III. Вопрос о пресуществлении св. Даров в Москве на почве литературной

General remarks - History before the start of the dispute - Distribution of Little Russian books accused of heresy in the originals in Muscovite Rus' - Lists and translations of Little Russian books in Muscovite Rus' - Book Exhibition and dissemination of the Latin opinion on transubstantiation - Simeon of Polotsk and Patriarch Joachim - Beginning of the dispute about transubstantiation and "Animal Bread", Medvedev - "Subjected" Euthymius and "Manna" Medvedeva – “Akos” Likhudov – “Notebook” Athanasius the Deacon – “True News” Medvedev – Innokenty Monastyrsky – “Ecclesiastical Composition” Cassandra and “Truth Testimony” – Gabriel Dometsky – Opinions of Bishops Met. Adrian, Met. Markell, Pavel Ryazansky, Ignatius Korsakov – Propaganda Latinists, Prince V.V. Golitsyn and Princess Sofia. Question about the time of transubstantiation 541 St. gifts at the liturgy, as we have already said, caused extensive controversy in the 17th century and sharply brought forward two hitherto somewhat hidden parties of the Orthodox clergy - the Old Moscow and Little Russian. 542 All Russian people of that time, both educated and ordinary, became interested in the controversy. Patriarch Joachim, a representative of the Old Moscow or Greek party, notes with bitterness: “Nowadays, people everywhere have mastered the freedom from each other in gatherings, interviews, markets, temporarily and untimely, husbands and wives have both words about the sacraments, and about the action and fulfillment of them, and quarrels, and strife, enmity, and the heresy of bread-worshiping." 543 These words, Joachim, are not just a rhetorical embellishment of speech. The question of whether to bow at the liturgy during the pronunciation of the words of the Savior: “Take, eat...” and “Drink from it, all of you...”, indeed, could also be of interest to ordinary people, in view of the prevalence of questions of the same formal nature, raised at the end of the 17th century by the schism that had already significantly degenerated by that time. Mikhailovich 1651, so that St. The Mysteries were given due respect on the streets: a candle should be carried in front of them and parishioners should walk in groups of ten or less, and those passing by should give way, and when leaving the sleighs and carts, bow and honor the Holy Mysteries. 544 Bowing at the liturgy was determined by the current gospel to “It is worthy...”. The special affection of Russians for the ringing of bells constantly amazed foreigners, 545 and the surviving custom of making the sign of the cross during the gospel clearly proves that this issue was vital at a certain time. The so-called Latinists performed the ringing while pronouncing the words of the Savior and demanded that everyone “who would be anywhere at that time, either in church, or in the house, or on the road, or in handicrafts, or in the marketplace, having heard the ringing of that one, stood up and bowed down with godlike bows, imagining to worship the Body of Christ.” 546 On the other hand, the accusation of Latinism among many Moscow clergy and the entire Little Russian Church attracted general attention, thanks to a schism that accused both the Orthodox Church of Latinism and the Latin opinion about the time of transubstantiation. 547 One should not lose sight of the written propaganda of supporters of one or another opinion among the people. 548 It is not without reason that the oath taken by bishops at consecration included the Orthodox confession about the time of the transubstantiation of St. gifts. The question of the time of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ was raised at the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene IV. 549 The Roman Church resolved this issue in the sense that transubstantiation is accomplished with the words of Jesus Christ himself: “Take, eat...”, and not with the prayer of a clergyman: the latter was excluded from use in the West in the 11th century. 550 This dogma received its final approval at the Council of Trent. The Orthodox Church believes that bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the priestly invocation of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of the gifts. 551 G. Mirkovich (p. 36) assumed that the first Russian service books, in which Latin tendencies are given, are the service book of Gideon Balaban, Stryatin 1604 and Vilna 1617. But N.V. Pokrovsky pointed out that the priest bowing his head before pronouncing the words of the Savior in the liturgy of the faithful was mentioned already in the 16th century in both Great Russian and Greek service books: these are the Greek service books of the 15th century (Synodal. No. 279 l. 280) and Novgorod XV-XVI (No. 530 l. 46 vol.). In any case, only in the service book of 1617. the words of Christ: Receive, etc., are directly called form, that is, an image or the fulfillment of a mystery (p. 37), as in the Roman Church. The same opinion was expressed in the service book of Peter Mohyla of 1639, while in the service book of 1629 there was still an Orthodox opinion. 552 In the service book of 1639, the moment of transubstantiation is not directly mentioned, but it is said: “The priest in vain points to the holy bread and, blessing it, proclaims, saying: “Take, eat... Face: Amen. Priest, bow low to the divine Body of Christ once,” etc. (p. 315). We will indicate an earlier and direct evidence of the Didaskalia of the Kuteinsky Monastery of 1637, reprinted in Kyiv in 1653. 553 To the question of what words transubstantiation is accomplished, the answer is: “These are the words of Christ over the bread: Take, eat this is My Body, and over the wine: Drink of it, all of you: this is My Blood,” etc. In the manuscript of the Kyiv Lavra No. 139, fol. 1, placed “The Synod of the Father of Kozelsk Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrozsky pious September 26, 1638 in the Lutsk Cathedral Church of the Holy Apostle Evangelist John the Theologian by the multitude of the Orthodox clergy of the Eastern Holy Church, obedient, willingly collected in peace and piety, sent to the same fate in Kremyants for information.” 554 On l. 16 rev. we read: “V. Which is the form of that mystery (Eucharist) or which words perform that mystery. A. These are the words of Christ over the bread: ye shall eat, this is My Body, and over the wine: ye shall drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood.” In the same manuscript on fol. 31 is: “Diaphrosis of the seven hidden sacramental chambers... expression and short exposition.” In this essay on l. 81 we read: “the form (of the sacrament of the Eucharist) therefore eats the words of the wasted sacrament, the bread and wine into the true, uttered Body and Blood of Christ, changing, and there are the words of the Deliverer, the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, these: you will receive, you will eat, this is My Body... which... the lips of the priestly utterances... are wonderful and truthful, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.” On the side is written: “as at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, so here.” At the council of 1640, the question of the time of the transubstantiation of gifts when considering Kozlovsky’s catechism, thanks to Fr. Pankratius, aroused disagreement, and those gathered decided to turn to the patriarch. 555 After corrections and additions, the catechism became known under the name “Orthodox Confession of Faith,” and was published only in 1662. Mogila, without waiting for corrections, published his catechism in Polish with the Latin opinion on transubstantiation. We find the same opinion in Kossov’s “Exegesis”, Mogila’s “Lyphos”, Gisel’s “Peace with God”, Galatovsky’s “Truthful Messiah” and others. 556 Patriarch Joachim accused almost all books written and printed in southern Russia of this heresy and other Latin errors. 557 Meanwhile, Little Russian books, as we will now see, were widespread not only in Western, but also in Moscow Rus'. Here are some 558 statistics on this. In the inventory of the books of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery of 1573, a book in a quarter seal of Lithuanian is already mentioned, and in it are the Psalms of David, the Gospel Tetras, the Apostle and the Apocalypse. 559 Patriarch Job donated several Lithuanian books to the Staritsky Monastery. 560 In 1605, Dmitry the Pretender gave a deposit to the Krasnokholmsky monastery - a Gospel tetras, a seal and a Lithuanian binding, and the Gospel was taken to the royal treasury from the elder Theodoret Sheremetev in the last 102 (1594) year. In 1606, Evfimy Skobeev donated a book of the Bible, Lithuanian print, to the same monastery. 561 There is a 17th-century Great Russian copy of the Vilna grammar of 1587. 562 O. I. Sheremetev contributed to the Anzersky monastery the book of John Chrysostom, an interpretation of the letter of the apostles of the Kyiv press. 563 In the Sviyazhsk Mother of God Monastery in 1614 there were books by Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Lithuanian printing and binding. 564 In 1623, an envoy from the cellarer of the Kiev-Pechersk Andrei Nikolaev came to Putivl with the books of Chrysostom's Conversations on the Acts of the New Kyiv Press. 565 In 1624, Pamva Berynda came to Moscow with the book of Chrysostom's Conversations on the Acts and with recommendations from Job Boretsky to the Tsar and Patriarch. 566 Around this time (1626) in Ustyuzhna Zheleznopolskaya, in the monastery of the Mother of God of the Nativity we find a large psalter of the Lithuanian seal, and in the St. Nicholas Church an apostle of the Lithuanian seal. 567 In the “Inventory of books located in sedate monasteries,” compiled according to inventories of 1627–1637. and therefore very incomplete, although there is little mention of handwritten Lithuanian or Belarusian books, and almost no mention of printed books, we still find in the Trinity Lavra: written books in Latin by Vasily Ostrozhsky and his about faith; in the Chudov Monastery: letters. the book of Gregory the Theologian, printed Lithuanian triodi, and a Lithuanian code of law; in the Novospassky Monastery: book of Exodus, Lithuanian seal; in the Epiphany Monastery: Lithuanian Triodion; in Rozhdestvensky Vladimir: two books about the Divinity, one Lithuanian. 568 One must think that the Moscow state has accumulated enough southern books. It is not for nothing that in 1628 Patriarch Filaret gave an order to take away books of the Lithuanian press and letters from monasteries and churches, and instead send books of the Moscow press to the churches and monasteries, and collect information from private individuals about the written and printed Lithuanian books they have and write about everything to Moscow. 569 In the Novgorod Church of St. Nicholas in Avakhto-Guba in 1628–1629 there was a watchmaker, Lithuanian seal. 570 In the library of Patriarch Philaret himself, according to the inventory of 1633, there are three gospels of the explanatory seal of the Lithuanian seal, “bought at the lord’s court,” the altar gospel and the book of Basil of Caesarea of the same seal. 571 In 1639, under Patriarch Joasaph (1634–1640), the Kiev epithymic nomocanon of 1624 was completely reprinted in Moscow under the Potrebnik. 572 The Gospel of the Lithuanian press was in 1640 in the village of Rostov on Veli. 573 Moscow Margaret of 1641 was reprinted from the Ostroh edition of 1596. Under Patriarch Joseph (1642–1652), South Russian influence intensified. Articles from the Vilna collection of 1602 are included in Great Russian collections, among other things in the “Exposition on the Luthors” attributed to John Nasedka. 574 Kirill's book of 1644, the Book of Faith of 1648, the Collection of Science on the Articles of Faith of 1649 (otherwise known as the Small Catechism) - all these are works of southern Russia, although published in Moscow. 575 In 1648, Smotritsky’s grammar from the 1619 edition in Evyu was reprinted in Moscow. 576 The abbot of the Kostroma Epiphany Monastery Gerasim (1648–1672) had a handwritten book Lifos Peter Mogila. 577 The chapter of the Moscow Helmsman of 1650 “On the Mystery of Marriage” was taken with changes from the Breviary of Peter the Mogila. 578 In the inventory of the books of the Spasoevfimiev Suzdal Monastery of 1650, we find the Lithuanian press of Skaryna’s Bible, Tranquillion’s teaching gospel, the book of Apostolic Conversations, Acts of the Apostles, Basil of Caesarea, Psalter and Prayer Book. 579 In 1652, in the afterword of the Teaching Gospel, the inquirers say that, for the saint’s blessing, they used, in addition to various translations, the translation of the “Ostrog seal.” 580 The famous writer of miracles, Rev. Sergius Simon Azaryin in 1656 already had the only manuscript of the Pechersk patericon redacted by Joseph Trizna (1647–56), and in 1665 he contributed it to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. 581 In 1661, the Patericon of Pechersk, Cassian edition, was rewritten in the Moscow Ascension Monastery, by order of the blessed princess monks Eupraxia. 582 Regarding the Moscow Bible of 1663, we can say that it is almost reprinted from the Ostrog Bible of 1581. 583 Kurbsky's translation of the Conversations of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John was published in Moscow in 1665, without changes. 584 In 1667, by decree of the great sovereign, Baranovich’s book “The Sword of the Spirit” was distributed to the archdioceses, and they ordered to collect three rubles for it. 585 On October 28, 1668, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich accepted the book Peace with God from Innocent Gisel and allowed the “extra” copies to be sold at a free price. 586 In March, Baranovich again sent Peace with God to Moscow, and the tsar granted Gisel 200 rubles, 200 Czechs and local certificates. 587 On June 9, 1669, Lazar Baranovich sent Maksakov’s abbot Jeremiah Shirkevich to Moscow and with him sent Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich “Consolation on the occasion of the death of Queen Maria Ilyinishna.” 588 Lazar Baranovich's Pipes began printing in Moscow in 1669, but the matter was delayed so much that Baranovich moved the printing to Kyiv (1674) and in conclusion demanded that the Pipes be purchased by the treasury. The Tsar refused, but paid 731 rubles for the sent and unsold copies and demanded that no books be sent in the future. 589 In 1669, the books Mirror and Dioptra from the Kyiv press were sent by the monks of the Iveron Monastery to Metropolitan Pitirim. 590 The crown of faith of Polotsk was with Varlaam Yasinsky 591 and with Dmitry of Rostov (in the list of 1670). 592 In 1671, on July 14, the Novgorod governor Mikhail Morozov asked the Iveron Archimandrite Theodosius to send him “the book “Messiah” and a baker who is good at baking bread and pies.” The request was respected and on August 13 a book and a baker were sent. 593 According to the inventory of 1672, in the church of the village of M. Murashkin, Knyagininsky district, there was a festive menaion and a book of hours from the Kyiv seal, and in the village of Korkmasovo there was an apostle seal from Kiev. 594 Patriarch Joachim himself, on the day of forgiveness and on the week of Orthodoxy in 1675, was in the church. Interpretation of the Gospel by Cyril Tranquillion. 595 From Andrei Savinovich, the Tsar's confessor in 1675, books taken from the Resurrection Monastery were selected: Part of Britannia, the Belarusian letter, Joasaph the Kiev seal, On the imitation of Christ of the Kyiv seal, and in addition the books mentioned by Isaac the Syrian, the Belarusian letter, the book of Kings, Skaryna's Tale of St. father of Belarusian writing. 596 In the library of Pavel, Metropolitan of Sarsk and Podonsk († 1676), we find many South Russian and Belarusian publications; the book of the Great Breviary of Kiev, St. Basil the Great of Ostrog, Sword of the Spiritual, Trumpets, Kutein Mirror, Nomocanons of Lvov and Kiev, New Heaven, Mirror of Tranquillion (2 copies), Kazan printed on the Transfiguration and Dormition of Vilna, Zizania Catechism, Life of Anthony the Great Belarusian written, New Kutein Testament, Octoechos of Pechersk five books, Akathists of Kyiv, Synopsis, Interpretation of the Church, Dismissals and litanies of the Pechersk seal, Two Books of Hours of Kyiv, Key of Understanding, Patericon of Pechersk, Ostrog Bible, Kutein Lexicon, Kutein Dioptra. 597 In the property of governor Ivan Meshcherinov, according to the inventory of 1676, we find among the books of Moscow the following books: Spiritual Sword, price four rubles, Key of Understanding, seven rubles, Ostrog Bible six rubles, Kiev Psalter, price two rubles, New Heaven price ruble, Life of the Wonderworker Nicholas price twenty altyns, Apostle of Kiev, price ruble, New Testament from Kyiv, price two rubles. 598 In 1676, on February 13, the royal letter of commendation was sent to Baranovich for the book On Evening Lament and Morning Joy, sent with Archimandrite Luka Grigoriev and the guide Joel. 599 The inventory of the Solovetsky Monastery, compiled after 1676, mentions eight copies. Ostrog Bible, three copies. Kyiv Explanatory Acts of the Apostles, two Dorotheus teachings, four copies. Mirrors of the Kyiv seal, four Margaritas of Kyiv, three Nomocanons, one Octoechos and three Books of Hours of the Kyiv press. 600 Around the same time, the okolnichy Fyodor Vasilyevich Buturlin brought the Pechersk patericon into the Assumption Convent. 601 In 1679, Joachim pointed out to the collectors Joseph, Nikifor and Sylvester (Medvedev) the book of the Apostle, comparing it with the Kyiv, Kutein and Vilna translations. 602 In 1679, the Spiritual Sword was placed as a contribution to the Mologa Kholopiy Monastery. 603 The rhyming psalter of Simeon of Polotsk enjoyed such popularity that it was even set to sheet music for singing (trio). 604 In the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, according to the inventory of 1680, there were two Kyiv gospels, an apostle, conversations on the acts of 1624, (3 copies), the Ostrog Bible, four Kyiv books of hours, twenty-two Kyiv psalters, a Kiev chanting book, Margarita two, a service book, the New Testament (7 copies), On the priesthood , Oh St. Spirit, canon, Berynda's Lexicon (three copies), Flower beds (2 copies), Mirror (3 copies), Patericon (3 copies), Abba Dorotheus (10 copies), On Faith (1 copy), Latin Wanderer. 605 Tsar Feodor Alekseevich himself sent Polotsky's book Obed to Samoilovich, Gisel and Yasinsky as a gift in 1681 606 In 1681, Fr. introduced himself. Korniliy, confessor of the Assumption Monastery (in the city of Alexandrov, Vlad. province). Among the books left after him we find the book of Trumpets of Words. In the same monastery around the same time we find, among other things, Peace with God, the Spiritual Dinner, the Supper, the Sword of the Spirit and the Crown of Faith. 607 In the same year, Innocent Gisel sought to avoid collecting duties on Kyiv books sent to Moscow for exchange with the monastery servant Timoshka Andreev. 608 At the same time, as I already indicated above, Abbot Theodosius Gugurevich sent to the royal treasury one hundred copies of the Kyiv printing of psalters, with a book of hours and a grammar and ten trefoloi. 609 The author of the Stater (circa 1683), who was first in the Pyskor Spasov Monastery, says that he “greatly read the books of the wise Cyril Tranquillion, many words from his teachings orally” and included in his famous Stater in an alteration: “the books Dinner and Supper of the hard-working and wise husband Father Simeon of Polotsk are heavy for the height words." 610 In the Obnorsky monastery, according to the inventory of 1683, there were: a Lithuanian psalter, a Margarit of Kiev, a prayer book, too, a Spiritual Sword, a book about the seven mysteries, a Lithuanian book of hours. 611 On January 28, 1684, Baranovich sent the book Grace and Truth to Moscow. 612 Athanasius himself, Archbishop of Kholmogory, the alleged author of the “Shield of Faith,” a collection directed against southern Russian books, on August 27, 1685, created the foundation of the cathedral churches of the Transfiguration of the Lord according to the rite of the breviary of Peter the Mogila. 613 In the spiritual testament of Alexander, Bishop of Veliky Ustyug and Totem (1685–1699), it is mentioned among his books: Dinner, Supper, Psalter of Polotsk, Patericon of the Pechersk Peace with God, Baroniusz, Irrigated Fleece, Polish Lexicon, New Heaven: all this was denied to the cathedral library. 614 In 1686, Metropolitan Pavel of Siberia contributed to the Vladimir Nativity Monastery the books Explanatory Gospel of Cyril, The Key of Understanding and Trumpets. 615 Around 1686–1691, the monk Vassian gave the explanatory Gospel of Cyril to the Serpukhov Vladychny Monastery, under Abbot Alexander, as a memorial to his soul. 616 From the scribe books of the city of Murom in 1687, we see that in the cathedral church of the Nativity of the Virgin there was a printed Lithuanian gospel, a Sovereign’s dapier, and a service book of the Lithuanian press, and in Ilyinskaya there were two octoechos, a Lithuanian seal. 617 On April 9, 1688, Hetman Mazepa and Archimandrite Varlaam Yasinsky sent Prince. You. You. Golitsyn's book The Crown of Christ by Radivilovsky. 618 On June 1, 1688, Hieromonks Joel and Paisiy came to Princess Sophia with the same book. 619 On July 21, 1688, the abbot of the Kievonikolaevsky Monastery, Isaac Kokorevich, came to Moscow with the same book by Radivilovsky. 620 And subsequently, despite the prohibitions of Patriarch Joachim, the banned Kyiv books continued to be quietly distributed and enjoyed respect. In 1691, Dosifei, Metropolitan of Suceava, wrote to Varlaam Yasinsky about the Liphos of Peter the Mogila: Oh, holy father, I will not ruin the matter of the naishov, esmo the book ΛΙΘΟΣ abo kamien: I heard it a long time ago, now I saw it, I read it as it is, I was terribly surprised and I don’t think about it often They say: this great book is the intercessor and steadfast leader of the Orthodox Church and victory against the traitors, and the revelation of the wolf from the skins of the sheep. 621 The Zaporozhye army (in 1691?), through Koshevoy Ivan Husak, asked Patriarch Adrian for the books “Lunch and Supper,” “which they had not yet heard.” 622 Archbishop Athanasius, who enjoyed special honor from Patriarch Joachim 623, on July 17, 1692, served according to the Kyiv breviary, in 1694 he announced to foreigners according to the breviary of Peter Mogila, in 1700 he served according to the great breviary of the Kyiv seals. 624 Patriarch Adrian himself referred to the book “Peace with God” in a letter of 1696 regarding the Zhabokritsky case. 625 Between 1696–1701, a certain Vyaznikovite Alexey Selivestrov, in his anonymous petition to the tsars and Patriarch Adrian, wrote: “Under Tsar Theodore and the saint. Patriarch Joachim, a pious man, filled with all the spiritual wisdom of the blessed memory of the venerable father hieromonk Simeon of Polotsk through hard work... two down... A spiritual dinner... A spiritual supper... whoever, from the pious readers of these two books with attention to honor, will be moved by the truth... I have found a lot for myself in these books benefit." 626 In 1697, Abbot Anthony gave the book to the Supper of Simeon of Polotsk as a contribution to the Derevyanitsky Novgorod Monastery for the common benefit of all those living in it. 627 The Chudov Library contains a list of the Crown of Faith of Simeon of Polotsk in 1697. 628 In 1698, Metropolitan Hilarion of Suzdal gave the Lenten Triodion of Kiev 1657 to the contribution to the Nativity Monastery in Vladimir 629 In 1699, the valuable pearl was again printed in Mogilev. 630 In 1702, in the descriptive book of the Zmievsky St. Nicholas Kositsky Monastery, the following are mentioned: the teaching gospel of Tranquillion, the Kiev missal, the Vilensky breviary, the breviary of Peter the Mogila, Messiah and Peace with God. 631 A brief statement to the possessor to compose every word, compiled according to Ioannikiy Galatovsky (according to the Key of Understanding), dates back to the beginning of the Petrine era. 632 The book “Spiritual Supper,” the contribution of Fed. Vas. Buturlin, is found in 1708 in the library of the Princess of the Assumption Monastery. 633 And even in our time, in the libraries of Great Russian monasteries there are many Little Russian publications, which got there, of course, in the 17th century. In the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery there are: the Vilna Gospel of 1574, the Psalter of S. Polotsk, the Breviary of Peter the Mogila, the Kiev Pentikostarion of 1631, the Teaching Gospel of Tranquillion of 1619, the Spiritual Sword and the Trumpets of Baranovich's words. 634 In the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery (see above) there are the Ostrog Bible of 1581, the Skorina Bible of 1517, the Teaching Gospel of Tranquillion; Breviary of Peter the Mogila, Trumpets of Words, etc. 635 In the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, so beloved by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, we find: the Teaching Gospel of Tranquillion, the Ostrog Conversations of Basil the Great in 1594, the Kyiv Conversations of Chrysostom in 1623, the Breviary of Peter the Mogila in 1646, the Kutein History of Varlaam and Joasapha. 636 In addition to direct distribution in originals, southern Russian books were distributed in copies and translations. In April 1669, Metropolitan Pitirim of Novgorod sent treasurer Evstratiy to the elders of the Iveron Monastery with the book “The Key of Understanding” and an order to translate it into Russian and send it to Novgorod. In May, part of it was already transferred. She was sent to the metropolitan with a petition “what is incorrectly translated into Russian, order the sovereign to correct it, but we, your pilgrims, moreover, do not know how to translate it into Russian.” In September 1669 they reported that everything had been translated, but everything had not been rewritten in white; the book was accepted in November. 637 To the translation of the Key, the monks also added a translation of the later famous “Interpretation of the Church Service of St. Simeon arch. Selunsky and other church teachers explained.” 638 The book about faith was copied and corrected in Moscow before 1648. 639 We have already talked about the translation of "Lyphos". 640 The Mirror of Theology of Tranquillion was translated in 1674 by the monk of the Savvo-Storozhevsky Monastery Theophan. 641 In 1677, the same Theophan translated the New Heaven of Ioannikis of Galatov. 642 This also includes the translation of the Blessed Star from Belarusian. 643 Alkoran Makhmetov Ioannikiy Galatovsky ed. 1683 translated from Polish by the translator of the embassy order, Stachy Ivan. Godzyalovsky. 644 Extracts from the Teaching Gospel of Tranquillion are found in the manuscript Mosk. Synod. Libraries No. 245 and 261. Sermons from the Teaching Gospel were read by the famous archpriest Avvakum. 645 Extracts from it (not for polemic purposes) were made by the famous Evfimy Chudovsky. 646 Extracts from the Trebnik of Peter Mogila, with changes, were deposited as a contribution to the church in the village of Vozdvizhensky, Novotorzhsky district. 647 Euthymius once worked on Peace with God. 648 Extracts from the World with God are also in the collection of Prince V. G. Menshoi-Romodanovsky Starodubsky. 649 Lists of the Crown of Faith of the 17th century are very frequent in Moscow. 650 In view of such a wide influx of Kievan books into Muscovite Rus', we will certainly understand what a storm Joachim’s accusation of these books, disseminating heretical views, must have caused. Especially one of these books, “Exposition,” the work of Abbot Theodosius Safonovich, deserves our special attention (the author is not named in the book itself). It was published in 1667 651 in Kyiv under the title: “A report on the holy church and on church speeches (deeds), on the service of God and on vespers from St. Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica and from other church teachers (John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Nile Cabasilus and Ambrose of Milan) selected. Translated from Greek and Latin into Russian.” This book was republished in Kyiv in 1668 and in Unev in 1670 and 1674 652, therefore, it was a great success. There was also a Russian translation of this book 653, which was also successful. “I have heard and seen a certain little book in Russian, called an edition of the church discourse of the most holy Archbishop of Thessaloniki about the mysteries, which is being sold in the marketplace for three or four pennies,” says Akos. The doctrine of the time of transubstantiation is set forth in it in accordance with the opinion of the Latin party: “By which words are the holy gifts dedicated and the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood? Wedlug (according to) the building of the holy teachers (in the opinion) of these words of Christ: You will eat, this is My body: and drink all of you from it, this is My blood." Then references are made to the words of John Chrysostom about the betrayal of Judas, John of Damascus about the Orthodox faith and Ambrose (fol. 17 vol.). The words of the priest: “and create this bread”, etc. are explained by the fact that he “asks for obedience to the Holy Spirit so that priestly unworthiness does not go beyond the transfiguration of the Holy Spirit.” Gifts". The gifts have already been offered, but we pray that they will be offered for our sake: this is exactly how we should understand “not grasping words, but respecting the most speech.” We have already indicated above the time of the appearance of the Latin opinion on transubstantiation in Little Russia. From there, little by little, with the indicated distribution of Little Russian books, it spread to Moscow, but at first it did not attract much attention to itself. The first appearance of Latin opinion in Moscow by the polemicists of the Greek pariah, Euthymius and Likhuds, dates back to the time before the annexation of Little Russia to Russia (1654). “The Polish people of Latin evil began to come to the Great Russian kingdom and establish themselves,” 654 says the Miracle monk Euthymius. On the other hand, “from the reigning city of Moscow, young men from the reigning city of Moscow wanted to go to the Polish kingdom for the sake of the teaching of Latin, who had gone away and studied in Latin schools and, like students, following their teachers, went to Latin churches, having seen them make prostrations during the words of Christ, and having exalted them in the decorous and proper way to do this (Young people always want to see and hear new things).” 655 These young men returned “to their homes and told their well-known clergyman and noble husband about the great dignity in the church of those who had homes,” and they decided that at this time transubstantiation was taking place, and bows should be made. Then the ringing began at that time “from those young men of the message,” and not as “from the beginning the gospel was brought to Worthy.” 656 After the annexation of Little Russia, Latin opinion began to spread much faster. Little Russian priests, monks and laymen “began to come to the Moscow state and come to church, having heard the priest proclaiming the words of Christ..., I worship in Latin, which he had previously learned from living in many proclamations and from reading Latin and Polish books by habit.” 657 In addition, “many, more than the new books in Little Russia in Slavic and Belarusian, published under the name of Eastern Orthodoxy, other and manifestly Latin wisdom, found in the Polish language, to this, both from the Jesuits who are found here, and from other Poles, verbally admonished and encouraged from there, in showed insolence to the parishioner.” 658 The Latin opinion about the time of transubstantiation was expressed in Moscow, almost for the first time, in “The Rod of Government” by Simeon of Polotsk back in 1666 and did not cause any objection. There are other indications of the existence of the same opinion among the Orthodox. In 1667, during disputes between Catholics and Portroyal thinkers, Catholics received written opinions on this subject from Nicholas Spafarius and Metropolitan Paisius Ligaridas (however, convicted of papolatria) 659, both close to Catholic teaching. The priest of the cross, John Ioannov, who was at the Russian embassy in Paris (1668–69), responded in the same spirit. 660 In 1673–75 under Patriarch Pitirim, between Simeon of Polotsk and the “wise hieromonk Epiphanius” Slavinetsky (according to Osten), a debate took place about the time of transubstantiation, perhaps with the famous Paul, Metropolitan of Sarsk and Podonsk. Epiphanius, reproaching the Kievites for their error, said: our Kievans studied and are studying exactly in Latin, and they honor only Latin books, and from there they philosophize; but they did not study Greek, and they do not honor Greek books, and for this reason they do not know the truth about this, and the great ones have sinned in this. 661 The Kiev resident Epiphanius could hardly have expressed himself this way. But one must think that already at this time supporters of Greek and Latin education began to appear, and even then there were accusations against Simeon of Polotsk of unorthodoxy. In his Rhyming Psalter (M. 1680, p. 139) he says to some fortune teller: I remember that Zoil still lives in Chadakh The morals are the same in Russian cities. I don’t only remember, but we also know, because I’m still working These lights neither dawned nor entered into people, And already the detractors say envy The wicked thing is ready in the mouth, ........................................................................................... Friend, stop sharpening your teeth I am a son faithful to the church: and she is my mother. If there are no sinners, she will forgive the news And the mother’s message to love the muteness of her children. ........................................................................................ If God gave you reason, you should work hard yourself It is meaningful not in other people’s affairs, but in yours. and then concludes with gentleness: Look, your envy suits you. Where her demon father lives. But I don’t want to be with the enemy Rather, having acquired love, live with God forever. 662 If we remember the quarrels between Polotsk and Joachim over the establishment of the Upper Printing House, we will understand who he could have in mind. But the Polotsk student of Lazar Baranovich, friend of Rtishchev 663, teacher of Tsar Theodore and Princess Sophia, was too strong even for the patriarch, and at the same time a gentle man 664, a courtier: they did not dare touch him and limited themselves to epigrams like: This newly compiled book Lunch The food is full of choking troubles. 665 As for Patriarch Joachim, it should be noted that you rarely meet people so sharply defined. 666 The son of poor Moscow 667 nobles, Savelov was sent to Little Russia in 1662 with military rank (soldier). Having lost his wife and children 668, he became a monk in 1655, in the Kiev Mezhigorsky Monastery and apparently suffered great need 669 until Patriarch Nikon took him to the Iveron Monastery, to whom he subsequently paid with black ingratitude. At Nikon's he was engaged in self-education. “He began to learn to read and write,” says Deacon Fyodor: “and before that he didn’t know the scriptures except the alphabet, nor the church, nor the rank of the church, he was a service man, and he lived in a remote village, and he caught hares, and on a rare great day he was at the church.” 670 Thanks to Rtishchev’s petition, Joachim became the builder of St. Andrew’s Monastery, and then a cellarer in Novospassky. He did not get along in the monastery: the archimandrite hated him, the brethren quarreled over small portions of bread and rotten fish, until he was finally transferred to the Chudov Monastery. “Before being placed in the Chudov Monastery, Joachim was interrogated about his faith,” says Deacon Fyodor venomously: “What they said: I am a sovereign, I don’t know either the old faith or the new, but whatever the rulers tell me, I am ready to do and listen to them in everything (in 1664). Since then, he has become a favorite of the authorities, “lying under their feet,” and shows very great energy in everything related to appearance. Having been made Metropolitan of Novgorod, he installed priestly elders instead of secular officials to collect tribute, tried to remove the clergy from the control of the civil authorities, and eliminate drunkenness. In 1674, after a year-long inter-patriarchate, Joachim was elected patriarch. His internal relations with his flock are imbued with the same spirit of intolerance and fanaticism, severe even for that time. 671 Perhaps the main reason for this was his lack of education, which, to tell the truth, was combined with enormous willpower. Joseph Kolomensky (before 1675), being cool, characterized Joachim this way: The Patriarch knows little and reads, at the cathedral all they talk about is the Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod (Filaret) and I, and the Patriarch only sits with a beard, knows nothing, is fickle, a coward, will order the gospel this way or that way, and will read the teaching, but it only rots and there is nothing to listen to. 672 Archpriest Avvakum writes: a simple man Yakimot, those secret shishas who came from Rome are inflating his plans with asp poison. 673 On the other hand, the mutinies of the archers, the imaginary attempts to kill the patriarch, and tame bickering during theological debates hardly contributed to the softening of the patriarch’s character. He showed his intolerance in relation to the schism, in private affairs, and in relations with foreigners. The schismatics accused him of the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery and, in particular, of the burning of champions of ancient piety in the log cabins. “The present preachers of the new faith, they write in a petition placed in Uvet, are extremely proud and merciless and are not at all impatient: even if a single word appears to them about the faith that is not pleasing, they torment for this and want to put them to death.” “Burn and fall, slash and slash your only begotten,” writes Habakkuk. 674 Deacon Fedor says: The same flattering matchmaker Yakim was at that time archimandrite in the Chudov Monastery and at his council, more than all the bishops, he boasted about our blood, saying to us: when your tongues are cut out for those reproaches, then how will you begin to speak? and when I cut off your right hand, then how will you be baptized? The decree articles of 1685 675 directly speak about burning in log houses: those who persist are to be tortured with cruel torment in order to find out their teachers, and if they do not stop the schism, they are burned in log houses and the ashes are scattered, those who cross are burned in log houses, for harboring schismatics they are beaten with a whip and exiled. 676 Joachim made no less abrupt decisions in other cases. In 1675, Archimandrite. Simeon of Spaso-Andronievsky was ordained Bishop of Smolensk, and going to the diocese, he bought himself a red velvet robe and a carriage. Joachim took away his carriage and robe for his extravagance, and gave the latter to the almshouse. 677 The patriarch put the Tsar's confessor (Tsar Alexei) Andrei Savinovich in chains in humility in November 1674 for his archpriest's fury, ignorance and bribery. After Tsar Alexei’s request twice, the patriarch forgave the archpriest. On the day of Tsar Alexei's funeral, enmity flared up due to the fact that the confessor was not allowed to place a farewell letter into the hands of the deceased Tsar. Savinovich became so angry that he shouted that he would kill Joachim. But the patriarch was stronger, and the archpriest was deprived of the priesthood and exiled to the Kozheezersky monastery. 678 But Joachim’s character was most clearly expressed in his relationship with Nikon, his benefactor. “From him all evil was done to Joachim,” wrote Nikon. In 1676, Joachim, relying on the cathedral (of course, from close people), decided to correct Nikon, and the poor obstinate old man was transferred to another 679 monastery, and he tearfully asked for mercy for his loved ones. In vain did Tsar Theodore ask the Patriarch to allow Nikon’s transfer to the Resurrection Monastery; he even convened a council: Joachim did not yield. The second council, in view of Nikon's dying illness, allowed the return, but Nikon, as is known, only had to visit his beloved monastery when he was dead. Joachim did not want to perform Nikon’s funeral service or accept the deceased’s precious miter, which Tsar Theodore sent. The Patriarch did not even trust the permits of the Eastern Patriarchs and ordered them to be translated to his interpreter. 680 The patriarch tolerated foreigners. “Once upon a time, the spiritual ambassadors of their rank from the Polish region wanted to see the service of St. patriarch, but he doesn’t want this at all, despite the prayers of the autocrats. “Call no one from the German doctors and doctors,” “and you won’t even allow those sent from the tsars to heal themselves.” 681 Another time Joachim did not want to sit at the table where General Gordon was. 682 In his will, the patriarch asked “that the tsars should not allow Orthodox Christians to associate with heretics and infidels, the Latins, Luthors, Calvins and evil Tatars, the Lord abhors them and the Church of God curses them with their godless charms, to create fellowship in the commonwealth, but as enemies of God and scoffers of the church, they should not build foreign pickaxes, but built to destroy, destroy “Latin and German seduced images in churches” (i.e. Italian painting), and not wear foreign dresses. 683 It is clear that such a patriarch could not get along with such a person as Simeon of Polotsk, an educated, gentle man who highly valued Western culture, but who at the same time knew how to remain a Russian person. There is news that makes us think that there could be direct reasons for Joachim’s discontent, besides the dissimilarity of worldviews and the unauthorized release of books from the Upper Printing House: Polotsk supposedly proposed dividing Russia into four patriarchates: Novgorod, Kazan, Rostov and Krutitsy, and installing the former Patriarch Nikon as pope over them, and leaving Joachim only as the Novgorod patriarch. 684 Polotsk died on August 25, 1680, and his place (from 1681) as the builder of the Zaikonospassky monastery and school teacher was taken by his student Sylvester Medvedev 685. At the beginning, everything went peacefully and calmly, although Joachim did not like Medvedev. At Medvedev’s school they taught the Latin language, the students delivered orations before the patriarch, and Medvedev himself dreamed of transforming the school into an academy, as evidenced by his famous project presented to Princess Sofia in January 1685. Efforts about the academy began a long time ago. Back in 1680–81, a certain Yan Belobodsky came to Moscow and applied for his appointment to the Moscow Academy. 686 In May 1681, the Little Russian Pavel Negrebetsky submitted a petition to Tsar Feodor against Belobodsky. It turned out that Belobodsky once visited Archimandrite Simonovsky Gabriel Dometsky and expressed heretical opinions about St. Eucharist and argued with Domecki. Negrebetsky told about these disputes to another Gabriel, Archimandrite Novospassky, later Archbishop of Vologda (from 1684). The Patriarch, who often visited the Novospassky Monastery, found out about this, invited Dometsky and Negrebetsky and asked them about Belobodsky. Belobodsky completely denied the transubstantiation of the Gifts and said that “nobody heard about this transubstantiation from the Russian people.” All these were “Luthorian” thoughts, and they were already feared in the Moscow state, and Simeon of Polotsk himself, at the invitation of the Epiphany (in Polotsk) abbot of Utchitsky, in view of the widespread reading of Polish works filled with Roman and especially Luthorian and Calvinist heresies, wrote, as Negrebetsky says: “I order a book against those heresies, very worthy of honor." In conclusion, it is clear that the main attention was drawn to Belobodsky’s denial of the transubstantiation of Gifts. The Patriarch demanded a confession of faith from Belobodsky. Sylvester Medvedev responded to Belobodsky’s confession of faith, and his essay was read at the council on July 11, 1681. Medvedev does not mention at all when exactly the transubstantiation of the Gifts takes place. 687 But Medvedev was not satisfied with this: he decided to write a detailed essay on the Eucharist. This work bears the title: “The book of the verb Animal Bread, briefly explained for the Christian benefit for the general benefit of souls and against tempting and dubious thoughts for the common salvation of all Christianity, about the most holy mystery, betrayed and confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, about the Eucharist or the sacred mysteries of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” 688 The essay is presented in the form of questions from the student and answers from the teacher. All questions and answers 30. The Latin opinion on transubstantiation is evident from the following passage: “Question of the disciples. At what times in the Divine Liturgy is bread transformed into the most pure Body and wine into the most pure Blood of Christ? Teachers' answer. The Most Pure Body and Blood are transubstantiated by the words of Christ spoken from the priest during the Divine Liturgy over bread: accept.” 689 There is also another opinion, disputed by Osten, about the transubstantiation of other particles brought at the proskomedia, in addition to the lamb. 690 An extraordinary gentleness of presentation characterizes this work. We do not know exactly what year this work was published. Meanwhile, in 1685, in March, the wisest self-brethren, as they called themselves, the Greeks Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhuds, arrived in Moscow, who were met very graciously by the princess, and Prince V.V. Golitsyn, and the patriarch himself. 691 It is unknown why, Belobodsky appeared on the scene again, with whom the Likhuds carried on a victorious debate. Their success was recognized by the powers that be, and they were recognized in advance as mentors of the yet unopened academy. The new mentors stated that they did not like their accommodation in the St. Nicholas Greek Monastery: they were transferred to Chudov. But they didn’t like it there either: they built special chambers in the Epiphany Monastery, and on June 1, 1686 they laid stone chambers in the Zaikonospassky Monastery. 692 The builder Sylvester with his project about the academy (January 1685) and with his school remained on the sidelines. 693 It is clear that when the Likhuds moved to the Zaikonospassky Monastery with Medvedev, the matter was also not without clashes. The pride of both sides was hurt, and so the Likhuds, having united with an old ill-wisher of first Polotsk and then Medvedev, monk Euthymius, began to accuse Medvedev of presenting non-Orthodox thoughts in “Animal Bread.” This is evidenced by a short note, probably from Euphemia: “Indication of subjected to Latin wisdom.” From the words “the Latin heresy the Jesuit Uniate teacher spewed out this, and the student spreads it and exposes it to those who are not entirely skillful,” we can conclude that Euthymius wanted to see Simeon of Polotsk in the teacher, in Medvedev’s student. 694 This did not prevent the book “Exhibition” from being distributed in Moscow squares at the same time. 695 Euthymius decided to act more widely. In November 1687, Archpriest John of Chernigov brought Medvedev notebooks distributed among the people, probably by Euthymius, in defense of Orthodox opinion. 696 These notebooks contain the testimonies of 12 church fathers and refute the opinion of St. Ambrose, and all the blame is attributed to the Orthodox confession of Peter Mogila in 1645, from which the Latin opinion on transubstantiation began (fol. 382 vol.). The book “Peace with God” also turns out to be translated from Latin books (fol. 383); finally, evidence is given from the words written and spoken by Epiphanius Slavinetsky. In conclusion, the idea is raised about the superiority of Greek theology over Latin, and the essay ends with the words: “this reasoning is sufficient for those who have sound reasoning to know the truth. All the collected understandings of the Father of Saints here are offered not for the sake of controversy, but for the reasoning of our holy mother. Eastern Church and that sincere son of the sacred bishop” (l. 385). The answer to them was the famous “Manna of the Bread of the Animal.” “The Book of Mannu,” Sylvester showed during the interrogation on September 24, 1690, he wrote by order of the Great Empress, the Blessed Princess (Sofia Alekseevna) and secured it with his hand and presented it to the Great Empress the following year. And that book was sent to the hetman, to Ivan Stepanovich (Mazepa), to the Kyiv authorities for testimony... but that book was not given to the patriarch.” 697 The book “Manna” defended the Latin opinion on the transubstantiation of gifts, on the basis of southern Russian writings, the treatises of Koningk and Opatius and the euchology of Gohar. The Eastern Church was condemned for the fact that it assimilates greater power to priestly prayers than to the words of Jesus Christ and holds on to human traditions only in order not to be in agreement with Rome. 698 At the same time, Akos by Likhudov was published. 699 The Likhuds explain the appearance of their book as follows: “Various books on the Orthodox and immaculate faith of the Eastern Church were copied and interpreted from Latin into Russian and Polish from certain opinions of those of the same mind by the Uniate, and were published in various places in Poland in Kyiv, negli and not there, but charmingly under the name of Kyiv and even though ashes are the bitterest, even though they are hypocrites through the inscription of names.” 700 The Likhuds say that “for the sake of reprimands, every day from some unwise men, but unlearned and flatterers, who remain in the stubbornness of the only satanic, they were silent,” but now they answer at the command of the great sovereigns, kings and great empresses, princesses, and with the blessing of the patriarch. 701 From Medvedev's book we learn that the debate about transubstantiation was already known to the patriarch. “On the 9th day of March, one person from famous spiritual, honorable people (probably Euthymius) talked about transubstantiation and affirmed it not to be Christ’s words ... in confirmation of that wrong wisdom, but in praise of himself, on St. Patriarch false verb: I am now from St. Patriarch I have drawn this wisdom, which you have already heard me speak... I (Medvedev) know well that new theologian (Euphemia?) who calls himself a new theologian, as he is such a teaching, I hope, and he does not understand primers at all, not just that he knows from the free sciences "... "Akos" and Manna were sparks that fell into the powder magazine. Two parties, hitherto hidden, immediately appeared: one Greek with Likhudy and Euthymius, 702 a student of Slavinetsky, at the head, the other with Sylvester Medvedev and Savva Dolgy. The Greeks managed to get into the sore spot of the opposing party, calling their opponents Latinists: they learned from the Euits, even if they hold this in the speed of their hearts, but from the writings and verbs they already learn well, like Latin students, and the Latin teaching and customs hold, and preach, and their copying shows them as such. 703 In fact, Sylvester and his supporters, people of scholastic education, grew up on Latin soil, read Latin and Polish books, were familiar with Poles and representatives of the Western clergy, knew Latin writers better than Greek ones, and used both Latin script and Latin words in their writing. But, of course, one cannot suspect their adherence to Latinism: if they deviated from it, it was done completely unconsciously. Be that as it may, the controversy began. Against Akos, a supporter of Medvedev, deacon Afanasy, wrote some kind of “Notebook on Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhudov.” 704 This notebook was written in the refectory cell of Sylvester Medvedev. “And he, Ofonasiy, wrote notebooks with forty or more, Elder Arseny showed: and walking people copied them in white: one is called Ivashkom, but I don’t remember the other name... and Elder Semyon, who was in the world, the priest Savva (the Long), gave out those notebooks: and to whom he gave them out, I don’t know.” Sylvester showed that only two notebooks of Athanasius were copied... and those notebooks were written on a Greek book that the Greeks wrote in Moscow 705; Probably, this same notebook is meant when Joachim, in an instructive word at the council of 1690, anathematizes “a notebook written by someone against the Orthodox teachers Ioannikios and Sophronias, all dishonor and slander and blasphemy and lies and slander, filled with and inciting the people to revolt, distributed to many people.” 706 What kind of notebook is this exactly? unknown, but the work “Reproof against the newly hidden wolves (λῦκοι = Likhuds) walking in the robes of hunters has come down to us... in truth, the fighters are called Latins, barbarians, Uniates, dogs and whoremongers.” 707 These newly arrived foreigners, in new schools, teach young boys their morals, the holy semi-monks Ioannikiy and Sophrony... and those new charming notebooks of theirs were translated by their students Nikolai Semyonov, Alexy Kirillov, Feodor Polikarpov, and those notebooks were given to the Great Sovereigns, and others were distributed into the world for the sake of the charm of the people of God.” 708 The Author of the Denunciation in anger showers the Likhuds with selected epithets: Likhuds - “new beauties, mad dogs, dark-shaped foreigners, with their crafty disciples, fierce beasts, nasty bats, blind owls, unclean souls, damned people, new Cains, second Judases, dense (carnal) demons, charming serpents, thieves known to everyone in the church, unrepentant robbers, unrepentant sinners, wolves untamable against Christ’s sheep, fearless destroyers of the holy faith, dirty trickers who want to be saved, God’s enemies, sons of destruction, mentors of darkness.” 709 These foreigners scold the Orthodox Christians as heretics, dogs, beasts and pigs and with all sorts of abusive words because God in our Moscow state did not bless school teaching and they scold the church charter printed under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich. 710 They are foreigners, they talk about the Eucharist, “as if they alone knew what was spoken by the Lord at the secret supper.” 711 But perhaps their reasoning is absurd for another reason: “the boys translated: the teachers of the Slavic language are unskillful, and their students are of no use to the foreign language; Even if they are foreigners and learned, the truth and the truth are great: half a man in a foreign land is half a language.” 712 Then evidence is given in favor of the Latin opinion about transubstantiation. 713 The Likhuds, intentionally or not, considered Medvedev to be the author of this work. 714 The monk Euthymius entitled this work: “Frantically speaking against the holy Eastern Church in the person and name of the Orthodox teachers Ioannikis and Sophronius Likudiev, a most frantic certain nameless person” 715 and indeed, this work was not written at all in the spirit of Sylvester, “a monk of great intellect and sharpness”: it does not show at all the sharpness of a great mind, or special erudition, nor the ordinary gentleness and restraint of Sylvester, a student - let us not forget - who was a Jesuit, according to his opponents, of Polotsk, a very gentle man. 716 The latter quality is especially noticeable, both in the investigative work of Sylvester and in his writings, but the violent character is attributed to Medvedev only on the basis of the essay we are examining. Further, in his repentance, Medvedev does not say a word about this work: he himself. Joachim in 1690, as we have seen, mentions a notebook, “especially written from someone else.” The conclusion itself, something like an appeal to the kings, does not harmonize with the general behavior of Medvedev, who wrote for a few and stood extremely close to the court and Princess Sophia. Therefore, we can already conclude that this answer does not belong to Medvedev, and, probably, is nothing more than the above-mentioned “notebook of Deacon Afanasy.” It was, of course, beneficial for the Likhuds to attribute (and perhaps even compose) a bad essay to their opponent and accuse him of calling for rebellion. Finally, the last and most important proof of the opinion that this work did not belong to Medvedev is that another polemical work against “Akos” came from Sylvester, written in the same year 1688: it would be difficult to admit that he wrote two works of different spirit in a row against one “Akos”. This work is called: “True news to the Orthodox and a bright testimony about the new reign in the Moscow kingdom of the ancient books... and a brief statement about the newly-emigrated foreigners and their wrong about transubstantiation and flattering scriptures to embarrass the faithful. I wrote in the reigning city of Moscow. Spassky Monastery and the builder behind the Icon Row and the printing yard’s director, monk Sylvester Medvedev, in the summer of 7137 (=1688) Centurion.” 717 When talking about the correction of books under P. Nikon, Medvedev points out that the service book of 1665 was corrected according to a “Greek German printed” book, and not at all according to ancient Greek and Slavic books. This is how things went until the council of 1667, when the service book was corrected by the council with a terrible oath against changes. Nevertheless, the hater of the human race, who is truly not worth it, seduced the inspector Euthymius to make his own corrections. Then, aka Euthymius, in 1675, “composed the book The Official of the Bishop’s Ministry,” also with discrepancies against the former, but the book was banned by His Holiness Joachim and other bishops and they put an oath on those who changed its text. Now the same spiritual “those who do not fear and transgress their own oaths do not honor the words of Christ and do not perform worship. And the one who tells them the truth about this inconstancy, as if by doing so they outrage the people, says,” they curse, referring to the words of Christ “you will bind the tree, etc. (Matthew 16:67? 16:19, Mark 18:76 [? so in the text, see p. 158]. Luke 8:51 [?]). 718 These clergy do not exercise about reading, but about acquiring temporary honors and riches; and their desire is not to be able to do a lot, but to be very careful about it, so that they can have a lot.” Joachim himself “neglected his conciliar decree and, as he wished, so decreed and corrected the charter... but as soon as it is corrected, the imams do not know about it... for they keep it for themselves, and do not reveal it as an inspector (which Medvedev himself was).” Speaking about the unrighteousness of some on the issue of transubstantiation, Medvedev notes: “Who asks them where they know this from? answer from the new Greek scientists hieromonks Ioannikis and Sophronius: they will tell you this. Why do they and the Greeks understand this (they themselves are Slovenian, but they don’t understand)? And the defenders of that untruth still speak out, as their disciples who studied with them will tell.” How did the disciples learn without knowing Greek words? “Whoever doesn’t have something himself can give something to someone else?...” The Likhuds pass off their letter of passage from the patriarch as a decree of the patriarch, as if he had sent them to Moscow 719, and even dared to write about this in “the preface of their book, after they wrote a tribute to the great sovereign and Grand Duchess Sofia Alekseevna.” It must be that the Likhuds “are not the essence of Orthodoxy, but from the heretics Luthers or Calvins or from the Romans, in response to the indignation of our Orthodox faith,” 720, or “if they had not been sent from the Turk for the sake of contemplation and sending messages to him. It is dangerous so that they... by confusing the faith then turn it into another faith, about which my disobedience is confirmed by those new-born Greeks or Latin Greeks in the writings (Akos), which they refer to our V.G. and to V.B.G.Ts. and V.K. Sophia Alekseevna and the most holy patriarch of the current 196 year on the holy great day of Pentecost, he offered it in the second week, in it there is much that is false, to one’s own power and credibility to strengthen, one that is unrighteous and to the very word of God and the ancient holy father and a little before that their writings (that is, Akos), with their own advice into the world for the sake of confusion of the faithful The notebooks published about the same transubstantiation (meaning the notebooks delivered to Sylvester by John of Chernigov) are a disgusting and self-disagreeing piece of writing, accusatory of him, even if V.G. Tsars and V.G. Tsarevna command me with the grace of God to write, I still strive to write, as if I were following their sovereign decree and fulfilling their first lies "Tetrat an incriminating book (a righteous answer to the Tetrat, revised into Manna) written by both V. Sovereigns and V.G. Tsarevna... I handed over my book against the word of God to the presumption of the faithful: Healing is opposed to the poisonous sting of a snake... Now I am a sinner, I have nothing to show for the sake of the faithful." Then, after this introduction, comes the essay itself. The foreigners of Likhuda, “having arrived in a foreign state, confuse others with their new teaching.” They have created hatred among people among the Russian people, created disagreement, leading to infighting, discord and rebellion (God forbid from warfare and bloodshed) great reasons have been shown... and with help, their intercessors do not stop doing this, but moreover, day by day and hour by hour, through their various flattering methods, they will multiply between spiritual and worldly people.” Reproaching the Likhuds for the fact that they “affirm to themselves more than all beings who are learned,” Medvedev says: “that they write out the beginning, the middle, the end from the testimony of the fathers,” and then he himself cites the testimonies of John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Irenaeus, Justin the Philosopher, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Alexandria, Eusebius Samosatsky, Ambrose, Ephraim the Syrian, Theophylact of Bulgaria and Nikita of Irakli. “The foreigners, called wolf cubs (λῦκοι - wolves), having realized that their disciples had already completely believed their charming evil, still strive to completely destroy the bows during the priest’s pronouncement of the words of Christ.” Next goes to Joachim and Euthymius, and all the supporters of the Likhuds. “God knows what, for the sake of our spiritual spirits, they love their own charmers, who reproach them in the person (Likhuds pointed out the errors of the Charter, printed under Patriarch Joachim)... and those who are unreasonable and ignorant, love them and are ready to lay down their souls for them, but they do not like the truth about those charmers of Orthodox Christians who speak very much and strive in every possible way for them for those foreigners without Consign any truth to any kind of death or evil imprisonment.” Likhuds are malicious “hoping that no one here in Russia will be able to recognize their charm, even from the below-written epistole (Abbot Innocent of Monastyrsky) 721 is obvious to everyone. And when from Kyiv, from the entire Little Russian Orthodox Church, to expose the vile heresies of their foreigners, a book full of books will be sent for the prescription of all hands, and then all those foreigners’ heresy will be known to everyone who reads that book.” 722 In May of the same 1688, another work of the Latin party appeared, which unfortunately remained inaccessible to us. This is the translation of Gregory Cassander: “The book is the verb church compiler or church expositor. A brief statement has been set forth in advance, as it is fitting for all Christians, and even more so for priests, ministers, and church workers, to diligently venerate the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the holy sacraments with all reverence.” 723 Meanwhile, the opposing party was also not asleep. A new essay from their party was “Demonstration of Truth,” with 60 answers. 724 The responses are directed against the “Densification” (nonsense, too), which is very cleverly attributed to Medvedev. “I filled two notebooks with slander and what do you think when you write? I didn’t expect them to be in my hands.” 725 Medvedev, the alleged author of the Denunciation, “day and night he does not cease disturbing, rebelling... completely overthrowing the church, allowing the forbidden priest to perform sacred acts, like a hieromonk, the forbidden metropolitan of Belograd and another excommunicated elder, Athanasius the deacon, forbidden from the blessed patriarch and forgiving others.” 726 Further, Medvedev scolds the disciples, “and some of the disciples are priests, hierodeacons and monks, and some are princes, bed-riders, stewards”: he does this out of envy, for he himself is not involved in grammar and rhetoric “and would be in a foreign land not only half a man, but shorter than a man’s foot.” Then the essay ends with the accusation to which the alleged Feofan Prokopovich so successfully resorted: “he writes, although he will step on and trample all the power of the royal and church.” 727 In December of the same 1688, Athanasius Archbishop of Kholmogory, later the compiler of the “Shield of Faith,” wrote “The Book of the Orthodox Confession, briefly known, collected from the apostolic and patristic dogmas and writings in the divine and bloodless sacrifice about the transubstantiation of the Body and Blood of Christ.” 728 But not all bishops, like Athanasius, adhered to the opinion of the patriarch and Euthymius. Gabriel Dometsky, 729 one of the later representatives of the Latinists, said that Patriarch Adrian himself, at that time Metropolitan of Kazan, did not bother their (Orthodox) wisdom, but only “showed his face” to Patriarch Joachim. Adrian even seemed to say to Gabriel that Patriarch Joachim was not glad that he had entered into such a matter, and many times, through tears, he complained about Euthymius, the inspector, that “he had egged him on for this, he had egged me on for more than one thing before, and I had suffered.” 730 This testimony deserves credibility also because Adrian really treated Euthymius coldly, and the Shield of Faith itself, equipped, however, with Adrian’s letter and fully prepared for printing, still did not come out. The future Metropolitan of Novgorod Job, then Archimandrite Vysokopetrovsky, also had a sympathetic attitude towards the South Russians. As we know, Dometsky lived with him, and it was not for nothing that Damascene wrote to him in 1704: “your bliss is with these and the calico winds, like a reed, bending and appearing from the eastern part as if retreating, but leaning toward the western.” 731 Probably, Metropolitan Markell of Pskov, who was accused of another southern Russian heresy - the ordination of several persons at once, also felt about this issue. 732 Even earlier, Metropolitan Pavel of Ryazan († September 4, 1686), in 1683, in a letter of instruction to the clergy of his diocese, wrote: “The priest, when he speaks these words: accept, eat, etc. let your whole mind be concentrated in words, so that the bread may be added to the body of Christ and the wine to the blood of Christ.” 733 Euthymius himself, in his “Admonishment to the Priests” (manuscript of the synod. bib. No. 297) attributed transubstantiation to the words of Christ the Savior and only later (manuscript No. 298) corrected his opinion. 734 If we accept that the “Sermon on reverent hearing of the liturgy” (Synod. No. 147 f. 303) belongs to Patriarch Joachim, as its owner, St., wrote in the table of contents of this manuscript. Demetrius of Rostov, it turns out that the patriarch himself once demanded a bow at the words of Christ (the same is in the Charter of 1682. 735 Dometsky, speaking about Evfimievsky Ostn, notes: “I believe that Tikhon, Metropolitan of Kazan (at that time, until 1692, the patriarchal sacristan) has the same book: he also has the same articles, as do Gabriel of Vologda (the accuser of Belobodsky), and Nikita Kolomensky.” The then Archimandrite Novospassky Ignatius Korsakov also belonged here. 736 Doesn't it follow from this that the rest of the higher clergy treated this issue more or less indifferently? Meanwhile, the excitement among the people, thanks, on the one hand, to the ritual side of the issue - bowing and preaching the words of Christ, and the propaganda of both parties, on the other - was spreading more and more. We have already cited the words of Joachim: “everywhere with each other in gatherings, interviews, feasts, temporarily and untimely, both the word about the sacraments, especially about the mystery of the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist... how bread and wine are transubstantiated, and at what time, and with what words.” 737 Pope Savva the Long outraged the people, albeit in their own households, and by propagating the teachings of the Latin party. 738 Many noble people gathered at Sylvester Medvedev's to talk about the words of Christ, his fellow countryman Shaklovity 739, Medvedev's supporters: priest Savva the Long, deacon Afanasy, deacon of the royal chambers Iakov, charter officer Anton Muromets, merchants from the living room hundreds and many archers. 740 Pentecostal Streltsy Nikita Gladkoy said: “We have new teachers, and they don’t tell us to bow down in the words (of Christ), as the Amen is sung. I have something to incriminate: Sylvester the Builder (that is, Medvedev) gave us notebooks (probably one of his works) and a petition will be prepared for us.” 741 Medvedev in conversations used to say about the inspector Euthymius and the sacristan Akinf: “with their holy soul they outrage the Holy Patriarch and talk about bowing to the words of Christ 742 ... And this is no small wonder,” notes Dometsky, “like Euthymius, such a simpleton called to himself the teachers Sophronius and Ioannikios... They were not happy that such a thing was involved They entered and were constantly looking for holes to crawl out into.” 743 The authority of the Likhuds, and indeed the Greeks in general, no longer enjoyed special power among the people. The schism contributed a lot to this by its view of the Greeks as people who had deviated from true Orthodoxy, which was the only thing preserved in Russia. 744 So far, only Patriarch Joachim gave the Greeks an advantage. In September 1688, Medvedev was removed from the post of clerk of the printing house, and Sophrony Likhud was granted 13 arshins by the Great Sovereigns in December of the same year for his many works in the Divine Scripture and for his orations to their state angels. 745 But still at this time, despite these great and rich favors to the Likhuds, and the removal of Medvedev from office, the latter’s position was strong because in the ranks of his party was Shaklovity, and behind him were V.V. Golitsyn and the princess herself, who were at odds with the patriarch. V.V. Golitsyn, as an administrator, has long occupied an honorable place in our history, 746 so we will not talk about his proposal to destroy localism, 747 free the peasants, 748 etc. He was a very educated man for that time, who knew the languages ​​Greek, Latin and German. 749 He was very fond of stone buildings: such as the stone bridge he built, the embassy office and his own house. 750 The latter was built by a Pole monk in Western style, covered with copper and decorated with carpets, globes, maps, statues and paintings. 751 Under Golitsyn there were soldiers dressed in winged armor according to the Polish model. 752 The prince himself was very fond of foreigners, and under him access to Russia was opened to those expelled as a result of the destruction of the Edict of Nantes. 753 In 1683, he dined with the Dutch envoy Keller, asked him about Europe and made a speech about Holland. In the German settlement, the prince was with Elias Tobort and Daniil Hartmann and more than once with Gordon, who, although he cheated on him in 1690, was nevertheless strongly attached to him. 754 Golitsyn even patronized the Jesuits, and they were expelled from Moscow only thanks to his fall. 755 His house housed an extensive library, and in addition he took books from the Ambassadorial Prikaz. 756 The prince also loved Russian history. 757 Joachim and Golitsyn had scores, both personal and party, for a long time. The conservative patriarch, who hated foreigners, did not like Golitsyn, a man very well disposed toward them and generally prone to innovation. The first clash between them was during the Crimean campaigns. The Patriarch “begged and denounced to the commanders, if only heretics, infidels would not be commanders of Christians in the regiments,” but his “noble empress Tsarevna Sofia Alekseevna did not deign to listen to this, and so did Prince Vasily Golitsyn ... do not do this,” and because the apostolic teaching was not obeyed and failure, dishonor, need and losses. 758 Golitsyn wrote from the campaign to Shaklovity: “I am amazed at the patriarchal stupidity, that there is a defect on those vestments and in what likeness, also about my vice? and didn’t you send it to me? then everything is done by the will: if there was less entry (to the top, to the sovereigns), then it would be better.” At first, Golitsyn still trusted the patriarch, obtained a letter from the sovereigns to the Venetian Doge Giustignani for Ioannikiy Likhud (in 1688) 759, and even thought “to beat off Prince M.A. with the patriarch.” Cherkasky,” but time passed and Golitsyn writes: I figured out about the patriarch... (and then two lines in secret writing). 760 The patriarch had also been at odds for a long time with Princess Sophia, a student of Simeon of Polotsk. Since 1682, when choosing Tsars John and Peter, he stood for autocracy, which, of course, was contrary to Sophia’s views. Later the clash between them was even sharper. In 1685, Archimandrite Isaiah, an envoy of the Eastern Patriarchs, was in Moscow. Golitsyn asked the archimandrite to visit him before leaving in order to convey an important assignment to the Eastern patriarchs on behalf of Sophia. Isaiah told this to Joachim; the latter admonished Isaiah not to fulfill this order, which, according to the patriarch, would consist of petitioning the Eastern patriarchs for permission for Sophia to wear the crown and manage affairs. Isaiah visited Golitsyn, but did not say anything about the patriarch’s warning. The boyar ordered Isaiah to inquire about the assigned assignment from the Sevsky governor Leonty Romanovich (it seems Neplyuev). The archimandrite, having arrived in Sevsk, did just that and heard from the governor the same thing that Joachim said. He advised Neplyuev to turn to the Moscow Patriarch: as he blesses, the eastern ones will not contradict. Neplyuev answered: “We are not seeking a blessing or an oath from this patriarch of ours... spit on him!” 761 So things remained. Subsequently, Joachim excommunicated Sophia for her intercession on behalf of some who opposed the kingdom (was it Medvedev?). 762 And now the patriarch cursed Polotsk, the princess’s teacher, reviled the “Crown of Faith” dedicated to Sophia by her teacher, persecuted Medvedev, who wrote poems for the portrait of the princess, a close friend of Shaklovity, in turn the closest person to Golitsyn. From this side, the position of the patriarch was very awkward: it was still unknown whose party would take it: whether the party of the Miloslavskys and the princesses, or the Naryshkins, Bor. Golitsyn and Peter. Yes, and there was turmoil in the church sphere: the schismatics were dully worried after the last disturbance, which ended with the execution of Nikita Pustosvyat. On the Don, priest Kuzemka caused all sorts of splits; the patriarch was accused of Latinism; 763 The Paleoostrovsky monastery (in 1687) was captured by the Pomors, who later burned themselves in it. 764 On the other hand, there were also madmen, like Quirin Kulman, who was burned in 1689 for heresy 765 or Af. Rzhevsky in 1688, who, in the heat of battle with priest Bartholomew, “shed the entire secret of Christ under his feet and trampled under his feet.” And then there are the Jesuits, patronized by Golitsyn, with their schools, which they opened in Moscow 766 and their struggle with the Protestants; 767 unsuccessful Crimean campaigns, unrest in Ukraine due to the imaginary or real betrayal of Samoilovich, the patron and relative of the Kyiv Metropolitan Gideon. Our question also moved there, to Ukraine, and this second phase of its development, no longer on literary, but on ecclesiastical grounds, caused even greater excitement than the first period of the appearance of Latin opinion in Moscow. About the words transformation (μεταβολή) and transubstantiation (μετονσίωσις) and about the views of the churches, see Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche. Berlin. 1872, pp. 225–268. The sources for studying this issue are almost all handwritten. These are individual works by persons of both parties and two collections: “Austen” and “Shield of Faith.” From them, S. A. Belokurov published Medvedev’s essay “True Izvestia” M. 1886 and the editors of Prav. Interlocutor “Austen”, Kazan, 1865. L. N. Maikov’s proposal for the publication of these monuments Archeogr. the commission, unfortunately, has not yet been carried out (Chronicle of the Western Architectural Commission. VIII p. 105), and yet the lists of those works represent large variations. Historical data is in the book “An Icon or Image of the Affairs of the Patriarchal Throne”, most of which was published in the Archive of South-Western Russia, vol. I, part V, Kyiv 1875. As for private research about. Obraztsova, Lyubimova and others, they are listed below. There is also a separate book by G. Mirkovich, About the time of the transubstantiation of St. Darov, Vilna 1886. About her, see my review in Zhur. Min. People. Enlightenment for 1887 No. 5. My article (J.M.N.P. 1885, Oct.), which was included in this chapter in a greatly modified and expanded form, is also devoted to this issue. There is nothing strictly established regarding terminology. The most accurate terms would be the names of the Old Moscow and Little Russian parties. The first is also called Great Russian or Greek, conservative, the second Latinizing, progressive. We use these terms indifferently. Osten. Kazan. 1865, pp. 115–116. Hand. Synod. bib. No. 52 l. 20 rev. Collection State Gram. and Dog. III, 460, Full. Collection Laws I, 48. Testimony of Glavinich, Mayerberg, Warmund, Tanner, Perry. Rushchinsky, Religious life of Russians, according to the information of foreign writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. M. 1871, pp. 67 and 48. In one of the newest, handwritten Old Believer works: History of the Russian Church. An examination of her life and activities in the second half of the 17th and early 18th centuries, an essay by an Old Believer (Theodosius of Kaluga), 1884, on fol. 42, Nikon is accused of the Latin opinion about the transubstantiation of gifts. Indeed, some Latinists referred to the book Tablet published by Nikon. The schismatics' teaching on the Eucharist is generally very vague. Nikita Pustosvyat complained that the Orthodox do not worship the Gifts during the Great Entrance (see “The 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 The Rod, l. 31 rev.). (Additions to the Act. Ist., vol. V, p. 449) Deacon Fyodor, accusing Habakkuk and priest Lazarus of the incorrect teaching about the transubstantiation of gifts at the proskomedia, writes: “I believe” and confess with all church teachers that those offered gifts, bread and wine, are translated into the Body and Blood of Christ by these words of Christ, hedgehog - on the secret the supper said: Take and eat, behold, this is my body. (NB you will take the South Russian form). This work was written no earlier than 1678–79. (Materials for the history of the schism VI, 328). Fyodor the Deacon was familiar with the southern Russian monks (p. 156). Wed. also the evidence of the Tablet, the writings of Habakkuk, etc. (Materials for the history of the schism, vol. VI, and vol. V, pp. 279 and 288). About the possibility of written propaganda of schism and heretical opinions in general, we point out the evidence of the cathedral resolution of 1681–2: “In Moscow, people write in notebooks and on sheets and in columns extracts from the books of Divine Scripture, and sell them at the Spassky Gate and in other places, and in those letters on the books dedicated to the holy churches there are many lies, and the common people not knowing the true scripture, they accept it as truth (Acts of History, vol. V. No. 75, p. 117). On the other hand, the general spread of literacy among the lower stratum of the population of Moscow can be judged from the inventory of the Moscow petty bourgeois settlement of 1677. (Readings of O.I. and D.R. 1860, II): for 634 inhabitants there are five bookbinders (No. 94, 97, 162, 230, 456), a printer of sheets (No. 404), a copyist of lunch translations (No. 434) and a bookseller on the Sacrum (No. 452). In addition, the people also became accustomed to religious disputes at market places: we know how worried they were during the religious debates of 1682, how Nikita Pustosvyat preached on Red Square, how the debates were conducted on Kremlin Square, etc. Norre, Die Epiklesis der griechischen und orientalishen Liturgien. Schaffhausen. 1864, p. 1–5. Almost all the testimony of the church fathers on this subject is given here, and curiously, in the same number as that of our polemicists of the 17th century. Wed. Henke, Die catholische Lehre uber die Consecrationsworte der heiligen Eucharistie. Trier. 1850 and the work indicated by Mr. Mirkovic I. T. Frans, Die eucharistische Wanndlung Würzburg 1877–80. Seredinsky. About the worship of the Western Church. S.-Pb. 1856, pp. 97 and 129. Mirkovic, pp. 26–30. By the way, it is curious that the apostate Metropolitan Isidore held an Orthodox opinion. Macarius. Orthodox. dogma. theology. S.-Pb. 1868, vol. II, pp. 381–386. N οὐσ ί α τοῦ οἴνου μεταβάλλεται εἰς τὴν οὐσ ί αν τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ σ ? ... κατάπεμπον τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἅ γιον ἐφ ᾿ ή μ ᾶ ς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα κ . τ. λ. Μετὰ γὰρ τὰ ῥή ματα ταῦτα ἡ μετουσ ί ωσις παρευθύς γ ί νεται ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΣ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΙΑ. Lipsiae 1695, b. 166–167. Wed. also Austen 1865, pp. 3–15. The Liturgiarion of 1629 was approved by the Council of Hierarchs. S. T. Golubev. Peter (Tomb) K. 1882 I, p. 373. Instance Imp. P. Library, 1637. Wed. Pekarsky, Science and Literature under Peter V., II, 356. The printed edition is known only at the direction of Maksimovich (Vremennik O.I. and D.R. 1849, I, 3, p. 10). Rus. Histor. Library vol. IV., St. Petersburg. 1878, p. 38. The council was also convened to correct damaged customs. Monuments published. times commis. at Kievsk. gen.-lip. Kyiv 1848, vol. I, dep. I, page 154. In “The Truthful Messiah” by Galatovsky. Kyiv, 1669, l. 237 vol., 238, the Jew asks: “At what hour is the Body of Christ cut for bread and the Blood of Christ cut for wine? Christian... The priest celebrates the Divine Liturgy, where he says these words of Christ: You will receive, you will eat, etc... at that hour the word of the Body of Christ is cut from bread... This place was not meant by N.F. Sumtsov, who in his essay: “John of Galatovsky” (K. 1885, p. 28), assumed that the latter expressed the Moscow, that is, Orthodox opinion on transubstantiation. Here is a list of them according to various sources: Joachim’s instructive word at the council of 1690 of S. Polotsk: Catechism, Crown of Faith, Psalter (M. 1680), Lunch (M. 1681), Supper (M. 1683), Sermon on reverent standing in the church, Great Breviary (K. 1646). Service book: Kyiv, Vilna (1617 et seq.), Stryatin (1604). Cyril Tranquillion: Explanatory Gospel (1619), Mirror of Theology (1618), Pearl of Great Value (1646). Catechism (Graves) (K. 1645), (his) in Polish. Stone (Λιθος) (1644). Peace with God (K. 1669). Trumpets of words (K. 1674). Key of Understanding (L. 1665). Spiritual Sword (K. 1666). The truthful Messiah (K. 1669). Kossova on the seven mysteries (Didascalia) (1668). Output (1653). (Austen, pp. 131–144). Shield of Faith. III Conversation of Joachim, Great Breviary (K. 1646). Peace with God (K. 1669). Key of understanding. (L. 1665). Messiah the Truthful. (K. 1669). Spiritual Sword. (K. 1666). Tubes of words. (K. 1674). Fence. (K. 1676). A heartfelt dinner. (M. 1683). Lunch is soulful. (M. 1681). Kirill Tranquillion. Learned. Rahm. (1619). Catechism of Kossow. Exegesis, his own. Catechism of the Grave. K. 1645, his own, in Polish. Word of Simeon of Polotsk about reverent standing in the church. Discourse on the Church (1668). Catechism from Lithuanian. Stone. Dinner. The crown and many other ovations have already been published in type, but the ovaries are prescribed by the inexperienced and scattered among the people. (Rukop. Academician Sciences, No. 12 l. 130–182; Description handwritten synod. bib. II, 3, p. 614; Stroev. Bible Dictionary, 127) This very curious question, of course, could be completely resolved only if all the data was extracted from the detailed inventories of all monasteries and all scribe books, which is currently hardly possible for one person. Regarding the incompleteness of the work, we note that we have to make here almost the first experiment, if we do not count the attempt of our benefactor N.D. Chechulin in the Bibliographer of 1888, pp. 350 and 373, of a similar study in the history of ancient Russian literature, with a far from brilliant preparation of the material. It is customary for us to study literary works mainly from the depth of their ideas, and not from the breadth of their distribution among the reading masses. Thurs. General East. and Ancient Ross. M. 1847, No. VII, p. 2. Histor. bib. Tver diocese, I, pp. 38–40. Zhiznevsky. Antiquities of the Krasnokholmsky St. Nicholas Monastery (Tver province) M. 1876, pp. 7 and 8. Orthodox Interlocutor 1859, V, p. 82. Known Imp. Arch. General IV, 567. Right Review 1887, I, 151. Maksimovich. Op. III, 698. Rights. Review 1887 I, 151. Archive of history. and practical information rel. to Russia. St. Petersburg 1863 book V, dep. 11 page 33. Thurs. General East. and Ancient Ross. M. 1848 (VI, pp. 1–44). Palace ranks t. I column. 980. Izvestia Imp. Archaeol. General III, p. 359. Viktorov. Inventory of the patriarchal sacristy 1633, chapter XXVI No. 68, 69, 127, 73, 128 (Right Review 1887; I p. 151). Orthodox Review 1887, p. 153. Izvestia Imp. Archaeol. General V, 151. In hand Moscow Spirit. Academician No. 178 there is a list of this work with the entry “this book was copied in the Yakut prison from a book that was bought in Moscow in 149 (1641) from the Intercession from the Most Holy One of Kozhevniki, from the sexton Ivan Ivanov.” For interesting details, see the above-mentioned article by Mr. Kapterev - (Prav. Review 1887, I p. 154 et seq.), which we used below. Karataev. Description of Slavic Russian books, volume I, St. Petersburg. 1883, no. 563, 641 and 648. Karataev, pp. 348 and 350, indicates this one edition and calls Undolsky’s instructions (No. 222 and 226) erroneous. Moscow edition. 1648 he has under number 637. List or translation? Barsov Description. Vygoleksinsk. bib. St. Petersburg 1874, No. 185 Wed. hands Moscow Spirit. Academician No. 83 and Tolstoy, II No. 172. Kapterev (p. 164) mentions the southern Russian singers Ivan Berezhansky and Mikhail Bykovsky, “who, by decree of V.G., were ordered to write your V.G. work: the book Stone.” Compare p. 84 above. Gorchakov. About the secret of marriage in St. Petersburg. 1880 Kapterev, p. 161. Karataev No. 661. Shlyapkin. Description of the manuscripts of the Suzdal Spasoevthymius Monastery in St. Petersburg. 1881, p. 65. Stroev. Description books by Tsarsky M. 1836 p. 293. Yakovlev. Ancient Kiev religious legends. Warsaw, 1875, p. 54. Yakovlev. Ancient Kiev religious legends. Warsaw, 1875, p. 46. Dobrovsky. Grammar. St. Petersburg 1833, pp. LVIII. Chistovich History of Bible translation into Russian I St. Petersburg. 1873 p. 16. Stroev Description of Tsarsky's books M. 1836, p. 313. Library of the Trinity Kalyazin Monastery. Monastery Documents, Book III No. 271. Acts of Yu. and Z. Ros. X, 118. Moscow liked the Kiev fonts so much that in 1669 they offered Gisel to print the Acts of the Apostles in Kiev and included an estimate, but he refused, citing the small size of the presses. Acts of Yu. and Z. Ros. VIII, no. 33–83. Acts of Yu. and Z. Ros. VIII, ;No. 88. Ivanov. Description state digit archive M. 1842, p. 369 (the speech of the abbot was printed). Sumtsov. Laz. Bar. page 112. Sumtsov. Lazar Baranovich X. 1885 p. 53. Acts of Yu. and Z. Ros. XII, no. 12. Rus. East. Bible Vol. V St. Petersburg. 1878, p. 760. Hand. Kiev-sof. personal No. 2 (208). Russian historical Library vol. V, St. Petersburg. 1878, p. 769. Notes of the Russian department. and Slavic archaeologists Imp. Arch. General St. Petersburg 1851, vol. I, pp. 151–152. Temporary Ob. East. and others Ross. vol. XXVI, pp. 68–69. Read General East. and others Ross. M. 1847 V, p. 17. Vremnik O.I. and D.R. vol. V, mixture pp. 65–72. Read General East. and others Ros 1884, I, no. from hands. Barsova. Acts of South. and Zap. Ross. XII, 623, Add. IX, 1 Wed. Stroev. Bible Sl. 185. The guide Joel is mentioned in the Diary of St. Demetrius around 1682 Readings by O.I. and D.R.M. 1887, I, V pp. 11–34. Tikhonravov. Vladimir collection M. 1857, p. 57. Mansvetov. How we edited church books. M. 1883, p. 10. Readings General East. and Ancient Ross. 1861, II, 24. It is curious that his drawings even found their way into icon painting: such is the 1710 icon of the Ascension of the Cross from the book “The Sword of the Spirit”. Spitsyn. Catalog of antiquities of the Vyatka region. V. 1881, p. 53. The psalter is rhyming. List of 1685. And the notes on the rhymes were laid down by the command of the most pious great sovereigns of our tsars and the great princes Ioann Alekseevich and Peter Alekseevich of all V. and M. and B. Russia, autocrats through composition, that is, through the creation of Their Royal Most Illustrious Majesty.... the singing clerk Vasily Titov. East. statistician description Tikhvinsk. Mother of God monastery St. Petersburg 1859, in 8° p. 105. Izvestia Imp. Arch. t. General IV, pp. 25–40. Moscow Arch. M.I.D. certificates are small. No. 408 (433)-410 (435). Vestn. Archaeol. and Histories 1885, II, pp. 20 and 32. Moscow Arch. Min. In. Deeds of literacy are small. No. 414 (399). On the destruction of customs between Great and Little Russia, see Complete. Collection Laws II, No. 1036. Shchebalsky The reign of Princess Sofia 82. Moscow Arch. M.I.D., gr. small No. 413 (398). Vostokov. Description Room. museum. St. Petersburg 1842, p. 632. Pekarsky. II, 17 Yakhontov. Russian preacher of the 17th century. St. Petersburg 1883 pp. 7–9. Known Imperial Arch. General vol. V, pp. 183, 184, 187–189. Titov. Chronicle of Dvinsk. M. 1889, p. 52. Rumovsky. Description of the Veliky Ustyug Assumption Cathedral. Vologda 1862, p. 125. Known Them. Arch. General IV, p. 347. Rozhdestvensky. Histor. description of the Serpukhov Vladychny Monastery. M. 1866, p. 48. Tikhonravov. Vladimir collection. M. 1857, pp. 142 and 154. Moscow Arch. Min. In. Things to do are small. St. 75, no. 48. Moscow Arch. Min. In. Dela dela mal., sv. 76, no. 61. Moscow Arch. Min. In. Delo dela Malor., St. 77, no. 80. Hand. Kiev-Sophia Cathedral No. 364, l. 439. Hand. Synod. collection neper. IV, l. 147. On February 26, 1690, Athanasius arrived in Kholmogory with a rod, “it was presented and blessed by His Holiness Joachim, Patriarch of Moscow,” and the rod was given to Joachim himself from Patriarch Joseph, to whom it in turn was sent by Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Titov. Chronicle of Dvinsk. M. 1889, p. 53. Titov. Chronicle of Dvinsk. M. 1889, pp. 62, 72, 120. Hand. Synod. Bible No. 387 l. 35. Here is the content of his extremely curious petition: “I spent all my years from the first age to the age of forty in the darkness of ignorance... but now I have learned from the truly leading believers.” Alexey asked for ordination to the priesthood, “so that I would not suffer any kind of violence from non-brotherly lovers, unless I can suppress the barking”... “In our and in the surrounding places of the sacred order, church teachers and rulers, leaders and clergy leaders, elders and our lords, together with our brethren of this kind, the grace-filled appropriation to themselves, do not heed the enlightenment of glory God,... and so much darkened, as some foolish and lacking in mind dishonor punishment and forbid seeking teachings... from representatives even to the lesser ones they are busy with wealth, they envy, they hate, they are at enmity... some, who are not called upon, enter the rank of teachers and bark (?) in every wind of self-teaching, is disgusting truth, and they call everything that is new, but what is new and what is ancient cannot be understood through contempt and vanity... ignorant priests or Pharisees... Seeing these disorders, Alexei demands from the Tsar's Majesty and the entire church council better governance in spiritual matters and the conversion of the barbarians to Christianity, and so will our brethren. We learn his name from the acrostic poem placed on the page. 158, in the petition “the name is hidden.” We quote ll. 25, 29, 4, 13, 30, 45. In addition to the Dinner and Supper of Simeon of Polotsk, the author refers to the vocabulary of Pamva Berynda (l. 5), the Rod of Government (l. 33) and Uvet (l. 37). Thurs. General East. and others Ross. 1861, II, 24. Tikhonravov, Vladim. collection. M. 1857, p. 55. Pekarsky, Science and Liter. under P.V. t. II, 16. It also appears in the manuscripts: Weather. No. 1194-17th century, Tsars. No. 450 l. 144. Bagalei, Materials for the history of colonization and life of the steppe outskirts of the Moscow state. Kharkov 1886, p. 176. Archive of history. and practical related information to Russia book. IV. St. Petersburg 1859, 15, pp. 23–24. Macarius, Description Novg. dormitory Yuryeva Mon. St. Petersburg 1862, p. 73. Sakharov, Historical. described. Suzd. Spasoevfim. mon. Vladimir on Klyazma 1878, p. 95. Smirnov, Historical. described. Savvin-Starozhevsky Monastery. M. 1877 pp. 73–74. Rus. East. Bible vol. V. pp. 749–750 and 757–758. Stroev, Bible. words 306 (list of new seminars). Other lists of I.P.B.Q, I No. 591 and Pogodin No. 1196 (Simeon of Thessaloniki interpretation on fol. 289 vol.). Solovetsky, General. Histor. and Ancient No. 160, where an excerpt from the Supper of Polotsk is attached. Hand. I.P.B.Q I No. 478; Und. No. 631 (translation marked 1678) Trekhletova Yar. Lip. Ved. 1855, p. 212; Belyaeva No. 57 (1568); General East. and others Ross. No. 60 and 61; Tsarskogo No. 138; Archaeogr. Comm. No. 200; Kaz. Univ. No. 21385 and 21393 l. 12 rev. Thick. II, 352 (Q,. I, 361 l. 1–227) Vyazemsky Q. No. 276; Veliky Ustyug Assumption Cathedral No. 22; non-Orthodox passages from it (miracles 12–15 and 18) to the Synod. Sat. non-rep. I l. 192 (extract, probably from the monk Euthymius). Lists: Archaeogr. comm. No. 132; Piskareva No. 101; Khludova No. 231; Und. No. 398; Tolstoy No. I, 187 II, 22, 27, 233, 250, 352, V, 31, 79. Solovetsky (four copies) Tsar No. 440 l. 70 and 450 l. 42. Shlyapkina No. 45 sp. 1722. Buslaev Essays II, 54. Hand. Thick. I, 236 l. 316. Now this manuscript is in Moscow. Publ. Blush. Museum No. 2982. Macarius XII, 132, 27. Materials for the history of the schism 1, 20–26. Gorskiy II, 3, pp. 172 and 252. Vestn. Arch. and East. 1885, II, p. 46. Und. No. 420 and 421. Khludova No. 96. Tsarsk. No. 35. In the library of St. Petersburg. spiritual Academy A. S. Rodossky indicated the edition of 1667, almost the only copy. Christ. Reading 1879 No. 7–8, p. 225. No. 27. In Akos (Imper. P.B.F.I, No. 186, l. 126) the Kiev edition of 1667, the month of July is mentioned. The latest edition is known at the direction of Sopikov, I, no. 205. Chudovsk No. 381 Und. No. 495 and No. 654, l. 682 (list of 1714 from Little Russian text). Described. hands syn. bib. II, 3, p. 420, no. 288 (649). Probably it is also hidden under the title “Interpretation of Church Services” by Simeon of Thessaloniki, translated by Theodosius, Archimandrite of Iveron, for Pitirim, Metropolitan of Novgorod (cf. p. 32). Hand. Synod. No. 452, l. 13 rev. By the Polish kingdom we must mean Ukraine, in which there were enough churches and Catholics during Polish rule. In general, given P. Joachim’s dislike for schools, the young men got a lot of trouble from him. Before the campaign of 1687, Euthymius prepared a lesson for the patriarch. In it, denouncing the drunkenness and free-thinking of young people, he says: “noble and simple young men... from the thorns of tobacco and the slander of Luthor, Calvin and other heretics, fools... they say: what is this rite in the church... a man has done this, without it he can live powerfully... Such a young man barely learns the names or words of the holy books, and already teaches the bishops, He rules both priests and monasteries, and strives to command all people and establish church rites. (Gorsky II. p. 258). Osten. ll. 124. 125. 126; Description of the manuscript. syn. bib. II, 3, pp. 431–433. Joachim's instructive word at the council of 1690 from Osten, handwritten. Imp. P.B.Q.I. No. 334. l. 11 rev., Weather. No. 1227; Austen, 125; Description p. With. b., II, 3, p. 432. About the Latinity of Ligarida. See Art. Lavrovsky in Christ. Readings 1889, no. 11–12, p.672. G. Mirkovic points out “La pérpétuité de la foi de l'eglise Catholique, touchaut l'eucharistie Paris. 1669. XII, p. 68 et 75. Cp. Sainte Beuve. Port Royal, t. V Paris 1878 p. 352. This debate was published in Ostna (p. 71. Gorky II, 3, p. 428). Although its authenticity is partly confirmed by the fact that in the Kyiv Lavra manuscript of the works of Epiphanius there is the same debate (Tr. Kyiv. Dukh. Ak. 1861, X, p. 176 art. Pevnitsky), but it seems to me somewhat doubtful, especially in view of the existence of the work of Euthymius (collected syn. neper. V l. 376-386) on the same issue, compiled “from the words written and spoken by Epiphanius Slavinetsky (Gorsky II, 3, p. 445). L. N. Maikov, in his hitherto best monograph on Simeon of Polotsk (Ancient and New Russia, 1875), does not touch upon this circumstance. G. Tatarsky (Simeon Polotsky M. 1886), and his fervent critic G. Ya. (Personality and activities of Sim. Pol. K. 1887) recognize the authenticity of the debate. After these works, we have nothing to say about Orthodoxy and the high importance of Simeon of Polotsk. Just read the review of Bishop Damascus Rudnev (1737–1795). Russian Library (Memorial of Dr. Letters 1881, No. XI, p. 87) about the sermons of Polotsk: “Simeon of Polotsk was a highly trained man. His sermons contained in books for the whole year are so good that even now, with the correction of words, they are not inferior to the best preachers.” A serious study about the sermons of Polotsk belongs to V. Popov Simeon of Polotsk as a preacher. M. 1886. Polotsk’s Latin opinion on transubstantiation is given, see page 58 (Spiritual Suppers, l. 8). Polotsk, in general, did not enjoy the love of the spiritual, especially the higher ones. He directly blamed the depravity of society on the inability and negligence of the spiritual fathers: they do not teach and instruct their spiritual children, and he wrote to the bishops: The bishop would like to attribute the image to those who exist in grace, If only I could teach the truth But also to be an image for everyone to live a holy life, Letters of Lazar Baranovich 53, 16, 32, 39, 43, 51, 64, 87 Acts of South and West Russia IV, 41. Persuading the schismatics in 1667, Polotsk expressed himself by recognizing their merits: “sharpness, sharpness of the bodily mind, and dashing stubbornness, but this does not subtract from science.” (Letop. Russian Lit. and Ancient. V, 116). This gentleness is especially curious in that era when schismatics were burned in log houses. His biography was written in an apologetic spirit by Fr. Smirnov in the book Joachim P. Moskovsky M. 1881, where, however, much is taken from Solovyov. Another source, unknown to Fr. Smirnov, Life of Patr. Joachim, ed. O. L. D. P. edited by N. P. Barsukov. Biographical information is also important, of course, Deacon Fyodor’s is extremely biased. Materials for history Schism vol. VI, pp. 226–229. St. Petersburg 1879. (No. XLVII) Wed. comments by Mr. Belov (J.M.N.P. 1887, No. 1 and 2, separate issue, pp. 4–9). By the way. Deacon Fyodor - Rostov (Mat. for the history of the schism, vol. VI, p. 226). Fyodor the deacon says that Joachim took a haircut from his living wife, in view of her behavior and the ridicule of his comrades. Petition (April 1657) to Elder Joachim of Mezhigorsk, that his secret dress was all worn out. Acts of South and West Russia III, 602. About Joachim’s stay in Iversky metro station, see Rus. Histor. Bible vol. V. St. Petersburg. 1878, p. 276 (Sept. 1657). Ustryalov, East. Petra Vel. I, 28. Materials for the history of the schism, V, M. 1879, p. 157. Acts Arch. Exp. IV, 284. Theiner (Monuments p. 295) says that in 1685, before Easter, Joachim burned 90 people in log houses in Moscow. If we talk about the views of that era, we will recall Lazar Baranovich, whose Vetkovites lived very peacefully in Starodubya, without causing any persecution. Smirnov. Histor. Essay by Small. diocese. St. Petersburg 1864, p. 94. Soloviev XIII, 146, 227–228. Andrei Savinovich, archpriest of Blagoveshchensk (isn’t he a South Russian?), being the confessor of Alexei Mikhailovich, baptized Peter the Great (Zabelin. Experiences I, 2), was in close relations with Nikon (Soloviev XIII, 232, Inventory of the books of the Resurrection. Mon. see above) and was apparently a very educated person and a lover of book veneration. He copied Belsky's Cosmography with a map and various images (Bauze No. 281) and Olympiodor's Interpretation of the Book of Job (directed in 1672 in the Veliky Ustyug Cathedral). Deacon Fedor writes about him: he (Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich) did not have a good mentor then, because his confessor Andrei, the enemy of Christ, was a Uniate and a fornicator (Materials for historical races. VI, 246). Soloviev, XIII, 229–232. Smirnov. Joachim p. M. pp. 51–59. Life of P. Joachim pp. 38, 49–50. Gordon's Tagebuch II, 297. Life pp. 120–121, 124, 135–136. Soloviev XIII, 303 and Smirnov Patriarch Joachim p. 58 refer to Tatishchev Ros. Histories I, 573. Perhaps this project was in connection with the projected division of Russia into governorships, which Joachim fought so hard against. The biography of S. Medvedev was written by V. M. Undolsky and placed in General Readings. East. and others Ross. M. 1846 (Cf. Solovyov XIV, 88–127), but is already outdated and is being replaced by a detailed biographical sketch, written according to new data by S. A. Belokurov when he published “News of the True Orthodox and the Light Testimony about the New Book Rule” by Sylvester Medvedev in the Readings of O. I. and Others. Ross. 1886, I and separately. I am pleased that the publisher, when distributing literary material on this issue, agrees with my conclusions and the chronology I established in my article (J. M. N. P. 1885, X, 210–252). Add. to the works of St. Fathers 1862, vol. XXI, pp. 569–614, article by Pr. Subbotin about Yan Belobodsky and Pavel Negrebetsky. Wed. Soloviev XIII, 388. Thurs. General East. and others Ros. 1884, III (Monuments to the history of Protestantism in Russia by D. Tsvetaev, No. 20). This is our opinion about the beginning of the controversy. Animal bread is placed in front of Akos in a rukop. Academician Sciences F. No. 26, in itself does not contain anything polemical and is not mentioned either in the abdication of Sylvester, or in Akos, or in all subsequent polemics. The latter circumstance has led some researchers to consider Animal Bread and Manna of Animal Bread to be the same work. Rukop. Ak. Sciences F. No. 26 l. 2 rev.; Hand. Moscow arch. m. in. No. 322 (702). Synod. No. 440 l. 125. Blush. No. 482, Description r. With. b., II, 3, p. 470; Stroev, Bible. Dictionary, page 244. Hand. Ak. N.F. No. 26. l. 7, vol.; Description r. With. b., II, 3, p. 469. This opinion coincides with the opinion of the schismatics; see Materials for the history of the schism, vol. IV. Smirnov, History of Moscow. Slavic-Greco-Latin. acad. M. 1855, pp. 22–23. Zabelin. Materials for history arch. Art. city ​​of Moscow, p. 393. In the privilege of the academic Tsar Theodore Alekseevich (no doubt, now altered at the insistence of P. Joachim), it was forbidden to assign immigrants from the Lithuanian countries and Little Russia to the academy as teachers “for the sake of the fact that first such people appear, supposedly completely pious, and then little by little the depraved words of faith and the integrity of these integrity are tormented” (Ancient Russian. Vifl. Part VI, p. 206). This rule, of course, partly fell on Sylvester, a native of the Kursk province and a great friend of the South Russians. Soloviev. XIII, 303–4. Hand. Synod. bib. No. 440 l. 123. See the above testimony from Akos about the sale of the Display in Moscow in squares at a cheap price. I think that these notebooks are nothing more than an essay written by Euthymius, with the help of Likhudov: “Refutation of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation” (Synod. non-trans. collection V, l. 376–385). G. Mirkovich (p. 91) considers it a separate work from the notebooks, which appeared when Medvedev began to write a large work, “The Manna of Animal Bread,” which included a refutation of the work of Euthymius (Syn. neper. collection, VIII, l. 109–484). But on l. 375 collection V, before the work of Euthymius, it is written: Notebooks to the holy church from troublemakers: and the word of God, as even now, is omnipotent in the transubstantiation of unbelievers... the unskilled people of the Divine Scriptures were released, but to me from Archpriest John of Chernigov in the month of November on the day of summer [zrchs] (1687, and not 1685 like G. Mirkovich) brought, the righteous answer was given to them by the unworthy monk Sylvester Medvedev. Next (l. 376) comes the above-mentioned work of Euthymius. On them, Medvedev, at the behest of Princess Sophia, writes “The righteous answer in notebooks to the holy church from the troublers and the word of God, as if even now there is omnipotence in transubstantiation, the unbelievers are cunning and unrighteous to deceive the Orthodox people by the unskillful from the nameless one, written and secretly released into the Russian people (Stroev, Biblical words. points to the hand. Synod. No. 452, and in the coll. V l. 375 only one sheet 375). Therefore, I assume that this answer is precisely “Manna of the bread of the living”, and the righteous answer is only rough, preparatory work for “Manna”. This opinion is also confirmed by other data. Most of the Manna (l. 109–484) is nothing more than a refutation of the work of Euthymius, phrase by phrase. In another essay, “True News,” p. 38 Medvedev says that the Likhuds in Akos wrote an unrighteous word of God “and a little before that, their writings, by their own advice into the world for the sake of confusion of the faithful, published about the same transubstantiation, a nasty notebook, and a scribble that does not agree with itself” and writes an incriminating note to Akos “as if behind their state decree and on their first, lies filled with notebooks I wrote an incriminating book and handed it to the great sovereign and the blessed great empress princess.” Meanwhile, there is not a word about this book or “answer” either in Medvedev’s repentance, or in the Shaklovity case, or in the story about Medvedev, and there is also no refutation of the “Answer” in polemics, then there certainly would have been; in addition, “Manna of the Bread of Animals” was written in the year 7196 from the birth of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, 1687 November: it is difficult to imagine that S. Medvedev simultaneously wrote two works against the “Tetrates of Euthymius”. Finally, in Ostna, page 97, in his repentance, Medvedev writes: I also sinned in the same book of Manna and answering writing to the notebook of the descriptor as... Investigations about Theodore Shaklovit. T. I. S.-Pb. 1884, pp. 544–545. Wed. Aristov, Moscow Troubles during the reign of Princess Sofia Alekseevna. Warsaw. 1871, p. 138. Smirnov, Joakim P. Moskovsky. M. 1886. p. 121. Mirkovich, pp. 94–109, where two authors of “Manna” are mistakenly named, which is why Mr. Mirkovich refused the dispute. The Manna itself is presented in great detail, and we will not dwell on it. Researchers disagree on the assessment and chronological placement of Manna and Akos. Father Obraztsov (Kyiv scientists in Great Russia. Epoch 1865 I, p. 23) and from. Smirnov (Readings of the General. Lub. Spiritual Enlightenment 1880, V p. 583. and separately Joachim P. Moscow M. 1881 p. 121) recognize “Akos” as written against “Manna” and prove that 1) in both works there is an analysis of the word μεταρυθμίζειν, 2) The Likhuds call their opponent the one who uttered a mocking and most inappropriate thing (at the end of “Akos”), and this is Manna and 3) the opponent is called a student of the Uniate, which is usually attributed to G.G. Medvedev. Smelovsky (Likhud Brothers J.M.H.P. 1845 vol. XLV p. 43) and Lyubimov (Struggle between representatives of the Great Russian and Little Russian trends in Great Russia at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries J.M.N.P. 1875, VIII, p. 148) consider Akos to be directed against “Manna” and “Display”. G. Mirkovic (109 - 110) quite correctly believes that Akos and Manna were written at the same time, but not all of Manna was released, and that is why at the end of the book about Manna there is an additional refutation of some places in Akos, and in Akos there is no mention of Manna. This simultaneity is evident from the very title of the works “Akos or healing opposed to the poisonous remorse of the serpent from the most verbal and wisest teachers and theologians of St. The Eastern and Apostolic Churches of Christ and the preachers of the sacred gospel Ioannikios and Sophronios, the hieromonks and self-brothers of the Lykudievs from the glorious island of Cephalonia in the outline of a discourse (in the form of a dialogue) for the common benefit and healing of the wounds of the unjust about the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which was transmitted from Hellenic to the Slavic dialect by Nicholas Simeonov, Alexy Kirillov and Feodor Polikarpov, students of the above-mentioned teachers for the glory of the Lord in the summer [akhpz] (1687) Decembria on [gi] (13) day [Ruk. I. P. B. E. I No. 186 l. 49, Q I, no. 334; Moscow synod. bib. No. 299 (440), 300 (439). 301 (645); Moscow Publ. Museum No. 45 and 484. Undols. No. 482; Moscow Arch. M.I.D. No. 421 (701); Vygolex. No. 167, Khludova No. 98, Kievsk. Laurels No. 132]. The book “Manna of Animal Bread” was written “in the year from the creation of the world 7196, from the birth in the flesh of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ in the month of November 1687” (directed by M. Syn. Bible No. 436, coll. neper. VIII, Stroev Bibl. Words. 244–45). Already from this we can conclude that it is unlikely that in the period of time from November to December 13th it was possible to have time to write and translate “Akos”; this simultaneity explains in turn the note of St. Demetrius, who, having cited the title of a book recently published in Moscow by Greek teachers... read... fate (1687) “healing opposite” and, having made extracts from it, then cites the title of Sylvester Medvedev’s book “Answering the Greek: a book about the manna of animal bread” and numerous extracts from it. (Manufacturer of the Synod. Bible No. 146 l. 191 et seq. - autograph of St. Demetrius. Compare also No. 187 l. 21). Hand. I. P. B. E. I. No. 186 l. 50 hours 126. Gorsky II. 3 pp. 462–463. In the word “medvenitsa” one hears, on the one hand, an allusion to the titles of Kyiv books like “The Crown of Christ”, “The Pearl of Great Value”, etc., on the other hand, a play on words with the name of Sylvester Medvedev. Akos consists of 21 questions and answers, a preface and a superword. In question 16, the student asks the teacher about the book Exposition of Simeon of Thessalonites, published in Kyiv in 1667 (Ruk. I. P. B. E. I. No. 186 l. 126). Of course, this most inquisitive young man, who so often asked Likhudov about various theological questions, in no way can be, as Fr. Smirnov, Medvedev, a middle-aged man, builder of the Zaikonospassky Monastery. The Likhuds at this time diligently served the patriarch. On the 28th day of December they came to St. to the patriarch in the chamber of the cross, school teachers, Greek hieromonks Ioannikios and Sophronius, who teach students Greek studies at school, with students. And they said St. the students gave congratulatory speeches to the Patriarch, and St. Patriarch of the Greek teachers hieromonks Ioannikis and Sophronia granted a monetary dacha, and their disciples St. the patriarch granted the prince. Alexei, Prince Borisov's son Golitsyn 3 gold (NB supporter of the Naryshkin Party). Timofey and Peter Timofeev, the Savelov children (relatives of the patriarch?) 2 gold pieces each, Konstantin Litvinov, Ivan Musin Pushkin, Ivan.... Pyotr Postnikov, Nikita Semenov, Fyodor Perevozchikov, Ivan Alekseev, a total of 7 people 1 gold piece each (Arch. Min. Justice. Patriarch. Kaz. income. expenditure book of 1687 No. 128 l. 139). On the 27th day of December they came to St. to the patriarch in the cross chamber of the Greek school, the Greek teachers, hieromonks Ioannikios and Sophronius, with their disciples and in the cross chamber glorified Christ with Greek chant and before St. Patriarch the students spoke in Latin and Slovenian about R. X. many speeches. And St. the patriarch granted the teachers a monetary dacha, and their students Pyotr Posnikov - 3 gold pieces, Nikolai Semenov, Fyodor Polikarpov, Alexey Kirillov each in gold and an efimka, Fedot Ageev, Fyodor Gerasimov, Karp Fedorov, Andrey, for a total of 9 efimkas and 6 gold pieces. Gold and efimki in the prepared papers of St. The treasurer, Elder Paisiy of Siysky, brought it to the patriarch. And the other disciples of St. the patriarch granted him a monetary dacha. (Ibid. Pacx. book 1691 No. 144 l. 142. Reported by V. G. Druzhinin). At first, Euthymius was not at all such a Latinophobe as he later became: he himself used the Polish Bible, Latin editions in his works, consulted with Polotsk, etc. (Gorsky Description, syn. book. III, 67). Now he condemns all Latin books without exception, and forbids the use of the Polish Bible: in all Latin books and in Polish, without heresy there is no heresy and without opposition, our church is not found, in some it is revealed, and in others it is hidden and insidious. (Ibid. III p. 64). The remark is correct, only regarding the main dogmatic differences. Hand. A.N.F. No. 12 l. 15 rev. Soloviev XIV. 90; Aristov, XXXIX, cites the testimony of the Shield of Faith (Rumyants. Museum No. 571), which mentions the forbidden deacon Athanasius, “a proper satanic servant.” The same goes for hand-to-hand. Academician Sci. F. No. 12 l. 15. Rozys. cases about Shaklovit I, 675. Investigation cases, I, 555 and 504, 629 and 637. (675?). Osten, p. 146. G. Smelovsky (p. 44) attributed it to Medvedev, since nothing was known about Afanasy. Also S.K. Smirnov in his History of the Moscow Greco-Latin Academy, p. 27. Obraztsov, Kiev scientists in Great Russia (Epoch 1865, I, p. 22). Hand. I. P. B. Pogodina, No. 1227 l. 46. ​​Novg. (St. Petersburg. Spirit. Ak.) No. 1203 (20). Hand. I. P. B. Pogodina, No. 1227 l. 46 rev. Ibid. l. 51. vol. - without tongue. O. s. r. II, 3, 467. Links are given to Sobornik, l. 559; Evang. conversations from John 391 ; Apostle conversation 2556; Small Catechism 32; Kyiv Great Consumer, III, 238; Peace with God 118; Rod of government 41; Tablet III, IV, 466. 476, 456; Everyday Gospel 212; Messiah 238. Cyril. Jerus. 199; Evang. Kirill. 83; Psalter of traces. 1640, 598 and other exits; Eagle. 433; John of Damascus IV, 14; Charter l. 58. Bishop's official 122; Supper spirit. II, 12; Notebooks that were printed in [rpv - 182] f. 1. (Manuscript Weather No. 1227 l. 55) et seq. “Wasn’t it he (the author of the denunciation) who, before our passing, prayed during the blessed memory of Tsar Feodor Alekseevich, the most powerful autocrat, to build an academy?” they say in their answer (Gorsky II, 3 p. 466), and, indeed, Sylvester, as we know, worked hard about this. Ibid p. 517; Readings General l. etc. 1880, V, p. 588, O. Smirnov suggests that this title was given by Sophrony Likhud, who also wrote a response to it, but this is incredible: the answer itself (Testimony of Truth) was not written by Sophrony himself, but only on his behalf. Probably, this also includes the notes of Euthymius “On the disobedient churches on behalf of that one” (Synod. Sat. neper. I, l. 496). Opponents of the church “wanting to compensate wise teachers for themselves, they talk about the vanity of being theologians and tellers of the hidden divine mysteries... they dare to interpret the Divine Scriptures out of their ignorance, rather than corrupt the river and the good of men skilled in the Slavic and Greek languages, they are not ashamed to criticize and condemn.” Further on l. 497 rev. “As if to ν but ψ from his cave... the revelation of the secret teaching of the scriptures is only a flattering component and those among the people are godlessly creating rumors and creating confusion, while showing their faces either ashamed or afraid.” In the following essay, Izvestia, Medvedev did not even bring Dionysius’s abusive words to the servicemen, considering them indecent (Izvestia p. XXXII, it is indecent to write here). Published by S. A. Belokurov in General Readings. East. and Ancient Ross. 1885, book. IV (IXL, 1187) and separately M. 1885. Against the unjust rights of bishops, Medvedev writes in the same place: “The righteous oath of the bishop curses him, remains on him, and the unrighteous oath returns to him.” The entire power of binding and resolving sins does not belong to them, otherwise it would be fitting for them as a bishop to reward the honor and fear of God, since with their power they eternally save whomever they want, and whoever they want they eternally destroy. And if such power had been given to them, then all the bishops here on earth would have enriched their relatives and worldly friends and acquaintances, and with their permission they would have settled into heaven. And therefore they would have been united in torment, even if they had no affinity with the bishops and no mercy from them even for the truth (pp. 30 and 26). It seems that this place refers to the note of Euthymius “On the power of bishops” (Synod. Hand. No. 452, l. 5), if it was not written earlier. “If a priest rants against a bishop, he is subject to anathema, since he is a simple monk or a human being, not only a son of a priest, but a lower clergyman, and even more so is he subject to anathema... the one who rebels against the patriarch must eat: “the bishop bears the image of the apostles, but the patriarch is the inspired image of Christ himself” (fol. 5 vol.). Now, in these times, the head worthy of lamentation is being lowered, but the feet are jumping and trampling on the head, and no one is taking away and correcting the decorous dispensation and avenging injustice” (l. 7). At the end it is suggested to “imprison him, until he turns to his bishop.” The same note is also in the Shield of Faith (Manufacturer of Ak. Sciences F. 12 l. 24 vol.). G. Mirkovich, (p. 134) suggests that this note is the teaching of Joachim himself, perhaps delivered in church, which seems incredible to us. Wed. letters of reproach from Patriarch Dosifei Likhudam. About the duplicity of Ioannikis and his renunciation of the Dialogues (Spiritual Mechts) before the Jesuits, see Orthodox. Review 1863 vol., March, p. 265. Here is the information that I managed to collect about this remarkable southern Russian figure and patriot. He comes from Jews, according to Gordon (Tagebuch, II, 74) and Hierodeacon Damascus (manuscript of Father Yakhontov, l. 174 vol.); lived before in Lvov, where he was probably a professor: at least, when asked by Varlaam Yasinsky about philosophy courses, he answered that he had two courses: one of his own from Lvov, and the other from the late Fr. Yandzursky - Lubinsky (Lublinsky - Lubelsky, Wieliczka III, 351). It is unknown when he was made abbot of Lubelsky in the diocese of Theodosius Vasilevich. At the Lublin Cathedral, already being abbot of Lubelski, he gave a speech on January 28, 1680, Sunday, about a blind man crying: “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!” This attack against the Uniates was smoothed over with “different butts” and eloquence (Wieliczka II, 487). Pavel Negrebetsky recommended around 1681 for the Moscow Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy, as a person who suffered almost to death for Orthodoxy (Read. General History and Ancient Russia. 1884, III, p. 206. Smirnov. Historical Moscow Acad., p. 11. Petrushevich. St. let. 345). Elected abbot of Kirillov, he left Lithuania and arrived in Kyiv in the post of 1681 (Works of St. Demetrius 1, 466). It was like this: Feofan Krekhovetsky appointed Innocent of Monastyrsky to the archimandrites of Ovrutsky, and the latter did not yield to the machinations of the Uniate Shvarovsky until his personal safety began to be threatened. Then Monastyrsky fled to Kyiv (at the end of 1680), and the king prohibited by his universal of September 9, 1682 the approval of him by the archimandrite as a person, “dla otrzymanych na sobie condemnat do Kijowa pod cudzą protectią zbieglego” (Acts of Yu. Z. Ros. IV, 64) and imposed a fine of 50 thousand zlotys on the one who who will support Monastyrsky. At the same time, Gisel was demanded to return the silver sent by the former archimandrite of Ovrutsky, Feofan Krekhovetsky, for storage in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. They also demanded an order for Monastyrsky, “who was appointed archimandrite of Ovrutsky by Feofan Krekhovetsky and fled to Kyiv,” to return the property and documents that he, Monastyrsky, had taken away, and to pay for the sold honey, cattle, etc. in money (Ibidem 66). About these details St. Dimitri remained silent. In October 1685, Monastyrsky traveled to Moscow, in the retinue of Metropolitan Gideon Chetvertinsky with five of his servants (Eugene. Description of Kievosophical collection, appendix, p. 83). On May 21, 1687, M. Gideon granted him the Rzhishchev monastery with a letter: “do not hesitate to look at the long-standing merits of the beckoned most honorable father abbot of Kiril of Kiev in the Church of God from his youth at our side until this hour, faithfully deserved.” (Acts of Western Russia. V, p. 210). On July 25, 1687, Innokenty “Monastic” signed the letter of election of the new hetman Ivan Mazepa (Collected State. Gr. and Dog. IV, 561). In 1688, he corresponded with Theodosius of Uglitsky on behalf of M. Gideon. (Gorsky. Op. river with b., II. 3, p. 506). In December of the same year I wrote the following letter to Hetman Mazepa. From the same 1688, a petition has been preserved from the voyt, mayors and raits of the Kyiv townspeople about not collecting a bridge tax from them in favor of the Kirillov Monastery, because Abbot Innokenty of Monastyrsky built bridges on a dry road and takes a penny from the cart (Moscow Ar. I. D. gran. small No. 582 601). On February 9, 1689, he wrote a letter to S. Medvedev. (Belokurov, True News p. 63). In Lent of 1689, he wrote: “The Book of Transubstantiation” (Ruk. I.P.B.Q. I, No. 668), where his local Ukrainian patriotism is especially prominent. On August 10, 1689, Innocent arrives in Moscow for negotiations on the case of transubstantiation, but, thanks to the harshness of his treatment of the patriarch and the intrigues of Euthymius, he, according to the testimony of Damascus, was cursed and expelled from Moscow at the end of October (Moscow. Arch. M.I.D. minor cases of St. No. 81 (55). The curse (did it really exist?) did not prevent him from being elected Varlaam Yasinsky to be the marshal of the election (Eugene, Description of the Kiev Soc. Appendix, p. 123). In 1692, he was sent from Varlaam Yasinsky to Mazepa to negotiate the Baturin protopopia and the establishment of the archimandry (Works of St. Dem. I, July 26 of the same year). several lakes. (Acts of Zap. Ross. V, 257). In 1695, together with Stefan Jaworski, who, perhaps, studied with him in Lublin, (Ruk. Typograph. No. 472 l. 25) Innokenty Monastic was sent to Perevolochna for negotiations, and from Nizhyn they sent a letter to the Metropolitan dated August 29 (Wieliczka II, 288). They were also entrusted with the work of confirming Zhabokritsky as a bishop (Ibid. III, 317. Synod. collected. unbound. I l., 426 volumes. Ak. Sciences F, No. 84 and 494). In 1696, Innocent was accused of corresponding with the Uniate Bishop of Shumlyansky and secret relations with Mazepa regarding the hetman's transfer to Poland. (Soloviev XIV, 293). He died on January 17, 1697 and was buried by Abbot Demetrius (Rostovsky), his successor. (Works of St. Demetrius I, 491). West. Arch. and East. 1885, II, pp. 29–31. Manuscript Alexander. Assumption Monastery No. 22. The mentioned article on fol. 5. Among the teachers cited are Simeon of Thessalonica, John Chrysostom, Herman, I. Damascene, Nil Kabasil, St. Ambrose. This is probably the same work as in the Miracle Manuscript No. 283 in 4 on 94 sheets: a new book about the sacrament of the Eucharist, from Latin, which also remains inaccessible to us; compare also above p. 91. St. also made extracts from it. Demetrius, which ended up in print with his name. At the end the apostolic symbol is read. Gorsky believes that this work, written by the hand of Euthymius and containing no signs of translation from Greek, was compiled by Euthymius himself on behalf of Sophrony Likhud. Description r. With. b., II, 3, p. 469. Und. No. 481. Ioannikiy left for Venice in 1688 and returned only in 1691. These two notebooks could have been the Reproof and the Righteous Answer, but the latter work has not survived and, in our opinion, represents a rough work for “Manna.” It is unlikely that the second notebook is the aforementioned Church Compiler; or rather, the expression two notebooks does not mean two essays, but only the size of the “Revelation.” The denunciation is mentioned right in the title of the essay: “A testimony of truth or an answer to frantic lies.” Hand. I. P. B. Pogodin No. 1227 l. 75. Stroev, Bible. Dictionary, page 30. There is no doubt that it supports the Greek opinion. Manuscript (in 4°, 48 sheets) in the library of the Arkhangelsk Seminary No. 527 (194). Probably, there is something relevant to our question in another work of Athanasius: “The rite, how... on Maundy Thursday... the secrets of sanctification... and about transubstantiation, etc. Hand. Solov. No. 48; Anton. Siysk mon. No. 151–153. Gabriel Dometsky, as I heard, at the debate of Mr. Mirkovich, from Ave. Koyalovich, took part in the controversy even at that time, was close to Medvedev and, fearing Medvedev’s flight, burned his essay: On the Translation of St. Darov. This is what we managed to gather about Dometsky. Hegumen Danilovsky (from 1677–1680) then Simonovsky (1680–1691), judging by the words of Negrebetsky, D. was close to the Jesuits, or at least familiar with them: from them he learned that Belobodsky is called Katzermeister (Ch. O. I. and D. R. 1884 III, 198). He was well acquainted with the main representative of the Latinizing party, V.V. Golitsyn. So in 1682 Aug. 31 he spoke with his forehead about the withdrawal of infantry from the monastery and there, among other things, he asks the Great Sovereigns to “order their V.G. to hand over the Simonov Monastery in all matters in an embassy order to Prince V.V. Golitsyn, and they allowed V.G. to do so” (Addition to act. history X, No. 31). On May 3, 1683, Timofey, abbot of Danilovsky, complained to Dometsky that he, Gabriel, relying on his own power, did not give the robe of hegumen Danilovsky. At the analysis, Dometsky said that those vestments were given to him in 187, and not to the monastery, and that the Sovereign (Fed. Alex.) confirmed this with the words: Take it, don’t leave anything, I granted it to you. (Addition to Act. History No. 106 et seq.). The disaster of 1690 also affected Dometsky. On March 10, 1691, he was brought to the Iversky Monastery: “he was ordered to be in the brotherhood, to be fed food and drink as usual” (Russian Ist. Bible vol. V p. 924). March 26, 1696 Archimandrite Iversky Anthony asked Arseny the Sacristan of Sophia whether Gabriel of Dometsky was truly ordered to go to Moscow, and whether there was a decree and letter from Patriarch Adrian. (Ibid. p. 913). Metropolitan Job of Novgorod directed Abbot Anthony to copy the lists from Dometsky’s translation from two books, and D. took the lists and wanted to take them to Moscow, which is what Anthony complained about (ibid., pp. 969–971). In March 1699, there were new complaints against him, as the abbot of Iversky, however from drunkards (ibid., p. 970). Dometsky is exiled to the Cross Monastery (ibid. 973, 979). In March 1701, Dometsky wrote to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in his cell, and the letter contained a petition for a transfer from Yuryev to the Zmievsky Monastery, as well as a project for new income to the state treasury through the construction of royal baths (Belokurov. Materials for Russian history M. 1888 p. 550). Then they demand to Novgorod the Polish book of John Turrekremata (one of the writers on the transubstantiation of gifts, who was at the Florentine Council) that belonged to Dometsky, which was sent on July 17, 1702 (Russian Ist. Bibl., 994). In 1704, he, Archimandrite Yuryevsky, was dismissed for negligence in August 1708 (cf. the letter of M. Job in the Wanderer of 1861 I). Lists of his Kinovion (op. 1683) are quite frequent, in the Alexander Monastery No. 5 (Western Arch. and History 1885, II, p. 36) in Chudov No. 295. Dometsky was known, and perhaps was born in Little Russia, which we conclude from two manuscripts: “Tsvychene is the everlasting monastic, like a lawyer is to be tsvichitis in St. I will become a monk and set my course in the right of the law, chosen by the labor of Gabriel Dometsky” (Petrushevich. Summary of years. 206); creation of the world [zrcha - 7191] year, from the incarnation of God the Word [akhpg] (1683) month of November (Run. Kiev-Soph. Cathedral No. 265. In the hand. Und. No. 658) there are two more works by Dometsky “Teaching by the cell commander, exposition of the former Simonov Archimandrite Gabriel Dometsky” (fol. 762) and “Admonition and admonition by the spiritual father, which is necessary during the confession of repentant people,” by the same Gabriel of Dometsky (fol. 372). Curious references to Saint Jerome and Job of Pochaev. Manuscript by I. K. Yakhontov L. 6–8. Yakhontov, Hierodeacon of Damascus. St. Petersburg 1884, art. 22. Job “To the Christ-loving people who ask him about the words of Christ, this is the answer in brief,” but we do not know what opinion is expressed in it. In the manuscripts of Kazan University No. 21393 l. 112 there is an article. Gorsky. “Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library” II, 3, p. 479. “Marcellus once ordained priests and deacons, according to the custom of Belarusian bishops, two in a row and three in a single liturgy, for which he repented and asked for forgiveness from His Holiness Patriarch Joachim.” A supporter of the Greek party, Ignatius Rimsky-Korsakov, after the death of Joachim (in 1690), submitted a note to Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna, where he accused Markell of heresy and inclination towards Latinism (Gordon's Tagebuch II, 309 and 311) and warned the queen to bother about choosing Markell as patriarch, since Peter loved Markell very much, as we will say lower, and Marcellus could become a patriarch. Here is some information for his biography. In 1672, the monk Markell (I think it was this Markell) translated the book Chrismologion from Greek (Addition to the act. history. vol. VI, p. 190). He also translated the books: “The Muses or the Seven Free Teachings” in persons, 8 notebooks per book (Ibid. 191 – 199). Archimandrite of the Svensky Monastery in 1679, Bishop of Suzdal in 1680, Metropolitan of Pskov in 1681, Metropolitan of Kazan in 1690; he died in 1698. He was one of the most educated people of his time. Peter, speaking in Mitau to a certain Blomberg about not choosing Marcellus as patriarch, mockingly explained this failure by the fact that the metropolitan knew Latin, French and Italian, had a small beard, not sufficient for a patriarch, and allowed his coachman to sit on a box rather than on a horse. I cannot agree with the opinion of Prof. Brickner, who took Peter's words seriously. (Brickner. “Materials for the source study of the history of Peter the Great” J. M. N. Pr. 1879, August, pp. 301–302). Perhaps here we must look for the beginning of Peter’s hidden hostility towards Adrian. The desire to raise his flock is evident from his 1686 charter, printed in the Act. East. vol. V No. 122. The schismatics did not like Markell and called him the Metropolitan Antichrist (Soloviev XIV, 83). Probably, Ignatius Korsakov also hints at him in the life of Patriarch Joachim (ed. General. Love. Other Letters, p. 98): “it happened (after the death of Joachim) and a certain discord from someone who was a foreigner, pretending to be a Russian, who we do not know how, rushed by, allegedly at his will and was elevated to the patriarchate... and the foreigners of the Poles were warned against setting up shepherds for this quickly...” It is possible that Markell was a southern Russian. Some attribute this place to Andrei Belobodsky. Soloviev, XIV, 90; Piskarev, Ancient charters and acts of the Ryazan region, p. 130. Gorsky, Description. r. With. b. II, 3, p. 449. Ibid., p. 282; Stroev, Bible. Dictionary, pp. 130–131. Wed. above p. There is not much information about Ignatius Korsakov. Almost the only article about him by Mr. N. Abramov in the Wanderer of 1862 IV, 157–167 and the preface to his Epistles (Kazan 1855). Stolnik under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in 1677 he took monastic vows in Solovki. In 191 (1692), Hieromonk Ignatius, the builder of the Solovetsky Monastery of Moscow service, was commissioned to describe the church together with the patriarchal treasurer, the famous connoisseur of singing Tikhon Makarevsky (Zabelin, Materials for the historical, arch. and stat. of Moscow, I, 371). In 1685 he was already Archimandrite Novospassky; traveled to Kostroma to exhort schismatics (Epistle, p. 4); from April 3, 1692, Metropolitan of Siberia; left the diocese in 1700 (went crazy), died on May 13, 1701. As a writer, he left behind quite a lot of works. He wrote: 1) The Life of Anna Kashinskaya (Bechkov Descriptive manuscript. I.P.B. I, 147); 2) The Life of Simon of Verkhoturye (Und. No. 375) and 3) The Life and Testament of Patriarch Joachim (ed. O. L. D. P. 1870 and supplemented in the Memo. Dr. Letters 1880 No. 2); 4) Interpretation of the image of Sophia of the wisdom of God. (Communication by Ave. N.V. Pokrovsky in the protocol. general. love. ancient letters. 1886 according to the Novgorod manuscript. Sof. Bible); 5) Denunciation of the Lutheran Catechism (Nesvizhky) collected from the divine scriptures by Ignatius, hieromonk of the Savior-Nova Monastery; 6) A word on the Latins and Luthors, attributed to him and very thoroughly; (the last two were published by Mr. Amph. Lebedev in Reading General. Ist. and Dr. Ross. 1884 No. 3 in the article “Historical Research in South Russian Archives” and analysis by Tsvetaev, “From the History of Foreign Confessions in Russia” M. 1886, pp. 215–236, with the assumption that the latter is directed against V.V. Golitsyn and was written around 1684 – 1685) 7) Famous letters (three) to schismatics, printed in Kazan in 1855 8) Historical news about the Russian kingdom from St. scriptures and stories of St. father; 9) News of the admonition of schismatics in 1687 in the districts of Kostroma and Koneshma (both hand-written. Academy of Sciences); 10) “A word to the pious and Christ-loving army, by the command of our Great Sovereigns, our most illustrious and autocratic Tsars and Grand Dukes John Alekseevich, Peter Alekseevich and their faithful sister, our Great Empress, the most bright and wise princess and Grand Duchess Sofia Alekseevna of all the Great and Little and White Russia of the autocrats, their Tsar's Blessed Majesty with the neighbor Bolyarin and the noble commander and guardian, with Prince Vasily Vasilyevich Golitsyn, with others going with God's help in defense of the holy churches of God and all Orthodoxy against the opposing Hagarians. Collected by the humble Ignatius, hieromonk, archimandrite of the Savior-Novaya Monastery from the divine scriptures and from the royal chroniclers, by the grace of the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, strength and strength, boldness and boldness, courage and bravery and victory against the opposition.” (Written on March 14, 1687 and preserved in the manuscript of the Bible. Ob. Ist. and Other Russia No. 241, on 62 pages, with a picture of the vision of St. Kirill Belozersky, adapted to the circumstances of that time). He took a great part in the church life of his time, but his role was very unprepossessing. Belobodsky lived with him in the Novospassky monastery with the monks Kozlovsky and Kudridsky, about whom, it seems, he reported to the patriarch (Ch. O. I. and Other R. 1884, III, 197). Praising Sophia in the interpretation of the image of Sophia and in the Word for the campaign (see italics above), he then becomes their most ardent opponent in the life of Joachim. In 1690, he filed (Gordon II, 309 and 311) a denunciation against Marcellus, Metropolitan of Pskov, accusing him of heresy. At the time described, he supported Joachim, interrogated Deacon Jacob in the Shaklovity case, and admonished the unfortunate Medvedev. The case of Anna Kashinskaya was also dubious. Joachim loved Ignatius very much, visited him often in Novospassky and even bequeathed to bury himself there; and Ignatius himself, in turn, exalted Joachim and, after his death, wanted to canonize him, as can be seen from the “Life of Joachim.” Adrian apparently tried to remove him further to Siberia, albeit with an honorary appointment. Rukop. Ak. N., F., 12 l. 140. Austen, p. 106. On Medvedev’s relationship with Shaklovity, see the note by I. E. Zabelin - Russian Chronicles. liter. and ancient V, 120 and Investigation cases about F. Shaklovit. Some people moved to speak vainly of reproaches and annoyances against the Church of God and at us (the Patriarch), who, in defense of their lies, and from the Synclite of the Tsar’s neighbors, adopted especially the neighbor of the devious... Fyodor Sheklovitago... who perceived the main cut off with others, even if not all, from slander with his own... this, in defense of himself, was the former builder of the Spassky Monastery, which is behind the Icon Row, monk Sylvester. (The fourth conversation of Joachim in the Shield of Faith. Manuscript. Academician. Sciences, F., l. 12, 132 turns). An unsightly role, as can be seen from the Shaklovity case, was played here by Karion Istomin, apparently a relative of Medvedev, who conveyed to the patriarch everything that was happening at Medvedev’s place. Search case about Fyodor Shaklovit I, art. 569. There is also Art. 572, 703. Cf. Andrian's story about Joachim's complaints against Euthymius (see above). Manuscript by Yakhontov L. 62 rev. Yakhontov Hierodeacon of Damascus p. 27. Kapterev. The nature of Russia's relations with the Orthodox East in the 16th and 17th centuries. M. 1888 pp. 474–430; Orthodox Review 1861 October. Additional to acts of history. vol. X, p. 194. Addition to page 172 - Our view of Princess Sofia and V.V.G. is confirmed by the recently published notes of Prince Kurakin (Archive of Prince Kurakin St. Petersburg. 1890 ed. M.I. Semevsky). Markevich. History of localism in the Moscow state of Odessa. 1888 p. 583. Shchebalsky. The reign of Princess Sophia M. 1856, p. 77, with reference to Complete. Collection Zach. II, 943, 1073 and 1246, where the preparatory decrees are placed. Neuville Relation curieuse et nouvelle de Moscovie. Paris 1698 p. 14, 175, 178. Soloviev. XIV, 97–99. Relation p. 178. Gordon I, 413, 452; II, 4, 118, 120, 142, 158, 159, 167, 205, 226, 230, 241, 279. Brickner. Materials for source study of Peter the Great J. M. N. Pr. 1879 August, dept. 2 p. 474. See indicated. by Mr. Belov, essay by Fr. Gagarin: Das Theologische Lehrsystem in der russichen Kirche in the book M. Brühl Russiche Studien. Tsvetaev. From history foreign religion M. 1886, p. 372 et seq. In 192 and 193 he took various economic and artistic books (Molodik Kharkov, 1848, p. 155). By the way, he had a list from 1677 of the legends of Prince Kurbsky (Shlyapkin. Inventory of the manuscript of the Pskov Museum. Pskov 1879, p. 21). About Golitsyn’s library, see Soloviev XIV, 93. By the way, we also quote the words of Neuville, who paints a nice portrait of Prince V.V. Golitsyn. Au Pretache (Prikaze) ce prince me fit presenter une chaise... Je fus reçu d'une manière à me faire croire, que j'étais à la cour de quelque prince d'Italie... ce prince Galichin est sancontredit un de plus spirituels, des plus polis et des plus magnifi – ques qú il y ait jamais eu en ce pays la, qùilavoit dessein de mettre sur le meme pied que les autres. Il parloit son latin et se plaisoit fort à voir des étrangers et à les regaler sans les obliger à boire; lui même ne buvait point d'eau de vie: tout son plaisir étoit la conversation. Comme il méprisait fort les Grands à cause de leur incapacité il ne s'attacha qúau merite. Il voulait... changer en bons soldats les legions de paysans... et laisser dans le pays la liberté de conscience... Il voulait peupler des deserts, enrichir des gueux, de sauvages en faire des hommes, de poltrons – des braves et d'habitations de pastres – des palais de pierre. Relation p.p. 14, 15, 5, 175, 177 etc. Life and Testament of Patriarch Joachim, ed. About. Love. Dr. Pis. edited by N. P. Barsukov. St. Petersburg 1879 p. 132. Smirnov. Histor. Moscow acad. page 28. Ustryalov. History of Peter the Great, I, pp. 349–550. Smirnov. Joachim Patr. Moscow, pp. 234–236. Acts of History. V, p. 451. Tikhonravov. Quirin Kulman. Russian Bulletin 1867 No. 11 and 12. Tsvetaev. Protestantism in Russia under Sofia (Russian Vest. 1883, II pp. 68–92). Tolstoi. Catholicisme en Russie I, 111 and 115. Tsvetaev. From the history of foreign confessions in Russia M. 1886. Poly. Collection Zach. III No. 36 and 46. Soloviev XIV, 142. Tametsi diversi magnates contrarium senserint, serenissimi tamen czari Caesaris desideriis in admittendo altero patre S. I. pro exercitio catholicae religionis satisfaciendum decreverunt nec se defuturos declararunt quin erectionem templi catholici concederent. Interea patres bene et aperte in domo convenientissima sacra peragunt atque etiam in schola juventutem palam erudire et docere possunt. Theiner p. 295 (dated May 13, 1685). Belov. Moscow Troubles p. 9. (reprint from J. M. N. Pr. 1887).