Часть II. Деятельность Димитрия в Ростове

Chapter I. Introduction to the flock Dimitri arrived at the Rostov See on March 1, 1702, on Sunday of the 3rd week of Lent, with the image of the Vatopedi Icon of the Mother of God. At the meeting, the Rostov flock presented the Bishop with the Bogolyubsk Icon of the Mother of God. He first came to the Spaso-Yakovlevsky Monastery, located on the outskirts of the city on the road from Moscow. Having prayed here, he indicated in the southwestern corner of the church the place where he wanted to be buried 248. From the monastery he arrived directly at the Rostov Assumption Cathedral and served the first liturgy. After the liturgy, he addressed the flock with his most wonderful words, now so beloved among the common people. "Peace be with you." By the will of God, who arranges everything for the benefit, and by the command of the Most Serene Monarch, the Blessed Great Sovereign of our Tsar and Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich, of all great and small and white Russia, the Autocrat, with the permission and blessing of the entire consecrated cathedral, my unworthiness, having arrived here, to the throne of the most honorable metropolis of Rostov and Yaroslavl, peace to you, O beloved, of Christ's verbal flock of sheep, I proclaim peace to this most honorable church of the Most Pure Mother of God, peace to the God-saved city of Rostov, peace to the God-saved city of Rostov, peace to the God-saved city of Yaroslavl, peace to the God-saved city of Uglich, and to all the God-saved churches of the diocese and peace and blessing to the cities, peace to your residence and cohabitation, peace to your houses, peace to your hearts, as the apostle says: and let the peace of God rest in your hearts, in your life and calling (Col. 3:15). Let not your heart be troubled by my coming to you, for I entered through doors, and not by climbing through doors: I did not seek, but was sought, neither I knew you, nor you knew me, but the inscrutable depth of the Lord’s destinies, it sent me to you; I came not for you to serve me, but to serve you, according to the word of the Lord: although I be first in you, let him be a servant of all (Matthew 20:26). I came to you with love; I would say that I came like a father to my children, but it would be better to say: I came like a brother to brothers, like a friend to dear friends. So Christ the Lord is not ashamed to call us brethren. “You are My friends,” he says, “I do not call you servants, but friends (John 15:19), and what is even more honorable and amazing is that he calls those whom he loves fathers, saying: This Mi is both father and mother, who does the will of My Heavenly Father (Matthew 12:49). Therefore, because of my love for you, you are fathers, brothers and friends to me. If you call me father, then I answer you apostolically: my children, with them I am sick, until Christ is formed in you (Galat. 4:19). I came the way that our father Isaiah, the local Rostov wonderworker, once came here from Kyiv; he brought to this place a blessing about the grace poured out from above on the new Athos, or better said, on the new Jerusalem, on the Kiev-Pechersk Mountains. So, I, a sinner, having arrived from Kyiv in the footsteps of that holy Isaiah, say: may the blessing of God, the Mother of God, our venerable fathers Anthony and Theodosius, and other wonderworkers of the Pechersk, rest in incorruption and illuminate the entire universe with miracles, be in this place! I rejoice in spirit, having arrived in this city, in this house, which the local miracle workers sanctified with the feet of their holy feet, protected with prayers, adorned with a godly life, exalted with deeds and labors and glorified with many shrines. I rejoice in spirit, seeing such a gathering, the great verbal flock of the Fathers of Christ, which is shepherded by the Chief Shepherd Christ himself, which is kept by the Most Pure and Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ our God, which is guarded and protected by the most ancient shepherds, the bishops of God and the great lamps: Leontius, Isaiah, Ignatius, Jacob and others like those in this local diocese saints of God, standing before the throne of God, constantly praying to the Lord for us. I rejoice in spirit, seeing such grapes, planted by the right hand of the Most High, watered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the labors of the former bishops increased, Christ Himself visits with His Most Pure Mother of God and exudes the wine of spiritual joy. I pray and must beg the Chief Shepherd, Lord Christ, that He may keep His flock safe and sound from wolves, visible and invisible, and that not a single sheep from this fence of Christ and the Mother of God will fall into error and destruction, that not a single sheep will be kidnapped by a hellish beast, that not a single sheep will turn into a goat, but rather, let them turn from goats into sheep, and may all the blessed sheep be counted worthy to stand on the right hand at the coming of the Lord. And since the Great Bishop, who passed through heaven, made me, although unworthy, your shepherd and entrusted me with your salvation, then I must know and fulfill my duties regarding you, just as you must do your duties in relation to me. I must, with the help of God, according to the apostolic instruction, “endure the weaknesses of the powerless and not please myself” (Rom. 15:1), but for the good of each of you for the edification, just as Christ did not please himself. I must admonish the disorderly, console the faint-hearted, support the weak, be patient with everyone. We must love the good, punish the evil with leniency, care about the common good, diligently seek salvation for everyone, and pray for everyone. And you, O beloved, according to Christ the Lord, although a sinful shepherd, you must know and show unfeigned love, respect without flattery and appropriate obedience and show with zeal. If God commanded that I be your father, then you too should be my children. If Christ has deigned that I should be first among you, then you too be meek and humble under the control of the first. If the Holy Spirit has made me your shepherd, then be true sheep to me, sheep that listen, and not those that disobey the voice of their shepherd. If God has appointed me as your teacher, then “come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.” If he gave you a mentor, then obey your mentor and submit, for I have been entrusted with vigilant care for your souls, “as someone obliged to give an account, so that I do this with joy, and not sighing.” When I see your conscientious attitude towards everything, I will rejoice; when it is dishonest, I will sigh. When I see you, true sheep of Christ, going to the right hand, I will rejoice; When I see you turning towards the goats, I will sigh. When I find in you true love, humility, obedience to the Lord, I will rejoice greatly; If I find not love, disrespect, disobedience, I will sigh a lot. I will rejoice over your good and godly life, and I will sigh over the corrupt ones. You take care, so that I may feed you with joy, and not with sighs. For if you make me sigh for you, it will not be of any use to you. God the Most Good, although all mankind may be saved and come into the understanding of truth, may He guide you on His path, to do His good and perfect will, and to please Him in everything, so that we may not be put to shame and not put to shame before His Last Judgment. May I, an unworthy shepherd, rejoice, and let me cry to the Lord Christ: behold, I and my children are what you have given to me. Now let us all sweat and turn away from evil and do good deeds, so that we may appear pleasing to the desires of the Lord. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is with you, and my love is with you all. Amen." 249 The new bishop, who lived in Ukraine all his life until he was 50, was struck by church life in the Rostov region. He did not hide his surprise and expressed it in his messages, sermons and writings. Thanks to this, one can judge the state of the clergy and flock, the attitude of the government towards the church, and, equally, abnormal phenomena in church life, such as superstitions and schism. All this prompted administrative and educational measures by the new saint, especially against disturbances in church life. On the very first day, Dimitri was struck by the carelessness of the clergy during the performance of divine services, and after that something even more turned out: “the choir members read and sing without paying attention, the priests and deacons in the altar curse, and sometimes even fight” 250. Soon after arriving at the department, Dimitri went to Yaroslavl. It happened that he entered a village church. When he asked the local priest: “Where are the life-giving Mysteries of Christ?” The priest did not understand the bishop’s words and stood silently, puzzling over the question. - “Where is the Body of Christ?” - explained the bishop; but the priest could not understand this question either. And when one of the experienced priests standing next to the bishop told him: “where is the supply,” 251 then he took the “very vile vessel” from the corner and showed the carelessly kept shrine. So, according to Dimitri, it was kept in a corner with bedbugs and cockroaches. Reviewing all the demotions among the clergy, Demetrius exclaims: what I am surprised at is the long-suffering of God! The priests stand near the throne of God without fear and without fear, and the Merciful Christ does not execute with sudden death those who commit outrages at the altar 252. In the everyday life, life and views of the clergy, Dimitri saw complete ignorance, drunkenness and ugly actions. Dimitri found the conversations between the clergy among themselves “similar to laughter.” For example, one priest tells another that with the same sword the Apostle Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, with which the prophet Elijah cut off the priests of Jezebel. The shepherds are not only not enlightened by the teaching themselves, but they do not like those who know, they even condemn the teachings and blaspheme 253. Clergymen do not give their girls in marriage for imaginary religious reasons and do not even force them to perform the Christian duty of confession. The Bishop happened to hear from the children of the clergy that they did not even remember when they received communion. It is not without reason that the saint exhorts pastors to give a helping hand to their flock “in external needs”, to intercede for the innocently oppressed, to care for the poor and the poor 254. Some priests were lazy to go to the poor and needy, but they visited the rich. Because of such negligence, many poor people died without confession and communion of the Holy Mysteries 255. The drunkenness of the clergy brought about many ugly phenomena in parish life. The “evil priest” will get drunk, says Demetrius, and begin to tell the sins of his spiritual children and expose them. When drunk, they boast about their spiritual children in front of strangers in conversations or, in anger, scold them with reproaches. In an admonition to such confessors, Dmitry speaks of the priest’s duty to keep confessional secrets and compares sins to stones that burden our conscience, and God’s mercy to the sea. Just as stones thrown into the sea are no longer visible to anyone, so it should be with sins cast into the abyss of God’s mercy. A priest who talks about confessional sins cannot escape hellish torment, and even here, according to human laws, he should dig up his tongue from behind 256. – Sometimes they drank until they got sick. In 1704, Archimandrite Macarius of Uglich visited Dimitri and told him about such unfortunate shepherds. Pop Prokopiy Ogloblya, having gotten drunk, was picked up on a cart by some scary people. On the way, he crossed himself and found himself in front of a wretched house after an open pit with corpses, etc. 257. Ignorant priests themselves advised their flock not to receive communion often; The indignant bishop responded to this with a special message to give communion to the laity as often as possible. The service was performed mechanically, observing only rituals, without the internal participation of the performer. Once the archpriest of Rostov sees how one priest serves the liturgy without a missal, without reading the prescribed prayers, but making only ordinary exclamations. When they asked him why he didn’t have a book with him, he answered: “I have already read the prescribed prayers at home.” They objected to him that this should not be done, but he referred to the custom: “I’m used to this from the old priests,” and even said by name from whom he learned it. Such manners of inattentive and careless attitude towards worship deeply outraged the saint: he compared such service to a censer clanking without fire or smoke. He learned with indignation that sometimes the prosphora for the liturgy were rye, not wheat. The priests were generally unaware of the importance of their office or the responsibility of serving, but served for the sake of income: “not for Jesus, but for the bread of the cousa,” as the saint said. Despite his high reverence for pastoral service, Saint Demetrius, as can be seen from his spiritual letter, was indignant at the situation of taking money for the commemoration of the dead, although during his lifetime he did not reproach the priests for this. Needless to say, he could not be satisfied with the crude painting in churches. He often encountered icons that were written incorrectly and even “terribly.” For example, the martyr Christopher was painted with the head of a dog; God the Father - lying on a bed with pillows, as if resting after six days of creation. At the Nativity of Christ, the Blessed Virgin was represented as sick, for which purpose they painted a woman in front of her. While surveying urban and rural churches, the saint paid attention to the cleanliness of church utensils: tabernacles, fonts, etc. There were cases when the clergy entered into a “competition” with the meek ruler. The saint was much annoyed by the widowed priest David, who reproached him for his Latinism, even called him a heretic “and barked a lot of abuse.” In this regard, the investigation was carried out by the head of the Monastery Prikaz, boyar Musin-Pushkin himself. The priest, instead of accepting monasticism as usual, asked to leave a place for him in the parish. The Bishop refused. The priest considered himself offended and addressed a complaint to Tsarina Praskovia Fedorovna, who in a letter asked the Metropolitan to spare the petitioner and do as he wished. But the bishop wrote to the queen in decisive words about the impossibility of him satisfying such a request. Davyd, according to the saint, was a frantic man; he showed schismatic opposition to the Holy Church, blaspheming new books, and divulging false miracles. He, by his behavior, is a libertine, a blasphemer, and a blasphemer, deserving of defrocking 258. Bearing in mind such ignorant, pathetic helpers in managing the Rostov flock and their hopeless poverty, Metropolitan Dimitri wrote to his friend Theologist in Moscow, “I am embarrassed with sadness, seeing the troubles of the priests and looking at their tears..., although I trust in God, but, with such an obvious need, I am sad” 259. He also remembered his homeland in Ukraine, where the clergy also did not stand at a special level of education in comparison with his flock. And there, rarely did anyone from the clergy know the order of the biblical stories, when and what happened. The abbot of one Kyiv monastery once asked Demetrius, who was still living in Ukraine at that time: when was the prophet Elijah, before the Nativity of Christ or after? He also heard from a clergyman such a statement that the Maccabees lived after the apostles, because their teacher Eleazar encouraged them at the trial with apostolic and saintly sayings, as can be seen from the prologue. If in Little Russia the clergy showed such ignorance, then what can we say about the Rostov clergy, who did not even have schools? The only difference was that in Ukraine the clergy isolated themselves from the flock, considering themselves superior to the people, and behaved with dignity. In Rostov, as in Great Russia in general, the clergy were no different from the peasants. “It was amusing to see how another presbyter would put on a gold-woven robe (chasuble), and on his feet the bast shoes would be trampled and covered in all sorts of feces, and the lower caftan would be disgusting” 260. The state of the masses in moral and religious terms seemed so bleak that the sorrowful heart of the saint rested on only one virtue - namely, on the forced patience of the sufferers, whom fate, the greed of the people and the demands of the government accidentally brought to justice, threw into prison and forced to gnaw on dry bread 261 . Humiliation of the individual was considered common in all levels of society. The saint could not help but be struck by the sharp contradiction between religiosity and moral unbridledness. Kotoshikhin also remarked about the Russian people that “Moscow people are not God-fearing,” meaning their immoral life. M Dimitry paints a vivid picture of the morals of Rostov. Untruths and insults occur such that sometimes it is embarrassing to talk about them. Among the masters there is some kind of bitterness towards their subordinates 262 . Voluptuousness is considered the highest pleasure. They build churches, and rob and steal other people's property; they are created by someone else's bloody sweat and tears 263. This is not piety if someone builds a church for God, but leads his neighbor to ruin - this is robbery! exclaimed the saint. A person will force beggars and churchmen to pray for himself, and other people will cry because of him 264. “Christ the Savior! If you were to go into your church today and see how they are committing atrocities, you would probably also carry out an expulsion! There is great fearlessness in the church today. Where can I see whom? - In the church! Where to joke and laugh? - In the church! Where do they greet, congratulate each other, ask about health, wife, children and so on? - In the church! As if the church was created for this reason, to converge only on politics and lawlessness, and not on the prayer of God?” 265. The saint was especially outraged by the inequality of classes and rights. “Nowadays, as at Herod’s feast, the masters almost also devour and drink the bloody labors of men, and mercilessly torture their poor peasants. The gentlemen have enough of everything to the point of satiety, but the poor peasants do not have even a crumb of stale bread. Some overeat, while others are hungry; These people get drunk, but others only quench their thirst with water; here they have fun, and there they cry in the streets 266. Wait, merciless rich people, offenders of poor people - give it time! The hour of death will come to you, at that time you will see what your bliss and happiness will be like! 267 – And you who suffer, do not grow weary of patience, but give thanks to your Christ!” 268 This is how the ruler consoles the offended. – Sometimes he expresses the desire that governors and judges would not judge and rob 269 for bribes. Among dark people, vices have become an everyday phenomenon. Since ancient times, carnivals, fist fights, round dances, Christmas games and superstitions have been preserved there. Considering the life of the common people, the saint exclaims: “Where is there more theft, if not among the common people? There are lawlessness, robberies, murders and things that are shameful not only to talk about, but even to even think about.” 270 From a depraved life physical disorder and illness arose, which the Saint also mentions 271. There were cases of terrible massacres. So in one such massacre between bishops and monastery peasants, 3,000 people took part, there were many wounded and even killed. There were not simple robberies, but robberies of churches. They stole not only from rural churches 272, but also from urban ones. In the city of Yaroslavl itself, an expensive robe and all the jewelry with it were taken away from the miraculous icon of the Mother of God of Feodorov in 1702. The relationship between the clergy and the flock, in the absence of the authority of the pastors, could not be normal. The parishioners themselves chose the priest, then asking to consecrate him. For example, the landowners of the Rostov district, the village of Karagacheva, Ilya Ivanov Meshcherinov, and the village of Likina, Prince Semyon Matveevich Shakhovskoy, write to the bishop: “we loved the landowners of the same village of Karagacheva, the Church of the Nativity of the Most Holy. The Mother of God as a second priest to help his father, because he is a priest in old age, and (so that) the Church of God would not exist without singing and Christian souls would not die without repentance. Gracious Sovereign, His Eminence Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl, perhaps we have ordered him, Vasily, with your bishop’s blessing, to be promoted to priest. Please have mercy!” 273. But such a choice and an amicable deal between the peasants and the clergy did not yet serve as a guarantee of agreement between them. Cases were opened about discord in parish life. At the beginning of the administration of the Rostov flock, 1702, the bishop received a complaint from the Resurrection priest from the city of Uglich: the parishioners of that church, his spiritual children, get drunk, do not go to the Church of God, and are not obedient to him in anything, they revile him, the priest, with unheard-of words because he teaches them, his parish people, according to the rules of the holy fathers, does not bless the wells and so on. – To this petition, the Resurrection parishioners answered the bishop that the priest himself was not doing his job properly: he did not go to the house, did not give the cross, fought, taking off his vestments, bruised a parishioner with his fist, etc. 274 So, the bishop’s gaze could not rest on the flock. From the lives of the rich, the bishop received news of only vices and moral darkness; people mired in such a life did not think about improvement. It was necessary to awaken their consciousness. The mutual relationship of the classes represented the dominance of the privileged class over the immoral peasant. There was little consolation for the clergy, who lived by the same material interests as the people and limited themselves only to the ritual side of religion. – Everyone was equally far from the rulers. They were not used to being seen in rural churches and were approached only to deal with obvious violators of the rules of faith and morality. Nobody turned to the bishop for advice about introducing fresh principles, instead of closed-in rituals. “Our damned time!” the saint exclaimed in one sermon: “I don’t know who is more necessary to take on: the sowers or the land; for the priests or for the hearts of men?.. The sower does not sow, but the earth does not receive! The priests are not careful, but the people are mistaken... It’s bad on all sides: the priests are stupid, and the people are not reasonable!” 275. Judging by these words of the bishop, the Rostov flock had to be “brought back into the Christian faith.” There was much to be done to eradicate spiritual shortcomings in the entire flock, and great strength was required to instill in their place the most necessary principles of the Gospel. The choice of a priest by parishioners was also practiced in Little Russia; Dimitri was familiar with it. But besides this, he happened to learn the Great Russian custom of assigning official church positions in one clan, not only in the male, but also in the female line. Thus, in 1709, the priest’s wife submitted a request to the bishop to secure her husband’s place for her daughter, who could choose a groom for herself, since after her husband she remained a widow with children “herself the sixth” 276 . Material condition of the bishop's house The Rostov diocese was considered one of the most important in terms of antiquity and wealth in Russia. When the patriarchate was established, she was one of the four elevated to the metropolis. In one of the projects of the 17th century it was proposed to install a patriarch in it. This importance of the Rostov diocese, in addition to its antiquity and hereditary respect for the rulers who once ruled the religious life of almost all midnight countries, was helped by the lasting prosperity acquired over the centuries. In addition to the tribute from the Rostov clergy, the Rostov bishop's house received income from the huge church estates that belonged to it. The forests alone occupied an area of ​​up to 300 square miles. There was a corresponding amount of arable land, hayfields, mills, fishing grounds, and quitrents. The peasant population of the bishop's lands is assigned to the bishop's house on the same basis as to the service class. The ruler had the right of trial, order of labor and reprisals over him. He bore the same payment responsibility to the government as the service class: monetary duties, recruits, taxes, if the sovereign, at the special discretion, did not exempt from any duty, for example, yam, linen, etc. Only in comparison with the rights of the service class was its position higher and it had more rights. Following the example of the Moscow Patriarch, the Bishop acquired landowners, who, for their service to the Bishop, were given bishop's estates with peasants for the landowner's management. The saint had his own boyars, boyar children, nobles who served him as bailiffs, stewards, judges, solicitors, tithes, 277 etc. The wealth of the bishop's house made it possible for Demetrius' predecessors to decorate the cathedral city with structures and buildings. Metropolitan Jonah Sysoevich, thanks to the inexhaustible funds of the people of his lands, built churches, decorated them with such splendor that he eclipsed the ancient glory of the Rostov princes who sat here at the time, and the importance that the Rostov princes had has now passed, thanks to the spiritual influence on the people and the wealth of the diocese, to the Rostov rulers. The abundance of material resources gave each bishop the opportunity to put into practice his natural inclinations. If one of them, in his own expression, “cast bells for the amusement of the little people” at 500 poods, 1000 and even 2000, then Dimitri could count on establishing, for example, his favorite schools for the people in view of the need he recognized for public education. But his fate placed him in a special time to be a bishop, something never before seen in Rus', which none of Demetrius’s 56 predecessors in the department had experienced. It was very difficult for the bishops to be at any time in that current, in which everything old was carried away, and the new was carried in a swift stream. The tsar's plans placed a heavy burden on the people, on the clergy, and, in particular, on the bishops. Now we have learned in practice the purpose and fruits of the monastic censuses. When Dmitry still lived in Moscow, stewards, nobles, clerks and attorneys traveled around the monasteries. In the Rostov monasteries and in the estates of the bishop's house, an inventory was made by the steward Voeikov. With his measures established during the census, Voeikov threw into the relations between the peasants and their spiritual authorities misunderstandings that had not faded away for decades. 278 Inventories of the land properties of monasteries and bishops' houses served as an indicator for the government of what could be taken from them for military needs, and the needs turned out to be great and varied - for the army, for the construction of ships, for the founding of St. Petersburg, etc. In his passion for shipbuilding, Voronezh and Olonets shipyards, Peter demanded funds from all classes. The clergy were also included in the trade for the construction of ships, in addition to a special ship tax of 4 altyns with money from the parish yard. When Demetrius joined the Rostov diocese, an order was issued to give all church quitrent articles through the secular authorities with an additional allowance. Decrees about this were nailed to the gates. In the following years, the demands for all kinds of funds in the government treasury grew and were sought with amazing resourcefulness in the form of bath taxes, grave taxes, etc., depleting church estates. In 1703, people were required for shipbuilding; - first in the form of a set of 200 households, one carpenter with tools, and then all of Poshekhonye was assigned to this task. In addition, carpenters were needed from Rostov, Yaroslavl and Romanov. Then there was a demand for hiring masons and brickmakers to build cities. Where there were no such craftsmen, they exacted a hryvnia from the yard 279. In addition to carpenters and brickmakers, the Olonets shipyard required blacksmiths. Horses were driven from the Rostov districts to Moscow for inspection and recruitment into the troops 280. There was correspondence to collect provisions in kind 281. When taxes were imposed on dragoon horses, the decrees insistently confirmed that the collection necessarily came from the clergy themselves, and not from the parishioners. Since then, the continuous shortage and loss of troops has been accompanied by increased recruitment. Under Demetrius, the recruitment of recruits from the clergy began, which had never happened before either in Great Russia or in Ukraine. All persons coming from the clergy, but illiterate and not capable of being clergymen, had to become soldiers; they were prohibited from other service 282. They strictly ensured that no one evaded this order. In the Rostov diocese, such government measures caused fear and gave rise to the most incredible rumors. One priest learned that they would soon begin recruiting without leniency from the entire clergy and even clergy. In the sadness that overwhelmed him, he began to pray that God would not allow him to be separated from his wife and children; then he went to Rostov to check the rumors. Rostov archpriest Simeon confirmed that the governor also told him about this, as if there would soon be such a recruitment. The priest was horrified and began to think about how he could hide. I even thought about leaving everything and running away, but it was a pity to leave my family; there was nothing to feed themselves without coming. On the way, he met priests who came to Rostov about the same rumors. They consoled him. They came to the order to find out spiritual affairs and began their speech with the clerk from afar, as if they had come with the payment of quitrent money for their children. The clerk said: “You continue to pay the fee and pray to God for the great sovereign. By the sovereign’s decree, we were ordered to take your children of every church rank into the recruiting system, but now those decrees in Moscow have been removed from the gates, and you live as before.” 283 Now the position of the clergy began to depend on the views of the government, which were so new and unusual that they gave reason to believe all sorts of rumors. In addition to natural duties, old monetary taxes were increased and new ones were endlessly imposed. Yam collections and linen collections have been increased; the new fees bore some formless names, hryvnia, fifty kopecks, half fifty kopecks (according to the military order of 1708, December 8). Among the special fees was listed for “the maintenance of Princess Margarita Alekseevna” 5 money from the courtyard 284. In addition, the steward Voeikov, by decrees, selected silver government dishes, broken silver in monasteries, and even horse harness if it was sent for silver 285. By some miracle, hay income was hidden from the sovereign's profit-makers; it was their turn later. The bishop's house and monasteries could still be supported by their estates, where peasants have worked for them since ancient times and paid in-kind duties. But this was also limited. Half of all church peasants were exempted by the government from in-kind duties with the obligation instead to pay a 28-kopeck annual tax to the treasury. In the Spasoyaroslavl Monastery, Voeikov assigned 1,500 souls of peasants to support the brothers, when until that time the monastery had 14,000 people. The rest became part of the “determined”. The distribution of the peasants was done so unsuccessfully by Voeikov that it became the cause of endless unrest among the peasants and their half-century-long litigation with the monastery. – The situation of the church peasants also worsened when the taxation unit was fragmented, namely, instead of the yard, they began to collect from every living peasant soul. According to the established mutual responsibility, the peasants were obliged to pay for recruits, for fugitives, for those who died after the national census, and for any emptiness. Due to the unbearable situation, the peasants, ruined by taxes and fees, abandoned their church estates and went on the run. This caused the patrimonial economy to become even more upset, payments to the treasury increased, since the peasant society was obliged to pay not only for itself, but because of the fugitives. In case of arrears, their spiritual authorities were responsible for the peasants. Moreover, secular authorities tended to accuse them of neglect of state interests even when they themselves slowed down such payments. Once from the Uglitsky monasteries they demanded the usual annual expulsion of 18 servants and grooms to designated places. On the day of departure, the Uglitsky governor seized all those deported under the pretext that they had not made cash and grain payments to the sovereign treasury. Their arrival in Moscow was therefore delayed, and the metropolitan solicitor had to report the reasons for the delay to Voeikov himself 286 . The secular authorities did not give up the opportunity to report any malfunctions of the clergy. The latter tried to appease the steward, but was not always able to do this successfully. From the time of Metropolitan Demetrius, complaints have been preserved that the stewards did not accept simple honors, but preferred and extorted bribes. The Rostov Metropolitan was also responsible for patrimonial payments to the Monastic Order. In 1704, he was ordered to supervise the priestly elders, so that he could write their coronal memorials on stamped paper for just one wedding on a column, paid by a penny fee, since in some churches they began to write 5-6 and even 20 weddings on one sieve. For such negligence in the interests of the state, the perpetrators were sent to the Armory Chamber for the right to collect the money 287. In 1706, it was legalized to take a ruble from sextons and any church clerks who were assigned to the service, from minors 26 altyns and 4 money, from old and crippled people the same amount. During such collections of money, they were also interviewed about newborns, for whom the same salary was paid in advance as for infants 288. The Bishop had no opportunity to stand up for his patrimonial estate, as in Chernigov, because all protests went against Peter’s decrees. He had to endure it, no matter how much they oppressed him. For some happy occasion, it was allowed to release supplies from the estates for the bishop's daily life without depletion. But otherwise, the maintenance of the house was increasingly limited: “nothing was ordered to be released” for other household expenses without a decree 289 . The bishop was required to strictly comply with the instructions on the reduction of monks, parish clergy and on the inviolability of church property. He was given a formal decree reprimand for the fact that he allegedly tonsured unnecessary monks at his own discretion, and also supplied priests in groups of 2 and 3 to such parishes where there was supposed to be one. In 1705, he was sent the highest reprimand from Moscow: the Tsar learned that in Rostov they continue to ordain archimandrites and abbots, give them hats, install archpriests where there were none before, and thus act arbitrarily. In addition, the Rostov ruler supposedly increases the composition of the parish clergy, releases his priests to the patriarchal region, where they serve at the crosses, live in poverty and lead a drunken life; then, contrary to church rules, he initiates minors, curses many and imposes prohibitions, so that others die without repentance. He was shown to be careless about his flock - and is ordered: henceforth to notify all his appointments to clergy in writing to the patriarchal treasury order, as was the case under the patriarch; from widowed priests he should take a subscription in the obligation to take monastic vows; to appoint priests again not according to census books, but according to scribes 290, and only at the strong requests of the parishioners themselves is it not forbidden to establish a second parable; ordain only learned priests and no younger than 30 years of age. It is prohibited, “according to the rules of St. apostles,” transfer priests from one place to another, because transferred priests have the custom of selling their place, at their own discretion, to other priests. The bishop is completely forbidden to curse people, 291 but those who do not obey can be subject to prohibition for a while, until “they cease from their undertaking.” – Such a reprimand was inflicted on the saint at the insistence of Voeikov. Their strained relations with each other are also visible from other matters. So, even at the beginning of Demetrius’s priesthood, Voeikov reported on the waste of church things from the bishop, as if his old vestments were used for costumes for comedy performances. First, the steward sent his decrees to the treasurer - not to spend church materials without permission. The treasurer, however, did not listen to him. Then Voeikov sealed the church chamber and reported it to the Monastery Prikaz. The Bishop had to not only endure such stewardship of his house, but also listen to a reprimand sent from the Spiritual Patriarchal Order, where at the head of everything was the Bishop’s friend, M. Stefan Yavorsky. The saint had frequent pleasant encounters with Voeikov. Once, during the liturgy in the Rostov Cathedral, someone was beaten on the right. The desperate cries of the tortured man were clearly heard in the church itself and interfered with the service. The bishop sent word to the authorities to stop the torture. However, the steward who was in charge continued beating and the screams continued to be heard. Then the saint left the service and went to his beloved village of Demyany 292. There are great vices, according to Demetrius, in all ranks and classes, but the nobles surpassed everyone in violating the moral law. In one of his sermons, a legendary legend is cited that Moses, descending from Mount Sinai with the tablets, broke them not across, but lengthwise, and on one broken half there was only the beginning of a separate commandment: no, no, no..., and on the other side the end of it: “make yourself an idol, take the name of the Lord your God in vain, kill, commit adultery, steal; According to this half of the commandments, the nobles now live, says Demetrius: they kill, steal, and so on. The disagreement between the bishop and Voeikov even crossed the boundaries of relations by position. Once, during the saint’s sermon, Voeikov’s daughters talked loudly and laughed without hesitation. At the end of the sermon, in his exclamation “the blessing of the Lord be upon you,” he added: “except those who laugh.” However, Voeikov himself bore strict responsibility for the integrity of church funds, which could be turned into the government treasury. He had to monitor when the priestly elders collected tribute from the clergy for the bishop's house, crown money from marriages, etc., and also ensured that they were recorded correctly. 1704 Dec 4 It was ordered that this money and crown duties and all income of Metropolitan Demetrius be collected by him, Voeikov, together with the bishop's treasurer, with an accurate record of everything. Once in the Moscow Treasury Prikaz they discovered an incorrect entry in the books, namely: - the concealment of the collection of money from each parish yard, the crown money also turned out to be incompletely recorded; - instead of 5 altyn 4 money from the first-married was recorded at 4 altyn, instead of 13 altyn 2 money from the second-wed - 6 altyn, etc. - They demanded from Voeikov not only an explanation, but also all the money withheld due to his 293 oversight. In 1705, it was ordered to register all the monks, as well as the number of tonsures after the national census, indicating in which places the new tonsures were placed and according to what decrees. The metropolitan was obliged to submit certificates about this to Moscow 294 . In the same 1705, another half was reduced from the limited allowance for the monks: those receiving 10 rubles a year were given 5 rubles, and bishops serving on salary were given half, and in all estates, half of the income was taken away for sending to the Monastic Order to give to military men 295. “How much lawlessness! So many insults! exclaimed the Bishop. “They cry out to heaven and awaken the wrath of vengeance there! But we don’t lose hope!” The position of our lower, good clergy, who did not have the means to pay tribute to the bishop, aroused only sadness and anxiety: “outside the battle, inside the fear!” 296 “I am troubled with sadness, seeing the troubles that exist for the priests, and seeing their tears and our house falling hour by hour!” The elder Vilna, who suffered from the Uniates, is consoled by Demetrius: “you suffer from strangers, and we from our own.” "Only ashes remain." I’m almost wandering around on foot: no horse, no rider! The sheep are depleted of food and there are no horses 297. The Homeric devastation of the church economy gave Demetrius a reason to remember the destruction of Troy. The saint is consoled only by the fact that “when you yourself have nothing, then no one will take anything away” 298. He was aware that the tsar was being forced to pay new taxes by the heavy war, and even repeated Peter’s exact words: “money is the nerve of war!” 299 Apparently, even in the monasteries they were aware of the need to devote all funds to temporary national needs to fight the irreconcilable enemy, but it is not known what caused this consciousness: patriotism or intimidation. The Uglich elders of the church estates regret that they have neither blacksmiths nor carpenters to send to the shipyards; they express their readiness not only to pay for this in money, but also the prescribed penalty, which the sovereign will indicate 300. Times became so difficult for the saint that he had, as he put it, no time for fantasies and no time for printing books. Secular officials disposed of the property of the bishop's house as if it were their own. One day the bishop was leaving for Moscow. When he returned from there, his house was almost already occupied: they wanted to place captured Swedes in it. In Moscow he saw the same enslavement. The more ardent Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky did not remain silent about his humiliation. Peter the Great also knew about his discontent. Of course, both metropolitans shared with each other their thoughts about the unprecedented humiliation of the church and the embarrassment of the clergy. Yavorsky, in a letter to Demetrius, complains that he lives with the Tsar in the position of prisoners, “from them I am the first, the sinful Styopka!” The Tsar himself always expressed signs of his favor to the Rostov ruler. While passing through Arkhangelsk, in the spring of 1702, Peter was in Rostov; visited the bishop's house. St. Demetrius received him in the White Chamber, which has survived to this day 301. The tsar was in a complacent mood and allegedly ordered the steward Voeikov: if the bishop orders you to move the bishop’s house to the island (on Lake Rostov), ​​then you will be satisfied with everything 302. But all this was soon forgotten. The practical view of the tsar saw new objects for the exploitation of Rostov land. After his visit, they began to set up state-owned sheepfolds on Rostov lands, abundant in small meadow grass. The saint protested against the insults of the church and its humiliation, but his protests were of a literary nature. In the chronicler 303, which, however, was not intended for publication, he denounces people who not only do not give their own to the church, but also take away what belongs to others; There was even a long article written about not taking away estates from the Church. He carefully collected information about the freedom of the Church. He asks his friend Theologist to send the word “about those plundering church estates,” having copied it from a book that belonged to him 304. He himself then copied passages from Baronius, Golyatovsky, Kedrin, where they talked about church estates, their inviolability and punishment from above for taking them away. In ancient times in Russia, a lot of such words were composed about “those who offend the Church of God”, “about the freedom of the holy church.” The latter, dated 1505, was also kept by Saint Demetrius, but he was afraid to show all this to outsiders, because “people’s morals are different, one seeks benefit, and the other seeks grasp” 305. If Demetrius touched on the protection of church property in his sermons, he always spoke in a general sense, and not about just church land estates, calling church property “things”, “sacred”, and at the same time relied on that moral force that from ancient times protected the property of the Church, consolidated and contributed to its growth in all forms. “Other people’s things, and especially church things - fire”, they will burn everything where they appear illegally, you cannot enrich yourself by robbery. Iliodor, the treasurer of King Seleucus, who came to rob the church in Jerusalem, was beaten by angels. If a person becomes godless and forgets the fear of God, then he will decide to engage in unrighteous acts, and then he will stretch out his hand against a shrine. Whoever takes away another’s estates, chambers and houses will be thrown into the cramped conditions of hell 306. The saint also provides historical evidence of church property rights. Thus he recalls that before, kings presented to the church not only riches, but also their purples, scepters and crowns, contributing to its splendor 307 . But the moral influence of the saint did not bring results when the power lay in the decrees and orders of the government. Any tax on church owners and the severity of its collection were justified by military necessity. The tsar himself then looked at taxes as an emergency and temporary measure. The tsar’s answer to one bishop is known that if during the Swedish war, out of necessity, it was necessary to pour the bells onto the cannons, then later it can be done the other way around: the cannons can again be poured onto the bells. But the Rostov governor, Hilarion Vorontsov, provided possible assistance to the ruler in his meager position. So, he took care to strengthen the city rampart at the Rostov Kremlin, where there was a descent to the lake. Due to the runoff of spring waters, the earthen rampart was continuously crumbling; the descent along it to Lake Rostov became difficult; During the processions of the cross, it became impossible to carry icons through this place. Due to the lack of funds from the ruler, the governor tried to strengthen the rampart at the expense of the state through the discharge 308. When, therefore, the entire vast economy of the bishop's house and monasteries and the proper functioning of the patrimonial dues were monitored from the Monastic Prikaz through their steward, then the spiritual owners, as they liked to put it in government decrees, became “less concerned” about the patrimonial estates: the secular authorities made inhumane penalties for them, and applied rights for non-payment. The economy decreased due to a reduction in land, income and the number of monks; The Balti people were all expelled from the monasteries. All menial work for the monastery, according to the established centuries-old custom, was performed by patrimonial peasants; they plowed the arable land, brought grain not only to Rostov, but, in special orders, to Moscow. They put hay on the lord’s meadows, chopped and supplied firewood, torches, and carried out all the pieces of work that were now unthinkable for the monasteries and the bishop’s house to do without: they supplied vegetables, milk mushrooms, cloudberries, mushrooms, sheepskins, carts, etc. Such “pieces of work” are striking in their pettiness, but they constituted the necessary help with meager funds spiritual fiefdoms, who have long developed a wide household economy. But when the peasants felt the cramped position of their spiritual owners, they became bolder towards them. With their own ruin from countless state taxes, they already showed a willingness to use the bishop's forests and meadows. The boyar children who protected the bishop's forests reported to the bishop how difficult it was to protect them from peasant felling. The landowners stole the forest not only secretly, but also openly. So in 1708, to cut down the bishop’s reserved forest and firewood, they came to their homes “in large numbers,” armed with reeds, clubs and spears. When Ivan Gubastov, who was protecting them, began to not let them in, they beat him and mutilated him to death; They also boasted that they would kill him in the forest if he interfered with them. Some estates brought only loss instead of benefit. So, in the Dorogomilovsky village near Moscow, almost all the peasants went to the capital to earn money. Collections from them to the bishop's house were received incorrectly, and meanwhile, all arrears from them fell on the responsibility of the bishop 309. The bishop's house has fallen into such poverty that the saint is forced to ask for donations for it from the outside. So, he writes to Theologus in Moscow: “ask for what is not great from benefactors” 310. Pastoral relations with his flock in this position of the saint required from him great skill, patience and moral strength. What could he do to relieve the population suffering from extortion? It was also difficult to please his patrimonial peasants. Then they would have had to refuse the funds they provided for the maintenance of their bishop’s house, where poverty affected everything. It has also become unsafe to point out the merciless attitude of various government collectors towards the peasants. However, the wise and quiet ruler found means of help in the most difficult time for the Russian people, at the most important historical moment in the state structure. He drew strength for this from selfless love for his flock, both the clergy and the common people. It is reflected in all his activities in diocesan administration; in the destruction of decrepit rituals and in the implantation of biblical principles of life, not only church, but also school, as well as everyday and social. Dimitri considered all human disorders to be the consequences of ignorance. He even considered ignorance to be the cause of the fall of his ancestors; explained the origin of the schism and other misconceptions by ignorance; He wrote a magnificent praise of reason in the “Spiritual Alphabet”, which appeared in Little Russia 311. He extols knowledge, no matter where it comes from. He praised the custom of sending young people abroad. “What else can enlighten a person if not teaching?” he used to say. Therefore, he took all measures to introduce school education in his diocese. The first Rostov school was founded by him, supported by him and, if closed, then against his will and knowledge, and even in his absence. It was located in the Rostov Kremlin itself, next to the bishop's chambers in the rooms of the garden building 312. They recruited children of every class and condition into it, not only clergy, but children of townspeople, even “beggars.” For the saint, all children were equal and education was offered free to all. Soon, after Demetrius entered the flock, the priestly elders notified all the priests that all school-aged children should be sent to study at the school opened by the bishop. And it must have been that the priests did not immediately respond to the bishop’s call, because soon there followed a suggestion from him not to keep the children at home, to send them to the bishop’s house and not to wait for repeated decrees. The ruler even threatened those who disobeyed with bribes 313. Thus, up to 200 children gathered at the school. This number included Little Russian children and even Greeks. The entire year of 1702 was spent in preparations and organization of training, in arranging premises, hiring teachers and recruiting students. With such a hasty and completely new undertaking, the composition of the Rostov students turned out to be the most diverse in class, training, understanding, and perhaps also in age. The children were divided not by age, but by ability into two categories: the best and the worst; Classes with the best and worst students were held separately. Vladyka himself poured his soul into the school production. He went to school, listened to the students' answers, and tested them himself. In the winter, he read and interpreted the sacred books of the Old Testament to them, and in the summer he invited them to his bishop’s village of Demyany and there he explained to them the sacred books of the New Testament. The organization of education was distinguished by its diversity and breadth. Quite a few means have been invented so that the minds of students are not confined to one school area of ​​science. They were given freedom. Sometimes they were taken across Lake Rostov to the island; there they ran and walked in the field. Bishops' villages were also often visited; Besides Demyan, we visited Shestakovo and Kaptsy. Being himself a connoisseur and connoisseur of art and poetry, Dimitri did not neglect the development of performing arts in children. More experienced children acted out plays and comedies. With the permission of the Bishop, they used material from the bishop's sacristy for decoration and costumes, and, moreover, in such a size that they aroused the displeasure of the steward of the Monastic Order. In 1702, the famous comedy for the Nativity was presented. Bishop 314 was also here. In 1704 they performed the play “The Crown of the Great Martyr Demetrius” in verse. The bishop himself composed a dialogue for them on the Resurrection. Sometimes a comedy was given at Christmas. The dramatic structure of the “passionate poems” composed by Saint Demetrius gives reason to assume that the children also acted out this play. According to the meaning of the play, 11 youths came onto the stage with objects that were at the crucifixion of the Lord, for example, a rope, a scourge, a crown of thorns, a hammer, etc., and in verse they expressed grief over His suffering 315. The variety of school life and amateur activities contributed to the conscious development of children. Freedom also reigned in pedagogical techniques. The students were left to prepare their own lessons. The Bishop personally exhorted them to study, gave them a penny of money as encouragement, and invited them to come to him. Rewards were sometimes based on children's sense of ambition. Teaching was pointed out as the source of honors and power for bishops, princes and governors. Whoever was ahead of his comrades and moved to a higher place, no phrases were spared in praising him: he was likened to the cedar of Lebanon, cypress or date, while the thin students were called willow, bitter aspen and other, less sonorous nicknames. Sometimes, as punishment, the guilty were not allowed to walk around the bishop's dachas in Demyanov. Children who had no idea about co-education found it difficult to get into the groove of school. Therefore, the ruler treated the culprits leniently if they confessed to their misdeeds. Pardon was always promised for being guilty of laziness and pranks. But there were students who did not think about correction. The Bishop himself threatens such children with punishment even with a whip. Some did not like learning and did not go to school, others, out of dislike for Latin, avoided lessons under the pretext that they, as choristers, had to go to church. As soon as the bishop learned about such disorders, he took action himself. Once he writes to his disciples: “I hear bad things about you; instead of teaching, learn to be irritable, and the Nets from you, following the prodigal son, went with the pigs to convert 316. I am very sad and angry at you, and since the reason for your corruption is that everyone lives according to their own will, everyone is great, therefore I am placing a lord, Mr. Andrei Yuryevich, over you so that he can train you like gypsy horses, and whoever opposes him will receive a whip.”317 Since Latin appears in unpleasant clashes between students and their teachers, it is likely that this subject was hated by the Rostov students. This was a common occurrence. Since the emergence of Little Russian influence on the Russian school, Latin has been persistently taught in it and has always been met with no less persistent reluctance among students to accept it. Ancient Russian education rested on Byzantine-Greek foundations. The Greek language and the ascetic direction in the Byzantine spirit had little in common with the Latin education of the scholastic and practical type. With Peter the Great began the influence of this half of Western Europe, where everything resembling the old papal system was rejected and where the Latin language did not have a major role in enlightenment. Latin found ardent admirers among Kyiv scholars. They brought it to Russia and carried it out in schools with remarkable persistence. The massive reluctance to learn Latin was never taken into account; they did not want to see the futility of such an educational setting. During the entire centuries-long reign of Latin, not a single textbook of the Latin language was compiled in Russia, but for almost 200 years one textbook of the Jesuit Alvar was used 318. Saint Demetrius also paid tribute to the common hobby. He taught both Greek and Latin, but not both languages ​​enjoyed the same favor from teachers: Latin was ranked higher. The best department or class was called Latin, and the less successful - Greek. “Grammar teaching” began with the Russian alphabet. At the same time they taught writing and the art of singing. Vladyka was a great lover of singing, in his youth he even obeyed church singing, and in southwestern schools, musical singing was given not the least place in the school. The study of all grammar was completed at the age of three. Afterwards we started to study the syntax. At the end of the year there was an exam. During the school year, the students practiced, as in southwestern schools, in word debate, for example, on the question of who is taller, John the Baptist or John the Theologian, who reclined on the Lord’s breasts; one disciple defended and praised the Baptist, and the other the Theologian, and in the end both disputants reconciled and each of them praised the one whom his opponent defended. The Latin language was taught to such perfection that students could write poetry and compose compositions in it. While maintaining school teaching of southern Russian traditions, Demetrius himself placed a high value on the Greek language. He considered the Hellenic language to be the beginning and source of wisdom; From the Greek language came every teaching in all nations. He praises the Greek language both in private letters 319 and in sermons. To familiarize students with Christian doctrine, the catechism was studied after prayers. The catechism practiced in the Rostov school was also brought from Ukraine. It contains characteristic exercises in scholastic questioning. In the catechism, which was used at school and even mistakenly placed among his works 320, there are signs of its use for the school. Hiring teachers, purchasing textbooks, Slavic Greek and Greco-Latin lexicons, globes, geographical maps, notebooks for numerous student written exercises, etc., all this was the concern of one ruler. Teachers were called from Ukraine. Evfimy Morogin is known for speaking Russian, and Ivan Maltsevich 321 taught Latin, and there was also a third teacher of rhetoric, Bogomodlevsky. There were no tuition fees, because even with free education the bishop had to force fathers to send their children to school. Fees from the clergy for the school would only destroy the new cause of education. Therefore, it was decided to take money for the school from the funds of the Rostov bishop’s house. But Voeikov had already managed to register everything there. The Bishop had to ask the Monastic Order for permission to spend his own bishop’s funds on the education of his own. He presented a special list of expenses for both the employees of his house, monks, translators, singers, clerks, cell attendants, cooks, and for teachers and students. Teachers of Greek and Latin received 30 rubles a year each, a teacher of Russian - 5 rubles. The saint allocated to the disciples, according to their poverty, one money per day; to encourage the best who will study Greek and Latin, those will receive 2 money. The painting of the saint was received by the Monastery Prikaz through Voeikov. There it was decided to cover the costs of the school from the bishop's funds, especially since the teachers' salaries turned out to be small in comparison with the teachers of the Moscow school, who received 60 rubles a year. The saint was not a little pleased by the sympathy and assistance to his educational work from the governor Hilarion Vorontsov. A letter from the saint has been preserved, expressing gratitude to the governor for his friendly attitude towards the teachers of the Rostov school, for treating them and sending them on his carts to Yaroslavl 322. The success of the school interested the bishop. Strict punishments were not applied for poor performance if the student did not have good abilities. They were fleeced and advised to pray to the saints. Schoolchildren replaced the saint's family and friends in difficult moments of loneliness and illness. So he invited them to his place when he was sick and forced them to read the prayer “Our Father” five times in memory of the five plagues of the Lord on the cross, because this made him feel better. The presence of students during worship was mandatory 323. During the all-night vigil, the disciples sang in the choir, and during kathismas, everyone came to the altar for the blessing of the saint. He himself gave them communion, and confessed them himself, urging them to pray fervently, to live in purity, chastity and abstinence. He promised them his prayers to God, if only it would be useful for them. For their part, the disciples consoled the saint by singing. The student singers were part of the bishop's choir; they participated in services in other churches. The closeness of Demetrius to the disciples is evidenced by the following words of the comedy for the Nativity of Christ: “Before the face of your holiness, I believe that you, too, are full of kindness towards children, just as the Lord was on earth, giving children an unstoppable path to Himself” 324. To the chagrin of the bishop, the school existed only for three years. After one of his trips to Moscow in 1705, the saint no longer found her: the students were dismissed, by order of the steward Voeikov. Given the scarcity of funds for military needs, it was found unnecessary and unproductive to issue money for the maintenance of teachers and students. The saint's annoyance was expressed in his sad letter to the Metropolitan of Novgorod, who also had a school founded by the Likhuds. “What instructs a person if not teaching?” “I started Latin-Greek, we studied for two summers, no more, and began to understand grammar quite well... But our teachers (from the Monastic Order) were indignant, as if there were a lot of costs for teachers and students. And already everything that a bishop should feed on has been taken away from us, not only patrimony, but even eternal memories” 325. But Saint Demetrius did not abandon the work of enlightenment. He orders the priests to teach their children to read, read, write and understand what they read. Before the school was closed, he convinced them through his pastoral messages to send their children to the Rostov school, where they teach without money, so that they would not be stupid, and when they become priests, they could teach the people both from books and with the living word. Dimitri's case did not disappear without a trace. Schools began to appear in other places. In the Rostov diocese, a digital school is mentioned during Peter’s time. In other dioceses, schools little by little began to emerge. This gave rise to the government making a general order to all bishops to establish schools at their homes at their own expense. Chapter III. Flock management The bishop demanded that the priests perform divine services regularly and teach their spiritual children. By a special decree, he entrusted them with the task of teaching the parishioners prayers. Training should take place during the liturgy: the bishop advised each priest to read short prayers from the pulpit: “Jesus Prayer,” “Heavenly King,” “Trisagion,” “Our Father,” “Hail Virgin Mary” and “Creed” and repeat with the listeners slowly “one point at a time.” He adapted his own sermons so that some of them could be delivered by priests. To do this, he made notes to what point the sermons he wrote could be spoken, how to adapt it and where to start. Regarding the word for the day of the Kizian martyrs, there is a note in the manuscript: “this is common to the martyrs, if you please.” And further: “see: if it is not on the day of the holy nine martyrs, then skip this and honor the end,” etc. 326. The saint did not share the usual view that the bishop, as the superior of the priests, is not obliged to look into the masses of the people. He takes it upon himself to expose spiritual disorders. He even gives up his favorite desire - to write a chronicle. God will not ask about chronicles, but if you remain silent about this, he will punish you. The bishops do not do this in order to boast, but in order to show themselves as an example of the humility of Christ. It is not good for him not to have a word in his mouth, to be called a teacher and not to teach, to wear sources on his mantle, but not to exude sources of teaching, 327 and, most importantly, the example of his own life should correct everyone. He convinces the shepherds to take their flock “on their shoulders, just as a milkmaid carries her milked ones” 328. The saint bequeathed to the priests unremitting preaching, if not in word, then in life 329. The sign of a good shepherd is when he walks in front of the sheep, and not behind the sheep, in exploits and pleasing God; it is not good when the sheep are vigorous and the shepherd is lazy; The sheep fasts, but the shepherd allows everything. If he is commanded not to spare his soul for the sheep, then should he spare his property for them? 330 Demetrius considers divine services to be a reliable means of awakening piety in his flock. Again, he himself set an example of zeal and love for public worship. He did not miss a single morning service. He also demanded orderly worship from the clergy. He organized religious processions, participated in them himself and walked, no matter how far it was. On June 22, 1704, he arranged a celebration of the transposition of the holy relics of princes Theodore, David and Konstantin of Rostov into the New Shrine. In 1705, he confirmed the general orders on church deanery, which were practiced everywhere in Great Russia. In cities and districts, the clergy, according to custom, elected one elder, who took all sorts of salary and non-salary fees from the clergy, and also oversaw church order in his district. Instead of such an elder, the bishop sent his house monk Varlaam to Uglich in 1705. In the instructions to Varlaam 331, it is ordered to ensure that the divine service is performed “decorously and not rebelliously, and that the singing is sung unanimously during the speech”; The liturgy according to the newly corrected service books was performed over 5 prosphoras made of a four-pointed cross, and the prosphoras were baked from pure wheat flour. He was inspired to ensure that the antimensions in the churches were new, and that everywhere all the utensils were intact, and not dilapidated; in the churches there were a sufficient number of newly corrected books, vessels for the holy world and fonts - clean, spare gifts in decent monstrances on the throne. Parishioners are instructed to teach their duties, so that they and their children go to confession during all four fasts, stand in order in church, etc. In order to enliven the divine service on Great Friday and during the fasting of the parishioners, the saint ordered that on this day, during the morning service after the Great Doxology, the “Lamentation for the Burial of Christ,” which he composed, and also before communion. The content of the cry is: “Where are you going Jesus! ... Stand, you who bear it, so that we can draw closer to Him and weep with the tears of Him Who shed His blood for us! What do I see? God is beaten, ulcerated and lifeless! The body is bloodied, the head is wounded by the thorns that the earth has grown for Him. The eyes are filled with both blood and tears. The face that beamed at Tabor is spat on, there is bile on the lips - they are closed! The arms and legs are nailed with long nails, the rib is perforated! The warrior opened His heart with a spear for our eyes. The heated heart is cooled by the iron tip. His plagues cry out to us: “Love Me, because I endured all this for you.” Oh, crucified our love for You, so that we may be buried in You! May His wounds be in our hearts forever!” 332. The saint himself aroused ardent and life-giving faith in those present. In 1707, on December 23, there was such a case: for a sick demon-possessed woman, he served a prayer service in a nunnery before the miraculous image of the Mother of God. After reading the kontakion with ikos, the patient, who had suffered for 5 years, felt relief; During the liturgy, the bishop himself communed her with the Holy Mysteries, and she returned home completely healthy 333. When the life of St. was compiled for the first time. Demetrius, there were still living eyewitnesses of such miracles. According to an eyewitness, an elderly priest, such an incident was subsequently recorded in 1757. The wife of this priest, Tatyana Romanovna, suffered from melancholy from the time of her marriage. Two years before the death of Demetrius (1707), after Easter, she began to scream in grave anguish. Her frightened husband hurried to the bishop’s cell and began to ask him to pray for the sick woman. In the morning she was brought to the house bishop's church of Gregory the Theologian. “While the honorable man was singing, she fought hard and screamed. At the end of the liturgy, the bishop ordered the priest to sprinkle it with holy water. The patient screamed: “You are my tormentor, next time you torture me: the bishop tortured me, but now you have begun to torture me!” At noon the saint came to the same church, ordered the sick woman to be brought into the church and read over her from the great breviary prayers of exorcism “and other rites and during the reading of prayers, when he conjured the spirit in the name of God and struck her face with his hand, Tatyana, standing before his Eminence, who was then held by people, said: “Depart, unclean soul, from the creation of God!” Then he, the unclean spirit, said in response: “I will go away, I am afraid of you, bishop!” And the Right Reverend, conjuring again and sprinkling with holy water, said: “Fear God, but don’t be afraid of me, just come out!” The woman was healed 334. The priest who spoke about this as an eyewitness was 73 years old in 1757, and at the time of the event he narrated he was 25 years old. The flock loved the saint. Cases are mentioned when, upon leaving the church after the liturgy, they surrounded him, accompanying him to his cell and asking for a resolution to their perplexities. He invited his co-questioners to his cell and talked with them there. In the Monastic Order, when allocating funds for the Rostov bishop, the personal needs of the bishop were sharply divided from the needs of his household people. The bishop's houses had a large number of employees, since they were organized in the likeness of a patriarchal house. At the house lived judges, clerks, clerical servants, record keepers, as well as house servants; the same composition of the bishop's house also included the metropolitan's spiritual retinue: priests, monks, deacons, choristers, the manager of the bishop's house from clergy, secretaries, protocolists, clerks; from the lower servants: cooks, cooks, henchmen, bakers, brewers, malt workers, nailers, gardeners, blacksmiths, okolniks, loshkomoi, grooms, etc., nobles, boyar children who are at state collections, bailiffs and solicitors in different cities. The composition of the bishop's house was different at different times; - in the best times it reached 500 people, and went down to 200. Under Demetrius, it was extremely reduced: 34 clerks and 85 house servants 335 were assigned to an “enormous house” 336 . Not everyone received a salary from the household funds. Some ate from their own hands, such as secular persons: secretaries, tithes, who took “honorable” money from each church, that is, voluntary donations of money. Metropolitan Dimitri himself endowed others from his royal income. All churches in Great Russia and all clergy were considered tax-paying institutions. The tribute from them was determined differently. At St. Demetrius received about 3 rubles from the church 337, but there were about 800 churches. In addition, they contributed to the bishop's house for new antimensions, there were stave duties, epitrachelion money was collected from priests, post-posthyral money from deacons, then, when transferring from place to place, passing duties were paid, newly-minted, sexton, sexton, prosphyrnic, when They were given certificates for the position. All this money went to more than one bishop. Demetrius gave part of them to the treasury, some were received by the treasurer, hieromonk, sacristan, sacristan, baker, stoker, clerk, subdeacon and clerk stoker. From the passing letters the money went to the bishop, treasurer and clerks. When there were few such duties, tributes, salary and non-salary fees in other dioceses, then, according to Little Russian custom, patrimonial monasteries began to be attributed to them. Only the goals of the registration turned out to be different: in Little Russia several monasteries were united under one administration in order to protect weak monasteries from insults, following the model of Western European congregations; and in Great Russia, on the contrary, they assigned monasteries to the bishop's house in order to take income from them for the maintenance of the bishop's house. The estates remained behind the assigned monasteries as before, but part of the estate income was contributed to the maintenance of the bishop's house. In the diocese of Demetrius there were about 40 monasteries 338. The composition of the people in them was now decreasing, due to government desires to save more remains that could be used for military needs. The Bishop delved into the internal life of the monastery and the composition of the monks. The replacement of rectors, treasurers and other administrative officials depended on him. When the abbot left, the monastery property was described and the bishop was notified about it. The new abbot was given a letter of abbotship from him. Thus, in the original letter to the abbess of the Yaroslavl Kazan nunnery Alexandra, the Saint orders the priests, deacons, elders and servants in the monastery to honor, obey and obey the new abbess as their mistress. She must establish a monastery, have spiritual love, take care and begin every good deed. Widowed priests joined the monastic brotherhood. However, if they did not want to take a haircut, they were given a certificate to serve in the parish. So, in 1706, the priest of the village of Tutalov, Vasily, asked the bishop to welcome him - to bless him to serve in the same church and issue an epitrachelion letter, promising to live purely and in obedience to his confessor, not to keep shameful people in his house, except for his mother and sisters. The saint agrees to his request 339. The saint treated the monastics with care and love. His letter to the old nun Varsonofia Evfimievna has been preserved, where he admonishes her like this: “love God, as you work for Him. He will reward you" 340. Given the vast size of the diocese, the Rostov bishop could not count on a quiet life in his cell. In addition to the constant visitors from the clergy with requests for assignments, transfers, complaints and petitions, every season gave special speakers and petitioners. In the fall, village elders and elected representatives from church bishops' estates gathered with reports on the harvest, rural work, the need for new buildings and changes in the economy. In the winter, from December 1, priestly elders began to arrive from all cities and districts of the diocese with the treasury of tributes, salary and non-salary fees collected from all the clergy. Although all economic affairs were concentrated in the Rostov Spiritual Prikaz, the bishop with his housekeeper and treasurer had a lot to do then. From the Monastic Prikaz they strictly checked the records, in particular, the integrity of the crown duties, so that they did not turn out to be less than the salary of the crown amount, and vigilantly monitored monetary shortcomings and all sorts of irregularities. An answer was then demanded from the steward, who, in turn, held the spiritual authorities accountable, and the bishop was responsible for everything. He could not protect his subordinates who were guilty. They were severely punished not only for abuse, but also for oversight and negligence. Thus, in 1704, the stamp duty on coronal memorials 341 was collected from the perpetrators by law. In addition to petitioners, petitioners and respondents, Demetrius had guests. The saint of Rostov once hosted Tsar Peter the Great himself. Tsarina Praskovya Feodorovna (1708-1709) came from Moscow two or more times to venerate the Rostov shrines. She deeply respected the saint and did not forget with her attention; once she sent him a fox blanket as his salary, another time vodka in 4 glass vessels called bottles, and 3 heads of red cabbage. Such honored guests were usually received in the White Chamber. Among the highest clergy, Metropolitan Ephraim of Serbia visited him, and Silvan, Archimandrite of Trinity, also visited him. Dimitri’s acquaintance with his Ukrainian fellow countrymen continued uninterrupted. His letter to the Novgorod-Seversk citizen Semyon Timofeevich Domorets has been preserved, whom he thanks for his attention to himself and his relatives. Special “envoys” were sent from him to Kyiv for some business. From the Trinity Lavra in 1707, on the feast of the Nativity of Christ, the prefect, teacher of philosophy at the Moscow Academy, Hierodeacon Stefan Pribilovich came to the Bishop in order to present him with a conclusion. Conclusion is a kind of current “speech”. For Pribilovich, it all consisted of pompous praises of the bishop and was written in Latin, which was then considered especially important for the expression of lofty matters. Its skillful writing on a piece of satin is decorated with drawings and figures, namely, the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, surrounded on the sides by angels and the face of holy saints. From the drawings and inscriptions it is clear that the conclusion was an expression of gratitude for the compilation of the lives of the saints; the monogram indicated the initials of Dimitri Savich in script. Demetrius was called here a patron father and a special benefactor; His four books of the Lives of the Saints are likened to the four Gospel books and are called “the most holy book construction.” The author of the Lives is praised for the fact that with his ascetic life he is an example of imitation of the saints. – When presenting the conclusion, Pribilovich himself gave a laudatory speech to Dimitri. He was a young man who showed great promise with his hard work and knowledge of philosophy and theology. Demetrius ordained him to the rank of hieromonk in 1708 342. Guests also came to the saint from Greece. So in 1700 he visited the Greek Archimandrite Joseph Kolomnyatin from the Athos Pantocrates Monastery. He consecrated the Spiritual Church in Yaroslavl 343. Dimitri, like a friendly host, himself invited guests: “Please, come to church for mass, and come to me for lunch.” “Stepan Vasilyevich ate milk mushrooms with my unworthiness,” 344 he writes. Close guests were received by the Bishop in his bishop's house. It was led into by a front room with a cast-iron floor, called the cross room, because it contained icons and crucifixes. It served as a chapel, a reception room, and, sometimes, a dining room. There were two tables in it, one of which was covered with a carpet. Behind the cross there were two bishop's cells, and below them and the front rooms there were human rooms. In the rooms there were portraits of Savva Grigorievich, Metropolitans Varlaam Yasinsky and Stefan Yavorsky. To increase the number of rooms, they were separated by curtains. The ruler's clothes were distinguished by almost one color - greenish or dark nettle; pillows, beds and blankets were of the same color. In the cell there were globes on machines - celestial and terrestrial. Along with the icons there was a blessing cross, one in basmen, and the other in the form of Golgotha. Right there in the cell were the relics of saints, for example, the Great Martyr Barbara, which he received from the Archimandrite of the Kyiv Golden-Domed Monastery, the relics of Princes Vasily and Konstantin of Yaroslavl, there were probably parts of the relics of other saints. The cells contained a lot of books and extracts. In addition to the 300 volumes of his library, Vladyka borrowed many books from other places, especially from Moscow. Of the people who were constantly and closest to Demetrius, there was his nephew, who came from Ukraine, Hieromonk Mikhail, whom Demetrius sent on errands to Moscow to his friend Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. His copyist was close in the way he always worked together. Demetrius was respected by the clerk Mikhail Feoktistov 345. The saint did not interrupt his extensive correspondence with friends. He lovingly wrote lengthy letters, expressing his thoughts and feelings. In addition to letters to Metropolitan Yavorsky and the director of the Moscow printing house Feolog, he corresponded with Metropolitan Hilarion of Sarsk and Podonsk, with Gabriel, Bishop of Vologda, with Father Hilarion Polikarpovich, Archimandrite of Solovetsky and others. Most of the correspondence concerns Dimitriev’s heartfelt matter - his book works. He even had relations with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who sent a gift of a towel or “mandylion” with an inscription in his name - “Demetrius Metropolitan” 346. Some expressed sympathy for him for his valuable work - compiling the Chetey-Minya, while others respected him for his modest lifestyle. Sometimes they turned to him as an expert in languages. The theologist sent him through Volkov to look at the Greek Bible, and they sent him the trilingual lexicon of Theodore Polikarpov 347. Those who knew Demetrius showed him such love that Demetrius often had to send written thanks for the memory. So he thanks the Metropolitan of Novgorod for the “fair fish” sent to him, and for half a barrel of freshly salted Novgorod lodogas, and condolences that he cannot repay him with anything due to his poverty 348 . Almost simultaneously, the clerk of the Monastic Order, Gavriil Osipovich Okunkov, sent him Greek shoes as a gift from Moscow. Trinity Archimandrite Sylvester, when asked to send him the Chetyi-Minea, sent Dimitri bread and fish as a blessing to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery 349. Voivode Vorontsov sent wine, for which Demetrius thanked him 350, and benefactor Stefan Vasilyevich from Moscow - German crackers, but “I don’t dare eat them during fasting - maybe with milk?”, the saint doubts 351. Sometimes they sent milk mushrooms, fish, tea and cucumbers. The Solovetsky archimandrite and the monk Anthony sent fish. A solicitor from Moscow, T. Terpigorev, sent 150 freshly salted cucumbers, which reached Demetrius when he made his trip to Yaroslavl 352. Demetrius responded to all such signs of respect by sending out his printed books 353. Sometimes he asks for a little tea, since “there is nowhere to get it in Rostov, but sometimes it is necessary.” But what is most surprising is that in all the correspondence, not a single word is mentioned by anyone about the burning issue of the expected choice of a new Patriarch of Moscow. During the seven years of his life in Rostov, Dimitri made trips not only to Yaroslavl and around the diocese, but also trips to the capital, as well as to Vologda. In 1705, as soon as he returned from a summer trip to Yaroslavl, by order of the guardian of the patriarchal order, he was summoned to Moscow to serve in line with the singers, house supplies and house people. By September 1, he arrived in the capital and stayed here throughout 1706. He preached at the Chudov Monastery, in the village. Preobrazhensky, in the presence of Tsar Peter, and in other places - on the occasion of church holidays or court celebrations; He also spoke funeral words. In the presence of the sovereign, he spoke a harmonious word composed according to Kyiv models about rage that damages the mind, health and dignity of a person. An example is given of how Alexander the Great, blinded by anger, killed his friends. The benefits of patience are expounded for edification: it is a treasure that can be possessed by all, but is so rare that it is difficult to find. His attempt to justify his sermon on July 8 is equally noticeable. He asks the Theologist to write to him in a letter why the Mother of God is called Hodegetria, and to bring the answer to his church before the liturgy 354. Sermons were preached in Moscow on almost every Sunday and holiday. Only 12 written documents were preserved at the end of 1705, so the necessary information without one’s own Rostov library was difficult, and scholastic harmony could not be fulfilled. Dimitri found an outcome for this. He used the sermons of Thomas Mlodzianowski. On November 19, in the village of Izmailovskoye, he uttered a famous word, beginning: the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for beads 355. It still represents an example of the beauty of the Russian word. Even then, 3 years after arriving in Russia, Dimitri managed to grasp the characteristic features of the life and spirit of the people, and reflected them in the church word. Mlodzyanovsky's sermon under the pen of Dmitry received such successful application that it is considered his original work. The sympathy of the listeners further led Dimitri along the path of new creativity. He preached other sermons in the spirit of the people. In Moscow, the Rostov ruler became even closer to Stefan Yavorsky. Peter's reforms, which had such a heavy impact on the Rostov economy, aroused discontent, and in Moscow Yavorsky himself was dissatisfied with the new order and the tsar's attitude towards the church and probably talked about this with Dimitri. The closeness of the Rostov ruler to Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich also makes us think that he sympathized with the party of the old order. On June 3, 1706, he pronounces the word about the transfer of the relics of St. Demetrius of Uglich 356, whose memory was always celebrated especially solemnly by Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. In July 1706, the bishop returned to Rostov. Great disappointment awaited him. In his absence, the entire bishop's house was described. Due to the absence of the owner, they wanted to put the Swedes taken prisoner in the bishop's chambers. But Demetrius had a guest there - the Serbian Metropolitan Ephraim, who did not allow such an intrusion into the bishop's chambers and defended the bishop's cell for himself. Dimitri learned about this from Moscow and thanked the metropolitan, asking him to live healthily and prosperously 357. At this time, the Rostov school was also closed. This is how Demetrius’ unpretentiousness affected the tsar’s favor and his closeness to the Ryazan metropolitan. In 1708, on August 10, the saint was summoned again to Moscow for the consecration of Joasaph of Krokovsky of Kyiv. On September 2, 1708, he came to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda for the burial of Princess Margarita Alekseevna and spoke the funeral eulogy. There he was once again to study the nurse of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. In the same year, on February 3, he made a trip to the Vologda diocese at the request of Ivan. Art. Streshnev for the burial of his father Priest Stefan 358. The relationship with Bishop Gabriel of Vologda was understandable, because the dioceses were adjacent. In 1703, Bishop Gabriel asked Andrei Ivanov to be ordained a deacon in the Rostov diocese at the Resurrection Church on Pura, who had asked the Vologda bishop for this. In addition, he asked Dimitri to assist in the release of Rostov resident Pyotr Fedorov Kichigin from soldiery. Kichigin was released from soldiering by Dimitri as soon as he was asked to do so, and Bishop Gabriel promised to make Ivanov a deacon 359 . During the saint's second stay in Moscow, his lack of sympathy for the new direction of politics, which had an unfavorable effect on religious customs and life among the nobility, became even more evident. Instead of praising the king, in his sermons he hints at his weak natural and acquired sides. “The king is strong,” said the saint, “but not completely; he has power only over the human body, and not over everyone’s soul; He can destroy anyone, but he cannot save anyone’s soul, and he doesn’t even know about his own soul whether it will lead to salvation. Royal power was often defeated by a weak woman, as can be seen from the examples of David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah, Darius and Apamina. There is little truth in real life: you cannot tell it to anyone if you do not want trouble and persecution. The Forerunner, Christ, and Stephen the First Martyr suffered for the truth. So now, as soon as you begin to pronounce the righteous truth and the true truth, you will immediately suffer no less” 360. This is what the Rostov bishop said back in 1707, and the next year, in a sermon in Moscow itself, he denounced neglect of religion, violation of posts in the troops, the tendency of Russians to Protestantism, and the stiffness of noble families. The comparisons he uses are those that were also used by Peter. The sermon tells about Herod's feast. At the feast, Venus, Bacchus and Ares, personifying adultery, wine and murder. Venus came to reign, and she pushes kings around. Next to her is Bacchus. Our Orthodox Christians don’t dislike this little god, they liked it. They really took up gluttony, imitating Bacchus’s disciple Luther. “Not keeping fasts is not a sin! Drinking day and night is sociability! Being in a party is friendship! And what do they say about the afterlife for the soul - where should it go? These are fables! Bacchus says: “It is not necessary to fast in the army, but to eat meat, so that the military people will be strong and will not weaken for battle from fasting and abstinence.” But Gideon's soldiers, fasting, defeated the Midianites. “Good people have emerged, there are no Constantines among them, no Vladimirs, no other God-fearing lovers of the splendor of the house of the Lord, who turned not only their wealth and purples, and scepters, and crowns into church decoration!” 361. We have left the breasts of our mother the church and are looking for Egyptian, foreign, heretical, and contrary to Orthodoxy 362 . – In the same way, he condemned from the church pulpit the innovation of rich people to place ancient statues or busts of kings in their houses, and to neglect icons; The denunciations of the Rostov ruler could not help but arouse conversations in Moscow, where the party of followers of antiquity was growing stronger. Close communication with people of other faiths aroused questions among Muscovites about their faith and justification. The Rostov ruler also touched on this subject. In his opinion, many of the Gentiles live in truth, but incorrect faith will not justify them before God. The Holy Church prays for their conversion to the path of salvation. Peter was now looking for people who would popularize his initiatives with church reform, and not for instructions on what to do. His dissatisfaction extended to the entire Old Russian clergy. If he responded to the hatred of the spiritual towards the new order, he responded to them with parodies and disdain for the papal omnipotence manifested, in his opinion, among the Russians. Both figures in the Russian field, Tsar Peter and St. Demetrius, equally became acquainted with the West, one in Poland, the other in Europe, both were aware of ignorance and stagnation among the people, and both equally strove, albeit by different means, to enlighten the people. Both were aware of the power of teaching: the king wanted to borrow science in order to illuminate the goals of life, and the saint acted with a warmer and closer means to the people - the Gospel, forcing them to stir up stagnant beliefs by indicating the abnormality of the present state and a bright, attractive ideal for the future. Chapter IV. Sermons of St. Dimitri St. Demetrius attached great importance to the power of the word: “an evil word makes the good evil, but a good word makes the evil good,” he said 363. He himself used the gift of speech with such skill that during his lifetime he was called Chrysostom 364. Such an ideal moral measure against the disorder of the flock, in comparison with the then Moscow methods of suggestion, put forward the Rostov saint from all the hierarchs of his time. St. Demetrius can be called a preacher of repentance 365. In his sermon one can see one specific goal: to arouse the highest spiritual needs of his listeners and give an answer to them, as well as to help his flock grow in the Christian life. His sermons are of a moral and practical nature. If the Christian doctrine is revealed to the listeners, then it is certainly connected with its application to life. In all their conversations, St. Demetrius turns the eyes and feelings of the listeners to the Son of God crucified for us. The redemption of man is the focal point of all his teaching. Of the other dogmas of Christian doctrine, the saint dwells primarily on those that are closely related to the salvation of man, or on those whose consideration was caused by circumstances and events. He has teachings about the worship of St. icons, about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, about the important and beneficial reasons for the Ascension of the Lord, about prayer (on Thursday of the first week after Pentecost), about angels (a word on the council of Archangel Michael), about the resurrection of the dead and about the future life (a word on the funeral of T. B. Yushkov) 366. The revelation of such dogmas was caused by life itself. Therefore, the dogmatic sermons of St. Demetrius are polemical and apologetic in nature. There are very few sermons that present the positive teachings of the church. In a conversation on the Ascension of the Lord, St. Demetrius speaks of the importance and consequences of this event; in a conversation about angels - about their creation and their relationship to people. Angels occupy, according to Demetrius, a middle place, namely, the heavens, which are located in the empyrean sky. This heaven with the entire angelic world is ruled by the Most High God, while the lowest (earth) is ruled by the middle, that is, by the angels. “God Himself deigned to rule the angels, and He commanded the angels to rule and protect people” 367. In the word about the resurrection of the dead, it becomes clear that the bodies of people “will not participate in corruption, shining with worldly beauty” - the death of the soul will consist in the taking away of God’s grace and in moving away from the sight of God. In the teaching about angels, based on the facts of the story of Tobit, the attitude of angels towards people is clarified. In all such dogmatic doctrinal conversations, St. Demetrius does not miss the opportunity to give practical edification to his listeners. So in his funeral eulogy he states: “we benefit from the memory of mortals, that by remembering the deceased and holding him in mind, we remember our death, seeing his coffin, we think about our own.” After all, the voice of the Son of God is heard not only through the Gospel or through those preaching, but also the sight of the dead is the same voice of the Son of God addressed to us. You see a dead man being carried to burial - this is the voice of God to you: “you too will die, why don’t you care about your salvation?” You see the ruins of houses - this is the voice of God to you, that just as they lived and died, so you will face death, etc. 368 In the polemical sermons of St. Demetrius, negative, non-Orthodox opinions are indicated, and the correct church teaching on the same subject is revealed. For example, the saint says: “An image or icon is an image of a true thing, which either is, or was, or will be.” I begin to receive information about prayer, the preacher promises to show the benefits and power of prayer. He borrows his arguments from Holy Scripture: “I will speak to you from the Divine Scriptures,” but he also uses patristic works and history. The teaching on icon veneration contains references to Moses, who placed the copper serpent on the cross in the desert, and to the tradition of how Jesus sent his image to Abgar. Then he sets out the Christian view of icons: “with us (recognized) God is one, glorified and worshiped in the Holy Trinity, and His icon serves (us) only as an image and memory, and we Orthodox do not place hope in icons, but we place hope and hope in the one who is depicted on the icon” 369. Having fixed his gaze on the icon, St. Dimitri resolves the confusion of his opponents. According to him, the veneration of icons does not contradict the second commandment of the Law of God: there it is forbidden to venerate idols and Moses himself, who accepted this commandment from God, receives a command from God to place cast images of cherubim in the tabernacle. In his polemical sermons one can hear the saint's indignation against those who disobey the church. In a harsh tone, he says: “What do you say to this, seven-headed serpent, iconoclastic heresy?” “We curse you, vile heretics, festering Kopronymchiks, together with the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council!” 370. The saint concludes with enthusiasm: “even if you open your vile throats with all hell, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Holy Church.” The Church, as a pillar and affirmation of the truth with which we, her children, together with all the holy fathers... unanimously affirm and are ready to sign with our blood: “We worship Your Most Pure Image, O Good One!” The saint does not have a systematic presentation of dogmas. Most of them are discussed in all his works and are so complete that it gives rise to the compilation of a “dogmatic teaching” on them in full 371. But the main goal of his sermon is to promote the moral success of his listeners and, therefore, most of it is moralizing. The sermon depicts the ideal of Christian life, as well as deviation from it. Some set out the rules of life, while most are full of heated denunciations. In Christian doctrine, Saint Demetrius emphasizes the never-fading source of edifying people and correcting them. For him, there was clearly a lack of the main Christian dignity in his flock, namely, the consciousness of the spirit of the Gospel rules. Everything for people came down to appearance, to rituals of piety. To teach his listeners, the saint chooses Gospel stories, events, texts for preaching, indicating in everything the moral requirements of a Christian. The main goal of his sermon is to bring emotion to his listeners, to awaken a consciousness of moral duty. It points to Christ's incarnation and redemption. Inspires love for God and all neighbors, depicts the inner renewal of man with the help of God's grace, repentance, prayer, fasting, patience in suffering, renewal and future life. These are the main points of Demetrius’ sermon. To make it easier for the common people to perceive the consciousness of moral duty, the saint reveals the ugliness and severity of sin: “What could be more vile than a sin against the seventh commandment? Who is it that turns the grace of our God into defilement? Truly, no one else but a Christian who received heavenly blessings at baptism!.. Someone will say: what offense does Christ God have if someone defiles his body with the sin of prodigal? Truly a great insult!.. Your whole body, which you defile and blacken with prodigal sin, is not your body, but Christ’s: the church of God is holy - it is you!” 372. Thus the saint turns away from fornication by pointing out the holiness of the law of Christ, as well as the severity and internal ugliness of sin. In moralizing conversations and teachings, not so much individual deviations from the rules of Christian life are exposed, but rather the general vices of the flock are pointed out. Saint Demetrius addresses his denunciation to people of all classes, positions, conditions, not excluding himself: “from them the first is I,” he declared. Preparing to talk about vanity and slander on the week of the tax collector and the Pharisee, he shrinks from the audience and speaks about another meaning of the parable: “Let anyone interpret this parable about the tax collector and the Pharisee as they wish, but I want to tell you one thing and offer it to your love; to whom the Lord spoke it.” Having answered this question, he then speaks about vanity and condemnation 373. The saint here had in mind the schismatics who showed Pharisaic self-praise, slandered church leaders and blasphemed the church. – Sometimes he aptly points out the shortcomings and vices of different classes. He presents a living picture of how the Kingdom of God wanders on earth, seeking peace for itself. He enters the chamber of princes, boyars and powerful people, sees there wealth unjustly collected by robbery, theft, through insults and human tears, and, abhorring the unrighteousness, he walks away. The Kingdom of Heaven has gone to the shopping malls - no, he thinks, there is loot here, I’ll settle here, but when he looks at the sale and buys, he sees great vanity, hears lies, deceptions, falsehoods, without hesitation, and leaves from there. The Kingdom of Heaven has gone into orders and town halls, thinking to itself; here they judge, here people are appointed to create the truth. But there is no truth here either, they ask for gifts, the judge makes peace only in words, but there is evil in his soul. Seeing such judgments, the Kingdom left there. He walks through the city, hears a feast and thinks: people have gathered for love, and where there is love, there is God; and I need to be there. He went to the feast and saw: people eat each other instead of bread, they flatter each other with words, but there is deceit in their hearts. They got drunk, started swearing and turned on each other. Seeing this, the Kingdom of Heaven quickly emerges from there. The Kingdom did not find a place for itself among the common people. There are lawlessness, theft, theft, robbery, murder; such things that it’s a shame to even mention them. I will go, says the heavenly Kingdom, to the church of God: there I will rest. He sees: some in the church are dozing, others are talking about their affairs, some are dreaming about something, the clergy are singing without paying attention, the priests and deacons are quarreling, and sometimes fighting. No, says the Kingdom of Heaven, this is not the house of God, but a den and has moved away. Here he sees the hungry, the beaten people, such that even the soul can barely hold on. She loved this place, settled in this village, and wrote the Gospel: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a hidden treasure in the village” 374. This is how St. denounces. Demetrius theft, and the hypocrisy of the upper classes: secular and spiritual. The sermons boldly point out how the gentlemen take advantage of the labors of the poor peasants, torment them, but they themselves enjoy themselves, “these get drunk, but those who quench their thirst with water, here they have fun, and there they cry in the right way” 375. The spiritual order is not spared: the priests neglect their duties, their flock, even their family, whose members live without communion for several years 376. They take their rank not in order to shepherd human souls and save them, but in order to feed themselves and be honored by others 377. In all his conversations and teachings, Saint Demetrius expounds the highest meaning of the Gospel requirements and everywhere indicates how to apply them to life. At the same time, the saint’s consolations to sinners are touching: “even saints happen to fall,” he says, urging them to rise 378. Information about the schism, their teaching, mockery and blasphemy against the church prompted the saint to begin refuting them. The danger of schism threatened the entire flock. It was necessary to protect the people from dangerous propaganda, to expose the deception of the schismatics to the flock. The surviving sermons directed exclusively against the Old Believers are as follows: the teaching on the twenty-first week against schismatic temptations; on the Exaltation of the Cross of the Lord - about the four-pointed cross, and a separate teaching about the four-pointed cross 379. In modern times, the saint said, love has faded in human hearts; people will not come to church to pray to God with fear. The Cross of Christ is erected so that anyone, looking at it, will be healed. “But I think that not a single Christian will doubt which cross should be worshiped, except for idle doubt and the question of some unreasonable people: osmo-pointed or four-pointed? There is no need to answer such a question, as this is clear from the Holy Scriptures: “in the Old Testament, Moses and Joshua depicted the cross with their hands when they defeated their enemies, Jacob, with the blessing of the two sons of Joseph, and other men. Today in the old stichera they sing: “The four-pointed world is sanctified here, to the four-part erected Cross of Thy, Christ”; in the canon in the first song it is written: “the cross is a four-pointed force” and so on. Everything points the Cross of Christ to a four-pointed point, and not an osmotic point!” The holy fathers, Athanasius the Great, John of Damascus, testify to the same thing, and this is also written in the old Moscow books; “And in this city of Rostov is found the cross that John the Theologian gave to the Monk Abraham (in a vision), but this is not a smok-tipped cross.” “I’ll ask the schismatics themselves, with what cross do they cross themselves? I’m not talking about folding the fingers, because I don’t have enough time; I’m postponing it for another time... Why don’t they baptize themselves with the osmoke?.. I say this not because I reject the eight-pointed or six-pointed Cross of Christ, but in order to stop the lips of the insane and those who do not know what the very power of the worship of the cross is.” For example, in the Gospel we honor not the paper or ink with which it is written, but history. We don’t honor salaries on it: I don’t think anyone will say that! But we honor the words of Christ.” “In the same way, we honor not the dsku and vapas in the icon, but the depicted one. The madness of some people is clearly revealed, who, when the icon is new, do not want to venerate, but if it is old or smoked, or new, but when they smoke (it) with smoke, they venerate it. If they venerate the church like this, then in that case,” the saint says sharply, “if someone depicted and smoked the devil, then someone else, without knowing it, would worship the devil.” Or, just as today some gentlemen are ashamed to place an icon of Christ or the Mother of God in their homes, but some shameless people put up images of Venus or Diana, or other old idols, or new ones, for example, the Queen of Spain, England or France, and if an ignoramus came and saw such wicked images, not recognizing that they are not God’s, but worldly, he could bow to them, as to God and the Holy One. images, ignorance for the sake of its 380 . “The Seventh Council anathematized those who do not worship icons, as well as those who bow badly and idolize icons” 381. In other sermons, the Saint advises listeners to read “Spiritual Advice” and “The Rod of Government” in order to become familiar with the errors of the schismatics. He was deeply outraged by the stubbornness and immoral life of the Old Believers: “Who deceived you to resist the truth? Has the church changed? Will she not remain until the Day of Judgment and will the gates of hell prevail against her? Did Christ abandon his Church, which he redeemed with his honest blood? Did he lie when he said: I am with you always, even to the end of the age? Heaven and earth will pass away, but the words of the Lord will not pass away? You, damned ones, say that the Church is (now) not the Church, considering the words of the Lord false? Who is better to believe: you or Christ? 382. Having learned that the Old Believers had taken common wives, the saint expressed his deep indignation in a sermon before the Orthodox: “Hear these words of the Lord, you, brotherly teachers, who call yourselves holy fathers, are in fact wolves, demonic birds, holding the teachings of the Nicolaitans, fornicators and adulterers and defilers, whom Christ God hates! Hear, be ashamed and repent, before the two-edged sword that comes from the mouth of Christ strikes you!” 383. By denouncing schismatics from the pulpit, the saint had in mind mainly the edification of Orthodox listeners; he wanted to protect them by revealing errors in the schism, so that these polemical conversations were aimed at the moral progress of the flock - to instill in them obedience to the Church. St. Demetrius has sermons with the inscription “historical,” such as “on the week of Vai” 384 and “a word on the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” 385, but history or the narration of sacred events here again serves only as an auxiliary means for edification. In the week of Vai, he wanted to show what is required of one who wants to enter heavenly Jerusalem, and for this he uses the facts of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem in such a broad manner that he apologizes to his listeners for tiring them: “we should also consider the mystery of the vestments and branches laid along the way..., but I don’t want to burden you with a long conversation - I’ll leave this for the future.” Speaking about the sufferings of the Lord, the saint convinces us that we should also voluntarily endure misfortunes, no matter how difficult they may be. In words of praise and funeral, contrary to general techniques, the saint devotes a little space to the person for whom the word is pronounced; everything here comes down to the edification of the listeners. This is the word of praise on the anniversary of the death of Innocent Gisel (1685) 386, or the greeting in Moscow to Peter the Great 387. Moreover, there is a moral edifying element in the praiseworthy words of the Most Rev. Theotokos Hodegetria, her Dormition, on the feast of the Kazan Icon, St. Leontius 388, to Simeon the God-Receiver: “I judged the power of those words of praise in our favor,” he stipulates, “that we cannot fully express the praise, for what could be better than that praise “which God composed, the Holy Spirit announced, the Evangelist wrote, and the church preaches throughout the universe?” As a feature borrowed from the preachers of southwestern Russia, one can mention his methods of praise: he refers to the name “Mary”, breaks this word down into separate letters and selects for each letter some property of the Mother of God: “wise”, “lamb”, “slave”, “source of life”, “crown for the apostles”. At the end, he again turns to the listeners, asks them to pay attention to their sinful state and cope with it, having such a model of life as the Immaculate Virgin. What is most surprising is that even in his funeral speeches, amid weeping and confusion, the saint called on those present at the tomb for edification. He did not extol himself in praise of the deceased, but directly proceeded to the Christian teaching about the grave, about repentance, about the joyful Christian hope of a better world beyond the grave, about the suddenness of death, about the resurrection of the dead, about future judgment 389. The saint's inclination towards the edifying element developed along with his age 390. All the sermons of Saint Demetrius breathe the anointing of grace. Among the denunciations of the vices of the flock, he expresses deep humility before God, expresses his powerlessness to expound any teaching or depict the glory of a saint. “You, Saint of Christ (Alexius), show us yourself where the sheep are that listen to your voice, so that they can imitate us, and who are from the nasty flocks, in order to preserve themselves?” 391. His devotion to God is touching, his zeal for God enchants the reader. About the wounds of Christ, he says: “who, looking at the wounds of the Lord Jesus, hanging on the cross, bleeding, at His pierced ribs, bleeding blood and water, does not think in himself: for my sake, my Lord is wounded, bloodied, so that I, stricken by sin and dead in soul, may revive, heal, wash, cleanse and give me eternal life. And when he thinks like this, won’t his inner man, his conscience, tell him: if your Lord accepted all this for your sake, then why are you lying in laziness and negligence, like a dead person, motionless and sleeping in a tomb?” 392. The preacher cannot pronounce the very word “Redeemer” without sacred emotion. His heart is filled with boundless joy at the thought of Him. Often, in the midst of a conversation about Him, St. Demetrius begins to pray to Him and praise Him: “Oh, sweetness that exceeds all sweets, Jesus! O love that conquers every desire, Jesus! O bread from heaven! Oh, our immortal saturation! O our eternal delight, Jesus! What tongue is able to confess Your glory? What mind will comprehend the pleasure felt from You by all who love You! Our amusement, joy and sweetness, Jesus! Let enemies surround me here, let them collect stones from the whole universe, let them throw them at me like hail, rain and clouds: and I would neglect all that, just to see Your face, my Light, Jesus! 393. Neither the framework of the sermon, nor the requirement for its harmony, binds the speaker in these emotional outpourings. And his thoughts, and feelings, and his will are at the foot of the Cross of the Lord. Therefore, thanks to sincerity, his word breathes with irresistible persuasiveness. His love for people is limitless. He talks like a gentle friend and a kind father with his children. They feel the power of his word when he speaks to them about God, about His law, and about human duties. With this trait he struck everyone in his words when he entered the flock. Even before his glorification, this word passed from hand to hand and was rewritten; he was also known in the capitals. “God is not a beast or a destroyer to you,” he inspires everyone, “but a gracious benefactor; He wishes you salvation, not destruction! Why are you running away from his Divine cup?” 394. In the saint’s denunciations one can see his closeness to the position of the sinner, his desire to help him, to explain his sinful state. He talks about vices and crimes against faith and truth: about greed, love of money, riotous living, slander, denunciations, cruelty, drunkenness, coldness towards the Church, lack of reverence, and especially against the schism with its errors and the moral decline of its followers. Feeling in the midst of his speech that the listeners will object to him, as if they had never driven God away from themselves, the speaker warns them by clarifying: “You persecute Him and dishonor Him in every possible way: you persecute Him in your neighbor, you dishonor yourself, when you cause evil to your neighbors, you do evil to Christ himself, according to His word: what you did to one of the least of these, you did to Me.” “Do you understand what is said to you (from the Holy Scripture): your members are not yours, but Christ’s, since they were created from Him, quickened and redeemed with His honest blood: and if anyone defiles his hooks with unclean sin of the flesh, he dishonors Christ within himself, making Christ’s hooks the hooks of a harlot. Think, man, how many times have you defiled yourself with fornication, adultery and other stingy, nasty and godless fornication; how many times have you dishonored Christ, how many times have you brought the filth of a harlot upon Christ, how many times have you made Christ’s hooks the hooks of a harlot. But I don’t want to talk about it much, I’m ashamed not only to mention it, but also to think about it; I leave it to your own conscience, everyone knows himself best” 395. It is remarkable that the preacher here does not even threaten punishment for such a crime; he considers it sufficient to influence moral feelings. The higher the morality of such a sermon, which allows everyone to freely, without external influences, by the force of an internal revolution, leave a shameful life. He himself grieves and cries about his duty to reprove and punish. “Forgive me, sinful people, I am one of them, the accursed one, forgive me, I say that I will call every sinner who exhausts his life without repentance demon-possessed” 396. How much sorrow and deep sadness can be heard in his words: “the hunger of the soul, the hunger of hearing the Word of God has spread throughout our diocese: there are no sowers of spiritual seed, there is no good land either!.. The bishop, appointed here by God to shepherd, has considerable sadness about the destruction of many human souls who abandon the Word of God and listen to false and flattering teachings. It is sad that his bishop’s teaching is not accepted, and not of himself, but of God Himself, because he receives it not from himself, but from the Gospel and Apostolic Scriptures! It is sad that the children do not listen to their father, the sheep do not follow the shepherd, the disciples do not heed the teacher, they run away from the Holy Church, shun the church sacraments and become children of wrath, sons of perdition, heirs of hell, who have nothing else to expect except fiery hell along with demons!” 397. He does not have bilious harshness even in denouncing deceit, pretense and hypocrisy, which were noticed, especially among nobles. His picture is full of good-natured humor, where nobles are depicted standing quietly before the king; like bosom friends, they are meek and silent before the king 398. Speaking about gluttony and pride, he makes a comparison in a similar good-natured tone: “it is not surprising that a carnivore with a fat belly cannot squeeze into the narrow gate, but it is worthy of pity if someone who has withered flesh, skin, and bones does not enter there because of conceit.” The form of the sermon was greatly influenced by the place of pronunciation, as well as the character of the speaker. Of all the known 122,399 sermons, only 9 were spoken in Little Russia, the rest were in Russia: in Moscow (22) and in the Rostov diocese. Most of them fall on the years 1701–1706. According to the demand of the southwestern preachers, who served as models of living preaching for St. Demetrius, the word of the church should be distinguished by harmony, entertaining and, especially, artificiality. The established verbal form reigned over the content of speech. Demetrius paid tribute to the demands of the century in a timely manner; his Little Russian sermons are distinguished by their exquisite artificial structure, and his word on Peter and Paul is even sonorous in rhetoric. But in Great Russian conversations, practical thought and sincerity prevail over form. The engine for constructing speech was the desire for edification. No attention was paid to the violation of the unity of speech and the comprehensiveness of the topic. Instead of entertaining the listeners with the skillful mood of the word and unexpected turns of speech, Saint Demetrius has a persistent desire to get to the heart of the listener and awaken his sleeping conscience. He even spoke about this from the pulpit: what good is thunder if it doesn’t shed rain? Likewise, pompous words do not bring edification 400. The construction of speech is no longer tense; it is a habitual technique of an experienced speaker and is very often abruptly disrupted by digressions. Once, having compared the two holidays of the Annunciation and the Monday of Bright Week, he, instead of finishing the word, continues: “but not yet Amen, I will also say something to the simple for their benefit - that was said for bookish people, I don’t want to let go of the unbookish people without benefit!” And then, in a more simple, sincere tone, he speaks about the death of the soul, that we rise in soul through the resurrection of Christ and what the feast of the Annunciation teaches us 401. Thus, Dimitri already hears a simple conversation with the people. Another time 402 says: “It’s time to end with an amen, but about some things they are confused in their minds.” The digressions were of this kind: “on the third question, so as not to lengthen the speech (I’m already exhausted myself), I’ll say briefly” 403, etc. Demetrius also uses techniques of southern Russian preaching: to arouse attention, examples are given of fables, myths, questions that cause bewilderment in the listener, humorous comparisons, dialogues, debates with a biblical face, a kind of riddle. But they are tactfully included in the speech and do not disturb the general mood in it. “It is a legend among people that treasures hidden in the earth sometimes move from place to place without human help. This fable is not true, I don’t believe it, I just know that the treasure of the Kingdom of Heaven moves from place to place and wherever it pleases, it dwells there.” After this, the preacher talks about how the Kingdom of Heaven sought peace for itself among princes, rich and ordinary people 404. At Herod's feast, in Demetrius' sermon, Venus, Bacchus and Mars appear as personifications of the passions. On a holiday, in the midst of his sermon, the saint suddenly amazes his listeners with the words: “But the Lord will not hear us! Yes, he won’t hear,” he repeats, “since we do not give up our vices,” etc. “While God sat in heaven on His Divine throne, at that time no one knew His secrets, not even His closest ones, the angels always standing before Him. And when he came down from heaven to earth, not only pious people, such as Joseph, righteous Salome, not only important persons, like the three eastern kings, but also common people, shepherds talk about his secrets, talk, tell their secrets. Only the ox and the donkey are silent, although they have long tongues 405. And who knows, if the donkey had a human mind, he wouldn’t have thought, standing at the manger: “If my ancestor had been here - the donkey who carried the prophet Balaam on himself and spoke humanly, then, of course, he would not have been silent. What about the ox? If he had reason, of course he would have thought: if there had been a bull, whom Ezekiel saw between the six wings of the cherubim, with a face like a calf, he would not only have spoken, but also would have sung the mystery of the incarnation of God.”406 The dialogues given in the sermons are very touching. An artificial form of dialogue was also practiced in southern Russian preaching, especially by the Polish preacher Mlodzyanovsky, contemporary to Demetrius. But at St. It does not respond to Demetrius with artificiality, but with the touching naivety of a soul devoted to God. Dimitri's dialogues are more reminiscent of the techniques of Ilia Minyaty, both in the strength of feeling 407 and expressions 408. Sometimes in a sermon the listeners are invited to resolve the question of who first named God. It turns out that he is a serpent! Subsequently, such methods of speech turned into imagery in Demetrius, from which the sermon itself became clearer and more picturesque. They served mostly to start speech. Sometimes Dimitri directly indicated what he would talk about. In week 4, citing the usually brief words of Holy Scripture, “many will come from the east and the west,” St. Demetrius declares that he will talk about: who will be expelled, why will he be expelled, and where will he be expelled? All these questions stemmed from one basic thought: that the sons of the kingdom would be cast out. In the middle of speech, imagery was used to clarify the subject, since all sorts of things are better understood by a model than through a word, St. used to say. Dimitri. It is amazing that he sometimes began his speech, so to speak, with a conclusion, with the phrase with which he should have ended it. This is his famous word, which was appreciated early by the common people and has been preserved in the largest number of lists: “We are ashamed of the male sex,” the saint suddenly begins, “that the now celebrated lamp of the world, like our holy father John Chrysostom, was not called by us, but by his wife, Chrysostom, beloved listeners! We are ashamed that a woman warned us about this! The male sex is silent, but the female sex loudly declares among the church: “spiritual teacher, better to say - John Chrysostom! Your well of teaching is deep, but the ropes of our mind are so short!” And from that he was nicknamed Chrysostom, from the woman, and not from us. The Antiochians are at fault: they were late, a woman warned her, in their cathedral church she exclaimed this! At that time St. John was not yet Patriarch of Constantinople, but a hieromonk in Antioch under St. Patriarch Flavian. There are so many men standing in the church, everyone is silent, and one woman raises her voice and calls John Chrysostom! I think the Antiochians will say: we looked at the spiritual order and expected the priests to give John a new praiseworthy name, since it is their business to give names. Moreover, we have an order from them: in the church they are silent, whatever they say, ready to listen. It is the clergy who are to blame, why not from them, but from the lips of a woman did the name Chrysostom come from! And the spiritual rank will say: who can surpass and warn a woman in anything? Who is more militant than a woman? Was it not the wives who overtook the highest clergy, the apostles Peter and John: they warned and were the first to run to the tomb of Christ? – We were still discussing how to call such a great teacher, “the mouth of Paul” or “the mouth of Christ”? And she suddenly suddenly shouted out and called him Chrysostom. We should shout at her, the woman herself, and remind her of the apostolic rule: let women be silent in church,” etc. The word begins so simply that, probably, the teacher of St. Demetrius himself, Golyatovsky, would have been horrified by the violation in it of any homiletical rules about the harmony and importance of preaching, and if he could console himself with anything, it would be the subsequent dangerous comparison of Chrysostom with the golden Nebuchadnezzar idol, where the author crushes the signs of the idol and turns it into insignificance before the living bearer of wisdom - Chrysostom. But the Russian people sensed their native element here, they saw how their views on women, on the clergy, on the great teacher Chrysostom were successfully captured in words, and, like a precious folk poem, they preserved it in their memory 409. With deep respect for St. the writings of St. Demetrius pointed out to his listeners its inner meaning, not “historically, but spiritually reasoning” 410; he rarely pays attention to the literal, except when an opportunity opens to make a moral application: such, for example, is his picture of how David “dissolved his drink with crying” 411. To find out the meaning of the text, from the pulpit he entered into a debate or argument with the biblical figure, expressed something like a reprimand or moral teaching to him, and even joked with him. After which he examines the subject of speech in order to restore the honor of the biblical person. So, the preacher asks the angel who gave the book to the Seer with the order to eat it: Angel of God, do not order the Theologian to eat that heavenly book; please let us read it first: find out what it says and learn something useful, or tell us verbally what it says! “The angel does not listen to us and does not let us read the book, and does not verbally tell us what is written there, but he decisively commands the Theologian: “Take it and eat it!” Holy Theologian! Answer 412 the angel that you never eat books, they are not written to be eaten, but to be read. From the patristic works in the sermons there are excerpts from almost more Western than Eastern fathers: Cyprian, Gregory the Dvoeslov, especially Bl. Jerome and Thomas à Kempis. Chapter V. Book studies of St. Dimitri “A house is not built all at once, and a book is not written suddenly; and, having finished the work, the master repairs it, correcting and completing it.” This is how St. characterized Dimitri his assiduous book studies. The more he delved into Russian and foreign sources about the lives of the saints, the more deeply he realized the need to supplement and correct what the Chetey-Menya had written, and he feared not finishing his book endeavors more than death. “The death of Joasaph Koldychevsky frightened me,” he writes to his friend Theologus, “the fear of death attacked me and the fear was extreme because I don’t know either the day or the hour when the death judgment from God will befall me, and what will happen to the book business? Will any hunter take it up and finish it, but there is still a lot of work to be done on this matter! It won’t take a year to complete it!.. It’s just a pity that the book-writing that has begun is far from finished, and there are still plans for the psalter.” Judging by the amount of writing 413, the bishop wrote day and night, without parting with his inconvenient quill pen, during the day at a dull mica window, and at night with a tallow candle. He passionately searched for new and new sources on church history. The next year, upon his arrival in Rostov, he managed to get a chronograph of Dorotheus of Monemvasia 414. Now he had in his hands the Makariev Chetya-Minea for the last, not yet written, 4th book of the “Lives of the Saints” for June, July and August. They were received by him back in Novgorod Seversky from Patriarch Adrian through the Pechersk elders, who carried the third book of “Lives of the Saints” to Moscow for offerings. Dimitri became acquainted with the books he needed while in Moscow. Intending to leave for Siberia in 1701, he did not think of stopping writing, as can be seen from his conversation with the tsar and made the necessary inquiries in Moscow for this. These lessons are now useful. The last book, “Lives of the Saints,” for June, July and August, was completed by the saint in Rostov. It was Friday, February 9, 1705. Delighted Demetrius wrote on this occasion: “Now you are releasing Your servant, O Master.” “Rejoice with me that the Lord has vouchsafed me the month of August to write and complete the fourth book, which he sent to Kyiv with Alexei for printing,” the saint writes to Theologus in Moscow: “to inform my benefactor Stefan Vasilyevich about this!” 415. Everyone realized the importance of the completed work not only for Little Russia and Great Russia, but also for the entire Eastern Church. The Moscow Academy honored the compiler by presenting a conclusion. Novgorod Metropolitan Job wrote to Demetrius about his works that “more valuable than gold and silver and precious margaritas is the soul-saving and life-giving Menaion, the honest and holy book “Lives of the Saints.” We thank our foreheads for her” 416. In Kyiv they were in a hurry to finish printing the last book. Meanwhile, the need arose for a new edition of the first book. St. Demetrius began new work - to prepare it for printing, and for this he again needed the first books of the Makaryev Great Menaions. He therefore asks the Theologist for advice: “I, a sinner, have already moved away from them (the last books of Makaryev’s Chetey-Mineas). Who should I write to give them to? How can I get new ones (i.e. for September, October and November) for the supplement?” 417. In addition to the additions to the first part, Demetrius identified some dubious places and errors back in 1700, for example, about the time of the death of St. Anna, Mother of the Virgin Mary (Sept. 9), about the number of nails with which the Savior was nailed to the cross (Sept. 14), about the confusion of the names of Mikhail Travl and Mikhail Rangave (November 4) 418. When correcting, he shortens some lives, for example, about St. Andrei Yurodivo puts it more succinctly. Sometimes he points out ambiguity: “the life of Gregory of Sinai, in his opinion, is not so much history as a panegyric, a set of words” behind which historical facts are barely visible; rarely expands any life, except for necessary explanations, such as, for example, about St. Barsanuphius of Kazan. He carefully checks when he sees something “not very well written” and raising doubts 419, or when one “sample does not agree with the first” 420. And he was critical of all his work. About one collection of articles of an ecclesiastical nature, written by him, he notes: there are many faulty inventories and errors in it. When reviewing the Chetey-Menya for the second time, he had in mind their appointment for reading on every day of the year. If in the Slavic month the number of lives was not enough, then in the Chetya-Menaia it was supposed to fill them with the lives of saints from the “Acts of the Saints” of the Bollandists. Thus the life of the martyr Pope Fabian, as well as Gilda, was reintroduced. Sometimes the saint was not given a day of celebration in the month; Demetrius then decided: this saint is not mentioned anywhere in the month books; therefore (one can) put it on the 8th day of August. The extensive book material gave him the opportunity to both expand and shorten the lives, and treat them critically. Now he had the V. Chetyi-Menaion of Macarius, the lives of saints Metaphrastus, Surius, Bollandists and Russian lives. In addition, a lot of extracts from the works were compiled: Ave. Macarius, I. Climacus, Baronius, I. Golyatovsky, Kedrin; in Yaroslavl he managed to find the “Pechersk key of understanding,” but not complete. In addition to checking the material at hand, the saint collected books and compared them in absentia. So, he sent his nephew, Hieromonk Michael, to Moscow with a letter to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky to ask “for a small hour” for the Great Menaion for June, kept in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, “since I have a great need for that book,” he confesses. The theologian asks to assist the messenger in the following order: to look in the book depository in the March Book of Chetey for the life of the Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of Sirmium, whether it is similar to the Latin, rewrite it and bring it to Rostov. In addition, the saint asks “to find the life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov, who went to Constantinople on Hallelujah,” give his life for correspondence and send to Rostov to certify “how the Most Holy One appeared. The Mother of God and as Hallelujah ordered to speak: is it true or a forgery? Sometimes he asked Theologist to send him a book for a while: “I saw somewhere in some book of yours a word about those plundering church estates and asked you to rewrite me, and now I ask: please rewrite and send” 421. Having received the book “The Spiritual Font” from Theologist, he copied it for himself and sent it back 422. Another time to thank Theologian for sending the books “Acts of Interpretation”, “Apocalypse” and Maxim the Greek “On the Holy Spirit”, sending these books back, since the first book was found in Demetrius himself, “Apocalypse” was found in Yaroslavl, as well as Maxim the Greek. I found the “Key of Understanding” in Yaroslavl, but not complete, two editions of those “Keys”: the first, from the Pechersk print, is incomplete, and the other, from the Lvov print, is complete, more than the Pechersk edition.” He again “begs” Theologist to send the “Key” of the Lvov edition for a short time: “I need to find something in it,” he explains. One day, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky told him to look for the name of the Abba mentioned by Gregory Dvoeslov. Demetrius replied that this is in the conversations of Dvoeslov of the Moscow Charter Letter, the name of the abba is indicated there as Ekitius. Ekitia Dvoeslov calls him the father of many countries and the abbot, famous for the holiness of his life and miracles. On this occasion, Demetrius asks the Theologist to inquire in the Great Chetya-Menaia for March 12, how is the Latin name Ekitia-Squitius, Nequixius or Squitius translated? He also asks the advice of Theologus, Karion and Polikarpovich, whether to put the life of Ekitius in the 4th book of the Chetya-Minea, as Yavorsky also believed, since the lives of the eastern saints in this book are short 423: only what is useful for readers and accepted by the Church is placed there. Information about the saints in the Chetya Menaion was collected from everywhere. From the letter to Metropolitan Job of Novgorod, it is clear that even in 1704, before the end of the Chetei-Menya, Demetrius had the idea of ​​collecting the lives of some Rostov miracle workers. In Rostov there was not enough information; there was no complete life of the Monk Abraham the Wonderworker and St. Leonty and Jacob, bishops of Rostov. Dimitri learned that there are a lot of old books in the Novgorod monasteries, and therefore asks Metropolitan. Job to find the “lives” he needed, rewrite and send. In addition, he asks: “I pray your Holiness and about the Valaam monastery, which has been in the diocese of your Eminence since ancient times, order me to inform you how long ago and in what years it was founded (founded), and Theognost, abbot of Valaam, in what years did he live?” Dimitri explains the scarcity of books in Rostov, which was famous in ancient times for its abundance of educational resources, by the ruin and indifference of the Rostovites, that no one tried to collect them again 424. He collected information about the saints of the Rostov diocese, about shrines, relics, miracles from them in a “little book of various uncorrected things.” Demetrius found the life of Abraham in his diocese from a sexton. His research extended to objects of ancient times, when the Rostov diocese included the Rostov, Murom and Ustyug regions within its borders, and influenced subsequent events in church life in Rostov; for example, who was the first bishop in Rostov, about the genealogy of the princes of Rostov and Vladimir, about the murder of Vasily and Konstantin of Yaroslavl princes and about miracles from their relics, as well as about Prince David and Fevronia of Murom, about John Vlasat of Rostov and John the Fool of Ustyug, about St. Demetrius of Uglich 425. He had a description of the cathedral church of Vladimir and the relics located in it, the miraculous icon of the Mother of God of Tolga; He also reproduced the legend about the healing of Solomonia, the possessed wife of Ustyug. All this was in connection with the compilation of the Chetya-Menya. The archpastor’s thoughts were not limited to concerns about compiling the “Lives of the Saints” for reading by monastics alone and collecting information about Rostov shrines; he decided to make his work useful for worldly people. Following the pious folk custom of reading the lives of saints, the saint decided to write them “in brief.” For a new work, he again needed the book “Acts of the Saints” by the Bollandists. The saint also paid attention to the clergy. From his letter to his friend Stefan Yavorsky, it is clear that the intention to provide a guide to church history for the clergy forced him to compile a new book, “The Chronicler.” “It’s rare for anyone in the clergy to know the order of biblical stories, what happened when!” Few people even have a Bible, and it is difficult to buy one. Those unfamiliar with it, abbots and priests, not to mention the lower clergy, mix up the events of the Old Testament with the New Testament - they are even perplexed, did the prophet Elijah live before the Nativity of Christ and after? In Little Russia, Dimitri listened to conversations about biblical events that were “like laughter.” In view of this, Demetrius proposed to write the Biblical history in the order of events in a small book, so that everyone could buy 426 inexpensively. But his story turned into the “Chronicle” of monarchies, kings and civil events. After presenting the book of Genesis with explanations and additions, he also sets out church history 427. For the Chronicler he again needed new books; in his letter to Theologist, Demetrius writes that he does not have such books 428. He extracted information from his Menaion Chetey, Runa Irrigated, Makaryevsky Chetey, used Greek and Latin books, Prologue, Dioptra, Limonar, Kedrin, Dorotheus of Monemvasiysky, Stryikovsky, Kyiv synopsis. The writings of many Western authors 429 served as his sources; his knowledge of languages ​​also came in handy: Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Polish. This book cost Dimitri a lot of work and attention; in particular, he was bothered by inaccuracies and contradictions in the chronology. A comparison of chronology revealed a considerable difference, both between our chronology and the Western one. Thus, the period of time from the creation of the world to the Nativity of Christ in St. fathers are listed as 5500 years old, Dorotheus of Monemvasia and Kedrin have 5506, Nicephorus Xanthopulus 5505. The Russians calculate chronology not according to the Bible, but according to chronographs. By adhering to the biblical chronology, one could go against the opinion of St. fathers. “Why didn’t they want to see it and make it out earlier?” the saint is indignant at the faulty chronology. - “Why was it necessary to remain silent about such disagreements, not to expose lies and indulge in human stubbornness?” Demetrius himself showed such caution that he pays attention to the months, stipulating that the year of the creation of the world begins not in September, but in March. The compiler of the Chronicle had the grave responsibility of rejecting the misconception regarding chronology that had become entrenched in the books. He began research about it back in 1693. Then he had at hand the Chronicler, Bucerinus, Aurelius Victor, Herodian, Eusebius, Pope Galasius, Cyprian, Stryikovsky, Nestor, now he already had the chronograph of Dorotheus of Monemvasia. He found one chronograph in the Spasoyaroslavl Monastery; then he began to take measures to get others. It turned out that the chronicles were taken from Rostov to Moscow, and he writes to Theologus to find a chronograph for him, since Dorotheus of Monemvasia does not have a chronology from the creation of the world, and the Latin histories do not agree with the Russian ones in the years 430. Another time he asks: “Buy me the little book of that Dorotheus with your money and come and tell me the price. I suppose - that book lives with Saint Ephraim - then buy both, although not bound, and I will pay you.” He also asks G.D. Stroganov to send him a book called “Chronograph or Chronicler” to Rostov for a short time, so that he can copy it 431. In addition, a little later, he wrote a request to the merchant Isaac Vanderburg to bring the same books from abroad. Vanderburgh fulfilled the ruler’s wish; and the Bishop, thanks to him, praises the books sent and all Western science 432. “Precious creations! Where as many pages as I turn, I collect as many fruits. Those countries that produced those books are worthy of praise." 433 In general, he regrets that the number of chronicles in Rostov “is so scarce, and it is very difficult to get them”; he is indignant that they were taken to Moscow and not returned. His requests to send the books and information required for the Chronicler were continuous. “Where can I find the Chronicler of Rostov the Elder? I’m waiting for the sheets that are in the cathedral altar and begging them to copy them!” 434. “Thank you for the table: a ruble to the scribe!” “What kind of country are the Varangians and where is the city of Tmutarakan?” 435. In addition to chronology, Demetrius was also critical of the sources of history; He approves of some of them, and doubts others. Rejecting, for example, the legends of Western writers about Saturn, he says: “Kluverov’s research and Mattie’s (Strikovsky) legend seem most likely to exist” 436. From his constant book studies, the saint developed a habit of the Roman calendar, so that sometimes his letters are marked with such humorous temporary dates: “6th nons of February”, “8. bris" (octobris, i.e., October). Demetrius's purpose in compiling the chronicler and difficulties in the chronological field left their mark on the book itself. Contents are organized by century; This technique eliminates the need to indicate the dates of individual years. The history of each century is preceded by a chronological table, which compares the Easter calendars of Greek and Western writers, as well as their differences. His narratives of all the events of a given century fit into one chapter. Since the chronological division of antediluvian history is very large and outstanding biblical events did not occur in all centuries, Demetrius placed various articles of a moral nature in centuries that were meager in information. Since wars and wickedness began in the centuries following Seth, Demetrius, under this temporary date, speaks of war as evil in the human race, and of sin. Page Under those centuries where the repentant life of the forefathers and their removal from paradise should be described, the saint, for lack of historical material in the Bible, writes a word about repentance. Sometimes, celebrating the centenary, he places his discussion on agriculture instead of historical material. Sometimes he directly includes his sermon with accusatory, everyday or eschatological content. There are articles here about not taking away property from the church. According to Dimitri's humorous expression, he is forced to be wise here without books, like a blind man walking without a guide 437 . The variety of contents of the chronicle, for which the saint apologized to his Moscow friends, however, turned out to be in the spirit and taste of the people. No other book by Demetrius was as widespread among the people as this one. This is how the saint of Rostov understood the spiritual needs of the Great Russian flock. The chronicle reaches the 6th century of the 4th thousand years from the creation of the world. The book contains the history of the Turkish invasion of Ukraine and the capture of Chigirin; this story was written earlier for Hetman Samoilovich and was added to the chronicle by its publishers without any amendments 438. The modest saint did not rely on his literary powers in a new type of work. As the Chronicler writes individual articles, he sends what he has written for reading to his friends, Theologus and Stefan Yavorsky. “Have you lost my Chronicler,” he writes to Theologist in 1707 (December 31), “are you reading him and letting Karion read him? I sent a small appendix to the Chronicle, read it and put it in its proper place, there will be more appendices to some places. Don't keep it for very long! Come Lent, let’s go if we’re still alive!” 439. But more than all others, the saint relied on the opinion of his Chronicler, Metropolitan Stefan of Yavorsky. “You are one of a thousand for me. First of all, I also show what I show to Metropolitan Varlaam Yasinsky and what he approves, then boldly print.” “I don’t see each other, I don’t talk ad coram, at least I’ll talk in a letter, although it’s boring, sorry!” He writes to the guardian of the patriarchal throne, expressing all his sincere thoughts, all his worries and hopes. First, Metropolitan Stephen was sent a biblical chronology - a kind of title for the future Chronicler. Yavorsky read it. Demetrius stipulates that the chronology is not for publication, but as sketches for oneself - the experience of biblical chronology, which the holy fathers ignored, and wonders how they could not agree with the bibles? It is impossible, in the opinion of the saint, to remain silent about this just so as not to create a scandal, in view of the schismatics’ complaints against the church, as if it were sinning: no one will please them, they are tempted by good and useful things. Demetrius promises to only mention the pagan monarchies, and not to write their histories: “that’s not a bishop’s business, lay people can write about them, or translate Justin’s finished work about those monarchies.” “I intend to write not about worldly events, not about politics in the Chronicler, but to present useful moral teachings; not to delight the reader only with stories, but to instruct and moralize, and also to provide guidance on biblical history to the clergy. This is my duty, this is my desire,” he says 440. The saint learned from the outside that the chronology he sent to Metropolitan Yavorsky was also read by other people, and while the metropolitan “did not blaspheme, others did not like it” 441. However, this did not stop Dimitri's work. At the end of 1707 (December 11), he sent with Rafail Kazanovich to Stefan Yavorsky the beginning of his Chronicler with a request to read only one sheet to familiarize himself with the work, and entrust the rest to someone to look through. The saint warns Yavorsky that hardly anyone will like his mishmash: in it, as in the Russian sbitn, there is history, and, as it were, an interpretation of Cornelius and other books, occasionally a moral lesson, especially when describing the first two-thousandth period, about which there are so few stories in the Bible. In science, these historical and moral elements are always separate, but in the Chronicler, as the saint puts it, everything is mixed with him, like peas and cabbage 442. Yavorsky fully approved of Dmitry’s undertaking: “I not only read lucubrationes, but also entered into depth,” “a thing, truly I say, worthy of all praise, full of moralizing benefits, and necessary not only for our brethren, but for everyone”... Write, father, write and do not weaken in the work you have begun! I want to present this matter to the sovereign himself, but misfortune got in the way!” 443 Demetrius was not upset by some of Yavorsky’s amendments, such as those concerning the intemperance of Ham and his son Canaan, where marriage is called fornication. Demetrius only thanks and confesses: I myself thought that legal marriage was not fornication; however, I had in mind the words of the angel Tobias, who called incontinent marriage “express - fornication,” however, it is better to replace the word “fornication” with another expression - “intemperance.” Sending another part of his Chronicler to Yavorsky, who is busy with important matters, Dimitri advises him to read it not himself, but to entrust it to others; Simonovsky Archimandrite or Polikarpovich; but asks for advice about two things in the Chronicler's writing: 1) will the sinner remember the sin that has already been forgiven him, and 2) that we bother God with our sins - “I explained this, but I don’t know if it’s good? Isn’t it better to omit both things so that some of the simpletons don’t become indignant?” 444. In another letter, the saint informs Yavorsky that he will try to change one of the inaccuracies noticed by Yavorsky and completely remove another from the Chronicle. The theologian wanted to rewrite the parts of the Chronicle sent to Moscow into one whole, but Dimitri warns him that the book should not be like that. He has corrected and expanded a lot and will continue to change a lot. Although the saint did not think of putting the Chronicler into print, he brought it as perfect as possible “as if ready for publication.” Scientific support for Chronicle studies and moral treatises was given to Demetrius by church writers and historians; He gave some of them advantages over others. In sermons and Chronicles, writers are mentioned in the following order: Christian moralists most of all: John Chrysostom, then St. Ambrose (37 times), John Climacus (18), Jerome (17), Theophylact (up to 16 times), Gregory the Dvoeslov (16), Augustine (12), Athanasius the Great (12), John of Damascus (15), and Cyprian Carthage. (18), Gregory the Theologian (6) 445. Sometimes he shortens his speech and advises the reader: “who wants to know about the intemperance of giants, the speech of which is intolerable to chaste hearing, “then read Berosus,” or Ovid 446; another time he directly refers to books: “about Methuselah in Latin is found in the book of Naukleer” 447. Circumstances forced the saint to follow contemporary events. In 1707 he began to record memorable events and compose his epistolary; he even intended to write an interpretation of Psalm 448, in view of the fact that no one in Russia had ever taken up this matter. But fate did not destined him to begin this work. In addition to the Chetya-Minea, the Chronicler, Demetrius wrote works requiring religious and poetic inspiration. Even upon his arrival in Rostov, he completed (1702) “Lamentation for the Burial of Christ” 449. The following year he was asked to write a canon for Saints Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk. The saint did not refuse to fulfill the request, although the petitioners had nothing to do with him or his diocese. From the city of Veliky Ustyug, Protodeacon Ivan Fedorov, who built a chapel for these saints at the St. George Church, asked the saint to compose a canon for them. This was in 1704. They also asked him to write a service to the Most Holy Theotokos to Her image, called the Burning Bush, on the occasion of the establishment of a throne named after Her in the Vologda Intercession Church. Several poems 450 have survived from the poetic works of the saint. Several dramas are attributed to St. Demetrius. Their content is religious. Such, for example, is his “Christmas Drama or Comedy” 451, where the Nativity of Christ is presented, the worship of the shepherds and wise men to Him. The play is replete with a deep feeling of pity for the humiliation of the Born. “Lie wretchedly in the den, In the manger on the sharp hay between the buoys of cattle, Having created yourself poor, give generosity to everyone!” Such religious touching feeling is poured out in other spiritual songs. For example, in the “Psalm to Jesus the Most Lovable” we read: “My most beloved Jesus, sweetness to my heart, One joy in sorrow, my joy! Sayings to my soul: Yours is my salvation, Cleansing of sins, entry into heaven! ...I want to be one with You, Grant that I may always honor You, Christ, in my heart! You are my strength and health; and the glory is great. I rejoice in You and am glad, And in You to all ages, my God, I glory!” 452 The saint’s sermons are full of poetic inspiration; his “Lives of the Saints” 453 are also poetically presented. Confidence of speech everywhere in his writings is accompanied by a corresponding rise of inspiration and imagery. From the book of Song of Songs he borrowed not only expressions, but also its tone. “I commend myself to your holy will: if you want to have me in the light, be blessed; if you want to have me in darkness, be blessed again!” Often scientific research is accompanied by poetic outpourings. He comes across this kind of “phrases” 454, combining tension of mind and impulse of feeling: I “love the old printed book Triodion in color!” The saint's writings contain philological, exegetical and chronological research, historical information and attempts to extract historical information from pagan mythology 455. The main importance in the works of the saint is given to the biblical testimony of the patristic works. At the same time, his preference for one biblical translation over another is noticeable. Thus, he quotes the words of the prophet Isaiah “in your sins and in your iniquities” (chapter 43, art. 24), he quotes according to Jerome’s Latin translation: “make Me work in your sins” in order to extract the edifying thought that with our sins we cause God hardship: “He is patient with our sins “with difficulty,” not wanting to punish for there are 456 of them. Respect for ancient written sources forced him to agree with the “life” of St. Macarius of Egypt and admit the existence of “degenerates” of the human race, half-beasts: Centaurs, Satyrs, etc. 457 His book studies and the people's respect for the saint's books brought him such fame that he was considered skilled in astronomy. There were rumors about him that in 1672, according to the position of the stars on May 30, together with Simeon of Polotsk († in 1680), he learned about the birth of Tsar Peter the Great. All book works are striking in their mass, which is explained by the nature of his creativity. The basis of all his works was the method of collecting, as a consequence of his school education, where respect for authority was instilled above all. This also corresponded to the modest character of St. Dimitri. Chapter IV. Schism in Rostov The last period of Demetrius' life was devoted to the fight against the schism. Due to the geographical position of the Rostov diocese, which did not provide favorable conditions for the development of separate religious communities, the schism did not manifest itself openly and sharply for quite a long time. The propaganda of the Old Believers did little to awaken the darker instincts of the people. The peculiarities of the new time of Peter the Great gave impetus to the masses to turn towards the Old Believers. The danger of infection by schism, in addition to political conditions, was also increased by the fact that, given the mental underdevelopment of the Rostov flock, they did not notice the sharp difference between Orthodoxy and the Old Believers. One might say that the whole people had some inclination towards the old ritual piety, encouraged by the clergy. The common man did not understand the details of dogmatic teaching. All his pleasing to God consisted in observing ritual churchliness. The outer side of religion has acquired a meaning of sacred importance due to centuries-old habit. In January 1705, for the third time under Demetrius, the personal Decree of Peter I on shaving the beards of all Russian subjects 458 was promulgated. The Russian people, apparently, were in no hurry to fulfill the tsar’s desire, but the tsar persistently carried it out. The dire need for money for the war modified this requirement: subsequent decrees allowed one to purchase the right to wear a beard; whoever wanted to have it could receive a label for that 459 for a fee. The decrees caused dark unrest among the people. It was difficult to understand the order for the people to shave their beards, when the then living patriarch himself in his message cursed the barbers and ordered them to be excommunicated from the Church as enemies of the truth 460 . In the Rostov region, Yaroslavl became the center of schismatic unrest. Yaroslavl in the 17th century amazed with the development of religious life. Archbishop Samuel of Mislavsky, when visiting Yaroslavl, was surprised by the rare splendor of the churches, almost every one of which had pearl utensils and conveys the already established proverb: “the city of Yaroslavl was taken by prayer” 461. When Catherine II visited the city, her companions noted the sharp contrast between the richly decorated majestic churches and the dirty, unpaved streets and peasant huts. The churches were decorated by merchants who grew rich in the vibrant city and owned many factories; they also built almshouses. One of the manufacturers, Zatrapezny, was praised even under Demetrius for building his factory on marshy soil and contributing to the beautification of the city. In 1717, there were up to 110 clergy, including over 60 priests, with a population of 15 thousand 462. This means there were many churches. As usual, they were made of stone, with brick floors, with a high bell tower and topped with a tiled roof with a white crown made of sheet iron. The main church builders, merchants, as subsequent history showed, always gravitated towards the Old Belief and promoted it, so that the soil and shelter for schismatics in Yaroslavl were convenient. In the summer of 1705, M. Dimitri arrived in Yaroslavl. After mass in the cathedral, he went to his chambers. At this time, two men “bearded, but not old” approached him. “Holy Master,” they said, “what do you command? We are ordered to shave our beards, but we are ready to lay our heads behind our beards. It’s better for us to have our heads cut off than for our beards to be shaved!” The question struck the saint with suddenness. Obviously, it was necessary to calm the excited minds and remind them of the danger of resisting the royal decree. “I,” says St. Demetrius, “could not soon answer with anything from St. scriptures, and objected: “What will grow back, a cut off head or a shaved beard?” He said this and went to his cell. Following him, many citizens accompanying him from the church entered. They talked a lot with the bishop about shaving and not shaving 463. From a long conversation, the saint learned about the common belief among everyone that shaving a beard is a sin, because with a beard they connected the idea of ​​the image and likeness of God. He had to immediately take measures to suppress such a delusion. The saint took up preaching and the written word as if it were a sure weapon. A trip to Moscow from September 1705 to 1706 distracted him from the direct struggle with error. But around this time he managed to write his first anti-schismant essay, “On the Image and Likeness of God in Man,” which aroused the terrible hatred of the schismatics against the saint. It is not for nothing that an extensive schismatic essay was written on this book of Demetrius: “A word of accusatory word against the writing of Demetrius, the pseudo-metropolitan of Rostov on barber shaving” 464. The success of the saint's book was extraordinary. According to the schismatics themselves, he so inflamed the hearts of Russians (i.e., schismatics) that almost everyone was carried away by the charming teaching of the saint and followed him” 465 . The schismatics hastened to declare in this “Word” that they profess pure ancient Orthodoxy. The third and fourth conversations of the anti-schism work are especially remarkable. The writer is indignant at the fact that Demetrius calls the Old Believers “humanoids,” while they believe that the image of God is not in the visible members of a person, but in his soul, and the likeness is in the creation of virtues. Whereas St. Demetrius clarifies the absurdity of the schismatic opinion that barbering is a heretical tradition, allegedly going against the immutable commandments of God and the definition of the church. “Let no one think,” he says, “that we are teaching barber shaving, and not blaspheming barber shaving. No, we oppose the opinion of those who consider barbering a grave unforgivable sin and despair of salvation.” Demetrius’s “word” was successful because everywhere he points not to the letter of the commandments and church rules about barber shaving, but to their spirit and the harm of blindly believing everything without sound reasoning. The schismatics' misconceptions turned out to be unimportant for faith, but Demetrius could not reconcile himself with them; in his opinion, the schism was the fruit of ignorance and misunderstanding of religion, representing a force of immovable rigidity in outdated customs and beliefs. The schism resisted the penetration of any foreign element, both good and bad. Rumors about delusions were enough for Demetrius to fight them. The schism was promoted under Demetrius in Rostov itself. Around 1702, some dragging man, Fedka, came here from the Bryn forests, and with him two nuns. Coming from Rostov himself, he had acquaintances and began schismatic propaganda, and his companions, nuns, entered the nunnery and there they also began to seduce nuns. The dark forces of ignorance and superstition did not appear outward, they lurked within the people, and the people covered up their seducers. That's why they became bolder. A certain schismatic walked throughout the diocese for a long time and unhindered and preached about the imminent appearance of the Antichrist. He made an attempt to win over even clergy. When the saint found out about this, the preacher disappeared without a trace. In Yaroslavl, the seducers turned out to be especially persistent; the wealthy population was attracted there. Elusive to those unfamiliar with schismatic tactics, they could only be traced by those who came into close contact with them. One nun of the Rostov nunnery, who had previously been a follower of the schism, informed the bishop about some elder Abraham, who lived in Yaroslavl with a woman and propagandized the schism there. In the anti-schism activities of St. Demetrius has two noticeable periods: from 1705 to 1708, he examines and evaluates individual particular facts regarding the schism, and from 1708 to 1709, he strikes schismatics in their main points of doctrine, revealing to his flock the weak sides of the schism, their ignorance and depraved life. First, he preaches anti-schismatic sermons and writes treatises, and then composes a whole essay against them - “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith.” In his sermon “On the Image and Likeness of God,” the saint points out the recklessness of the defenders of the beard. For them, a beard is more valuable than their soul; The sin of barbering, according to them, cannot be atone even for the blood of martyrdom 466. For them, “spending a nasty, swinish life in gluttony and drunkenness, sodomy and other indecencies is not an important matter - all this, in their opinion, is excusable; one thing is honest and sacred, to keep the beard intact.” Shaving a beard is considered suicide among them, and actual suicide is called a saving act. In their fanaticism, they voluntarily destroy themselves: “some by fire, others by hunger” 467. In order to protect the Orthodox from being seduced by schismatics, the saint preached in the simplest form, understandable to everyone, sermons directly directed against the schism. These are his teachings “On the erection of the honorable and life-giving Cross of the Lord” 468, “Teaching on the four-pointed cross” 469, “A word for the 21st week according to the Holy Spirit, spoken to the common people” 470 and “On the office of every faithful being, in defense of the Holy Spirit.” Churches against heretics" 471. The first two teachings speak of a four-pointed cross. Subsequently, both of them were included in the saint’s book “Search”, compiling in a more detailed presentation with a rearrangement of thoughts the 3rd article of the 2nd part. The first word also exposes the foolishness of the schismatics - to worship old and smoky icons, but not to venerate new ones, while the second reveals the danger of their teaching to “flee St. Church”, “to shun St. Communion as an abomination” and “they will count fornication as the love of Christ” 472. The word “On the position... in defense of the church” presents a picture of the modern persecution of the Church of Christ from its enemies, the reduction of its members and indifference to its defense on the part of those Christians who only “are looking for their own, and do not have zeal for the purity of the faith” 473. The general tone of the anti-schism writings of St. Demetrius, in comparison with the polemical writings of other fighters for Orthodoxy, is distinguished by his calmness. His speech breathes love for the erring. This is all the more surprising since he was sick at that time. Here one can see the natural loving character of the saint. It is noticeable that, living in Ukraine, far from the struggle against the schism, he did not absorb that passionate attitude towards the detractors of the Church, like, for example, Pitirim of Novgorod, Ignatius Korsakov and others. He explained the split by recklessness and mental backwardness. However, his desire to protect his flock from infection by schism forced him to deepen the guilt of the Old Believers - to classify their errors as heresies. The novelty of his position also explains the fact that he looked at schismatic errors on their factual side, ignoring their historical origin and reasons for their occurrence. He doesn’t even have a generalization of them. For him, the delusions of the dissenters seemed monstrous; Even more striking was the predisposition of the common people to perceive them. In 1708, rumors reached Rostov about a particularly intensifying schism in Yaroslavl. The Bishop immediately went there and there, for a whole week, every day he spoke in the church accusatory sermons against the schismists and their propaganda. Expounding the Orthodox teaching before the people, he revealed the superstition of the Old Believers. There is no doubt that his unpreserved speeches for this week were included, at least in the main thoughts, in the book “Wanted”. For living pastoral work, he also left the “Chronicle”, which he treasured so much: “God will not ask me for the Chronicle, but for teaching the flock,” he said, because “the schismatic need has multiplied greatly in our diocese” 474. Upon arrival in Rostov, he began a new written work. About the motivation for compiling his “Search,” he writes to his friend: “since words from the mouth go more to the wind than to the heart of the listener, then, abandoning all the work of Chronicles that I had proposed, I undertook to write a special little book against schismatic teachers” 475. The composition of the Search gives reason to think that the book was intended to guide priests in their struggle against the schism. It included the saint’s sermons, and in other cases he adapted them to the pronunciation of priests. There were no other guidelines for the struggle: the “hated schismatic hand” destroyed the previously compiled books, “The Rod of Government” and “Uvet” 476. The simplicity of the style, for which the humble bishop even asks for forgiveness from the readers, shows that St. Demetrius revealed the errors of the schismatic teachers in order to protect his “simple flock” from flattering propaganda. The saint's new work progressed so quickly that the author hoped to finish it in the same year, 1709, during Great Lent 477. During Great Lent, Peter Ermilov, Elder Andronik and Pachomius, who arrived in Rostov and lived in the monasteries, brought to him new information about the schismatic monasteries. Their stories provided even greater insight into schismatic life 478 . Halfway through Great Lent, the saint’s book was already being copied. Demetrius hurried the scribes to finish it by Easter (April 24) 479. But the correspondence dragged on. He writes to Theologus: “I wanted, dear, to send to you my whole book about the search for capitols, which, with the help of God, I finished; but the matter stopped with the scribes: they will not quickly rewrite everything completely. That's why I sent one part; I also sent it to Mr. Polikarpovich.” “The third part of “The Search” for St. The Trinity holiday (June 12) will come to your honesty, if you please read” 480. The book “Search”, rewritten for Trinity in comparison with the printed book published in 1745 under the editorship of Archimandrite. Plato Malinovsky was small in 274 sheets 481, without division into chapters and without some treatises (the 15th chapter in Part I, as well as 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Part II). During the correspondence, the saint replenished it, so that a little later he sent two more notebooks about brads to his Moscow friends; He also shows them the place in his book where to put it: “attach these notebooks to the second part of “The Search,” to the first article, before the end of that article” 482. However, the saint was not sure whether such additions were useful or suitable for polemics; “Has the Capito beard, which I sent to your honor Mr. Polikarpovich with our treasurer Philaret, reached your hands?” He writes to Moscow: “read it and judge whether it is good or useful for anyone’s benefit. If it’s no good, if you don’t like it, then spit in that written beard!” 483. Friends also approved of the Capito beard. Sometimes they sent the necessary books: “The Spiritual Font,” schismatic “Scrolls,” etc. “Don’t forget with priest Iv. Maksimov to talk and ask him about those monasteries, or how much he can know by name of their 484 faiths. “If you hear anything new about heresies, about the Bryn hermitages, please let us know” 485. On the advice of the saint’s friends, a treatise on the mustache 486 was also included, which contains a refutation of the blasphemy of the schism teachers against Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, who ordered the clergy to cut their mustaches if they were too long. He sent one part of “The Search” for reading to M. G. Grokholsky 487. The saint was already “tired of writing against schismatics,” but he kept making new and new additions to “The Search.” In August he added “a little something about the interpretations of the Gospels” 488. Here, the interpretation of actual gospel events in the sense of parables is refuted, and the signs by which a real event differs from an incidental one 489 are indicated. Afterwards he added another treatise on the name “Jesus” 490. The saint based all his work on the testimony of persons who knew about the schism. Therefore, the inaccuracies in his idea of ​​him are understandable. Facts that lacked rigorous verification could easily creep into “Wanted.” Perhaps the bishop sent out separate parts of his book to the clergy of the diocese not only for guidance, but also to verify the facts described there in cases of collision with schism teachers. Dimitri received an “uncountable” number of rumors about the schismatics and their lives, so he did not find the opportunity to write about them in detail, but decided to offer the main thing in “The Search.” “I didn’t suggest it on my own. After all, I, humble one, was not born and raised in these countries, I have never heard of the schism located in this country, nor about the Bryn forests, nor about the monasteries, nor about the difference in their faiths, nor about their deeds; but, when he had already begun to live here by God’s will and the decree of the sovereign, he found out through rumors and many denunciations. He offered only that (analysis of schismatic errors) that he heard from eyewitnesses and that was written to me” 491. In the “Search” itself, the saint indicates the names of those persons from whom he learned about the schism, for example, the Rostov governor Pashkov, Elder Pachomius, monk Macarius, Abbess Anfisa and others 492, but sometimes he expresses himself impersonally: “it was reported to us,” “we heard,” “we learned recently,” “it reaches our ears” 493. The saint did not feel alone in his written polemics against the schism. Moscow friends sent him to Rostov “A schismatic scroll, filled with lies and blasphemy” 494, “The Life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov,” who went to Constantinople on Hallelujah, with a description of “the appearance of the Mother of God to Euphrosynus” 495. Demetrius read them and criticized: “Saint Euphrosyne is holy, but their hallelujah, I don’t think it was holy, is the most dreamy and contrary to Orthodoxy, as anyone wanted, they raved madly” 496. From the same friends he received “the little book Mirror, worthy of being published in the world” 497. In addition, his requests were repeatedly sent to Moscow: is there any new book? Is there no Gospel of the eternal Avvakumov? and, in general, is there “genuine information about the schismatic monasteries and their faiths” 498 . About the eternal gospel of Habakkuk, the bishop reports in “Search” that it has not been received, and therefore he does not know what the satanic “disciple” writes there - probably the same as in his letters to Deacon Theodore 499. The saint's guess was justified. These letters are the very gospel of Habakkuk. Demetrius addressed his Moscow friends as his collaborators: he asks to inquire at the Moscow Assumption Cathedral: “What are the crosses on the vessels of St. Anthony the Roman? What kind of similarities? Quadruped or osmotended? And what are the titles: is the charter depicted or the title? From his friends, Dimitri expected an impartial criticism of “Search”: “will you please judge with your comrades” what is written about what was sent to them for consideration? The purpose of the “Search” is to reveal before the eyes of the “simple people” all the shortcomings of the schismatic teachings, to break down all the features of the Old Believer beliefs. “Search” does not have strict unity, because it deals with many aspects of the Old Believers. Its tone is polemical - negative. The first part examines wrong beliefs, the author highlighted schismatic teaching in the second part, and the third depicts the immoral life of schismatics. Given this division, the book is distinguished by its comprehensiveness and extremely detailed research. In terms of its external structure, the plan of the book is very broad; it covers both the life and the teaching of the schism. The language of the book is so simple that it makes the most abstract concepts, such as faith, understandable to the common people. But the concept of a split suffers from uncertainty. It is not considered in the light of its historical emergence and social strengthening, but is placed in the face of the Gospel truth. The phenomena of the Old Believers turned out to be contrary to Orthodoxy, to a sound understanding of the Gospel, and an expression of blind stubbornness and ignorance. As a result of the “Search”, Demetrius found out that the schismatics have one error in their faith, a lie in their teaching, and immorality in their life. All this is based on the facts reported to him, of which he collected so many that there was no need to touch upon in “The Search” the points of schismatic beliefs that had been discussed before him in the “Rod” and “Uvet”: “I will not write about hallelujah, since quite a lot has been written about this in the “Rod of Government” and “Spiritual Uvet.” It’s enough of my badness to write about what is not in those books, and there is no need to repeat what was written,” the saint wrote to Theologian 500. In the “Search” itself, he warns: “I will not expand (on the folding of the fingers), since enough has already been written and explained about this in the book in the “Rod” and in the book “Uvet”, and in the corrected psalters: whoever wants, let him read there 501, and whoever does not know how to read, let him listen” 502. Only in the treatise “On the Antichrist” and “On the evil deeds of schismatics” does the saint repeat the analysis of the anti-schism writings that existed before him, since the latter were rare: the epistles of Ignatius of Tobolsk were not published at all 503. To characterize the schism, Dimitri writes out many new facts and analyzes them. But under the name schismatic, those that the Old Believers cannot share are dealt with: for example, about holy icons, about relics and about the veneration of them 504. In principle, the schism never rejected this; often the schismatics themselves even announced that the incorruptible relics of the Old Believers had been discovered in their monasteries. At that time, iconoclastic views really penetrated into Russia. Tveritinov had followers. They could also penetrate into the Rostov region. Demetrius himself finds that Trophim of Rostov, who rejected the veneration of icons, answered his questions with “the heretical Lutheran and Calvinist, purchased and Jewish spirit from St. scriptures" 505. In the 18th century, the word “schism” was used to describe all errors in general; they characterized not only the Great Russian Old Believers, but also other heresies. Rationalistic opinions also manifested themselves in the schism, but turned out to be the delusion of individuals who succumbed to the Protestant trend of thought. Such opinions include the “blasphemy of the schismatic scroll” against the Divine Mysteries, as if Christ, having once tasted death on the cross, can no longer be sacrificed 506. In the schism itself, heretical opinions were then spreading. This is the teaching of Habakkuk about the Most Holy Trinity, that it is “Tri-essential”; or about Christ’s incarnation, or about the descent of I. Christ into hell “with the body after the resurrection” 507, that God is omnipresent not by being, but by grace, 508, etc. Subsequently, the entire “gospel of Habakkuk” was rejected by the Old Believers themselves 509. The question of whether a schismatic faith is a right faith is therefore resolved by the saint in a negative sense. “Anyone who believes not in the One invisible God, but in many visible and tangible things, believes incorrectly. And since schismatics believe not in one invisible God, but in many visible and tangible things: in old icons, in eight-pointed crosses, in the number of prosphoras, in old books, in the addition of fingers according to their custom; then their faith is not a right faith” 510. The main provisions of the schism were: “there is no priesthood on earth; it passed to heaven with its fathers.” Having rejected the legal priesthood, the Old Believers changed a lot in church practice. They did not reject the sacraments, but in the absence of priests, the laity began to perform them. In “The Search” it is indicated that their liturgy was served by a simple uninitiated man, and under Metropolitan Jonah, a girl served as priest in one of the Rostov villages. She “secretly celebrated some kind of heretical mass, confessed people and gave communion not only to ordinary people, but also to priests” 511. One of the sacraments that the priestless people did not reject as filth was marriage. According to rumors that reached the saint, they gave religious sanctification to fornication, calling it the love of Christ. The extreme debauchery in Feodosievtsev even caused protests among the Old Believers themselves. Moreover, Saint Demetrius could not leave this without silence: in Feodosyevshchina, Stefanovshchina and Kosminishchnya, marriage was called fornication, and fornication was imputed to soul-saving love 512. Voivode Pashkov informed him that the peasants of the Zauzovskaya and Tolokontsevskaya volosts of the Nizhny Novgorod province take their daughters to the Bryansk forests to the holy fathers and leave them there for the love of Christ 513. Many girls from the Rostov region fled to the Bryansk forests and returned dishonored; The blueberries did not lag behind them. The parents themselves contributed to this. The saint mentions three Romanovites and one Rostovite who sent their daughters to the same forests, “and for what? God knows! 514. The fanaticism of the schismatics amazed Saint Demetrius. It gave rise to terrible phenomena, unheard of never before and nowhere; Many self-immolators appeared in the Rostov diocese. In the Beloselskaya volost, more than 1,920 people were burned 515; in the Cherepovskaya volost, not far from the Rostov borders, in 1688–1689, about 300 people voluntarily died in a fire at one time 516. The same news was rushing from Siberia 517. The nascent fanaticism was developed by the split teachers. Habakkuk also said: “every faithful one, do not hang your ears, do not hesitate, walk boldly into the fire... Blessed is this will in the Lord!” 518. “Whoever listens to us and burns himself will escape the torment of Antichrist and will reign forever with Christ and the saints. If anyone does not listen, and now does not burn himself, the Antichrist will soon torment him, and then many of the faithful, unable to endure the torment of the Antichrist, will apostatize from the right faith and for that they will suffer in hellish fire forever with the Antichrist” 519. Carried away by selfish schism teachers, the dark people themselves prepared fires for themselves, prepared tar, birch bark, straw, hemp, and gunpowder. They did not listen to the clergy sent to admonish them, “they did not open their ears,” and immediately, not allowing them to reach them, they were burned. “We are burning with external fire, and you are burning now with eternal fire, and you will burn there,” they repeated to unwitting witnesses of self-immolations 520. To put themselves in a position of regret, the fanatics used sorcery, took raisins, berries, burnt crushed bones, and the powder of a dried heart cut from the chest of a baby. As if to those who accepted such things, the fire is not only not terrible, but it seems to them like paradise and the mouth of the furnace - a heavenly door, and in the furnace itself “bright young men calling to themselves” 521. It would have been difficult for the saint to believe such rumors if they were not confirmed. Regarding the stories about this by Hieromonk Ignatius, he said: “we believe him, a very old man, who saw and heard, and reported to us, in his priestly position” 522. From all the stories, a terrible danger from schism was identified for the saint. In him, external asceticism and exploits were combined with a fanatical contempt for life, with heartfelt depravity and internal depravity in the everyday life of his followers. There are a lot of schismatic rumors in the Search. “Agreeing in one blasphemy against the Church of Christ, its holy sacraments and us, the faithful, all schismatic monasteries do not agree with each other in their faiths,” says Demetrius, “all of them, accursed, charming ones, abhor each other and neither drink, nor eat, nor pray together and call each other heretics” 523. The saint learned about all this from strangers, but from those who either themselves lived in schism, or were for a long time near the schismatic Bryn monasteries, such as: the builder of the Spasskaya Roevskaya hermitage, the black priest Joasaph, then Yaroslavets Peter Ermilov, the elders Andronik and Pachomius. In November 1708, Joasaph handed over to Demetrius some “small notebooks”, in which there was a “response against the schismatics” by an unknown author. There is also a list of 20 names of Bryn monasteries 524. In March of the following year, 1709, the saint received more definite information about the monasteries. During the week of Lent, Peter Ermilov, Andronik and Pachomius came to him. Regarding the list of Joasaph, they said: “not all of those monasteries are now called by those names, was that the case before? Some monastery leaders died, others moved to other countries, and still others went to Poland.” According to Pachomius, there are only fifteen monasteries in Bryni. Some disappeared, others began to act together, and new ones appeared 525. Now there were more of them and in “Wanted” there are 28 listed, in addition to many male and female ones in the forests “similar to those in evil.” It is clear that the Rostov ruler did not know about all the monasteries 526. In “The Search” there is no distinction between the sects, which, one might say, are identified here with monasteries. Along with discounts, clericalism and lack of priesthood are mentioned among them; whereas these are not monasteries at all, but two main Old Believer movements: each monastery was more or less adjacent to them. Listed as schismatic monasteries are also those that had nothing to do with the schism: Christism, iconoclasm and subbotniks, denying everything that the schism stood for, and even earlier schisms that appeared. Although the saint also included them in the list of monasteries, he singles out, for example, subbotniks, calling them a branch of the iconoclastic heresy and expressed from the followers of the heresy of the Judaizers of the 15th century 527. The uncertainty of information about the split could not but affect the “Want” about it. But all kinds of information were dear to Demetrius, as material for the fight against opponents of the Church. Based on such information, he made research and generalizations. Here, for the first time, he directly and decisively speaks about the two main trends in the schism: priestlyism and non-priestlyism, and also characterizes them, which we do not find later, in Theophylact Lopatinsky 528. In "Wanted" the beginning of the scientific struggle against the schism was laid. Varieties of these directions concerned only the doctrine of the sacraments, in particular, the Eucharist. The accounts differ more in their names than in the essence of their teaching. Their differences were determined by their relationship to the Church 529. The words of the saint about the skete schism teachers, that “they all disagree with their faiths,” must be understood with limitations. In the saint’s grouping of them, this position is greatly weakened. Of the priestly talk, he did not single out a single monastery from the general category based on doctrinal points; It only points to the horners as a kind of talk preaching the impossibility of salvation in the world and the need to flee to the desert and save there. By revealing the internal weaknesses of the schism, the saint wanted to show to the common people its small number, but reality spoke otherwise. “You who have fallen away from the church,” he addresses the schismatics, “are few. If ten or twenty thousand of you are gathered, then you are still nothing before the entire universal Church. Your Bryn society is as great in comparison with the universal Church as a handful of water is in comparison with the vast sea.” In such words one can feel the hidden anxiety of the bishop. The schism spread quickly and captured a large part of the Rostov population. In one place the saint directly says that “the Capitonic heresy is tearing away thousands of people from the Church” 530; in other districts, about a third of the total population of 531 was infected by schism. In a general review of “Wanted,” one is struck by the lack of unity of its parts. The fragmentation of thoughts depended on unclear rumors and the lack of time to process the book 532. Nevertheless, the entire work is impressive in its power. Here the activities of uncalled self-proclaimed teachers are revealed and the lies of their teaching are exposed, and the content of “The Search” is fully consistent with such a task. He collected all kinds of information about hidden propaganda. He beats the dissenters with individual facts. The lack of moral foundations in the schism is especially pointed out. The writing of “The Search” was so short-lived that it was not possible to verify all the rumors about the schismatics. The saint relied on the honesty of the one who reported, on his gray hair and rank 533. Although “Search” is given a polemical direction, the book stands out from a number of other similar polemical works and marks the beginning of a new direction in our anti-schismatic literature. Before him, the attitude of church representatives towards ritual differences was distinguished by severity. We Old Believers were anathematized both by the council of 1667 and by the author of the “Rod of Government” and the “Spiritual Revelation” as enemies of Christianity 534. – There is nothing like this in “Wanted”. According to Saint Demetrius, ritual is not essential in the matter of salvation. He is even amazed by the Old Believers’ commitment to letter and form. What is important is not the form, not the fingers: what is salutary during the sign of the cross is the thought expressed by the ritual. Our salvation does not depend on the number of prosphoras, not on the antiquity of the icon, not on the folding of fingers, but on right faith and good deeds. It is amazing for the saint how such insignificant things caused the division of those who formed one church. In the schism itself, the Saint does not persecute the use of this or that ritual, but the intolerance with which the schismatics defend their rituals. He takes pity on the schismatic, stagnant in ignorance and deprived of the consolation of the church, rejected by him. The best deeds of a schismatic: fasting, prayer, many bows, etc., not sanctified by the power of Divine grace, remain “not worthy of salvation” 535. Outside of union with Christ there is no salvation 536. Accordingly, the saint’s style is not distinguished by passion, but sounds sad. He was greatly amazed by the absurdities of the schism, and was outraged by their slander; “Nothing can please them,” he wrote to his friends. In two places he expresses himself sharply; at one time, making a schismatic pronunciation of the name Jesus, he calls him equal-eared, in another place he states that it would be decent to write the name “demon” on a schismatic finger 537. Such harshness was allowed by him, no doubt, in order to instill in the common people disgust for opinions not shared by the Church. And the schismatics, for their part, tried to undermine the authority of the church representatives with terrible mockery of Orthodoxy. Of the entire “Search,” only the “exhortation to the faithful” stands out sharply as expressions of the shepherd’s strong indignation against the seducers. Here its tone is reminiscent of “Rod” and “Uvet”. The saint exhorts the people not only not to make friends with schismatics, not only not to express goodwill to their faith, but positively not to listen to them 538. Although “The Search” was written for the common people in order to prevent them from being seduced into schism, however, the holy work did not stop the strong development of all kinds of Old Believer interpretations in Rostov. The government's strictures only increased fanaticism. The mass of the people enrolled in a double per capita salary in order to calmly remain in schism, having bought themselves freedom of belief; those who signed up for the schism were no longer accessible to the clergy. Those who did not agree to double salary ran away and lived in the forests. But there were many more secret schismatics. The fight against them then became even more difficult. The saint even became aware of priests who call themselves Orthodox hypocritically. They communicate with schismatics, agree with them, even their parishioners, carried away into schism, shelter and indulge them. Among the schismatics, Demetrius, with his ardent activity, aroused terrible hatred against himself. Their hatred best of all testifies to the dignity and fruitfulness of the anti-schism labors of the saint 539. But they pointed only to his harsh expressions, since they were powerless against his reproof. In 1755, the third edition of “The Search” was published. Regarding this, the “Exposure of the lies and obvious errors of the book “Investigation”, published passionately more than once” 540 appeared in the schism. Hatred of Saint Demetrius was propagated by the schism teachers as zealously as the Old Believers. The saint continues to denounce the schism in the Chronicle. The schismatics are called anthropomorphites there because they believe the image of God is in the face, eyes, beard, etc., and not in the soul 541. He finds their denunciation in the word “Adam” itself, which supposedly points to the four directions of the world: east, west, north, south, and in detail speaks of a four-pointed cross 542. St. Dmitry's struggle with the schism, according to the consciousness of the schism teachers themselves, was accompanied by great success. The king also knew about this. Needing literary power in his reform endeavors to fight the adherents of antiquity, he wanted to take advantage of the popularity of the Rostov ruler among the people and planned: “to write a book about bigots and express the beatitudes (the meekness of David, etc.), which is not what they think, and weave it into the missals, and in the preface to show that the businessman of the Rostov (bishop) with comrades; also, that the martyrs did not resist in secular matters” 543. Chapter VII. Death of Saint Demetrius In the last years of his life the saint had to work more than ever. Despite this, he saw no end to his plight. A fierce time has come, he said, Christ’s prediction is being fulfilled: people are rising up against each other in war. It's hard for the people. There are robberies, thefts, lies and violence. The church now has irreconcilable opponents; schism and unbelief. The fate of the clergy also saddened the bishop: we have villages from which, by order of the sovereign, people were transferred to other districts, and the clergy in those villages had no one to feed them, and they left the churches 544. At the same time, he was intensely busy finishing the book “The Search”, did not stop preaching, and did not abandon his beloved “Chronicle”; on the contrary, he asks Vanderburgh for new sources for her, sending him, in turn, gifts from himself. Such worries and labors led the saint to exhaustion. The pen fell out of his hands, but he overcame temporary bodily weakness; the ascetics of the spirit, described by himself, were presented before his eyes and called for imitation. He copied from the works of St. Macarius of Egypt about the need for deprivation for man 545. He exhausted his body like a repentant sinner. He often stretched out on the ground like a cross and lay in this position for 3 hours. In the summer, he exposed his body to mosquitoes, of which there was no shortage in the damp Rostov climate. Towards the end, he also reduced his diet, ate food rarely, and in the first week of Great Lent and Holy Week he ate once, on Thursdays. Not only Good Friday, but also every week he especially honored this day, he even noticed that especially significant events for him fell on Friday: on Friday his mother, Maria Mikhailovna 546, died, on this day he completed his Honor Menaion. It is remarkable that on Friday he himself died, on Friday his relics were found. Saint Demetrius carefully studied everything written about the passion of the Lord. He kept a list of writers 547, about them he himself wrote “Kissing the wounds of the Lord every day”, “Reflections on the passion of Christ”. How depressing he was, this can be seen from the following incident included in his Diary: on Friday, November 18, 1708, the bishop “rose” before matins 2 hours before the service, got dressed and walked on foot from Rostov to Yaroslavl. His gait was fast. He arrived in Yaroslavl after a 52-verst march at 2 a.m. a day later, before the start of Matins; He probably also listened to the morning service, which he never missed, and then he himself served mass in the cathedral church and “taught a lesson to the people about the schismatic faith, which is wrong; he spoke quite a bit about our holy Orthodox faith.” On November 24, he again walked back to Rostov for a whole day. The visit to Yaroslavl this time was apparently unexpected there, because the bishop had the opportunity to dine not in his own home, but with the Archimandrite of Spasoyaroslavl. It is noticeable that he himself already felt that “voice of God” that reminded him of death. His benefits to the poor increased: he often called the blind, lame and all sorts of unfortunate beggars to the chamber of the cross, served them a meal, gave them clothes and showed acts of mercy; Often, with his meager funds, he redeemed debtors from their rights, who were mercilessly beaten for their debts. His religious mood is reflected in his letters to friends, where he calls himself an “arch-sinner” 548. He writes to Theologian: Christ, I hope, hid in the closet of Feologov’s heart and rests on the bed of his God-loving thoughts, and Father Theologian is glad to see him, treats him with the wine of tenderness. Ask Him to visit me, for I am weak” 549. All those living near the saint were already accustomed, following his example, to protect themselves with the sign of the cross and read a prayer to the Mother of God when the clock struck. Back in 1707, on April 4, he wrote his spiritual letter in case of death. In 1704, in a letter he said about himself: physically I am still alive, but I am glad of death, as the deliverer of evils. “The soul is glad to go to heaven, but sins are not allowed in, I am glad to write (Chronicle), but my health is poor” 550. I often feel exhausted,” he writes to him: “illnesses take away the pen and throw the scribe into bed”... The eyes see poorly, the glasses help little, the writing hand trembles and the whole body is near collapse, the night is long, and the days are short and dark. 2 days before his death, he informs Theologist: “I’m exhausted! You ask about my health: truly, I inform you that I am exhausted. Before, it used to be that my health was in half: half healthy, half sick; and now the illnesses have been overcome, and barely a third of my health remains, however, as if I am cheerful and moving in the name of my Lord, in Whom my life is in His hands: now I do no work: no matter what I try, everything falls out of my hands, the days have become dark for me, my eyes see little, at night the light from a candle helps little, it does more harm when I strain my eyesight for a long time, and illnesses force me to lie down and moan. In such an extremely painful situation, I don’t know what to expect; life or death: may the will of the Lord be done! I am not ready for death, but by the command of the Lord I must be ready. My Lord is strong to strengthen my weakness. This autumn has been hard for me. The Rostov air is very thin, and the water is very unhealthy. Sorry, my love, I can’t write much, so I hit you with my forehead: sinful Demetrius” 551. At first his hand hurt, but it went away, now his vision has weakened and he is completely exhausted. Endless labors and worries exhausted him, exhausting his body. “No one helps,” the saint complains to Theologus, “and laziness and illness force me to lie down.” In his letters to his Moscow friends one can see his ardent desire to express to them everything that was sincere in him. He does not forget any of them, sends bows and expressions of gratitude to everyone for their responsive help to him, and even exhausts himself in calling them by the most tender names 552. When he lost strength, when he himself realized that the lamp of life was burning out, the thought of death became especially acute in him. He had previously spoken in sermons about the reconciling death of all, which would cover and level everyone 553. I didn’t forget that “death is behind me” 554. “The end is at the door, the ax is at the threshold, the scythe of death is over your head.” One news about the death of Joasaph Koldychevsky makes him afraid that the hour of his death is unknown... and he did not finish his book work, there is no one after him to begin finishing the work. In recent years, he thought deeply about the brevity of human life in comparison with the world. He likened a person approaching death to a traveler returning to his homeland 555. He put his thoughts about his death in poetic form: And never forget the hour of death. If anyone does not remember death, That torment will not escape 556. It is very desirable to briefly interpret the psalter, if God had allowed and the scythe of death had not stopped. “We must do something for the glory of God, so that the hour of death does not find us in idleness,” 557 he wrote in the last year of his life. In 1709, the saint had many distinguished visitors and outstanding events. He had to overcome his illness. In the summer, Princess Natalya Alekseevna, Maria Alekseevna and Feodosia Alekseevna visited Rostov. They attended the consecration of the Church of St. Abraham in the Rostov Epiphany Monastery. Soon after their arrival in early July, news arrived of the victory of our troops over the Swedes near Poltava. A brilliant event could also give hope to the clergy that after the conclusion of peace, their situation, which the war had created, would be alleviated. The saint wrote in his epistolary about such a “glorious victory over the adversary.” He himself performed a solemn prayer for the common joy. In the fall in September, he was supposed to go to the estate of the boyar P. I. Musin-Pushkin for the celebration of the illumination of the church in the village of Ugodichi and the transfer of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God, granted by the sovereign, to that church instead of the original Molchenskaya icon, which was considered revealed 558. Upon returning from there, it was necessary to arrange for the newly appointed abbess Alexandra in a new place in the Rostov nunnery. In the last month, his homeland was once again recalled; They brought him a book as a gift from M. G. Grokholsky. Demetrius, as usual, responded with gratitude by sending him his work, a book, asking him to read it someday instead of recreation. Meanwhile, news arrived that Tsarina Praskovya Fedorovna would be in Rostov on her way to worship the miraculous icon of the Mother of God at the Tolga Monastery. The autumn thaw changed the queen's route. It was decided to bring the icon from the Tolga Monastery to Rostov for her, so as not to bother the distinguished traveler with the long journey there. Saint Demetrius was so weak in health that he did not hope to receive her. “Here, two guests are coming,” he said to the treasurer Filaret, “the Queen of Heaven and the Queen of Earth. Only I won’t be able to see them anymore, but you, treasurer, must be ready to receive them!” The day of the ruler angel has come. He was already coughing heavily. However, he himself served the liturgy in the cathedral. The saint could not deliver his teaching for that day; the singer read for him from a notebook, and he himself sat at the royal gates. From the church he went down to the meal, which was served in the chamber of the cross, but he also could not eat anything. That day there were also distant visitors: Pereyaslavl Archimandrite Varlaam, probably with his companions. October 27th was the last day of his life. Nun Barsanuphia sent a messenger from the nunnery to the saint and invited him to come to her. She once served as nurse to Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich and was tonsured to Dimitri. The nurse Vasilisa Efimovna was so respected at court that the royal people went to Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda to receive her tonsure. Now she lived in Rostov. Dimitri felt extremely exhausted and refused to go. After Vespers, Barsanuphia herself came and asked to visit her. Then, accompanied by Archimandrite Varlaam, the Bishop went to her, but he could not go back himself due to weakness and cough. They supported him by the arms. In the evening he felt better. Having entrusted the guest from Ukraine to his treasurer Filaret, he came to his cell. The cough was choking him, and he thought to ease it by moving, so he began to walk around the cell, supported by two servants by the arms. Then he ordered the singers to be called. Upon arrival, at the request of the Bishop, the singers began to sing the cants: “My most beloved Jesus”; “I place my hope in God!”; “You are my God, Jesus, You are my joy.” At that time, he stood and warmed himself, leaning against the warm stove with his heart. The singing is over. The singers came out. Vladyka kept with him only one of them, his beloved Savva Yakovlev, who always helped him in copying papers. The saint began to tell Yakovlev about himself: about his youth, how he lived, how he always resorted to prayer. At the end of the story, he said: “Here you are, children, pray too!” After a pause, he added: “It’s time for you too, child, go home!” The singer approached him for a blessing. Having escorted him to the door, the bishop suddenly bowed low, almost to the ground, thanking him for his constant work and correspondence. The singer shuddered and looked at the bishop in bewilderment. “Thank you, child!” Dimitri repeated. The singer began to cry, but Dimitri had already closed the cell door 559 behind him. On the morning of October 28, those who entered his cell found him already asleep in a bowed position of prayer, kneeling on the floor 560. The news of the death of their beloved shepherd shocked everyone. Neither his age nor his appearance could suggest that his death was near. He was not yet 60 years old; gray hair has barely touched his light brown hair; fast movements, quick gait, energetic struggle with schismatics - nothing warned the Rostovites about the loss of their beloved shepherd. Tsarina Praskovya Fedorovna no longer found the saint, whom she deeply respected, alive. Upon arrival in Rostov, she ordered a memorial service for him and cried a lot. The deceased saint was taken out of his cell and placed first in the Church of the All-Merciful Savior in the vestibule, near the bishop's cells, and then, at the request of the queen, on October 30 he was transferred to the Rostov Cathedral, where on that day the miraculous Tolga Icon of the Mother of God had already been brought. Another funeral service was held here. The burial of the deceased was postponed. It was to be performed by the saint’s friend, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. Such was the will of the deceased. He and Yavorsky agreed that whichever of them outlives the other should perform the burial of his deceased friend. Metropolitan Stephen was expected in Rostov for almost a whole month. At this time, the clerk was already making an inventory of the bishop's property, which, by order of Peter I, like all the belongings of monastics, was also selected for the Monastic Prikaz. The saint only had 6 rubles left. The spiritual one was sent to the Monastery Prikaz. Metropolitan Stefan, who arrived from Moscow, wept over the body of his dead friend, and in the coffin, which reminded him of his non-covetousness. He was dressed in the most modest bishop's robe made of simple yellow material; on the head was the same miter with colored images 561 pasted on. Under the head of the saint rested his draft manuscripts, as he himself bequeathed to be done during his lifetime. Rostov residents crowded around the coffin, whose grief Stefan expressed in verses about the memory of death: All of you, people of Rostov City, weep, Remember the shepherd of the dead word, Demetrius, Bishop and Eminence, The Metropolitan is quiet and humble! 562 Citizens began to ask him that the deceased be buried in the Rostov Cathedral along with other bishops who had served before him, almost all of whom rested here. But Stefan Yavorsky, referring to the decisive will of the deceased, did not agree with them and ordered the preparation of a grave in the Conception Yakovlevsky Monastery. Whether it was the dissatisfaction of the Rostovites or the winter time, or due to the haste of Yavorsky, who lived in Rostov for only two days, only Dimitri’s grave was not lined with stone and a brick vault was not made, as directly prescribed by the Monastic Order. In the grave, instead of stone walls, they made a wooden frame, instead of a vault, they made a ramp of thick logs that could support the church floor. The burial took place in the Rostov Cathedral on Friday, November 25, after the liturgy. Metropolitan Yavorsky said the funeral oration, where he repeated: “Holy Demetrius, holy!” After the burial, the body of the deceased saint, while the Rostovites wept, was carried out of the Kremlin in a procession and transferred to the Conception Monastery. The loss of their beloved shepherd struck the Rostovites with sadness; all the people were crying and groaning. The saint ruled the Rostov flock for 7.5 years; he was a monk for 41 years, 3 months and 18 days. After the burial, we learned about the spiritual testament of Saint Demetrius, which could not help but amaze everyone. It stated the following. “I, humble Bishop Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl, listening to the voice of my Lord in the Holy Gospel who announced: “Be prepared, for at an hour you do not think, the Son of Man will come”; stay awake, for you do not know when the owner of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at rooster crow or in the morning, lest he come suddenly and find you sleeping (Luke XII:40, Mk. XIII:35,36); Hearing and fearing such a voice of the Lord, being often also overcome by illnesses, day by day exhausted in body and expecting at all times the unexpected hour of death announced by the Lord, and with my strength preparing for the outcome of my whole life, I decided with this spiritual letter to notify anyone who would want to look for my cell property after my death, so as not to work for him in vain, and not to interrogate who served me for God's sake, so that he would know about my treasure and wealth, which I did not collect from my youth (I say this not out of vanity, but for those who seek my property). From the time I accepted the monastic rank and took monastic vows at the Cyril Monastery at the age of eighteen and promised God to have voluntary poverty, from that time even until I approached the tomb I did not acquire any property except the books of saints, I did not collect either gold or silver, I did not allow myself to have extra clothes or things of any kind except the most necessary, but I tried to maintain non-acquisitiveness and monastic poverty spiritual and material, not caring about myself, but relying on the providence of God, who never left me. What alms I accepted from my benefactors and what government income was from my position, I spent on my needs and those of the monastery, where I was abbot and archimandrite. Being also a bishop, I did not collect cell income, which was not much, but I spent partly on my own needs, partly on the needs of the poor, as God commanded. So, let no one bother to inquire after my death or look for anything accumulated in the cell. I leave nothing for burial or commemoration, in order to better demonstrate my monastic poverty before God. I believe that it will be more pleasing to Him if not even one coin remains after me than if a lot were given away. And if no one wants to give me, such a beggar, an ordinary burial, then I beg those who remember their death to drag my sinful body to a wretched house and throw it there among the corpses. And if the authorities agree to bury me after death according to custom, then I beg the Christ-loving burials to bury me in the monastery of St. James, Bishop of Rostov, in the corner of the church where my place is indicated, I beat about this with my forehead. Whoever wishes to remember my sinful soul in his prayers for the sake of God, let him himself be remembered in the Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who needs payment for commemoration, I ask you not to remember me, a beggar who left nothing for commemoration. May God be merciful to everyone and to me, a sinner forever, amen. This is my will, this is my spiritual charter, this is the news about my estate. If anyone doubts my words and begins to diligently look for gold and silver after me, then even if he works hard, he will not find anything and God will judge him.” Put into the mouth of Demetrius: “Behold my peace, here I will dwell forever and ever!” taken from his sermon and entered into the synodal life with the light hand of the first compiler of his life, Metropolitan. Arseny (Syn. Archive. Case of the discovery of relics. No. 28 of 1752, October 20). “Yar. Ep. Vedas."1902, No. 9. Op. III, 250. Memory lesson martyr. Placids. “Reserve” is an abbreviated word from the name “Spare Holy Gifts”. The local name of the stock is also attached to the bread. It seems that the condition of the Rostov flock was not as terrible as depicted in the sermons and letters of St. Demetrius, who looked at pastoring, firstly, from an ideal point of view, and, secondly, could not adapt to the life of the Rostov clergy, whose folk simplicity caught the eye of Pososhkov. Spiritual enlightenment has long flourished here. It has now fallen, but there were individuals, even sextons, who were interested in the book. The very fact with the priest does not clearly indicate the underdevelopment of the clergy, if we take into account the Little Russian accent of the new ruler, the clergy’s unfamiliarity and fear of ever seeing a bishop in their church, and, most importantly, the uncertainty of the question: the priest could expect an exam in theology: are there not enough mind-blowing questions in our catechism? Op. III, A Word on Shepherding. Op. II, 503, 505, 507, 512, 514. The Bishop threatens them that the Master Christ will exact from the priest both the sins of the rich and the poor. If the priest has a lot of work to do, then Dimitri advises entrusting this work to the “altar” priest. (Op. I, 154–159, ed. K. 1895). Op. 159, ed. K., 1895 Prof. Shlyapkin "St. Dimitri", 371. Op. ed. M. 1895. I vol. 268–369. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1873 276; No. 37. Pososhkov, op. I, 25, 27. Dimitri's word about the Kingdom of God established in the village. Op. III, 101 pp. ed. K. 1903 Op. IV, 510, 383, 417, 420. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1872 pp. 23–24. About the “theft” from the church on Penya. “Readings in General. I. and D. R.”, 1886 IV, No. 68, 79 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1872 No. 18, 142–144 pp. “Yar. Governor. Ved." 1883 No. 42, 425. “Secular bishops’ officials in medieval Rus'. Mentioned from the second half of the 13th century. According to the decisions of the Council of 1273, it was prohibited to appoint tithes and lord governors “for a bribe” (RIB. 1908. Vol. 6. No. 6. Stb. 92). From the second half of the 14th century, tithes formed the lowest level of church administration. Their responsibilities included oversight of the activities of the parish clergy, the court of first instance in civil cases between “church people,” and the collection of “church duties” for the bishop’s treasury. The district, the territory of which the activities of the tithes extended, was called “tithe”. Such a district could cover both an entire county and one of the county’s camps. Usually, secular vassals of bishops were appointed to this position - children of boyars from their service yards; for them, these duties were “feeding” - a source of income. The parish priests in the territory of the “tithe” had to build yards for the tithe farmers and give them the same feed that the black-growing peasants gave to the secular feeders.” Source: https://w.histrf.ru/articles/article/show/diesiatilniki Author of the article B.N. Florya. Since the peasants of the village of Ryazanin persisted after the Voeikov census to obey the Spasoyaroslavl Monastery for more than 50 years: the investigative case about disobedience to their monastic authorities lasted for half a century. (Archive of the Synod. The Case of Ryazanin. 1755, No. 84; 1747, August 26, No. 62; 1755, September 7, No. 88). Gorchakov, “Mon. Order", adj. 16 pages Gorchakov, “Mon. Order", 208. P.Z.S. IV, No. 2186, 2308. The legend of the appearance of the honorable and life-giving cross of the Lord... in the Nikolsky churchyard.” Yaroslavl, 1874, 42–43 pp. Gorchakov, “Mon. Order", 228. P.S.P. and Raspor. II, No. 79, 485 pp. Description. Doc. and affairs. Syn. III, 589. Gorchakov, “Mon. Order", adj. 21 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 22, “Regulations on the clergy in the 18th century.” Where in the scribe books there is 1 priestly courtyard, according to the census records, 2–3 or more are noted in the same churchyard. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1888 No. 29, 482 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1873 No. 34, 268. Fuimus Troes, fuit llium et ingens Gloria Teuctorum, and now ashes et stadio malefida carinus (Virgil). The White Chamber has now been restored and maintained thanks to the skillful efforts of the enlightened archaeologist A. A. Titov. On the initiative of A. A. Titov and I. A. Shlyakov, the Rostov Museum of Church Antiquities was opened in October 1883 in the White Chamber of the Kremlin. In 1993, in the premises of the White Chamber of the State Museum-Reserve "Rostov Kremlin" an exhibition was created, representing the experience of reconstruction of the Rostov Museum of Church Antiquities (1883 - early 1920s). Excerpt from Demetrius's Chronicle about the church in the estates "Readings of O. L. I. and others. R." 1862 “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 34, 269 pp. Op. II. 32, 70, 347, 124. Description doc. and papers Mosk. Arch. M. 10, M. 1884, IV book, 241 pages. The saint’s letter of thanks to the governor for patronage of teachers and sent wine is in the Vorontsov “Archive”, I volume, 1 page. Syn. Archive, case 1755, June 5, No. 84. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1902, 152. About the belonging of the “Spiritual Alphabet” to St. Demetrius had no doubt 50 years after his death, when his writings were collected. Archive syn., the case of the discovery of the relics of St. Demetrius, No. 28 of 1752, October 20. “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1899, 483. “Yar. Ep. Ved.", 1871, No. 6, 371. “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1902, 151. "Passionate Poems." Yar. 1889 Convert (lat. Coversare) Communicate, have a conversation (historical dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian language) – ed. “Thu.” O.I.Dr. R.”, 1883, No. 6, 17 pp. A new textbook on the Latin language, instead of Alvar, was compiled by the Rostov archbishop, Samuil Mislavsky, printed in 1785 “Yar. Ep. Ved.", 1904. 638. Letter to M. Job of Novgorod. Petrov. Acts and documents Kyiv. Ak. Part II, app. 365 pp., “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1892 483. “Archive of Prince Vorontsov”, Vol. I, 1 page. “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1902 152. “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1888 394. Coronal memory is a document that was issued on behalf of the dioceses. the bishop's confidants. spirit. persons in the name of the priest to conduct a certain wedding, while the bride and groom were charged a wedding fee—Ed. However, similar notes could have been written later by collectors of Demetrius’ sermons. What remains is Dimitri's sermon, delivered in the Tolga Monastery about candles. Op. Kiev, 1901. IV part, 569 pages. Prof. Shlyapkin, appendix, 16 pages. Op. I, 208 pp. The form of presentation here is very reminiscent of the manner of Mlodzyanovsky, but the richness and nobility of feeling in the content makes this “Lament” an original creation of Demetrius. Archive of the Synod. Case No. 28, dated 1752, October 20. About the discovery of the relics of St. Dimitri. “Historical. Vesti", 1883, 602–648. Letters from the archbishop. Samuel in “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1904, 692 pp. When the clergy is poor, a tribute of 3 rubles. was quite difficult, since it would cost up to 30 rubles with our money. The recording of fees from churches was monotonous, for example, from the Tolchkovskaya (relatively rich) church the following was collected: salary tribute 4 rubles 16 altyns 4 money; decadal honorary 10 altyn, in Moscow rise and in carts 6 altyn 4 money; in the Moscow building 30 altyn; for the singers of the famous 3 altyns: raspberry for the return from 5 households for 8 money; for the dacha of regimental helpers 3 altyn 2 money (“Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1874, No. 19). Stroev counts 41 monasteries (“Lists of hierarchs and abbots of monasteries” St. Petersburg, 1877). The coronal collection was subsequently destroyed by Empress Catherine II. Pribilovich's conclusion has been preserved to this day in the sacristy of the Spasoyakovlevsky Monastery. Translated by Shlyapkin, in the appendix, 47–50. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, 376 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1873 and 1888, No. 24, 384 pp., op. V, 171. “Yar. Lip. Ved." 1888, No. 52, 528 pp. The towel of the Jerusalem Patriarch is now kept in the sacristy of the Rostov Spasoyakovlev Monastery. (“Yar. Ep. Ved.” 1880, No. 45, 359 pp.). “Russian Pilgrim”, 1886, No. 18, 160 pp. From 1708, “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1888, No. 29, 449 pp. Archive of Prince Vorontsov, I, 1 page. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 34. “Soul floor. Reading", 1885, No. 2, 122. Op. Part III, 383–400. The word is borrowed from Mlodzianowski. Readings in general I. and R.R., 1861, Book II, 12. “Volog. Ep. Ved.,” 1865, No. 1, 38 pp. Op. III, 375, ed. K. 1903 II, 36; II, 155; II, 144; II, 205; III, 247; III, 377; “Chronicle” are her final words. (Oc. VI, 584, K. 1901). “Yar. Ep. Ved.,” 1902, 132–136. Articles about St. Dimitri, A. A. Titov. This is what Innocent of Kherson calls him († 1857). III, 322. A similar teaching is noticeable in Simeon of Polotsk (Kostomarov. “Russian History,” II, 400). An attempt to compile such a “dogmatic teaching” by St. Our Father Demetrius, selected from his writings, is presented in “Christ. Reading." 1842 IV, 311–521. Unfortunately, the article is based on “Questions and Answers about Faith,” which do not belong to Demetrius, although they are included among his works in Part I (43–85 ed. M. 1895). If you remove excerpts from “Questions” from an article, then it already loses both its integrity and value. Volume I, Op. I, 36–39. Ed. M. 1895 Bible St. Petersburg Spirit. Acad., No. 1283, l. 180, 231, 236, 260. Compare, for example, the “Pyramid” of praise for Innocent Gisel in 1685 and the funeral words for Yushkov and others; III, 518 and 483 and 90. In addition to printed sermons, there are sermons of the saint in manuscripts, for example, in the Sophia manuscript, stored in St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy No. 1283, or in the book depository of the Vakhromeyev brothers, A.I. and S.I. in Yaroslavl (A.A. Titov. Description of the Vakhromeyevsky book depository, IV vol., 89–194; 240, 333, 334; V vol. 252, 409), as well as in A. Titov - 103 sermons. Op. III, 296 ed. K. 1903 The phrase about long tongues and the content are borrowed from Mlodzianowski. Word of Elijah Minya on Great Friday. If we collect everything written by St. Dimitri, it would have collected up to 20 voluminous volumes. His works comprise 5 large volumes of 300–700 pages each. The new edition of his Chetei-Minei in Russian will take 12 volumes. In addition, there is also “The Search for the Bryn Faith” (he called the Bryn faith the schismatic faith because the schismatics nested in the Bryansk or Bryn forests), “Fleece.” How many works have not yet been published! From 30 words of the Sofia Chronicle No. 1283, St. Petersburg. Spirit. Ak. –10 words, undoubtedly, from Dimitri. Of the other 20 words, some are in the Chronicle and other works of Demetrius, if not in their entirety, then in fragments. The chronograph of George of Monemvasia under Patriarch Nikon was translated in Moscow from Greek into Russian by Arseny and Dionysius. By the Greeks (op. IV, 43 pp.). “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 33, “St. Demetrius" 1849, 50–51 pp. “The Wanderer” 1861 No. 4, 2 parts. 121–122. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 34, 267 pp. All this was noted by Demetrius himself in 1695 in the preface to 2 Chetya-Minea. For example, Dimitri doubted the message about Abraham of Rostov, who saw “church decoration”: “were there churches in Novgorod then?” (Prof. Shlyapkin, 373). Report by I.P. Bibl. 1862, 57 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874, No. 33. In the table of contents of the life of St. Demetrius of Uglich is pointed directly at the compiler, “The Most Reverend Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl, who composed it in 1703.” Op. IV, 304, where Demetrius said that church history begins with Eber, along with worldly history. About them in the book “St. Demetrius”, 1849, 58 pp.: Cornelius a Lyapide, Navclere, Bucelin, Kluverius, Ompeer, Bellarmin, Functions, Gangnaeus, Salian, etc. From May 19, 1707 “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 34, 267. From May 18, 1707 Vestn. Heb. 1826 No. 8, 274. From December 1707 to November 1708 4 letters (Dushepol. Thur. 1864 II, 4) “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 33. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 35, 276. Samoilovich seems here to be not yet disgraced (IV, 612, 615, 619, 621). "R. Antiquity" 1872 VI, 952; “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1884 No. 38, 302. Letter to Feologu in “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 34. The chronology is included in the Chronicler. Dimitri characterizes his chronicle as follows: “in it, like in the Russian sbitna, there is a mishmash,” and history, and moral teaching, etc. Other writers mentioned are: Theodoret (5); Josephus (3); Ephraim the Syrian (4); Dorotheus of Monemvasia (4); Gregory of Nyssa (3); Isidore Pelusiot (3); Patr. Callistus (3); Kirill Ierus. (3); Clement Alexander., Simeon Metaphrast, Patr. Sophronius, Astedius, (3); Bellarmine (3); Beroz (2); I. Navklir, Karion chronograph, Strikovsky, Egesippus, Epiphanius, etc. All writers are mentioned in sermons and the Chronicle by over 60 names. The “Psalms or Spiritual Songs” of St. Demetrius, “Brief Martyrology” for the month of September, “Chronicle of the beginning of the Slavic people”, “Catalogues of Russian metropolitans”, draft Notata per alphabetum. Full title: “Grateful remembrance of the passion of Christ and prayerful reflection and lamentation at the burial of the God-bearing body.” “The Five-Line Concordances” attributed to him were published in 1889. “Chronicle of Russian. Liter." IV vol. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1860 No. 1. Thus, in the Chronicle there is an analysis of the Hebrew word heavenly shama (III, 410), which compares the interpretation of the tree with “song” (III, 435). IV, 227; ed. K. 1901. The Latin text is: servire Me fecisti in peccatis tuis. There is also a reference to the Vulgate in Vol. III, 47, 140, 181, ed. 1903 In 1698, 1701 and 1705 January 16. (Discussed case XVIII art. 2 vol., 167; I.S.Z. IV, 2015. This label is a type of coin with an image of a nose with a mustache and a beard and with the inscription on the other side “tribute paid” (Golikov. “Acts of Peter V., 2 vols., 215 pp., note). In 1725, they issued a copper quadrangular plate with the inscription: “the duty has been taken from the beard,” and on the sides: “the beard is an extra burden.” Rask. cases of the 18th century 2 vols., 67, 7 pp. The first decree was in 1698. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1904 766 pp. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 35. A similar title of the same schismatic book in “Ch. Imp. General I. and others,” 1863, I book. 2 parts, 56 pages. Conversation 1 of the “Word of Accusation.” “On image and likeness”, 48, 49 l. The Sophia Manuscript in the Bible. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician No. 1283. The saint denounces the schismatic teaching that rejects marriage “in a teaching in memory of St. much Adrian and Natalia" (III, 120). The Sophia Manuscript in the Bible. St. Petersburg Spirit. Academician No. 1283, 353 l. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1874 No. 34, 13th letter. Preface to "Wanted", 3 p. The book “The Rod of Government” was written against the errors of Nikita Pustosvyat and Lazarus. In “Uvet Dukhovny” the petition of the Solovetsky schismatics is refuted. “Uvet” sets out the history of strife and riots organized by schismatics, as well as the councils against them. “Wanted” 1 part 20 chapter. 65, 586, 606. The saint writes to Theologist: “I finished my (book) with the help of God. They rewrite it in detail, but not quickly, they are inexperienced and lazy. The tea will be finished for the Resurrection of the Lord” (Letter to Theologist, 11). “Description. glory handwritten Moscow syn. Bible." Gorsky, 610. Letter 2. “Rose”, 2 parts 113–134 l. “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1873 No. 1. Letter to Theologist 3, written after August 11, 1709, when Dimitri’s cell attendant, Hierodeacon Parmen, whose death is mentioned here, died. Another letter to Theologus (31) speaks of “the history of the Gospel and the parables” - they are probably one and the same thing. “The schismatics also irritated me and excited me to write about the history of the Gospel and parables; I wrote,” he writes to Moscow (letter 27). The name Jesus was the subject of the saint’s studies long before the composition of the “Search” (see his sermon on the circumcision of the Lord, Part III, pp. 1–14, and the lesson for week 7 in Part II). “Wanted”, 36, 27, 30, 20, III hours. “Wanted”, Part II 62, 80, 134, 88, 202, 179. In “The Search” there is a small extract from the 3rd message of M. Ignatius about the death of Nikita Pustosvyat (II parts 39 and 40). “Wanted”, Part II, Chapter 30. 139. Schism. Cases of the XVIII century, II volume 263. Schism. Cases of the XVIII century, II volume 259. “Wanted”, Part I, Art. 1 5l. 3 message of Ignatius of Tobolsk. “Good. sl. Patr. Joachim." Ancient Ross. Bible XV part., 269. Rose. I part. I chapter. 20, 25–26 l. In the Nizhny Novgorod forests there were up to 94 hermitages (Shchapov, “Russian rask. old-fashioned,” 268). “The denunciation of falsehood is divisive.” 1745 m. III part 1–6 l. Novg. Soph. Rukop. No. 1283, 383 l. The compiler of the Sling says that the author of “The Search” is not guilty of exaggerating the facts and making them doubtful; those who incorrectly conveyed them to him are to blame (“Answer to the question.” 207, 343 l.) "Wanted" 10, 11 l. 5th chapter, and 21st chapter, 38 l. Askochensky. Kyiv with its scientists. I v. 225. Written by Grigory Yakovlev, a follower of the Feodosian school. (cat. Curious, 68). Op. IV, 27 pp. ed. K. 1901 “Acts. Petra V." ed. 2, XI v. 493. Peter’s wish was fulfilled by F. Prokopovich. In the 17th conversation of St. Macarius, the ascetics are divided into 3 categories: 1) some have all their concern only for themselves - hermits and hermits; 2) others try for others to correct their souls - these are saints, teachers and preachers; and 3) third, finally, those who give their body to vexation and suffering: they are above all. This was in 1689. In Diaria, St. Demetrius wrote: “March 29th day, on St. the great heel of the saving passion, my mother... repose at the ninth hour of the day, exactly at the hour when our Savior, who suffered on the cross for our salvation, betrayed His Spirit to God the Father... Therefore, for her good salvation I have a sign.” These writers are: St. Athanasius the Great, St. Eusebius of Samosata, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Climacus, Ambrose, bl. Theodoret, Jerome, Damascene, Pope Leontius, Isidore Pelusiot (I 236). “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1888 No. 24, 384. Shlyapkin, prof. 455. Archbishop also wrote about Rostov later (XVIII century). Samuel: The climate here is unhealthy, damp, the place is rotten and swampy. Lake water should not be drunk, especially for new visitors. Residents get rid of all their diseases with onions and garlic, do not require medicine and cannot stand the doctor. (“Yar. Ep. Ved.” 1904, 766 pp.). He calls the theologian “beloved” - charissimus instead of carissimus and, thus, combines the Latin word (carus - “amiable”) with the Greek (ꭚᾴрк - pleasant). “Yar. Ep. Ved." 1884 No. 38. Karashev. Description church in the village Ugodichakh. Ya. 1878 10 pp. Archive Sin. case 1752 Oct 20 No. 28, handwritten “life”, compiled by A. Matsievich. In the Sophia manuscript. No. 1283 (St. Petersburg. Dukh. Ak.) the death of Demetrius is reported (350 l.): “he died... at the first hour of the day, and died while walking, having fallen ill in the evening.” This miter is now in the Spaso-Yaroslavsky Rostov Monastery.