Tales of St. Maximus the Greek

Contents Introduction I. Sources for studying the biography of St. Maximus the Greek II. Legend as part of the corpus of works by Rev. Maxim the Greek § 1. Collected works of the Rev. Maximus the Greek as a new type of book § 2. A legend written c. 1587 § 3. Classification of lists of the Legend § 4. Correlation between the Long and Short editions § 5. Author of the Legend III. “The Legend is known” (Reliable Legend) § 1. Lists of the Legend § 2. The relationship between the “Preface in brief” and the Legend § 3. The author of the Legend § 4. Maxim the Greek in “Eulogy to the Russian Venerables” by Sergius Shelonin Texts Introduction to the publication I. Testimony of a Trinity monk Selivana. 1524 II. Testimony of the Trinity monk Nil (Kurlyatev). 1552 Preface Psalter III. The legend as part of the corpus of works by Rev. Maximus the Greek III-1. Lengthy edition of the Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain of Vatopedi Monastery (fol. 5) III-2. Brief edition The legend of Maxim the philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mountains of Athos, the glorious monastery of Vatopedi and her venerable Annunciation, and how he came to Moscow (l. 3) IV. “Preface” – “Legend” by Hierodeacon Isaiah Kamenchanin (c. 1591) IV–1. Full view Preface in brief (l. 1) IV–2. Brief view A short story about the great reverend Father Maxim the Greek (l. 1008) V. A story about the composition of the priest John Milyutin (“The story is known”) The story is known about the arrival of Maxim the Greek to Rus' and how he endured until his death. (l. 1317) Bless, father // Miracle (l. 1330) List of abbreviations St. Maxim the Greek is a Russian saint of Greek origin, whose role in the history of Russian Orthodox culture and spiritual enlightenment was significant not only in the 16th century, but also in the following centuries. In 1988, he was canonized “as one of the saints of God for all-Russian church veneration” as “an ascetic monk and teacher of monastic life”, “a prisoner and sufferer of many years of imprisonment”, “a spiritual teacher” who deepened the patristic tradition 1 . His veneration as a venerable ascetic did not fade over the centuries. There was constant interest in it from scientists and researchers not only in Russia, but also abroad. Monographs dedicated to him, not to mention scientific articles, were published in French, German, English, Italian, and Dutch. Different aspects of his multifaceted creativity have been studied with varying degrees of completeness. More attention was paid to original writings than to translations. No full scientific biography has been written; The publication of the main Tales dedicated to his life and work will also contribute to filling this gap. Their significance lies not only in the fact that they tell about many events and facts of life, especially the period after the condemnation of 1525–1531, which is almost not reflected in documentary sources. The tales show the attitude of generations to his personality and creativity. The rise of interest in it occurs at the end of the 16th century, in connection with the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Later, one of the Legends dedicated to him, published in this edition (No. V), is included in the Menaion of the Church of the priest John Milyutin (1646–1654) next to the Lives of the Saints. Tales about Rev. Maxim Greke were published in 1899 as an appendix to the book by S.A. Belokurov, dedicated to the library of Moscow sovereigns 2. The occasion was a fragment of one of the Legends (No. III in this edition) about the “countless multitude of Greek books” stored in the Moscow grand-ducal chambers; “Monk Maxim,” who was invited to translate them, told the Grand Duke that “among the Greeks” he was not honored to see such a number of Greek books. Vasily III instructed him to “sort out” the books, highlighting those that had not yet been translated into Russian; the learned Athonite monk, having discovered “several” such books, presented a list of them (“make the names of those books clearly”), the custodians were ordered to “keep an eye on them and put down the writings” (perhaps we are talking about a kind of inventory). This message was one of the origins of the controversy over the ancient library of the Moscow Grand Dukes, which flared up and died out in the 18th–19th centuries. It can be added that the editor of the 17th century, complementing and expanding the message about books (as well as the text of the Tale as a whole), considered it necessary to clarify that we are talking about “holy books”; the story is conveyed in the following edition: “The great sovereign of this monk Maxim called to himself before the bright eyes, and took him to his holy royal book-keeper, and showed him the holy and countless incorruptible great treasure of many books in Greek words” (IRLI, coll. Pershina, No. 10, l. 4). Belokurov denied the existence of an ancient library, insisted on the late origin of the Legend, but with his inherent scientific conscientiousness and erudition, he undertook a huge amount of work to identify all the manuscripts of the Legend to determine the time of its appearance and the degree of reliability. Since the Tales are preserved, as a rule, in manuscripts containing the works and translations of St. Maxim, the results of the work went far beyond the stated objectives and served as the basis for the study of the entire manuscript heritage of this author (243 manuscripts of the 16th–19th centuries were identified and described in varying degrees of detail). Belokurov did not limit himself to publishing in the Appendix only one Legend that interested him, but published almost all the biographical material contained in his manuscript heritage. Belokurov made a conclusion about the late (in the 17th century) appearance of the Legends and the unreliability of their news; he was joined, in particular, by E.E. Golubinsky 3. Other researchers, on the contrary, saw quite early works in the Legends and insisted on the existence in Moscow of a rich ancient library with unique manuscripts. Thus, A.I. opposed Belokurov’s point of view. Sobolevsky 4, later M.N. Tikhomirov 5. A special study was undertaken in the 30s. N.N. Zarubin 6, supporter of A.I. Sobolevsky. The controversy centered on the issue of the library. Reflection in the Tales of the personality of St. Maxim the Greek, his biography and creativity was not an independent object of study. Only in 1954–1956. A special study of the Legends was undertaken by I. Denisov, who tried to identify their authors and believed that the text published by Belokurov under No. 7 (in this edition No. III) belongs to A.M. Kurbsky and written before his departure to Lithuania, still in Moscow, shortly after the death of Maxim the Greek (i.e., between 1556–1564), and text No. 6 (in this edition No. V) was written around 1590–1591. and belongs to the “black deacon” Isaiah from Kamenets-Podolsky, who arrived in Moscow in 1561. These hypotheses will be discussed in the following sections of the work, but now we will limit ourselves to only pointing out another major and controversial problem, with which - however, indirectly - the study of the Legends turned out to be connected. The personality of Isaiah as the alleged author of one of the Legends has acquired particular interest in recent decades in connection with the hypothesis put forward by E. Keenan about the apocryphal nature of the correspondence between Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Prince Andrei Kurbsky; fragments from the works of Isaiah were at the center of the argument. One of E. Keenan's articles is devoted to the personality of Isaiah 7. Of the nine Legends and News published by Belokurov, three are published in this edition (according to its numbering No. 1, 6, 7, in this edition No. III–V), since they are the main, central ones in the cycle, the rest are based on them, borrowing and contaminating the component parts, sometimes (but in rare cases) supplementing with new information. The study and publication of the rest is the task of the next stages of work, during which codicological and textual studies will be carried out, an analysis of the Legends in connection with the history of the collected works of Rev. Maxim, in the context of cultural history and spiritual enlightenment. I. Sources for studying the biography of St. Maximus the Greek The personality and fate of St. Maxim the Greek are reflected in monuments of different origins and genres. First of all, these are his own works, since they themselves are facts of creative biography; In addition, the author writes (along the way, in various connections) about a number of events in his life, both close in time and from the distant past. Despite the importance of the author's memories, they are still insufficient to reconstruct the completeness of the biography. Biographical facts are described in various lifetime sources - both documentary and narrative. There are much more of them for the first period of his life in Russia (1518–1525), and for the period after the condemnation (1531–1555/56) they are almost completely absent, we can only mention the letters of the Patriarch of Alexandria Joachim (April 4, 1545) and the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius II to Ivan IV (June 1546) with a request for the return of the Holy Mountain monk to Athos 8. A brief note preserved in one of the manuscripts containing his writings tells us about the place of birth and the parents of the saint. Although this is a relatively late manuscript (late 16th century) 9, the entry undoubtedly goes back to information conveyed by him, verbally or even recorded in writing: Maximovo Grekovo birth from the city of Arta, from father Manuel and mother Irina - Christians, Greeks, philosophers. From the record it follows that his parents were educated people. And then it describes the location of Arta in relation to the Reigning City of Constantinople and Jerusalem - the spiritual and political centers of the Christian world. The number of days of travel to each of them is even named, with an accuracy of up to half a day, so we can assume that Rev. Maxim visited these cities. The date of his birth is missing from surviving sources. Based on a comparison of indirect evidence, it is determined “around 1470.” 10. The worldly name is unknown from Russian sources; in a number of Western European and Athos sources 11 Michael (on Athos Maxim) Trivolis is mentioned; according to I. Denisov’s hypothesis, which is quite well-reasoned, this is a future Russian saint. 12 Entries in embassy books, reports from ambassadors report on the route of movement of Russian envoys to Holy Mount Athos and their return together with an interpreter. The embassy left Moscow for Constantinople on March 15, 1515; Vasily Kopyl and Ivan Varavin were sent to Athos with alms; one of the letters contained a request to send a “book translator, for a time.” Vasily Kopyl went to Mount Athos from Constantinople alone in the spring of 1516, before Easter, and left in June together with a translator 13 . The Russian embassy left Constantinople in May 1517, stayed for a long time in Cafe, and only in February, in Moscow, a message from Vasily Shadrin from Crimea was received, in which (for the first time in Russian sources) “Elder Maxim” was mentioned: “Let Kopyl and Varavin go with me, sir, and with them, sir, the metropolitan himself is going - from each other Patriarch from Tsar-grad, and from your monastery, sir, from Saint Panteleimon, Savva the pro-abbot is coming, and from Vartoped, sir, the elder Maximus himself is coming to you, sir, the third..." 14. We are talking about the embassy of the Patriarch of Constantinople Theoliptus I, consisting of Metropolitan Gregory of Zikhnino (Yaninsky) and Hierodeacon Dionysius. The letters brought by the embassy were kept both in the embassy archive (“Greek” embassy book No. 1, letters to Grand Duke Vasily III) and in the metropolitan office (to Metropolitan Varlaam) 15 . In a letter to Vasily III of Vatopedi, it was reported that “our beloved brother Maxim was sent to him, skillful and useful in the interpretation and translation of all books of the church and the verbs of Elin, from his youth in the teachings of this age...” (the end of the letter has not been preserved). In the letter of the abbot of Vatopedi, Anthemia is more complete: “more honest than our brother Maxim, who is from our sacred monastery of Vatopedi, likewise skilled in the divine scripture and good at telling all kinds of books, both church and spoken Elinsky, even from his youth in this age and thus punished with virtue, and not like others and only some who are revered by many; sends him by our will and desire. But since there is no Russian language, maybe Greek and Latin, we hope that the greyhound will learn the Russian language too” 16. All-Russian chronicles in the article “About Gregory the Metropolitan and the Svyatogorsk elders” report the arrival of the Greek embassy and the “elder” Maxim the Greek in Moscow on March 4, 1518, and their reception “with great honor”; Vasily III “commanded them to stay” at the Chudov Monastery, “nourishing them and satisfying them with all their needs from his royal meal” 17. The varied works of the first period (1518–1525) are evidenced by extensive translations and original works (they are published in Volume I of the new edition of the works of St. Maximus the Greek). In 1525, the writer, translator, and philologist was convicted, deprived of communion and sent to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery; in 1531 he was tried a second time. All-Russian chronicles no longer report these events, but there is a brief entry in the local chronicler. The main source remains the Judgment Lists 18. The course of both trials is reflected in them in sufficient detail, but comparing them with their own writings reveals their tendentiousness, although they are scrupulous in recreating the little things, especially the testimony of witnesses; The defendant's answers, on the contrary, are recorded in a very short version. The Judgment Lists include documents of an official nature - letters of May 1525 to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery of Grand Duke Vasily III and Metropolitan Daniel, on the basis of which one can judge those charges that the Council considered proven and which were the official reason for the condemnation. This is a heresy and position on the issue of installing Russian metropolitans. Documents related to Rev. Maxim and especially to his condemnation, were carefully preserved in the State Archive (later in the Archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz), which is confirmed by their mention in archival inventories 19. One of them has been preserved in the original (investigative file) 20. The reasons for the secondary trial of 1531 remained unclear for a long time. But the use of indirect evidence preserved in the Inventory of the Archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626 allows us to reconstruct them with a fairly high degree of reliability. It remained unclear why it was necessary to judge a prisoner who had already been convicted, who was in captivity, and who had been excommunicated. Until now, the “Greek letter” has not attracted the attention of researchers - mentioned in the inventory of the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626, among the “Greek letters”, the letter “on the harati” of Archpriest of the Holy Mountain Anthimus III with his signature and seal 21 . Its contents are not disclosed in the Inventory, but the coincidence of its date (“Summer 7039”) with the date of the second trial allows us to assume with a fairly high degree of probability that at least one of its topics was a petition for an Athonite monk, who, we recall, was sent to Moscow with a letter from the abbot of the Vatopedi monastery, Anthimius (it cannot be ruled out that it was he who became prototom by 1531). If this assumption is correct, then both the goals of the second court and some features of the Judgment List are explained. The Moscow authorities considered it impossible to release the prisoner, so it was necessary to substantiate, firstly, the legality (from their point of view) of the conviction of 1525, and secondly, the negative attitude towards the petition of the archpriest. Therefore, the presentation of the charges is not given in chronological order, not in the sequence of both courts, but interspersed, thereby increasing their severity and increasing their volume. It would be possible to satisfy the prot's request subject to the convict's repentance, but in the Judgment List, on the contrary, the presentation of the course of the trial of 1531 is preceded by a statement of the fact that the prisoner not only did not show repentance, but new “guilts” were discovered. Moreover, the tendentiousness of the Judgment List was also manifested in the fact that, for all its scrupulousness in describing interrogations, confrontations, and witness testimony, it does not contain a fact about which the accused himself later wrote: he fell on his face twice and three times before the Holy Council, repented and asked for forgiveness for unintentionally made mistakes in the translation and rewriting of books. There is no doubt that this corresponds to reality, since Maxim wrote about his repentance at the Council in a letter to Metropolitan Daniel, the main accuser at both Councils. The absence of the verdict of 1531 in the Judgment List receives an explanation, and such an oddity as the presentation of the verdict of 1525 (more precisely, the letters of the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery) not at the end of the section on the first trial, but after the section on the trial of 1531. Apparently, the judges and compilers of the Judgment List did not consider it necessary to pass a new verdict, believing that the letters 1525 was a fairly convincing and peremptory decision that did not allow revision. The period after the conviction is almost not reflected in documentary sources; the evidence of the Legends therefore acquires special significance. A valuable source for the first period is also the testimony of translators and other persons who worked with him. They reflect not just the attitude of employees towards his personality, but, above all, an assessment of the teacher’s erudition, scholarship, and deep philological knowledge; and in the Preface by Nil Kurlyatev (No. II) one can see the emergence of that model (still very simple) of biographical characteristics, according to which the biographies of Legends and Isaiah Kamenchanin (text No. IV), and the authors of the other two Legends (No. III, V), will be built, but in a significantly expanded form. Text No. 1 – fragments from Selivan’s Preface to the translation of Conversations of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, executed by him in 1524 under the direction of Rev. Maxima. Probably, it was he who expressed the idea of ​​the need to write a Preface and create a book in which its main content is preceded by a description of the work, a description of a number of circumstances of its creation. Moreover, N.B. Tikhomirov discovered a previously unknown work by Rev. Maxim, which is also dedicated to the translation of the Gospel Conversations and is known in the only list (RSL, F. 98, Erop. 920); it is published in Volume I of the new edition of his works. The text is titled “Message to all Orthodox Christians, Russians, Serbs and Bulgarians.” This is a kind of “district message”; presenting the work, the author realizes its significance in the cause of Slavic enlightenment and characterizes it with a high spiritual meaning; Speaking about the merits of the translator, he thereby indirectly assures the quality of the translation. In the indicated manuscript, which represents the earliest known copy (possibly the original translation), the message is not at the beginning, but at the end of the manuscript, as an afterword, and after it is placed a second afterword, belonging to the translator Selivan; in all other known lists it is moved to the beginning, already as a preface (a kind of introductory article). But the message of the Venerable himself. Maxim was no longer included in them. He probably conceived a type of book with two prefaces (or afterwords) with a description of its author and the work of the translators, but he failed to realize the plan in its entirety; a quick arrest, trials, and imprisonment prevented him. But it was partially brought to life, because Selivan’s Preface opens many lists of Conversations. Rev. Maxim knew the publishing business well, because in Italy, in Venice, while still in “secular dress,” he worked for the famous publisher Aldus Manutius. His idea was further developed in the works of his students and followers. The Tales dedicated to him were very often used as prefaces to numerous handwritten collections of his works, created at the end of the 16th–18th centuries. Many facts of the life of Rev. Maxim (especially after his conviction), the circumstances and course of his release are known only from their laconic presentation in the Legends. It was possible to establish that the words in one of the Legends (No. III) about 22 years of imprisonment do not refer to Tver, but to the entire period. The date of death is indicated in both editions of this Legend - 7064, i.e. the period from September 1, 1555 to August 31, 1556. 22 II. Legend as part of the corpus of works by Rev. Maxim Grek § 1. Collected works of Rev. Maxim the Greek as a new type of book Handwritten collected works of Rev. Maxim the Greek occupy a special place in Russian book culture and have features characteristic of the culture of the New Age. For modern literature, the complete collection of works of a writer or the publication of his selected works is a common occurrence. But for the Middle Ages, the position of authorial humility was more characteristic than the declaration of authorial individuality; This led, in particular, to the fact that the fate of the text after the death of the author turned out to be unstable, the works were scattered, subjected to editorial revisions, and new editions were sometimes far removed from the original author's text. Various errors appeared during repeated handwritten reproductions of the text. But Rev. Maxim the Greek himself took care to ensure that the corpus of his works was passed on to future generations in an undistorted form; he himself compiled a collection of “selected works” (of 47 chapters with an additional part). With his direct participation, a more complete collection (73 chapters) was created. The meetings open with a Preface, which speaks of “the power of this book.” It was written by the author himself, reveals his intentions and goals, and names the main themes of the essays. 23 The tradition was continued after the death of the author. His admirers, scribes and writers of subsequent generations compiled new collections, adding to the early, lifetime collections the works of St. Maxim, often grouping them in new ways in connection with the new demands of new eras and generations. Let us explain the concept of “collected works”. Collections are usually called manuscripts of mixed composition, including works by different authors and different genres. Collected works of Rev. Maximus the Greek is a manuscript of stable composition, consisting entirely (or in a significant part) of his works, as well as all other manuscripts of different times, coinciding with it not only in the set of works of this author, but also in the sequence of their arrangement. History of Tales about St. Maxime turns out to be closely connected with the history of new collections of his works, in which the Legends perform the same function as introductory articles and various kinds of prefaces in modern literature. These Tales are researched and published in this work. There was another direction, aimed at reflecting the author’s personality in the collection. These are miniatures and drawings depicting the author, which opened the collected works. Many of them are also published in this publication. The earliest ones are in the collection, which received the code name “Solovetsky”, it does not indicate the place of its creation, it was given to the collection only at the place of modern storage of a number of manuscripts - the Solovetsky collection of the Russian National Library. His earliest manuscript dates back to the end of the 3rd quarter - the 70s. XVI century, it contains (see Fig. 1, manuscript NLR, Sol. 494/513) the only drawing of the same type, where the character depicted in profile looks to the left (in other profiles - to the right); The image of the halo and the inscription around the image are still missing. It would be tempting to suggest whether it does not go back to a sketch-drawing, a self-portrait of the reverend himself. Maxim, but we do not have any arguments in his favor. The inscriptions have miniatures in other manuscripts of the Solovetsky collection of the same time. In manuscript RNL, Sol. 496/515, l. 9 rev. (ill. 4) the cinnabar inscription reproduces the initial words from the Preface to this collection, informing the date the author began working on the compilation of his “book”: “In the summer of the thousand and fortieth year I came, when Maxim began to compile this book...” (i.e. September - October 1531). Another inscription accompanies the image in manuscripts of the same time, RNL, Sol. 497/516 (ill. 3) and RNB, OLDP. 176, l. 4 rev. (ill. 2). Another type of image is presented in a slightly later manuscript of the Solovetsky collection (first quarter of the 17th century) NLR, Pogod. 1140, l. 1 rev. (ill. 5). Analyzing the iconography of St. Maxim Greka, O.A. Belobrova drew attention to the fact that his above-mentioned pen profile portraits were known to the authors of the drawings from the Siya icon-painting original of the late 17th century. 24, which was intended “most likely for decorating manuscripts” (“cf., for example, the peculiar shape of the hood and the characteristic sacristan with buttons, first encountered in the drawings of St. Maxim the Greek from the above-mentioned manuscripts of the Solovetsky collection” 25). In the collected works of Rev. Maxim of the 17th century. portraits of him are also quite common, for example, in the Nikiforov view of the Khludov collection (in the manuscript of the second quarter of the 17th century, RSL, f. 199, collection of N.P. Nikiforov, no. 79, l. 3 volume, see ill. 10) 26. The compilers of some collections also include a miniature depicting St. Maxim, and the Legend of Him (GIM, Music 3809, a brief view of the collection in 151 chapters) 27, here is one of the early (20-30s of the 17th century) and correct lists of the Legend published in this edition (No. V). In one of the manuscripts of the collection, which is classified as “mixed and supplemented,” there is also a Legend (close to the text of No. III of this edition) and a miniature. This is a manuscript from the second half of the 17th century. (BAN, Arkhangelsk Collection, No. 1044 (M.B. No. 15), as well as a manuscript from the end of the 17th century (RGADA, f. 181, RO MGA MFA, No. 287) 28; however, the fact of a later addition of sheets with a miniature cannot be ruled out. The manuscripts of the RNL, OLDP, O. XV include two miniatures: one depicts St. Maxima of the one praying, and the other - of the one writing; one of them has the inscription: “Be depicted in the summer of December 7235,” i.e. in December 1726 (ill. 16:18). Miniatures were included not only in the collected works of St. Maxima; they are also located outside their body. He made a great contribution to the history of the Azbukovnik genre 29, and in one of them (1613, scribe Evstratiy) there is a painted miniature with his image and an encrypted name (ill. 6). Here (and in a number of other miniatures) he is depicted without a halo, like a writer at work. O.A. Belobrova also published an image from the manuscript of the Yaroslavl Museum-Reserve (No. 982/301), where Rev. Maxim is likened to King David. Manuscript from the end of the 18th century. contains the Explanatory Psalter translated by him, on fol. 1 rev. King David is depicted, and on the f. 8 – Rev. Maxim (ill. 20–21). As noted by O.A. Belobrova, the miniatures were made by the same artist, in the same “iconographic scheme and with the same techniques... Maxim Grek writes in the book with a quill pen. He is dressed in a cassock and a short mantle, and on his head is a black kamilavka. The head is surrounded by a halo, like the head of King David. Unlike the short-bearded King David, Maxim is endowed with a lush round beard. The environment is identical in both miniatures down to the details” 30. The illustrations in this publication present the developed Old Believer tradition of depicting St. Maximus the Greek, while miniatures are found not only in manuscripts that came out of these circles; they are inserted into earlier manuscripts. Thus, in the manuscript of the collection of Archbishop Jonah (Dumin) of the Russian State Library, f. 98. Egor. 869 (end of the 16th century) 31 on fol. 7 rev. a miniature of a later date is placed; it is possible that when it was included on the adjacent sheets, the ornament of the late 16th century was renewed. (ill. 8–9). Miniatures in some other manuscripts are also inserted (ill. 10–11). § 2. Legend written ca. 1587 One of the first collections of works compiled after the death of the author was the collection created around 1587, and it opens with a Legend, one of the most significant in the cycle (No. III in this edition). This collection still included almost no new texts compared to the lifetime collections, but only grouped them in a new way, subordinating them to a new ideological concept. In the first place in it is an essay written shortly after the prisoner received “weakness” and the opportunity to write (after the autumn of 1531). The author writes about the injustice of imprisonment (“without truth”), about his grief and suffering, but at the same time about patience and repentance 32. It belongs to the “lamentations” genre. Its title: “The monk created these words, shut up in prison and grieved, with them he consoled himself and comforted himself in his travail.” During the period of preparation for the establishment of the patriarchate and the arrival of the Ecumenical Patriarch, there was a surge of interest in the personality of the learned Athonite monk, in whose fate they took part in the 40s. XVI century Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. It is not by chance that the compilers put repentance-crying in the first place. The main innovation of this collection, as already said, is the Legend that opens it: it sets out the facts of the biography, a brief story about the unjust condemnation, gives a high assessment of his personality and the hero’s creativity, and proves his absence of “heretical vice.” The legend is the prototype of the introductory article in a modern edition of the works of a particular author - with dates, main milestones of the biography, and a brief description of the works. However, the author of the Initial Type of Collection did not yet know about the place of birth and parents, but soon other scribes and writers found news about the place of birth and the names of parents in the Lavra, included it in the Legend, creating a new type of Legend. In this form (Trinity), the title was distributed, in which the theme of “suffering for the truth” was isolated and highlighted. Data on the time of compilation of the collection, although somewhat contradictory, undoubtedly point to the end of the 16th century. 33 Firstly, the earliest (of the known) Nizhny Novgorod manuscript of the collection (NGOUNB, f. 1, op. 1, no. 9) was written on paper of this time. Secondly, the entry on one of the manuscripts has the date “1587”, but this is the date of its protograph, repeated in the manuscript of the second quarter of the 17th century. RSL, f. 310. Und. 487 (l. 384–384 rpm). The entry may indicate the time of compilation of the collection, or just the date of one of the lists from which Und. was copied. 487; In addition, the entry lacks a predicate verb: “In the 95th year, thousands were washed on the 17th day of March under the state... of Tsar... Theodore Ivanovich and Job, the Right Reverend Metropolitan, good and honest ruler of the church in the glorious and God-endowed reigning city of Moscow, by the grace of God and the Most Pure Mother of God and the great wonderworker Nicholas and with the blessing of our lord and father, Abbot Eustafia, in Christ with his brothers.” The entry is repeated in some other manuscripts (BAN, Archang. collection. D. 42, late 16th – early 17th centuries, the entry contains an addition; RGIA. f. 834, op. 2, no. 1558, the entry coincides with the BAN manuscript), therefore, it goes back to the archetype of one of the branches of the collection, which can be dated “1587.” or "before 1587". In the Nizhny Novgorod manuscript at the end there is a letter of permission from St. Maxim the Greek of Patriarch Jeremiah June II, 1588 (in a special edition of the translation). But the letter was written in a different handwriting, on different paper, the sheets were glued, so it cannot significantly influence the date of the meeting, but it indirectly testifies to its connection with the era of the establishment of the patriarchate. § 3. Classification of lists of Legends Belokurov singled out only two editions - “abbreviated” and “abbreviated”. The text was published according to the list of the detailed edition, and the differences between it and the abridged version were conveyed using font (discharge) 34, which made it difficult to perceive the abridged version. Belokurov used 20 manuscripts of the Legend in the publication for discrepancies. I. Denisov, based on this publication, wrote about three editions of the Legend - A, B, C 35. Currently, a significant number of new manuscripts have been identified, among them - and what is especially important - are the two earliest (the end of the 16th century and the turn of the 16th–17th centuries); Belokurov was not aware of any manuscripts earlier than the 17th century. (which also influenced his dating of the Legend). Textual analysis allows us to clarify the classification of lists. The division of texts into two editions remains, let's call them Long and Short. The Brief is represented by the same three manuscripts that were known to Belokurov, and the Long - mainly by lists of various collected works of this author, in which the Tale served as a preface. In Prostransnaya, three independent types are identified: Initial, Troitsky, Pershinsky (the latter - by the name of the owner of the manuscript and the name of the collection in the IRLI Ancient Depository). The original form is found in two early manuscripts, as well as in the Synodal Collection of 112 chapters and in the lists of the Khludov-Synodal Assembly, which included the Synodal Assembly in its composition. Separately, outside of meetings, it rarely occurs. It has the most laconic (of the known) title “The Tale of Maxim the Greek Monk of the Holy Mountain of the Vatopedi Monastery”; in its initial part there is no fragment about the place of birth and parents. The Trinity species includes this fragment (one of the characteristics of the species). The name is also common. Perhaps the compilation of this type is connected with the activities of the Trinity Archimandrite Dionysius Zobninovsky; the manuscript could have been brought to the Solovetsky Monastery by Joasaph Sorotsky along with the Psalter of 1552. The third type - Pershinsky, or Expanded - is based on Trinity, but contains diverse distributions of the text that do not provide new factual information and are predominantly stylistic in nature (in the beginning, in the title of Vasily III, Russia is called the “land of Svyatorusskaya”; a fragment of this type about the books of the Grand Duke’s library was given in the Introduction). These are the manuscripts of IRLI, coll. Pershina, No. 10, last quarter of the 17th century; related text: RSL, f. 312, Fad. 28, last quarter of the 18th century. The earliest (of the surviving and known to us) manuscript of the Initial Type, as already said, dates back to the end of the 16th century. (Nizhny Novgorod). It contains the collected works of Rev. The Maxim, created no later than 1587, consists of 57 chapters 36. The legend that opens the manuscript is its organic component, written on the same paper as the entire manuscript, in one of the handwritings presented in it. The presence of the Legend is not a sign of the collection as a whole, since other manuscripts that repeat its composition do not include the Legend, with two exceptions (two manuscripts with the Pershinsky type Legend belong to this collection). The second manuscript, containing the text of the Legend of the same type, from the collection of the Yaroslavl State Museum-Reserve, No. 14982, is dated in the Description of D.M. Bulanin and A.T. Shashkova (end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th century, l. 403–615 – around 1608) 37. On these sheets, more precisely, on l. 515–615 is the collected works of Rev. Maximus the Greek, preserved in a single copy, that is, a collection whose composition (unchanged) is not repeated in any of the currently known manuscripts. The previous part of the manuscript is the Words of St. Basil the Great, Rev. Simeon the New Theologian and others. On l. 515–516 vol., i.e., at the beginning of the collection, there is a Legend with a title that coincides with the title of the Nizhny Novgorod manuscript “The Legend of Maxim the Greek Monk of the Holy Mountain of the Vatopedi Monastery,” repeating other features of the text. The Original Type of the Long Edition also includes the text of the Tale in the manuscripts of the Synodal Collection, although it is not in the earliest manuscript (of those preserved and known at present) (GIM, Sin. 491) 38, but in others it is: 1. RNB, Weather. 1139, l. 6–9 rev. (mid-17th century); 2. RNB, Weather. 1146, l. 52–55 rev. (3rd quarter of the 17th century); 3. RSL, f. 310, Und. 489, unnumbered leaves at the beginning of the manuscript (late 18th century); 4. RSL, f. 178, Music. 9626, l. 6 rev. – 9 rev. (end of the 18th century, the name Vatopeda is distorted in the name). The Khludov-Synodal collection, the second part of which is based on the Synodal, includes a Legend of a similar type. These are the manuscripts: 1. BAN, Arkhang. 1044 (M. No. 15) (second half of XVII), 2. RGADA. F. 181 (RO MGA MFA), No. 287 (end of the 17th century) 39. This collection also contains miniatures depicting St. Maxima. The second type of the Long Edition of the Legend is found in the manuscripts of the Trinity Collected Works of St. Maxim the Greek 20–30s. XVII century: 1. RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 200, l. 17–18 rev. (in this edition, therefore, the lists contain discrepancies in the publication of text No. III); 2. RGADA. F. 201, collection. Obolensky, No. 49, first quarter of the 18th century; 3. State Historical Museum. Uvar. 311, 1°, 1795 (copy from the 1705 manuscript). The same type of Legend serves as a preface in the manuscripts of the Complete (151 chapter) collection: 1. RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 201, 30s. XVII century; 2. RGADA, f. 201, collection Obolensky, No. 50, second quarter of the 17th century; 3. RSL, f. 98, Egor. 250, 3rd quarter of the 17th century; 4. VSMZ, B 5636/395, end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th century; 5. BAN, 32.14.1 (collection of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, No. 4), end of the 17th – beginning of the 18th century. 40 The Trinity type of the Long Edition is the most common. It is found separately, outside meetings (RNB, Pogod. 1294, l. 413–418), etc. Two manuscripts by the famous Solovetsky scribe Sergius Shelonin 41 are of great importance in the history of the collection. They are written in the handwriting of Sergius and his assistants in the 50s. XVII century One of them includes both editions of the Legend and will be considered when analyzing the Brief Edition: 1. RNB, Sol. 18/18, Azbukovnik 42; 2. RNB, Sol. 741/851, list of the Psalter of 1552 (without interpretations), translated by Rev. Maxim and Neil Kurlyatev, on l. 17–21 there is a Brief Edition, and on p. 234–240 – Extensive. Perhaps the text of the Legend of the Trinity in the Nikanorov collection, written by the hand of Archimandrite Nikanor, one of the leaders of the Old Believers (1667–1674, dating N.Yu. Bubnov) 43, is associated with the manuscripts of Sergius Shelonin. This is the manuscript BAN, 16.7.21; on l. 157–165 (chap. 79) there is a Legend of the Trinity (the title is “The Legend of Maxim the Philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mount Athos of the most glorious monastery of Vatopedi, who here suffered many years for the truth”), and after it, on l. 165–169, “The Legend of the Translation of the Psalter of Maxim the Greek” is placed, i.e. the preface/afterword of Nil Kurlyatev to the Psalter of 1552. These two works are placed side by side and in the manuscript of Sergius Shelonin Sol. 741/851, but in the opposite order. The text in numerous copies of the Pomeranian collection goes back to the Trinity view (with some stylistic changes, etc.) 44 . The short version is less common than the long version. Belokurov knew only three manuscripts, and new ones have not yet been identified. Two of them are copies of the already mentioned Psalter of 1552, translated by Rev. Maxim together with Neil Kurlyatev. Modern translations of the lists are unknown. Two lists with the Legend date back to the first half - mid-17th century: 1. RNB, Sol. 752/862 (this list is published in this edition), The third list (RNB, O.I.96) is in a collection of mixed composition, but the environment (“convoy”) of the Legend shows a connection with the manuscript containing the translation of the Psalter. Manuscript Sol. 752/862 represents the contribution (“dacha”) of Elder Joseph of Sorotsky, cellarer of the Solovetsky Monastery, where he came from Trinity in 1634. Belokurov believed that Joasaph was the author of the Legend, considered the Brief Edition to be the original and linked its date with the date of Joasaph’s arrival at the Solovetsky Monastery 45. Manuscript Sol. 741/851 goes back to the previous one, as the entry on fol. 5: “This book is the Psalter of the monk Sergius of the Solovetsky Monastery, written in the Solovetsky Monastery from the translation of Elder Maxim the Greek, which was brought from the Trinity from the Sergius Monastery by the treasurer Elder Joseph Sorotzkoi.” A short version is on p. 17–21 of the manuscript, and is preceded by fol. 8–15 abridged version of the message to Vasily III on the translation of the Explanatory Psalter of 1522, moreover, in an abridged version. This feature is also characteristic of Sol. 752/862, at the beginning of which there are also the Legend and the Epistle (in the same edition). But Sergius Shelonin was also aware of the Long Edition (of the Trinity Form), since it was rewritten at the very end of the Sol manuscript. 741 (851), on l. 234–241, and it is immediately preceded (on pages 230–233) by a foreword by Nil Kurlyatev (already like an afterword), moreover, in a common edition. The original edition of the Preface is in the manuscript of the Russian National Library, Pogod. 1143 (see text No. II of this edition). In both manuscripts, the “convoy” of the Legend consists of texts that seem to complement its biographical part, telling about the facts of life and creativity. The nature of their text was multidirectional: the message to Vasily III was included in an abridged version, and the preface/afterword by Nil Kurlyatev, on the contrary, was included in an expanded version. Therefore, they cannot be an indirect clue to the question of the relationship between the Short and Long editions. But textual analysis made it possible to identify four readings in the Brief Edition that reveal an undeniable greater proximity to the sources used. § 4. The relationship between the Long and Short editions At the beginning of the Legend there is a story that it was originally intended to send another person to Moscow as a translator, whose name in the Brief Edition is Sava, as in the source of this story - in a message to Vasily III regarding the translation of the Explanatory Psalter; but in Prostransnaya it was arbitrarily changed - Danil; in the manuscript of Sergius Shelonin in the Long Edition - also Danil, but the text was corrected according to the text of the Short Edition in the same manuscript, and the name was replaced by “Sava”. The second case is also in the words borrowed from the letter to Vasily III, about the length of time for translating the Explanatory Psalter - a year and five months. In the Brief Edition - “for a year and six months,” that is, very close to the source; but in Prostransnaya there is an obvious distortion “for a year” (the result of an incorrect reading of the words under the title or an omission). This mistake is repeated in all types of the Long Edition. The third case is the preservation in a short version of the name of Metropolitan Varlaam, which is also mentioned in the letter to Vasily III. Finally, the fourth case should be discussed in more detail, since it is important for establishing an important fact in the biography of the Rev. Maxima. In Belokurov’s publication, according to the list of the Long Edition, a fragment was transmitted that caused bewilderment among researchers, since it spoke of 22 years of the prisoner’s imprisonment in Tver, which gave “1553” as the date of his release (1531 + 22) and was not consistent with other data (in his own writings): And so those who are innocent of imprisonment are condemned. And be imprisoned for twenty-two years in the city Tver in the bishopric. And the unspeakable destinies of the lover of mankind, Christ, were weakened by the bishop of Tefersk Akaki, with the blessing of Metropolitan Joseph. A similar division of the phrase is suggested by the manuscript of the Trinity Collection (RSL, Troitsk. 200), where the words “And unspeakable” are separated from the previous fragment (the conjunction “and” is written in cinnabar); the words about 22 years of imprisonment are therefore correlated with Tver. This results in an obvious contradiction: 22 years of imprisonment in Tver (1531 + 22 = 1553) contradict the “weakening” also in Tver under Metropolitan Joasaph (1539–1542). It is the Short Edition that helps resolve the contradiction, where the imprisonment is spoken of very briefly (the trial and condemnation are not mentioned at all), but the source from which the author got the number “22” is indicated, and this is the “book” of the Venerable himself. Maxima! The final part of the Brief Edition talks about the nine-year 46 works of the Rev. Maxim on the translation and correction of books that “either the ancient translators failed to interpret, or the books were corrupted by those who prescribed them and went through a long period of years without correction. Others do not sufficiently (in other lists there is enough) describe him in the book, how he suffered here in captivity for 22 years.” Undoubtedly, the words “in captivity for 22 years” refer to the previous part of the phrase, and not to the next. The result is logically consistent information; it identifies the following structural units with a laconic and protocol presentation: 1. Nine years of work translating and correcting books (1516–1525), 2. 22 years of imprisonment (1525–1547), 3. “Weakened” in Tver with Bishop Akaki with the blessing of Metropolitan Joasaph (in the period 1539–1542), 4. Permission to begin communion again with the blessing of Metropolitan Macarius (presumably in 1547). Writing the “Confession of Faith” and compiling the “book” “Words”, i.e. “Words”, 5. Transfer from Tver to Trinity, 6. Death in 7064, i.e. between September 1555 - August 1556. Mention of the “book” with the “Confession of Faith” and other works by Rev. Maxima (“In Words”) indicates the source from which the number “22 years of imprisonment” was taken. Undoubtedly, we are talking about the core of the author’s collected works of 47 chapters, which opened with the “Confession of Faith” and included “Disciplinary Words about the Correction of Russian Books” (they were the source of the quoted fragment about the correction of books). These Words also indicated the number of years of “fierce adversity” of the convicted person, and the number of years in different lists is different: 17, 18, 19, 20. These differences are explained by the fact that the Words declaring innocence were sent to different persons at different times, and each time a new number of years was indicated 47 . Perhaps the compiler of the Brief Edition had a list that included the number “22”; It is also impossible to exclude some liberties similar to the one he took when he said “a year and six months” instead of “a year and five months.” The first assumption is more likely, since 1547 as the date of liberation is consistent with the dates of the letters of the patriarchs to Ivan IV about the fate of the Venerable. Maxim, what was discussed at the beginning. The presence in the Brief Edition of fragments that are closer to the sources than in the Long Edition does not in itself indicate (with a strict approach) in favor of its obligatory primacy. The explanation may be different. Both editions had independent protographs (that is, they did not ascend from one another), protographs that reproduced the Archetype in different ways. At the same time, the volume of the Archetype could correspond to both the Long and Short editions. In the first case, the compiler of the protograph of the Long Edition reproduced the Archetype in full, but made mistakes and distortions, and for some reason omitted the mention of the author’s “book” at the end of the text (in two cases); the compiler of the protograph of the Brief Edition kept the above-mentioned four readings of the Archetype unchanged (of which the fourth is the most important), but shortened the text. In the second case, the compiler of the protograph of the Brief edition reproduced the Archetype in full, with the correct readings, and when compiling the protograph of the Long edition, during the expansion of the text, the above-mentioned distortions and errors were made; in the fourth case, there was not an expansion of the text, but, on the contrary, the loss of a small but important part in meaning. A comparison of the structure of the two editions shows the different goals of their compilers. The main and largest part of the Brief Edition (within pages 3–7 of the published manuscript) was written using the message of St. Maxim Vasily III about the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, is devoted to the circumstances of his arrival in Moscow, the progress of the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, its conciliar approval (“the council is praised and the source of piety is praised”), further work on translation and correction of books, and only a very small final part (fol. 7–7 vol.) reports - in one line - about 22 years of imprisonment (without mentioning court), and then laconically, almost protocolically, as if - in modern language - in the form of a “certificate” the facts of the gradual easing of his fate are set out (“the same for now”, “and for this”, “and so”). It is quite obvious that the compilers reduced to a minimum, to one line, the message about the sufferings and hardships of the Rev. Maxima. In the Long Edition, it is the second part that is more extensive, the section on condemnation, where the “evil enemy”, “non-brotherly lovers” and their envy of the rise of a foreigner appeared; it is said that some of them slandered him, accusing him of heresy and treason (“the enemy of the God-protected land of Rustea”), while others asserted the slander with false testimony. The innocence of the convicted person is stated. The section on the exculpatory set of works created by the author himself after his release has been expanded, but the term “book”, which appears in the Brief Edition, is missing. Everything written goes back to information in the author’s own writings included in this “book”, which is mentioned in the Brief Edition, but the contents are not disclosed, and in the Long Edition these facts themselves are named, but there is no mention of the “book”. Probably, the point is not in the sequence of editions over time, but in their different target, functional purposes. They could be close in time, have one Archetype, but when compiling the protograph of each of the editions they used it differently. The possibility of primacy of the Short Edition cannot be excluded. In this case, the Legend was not created in connection with the compilation of collected works, not specifically for it; but very soon it was used by both the compilers of the collections and the copyists of some copies of the Psalter of 1552. Additional “biographical articles” in the “convoy” of the Brief Edition were not limited to the message to Vasily III and the Preface by Neil Kurlyatev. A fragment of the Brief edition about the conciliar consideration of the Explanatory Psalter (with the name of Metropolitan Varlaam) finds an analogy in another article included in the “convoy” of the Psalter of 1552, namely the “Preface in brief” by Hierodeacon Isaiah of 1591 in the list of the Psalter of 1552, RSL, Troitsk. 62 (text No. IV this edition), there is also the original edition of the Preface by Nil Kurlyatev, although there is no Legend. The manuscript will be discussed in the next section. All of the above suggests the creation of the Brief Edition almost simultaneously with the Long Edition. Belokurov, as already mentioned, assumed that the legend was written no later than 1634 by the contributor of the manuscript of the Brief Edition to the Solovetsky Monastery, Joasaph Sorotsky, when he still remained in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (he came to the Solovetsky Monastery in 1634). I. Denisov suggested that the author was A.M. Kurbsky, who compiled the Legend in Moscow, shortly after the death of the saint before his flight to Lithuania, i.e. between 1555/56–1564. The main argument was the coincidence of the story about the burning of Greek books in the Legend and in Kurbsky. But there is a clear contradiction. Kurbsky's story is contained in two different works of his, in the Prefaces to two different translations. They were written in Lithuania in the 70s, and the difference between them is that one of them (preface/afterword to the translations of the works of St. John of Damascus and other philosophical works 48) has a pronounced anti-Latin orientation (“Latins” burn Greek manuscripts), and it is this story that is briefly reflected in the Legend, created, according to Denisov, in Moscow in 1555/56–1564, i.e. was known to Kurbsky back in Moscow. And in Lithuania, in the Preface to the “New Margaret” (c. 1572), the anti-Latin orientation is weakened 49 . This seems unlikely, since Kurbsky’s active work in Lithuania was aimed at protecting Orthodoxy from “Latinism”; as noted by V.V. Kalugin, in his circle and book center in Miljanovichi, “various works were created, translated and rewritten, but first of all, the classics of Orthodox literature” 50. Reasonably denying Denisov’s point of view about the authorship of Kurbsky, V.V. Kalugin seems to join the opinion of A.I. Sobolevsky, a staunch supporter of the ancient library of the Moscow kings, about the creation of the Legend shortly after the death of St. Maxima 51. However, there are no indisputable arguments proving this point of view. The legend is based on a fairly in-depth study of the life and work of Maxim the Greek, which was hardly possible in the first years after his death for a private person, even an admirer of the work of the learned Athonite monk. The legend is clearly of official origin; but we are not aware of any phenomena in church-political life that could form the context for the revival of interest in the personality and work of St. Maxim immediately after his death. The last decade of his life is viewed rather vaguely. The direction of further research is not the search for a specific person as a possible candidate for authorship, but the identification of those circles with which the creator (creators) of the Tales was associated, the church-political and spiritual context, the social need to which the Tales were a response, which brought them to life. The most likely time for the creation of both editions seems to be the 80s - the time of preparation for the establishment of the patriarchate. III. “The legend is known” (Reliable legend) 52 Another major Legend about St. Maxime differs significantly from the Legend in the collections both in content and in manuscript tradition. It was much less widespread, less connected with the history of collected works, and does not have a rich and extensive manuscript tradition. The text in the manuscripts is homogeneous (there are very minor discrepancies, mostly scribe errors), the title is stable. Editions and types are not highlighted (with one exception). Its special interest lies in the fact that, while remaining within the framework of the literary genre of the Legend, its content has features that bring it closer to the hagiographic genre, and a small fragment in the central part is written in imitation of a liturgical composition: Then the argans struggle with pity, and the tears of the wellspring are poured out, and the Russian church children are crowned with the touching words of their father and teacher and mentor, and are drawn to the relics of the wonderful father and teacher with the verb: “What shall we call you, holy father? Is it a prophet who foretold to us the inconvenience that is understandable and known to us? Did the apostle, as if unsteady by winds contrary to us, establish the Christian faith in the divine scriptures and teachings? Are they teachers? But truly, you are no worse and lower than these great universal teachers.” And so on, and on others, preaching his high corrections, on teaching, and on others, in prison and in chains, martyrdom. Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, wrote that his veneration in the Lavra is indicated by the words about “Russian church children” who crown their teacher and mentor by venerating his relics 53 . The main components of his asceticism are also named: scientific works (“his lofty corrections”), teaching and preaching (he is likened to “universal teachers”), “martyrdom.” The same thing will be said several centuries later in the Canonization Act of the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1988, cited at the very beginning of this publication. It was these features of the Legend that created the possibility of including it in the Menaion of the Fourth priest John Milutin (1646–1654), where the Legend is accompanied by a description of two miracles that happened at the tomb of St. Maxima. The correctness of the text of the Menaeus (there are only a small number of scribe errors) made it possible to use it as the basis for the publication. It is very close to the text of a slightly earlier manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Mus. 3809. Manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Sin. 806 represents the June Menaea 54. The legend is placed in its additional part, at the end, among the “applied words”, about which the Table of Contents of the manuscript says: “applied words 16 notebooks”. Among them are: Life of Zosima Solovetsky (December 3), chapter 61; “The legend is known” (chapter 62); essay by Rev. Maxim “against Nikolai Nemchin” (Chapter 63); the work of Maxim the Greek, Canon of prayer to the Holy Spirit (Chapter 64), Life of St. Zosima (chapter 65). There is no designation of the day of remembrance in the Legend. In addition to the Minei, Belokurov knew seven copies of the Legend; managed to discover one more, which, however, did not provide any new information. In two collected works, the Tale serves as a Preface, but is not included in all lists of these collections. This is a summary of the Joasaph meeting and a summary of the 151 chapter collection. The full view of this collection, as already mentioned, contains the Trinity view of the Long Edition of the previous Legend. The tales in the collected works had some independence. These are the following manuscripts. 1. State Historical Museum, Sin. 157, l. 26–35 (second quarter of the 17th century), from the collection of N.P. Nikiforov, the text of the Legend is separated from the collection by another text (a message from an unknown person, fol. 35 vol. - 39). Below is a brief view of the Joasaph meeting 55. 2. State Historical Museum, Music. 3809 (20–30s of the 17th century), a brief view of the collection in 151 chapters; The legend is separated from the works by the same text as in the previous manuscript 56. The legend is placed on pp. 39–58, on l. 58–62 – message from an unknown person. These texts are preceded by the Tale of Tokhtamysh (l. 2–37). On l. 38 rev. posted an image of the Rev. Maxim the Greek with the inscription located around him: “Who laboriously copied this holy book, this soul-helping elder Maxim the Greek of the Holy Mountains, and his tonsure in the Holy Mountain in the monasteries of the Most Pure Mother of God called Vatopedi, who labored kindly to copy (var. gain) this holy book, and may the Lord God reward him against his labor and The Most Pure Mother of God rewards in the kingdom of heaven, amen.” (a similar inscription in the manuscript of the Russian National Library, Sol. 497/516, see ill. 3) O.A. Belobrova, characterizing the miniature, noted that Maxim was originally depicted as a writer, a learned monk, but not a saint, but an alteration of the 19th century. gave him the appearance of a saint 57. In the RGADA manuscript, as in the GIM manuscript, at the beginning there is an independent text, but different (“The Tale of the Meeting of the Miracle-Working Icon... of the Mother of God...”). Belokurov based the publication on Sin's text. 157, however, the text of the Legend in a brief form of the collection in 151 chapters is more correct, as in the list of Menaions of the Four. The legend is found in three collections of the 17th century. mixed composition: State Historical Museum, Sin. 141, pp. 409–417, second quarter of the 17th century. (according to dating by T.N. Protasyeva); RNL, O. XVII. 10, pp. 286–305 (280–299); RSL, Und. 1165, pp. 1–12 (following the Legend there are several works by St. Maxim the Greek) 58. An abridged version of the Legend is found in a mixed collection of the 17th century. RNB, Sol. 1046/1155, l. 21 rev. 23 59. It was not possible to find the manuscript described by Belokurov from the “library of the Anthony of the Siysk Monastery, in 4, p. cursive in the 17th century, pp. 1–8. The Legend, which has no end here, is followed by the Alphabet. I use the list of Legends of this manuscript compiled by P.M. Stroev on July 7, 1829 in the Anthony Siysky Monastery.” Controversial problems in the study of the Legend are two, however, interconnected: the relationship between the Legend and the “Preface in Brief” of 1591, compiled by Hierodeacon Isaiah from Kamenets-Podolsk (text No. IV of this edition), and the authorship of Isaiah in relation to text No. V (hypothesis of I. Denisov) 60 . § 2. The relationship between the “Preface in brief” and the Legend “Preface in Brief” is known in only two lists. The main one is part of the Psalter (without interpretations) of 1552 (in the list of the 17th century), which was mentioned in the previous section (RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 62) in connection with the history of the Brief edition of the Legend of 1587, the other (in the secondary abbreviated edition) - in the RKP. State Historical Museum, Sin. 850. At the origins of biographical information about Rev. Maxim Greke in texts both No. IV and No. V contains the Preface of the Psalter by Nil Kurlyatev (see text No. II). Although the information is very brief, its structure complies with the norms and regulations of the biographical genre. ...Maxim the elder, Greek, philosopher. ...elder Maxim, a Greek by birth, was taught philosophy in his own language, and knew the second Roman language and literacy very intelligently. These are fragments from the first edition of Neil’s preface; in the second, the addition “son of the governor” and the characteristics “holy elder” and “great elder” appeared. It is on this model that the beginning of the text of the “Preface” of Isaiah of 1591 in Troitsk is built. 62: “Maxim, son of the voivode, monk, Greek by birth, philosopher, Svyatogorsk from the sacred monastery of God to the mother of the great Vatopedi.” But it is not only Isaiah's "Preface" that shows the influence of Neale's "Preface"; it is also found in Isaiah’s self-characterization in his autobiography of 1582, and in the characterization of the Rev. Maxim at the very beginning of the Legend (No. V). In other words, there are three connection nodes, three lines of relationships: 1) from Neale’s “Preface” of 1552 to Isaiah’s self-characterization of 1582; 2) from it to the “Preface” of Isaiah 1591; 3) from the “Preface” of 1591 (using self-characteristics of 1582) to the Tale (No. V). However, the direction of the last line was debatable; so, A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev believed that the primary one was the Legend used in the Preface of 1591 as a source; thereby establishing the earlier origin of the Legend (before 1591). Belokurov wrote about the opposite correlation of texts. Since Isaiah will be discussed more than once in the future, it is necessary to characterize his connection with the work of St. Maxima. The personality of the “black deacon” Isaiah has attracted the attention of researchers in recent years mainly in connection with the controversy regarding the genuine or apocryphal nature of the correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Kurbsky; but the topic “Rev. Maxim - Isaiah" also has an independent meaning. Information about him is contained, first of all, in his “autobiography” of 1582, as well as in a set of works compiled in the 60s. 61 Isaiah's secular name is Joachim. He “has a Rusyn origin from the Kyiv region”, was born in Kamenets-Podolsky. He received a home education and was tonsured a monk “by will, not by necessity” in the Cyprian monastery near Chisinau under Abbot Euthymius, who, as Isaiah reports, was the “envoy” of the Moldavian governor, Emperor Alexander Lopushnyan, to Ivan IV. Isaiah was ordained deacon by Macarius, bishop of the Romanov market in Moldavia. Ukrainian by origin, he was connected with both Moldova and Kiev; however, in Moldavia his career, presumably, did not succeed, and in July 1561 we find Isaiah in Vilna; simultaneously with Metropolitan Joasaph of Kizitz and Eugrip, he went to Moscow on behalf of King Sigismund Augustus (“under Metropolitan Joasaph of Greece he ordered to be released”). He was introduced to the king by the “glorious gentlemen” Ostafiy Volovich and German Khodkevich, probably Isaiah’s patrons. The official purpose of his trip was educational tasks, namely, obtaining books in Moscow “in the royal book depository” for correspondence and subsequent printing, namely: the Bible, the Life of St. Anthony of Pechersk, Gospel conversations of St. John Chrysostom, translated by Rev. Maxim the Greek and his student Silvan, which Garaburda had previously tried to obtain in Moscow. From the very beginning, Isaiah's mission was associated with the name of St. Maxima. However, he went beyond the tasks assigned to him, although it is unknown whether on his own initiative or while fulfilling an order. Metropolitan Joasaph was on an important mission: he was bringing to Moscow a letter from Patriarch Joasaph of Constantinople, which confirmed the royal title of Ivan IV 62. Isaiah prevented the complete success of this mission, because, having arrived in Smolensk before Joasaph, he informed the Smolensk Bishop Simeon that the Metropolitan in Lithuania, traveling from Constantinople to the Tsar, “kissed the cross to the King and the Royal Rada”; Joasaph, in a conversation with Simeon, did not deny this fact, but justified himself by its necessity (“it was, - dei, - it was because of sin, but it was not necessary, - dei, - that was, but it was, - dei, - it was because of need"). This was immediately reported to Moscow, Ivan IV met Joasaph coldly, did not accept his blessing, ordered an explanation and put him in disgrace. Joasaph, in turn, also accused Isaiah of something (“put the word of a crime on him”): in July 1562 we see him in the Vologda prison. Further news about Isaiah dates back to March 1566 and May 1567 (he is in a “dungeon” in Rostov, where he has the opportunity to engage in literary activities), to March 1582, when a dispute took place between Isaiah and Ivan the Terrible. The king “gave questions and received answers,” spoke to Isaiah “from mouth to mouth... stronger and stronger and with pompous and lofty theology and the deepest spiritual intelligence.” The content of this dispute is unknown, but we know that the “great list”, the “Orthodox list”, written by Isaiah specifically for him, was read by the king before the “royal council”, in the “royal quarters”, and was kept “in the patriarch’s treasury”, on the basis of which we can conclude, firstly, that it was about both church and political problems, and secondly, that his name became known to the patriarch Job. The brief autobiography of Isaiah is a summary of it (“in brief, not in series”), or rather, an extract from it, since it repeats only Isaiah’s “answer” (“the list is great, but I don’t remember writing it on my lips”). It would be tempting to assume that the dispute was caused by preparations for the reception of A. Possevino, but we have no other data besides chronology. The surviving text was written later, after 1584, because ends with the words of Isaiah that Ivan IV “bestowed” him “mercy”; he hoped to be released to Lithuania, but military actions and the death of Ivan IV prevented him. We must assume that Isaiah received his freedom, because by the end of the 80s. refers to his collaboration with Patriarch Job, to whom he was attracted, probably due to his interest in the work of St. Maxim the Greek and great education. In addition to his autobiography (which Denisov called “The Small Confession”), in the 60s he compiled a set of essays with the aim of justifying the charges brought against him, clearly imitating Ven. Maxim, although the Isaiah complex is incomparably smaller in volume and number of works. It opens, just like the Rev. Maxim, “Confession of Faith” (since the accusations concerned, presumably, religious issues). One of the works included in it is also written on the model of Lamentation, written by Rev. Maxim in 1531/1532. Another characteristic feature of the Isaiah complex is that it is intended not for the Russian, but for the Lithuanian reader, which indicates that Isaiah retained some Lithuanian contacts in the Vologda-Rostov conclusion. The detailed argument was set out in a 1988 article 63 Isaiah, as we see, having arrived in Moscow to receive the Gospel Conversations translated by St. Maxim and Selivan, showed interest in the work of the learned Athonite monk in general, and tried to imitate him. He found not only the Gospel Conversations, not only the Explanatory Psalter of 1522 - both of these monuments were popular and were already distributed in a sufficient number of copies - but also the much rarer Psalter (without interpretations) of 1552. We do not know whether he was responsible for the formation of the structure of the monument, similar to that reflected in Trinity. 62, namely the location at the beginning of two prefaces - his own and Neil Kurlyatev (acquaintance with whom is found in the Preface of Isaiah). But it's quite possible. S.A. Belokurov opened the publication of the cycle of Tales with the text “Preface in Brief,” containing the date “1591,” apparently close to the time of its creation. The promotion of this text to the first place was completely fair, since connecting threads diverge from it in two directions, although different in the degree of their obviousness. “Preface in Brief” (text No. III) by Hierodeacon Isaiah represents the first attempt at compiling a biography of St. Maxim the Greek, reflects not only some key events of his life, but also the posthumous attitude towards his personality, recognition of his authority. Although the Preface is brief, it is quite informative and provides some facts unknown from other sources. It identifies the following units of information, which are then conventionally numbered (for the convenience of comparative analysis). 3. Parents: son of a voivode. 4. Origin: Greek. 6. Place of tonsure: “Svyatogorets from the sacred monastery of God’s Mater of the great Vatopedi.” 7. Education: “he studied pious theology and sacred philosophy in his lands in Greece, and in Latin in Italy the greats.” 8. Condemnation: “and by the obsession... of the devil Satan, the destroyer of Christians, in the God-loving land of Moscow he was in bonds and in prison and in various embitterments and unbearable languor of mortals.” 9 . The appearance of an angel who announced: “Kalugere! With these torments you will escape eternal torment.” 10. Writing in prison the Canon to the Holy and Adored Paraclete. 11. Writing “in freedom, and not in prison”, a “sacred and inspired book.” 12. Approval of the book: “Maksimov’s sacred book is attested by the sovereign Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and His Holiness Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow of All Russia and by his Holy and God-inspired Russian Council of Moscow in... Moscow.” 13. Approval of the Canon to the Holy Spirit: “and the Canon to the Holy and Worshipful Paraclete was testified by Mr. Job, by the grace of God the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the Metropolitan of the great Novagrad, the Metropolitan of Kazan, the Metropolitan of Rostov, the Metropolitan of Krutitsky, Sarsky and Podonsk and the archbishops and bishops and the entire sacred and divinely inspired Council of Russia in the summer... of Tsar Feodor Ivanovich... on the 7099th month of April in Mother City... Moscow.” 14. Information about the role of Isaiah: “and by gaining the great sinner in man and the unworthy servant of Christ and His most pure Mother of God, the immaculate and ever-virgin Mary and in the monastery of the least Isaiah, a former deacon, a native of Kamenets Podolsk, in the Christ-loving city of Rostov outside Moscow.” The sources of a number of points in this laconic but informative biography are obvious and do not require comment, but some of them are unique, it is necessary to establish their possible sources. In paragraph 3, the definition of “son of the voivode” is repeated only in the lengthy edition of the Preface by Nil Kurlyatev, but it is not yet possible to determine the direction of the borrowing. In paragraph 7, the wording repeats the terminology of Isaiah's 1582 autobiography. The last four pieces of information are new. What “book” was meant in paragraph 11? Since it is called “sacred and inspired,” it could not be a book of his own writings. The “Preface in brief” is preceded by the text of the Psalter (without interpretations) of 1552, so it should have been meant. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that paragraph 12 (about the “witnessing” of the book) is absent in the abridged version of the “Preface” of Isaiah, since in the manuscript of the State Historical Museum, Sin. 850 there is only the Canon to the Holy Spirit, therefore in the “Preface” (however, here it already has the name “Tale”) only paragraph 13 (about the “testimony” of the Canon) is retained, and paragraph 12 is missing. How reliable is the fact of the “witnessing” of the book during the time of Ivan IV by Metropolitan Macarius with the Council (point 12)? There is no other evidence from sources confirming or refuting this information. It is perhaps included in Isaiah's "Preface" to form a precedent for the fact mentioned in the next paragraph (13), and to show that his authority was recognized during his lifetime. And paragraph 13 confirms the right of Rev. Maxim on liturgical creativity, it is reported that the Canon he compiled to the Holy Spirit was “testified” by the Council of April 1591, which apparently reflects a reliable fact. We do not have any other information about the Council of April 1591, but the Council of June 1, 1591 is known, at which the canonization of St. Joseph of Volotsky to all-Russian church veneration 64; The fact of a conciliar consideration of the liturgical text of another ascetic is also quite possible, although the time of his canonization was still far away. Paragraph 14 reports the labors of Isaiah, but does not say what exactly was accomplished by his “earning.” Among the meanings of this word are “research, investigation”; “the result or consequence of labor”; “zeal, effort” 65. We can conclude that he did the preparatory work to prepare a kind of “rehabilitation” of the Rev. Maxima. In particular, he found his Canon (or drew the attention of church authorities to it), and Neil’s “Preface” to the translation of the Psalter was known to him earlier, at least in 1582, he used it in his own autobiography. The text gives grounds to assert that Isaiah’s “efforts” were initiated, if not by Patriarch Job himself, then they had a completely official origin. The reliability of paragraph 14 is confirmed by another, independent source. There is earlier evidence of interest in the Canon also mentioning the "obtaining" of Isaiah, dating back to October 1590. Manuscript of the Explanatory Gospel of St. Theophylact of Bulgaria (GIM, Sin. 351) on fol. 1 has the mark “written in Staritsa,” which was the reason to connect it with Patriarch Job, who was born in Staritsa, took monastic vows here at the Assumption Monastery and maintained connections with him 66 . At the beginning of the manuscript (l. 3–10) a separate notebook is inserted with the texts of the Canon and Prayer to the Holy Spirit, with the indication: “Creation of Maxim the Greek monk of Svyatogorsk.” On l. 2 of the manuscript there is an entry (quoted divided into lines): In the years of the great sovereign, the most blessed supreme king, Grand Duke Theodore / Ivanovich of All Russia, autocrat, in the most famous and notorious / in the Christ-loving and reigning city of Moscow. By the command and blessing / of the great lord divine Job, by the grace of God the Holy Patriarch / of Moscow and all Russia. And by winning the sinful and unworthy servant of Christ and his most pure Mother of God, the immaculate and ever-virgin Mary Isaiah, a monk, a former deacon / native of Kamenets Podolsk. Summer 7099th month of October. In this entry, as we see, the word “by gaining” also lacks a verb, but it was perceived as an indication of the scribe of part of the manuscript. The last 4 lines of this entry are sealed (after the word “patriarch”), and on the sticker there is a shorter version of the entry: “This Canon was copied to the Holy Spirit in the summer of the 7099th month of October in Moscow and all Russia” (the sticker is currently stored separately). Let us pay attention to the fact that the name Isaiah turned out to be unacceptable for someone. The notebook with the Canon woven into the manuscript is written on paper different from the rest of the manuscript, with filigree “a bunch of grapes with the letters AG”. It was reproduced by N.P. Likhachev based on this particular notebook (No. 1942, 1943) 67 , and next to it (No. 1941) there is a similar filigree taken from the manuscript of the collection of V.I. Ananyin, written in Moscow on behalf of Vologda Archbishop Jonah (Dumin). This is the manuscript of the Gospel Conversations of St. John Chrysostom. It is now in Novosibirsk, in the collection of M.N. Tikhomirov 68. Codicological features indirectly confirm the connection of the Sin manuscript. 351 with patriarchal circles, since Archbishop Jonah was the closest associate of Patriarch Job. There is reason to believe that at least some of the manuscripts given by him as a contribution to the monasteries (mainly to the Vladimir Rozhdestvensky) were written on his order in the scriptorium of the Chudov Monastery. It is also worth noting the special interest that Archbishop Jonah showed in the Gospel Conversations; they predominate in his contributions. It is also very important that when creating the assembly of Archbishop Jonah, special attention was paid to the Canon of the Holy Spirit; different types of this collection differ from each other, in particular, in what place the Canon occupies in them. Recently published works by O.L. Novikova and A.V. Sirenova showed that a number of chronicle monuments associated with the name of Archbishop Jonah may have a Miracle origin 69. Our own observations allow us to draw a similar conclusion regarding some of the collected works of Rev. Maximus the Greek, first of all, the collection of Archbishop Jonah (Dumin), and possibly the Synodal Assembly (GIM, Syn. 491) and the collection as part of the manuscript of the Paris National Library Slave 123. This problem is currently being investigated. The preliminary observations presented, related indirectly to the history of the Tales, nevertheless characterize the context in which Isaiah’s works were carried out to establish the authority of the personality of the Venerable. Maxim, works carried out, apparently, according to an official order. I. Denisov’s hypothesis about Isaiah as the author of the Tale was based on the textual parallels he identified between the Tale and the “Preface in Brief,” as well as Isaiah’s autobiography. In a special article dedicated to Isaiah, E. Keenan called these observations profound (without analyzing them), although he rejected (rightly) the identification of Isaiah Kamenets-Podolsky with Isaiah Kopinsky, which took our Isaiah too far into the 17th century. E. Keenan's article was focused mainly on the controversy surrounding the issue of correspondence between Grozny and Kurbsky 70 . The parallels identified by Denisov are especially revealing in paragraphs 7, 10, 13 (from the units of information highlighted above in the “Preface in Brief”), as well as in a number of others. The description of the “book of Maximov” in the “Preface,” i.e., in the context of his translation of the Psalter, almost literally coincides with the words about the “writings of Maxim the Greek” in the Legend. In the Preface: “The sensible sun enlightens and cheers the visible creation, but the lives and wisdom of the saints, as well as the sacred and inspired book of Maximov, enlightens and cheers the soul of all people who want to be saved and come into the true mind”; Wed in the Legend: “The sun enlightens the earthly sense and cheers all visible creatures, but the life and wisdom of the saints enlightens and cheers the soul of all people who want to be saved and come into true reason” (fol. 1323 vol. - 1324 in publication of the text No. V). Denisov’s main methodological technique was that he made a conclusion about the attribution of works to one author on the basis of facts of textual similarity. However, this argument is not flawless, since determining the direction of borrowing requires special argumentation. This additional argument is the structure, the construction of the initial part of the Legend and both works of Isaiah. Both the similarities he identified and the new ones (especially regarding the similarity of the structure of the analyzed texts) are indeed very convincing and show the strength of Denisov’s hypothesis. But differences and individual characteristics of the Legend also require explanation. Among the news of the Legend, it should be noted the message about the translation of not only the Explanatory Psalter, but also the Gospel Conversations of St. John Chrysostom; The original purpose of Isaiah’s trip to Moscow was associated with this monument. There is also erroneous information (for example, about the death of Artemy in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery). Particular attention should be paid to two fragments of the Legend with information that was not contained either in the “Preface in Brief” or in other Legends. 1. In the story about studying “in Western countries,” some “school” and “teacher” are succinctly mentioned: “I left the school to spend monastic life in the Holy Mountain.” The school and leaving it are mentioned again, in the story about how to go to Moscow was initially offered to another person, but he refused, recommending Maxim instead: “in Italy, the greats studied with a single teacher; But when he left the school, I chose a worldly life, and he went to the great Athos and became a monk in the great Vatopeda, and the elder’s name was Maxim, the son of the voivode.” The details and details of this rather lengthy and eloquent story are, apparently, the fruit of artistic invention. But such a detail as the mention of a “teacher” and leaving “the school” forces one to turn to the Judgment List; one of the witnesses, boyar M.Yu. Zakharyin conveyed (in a distorted form) some story of the accused about the circumstances under which he left Italy: “I heard from many reliable witnesses about Maximus the Greek of the Holy Mountain: he was in Rome with a certain teacher as a student, and there were many of them in that apprenticeship, more than two hundred, and they learned philosophical wisdom and all the wisdom of Lithuanians and Viters, yes deviated and retreated into Jewish law and teaching. And the Pope of Rome, having taken this away from them, ordered them to be imprisoned and put to death. And the wood that fenced them off and surrounded them, burned them and all of them, only eight of them fled to the Holy Mountain, and Maximus was with them” 71. It is quite obvious that here two different events separated in time are merged - the execution of Savonarola and the persecution of students of some Greek school, among whom was the future teacher. Maxim the Greek - pursuit that ended in flight. Was the compiler of the Tale familiar with the List of Judgment? Unlike the author of the previous Legend, he also reports about imprisonment in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, which is also reported by the Judgment List. 2. A unique feature of the Legend is the presentation of Vasily III’s request to send a translator. In the previous Legend, the source of the story is obvious, this is a message to Vasily III about the translation of the Explanatory Psalter. But now the story has been transformed in the most unexpected way: the Grand Duke sent a request not to the patriarch, but to the Sultan, who treated it very favorably (“he carried out a great punishment”), and Maxim was sent to Moscow “according to the sovereign’s word from the Saltan of Tours,” and not the patriarch, as in the source. In this regard, it can be noted that the attitude towards the Sultan expressed here was not news in book and literary circles of that time. The intention to show the positive attitude of the Turkish conqueror towards Orthodoxy is quite clearly reflected in the writings of I.S. Peresvetov, which tells how the Sultan wanted to burn Greek books, however, inspired from above by the prayers of the Patriarch of Constantinople, he orders the books to be translated into Turkish, after which he returns them and even intends to convert to Christianity. The translated books become a source of wisdom for the Sultan; under their influence, he introduces “truth” and justice into his kingdom 72 . Much more indicative is another analogy, which affects, although indirectly, both the personality of Isaiah and the literary and manuscript heritage of St. Maxima. A story about the attitude of Magmet Sultan to Orthodoxy is found, moreover, with reference to the story of St. Maxim, in the preface to the edition of the “Dialogue” - “Debate” of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennady Scholarius with Amurat, i.e. Mehmed II. A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev believed that the author of the Preface was A.M. Kurbsky, who also translated the Dialogue, V.I. Lukyanenko, - that the translation came from the literary circle of Prince K.K. Ostrozhsky, V.V. Kalugin is from Kurbsky’s Milyanovich circle, but the foreword was written by him himself 73 . Kurbsky talks about his many questions to Rev. To Maxim, called “blessed” and “new confessor,” he answered “from memory,” “pronouncing” the “story” about Patriarch Gennady Scholarius, which he himself heard from others (“verbs”), moreover, in different versions. Gennady Scholarius, according to this legend, acquired the love of Magmet Sultan, who was “declared from him to the path of Christ,” i.e. prepared to accept Christianity, trained in the rules of the Christian faith; some even say that the Sultan was baptized. An echo of a similar trend in the coverage of the “Turkish theme” is a fragment of the Legend of the help of the unnamed Turkish Sultan in search of a translator and the departure to Moscow of the Venerable. Maxim the Greek. The dialogue was published in 1585 in the Mamonich printing house in Vilna, moreover, the publication was dedicated to Ostafy Volovich and had an image of his coat of arms 74 . The publication very soon appeared in Moscow, and the work was included in two collected works of St. Maximus the Greek at the end of the 16th century. – Synodal and in the manuscript of the Paris National Library Slave 123. Previously, their possible connection with the Chudov Monastery was mentioned. If we remember that Isaiah was sent to Moscow in 1561 on behalf of Ostafy Volovich, who was apparently his patron, then this opens up a field of promising research. It can be added that the scribes and writers associated with the Chudov Monastery had another publication from the Mamonich printing house in 1585, a translation of Johann Spangenberg’s work “On the Syllogism,” translated, as was commonly believed, by A. Kurbsky 75 . It was included in a manuscript of indisputable origin from the State Historical Museum, Chud. 236 – collection, contribution of Archimandrite Chudov Monastery Paphnutius 1600 (one of his several contributions this year). The lower limit of the manuscript is 1589, since in the Ladder of Powers contained in it, the patriarch is named first 76. In the collection of Miracles. 236 included and one of the works of Rev. Maxim (“About Leviathan”), the earliest (of known) appearance of it in the mainstream of handwritten books. The above data opens a page of contacts between representatives of Moscow book circles and Orthodox circles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in these contacts the personality of Isaiah may have occupied a certain place. A number of other evidence and arguments could be cited, but what has been said is enough to recognize and preserve I. Denisov’s hypothesis about the authorship of Isaiah. However, it needs to be significantly adjusted. The fact is that almost all of the stated observations and identified analogies fall only on the first part of the Tale under study, which tells about the hero’s life path, which is also smaller in volume (l. 1317–1321 of the published manuscript). Next are the short central part (l. 1321–1322) and the largest second part (l. 1322–1329); they differ from the initial one in origin, character and style of presentation. The short central part tells about the death and burial of the monk, his veneration; it is this fragment, which brings the Legend closer to a hagiographic and even liturgical work, that was quoted at the beginning of this section. The second part is devoted to the work of Rev. Maxim, sets out its main themes, while the author also shows knowledge of the manuscript tradition, talks about the three books containing his works, reports their total number (“more than a hundred in three books”), the location of the books, some of their features: “a book of ten” in the Moscow Androniyev Monastery, a “book” of 74 chapters in the Sergius Monastery, a “book” in the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. The author of the Legend provides extensive quotes from these works, but admits a number of inaccuracies, in particular, in the titles and numbers of chapters. Thus, the Word “against the chapters of Samuel the Evrin” is mentioned twice; the chapter number is indicated for the first time in accordance with the Khludov collection (73), but the second time – 75, while it is said that “in the same Word” there is “resistance to Ivan Lodovic, the interpreter of the holy book of St. Augustine, Bishop of Pontus,” although in the collection this is the 72nd chapter. The three-part nature of the Legend allows us to put forward a hypothesis about the origin of its different parts at different times. Denisov's hypothesis can be preserved only in relation to the first part, where analogies and parallels are concentrated. This core could be supplemented, and individual parts could be reworked, but the original structure was not preserved in its pure form. We can give examples of similar phenomena in the literature of the 16th century. Thus, “The Tale of the Novgorod White Cowl” in the most widespread and famous edition was compiled no earlier than the end of the 16th century. (it contains a prediction about the establishment of the patriarchate), but it goes back to an undeniably earlier type, of which only isolated fragments have survived independently. The central and second parts of the Legend are more consistent with the situation of that time, when the body of works of this author was being mastered in its entirety, new collections and their types were created (20-30s of the 17th century). § 4. Maxim the Greek in Sergius Shelonin’s “Laudatory Word to the Russian Saints” The legend included in the Menaion of the Church of the priest John Milyutin in the late 40s or early 50s can be considered in connection with the mention of the name of the Venerable. Maxim in the “Elocution to the Russian Saints” and in the “Canon of All Saints Who Shone in Great Russia.” These works were written between 1645–1647. (“Honour”) 77 and in the late 40s. (“Canon”) 78 by one of the most prominent Solovetsky scribes, Sergius Shelonin. O.V., who published these monuments Panchenko noted: “Perhaps in the Canon of Sergius Shelonin, a man very close to Patriarch Joseph, some “canonization program” was expressed related to the glorification of a number of saints and noble princes... Perhaps Joseph’s activity had lasted a little longer, and some other saints mentioned in the Canon to all Russian saints would have been glorified” 79 . Among them is, among the holy teachers, in the “rank of venerables,” and “the theological Maximus, who was ordained by the Greek from his fatherland, the new Theologian, remaining only the priesthood of anointing, a true worker and teacher of love, and at the very top of that, and having been in God, God is for love” - “teacher and worker love, reaching its peak, for God is love.” The tales are published in accordance with modern rules for publishing historical sources. The division of the text into paragraphs is carried out in accordance with its modern understanding, as is the placement of punctuation marks. The text is transmitted in letters of the modern alphabet with the following substitutions: * – h; і, ї – and; ᲂу, ꙋ – у; ꙗ, ѧ – i; ѫ – y; ѯ – ks; ѱѵ – ps; ѳѡ – f; ѵ – in or at; ѡ – about; The letters ѣ and ь are preserved. The letter ъ is preserved, including at the end of words, but when a final consonant is added to a line, it is not inserted. The letter y is not entered. The letters are added to the line, the titles are expanded, and missing letters are added taking into account (if possible) the spelling of the list. Cyrillic notations for numbers are replaced by Arabic ones. Corrections (however, very few) of undisputed scribal errors made according to other lists are in italics and indicated in the first row of footnotes. When summarizing the variants (in the second row of footnotes), lexical and basic morphological discrepancies are noted. I. Testimony of the Trinity monk Selivan. 1524 From the Preface-Afterword to the translation of Conversations of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew RSL, f. 98. Egor. 920, l. 336 rev. 〈...〉 This soulful book was quickly translated from the wise Hellenic language into the Russian language in the summer of 7032 in the Mother of the City, in the most famous and notorious Moscow 〈...〉, by the reason and punishment of the wise elder Maxim, his own Samodrzhets with his royal message from the Holy Mountain summoned a man of great wisdom in all three languages, in Hellenic, I say, and Roman and in my sweetest Russian; not only, but also to create in measure, iroiski and amviiski, and in all of them the being is well-crafted, and is much behind the people of the present time in wisdom, and reason and wit, and it was also obscene and unreasonable in the sacrament of words being 〈...〉 II. Testimony of the Trinity monk Nil (Kurlyatev). 1552 From the Preface to the Psalter (without interpretations) of 1552, translated by Rev. Maxim Grek and Neil Kurlyatev. RNB, Sol. 753/863, l. 2–4 80 Summer 7060s, translated the psalms of David by Maxim the Elder, Greek, philosopher 81. And the beggar monk Nil Kurlyatev beat him with his brow so that he would favor me, said the mind of the Davydov psalms, known and without embellishment. And he granted 82, first he told me and taught me a psalm in Greek. And I knew the warehouse and wrote them in Greek. And 83 came to his cell, and he began to speak from the Greek translation into our 84 language. And I wrote in some notebooks against the speech of the speech, and the elder granted, he spoke with great intelligence, he had lived here with us for many years and knew our language well and well 85. 〈...〉 Below is a quote from St. John Chrysostom on the difficulties of translation from one language to another. And Elder Maxim was a Greek by birth and learned philosophy in his language, and secondly, in Roman language and literacy, he knew how to speak wisely 〈...〉. Further details about the new translation of the Psalter. III. The legend as part of the corpus of works by Rev. Maxim Grek III-1. Long edition NGOUNB, f. 1, op. 1, No. 9, l. 5–10 RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 200, l. 17–18 rev. ... T RNB, Sol. 741/851, l. 234–240 rpm ... C The Legend of Maxim the Monk of the Holy Mountain Vatopedi Monastery 86 (l. 5) For thousands of years ago, 87 in the fourth year of the tenth year of circulation of the Russian land, the scepter of the trembling 88 to the pious and ever-memorable sovereign Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich in the glorious city of God-protected Moscow, not according to the number of years since the reign of the kingdom 89 of his Orthodox Christians and 90 of the entire Russian land, the sovereign great prince Vasily opened the royal 91 treasures of the ancient great princes of their ancestors and found in some plates a countless number of Greek books, but the Slovenian people are by no means unreasonable. And with divine zeal the ambassador moved to the Reigning City with many prayers to the patriarch to send (fol. 5 vol.) such a person 92 able to interpret books // from 93 Greek into Slovenian. The Patriarch, having taken great care in this regard 94 and to seek an ambassador to Thracea 95 and to Macedonia, and to Selun 96 or 97, 98, will be able to find such a husband as a powerful 99 Orthodox sovereign, his desire to be fulfilled. But then great poverty overtook the Greek land among men and philosophers. And due to the difficult task of collecting 100, they barely found two monks in Mount Athos, one named Danil 101, the other Maxim. The Patriarch barely begged the only 102 Maxim from them and sent him to the Orthodox sovereign with great honor. He was cunning to Hellenic punishment and Roman 103 and Slovenian, and from external teachings 104 nothing was hidden from him, and he had insatiable zeal for divine philosophy. We do not know his birth, but only from the books created from him (l. 6) // we understand that the Greek was and that 105 teachings 106 philosophy 107 were accepted in Western countries, in the Fryaz 108 land, about the city of Pazaria 109 and in Florence 110 and in many other cities 111, passing and from there the teaching is a great attraction, since it was given to him from the Creator of all Christ 112 our God. And then came to Mount Athos and there to the 113 Vatopedi monastery of the Annunciation of the Most Holy 114 Theotokos 115 dressed in a monastic image 116 . And so he departs from Mount Athos with the blessing of the holy patriarch and reaches the Orthodox samadrazh, the sovereign Grand Duke Vasily. With piety, the ruler saw such a husband and received him with all Christ-like meekness and commanded him to live in the monastery of the Annunciation of the Most Holy 117 Theotokos 118, where the remembrance of the miracle of the holy archangel Michael and the miracle worker Alexis of the multi-healing relics lie. In a little while // the great sovereign of the ever-memorable Vasilei Ivanovich (l. 6 vol.), called this monk Maxim, and introduced him into his royal book depository 119 and showed him a countless number of Greek books 120. This monk was in much amazement at the multitude of the countless hardworking assembly and with an oath uttered 121 before the pious sovereign, as if the Greeks were not worthy of seeing such a multitude of books: “For this sake, the glorious and self-righteous 122 sovereign, from the Greek lands to the Western countries from the young The Nokhteans were inspired to study, having not yet acquired philosophical teaching in the Greek country for the sake of the great scarcity of books. When the godless Turks 123 possessed 124 the Reigning City, then the pious people took a plurality of Greek books, wanting 125 to observe (l. 7) piety // faith, so that the luminary of Greek Orthodoxy would not completely fade away from the godless and godless Turks, and thus sailed away by sea to Rome People of Latinism are very vain and for many years have longed to see Eastern teachers written off, but Greek kings would not deign to do this for the sake of their deviation from Orthodoxy. When time improved, the books brought from the Greek were translated into their own Roman languages, and the Greek books were by no means 126 burned with fire, 127 and so the Greek philosophy ultimately became impoverished. But now 128, Emperor Vasily Samadrzh, I have never seen so much Greek wisdom as your 129 royal zeal for the divine treasure.” The great prince 130 Vasilei Ivanovich listened to him in sweetness and gave him books for a moment, looking at them 131, 132, which will not yet be sorted // translated into (fol. 7 vol.) Russian 133 Slovenian. Maxim will diligently touch on the matter and find several books that have not been translated into Slovenian. And not for many years did the great autocrat clearly create the names of those books, so that they would find 134 untranslated into the Slovenian language. The Orthodox self-government commanded the guardian 135 to guard their individuals and put down the scriptures, so that they would not be confused with others. Maximus commanded to bring the Explanatory Psalter 136, even seven great teachers at different times who interpreted 137, and who followed from the wise ones in one account. The monk listened with diligence to the commanded one, he needed to quickly pray to the sovereign to give the Roman interpreters Dmitry and Blasius for help, since Maxim did not have a completely Slovenian language inclination 138 words with grammatical cunning // knowledge. The pious (l. 8) the sovereign 139 did not despise my prayers, but quickly commanded this to happen. The Orthodox Tsar himself commanded a multitude of good-writers to gather together, so that the matter would be conveniently accomplished, and the royal rents would be satisfied from their treasuries to this elder Maxim and those who were with him, merciful with inscrutable love for mankind. And for the year 140 the task was brought to the sovereign in his royal armor 141, but the great sovereign not only accepted, but sent this book to his father, the most reverend 142 Metropolitan, and commanded with the entire Holy Council to look at this book. And not for a long time the most holy 143 Metropolitan comes to the royal quarters with his entire All-Sanctified 144 Council, and only one of the clergy carries the newly recited Psalter, and this council 145 is praised and the source of piety is denounced. The great (l. 8 vol.) // Prince Samodrzhets joyfully accepted the book, they adorn him with valiant praises, and pay a highly complex bribe 146. There are not only a hundred of them, but they will also receive a greater honor, as all the kings who fell into sin 148 were promptly sent a prayer book to the Orthodox. And pass on 9 years, exhausting your labors 149, translating the books and ancient 150 cited 151 correcting 152, since you see in many books some speeches are unreasonable, or the ancient translators did not succeed in interpreting them, or from those who prescribed the books, they were corrupted and by not correcting what happened in many times summer. And in these 153 without ceasing 154 exercising 155. The evil enemy of Nicholas 156 although good to the human race, but even more so against us pious ones (l. 9), uncompromisingly at enmity and seeing that we sing for good, raises some non-brotherly lovers to hostile envy, as a foreigner man is so high rose up, forgetting the apostolic word: “There is no Jew, no Greek, no 157 barbarian, no Scythian, all 158 are one in Christ 159” 160. And they slandered this Elder Maxim 161 to the Orthodox sovereign as a heretic and a deceiver and an enemy of the God-protected land of Rust, for they raised slander from them, and friends from them confirmed the slander by false testimony. And so someone who is innocent of imprisonment is condemned, and is imprisoned for 22,162 years. In the city of Tver in the bishopric and the unspeakable destinies of the man-lover Christ God, the weak received from the Bishop of Tver Akaki with the blessing of the Right Reverend Jasaf Metropolitan, also // now Macarius (fol. 9 vol.) Metropolitan with the blessing 163 and to the church the walk and the most pure and life-giving mysteries of Christ communion 164. And so you remained, thanking Christ, God the Savior and Creator of all. When I rest from the many-sorrowful stay and see 165 myself 166 stronger from all untruth and blasphemy, and write a confession 167 about the most pure and Orthodox 168 faith of the Christians, that he is a true Orthodox Christian, also 169 cleansing himself from all the tares of heretics, the writing of words accusatory against the Jews and against the Greeks, against the Latin and against the Hagarians, and many other words, some instructive, some with answers to questions, some about unknown 170 things, and leave such a multitude of scriptures 171. Also after the merciful tsar, the pious Orthodox 172 sovereign Grand Duke 173 Ivan was quickly expelled from Tver and ordered him to live in the monastery of all singing and worship (l. 10) //my 174 Trinity in the Sergius Monastery. And so the greatness passed away in old age in the year 7060. I write this 175 for this reason, as many of his writings remain, and the last people, many people who don’t know who Maxim, read this 176, understand about him as a truly pious man and there is not a single heretical vice in him. RNB, Sol. 752/862, l. 3–7 The legend of Maxim the philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mountains of Athos, the glorious monastery of Vatopedi and her venerable Annunciation, and how he came to Moscow (fol. 3) In the summer of 7014, the faithful and Grand Duke Vasilei Ivanovich of All Russia held a scepter in the glorious city of Moscow, but he entered his ancestors’ treasure and found in some armor a countless number of Greek books, but the Slovenian people are not at all wise. And with divine zeal the ambassador moved to the reigning city with many prayers to the patriarch, so that he would send such a man who could interpret the books and translate them from Greek into Slovenian. The Patriarch, having made great efforts about this, // (fol. 3 vol.) and sent an ambassador to Thrace and Macedonia and Thessaloniki, will be able to find such a husband, a powerful Orthodox sovereign, to fulfill his desire. But then great poverty overtook the Greek land among the men of philosophers. And after this arduous search, they barely found two monks in Athos Mountain, one named Sava, the other Maxim. The Patriarch barely begged only Maxim from them and sent him 177 to the Orthodox sovereign with great honor. But he was cunning to the Hellenic punishment, both Roman and Greek and many others, and from external teachings nothing was hidden from him, and about divine philosophy insatiably devour // flattery (l. 4) I have. His birth was not in any city, but only from the books created by him, as a Greek, and as the teachings of philosophy were received in Western countries, in the Friazian 178 lands, in the city of Parisia and in Frorenza and in many other cities, passing on and from those teachings had great attraction, since it was given to him from Christ our God. And then he came to Mount Athos and cut his hair and dressed in the monastic image. And after a few years he departed from Mount Athos with the blessing of the Holy Patriarch to the reigning city of Moscow and reached the Orthodox autocrat and sovereign Grand Duke Vasily. By grace (l. 4 vol.) the ruler saw such a man // and received him with all Christ-like meekness, and commanded him to live in the monastery of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos in the Chudov Monastery. After a short time, the great Emperor Vasily summoned this monk Maxim and introduced him into his royal book depository and showed him a countless number of Greek books. This monk, in thoughtful surprise, spoke of such a multitude of countless hard-working congregations and swore an oath before the pious sovereign, as if the Greeks were not worthy of seeing so many books: “For this sake, glorious autocrat and sovereign: from the Greek land to the western countries (l. 5) from young // nails 179 I was inspired by the teaching, having not yet acquired philosophical teaching in the Greek country for the sake of the great scarcity of books. When the godless Turks possessed the Reigning City, then the pious people took many Greek books, wanting to maintain pious faith, so that the luminary of Greek Orthodoxy would not completely fade away from the godless and godless Turks, and thus sailed by sea to Rome. People of Latin are very vain and for many years have desired to see the eastern teachers written off, but the Greek kings did not deign to be for the sake of their deviation from Orthodoxy, when they improved // the time, bringing the books from the Greek into (fol. 5 vol.) their Roman language, and the Greek books were all converted by fire having burned, and so the final impoverishment of Greek philosophy." The great sovereign Vasily Ivanovich listened to him in sweetness and presented him with books for examination, sorting them out, which will not yet be translated into the Slovenian language. Maxim will diligently touch on the matter and acquire several books that have not been translated into Russian. The Orthodox autocrat ordered the custodian to take care of their individuality and place the scriptures on them, so that the books would not be mixed with other books. Maximus commanded the Psalter, the interpretive gospel, the seven great // teachers at different times who interpreted (l. 6) and the teachings from the wise, combining into one. The monk, with diligence, listened to the commanded one, and he needed to quickly pray to the sovereign to give the Roman interpreters Dimitri and Blasia for help, but Elma Maxim, who was not a perfect Slovenian language, knew the scanning of words by grammatical cunning. The pious sovereign did not despise the monk’s prayers, but quickly ordered this to happen. The Orthodox Tsar himself commanded the multitude of good-writers to gather together, so that the matter could be accomplished conveniently, and the dues would be satisfied from their royal deposits to this monk Maxim and the love for humanity that existed with him // merciful to them. And this (fol. 6 vol.) year and six months to complete the task, brought it to the sovereign in his royal quarters, but the great sovereign not only accepted the book, but sent this book to his father, the Right Reverend Metropolitan Varlaam, and commanded him and the entire Consecrated Cathedral to look at this book, and not by many At the time of the Right Reverend, the Metropolitan comes to the Tsar’s quarters with his entire Consecrated Council and, alone from the clergy, carries the newly rectified Psalter, and this council is praised and the source of piety is denounced. The great sovereign joyfully accepted the book, decorated the same old man with lavish praises and (l. 7) rewarded him with richly complex gifts. And so, for nine years, translating books from Greek into Slovenian, being discouraged by the hard work, and correcting the ancient texts, seeing that in many books some speech is unreasonable, or the ancient translators did not succeed in interpreting, or from those who prescribed the books, the books became corrupted and were not corrected for many years. years, the rest will sufficiently describe in the book of it, what kind of suffering there was here in captivity for 22 years. In the city of Tver in the bishopric and the unspeakable destinies of Christ God, I was weakened by the bishop of Tver Akaki with the blessing (fol. 7 vol.) of the Right Reverend // Metropolitan Jasaph, also to this day Metropolitan Macarius with a blessing to go to church and receive communion of the most pure mysteries of Christ. And for this reason I wrote a Confession of the Orthodox Christian Faith, and compiled the other words of my book. And so, by the command of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, he was quickly taken from Tver, and he was ordered to live in a common monastery near the life-giving Holy Trinity in the Sergius Monastery. And she departed from this life in the year 7064. I wrote this Psalter from the newly translated Psalter, just as Maximus preached it. IV. “Preface” - “Legend” by Hierodeacon Isaiah Kamenchanin (c. 1591) “Brief Preface” to the Psalter of 1552 (without interpretations), translated by Rev. Maxim Grek and Neil Kurlyatev RSL, f. 304, Troitsk. 62, l. 1–2 vol. Preface in brief (l. 1) Maxim, son of a governor, monk, Greek by birth, philosopher, saint from the sacred monastery of the Mother of God of the great Vatopedi. He studied pious theology and sacred philosophy in his lands in Greece, and in Latin in Italy the greats. And because of the obsession from time immemorial, the enemy of all good, the devil Satan, the destroyer of Christians, in the God-loving land of Moscow, was in bonds and in prison and in various embitterments and unbearable languor of mortals. And the divine and all-blessed Trinity, by providence, heard the angel of the Lord speaking to him: “Kaluga! With these torments you will escape eternal torment.” And by informing him and by the command of the Holy Spirit (l. 1 vol.) in prison, he created the Canon of the Holy and Worshiped Paraclete, and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and in the will, and not in prison, he wrote a sacred and inspired book. The sensible sun enlightens and cheers the visible creation, but the lives and wisdom of the saints, as well as the sacred and inspired book of Maximov, enlightens and cheers the soul of all people who want to be saved and come into the true mind. And the sacred book of Maximov is attested by the great God-protected Christian sovereign Ivan Vasilyevich, by the grace of God the Tsar of All Russia and so on, and by the most holy (l. 2) Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow of All // Russia and by his sacred and God-inspired Russian Council of Moscow in the Christ-loving the reigning city of Moscow. And the Canon of the Holy and Worshipful Paraclete was testified by Mr. Job, by the grace of God the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the Metropolitan of the great Novagrad, the Metropolitan of Kazan, the Metropolitan of Rostov, the Metropolitan of Krutitsa, Sarsk and Podonsk and the archbishops and bishops and all the sacred and the divinely inspired Council of Russia in the years of the most blessed and supreme tsar and God-protected sovereign, Grand Duke Theodore Ivanovich of All Russia, autocrat and other 7099th month of April in the mother city of the most famous and (fol. 2 vol.) most//famous Moscow; and by the attainment of many sins in men and the unworthy servant of Christ and His most pure Mother of God, the immaculate and ever-virgin Mary, and in other times the least named Isaiah, a former deacon, a native of Kamenets Podolsk, in the Christ-loving city of Rostov outside Moscow. Preface to the Canon of the Holy Spirit by Rev. Maxim Grek State Historical Museum, Sin. 850, l. 1008–1009 A brief legend about the great reverend Father Maxim the Greek (fol. 1008) Maxim is the son of the voivode, philosopher, saint from the sacred monastery of the Most Pure Mother of God of the great Vatopedi. The sacred philosopher studied pious theology in his lands in the Greeks, and taught Latin in Italy. (fol. 1008 vol.) And by the demonic obsession of the destroyer of Christians in the God-loving land of Moscow, he was in prison and in prison and in various embitterments and unbearable yearnings of mortals, and the divine origins and blessings of the Trinity, by providence, the angel of the Lord spoke to him: “Oh kalugir! With these torments you will escape eternal torment.” And by the notification to him and the command of the Holy Spirit in prison, he created the Canon of the Holy and Worshiped Paraclete, and was enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the will, and not in prison. And this Canon, his creation, to the Holy Adored Paraclete was witnessed by the great shepherd His Holiness Job, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', with the most reverend metropolitans and archbishops and bishops and with the archimarites and abbots and with the entire Consecrated and Inspired Russian Council The Moscow State is the sovereign's faithful lands. // (l. 1009) And by winning the many sins of mankind, the unworthy servant of Christ and His most pure Mother, the immaculate and ever-virgin Mary in foreign times, by the least Isaiah, a former deacon, born in Kamenets Podolsk, in God-saved the ancient city of Rostov. V. The Legend of the Composition of the Menaion of the Fourth Priest John Milyutin (“The Legend is Known”) State Historical Museum, Sin. 806, l. 1317–1330 vol. The legend is known about the arrival of Maxim the Greek to Rus' and how he endured until his death. (l. 1317) Bless, father Monk Maxim, beloved philosopher, lord and father of Christ, exponent of pious theology, sacred philosophy of God, preacher and confessor of the Orthodox Christian faith, a Greek by birth, studying in his homeland, in Palestine and in Italy, both in the most beautiful and in the best city of Florence. I left the school, having spent the night in the Holy Mountain in the sacred monastery of the Mother of God in the greatness of 180 Vatopedi, in which is the Church of the Holy Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And according to the petition // of the Sovereign of Moscow (fol. 1317 vol.) Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to the Saltan of Tours Tsar 181, telling him: “In your book depository, the Greek books have not been translated into Russian, find,” speech 182, “a person who would be able to translate those books, and Such a philosopher came to us in Moscow,” and the king of Tours, Saltan, made a great demand for this, and brought to him a man with a wife and children and a lot of acquisitions. And the king began to kindly send him to Russia to fulfill the will of Russia and his 183 sovereign. The man then prayed to the king with tears: “Great sovereign, free man! For the sake of the Most High God, do not separate (l. 1318) from your wife and children and do not drive you away from your fatherland //; This is a great thing and requires many years of practice. But, sir, I’ll tell you that people are similar to themselves in everything, and in our fatherland we learned from a single teacher, and in Italy the great people 184 studied from a single teacher; But when he left the school, I chose the worldly life to marry his wife, he went to the great Athos, and became a monk in the great Vatopeda, and the elder’s name was Maxim, the son of the governor.” And Maxim, according to the sovereign's word from the Saltan of Tours, from the Father of the Holy Mountain 185 and from all the elders in every way, was barely begged and forced from them, came to Moscow, and in Moscow translated the Psalter (fol. 1318 vol.) Explanatory summer and five months. And with him sat // two interpreters, Vlas and Nikita, and two clerks, Selivan the monk and Mikhail Medovartsov; and those interpreters were graceful people, they studied in the great Rome itself. Maxim wrote from the Greek conversation in Latin, but from the Latin letter the interpreters spoke in Russian cursive. And so the book that was written and many other books that are useful to the soul, completed them all, but many of them who had false words 186 confirmed the beauty of the truth, labor and then corrected them. And his clerk Selivan, a monk, and by birth a Rusin 187 Maximov, with reason and punishment, translated the Euagelic history of the Euagelic Conversations from the Hellenic wise 188 language into the Russian language, and interpreted // by the wisest (l. 1319) ecumenical teacher Ivan Chrysostom, Patriarch Tsaregradtsky. The ancient serpents and malicious devil, Satan, the destroyer of Christians, armed the hated against Maxim, and he was imprisoned by brotherly lovers, and shackled, thrown into prison, and suffered various bitterness and languor in the Joseph Monastery, and from the smoke and from the sorrow of the prison he was much hour as if dead. And because of his patience, the angel said to him: “Kalugere! With these torments you will escape eternal torment.” And according to the information and guidance of the Holy Spirit, he composed a Canon to the holy and worshiped Poraclitus and a prayer to the Holy Spirit; but he wrote with charcoal on the dark walls, but I don’t have pen and ink for him in prison. And that (fol. 1319 vol.) his student Selivan for Maxim was hanged in the smoke and killed with smoke. And many troubles arose in Joseph’s monastery. And the Tver ruler Akakia the wise and he Maxim the Greek was in great honor, as at meals he sat together with the saint and ate from one dish. But otherwise, a hater of goodness, do not leave him to dwell in the wisdom of many of the inspired scriptures, as those interpreters say about him, that such a wise old man in book teaching is not possible to be found in the Holy Mountain itself. And with divine zeal he understood in 189 Christians (l. 1320) the godless sins of Sodom, // and godless covetousness, and inhumane retribution, that is, growths, and idle talk, and foul language, and laughter 190 timeless and disorderly, and drunkenness, and excessive sweet eating, and love of money, and evil, vile, accursed dispositions towards the poor and needy, and kindled by the zeal of God, the advice was good and pleasing to God, that is, with a teaching word, to help Christians from the divine scriptures and to destroy them in the end These are the seeds of wickedness. And he wrote this, and the Word about the Tver fire and the ruler of Tver did not want to be created, but his ruler was poorly literate. And according to the prayerful words and good reasoning, life-giving (fol. 1320 vol.) // Trinity of the Sergius Monastery, Abbot Artemy, the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia commands the wise elder Maxim the Greek with honor to take to Moscow and be in his weakness. He was a wonderful and wonderful sufferer from many years of it in chains and in prison, from many torments, he quickly became decrepit and sick in his legs and all the limbs of his body, and his bright eyes were already shone with tearful, incessantly flowing springs, having been damaged. The previously mentioned true brother-lover of the life-giving Trinity of the Sergius Monastery, abbot Artemy, departed to the Lord, and after him there is a companion of the like, and he is an old man of this age. 1321 in the depths of old age, as it is written: “The righteous shall flourish like a phoenix, and like a cedar shall multiply in Lebanon; planted in the house of the Lord and in the courts of our God you have flourished” 191, and intelligent bees will embrace the riches of your flowers, and “even having multiplied 192 in old age, you will be venerable and will be well received” 193. And such retribution is righteous and godly from the rewarder God, and in the monastery of the life-giving Trinity of St. Sergius the Wonderworker, he departed to the Lord, leaving us his sweet teaching, enlightening 194 Russian countries with the ends of the divine scriptures by government. Then the argans struggle with pity, and tears pour out from the spring, and the Russian church (fol. 1321 vol.) children are crowned with the touching words of their father and teacher and mentor, and they are drawn to the relics of the wonderful father and teacher with the verb: “What shall we call you, holy father? Is it a prophet who foretold to us the inconvenience that is understandable and known to us 195? Did the apostle, as if shaken by winds contrary to us, establish the Christian faith in the divine scriptures and teachings? Are there 196 teachers? But truly, you are no worse and lower than these great universal teachers.” And so on, and on others preaching his high correction, on preaching teaching, and on others in prison (l. 1322) and in chains of martyrdom. And so more honestly // and more splendidly in the same glorious holy monastery he was buried, and his memory is with all the chosen saints of God, and our Russian country incessantly flaunts his sweet words. Besides, what else can the imam say about you, wonderful father, or what language can you preach in order to correct you? Here I will leave my intemperate verbosity and also about the correction of the good deeds of the Reverend Father. There is no one who is worthy of the whole incomprehensible 197 father of this correction. In captivity, this praiseworthy sufferer did 30 years, in prison (fol. 1322 vol.), enduring // and in the bonds of the guard from Daniel, Metropolitan of Moscow, to him the letter of writing was wonderful. And in the 56th of his Homily 198 he writes to him: “Thou shalt then advert to me: having reached thee, O accursed thy sins, thou hast promised to convey to me the sacred book of blessed Theodoret. About this disobedience I answer your true reverence, as it was not for one other reason that I disobeyed you then, except for this sake, that is, because such a translation will be a stumbling block and a temptation for some Orthodox from the message of the Arievs and Macedonians and other heresy leaders, who sent them to their only wise ones, extolling (l. 1323) because he glorifies the wicked // his own wisdom, while slandering and denigrating the pious and right faith of the holy conciliar and apostolic faiths for us Orthodox. For this reason, I disobeyed you then, fearing the simplicity of some pious people and their weakness.” And again, he is a sweet-voiced and kind-singing nightingale who also told Metropolitan Danil: “We don’t know what you advised about me, instead of forgiveness and mercy you will give shackles, and again I am imprisoned and again shut up in prison and embittered with various embitterments.” and so on. And again: “My lord, you yourself will see when we both stand before the terrible and unwashed Judge, each giving his word about himself. I say about this that you condemn me in vain by not partaking // of God’s holy gifts, and (fol. 1323 vol.) about my other countless sins I will not open my mouth, otherwise it is not appropriate to despair, but always trust in His innumerable mercy to do good, and His mercy will I will be in the present and in the future. Amen". “I say the Divine word without hesitation: “What is not with me is on me, and without gathering it together with me, it scatters.” Who are the scatterers who madly separate his faithful from Christ and slaughter them to despair and destruction, for them Christ himself died and rose again,” and so on in the same Word. The sun enlightens and cheers the earthly feeling of all visible creation, but life and wisdom // (l. 1324) of the saints enlightens and cheers the soul of all people who want to be saved and come to the true mind. The writings of Maxim the Greek and his divinely inspired works cry out loudly. There are more than a hundred words of the Maximovs in three books: a book of ten in Moscow in the Androniyev Monastery; and the second in the Sergius Monastery at noon, and in it there are 74 chapters; and the third is on Kameny. From his sacred Words there is against the heretics of Rome, old and new, as a mystical teacher and builder of the mysteries of the Holy Spirit and heavenly habitation, a healer and teacher from the first law of the Lord and the second and from the seventh council of hierarchs and from the Orthodox commandments about God the Father, and teachers (l. 1324 vol.) Greek ecumenical greats // Basil Caesarea and Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom and Ivan Damascene and Saint Cyril Patriarch Alexandria, who was the leader at the third Council, fulfilled the theology of the Holy Spirit and sealed it with the holy Council and does not order that anything be added By no means should the sacred symbol imprinted from him be changed and placed below, but all glory, honor and worship are due to him 200. And in the 30th Word about the saints and about the Most Pure Mother of God he writes: “Likewise, your repose is wonderful, above human nature; All the righteous, patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs and (fol. 1325) reverends have passed away from this life // with souls enjoying eternal life and the good things of God, awaiting perfection at the Second Coming. You are one by the grace of your Son and you were resurrected before the Second Coming, in your glorified body you are already living a divine life, standing at the right hand of your Son and God in robes of gold, as it is written” 201. And in the 73rd Word in the opposite chapter in 7 against Samuel the Jew write: “Not just Methuselah 202 and Moses, but all together, even from all eternity he snatched from the hand of hell and brought them out of the darkness and shadow of death and brought them into the ancient divine paradises, and now they are with the king and their Savior in paradise in heaven, according to what was said: // “Where there is a corpse, the eagles will be gathered together (fol. 1325)” 203, and so on. Also, the double-edged ax against heretics leads Sophronius, the holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was enlightened by the Holy Spirit, wrote a multi-structured epistle, teaching, together and accusatory, to Phephilus, the king of Greece, a former iconoclast. And in the 66th Word “to the Armenian evil-belief”, “Answer the Christians against the Hagarians”, “To those who want to leave their wives without legal guilt and go into monastic life”: “If you are attached to your wife, do not seek permission; God’s marriage is honest 205 and the bed is undefiled” 206. In Homily 50, “The saying of three certain things necessary for every zealot of books,” he explained certain sayings that are inconvenient for understanding in (l. 1326) divine scripture, sweetly and magisterially explained. In the 53rd Word, “it is instructive, at the same time accusatory, of the delights of stargazing” on astronomers and their almanacs, it says that the teaching is astronomical - the fables were invented in Persia by the Persian sorcerer named Zorostroitan, and the Egyptians and Arabians took it from Zorostroitan from Persia, and the Hellenes, and the Romans, and the Germans, that is, the Germans of the Pregorod, and comforting 207 to those living in sorrow. And in the Word 55 “about the same charms of Ostronom and about the furtuna of seduction” and on Nikolai Nemchin 208. In the Word 75, briefly, “I am against the heads of Samuel the Jew” and all Jews and Jews. In (fol. 1326 vol.) the same Word briefly “resistance // to Ivan Lodovik 209, interpreter of the holy book of St. Augustine Bishop of Pontus” and from theology denounces Ivan Lodovik, who wrongly and wickedly “puts into the thoughts of the pious the stinking mud of rotten and silent fables, stirring and plotting whoring women and Pierce's fables, and not the philosopher men,” and praises the Hellenic wicked sages Plato and Aristotle and others. And finally, in the 21st chapter to Ivan Lodovik: “In the same way,” he said, “it is likewise for us to listen to the verb of the wise bishop who spoke, even though the prophets and apostles were not written, it is not proper to be wise” 210. And at the end (fol. 1327) Words of the 69th: // “The blessed Sidor Pilusiot teaches in agreement with this: taking away anything or adding anything, those who laugh at the inspired words of one are sick from both, or because they do not believe, for the holy scripture was written by the Holy Spirit, or they think of themselves wise man of the Holy Spirit, and why else would they rage? And I, your sinful pilgrim, I pray to you, Jesus Christ, stop from such new-found wisdom, war 211 for you are moving the Orthodox, not crawling. Now, having listened to the king and the prophet who said: “Speak about your testimony before the king and not be ashamed,” 212 I told you all the 213 truth of the apostles and the traditions of the fathers. And if you listen to this meek remembrance // of mine, and stop (fol. 1327 vol.) otherwise disturbing the people of God, glory to God 214, who gave me, a sinner, the power of words. If you do not listen, beware of the Lord’s words: “Woe to that man, for to them temptation comes” 215 and so on. The peace of Christ is with you." And at the beginning of the Word of the 54th he writes: “The great thing is truly good and saving is the knowledge of the divinely inspired scriptures of reason and art, not only to teach the unblemished understanding of God and his creatures and structures to their listeners, but also to live immaculately and in everything pleasing to God, always punishing us with the former united the divine love of the Creator // His diligent doing of saving (l. 1328) His commandments; Greatness is also evil and many wickednesses are guilty of ignorance and unreasonable and imprudent testing. Therefore, Arius, and Macedonia, and Nestorius, and Ephtyches and Dioskorites have strayed into various abysses, evilly, and not diligently reasoning with the divine scriptures and forcing them to do whatever they please” 216, and the rest of the same Word. But why should I speak so many words about the lofty teachings of this wonderful father? All of you who desire the divine scriptures, put aside all laziness (fol. 1328 vol.), diligently tecite on the sweet // these divine teachings, an abundant source, and the previously inflamed thirst from false heretical teachings, draw and drink from this sweet teaching, quench the tree of you who are not hungry Bread strengthens the body, but elevates the soul to the heavenly monastery; with all zeal, please come to this divine meal and be nourished abundantly with this angelic bread. Present this second meal to us, the long-suffering cherub. Whom do I say first? Church gusset of the honey-flowing language (fol. 1329) Ivan Chrysostom, who enlightened the end of the universe with his teachings and endured many temptations, but you yourself lead his reverent life. These wonderful fathers are not worse than the struggle of showing, beating the heretics with their words, but strengthening the faithful standing immovably in the faith; This father was not shaken by the fierce storm of the enemy, nor by the prison, nor by the bonds in the dungeon holding the body, but enlightening the soul, sitting incessantly composing divine dogmas, writing on the walls with coal. We, this divine scripture of his, honestly accepts and reveres, // sweating as far as possible and (fol. 1329 vol.) good deeds to attract these, and this wonderful father, seeing the fruit of his teaching growing incessantly and bringing it to the Lord, triumphs with us and adorns his word with prayer for us. Let us give glory and praise in the Trinity to the glorified God, who enlightened our minds with this wonderful father’s teaching, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. On the 10th day of July 7159, Jacob Sofonov, a prayer leader from the Moscow Koshelny settlement, said. It happened, in the Trinity Monastery in the cathedral church at matins, and according to the promise of the miracle worker Sergius, having listened to a prayer service, he left the church, having worn out and not knowingly sitting on the grave, and by the wrath of God he would throw me off that grave, and having beaten me to death, I lay without I can’t recover my memory soon. And having rested and come to his senses, in weakness he crawled to that grave and asked the people standing there: who is buried under this grave? And she told me: the monk Maxim the Greek is buried. I said: Father Maxim, forgive me! And he ordered the priest to serve him in full. And after the service, I received relief and went back to my memory, as I had before. // (l. 1330 rpm) Chudo 217. On the same day of the monastery of the Venerable Sergius of the Cathedral Elder Vasyan Larionov, the cell attendant Ivan said about himself: “I don’t believe the former, who said: “It wasn’t for this reason that this happened to Jacob, because he sat down on those graves; he was struck down by a demonic illness.” And out of my unbelief I sat on that grave and said: then I will have faith in this when this happens to me. And having sat down, he left that place unharmed, and the wrath of God struck me prostrate to the ground three times, and my face was beaten to the point of bleeding, my jaws and teeth, and everything in detail, and my tongue was burnt. And upon rising, remembering his unbelief, in the cell of his elder, in unity, praying to the image of the Savior and repenting of that sin, saying: Lord, forgive me. And because of this burden, sleeping and lying down, as a sign and in the end of a dream, standing before the image of God, the unknown monk stood and prayed, and asked him: “Who are you?” Verbs: “I am the Greek monk Maxim.” And I asked him for forgiveness for angering me. And he said to me: “Why do you dishonor me?” And because of your unbelief, this defeat was caused by others, but you heard that on this day before you fell, a man was thrown from my grave.” But he did not give us forgiveness, and then it was nothing to us. And from that vision I was agitated and did not see what was visible.” BAN – Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences VSMZ – Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve State Historical Museum - State Historical Museum IRLI – Ancient storage facility of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS NGOUNB – Nizhny Novgorod State Regional Universal Scientific Library named after. V.I. Lenin RGADA – Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts RSL – Russian State Library RNL – Russian National Library Works – Works of St. Maximus the Greek. Kazan, 1859–1862. Parts 1–3 TODL – Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS Canonization of saints. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. June 6–9, 1988, pp. 162–164. Belokurov S.A. About the library of Moscow sovereigns in the XVI century. M., 1899. Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. M., 1911. Vol. II, 2nd half. S. 232–233. Sobolevsky A.I. [Review] // Bulletin of Archeology and History, published by the St. Petersburg Archaeological Institute. St. Petersburg, 1900. Issue. 13. P. 269–281; his same. Translated literature of Moscow Russia. Bibliographic materials. St. Petersburg, 1903. Tikhomirov M.N. Russian culture X–XVIII centuries. M., 1968. S. 281–291. Library of Ivan the Terrible. Reconstruction and bibliographic description. / Comp. N.N. Zarubin. Podg. to print, notes and additions A.A. Amosova. Ed. S.O. Schmidt. L., 1982. See. section III of the present edition. Russia and the Greek world in the 16th century. In two volumes. M., 2004. Vol. 1. P. 352–358. RGB. f. 173, MDA Fund. 153. L. I; reproduction of the recording see: Ivanov AI The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. Characteristics. Attributions. Bibliography. L., 1969. S. 25; about the manuscript see: Sinitsyn N.V. Maxim the Greek in Russia. M., 1977. S. 227. Ikonnikov VS Maxim the Greek and his time. Kiev, 1915. S. 81; Denissoff E. Maxime the Greek and the West. Paris – Louvain, 1943, P. 138–139. Sources for reconstructing the biography before arriving in Moscow are not considered within the framework of this publication. In the Tales they are described based only on his own writings, sometimes with distortions and elements of fiction. For some new data, see: Sinitsyna N.V. New data about the Italian period of the life of St. Maximus the Greek / Church Historical Bulletin. 2006, no. 1. pp. 193–199. Denissoff E. Op. cit. P. 101–116. Russia and the Greek world. pp. 153–159, no. 36–40; Collection of the Russian Historical Society. St. Petersburg, 1895. T. 95. pp. 105–106. Collection of RIO. T. 95. pp. 369–370, 427, 474, 495–496. Russia and the Greek world. pp. 127–131, No. 1–3 (letters to Vasily III); pp. 334–340 (No. 1–3. Additions). PSRL. M., 2000. T. 13. P. 28. Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. M., 1971 / Prepared. N. N. Pokrovsky, ed. S.O. Schmidt. State Archives of Russia of the 16th century. Reconstruction experience / Prep. text and comments A.A. Zimina. M., 1978. S. 43, 64; Inventory of the Tsar's archive of the 16th century. and the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1614 / Ed. S.O. Schmidt. M., 1960. RGADA. F. 52. Op. 1. 1525, no. 1. Inventory of the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626 / Prepared by. for publication V.I. Galtsov, ed. S.O. Schmidt. M., 1977. P. 71. The month and day of burial - December 12 - are indicated in the Life of the 18th century, issued from Old Believer circles (author S.F. Mokhovikov), but the source of the message is unknown. In the same Life, a day of remembrance is named - January 21, coinciding with the day of remembrance of St. Maximus the Confessor (Belokurov S.A. About the library. S. XLIII, LXXXI), see: Sergius (Spassky), Archbishop. Complete months of the East. M., 1997. T. III. P. 32. For more information about collected works, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek in Russia. M., 1977. S. 223–279; Bulanin D.M., Shashkov A.T. Description of the collected works of Maxim the Greek // Bulanin D.M. Translations and messages of Maxim the Greek. L., 1984. pp. 220–251. Shashkov A.T. Pomeranian codex of works by Maxim the Greek / Source study and archeography of Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1977. pp. 93–124. RNL, OLDP, F. 88, l. 493 rev; reproduction see: Pokrovsky N.V. Siya icon painting original. St. Petersburg, 1898. Issue. IV. Rice. 60; him. Iconography and art. St. Petersburg, 1900. Fig. 221. Belobrova O.A. On the iconography of Maxim the Greek // Byzantine temporary book. M., 1973. T. 34. P. 246; hers. On the issue of the iconography of Maxim the Greek // TODRL. L., 1958. T. 15. P. 301–310. About him see: Belokurov S.A. About the library. No. 159 (from the collection of N.P. Nikiforov); Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek. P. 237. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek. P. 275. Right there. P. 277; reproduction of miniatures, see: Belobrova O.A. To the iconography of Maxim the Greek. P. 245, fig. 2; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible (Theoretical views and literary technique of the ancient Russian writer). M., 1998. P. 29. Kovtun L.S. Lexicography in Muscovite Rus'. L., 1972. ABC book: RNL, Q. XVI. 21, l. 21 rev; reproduction: Belobrova O.A. On the issue of the iconography of Maxim the Greek. pp. 245–247. About him see: Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek. pp. 264–265. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Kazan, 1862. pp. 452–453. For a brief description of the seven lists of the collection, see: Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek. pp. 262–263; for four more lists see: Bulanin D.M., Shashkov A.T. Description of meetings. pp. 227–229; Krutetsky V.Yu. Maxim the Greek and the establishment of the patriarchate (letter of permission from Patriarch Jeremiah II to Maxim the Greek, June 1588) // 400th anniversary of the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Roma, 1989–1991. pp. 115–130. Belokurov S.A. About the library. pp. XXIX–XXXVIII. Denissoff E. Une biographie de Maxime le Grec par Kourbski / Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma, Vol. 20. No. 1–2. P. 44–84. In the “Tale of the Chapters” (Table of Contents), as in the text, not all chapters are numbered, but the sequence of 57 chapters coincides (in general) with other manuscripts related to this collection. In some cases, second (cinnabar) numbers are placed in the margins, indicating the chapter number in the source used by the compilers of this collection. Bulanin D.M., Shashkov A.T. Description of meetings. pp. 249–250. Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek in Russia. pp. 272–273. In the manuscript of the Paris National Library Slave 123, with which Sin is related by origin. 491, at the end there is a Legend, written in a handwriting not found in the manuscript, of a different school of writing and clearly pasted into the manuscript later. Initially, the Legend was absent, as reported in the Description: Belokurov S.A. About the library. S. CCCXIII–CCCXIV, No. 243; the manuscript was then in the village. Bebrukhovo, Balakhninsky district, Nizhny Novgorod province (near the village of Gorodets), with Alexei Dmitrievich Molekhonov. Subsequently, the whereabouts of the manuscript were unknown, in 1977 it was acquired by the Paris National Library (See: Sevcenko I. Gleaning 5: The Slavic Versions of Maksim Grek’s Greek Poems in the Manuscript Paris Slave 123 // Palaeoslavica. 2000. Vol. 8. P. 354–358). Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek in Russia. pp. 277–278. See: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg 1998. Issue. 3. part 3. pp. 343–351. The manuscript was kindly indicated by O.V. Panchenko, to whom I express my sincere gratitude; Currently, its research is being conducted by O.S. Sapozhnikova. Bubnov N.Yu. Old Believer book in Russia. Sources, types, evolution. St. Petersburg, 1995. P. 196. The collection contains fragments of several works by Rev. Maxim, and in some cases with erroneous names. Yes, on l. 186–190 rev. (chapter 83) there is a text with the title “The same Maximus the Greek denunciation of the chapters, which Nikolai Nemchin expounded on the right theology of the All-Holy Spirit. From the Word of '79." This is the title of the 2nd message of F.I. Karpov against the Latins, but the manuscript further contains a fragment of the 1st message to him against astrology. For a list of lists of the Pomeranian Assembly, see: Bulanin D.M., Shashkov A.T. Description of meetings. pp. 239–247. Belokurov S.A. About the library. pp. 221–233. The number “nine” goes back to the source, which counted from the time of departure from Athos (1516 + 9 = 1525), namely to the “Confession of Faith” (Works of St. Maxim the Greek. Kazan, 1859. Part 1. pp. 23–29). Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek in Russia. P. 154. Popov A. Description of manuscripts and catalog of books of church printing in the library of A.I. Khludova. M., 1872. P. 118; Eismann W.O silogisme vytolkovano: Eine U¨ bersetzung des Fu¨rsten Andrej M. Kurbskij aus den Erotemata Trivii Johann Spangenbergs. Wiesbaden, 1972; Die Dogmstik des Johannes von Damaskus in der U¨bersetzung des Fu¨rsten Andrej M. Kurbskij (1528–1583). Hrsg.Von J. Besters-Dilger unter Mitarbeit von E. Weiher, F. Keller, H. Miklas. Freiburg, 1995. Kurbskij A.M. Novyj Margarit: Historisch–kritische Ausgabe auf der Grundlage der Wolfenbutteler Handschrift / Hrsg. von J. Auerbach. Giessen, 1976. Bd. 1. Lfg, 1. S. 4–5. Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible (Theoretical views and literary technique of the ancient Russian writer). M., 1998. 1525. P. 32. The adjective “famous” (in the title in short form) had the meaning: “1. Well-known, widespread, generally accepted /.../. 3. Reliable, accurate /.../" See: Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th–17th centuries. M., 1979. Issue. 6. P. 114. Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Collection not included in the description of A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostrueva. M., 1970. Part I. P. 208–211. For more details, see Sinitsyna N.V. Maxim Grek in Russia. M., 1977. P. 229; another manuscript of this type RSL, f. 98, Egor. 508 Has no legend. Belobrova O.A. On the issue of the iconography of Maxim the Greek // TODRL. T. XV. pp. 301–309. Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Assembly. M., 1973. Part I. P. 82 (without indicating the presence of the Legend); Belokurov S.A. About the library. S. CCCI, No. 207; Slavic-Russian manuscripts by V.M. Undolsky, described by the compiler himself and the former owner of the collection. M., 1870. P. 49. Porfiryev I.Ya. , Vadkovsky A.V., Krasnoseltsev N.F. Description of the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Monastery, located in the library of the Kazan Theological Academy. 1881. Part I. Kazan. pp. 134–142 (No. 129). Denissoff E. Une biographie de Maxime le Grec par le métropolite Isaie Kopinski // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. Roma. 1954. Vol. 20. Syrku P.A. From the history of relations between Russians and Romanians // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature named after. Academy of Sciences. 1896. T. 1. Book. 3. pp. 497–500, 509–542; Abramovich D. On the literary activity of the famous Kamyanian Isaiah // Monuments of ancient writing and art. St. Petersburg, 1913. T. 181; Kagan M.D. Isaiah Kamenchanin // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. L., 1988. Issue. 2. Part 1. pp. 444–448. Russia and the Greek world. M., 2004. T. 1. P. 263–264, 275–280. Sinitsyna N.V. Isaiah Kamenets-Podolsky and Maxim Grek // Literature and art in the cultural system. L., 1988. pp. 203–205. Golubinsky E.E. The history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. M., 1998. pp. 138–139. Dictionary of the Russian language XI–XVII centuries. M., 2000. Issue. 25. P. 261. Enin G.P. Job // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness. Vol. 2.H. 1. pp. 415–420. Likhachev N.P. Paleographic meaning of paper watermarks. St. Petersburg, 1899. T. I–III. Ankhimyuk Yu.V. Handwritten books from the collection of G.N. Romanov and V.I. Ananyin in the collections of the Department of Manuscripts // Notes of the Department of Manuscripts of the State Order of Lenin Library of the USSR named after. V.I. Lenin. M., 1988. Issue. 47. pp. 275–276. Novikova O.L., Sirenov A.V. Made in Chudov // TORDL. St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 55. P. 441–450; Sirenov A.O. About the paper of copies of Godunov’s Psalter and Degree Book // Old Russian Art. Handwritten book of Byzantium and Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 2004. Keenan E. Isaiah of Kamjanec’-Podolsk: Learned Exile, Champion of Orthodoxy // The Religious World of Russian Culture. Vol. 2. Russia and Orthodoxy. Essays in Honor of G. Florovsky. The Hague; Paris. 1975. P. 159–172. Judgment lists of Maxim the Greek and Isaac the Dog. M., 1971.S. 114. Works by I. Peresvetov / Prepared by. text by A.A. Zimin. M.; L., 1956. S. 147–161; parallels are given in the work: Rzhiga V.F. I.S. Peresvetov and the Western cultural and historical environment // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature imp. Academy of Sciences. 1911. T. XVI. Book 3. pp. 179–180. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. M., 1859. Dept. II. Part 2. P. 569; Lukyanenko V.I. Catalog of Belarusian editions of the Cyrillic script (1523–1600). L., 1973. Issue. I. S. 64; Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. pp. 85–88. Guseva A. A. Editions of the Cyrillic font of the second half of the 16th century. Union catalogue. M., 2003. Book. 1–2. pp. 678–679, no. 95. Kalugin V.V. Andrei Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. P. 87. Description of the manuscripts of the Chudov collection. Comp. T.N. Protasyeva. M., 1971. P. 133. See also: Guseva O.A. Publications... P. 715. No. 102. Panchenko O.V. From archaeographic research in the field of Solovetsky books. I. “A word of praise to the Russian saints” - an essay by Sergius Shelonin // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 2003.T. 53. pp. 563, 566, 588. Panchenko O.V. From archaeographic research in the field of Solovetsky books. II. “Canon to all the saints who shone forth in Great Russia in Lent” - an essay by Sergius Shelonin // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 56. P. 468, 479. Published by: Kovtun L.S. Lexicography in Muscovite Rus' in the 16th – early 17th centuries. L., 1975. pp. 94–98, in which two editions were published in parallel. Monk Maxim, Greek and philosopher, tonsure of the Holy Mount Athos. So Maxim was the son of the voivode. to the great elder, to Maxim. According to the tale of Elder Maxim the Greek, he was Elder Maxim the Philosopher in the Russian Land for many years and until the end he learned the Russian language and literacy. Written in cinnabar. The legend of Maxim the philosopher, who was a monk of the Holy Mountains of Athos and the glorious monastery of Vatopedi, who was here and suffered enough years for the truth. husband, on the field of the gloss of man T; husband without gloss S. Perhaps the left vertical of the letter k has been lost, it can be read as carried. Daniil T; Savva, rev. in the main handwriting from the original Daniel (not erased very carefully) S. doctrine correct. from the teaching (?) S. from Arta city, Arta city from the Reigning City 18 days and half a day, to Jerusalem the way, but (no C) from Arta to Jerusalem the same, halfway Arta between Jerusalem and Constantinople, father (ext. C) Manuel and mother Irina, Christians, Greeks, philosophers TS. In the RKP. Florence (end of line). In the RKP. coming, correct. according to TS. now, ext. glorious TS. In the RKP. examination, correction by T. Add. that is, T, ext. that is, in S. RKP. keeper, rev. according to TS. In the RKP. distorted reading, in a short version of the year and six months. In the RKP. sigtaklim, correct. according to TS. In the RKP. erroneously: with the blessing of His Grace Metropolitan Macarius, with the blessing of Metropolitan Jasaf, also // to this day, rev. according to TS. Orthodox pious TS. On the field opposite, in basic handwriting without signs, is a version of this. On the margin opposite, in basic handwriting without signs, is an option for part of the word stei. Next, the letter z is crossed out. Inscribed above the line in basic handwriting. In the RKP. corr. from multiply. In the RKP. corr. from flourishing. In the RKP. corr. from teaching. In the RKP. corr. from the incomprehensible. See: Works. Part 2. pp. 370–376. On the field of litter, see the main handwriting. See: Works. Part 3. pp. 96–97. salu is written above the line instead of the crossed out lasu. Matthew 24:28; Essays. Part 1. P. 60. Inscribed above the line instead of crossed out. In the RKP. marriage correct. from victim. I Cor 7:27; Essays. Part 1. pp. 169–180; 151–168; Part 2.S. 231–241 (three different works cited). In the RKP. corr. from teacher. Essays. Part 3. pp. 245–259; Part 1. pp. 435–446, 4.1. pp. 446–455. Right there. Part 1. pp. 55–62; Part 3. pp. 205–266 (two different works). Inscribed above the line instead of God's crossed out. Essays. Part 3. pp. 54–60.