on the basis of paternal testimony 334. But Polotsky was not convinced by Slavenitsky’s words and remained with his previous opinion regarding the time of the transubstantiation of gifts. Polotsky began to act with even greater courage and determination after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich. Taking advantage of the almost unlimited trust of the new sovereign of his pupil and constant proximity to him, “living, as one contemporary record says, “under the great sovereign” 335, he now had a strong influence on the social environment. - At this time, as Tatishchev reports, he drew up a plan for the transformation of the Russian church hierarchy on the model of the Latin Church, the plan which, as we already know, was to establish in Rus' the name and importance of the pope for the highest hierarch and to subordinate several patriarchs to him 336. Not without his participation, one can think that a project was proposed to the tsar at the same time to change the civil hierarchy 337. But the main thing that Polotsky devoted his energy to was the oratorical activity that he had declared before, only it now took on a freer character. Since 1676, against the custom of the Russian clergy, speaking translated teachings of St. fathers, he restored live preaching, long unheard of in Rus': following the example of Polish and Little Russian preachers, he began to compose his sermons and speak them in churches 338. These sermons, the content of which was often borrowed from Latin and Polish books and in which he clearly held Latin opinions about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts and about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son 339. aroused displeasure against him on the part of the Orthodox, and St. Joachim, an ardent defender of Orthodoxy and the Russian people, more than once expressed his displeasure to him and forbade him to preach. But Simeon, powerful at court, did not pay attention to the patriarch’s remarks and continued his work. Moreover, he even planned to publish his sermons in print; and when he encountered an obstacle to this from the patriarch, he opened, with the permission of the king, the so-called upper printing house, and in it he printed his sermons called “spiritual dinner” and “spiritual supper,” adding to them his words written on behalf of the bishops to expose the weaknesses and vices of the priests of that time and on behalf of the priests to those under them in their flock 340. The book “Psalms” was printed in the same printing house, “but not like that which was hung in the Church of St. through David the Father of God by the Holy Spirit.” read”, but “or collected from Polish books by Simeon or translated from a ready-made one, even if there are many additions and subtractions to be had in oneself” 341, a psalter set out in verse, decorated with the flowers of not the psalmist’s eloquence 342. And in order to give his published works greater significance, Polotsky, without any hesitation in the prefaces to them, announced that they were published by order of the Tsar and the blessing of the Patriarch, although the latter, as he himself later testified, “before the stupid publication of those books, he not only did not read, but also did not see, and did not give not only his blessing, but also permission for their publication 343 " “That’s when Simeon got the hang of it!” With all this, Simeon of Polotsk was still modest, cautious in expressing Western opinions, so it was impossible to say decisively what thought he was thinking, “whether all this writing is out of jealousy, or cunningly, to deceive the Orthodox and introduce into the papacy “his conscience is the message,” his contemporaries - enemies said on this subject 344. A native of the Polish provinces, gifted with a subtle and resourceful mind, Polotsky, having arrived in the north, was not too bold in his actions, did not sharply encroach on the beliefs and characters of others and did not impose his thoughts by force. Moreover, he did not concentrate his activities on any one point; his activities were varied and diverse as much as his knowledge was varied, as varied were the circumstances that he had to face in his court position, and finally, to the extent that he, considering himself superior to all Muscovites in education, wanted to immediately inform them of the information he had brought from his native land. Not so - there were his followers, acquired by him in Moscow itself. Fascinated by the new concepts they brought, they wanted to see, at all costs, their application in their homeland. “They led them into Russian life with all possible strength of persistence. The leader of such followers of Simeon of Polotsk at that time was the builder of the Zaikonospasky Monastery, Sylvester Medvedev 345. Medvedev is from Kursk; Having been there as a “scribe of civil affairs, a clerk,” he was even then seduced by some Latin opinions from the Kyiv newly created books 346. But then he was still “unskilled”, although he imagined himself “wise” and from his youth he was long-winded and sharp-verbal and inquisitive, having a doorless mouth, but his tongue was not silently wandering (chattering) as much as his whole body wanted to be a tongue 347 . His rich natural talents became stronger and his superficial erudition gained greater stability only in Moscow, where he moved from Kursk and where, after spending some time in the order of secret affairs, 348 he changed his clerical rank to a monastic rank and became the builder of the Zaikonospassky Monastery. When Simeon of Polotsk arrived in Moscow, he was assigned to live in the Zaikonospassky Monastery. Medvedev soon became friends with him and, living in the same cell 349, learned from him “the honor of the Latin book 350. Reading books not only of Little Russian, but also Latin, correspondence with some scientists from a previous acquaintance 351 and especially “hearing the words of his teacher” Polotsk 352 made him “a monk of great intelligence and acuity” 353 and at the same time the most ardent supporter of Catholic opinions - he surrendered to them with all the forces of his ardent restless 354 nature - “all of his deviated" 355 and refusing to obey the church authority and "denouncing the bishops and the four patriarchs with abusive names and despising the holy Eastern Church, he strives by God's permission, but by the action of the devil, the dogmas and traditions of St. Apostle and St. father, existing according to the rank of Eastern St. The church of the debauched people turned the Orthodox people into Latinism 356, using for this all their “long-tongued language and sharp-tongued language and arrogance.” And at the same time he concentrated mainly on one point. He devoted his energetic activity to the question that had already occupied Russian minds several years ago, namely the question of the time of transubstantiation, “expanding, according to contemporary testimony, and establishing the Latin heresy among the people: first, remember, as the theme of the death (take, eat...) of bread and wine being transformed into the body and blood of Christ; secondly, as if the words “take, eat” are spoken to the people commanding the acceptance of food; The third and most evil thing is that in those words we worship the body and blood of Christ, even though bread and wine are, in essence, only representative of the body and blood of Christ, as is the presentation of the Holy One. gifts at the great entrance" 357. Not content with just oral propaganda of this Latin opinion, Medvedev also disseminated it through his writings. So he wrote the book “Animal Bread” in the form of questions from a student and answers from a teacher, where the latter defended the idea of ​​the transubstantiation of gifts with the words of Christ and presented it as the teaching of the Eastern Church 358. But another essay by Medvedev, written by him in defense of “Animal Bread”, against the objections made to him by the monk Evfimy, enjoyed particular popularity and significance. This was “Manna,” in which he directly said that the Eastern Church does not follow Christ’s teaching, but adheres to human traditions, and that the Roman Church, on the contrary, holds transubstantiation with Christ and will follow Christ’s teaching. To prove his thoughts, Medvedev cited passages from the works of Chrysostom, falsely explained by him, referred to books published in Little Russia, reproached the Orthodox for the fact that they only disagree with the Roman Church in this, so as not to agree with the Romans, and said that therefore they need to renounce the faith in the Son of God and baptism, worship of icons, etc., since all this is contained in the Roman church; further condemned the Eastern Church for the fact that it assimilates greater power to “priestly prayers than to the words of Jesus Christ.” And some in that book, as Sylvester himself later admitted, madly praised the Western Roman Catholic Church, and damnation and reproaches and reproaches and false speech 359 to the Eastern Church. This is how the most zealous champion of the Latin opinion about the time of transubstantiation acted. Of course, Medvedev's other accomplices did not remain inactive; but their activities were nothing particularly outstanding. With their recent development, they were not independent in solving a problem that required considerable in-depth and, moreover, was surrounded by scholastic subtleties. As “teachings that know nothing, they limited themselves only to propaganda of what they heard from their sharp-tongued leader - they distributed “Manna”, which Medvedev himself handed to them, to people of various ranks, allowing themselves only an explanation - teaching people according to this scripture 360. However, not being independent in their activities, they were all the more diligent and energetic in carrying out assignments. With the assistance of these accomplices, Medveedev finally managed so much in his business that the opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts with the words: “come, eat” and so on. threatened to become dominant not only in the upper stratum of Russian society, but also among the common people 361. And this storm was all the more dangerous because, at that time, books of the Little Russian edition, in which 362 that opinion was decisively recognized as true, 363 joined the words and writings of the Moscow champions of the Catholic opinion; and finally, at the Moscow Marketplaces, the notorious printed notebook “Report on the Church and Church Speeches” appeared, a notebook in which with apparent thoroughness, albeit with scholastic resourcefulness, the validity of the said Latin opinion was proven on the basis of ancient patristic evidence 364, a notebook accessible at its insignificant price to poor literate people 365. The danger to the Orthodox teaching about the time of transubstantiation, we repeat, was great. It also increased because the Muscovites, with a lack of scientific education, found it difficult to protect themselves in this case from the influence of Catholicism, difficult because Latinism in this point of teaching was not presented in sharp opposition to Orthodoxy. This time Catholicism captivated even the most well-intentioned people sincerely devoted to Eastern Orthodoxy. The Latin opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts therefore crept in, although in a not entirely definite form, 366 and into the Typikon published in 1682, approved, as we know, by the council and by St. Joachim himself, it crept, of course, through an oversight. Such were the branches grafted into Russian life from the civilization of the West. Original Russian piety faced the unprecedented tactics of the army of the Pope and could not maintain its purity. The Jesuits walked towards their goal in a slow, yet sure way 367. How did the church authorities react to this? We already know that St. Joachim used moral measures against Simeon of Polotsk. He used the same measures on his student Sylvester Medvedev. “His Holiness Patriarch Joachim especially and popularly admonished him, Sylvester, if only he should from this (Latin, stop, follow the ancient tradition of the Holy Eastern Church 368. But could these admonitions of the Patriarch have any significance for Medvedev after he “deviated from the Holy Church and from its high priests”?.. “He (Medvedev) did not listen at all, but rather boasted of corrupting the entire existence of the church, and moreover, he confused and seduced the people.” 369 Medvudev and his accomplices looked at themselves as civilizers called by fate to spread Western enlightenment among Muscovites and they considered anyone who did not agree with their “wisdom” to be “unskilled and unlearned.” It seemed to them that the patriarch himself and the Russian bishops, being ignoramuses, wanted to keep themselves and others in ignorance 370 I. All that remained for Joachim, therefore, was to use any, but only decisive measures against the champions of the Latin teaching: but they were not possible at that time, not possible because just as Polotsk was a favorite of the royal court, so through him Medvedev and his accomplices enjoyed royal patronage. Moreover, Medvndev had a strong defender of his cause in the person of the famous favorite of Princess Sophia, Fyodor Shcheglovity and the then strong Prince Golitsyn 371. P. Joachim could not act decisively against Medvedev because many noble Moscow men were on the latter’s side; The patriarch could not use extreme measures against the Moscow “papezhniks” (for brevity’s sake we will call the Moscow champions of the Latin opinion on the transubstantiation of gifts with the words: “receive, eat”...) and finally because that was the time of the most intense activity of the schism teachers, when they declared a life-or-death struggle for the church 372. It is clear that determination in this state of affairs would not have led St. Joachim to any good results. On the contrary, even she could have turned the boyars against him, she could have diverted the royal dvbr from him and he would have remained in a hopeless situation; and beyond that - what could have happened to the entire Orthodox Russian Church! Meanwhile, the papezhniks, taking advantage of such unfavorable circumstances for their opponents, went further and further in their propaganda - “they embarrassed the people in the worst way.” And thus, after the question of the schism was over in 1682, another question appeared on the stage of Moscow life - the question of the time of the transubstantiation of gifts. The then excited state of Russian society could not have been more favorable to this production. According to modern testimony, “in the lamentation of that time, worthy of God’s permission, but by the permission of the murderer of the enemy the devil, people have become self-absorbed, not keeping the Divine law and rejecting the fear of God, not only sacredness, but also simpletons, not paying attention to each of their ranks, in which they were ordered by God or from the king, they began to dare about the mystery of the sacred sacraments To rant and question the Eucharist and talk and broadcast about it and be curious about each other... Everywhere with each other, in gatherings, in interviews, at feasts, in marketplaces and wherever anyone happens to each other, in Jacob in any place, temporarily and untimely, husbands and wives have a word about the sacraments, and about the action and fulfillment of them, especially about the sacrament of the sacraments (where the angels tremble) of the Most Holy Eucharist, as bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ and at what time and with what words” 373. The most holy sacrament thus became the subject of street debate! Moreover, it became the cause of discord between “reverent” Muscovites. The latter, in their zeal and at the same time “simplicity,” were ready to use their external force on this issue, as well as on schismatic issues. “Because of such unconventional and inappropriate testimonialism and arrogance, I have grown into quarrels and strife and enmity”... 374. The papal question was obviously established on the same basis on which the schism stood. In Moscow, popular unrest began again, an unrest more formidable for the church than there was in 1682 in the matter of schism, since on the one hand the church at that time, as we mentioned above, could not count on the benefit of civil power, - on the other hand, because the papezhniks had on their side not only “noble men”, but also many of the clergy and even some of the Russian bishops themselves, who acted with them in unison saintly authority 375, because in general all the best forces in Moscow belonged to papalism. At this time, the very first culprits of the unrest among Muscovites, the Jesuits, arrived in Moscow. These honest fathers saw that the seeds they had thrown onto Moscow soil had sprouted and had already borne fruit, and they now came to help them ripen, so that later they could take advantage of the always desired harvest. They made their way to Moscow along their usual route. Not expecting to meet sympathy here upon their open appearance, they took advantage of the relations of the German Emperor Leopold with the Moscow court for their own purposes and first, on the occasion of the marriage of John Alekseevich, escorted one of their brothers, who had the full sophistication and grace of a courtesan, to Moscow as a courier with congratulations from the Moscow court from Leopold. This was in 1684. In the same year, they sent several more of their own brethren to Moscow in the retinue of Zhirovsky’s embassy, ​​but they sent them in disguise; only one (Jesuit) Schmidt at that time had his real appearance as Zhirovsky’s confessor. The following year, the pope's army in Moscow increased somewhat. Two Jesuits, Albert Debois and Curtius, arrived here as couriers from the German Emperor, and in 1687 two more arrived - David Kodzini and Tovia Tikhanovsky - who arrived as private individuals with letters of recommendation from Leopold himself. So the Jesuits finally started their own small colony in Moscow. Soon they bought a house for themselves in the German settlement; and then, having declared themselves merchants, they began to fulfill their mission: they founded a school where they attracted the children of Muscovites, and began to distribute in translations their books and images on canvases and on antler bones that could serve their species - in a word, taking advantage of the then mood of Russian society and the circumstances favorable to their goals and, in addition, finding themselves patronage as distributors of education from the then powerful Prince Vasily Golitsyn, they began to propagate their beliefs by all means possible to them, although they refrained from explicitly declaring their plans 376, and even apparently did not take part at all in the issue that was then worrying the Russian capital: they were by profession, as we said, merchants! The case of the Moscow government officials has finally grown to such wide proportions. The opinion of the Western Church regarding the time of the transubstantiation of gifts was apparently ready to absorb the opinion of the Orthodox Church. And after that - who knows, whether this would not be only the first step towards the assimilation of the Russian Church and Roman Catholic teaching in general? After all, it was not for the same reason that the pope’s soldiers actually crept into Moscow, to carry out commercial transactions and only, as it were, by the way, to educate Moscow children. No, according to their calculations, it probably turned out that Russia would soon become a country submissive to the pope, and they would occupy the highest places in the church hierarchy in Rus', at least we do not dare to assume that Mikhail Yakonovitch (MisheI Iaconovich) is one of their brothers, complaining that he cannot hope to be the Moscow Patriarch, after St. Joachim, since a metropolitan was already intended to take his place Kazansky (Adrian) 377, we do not dare to assume that this honest father spoke so out of extravagance. We must allow such plans among the Jesuits - we must all the more so because among the popular unrest on a particular issue, voices were already heard that at the Council of Florence the Latins had overpowered the Greeks, that, according to the testimony of the zealots of Orthodoxy of that time, that particular issue entailed “all Latin heresy” and the Redians would have remained firmly standing in the eastern detached piety, “Much of them, even if not all of them were a little negligible, would have succumbed to the disastrous rumors of the priest’s evil, had not the all-powerful right hand of the Most High prevented this” 378. What was the obstacle of the right hand of the Most High to the strengthening of the Moscow papezhniks? First of all, the constraining circumstances in which the church authorities were placed in their relations with these opponents have changed. The schism that led to the rebellion in 1682, as we know, was calmed down; he was given satisfactory answers to his petition by the church authorities; civil power began to act against her rebellious inclinations with its own measures; n. Joachim in 1684 finally wrote “a word of gratitude to the Lord God for his great mercy, as he favored his holy church with his miraculous providence.” deliver apostates and evil slanderers from that,” - therefore, he was now free to concentrate his activities on countering the aspirations of the papezhniks. In addition, at this time the good-natured Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, at whose court the papezhniks found strong support, was no longer alive. After his death (1682 April 27), when the time of the Streltsy revolts came and when p. Joachim had to take a great part, as we will see later, in state affairs and have great influence on them - at this time the papezhniki could no longer hope for much support for their cause from the civil authorities. The patriarch could now count much more on this support; - and therefore could safely take decisive measures against the Papezhiks. Circumstances now favored him and not his opponents, as had been the case before. And he was not slow to use this for the benefit of the church. Having defrocked some clergy who were Medvedev's accomplices, he undertook the publication of refutations of the papezhniks. But here P. Joachim had to meet with an unforeseen obstacle, an obstacle that made the fight against his opponents unequal for him. This obstacle was that in Rus' at that time there were not those creations of the fathers to which the papezhniki referred. To eliminate this, the patriarch decided to enter into relations with the eastern patriarchs. He wrote to them about the unrest in his flock, aroused by disputes about the Eucharist, and asked them to help him in this matter - to send those paternal writings on which the papezhniki wanted to establish themselves. Eastern hierarchs took an active part in the situation of their Moscow brother. The Moldavian Metropolitan Dosifei also took part in the sad state of the Russian Church. P. Joachim soon received from them the necessary paternal creations, which related primarily to church services and sacred rites. P. Dospfey sent, for example, “a Greek book printed in Giaz (Iasi) by the wise Archbishop Simeon. Thessalonite 379, also sent the “Orthodox correction” of Peter Mogila, unknown until that time in Moscow 380, and other books. Metropolitan Dosifei of Moldova, for his part, sent some paternal writings already in a ready-made “verbal verbatim”, dedicating this translation to St. Joachim and asking him to accept it “as from his faithful servant 381.” In addition, to these books he added a special collection of testimonies “from the Greek language” compiled by him regarding the liturgy he saw “printed by a Roman doctor in Russian,” in which prayers for the invocation of the Holy Spirit were omitted 382, ​​a collection that, of course, was closely related to the issue that worried Moscow. This was in 1685. Upon receiving the books, P. Joachim first of all took care of their translation. He entrusted this work to the then-famous “Reverend Father Euthymius,” a student of Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, who was a book collector at the printing house 383. With zeal, Euthymius took up the task entrusted to him by the patriarch and, as skilled in his work, quickly moved from translating one book to another 384 385 presenting his works to Joachim for consideration 386 . But St. Joachim did not order everything to be translated indiscriminately, but mainly what could have immediate application at that time. The circumstances of the time - a question that worried the capital - were even the reason that the patriarch demanded that the translator translate certain passages from Greek books. “We have read that book (i.e., Simeon of Thessaloniki), says St. Joachim, and another printed Greek... called the Orthodox Confession, in addition, and other holy Eastern teachers, the words that we found in those about the accomplishment of St. the secrets of the Eucharist according to those who write, according to ancient tradition and the rite of St. The mother of our church is disgusted by the notebook subject to it (false, i.e. “Exhibition”). For this reason, I commanded that the blessed Simeon (who confirmed this notebook with his name) interpret the Divine Liturgy and about the church; and those in it word for word in the Slovenian dialect from the book thereof sent from His Holiness Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem and from the book of the Orthodox Confession..., the first parts of Chapter 107 and the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Synod about that, together with other holy fathers and the apostles themselves, words and forgeries in the robber neighbor of Florentine suggested from Latin to Greeks 387. It is clear that the patriarch wanted to put a limit to the arrogance of the papezhniks - he wanted to show their inconsistency as soon as possible. And his wish was indeed fulfilled: soon the “Revelation” was published in the world on “Exhibition”, a printed notebook that was sold in Moscow for 3-4 pennies and served as the main support for the papezhniki in their struggle with the Orthodox. In this denunciation, all those foundations were analyzed in detail and in detail, borrowed, as we mentioned above, from the works of St. fathers, on whom in the “Exposition” the opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts by the words of Christ was affirmed. According to the next consideration of passages from the writings of Simeon of Thessalonica, John Chrysostom, Herman the Patriarch of Constantinople, John of Damascus, Nil Kavasin and Ambrose of Milan, which was pointed out in the “Vikdad” in the denunciation, it was clearly shown that “this notebook shamelessly and openly lies and slanderes St. teachers, not a single saint is lower than the mind, lower than the piss, - the hedgehog pretends to be the bread and wine of the words only of Christ 388. But since the Moscow papezhniks, spreading their opinion, seduced the people with the fact that at the Council of Florence the Latins argued with the Greeks regarding the time of transubstantiation and that the opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts was confirmed by both Kyiv and even Moscow books, then p. Joachim considered it necessary to add to the published denunciation a brief history of the Council of Florence, where the true course of affairs at this council was revealed and it was shown that the Greeks, despite all the efforts of the Latins to win them over to their side, remained faithful to Orthodoxy 389. Following the denunciation and in addition to it, another “Conversation” was published in defense of the Orthodox opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts, which no longer had the purely polemical character that was given to the “Reproach.” In this “conversation” the said Orthodox opinion was confirmed by numerous evidence borrowed first from the ancient liturgies (St. James and St. Mark), and then from the writings of the fathers, starting from the very first times (Clement of Rome) and continuing through the entire history of Christianity until modern times. 390 was added to this evidence borrowed from Russian handwritten service books and printed ones kept in the patriarchal library 391. At the conclusion of this “conversation” it was said: “The knowledge of the truth collected here from the saints by the Apostle and St. is sufficient for all who are inspired. Father, the pillars of Orthodoxy and testimony from ancient handwritten and ancient printed books, as the Holy Faith has been believed since ancient times and today. Eastern Catholic Church and Sitsa dedicated to St. the apostles and taught St. fathers. And we believe and preach in the same way, saying: this is the faith of the Orthodox,” this faith strengthens the universe. Believing in one God, sung in the Trinity, we confess that the terrible sacrament will be accomplished by the coming and action of the Holy Spirit in the invocation and prayers of the priests, praying to God the Father: and make this bread the honorable body of Thy Christ, and make the holy blood of Thy Christ into the cups, having transposed it with Thy Holy Spirit. Amen, Amen Amen. Otherwise, if you think about these things, let the faithful be far from the church and from the flock of the faithful, and he who is outside the sheepfold of Christ will be destroyed from the soul-destroying wolves and part of him will be with all those who oppose the truth, unless he sincerely repents about it and does not tear away alien wisdom from himself and the truth and preaching” 392 . Meanwhile, St. Joachim was thus concerned about drawing up refutations of the papezhniks and, it should be noted, took care with great haste, 393 especially since at the same time his relations began with the Little Russian bishops, mainly regarding, as we will see, the same issue, 394 “the most verbal and wise hieromonks Ioannikis and Sophronius of the Likhudiev self-brethren arrived in Moscow from the glorious island of Cephalonia, whose glory “predetermined” their path to Moscow and embarrassed the Jesuits themselves, so that the latter used all possible measures to prevent them from entering Moscow, and let them out of their hands only because they left Poland “in secret.” The Likhudiev self-brothers were summoned to Moscow and came here in the capacity, as we will see, of teachers at the then newly opened academy, but St. Joachim took advantage of their arrival to protect Orthodoxy from the papezhniks, especially since with their extensive knowledge of ancient and modern Greek spiritual literature 395 they could advocate against the innovators with greater success than any of the Russians. P. Joachim instructed the Likhuds to write a refutation of Medvedev’s writings, which they compiled in a short time. Self-brothers wrote Akos or healing opposed to the poisonous remorse of the serpent 396. This essay, written in the form of a dialogue between a student and a teacher, except for the preface 397 at the beginning and the superword at the end, consists of 21 questions from the student and the same number of answers from the teacher. - Here, after preliminary concepts about the sacraments in general 398, the Likhuds, proving the inconsistency of the opinion of the Western Church about the transubstantiation of gifts with the words: “take, eat,” pointed out first of all (answer 4), that in the Roman Church itself the sign of the cross is used over bread and wine both before and after the utterance of the words of Christ - a sign combined with a request for the consecration of the gifts presented and therefore not appropriate for their transubstantiation 399 and then, considering the order of the celebration of the Eucharist in the Eastern Church and finding here the use of the sign of the cross in conjunction with the invocation of the Holy Spirit after the words of Christ, thereby showing the truth of the Orthodox opinion about the time of transubstantiation. Further (answer 5) the falsity of the Latin opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts with the words: “take, eat” and so on. In "Akos" it was deduced from the fact that at the Last Supper these words were preceded by thanksgiving, blessing and the breaking of bread, and therefore the performance of the sacrament itself - and (answer 6) now these words have only a narrative meaning in the liturgy, and this meaning has been and is being adopted by all the churches of the eastern countries. After that (answer 7) having decided the question - why are the words of Christ pronounced out loud and why do the people in the person of the clergy pronounce the latter: “Amen”, the Likhuds (answer 8) refuted the objection of the papezhniks that the words: “do wretched things”... the meaning of petitions is not for the transubstantiation of gifts, but only for the fruits of the sacrament (as in being a communicant in the sobriety of the soul) - they refuted, revealing the meaning of the addition immediately following those words: “having been transformed by Thy Holy Spirit. Then the conclusions from the previous discussions were stated, namely (answer 9) about the impropriety of worshiping gifts and the revelation of chapters by monks while pronouncing the words: “receive, eat”..., and on the contrary, decency to do this at the time when the priest says: “holy to holies,” - about (answer 10) at what other times the sacred sacraments should be revealed to a monk, and finally (answer 11) about worshiping “for the sake of reverence during the Lord’s words.” Further in Akos, discussions again followed about the difference in opinions of the Eastern and Western churches regarding the time of the transubstantiation of gifts, and here, first of all (answer 12), it was shown that the opinion about the celebration of the Eucharist with the words of Christ belongs precisely to the West, and not to the East, as some claimed, “deceiving the people,” and then the false Latin interpretation of the verb …………….. used in “the word of Chrysostom about the Jewish tradition”, to express the meaning that bread and wine receive during the utterance of the words “take, eat ... (not the transformation, but the transformation of the preparation), while other places from the writings of Chrysostom and the testimonies of many saints were also indicated. Fathers and the definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Next, we examined (answer 14) the apparent contradiction between St. fathers that some of them (Basily the Great) adopted the name of antitype for the gifts before their transformation, others (Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian) - after. – At the same time, the allegorical meaning of antitype was indicated (“in the image of the passion of Christ”), in which this word was used last and the definition of the 7th Ecumenical Council was given that antitypes are gifts before sanctification. Then (the 15th answer) in Akes, to confirm the opinion of the Eastern Church, the books and service books of Moscow and Kyiv, early printed and written, were calculated, and then (the 16th answer) a refutation from Simeon of Thessalonica to the book Exposition was presented, and finally (the 17th answer) the history of the Florence Council was briefly outlined. But the Likhudievs’ self-brotherhood did not limit themselves in their “Akos” to resolving only the main issue raised at that time in Moscow: they did not ignore some other issues that came to Moscow from the West at the same time as the main one. - questions rooted in the practice of Rome and supported by scholasticism. They also included in Akos an analysis of the form of words that the Latins use for baptism (“I baptize” and not “is baptized” - Rep. 18), as well as a decision on whether it is possible for many bishops and priests to baptize one together (Rep. 19), - whether it is possible for a bishop or priest to baptize many in one font (Rep. 20), - whether it is finally possible for a person to baptize himself (Rep. 19). 21st) 400 . The Likhuds' multi-scientific polemics focused the attention of both warring parties; both the Orthodox and the Orthodox saw the unshakable power of evidence. Despite all this, P. Joachim also considered “Akos” to be insufficient to defeat the Latins. The zealots of Orthodoxy, and especially the monk Euthymius, already named by us, at his request and under his leadership, 401 at that time subjected to the most strict analysis, sometimes even going to the smallest detail, everything that came out of the hands of the papezhniks. Thus, at that time, albeit brief comments and refutations were compiled on the “Crown of Faith”, “Lunch” and “Supper” - Polotsky 402. Even the text of the Bible that the papezhniks used, condemning the LXX translation and the Slavic translation, did not escape this. Euthymius made, albeit a brief, comparative assessment of the translations of the Bible - Polish (Jesuit Jacob Vuyk), Latin, Greek and Slavic 403. This was the way in which the zealots of Orthodoxy, led by St. Joachim, with a change in circumstances in their favor, would lead the fight against the papazhniki - a way that, it seems to us, does not leave us wanting anything more. The only apparent thoroughness and scholastic resourcefulness that constituted the characteristic feature of the papezhniks were contrasted here with pure truth, unshakable and in itself, but also confirmed historically. How did the papezhniks react to such opposition to their cause? One could, and it seems even should have expected on their part either a very strong polemic with the Orthodox or recognition of their defeat - one could have expected this, but it did not actually happen. The Papezhniks did not accept a reasonable refutation of their opinions from the church authorities; on the contrary, this refutation only inflamed their passions, and in their stubbornness they reached the point of fanaticism almost greater than that already known to us. Nikita with his brothers. True, Medvedev, the head of the papezhniks, wrote an essay in defense of his opinions against the denunciations of “Akos” and lists from this essay, with the assistance of his accomplices, were soon distributed among some of the clergy and the common people 404. But this work was not in the proper sense a response to “Akos” - it was his personal abuse of his opponents, or, according to the apt, although not entirely euphonious, expression of the time, “psonistic nonsense against the Orthodox teachers Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhudiev 405. Medvedev, not being able to present new evidence in favor of his opinions against the thorough denunciations of Akos, on the one hand, repeated in his “nonsense” what was said to him before 406, on the other hand - and this is the main thing - he pointed to the Likhuds as foreigners who came to Moscow in order to corrupt pious people and introduce a new teaching - he said that they undeservedly enjoy royal favors, that they bring There are many dirty tricks on the children of the Orthodox Church - that they, foreigners, reproach the Russians for their lack of education. In his irritability, Medvedev suggested that the Moscow people should not accept these foreigners into their homes and “instead of joy, tell them against their evil malice”: “new beauties, mad dogs,” etc., and in conclusion he directly stated that these wolves in sheep’s clothing must be removed from the flock of Christ. “If anyone, he wrote, who is righteous in our holy faith from the nobles, has the courage to lead. state Peter and Ioanna Alekseevich and V.G. Sofya Alekseevna, may he ask them for a message. sovereigns of mercy from such a delightful destruction of deliverance" 407. - Powerlessness in the fight against the champions of Orthodoxy, apparently, produced painful irritability in Medvedev, and the latter, in turn, was the reason that Medvedev transferred the fight with his opponents to the same ground on which he had previously wanted to justify his cause and schism, especially since political circumstances in this case also favored him, just as they favored Pustosvyat. In 1689, a terrible cloud broke out in the Moscow state - the ambitious Princess Sophia and her minions raised a rebellion in order to kill her brother Peter and become the ruler of the state herself. Taking advantage of this turmoil, Medvedev planned in the month of August 7197 (1689) to mortally kill the head and father of the entire Russian kingdom, His Holiness Joachim the Patriarch and a certain other rank of bishop, and other morally wise people according to St. East of the church." Medvedev wanted to achieve triumph over his opponents with the help of external force and planned for the life of the patriarch, as a person who knew how, with his practical character, to group around himself the champions of Orthodoxy, a person who ruled their reality and gave them strength and energy in the fight against the papezhniks. In his plans, Medvedev firmly relied on the main leader of the then rebels, Theodore Shcheglovity, and on some of the close associates of this like-minded person 408 - he probably counted on the sympathy of himself and all the accomplices in the case then started by Princess Sophia and, perhaps, Sophia herself, especially since Sophia’s sympathy for Medvedev’s plans was, as we will see, not uninteresting even for her ambitious plans. But Medvedev’s plans for life were not fulfilled. Joachim, just as similar plans of Nikita Pustosvyat were not fulfilled. Political circumstances at that time quickly took a different direction. Sophia's plans were crumbling; Shcheglovity and his main accomplices were executed. Medvedev himself fled to the Kingdom of Poland and was captured already in the Bizyukov Monastery, from where he was brought to the Sergievsky Monastery and here, stripped of his monastic rank, with the name of Senka Medvedev, after torture in the city court, as a participant in a political rebellion, he was put in prison 409. The Papezhniks lost their main leader in the person of Medvedev, and in the person of Shcheglovity and his accomplices they lost their last support from an external force. It is clear that the time had come for the final triumph over them of their opponents - the Orthodox. And it really came. In October, at the diligent request of Saint Joachim, the Jesuits were expelled from Moscow by royal decree, these “merchants”, who lived here for a long time “idlely”, were expelled so that “in the future they would not have their refuge anywhere and would not perform their Roman service, because they were holy. They create opposition and schism against the Eastern Church and its dogmas, and they deceive people and teach them their Roman faith 410. And soon after that, the Russian Church pronounced its final verdict on the Moscow Papaezhinki. Patr. Joachim, “as a good and faithful shepherd, builder of the mysteries of Christ, laying down his soul for the sheep, wishing for Senka Medvedev, formerly the monk Sylvester, salvation and to St. east of the Church of Conversion, Archbishop of Novospassky sent him to the Sergius Monastery for admonitions. Ignatius of Vozdvizhensky, abbot Sergius 411, the Orthodox teacher Sophronius the Greek (Lukhud), with other sacred and monastic ranks, also sent him “as due assurance” some of the ancient books from his book depository 412. Medvedev repented of his errors and sent the patriarch “a confession of repentance, hand-written about his former trick on St. the Eastern Church and about the hedgehog, as if you were malicious about the transubstantiation of the most pure mysteries of the body and blood of Christ among others 413. A few days after receiving this confession from Medvedev, the patriarch gathered bishops, archimandrites, abbots, protopresbyters, priests and even deacons of all Moscow churches into his chamber of the cross for a council. At this council, first, the archpriest of the Assumption Cathedral, John, read Medvedev’s confession of repentance; then Medvedev’s accomplice, Priest Savva Dolgiy, read a similar confession 414, read it himself, “repenting with tears.” After that, the same archpriest John read “from the archpastoral (patriarchal) person” an “instructive word”, which spoke in some detail about the origin of disputes in Moscow about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts, about Simeon of Polotsk and his writings, about Medvedev, his Manna and repentance, and in conclusion they were anathematized and condemned for the burning of “Manna” and other notebooks of Medvedev; which is why it was further suggested that everyone should bring these works to the patriarch or spiritual fathers without fear, and those who would keep these books and continue to adhere to Latin opinions were threatened with excommunication. Finally, an instruction was added when, according to the custom of the Orthodox Church, one must “worship with divine veneration the body and blood of Christ 415. The members of the council, with their definition, confirmed the proposals made in the instructive speech regarding the burning of the books of Medvedev and other papezhniks; Although the council accepted Medvedev himself into communion with the church, it did not allow him to live either in Moscow, “where he created rebellions and heresies of all kinds, or in foreign cities and monasteries, so that no other evil, sedition and harm to the church or the kingdom would come from him and it would be the last bitterness of the first,” it decided: “he will live where he will be commanded by the patriarch and the entire sacred council, - to live under the strong leadership of the most skillful and firm man and leader of the Holy Scriptures, in prayers and fasting, in humility and work; He gets along especially well with other people and is not allowed to talk or talk, and is not given any paper or ink. The same determination was made by the council regarding Medvedev’s accomplices. But the fathers of the cathedral apparently did not rely on the repentance brought by the Papezhiks, and therefore added the following: “if the packs are convicted of apostasy, he Senka or those who fooled him, such false oaths were given to corporal execution, such as execution... Nikita is the judge of the rasp, who is also the leader and for the good of the dog was cast into food. And let such a civil court be raised from pious kings; Let our spiritual judgment and execution follow them into the future life, every summer on the first week of St. of Great Lent, called Orthodoxy, anathematize; as if the former heretics and schismatics are anathematized by the Holy Church” 416. This was in January 1690. This was the outcome of the case of the Moscow papezhniks under P. Joachim - an outcome that put the final limit to the unrest in Moscow over the question of the time of the transubstantiation of gifts. The Patriarch ordered to write in one collection the repentant confessions of Medvedev and Dolgay and the “instructive word” read at the cathedral, “to those who want the sacred rank it is written that everything that has been labored about this will be collected and printed” 417. Joachim wanted to make public the case of the papezhniks, as he had previously made public the case of the schismatics in the “Uvet” he published, but he did not manage to bring this matter to an end. – He only managed to fill out the above-mentioned collection (which constituted “medicine” or “Ostsn”) and collect in another book (“Shield of Faith”) everything “labored” about papal unrest, but did not manage to publish these books in print after his death on March 17, 1690. And the case of the Papezhinks has remained an archival property to this day, and even now it remains the same in its entirety, only part of it saw the light of day in “Osten” published in 1866. The influence of the West on Moscow was felt in the 17th century not only by papal unrest. The West supplied, or rather began to supply then, to Moscow, in addition to Latin, other works of its civilization. “I see,” wrote Archbishop Athanasius. Kholmogorsky in his district message in 1682, that some, contrary to the law, commandment and tradition, enter into foreign customs and heretical delights... New customs little by little secretly creep into our holy, Orthodox Eastern Church, passing (not only) from the Latins, (but also) Lutherans, Calvins and other schismatics; includes all their teaching of every kind 418. In Muscovy, which expressed the need for a new life, then both invited and uninvited teachers came and each offered services according to his own strengths and skills. There was only one thing that imposed a common color on them, on their activities, and that was precisely the fact that Russian life, which had been accomplished in former times only in the religious sphere, and now, upon entering a new path, was not yet familiar with other spheres. Western teachers therefore had to concentrate their activities on religious issues, as those that most interested their Moscow students; and therefore it turned out that their teaching, one way or another, certainly diverted the Muscovites from pure Orthodoxy. Thus, some of these Western mentors, the “Germans,” taking advantage of the loss by some Russians of respect for icons painted “according to the necessary custom of the saints of the Eastern Church, according to the tradition of the saints and God-bearing fathers” and the tendency to see in the saint. images “decoration for their churches, huts, cages and vestibules” - to use them not for veneration, but “for beauty”, - they began to sell printed images of saints on paper sheets, - images “in the likeness of the faces of their country and in the clothes of their own Germans, and not from the ancient originals” - which therefore “did not show the slightest resemblance to the primitive faces, but only a reproach and dishonor was inflicted on the Church of God, both on the veneration of icons, and on the depicted faces of the saints 419 . Other of the named mentors, satisfying the desire of some Muscovites, perhaps, to be known as educated people, or at least somewhat familiar with Western civilization 420, and some with a serious desire for enlightenment, offered their services as home teachers and, probably, applying themselves to the circumstances of the time, “with simple rantings and jokes, they little by little satisfied the rumors (of the Orthodox) with their every heresy, ridiculing the holy traditions of the church, written and unwritten, speaking about the fasting of saints and about the worship of holy icons about the monastic dispensation, and about others, and glorifying this for the sake of? and where did this come from? and who betrayed this? and where is this written? 421. And as a result of such jokes and rantings, it turned out that some of the Muscovites”, being noble, so and forgiving to the young men, were, in the words of the then church preacher, “foolish”, “having turned away from their father’s paths, and not knowing either the statutes or the God-given rites of St. churches,” and at the same time without asking people who knew about it,” “believing they were wise in being,” “they despised not just other legalized fasts in the summer, but also (the) great Pentecostal Day and ate the commanded food,” they became indifferent to the performance of religious rituals and even, for example, “glorified themselves, shamelessly proclaiming to each other:” “the church celebration in I slept through the feasts of the Lord”... Their free-thinking sometimes even extended to the point that they did not see any benefit in various church ranks: “What is this rank in the church, they said, and why is this being done? “Man did this, without it he can live powerfully,” and so on. and were ready to “arrange church rites” in their own way 422. Among the Western teachers who came to Moscow, there were also those who offered themselves to occupy teaching positions in the then newly founded academy, without having any religious convictions, or, more precisely, holding to such convictions that were practically useful at one time or another, under certain circumstances, and since only Orthodox teachers were allowed into the academy, they were ready to transform themselves into Orthodox, without, of course, obliging themselves to strictly adhere to the Eastern faith and not to dispose students to the same indifference” that they themselves held. Such, for example, was Yan Belobodsky, who came to Moscow in 1681, who arrived here, as he himself explained, “so that he could be a teacher in those schools that the great sovereign in Moscow wants to establish 423, and who first said he was a Catholic, then expressed a desire to convert to Orthodoxy, and finally, when various suspicions arose against him and he was asked to be questioned about his religious convictions, who expressed such evasiveness and readiness for all possible concessions in religious opinions that he earned from the Likhuds a review of himself as a gypsy, that is, a person ready to keep the faith of the state to which he comes 424. Even those foreigners who, apparently, did not find sympathy for their opinions among their compatriots and hoped for greater success of their propaganda in uneducated Rus', further sought to Moscow. - In 1689 (7197), for example, Quirin Kulman appeared in Moscow, who with his prophecies and blasphemous letters seemed to lead to decisive bewilderment not only the translators of the Ambassadorial Order, who were entrusted with considering his case, but even the Jesuits and German pastors who lived at that time, when they were asked for their opinions regarding the teachings of Kulman 425). Finally, those foreigners who apparently did not have any calling for this, but were called by the government to teach military teaching, did not remain in debt to the Russians in terms of religious teaching. Occupying the positions of commanders in the regiments and despising almost everything native, they did not want not only to respect the religious feeling of their Orthodox subordinates, but even to look indifferently at its manifestations, and therefore allowed themselves to do “the poor warriors any kind of insult.” Here, for example, is how St. Joachim himself characterizes these uncalled teachers in his spiritual testament: “Christians,” he says, “honor the Most Pure Virgin Mary the Mother of God in every possible way and ask all the saints for help; the heretics, being commanders in the regiments, swear at him and, due to their charm, blaspheme and swear at all Christian piety 426. All such and similar Westerners, of course, could not remain unnoticed by the church authorities, especially since the Muscovites frivolously and quickly applied the newly acquired concepts to life. And indeed, P. Joachim, with his keen observation of the flow of people’s life, with his constant effort to keep this life from extreme and, in addition, heterogeneous hobbies, did not lose sight of these Western teachers, who were not of much importance in society at that time, followed their appearance and propaganda with “a constant illness, as he himself put it, of his heart” 427 428 and opposed the strengthening of their influence on the Russians as much as as much as the circumstances of that time allowed him. – The management of P. Joachim affected in this case primarily the sale of icons printed on paper sheets. On this occasion, even in the first years of his patriarchate, he sent out a district letter in which he strictly ordered the icons to be “painted on boards, not on sheets,” to be printed, as the Germans did, and ordered the birich to click so that on paper sheets of icons of St. they did not print and German heretics were not bought or sold in the ranks, and those who disobeyed were threatened, on the one hand, with having their sheets taken away without value, on the other, with “penalties” and cruel punishment from the sovereign 429 . Subsequently, since this charter turned out to be invalid 430 (and perhaps the sale of German icons was also supplemented by the sale of their own products by schismatics), in 1681, with the consent of Feodor Alekseevich, he moved the row of icons, which had been located since ancient times on Nikolskaya Street, to the printing yard 431 - moved, one might think, in order to make it more convenient to monitor the correctness of the image here saints As for the actual teachers who came from German soil, then, as is self-evident, the activity of P. Joachim opposing them could not assume wide proportions, but the very insignificance of these teachers. His efforts this time were aimed primarily at preventing them from intensifying and stopping their propaganda at the very beginning. So, when the above-mentioned Yan Belobodsky appeared in Moscow and when word spread about this candidate for teaching, St. Joachim formed a council in his cross chamber of the bishops and archimandrites who were in Moscow and, calling Belobodsky himself, demanded from him first oral answers, and then a written statement of his religious opinions 432. And in 1689, not without the influence and not without the participation of the patriarch, reprisals were carried out in the city court against the already named frenzied mystic Kulman - as “an apostate, he was burned along with his books” 433. However, it should be noted that since the German influence in Rus' was weak at that time and at that time the ground was only being prepared, so to speak, for German civilization, only the first workers in this matter appeared, so that the most inhumane thing on Russian soil had not yet taken on a definite character, although P. Joachim was very worried about the thought of this new guest 434, nevertheless, he did not sufficiently clarify during his life his relationship to him, he did not practically find out. Only in his dying will did he express his views, his intentions regarding the relationship to this new element that was entering Russian life, leaving the very action to those left on earth. - He “made his covenant about this with the pious autocrat,” commanded them to forbid Lutherans and Calvinists from introducing foreign customs and preaching their teachings, “they forbade them to do this for execution,” and their “prayer houses located near or between Christian houses were destroyed” 435. In addition, in his will, paragraph. Joachim also firmly insisted that foreigners should not be allowed into regimental commanders. Foreigners, in his opinion, should not be tolerated in these places, on the one hand, because they are enemies of God and, moreover, insult the “poor” soldiers, on the other, because they are of little use. “Even before,” he says, “the Gentiles were in ancient times in the Russian regiments and in our memory, where was the benefit created from them? It’s not enough... All Christians of Orthodoxy, especially for the faith and for the Church of God, rather than for the fatherland and homes, in the zeal of their souls put their souls on the battles in the regiments, in no way sparing their lives; the heretics, being the leaders, care about this no less” 436 . It is clear that St. Joachim in this case, that is, in relation to the German influence on Russian life, would have been a strict guardian of its religious-national purism, which was then threatened by Protestant preaching - he would have protected Russian thought from the influence of this preaching on it, just as he protected it from Latin propaganda. But he did not live to see the time when the real transplantation of German civilization onto Russian soil began, and meanwhile the life of the Russian people came under the strong hand of Peter, who put state interests in the foreground, who understood religion only in its necessity for the state, and not in its originality, who made only obedient servants from the representatives of the church 437. Under Peter, Russian life again had to take a different path in its course... But if in this way P. Joachim so strictly protected the life of the Russian people from the influence of the West on it, if he tried with all possible measures to counteract the assimilation of European education by the Muscovites, then one should not conclude from this that he was hostile to the newly awakened needs of his compatriots - the flock. No, as we have already noticed more than once, he recognized the legitimacy of these needs - he did not deny the new path on which the new life of the Russian people had then entered; and, counteracting Western influence on her, he only wanted her, even after entering a new path of conscious development, to remain with her former Orthodox-national purity and not perceive elements alien to her. This desire of his was expressed as clearly as possible in his concerns about the nature of the Moscow enlightenment, his concerns that the newly established academy be strictly faithful to Orthodoxy, which has always been and is a characteristic feature of the Russian nationality. P. Joachim’s concerns about the nature of education in Moscow: the state of education in Russia at the end of the 16th and 17th centuries; school at the village of Nikon; Greek school ory Theodore Alekseevich, plans for the founding of an academy, a school at Likhudy. “Russians are not skilled in writing, but they believe that the perfection of teaching lies in writing and reading books. Moreover, the priests themselves are just rude and not involved in any teaching, as they only know how to read the first and second chapters of the Divine Scripture or interpret it - they know nothing more” 438. Here is a review of the mental development of our compatriots at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries by one famous professor of history in Heidelberg in his time, a review that is fully confirmed by the legends of other contemporaries, both foreign and domestic. “The Russian people, according to another foreigner of that time, did not know then either schools or universities 439; he did not know those means that most conveniently develop human thought - they give it the strength to act freely, and not just mechanically, according to naturally established orders and customs. Yes, he did not yet feel the need for these funds. His thought did not know then any worries or worries and felt complete contentment in his state, numb under natural conditions. The Russian people therefore did not sympathize with the proposals of people who wanted to introduce school education into their sphere 440. The need for this education was felt by him only in the 17th and more precisely in the half of the 17th century, when his political calm was firmly established - when he could already consciously relate to those feelings and thoughts that were aroused in him by the coup d'état that took place at the end of the 16th century and which were, so to speak, the first moment of his new life. “And the need for school education was felt at first, as one might naturally expect, only by a few, by a very few, placed in favorable circumstances. In this way, the “teaching of free wisdom” 441 appeared in Rus'; a Greek-Latin school was established in Moscow, where learned monks from Little Russia were required to teach youth. But this first Moscow school was initially not able to fulfill its special purpose - its purpose was not strictly defined. P. Nikon, who patronized him, undertook the correction of church and liturgical books, burdened teachers with work on this matter and thereby diverted their attention from teaching free wisdom 442. Meanwhile, the need for Muscovites to receive an education increased more and more. Moscow youths, as we already know, even began to go to the Kingdom of Poland for the sake of study. The need to establish a school for the exclusive purpose of education became, therefore, more obvious and more urgent. It was further clarified and revealed by the Eastern saints. Paisius Ligarid, Metropolitan of Gaza, and the Patriarchs: Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch, who were in Moscow on the Nikon case. With their touching ideas and appeals about the need for school education, about the benefits that can flow from this education, both for the Russians themselves and for the Greeks living under the Turkish yoke and going to Western countries to acquire Greek teaching 443, the Eastern saints aroused jealousy in some Muscovites, who then declared their intention to open a school at the Church of St. John the Theologian. The patriarchs gave their blessing to this praiseworthy work, “even the creation of schools and the establishment of teaching in them, according to the law of the Orthodox-Catholic Church, for the glory of God in various dialects: Greek, Slovenian and Latin” 444. But this intention of the God-loving citizens of Moscow did not bring the desired results. – Their intention to establish a school where liberal sciences would be taught remains, it seems, only a good intention, at least it is not known from anywhere that it would be brought to fruition. In all likelihood, this matter of establishing a school in Moscow did not meet with support either from the elderly P. Joasaph, who was little involved in the management of his flock, 445, or from Alexei Mikhailovich, who was primarily busy either taming riots or external wars; and private individuals who expressed their sympathy for this matter before the eastern hierarchs perhaps did not dare to begin to fulfill their intention due to the very novelty of such a matter in Moscow. With the accession to the royal throne of Alexei Mikhailovich's son Theodore, a pupil of the well-known southern Russian native Simeon of Polotsk, the matter of school education in Moscow moved forward - from the realm of desires and assumptions it moved into the realm of real life. – This is what one of the students of the school founded at that time, Fyodor Polikarpov 446, says about it. In 1679, one Russian hieromonk Timothy returned to Moscow from the east, who, after visiting the holy places in Palestine and Mount Athos for several years, studied the Greek language there and became familiar with the oppression to which the Orthodox were subjected there, especially from the Latins, who were then striving not only to take possession of all the saints. in places in Palestine, but also to attract everyone into obedience to the pope 447, at the same time we note “and the free Greek sciences, to the eastern pious faith of the pre-demand, before the previous years there was impoverishment,” and who, now being presented to the king, conveyed his observations to him. “The king was touched by the great heart and inflamed by the Divine fire of piety; he desired there (in the east) the disparaged teaching, here (in Moscow) to plant and multiply,” and calling the patriarch, “asked him to establish a Greek school.” Patriarch Joachim “was filled with great joy when he heard this, and having added desire to desire, things happened immediately.” Soon the students were gathered - up to 30 people - and a teacher was found, “a skilled man of the liberal sciences,” the Greek Manuel, and after him the Greek Hieromonk Joachim, and Hieromonk Timothy himself was appointed rector of the school, who was then assigned to the patriarchal house clergy; The school was opened at the printing house 448. “And it is not powerful to write in detail,” adds the same student of this school, how much and what diligence both the pious king and the most holy patriarch have had, unless they say briefly: with their own high persons and collectively and in a single way, openly and secretly, almost every week in the printing house they come to the printing house to console themselves with the spirit about a new and unheard of thing, but students are generous rich in clothes, chervonets and so on.” 449 In Moscow, in this way, school education, so desired at that time, began the study of “Greek reading, writing and language” 450. We do not dare to doubt the truth of the information about the beginning of this school reported by one of Onago’s students, but we cannot help but notice that this information concerns only the external side of the matter. - The Tsar regretted the decline of education in the east, wanted to spread it in Moscow, asked the Patriarch about this, the latter happily took up this matter - all this, we have no doubt, was so; but school education at that time was at the same time a necessary need for the Russians themselves, and this, of course, was the main reason why the establishment of a school in Moscow was carried out with such energy. And, if this was so, then one cannot help but doubt that the founding of the Greek school at that time could and did happen without any struggle, without any opposition; - at the same time, the thought of the Latin direction that dominated then among the Muscovites who wanted to assimilate the civilization of the West naturally arises in our minds. We therefore cannot allow them to remain indifferent to the only school being established in Moscow, so that they do not want to see a school with its own, Latin direction, and not Greek. And, as far as can be judged from some limited data, this opposition of the Latinists to the establishment of a Greek school in Moscow really existed: the Latinists sought to introduce the teaching of Latin instead of Greek in this school, citing the example of southern Rus' 451 and proposed to call teachers from there 452. One might even think that Tsar Feodor Alekseevich himself, as a pupil of Polotsk, was on the side of these Latinists, or at least was not their opponent 453. To whom, then, does the Moscow School owe its direction - the fact that it gave preference to the Greek language over Latin? Who insisted on such a discrepancy between the character of the school and the spirit of the times? We think that we will not sin against historical truth if we point in this case to St. Joachim. He could and should have insisted on this, on the one hand, due to his very displeasure towards everything Western and, on the contrary, a rather favorable view of the Greeks, 454 on the other hand, because by giving a Greek direction to the school, he thereby gave a strong rebuff to the influence of papism that was penetrating Moscow at that time. At the same time, it should also be noted that only he, with his importance, steadfastness and firmness of character, could resist persons who were inclined in favor of Latin education - persons, as can be reliably believed, who had great weight and importance at that time. However, whoever took the initiative in this case, only in Moscow, as we said, a Greek school was opened in 1679. Less than three years had passed since the founding of this school, when it was already proposed to raise it to the level of an academy. Brought up in a European manner, Feodor Alexandrovich wanted Moscow to not be inferior to foreign countries in the completeness of its teaching course. By his order, a charter was prepared, which defined the rights and privileges of the newly established hotbed of education, assigned a convenient location in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, and indicated the subjects of teaching “all free sciences, which constitute the whole of the academy” 456. But this intention of the king did not meet with the same sympathy from the patriarch with which he met the proposal regarding the establishment of a Greek school. At p. Joachim could have been unpleasantly affected this time by the mere fact that the premises for the academy were intended in the Zaikonospassky Monastery, where Medvedev was the rector, but in addition, with his always practically mature judgment, he could see the prematureness of these broad plans, their inapplicability to Russian young thought, which needed a more modest aid for its development, although not alien, by passion, to bold ambitions - and Therefore, he did not take part in the implementation of the idea of ​​establishing an academy according to the king’s assumptions. The Patriarch cared only about the continuation and improvement of the already opened school and instructed one Greek hierodeacon, Meletius, to enter into communication on this matter with the most enlightened hierarch of that time, St. Dositheus of Jerusalem and ask him to “find and send a teacher of the Greek language” 457. Meanwhile, Feodor Alekseevich died (April 27, 1682), without fulfilling his intention, and after his death, unrest began in Moscow, caused first by the archers, and then by the schismatics. These unrest also had an unfavorable effect on the school system; they prevented its improvement. But after they were over, when calm was restored in Moscow, the idea of ​​​​establishing an academy according to Feodor Alekseevich’s plan came to life. The champions of this idea now hoped to find sympathy and support in the person of the sister of the deceased sovereign, Princess Sophia. The Chudovsky hierodeacon Karion Istomin 458 already in November 1682 asked for the princess’s petition to the Sovereigns. “Yes... they will, they will order the sciences to be perfect, and the teachers will be known to people 459. Two years later, Sophia was presented with a letter from Feodor Alekseevich about the establishment of an academy in Moscow. This was done by Sylvester Medvedev, already known to us. He presented to the ruler, in addition, his request for the approval of this charter and its application to the case 460; a supporter of Sophia, Medvedev wanted “the wise great princess Sophia” to succeed in starting and completing the work, and as many years as there are and to establish it, but not as if it would first be destroyed, but with the power of that timelessly preserved “... So that in Russia wisdom would shine the name of Sophia everywhere in the world.” At the same time, he perhaps caressed himself with the hope of becoming, through Sophia, the head of the new academy, especially since the premises for the academy were assigned precisely in the monastery in which he was a builder, and besides, there were no Greek mentors... But this time, too, the establishment of the proposed academy 461 did not take place, and it did not take place, as can be believed with certainty, because the patriarch did not sympathize with this matter and even opposed it. He could now see all the danger that threatened Orthodoxy in this, he could see where the plans of the, as we know, zealous papezhnik Medvedev himself were heading. In 1685, the long-awaited “most verbal and wise hieromonks, already known to us, Ioannikis and Sophronius Lakhud, finally arrived in Moscow - and they arrived with recommendatory, “conciliar charters” from the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem 462. With the arrival of the Likhuds, the work of the Moscow school moved forward. The Patriarch, fully relying on their loyalty to Orthodoxy, first designated the Epiphany Monastery for their residence and gave them five students from the previous school; The Likhuds began their teaching career by teaching Greek. At the same time, P. Joachim began to build a special building for a school in the Zaikonospassky Monastery 463, but at the same time the builder of this monastery, Medvedev, was removed from all participation. For the construction of the building, the money given up for the school, according to the will, was used by the same hierodeacon Meletius, who, on behalf of Joachim, communicated with P. Dositheus about sending teachers; the building was erected under the supervision of the Likhuds themselves. When it was completed, the patriarch himself “was present with the consecrated cathedral during its renovation with great celebration and institution” and blessed the mentors and students to move here. The printing school was now transferred here and everything was entrusted to the Likhuds; in addition, up to 40 boyar children were collected, and other “hunters” were admitted 464. The Likhuds were now ordered to begin teaching the liberal sciences - grammar and literature, teaching first in one Greek language and then gradually ascending to rhetoric. Dialectics, logic and physics were allowed to be taught not only in Greek, but also in Latin. The Likhuds took full charge of the school and teaching began. This was at the end of 1686 465. But this school was not destined to achieve the results that could have been expected from it and which were actually expected from it at that time. It was delayed in its gradual improvement, and finally completely lost the opportunity to reach the goal that lay ahead of it, to which its patriarch was leading it, albeit slowly, in a practically certain and maturely thoughtful way. In Moscow, then, already known to us, disputes between the Orthodox and the papezhniks began, disputes were accompanied by popular unrest and called the patriarch to energetic activity. Joachim, as we know, was forced at that time to give instructions to the Likhuds so that they would draw up a denunciation against the papezhniks and they would actually write “Akos”; at the same time, their students (actually the first-highest class) were engaged in translating some books from Greek and Latin that were especially necessary due to the circumstances of the time 466. But this was not the main obstacle to the improvement of the Moscow School. P. Joachim did not demand that the Likhuds devote themselves entirely to denouncing the papezhniks, and that they abandon their main purpose for this; no, he had other people with him to fight the Moscow papezhniks. The main obstacle to the prosperity of the Moscow School were those individuals who did not see in it conformity with their desires. The former champions of wisdom wanted to “refute” the “foundation of wisdom.” – It was Sylvester Medvedev and his accomplices 467. They, scattering various curses and slander throughout Moscow against the Likhuds, humiliated their scholarly dignity, spread rumors about the (imaginary) failure of their students 468, and instilled, as we know, distrust in them as the introducers of new customs and wolves in sheep's clothing plundering the Orthodox flock. Moreover, Medvedev even reproached the Likhuds for the illegal seizure of monastery land for a school 469 and the appropriation of many thousands of Hierodeacon Meletius, and finally, for the fact that they, without caring about the teaching profession, allegedly carried out commercial transactions 470. And he, under the patronage of the famous Shcheslovity and his other like-minded people, managed in this “slander, as F. Polikarpov says, to the extent that he (Likhudov) is merciful in casting a contrary opinion on them.” Despite all this, Medvedev and his accomplices did not manage to destroy the work created by the patriarch, at least during his lifetime they did not succeed. With his, one might say, systematic ability to pursue the intended goal, Joachim preserved the inviolability of the school he created, protected its mentors from daring encroachment; and the Likhuds continued their school work under him. The Moscow school under their management was almost ready to rise to the level at which it could be given the name of an academy... The course of liberal sciences (secular) in it was almost completed; The Likhuds were preparing to begin the last proposed goal for the school - teaching Theology 471. The time had come when Tsar Feodor Alekseevich’s idea of establishing an academy in Moscow, in no way inferior to the academies of the West, was an idea instilled in him by immigrants from southern Rus', from the hasty implementation of which one could rather expect harmful rather than good and useful consequences for Russian Orthodoxy and Russian nationality - the time had come, we say, when this idea was close to its very implementation, and when its implementation would not be accompanied by remaking the structure of the Russian mind according to Western models, when the thought of the Russian person, even in its development, would be kept on its native soil, would not assimilate elements alien to its nationality and its original orthodoxy - and, moreover, in acquiring civilization and enjoying its fruits, it would not be likened to the famous Krylov monkey, which could easily have been expected with the hasty establishment of an academy with a full course of sciences. But, as soon as the Zaikonospassky School was ready to transform into an academy, P. Joachim, the founder of this school and the patron of its mentors, the Likhudovs, died, and the gradual rise of the cause of education had to stop. The Likhuds were again persecuted by “friends and relatives of Medvedev 472 and were excommunicated from school.” The positions of mentors in the school were taken by their students who did not have time to listen to the full course of teaching. Subordination of the Kyiv Metropolis of Moscow. to the patriarch: the church state of Little Russia in the 17th century; the relationship of P. Joachim and the kings with Hetman Samoilovich, the council in Kyiv, the election of bishop as metropolitan. Gideon, correspondence on this matter and the installation of Gideon. Intercourse with the Eastern Patriarchs; letters sent to them; the obstacles they pointed out and the means used against their obstinacy; their answers are the grama of P. Jerus. Dositheus; sending response patriarchal letters to Kyiv. Expanding the rights of Moscow. n. Joachim in relation to the South Russian church, the relationship between n. Joachim and bishop. Gideon and Lazar Baranovich, Archbishop. Chernig. on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of St. Darov, - with Archimandrite. Varlaam regarding the printing of books. More than one Great Russian church was the subject of the concerns of P. Joachim. – The circumstances of the time called upon him to take part in the destinies of the Little Russian Church. Little Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich came under the strong hand of the sovereign of Moscow, prompted by the various disasters to which it was exposed as a result of the claims of neighboring states on it. She then entered into communication with Moscow in her political life, surrendering to her patronage and protection from the encroachment of her enemies 473. But, thus admitting its political impotence and turning to Moscow for help to preserve its civil existence, Little Russia at that time was not aware of its weakness in religious life, or at least did not want to recognize Moscow’s superiority over itself in this regard. Standing in her mental development much higher than Great Russia, she did not want her religious life to be dependent and thus remained independent from the Moscow Patriarch, although she submitted to the Moscow Sovereign, although even in the very conditions of this subordination it was decided that the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the entire Little Russian clergy should be under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch 474. The then Metropolitan of Kiev Sylvester Kossov did not recognize his dependence on the Moscow High Hierarch and remained subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, despite the fact that this even aroused the displeasure of Patriarch Nikon, who, as is known, had enormous influence on state affairs 475. The South Russian Church did not recognize its dependence on the Moscow Patriarch even after the death of Kossov, which followed shortly after the political citizenship of Alexei Mikhailovich of Little Russia. Meanwhile, after the death of Bogdan, when his weak son Yuri received the hetman's dignity, Little Russia again became the subject of searches on the part of Poland and Turkey - unrest arose in it again, excited by rivals for the hetmanship. These political unrest reflected on the church administration and created unrest within it. Kyiv, where the metropolitan see was located, at this time almost did not see its high priests at all - they lived in other cities 476. Moreover, Little Russia at that time had two or more metropolitans by name and not one with full and actual power in governing the metropolis 477. The dignity of the Metropolitan of Kyiv then became the subject of search by various ambitious people, who sometimes bought it at the price of betrayal of Orthodoxy 478. Given this course of events, church affairs were naturally in disarray. The Patriarch of Constantinople, on whom the Kiev Metropolis depended and on whom lay the direct responsibility of taking care of the elimination of these disorders, was far from fulfilling this duty. On the contrary, even being shyly dependent on the will of the Sultan, he was forced to interfere in political affairs and with his church authority to promote the views of Turkey 479 and even more intensified the already difficult suffering of southern Rus' and weakened his importance in the eyes of the Little Russian clergy. It even got to the point that the Patriarch of Constantinople lost his influence on the Little Russian Church to such an extent that they stopped turning to him even for the approval of metropolitans 480 . In Little Russia, the disorder of church affairs thus took on the character of complete anarchy. It was this lack of leadership that prompted, as we said above, P. Joachim to take part in the fate of the Little Russian Church. From the very moment he ascended the patriarchal throne, he was constantly occupied by the thought of annexing the metropolis to his throne. “He, according to the testimony of Varlaam Yasinsky, a witness to the annexation of Kyiv to the Moscow Patriarchate, used every diligence and many times reported to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, then to his son Theodore and finally to Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich and with their sister Sophia - he reported that in the Kyiv Metropolis (as in their royal power and possession, in the spiritual government from the beginning of the acceptance of the faith of the Holy Orthodox Church of the East, the proper dioceses to the Patriarchal All-Russian Throne) to arrange for the people of God a proper shepherd 481. But these efforts of P. Joachim did not meet with support from the civil authorities for a long time and remained without any application. The beginning of the implementation of the patriarch's thought about the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate was made only when political unrest ceased in Little Russia - when all of it was again united under the rule of one hetman Ivan Samoilovich and again confirmed its political unity with Moscow 482, when its correct relations with the Moscow state were established, when, on the other hand, in Moscow itself the unrest that caused was accompanied by the enthronement of Tsars John and Peter Alekseevich. Taking advantage of frequent relations on political matters, P. Joachim many times inspired “those sent from Little Russia, so that there, by general advice and consent, all people who are subject to the Kyiv throne will strive to elect a metropolitan.” These suggestions reached the hetman and were accepted by him with sympathy. Samoilovich informed the Patriarch through the military clerk Vasily Kochubey that he was ready to assist on his part in the fulfillment of his intentions regarding the Kyiv Metropolis. The Patriarch then entered into official relations with the hetman on this matter. - In September 1683, he sent Samoilovich a letter in which he pointed out the tribal kinship of the Little Russians and the unity of their political life, as based on his “industry for the people of Kyivians,” and then depicting the sad state of the Little Russian Church that called him to participate, gave a blessing to the hetman who expressed his zeal and diligence for the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kyiv and promised his petition for this case before the kings 483. Having thus secured the assistance of the Little Russian Hetman, P. Joachim began to work on this matter in Moscow with greater energy, and this time his petition to the court was no longer fruitless. The kings took an active part in the undertaking of subordinating Kyiv to the Moscow Patriarchate. In November 1684, the Duma clerk Ukraintsev was sent to the hetman to negotiate an alliance with Poland against Turkey, but at the same time Ukraintsev spoke with Samoilovich and gave him the royal decree that he should care and provide for the installation of a shepherd on the Kiev throne - so that he could advise about this matter with spiritual and secular people. Samoilovich has now expressed his full readiness to work on this matter and even made it clear to Ukraintsev that he already has a candidate for the Kyiv department of bishop. Lutsk Gideon 484, although we also note that “other Little Russian clergy will not like this” and especially Chernigov Archbishop Lazar Baranovich, who was at odds with the hetman and could not hope to receive the rank of metropolitan 485. Ukraintsev returned to Moscow, and Samoilovich set about implementing the Tsar’s decree. He notified the most noble Little Russian clergy about the kings’ desire to install an archpastor in Kyiv and, having received response letters in which the clergy declared their consent to the election of a metropolitan, he sent Kochubey to Moscow to ask the sovereigns for “perfect instructions on what proposal to make for the clergy” regarding the election of a metropolitan 486 . The answer to this request of the hetman was sent to him in April. The kings wrote to Samoilovich to try to finish the undertaking immediately, so that he, “after consulting with the Little Russian clergy and secular people, would choose a man in the Divine Scriptures who is skillful, quiet and intelligent from the local residents, and not from the visitors - so that the newly elected metropolitan would be under the obedience of the Moscow Patriarch, and not the Patriarch of Constantinople, and would be in charge of the spiritual affairs of the whole Little Russia. – The hetman was ordered to draw up articles about all this with all strength and caution and send the newly elected metropolitan to Moscow for installation 487 . Having received this instruction, Samoilovich ordered the creation of a cathedral in Kyiv, which was actually composed of clergy and secular persons during Peter's Fast in the St. Sophia Cathedral Church 488. But Samoilovich did not give much importance to the tsar’s hint that the metropolitan should not be elected from among the newcomers and appoint bishop as a candidate for the Kyiv see. Gideon. However, so as not to clearly reveal his plans, neither he himself nor his chosen candidate bishop. Gideon was not present at the council. Archbishop Lazar Baranovich was not present at the council either. Chernigovsky, who himself did not hope to receive the rank of metropolitan, and yet did not want to become dependent on the Kyiv see. - Therefore, he did not even allow any of his clergy to be at the council 489. The absence of Samoilovich and Baranovich was no small obstacle in deciding the issue of electing a metropolitan; At the same time, the new condition under which the choice of the metropolitan was made was also hindered - the transition from the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Moscow Patriarch, so that many of those present at the council “seemed to be in torn minds and did not dare to enter into that matter 490. But they were even more embarrassed by fear for the privileges that the Kiev Metropolis enjoyed, being dependent on Constantinople, and which it could easily lose by submitting to Moscow. At the council, it was even advised on this matter that there should not be a Kyiv diocese under the Moscow patriarchal throne 491. And only probably at the insistence of the hetman’s attorneys and at the promise of his petition in Moscow for the liberties of the Kyiv clergy, the members of the council were inclined to elect a metropolitan dependent on the Moscow Patriarch. On July 8, 1685, Samoilovich was sent a conciliar verdict on the election of bishop to the Kyiv See. Gideon Svyatopolk, Prince of Chetvertiisky, as well as the articles or conditions under which the election took place 492. Having achieved the desired results, the hetman soon sent a solemn embassy 493 to Moscow and sent a petition to the sovereigns on his own behalf, in which, after outlining the actions of the council and the difficulties that accompanied the election of the metropolitan, he asked for the royal “mediation and intercession, so that His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople would sacrifice them (the Little Russians), from under his authority... under the authority of the patriarch Moscow, through whatever his good will, without any doubt, they could give obedience to him, the most holy archpastor of Moscow and all Russia.” At the same time, Samoilovich asked that the “entire proposal” of the council be approved by charters – by the Tsar’s and the Patriarch’s, i.e. the rights and privileges of the Kyiv Metropolis, namely: so that the Metropolitan of Kiev continues to be called the exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople, so that the Patriarch of Moscow, when appointing a metropolitan, does not interfere in his governance affairs, so that the Kiev Metropolis is called the first of all Russian metropolises; so that the metropolitan should use a miter with a cross mounted on it, and wear a cross in front of him in his diocese, so that the printing of books in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and India can continue freely, and in the Brotherly Monastery - the teaching of liberal sciences in Greek and Latin; so that all that were subject to him before, bishoprics, archimandries, monasteries and churches, would obey the metropolitan; so that, finally, even after the death of the elected metropolitan, the right of free, amicable election of an archpastor will always be preserved in Little Russia. At the conclusion of his letter, the hetman again turned to the kings with a request that they hasten to petition the Patriarch of Constantinople regarding the transfer of Kyiv to the rule of the Patriarch of Moscow, “an ambulance, he wrote, about this matter, a parcel is needed.” And soon, that is, for this it is necessary first that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not offended by the removal of the Kyiv Metropolis from him; another, so that through this he would not issue his oath to that metropolis; third, so that in the Polish state the zealots who are gaining piety do not come to the corruption of their piety; fourth, so that the Uniates and the papezhniki who live there do not raise a reproach to the entire Eastern Church and publish their opinion that some kind of division has occurred between the Russian and Greek churches, through which (which God forbid) they would order us to arrange another Orthodox metropolitan by their cunning slander, carrying out their work so that that metropolitan would sign up for the corruption of the Orthodox Church of Kyiv 494. This charter was presented to the kings in the village. Kolomenskoye, where they were located at that time, on August 25, 495. After the meetings, in the presence of the boyars, it was necessary to announce to the patriarch: “and those sent were at his archpastoral blessing and in conversation.” Thus, Saint Joachim apparently achieved his goal, which he had pursued from the very beginning of his patriarchate, but at first unsuccessfully. Now, under circumstances favorable to his intention, the Kiev Metropolis recognized its dependence on his Moscow throne. All that remained, apparently, to complete this whole matter was to appoint as metropolitan the chosen candidate for this dignity - bishop. Gideon. But in Moscow, says Gordon, there was a lot of talk about this matter 496. Yes, it could not have been otherwise, on the one hand, because in Moscow at that time no one was sure that the Patriarch of Constantinople would easily agree to the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to his authority: in Rus' at that time it was known that the Greek spiritual authorities, even for little reason, were inclined to not give a blessing 497 . It was impossible then to do without many arguments from the other side and because, according to the same contemporary, “there were many difficulties and disagreements against the hetman’s sent articles at that time.” The main attention here was drawn to the article that stated that the Metropolitan of Kiev, subordinate to the Moscow Patriarch, should bear the title of Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople. To find an outcome under such difficult circumstances, to find a sufficiently solid basis for decisive action, P. Joachim turned to history 498. And here he really found a legal basis for what he had previously strived for out of an instinctive, so to speak, feeling and which he achieved apparently by illegal means, that is, through the influence of civil power. History showed him that the independent existence of the Kyiv metropolis was not a natural phenomenon in the life of the Russian church, but forced by special political circumstances and that, therefore, with a change in these circumstances, the normal course of church life in Kyiv should be restored - that Kyiv should be annexed to the Moscow Patriarchate, just as not long before it was annexed to the Moscow state - that its complete unification with Moscow is absolutely necessary due to the very tribal kinship Little Russia and Great Russia - according to the commonality of their lives 499. Moreover, history, as an impartial judge, pronounced its verdict even on the dependence of the Kyiv Metropolis on the Patriarch of Constantinople - a verdict completely unfavorable for the latter - it testified that “in the unified Russian diocese” there were first (after the subordination of Little Russia to the Kingdom of Poland) two metropolitans, both with the title of All-Russian, and then, in Moscow, the title of “patriarch” was established of all Russia,” and the metropolitan of “all Russia” also remained in Kyiv. History thus revealed “no small outrage” - a direct violation of the rights of the Moscow Patriarch 500. Now relying on the evidence of history, P. Joachim decided to take the last step: the bishop was ordered to appear in Moscow. Gideon for installation as a metropolitan and the privileges of the Kyiv Metropolis, for which the hetman petitioned, were approved, except for one - regarding the assimilation of the title of Exarch of the Throne of Constantinople to the Kyiv Metropolitan, which was found “not decent”, because “now the Kiev Metropolis with the newly elected metropolitan has to be under the blessing of the Moscow Patriarch; and not Constantinople 501. Ep. Gideon then arrived in Moscow and here on November 8, in the Assumption Cathedral, he was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of Kyiv 502. He was given charters, a grant from the kings 503, and a grant from the patriarch 504, in which the privileges of Kyiv were confirmed and with which Gideon was given the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia. Thus, the widowed Metropolis of Kiev received its supreme archpastor and finally entered into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Great Russia and Little Russia now constituted one organism, not only politically united, but inspired by church unity of command. But it was impossible to limit the matter of annexing the Kyiv Metropolis in Moscow only to installing a metropolitan in Kyiv, dependent on the Moscow Patriarch. The question of the legality of this statement is obvious; it has not yet been finally resolved, or if it was decided, it was only historically, on the basis of the inevitable course of life, but not legally. Meanwhile, this incompleteness of the decision could be accompanied by the most tempting consequences for the Orthodox Church - it could bring the Constantinople anathema not only to Little Russia, but also to the Moscow Patriarch Joachim himself. – All the then leaders who participated in the reunification of Kyiv feared this anathema. Samoilovich, as we know, therefore asked the kings to quickly enter into an agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople; even St. Joachim himself, with all his practical prudence and determination, was clearly aware in this case of all the awkwardness of his position, especially since his enemies, it seems, did not hesitate to utter “blasphemies and reproaches” against his new-found boldness” 505. It was therefore decided to immediately ask the Patriarch of Constantinople for a letter of permission to complete the matter of reunifying the Kyiv Metropolis. At the end of 1685, the clerk Nikita Alekseev and the hetman's envoy Lisitsa went to the East to the Sultan on the matter of calling people from the eastern side of the Dnieper to the western. At the same time, they were instructed to convey to the patriarch three charters from the kings, P. Joachim and the hetman 506, which first set out the motives for the reunification of Kyiv with the Moscow Patriarchate (unrest in the Kyiv Metropolis and the difficulty for the Byzantine patriarch to eradicate these unrest due to the distance, due to the ferocity of the Crimeans), then the appointment of bishop was justified. Gideon as Metropolitan of Kyiv from the Patriarch of Moscow (the latter’s equality with the Eastern Patriarchs, the primordial unity of Moscow and Kyiv, according to which they always constituted one diocese, and especially the right of the Patriarch of Moscow, as “the patriarch of all Russian and northern countries and peoples” 507, and in conclusion, a grammatical dismissal blessing was asked for the entire Little Russian Church in general and in particular for the newly elected Metropolitan. Added to this was a request that the Patriarch not send a metropolitan to Kiev for his part if anyone from the Polish state asked him to do so. The clerk Alekseev also received a special “order” from P. Joachim, which directly expressed what was only hinted at in the letter. – “The Kyiv metropolis would have been given to the spiritual power (the Patriarch of Constantinople) to the Moscow Patriarch so that from ancient times this Kiev diocese was a single All-Russian throne and all of Russia was spiritually ruled everywhere by the metropolitans who lived in Moscow, who were also called “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia.” “Later, many of the Russian peoples were conquered from the Polish kings and were seduced by the love of fame of the nets and were seduced by the worldly power of this faith from the All-Russian Metropolitan, who was a proper shepherd, and was installed there as metropolitans of Kiev in the united Russian diocese of another,” and so on 508. In addition, the messengers were authorized to act to achieve their goal through the influence of the Turkish authorities, as well as by promising the patriarch rich gifts if he agreed to liberate the Kyiv Metropolis from under his authority. – Moscow leaders decided to achieve their goal by all means, they even decided to take advantage of the ever-present weakness of the Byzantine throne! In Adrianople, where the Sultan was then and where the Russian envoys had negotiations with him on a political mission, the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus was present at that time. Alekseev and Lisitsa took advantage of this opportunity and began to work on the matter of the Kyiv Metropolis: they wanted to win over, first of all, P. Dosifei, so that he would advise the Patriarch of Tsaregrad to abandon Kyiv in favor of the Moscow Patriarch, but they met strong rebuff from him. Dosifei not only did not bow to the request of those sent, but directly and decisively declared that this matter was illegal, protected by holy rules. Fathers, and regarding the already accomplished installation of a metropolitan in Kyiv without the blessing of the Byzantine Patriarch, even noted that “this is a division of the Eastern Church” 509. The podyachy Alekseev presented to this strict zealot of paternal decrees the reasons why it was inconvenient for Kyiv to be subordinate to the Constantinople throne and expressed the benefits that were presented with the dependence of the Little Russian Church on the Patriarch of Moscow, but this did not help the matter at all. Alekseev wanted to influence P. Dosifei with the promise of a royal salary, but this did not lead him to the desired end. “I will not get involved in this matter,” the patriarch responded to the promise of a salary, as the Patriarch of Constantinople wants, and I would not do such a thing even for a large treasury, and the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot do it without a vizier’s decree” - “It would be better,” the Moscow clerk remarked to this, if St. the patriarchs did this holy deed without disclosing it to the infidels 510. Dositheus remained adamant. The messengers were forced to turn to the assistance of the Grand Vizier and announced to him the desire of the kings. Under the difficult circumstances in which Türkiye was at that time 511, the vizier willingly agreed to fulfill the desire of Moscow and promised to call the patriarch to himself and order him to carry out the royal will. The case that Alekseev was working on had a favorable outcome for him. Even the stern P. Dositheus found in the rules, as he himself later told the Moscow envoy, that every bishop is free to let go from his diocese to another bishop, and promised to persuade the Patriarch of Constantinople to fulfill the royal will, promised even from himself to give a special blessing to this matter and write to the great sovereigns and P. Joachim 512. Meanwhile, the Constantinople city of Dionysius himself, restored to his dignity, arrived in Adriapopol 513. Having received the Moscow charters and having learned the disposition of his secular authorities regarding the subject matter that constituted the content of these charters, St. Dionysius did not dare to refuse the kings and the Moscow Patriarch their request and promised to give a charter of release for the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate immediately upon his return to Constantinople. P. Dionysius actually fulfilled this promise. In June, Alekseev received charters in Constantinople, which established the Kiev Metropolis in the department of the Moscow Patriarch 514. P. Dionysius even wrote in a conciliar charter addressed to P. Joachim that he “received his request with great joy and, without finding any obstacles to this matter, created from his most powerful kingdom (i.e. Turkish authorities), the blessed being and the righteous affirmation in writing, judge with dignity” and asked only one thing, that the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, “as the being of the source and beginning and preceded by the likes of settlements and dioceses everywhere, should be proclaimed in Little Russia during divine services before the name of the Patriarch of Moscow” 515. But such an expression of joy on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople was in fact nothing more than a compliment spoken officially to St. Joachim. That’s not what P. Dionysius already wrote in a letter to the kings: here he quite clearly expressed his true view of the matter of the reunification of Kyiv, as one that, although it received approval from him, received it “especially through the command of the ruling kingdom” and which, on the one hand, “was forbidden according to church statutes, because of St. the rules command that all churches be preserved, justified, unshakable and immovable,” while “the other shows the honor of the Ecumenical Throne to be neglected and greatly deprived of its privileges” 516. The view of P. Dionysius and other Greek spiritual authorities on this matter was expressed even more clearly in a postscript to a charter written by them addressed to n. Joachim. It is clear from it that in Constantinople the behavior of St. Joachim in the matter of the reunification of Kyiv was decisively condemned - it was condemned as “boldness,” although good in intention and end, “as it was a construction project,” none the less deserving of church punishment. For this reason, P. Dionysius considered it necessary to “give the Moscow Patriarch conciliar, abundant forgiveness.” May this most blessed Father Joachim, says the postscript, be forgiven by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - the Holy Trinity, and blessed and permitted to exist, for ever be the image of novelty..., at all times acting in every way, even the bishops are not forbidden, as before with a clear conscience 517. He handed the promised letter to the Moscow clerk Alekseev and P. Dosifei - a letter even more remarkable than the mentioned postscript from P. Dionysius. The Archpastor of Jerusalem considered it a “great sin” not to directly express his opinion, his judgment about Moscow figures and did not hesitate to speak out frankly. We will convey in abbreviation the contents of this characteristic charter - Expressing his consent to the subordination of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarch, the Archpastor of Jerusalem wrote to the kings that if St. Joachim consecrated the Metropolitan of Kyiv, then “he did a good and blessed deed,” since this is allowed in times of need and, moreover, the patriarchal power is not limited by place, however, noted St. Dositheus, his desire to have the Kiev diocese as his own, is not praised. 1) Because it is proper to be content with one’s own, and not to seek something new every day, as is usually the case in types of searches, which are followed little by little by the arrogance and disdain of the brethren, just as this happened to the popes out of pride... 2) To what extent the desire of foreign dioceses seems to be vicious in the church is evident from the fact that the Patriarch of Antioch was very reproached by the Third Ecumenical Council for wanting to consecrate the Archbishop of Cyprus and “having insulted the pride of his face.” father". 3) If it was necessary to annex the Kiev diocese to the Moscow throne, then this matter should be submitted to the consideration of all the patriarchs, and not just the one of Constantinople, since the patriarchs themselves cannot give or take dioceses one by one. 4) When it is appropriate to ask the patriarchs about such a matter or about another, it is appropriate for one person to write or speak in particular, but in common with everyone, and with consideration and in a single charter, as was done when the first Patriarch of Moscow (Job) was installed. 5) One should not ask, but demand that deed if it is not contrary to the laws and if nothing obscene will follow from it. 6) This should not have been asked through money, but simply for the sake of faith and the benefit of the faithful, and - not like now when the messenger announced that if we give the charter, then he will give alms; and if we don’t give it, he does not give it, and the chickens to Dionysius, who asked for money, answered that he had the royal order to first take the charters and then give the money. And is it proper for this apostolic church of great Moscow to ask its mother, the Eastern Church, for spiritual gifts for money? And is the letter that the envoy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepts for money righteous and has dignity? If, for the sake of poverty, some are accustomed to taking money and issuing certificates, is it proper for your church to ask such images for such great deeds? ABOUT! if St. God has forgiven this! 7) One can be afraid that the Orthodox living in Ukraine and Poland will become disobedient to the Metropolitan of Kyiv, who was not consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thus will follow schism and controversy and even worse this: if they ask for a different metropolitan from the Patriarch of Constantinople, these Christians and he will consecrate for them for the sake of small money and temptations and debauchery will follow... 8) The third part of the Antioch diocese was under the pious Greek king at a time when most of it was enslaved by the Arabs: but the Patriarch of Constantinople did not then take one foot from the Antioch diocese; Most of all, royal ambassadors were sent every year to the sultans of Babylon and Egypt in order to have church peace; similarly, the political dependence of Little Russia on the Moscow state does not give the right to subordinate it to Moscow in ecclesiastical terms. “For these reasons,” Dositheus wrote in conclusion, we do not praise the undertaking of our brother (n. Joachim) 518 . The Jerusalem high priest thus expressed everything that he thought regarding the annexation of the Kyiv metropolis to the Moscow patriarch - “advised, as he himself put it in another charter - sent to Sophia Alekseevna, - he advised with a free mind in order to abandon this undertaking, for it is unkind to change the paternal statutes, especially when the Constantinople patriarchs themselves, who give the charters, do not they give them with all their hearts, but for the sake of money, being not strong in themselves 519... But despite all this, this senior zealot of church canons yielded to the irresistible course of events and recognized the accomplished fact of the church subordination of Kyiv to Moscow. “So,” he wrote at the end of the above-mentioned letter to the kings, if only for the sake of the pride of the churchmen or for the sake of another guilt, perhaps a blessed one, it so happened, we rejoice that Kyiv has a metropolitan and his consecration is acceptable and other things, declaring we pray to the Lord Christ, may he give him the strength to rule well and complacently. Together with this letter p. Dositheus also sent an addition to it, consisting of seven points, where he pointed out some customs in the Little Russian Church, which the newly elected metropolitan should have paid attention to and taken care of their destruction, as alien to Orthodoxy 520, defined his administrative activities and attitude towards the Patriarch of Moscow 521 and finally demanded that the Moscow Patriarch henceforth inform the Tsaregradsky about the new installation of the Kyiv Metropolitan. “With this, let the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople be remembered before the Moscow one 522. At the same time, P. Dositheus sent a letter still assigned to the bishops and all Orthodox Christians living in Poland, so that they would obey the Kyiv Metropolitan Gideon, “whom all the patriarchs accepted and recognize as the true and authentic metropolitan 523.” All these charters of the Eastern Patriarchs, awarded to the clerk Alekseev, were presented to the latter in Moscow for their appointment in the month of November. Soon after that (in early February), letters were sent from the kings and P. Joachim to Metropolitan Gideon of Kyiv and Hetman Samoilovich with the news that the Eastern Patriarchs had agreed to recognize the dependence of the Kyiv Metropolis on the Moscow Pariarch; The original letters of release and paragraphs of Dionysius and Dositheus were also sent to Kiev, and at the same time it was ordered to keep them in the book depository with all care in the future for the most authentic approval, and send lists of them to whomever happened: “to show other spiritual and noble persons and worthy of faith the very originals” for better assurance 524. Thus, the thought of P. Joachim finally received full implementation: the Kiev Metropolis, which had long been at odds with Moscow and then reached unity with it through the necessary historical path, finally merged into one organism with the Moscow Patriarchate and this merger received legal sanction. Not only in the name of historical necessity and not for the expansion of their rights, not out of arrogance and negligence of the brethren, as St. Dosifei expressed it, St. Joachim strengthened himself, at any cost, to annex the Kyiv metropolis to his patriarchate; no, the reason for these efforts lay, as we already mentioned above, in the troubles that then dominated the internal life of the Little Russian church. And therefore, with the latter’s subordination to the Moscow throne, her life naturally should have become and actually became the subject of the patronizing care of the patriarchs. Joachim. True, in the privileges given to the Kyiv metropolitanate, by the way, it was directly stated that the Moscow Patriarch should not interfere in the church affairs of the Kyiv metropolitan. But St. Gideon himself, during his dedication in Moscow, made a solemn promise: “to have obedience to the throne of the patriarchate of the All-Russian Kingdom and to follow unswervingly in everything the eastern church and in all respects to hold and preserve both the limits and ranks, and the statutes of that St. Church of Christ" 525, and thus recognized the supreme supervision of the Moscow Patriarch. The right of this supervision was later confirmed by the charter of P. Joachim, given to M. Gideon 526 and, in addition, by the charter of Patr. Jerusalem Dositheus 527. Yes, and it is difficult to allow Patr. Joachim, with his active character and strict view of the church hierarchy, could remain completely indifferent to the life of the newly annexed metropolis. On the contrary, it is even much more natural to admit, it seems to us, that the approval of the privileges of Kyiv was given by Joachim only because without it the matter of reunification would not have taken place. One might think that the patriarch, yielding in this case to the needs of the time, hoped to subsequently achieve, little by little, the complete unification of the Little Russian diocese with the Moscow one, on a par with the Great Russian dioceses 528 and he was not deceived. In 1686, in spite of the privileges granted to the Kyiv Metropolitan, he gave a grant to the Polotsk Epiphany Monastery, with which he brought it into direct dependence on himself, and gave the abbot of this monastery Ignatius Zhikhmont and his successors the blessing to consecrate churches in the Belarusian region, for which he sent there a printed rite of consecration of the church, antimensions and the vessel of consecrated ointment 529 . In the next year, 1687, P. Joachim made his stauropegy, dear to him, according to his rebirth, the Mezhigorsky monastery, which had previously been the stauropegy of the Patriarch of Constantinople 530. Meanwhile, St. Joachim soon had the opportunity to strengthen his influence, so to speak, on the main points of vital activities of the Little Russian Church. In 1688, Samoilovich was deprived of the hetman's dignity; and with his fall, his friend, Metropolitan of Kiev Gideon, began to gradually lose his importance - the privileges given to him at the request of Samoilovich now ceased to be inviolable. Archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra Varlaam Yasinsky, even during the very election of Metropolitan Gideon, declared at the Kiev Council that the Archimandry of Pechersk, as a former stauropegy of the throne of Constantinople, should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the metropolitan, and this statement was even included in the cathedral protocol. But it was not accepted in Moscow 531 and the Kiev Lavra, by the charters granted by the royal and the patriarchate, given to the newly installed Metropolitan of Kyiv, submitted to this latter. Archimandrite Varlaam in 1688 again asked St. Joachim to make the Lavra a stauropegion of the Moscow throne, and now his request was fulfilled. The Kiev Pechersk Lavra was freed from the dependence of the Kyiv metropolitan, confirmed in the rights of the Moscow royal and patriarchal stauropegy and named the first stauropegy in Russia 532. She received autonomy in relation to her local authorities and at the same time came under the direct supreme supervision of the patriarchal regime. Varlaam Yasinsky and his brethren now pledged “to submit matters impossible to their judgment, as stated in the charter granted to them, to the patriarch and to have the books printed in the printing house under his blessing” 533 . The former administrator of the Kiev Metropolis, Archbishop of Chernigov Lazar Baranovich, did not want to submit to the Kiev Metropolitan in the same way. But as long as Samoilovich was the hetman of Little Russia, from whom “he was hated, oppressed by many insults, many sorrows and inscrutable sorrows,” and oppressed not just, but “like a dead oblivion,” Baranovich could not free himself from the dependence he hated: the hetman forbade him to send written petitions to Moscow 534. The time is favorable, the day of salvation 535 came for Lazar only after the fall of Samoilovich. In 1688, Baranovich, “coming from the oblivion of the grave,” submitted humble petitions to the tsars and the Moscow patriarch with a complaint about the oppression of his metropolitan 536 and with a request that he and his entire diocese be directly under the blessing of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow, along with other Great Russian bishops. May it (the Chernigov diocese) remain, he wrote in his charter, under the supreme archpastoral saint. with your blessing, as well as all other Great Russian bishops. Henceforth, and because of my unworthiness, let those who want to be archbishops of Chernigov accept perfection, (ordination) from the very shrine of your most eminent father and our archpastor in the reigning city of Moscow, and not in Kyiv, great for the honor of the first altar and collegiate church, the mother, the churches now representing all of Russia 537. Moscow agreed to this request of Lazarus, and in the month of June a patriarchal charter was sent to him, by which his diocese was excluded from the authority of the Kyiv Metropolitan and was subordinate directly to the Moscow High Hierarch 538. Thus, little by little, the power of the Moscow Patriarch over the Little Russian Church was consolidated, and his rights and influence on its internal life expanded. The Kiev Metropolis, so to speak, was fragmented into parts, lost its exclusivity, and was equated with the Great Russian dioceses. And soon the time came when Patr. Joachim made full use of his newly acquired rights to the Little Russian Church! This application began in the same fatal year for Little Russia, 1688, when the jealous guardian of its privileges, Hetman Samoilovich, fell and when its highest clergy themselves sought direct dependence on Moscow. Little Russia, which had been under the influence of Catholicism for a long time, did not preserve the purity of its ancient Orthodoxy. Union - this net in which the Jesuits caught the Orthodox, did not remain without a trace for the latter. Little Russians were inclined towards Latinism, without noticing it themselves. And their life bore obvious traces of the influence of the papists; the morals of the clergy themselves were not alien to some of the traits imprinted by the Latin character 539; even the practice of the Little Russian church did not remain consolidated from the Uniate influence - in Little Russia, for example, one could sometimes encounter “the celebration of the service of God, funny with music” 540. Moreover, the doctrine itself in the Kyiv metropolitanate was not preserved in all its inviolable purity - the Little Russians were not far from recognizing the Latin teaching about the sinless conception of the Blessed Virgin 541 and accepted as undoubtedly the true opinion of the papists about the transubstantiation of gifts in the liturgy with the words of Jesus Christ: “take, eat” and so on. But if the Little Russians thus became accustomed to Latin, without noticing it themselves, others noticed it - those whose tutelage their religious life was subject to. The eastern hierarchs 542 also knew about these deviations of the Little Russians, and their new shepherd, the Patriarch of Moscow, knew about it. The latter, prompted by the wills already known to us that arose in Moscow over disputes about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts, the main cause of which were immigrants from Little Russia and Little Russian books, entered into relations on this matter with representatives of the local clergy - M. Gideon, Archbishop. Chernigov Lazarus, and Archimandrite of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery Varlaam Yasinsky. “Like an all-Russian shepherd, P. speaks of himself. Joachim, having great care for the flock entrusted to us by God, do not tolerate such temptation in our flock, expand and, if you want it, destroy from the hearts of your flock and the news that has entered to eradicate, as a scribble of our flock in the Kyiv diocese and His Grace Metropolitan Gideon and Lazarus, Archbishop of Chernigov, as yes They will find in themselves the actions and guilt of the Florentine cathedral, for their sake the council was born: and how they themselves and their assistants accept this and will tell us about it. This letter is not ignorant of that assembly and those who were present at it: but they want to know if they, the metropolitan and the archbishop and others, are in all agreement the essence of the saints. The Eastern Churches, or in nothing (in ipache about the times of transubstantiation) were negli anti-sages. From them and from their books came the news about the time of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Verbally, their bookkeepers are ancient and learned people and leading 543. P. Joachim did not want to offend the southern archpastors with a certain word about his suspicion about their Orthodox loyalty and decided to go to the intended goal, which is called a roundabout path. In March 1688, P. Joachim sent the first letters to M. Gideon and Archbishop. Lazarus, in which he informed them about the false teachers who had appeared in Moscow and the verbal debates they had excited about the Florentine Council, and since during these verbal debates some accepted and praised this council, while others “strongly denied”, and yet both sides of the “known scriptures” could not be shown, the Patriarch ordered the mentioned representatives of the Little Russian clergy to notify him with the scriptures that was the reason for this cathedral? How did it start and from whom? what issues (proposals? what did the Greeks and the Romans agree on and what did they disagree with each other)? how did it end, did he agree with St. Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, is it accepted by all the Eastern Patriarchs and do they themselves accept its definitions 544? These letters made a grave impression on those to whom they belonged. At the council convened in Kyiv on this occasion by Metropolitan Gideon, the reading of the patriarchal charter confused everyone: “everyone was surprised (we were all surprised), St. wrote about this. Dmitry from Varlaam Yasinsky to Hetman Mazepa, everyone was surprised and unanimously agreed... negatike (to answer negatively) and (that) the Eastern Orthodox Church of Tsale (completely) did not accept that gathering and did not regard it as a cathedral” 545. In July, M. Gideon sent a response to the Patriarch, in which, after a detailed presentation of the history of the Florentine cathedral, which marked the beginning of the Uniate charm, and an indication of the sources from which the proposed information about the cathedral was borrowed 546, he, on behalf of his entire flock, together with Archimandrite Pechersk and other abbots of the Kyiv monasteries, “confessed” that the Florentine cathedral was not accepts... rejects it 547. Chernigov Archbishop Lazar also sent an answer to the Moscow Patriarch. In his response letter, Baranovich first praised the diligent care of the patriarchs. Joachim about the Eastern Shining Church and then, noticing that he, too, had become depleted of books and writings talking about that Florence Cathedral “and that no one living piously would dare to praise this congregation of robbers,” he outlined its history and deeds “in brief, whatever is powerful.” In conclusion, like M. Gideon, he “swept away this Florentine cathedral” 548. These answers from the southern archpastors were, of course, satisfactory regarding the questions that the patriarch proposed to them in his letters, but they did not in any way correspond to his thoughts, which he did not express directly out of modesty; Ave. Joachim was deceived in his expectations - to learn from their view of the Florentine Cathedral their opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts. “In these metropolitan and archbishop’s writings,” says the patriarch, how great was the debate in Florence about the transubstantiation of gifts, when even the words were not revealed and nothing less was commemorated” 549. The Patriarch therefore decided to abandon his modesty, which turned out to be inappropriate, and express his thoughts, his suspicions directly. In September of the same 1688, he sent letters to the metropolitan and archbishop for the second time, “for the sake of perfect knowledge about them, what wisdom they have about that (i.e., transubstantiation of the Gifts)” 550. Along with the letters, he considered it necessary to send them a denunciation of the notorious notebook “Report on the Church,” already known to us. In these letters, Joachim first expressed his joy at what was said by M. Gideon and Archbishop. Lazarus expressed his opinion regarding the Florentine Council, and then wrote to each of them separately: “even though you expressed in your writing the fornications and delights of the Florentine Council, what and only... was not found in your writing, but it was a lot of it at that council, the pope and the cardinals offered the Greeks (in the 25th meeting and after that descent until the departure itself) and there was great compulsion to confess to the eastern people the completion of the mystery of St. Eucharist words: “take, eat” and so on. The Greeks of Orthodoxy did not at all accept it, as stated by St. the seventh ecumenical council and St. fathers... saying that this mystery will be accomplished by the calling and invasion of St. Spirit with the sign of the honorable cross...; as the Russian Church from ancient times certainly held, even until that time, when the sowers of unity began to come, especially the Jesuits themselves - the eradicators of our piety, and from then, little by little, the nasty St. eastern church, this thought for the new ceremony of the Roman church... Nowadays, the rebels Netius are beginning to create debates and discords about this, and to divulge other Latin seductions. There is no word now about all of these. Only this one thing is sought from us.” The Patriarch further speaks about the appearance in Moscow of the notebook “Exposition” 551 and about the confusion of the Orthodox by it, and then, after pointing out the denunciation sent to this notebook, he orders that they “read all this written (i.e., the denunciation of the Exposition) and, having judged both well and dangerously, either their own or the synodal one,” send him an answer. “The recording, the patriarch adds, for us about all of these things, in accordance with our thoughts, will not be careless, but carefully and spiritually, older than the Church of St. the tradition will be established" 552. At the same time Patr. Joachim sent the same letter to the Pechersk archimandrite Varlaam and his brethren - he sent it because the mentioned notebook “Exposition” was published in their monastery. “Poslah,” it is said, by the way, in the patriarchal charter, “poslah (gram and denunciation on the Layout) and to your reverence, desiring in all your unity to be in accordance with St. the Eastern Church and with the holiest pillars of the universe, the four patriarchs and with our regularity, not for the sake of any doubt about you (we know for sure your unfailing following in everything and the steady march of the Holy Eastern Church from the Holy Eastern Church), but for the sake of confirming the truth, repelling lies and for the sake of shaming some senseless people, or rather the speech of debauchees and rebels those who divulge and multiply those notebooks of falsehood and attribute this vice to you by the honest Kiev-Pechersk monk 553. And from Yasinsky Patr. Joachim demanded, just like from Metropolitan Gideon, an immediate response after a kind and dangerous consideration of the denunciation of the Report. Patr. Joachim now clearly expressed his suspicion about the purity of the content of the doctrine in Little Russia and demanded that the Little Russian clergy deny the thoughts set forth in the “Exposition.” But he was afraid to arouse popular unrest with his demand; and therefore, in all three of his charters, he prescribed that the discussion about transubstantiation should be illuminated - it should not reach the worldly ear, as if it were (whatever it was), not more of these (they are not allowed to enter the inner sanctum), but also the mysteries themselves and the sacrament performed in secrecy from them, let them remain, only to us in knowledge and clearly among ourselves: let them not be external Sisev in the rumors of the worldly suggestion, the church of saints from the unpunished some unprofitable something will happen.” And it was not in vain that the patriarch wanted to observe this wise caution. The Little Russian clergy, as we have seen, were surprised when they received the first charters of patrons. Joachim about the Florentine Council, where the patriarch’s thought was not expressed directly. His last letters left them in extreme confusion. The question posed in them about the time of transubstantiation of gifts was complete news for the Little Russians. “Before us, sevio haesquaestio non pervenit,” wrote St. Dmitry to Hetman Mazepa, and we, as we learned from our fathers, confess 554. “In the entire church here,” Arch. later wrote. Lazarus, as from the days of old, born into her by water and the Spirit, hitherto, not a single direct test, not a single dubious test, in the entire Little Russian Church, was brought to Wednesday; but from our soft nails we have learned and taught, but we have believed without doubt and confessed, as the words of Christ the Lord were spoken: take, eat, and so on. and drink from it all and transforms bread into the most pure and life-giving body, and likewise wine into the most pure and life-giving blood of the Lord 555. Now the representatives of the Little Russian Church were in complete bewilderment. They were required to agree with the Eastern Church - it was required that they reject Latin thought, as the mystery of St. is accomplished by the words of Christ. Eucharist,” and yet they did not even suspect that this thought had come to them from the “new cuttings,” that they “received it from corrupt Latin books,” they were convinced, on the contrary, that they contained “the teachings of Greek teachers who observed the dogmas of the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church intact” 556. In addition, they were well aware that “the notebook brought to him with the letter .... (by the patriarch) was very schismatic, but was compiled by a husband in the life of a holy witness and wisdom, who had already died in the Lord, Theodosius Sofonovich, abbot of the golden-domed Michael, of Kyiv, and it is not the only one (notebook Exposition) that reveals this, but also in many different ways, not from Latin, but from the true Greek language through the wise and Orthodox Church of St. Eastern righteous sons of Russia, more industrious into the Slavic language, translated and not from the single Kiev-Pechersk printing house, but also from other books published by the pious wise press, and the same unanimity contained was found" 557. The named representatives of the Little Russian clergy found it difficult to respond to the patriarch’s letters and remained silent for more than six months. Such slowness of the Little Russian clergy led the patriarchs “to much sorrow and anguish of soul.” Joachim, and his grief was all the stronger because, on the one hand, he was not unaware of the reason for this slowness 558 and on the other hand, he needed answers to his letters in order to tame the Moscow papezhniks, who, as we know, worried Moscow and relied, among other things, on the authority of the Little Russian Church 559. The Patriarch therefore decided to encourage the Little Russian theologians to give an answer to the question he proposed in the previous gramata. In March 1689, he sent a third letter to the Kyiv Metropolitan. “Until now,” he wrote in this letter, I was expecting an indirect answer from you: but to this day, in contempt for us, we have received no answer, and for this we have no small pity. And that we cannot lead to this indifference and contempt of guilt 560 and your obstinacy leads us to considerable reflection, but zeal for God does not leave us about this in the negligence of baseness, forbidding those who are negligent as spoken in the prophet Jeremiah (The Chudovsky Archimandrite retained the right, granted to Joachim, when he was still the Chudovsky Archimandrite, to use gold-plated rod, donated by Paisius of Alexandria.). For this reason, for the sake of sadness, he constantly gnaws at us, or, even more so, eats us up, as if we were abandoned and contradicted by the dogma of St. no one protects the fathers: but the new and alien from the enemy, the sowed tares in the midst of pure wheat, even to eradicate the little joy of handing over (that is, those to whom it was handed over) the field to the Church of Christ to do, and the fear contains neither, but little by little the negligence of the chin through the course of endless confusion and merging will come the church, for which they have a shepherd and overseer We will be rich little by little from the beginning of the shepherd Christ.” “Now we are writing to you again in remembrance, trying to immediately announce your consent to St. Eastern Church and unanimity towards our measure according to what has been written down from us to you, and do not count this greatest work as negligence and delay.” In conclusion, the patriarch threatens him with judgment (surveillance) of “the entire Eastern Church” 561. Exactly the same letters were sent to Lazar Baranovich and Varlaam Yasinsky at that time. Such persistence, accompanied even by a threat, finally forced the named persons of the Little Russian hierarchy to answer the patriarch. But their answers were not at all what Joachim wanted. Little Russian theologians did not agree with the denunciation of the notebook “Exposition” sent from the patriarch. On the contrary, they directly stated that they held exactly the same opinion regarding the time of the transubstantiation of gifts that was defended in the Exposition, and that “they did not have a single doubt about this thing until now,” they argued that just as the Exposition itself was not subject to the Uniate or Jesuit, so the teaching it contained regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist “is not contrary to the Orthodox Eastern Church” and referred to church books published not only in the south of Russia, but also in Moscow - “in the shining reigning city itself, as Baranovich put it in his answer.” However, as it was clear from the patriarch’s letters that he did not agree with them in the above-mentioned opinion, they all expressed their readiness to further think over the controversial issue and “without creating an all-final council, they wanted to learn from the patriarchal all-holiness” 562. And from there, the patriarch says, everything is not more ancient than evidence and immaterial to forgeries, both with submission and surrender to greater reasoning and readiness to obedience 563. Patr. Joachim thus had to enter into the same extensive discussions with the Little Russian theologians that he conducted at the same time with his Moscow priests and, in addition, about the same question - about the time of transubstantiation. And he soon really sent to M. Gideon and Arch. Varlaam sent an extensive letter of response, in which he offered, on the one hand, exhortations for their admonition, and on the other, a lengthy denunciation of their opinion about the Eucharist. “Befitting of you and very fitting,” he wrote to M. Gideon and Barlaam together, as truly existing sons of the holy Eastern Church and our obedient novice, and moreover, prudent beings in the divine and sacred scriptures and leading the words and understanding of the Holy One. ancient teachers unquestioningly according to the charters and writings of St. proposed from our standards. the father (i.e., to the one sent by him before, “the reproof of the Explanation”), show due obedience to the trustworthy ones;... We, brother, write to your Eminence and the Most Honorable Archimandrite and your agreement with the request and like-mindedness with the entire Eastern Church of Christ and our one-wise measure on the celebration of the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord... in the Divine Liturgy, according to ancient tradition and the teaching of St. apostle and God-bearing father... and not, according to the new-minded, some sophisticated mischief... I say the pope and his cardinals and some other followers of that Papa Caiaphasian former neighbor in Florence.” Having further mentioned the “vestment for the “Vyklad”” sent by him and briefly listing the paternal testimonies that are given in the vestment, the patriarch continues: “You have neglected our fatherly love for you, all this testimony of the saints and pillars of the Holy. The church was silent and did not agree with us about this, but adapt the newly printed books to your opinion, not from the words of St. about this vile thing, but unexamined, or from reading foreign Latin books, I say, or from another Jacob’s case who wrote and you are sinning about this and will give a verbal answer without careful consideration. It is fitting for you, as a learned and wise man (even if the one sent from us is unfaithful in your opinion) to first test whether the book of Simeon of Thessalonites has been found... and this book that has been found in your hands is fitting to take into your hands and read, if possible (i.e., the Greek edition), or through another to hear what he writes and says. But accept and read these notebooks and call them, if there is some semblance of words and thoughts between the book of Simeon of Thessalonians and between the verb book of the Exposition of Abbot Theodosius.” Having further said that they should also have compared other evidence of the Exposition with the very works from which they were borrowed, and then noting that in doubtful cases it was necessary to turn to ancient Greek and Slavic books, and not new ones, the Patriarch makes a detailed analysis of the evidence that the Kyiv representatives of the clergy referred to in their response letters in defense of the Exposition 564. After that, he reminds Gideon of the handwritten and oral promise of loyalty to Orthodoxy and obedience to the Moscow throne, which he gave upon his installation in the metropolitanate, and thus ends his letter: “I testify to you this day that I am clean from the blood of you all: I will not hesitate to tell you the whole will of God. But whatever we want to say or write a lot, there is only one answer and we want to have information from you, whether you will completely follow the Eastern Church of Christ in the teaching about the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the blood and body of Christ, in the invocation and prayer of the priest through the action of the Holy Spirit in the words - “do this and so on.” and not in words: come, eat, etc. and do you accept and confess all the traditions to that mother of yours (and are you content with the seven pillars of the holy village seven cathedrals? And if you are satisfied... you must correct yourself with us too... agree, and immediately and urgently unsubscribe... and so may the grace of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of our measure be with you all. If you do not want to stay within the boundaries and dogmas, holy father... tell us: with whom will you have other agreement and fellowship? To whom will you bow your head and receive the blessing, who will you not force to be the shepherd and the head of...? this is what they will say to you. God forbid that you hear the terrible chintz above you.” The Patriarch finally invites them to send to Moscow a man of humble wisdom, who knows the writings of St. fathers, and not with silogisms and arguments only of the one practicing: “Yes, through this,” he says, you will know everything that is ours, and we will understand everything that is going on 565. A similar letter from Patr. Joachim sent at the same time to the Chernigov Archbishop Lazar Baranovmchu, in response to his message delivered to Moscow through Archimandrite. Yeletsky Theodosius Uglitsky. Having said at the beginning that both Latins and Greeks all agree that in the sacrament of the Eucharist bread and wine are transubstantiated, and that they differ only in their opinion about the time of transubstantiation, and then having previously counted the testimonies sent to Lazarus in defense of the Orthodox opinion, the patriarch wrote to Baranovich: “your shrine, by your writings, which have already been handed over to us, has marked the image of great obedience and for this Thank you. However, this answer to our proposed documents is not direct. And what is this? I'm surprised. Such a man is wise, and from a young age in learning the sciences” he decided “to interpret with flattery and stubbornness. The limits are unshakable St. our father, brother, is not worthy of shaking them, but he will submit to the same thing, this is true and pure.” “But come, having left this teaching hitherto, let us begin to examine... your writings.” They follow in order the denunciations to the answers of Lazar Baranovich 566. In conclusion, the patriarch said: “both as one and two, and now tremble your love for God with a pisach: having taken away the truth, confess it clearly, like the stars of heaven among the dark clouds (Western teacher) hiding. In the same way, your ship, floating in the darkness and darkness and storm, the unseeing teacher of those who float, the northern star, the midday star, did not float in the east, but was found floating in the west. And this is truly marvelous because of the length of your voyage in this sea of ​​life." Joachim finally ordered that Lazarus "reveal urgently through his writing about the hedgehog when transubstantiation occurs through his writing." The sending of these two extensive letters with denunciations attached to them to Little Russia was accompanied by unequal consequences. Metropolitan Gideon of Kiev, with the Kiev Pechersk Archimandrite Varlaam, heeded the voice of their Moscow archpastor and, after a conciliar reading of the patriarchal charter, sent them to Moscow at the suggestion of the patriarch, to explain with him St. Demetrius, abbot of Buturinsky (later Metropolitan of Rostov 568 and with him they forwarded a reply message in which they expressed their agreement with the Eastern Church. “We read in this answer, with all attention, the most comprehensive holy writing of your archpastorship: but due to the imminent departure of the one sent 569 and due to the lack books in the epistole of your archpastorship - in brief, we humbly respond to what your Holiness commands. Sitsevoe shabby confession as if in all members of St. Orthodox faith, likewise, in the most profound mystery of the Eucharist, our conscience informs us that we present the entire Orthodox Church and your Holiness for consideration to the archpastorate... and... we humbly entrust to ourselves 570. This letter was delivered as intended by a messenger from the Kyiv clergy in August 1689 571. Chernigov Archbishop Lazar looked at the matter differently. Not wanting, probably, to abandon the opinion with which he was born “from soft nails,” he did not fulfill the demands of the patriarch - to express his obedience to him urgently, and did not send him any answer. Patr. Joachim repeatedly urged him to answer 572 and finally, upset by his stubborn silence, sent him a final letter, in which he forbade even performing sacred services if the Orthodox opinion on subsistence was not recognized. Having explained the need for ecclesiastical authority in the church and his archpastoral duty, and having mentioned his previous demands from him for consent and unanimity with St. Church, the Patriarch wrote in this letter to Baranovich: “Despising your love for God and considering us for nothing, your father and archpastor, after the longest time, you barely wrote off: and this is not according to your wisdom: for we ask about something else from us, you answered about something else. We will offer you from the East, you, jumping further, say from the West: and the simpleton who is ashamed to say such a thing. In the first letter (about the Florentine Council) you said that you agree with the Eastern Church in everything, and in the second you reject the teaching of the Orthodox Church on transubstantiation, relying on your custom and on your teachers, without saying anything about the testimonies of St. fathers (“in reproof of the Layout”), written to you. You have only expressed your worthy acceptance in another, your writing, as if you wanted to learn from us. In response to his assertion, therefore, further new evidence of the Orthodox doctrine of transubstantiation was offered, in addition to the previous ones, and then immediate notification was demanded from him; “And your disobedience and contempt will be revealed to us without notice. This is not the first time that someone has appeared disobedient to us and despised our scriptures. Or don’t weigh it, as if by the grace of St. The spirit of the archpastorship is yours to have the power of those who disobey, whoever was, knit.” Finally Patr. Joachim, having pointed out to him, for example, the Kyiv clergy, who sent their answer, ends his letter like this: “Now your old age is still generous with the love of God and like a much-learned husband, even though you are toiling from you, I am writing to you about a single matter, many scriptures: we are still writing, we are writing to you, so that you can inform everything about you, immediately with whom you are wise in agreement... Even if even now we are neglected and not soon to us about all this, give perfect news: be aware: even if I myself, by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, have the power, with my sons, the most venerable and God-loving bishops, to pronounce judgment on you: but for the sake of this further information, I will write down everything about you, brethren, the beginning of our shepherding, to the four most holy patriarchs: and all about judgment worthy of you, to the measure of our disobedience and your contempt: to the holy church of disobedience, we will endure. But until now we have not been informed about ourselves, but the judgment of everyday life and the sacred ones has been perfect about you: yes, you know your head and your father: and yes, you have learned not to be disdainful and disobedient to the archpastor and merging in the church, but the temptation is in the people. If you agree with St. V. church... in it (as if) one desired to die and after death receive a part from the people of Jerusalem, and not from the Romans: and soon we are agreed and of the same mind: let all of you perform sacred acts without restraint... 573 Such a formidable letter from Patr. Joachim finally bowed before him and the stubborn old man of Little Russia Baranovich. On November 19, 1689, Lazar sent a short answer to the Patriarch, in which he apologized for his slowness and expressing his submission of the shepherds to the shepherd, in the Eastern reign the throne is holy and his agreement with the opinion of the Orthodox Church is pre-existing, we humbly pray for the blessings of the archpastoral “beating no one with his forehead” 574. At the same time, Archmadrite Theodosius of Uglitsky 575, who was close to Lazar, sent news of his agreement with the Eastern Church. Patriarch Joachim testified, finally, before a host of Great Russian archpastors and shepherds, who pronounced their judgment on the Moscow patrons, that the Little Russian ecclesiastical leaders “if” were first little and questioned, then reproached... completely submitting to us with all their flock 576, they learned to be disdainful and disobedient to to their archpastor - they knew their head and their father! But Patriarch Joachim did not limit his relations with the Little Russian flock that was newly subordinate to him only to the correspondence we have outlined about the transubstantiation of gifts. No, having become the supreme archpastor of the Little Russian Church, although he did not interfere in its administration, the privileges granted to it, nevertheless, took care of the destruction of some unlawful customs in its practice. He denounced for example. archbishop Lazar Baranovich for the fact that he ordained priests and deacons, according to his custom, “in twos and threes at a single liturgy, and he, having been convicted, ceased from that” 577. The main thing is what the patriarch mainly tried to do. Joachim, and in what, on the other hand, he encountered the most opposition to himself, was the establishment of his strict supervision over the printing of books in Kyiv. The Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which supplied books not only to Little Russia, but also to Great Russia and even other Slavic peoples, received, as we mentioned above, the rights of patriarchal stavropitey; at the same time, it was directly subordinate to the patriarch himself. Taking advantage of this attitude towards the Lavra, Patr. Joachim demanded that the published books be submitted first for his consideration and judgment, “so that no news of Jacob will appear in them,” and he took a promise regarding this from the rector of this Lavra, Varlaam Yasinsky. Such control of the patriarch over printing activities was unknown in Little Russia in previous times, when it was dependent on the throne of Constantinople, and therefore Yasinsky, according to the previous custom, sometimes decided to print books under the blessing of the patriarch, indicating this only on the title page, and in fact - without asking for permission 578. But Patr. Joachim was not content with only nominal recognition of his supreme supervision in this matter and always wanted to see the actual application of the power assigned to him. He jealously guarded his rights, vigilantly followed everything that was done in Kyiv and did not leave unnoticed the encroachments on his rights, which the Pechersk abbot Varlaam sometimes allowed himself in the matter of printing books 579. In this regard, his relations with the Kyiv theologians regarding the publication of the Menaia, the fourth, compiled by St. Demetrius, then still the abbot of the Baturinsky monastery. To compare the newly compiled mines, Hetman Samoilovich together with Varlaam Yasinsky asked the patriarchs. Joachim the Great Menaion of Moscow, compiled by Metropolitan Macarius, promising to certainly submit new biographies of the saints to him for revision 580. The Patriarch fulfilled their request and they, having received the Moscow Menaion, handed them over to the compiler of the new Menaion, St. Demetrius 581. The case “handed over to St. Demetrius, as he himself says, from the Little Russian Church”, with the new allowance, moved forward quickly. By March 1688, he had already “written six months of the lives of the saints.” Meanwhile, Archimandrite Varlaam of Pechersk, who took upon himself the costs of publishing new menias, intended to do this without the permission of the patriarch and provided the final consideration of the work of St. Demetrius to himself and the cathedral elders 582. Having learned about this, the patriarch immediately demanded the return of the Moscow mena given to Kyiv and, it seems, gave the Kyiv theologians a severe reprimand for their intention, contrary to this promise, to encroach on his right 583. He wrote about this first to Varlaam, who was given the Moscow menaion, then to M. Gideon, since he did not know who had them in their hands 584. Having learned about this demand, St. Demetrius immediately carried out the will of the patriarch: he returned the Moscow menaia to him, although he still needed them, and at the same time sent the patriarch a letter in which he outlined the progress of his work and asked for blessings to publish the type of his menaia, which he managed to compile 585. But Archmadrite Varlaam, despite the obvious displeasure of the patriarch, in the next 1689 he himself began printing the first quarter of four-minutes for September, October and November and soon finished. Patr. Archimandrite Joachim accepted this action. Varlaam for a clear sign of disobedience to authority. In addition, he saw some errors in the newly published menaions - this upset him even more. The Patriarch therefore immediately sent an accusatory letter to Varlaam, a letter showing him as a strict zealot of his hierarchical rights and a guardian of Orthodoxy. - Having first spoken about the need for obedience to authority, Joachim wrote to Yasinsky: “in past times, ask our hetman John Samoilovich and your reverence for our mercy, if only we could give you from us the mena of our great cathedral church, the lives of the saints and words for the feasts of the Lord and Most Holy One. Mother of God for instructions. And having copied it, you were to send to us both our books and your order with him, and we were to testify to correct that order of yours in the reigning city of Moscow, if anything worthy of correction was addressed, and then, according to the review and judgment of the council, give you a blessing, and publish it with typographical embossing. And we, as sincere sons, assure you of this; Having given you the books, I waited a long time for your instructions to be read and judged. Your Reverence did not act according to your promise, neglecting our archpastoral command; Having copied the books, you publish them yourself without the inspection and blessing of our archpastor - and this is your great untruth. Second, add some words to the church of St. V. is unusual, and in our books, you copy from them, not found. You will print it in your book like the Most Holy One. The Mother of God was conceived and born without original sin, which originated from Adam, and such a word is not found in our books, copied from them, in print." Having further outlined the evidence against this idea from Saint Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great and John of Damascus, the patriarch continued: “But in your book of three months you write the names of creators and chroniclers, and from their writings another book has been compiled. In the same names, put Jerome, who is the same name as the Orthodox teacher, and about not a single other in this catalosis to the existing saints... exactly the same you explain the existence of the Orthodox teacher, and the existing one is great in the vigil.” Having then mentioned the previous unauthorized publication of the book “The Crown of Christ,” Joachim demanded from Barlaam repentance and correction and, instead of any other penance, he wrote, to create for you the temptation of this destruction from the books and declare to the Orthodox people in writing, the sin that happened through oversight and other sheets of their place, in them the innovation about the conception of the Holy One. Mother of God, print, publish... And in the future, if you didn’t send to us any new books, you wouldn’t dare to print them, lest you be punished by church execution and banned, like a disobedient woman, 586. It is not known whether the patriarch’s last order regarding the printing and distribution of corrected sheets was carried out: but in general this charter had an effect on the publishers of the menia. - They, as one might think, suspended their work, and St. also stopped his work. Dimitri. The latter, however, taking advantage of a meeting with the patriarch, when he traveled to Moscow on the issue of transubstantiation as a representative of the Kyiv clergy, it seems, asked for the patriarchal blessing to continue his work. His Holiness, St. says about himself. Demetrius blessed me, a sinner, to continue writing the lives of the saints and gave me the image of the Most Holy One to bless me. The Virgin Mary in frame 587 ". This was in September 1689; and six months later Patriarch Joachim died. The issue of publishing menyas was not finally decided under him... Participation of Patriarch Joachim in the political life of the Russian people: the destruction of localism, the project of transforming the civil hierarchy. The court party will be archers; beating of the Naryshkins; two kings and their co-rulers Sophia, the willfulness of the archers; departure of the tsars from Moscow; execution of Khovansky; the patriarch's petition to the kings for the rebels; Sophia's ambitious plans; her plans to achieve her goals through the archimandrite. Isaiah through the Eastern Patriarchs, failure; Sophia's decision to act with the strength of the archers; Goldfinch, plot on Peter's life, failure; departure of the Patr. Joachim to the Sergius Monastery. Old Russian beggary and charity; beggary at the end of the 17th century; Feodor Alekseich’s refusal to maintain Moscow almshouses at his own expense; decree of Patriarch Joachim on the life of Moscow beggars; cathedral definition of 1681; "A Word about Shelters." Death of Patr. Joachim, his will; his burial. The activities of Patriarch Joachim could not be limited only to the church area itself. In ancient Rus', as is known, the high priests always took part in the civil life of their people. And, this was not on their part an encroachment on rights alien to them; - no, this participation was necessarily conditioned by a certain close connection between the church and the state in Rus' - it was a necessary requirement of Russian life. True, this connection, as we already know, apparently began to weaken during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Patr. Nikon, who did not want to recognize this gap between church and state, and who, as a result, did not want to voluntarily renounce his state importance, severely paid for this reluctance. Nevertheless, the state could not suddenly completely break its previous connection with the church: this would be a step impossible in history; Such a revolution in the life of the Russian state took place gradually and it was brought to the end only by Peter... It was the share of the patriarch. Joachim therefore still had room for civic activity. But during the life of Alexei Mikhailovich, when the memories of the catastrophe that took place in the case of the patriarch were still fresh. Nikon, when both Nikon himself and the persons who were the cause of his deposition were still alive - at that time, we say, it was difficult for the patriarch. Joachim to take any part in the public life of his fatherland. And he, it seems, really stayed away from such participation; at least, we do not know a single case from civilian life where he showed his activity. Circumstances remained almost unchanged after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich during the reign of his son Theodore. Tsar Theodore was under the influence of people who were hostile to the patriarch, and the latter therefore did not and could not have great power at court 588. However, Patr. Joachim played a fairly prominent role in the most prominent matter of Theodore’s reign, namely in the destruction of localism. Localism, which took root in the Russian state as a result of the unification of appanage principalities 589 under the power of the Moscow sovereign, did not agree with the idea of ​​Moscow monarchism. Therefore, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, who accepted the title of Tsar, wanted to limit the boyar arrogance 590. Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexey Mikhailovich 591 also sought to do the same - they made private orders to limit localism in particular cases. But it could not be destroyed only by individual resolutions. Its destruction could only take place with a radical revolution in the structure of state life - with the destruction of the very law that lay at its basis, the abolition of the “Discharge Order”. In turn, this revolution was possible only under the condition of a revolution in the thoughts of the Russian people. – To destroy localism, therefore, it was necessary for Russian society to emerge from its ancient customs and enter into a new life of mental self-awareness, when only the personal qualities of a person can matter without regard to his blood dignity. The time of the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich was, therefore, the most favorable for this destruction of boyar accounts of places. This time, as we already know, was full of enthusiasm for Western civilization - it was a time of unbridled awakening of Russian thought. The first thing that was done under Feodor Alekseevich to limit localism was the publication in 1679, on the advice of the patriarch, of a decree in which, “under the threat of taking away honor and eternal ruin irrevocably,” it was prescribed that boyars, okolnichy, duma and all ranks of people in all religious processions were without places, and it was forbidden to record these moves in the Book 592. The final destruction of localism took place only in 1681. This year, by order of the tsar, a commission was established, which was entrusted with drawing up a project for the transformation of the Russian army. This commission, presenting its opinions on a new military structure that would be more “profitable in battles,” suggested, among other things, “all ranks should have all sorts of affairs among themselves without places where anyone belongs.” The sovereign will indicate that in the future, categories and places will not be taken into account with anyone, and discharge cases and places will be left and eradicated.” The king did not dare to end this “donation business” on his own. In January 1682, he convened a cathedral in his royal chambers, which was attended by the patriarch with the authorities, and the boyars and okolnichy, and Duma people; the cathedral was opened with the reading of the commission's draft; After that, the tsar addressed a speech to the patriarch and the authorities, in which, having said that tsars must fulfill the will of God and mentioning the harm that accompanied parochialism in military matters and the desire to destroy him even his grandfather and father, he announced his intention to destroy him and in conclusion asked that “the patriarch and the bishops declare their intention.” The Patriarch also responded to the Tsar with a speech filled with Christian inspiration and state significance. He first exposed the inconsistency of localism with Christian love, and then, having spoken about the good consequences of love for the internal well-being of the state” and strong protection “from enemies, and their convenient defeat,” he outlined the harm that accompanied localism. “And until this present time,” he said from the local parochialism that existed among the high-born, great opposition to that love commanded by God was carried out, and like from the source of the bitterest all evil and extremely vile to God and to the detriment of all your royal affairs occurred, and good undertakings, like thorns, suppressed the growing wheat and until successful completion to the perception of the good fruits allowed, and not just a clan, when with another clan for this parochialism it had many-time malice, but in a single clan the same enmity and hatred occurred, and if only I could report all those nasty cases to your c. Majesty, then because of your royal burden, you couldn’t bear this.” In conclusion, Joachim said that he “with the consecrated cathedral has nothing worthy of praise to bring to such a royal intention,” and turned with a prayer to God, “so that the Almighty would be pleased to bring the royal intention to completion.” This lively speech of the high priest made a strong impression on the sovereign boyars. At the king’s suggestion that each of them express his thought “without any reproach,” they “with zeal” declared, “so that he will. "The sovereign" ordered this to be done at the request of His Holiness the Patriarch. After receiving the advice from Patr. Joachim, Fyodor Alekseevich ordered to bring grade books and put them on fire. The books were burned that same day in the “front vestibule” in the presence of specially appointed persons from the Tsar and the Patriarch. When it was announced about their burning, the patriarch “turned again: with a speech to the boyars and duma people who were at the council, “so that they observe this work begun and accomplished with God... from now on and henceforth firmly and inviolably”... He threatened opponents of this deed with a grave church “prohibition and state wrath.” “The boyars, as they said in the conciliar act, and the okolniki and duma people answered everything unanimously; let it be as he says, the most holy patriarch.” Localism was thus destroyed at its very root. The conciliar act was signed by the Tsar, the Patriarch and all those present at the Council 593. But it was not easy for the boyars to part with their parochial habits - not easy, especially since, with its destruction, their interests suffered - their former state significance was undermined. Many of them, therefore, wanted the restoration of the previous order 594 and their desire was almost fulfilled. Simeon of Polotsk, already known to us, drew up a project in the same 1682, which restored the former importance in the state of the noble boyars, only in a different form. Polotsk proposed to the tsar to establish governorships in Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia and other kingdoms that were part of the Moscow state and appoint high-born boyars as governors forever, giving them the title: “boyar and governor of the entire kingdom of Kazan and Siberia, etc.” At the same time, he proposed to carry out a reform in the church hierarchy, which consisted, as we already know, of establishing a pope and four patriarchs in Rus' 595. The good-natured Feodor Alekseevich himself agreed to fulfill his teacher’s proposal, but did not dare to act in this case, as in the previous one, without the advice of the patriarch, especially since this proposal also concerned church dispensation. He handed over the draft to the patriarch for consideration and asked for his blessing. P. Joachim looked at this matter differently than the king. Such a division of the state seemed strange to him; he saw in this a danger to the integrity of Rus' and, on the basis of the words of the Gospel and the testimony of domestic chroniclers, “absolutely forbade” such undertakings to be carried out.” Such determination of the patriarch brought upon him hatred, both from the compiler of the said poem - Polotsk, and from some other “sub-assistants”. But circumstances quickly changed. And it’s not enough that the expected transformation of the state hierarchy did not take place, with which some high-born boyars would, it seems, have received even greater importance than what they enjoyed before the destruction of the mesnichestvo; no - the very impression made by the defeat of the boyar arrogance lost its strength: it was suppressed by other stronger impressions that shook the body of the Russian state. On April 27, 1682, Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich died. On the same day, the patriarch blessed ten-year-old Peter to the Moscow throne 596. With the change of king, the nature of government actions then had to change. A new party, close to Peter, now gained power at court. This court coup was then clearly marked by the summons to Moscow and the restoration of the nearby boyar Matveev, who had been exiled under the ancient government, 597 and the strengthening of the Naryshkins, the maternal relatives of the young tsar. At the same time, the former party, grouped around Feodor Alekseevich, did not put up with the change in its fate - and this change was all the more difficult for it because even after the death of Tsar Feodor it could hope for the continuation of its importance, since the weak Tsarevich Ioan Alekseevich remained alive. However, this struggle was forestalled by the archers, the only standing army at that time, with their demands. Living mainly at the expense of the state treasury, even under Tsar Fedor, shortly before his death, they attacked their bosses, who deducted half of their salaries; but they were not given that satisfaction; on the contrary, even the instigators of this case suffered severe punishment 598. Therefore, even then, according to a contemporary, Sagittarius “secretly began to think: how to get rid of this disaster” 599. Now, with the change of government, they hoped to achieve their goal. Several days passed after Peter was proclaimed Tsar and the archers again submitted petitions to the Tsar in hand against their colonels “for their grievances and taxes and unmerciful torment.” The new government decided to “dismiss all those colonels from their orders and hand them over to the riflemen as punishment for their failure to complete the orders” 600. It, apparently, felt its powerlessness to counter the Streltsy and did not understand the danger to which it exposed itself and, one might say, the entire capital, by making such a concession to the Streltsy. At that time, Matveev, “a man of great intelligence and in matters of state, military and political, keen intelligence and politics” 601, who could with dignity reject such a confluence of circumstances, was not yet near Peter. But if Matveev was not with Peter, then Matveev’s “extreme friend” P. Joachim was with him. He alone understood the terrible situation into which the new government was putting itself, and immediately used means on its part to avert the danger. He sent bishops, archimandrites and abbots to all regiments with an admonition not to demand the surrender of the colonels as heads, and to leave the sovereign to deal with them. This measure of the patriarch was a success, the archers acted on his admonition, the government inflicted punishment on those colonels against whom petitions were filed, and gave the petitioners the salary that was not given to the sovereign 602. The Patriarch helped him in this case with his church income 603. This dark cloud had scarcely passed when a menacing cloud burst over Moscow. The party of opponents of the Naryshkins began to operate - a party, as we said above, that had primary importance under the c. Theodore. At its head now stood Princess Sophia, “a maiden, according to even her opponents, of great intelligence and the most tender insight” 604. Sophia was dissatisfied with the election of Peter to the throne, in addition to her one-mother brother John, and especially since she hoped, hiding behind the name of this weak brother of hers 605, to rule the state herself. Therefore, even during the very proclamation of Peter as Tsar, the voice of her agents was already heard in the Kremlin square in favor of the accession of John 606; and soon after that, Sophia herself, as Krekshin reports, received the patriarch and boyars and offered them to elevate John to the throne, or, at least, to have two brothers reign together. But the patriarch, according to the same testimony, answered the princess: “multiple commands are evil; “Let there be one king, as God wills it,” and getting into bickering over this matter, he left the face of Sofia Alekseevna 607. After this failure, she decided to use the power of the archers for her own purposes. The executor of her plans in this case was the boyar Miloslavsky. Miloslavsky managed to win over the Streltsy colonels in his favor, and also attracted the Streltsy to himself with the promise of awards and large positions 608. Among the villagers, who had calmed down for a few days, a new unrest began; they gathered in circles and themselves dealt with their superiors, who did not want to indulge their arbitrariness 609 - they were ready to revolt. But Sophia’s accomplices did not want this until Matveev, who was returning from exile, arrived in Moscow. They wanted, at all costs, to destroy this “hope of Tsar Peter,” the support of the opposing party 610. The Streletsky indignation, with all its horrors, therefore opened only on May 15th. On this day, from early morning, the archers were placed under arms and awaited orders from the authorities. Soon news spread between them - that the Naryshkins had strangled the eldest prince and that the time had come for them to go to the Kremlin for their service. The rifle regiments quickly began to unite and with the beating of drums at the sound of bells, with banners and cannons, with reeds and muskets, they headed to the Kremlin. Their unexpected appearance within the walls of the Kremlin and cries that the Naryshkins and Matveevs had killed Tsarevich John confused Peter’s supporters. Matveev and other close people who had gathered with the queen, Natalya Kirillovna, sent for the patriarch. The Patriarch appeared at the palace together with the sent boyar 611. At the general council, it was decided to immediately show the archers Peter and Ioann Alekseevich to her, who went out together with the queen, the patriarch and the boyars to the red porch. This measure and Matveev’s still meek conviction calmed the archers. But the cruel words with which Prince M. Dolgoruky thought to calm the indignant ones again aroused the fanaticism of the archers; In addition, Miloslavsky’s accomplices spread a rumor that if the Naryshkins’ supporters were not beaten, then the latter would take revenge on the archers. The Sagittarius “rushed into the palace. P. Joachim thought to stop them with his word: but nothing could now humble them: we will not demand any advice from anyone,” they shouted and “violently rushed past the holy patriarch, like animals running into the state’s house” 612. A terrible bloodshed began in the Kremlin. The archers searched, caught the Naryshkins and their supporters and threw them on spears and shouted “anything, love.” Boyar Matveev fell among the first victims of the rebellion. The horror increased from the terrible wind that rose. The Patriarch retired to the cathedral church, but even here “the ignoramuses greatly annoyed him with all sorts of words that they could not even think of”; here he witnessed the terrible cruelty of the rebels: in his presence they thrust their spears under the throne, thinking to find there imaginary traitors to the state. In the evening the patriarch retired to his chambers. The coming night prevented the archers from continuing their search. They went home, placing guards everywhere around them; They placed a special guard near the royal palace, as well as near the patriarch’s house, with orders not to let anyone out of him or let anyone in 613. The next day, the archers continued to look for the boyars who were destined for death as Miloslavsky’s accomplices. On this day, the patriarch’s house was also searched by them. Whole crowds of them rushed towards him and, threatening with spears and reeds, demanded the extradition of the imaginary traitors. The patriarch “dressed in an omophorion” awaited his death 614. On the 17th day of May, the rampage of archers continued in the Kremlin. Finally, the goal suggested by Sophia was achieved; Even Tsarina Natalya’s brother, Ivan Naryshkin, was given to the archers; The party opposing the princess was thus suppressed. John Alekseevich was proclaimed king together with his brother Peter, and Princess Sophia was declared co-ruler of the young kings. By her order, the worried archers were given a salary of 10 rubles each, for which a special collection was even made from the patriarchal and monastic peasants 615. The boyar’s favorite Streltsy prince was placed in the Streltsy Prikaz. Iv. Khovansky. The Streltsy were given a charter and, in addition, they were allowed to erect a stone pillar on Red Square as if to commemorate the services they rendered to the state. For all this, the divergent passions of the Streltsy were not calmed. Sagittarius now felt their strength, their importance. Conscious of the opera of the state in themselves, they were not content with what was granted to them by the authorities, and tried to expand the circle of their liberties themselves. In addition, now their boss is the old “Tarorui” Prince Iv. Khovansky, as well as his son Andrei, did not at all curb their self-will. On the contrary, even the Khovanskys curried their favor 616. The Streltsy now walked freely throughout Moscow, robbing and killing whomever they pleased. Unrest spread in the capital. The sovereigns retired, therefore, to the village of Kolomenskoye. There, soon, (September 2), an anonymous letter appeared in which it was written that the Khovanskys were plotting the lives of the sovereigns, the patriarch and the boyars and wanted to take possession of the Moscow state 617. After this, the kings hastily left for the Savvin Storozhevsky Monastery, and then, having sent out district letters to all subjects with an appeal to go to pacify the rebellious archers, they retired to the Trinity Sergius Monastery. At the same time, boyar Lykov was sent to capture the Khovanskys. Lykov soon managed to fulfill the royal order. Ivan Khovansky was at that time in the village of Pushkin, and his son Andrei was not far from Pushkin, on his estate: they were captured and, by order of the tsar, executed immediately. The news of the execution of their beloved commanders produced a terrible outburst of indignation among the archers. At the first moment of anger, they were ready to go to the Trinity Monastery in rebellion, and “only out of fear did Matveev, the courtiers and their people speak, and, reflecting on their intended path, they stopped” 618. However, the premonition of reprisals forced them to take measures for their safety; - having taken possession of the royal arsenals, they therefore assumed a state of siege. The Russian capital thus took on the appearance of a camp hostile to the Russian sovereigns. A thunderstorm of civil strife was ready to break out over Russia, but with the mediation between the rebellious archers and the sovereigns of P. Joachim, this thunderstorm passed. The day after the execution of the Khovanskys, September 18, a messenger from the kings appeared in Moscow with a letter to the patriarch, in which they informed him about the self-will of the Khovansky princes, about their criminal plans, discovered through an anonymous letter in the village of Kolomenskoye and the execution carried out on them, and in conclusion, they ordered that the contents of this letter be announced to the bishops and all the clergy 619. The messenger did not hide from the streltsy guards and, captured by the streltsy, was brought to the patriarch and handed over to the gramata. The rebels forced St. Joachim to read the royal charter to them. The reminder of the execution of their beloved leaders excited the rebels; they were again ready to go to avenge the death of the Khovanskys; Shouts were heard between them: “Let's go and beat all the boyars.” But this threat was no longer, now, as terrible as at the first moment of the explosion of Streltsy indignation. By this time a strong army had already gathered around the kings. Having learned about this, the archers, in fear of the expected reprisal against them, sent their elected representatives to the patriarch, with the most humble humility to ask for intercession for them before the kings. The patriarch rejoiced at such a revolution in sad circumstances, “punishing the rebels a lot, promising to go for them with a petition to the great sovereigns.” But the archers, Krekshin reports, “flowing with tears asked him to send the bishops from himself with prayer; If he himself leaves without hope of returning, as if the green has upset his holiness, and they will be deprived of their last hope and intercession” 620. P. Joachim respected the request of the archers and on September 19 sent Archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery to the kings of Adrian with news of the repentance of the rebels and their request that the great sovereigns deign to go to the reigning city, but they say they have no bad intentions 621. On the 20th, the kings sent a letter of response to the patriarch, in which, together with the conviction to “transform confusion and outbursts and be in all obedience to the sovereign,” they promised their mercy to the rebels; - but at the same time, doubting the sincerity of their repentance, they ordered that some regiments go to serve in Kyiv “without repentance.” In conclusion, the kings asked the patriarch to call the Streltsy chiefs to him and encourage them to carry out the royal orders. “And what they finally wrote to you, our father and pilgrim, the kings, they will teach you to speak against and teach them to do, about this to him to the. sovereigns, you should write" 622. Having learned about such a will of the kings, the archers decided to send elected representatives to them with a declaration of complete submission and a promise to hand over all the instigators of the rebellion. And for the success of their embassy, ​​they again turned to the mediation of the patriarch: they asked for his intercession for themselves. On September 25, P. Joachim sent the Suzdal Metropolitan Hilarion to the Sergiv Monastery with his letter, in which he informed the kings about the submission of the archers and asked them for forgiveness 623. In response to this, the kings sent a letter to P. Joachim on September 28, in which they declared pardon for the rebels on the condition that they submit a general petition for forgiveness, hand over the main rebels and destroy everything that was undertaken by them for their defense. In conclusion, the kings again asked the patriarch to notify them what effect this letter would have on the archers. On October 1, the patriarch announced the tsar's decree to be elected to the Streltsy, they expressed to him their desire for peace and, having written their petitions to the tsars, again asked him to intercede for them before the tsars. Joachim sent Arch. Hadrian and sent a touching letter to the kings 624, asking the repentant rebels for complete pardon 625. This time the kings had mercy on the guilty, and with the same archim. Adrian sent a letter of response to the patriarch. The kings wrote that “for the sake of his prayers and the prayers of the saint’s face sent to them from him, they grant the archers, in addition to the initial rebellion, absolution” and ordered that this mercy be announced to them in the cathedral church. At the same time, articles of reconciliation were sent to P. Joachim and he was ordered to take an oath from the archers “in the content of those articles and fidelity is great. To the Sovereigns" 626. On October 8, on Sunday, the archers, by order of the patriarch, gathered in the cathedral church. After the liturgy, Joachim spoke a lesson befitting the occasion about peace and love and obedience to authority, then he ordered the gracious royal charter to be read aloud and “confirmed the archers in allegiance with an oath.” The grateful archers the next day, “having agreed with all the regiments,” went to the patriarch; their elected representatives declared gratitude for the intercession before the kings and promised to serve the sovereigns faithfully, without any hesitation. On October 10, the patriarch informed the kings about all this and congratulated them on the happy outcome of the rebellious affair. In turn, the kings thanked Joachim for the work he had done and wished him “many praises worthy of a bribe to be satisfied” 627. Meanwhile, the tsars still did not return to Moscow and lived in the Sergius Monastery. At the beginning of November, they demanded that the main culprits of the former rebellion be sent to them. The culprits, numbering about three thousand, declared themselves and decided to voluntarily go to the kings. Before leaving Moscow, they, “flowing with tears,” turned with a request to the patriarch, so that he himself, in his saintly person with the face of a saint, would speed up with prayer to V. to the sovereigns 628. The rebels hoped through his intercession to alleviate their bitter fate and were not mistaken in their expectations. When the archers arrived at the Sergius Monastery, the patriarch was already there. Tired and exhausted, they stopped in front of the kings’ house, “placing blocks near them and using axes; some of them had already laid down on the scaffold themselves, awaiting death. The monastery was filled with screams from the relatives and families of the perpetrators. They asked the queen, princesses and patriarch for intercession before the sovereigns. The speculators were already standing between those lying down.” “The Patriarch with all his clergy, as Krekshin reports, kneeling and always falling at his feet, prayed to the kings to free the criminals from death; the kings remained inexorable. Joachim turned to the queen, asking for her pardon and prayers before the century. sovereigns"; and she “should be in doubt, remembering the blasphemous death of her brethren (the Naryshkins) and her majesty’s diarrhea and reproach”; but then she could not resist tears at the sight of the terrible sight and decided to intercede for the guilty together with the patriarch. All the princesses joined them. The perpetrators of the riot were finally forgiven. On November 6, the royal court returned to Moscow 629. But this rebellious affair of the archers was barely over; – the excitement in the capital excited by the rioters had barely subsided a little when a new menacing cloud began to gather over Moscow. For the ambitious princess Sophia, the title of “co-ruler” of the kings was not enough - she wanted to have a royal crown on her head. To achieve this, of course, seemed easy on the one hand, since Sophia was then at the head of the government, but on the other hand, there were also obstacles. The fact is that Sophia could not hope that P. Joachim would agree to crown her. On the contrary, this time she could even count on meeting him as an obvious opponent. He, as we already know, did not want to crown even Ioan Alekseevich as king, he did not want to because “multiple command, as he put it, is evil.” Sophia decided to achieve her goal through the eastern patriarchs. In 1685, Archimandrite Isaiah arrived in Moscow from the East to ask the kings on behalf of the patriarchs and all Christians for deliverance from the yoke of the Basurman 630. Sophia and her followers decided to act through this archimandrite. Before leaving Moscow, Isaiah was called by Prince V.V. Golitsyn. The prince asked him if he was released from the order (ambassador) with everything and whether he received the blessing of the patriarch? and having learned that he had not yet been to the patriarch, he ordered me to go say goodbye, and then come back to my place for leave, because there is some state business, he said, which I must arrange with the Ecumenical Patriarchs.” After that, Isaiah went to Patriarch Joachim and said goodbye: “The prince told me about a certain matter that needs to be done with the Ecumenical Patriarchs, but I don’t know what it is.” The Patriarch remarked to Isaiah: “I know the matter that Prince Vasily asks of St. Patriarchs, so that they send a blessed letter so that the Empress Princess Sophia can wear the royal crown and would lead it along with her. be remembered by sovereigns in every rule.” Further, the archimandrite himself conveys: Isaiah, “the Patriarch, by the judgment of God and with an oath, bequeathed that we would not intercede about this matter and would not commit it, and we, according to the will of His Holiness, promised before the Savior’s image that we would not go and intercede about this matter, seeing the Holy Patriarch’s will and reasoning, so that with two living kings a third person would be crowned king...” After this, the same one tells the story. Archimandrite, “having bowed to the patriarch, I went again to the prince. Vasily, and he began to repeat to me the previous word that he wants us to complete some work with the holy patriarchs, which is needed by the sovereigns; The Sevsky governor Leonty Romanovich will inform us about this matter: but he did not tell us what kind of business it was, but only repeated it so that we would carry it out. I could not answer him otherwise: that if this matter is against our strength and according to God, then we must work hard and serve the great sovereigns, but we kept the patriarchal secret in our hearts and, bowing to the prince, went on our way.” Upon Isaiah’s arrival in Sevsk, he was called to the governor Romanovich, who explained to him that the matter that Golitsyn was talking about was precisely to petition the ecumenical patriarchs for a charter for Empress Sophia, so that “she could wear the royal crown and have commemoration in church rules along with the crown. sovereigns; and the governor ordered us, says Isaiah, in the name of the Tsar and Princess Sophia and in the name of Prince Vasily Vasilyevich, so that we would correct this matter. I, seeing my weakness and remembering the words of the most holy patriarch, told Leonty Romanovich that, by order of the great sovereigns, I must report those words to the most holy patriarchs, but of course I do not undertake to allow this to happen, for I know that the saint. the patriarchs will talk a lot about this matter, but I don’t know whether they will fix it or not, because I know that the ecumenical patriarchs gave power to the Patriarch of Moscow in all matters of church and royal affairs, and he has the power to decide and knit, and one should ask for such a blessing from the Moscow Patriarch, and there is no reason to send about such matters to the Turkish region, which has perfection in the Moscow state.” Romanovich responded to this: “We are not seeking a blessing or an oath from this patriarch of ours,” 631 and even wanted to send a person on his own behalf who would intercede about that matter before the patriarchs. But Isaiah, remembering the word and reasoning of the Holy One, said, “That there is no need for a person to work in vain, for he himself will report on that matter, and if it is the will of the patriarchs, then they themselves will do this without a person.” “And about this,” the same archimandrite finally adds, in order to report to the most holy patriarchs about this matter, the secret intention of Joachim’s hens, I had such an intention, knowing the ecumenical patriarchs, that when they heard his (P. Joachim’s) displeasure and unblessing about this, they would in no way be able to bring this matter to completion 632. The plans of the ambitious Sophia and her followers, therefore, did not come true - and, as can be seen, they could not be fulfilled through the mediation of the Eastern patriarchs. The latter, according to the testimony of Isaiah, did not have sufficient strength to act contrary to the intentions of their Moscow brother. Nevertheless, the princess did not want to give up her ambitious plans and, to implement them, decided to resort to the usual means in use at that time - the power of the archers. By her order, her ardent follower, already known to us, Shcheglovity, “an unscrupulous man, with great cunning and intelligence,” whom “she kept with her in great fidelity and to whom she revealed all her secret secrets together with Golitsyn,” was now placed in charge of the Streltsy order. Through these confidants, she entered into close relations with the archers. Meanwhile, the great Peter was growing up. He looked at his ambitious sister with obvious displeasure, and his actions directly showed that he would be a dangerous rival to the princess 634. The hostility between them grew more and more, and finally turned into open hostility between brother and sister. On July 8, 1689, the princess appeared at the ceremony of the procession from the Assumption Cathedral to the Kazan Church and walked next to the kings with her head uncovered. This bold act of hers brought Peter out of patience: he made a remark to his sister that in the Russian land there was no custom yet for a woman to walk next to the kings in the ceremony of the cross and, moreover, in such a shameful manner; but Sophia did not pay attention to this remark and continued on her way. Then the angry Peter left the move, went into the Archangel Cathedral and from there immediately retired to the village of Kolomenskoye. Peter's determination led Sophia to considerable embarrassment 635. She decided to act decisively against her brother, and began the most lively relations with the archers. Peter returned to Moscow; but, having spent a little time here, he again retired to the village of Preobrazhenskoye 636. Peter apparently foresaw that his stay in the Capital was not safe. And it really was like that. The princess and her accomplices had the evil intention of killing Peter, his mother - the queen, the patriarch and all the noble persons disposed towards Peter. The conspirators had already appointed the night when the plan was to be carried out. Sophia and her accomplices wanted to carry out a coup on August 8th. But just as they were preparing to begin their business and executors of the sentence on Peter’s life had already been appointed, the latter was notified of the danger that threatened him and that same night he retired to the Sergius Monastery. Peter's life was thus saved, and at the same time all the plans of the conspirators were upset. “The princess,” says Matveev, began to be in great confusion, especially gravely oppressed by her conscience, and her closest people and archers were in great fear, seeing that their former secret intention had been put forward on Wednesday, and were expecting a very ill-fated outcome.”637 All the boyars, supporters of Peter, soon arrived at the Trinity Monastery, and after that, troops from the nearest cities began to gather there at the call of the sovereign. Shcheglovaty wanted to, having gathered his like-minded people, go to the Sergius Monastery and achieve his goal by force, but it was too late. Among the Streltsy themselves, few were ready to defend the cause of the princess. Most of them, on the contrary, stuck to Peter's side. Sophia finally decided to go to the Sergius Monastery to reconcile with her brother: but she did not succeed in this either. Peter forbade her entry into the monastery. Then she turned to the mediation of the patriarch. “She thought that her case, through his intercession, would receive the same favorable outcome as the case of the rebel archers several years ago; but I was wrong in my calculations. Joachim fulfilled Sophia’s request and went to Peter; but “having become aware there, according to the testimony of Matveev, of the evil intent of the Streltsy, at the instigation of Shcheglovity and his other accomplices, that they intended to do, and for this reason he did not return from there to Moscow, but stayed with His Royal Majesty in that monastery until his very return, unshakably and in everything he maintained his royal side” 638. P. Joachim did not accept mediation this time - he did not accept, on the one hand, perhaps because he did not hope that by temporarily reconciling Sophia with Peter, he would bring lasting peace to the state, since according to their views on power, neither one nor the other could tolerate collaboration; - Joachim did not accept mediation on the other hand, perhaps because the plans of the main leader of the Moscow pope-spiks, Medvedev, were closely related to Sophia’s plans, as we mentioned above. Opposite p. Joachim now openly declared his hostility towards Sophia and her accomplices; He took part in the search for the rebellious case and, as it seems, not without his influence, the royal decision took place, according to which Shcheglovity and his main accomplices were executed in the square near the Sergius Monastery, and Sophia was imprisoned in a convent 639. Let's finally say a few words about what we already had to briefly mention above, and to which we promised to devote several pages especially - let's say a few words specifically about the issue raised at the council of 1681 “about the poor.” Beggary, understood in the sense of feeding on the name of Christ, has always been, and even now does not cease to be a characteristic feature of Russian life. The poor, according to the view of our compatriots - a view that is essentially correct - are the lesser brothers of the Redeemer and they used, and therefore enjoy, alms without any regard to their moral qualities. The Russian man, when giving alms, did not think about who he was actually helping - whether it was true poverty or his parasites. Moreover, making such an analysis in Rus' was (and still is) even considered a sin. In the account of the poor brethren, therefore, there were always quite a few walking people - people who did not want to get a piece of bread for themselves by labor and who chose the path of Christianism for this. The same unreasonably Christian good nature 640 towards begging prevailed in ancient Rus' among those at the head of people's life. The chief saints, as well as the kings, set up tables at their courts, where the poor brethren were fed indiscriminately on certain days, and after the meal they often received alms from the hands of the kings and saints themselves 641. In addition, all their departures and exits were accompanied by the distribution of alms, and their pilgrimage trips to monasteries and churches were especially generous. True, both the high priests and the kings, thus following the custom of the lovers of Christ in helping the poor, at the same time cared about a more orderly manifestation of their Christian charity and thereby, perhaps unintentionally, introduced some regulating principle into the sphere of beggary. By arranging houses for public charity, with the aim of accepting only helpless people 643, they thereby naturally set limits to the strengthening of beggary and these boundaries further extended into the area of ​​Christ-giving, so that the example of kings and high priests was imitated by both bishops and monasteries, and rich churches and even private individuals 644. But for all that, both in Rus' in general, and in particular and especially in Moscow, the number of the poor brethren did not decrease, which depended, perhaps, on the one hand, on the fact that the shelters set up were deeply imbued with an official character, so that entering there was often as difficult as getting a position as some clerk in the order of 645 - and on the other hand, that street feeding in the name of Christ in any case was not accompanied for the poor by those constraints and restrictions on liberties to which they were inevitably subjected in shelters. – Regardless of what it may depend on, the number of beggars, as we said, did not actually decrease even with the establishment of almshouses – and in the 18th century it was of enormous proportions. According to Berkh, there were 646 beggars in Moscow alone, then there were up to 1000, and according to Fletcher they roamed in “countless numbers.” Moreover, for the sake of Christ and honor at that time, even in the official inventories of city crafts and trades, it was listed as a special craft under the heading “feeding on the name of Christ.” 647 And it should be noted that this multitude of poor brethren did not resemble the present beggars in their Christ-loving spirit. No, the beggars of that time decided to ask for alms even in churches during Divine services 648. Moreover, they had gatherings not only around St. places, but also wherever they could count on prey - wherever there were many lovers of Christ. They gathered, therefore, on the Spassky, Nikolsky and Trinity bridges, at the Trinity courtyard in the Kremlin, the sacrums, on which the cripples who sang Lazarus and Alexei, the man of God, always had their refuge, were also constantly focal points where whole dozens of wandering brethren converged; “huts” where the beggars had night shelter, as well as daytime shelter for those who did not want to go fishing and lay in wait for those passing by - these “huts” were scattered throughout all the streets of Moscow. The ulcer that had intensified to such an extent in the Russian body naturally could not help but attract attention. And we really see that the time we are talking about in this work, the time of the patriarchate of Joachim, did not pass without a trace for the poor brethren. - And she was not left alone by the stormy current of the new life that had awakened in Rus' at that time and was eroding ancient customs and orders established for centuries. In May 1674, by the permission of Feodor Alekseevich, it was ordered to take charge of “Moscow almshouses for old women and beggars, male and female, four hundred and twelve people, who were given food, money, bread and salt and other necessities for food and clothing from the Order of the Great Palace, - it was ordered (it was) to be in charge of the house of the Holy Patriarch and to feed them and all the things they needed give it from his own house" 649. The Tsar refused to maintain the Moscow almshouses and thus, as it were, testified that he did not recognize the legality of charity to Christ-bearing on his part, on the part of the civil authorities. He ordered the patriarchal house to be in charge of the almshouses, considering, one might think, this a direct responsibility of the church authorities. The Patriarch took the almshouses under his protection - he accepted them, despite the fact that their maintenance was difficult due to the insufficient funds of his household treasury 650. But despite all this, a change was apparently in preparation for the fate of the poor brethren. And it really came, perhaps before anyone expected it. In 1678 (June 28), the Patriarch issued a decree that “the poor should live near the parish churches, where it is decent, and those huts where they lived should be broken down and henceforth no huts would be erected in those places,” and he ordered those beggars who would learn to build huts near the parish churches to be given 1 ruble per person from his Government Order. Through this decree of the patriarch, begging, of course, lost its former uncontrolled life, lost its public character, sometimes combined with blasphemy. The order of St. Joachim, bringing the Christians closer to the churches, thereby returned them to their true meaning and at the same time introduced more legality into their lives. This first measure of limiting beggary was quickly followed by others. As we already know 651, Theodore Alekseevich, again accepting the maintenance of some strange and sick people, in 1681 proposed to the cathedral to establish shelters for the poor, so that they would not wander without charity and the lazy and those with bodily health would come to work. The council accepted the royal proposal and replied: “So be it.” It is not known whether any actual application of this conciliar definition followed, and with a high probability one can think that there was no such application - it was not because since 1682, as we know, a continuous series of unrest began in Rus', which lasted until the last year of the patriarchate of Joachim. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to dwell here on the wonderful “word on shelters”, compiled, as the respected Al thinks. You. Gorsky, precisely during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich 652. This word was written by the hand of the monk Euthymius, who was mentioned in our work; it also belongs to him, as the same learned descriptor of Slavic manuscripts, Gorsky, notes, and in his own language, but it was composed, judging at least by the importance of the proposed measures and some expressions,” and also because in general in his writings Euthymius was guided by the instructions of St. Joachim, this word was composed according to the thoughts of St. Joachim and perhaps for him to pronounce in some meeting. This word consists of three parts: the first part speaks generally about the dignity of mercy - a Christian virtue. The second addresses the question of who primarily deserves mercy. Those in need here are divided into three categories: those in need of spiritual help, those in need in their own homes, and those begging for alms in other people’s homes. About the second category, the word says: “the second perception is home, in which, according to the scripture, widows, orphans, strangers and the distinction between the poor and the poor, various needs and cases of insult and visitation from the Lord God are contained: poverty, famine, infirmity, damage to the lands, fire, destruction, courtship, debts and other embitterments. the brownies, who are ashamed to ask, or cannot, do not lie in the streets, little is known about them and their needs, or no one knows, but the poor ones receive help only from the Lord God... their needs are more profound and greater than those in the sick places of those who live, and in the heaps of those lying, I feed on the petition of those who live.” As for the third type of needy, the preacher, who first of all made a distinction between the poor, vicious and blameless, and then said that the basis of alms should be truth, proposes to give them shelter in “unhealthy nourishments”, however, under the necessary condition if they are not able to feed themselves with their labor; The healthy poor, in his opinion, should be turned to work. For funds to maintain these sick hospitals, the preacher turns first of all to “bishoprics, churches and monasteries: since Christians have given them many possessions.” In the third, last part of the word - “about intelligent intention and performing mercy”, the preacher, discussing ways of helping, proposes to establish societies of mercy; He divides the members of these societies into two types: some are obliged to visit the poor in their homes and learn about their needs, others must determine benefits; On Sunday afternoons, all members gather in designated places and here after reading St. Scriptures and teachings about mercy, the reports of visiting members are listened to and discussions about assistance take place, here the council of ten accepts donations, and it also issues one-time or daily benefits to the needy, depending on needs. The preacher even points to a loan of money “without interest” from the society’s treasury. For those placed in sick nurseries, he makes it an indispensable duty to study the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, etc. In conclusion, the word expresses hope for the fulfillment of everything planned. “They come to us,” says the preacher, seeking help and consolation from us and admonishing us in the flesh for you to follow you and through the fear of God lead you to mercy, and by the grace of God we hope to obtain from some you, such a house of mercy has begun” 653. It is clear that the implementation of the outlined project would bring radical changes to the sphere of Russian beggary; Christ-loving life would then be modified in such a way that, as it seems to us, there would be nothing left to wish for it, even from the point of view of the present time. Moreover, this project even concerned such poor people who were ashamed or could not ask for alms: this indicated a new, hitherto unknown ulcer that was upsetting the correct functions in social Russian ogreism, an ulcer that was all the more dangerous because, long or short, need finally prevailed over shame and an honest man eventually went to celebrate Christ through the streets, where he often naturally had to renounce his human dignity and gradually plunge into a pool of moral depravity. Along with an indication of this ulcer, the project, as we have seen, proposed a means for its destruction and the means, it should be noted, are the most worthy. Unfortunately, this project did not receive actual application and did not receive, one can probably assume, for the same reason that the cathedral decree of 1681 on the poor with which it is located was not carried out. In our opinion, in close connection with the unrest that began in Moscow in 1682 and continued until almost his death, P. Joachim did not give the latter the opportunity to concentrate on this secondary important issue. “On the 6th day of March (1690), His Holiness Patriarch Joachim, by the will of God, grieved, on the 15th day, on Saturday of the second week (of the Fourth Week) they blessed him with oil and reposed on the 17th day of the third week on Monday at 11 o’clock in the afternoon in the second quarter at the beginning” 654. P. Joachim left behind a spiritual testament, in which, in addition to the testament we have already mentioned above, which is distinguished by its severe hostility towards foreigners, he set out a message to the kings - I have the Orthodox-Caphalic Faith in God with all-hearted love; honor the holy church like a mother; Do not deprive those who serve God of a certain gift, but strive for justice in civil affairs in every possible way and show much of your love in this”; He also left paintings for his cell things, which he bequeathed to be distributed in honor of his soul; but in addition to this, in his very will he refused from his house treasury 3,000 rubles “to the Spasky Monastery on Novy, as well as to the Mezhigorsky Monastery, dear to him from his memories, and three thousand rubles for a church stone building. Moreover, he also bequeathed that in the patriarchal region, for a whole year, not to collect into the treasury either salary money from priests who were supposed to accept this as a reward for the magpie, or quitrent money from tax-paying peasants for whom this was supposed to replace the usual alms in such cases. Regarding his burial, Patr. Joachim asked the kings and the entire consecrated cathedral, if it was not possible, “to be buried in the Mezhigorsky monastery, his previous promise, for the sake of the distance from that monastery and the great inconvenience, that his body be transferred to his native land and buried in St. the monastery of the Lord's Transfiguration, near the reigning city of Moscow, at the Savior on the New, and not in the great cathedral church of the patriarchal throne 655. He asked to be placed “in a strong coffin in monastic attire and to oblige the body according to the rank of monks... but not at all to be clothed with bishop’s robes... but by that,” he says, “according to my promise, even a little joy will be created for my soul.” But this covenant Joachim regarding his burial was not fulfilled - “They buried (him) according to rites on Tuesday (the third week of Lent, March 18); The bishops all served and there was a Lenten liturgy, and the deceased was carried into the altar (to a high place); The sovereigns were present at the escort, at the liturgy and at the burial, and were buried in the cathedral church in bishop's attire, and from that time on the cathedrals read the psalter except for services and Sundays, and memorial services and services for it were held only on Saturdays 656. On Saturdays, only during the entire fast, large memorial services were sung for the deceased in all monasteries in Rus'; and “The Four Days according to the rank (sorokoustye) was corrected already, after St. Thomas’ week 657. The seventy-year-old elder, who occupied the Moscow patriarchal throne for almost sixteen years and during these sixteen years constantly experienced clashes with the most heterogeneous social elements and always emerged from these clashes with dignity - Joachim, after his death, was thus given full honor as the high priest of the Russian Church, despite even his modest desire! We determine the year of birth of Patriarch Joachim from his spiritual will, written in 1690, after February 19, the birthday of Tsarevich Alexy Petrovich, who is already mentioned in the will, and before March 17, the day of the death of the patriarch. Joachim, where he speaks of himself, “I have died by the destinies of God from growing old now to the age of seventy - see Ist. Petra V. Arranged. vol. II, prplozh. N VI. See Dictionary about Piasat. spirit.ch. vol. 1, p. 225; Act. Histor. Vol. IV No. 108. Maksimovich (see Pilgrim of Kiev 1845, p. 133) says that “at the beginning of the 17th century, the nobleman Ioann Petrovich Savelov came to the Mezhigorsky monastery from Moscow, who, having received monastic rank under the name of Joachim, was subsequently the Patriarch of Moscow. But Maksimovich does not indicate on what he is based in this case, and we have the right to distrust him, especially since Ivan Petrovich Savelov is called by Berkh as a steward under 1670, see Tsar. Al. Mich part II, p. 144. Arch. Apollos (see read. In the imperial. General. History and Ancient. Russia. 1848 No. 7 Joachim) and after him Mr. Askochensky (see “Kiev” part I, p. 164) say that Joachim was educated at the Kiev-Mogilev College, but there is no historical data for such an opinion. See Science and Lit. Under P.V. Pekarsk. vol. I, p. 168. Puffendorf's words - see Introduced into History, trans. Boris Volkov 1767 - 77 Science and Literature. Under Peter Vel. Pekarsky vol. I, p. 326. See Description. Hand. Room. Music Page 557, in the preface to the translation of the book of St. I. Damascene “Heaven”. See History. Ross. Solovyov vol. XIII, p. 86. See Spiritual testament “we promised... for my evil deeds... even in worldly life and military cases of regimental deeds” (see Review. Spirit. Russian Literature p. 354 of Philaret). Mr. Ustryalov reads this passage differently - namely... “in worldly life and in other cases only”... We don’t know where such a disagreement in reading came from, but according to the reading of Rev. Philaret, we give preference on the basis that it is confirmed by Joachim’s acquaintance with military service and his living participation in it, which he names in the same will. See the testimony of Reytegnerels J.M., N. Prosv. 1839 XXIII, 20, 44, also see “Collection of various notes about P.V.” Tumansky part I, page 3 “Look,” Peter Mogila spoke to the Uniate about this monastery, “look in the Kyiv land at the Mezhigorsky monastery, in which more than one hundred and fifty monks live in a community, feeding on the labors of their hands, following the example of the great Anthony the desert dweller - see “The Stone, Albo Is.” Kyiv 1644 In the same place (Preobrazhensky Monastery near Moscow) for the life of the call (Bulgarian Theodore Rtishchev) from Kyiv from St. Lavra of the Pechersk and from Mezhgorsk and from other Little Russian monasteries, thirty in number, in the life and rite and in the reading and singing of the church and cell rules - see Dr. Ross. Vielie. Ed. Part 2 XVII, p. 400. Life of mercy. Husband of Fyodor Rtishchev. G. Ustryalov read not 7163, but “7165 years” - but we are again inclined to read Rev. Philaret, because in 7165 (1657) Joachim Savelov arrived in Moscow. See Ak. Histor. IV, no. 108. During his patriarchate, with his own support, he began the construction of the magnificent Transfiguration Church in that monastery, with a charter of 1687, February 28, confirmed the right and title of the patriarchal stavropoly and, as a sign of special favor to this monastery, sent his portrait to it, which is still kept there in the church (See Description. Kiev-Soph. personal. pp. 207–8 and appendix no. 32 pp. 160–1). In his spiritual document, he bequeathed three thousand rubles from his house patriarchal treasury “for a church stone building” and did not even bequeath to bury himself “according to the previous promise” only “for the sake of the distance from the Mezhigorsk Transfiguration Monastery and the great inconvenience” (see will). Here's what, for example, we know about Nikon's summons to the abbots. Joachim. “I have heard - Nikon speak - how a child sows piety and how sheep live among wolves, always slandered by Poles and heretics, otherwise it is not in this time of war that we are insulted by the scarcity of necessities, but also by the monasteries of many. You are such a great Lavra, called Kuteino, near the glorious city of Orsha, which is the head and beginning of the common life of all white Russia and Lithuania, composed not from estates, but from those who come and give alms, with their labors and sweats built and monasticized many cathedrals and have everyone in your flock: but also keep piety in all poor Russia during the time of the disgusted Uniates... Molikh is a good man. Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich, may they command that these monasteries of Kuteipksai be transferred to the venerable abbot Joel and all the brethren to the monastery of the Most Pure Mother of God of Iverskei and St. new confessor Philip Metropolitan to the holy lake (i.e. Valdai) in the district of Veliky Novgorod, and with the help of God he began to build again for the establishment of a common life. See Hand. ancient In memory. Snegireva, vol. 1st, Shusherin speaks about this almost word for word, see “life. Nikon" page 44. Histor. Malor. Brand. 1, 387. Collection. State Gram and Great Dane. Vol. IV No. 21 p. 35. Read Moscow general history n ancient 1848 8. Mixture p. 60. Vygovsky had correspondence with Pinon even when he was already a Hetman, p. 70. Histor. grew up Hierarch. Part II, p. 546. Archim. Apollos (see Reading Moscow General History and Ancients, 1848, No. 7 “Joachim”) says that Joachim, summoned to Moscow in 1657 by Nikon, was assigned to the Miracle Monastery as a cellarer, who was then present in the patriarchal rank to consider spiritual affairs.” At the same time, Apollos refers to Novgorod. Letop. page 197: but it only says that Joachim was an archimandrite in the Chudov Monastery. Meanwhile, the news that before he was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery, he was a cellarer there is contradicted by the fact that in 1663, when he should have been a cellarer, according to the said opinion, in this position under Archimandrite Paul (later Metropolitan of Krutitsky) there was a certain Eveimin. See description. book Blush. music Vostokova p. 440. See Shusherin. Life of Nikon, pp. 65–9. See Wanderer 1864 1. Country. 118, 119, and 222. Histor. Ross. Hierarch. Part I, pp. 189 and 433, – Paul was promoted to metropolitan on August 21. 1664 Isyur. Ross. Hierarch. Part II, p. 546. Artemon Ser. Matveev, for example, was his “extreme” friend. See note below. 610. It is known, for example, that when St. Nikon, according to a letter from Nikita Zyuzin, unexpectedly - in 1664, at night a week before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, appeared in Moscow and called the Tsar to the Assumption Cathedral during the morning service, and then, leaving Moscow, took with him the staff of St. Metropolitan Peter and in response to the boyar’s request on behalf of the tsar to give the latter forgiveness, he said: “God will forgive him, the great Sovereign, if this turmoil is not from him”; and when the king, embarrassed by these words of Nikon, and even more so by his departure with the staff of St. Peter, from the general council of bishops and boyars, sent to interrogate Nikon: what his words meant, and to take away the staff of St. Metropolitan, then among those sent along with Krutitsky Metropolitan. The Chudovsky Archmadrite Joachim is also Paul (see Shusher. Life. Nikon pp. 76–84). Another assignment was made to Joachim in 1665, when he went to Nikon so that the latter would give a letter for the election of a new patriarch (see Case of P. Nikon N. Subbotin, appendix III). We also know the assignment entrusted by the king to Joachim, where the latter is alone, without the participation of others. This was in 1666. in the case of newly converted Jews living with Nikon as servants, one of whom was put in prison by him for false denunciations against his master, the king - on the denunciation of another Jew - sent Joachim with a detachment of archers to free the imprisoned Jew and Joachim, with Nikon’s consent, freed him and presented him to the sovereign. See Shusher. Zhit. Nick. Page 90–92. See rps. bib. M. D. Ak. “List from the cathedral. condemnation of P. Nikon » Notebook XIV, No. 17. For the response of the patriarchs themselves in their letter given to Joachim, see Ancient. r. Vivliof. 2nd ed. III, p. 418. This is stated in the same charter of the patriarchs. See history. Ross. Hierar. VI, 530. See history. Ross. Jer. Part 1 pp. 594–95, see also ibid from p. 321. Conciliar definition of 1675 based on the conciliar definition of 1667, p. 346. See Novgorodsk. Letop. 196 Si. Shusher. Life of Nikon 87. See Novgor. letop. 274 and 197; Vivliof. XI, p. 244. Act. Historical, vol. IV, no. 231, p. 501. Who was Joasaph - this is sufficiently expressed even by Joachim in his letter to Gideon - the metropolitan. Kievsk., who, defending his opinion about the time of the transubstantiation of gifts, referred to the book “Peace with God, written by Innocent Gisel and approved by St. Joasaph”: we say to you in all truth: for our brother Joasaph of blessed memory is the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, already then in extreme old age (and he was a patriarch for only 6 years) and everyday illnesses, not Just read and look at the details of that book, below the bed it is very possible to go away, but Simeon of Polotsk (Polotsk) praised him, who studied with the Jesuits and was the master of the wisdom of those, and wrote in his name, even if he wanted. See description. hands synod. librarian A. V. Gorskago and Nevostrueva 2, III, No. 310, p. 509. To characterize Pitirim, it is enough to point out that Paisius, a well-known participant in the case of P. Nikon, narrates that Nikon at the council called Pitirim when he appeared as a witness against him (along with Joasaph Archbishop of Tver) a false witness telling a lie to please the sovereign (see “The Case of I. Nikon.” N. Iv. Subbotin; source Solovyov, vol. XI). And Hilarion, Archbishop. Ryazansky writes that Nikon is on the Sunday of Orthodoxy on Resurrection. The monastery “even laid an oath on Pitirim three times for the sake of wines,” of which one was “an annoying and defamatory word towards himself,” see op. rps. room Music Vostokova p. 561. See Av. history IV, no. 232. Joachim arrived in Novgorod on February 4, 1673; He was released from Moscow on January 25, see Ak. history IV, 231. The decree states that “the abbots of the monasteries - Kirillov, Klopsky, Derevyanitsky, Arkhazhsky, Lisitsky, Koltov and Kovalev - and sit above the archpriests, the Archpriest of the St. Sophia Cathedral, the Archpriest of the Znamensky Cathedral, as well as the entire Novgorod diocese of all the cities of the archpriests, and other abbots and builders of small gradual monasteries “stand and sit under a single archpriest of the cathedral church, and other archpriests and they are revered in the presence and in the meeting of the degree, under them they stand and sit.” Ak. history IV, no. 232. “We know what happened to the Rev. Joachim... that the archimandrites and abbots of the Novgorod monasteries and the builders of the monastery’s arable land and garden gatherings and fishing, and sowing mowings give as rent to all types of people for many years, and from this the monastery treasury is incurring great losses and troubles.” See Ak. expsd. IV, no. 208. See Ak. Histor. IV, no. 200. See Ak. exp. IV, No. 208 - this memorial was placed here in 1675; in the memory itself it is designated 7184. But as we will see, Joachim at that time was already the Patriarch of Moscow. The inconsistency is obvious! We do not undertake to explain the origin of this. See Ak. Histor. IV, no. 240. Histor. Solov. about.; Ak. Expedition IV, no. 168; Ak. Histor. IV, No. 248. Vivliof. XVIII, p. 35. See Viviliof. XVIII, pp. 36–37. Chronicler of Dvinsk. See Ak. Histor. IV, No. 248 p. 535 - testimony of the black priest Gerontius. See Uvet Dukhovn. l. 79 rev; Collection Law. vol. 1, 985. History. Ross. Jer. Part 1, page 117. Metropolitan Eugene is the compiler of a dictionary about spiritual writers. rank (see vol. 1, p. 225 and Rev. Philaret, see review of Russian spiritual, literary, p. 352) and others say that Joachim was elevated to the patriarchal throne on July 26, 1673. But we cannot agree with them in this case. And here's why: a) in the charter of the patriarchal rank written on March 21, 1674, Joachim is called Metropolitan of Novgorod. See approx. to A. ist. VI, no. 102; b) in one historical note, which describes in detail the enterprise of Epiphanius of Slavenitsky - to correct the Bible, it is said: “In the summer of 7182 (i.e. 1674) in the month of September, I celebrate the All-Russian Helmsman of the Patriarchal Throne, after feeding... the saints. Pntirima. – See words. description spirit. Part 1, p. 180; c) in the preface to the “triumphant word” of the Zheltovodsk monastery, written and completed in 1675 on May 12th, it is said: “this book was completed... containing the apostolic throne, the great lord, the most holy Joachim the patriarch... in the year of his patriarchate. – See description. glory hands ennod. librarian Al. V. Gorskago and K. Nevostrueva. Dept. 2nd No. 213 p. 673; d) according to “an extract from his (Joachim’s) official” he was transferred to Patr. department 1674 (7182) July 21st. See Temporary Imperial. total history and ancient grew up book XXII, mixture p. 20; e) in his “spiritual”, written in 1690, Joachim himself speaks about himself... “the administration of the Church of Christ... has already been sixty years ago,” i.e. 1674. See will; finally f) in the “extract on church duties” written in 1687 it says; Yes, in the 182nd and 183rd (1674–75 years of the great Mr. Joachim... upon his elevation to the patriarchal throne... all the priestly and deaconal charters were brought to Moscow and brought to the Holy Patriarch for signature by his hand “see opns. document. and boom. Moscow. Arch. Ministry of Justice 1869 book 1 article 6. – Consequently, Joachim became patriarch no earlier than 1674. See Collection. State gram. and agreement. IV, No. 128 p. 392. In the historical book we have already mentioned. The note (see above note 54 b) says, for example, that after feeding the saints. Pitirima, great. the sovereign indicated, and the consecrated council, the eminent metropolitans, archbishops and bishops of all great Russia, favored (Epiphany of the Slavs.) to translate the Bible.” See Ak. Expedition IV, no. 194. On Great Thursday 1674 he traveled to Moscow. In the Assumption Cathedral, the usual washing of feet (see Vivliof. X, 88). It is impossible to think that Joachim’s stay in Moscow at this time was accidental - it is impossible to think because his frequent and short-term stay in Moscow would not have had a direct purpose, and that ceremony, which was the work of the high priest, could have been performed by Joachim as Metropolitan of Krutitsky. See Temporary History. 17. general history and ancient r. VK. XXII, mixture p. 20. Paul. Collection Law. 1, no. 288–9. See A. A. Ek. IV No. 122, 16, 281. Ak. Histor. V Nos. 18, 23, 29, 33, 37, 53, 82. IV, No. 238, Add. How. East. X, no. 31. See Collection. State Gr. and Great Danes. IV No. 35, rep. 128; Ak, East. V, No. 135. Ak. Expedition IV40;, No. 204 p. 261; Histor. R. Solovyova XI, pp. 200–1.Vol. Collection Zap. and the cathedral. act. from 99 pages 37 and 38 articles. New Collection Laws 11, nos. 826 – 827. Ah. Histor. V, nos. 137, 146. Ak. Histor. IV No. 74. Tsei mentioned in the text was not exceptional. There were often governors like him in Rus' at that time. Here, for example, is what the Ustyug Archbishop wrote to the kings in 1683. Gelasius about his voivode Afanasy Traurnicht... “yes, he is the voivode in spiritual and other ordered matters of my court and, swearing at me... according to his, sirs, voivode’s order, the Ustyug Streltsy Captain Matvey Kholmov and the voivod’s interpreters and the people of his cathedral and parish churches, priests and deacons and clergymen... beat and scold everyone the dissimilar brethren and their houses are dishonored in every possible way... and I, your pilgrim, the captain and the interpreters and his people, swearing, smeared the archimadrites and vilified with all sorts of other defamatory speeches... Yes, he is the governor who has now sent to the Ustyug district to the monastic and church villages and villages with the clerk and bailiffs of the interpreter and his people for his idle self-interest and many bribes... Yes he is also the governor, during the divine singing, priests and deacons and church clerks and their monastery are taken as elders, and in all kinds of payments they also swear, they beat in the right direction.” See Add. K A. Histor. X, No. 101. Histor. R. Hierarch. IV, p. 686. Description Room. Music Vostokova. Collection State Gram. and Great Danes. IV, No. 35 p. 128; “The Case of P. Nikon” - N. Iv. Subbotina page 48. See History. Solovyova XIII, pp. 152–153. See Ak. Expedition IV, no. 198. See Historical. description Maloyaroslavets Monastery Sob. 1863 This is what that red tape consisted of: the protege appeared with a petition to the patriarch, the latter listened to him and signed on the petition: “blessed to be a priest or deacon”; then in the chamber of the cross they wrote down - for the rest of the years in what manner the protege was blessed and wrote - to the subordinates of the smaller headquarters a new petition for the appointment; on this petition the robed man signed “to confess to the priest of the cross”; after confession, the appointee appeared at the government office, and was recorded in the books; From here he went again to the priest, who wrote it down in his book and signed it on his petition: “send for assignment”; the patriarchal conarchists led to his installation; The Bishop, after ordination, wrote it in a book and marked it on the petition as “committed to the priests”; with this petition the subdeacon or clerk led him back to the state order, there they also recorded him in the books and the clerk who brought him sealed that record with his own hand, then the sacristan, taking the petition from him, sent the newly appointed one, “to study every church rite and action,” with the patriarchal clerk - deacon to deacon and priest to priest and I also wrote down when I sent it and to whom; after the teaching, the teacher brought him to the sacristan and signed with his own hand that he had taught him. Then the chanting clerks wrote the assigned letter for him and gave it to the sacristan; he took it to the patriarch for signature. Then this letter was taken to Kaz. an order where they put a seal on it and “returned to the book that it was sealed”; then they carried it to the patriarch in the church and - he finally gave it to the newly installed one. But the matter did not end there: the newly appointed one still had to be carried to the Una hut, to the clerk’s elder - and the packs were written down in books, and they were given to him the “newly appointed memory” that “it is forbidden to serve him according to the assigned literacy.” This is how much a newly ordained deacon or priest had to go through! Let us not forget that he had to pay for every word, not only written, but also spoken by the clerk. Ak. East. No. 259. See the above extract from the government order. That this was an order of the matter - but at the beginning of 1675 - is clear from the extract itself, which says that it was sent to the patriarch. region is still “before the first winter journey”. See Ak. Exp. IV, No. 204 articles 4–7. See ibid.See. Ak. East. V, No. 135 p. 233. See Ak. East. V, No. 135 p. 233. See Ak. East. V, No. 85 167. Paul. Sob Zak. II, nos. 633 and 700 Ibid. No. 1074 compare. No. 913. See Description. doc. and boom. Moscow arch. min. Justice, book. 1, page 7. The priests, as is known, were supported partly by alms from parishioners for the correction of demands, partly by cultivating the land allotted to them; but just as the first source of content was unreliable, it seems unnecessary to explain; As for the second - land, it can hardly be called sufficient. This is because, not to mention those clergy who owned “black” land and were completely equal in all duties with black people, not to mention further the clergy of patrimonial churches, which (accepted) were also subjected to heavy distribution along with the patrimonial peasants and were not at all protected from the arbitrariness of their landowner, even from the church, whitewashed land, the clergy had to bear various emergency and permanent responsibility for both the diocesan authorities and the state. For more information on this subject, see Orthodox. Social security 1865 March, pp. 184–187 et al. and 1863 September, pp. 50–60. Orthodox Review 1867, vol. XXII; parish clergy in Rus'. For a detailed list of all church fees, see the Patr. order. Description document and boom. Moscow arch. min. Justice, book. 1, pp. 2 et seq. See the same extract there; also Ak. East. V, no. 172. See Ak. forwarding IV, no. 275; especially Ak. ist. V, No. 75 coll. resp. III. See Ak. ist. V, no. 75, hole. 3. East. r. hierarch., part II, p. 49. Ak. history.V, No. 75, proposal. 8th and rep. 3 East. Ross. Hierarch. Part III 657; V, 155, etc. Ak. forwarding IV, no. 253; Ak. history V, No. 75, coll. resp. 3; description Hand. Rumyantsev. Muz., p. 244. See Ak. forwarding IV, no. 253; Ak. history V, No. 75, coll. resp. 3. See Ak. forwarding IV, no. 205; ist. grew up hierarch., part I, cathedral. Def. 1675 See Council definition of 1675 East. R. Hierard. Part I, p. 346. Ak. Histor. IV, No. 253, p. 543. Ak. Expedition IV, No. 204 vol. 2. See East. R. Hierarch Part I, Sobornoe, def. 1675 Historian R. Jer, part I, Cathedral, def. 1675 cf. Ak. Exp. IV, no. 155. See East. Solovyova XIII, 154. See in the same place, also p. 194 excerpt. from Stater. See Ak. Expedition IV, No. 204, Art. I, II, III, VIII, IX; Ak. East. IV, no. 253. See East. Solovyova XIII, 155 pp. See Description. doc. and boom. Mos. Arch. Min. Justice 1. Documents and leaked from the book. Patr. Cal. Order page 1, etc. Even in Stoglav, as is known, the amount of duties for desktop and other letters, as well as crown duties, etc. was established. Joasaph also tried to introduce uniform duties. See A. East. IV, no. 195. These advantages are as follows: A) the name of the patriarch, as the head of all clergy in all churches in prayers and litanies, is proclaimed before the local bishop - metropolitan, archbishop or bishop. During the journey, the patriarch is presented with a cross, and behind him is carried his archpastoral staff; in churches, they also carry a candle in front of him. The attire of his priestly service is an ordinary sakkos with bells, but with a “pre-native percussion”, appropriated only to the patriarch, a miter, with a cross mounted on top, a white hood with an image of a cherub, moreover, a cross, a velvet influx, green with golden sources, and mats with images of crosses and with bells. B) The Metropolitan, like the Patriarch, is presented with a cross - in his diocese, and outside it - one staff, his sakkos without a percussion ring, but, like the patriarch, with bells, when he officiates in his diocese, and outside it without bells, a miter without a cross, gold or silver, a purple-shaped mantle without images, a white-shaped hood without any stripes. In Moscow, under the patriarch, the metropolitan did not have his own seat and did not sit with the patriarch, did not dress in the middle of the church and did not raise the staff with a blessing. C) Archbishops and bishops were presented with their pastoral staff, their vestments consisted of a phelon, or polystaur surplice without ganmats, a silver-plated miter, a black mantle, green mats for archbishops and azure for bishops, a black hood for both. D) Of the archimandrites, only three - the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the Rozhdestvensky-Vladimirsky and the Moscow Chudov, due to the fame of these monasteries - had some episcopal rights and privileges, such as: wearing a mantle with top mats - satin crimson color, entering the altar through the royal doors in influxes without phelonies before the priestly service, bishop's wooden batons with gilded monks, at the liturgy during the first exit with the Gospel, two autumn candles were presented to them; without leaving with the others at the great entrance, they received St. gifts at the royal doors; in their monasteries they communed the concelebrating hieromonks; They did not have the right to go up to the high place, to dress in the middle of the church and in polystauria. Other archimandrites differed in their priestly service from ordinary hieromonks only in (some) the miter and the fact that they wore an epigonation. These advantages, determined by the council, were outlined first in the patriarchal charters sent to the dioceses, and then in the “official bishop’s ministry” printed in 1677, count. A. A. Exp IV, No. 205. East. R. Jer. Part I, p. 330 et al. Cathedral. act of 1675 East. R. Jer. Part I, pp. 321 – 353. For an extract from this act, see A.A. Exp. IV, no. 205. See A.A. Exped. IV, no. 205. When eg. in 1675, Archimandrite Simeon of the Spaso-Anronnikov Monastery, ordained Bishop of Smolensk, leaving Moscow, bought himself a rich outfit and a red velvet mantle, then Joachim, learning about this, ordered both the karst and the mantle to be taken away from him, and the latter to be given to an almshouse. See Historian stat. description Smolensk Diocese 1864 S. Pb. page 94. This is especially noticeable in the circumstance when he petitioned Joachim for the release of Nikon. And from Krekshin’s story it is clear that even Alexey Mikhailovich himself gave P. Joakim to his children as a helmsman. See Zach. Krekshina, p. 62. See A. East. V, No. 75 p. 109 et al. resp. on the 2nd sentence Collection State Gram. and Great Danes. IV, no. 128. For detailed royal painting of the bishop's departments, see Collections of G. Gr. and Great Dane IV, No. 122. New episcopal departments, according to the cathedral of 1681, were opened in the cities: a) Galich episcopal, b) Arzamas bishop; c) Sevsk - archbishop; d) Kholmogory Archbishop; e) Ufa - ep.; f) Yeniseisk - archbishop; g) Ustyug the Great - archbishop; h) Tambov - ep., i) Voronezh - ep., j) Volkhov - ep., and j) Kursk - ep. See Ak. East. V, no. 75. In Siberia, for example, “from the capital city of the diocese (Tomsk) to the Daurian and Nerchinsk forts and to other similar places in one summer, and in one and a half and in two, they pass - Ibid. page 109. The split was especially strong at that time in Galich and Kostroma. Ibid. page 110. See Collection. State gram, and mastiff. IV, no. 131. Nowadays it is a parish church in Sergiev Posad. This proposal is so interesting, especially in relation to that time, that we consider it not superfluous to devote several pages to it, which we will carry out subsequently. See Collection. Zach. II, no. 859, p. 225. See Collection. State gram. and Great Dane IV, no. 131. Ak. East. V, Nos. 135, 142, 156, 183, 186, 187, 188. A. A. Ek. IV, pp. 355, 401, etc. Collection. Zach. II, no. 862. See East. Ross. Ifr. Part IV, pp. 163, 170, 547, 571, 577, 602, 684, 685–688, 690, 800; Part III, p. 657, etc. See A. Histor. Ross. V No. 188, 325. See History. Ross. Solovyova XIII, 154. See also pp. 152 and 243. It should be noted, however, that Savinov wanted to kill the patriarch after he was not allowed to place a “farewell letter” into the hands of the deceased Alexei Mikhailovich. That Savinov enjoyed the favor of P. Nikon and generally stood in close relations with him - this can be seen from the following testimony of the black deacon Mardariy, one of Nikon’s most faithful friends, who was already in captivity, a testimony confirmed by his own signature: “he (Mardarius) and petitions to the Emperor from Nikon took the monk to Moscow, gave them to the confessor and secret affairs to the clerk Danil Polyansky, and they reported those replies to V. Sovereign not just once, but many times, and from Nikon the monk V. Sovereign, he took all sorts of wooden utensils, glasses, spoons and fish to the spiritual master, and took one fish to Danil Polyansky... See hand. bib. M. D. Ak. List with cathedral. condemned Nikon, notebook XIV, no. 17. Prototop Savinov was deprived of the priesthood by a council convened by P. Joachim on March 14, 1676, see source. Solovyova KhSh, 244. And regarding Joseph Kolomensky, Fr. Joachim had preliminary correspondence with Metropolitan Joseph of Ryazan, who, on the basis of the scriptures and apostolic and conciliar rules, advised first to deprive him (Joseph of Kolomna) of his rank and then bring him before the city court. See source. review Ryaz. hierarchy, Vozdvizhensky, 1820 Moscow. Both were done. See “The Wanderer” 1863 III, Nikon p. All-Russian: 1864 1. P. Joachim in the fight against schism p. 122. See hand. librarian M. D. Ak. “List with personal condemned Nikon" vol. XIV, no. 16. See Life of St. n. Nikova Shusherina pp. 133, 145. Histor. words description spirit. rank part II, p. 133; Cer. East. Plato 11, 344. See hand. Moscow D. Ak. “List with the cathedral. condemnation of P. Nikon » notebook XIV, No. 17; still Read. Moscow General ist. dreki. 1858 kk. III, in the article by Archim. Varlaam “about the imprisonment of P. Nikon according to the acts of the Kirillov Monastery”; “The Life of Nikon” Shusher. See A. A. Ek. IV, p. 255 and in the said article by Archimandrite. Varlaam. Varlaam reports such an incident. - When archim. Nikita sent his servant with a formal letter to call the abbot of the elders of the Feromont monastery for interrogation, and when the abbot showed this formal letter to Nikon, Nikon scolded him in every possible way and even ordered to beat the innocent servant, and called P. Joachim’s letter a thief and personally uttered furious words about the patriarch. The Kirillov authorities reported this incident to P. Iakim and sent that same servant to him. This council was especially called for by the then intensified denunciations against Nikon. The donors were Ignatius Bashkovsky, for whom Nikon allegedly knew “the sovereign’s great and terrible matter,” and against whom he filed a petition to Moscow (where he signed himself as patriarch); Bailiff Nikon, Prince. Shaisupov moved to Moscow at this time; the new bailiff, Adadurov, who wrote upon his arrival at the monastery that Nikon does not live as a prisoner at all; and finally, Nikon’s cell attendant, Elder Job and others - See the indicated list from the conciliar act on item Nnkona No. 17, volume XIV. Life of Nick. Shusher. Page 156–160. Shusherin - see Zhit. Nick. Page 160–161 reports that there were more than three hundred indictments, and all of them were full of all untruths; but from Nikon’s testimony - see title. Hand. No. 17 it is clear that there were about forty of them and not all were deceitful. It should be noted, however, that many of these points are extremely absurd. Shusherin says that Nikon was not even allowed to go into his cells and take anything from his property, but was sent straight from the church under strong guard to the Kirillov Monastery - see Zhit. Nick. pp. 160–162. A. A. Ek. IV, No. 217 p. 290; Shusher. "AND. N." p. 162. About the dislike of the monks in the Kirillov Monastery towards Nikon, one can conclude from the fact that St. Joachim instructed the archimadrite of this monastery to make an inquiry in 1675. But their hostility towards Nikon was especially revealed when they were required to support Nikon. They, despite the decree of P. Joachim, to give Nikon the best food before the brethren, refused to give even ordinary food - see above. Hand. No. 24. Author of the article published in the Wanderer 1863 III. He says that Nikon did not use the seals that remained with him illegally. - Nikon, as deposed by the council, as a simple monk, could not in any way use the named things, as belonging to the patriarch; and meanwhile, we repeat Berkh’s remark, “if Nikon had not made any use out of these things, then how could they know (in Moscow) that they were with him, and not in the chamber where all his property was sealed. See reign of Al. Mikhailovich" part 1, page 310, ed. 1831 “Lives.” Nick." Shushusher. p. 163; A. A. Ek. IV, no. 213. “Lives.” Nick." Shushusher. pp. 163–170. In the petitions of the brethren of the Resurrection Monastery, Nikonn is only called “most holy,” but even his position is compared with that of St. John Chrysostom and Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople - when they were in captivity - Shusher. Ibid. pp. 174–175. The monks of the Kirillov Monastery asked the patriarch how to bury Nikon? He answered like a simple monk. “Blessing of Nikon the ptriarch to our son” - Shusher. Page 176. It’s wonderful - Nikon did not agree to go from the Cyril Monastery to the Resurrection along the straight road, on which his name was not known, as a great shepherd. "AND. N." Shusher. Page 185, 188. Ibid. p. 192. Joachim’s refusal to accept Nikon’s miter, it seems to us, cannot be explained by anything other than the fact that he saw in this gift - the miter - the king’s desire to win him over to his side regarding the recognition of Nikon as patriarch. - He did not accept the miter and thus only showed that he remained with his view of the deceased as a simple monk. See Cathedral of State. Gram. And Great Danes. IV, nos. 136–140. "AND. N." Shusher pp. 198–199. By bad consequences for the benefit of the church, the author of the passage we quote means the actual strengthening of the schism. Straya. 1864 No. 1. p. 118. That St. Joachim recognized the mandatory importance of the resolutions of the council of 1667 is sufficiently evident from the fact that he was almost constantly guided by them, as we already know, in his activities regarding improving the life of the clergy. We do not mention in the text the assumption that St. Joachim did not want to recognize Nikon as patriarch and free him because “he was ashamed to admit his injustices against Nikon, committed initially through the seduction of the boyars, and then of his own free will” see Stran. 1864 No. 1, p. 122, we do not mention on the one hand because it is absolutely not in keeping with the character of Joachim, and on the other because it is based on Appolosov’s assumption about Joachim’s cellarship in the Chudov Monastery. “The council itself in 1667 testified that after Nikon was removed from Moscow, he (Nikon) was seduced for the sake of many and a schismatic appeared.”... The fathers of the council, by the way, blamed Nikon and this - see Vivliaf. III, p. 404. Histor. Solovyova XIII, pp. 153–154. See “Sling” by Met. Pitirima - question. 186 l. 309: and information about the churches of the same faith" Collected. merchant Sinelkin 1858 Moscow l. 43 rev. an explanation of the curse laid down by the 1667 council of the Reverend. Philaret P. Moskovsky. Although, without a doubt, he would not have opposed this if he had been appointed pope, notes Tatishchev. See Ross. East. Part I, p. 573; Golikov repeats the same news - see Add. to Acts CI. V. III, pp. 190 – 191. A. Berkh (see Tsar Al. Mich. I, p. 224.) reports that Nikon, while still a patriarch and in power, had in mind the example of the Eastern patriarchs, who sometimes wrote as popes, wanted to bear the title of pope and that he even had papal regalia prepared. The matter, according to Andreev (see “The Schism and its Meaning among the People. Russian History.” St. Petersburg, 1870, p. 51.), stopped with the consent of the tsar, which was not given only because he was presented that the tsar would not be able to live in the same city with Papaya.” - At the same time, on the one hand, Nikon’s own sayings involuntarily come to mind, although they were said by him in a state of irritation: “The beginning of the priesthood is not accepted from the kings, but from the priesthood is anointed to the kingdom, the priesthood is higher than the kingdom. The Lord commanded two luminaries, the sun and the moon, and through them showed us the power of the bishop and the royal "... (see East. Russian Church of Znamensky. Kazan, 1870, p. 268); on the other hand, the first pages of the "Spiritual Regulations" ... See the mentioned list with the cathedral. Convict Nikon. No. 6. In the first part of the Octoechos, for example. The included translation of the canon of the Theotokos is the creation of Tsar Theodore Luka Loskar. See l. 482. See the modern record of the correction of the Apostle under the village of Joachim, which survived under one apostle, preserved in Moscow. synod. Printer. library and fully printed in the Right. Review 1861 vol. IV, pp. 295–299. “And many other sayings in the Apostle, translated from other different translations, were not written in the extract for the sake of diversity and space.” Ibid. pp. 296–297. There were so many mistakes in the apostle then! The extract says that on the 16th day of May the Apostle read the preface and 17 chapters of Acts, and they sat from the fifth hour to the ninth; on the 19th day, Acts was read from the 17th chapter even to the last of Apostle Paul to the Romans: - they sat from the fourth hour until the eighth hour; on the 23rd day it was read to the Romans, to the Corinthians, 1 and 25, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Philippis and Colosai - they sat from the fourth hour until the ninth: on the 26th day it was read from the epistle to Colosai even to the end of the entire epistle - Ibb. pp. 297–8. So, for example, Joakam indicated to leave the services of Iannuarius on the 17th day of the teaching. Anthony the Roman (on this day there was a service for Anthony the Great, and Anthony of Rome only had a service on August 3rd) July on the 3rd day of Tsarevich Demetrius of Moscow. miracle worker (his memory is celebrated on May 15). Ibid page 299. The extract lists only Slavic editions and makes no mention of Greek editions, page 296. To be convinced of the validity of what we have said, it is enough to compare the Slavic text we use with those places that are copied from the book. Acts of the Apostles, according to the apostle’s amendment in 1679. Review 1861 vol. 4 pp. 300–304. See Rights Review 1860, vol. 2 May, p. 71. “Correction of the text of the Slavic Bible” by Chistovich. See "Typicon" over 1682. Indicta 5, m. Aug. L. 4. Library. M Spirit. Ak. No. 676 "Sling" Pitirim vopr. and resp. 147 l., 235 rev., 240 rev. Description Slav. hands book Pekarsky (Science and Inter. under P.V. vol. II) p. 35. See his gram. 1705 to Peter V – Histor. Solovyov XV, spinner IV, pp. 424–428. See A. A. Ek. IV, No. 223. Vavliof. VI. pp. 314–315. In Moscow, this ritual was performed in this way: - On the week of Vai, before the liturgy, a procession of the cross was made from the Kremlin to the place of execution. In front of the procession the Patriarch rode in a sleigh, behind him the Emperor rode on a horse; behind them the patriarchal boyar and clerks in golden robes led a dressed donkey. The procession stopped at the place of execution; and the dressed donkey was tied not far away in a specially prepared place. The Patriarch began to serve a prayer service; During the reading of the Gospel, the Assumption Cathedral, the archpriests and the sacristan, having received the blessing from the patriarch, went to fetch the donkey; when they began to untie him, the boyar asked: “What are you doing? dismissing the donkey": they answered, "The Lord demands him," took him and led him to the steps built on the place of execution; at this time, on the sides of the donkey, the patriarch's clerks walked, and behind the patriarch's wife, the boyar's children carried a golden mantle and red and green cloth with which the donkey was covered. The Patriarch sat on it, sculpting a cross in one hand and the Gospel in the other, blessed the Emperor with the cross, and the return procession to the Assumption Cathedral began. The tsar himself led the donkey, the boyars supported the reins, the patriarchal boyar led the donkey by the bridle, and the patriarchal clerks supported the patriarch. The Patriarch, sitting on a donkey, crossed the people, who filled the air with solemn exclamations - “Hosanna” and so on. The procession continued until the Assumption Cathedral; at its western doors, the patriarch got off his donkey and, having crossed the king, entered the church with him: then the liturgy began, see Vivliof. VI, ed. 2, pp. 314–315. See dr. Ross. Vivliof. XI, p. 89. description. hands syn. bib. dept. III, part 1, no. 398. This file (actually a copy from it), found in one of the handwritten collections of the Synodal Library in Moscow, was printed by Mr. Kostomarov in the April book. Bulletin of Europe 1870 The reason why this commission was sent is not known to us, since the very beginning of Anna’s case was not printed by Mr. Kostomarov, and he himself did not have it in his hands.” All these discrepancies in the life of the book. Anna with the chronicle books indicated by the two councils that were held on this matter are listed in the council act itself, see Vest. Heb. 1870 April pp. 493–504. The schismatics saw in the very year when there was a council that condemned them (1666) the number was beastly. “From now on it began,” they say. Abraham, the times of ten-five are like the delusion of Antichrist according to the number of the beast 666.... (see Collection of works. Abraham). The same opinion was affirmed by Habakkuk (see his works), Lazarus (see his collection of works), and others. Histor. about father and suffering Solovetsk. oven ed. see Schism. cases of the 18th century vol. II, appendix. The Solovetsky monastery was taken by Meshcherinov on January 1676, 22 cm. sent. Ignatia Tobolsk. published 1855 p. 141, and Alexey Mikhailovich died on the 30th of the same month - Collection. state gr. IV, no. 103. Ignatius of Tobolsk, on the contrary, says that the holy wonderworkers (Solovetskys) remembered their life before God and put thought into the good of the pious city. and c. to Alexy Mikhailovich and sent a certain governor to that monastery, giving him a certain voivode - (see his messenger, p. 141). Whom to believe more? Joachim ascended the patriarchal throne when the third governor was sent against the Solovyans. Priest I. Gorsky - in Art. “Joachim in the fight against the schism” (see Stran. 1864, No. 1, pp. 56–57) almost agrees that the Solovetsky monastery was ruined at the insistence of P. Joachim and refers to the general view of the patriarch on the city execution of schismatics, a view expressed by him subsequently. But it seems to us that such a foundation is too shaky to rely on to make a judgment about a person who lived two centuries ago. See history. about father and Solovets suffered. - see Denisova. Ignatius of Tobolsk says that when we see (the assistants of Stenka Razin) to the monastery (Solovetskaya), then we already give all our will to the brotherhood, monks and whites. These apostates, the Don Cossacks, confirm their (Solovlyan) flattering saying: stand by the brethren for the true faith - see he was sent. Page 140. See sent. Ignat. Tobolsk page 136. See Cry of the Spirits, l. 56 rev. and l. 73, sent. Higiat. Tobolsk page 132. This is what they did, for example. schismatics living near Vologda, when one pious Vologda resident came to them seeking salvation and was put by them “in a little church” “to be redeemed, but then having learned what was going on in this emptiness, he found a way to free himself from imprisonment” and to all erect with this deed of sale (which released him) that he was put in a seclusion - see sent. Ignat. Tobols. page 122. Ignatius of Tobolsk says that “many of them followed: and there was no place where an ardent imitator (schismatic) would not move in” see he was sent. Page 130. Ibid. pp. 133, 124 and 115. See ac. history V, No. 75 proposal. 13th. Ak. history V, No. 75 p. 110. Collection. state gr. IV, No. 131. Add. to A. ist. VI, no. 96. Ak. history V, No. 75 sentence. 14, Uvet l. 24. See add. to the “supper of souls” l. 5–7. The Supper, it is known, began to be printed on October 19. 1681, see Rights. review 1860 III, p. 335. Due to the small size of the Christian population in Siberia, only one new diocese was reopened - in Yeniseisk; however, it was ordered to send to distant cities, to Lena, to Daury, archimandrites and abbots, or good and teaching priests - see Ak. ist. V, No. 75 hole. personal 1st page 110. Ibid. sentence and otp. 2 and 14. It is known, for example, that Savva Romanov already the next year had a debate with the Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod regarding the persecution of schismatics; and in general, at the council of 1682, the schismatics strongly armed themselves against strict measures, see history. Savva Romanov. Sent. Ignatia Tobolsk. pp. 148–149 that Nikita took advantage of the circumstances of the time for his business, Patr. Joachim - see "Word of thanksgiving." Viliof XV, p. 254. See Uvet l. 57 and 58 Wed. send. Ignatia Tobolsk. pp. 149–150. Sent. Ignatia Tobolsk. page 150. May 18, 1682 - John and Peter Alekseevich were proclaimed tsars - (which is what the archers sought after, having rebelled on the rumor that the Naryshkins wanted to kill Tsarevich John), in June their coronation was scheduled, and in May the archers were given certificates - according to the machinations of Princess Sophia - supposedly for faithful service - see Krekshin's notes ed. 1841 p. 39. However, in this essay we will also talk at length about this revolt of the archers. See Krekshin's notes, pages 39 and 41. Priest I. Gorsky - comparing the tales of his contemporaries about the beginning of the rebellion (Patr. Joachim, Medvedev, Ignatius, Kreksh. Matv. Savva Rom.) is inclined to think that mainly the whole thing began from Khovansky (p. 61), but this is hardly fair - Khovansky himself admitted that he “does not know the end of the Divine Scripture.... from early childhood he learned the military rank, but unspiritual” (see source Sav. Rom), and therefore it is doubtful that the initiative in this matter belonged to him. Moreover, as Matveev reports, he was distinguished by “instability and insane cowardice,” so that Princess Sophia, by whose grace he received strength, “knew that it was impossible for his Khovansky reign to be weak and long-lasting - (see note. Mat. pp. 37–38). Most likely, Khovansky was ruled by Nikita’s comrades, and perhaps by Pustosvyat himself, whom Krekshin directly calls Khovansky’s teacher (p. 44), and who was in an intimate relationship with the prince - see the story of Sav. Novel. ed. Tikhonrav. page 135. See last. Ignat. Tobolsk page 149. East. Savva Roman. – I. Gorsky (see his article on p. 1864, pp. 62–63 No. 1) and Eminence. Macarius (see his historical R. elaboration) considers the issue in detail - all the archers and all the regiments sympathized with Khovansky, and come to the conclusion that only the elected representatives of all the regiments were at one with the prince. Matveev reports that Khovansky’s condescension and generosity towards the archers resulted in the latter “calling him their father” and always following him and running in countless numbers, and wherever he went, all the voices in front of him and behind him shouted big, big! “and he came to them with such great credit that they were archers of all regiments at his own will and in power - see his notes pp. 37–38. See East. about faith, Savva Romanov. Priest I. Gorsky (see his article “Joachim,” p. 66) says that Khovansky was the first to suggest the idea of ​​a council and refers primarily to Matveev and Krekshin, but the first (see his note, p. 39) only says that “according to the schismatic petition, through the help of Khovansky, all this was allowed to be discussed; and Krekshenna has the following remark: “and Khavansky commanded them (the schismatics) to gather, promising a debate about faith with the patriarch... (see his note, p. 42). Obviously, neither one nor the other evidence provides a direct indication of what Fr. sees here. Gorsky. As for his indication that the schismatics – namely Fr. Sergius, they wanted the authorities to give them an answer in a letter” (see Wanderer p. 67), then perhaps Fr. Sergius, like a meek and quiet monk - as Khovansky himself spoke of him, and most importantly, was not too far off in his grammatical art, and did not want conciliar debates about faith; but as for priest Nikita, he had previously demanded a council (see above the text to which note 229 refers) and then directly stated this before Khovansky. It is most natural for Nikita to attribute the idea of ​​the council, although at that time he did not stand out in any way from the ranks of his brothers and even seemed to be a passive person. This assumption of ours becomes even more probable if we take into account the energy with which Pustosvyat participated in the conciliar bickering. Although, as you know, this petition, submitted later at the cathedral, is similar to Solovetskaya’s petition. There, this circumstance apparently speaks directly against our thought that it was not Khovansky, but Nikita, who played the main role in the rebellion of 1682: but we will see otherwise if we look into this matter well. Nikita does not appear to Khovansky himself; neither his boyar, nor the townspeople, nor the archers know about him (allegedly). But that Nikita did not enjoy fame and respect among the townspeople is natural, because, on the one hand, he was one of the traitors to ancient piety who brought repentance at the council of 1667, and on the other hand, because even during the Streltsy rebellion - Vol. settled and lived in the Streltsy settlement and, therefore, did not declare new jealousy before them. The Posadskys had their own father - Sergius! Regarding Nikita Khovansky’s ignorance, it must be said frankly that it was feigned. Khovansky knew Nikita well, as he let it slip when he was reminded about this father. The prince did not name or expose Pustosvyat, perhaps because this was how it should have been according to Nikita’s own plan (after all, as we know, the archers did not point to him either - when a person was needed to draw up a petition, although he lived among them, and he certainly would not have resisted if he had only wanted to help this grief of the archers). Nikita - one might think, wanted other champions of ancient piety to blurt out, or fearing that imposing his authority on his other brothers through Khovansky could give rise to discord among the schismatics, he waited until everyone voluntarily recognized the need for his participation, be that as it may, however, but we must certainly admit some kind of secret thought that was guided by both Khovaisky and Nikita himself, otherwise for us it will be completely It will be inexplicable how such a zealous champion of fatherly traditions, such as Nikita, remained supposedly inactive - remained at the very time when Khovansky was looking for such zealots. Khovansky referred to the fact that the coronation was scheduled for Sunday and to the remark that it could be postponed to another Sunday, but replied that this could not be done, since everything had already been prepared and everyone had been notified. He even guaranteed that the kings would be crowned according to the old books. Khovansky proposed such a question, probably in order to ward off suspicion in their community, since there were many clerks and clerks. O. Gorsky also admits another reason for Khovansky’s question, namely, as if he wanted to be convinced of Nikita’s merits, but this is unfair - see above notes. 232 and 242. Gorsky - see Wanderer 1864 No. 1, p. 68 - does not want to admit that Khovansky submitted a petition to the patriarch and, in support of his assumption, points on the one hand to the direct evidence of his contemporaries, on the other, to the fact that otherwise there could not have been no orders from the civil and ecclesiastical government. But in the passage he quotes from Krekshin’s notes, page 43, we are not talking about preparations for the council, but about the council itself; when Khovansky, indeed and according to Medvedev’s testimony, began to act without permission (see below note 273). The link is o. Gorsky on Zhelyabuzhsky’s notes – page 4 even seems strange. As for the fact that no orders were made regarding this petition, it seems inconvenient to conclude from this that Khovansky did not represent it for its intended purpose, just as it is inconvenient to doubt on the same basis the reality of the schismatics’ arrival at the red porch... Khovansky could not hide his petition when the schismatics came to the Kremlin with such solemnity, otherwise he would have declared his connection with the rebels, which, as we know, he did not want at all and which he avoided and subsequently, even (we will see this later) during the council itself, he tried to appear neutral. We borrowed all the information about the schismatics’ preparations for the council from the history of Savva Romanov, the only monument that reports the circumstances of this interesting time. And we cannot suspect the truth of his story regarding this subject, since he himself participated in the event and had no motivation to distort the truth, because the matter proceeded without any relations with the Orthodox. But we will check Romanov’s further story with the stories of other contemporaries, since here he is an obviously biased historian. Sava Romanov says that the patriarch, having learned that the servicemen of all the regiments wanted to stand for prodolslaviya (schism), and fearing that he would not be deprived of his glory and dignity, sending the elected servicemen to the regiment, gave them the honor of greatness, ordered them to give them various drinks, sent them also great gifts, so that they would not be champions of glorification, “and does not mention at all that the patriarch acted on the archers with worlds of persuasion. Savva sees this behavior as patron. Joachim is cowardice and deceit: but it seems to us that here it is more natural to see practical wisdom. The Patriarch wanted to influence the archers as soon as possible, because he, of course, could not hope to influence the archers quickly with conviction. At the same time, Romanov himself says that the Orthodox exhorters did not have it easy from the dissenting teachers, and Medvedev and other contemporaries directly report that “they are so ignorant that they went berserk, as if for the sake of their fierce ferocity, no one would dare speak to them” (see his note. P. 18. Uvet l. 57. Vol.) Would it be prudent after this for generosity, what Savva would like to see in the high priest. See History. Savva Romanov. This answer was “that they are ready” not only to stand for the faith, but not to die for the old Orthodox faith O. I. Gorsky - (see Stran. 1864, No. 1, p. 72) found it vague, because it did not seem to say what kind of old faith they were ready to stand for: - but this is too subtle... Your Eminence Macarius and O.I. Gorsky think that Khovaisky at that time went to the sovereigns and acted without permission. It is true that Khovansky was such a weakness, as the sovereigns later attested to this (sch. Ak. Ist. V, no. 94, p. 146. Collected State. Gr. IV, no. 152 p. 462); with all this, we do not see sufficient grounds to deny the accuracy of Savva’s legend, especially since this was the day when the council was scheduled to take place, when, therefore, one could expect the wrong thing from the archers, and Khovansky, therefore, without compromising even himself before the sovereigns, could appear to them with a report, as their main commander. As for how the tsars could have given the order to Khovansky to go to the patriarch, there is nothing special here: the tsars could not have done otherwise - they could not have made certain orders on this matter without the patriarch, and especially this time - when it was only a matter of how the zealots of piety should go to the council, “at what time.” Information about this visit by the elected patriarch is found only in the history of Savva Romanov. Savva embellished this circumstance too much, putting florid speeches into the mouths of his brethren and even allowing himself a lot of wit (such are, for example, his remarks about the Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod “skillfully peeks out from behind the authorities” - and about the patriarch’s appeal to the elected Ivan - “exhausted, Ivanushko, that’s why one hundred days are three weeks”). But even if we assume the truth of the story in all its main features (we do), then the archers will still have the role of not very meek warriors: Romanov himself once let slip that the archers did not allow the patriarch to speak... Savva says that at the end of the dispute, the servants began to say, “Well, the patriarch did not give an answer against two people,” and the Metropolitan of Novgorod (Cornilius) said to Savva: “Before this, I myself wondered a lot about this matter, but now I have great doubts” - (see p. 1864, No. 1, p. 75); to some this seems simply a fable, but we, for our part, do not dare to suspect Romanov here, because for undeveloped people, such as the elected officials were, it usually seems that the one who disputed it was the one who defended his own louder and more energetically; and as for M. Cornelia, although he is known as an anti-schism activist (see Ak. Ist. V, no. 91, he was also very dependent and, moreover, it is not known from anywhere that he was so devoted to Orthodoxy that there could never even be a doubt in him “about this matter,” but at that time there were priests who were baptized with two fingers (see Add. to Ak. Ist. X, no. 76–2). And he himself Nikita was not at all as unreasonable as we usually imagine him to be, and yet he was even the head of the schism. See sent. Ign. Tobolsk p. 149; zap. Medved. p. 19. Spiritual love l. 57. Record. Medvedeva, p. 19. See note. to zap. Medvedeva, p. 22. See source. Savva Roman. page 130 published. Tikhonrav. Also – Hello spirit. l. 58 and zap. Medvedev page 18. Savva Romanov really only speaks about one priest, Savva, who was expelled on Saturday (July 1st) by the patriarch (Other contemporaries do not say whether those exhorters were sent by the patriarch or went out on this matter of their own free will), but probably he himself only saw Savva alone once and participated in the beating, and therefore mentions only him. See history. Savva Roman. Page 131. We trust this story of Savva, on the one hand, because he speaks here positively, as an accomplished fact, on the other hand, because this concession - for bishops to wear staffs without snakes - does not contradict the nature of the activities of the patriarchs. Joachim: he was not too strict in relation to rituals (see Spiritual Advice, chapter 8, 7, etc.) But we do not trust another story of the same Romanov, placed there, - as if “the patriarch, in his mind, was superfluous” and not wanting a council, suggested that Khovansky resolve the controversial issue in this way: put St. Peter Metropolitan Gospel and service book of the new and old edition, seal the cathedral church with different seals and appoint a general fast, and the next day both disputing parties go to church together and see “which books are right and which are wrong,” which were rejected by the saint; - and the fathers almost succumbed to deception on the part of the patriarch in this case, since he seemed to want to “enter the church through secret doors and throw out old books from the shrine; - we do not trust this story of Savva, because on the one hand, he conveys this only as a project, on the other, because this project is not at all in harmony with the character of Joachim, who is not capable of tempting the Lord God in vain. See notes. Krekshina – page 41. For example, the famous Fr. Sergius, on July 5, the day of the cathedral, to Khovansky’s invitation to boldly enter the faceted chamber, answered: it would be good if the patriarch deigned to be here (in the square), but in the chamber where can you fit a table of people? . What are we supposed to do there without people? See East. Savva Roman. pp. 134–135. See notes. Medved. p. 19. It is remarkable that at this time the schismatics no longer argued with the patriarch, as was the case on June 28, but “screamed and fearlessly made noise in his cross chamber and spoke absurd words about him and about the church, which are not proper to be written.” They were strong now. See Medvedev's notes, page 19. Spiritual blessing. l. 58 rev. We could not resist describing this procession in the words of Savva Romanov (see his history of faith - ed. Tikhonr. p. 132), although we must immediately note that in reality it was an unhumble religious procession, but rather resembled a stormy flow of lava, ready to destroy everything encountered along the way. At the very least, this should be assumed, taking into account all subsequent circumstances. Savva says that the father did not forbid the entrance, but the people were forbidden and the people passed through the gates only because the archers were unsuccessful in closing the gates soon (p. 132). This seems incredible to O.I. Gorsky (see Stran. 1864 No. 1, p. 79 note 4). But it doesn't seem like that to us. We trust Savva in the assumption that not only the patriarch could and should have taken care that the gate archers were not from those who sympathized with the schism, but also all the boyars and the tsars themselves. Since the recent Streltsy rebellion was still fresh in everyone’s memory. As for whether there were any among the archers who sympathized with the rebels and whether the boyars sympathized with the cause of Orthodoxy, contemporaries give a direct confirmatory answer to this (see Krekshina’s note, pp. 42–43. Uvet dukhov. l. 59). Krekshin reports that the schismatics, upon arriving in the Kremlin, immediately settled down in the Assumption Cathedral and when the patriarch began to exhort them, “promising a serene rant about the true faith,” they did not want to hear him, “disturbing the stone, calling (him) a wolf and a predator and getting out of the church with all the consecrated face,” I’m as if the patriarch was really kicked out of the church and fled to to the sovereigns, begging them for intercession (see his entry, p. 42). But this legend cannot be trusted, firstly because other contemporaries do not mention this circumstance - it is not even mentioned in “Uvet”, edited by the patriarch himself. Joachim and, moreover, with a polemical purpose; and secondly, it should be noted that even if the schismatics actually broke into the Assumption Cathedral, then of course very few, at least comparatively, since during the prayer singing there were many people of the faithful there (see “Uvet” l. 58 vol. Note. Medvedev p. 19), and therefore could not treat the patriarch so cruelly. Krekshin himself will not give the right to assume that the schismatics, in addition to stones, used other military weapons at this time. Comp. history Savva p. 134. and Medvedev’s notes p. 20. Medvedev's notes p. 30. East. Savva Romanov p. 134. – Savva, however, conveys the matter in such a way that, according to him, Sergius played the most prominent role at that time; but we dare to suspect in him a desire to elevate his party (as we know, they were both townspeople and together they compiled a petition for the cathedral), and perhaps he gives preference to Sergius because he did not observe the other fathers over the crowds and noise. In any case, it cannot be that Nikita was not in the foreground at this time. Sava says that there was great silence among the people: but he is contradicted by all other contemporaries, who report that the disorderly cries of the people embarrassed even the kings who were in their chambers. See Uveet spiritual. l. 60; last Ign. Tobol. page I51; history Savva Rom., note. Medvedeva p. 20; – three of these modern records mention only one priest - Archpriest Vasily; Ignatius counts two priests sent from the cathedral. But probably not one or two priests, but several, were sent to admonish. This testimony of Ignatius is confirmed by the Spiritual Testament. See l. 61; and notes. Medvedeva p. 20. See note. Medvedev pp. 20–21. Medvedev here directly notes that Khovansky, speaking to the patriarch allegedly by decree of the sovereigns, “speaks on his own.” Here Medvedev also notices that the patriarch was given advice to go to the top, to the sovereigns (to the council) by Princess Sophia: but other contemporaries do not talk about this; and we should not rely too much on Medvedev, both this time and in his entire story about Sophia’s participation in the affairs of the council, since he was clearly biased in this case, we will find out later on what it depended on. All the details of this case are reported by Medvedev (see his notes, etc. 20–23; it is partly confirmed by other contemporaries - see Uvet Dukhovn, l. 61 and 62 sent by Ignatius of Tobolsk, pp. 151 and 152. Krekshin (see his notes - pp. 42–43) alone speaks about this circumstance; others do not even have a hint of it: but Krekshin’s legends are confirmed by the fact that at the cathedral there were indeed quite a few archers - supporters of Orthodoxy. We present the circumstances of this case based on the history of Savva Romanov. Here Savva says that this fight was started by the Moscow priests, whose number is about 300, and who seemed to have “crushed everyone” and only the archers could defeat them. But the priests, and most likely these were the same archers who secretly decided to defend Orthodoxy and whose intentions were probably unknown to anyone. See note. Medvedev – page 24. Medvedev notes at the same time that Khovansky ordered “to drive away these zealots” of Orthodoxy by “beating off”. Krekshin (see his note, p. 43) presents this matter differently - it turns out that the schismatics entered the palace without permission, without being called; but this would be in no way consistent with their desire for a cathedral on the square; moreover, Ignatius of Tobolsk (see his last page 153) directly notes that Nikita commanded... See "Uvet" l. 64, ist. Savva Romanov. See history. Savva Roman. p. 138. At the cathedral, in addition to the patriarch, there were 8 metropolitans, 5 archbishops, two bishops, archimandrites and the entire consecrated rank (see Uvet l. 62. sent. Higiates. Tobolsk. pp. 152-153, there are 19 hierarchs. Note. Medvedev p. 24, Medvedev counts only 14 hierarchs except patriarch); as well as the royal synclite, boyars, okolnichy, duma people and others. Savva reports that the patriarch was the first to ask the schismatics who entered the chamber, and we would have believed him, rejected the truth of the words of Medvedev, who is biasedly trying to put Princess Sophia in the foreground and putting the first question in her mouth, perhaps for this reason, if even in “Uvet”, which in this case cannot be distrusted, it was not said that the schismatics first of all “asked from the Tsar’s Majesty” (see. Uvet l. 65). And in general, it is strange that the patriarch would begin to speak in the royal chambers, and moreover, when he was chairing the king with his co-ruler, Sophia, and even when he knew that the schismatics had come to petition the sovereigns. In Uvet (see fol. 65 vol.) their answer is conveyed as follows: “they don’t know anything. Medvedev also repeats (see his note, page 25). The latter, however, is let slip. – It is he who says that following the question “what is faith? - Sofia also proposed another question: why there are no noble people among the schismatics and why Nikita, this depraved priest, comes before them, and that she is “averse to Nikita, but he says nothing.” One can therefore think that Nikita was floriding about the first question (it’s not for nothing that Savva talks about Nikita’s verbiage, leaving aside even his Father Sergius - see the history of Sav. Rom. pp. 137–138); but he was not allowed to speak afterwards. The Orthodox side probably intended to shame the schismatics, since they had no one to give a real verbal answer except Nikita. After all, we already know that even Fr. Sergius, who took second place after Nikita, spoke well only from notebooks. This petition was without the assault of the petitioners. The Uvet says that it was done so that “the masterminds of the theft and the rebels would have nowhere to be found, and no one would be asked in response to the petition (see fol. 85 ver.). At the same time, we should not forget that in the Tyagovoy Regiment it was decided to submit a petition without signatures even when, after the coronation of the tsars, the cause of the split in the regiments lost sympathy for itself - which means that the schismatics, submitting the petition without assault, on behalf of all regiments and townspeople, could hope to give it more weight through this. Uvet and Medvedev’s notes say that Nikita was drunk at that time, but this is hardly true; It is likely, however, that with his ardent and unbridled nature, he was then in such an excited state that he looked like a drunk. See Medvedev's notes – page 26. See history. Savva Romanov. It’s remarkable how vividly Savva portrays Sophia. View Message of Ignatius of Tobolsk – page 154; Uvet L. 66. Obor. and 67; Medvedev's notes – page 27. Could this serve as a hint to the following interesting scene that happened at the cathedral, which was left unattended in Uvet, perhaps due to the modesty of its writer, but which is reported by Savva Ronanov (see his history, p. 144), naming one priest, perhaps instead of the patriarch himself: “let the priest come out and began to speak”: here are your favorite books of Filaret’s “and the fathers decided: and you tell us that in they are not printed correctly. He is the beginning of honor": in St. and Maundy Thursday and Maundy Saturday and St. Day. Easter and Christmas and Epiphany and St. ap. Peter and Paul and on the Dormition of the Most Holy. We commune to the Mother of God with St. We allow Epiphany water and tacos - monks for cheese and butter, laymen for meat. Nikita’s father did not judge this, he began to say: the same rogues counted as you.” There is a hint of such a speech by the patriarch in Uvet - see l. 67 rev. I. Savva reports that the patriarch tells Nikita that we maintain the faith of old Orthodoxy and have not contributed anything from ourselves to the Church of God and are concerned about your salvation (see his history, p. 137). According to schismatics, it is known that one must be baptized and bless with two fingers. They refer to Stoglav (chapter 31) where the reasons for this are given. See Uvet l. 68; Note. Medvedev pp. 27–28; even Romanov himself says that the people, sowing in the chamber, shouting with a voice, command to stretch out their hands to grief (see his history, p. 144). That this noise did not occur about the 8th point of the petition - about the sign of the cross, but about precisely the last point, this is evident from the fact that after this noise the meeting of the council was soon closed, and at the council it is known that the entire petition was read (see Uvet l. 69), moreover, Savva (see his history, p. 144) directly notes that the schismatics, when they raised their hands to grief, and they raised their eyes there and saw on the ceiling of the chamber the image of Saul, sitting on the throne and blessing the country with two fingers in the old way, and pointed this out to the princess: it is clear that they were talking about a blessing. In addition, we should not forget that neither the patriarch nor the c. Sophia did not condemn the schismatics (see the story of Savva Roman.) for having two fingers in the sign of the cross, and therefore there could not have been much noise when the schismatics’ opinion on this subject, i.e., point 8 of the petition, was sorted out. See Uvet l. 68 rev. zap. Medved. pp. 28–29, history. Savva Romanov p. 144. Savva reports (see his history, p. 145) that the cathedral was sentenced to be on Friday: but if this is true, then this was done only to calm the rebels. Krekshin reports (see his note, p. 44) that the schismatics were forcibly expelled from the chamber and many of them were immediately taken under guard: but this could not have happened under the circumstances of that time; Yes, and Savva did not say anything about this, and he, of course, would not have failed to report such an act on the other side if it had actually happened. See history. Savva Romanov p. 146; note Krekshina page 44. The latter says that the patriarch and the authorities after the council thanked the kings for protecting the church: but this is hardly fair, on the one hand, because they had not yet done anything to protect the church; it seems fairer to assume that the patriarch did not go to thank, but to ask for the protection of the church. The stated circumstances are conveyed in detail by Savva Romanov alone - see his historian. pp. 146–148, but other contemporaries also have, although there are vague hints of this - see the note. Medvedeva p. 29 compare. sent. Ignatius of Tobolsk – page 155. See Uvet l. 70; note Medvedev pp. 29–30; zap. Krekshina p. 44; history Savva Roman. Assembled. State gram. IV, No. 152 p. 461. See note. Bear, - page 30 and Kreksh. page 44. See A. history V, No. 93, 100, 101, 117 Proceedings Kyiv, circulation. 1860 vol. 3 p. 206 – historical. Swedish Oh rask. Chernig. Dispute. See A. history V, No. 93, 100, 101, 117 Proceedings Kyiv, approx. 1860 vol. 3 p. 208 – historical. Swedish Oh rask. Chernigov. Dispute. See dr. r. Vivliof. XVIII page 126.-Desktop. Gram. Ep. Nizhny Novgorod. Paul is given. 1686, see also A. history. V, No. 105, sent. Ignat. Tobolsk page 156. See Word of Thanks. d ra r. Vivliof. XV page 274. See A. ist. V No. 91; last Higiat. Tobolsk page 155. See the Moskov monument. antiquities Snegireva, M. 1841–45, Moskvityanin 1845, part V, No. 10 p. 238, Synodik - Vivliof. VI, pp. 502–506; description of glory speech M. 1859 Al. V. Gorsky and K. Nevostruev, dept. II, 2, no. 126 p. 606. See "Uvet" l. 147 rev. also Words. onis. spirit. rank part 1 page 50. See A. history. V, No. 91, 93. See sent. Ignatia Tobolsk. ed. 1855 p. 4. The Spiritual Uvet was published in September 1682 (according to the new Gemvar calendar), in addition to the Uvet, one can also point to the following polemical publications of that time: “a word of exhortation” (1682), “a word against Nikita Pustosvyat” (1684), “a word of gratitude (1683), on the correction of certain sins in the sayings of previously printed menaions and about slander of that correction.” See additional to A. history X, No. 42; A. ist. V, no. 98. See “The Rod” for a refutation of the objection to calling the sinless Son of God (allegedly) a sinner. Remarkable in this regard are the words of Nikita, spoken by him, as Savva Romanov reports (see his history on faith, p. 138) to Princess Sophia at the council of 1682. Yes, Semyon of Polotsk has folded the Rod against me, but against that petition and the fifth part there is no answer to that petition, but if you please, Empress, even now answer me against that Rod and I will now cleanse it and, if I am guilty, it is your will, do as you want.” Metropolitan Eugene (see his dictionary on the spirit. rank. part 1 - about Joachim) says that Uvet was written against the Solovetsky petition, but this is not fair. That the “Uvet” was written against the petition submitted at the council of 1682, this is clearly indicated in the Uvet itself, where it is directly stated: and what is written in it (the petition submitted in the granite chamber) is written, for the sake of knowledge to all of you, so that no one will be offended by their meal, will be spoken below this. See l. 65 rev. 66 demolished. also l. 85–89. Migration error Eugenia probably happened because the petition of 1682 was mostly compiled on the basis of the Solovetsky petition (historical St. Solovki ob. pp. 84, 197) and partly the petition of Lazarus (articles taken from here: 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24) so that only one thing is original in it Article 16 (about the words “draining for oneself and pouring out for oneself”). O.I. Gorsky (see Stran. 18–64, No. 1 p. 86 note 2) recognizes, however, article 14 of the petition of 1682 as original, but erroneously (see Uvet l. 184 et al. and Rod part II l. 99). See title page. The message was issued and written on behalf of the patriarch himself. Joachim (see ll. 1 vol. 58 vol., 61, etc.) but we doubt that Patr. Joachim really wrote it himself - we doubt on the one hand on the grounds that then, that is, immediately after the council, he was busy pacifying the schismatics and it is therefore difficult to imagine that at that time he himself took up the task of refuting the petition, if we assume that Patr. Joachim devoted his free time to this matter, then we will have to admit that it is too incredible to be true - as if Joachim alone could write “Uvet” in a month or a month and a half, while having very little free time! No, that's not possible. If the “Rod” took about two months to compile from Simeon of Polotsk, who received a school education, then “Uvet,” where the schismatics’ objections are refuted incomparably more thoroughly than in the Rod, would have required time, perhaps at least a year, from St. Joachim, who, as we know, did not have such an education. It is most likely that the Uvet was written by one of those book reference books, and most likely not one who was under P. Joachim - at least the content of the Uvet, which reveals his writer’s greater familiarity with early printed books, gives the right to accept this proposal. See "Uvet" pp. 77 rev. 81 rev. 82, 83, etc. On behalf of Patr. Nikon Arseny Sukhakov purchased 503 liturgical and teaching books on New Athos. He acquired about 200 manuscripts from various other places. See history. r. cer. Philaret IV page 153 ed. 1862 This method of refuting schismatic objections stands out especially clearly when it came to points that were considered the main ones in the schismatic teaching - such as: about the cross (chapter 7), the sign of the cross (chapter 8), about the difference in reading the symbol of faith (chapter 14), etc. Borrowings from the Rod are found very often, for example. in ch. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, etc. Borrowings from the Rod are very common, paprim. in ch. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, etc. See "Ostev" ed. 1865 Kazan p. 124. The Isuits were summoned to Lithuania back in 1569 by the bishop of Vyalensk. Valerian Protasevich, when Latinism here was threatened with ultimate death from the influx of Protestanism in its various manifestations; and around the middle of the 17th century they completely took over the education of youth. See “Litov. Church Union” – Kollovich vol. 1, pp. 36 and 203. See Ostev pp. 124–125. “The Jesuits encourage their students to make terrible oaths so that they will be obedient to their father and father and a follower in everything and a defender of the Western Church, as those who suffered these things themselves are not ours” - see “Ostev” pp. 130–131; See about the same Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academician 1864 January. 54 pp. “M. Stefan Jaworski." The review made about these young men in “Austen” (see p. 124) is characteristic: “having considered for them (as those who are young and imperfect in mind) this existence is decent and decent (bows during the utterance of the words at the liturgy, take, eat, etc.), the young people always want to see and hear something new... the young men are more.” See Austen pp. 125–126. See Tablet of Nikon Ave. 475–497. 404. See also 609. Nikon, in his questions to the Patriarch of Constantinople (in question 7), spoke about the strife that occurred regarding the Divine Mystery. For this reason, Paisius imposed the rite of the liturgy in his answer, but did not touch at all on the main subject - the time of transubstantiation, and asked Nikon “to quench those who caused strife with his reason. - However, he added at the same time, if the disputes concern things that are necessary, and not those that the statute leaves to the will of the abbot, then write. A hint of this can be seen in the petition of priest Nikita, already known to us, submitted by him to Alexei Mikhailovich, where he complains that the Orthodox do not worship the Gifts during the Great Entrance (see “Rod” l. 35 rev.) and do not confess in the Lamb prepared during the proskomedia - the Son of God, the infancy of the perfect God (see “Rod” l. 31 rev.). One might think about this as Fr. Nikita and his brethren did not remain cold spectators of the new question that had appeared in Russia - about the time of transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Eucharist: they only, like most of their contemporaries, understood it in their own way - they brought it to the standard of their theology. “Austen” p. 130. A. Medvedev, a zealous admirer of Polotsk, in the epitaph over his grave, expressed that all the faithful loved him (Simeon) and were amazed at his gentleness, quietness and meekness, that he was a lover of cleanliness, a guardian of abstinence in word and deed, etc. Ancient. R. Vivliof. XVIII, 198–199. Simeon attracted the attention of Alexei Mikhailovich while the latter was in Polotsk during the campaign against Livonia. See Rights About. 1880 111, 196, – “Simeon of Polotsk”. This is evidenced, among other things, by his own letters to Alexei Mikhailovich, printed in Vest. Heb. 1828 Sept. pp. 37–47. “Austen” p. 130. Polotsk, as is known, on behalf of St. Joasaph and the council of 1667, wrote a refutation of the schismatic petitions (Nikita and Lazarus, later published on behalf of the patriarch himself under the title “Rod of Government” and so on, see op. book. Tolstoy, ed. Stroev. No. 138). This is confirmed by a letter from P. Joachim to the city of Kyiv. For Gideon, see description. rps. Synod. and Libraries. Al. V. Gorsky and Nevostruev dept. 11, 3 No. 310 p. 509. In “Austen” (see pp. 70–71), where Epiphanius of Slavemitsky and Semeon of Polotsk are compared, it is said: “and he (Polotsky) studied, but not as much (as Epiphanius) was not a philosopher, and then only studied, as is the custom, to be Pole and Litvin in Latin and Polish, but he knew nothing of the Greek language.” “He wrote a certain scripture, collecting it from Latin books, and prepared another from the same Latin books.” Osten page 131 demolished. note 346. “And in all his writings he writes the Latin malice of a certain heresy, whether out of inexperience or cunning, his conscience knows, both secretly and incomprehensibly lying in his writings..., which are also revealed.” Austen p. 131. See description of the book. Tolstoy ed. Strossv. No. 141. Description. bib. Sopikov part 1. Nos. 253 and 864, see Osten pp. 138–139, Add. Evening Shower. l. 12 about l. 13. For a detailed description of the contents of the Crown of Faith - see Orthodox. Review 1860 III. pp. 217–221. See also “Austen” pp. 132–133. Eats eg. there is a solution to such questions: why is the donkey on which Jesus Christ sat during His entry into Jerusalem not revered in the church, when nails, a spear and a friend are revered. the instruments of Christ's death, sanctified by His touch, or what words the trumpet of the archangels will sound before the resurrection of the dead, etc. See "Austen" p. 134 Rights. About. 1860 III. page 226. See Austen pp. 131–132. Epiphanius was summoned to Moscow from Kyiv by Alexei Mikhailovich back in 1049 and here he was engaged in correcting books and translating his father’s works and, in addition, “composed (himself) a lot of words” see “Austen” p. 70. Here there is such a review about this famous man: “Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, a man of many learning, not only grammar and rhetoric, but also philosophy and theology itself, he was a famous tester and most skillful reasoner and dangerous (thorough) interpreter of the Greek, Latin, Slovenian and Polish languages. That Epiphanius really opposed the spread of Western opinions and embarrassed Polotsky himself can be seen from the fact that in the preface to the Tablet published under Nikon, he placed a refutation of the Latin opinion about the time of transubstantiation - See “Austen” p. 73, and did not allow Polotsky himself into his translation society. See Dictionary for descriptions. spirit. rank. Part 1, pp. 180–181. See Moskvityanin 1845, part III. No. 5, p. 93 “The Tale of the Beginning of the Teachings of Peter the Great.” See above text to which note 169 refers. We will talk about this project elsewhere. See history. Philaret edition 4th period of the patriarchate p. 111. See add. To Evening Soulful. L. 15–23 and 163–167. See description. grew up Synod. Bible A.V. Gorsky department 2, 3, No. 287 l. 66. See Austen pp. 137–138. The Kiev books that Medvedev was seduced by were: “The Great Breviary”, “The Service Book”, “On the Seven Mysteries”, etc. We will talk about them later. See Rps. Synodal Library of Moscow. “Shield of Faith” No. 346, l. 57. Medvedev corresponded, for example. with the abbot of the Kyiv Kirilov Monastery, Innocent of the Monastery, who once, while he was in Moscow, even gave him a book of his own composition. See Rps. Moscow Synod. Library “Shield of Faith” No. 346 l. 43 and 429 and vice versa. Medvedev’s close relationship with Innokenty is evident from the council’s resolution on Medvedev’s case. See A. history. V, no. 194; and that Innocent was precisely the abbot of the Kiev-Kirilov Monastery, this can also be seen in the Collection. State Gram. No. 187, p. 561. See Austen pp. 75 and 140. See Zap. Matveeva p. 58. See “Austen” page 74, - Medvedev, it says here: “all his days he creates strife and packs.” See Rukop. M. Sind. Bible No. 346 l. 427 rev. And "Austen" p. 75. See Austen pp. 140–141. See Description. grew up M. Sin. Bible Gorsky department II, 3 No. 299 l. 123 and 125. See "Austen" pp. 93–98 n. Hand. "Shield of Faith" l. 442. This is what one of Medvedev’s well-known accomplices, the famous priest Savva the Dolgy, “in monasticism later called Simeon and those like him,” did. See him "deceased." confession "Austen" p. 106. Among Medvedev's accomplices, deacon (banned) Afanasy is also known. See Hand. M. Sin. b. "Shield of Faith" l. 43; Deacon of the royal chambers Jacob, charter leader Anton Muromets and friend. See also l. 57. See Description. hands M. Sin. Bible 11, 3 No. 300 l. 134. Books published in Little Russia and penetrating into the Muscovite state with Latin tendencies were “a short teaching on the seven sacraments”, “Stone”, “Peace with God”, “Trumpet”, “Key”, “Sword”, “Messiah”, “Commentary on the Gospel” by Cyril Traevilion - the latter used, as even St. Joachim himself knows, - “he read it in the church, eg. On the day of forgiveness in 1675 and on the week of Orthodoxy. See Vremennik XXIV, pp. 68, 69. In a brief teaching on the seven sacraments, ed. GS. 1253, for example, to the question: which is the form of that sacrament (Eucharist) or which words accomplish that mystery? - the following answer was given: “The essence of these words of Christ is over bread”: “take, eat..., and over wine”: “drink”... “For these words your Savior Himself lived, when at the Last Supper He changed His bread and wine into a truthful body and into a truthful blood. See Sci. and Lit. at P.V. op. Pekarsky vol. II, p. 356. In the “Exposition”, after the introduction, the following question was directly proposed: “with the cues of words the holy gifts are sanctified, I am bread - the body of Christ and wine - blood”? At first a general answer was given to this question: “according to St. teachers of understanding, these words of Christ”: “come, eat... drink.; according to the saying of these words, one no longer eats bread, but the body of Christ in the form of bread, and one does not eat wine, but in the form of wine the blood of Christ is,” this was followed by testimonies from the father’s works with their interpretation. Among the fathers listed here were Simeon of Thessalonica, John Chrysostom, and Patr. Constantinople, John of Damascus, Ambrose of Milan. See “Austen” “the denunciation of the volume sent to the Kiev Metropolitan Gideon.” In “Akos” Likhudov the student says to the teacher: “we have heard and seen the age-old book in the Russian language called the publication of the church rantings of the holy ones. archbishop Thessalonian on the mysteries and other teachers of the Eastern Church (for a clear indication of the content of the Exposition, see the previous note)... It is already sold for three or four penyazheh in the marketplace. See Hand. Syn. B. Shield of Faith. l. 617. An indication of this Latin opinion on fol. 50, ch. 29, where it says: “at the liturgy (the monks) open their chapters: at the entrance... and to the words of Christ”... Expressed this way, we do not, however, admit that Polotsky and the friend of his accomplice were agents of the Jesuits and acted according to their plans. No, the Jesuits, as we will see, only observed the progress of affairs in Moscow and waited to begin to act themselves. In Polotsk and his accomplices they saw only the preparers of the field for themselves. That is probably why they freely released him from Lithuania to Moscow, while the Likhudovs tried by all means, as we will see, to delay their opponents on the way to Moscow. Austen p. 91. “Repentant. Confession" by Medvedev, page 141. See collection. diff. zap. o. P.V. Tumansky, part 1, p. 209. Director. "Shield of Faith" l. 56–57. Medvedev became friends with Shcheglovitov even before becoming a monk, having been a clerk in charge of secret affairs; but in the words of Solovyov (see his History, p. 97). “Manna” was written by Medvedev on the orders of Sophia, and Golitsyn contributed to his correspondence with Kyiv. scientists. The first intensified propaganda of the papezhniks coincides with the last stage of development of schismatics. Passion - exactly both of these happened in 1682. See description. hands Syn. B. dept. II. 3. No. 310 p. 500 – description. hands Rumyantsev music Vostokova No. 471 l. 1. Of the Russian bishops, Pavel M. Ryazansky was sent on the side of the papezhniks - in his instructive letter to the clergy it reads: “In the Divine Liturgy of the mind, firmly have intentions. This is the intention of the mind when it speaks these words: accept, eat and drink from it, so that your whole mind is concentrated in these words, so that you may receive the bread into the body of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ, this is: if you say this at the time, you will think about this, but did not have it. Take care of the priest, even if during the time your mind remains motionless, perform truly Divine service; Even if at that time your mouth speaks no words, your mind thinks differently, knowing that sins are unforgiven by death, that is, unforgiven. See Piskarev “Ancient. Gram. and ak. Ryazan region" p. 130. See "Catholicigme Romain en Russie" op. Dm. A. Tolstova vol. I, pp. 111, 112 and 115; Collection State Gram. IV, No. 203. Hand. B. M. Dukh Ak. "Russia's relations with the East on church affairs." No. 68. Description. hands Bible Dept. II, 3, No. 310 l. 5. See Le Cathol. En. Rus. - op. Tolstova p. 112 note. See Austen pp. 141–142 also p. 76. See Description. hands Syn. B. dept. II, 2, no. 179 l. 16. See Description. Slav. rus. book Pekarsky (Science and Lit. vol. II.) No. 138 p. 190. See Description. hands II, 2, Syn. B. Dept. No. 109 l. 50 rev. and No. 128. See also No. 109 l. 50 rev. See Description. hands Syn. B. No. 180 l. 4 No. 179 l. 16, 41. No. 105 p. 593. *) Translations of Greek made. Euthymius himself lists the books in his petition submitted to P. Adrian for their printing. See Description. hands Syn. B. dept. II, 3 No. 310 l. 5–10. See Sci. And Lit. Under P. V. Pekarskov, vol. I, pp. 217–218. Description hands Syn. B. II, 2, No. 180. L. 4. See "Shield of Faith" l. 197. Gram. p. Joachim of Kiev-Tsech. architect Berda-amu Yasinsk. See "Shield of Faith" l. 191–245 this “reproof” was sent, as we will see, to the southern Russian saints in 1688 - it was answered in “Osten” rep. 21–69 pp. p. 144 – the word is instructive from Patriarch Joachim. See hand. Shield of Faith l. 191-245 This “Revelation” was sent, as we will see, to the southern Russian saints in 1688 - it was printed in Osten, pp. 21-69, see p. 144 - the word is instructive for Patriarch Iakim. See hand. Shield of Faith l. 131–138 see Austen pp. 58–61. The “conversation” provides evidence from the writings of the following ancient fathers and teachers; Clement of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Nikephoros, Patr. Constantinople, John of Damascus, among the later teachers are indicated: Nathanael (writer of the book of the Tablet), Archbishop Theophylact. Bulgarian, Gregory protosyncellus the great (Constantine) of the church, Callistus and Nektarios, patriarchs of Jerusalem, Maxim the Greek, Epiphanius of Slavenitsky, Nicholas of Bulgaria and even one Belarusian monk Azarius. See Shield of Faith l. 357–410. Of the Russian service books, the following are indicated in the conversation: Service book of St. Metropolitan Cyprian. Moscow (to which the holy shepherd attached a strict will - not to change anything when copied from it, which is why in the conversation such a remark was made “according to such a will of the saint, it is not silent, some kind of indication from the liturgy, which appears when gifts are transubstantiated, was withdrawn and not included in printed books) - Euphemia Novgorod. the miracle worker written on paper at noon in 1658; - Harateic in a quarter of Sergius of Radonezh. miracle worker; – Serapion Archbishop. Novgorod. miracle worker, Joseph of Volokolamsk; – the original Moscow press – at noon; – ancient Kyiv seal – at noon; - and printed in Kyiv under the archimandrite. Elisha Pistenetsky. – See there. See Shield of Faith l. 413–414, also available in Osten pp. 68–69. This can be seen from the “Revelation” itself, where the testimonies of only those fathers are given to whom references were made in the “Exposition” and where it was directly said that this small one “was written for the shortness of time and that in time the greater testimonies of other saints will be presented.” “Conversation” was precisely the completion of “Revelation.” When the Lahuds, on their way to Moscow, were in the Polish borders and, upon presentation to John of Sambiemsky (Jan Sabeski), received travel documents from him, “to travel even to Russia, then” this did not deign to be a Jesus, “and they” turned him (the king) with their minds blatantly and saying, it is not appropriate for them (the Likhuds) to go to Moscow. Self-conventions were thus delayed. It was August 15th. In December, the Likhuds were again issued travel certificates. - “And this was heard by the Jesuit and some other Latin dogmas, such as the intercession of the Ovahu, as strong as they were, the self-brotherhood could not go from Poland to Moscow, even though there were two and three gates.” Only already in January they, having received letters from the king, secretly departed and returned contentedly, in the middle of the day to the Mezhigorsky Kiev monastery, where the comforting beahu was, and from where they went to Vaturin to Hetman Ivan Samoilovich, and then to Moscow. See Spiritual Sword pp. 31–34. The Likhuds received their education first in Venice, where they listened to philosophy and theology in Elin and Latin from a teacher (the most famous and wise hieromonk Gerasim Vlakhov, later Metropolitan of Philadelphia), then from the most famous hieromonk. Teacher Arseniy Kalludeev “in the Kottunian school in Patavia for 9 years, where the crown of philosophy received numerous letters of merit, signed by Potava teachers and with seals according to the custom of doctors.” See ibid page 28. See hand. "Shield of Faith" l. 569–741. That “Akos” was written against Medvedev and mainly in refutation of his “Manna”, this is evident on the one hand from the fact that, among other things, the passage from the works of Chrysostom, to which Medvedev refers (namely, the expression quoted. See answer to question 13), is analyzed here, on the other hand, from the fact that at the end of Akos in the “superword” the Likhuds interpret their opponent as a person who spoke “mocking and most dissimilar” to the Eastern Church; and Medvedev’s “Manna,” as we already know, has precisely these properties; finally, in the same superscript this opponent is called “learned from the unit”; but as you know, the name “unite student” was most often and even exclusively adopted by Medvedev, a student of Simeon of Polotsk. See Austen, page 140, see 75. It should also be noted here that “Akos” made a particularly unpleasant impression on Medvedev. In the preface by Akos Likhuda they say that they arrived in Moscow at the request of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich to the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius to send two or more teachers for the school with a clear conscience, and that upon arrival in Moscow they were often annoyed by an inquisitive young man (Medvedev) with his students, asking farewell to the one sacrament of the Eucharist. These include the first three questions: a) what is a sacrament and how many sacraments are there; b) what is needed for the sacrament; c) who can perform the sacrament; – and the answers to these questions. And according to what I said (the words of Christ), those who kneeled worshiped the sacrament and believed in the complete existence. Otherwise, the essence of the Lord’s words and themselves are dissatisfied... about the accomplishment, when it happens, there is bewilderment. For the sake of hay, the packs mark the sacrifice three times with the sign of the cross, saying: a pure sacrifice, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice. And the packs are celebrated twice. See Akos in Shield of Faith l. 588. The language in which “Akos” was originally compiled was Greek - this is clear from the very beginning of Akos, where it is directly stated that this book was translated from Hellenic into the Slavic dialect (Nikolai Seyaeonov, Alexy Kirillov and Feodor Polikarpov) by students of the above-mentioned (Likhudov) teachers (see op. ed. Sin. Bibl. VI, 3, No. 299 l. 3), but translated immediately according to writing, perhaps even during the writing itself, because Medvedev soon wrote his response to Akos and here he already condemned the translation made by robots (see ibid. fol. 105 vol.) That Euthymius acted on the initiative and under the leadership of P. Joachim is evident, in addition to the places we have already indicated (see the text to which note 409 refers), also by the fact that all the translations made by Euthymius were done with the blessing of the patriarch and were always submitted for his consideration (see op. Syn. Bibl. II, 2, no. 179 pp. 486–7, no. 180 pp. 494–5, etc. also: Science and Lit. under P. V. Pekarsky I, pp. 217–18). In addition, in the preface to “the reader of the book for the priestly mind,” published under St. Adrian, Euthymius himself says that he collected this instruction from books at the request and permission of St. Joachim, who did not have time for. read by death (see op. hand. Syn. Bible II, 3 No. 297. l. 7). It seems to us that there is no reason to see in these and similar words of Euthymius only the usual reverence for the saintly authority, and especially since Euthymius felt himself, at least in the last years of the patriarchate of Joachim, when the Lakhuds arrived, and therefore at the very time he was engaged in translations, he felt, we say, “in contempt and insult from St. Joachim,” since he did not use “his ancient mercy and love", see description hands Syn. Bible II, 2, no. 195, p. 593. See description. hands Syn. Bible II, 3, No. 287. . Euthymius wrote on this occasion “a book on the words of the Holy Bible,” where he said that “some of the Orthodox, reading the Polish Bible to the translation of Jerome and the Jesuit Jacob Vuyk, utter reproaches against the Bible of the LXX translation, he sets out the history of this last translation, and then indicates the deviations of the Vulgate from the LXX translation; at the end he talks about the Slavic translation of the Bible, and although he admits that it is faulty, he does not allow corrections according to the Latin translation (according to some fables), but only according to the Greek. – See in the same place No. 286. See Savva the Long in his confession of repentance says; and to the Orthodox teachers Ioannikis and Sophronius, self-brothers, notebooks from him, Sepki (Medvedev), folded and given to him and others like me, given by him secretly to some sacred and profane people. See "Austen" page 106. This is the name given to Medvedev’s essay, written against Akos by Sophronius Likhud, who later wrote about this “nonsense”, “showing the truth”, see Ruk. "Shield of Faith" l. 743, 757; still op. Hand. Syn. Bible II. 3, No. 310, l. 384 and 391. So, for example, here Medvedev again refers to the words of Chrysostom……………. - refers to other church fathers and to books from the Moscow and Kyiv editions. See manuscript. "Shield of Faith" l. 745–755. See hand. "Shield of Faith" l. 45 and 55 rev. 57. Description handwritten Syn. B. II, 3 No. 310, l. 38 - The main associates and assistants of Medvedev, together with Shcheglovity, are also called here - Nikita Gladky and Alexey Strizh - archers, Deacon Jacob and Ustav Anton Muromets - clergy of the royal chambers. This testimony of the Shield of Faith is also supported by official documents. See Collection. State Gr. And Great Danes. I, No. 201 and notes of contemporaries. See note. Matveeva p. 53 et al., zap. Krekshina p. 83 and gave. See Austen p. 77; zap. Matveeva p. 56. The Bizyukov Monastery was located near Smolensk. Rev. Filaret (see his historical Russian ts. period of the patriarchate p. 125) thinks that Medvedev fled from Moscow because he allegedly learned about the severe imprisonment assigned to him by the spiritual authorities: but this is unfair. Medvedev fled not from church power, but from secular power - “for the rebellion of the people, he fled to the Polish state,” it is said about him in a modern historical note (see “Austen” p. 77). Moreover, he fled before the cathedral trial of him, and probably without hesitation at all after the massacre of Shcheglovity was carried out and the search for him began; As for the fact that Medvedev was sent to prison having already been defrocked, the Patriarch could and even should have defrocked him without a council, since at that time there was already a decree (see above text to 80 directives) that clergy should be brought before the city court for participation in robbery, etc., only after defrocking - and yet Medvedev was subjected to the city court precisely for rebellion folk See Collection. State Gr. in dog. IV, No. 201. What is remarkable in this case is that the Jesuits, upon receiving the royal decree on leaving Moscow, asked the kings to “be allowed to register their leave to the Tsar’s Majesty,” at whose request they made their way to Moscow, and to be given a period to sell their house in the German Settlement: obviously they were intensifying to continue their stay in Moscow; but they were told: “that there is no reason for the Jesuits to write to the Tsar’s Majesty about themselves, but the sovereigns themselves will write about it, and the deadline for the sale of their court was given from that date (October 2, 1389) for two days from now.” The diligent petition of His Holiness Joachim,” which means, overcame the art of the papal army! Sergius Abbot was a clerk at the printing house, who took an active part in the question of the time of transubstantiation, although it is not known whether he wrote anything on this issue. See Austen p. 92. In his confession of repentance, Medvedev sets out in some detail all his guilts, namely: having said that he recognized his errors through examination of the books sent to him by the patriarch of paternal testimonies and service books, he asks for forgiveness for the fact that he condemned: a) Mark of Ephesus and others; b) Greek patriarchs; c) n. Joachim;. d) other Russian bishops; e) abbot Sergius (printing house) and charterer Moses and others; f) Joannikia and Sophronia Likhudov; g) the most honorable father Euphvimius; then, having generally called the work “Manna” a delusion and deceitful poison for the Orthodox, he lists the passages from it where the Latin opinion about the time of the existence of gifts was preached and the Eastern Church was condemned - then he expresses his “willful and whole-hearted” agreement with the Eastern Church and his desire to joyfully endure great punishment, and in conclusion conclude that if his repentance is not sincere, then let him be amnestied and his body after death may not crumble as a sign of eternal alienation from God, and may his soul be with Judas, etc. See “Austen” pp. 85–103. Was this repentance of Medvedev sincere or insincere? - “his conscience is his message” - his contemporaries said (see “Austen” p. 142), and of course we should also say the same. Savva’s late confession is much shorter than Medvedev’s confession; in it, Savva renounces the “new heresy in Moscow, into which he was carried away by Senka, curses “Manna,” asks for forgiveness for embarrassing the Orthodox by reading them the word of Polotsk, “about standing in church,” and promising in the future not to adhere to the Latin opinion, in conclusion he speaks of the sincerity of his repentance. See Austen pp. 104–111. This confession of Savva in some places is literally similar to the confession of Medvedev, so one might think, therefore, that Savva and Medvedev only rewrote them with their own hands, and they were compiled by a different lyceum. See Austen pp. 111–149. See Ak. East. V No. 194. Medvedev, it is known, did not remain alive for long after that; he was executed on February 11, 1691, as a state traitor, see entry. Zhelyabuzhsky p. 12. See "Austen" p. 85. This testimony was later confirmed by St. Adrian - in the advance notice of the publication of the book of Simeon of Thessalonica, it is said on his behalf:... “we will put all this effort... to publish with printed embossing together with books of medicine (i.e. the basis) and the shield of faith, which the most holy Joachim the Patriarch SOBR, in his days on the withered thorn Latin vegetation "... See op. handwritten Syn. B. II, 2. No. 179 l. 16 etc. See review p. spirit. liter. Rev. Philaret p. 368. See A.A. exped. IV, no. 200. That there were such people among the Muscovites is evident from the words spoken by St. Joachim on St. Day. Alexy in 1687 (see op. director Syn. Bibl. II, 3, No. 261 pp. 257–259), and it seems that those Moscow youths who were the first to blame for papal unrest also possessed this property. .Cm. Efimiy's petition to P. Adrian for the publication of books and translations prepared under P. Joachim. - Op. Rukop. Syn. Bible II, 3. No. 310 l. 5 p. 498. See op. hands Syn. B. II, 3, No. 261 l. 28–219 “teaching for St. Alexia". About Yan Belobodsky. See hand. "Shield of Faith" l. 1163 and gave. another stat. N. Iv. Subbotin “Yan Belobodsky and Pavel Negrebetsky – in approx. to TV St. father 1862 t XXI pp. 569–614. In response to Belobodsky’s words that “whenever he is in the Greek faith and he will give obedience to the Patriarch, and where he will be in Rome and he will give obedience to the Pope,” the Likhuds noted: “and here he appears that he imperfectly desires the Greek faith for salvation, but only for deception, as the gypsies do: in which state they come, that state they hold the faith.” (See Shield of Faith 1164). However, the Likhuds ranked him among the Latinists specifically for his opinion about the time of transubstantiation. Another opponent of Jan Negrebatsky, who had repeated debates with him, thought of him as a Calvin, but it seems to us that such opinions about Belobodsky were based on the desire to associate this religious indifferentist and freethinker with some kind of religious society (as in our opinion the whole course of Belobodsky’s case shows) and not that he was actually a Calvinist or a papist. See Description. hands Rumyantseva M. Vostokova No. 37 pp. 44–45. Kulman called himself a saint, prophet, prince, son of the Lord of God, etc. In his appeal to the kings, written by him in Novgorod on the way to Moscow and divided into 13 articles, he said, for example (v. 7): John, Peter, Sophia! listen to the tremulous exclamation and hurry unanimously to the apostolic steps, until the camp of this time you will truly reach where David and Solomon will find themselves in Kulman.” The translators of the Ambassadorial Order called Quirin a “Quaker”, “warlock”, etc.; Pastors Efim Menki and Bartold Vagetius called the works of Quirin, given to them for consideration, insane, evil and false. - the first - Efim - recognized Kulman himself as worthy of execution. See East. king Peter V. - Ustryalov, vol. II, appendix. No. IX. Was it not this kind of attitude of foreigners towards Orthodox soldiers that was the main reason for the schismatics’ well-known aversion to military service? See op. rus. Sin B. II, 3, 261 and 212 and rev. That the letter prohibiting the sale of printed Pemets icons turned out to be invalid is evident from the fact that he asked the kings to destroy such icons in his spiritual testament. See "Antiquities" Work. Moscow Archaeol. total 1569, vol. II issue. 1st, pp. 16–17 stat. Rumyantseva. How Belobodsky’s affair ended is unknown; one can only assume that, since Belobodsky lived freely in Moscow and after being summoned to answer at the council (see “Shield of Faith” l. 1233 and given; also added to the text by St. Father Jan Belobodsky p. 607), his case remained without consequences. Why this depended is unknown. See Collection. State gram. IV, No. 204. Regarding the Quirin case, the tsars sent letters to all border governors, in which they were ordered to make the most strict interrogation of all arriving foreigners, who they are and where they are from, and whether they have certificates and travel documents, etc., and not to let them through to Moscow unless they have received a decree from the Sovereigns. This can be seen from his spiritual, where the “testament” to kings regarding foreigners occupies a very prominent place and is even repeated up to two times. From the point of view of our time, such a view of St. Joachim on the admission of foreigners to Russia may seem cruel, fanatical, but it would hardly be fair if we therefore dare to cast any shadow on his personality - it will hardly be, we say, fair because it is impossible to measure by our own measure what was done two centuries ago. Joachim lived in his time, not ours; about his time, he makes the following review (see testament): “I am surprised that I was the Tsar’s sigklita, the Soviet chamber and the ruler, who were on embassies in other lands and kingdoms, what kind of state the character and custom of having, what kind of clothes and actions they hold, but they do not accept innago and in their possessions of other faiths they do not confer any merits on people; And if you create prayer churches that are not your own, you will not confuse foreigners in any way, in any heretical kingdom, which is the color of us; Is there a church of pious faith in Germany where Christians have refuge? Nowhere!” Is it possible after this to reproach the saint for the fact that he said: “There is no good, but every kind of evil” regarding the fact that “the heretics were commanded and they built their prayer churches, pious people curse and bark with malice, and reproach the faith, and the icons of St. They trample on us and curse us at Christians, and call us idolaters and evil-worshipers.” Tolerance towards such people of other faiths can hardly be justified in our time! In this case, in addition to intolerance, one can also see, it seems, practical recklessness on the part of the patriarch, since it is known that foreigners were appointed to regimental commanders to train our troops in better formation; - we do not undertake to judge the atom, but we cannot help but notice for our part that the reason indicated by St. Joachim - why he calls on unhelpful foreigners as new leaders, contains deep truth; - in the quoted words of the high priest, who, as we know, was familiar with military affairs from his own experience, a characteristic feature is indicated in the Russian warrior. See op. Sanarinia: “about the preaching activities of Stefan Yavorsky and Propopovch”; Chistolich - “Feofan Prokodovich and his time; brief analysis of op. Clean – Pyrina – see Vestn. Heb.. 1869 June, pp. 794–818. See op. Saparina: “about the preaching activities of Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich”; Chistovich - “Feofan Prokopovich and his time; brief analysis of op. Clean - “Pypina - see Vestn. Heb. 1869 June, pp. 794–818. See Sci. And Liter. under Peter V. – op. Pekarsky vol. 1, p. 326. – “Introduction to European history through Samuel Puffendorius” according to the translation. Volkova; Puffendorf's history has been translated and published in Rus' several times since the time of Peter the Great. – See ibid., pp. 325–327. So wrote Margeret, who was in Russia 1600–1606. See tale. Modern About Self-proclaimed. Part III, p. 27. For more information, see Art. A. V. Gorsky “about theological schools in Moscow in the 17th century.” Arr. to TV St. Father III, also: Right. About. 1867, v. 22 “education of the clergy in ancient Russia” - Znamensky. This is what is said about the boyar school. Rtishchev in the “privileges of the Moscow Academy”. See Vivl. ed. 2. VI, p. 404. See “O spirit. uch. in Moscow in the 17th century. Art. Gorsky" pp. 154–159. These ideas are presented in detail in the specified article “On spirituality, taught...”, pp. 159–167. The Patriarchal charter on the establishment of schools for Moscow was printed in full to the same article, pp. 168–171. See note above. 40 and 345. True, St. Joasaph also issued his blessed charter, together with the Eastern patriarchs, for the establishment of schools in Moscow: but it is hardly possible to think only on the basis of this purely official document that he actually sympathized with, much less took an active part in, the establishment of schools. See “Historical. news about the M. Academy" essay by F. Polikar. Ancient Vivl. XVI. See Ancient. Ross. Vivliof XVI, p. 295; compare in indicated. article about religious schools... note. I'm on page 174. The school was opened in the chambers where until that time the “correction room” and the library were located, the latter were moved for this occasion to a newly built, more spacious two-story building. See “Antiquities”, works of Moscow. Arch. General 1869 teacher. K. Hertz, vol. II, no. 1st Art. Rumyantsev pp. 14–16. Historical news about the Moscow Academy", compiled by Ekikarnov. Dr. Vivl. XVI, pp. 295–297. In the manuscript Mosk. spirit. acad. the beginning of the 1540s and 30s there is an “argument that the teaching and language of Greek are more necessary than the Latin language and teaching,” compiled (author unknown) even before the opening of the school and directed against those who wanted the Latin language to be given preference over Greek in this school. The author proposed, especially, to teach the Greek language together with the Slovenian language and only those who want to teach the Latin language, the grounds on which he argued and this are presented in the article “about theological schools in Moscow in the 17th century.” pp. 176–178 There is a direct indication of this in the petition of P. Negrebetsky, a person close to the well-known Medvedev, submitted to the Tsar in 1681 against Belobodsky. See the passage from this petition: in the above article, note g. p. 171, and in art. “Yan Belobodsky and Pavel Negrebetsky” page 593. I can also think so because, in addition to the fact that Feodor Alekseevich was a student of Polotsk who did not know the Greek language, that during his reign there was noticeable great displeasure towards the Greeks. - So in 1676, by royal decree, they were all expelled from Moscow to their own land, and were deprived of the letters they had previously received; The Greek clergy living in Moscow, although they were not subjected to this persecution, for some of them the “royal food” was reduced, and some were even completely denied it, for example. Euphemia, abbot of the Iversky Monastery (See Director of the Bible. Moscow Spiritual Academician, “Relation between Russia and the East on Church Affairs, l. 1004”). Moreover, Feodor Alekseevich did not even notify the eastern patriarchs of the death of his father and his accession to the throne. See ibid., l. 1005–7. One can also think this way because, in addition to the fact that Fyodor Alekseevich was a student of Polotsk who did not know the Greek language, that during his reign there was noticeable great displeasure towards the Greeks. - So in 1676, by royal decree, they were all expelled from Moscow to their own land, and were deprived of the letters they had previously received; Greek clergy living in Moscow, although they were not subjected to this expulsion, for some of them the “royal food” was reduced, and some were even completely denied it, for example, Euthymius, the abbot of the Iversky Monastery (See Director of the Bible. Moscow Spiritual Academician. “Russia’s relations with the east on church affairs l. 1004). Moreover, Fyodor Alekseevich did not even notify the Eastern patriarchs about the death of his father and about his accession to the throne. See ibid., l. 1005–7. According to the petition of P. Joachim in 1679, the royal decree of 1676 on the expulsion of Greeks from Russia was canceled and the force of the previously granted charters on trade within the Russian borders was restored. – See in the same place, l. 1032. See the article about Palladiy Rogovsky - Nadezhdina. in Sin. Otech. 1840 Aug. page 608. This charter was printed in Part VI of Ancient. R. Vivliof., its contents are briefly stated in the above-mentioned article “on theological schools, pp. 181–183; back in Pevintsky’s article “Simeon of Polotsk” - Orthodox. Review 1860 vol. III, pp. 213–215. It is unknown who the compiler of this letter was. G. Pevintsky says that it was compiled by Polotsky, but it is difficult to agree with this, since on the one hand, from the indication of time on the grenade, it turns out that it was compiled (1682) after the death of Polotsky, - on the other hand, it should be noted that Polotsky would hardly have included among the rules one that directly prohibited the appointment of immigrants from the Lithuanian country and Little Russia to the academy as teachers; it was forbidden “for the sake of the fact that at first such people appear as if they were completely pious, and then little by little the depraved words overwhelm the faith, and they begin to torment their immaculate integrity.” – See Dr. Vivl. VI, pp. 206 – 207. Was it then supplemented and changed after Polotsky wrote it? - It may be. F. Polikarpov (see historical reports about the Moscow Academy) says that “the king. he himself wrote to the eastern patriarchs to send to Moscow teachers in the Greek and Latin dialects and skilled in all free sciences,” it is probable, and it could easily be, that Joachim entered into relations with P. Dositheus, to counteract the king’s intentions. Doesn’t P. Dositheus hint at this when he says: “We and the Holy One. The Patriarch of Constantinople and the entire council ordered them (the teachers sent for the Moscow Academy) not to teach the Latin language and doctrine in school, contrary to Hellenism... See Collected. notes about Peter the Great of Tumansky. X, 120. Istomin was a clerk at the printing house, - See A. A. Exped, IV, p. 372. Karion's request submitted to Sophia consists of 380 verses; For more details on the content of this request, see the article “about religious schools.” Page 185–186. Epistle Medvedev, presented to Sophia about the approval of Feodor Alekseevich’s charter regarding the establishment of the academy, consists of 234 verses - it is printed in Part VI. Dr. r. Vivliofiki. This is evident from the fact that the letter presented by Medvedev to Sophia remained unapproved - at least the list of it was printed without the royal signatures; At the same time, it is also known that some monasteries designated by that charter for the maintenance of the academy remained independent of it afterward (for example, the Stromynsky and Peskoshsky monasteries - see Description of the Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1842, chapter 10), and the Zaikonospassky monastery itself did not belong completely to the academy for a long time. The charters of the Eastern Patriarchs, with whom the Likhuds arrived in Moscow, were printed during their composition “The Spiritual Sword”. F. Polikarpov (see his “historical news about Mosk. Ak.”) says that “Holy Patr. Joachim founded a stone academy in the Spassky Monastery"; meanwhile, in “News of Muscovy 1689” de la Neuville reports (see Rus. Vestn. 1841, No. 10, p. 141) that V.V. Golitsin “built a huge building for the collegium, where he determined the contents of 20 Greek learned people.” Which of these two witnesses can you trust more? – We think that he was the first, since he stood in a closer relationship with the matter of constructing a building for the academy - on the one hand, as an overseer of the buildings, on the other, as a student of this academy. At the same time, if we admit that the builder of the academy was Golitsin, then how can we then explain the slander that Medvedev subsequently raised against the Likhudovs, that they seized the monastery lands for the school? Would he really have dared to do this if the academy had actually been built by Golitsin?... Polikarpov reports that “having established the school, the number of students began to increase, all kinds of members became hunters.” The Likhuds themselves also confirm this. - In “a testimony of truth to Medvedev’s local nonsense” they wrote: “the disciples are priests, hierodeacons and monks, or some boys, stewards and every rank of this reigning city.” See Description. hands Syn. Bible 11, 3, No. 299 l. 118 rev. We outline the progress of school affairs in Moscow based on the “historical news about Moscow. Academy" - Feodora Polikarpov. Polikarpov reports about the translation of books by first-grade students, and that it was a translation of books that were especially needed at that time - this can be seen from the following remark he immediately made: “This (devil), seeing the sword of Orthodox teachings sharpened against him and his deceit from the school sciences ... planted hostility in Medvedev,” etc., as is known, the students were translated into Russian and “Akos” by Likhudov, compiled by them into Greek language. In “Akos” the Likhuds talk about Medvedev: wasn’t he the one who, before our coming: hereby prayed to the blessed memory of the sovereign Tsar Feodor Adekseevich... to build an academy; now he says... that God did not bless fathers with wisdom in the kingdom of Moscow. See op. Hand. Syn. Bib. 11, 3, No. 299 l. 117. Condemning, for example, the translation of the book “Akos”, Medvedev said: “the timid teachers of the Slovenian language were unskilled, and their students of the imotic language were very indecent, even if they were foreigners and learned, truth and truth are great, half a man, without a language in a foreign land.” See op. handwritten Syn. Bible 11, 3, No. 299 and 102 rev. See History. Izv. About Moscow. Ak. Polikarpova. See op. hands Syn. Bible 11, 3, No. 299 and 109. One of the Likhuds actually left Moscow for some time (about 2 years) and went to Venice, but not on his own and not on trade matters, but was sent by the government on state affairs, as he was well acquainted with the local republic. See Words. oh pisat. spirit. rank Part 1, page 235. This is evident from the fact that, after the removal of the Likhuds, their students were left as mentors at the school, who were assigned to teach only grammar, literature and rhetoric; and it is not allowed to teach philosophy, since they themselves still needed “indication convenient for philosophy.” See gram. Arhlmander. Jerusalem. Chrysaifa n. Hadrian; excerpts are given in the article about spirituality. schools in Moscow in the 17th century. in note pp. 196–197. See History. Izv. About the Moscow Academy - Polikarpov. Medvedev himself was no longer alive at that time. See Sob. State gram. III, No. 157, 159, 161, 162, 163. See there and in “Op. Kiev-Sof. Cathedral", page 183. Through this, Metropolitan of Kiev Sylvester Kossov almost lost the privileges that the Kiev See had long enjoyed from the Russian princes and Polish kings, so that Hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky himself was forced to pray “for everything” to both the sovereign and the patriarchs. Nikon, in addition, Khmelnitsky asked to remove his hierarchical disgrace from the Kyiv Metropolitan and not to believe the rumors that “he (Sylvester) spoiled the God-given union of the Holy Russian Orthodoxy. See Description. Kiev-Sofiysk. cathedral Kyiv, 1825. Addendum No. 17. – “Charter of the city of B. Khmelnitsky to Patr. Nikon's petition." Sylvester's successor, Dionysius Baloban, lived in Korsun, and Joseph Nedyubovich was the Tukala successor of Dionysius in the years. Kamena and Chigirev: both of them had never even been to Kyiv. See history. R. hierarch. Part 1, p. 290; Op. Kiev Sof. personal page 197. Metr. mentioned in the previous note. Joseph had two advisors in turn - first - in the person of the Bishop of Przemysl. Anthony of Vinnitsa, then in the person of Lvov bishop. Joseph Shumlyansky. In addition, at the same time, Alexei Mikhailovich was given an order to hand over the affairs of the Kyiv Metropolis to Bishop Methodius. Mstislavsky. See Description. Kiev-Sof. Cathedral pp. 191–196. Joseph Shumlyansky, for example, called “administrator of the Kyiv Metropolis”, in order to reach the metropolitan see with the help of the Polish king John of Sabes in 1677, secretly submitted to him at the Grodno Sejm a written commitment to accept the union. See op. Kiev-Sophia Cathedral p. 196. It is known that when Hetman Doroshenko took the oath of allegiance to the Sultan in Constantinople, Patr. Paisiy issued a letter that anathematized all those who disobeyed this hetman. See History. Madoros. Markevich, vol. II, p. 180. “Kyiv” by Askochensky, p. 206. Joseph Nelyubovich-Tukalsky, who achieved the rank of metropolitan with the assistance of Hetman Doroshenko, was the last of the Kyiv metropolitans approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople; he was confirmed in the rank of metropolitan in 1670, and died in 1676 in July. See Description. Kiev-Sof. cathedral pp. 195–196. See manuscript. Synod. Library “Icon of the Patriarchal Affairs” l. 2. Ivan Samoilovich was elected hetman of both sides of the Dnieper in 1674. See collection. state gr. IV, no. 93. See hand. ik. affairs patriarch. l. 3 rev. and 4. This letter from Patr is wonderful. Joachim according to the depiction of the state of the Little Russian Church, which constitutes a large part of it, and according to the care expressed by the patriarch; about the structure of the Kyiv Metropolis. We consider it not superfluous to present this letter almost in full. - “For a long time in the Little Russian country of the Tsarist Majesty, in such a populous Christian people, the Kiev diocese and the first glorious city of the reign, named Kyiv, there was no chief shepherd - the Kiev Metropolitan and great piety (as I hear) this throne and the great diocese (which also have bishops under them) having lost the throne and still remains a widow. The rules of St. the father does not command the bishops to be widowed for a long time. Even though this diocese has long been under the spiritual rule of the Patriarch of Constantinople; In both cases, since we are united in faith in one God, redeemed into one, the body of Christ and one space, we must righteously and calmly help the suffering people in the world, so that not all the painful lands that are close to us (those close to us) will fall under sinful corruption and they will make war on us and one multinational flock without a kindred shepherd from the strange ones through the rulers, let it not be dissolved, for the metropolis of Kiev constantly comes to this country, and some, having arrived, live in the Molorossiysk cities, Greek and other lands, bishops - with no testimony and under the displeasure of the Eastern Church of the patriarchs, they serve and perform all the sacraments of episcopal dignity without permission; not afraid of correct prohibition and St. the father of the oath to them without his own Kyiv metropolitan shepherd will be forbidden and will not look at it. The son and co-servant of our dimension, Archbishop. Chernigovsky Lazar Baranovich, many years of this life flow and towards old age are already similar (as akin to old age) and explained infirmity; But for the whole of Little Russia in such a multitude of people, he is the only bishop, and for the sake of his weakness in the multitude of people (what cities!) he is overcome by St. rules and according to the order of the Eastern Church of the bishops, fulfilling the proper requirements. The rules of the slaughter allow the appointment of a single deacon and priest at a single liturgy. He performs at one liturgy many deacons, many priests, people in tens and fifteen, and a great act is by no means from the saint. father rejected." Also, among many Christian people there is a need to perform great spiritual exercises and give the sacraments; to acquire the providence of wealth and teaching for the glory of God is the need to maintain: for one alone must endure inconvenience and great misfortune. For this reason, he does not change this being... Gideon Svyatopolk Prince - Chetvertninsky, ordained bishop. The Kyiv Dionysius Balaban ruled the Lutsk diocese for 25 years, but in 1684, at the beginning of October, he fled from his diocese to Little Russia, because “he could not live from royal persecution,” and was favored by Hetman Samoilovich, who wrote to him even to Moscow and promised to provide him with his services. See Zap. Gordon in adj. to zap. rus. people p. 116, compare. history Solovyov XIV p. 26, description. Kiev-Sof. cathedral page 197. See history. Solovyov XIV p. 26. It is remarkable that Kochubey was ordered to report to the sovereigns about the illness of the bishop. It is as if from the time when a letter was sent to him from Moscow from Moscow, in which he was not titled prince: “The bishop is a suspicious man, it seemed to him that the state was angry with him for something; if he had died, then in Poland they would have been happy, they would have announced that God had punished him for leaving his diocese. “Kochubey asked permission for the bishop to come.” Gideon to bow to the sovereigns. See ibid., pp. 28–29. In Moscow, apparently, they did not look favorably on the hetman’s favorite, whom he wanted to take advantage of, and used to counter his enemy, Lazar Baranovich. See History. Solovyov XIV, pp. 29–30. See description. Kiev-Sof. Cathedral p. 198. See manuscript. “Icon of affairs. Patr.” l. 129 rev. history of Solovyov XIV, pp. 80–81. For Samoilovich’s words, see “Icon of Affairs.” Patr.” l. 140. See “Icon of Affairs.” Patr.” l.129 rev. description Kiev-Sof. Cathedral p. 198. “The honorable fathers, abbots, and the clergy of Little Russia were sent to Moscow: Theodosius of Ugletsky - the Vylubetsky monastery, Jerovim Dubina - the St. George's Pereyaslavl monastery and their general clerk Savva Prokhorov. See Icon. affairs patriarch. l.152. Collection Law. II, no. 1144, p. 703. See Icon. affairs patriarch. l. 140–142. Along with Samoilovich’s charter, the very mandated articles of the council were presented to the tsars; they repeated the contents of the charter, set out point by point; here it was added only that Gideon, the newly elected metropolitan, grieves in his conscience about the oath that the teacher took to the throne of Constantinople during his consecration as bishop of Lutsk - not to deviate from him, and wishes that, at the request of the kings, this oath be removed from him. See Icon. Affairs Patr. l. 247. See Zap. Rus. People Ed. Sakharov part 2. The word getm. Samoilovich. - See his petition to the kings - in the Icon of Patr. And then, says Varlaam Yasninsky, it is known from the chroniclers and written down quite a bit at the beginning of the acceptance and establishment of the Orthodox faith in Russia: what are the metropolitans of All Russia and where was the Kiev and how and when are we studying a special metropolitan. See Patr. Icon. l. 265. That we are not imposing patterns here. Joachim’s thoughts were alien to him, this can be seen from his letter written in 1689 to the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius, although not sent to him - where, by the way, it is directly said that “the throne of that (Kiev) and formerly of Moscow sometimes fell into the hands of the Polish king and then the intention for the sake of those who have it is to receive a blessing from the Ecumenical (of Constantinople) throne" and so on. See Patr. Icon. l. 273: - it is also clear from the charter granted to Varlaam Yasinsky, - here, speaking about the completed reunification of Kyiv, the patriarch expresses “as if this is characteristic of you and is the only one close to the overview of the camp and the Slavic-Russian dialect.” See Collection. State Gram. IV, no. 191, p. 584. There is a fairly clear hint of this in the grammatical document. Joachim, sent to Constantinople in 1685 (see below the text to which note 529 refers), but it is more directly expressed in the unsent letter mentioned in the previous note... “two metropolitans of Sitsa are writing in a single diocese: one who lives in Moscow, the Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, and one who lives in Kyiv, the Metropolitan Kyiv and all Russia and this is by no means a considerable outrage. Even if it is inappropriate and according to the rules of St. the father of the diocese was not ordered to separate, but both metropolitans received blessings for their appointments in Constantinople from the Holy Patriarch of Constantinople”... See Icon. affairs patriarch. l. 272. Letters about this from the kings and the patriarch were sent in September 1685, see manuscript. Icon. Affairs Patr. l. 253–256. See Collected. Law. VI p. 704; description Kiev-Sof. cathedral page 198. This document was printed in the Collection. State Gram. And Great Danes. IV, No. 172. Collection. Law. VI, No. 1144. Description. Kiev-Sof. personal attached. No. 19. The Patriarchal Charter is printed in the description. Kiev-Sophia Cathedral attached. No. 20. A hint of blasphemy by some of the daring of the patriarch. Joachim is in the postscript made by Patr. Constantinople Dionysius to the charter, which he subsequently sent to Patr. Joachim, - where it is said that “for the sake of some tamos between their (i.e. in Russia) strife and the subversives of the writing (Dionysius) there is also a council and this ... and the blessed patriarch. Be Joachim... not slandered and free from all blasphemy and reproach regarding this (i.e., in the matter of the reunification of Kyiv)... and all Christians bring due love, honor and perception to his blessedness and submit in all things church. see manuscript. Icon. Affairs Patr. l. 413. Who exactly were the detractors of the patriarchs? Joachim? – definitely unknown; - but in all likelihood we can assume that it was Medvedev and his accomplices. See Collection. Zach. II, No. 1198 p. 804; letter to Patr. To Jacob of Constantinople, printed in the Collection. State Gram. IV, no. 173; grama patr. Joachim in “Icon of Patriarchal Affairs. between l. 274–286. These letters all have almost the same content. This was expressed much more directly in the previously mentioned unsent letter of patr. Joachim (see above note 522), as well as in his “order” to clerk Alekseev. See text to which the following note applies. See manuscript. “Icon. Del. Patr.” l. 286 See History. Solovyov XIV, pp. 33 – 34. At that time, an alliance of Austria and Poland was formed against Turkey, which persuaded Russia to take part in this alliance, but Russia then retreated from this participation: the war with Turkey - the famous Crimean campaigns of Golitsyn - was declared only in the fall of 1686. See History. Solovyov XIV, p. 35. Patriarch. Jacob, in whose name the letters were sent from Moscow, died before the Moscow ambassadors arrived in Adrianople. Alekseev presented the sovereign's salary to Patr. Dionysius (200 gold and three heaps of sables), as well as Patr. Dositheus (200 gold) already upon receipt of the affirmative letters: he was ordered to do so by the kings. See the letter of Dositheus to the kings. See “Cathedral. gram. Greek spirit. Patr. authorities Joachim in Sobran. Law. II, no. 1198, pp. 804 – 805. See Ibid., gram. to the kings No. 1199. See Icon. affairs patriarch. – 416. This postscript was made in June at the council (the grama itself was written in May). We mentioned above (see note 527) that in this postscript there is a hint of censure of the patriarchs. Joachim by some in Moscow itself, but that it was not made about only these censures, this is clear from the very tone of the entire postscript and from the direct name of the Patras. Dionysius of the Patr. Joachim with “newly created boldness,” which is forgiven only through “lenience.” This grama of P. Dositheus is in hand. “Icon. affairs of the patriarch." (see l. 333 on the reverse); it is still in hand. Library Moscow Spirit. Ak. “Russia’s relations with the East on church affairs” (see l. 1081 et al.). This grammatical text is found in the Bibliot manuscript mentioned in the previous note. Moscow Spirit. Ak. l. 1088 rev. In this letter, P. Dositheus apologizes to the princess for his advice with a free mind. Dositheus points here to the performance of church services by some archimandrites and abbots outside the rank and their wearing of Jesuit necklaces (paragraph 2), prohibits the appointment of archimandrites, etc. those priests who go to Papezh places to study and are seduced by philosophy and vain delusions (item 3), and prescribes the appointment of no more than one priest and one deacon at the liturgy (item 4). P. Dosifei demanded that Gideon, when electing bishops in his metropolis, act not on his own, but with the advice of Moscow. Patriarch - (clause 1), so that in court he would be guided by the truth, however, showing leniency towards those living Orthodox in Poland (clause 5), so that every day he would convene a local council for church affairs and, in cases of doubt, turn to the Moscow. to the patriarch (clause 6), and clause seven stated that Gideon, if found guilty, would be subject to the judgment of the Moscow throne. “We find this good and lawful and allow it for the sake of the needs of the throne of Constantinople.” This addition to the letter of P. Dositheus sent to the kings is placed in the same manuscript. bib. Moscow Spirit. Ak. See in the same hand. Bible Moscow Spirit. Ak. l. 1089; description Kiev-Sof. cathedral in app. No. 22, Collection. State Gram. IV, No. 181 and 182. Saint Gideon later reminds him of this all-perfect promise and confession. Syn. Bible Shield of faith l. 247. Among other things, it says... in everything there must be (M. Gideon) consultation and submission to your measure (Moscow Patriarch) see description. K – sof. cathedral app. No. 20 p. 99. Of course, the command of the patriarchs is not significant. Joachim, given in the table charter of M. Gedeoyau - to wear a “white komilan (hood), as in that country such wearing among metropolitans has been abolished, - to wear “for the sake of unity with the Russian metropolitans (see description K - Soph. Cathedral, appendix No. 20, p. 101), insignificantly, we say, this order itself in itself, it is important for characterizing the view of P. Joachim on the attitude of Little Russia towards Great Russia. “For the sake of unity with the Russian metropolitans,” it is clear that St. Joachim did not look entirely favorably on the privileges of the Kiev metropolitanate, which placed it in an exceptional position. See Ak. Zach. Ross. V, No. 159 p. 190. See history. Ross. Jer. 11, p. 627. Varlaam’s protest was disrespected in Moscow at that time, most likely at the insistence of Hetman Samoilovich. Comp. The text to which the note refers. 556. See description. Kyiv. Sofiysk cathedral p. 202; collection zap. II; No. 1295 pp. 921–929. See description of Kievopechersk. laurels, ed. 2 Kyiv, pp. 240 and 248; collection state gram. IV, no. 191. See “petition.” Baranovich to the Tsars" history. Solovyov XIV, p. 53. Lazar Baranovich’s own words, see ibid. He complained that M. Gideon did not show him the royal charter given to the metropolis of Kyiv - he took away his archbishop's name and ordered him to be called simply a bishop; took away three protopopias; in a letter to the Voronezh priest of the Glukhov archtopopia, he called him a shepherd and the thief of some parishes that supposedly belonged to him, see ibid. Page 54. See rps. “Icon. D. Patr.” 343; description Kiev Sof. Cathedral page 202. See Thu. Moscow General Mstor. 1846 No. 1, dept. 11, pp. 25, no. 2, 11, 38–39 and 1647 no. 7, dept. 11, 64–65. Ak. Ecp. Ross. V, No. 28. Such a service was performed, for example, at the burial of Hetman Ave. Solotorenko, in Nizhyn. View “Lazar Baranovich” Stradomsky J. Min. Nar. Enlightenment 1852 No. 7, note. 55. See Key of Understanding “Joabichius of Golitovsky l. 273". In the Most Pure Virgin there is no month, not only the original, but even sin is greedy, but she is also the new caresses of God "... See hand. Syn. Bible Shield of Faith l. 179 rev. according to description hands Syn. Bible XII, 3, l. 87 No. 310. Shield of Faith l. 153. The letter to Baranovich is printed in appendices No. IV to op. "Lazar Baranovich" by Stradomsky. This is a letter from St. Dmitry, the exact list of which is located at the M.D. Academy, printed verbatim in the essay. "holy" Dmitry M. Rostovsky" M. 1849, pp. 25–26. From the same letter it is clear that there were rumors in Little Russia at that time that the patriarch had sent his charter to Kyiv quasisub secreto and through a deliberate (deliberate) messenger.” What was the reason for such rumors? the letter does not say. Was this reason not to be found in the secret thought with which the patriarch wrote the letter? Among these sources, Gideon’s response letter mentions, among other things, a book printed in Moscow under Patr. Joseph, which contains a service to Sergius and Nikon, the miracle workers of Radonezh, and a book about the united and Orthodox faith, published in Moscow in 1648. See Shch. V. l. 155–167, in op. r. ps. S. B. II, 3, No. 310 l. 90. This letter was sent signed by all persons participating in the council convened for this purpose in Kyiv: “To this answer, says St. Dmitry, put all his hands into it (see his letter to the hetman). There was a special note to the letter, where Gideon apologized to the patriarch for not answering his letter quickly. He puts forward the reason for the slowness that, having convened the Kiev clergy to the council, he wanted to enter into an agreement with Lazar of Chernigov regarding the answer, but was refused by Baranovich. See "Shield of Faith" l. 167; in op. rps. l. 96. See rps. "Shield of Faith" l. 171–177; This document was printed in Chernigov. Eparch. Known 1864 No. 14 added. pp. 439–444. See rps. "Shield of Faith" l. 171 rev. The remarkable thing here is that Patr. Joachim interprets the “Contribution” as the work of the Jesuits, who supposedly felled it under the name of piety as guardians, inhabitants of the great Lavra of Kiev-Pechersk - “as if they had (could) have (could) have (could) have been the sons of the Orthodox and, through piety, fought against the piousness of the mother of their Eastern church." But should these words of the patriarch be understood in the literal sense? Hardly! One can rather see in them, on the part of Joachim, the most bitter, although at the same time, severe reproach to the people of Kiev... It cannot be that Patriarch Joachim did not truly know about the place of publication of the Exposition. Not without reason, he at the same time banned the publication of the Menaion, begun in the same Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. See "Shield of Faith" l. 181 and gave. See letter to St. Dmitry to Mazepa - from July 26, 1688 in op. "St. Dmitry Metr. Rostovsky", page 26. See the response letter of the archbishop. Lazar Patr. Joachim - Chernigov. Epar. New 1864 No. 16 added. Page 467. The Patriarch, however, says about himself that he did not know the reason for the slowness of the Kyiv clergy in responding; but in our opinion, this only means that the Little Russians themselves did not tell him this reason. That Joachim became or at least assumed it - this cannot be prevented, if only we pay attention to the fact that he was well aware of the general state of Little Russia. In addition, this is confirmed by his own letter, sent around this time (a) to Patr. Dionysus of Constantinople, in which he convinced the Tsaregrad archpastor to write a letter to Kyiv, to the kings and himself about the incorrect opinion of the Kyiv theologians about the Eucharist and asked not to write down that he knew this from him, Joachim. – This letter is so remarkable and characteristic that we consider it unnecessary to quote it here almost completely. In 1688 Patr. Dionysius sent patr. Joachim received a letter in which he reproached him for his carelessness about the Greeks oppressed by the Turks and in this letter in his title he called him exarch of all Russia (see the director of the Icon. Affairs of Patr. “fol. 169). Offended by this name, Joachim in 1689 sent a letter from himself to Dionysius, in which, having spoken at the beginning about the Russian campaign in the Crimea with great force, he wrote: “as from St. of the Council of the Holiest Ecumenical Patriarchs with the presence of the pious king of the ten (named) the patriarch of the village, of Alexandria - the judge of the village, of Antioch of the whole east, of Jerusalem - of all Palestine, and also to us from St. of the Council of the Holy Patriarchs of the Village with the presence of the pious Tsar, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia and all northern countries was pronounced. Even if this were to be considered, in others, brother, such sins (mistakes) occur, and not in the patriarchs, especially the wise ones. Even if it is not with the intention of our pious king that he possesses the throne of the Metropolitan of Kiev, we will not benefit from him alone as imams; Most of all, we give as much as they require every day, but they accept temptations and embarrassment from them. In both cases, the throne was previously in Moscow, and sometimes even in the hands of others. Polish and then, for the sake of those who possess and are possessed, you receive a blessing from the throne of the village; freely because they were then under the authority of being the throne of Constantinople, they were far from it, especially for the inequality of time, who were unable to oversee that flock; They seem to be there carelessly by their will; by no means and having committed adultery..., having no lower appearance, lower kindness, the Eastern Church wisely and more often Jewish dogmas (probably, here we mean Incolentius of the monastery, abbot of the Kirillov Monastery of Kyiv - was also a Jew by birth; as a Jew and according to his convictions, he is also spoken of in the collections of deeds on Medvedev - see Ak. Ist. V, no. 194) and how strange the various printings are of the very ranks and customs of the Muscovites, even the Ariech of St. What are the fathers of the Greek and Eastern churches and the needs and confusion that the saints are creating are no small ones. our church every day about many rites and customs and sacraments, and even more about the celebration of the sacraments of the Eucharist... Your All-Holiness and the other most holy patriarchs below, when they were under your power, naturally took care of the sheep of the Kiev diocese, and you will now give your word about this on the day of judgment. And then it is appropriate for you to take care of them, as they are called sheep of the universal throne, and have not abandoned them and received from the wolves, which is from the Jesuits and fornicated and labors (i.e., reproach) are given to the Eastern Church. Next comes the already mentioned conviction of Dionysius to send letters. – Whether Dionysius responded to this message, which was not entirely flattering for him, is unknown. This document is in the RPS. Icon of Patr. l. 169 and gave. (a) She wrote at the time when the Crimean campaign was announced and Russian troops had already gathered near the Crimea, and this was in the spring of 1689 in April (see Collected State. Gr. IV, pp. 602 and 607), military operations began in May; track. Even before receiving the patr. Joachim answers. For example, what was said in Moscow by the papezhniks regarding the Little Russian Church, regarding “Akos” Likhudov. – By the grace of God, the Church of Christ in Little Russia has countless witnesses who are unfailing in their faith. The Little Russian Church of Christ, even under the rule of the Polish king, of the Latin faith, in the person of the Jesuit, always stood boldly, even to the point of bloodshed. To have the Little Russian Church of Christ in the Brest-Litovsk city, before about four decades, of faith for the sake of the sufferer, Hieromonk Dophiseus, whose incorruptible relics remain to this day. In the great cities of the Kingdom of Poland, in Lublin, in Vilna, in Lvov, many suffered from worldly people for the sake of faith, even to death. Some swords were cut, others were burned with fire, our memory is this news. You would have seen in Lublin during the past disintegration the mother, the Little Russian Church of Christ, the nurturing of willing and ready sons to suffer martyrdom for the Orthodox faith. There is a clear argument that the Little Russian Church of Christ in the dogmas of faith does not agree with the Latins. See description. rps. Syn. Bible II, 3, no. 294, l. 274. That, on the contrary, the patriarch knew “the guilt of curtailment and contempt.” This seems to require no proof. See note above. 580. (*) Ch. 48 Art. 10, - that is, cursed is everyone who does the work of the Lord with negligence. See rps. Shield of Faith 237–239. Below it is added that the same letter was sent to the Ariep. Lazar and Varlaam Yasinsky. The charters of Gideon, Lazarus and Varlaam are placed; in the “Shield of Faith”, Baranovich’s charter is printed separately in Chernig. Epar. Ed. 1864 No. 16, prvbl. pp. 465 – 473. We consider it unnecessary to impose this detailed analysis of the evidence on which the Little Russian theologians asserted themselves. And only here is that both the latter defended their opinion about the time of the pre-existence of gifts in the words of the response letters, in many ways agreed with the Moscow papezhniki already known to us, and the patriarch in the said analysis often says the same thing that was said in refutation of Medvedev and his comrades. The content of the analysis is almost all borrowed partly from the “conversation” compiled, as is known, in addition to the “accusation”, and from the “Akos” of the Likhuds; Even Greek idiocy is found in the analysis. One might think from this that its composition itself belonged to the famous monk Evolmius, with the participation of the Likhuds. This extensive grama Patr. Joachim to Met. Gideon and Arch. Varlaamu is in RPS. "Shield of Faith" l. 241–307. We do not believe in the denunciations directed against Baranovich, because here there is almost nothing new and it is repeated, albeit in a different form and with small additions, the same thing that was said against the Moscow priests, this is an explanation of some words from the liturgy; links to ancient service books, etc. and so on. See rps. Shch.v. l. 309–341. That the one sent to Moscow was St. Dmitry, and not Innokenty of Monastyrsky, who also traveled to Moscow at that time, is evident from the fact that the patriarch was pleased with this embassy and, therefore, with explanations with the representative of the Little Russian clergy, which he expressed at the Moscow Council, which was drawn up for Medvedev (see the word read at the council). Meanwhile, this contentment would hardly have been possible if the commissioner had been Innocent, known to the patriarch as a Jew and a friend of Medvedev. As we already know, Joachim even pronounced an anathema on Monastyrsky’s works along with Medvedev’s “Manna.” It is also doubtful that the people of Kiev would have decided to send a person to whom he looked unfavorably to reconcile with the patriarch. The messenger soon went to Moscow because his trip was with Hetman Iv. Mazepa. See diary record St. Dimitria m. Growth. Dr. grew up Vivliof. 2nd ed. XVII, p. 30. See Dievn. zap. St. Dimitri. Dr. r. Vivl. XVII. M. Gideon sent only four letters on this matter; Lazarus is seven. – Baranovich himself testifies to this – in his response to Patr. To Joachim dated November 19, 1659, this answer was printed in Chernigov. Ep. ed. 1864 No. 17, p. 502. See Shield of Faith l. 343–35; The conclusion of this letter is in the description. rps. Syn. B N. 3 parts No. 310. See Shield of Faith l. 353–35; this answer was printed in Chernigov. Ep. Edition 1864 No. 17 in appendix. See Instructive Word Patr. Joachim read at the Council of Osten pp. 144–145. See description. rps. Sin Bible. Ak. V. Iopsky 11, 3, No. 303 p. 779. For example, the book “The Crown of Christ” was published in Kyiv. P. Joachim in his letter to M. Gideon and Archimandr. Varlaamu speaks about it this way: “you now... under our blessing have published the book called the crown of Christ, not only unblessed and not seen, not before our beginning of pastoral inspection"... See description of the Russian Orthodox Church. Sin. Bibliot. II, 3; No. 310 l. 153 p. 509. About the publication of the book “The Crown of Christ” mentioned in the previous note, the patriarch in the same grammar says: and print (it) with prohibition. See also there. See below for the Patr. Joachim. See diary Zap. St. Demetrius Dr. r. Vivliof XVII, pp. 22–23. St. Demetrius does not say when this was, but one can think that no earlier than half of 1686, since at that time he “sat down on the abbess,” which he laid down back in 1683, see in the same place, p. 21 February. 9, demolition. Page 17 "October. 26". See letter to St. Demetrius to P. Joachim 1688 from March 15. Ancient R. Vivliof XVII, p. 23. Author op. St. Dimitri M. Rostovsky (see page 27) says that the patriarch demanded the Moscow menaion for unknown reasons, and only assumes that this was done due to the prejudice of the Little Russian clergy that then arose against Orthodoxy. But if so, then why St. Demetrius, immediately after the patriarch demanded the menyas, asked for his blessing to publish his menyas..... (see later in the text, and had previously submitted them only to the Kiev Lavra for consideration? Most likely, this request was due to the comments made then by Joachim. However, the correspondence on this matter has not survived to us. See letter to St. Demetrius to P. Joachim. Did St. Demetrius's list of his menias for consideration by the patriarch is definitely not known, at least not by St. himself. Demetrius does not mention this in his letter. See rps. Icon del Patria. l. 539–545. See diary Note. St. Demetrius 1689. September 13. We have already seen this in the matter of Fyodor Alekseevich’s petition for the deposed Nikon; The same is confirmed by the Moscow patrons we have outlined, but this attitude of the patriarch to the court is especially clear from the petitions to P. Joachim, exiled to the boyars’ prison in Pustoozersky. Matveev, in which he asked him to intercede with the Tsar on his behalf. Although Matveev said in the third petition: “the great saint has high power, and mercy and love from the great and pious merciful king,” but from the same (third) petition of his, as from others, it is clear that St. Joachim could not, even with his “great natural and lofty mind, correct those who were angry with the boyar.” In addition, Matveev himself, in the same petition, having said that he “does not hear not only the mercy” of receiving, but also the answer of mercy, therefore makes two assumptions about the case: “either (this) is prohibited by the obstacles of the decrees of the Tsar’s Majesty, or we abhor the high degree of the thrones (patriarchal) of our poverty.” But as for his last assumption, Matveev should have completely abandoned it when he learned better about the course of affairs at court. In 1682, when after the death of Ts. Fyodor, Matveev was returned to Moscow with honors, he was received by P. Joachim “on the 14th day of May with great fatherly mercy and with all-zealous joy, according to his ancient patriarch with him, a boyar under the previously former Chudov archimandrite and the Novgorod bishopric, out of extreme friendliness and for many hours in his inner Patriarchal cell, he openly, the most holy patriarch, had a spiritual conversation with him as a boyar; to the great pleasure of both persons. See “Histor. oh great. Imprisonment of the boyars. Artemi Sergeivech Matveev" ed. 2nd Nick. Novikov, 1785, p. 415. Matveev’s petitions to the patriarch are placed in the same place, pp. 236–298. See Add. to act. II P. V. vol. III, p. 232. See Acts. Petra led." Golikova vol. XIII, p. 240. Assembled. State Gram. and agreement. III, 214. See Collection. Law. II, No. 775 pp. 218–219. Conciliar act on the destruction of localism printed in Dr. Ross. Vavliof. XVII (2nd ed.) pp. 422–455, and collected. State Gram. and Great Danes. IV, no. 130 pp. 396–410. The idea of ​​destroying localism is attributed by some (see Add. to the case of P.V. III, p. 187) to the book. Golitsyn, for our part, due to the lack of historical data, we cannot say anything definite about this and consider it necessary to note here only that this idea was not the invention of one person: it, so to speak, was in the air then and received power only by decree of the tsar... Who led the tsar in this case? Less than this could be expected from boyar Golitsyn, although highly educated for that time, but not alien to his grandfather’s habits - see the next note. In "Additional to act. P.V. t III, pp. 186–187 in notes. - it is said that even Prince Golitsyn himself, who gave cause for the destruction of localism, again became angry with it. See above the text to which the note refers. 170. See Medvedev's notes, page 5. See “Histor. about non-sp. imprisonment of the boyars Matveev” - Novikova 1795 p. 409 and notes. Rus. People - app. Matveeva p. 16. See Medvedev's notes, page 1. This Streltsy petition was submitted in February - see note there. 1, page 49. This is what Matveev wrote in his post. Matveeva p. 15. See Zap. Matveeva page 7. Gordon in his notes makes the following comment about Ivan Alekseevich: “he is weak and sick”... see note Rus. People appendix. Page 102. People's dissatisfaction with Tsar Peter was expressed by Sumbulov, who was later granted a Duma nobleman by Sophia. - Collected. zap. Tumansky IV, 352. See note. Krekshina page 32. See Added. To 1 volume of deeds. Petra V. pp. 6–9, app. Matveeva pp. 12–13. See note. Matveeva p. 14, zap. Medvedev page 10. See note. Matveeva p. 18. See note. Medvedev page 11. See note. Medvedeva p. 12, See note. Matveeva pp. 20–21. See note. Krekshina page 36. Zap. Medvedev pp. 13–14. Sumarokov described the cruelty of the archers at this time and exclaimed: “Then the irritated sky and the earth stained with innocent blood clearly understood the difference between noble people and the mob. And you spiritual ones are silent! And you, the support of virtue, see that the truth is falling and do not support it! This day, these hours, these minutes, are entrusted to your protection, but how can you support them, since the Patriarch-Highness himself, because he agrees with his hypocrisy, is now a secret participant in their cruel crime? Oh Nikon, Nikon! Your favorite and confidant, who came from Mount Athos and created a monastery in the image there near the Vorobievsky Mountains, with his tricks was the initial instrument of your overthrow from the throne from your palaces through the shedding of the innocent blood of your fellow tribesmen. You saved the kings from a pestilence: this helps indignation. I can boldly say that this rebellion would not have happened in Moscow if you had been alive and on the patriarchal throne. Nikon mourns over the untested fate of God, Joachim prospers. - (See Collected Zap. About P.V. "Tumansky IV, 264). We consider it unnecessary to make any comments on this. See Zap. Medvedev page 17. See Zap. Medvedev pp. 34–38. Medvedev reports at the same time that Andrei Khovansky had in mind to achieve the royal throne by servicing the archers. This is confirmed by a letter, some time later prepared on the shield of the palace doors in the village of Kolomenskoye. But whether Khovansky really had such a thought or whether it was just, as Matveev reports, “a cook made up of natural politics by the boyar Miloslavsky” who quarreled with Khovansky (see his note, pp. 41–43), we do not undertake to judge. See Zap. Medvedeva p. 43. See Zap. Medvedeva p. 46. See Zap. Medvedev page 46, this document was printed in A. East. V, No. 94. And also in the app. Krekshina pp. 49–50. See Zap. Krekshina p. 53, see note. Matveeva p. 47. See A. A. Ek. IV, no. 266; zap. Krekshina pp. 53–55. See note. Krekshina p. 56, A. East. V, no. 97. See Zap. Krekshina pp. 56–57. Archim. Isaiah, who arrived in Moscow with the elder, showed in an embassy order that he was sent by Jacob of Constantinople and all the Orthodox Christians who are under the yoke of the Busurmans and the Multyansky ruler Sherban and the named Patriarch of Serbia and Bulgaria Arseny and all the Serbs and Bulgarians, and Volokhi and Multians, since the time of deliverance has come "... See hand. Bibl. M. D. Ak. “Russia’s relations with the East on church affairs” l. Voivode, according to Archimandrite. Isaiah said at the same time. "spit on him." See decree above hands. b. M. D. Ak. l. 1130–1133. This testimony was given by Isaiah in an embassy order in 1691, after his release from prison in Austria, where he ended up due to the slander of the Jesuits expelled from Moscow. We have given this testimony in full in the text. See note. Matveeva p. 49; zap. Krekshina page 62. In addition to the well-known military exercises, Peter at this time often went into the chamber where the boyars “gathered and “thought” about governing the state, see Zap. Matveeva pp. 51–52. See note. Matveeva p. 52; zap. Krekshina page 80. See Zap. Matveeva p. 53; and Krekshin says that when it was given to Shcheglovity and like-minded people to know about Peter’s flight to the Sergius Monastery, they “heard dead.” See his Zap. Page 81. See note. Matveeva pp. 53–54; zap. Krekshina pp. 82–83. See Zap. Krekshina p. 84. We call that good nature “unreasonably Christian” because, although it stems from zeal to fulfill Christ’s commandment, it is zeal “not according to reason”... See Palace. discharge. T. III, pp. 994, 1223 and others. back in Sborn. Liter. Weight. 1844 “Information about the beginning of almshouses and about the life of the poor in Moscow until the 18th century.” I. Snegireva, p. 26. Koshikhin (see p. 70) reports that “how the tsar goes on campaigns to monasteries and churches, and for his conclusions and exits they prepare money in paper, 2 hryvnia and half a half, and half a ruble, and a ruble, and 2, and 5, and 10, and 20 and 30, to whomever he orders to give as much as possible so that it is ready, just like the queen she walks and drives and carries and carries money after her, contrary to (according to) the same custom, the distribution happens to all kinds of people to whom she orders what.” See mentioned. Reference – Snigereva page 21. From Arkhangelsk Moscow. cathedral, for example. there were 100 beggars, - from Uspensky - 12; see ibid. – About the boyar Fyodor Rtishchev (see his “life” - in the ancient. Ros. Vivliof. XVIII, 415) it is known that “in the reigning city of Moscow, seeing those wandering and lying along the path, all sorts of sick people having no shelter, buy a certain house and set up two cells in it and there, having gathered 13 people, and then 15, Pitasha and Upokaevo tya"… Another c. Ivan Vasilyevich, for example, complained at the council of 1551 that the clerks at the almshouses set up in Moscow and all cities allowed abuses - they accepted into the almshouses the wrong people, namely the poor and helpless patients, and left them without contempt. The Council responded that abuses must be eliminated, and entrusted supervision of this to bishops and priests. But were these abuses actually destroyed by such a conciliar definition? - a negative answer to this is beyond doubt... see “On improvement according to the code” - S. Shpilevsky, - Vremennik XXIV, p. 109. See Tsar. Fed. Al. Berkha St. Petersburg 1835 I, 86. See “Ponmian. An inventory of who did what in Moscow.” Slobod. (1677). Read General East. 1860 book. II, mixture. See A. Histor. V, No. 75 proposal. 10. See also there. On this occasion, the Patriarch sent to all dioceses with an order that each bishop from his home treasury annually send three altyns of two money from the church - this is in addition to the long-standing deportation of one hryvnia from the church. However, at the same time it was prescribed “not to impose additional payments on the priests.” See the text (9th sentence) to which the note refers. 123. See description. hands Syn. Library II, 3, No. 261. - G. Pevniyky attributes this word to Epiphanius Slaventsky (see Tr. Kievsk. Ak. 1861, vol. III p. 163), but unfairly. See op. Hand. Syn. Library II, 3 no. 267 pp. 247–250. See dr. ist. Vivliof. XI, 367 “about the samples of the saints. Patriarchs and about their lives." Blend A. A. Ek. IV No. 301. P. Joachim wanted to be needed by the Savior on the New, and not in the great cathedral church of the patriarchal throne, because in this monastery there was a glorious church in the name of the Transfiguration of the Lord, as in the Mezhigorsky monastery, where he promised to end his life. See D. r. Vivliof. XI, 367 “about the samples of the saints. Patriarchs and about their lives." You might be interested in: