Nil Sorsky and Paisiy Velichkovsky

“In the summer of the 7016th month of May, on the 7th day of Easter in the third week, the holy myrrh-bearing women departed to Christ who loved him,” the great elder Nilus of Sorsky, leaving the covenants of “smart work,” and in 1722, i.e. more than two hundred years later, the future archimandrite of the Holy Ascension Nyametsky and Predtechev Sekulsky Moldovan Lakhian monasteries, Paisiy Velichkovsky, as he himself signed, “native of Poltava”, was born, to whom these precepts were far from alien. Having accepted them in the same way as Maiko (Sorsky), under the influence of Athos, he is the planter of “smart work” in Moldova, having two major monasteries under his authority. It is interesting to compare these two monks, both natives of Russia, who were destined to play a large role in the renewal of monasticism, one in the 15th century within Russia, the other outside its borders, but never losing touch with it, and to trace the relationship of the latter to the former. First of all, let us turn to the small literature that is available about Paisia ​​and make a review of it. With the exception of a few articles posted in Chisin. Eparch. Ved., Christ. Thurs. and others, and information, very few, scattered in individual works, we do not have research on the life and work of Paisius, except for a small article by A. I. Yatsimirsky, placed in the Collection. Dept. Russian language and Literature for 1905, where, describing the manuscripts of Romanian libraries, the author devotes several pages to Paisius. But even in this limited literature about Paisius there are indications of his interest, which he discovered in “smart doing.” So is the author of the article posted in Chisin. Eparch. Ved. for 1898, says: “He finds here (on Athos) more correct manuscripts of the patristic works, studies them with all care, looks closely at the life of Athos, collects traditions of the good old days, which, although they were not fulfilled, have not died out - and in the end, the great Paisius is finally formed, resurrecting ancient smart work, smart sobriety.” Further, the same author repeatedly points out that Paisius resumed “smart work”, that this smart work stood in the foreground, pushing aside the external behavior of the brethren; notes Paisius’s defense of “mental prayer” from its detractors. Another author 2 writes that Paisius’s disciples, returning to Russia, passed on to others “the rules of monastic life they had learned and the skills they had acquired in community life and mental prayer.” He also reports that all of Paisius’s instructions boiled down to one goal “to encourage the brethren to keep the commandments of God with all their hearts and all their souls and to read patristic literature.” A. I. Yatsimirsky in his article establishes the connection between Paisius and the hesychasts of the 14th century. and even draws a parallel between the relationship of Payasius to Athanasius Moldovan, to whom the former appeared as a defender of “mental prayer,” and Gregory of Sinaite and his relationship to the Calabrian monk; These are the small data that characterize Paisius as a person with a certain definite worldview. It is possible that Paisius borrowed this desire for “smart work” directly from Athos; nevertheless, it is interesting to trace whether he knew that this smart work was the main basis of the rule of Sorsk, to what extent did he show his interest in the great elder Nile, was he looking for the same paths along which Sorsky walked to renew monasticism? Turning to Paisius’s library, we see several copies of Sorsky’s “Tradition” to his 18th-century disciples, and we also see collections that include “Tradition.” On one of the Volokolamsk manuscripts 3, which contains the Charter of Sorsk, we read the following entry: “To the blessed memory of the late elder Paisius of Nyametsk. Died 1794, November 15th day.” Obviously, Paisius was familiar with the writings of his predecessor. Moreover, we can say that Paisius not only knew about the existence of the Charter, but also took an active part in it, taking care of its dissemination; So in the Resurrection Manuscript (now the Moscow Synod. Bibl.) of the 18th century, which contains the Charter of the Nile, we find the entry: “This book was rewritten from the second most accurate translation of Elder Paisius, in the Neamtse Monastery, by the monk Plato.” These are, so to speak, external data that may indicate some interest and acquaintance of Paisius with the Nile. Let us now look at the works of Paisius, his Rules for monastic use and his essay on mental or internal prayer. Let's try to compare them with the creations of Sorsky and find something in common in them. The Charter of Paisius is simply an article consisting of 18 very small points. Let us cite only some excerpts and, in parallel, take the Charter of Sorsky. Turning to Velichkovsky’s work on “mental or internal prayer,” we see that he uses the same writers used by Sorsky to support his thoughts. Both cite the sayings of Nile of Sinai, John Climacus, Simeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Sinai and others. Moreover, Velichkovsky takes from them the same texts that we find in Nile... So eg. Paisius, on page 15 of his work, quotes the words of Nile Sinaite: “Having prayed as you should, expect what you should not, and become courageous, preserving your fruit.” The same text was taken by Sorsky on page 145 of his Charter. Further, Paisius cites the teaching of Gregory of Sinaite, confirming his words with the Holy Scripture: “Whenever I pray with my tongue (i.e., with my lips), my spirit prays, but my mind is without fruit: I pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind” and “I want to say five words with my mind,” etc. - also from Sorsky (p. 54). It is not possible to present here, taken by both writers, the mass of common texts with which their works are replete; Let us only mention that Paisius sometimes takes entire pages from the works of one or another holy father, and the same thing literally, with the only difference being the language of the 15th and 18th centuries. 7, we find it in the great old man Nile. It remains for us to note what, we believe, was written under the direct influence of Sorsky. Let us refrain from reproducing the exact words of Paisius and Nil and, for the sake of brevity, we will simply point to page 31 of Velichkovsky’s essay on mental prayer, where he speaks about the impoverishment of the teachers of Divine mental prayer and the proposal to replace them with the teaching of the venerable fathers, and we note that this is nothing more than an exact repetition of the instructions of Sorsky, recommended by him on pp. 57, etc. of his Charter. Let us add that this example is not the only one. Finally, we encounter repeated mentions by Paisius of Sorsky, whom he calls “the Russian luminary who shone in great Russia with clever work,” and notes his acquaintance with him: “Saint Nile of Sorsky, he says, who compiled his book on mental storage.” So, in the library Paisius is far from the only copy of the Charter of Sorsk, and Paisius himself, as can be seen from the records, takes an active part in the dissemination of the Charter. In the life of Paisius we find an indication that he wanted to establish that royal middle path that was accepted by Sorsky, and that only circumstances beyond Paisius’s control prevented him from doing this. The Rite of Paisius, which is so close to the Rite of Sorsky, the works of the former, indicating the same writers as Sorsky, citing the same texts, simply repeating the thoughts and words of Sorsky, the mention of him - the whole set of these data leads us to think that the influence of Sorsky continued not only on his closest followers, but spread after two hundred years and thousands of miles to a person, just like him, who was striving for the renewal of monasticism. We repeat that we do not intend to reject the completely direct influence of Athos on Velichkovsky, but we believe that such amazing similarities in the works of both, the close acquaintance of the younger with the elder and the interest of the former in the latter give the right to think that the influence of Sorsky was almost greater than the influence of Athos. Finally, the “native of Poltava”, who, judging by the signature, never forgot about this, was closer and more understandable to the Sorsky hermit than, somehow, but still alien Athos... We think that not without the influence of Paisius, his friend and fellow priest Vasily is interested in the Nile. So in the manuscript of the Resurrection Monastery, now Moscow. Synod. Bible (19th century), which contains both the Rules of Sorsky, the epistles and the superscript with attribution, we find the following entry: “Here is the end of the book of the Venerable Nile of Sorsky. The preface to this book and the commemoration of the creation are of the blessed memory of Elder Vasily, which he built in his monastery in the reign of Ungrolakhia, who reposed in the month of April 1767.” This entry, in addition to being an indicator of interest in Sorsky in Moldova, raises an interesting question about the author of the superscript to Sorsky’s book, usually attributed by researchers to his student Innocent. If we take into account this entry, which speaks positively about Vasily as the author of the superscript, and we have confirmation of this in one manuscript of the 18th century. I.P.B. 8, where there is the same superscript (with some omissions), under the following title: “From the preface to the book of the blessed Nile of Sorsky. Composed by Elder Vasily of the Polyanomerlui monastery in Montyanshchina,” where the author is directly and secondly indicated - Vasily, we can 1) see undoubtedly great interest in Moldova in Sorsky, if after two hundred years a superscript is written on his book, 2) establish the date of writing the superscript 200 years later, and finally 3) indicate its other author. Paisiy is waiting for his researcher - we only want to note his connection with Sorsky and state the fact of the undoubted influence of the great old man Nile on the “native of Poltava”. Moscow, Eparch. Bible No. 438.