Literary works of Maxim the Greek

Article by His Eminence Macarius, Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna. Two and a half years after the death of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, the Athonite monk Maxim the Greek arrived in Moscow and introduced a new element into our spiritual literature, previously unknown in it, an element of scientific and multifaceted education. Until now, all our writers, the most gifted and enlightened, were nothing more than literate and well-read people, but completely unfamiliar with science, and if they sometimes even possessed extensive information, it was almost exclusively theological. And this should be said not only about those of our writers who were born and raised in Russia, but equally about those who came from Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Maxim the Greek was the first to appear among us with a scientific education and a rich supply of information not only in the theological, but also in the secular sciences that existed then. After initial training in his homeland, he received further education in Italy, which was then the main place of mental movement and activity awakening in Western Europe; lived there for a long time in his early youth “among people adorned with much wisdom,” listened to “deliberate teachers” in various schools, thoroughly studied the languages Greek and Latin, the sciences - grammar, literature, rhetoric, dialectics, ancient classical literature - Greek and Roman, the systems of ancient philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, and completed his theological education on Athos, taking advantage of the rich Vatopedi for many years library. It can be said that in the person of Maxim the Greek, European enlightenment, then already in its infancy, penetrated us for the first time and cast its rays, albeit still weak, onto the thick darkness of ignorance and superstition that enveloped Russia 1 . It is very natural that we soon understood Maxim as an intelligent and learned man - if bookish people gathered to talk to him “about bookish things”, they turned to him for advice and resolution of misunderstandings - if the hierarchs themselves, the tsar himself, sometimes demanded Maxim’s opinion on certain church issues. It is not surprising if some even exaggerated the importance of Maxim and considered him a man above his age in intelligence and education, while others, sometimes driven by the spirit of the party, recognized Maxim alone as an intelligent and enlightened person and immeasurably extolled his translations and corrections of books and his writings 2 . Let’s not even mention how highly Maxim himself valued his writings 3 . But what was natural at one time is unnatural now. Now we can treat Maxim the Greek with complete impartiality and fairness and judge him as a person and as a writer, without any hobbies, without belittling, but also without exaggerating his merits and merits 4 . Maxim’s first literary works were translated works: he translated some books again from Greek into Slavic and gave them for Russian use, while others, previously translated and used in Russia, he only corrected. But what kind of translations were these? Maxim, when he started working on them, did not yet know Russian or Slavic, but only knew Greek and Latin. He translated from Greek into Latin, and from Latin into Russian he was translated by Russian assistants who knew Latin. This means that Maxim owned one half of the work here - the first, and the second half belonged entirely to his assistants; Maxim actually owned the Latin translation, unknown to us, and the Slavic translation, made from this Latin and used in Russia from then on, is not at all a translation of Maxim himself, but exclusively a translation of his collaborators, although without Maxim it could not have appeared. This, at least, can be said about most of the translations attributed to Maxim. The very first, most extensive and most important work, for which Maxim himself was summoned to Russia and on which he spent a year and five months (from March 1518 to August 1519), is a translation commissioned by V. K. Vasily Ioannovich, the explanatory Psalter, which contained the interpretations of many ancient saints. fathers and teachers of the church. The process of this translation was briefly explained by one of Maxim’s employees, Dimitri Gerasimov, who wrote about him to an acquaintance at that time: “and now, sir, (Maxim) is translating the Psalter from Greek to the Grand Duke, and Vlas and I are sitting with him, taking turns; he speaks in Latin, and we speak in Russian as a clerk" 5 . These are the real translators of this Psalter into our language! At the same time, on the instructions of Metropolitan Varlaam, Maxim translated interpretations into the last chapters of the book of the Acts of the Apostles (finished in March 1519): this translation from Maxim’s words was completed into Russian by Blasius alone. In 1521, Maksimov's translation of Metaphrast's Life of the Most Holy One appeared. Mother of God: here the Slavic translator under Maxim was the elder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Silouan. Three years later, on the instructions of Metropolitan Daniel, another very important and extensive literary work was completed - a translation of the Conversations of St. John Chrysostom is based on the Gospels of Matthew and John, but was accomplished, as the same elder Silouan testifies, only by the “reason and punishment” of Maxim, and by the “labor and sweat” of himself, the “much-sinful monk Selivan” 6 . It is not known when Maximus translated two short works by Simeon Metaphrast: The Tale of the Miracle of St. Archangel Michael in Khoneh and the Torment of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; but if after 1524, then the translation could have been done by Maxim alone, without the participation of assistants: since at that time he already knew the Russian language well, according to the testimony of Elder Silouan 7. Likewise, the translation of the word St. Cyril of Alexandria about the exodus of the soul and the second coming could belong exclusively to Maxim, if you believe the note in one manuscript of the 16th century that Maxim translated this word in 1542 8. With complete certainty, only one translation can be learned by Maxim - the literal translation of the Psalter, which he completed already in 1552 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, at the request of the monk Nil Kurmyatev: the latter first rewrote, according to Maxim’s instructions, on his notebooks all the psalms in Greek, and then wrote a Slavic translation against the Greek text on the same notebooks psalms, which Maxim “said” to him in order 9. But this, perhaps the only translation of Maxim himself, was made by him only for a private person and remained forever in the manuscript, while other translations made from the words of Maxim by his Russian collaborators were in general use and subsequently almost all were even published in print. One cannot help but be surprised how Maxim, with his intelligence, decided on this kind of translations, without first studying the Russian language, and did not foresee that these translations would not be distinguished by either correctness or particularly accuracy. Maxim himself could only vouch for himself that he correctly conveyed the meaning of the Greek text in Latin, but could not vouch for his collaborators that they also correctly conveyed his Latin translation in Russian. Likewise, Maxim’s collaborators could only vouch for the correspondence of their translation to his Latin speeches, but could not know to what extent these speeches corresponded to the original. Misunderstandings and errors, more or less important, were inevitable, and one of these errors, even a very important one, actually turned out to be, as we know, in the translation of the life of the Most Holy One. Theotokos and was placed among other accusations against Maxim 10. Even more surprising is that Maxim, almost not knowing the Russian language, dared to begin correcting our church books. If translations sometimes do not require great accuracy and strict compliance with the original text, as long as they correctly convey the thoughts of the original, then when correcting the translation in such books as liturgical books, where every phrase is dear to believers, it was necessary to observe the most complete, even literal accuracy. Maxim, without a doubt, could not even then see and understand the various errors in our liturgical books; His Russian employees reported these errors to him in Latin. He turned to the Greek text and in Latin conveyed to his employees how to correct the indicated errors; The employees, based on Maxim’s words, made corrections. But who could check and attest to the correctness and accuracy of such corrections? Maxim's enterprise was obviously not well thought out and, quite naturally, was not successful. Maxim undoubtedly corrected the book of Triodion with his collaborators, as he himself testifies, and after it he probably corrected or at least revised the Book of Hours. explanatory Gospel!, the Apostle and the festive Menaion: since in his Confession he points out the defects that were in these books, and was judged for some changes he made in the last two 11. And then Maxim’s work had to stop. Inaccuracies or errors began to be noticed in his corrections; a murmur arose among the believers that books were not corrected, but spoiled; Maxim, under other unfavorable circumstances for him, was demanded for trial, and at the trial what was to be expected was revealed: Maxim, not knowing enough Russian, either did not understand and did not want to admit the defects pointed out to him in his translations, or laid the blame on his employees, even copyists; and the latter laid the blame on Maxim himself and said that he ordered them to write like that, although they did not want to. The consequences of the trial are known 12 . However, although Maxim did not manage to correct our church books himself, he took care, as much as he could, to contribute to their future correction. Some time later, when he wrote in defense of himself against the accusations brought against him, having already become sufficiently familiar with the Russian language, he showed the Russians that their liturgical books contained many not only inaccuracies in the translation, but also very serious errors, and therefore urgently required correction, although to some extent this was already recognized in Russia at that time: otherwise Maxim would not have been instructed to begin correcting the said books; showed that the shortcomings in these books depended not only on ignorant copyists, but partly also on ancient, memorable translators, and that therefore the books should be corrected not only by comparing them with ancient Slavic copies, but also by comparing them with the Greek text. Maxim tried to explain to the Russians that people who would like to undertake such correction of books should have knowledge not only of grammar, but also of literature, rhetoric and philosophy itself, and copyists of books should know at least grammar - for which he wrote two special articles: “about grammar” and “about the benefits of grammar” 13. He wanted to give the Russians the very guidance on how to recognize good translators and correctors of books from the Greek language: he wrote 16 poems of heroic and elegiac meter in Greek, translated these verses into the Slavic language and commanded that if anyone comes to Russia and offers his services to translate and correct church books, then he would be given first of all to translate those Greek verses, and if he translates them into the Slavic language in accordance with Maximov’s translation and says, that these verses are of a heroic and elegiac meter, and the first ones are in hexameter, and the last ones are in pentameter - then we can safely accept such a translator and entrust him with correcting the books 14. We do not know whether the Russians subsequently took advantage of these instructions from Maxim; but we cannot help but express regret that he himself, the first, was not subjected in his time to a similar test in his knowledge of the Russian language when he began to correct our liturgical books; in this case, perhaps he would have postponed this important matter, taken care to study the Russian language first, and would have completed what he was entrusted with complete success. But if in his translations and corrections of books Maxim inevitably had to feel as if bound and constrained, partly by the nature of these activities, and especially by his ignorance of the Russian language; for this reason, in his works, of which he wrote many in Latin until he mastered the Russian language, and wrote all the rest in Russian, he had the opportunity to demonstrate himself in the fullness of his mental powers and education. These works were recently published and became accessible to everyone: they are very numerous (there are up to 134) and varied, but not at all large in volume, so that they barely amounted to three small books in print. These are not some kind of scientific treatises and studies, but a series of articles, more or less light, sometimes quite lengthy, but more often brief, even very brief. They are presented either in the form of reflections and reasoning, sometimes in the form of church words and conversations, sometimes in the form of messages, conversations, historical stories, prayers and sacred chants, passages, aphorisms, notes, sometimes in several lines. The most prominent place among all these works is occupied by dogmatic-polemical works written in defense of the Christian-Orthodox faith against Gentiles and non-Orthodox: Jews, pagans, Mohammedans, Armenians and Latins, as well as against superstitions and apocrypha then known in Russia. Against the Jews and the Judaizers or Novgorod heretics, who, although they had already been condemned by the council of 1504, secretly continued to hold their opinions, Maxim wrote five small articles. In the first, under the title: “The Word about the Nativity of the Lord and God and our Savior Jesus Christ, in the same way to the Jews.” Maximus says that I. Christ is God and the true Messiah, in whom all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled, and that therefore the Jews should either believe in Him with us, or not believe their prophets, as “they lied against Christ,” and should no longer expect the Messiah, since the time of His coming, determined in the weeks of Daniel, has already passed three times; that there is nothing incongruous in the incarnation of God, just as there was nothing incongruous in His various sensory manifestations in the Old Testament: that Christ suffered suffering and death in the flesh, and not as a deity, and suffered solely out of love for His human image. And after that, Maximus points out to the Jews their scattering throughout the earth and the destruction of their second church for the murder of the Messiah, the miraculous spread of Christianity by the twelve fishermen, who acted only with words and miracles, the miraculous heroism of the Christian martyrs, strengthened by the power of Christ, the miracles performed by the power of the very cross of Christ: all this is set out in the most general terms and very briefly (Maxim. Works I, 39‑51). In the second article or “Word on the Worship of St. icons,” which could equally apply to both Jews and Lutherans, Maxim proves that this worship is not in the least contrary to the second commandment of the Decalogue; on the contrary, in accordance with other commands of God himself in the Old Testament, and explains the correct meaning of Christian icon veneration (– I, 485). In the third article, in “A Word on the Blasphemers of the Most Pure Mother of God,” which was, as it were, a continuation of the second (since it begins with the words that we must not only worship St. icons of Christ God, His Most Pure Mother and other saints, but also to honor church vessels and everything that is consecrated to Christ in the church), Maxim refutes the false idea that the Most Holy Virgin was holy and glorious when she only carried Emmanuel in her womb, and after His birth she became like one of the other wives. This idea, which Maxim at the end of the article calls “Jewish intent”, judging by its content, could have belonged, without a doubt, not to the Jews themselves, but perhaps only to our Judaized heretics, especially since in refuting it Maxim cites not only Old Testament prophecies and prototypes relating to the Holy One. Virgin, but also our church songs and, finally, he says: “In the same way, I advise you, brothers, to retreat... from such blasphemy against the Most Pure Mother of God, so that she too may come closer to you,” and so on. (–I, 495). The other two articles against the Jews are of a private nature. In “Advice to the Orthodox Council on Isaac the Jew,” Maxim convinces the shepherds, following the example of the ancient zealots, to be zealous for Orthodoxy and “hand over the heretic to external power for execution,” as a lesson to others (– I, 51). And the article: “The words are opposed to the chapters of Samuel the Jew” - contains several brief notes and refutations of Maxim on the book of the named Jew (who lived in the 11th century), which was then translated from Latin into Russian by Nicholas the Nemchin and was probably used among your Judaizers (– I, 55). “The word is incriminating against Hellenic delusion,” that is, against the pagans, Maxim begins like this: “before now, with divine help, by denouncing the Jewish madness against the Savior Christ, come the rest of the soul, let us turn ourselves against Hellenic wisdom and bold speech; no less than Jews shoot blasphemies against our great Christian faith,” although in Russia it was hardly possible to hear such blasphemy at that time. In this word, Maximus proves the superiority of the Christian faith over paganism - 1) by its miraculous spread and its wonderful actions in people: it spread not by force of arms, but only by meek words and teachings, not promising people any blessings on earth, on the contrary, predicting them only disasters and sorrows; spread throughout the entire earth by unlearned people, despite the most severe persecution, and acts in such a way that countless people renounce the world and spend a harsh life in the deserts, while others endure all kinds of torment for it - something that no god of theirs, nor a king, nor a rhetorician, nor a wise legislator could produce in the pagans; 2) the superiority of Christian teaching over pagan: in the books of Christian revelation there is nothing blasphemous and unclean, nothing similar to the legends about the adventures of the pagan gods - Zeus, Pallas, Semele, Phoebus, Aphrodite, Mars; on the contrary, they contain the most sublime teaching about the one God in three hypostases, about the Son of God, who, out of love for his image - man, was incarnated and suffered suffering and death, about the afterlife, about morality - while not only in pagan mythologies about gods, but also in the books of the pagan sages themselves - Chrysippus, Epicurus and others - all kinds of studding are preached (- I, 62-77). After denouncing the pagans, Maxim directed his polemics against the Latins. When he arrived in Russia in 1518, he had already found here “a certain blasphemer of late wisdom, a German by birth, writing corrupted against our Orthodox faith.” It was Nikolai Bulev or Lyuev, the chief physician in. V. Vasily Ioannovich, who enjoyed his special favor and, according to one contemporary, “a most learned professor of medicine, astrology and all science.” He lived in Russia for many years, studied the Russian language and wrote essays in it in favor of Latinism, spread astrological teaching among Russians and, probably, translated into Russian the book of Samuel the Jew, which we have already mentioned; corresponded with our boyars (for example, with Fedor Karpov), and subsequently with Maxim the Greek himself 15. Maxim calls him Nikolai Nemchin in his writings and testifies that he was considered “wise and skilled in verbal art” and that many were surprised at his wisdom (– I, 214.236.271.455). It was against this Nicholas the Nemchin and regarding his writings that Maxim wrote almost all of his works on the Latins: one in the form of an accusatory word on the writings of Nicholas about the unification of the Orthodox and the Latins, two in the form of messages to the boyar Fyodor Karpov, and three in the form of messages to Nikolai the Nemchin himself. In a word on the essay by Nicholas the Nemchin on the unification of the Orthodox and the Latins, Maxim proves: 1) that Nicholas is wrong in asserting that the Roman Church has invariably preserved the Orthodox faith since the time of St. apostles and saints fathers, - since she changed the member of the faith about the Holy Spirit in the very symbol of faith, contrary to the teaching of the Savior and the ecumenical councils, and that because the Latins “are worthy of being called not exactly schismatics, but partly heretics”; 2) that, although the baptism of the Orthodox and Latins is really the same, but the deviations of the Latins from the faith, such as the doctrine of the origin of the Holy. The Spirit and from the Son, the doctrine of purgatory and the use of unleavened bread in the sacrament of the Eucharist make it impossible for the Orthodox to communicate with the Latins, and therefore the latter must first remove these obstacles and renounce their errors if they sincerely wish to unite with the Orthodox (– I, 213-234). In his messages to boyar Fyodor Karpov, Maxim, at his request, examines some word from Nikolai the German, sent by the latter to Fyodor in response to his written questions. And it is in the first letter that Maxim proves in detail the idea that in the confession of the Christian faith it is not permissible to change anything, neither add nor subtract, - for which he cites the words of the Savior and the Apostle Paul, then the sayings and decrees of Dionysius the Areopagite, Pope Celestine, Cyril of Alexandria, the third and fourth ecumenical councils, Pope Leo the Great, John of Damascus, the council that was under Patriarch Photius, and Pope Leo IX (–I, 235‑266). In the second letter, he refutes one after another the evidence of Nicholas the German in confirmation of the Roman false dogma about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son - evidence borrowed both from different places and from considerations of reason - and also uses the testimony of many saints. fathers (–I, 207‑322). It should be noted that these two epistles of Maximus are the most thorough of all his writings against the Latins. It is also worthy of note that Maxim wrote these messages even at a time when he was busy translating the explanatory Psalter, as he himself testifies (– I, 237), therefore, the very first year of his stay in Russia. And how, according to Maximus’s own testimony, he began to write against the Latins after he had denounced the “Jewish evil-doing of Hellenic wickedness” (–I, 62.77): then it should be assumed that Maximus’s polemical works, at least some - against the Jews, pagans and then the Latins - are perhaps his first works among us in time, and that they were probably his written in Latin, and translated into Russian by his famous assistants. All three of Maksimov’s messages to Nikolai Nemchin were written at the request of the latter. In one letter, Maxim gives an answer to Nicholas’s two letters to him, and in some detail refutes his evidence of the Roman false dogma about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, and in the end begs Nicholas to leave this error and stand on the solid stone of Orthodoxy (– I, 323-340). In another letter, fulfilling Nicholas’s request to explain to him when and how the Latins separated from the Greeks and from St. Church of God, Maxim briefly denounces four apostasies or false teachings of the Latins: about the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Son, about fasting on Saturday, about the celibacy of the clergy and about unleavened bread, and advises Nicholas to turn with his questions to Metropolitan Daniel, who is able to show him the whole truth (– I, 509-532). In the third letter, regarding the request of Nicholas the German, that Maxim pray for him, Maxim convinces him to put aside all Latin word debate, not to reinterpret the texts of Scripture about the Holy Spirit, not to refer to one blessed Augustine, as if he alone understood the dogmas of the faith better than all the councils, not to say that the Roman Church makes only an explanation, and not an addition to the teaching about the Holy Spirit, but with with childlike obedience, accept and immutably maintain the confession of Orthodoxy, as it was devoted to the family of St. ecumenical councils (–I, 341-346). The only work of Maxim against the Latins, not addressed to Nicholas the German and not mentioning him at all, is “A Word of Praise to St. to the apostles Peter and Paul, in the same denunciation of the three great Latin heresies.” What is exposed here, however rather superficially, is precisely the false teachings of the Latins: about purgatory, about the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and about the use of unleavened bread in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The word is one of the least successful works of Maxim the Greek (– I, 180‑212). Having denounced Judaism, paganism, and Latinism, Maxim considered it unworthy of his jealousy to leave Mohammedanism without denunciation (– I, 77-78) and wrote three essays against the Mohammedans. In the “Word of Accusatory Word on the Hagarian Deception,” he says that there are three main signs of the truth of any faith or teaching: if it is given from God himself, if it is brought into the world through a righteous and pious man, and if it is in accordance with the dogmas and traditions of St. prophets, apostles and church fathers - and then proves that, on the contrary, Mohammed was a wicked man and a deceiver, that his teaching completely disagrees with the dogmas of St. prophets, apostles and church fathers, and that he was sent not from God, but from the Antichrist and was his forerunner: the word is drawn out, extremely abusive, not directly directed towards its goal and has little power and evidence (-1, 77-130). In the “Second Discourse on the Same to the Faithful against the God-fighting Dog Moameth,” Maxim argues that the time of the coming of the Antichrist is near, the end of the world is near, “as the divine scriptures teach us, clearly saying: in this world I want to be in the dispensation of all,” and in support of his thoughts he presents a vivid picture of the rapid successes of Mohammedanism in the very countries where before Christianity flourished, and points to the falling away of many Christians from the faith, to the multiplication of heresies in the Church of Christ, to the impoverishment in the world of faith and love, to wars and bloodshed throughout Europe, and in the end convinces Christians to put aside the works of darkness and put on the weapons of light, not to mourn in the midst of disasters and oppression from the Mohammedans, but to rejoice and thank Christ for the suffering sent down, and glorify Him with a pious life (– I, 130‑150). In the third article: “Answers by Christians against the Hagarians who blaspheme our Orthodox Christian faith” - Maxim wanted to give the Orthodox guidance on how to compete with the Mohammedans about faith, and in particular gives instructions: a) how to prove to the Mohammedans that Jesus Christ is God, on the basis of the Gospel, which their Koran itself calls holy, sent down from heaven; b) how to refute the false opinion of the Mohammedans that Christians believe in three gods, and c) how to respond to the objection of the Mohammedans: if Jesus Christ were God, then the Jews could not put Him to death (– I, 151-169). Maxim concluded his polemic against infidels and non-Orthodox people with a “Word on Armenian evil-belief.” Having said at the beginning of the word that the Armenian evil faith, composed of various heresies, contains three greatest misconceptions, consisting of: a) that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross not only as his humanity but also as his deity; b) as if He, after ascending to heaven, took off human flesh and c) as if He has one nature, and not two - Maxim dwells on the first misconception and refutes it partly with the texts of St. scriptures and considerations of reason about the impossibility of God dying, and partly historical legends, for example, that in the days of St. Some youth of Procla was taken up to heaven and heard there the singing of the Trisagion hymn without the addition: crucified for us, which the Armenians do, and the like. This word is addressed by Maxim to some “faithful friend and beloved brother,” to whom he advises to renounce friendship and communication with the Armenians and put on the full armor of the theology of the wise John of Damascus, to repel all kinds of heresies (– I, 169-180). Of the works written by Maxim against superstitions of various kinds and apocrypha, the largest part relates to astrology. Among the apocrypha or false books that have long penetrated into Russia and which were forbidden for Russians to read, was the “star story.” But in the days of Maxim the Greek, the famous Nikolai-Nemchin especially contributed to the spread of astrological teaching in Russia. He captivated the boyar Fyodor Karpov, another monk who was the abbot, and around 1524 he wrote a letter in an astrological spirit to clerk Munekhin (1). Maxim, who saw from experience in Italy, where astrology then dominated, what disastrous consequences it came to, armed himself against it with all jealousy. He wrote four messages against astrology: to Nikolai the German himself - a very brief one (- I, 455), to the boyar Fyodor Karpov in 1524. (– I, 347) 16, to the former abbot, carried away by Nicholas the German (– I, 446), and to some unknown prince who was in misfortune (– 1, 435); three special articles or words, of which in two he refutes astrological misconceptions in general, and in the third - mainly an astrological prediction about the supposedly approaching global flood (- I, 377.399.457), and, finally, deliberately touches on the same subject in some of his other works (- II, 52.154; III, 205). To support his thoughts, Maxim cited the sayings of St. scriptures and St. fathers, the opinions of ancient philosophers and poets, examples from sacred and civil history, and argued that astrological superstitions and delusions subvert the teaching of God’s providence, undermine human freedom and morality, lead to wickedness and despair and force us to recognize God himself, the creator of the world, as the culprit of evil (– II, 59-79). In addition, Maxim critically examined, in special articles, the following apocrypha and books with apocryphal thoughts and beliefs: a) the fabulous tale of Aphroditian the Persian about the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ and the worship of the Magi (– III, 125); b) the legend about Judas the traitor, as if he did not hang himself when the thirty pieces of silver were returned to him, but lived for several more years (– III, 150); c) the legend that after the resurrection of the Savior the sun did not set for a whole week and there was one bright day throughout the week (– III, 164); d) the book “Lucidarius”, translated from Latin and expounding in the form of a conversation between teacher and student various apocryphal opinions and superstitions on questions about God, the world, man, and animals (– III, 226); e) a book of interpretations by John Louis Vives on St. Augustine, also probably translated into Russian and containing, in addition to astrological nonsense, false opinions about heaven, hell, the resurrection of the dead, etc. (– III, 205). When analyzing all these false teachings, Maxim tried to show that they do not agree with the teachings of St. scriptures and church fathers, and sometimes that they also contain internal contradiction. Refuting the misconceptions set forth in the apocryphal writings, Maxim did not ignore those superstitions and prejudices that he encountered in the mouths and lives of the Russian people. And some of them, such as beliefs in magic, sorcery, calls, meetings, he denounced in various places in his writings, where he found it more convenient; and against others he even wrote special articles, for example, against false opinions: a) that for the sake of burying the drowned and murdered there are colds that are disastrous for earthly vegetation (– III, 170); b) as if Adam gave the devil who deceived him a handwriting for eternal slavery (– I, 533); c) as if anyone who does not have time to read the Gospel for the liturgy should not be present at all at its celebration (–III, 98). The second section of the works of Maxim the Greek consists of moralizing works. Some of these works relate to all Christians and relate, more or less, to Christian morality in general, or to its particular subjects, while others relate only to certain classes of Christians and specifically to those in power and monks, or even to individuals. Of the works concerning Christian morality in general, four are presented in the form of Maximus’ interviews with his own soul and three in the form of instructive and accusatory words. In the first interview, Maxim reminds his soul of the image of God with which she is adorned, of her mountainous fatherland, of the heavenly crowns prepared for her, and then accuses her of attachment to the earth, of submission to passions - voluptuousness, vain glory, covetousness, pharisaism and others; threatens her with eternal torment, commanding her not to be seduced by “heresy” - as if upon death in purgatory fire sinful defilements are cleansed; convinces his soul to know itself, to guard against all the snares of the devil, to flee from everything sinful and to take every possible care to acquire Christian virtues with which God is pleased (– II, 5). In the second interview, he tells the soul that St. has approached. Pentecost, the most favorable time for repentance and self-correction, and calls on your soul to rise from sinful sleep, become like the wise virgins waiting for the groom, take up your cross and follow Christ; examines his life in the light of the Gospel teaching about the beatitudes and finds in himself only sins and shortcomings, and again awakens his soul to rise from sleep, fear the Day of Judgment and decorate himself with all sorts of good and godly grandfathers (– II, 119). In the third interview, Maxim explains to his soul that it is not by withdrawing from the world, not by wearing black robes, not by monastic vows given but not fulfilled, that God is pleased, but by pure faith, honest living and virtues, and that therefore one must be sober and guard against the wiles of the devil, overcome one’s lusts and acquire the fear of God and divine love, which is the fulfillment of the whole law (–II, 148). In the fourth interview, which consists of ten to twelve lines, Maxim, having told his soul that eternal fire awaits her for her wickedness, convinces her to be afraid, cry, withdraw from her anger and show deeds of true repentance, while there is time, always washing herself with warm tears and not hoping for fiery cleansing after death (– II, 247). As for the words: in one of them Maxim first depicts the infinite love of God, as it appeared in the creation of man, in the providence about him and especially in his redemption, and then sharply denounces people of ingratitude to God, disobedience, opposition to Him, wickedness, and in particular reproaches rulers and judges for their injustice, love of money and bribery, as well as the pastors of the church for their addiction to acquisitiveness and lack of love for the poor and unfortunate, and convinces everyone to correct themselves and live a righteous, pious life (– II, 185). In the second word, written on the occasion of the victory of the Grand Duke over the Crimean Khan (in 1541). Maxim, having also spoken about the endless love of God, revealed in the redemption of man and in the victory granted to the prince, calls on the sons of Russia to be grateful to the Lord, to live in unanimity and mutual Christian love, to obey the Grand Duke, the Metropolitan and the bishops and to glorify the name of God with good deeds (–II, 277). In the third word, which Maxim wrote on the occasion of the terrible fire that destroyed the city of Tver and the cathedral church, richly decorated by the local bishop Akakiy, this bishop first turns to God with a short prayer and asks to reveal what the Tverites sinned against Him and deserved His wrath, and then God himself answers at length that they anger Him most with their pharisaism, caring only about good-harmony singing, the noise of bells, valuable decoration of icons, and not about honest living - with their extortion, theft, oppression of widows and orphans, their beliefs in the stars, their pagan customs, harps, tambourines, games, splashing, their drunkenness and student activities - that their very shepherds are, but in their own lives, instructors of all disorder, intemperance, wine drinking and mutual enmity; finally calls on sinners to repent and create fruits worthy of repentance (–II, 260). Maxim’s writings concerning private subjects of Christian morality, private virtues and vices include: a) a conversation between the soul and the mind about passions: here the questions of where passions come from in us and how to tame them are resolved, in particular, where the passion or addiction to astronomy comes from and how harmful it is (– II, 5.2); b) two short articles about vows: one proves that these vows must be fulfilled in practice, and the second explains when a vow of fasting can be resolved and what true fasting consists of (– II, 214. 245); c) two brief articles about the meaning of your prayers: one says what the main purpose of our prayers is and that “all our prayers and troparia, and kontakia, and prayer canons, spoken all day and hour,” will not bring us any benefit as long as we remain in sins; in the second article, instructions are given to the Christian on behalf of the Mother of God that then only what he often sings is favorable to her - rejoice when he fulfills the commandments of the One born of Her and shuns all malice, fornication, lies, pride, covetousness and untruth; and if he indulges in wickedness, predation, and adultery, then all his prayers, with many canons and stichera chanted loudly by him, will not save him from eternal torment (– II, 213. 241): d) a word against those who indulge in the sin of Sodom: it shows the severity of this sin and the terrible responsibility for it and awakens the guilty to repentance (– II, 251). Maxim's writings, addressed to the powers that be, are predominantly of a teaching nature. Three messages to our great princes were written in this manner. In a letter to the Grand Duke, probably Vasily Ioannovich (– II, 346), Maxim reveals the thoughts that every earthly power is decorated and made respected by its neighbors by the wisdom of the king, dissolved by all truth, meekness and concern for his subjects, and together the truth and justice of the princes and boyars co-ruling with the king, their diligence and even more their like-mindedness and love of friendliness, but what is predominantly the prosperity and prosperity of kingdoms depend on God, who, as sacred history shows, either has mercy and exalts them for their piety and obedience to Him, or punishes and humiliates them for their wickedness; and therefore the strongest affirmation for earthly kings is faith, hope and Christian love, expressed in fulfilling the commandments of God (-II, 338). In a letter to Grand Duke John Vasilyevich, Maxim says that the blessed king must constantly look at the image of the King of Heaven - Christ God and imitate Him in justice, meekness and mercy, trust in Him alone and glorify Him with his deeds; advises the king to read, for his guidance, the message of Blessed Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Bulgarian Tsar Michael; confesses that the last Greek kings were humiliated by God and lost their kingdom for nothing other than great pride, Jewish love of money and covetousness, for taking away estates from their assistants, leaving their boyars in contempt and poverty, not protecting offended widows and orphans, and convinces the Grand Duke not to follow such an example of the Greek sovereigns, and with truth and goodness they will arrange what is necessary and useful for their assistants, to honor the metropolitan and bishops, to protect and reward princes, boyars, governors and soldiers, to protect and look after the poor, orphans and widows (– II, 346). In a letter “to the faithful king”, not named, but, in all likelihood, to John Vasilyevich 17, Maxim teaches that the true king and autocrat is the one who not only rules his subjects with truth and prudence, but also tries to dominate the wordless passions and lusts of his own soul, and that therefore the king must avoid the love of money, love of glory, voluptuousness, rage, anger, drunkenness, and to adorn yourself with all righteousness, meekness, purity, mercy and charity. By the way, here the king is commanded that he consider his best adviser not the one who, contrary to the truth, incites him to fight and war, but the one who advises to love peace and reconciliation with neighboring peoples, and that the king tries to correct “priestly shortcomings,” and precisely those spiritual shepherds who use the contributions of kings and princes, given to the church to feed the poor and orphans, only for themselves, and for their nephews and relatives (– II, 157). Only one accusatory essay by Maxim is known, “explaining, with pity, the disorder and outrages of the kings and authorities of the last life.” Here Maxim says that one day, while traveling, he saw his wife sitting by the way in black clothes, like a widow, and crying bitterly; and there were animals around: lions, bears, wolves, foxes. This wife revealed to Maxim, at his request, that she was one of the noble and glorious daughters of the King of Heaven, and that her name was Vasily - the kingdom. She complains and cries inconsolably because those who own her, i.e. kingdom, in modern times, for the most part, lovers of fame and power, who, moreover, being overcome by the love of money and covetousness, torture their subjects with all sorts of cruel tortures, while its ancient guardians and betrotheds, such as David and Melchizedek, loved truth, meekness, and peace; that now those clothed with power lawlessly and ungodly feast with harps, surnas and thyme, with all sorts of ridicule, foul language and idle talk, do not accept either the spiritual instruction of the priests, or the lamentations of the many-skilled elders, do not heed the rebuke of the inspired scriptures themselves; that now there are no “truly wise kings” at all - everyone cares only about themselves, how to expand the borders of their powers, they take up arms against each other, torment each other like wild animals, and have no concern for the Church of Christ, fiercely tormented by the Ishmaelites (– II, 319). Although this lamenting wife, Vasily, apparently did not represent Russia alone, but rather Europe or the earthly kingdom in general, and through her lips Maxim wanted to express his own complaint against modern rulers who, indulging only in vices and caring about the expansion of their states, did not want to give a helping hand to his native Greece, tormented by the Turks; but it is natural that, when depicting various shortcomings of the powers that be, he could closest keep in mind the authorities of the Russian land. Regarding monastic life, three moralizing works by Maxim were written in a teaching manner and one in an accusatory manner. In the “Word to those who want to leave their lawful wives without guilt and go into monastic life,” he teaches: God cares about nothing so much as about our eternal salvation, and achieving salvation is possible only through faith, through moving away from sins and fulfilling the commandments of God. This is how the Old Testament righteous were saved, although they lived with their wives and were burdened with worldly cares. Christians who legally live with their wives and do not seek, according to the commandment of the Apostle, permission with them (1 Cor. 7:27) can also be saved. If someone, out of lightness of mind, thinks of entering into a monastic life, breaking the union with his wife, contrary to the commandment of the Apostle, let him first test himself in worldly life, to see if he is not able to fulfill the commandments of God there too. If he sees that he is able, then let him not separate from his wife and let him continue to correct his good deeds. Let him know that the monastic life he desires is nothing more than diligent fulfillment of saving commandments; whoever fulfills the commandments of Christ with diligence, with undoubted faith and with the warmest desire to please God, will be imputed from Him and will be called a monk, even if he departs from the world in the “rank of white” (– II, 231). In the “Instruction to Monks on the Correction of Monastic Life,” Maxim says that they have chosen for themselves the narrow and regrettable path to salvation, which consists in self-sacrifice and following Christ, and therefore must bridle all their external senses - eyes, ears, tongue and others, mortify their passions and avoid all evil customs; They must decorate not their outer doll with many-colored silk fabrics, but the mental doll of their inner man, that is, their mind, with frequent teachings in the word of God, sober prayers and godly vigils, they must walk worthy of their vows with all purity, humility and unfeigned brotherly love (- II, 220). In his “Message to Certain Nuns,” Maxim explains to them that the beginning of wisdom, i.e. salvation of the soul is the fear of God, that is, fulfilling the commandments of God, and therefore those who think of being saved only by abstaining from food, long prayers and vigils work in vain; that if it is necessary to condescend to human weakness, then condescend only when the condescension is not contrary to the commandments of God and does not ruin the monastic rules of the fathers, which are: non-covetousness, silence, non-love of money, non-covetousness, humility, meekness, unhypocritical love, and that most of all you need to take care of non-covetousness and mercy towards the poor and unfortunate in order to acquire wealth for yourself treasures to heaven (–II, 394). Finally, in the “Competition for monastic residence between Philoctimon, the covetous, and Actimon, the non-covetous,” the first asks: what is better, to have enough acquisitions and always live in the monastery and remain in singing and prayer, or, for the sake of obtaining food, always wander outside his monastery, go around cities and countries and, if they give anything, rejoice and praise the giver, and if they don’t give it, complain and slander the one who did not give? Actimon replies: the important thing is that the acquisitiveness of monks and monasteries is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and is very disastrous for themselves. Philoctimon, not agreeing with this, first quotes the words of the Savior: everyone who leaves house, or brother, or sister, or father, or mother, or child, or village, for My name’s sake will receive it a hundredfold (Matthew 19:29); then he points to the example of Abraham and other Old Testament righteous people who owned riches and pleased God, and to the example of the Old Testament priests and Levites, to whom cities and villages and tithes were given, and finally he notes that none of the monks in the monasteries that own lands and villages have their own acquisitions, that monastic acquisitions are common to the entire brotherhood and not a single monk can of his own free will take for yourself something from the common property of the monastery. Actinon examines and refutes all these objections of his interlocutor in order, thoroughly develops and proves his thought and at the same time repeats several times harsh denunciations against the monks and monasteries because they try to accumulate gold and silver for themselves through all sorts of lies and extortion, wear out their peasants with hard and incessant work, give their money in interest to the poor and their peasants, and when the growth increases, They torture these poor people, take away their property, drive them and their families out of their homes and even from villages, and sometimes enslave them forever, wage incessant litigation over their estates, and generally get carried away by rumors and the sorrows of everyday life (-II, 89). The works of moral content that Maxim wrote to private individuals include: a) a message to a certain friend on how to deal with lustful thoughts and cowardice (– II, 248); b) a letter to Gregory the deacon, urging him to correct his life and refrain from drunkenness (-II, 380); c) a message to Prince Demetrius about patience in sorrows (– II, 388) and d) a message to a certain nun, instructing her not to grieve for the dead (– II, 425). Other sections of Maxim's works are very insignificant, some only due to the small number of works included in their composition, and others due to the smallness of these works. These are: Department of apologetic works, which Maxim wrote in defense of himself and his correction of church books. Known in this way are the “Confession of the Orthodox Faith,” addressed by Maxim to the Russian clergy, princes and boyars, and the letters: to the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich, to the metropolitans Daniel and Macarius, to the boyars, to Prince Peter Shuisky, to Alexei Adashev and others, up to ten in total. The named works, as inextricably linked with the life and fate of Maxim, have already been considered by us when reviewing this fate 18. Department of interpretative essays. Maxim wrote - 1) six small articles with interpretations of the Holy Scriptures: in one he explained seven verses from the Psalter, in another - six expressions or passages from different holy books, in the third - part of the 18th Psalm, and in the remaining three - only one sacred one each. verse (–III, 5‑41.49); 2) an article with interpretations of some incomprehensible “sayings” in the word of St. Gregory the Theologian (– III, 42) and 3) eight small articles with interpretations of some prayers, sacred rites and objects related to church services and rituals, and specifically the articles: on the meaning of the words in the litany “for the heavenly world... Let us pray to the Lord” (– III, 92), on the raising of the holy bread. Theotokos (– 104), about the meaning of the Greek inscriptions on the icon of the Savior and on the icon of the Mother of God (– 115), about wedding crowns (– 117), about the blessing of water at the service of the Epiphany (– 118), about the image of the Savior called Dejection (– 122), about the meaning of the fact that in some churches crosses are erected as if on the moon (–124). The department of historical and narrative essays is the most meager of all. This section includes: a) a preface to the lives of the Solovetsky miracle workers (- III, 263); b) a short story about one newly-minted martyr in the Greek land (–III, 240); c) a short story about one incident from the life of St. Paphnutia (-259); d) the same story about one incident from the life of St. Spiridona (–269); e) a brief tale of the Sibyls (– 281); f) four very short legends: about St. John, called the Great (– II, 447), about the blessed Thomaida (– 448), about the martyr Potamia (– 449) and about a certain nameless martyr – with praises to them (– 450); g) a brief story about the fire that happened in Tver and about the restoration of the cathedral church by Bishop Akaki after the fire - with praise to him (- 290); h) a short message to Elder Vassian about living in St. Mount Athos (– III, 243); finally, -i) the article: “The story is terrible and memorable and about the perfect monastic residence.” This article is the most remarkable of all Maxim's historical articles. Having first told in it about the sudden death of one famous Parisian scientist who taught theological sciences, who, during his funeral service in church, came to life three times, and the first time he said: “I am placed before the Judge,” the second: “I am tested,” the third: “I am condemned,” after which he died forever, Maxim continues that, amazed by such a miracle, numerous disciples of the deceased, rich and noble young men, renounced In all, they retired to the desert, built a monastery there and led the most strict life in it, and when describing this life, he makes the remark that they do not have the acquisition of gold and silver, there is no idle talk, foul language, untimely and disorderly laughter, there is no drunkenness, extortion, growth, lies and disobedience, there is no custom of often moving from monastery to monastery, as we move disorderly and contrary to our vows. Then Maxim talks generally about Western or Latin monasteries, praises their internal governance, their non-covetousness, brotherly love, obedience and the choice of abbots in them, and adds: “So it would be appropriate for us to elect abbots by council; and among us those who wish acquire abbot power by offering gold and silver to the people’s clerks, and very many abbots are not at all taught the divine scripture, are disorderly in life, constantly practice drunkenness, while the brethren subordinate to them, left without any care or supervision, wander along the crossroads, like sheep without a shepherd.” Further, as if as an example to our abbots, Maxim talks about the abbot of a Florentine monastery, Hieronymus Savanarola, who taught his corrupt fellow citizens so often and with such zeal in the church that he turned half of the city to the path of piety, although later, through the machinations of his enemies, he was condemned by the pope and burned (– III, 178). Finally, the mixture department, to which we include both Maksimov’s works of mixed content, and those that, not belonging to any of the departments we have considered so far, by themselves, due to their singularity or small number, cannot form special departments. These are: a) two prayers: one presiding prayer. Trinity, another Rev. Theotokos (– II, 432‑445); b) Maxim’s short appeals: to himself (– 452), to the womb (– 153), to the devil (– 154); c) brief notes, for example, that a letter has never been sent from heaven to anyone (–III, 288), that St. places are not desecrated if they remain in the power of infidels for a long time (– 156), that Russian bishops unfairly make a vow before their ordination not to accept a metropolitan from the Patriarch of Constantinople (– 154): d) brief reflections and sayings: about truth and mercy (– 236), about generosity and advice (– 237), about guarding the mind (– 271), about the tawny owl (– 272), about the dove bird and the kindness of the soul (– 273), about the seven degrees of human life, etc. (–281); e) brief solutions to some questions,” for example, about what is the first sin in the human race (– I, 546), about Leviathan (– III, 274), about mallow (– 239) and others. (–245); f) some letters from Maxim: to priest Sylvester (– II, 379), to Alexei Adashev about tafiyas (– 382), to Prince Peter Shuisky (– 415), to brother George, etc. (– 420. 421. 424. 386). Maxim’s works are like a mirror in which, to some extent, both contemporary Russia, from the moral side, and his own fate were reflected. Maxim, by his nature and the convictions of his heart, was so receptive that he could not help but respond to the major phenomena taking place around him. And the circumstances of his life were such that they involuntarily forced him to arm himself with a pen in defense of himself and his cause. The heresy of the Judaizers was still alive in Russia, although it had already been condemned and subjected to severe persecution: Maxim cast his voice against this heresy and its preachers. The Russians were then greatly disturbed by the machinations of the court physician Nicholas the German, who tried to spread both Latin and astrology among them: Maxim wrote several essays to denounce him. Various apocrypha were then in great circulation among Russian literati, and their number was further increased by the translation of new similar books from Latin. Maxim, analyzing these apocrypha, showed their absurdity and inconsistency. Superstition, hypocrisy, gross vices dominated among the Russian people, extreme injustice between the authorities, bribery, cruelty towards the poor and unfortunate, among the clergy - negligence of their duty, concern for worldly things, a seductive way of life: Maxim boldly exposed all these shortcomings and taught everyone how to live and act like a Christian. One of the most important issues of the time was the question of monastery property: Maxim spoke directly and firmly on this issue. Maxim was tried, condemned, languished in captivity, as if a heretic, when he considered himself completely innocent: and the cry of the sufferer was expressed in a whole series of messages exculpating him. Maxim did not leave unanswered private questions put to him by one person or another; He also used special cases (such as the fire in Tver, the victory over the Tatars) to expose, admonish, and instruct. In terms of their inner merit, Maxim's works are far from equal to each other. Among them there are some that are very satisfactory, in terms of unity of content, in terms of thoroughness of thoughts, in terms of harmony and consistency of presentation, in terms of the power of persuasion or edification; but there are not many such works. Among the dogmatic-polemical ones, no more than three of these can be indicated 19 , between the moralizing ones - five, six 20 , between the apologetic ones - two, three 21 , and in the remaining departments it is impossible to indicate even one. The majority of Maxim's works are more or less unsatisfactory and weak: some are too drawn out and wordy, others are incoherent and incoherent, others treat the subject one-sidedly or superficially; many, due to their brevity, barely touch on their subject and are almost meaningless. Some can be called completely unsatisfactory, such as, for example: an accusatory word on the Hagaryan delusion and a word on the Armenian evil. In the first, Maxim proves the falsity of the Mohammedan religion, to the amazement, by the fact that its dogmas do not agree with the teachings of the prophets and apostles, with the dogmas and traditions of Christianity; and the whole last word directed against the Armenians consists in refuting one heretical thought that God suffered on the cross, while the Armenians do not at all adhere to this heresy and are accused of it unfairly. We believe that the reason for the weakness and unsatisfactoryness of many of Maxim’s works is, first of all, that he wrote these works almost always hastily, in the form of letters to friends and short answers to questions asked of him, sometimes, as he himself admits, due to other activities, he did not have time to write about anything in detail and in detail, and on the other hand, and in the degree of the then education of the Russians, for whom Maxim could consider sufficient even the little that he told them, not going into more extensive speculation or research. However, it must be admitted that some, even weak works of Maximus, for example, from among those he wrote against the Latins, are much higher and more thorough than those that were written in our country before for the same purpose; and Maxim was the first to treat the apocrypha or false books, which previously were only listed in indexes and forbidden to be read, and analyzed their very contents as a thinking and learned person. The direction in the works of Maximus is dogmatic and polemical, as is natural, polemical and accusatory, often responding with the most extreme harshness and abuse, especially against Mohammed and his followers. And in moral writings the predominant direction is teaching and guiding: Maxim wrote up to five special articles on the moral and accusatory kind; in some other works of his, he touches on moral shortcomings and denounces them only in passing. The style in Maxim's works can not be called either pure or correct. At first, when he came to us, Maxim almost did not know the Russian language, then, although he studied it and wrote in it, he did not speak it perfectly. In Maxim’s articles there are often Greek and Latin words 22, much more often Russian or Slavic, but he himself invented them unsuccessfully or distorted, or falsely understood and unintelligible 23. There are also quite often not only expressions, but also entire turns of speech - purely Greek and many all kinds of errors against the rules of the Russian language - which is why sometimes the writer’s speech is so dark that it is almost impossible to comprehend it 24. Maxim showed his theological knowledge mainly in articles against the Latins and in some moralizing articles; He discovered knowledge from the secular sciences most in writings against astrology. In the field of theology, he recognized St. John of Damascus: he considered his theological system to be the best of books and the most reliable weapon against all heresies, and he himself was called “the enlightener of the universe, the nightingale of the church, the sweet-song organ of the Holy Spirit,” and gave advice to one of his acquaintances: “hold fast to the books of Damascus, and you will be a great theologian and naturalist” (I, 179.260; II, 02; III, 227. 232). Among secular pagan writers he referred to Homer, Hesiod, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Diagoras, Thucydides. Plutarch, Menander and others (– I, 299. 354, 417; II, 9. 14. 84); and in addition, in places he also expressed general judgments about the significance of secular writers and sciences. He called philosophy sacred because it teaches about God, and His truth, and His providence, and although it does not succeed in everything, not having the divine inspiration that the prophets possessed, it shows the dignity of virtue and establishes citizenship (– I, 356). He recognized the study of logic, verbal sciences, astronomy as necessary and useful, and in general approved of any “external punishment” or science (– I, 248. 351.459.462; II, 75). But he argued that we, with divine revelation, should use all this external knowledge only to the extent that they can contribute to the establishment of Christian faith and piety, arouse in us love for God, promote His glory, and that philosophy should only be a slave of the Gospel and theology - a thought that was expressed by the ancient teachers of the church - and as soon as external scriptures and knowledge turn out to be in disagreement with the priests. scriptures contrary to divine teaching, detrimental to Christian faith and morality, we must shun and “abhor” these scriptures and knowledge (– I, 351.357; III, 208.232). Holding such thoughts, Maxim sharply condemned the dominance of scholastic theology in the then Italian schools, where “Aristotle, Plato and other philosophers drowned many like streams, and no dogma was considered true unless confirmed by Aristotle’s syllogisms” (– I, 247. 462). It would be unnecessary to prove that Maximus the Greek, who, as he says about himself, “the reading of the Scriptures is many and varied, but Christian and composed by external sages, and gained a lot of spiritual benefit from there” (– I, 377), and as his writings testify, he surpassed all contemporary Russian writers and literates, if not in the breadth, then in the thoroughness of his knowledge, not only external, but also theological: he acquired both of them through reading the originals themselves, in their entirety, and not just any or Slavic translations, often fragmentary, sometimes incomplete or inaccurate and distorted, and used this knowledge with a mind developed by classical education - advantages that were not available to Russian writers at that time, although some of them (for example. Joseph Volotsky, Metropolitan Daniel) in actual theological erudition almost surpassed Maxim. But on the other hand, there is no doubt that in his enlightenment he was not above his age, did not even rise above some concepts, views, and errors that prevailed in Russia at that time: for example, he believed in the imminent end of the world with the advent of the eighth century or millennium, recognized the need to execute heretics, and considered the wearing by Russians of “tafiyas and Turkish-shaped boots” so important and contrary to faith that he gave advice to those who did not want to stop using designated things, excommunicate from St. communion and not allowed into the church, and merchants who brought such goods were whipped and plundered (I, 54.132; II, 384). Respect for Maxim's works, which began during his lifetime, did not stop after his death. Since the 16th century, they began to collect them into collections, more or less complete, and such collections were copied and distributed over the next two centuries and have survived in significant numbers to this day 25 . The testimony of Maximus was sometimes referred to along with the testimony of St. church fathers 26. And some of his articles were even included in their entirety in other, newly compiled collections, or were published separately 27. Nowadays, of course, Maxim’s works can no longer have any other meaning than historical. Max. Greka Composed. II, 312; III, 178, Kazan 1839‑1862. The information about Maxim and our judgments about him and his fate in Russia, perhaps, do not agree in everything with those that had previously prevailed, but, in our extreme understanding, alien to any bias, we set out in our History. Russian Churches VI, 157‑184, 175‑193, 275‑278 Our Histor. Russian Church VI, 156, 163‑165, 177, 179, 188, 190, 253, One of Maxim’s colleagues, a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Silouan praised Maxim, among other things, as “in all things a good being and much different from the people of the present time in wisdom and reason and wit.” (Report of the Imperial Public Bible for 1868, pp. 66‑67). A review of the works of Maxim, another contemporary of his, was published in the preface to the publication of these works (pp. 7-10, Kazan, 1859) and in the Inventory of the Slavs. hands Moscow Synod. bib. (department 11, 2, pp. 520‑521). For example, sending ten notebooks of his works to Metropolitan Macarius and the famous Alexei Adashev for reading, Maxim wrote to the latter: “I am sending to our sovereign the Eminence Metropolitan and to you things, in my judgment, not bad, the teaching on morals and weapons are stronger against the Latin heresy, and the evil Jewish stubbornness, and against Hellenic delusion and wisdom, contented wisdom and spiritual intelligence and strength will disappear to those who read...” And further: “and the notebook, in which there are 27 chapters, was copied by me wisely and kindly to the great ruler himself. (Max. Works. II. 383). A more or less detailed examination of the literary works of Maxim the Greek can be found in the article by Rev. Philaret - “Maxim the Greek” (Moscowite 1812, XI), in Russian Stories. Literature by G. Galakhov (1. 129-135) and G. Perfilyev (1, 391-416) and in a special work by G. Ikonnikov - “Maxim the Greek”, Kiev 1866. Our Histor. Russian Churches VI, 161. Maxim himself speaks about these Collaborators in translating the explanatory Psalter, as well as about the two clerks who worked at this - Mikhail Medovartsev and Elder Silouan (Works. II, 316). Our Histor. R. C. VI, 164. 187, 188. Report Imper. publ. bib. for 1888, 66. 69. Metropolitan Macaria the Great. Menaion Chet., ed. Archaeogr. Commission, Sept. 6th, p. 299, and Oct. 3rd, p. 251. Report. Yeeper. publ. bib. for 1868, 66. Description handwritten Moek. Synod, bib. 11, 1, 77; 11, 2, 574. Rukop. Slav. and Ross. Tsarsky, pp. 323‑324. We are not talking about Maxim’s translation of two or three passages from the Old Testament, due to their very insignificance, nor about his translation of the entire book of the Helmsman (Eugene. Words, about spiritual writers. 11, 37, ed. 2): since this Helmsman, supposedly translated by Maxim, is mentioned only by Patriarch Joachim (1673-1690), probably by mistake, and before, as well as after, there are no traces of her at all, or even a mention of her. Our East. R. Church VI, 187‑189. Max. Sochin. I, 29‑37. Our Histor. R. Church VI, 190‑191. Our Histor. R. Church VI, 183‑192 Max. Sochin. I, 29‑34, III, 62. 75‑92. Described. Blush. Music page 370. Maxim. Last to the Cathedral, in “Moskvit.” 1842, No. 11, 85. About this Nikolai Bulev or Lyubov, as a favorite doctor in. K. Vasily Voznovich, our chronicles say (–VI, 271), as an expert in medicine and astrology, is mentioned by contemporary Fr. Da-Collo (Karamz. VII. note, 258), and as for Nikolai the German, who lived with us for another year, and wrote in defense of the Latin faith, against whom Maxim the Greek armed himself, almost modern collectors of Maxim’s work and partly Maxim himself testify (–I, 213-214. Demolished. Descriptive manuscript. Moscow. Synod, bib. II, 2, 537). Therefore, they unfairly confuse this Nicholas the German with the papal ambassador Nikolai Schomberg, who was with us in 1518 and in 1520 had already returned to Rome (Rudnev On heresy and dissertation, in Russian Church 285-287, M. 1838; Philar. Ist. R. Church III, 103-104, ed. 2). Description Room. Music 716; Orthodox Interview 1861, II, 80‑81. Description handwritten Moscow Synod, bib. II, 2, 540. Это послание озаглавлено: «Главы поучительны начальствующим правоверно» и содержит в себе именно 27 глав (Опис. рукоп. Моск. Синод, библ, II, 2, 531). А сам Максим, посылая десять своих тетрадок для прочтения Адашеву и митрополиту Макарию, заметил, что «тетрадка, в ней же 27 глав», списана им «к самому великому властителю», конечно, царствовавшему в то время, т. е. к Иоанну Васильевичу (‑ II, 383). Our East. Russian Churches VI, 277–283. And precisely the articles placed in the first part of his works under Nos. XII, XIII and XVIII. Articles in the second part under numbers I, III, IV, VIII, XX, XXVI. Articles in the first part under No. I and in the second under No. XXIX. Например: статье (т. е. состояние), Параклит, псевдопрофит, аделфофей, стадия, лихан, епистолия, имармени, ливелл (I, 56. 136. 140. 150. 160. 161. 352. 410; III, 62). For example: godfather instead of - godfather, bad - simply, sweet - to please, creator - poet, frequency - often happens, zemsky - earthly, let's form with them - let's agree with them, piryans - feasting, discerning - different, tasty - I wish, moves - tries, preyed - the highest, tischinny - quiet, dangerous - cautious, objects - destroys, heinous - I abhor, I return - I overthrow, by art - by experience, by cutting - by a warrior, by word - understanding, finished - definite, by chance - by chance, by guilty - cause, image - image, through lepago - in excess, guests - those who eat (I, 66. 73. 89. 114, 116. 146. 169. 183. 184. 200. 271. 310. 321. 324. 354. 358. 359. 374. 394. 414. 423. 432. 436. 437. 462). As an example, we can point to the beginnings of the articles placed in the first part under Nos. III, X and XII. Description handwritten Moscow Synod of the Bible II, 2, 520‑591. See also Description. handwritten Blush. Musicians, Count Tolstoy, Tsarsky, etc. Description handwritten Moscow Synod. bib. II, 2, 605. Ibid 548. 549; Evgen. Words spirit. pissing II, 36, ed. 2. You might be interested in: