Maxim Greek and Savonarola

In “Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the USSR Academy of Sciences” (TODRL) for 1968, vol. XXIII, p. 217–226, my article concerning the literary influence of Savonarola on Maximus the Greek is placed under the same title. This article examines the question of the ideological influence of the Florentine preacher on Maximus the Greek. – A.I. At first glance, it may seem strange to compare the two named medieval figures, who belonged to different faiths and nationalities and labored in different countries and among different peoples. One of them, Maxim the Greek, as his nickname shows, was a Greek by origin, a monk of the Athonite Orthodox monastery, who arrived in Russia in 1518 at the call of the Moscow government, where he remained until the end of his life (1556). Here he, engaged in translation and literary activities, had with his creations, especially journalistic ones, an extremely great influence on the development of many aspects of Russian culture and socio-political thought of ancient Rus'. Another, Hieronymus Savonarola, an Italian by nationality, was a Catholic monk who headed the monastery of St. Mark in Florence as a prior and in this rank became famous as a famous preacher and reformer who sought to transform the Christian Church “from bottom to top” and establish a “patriarchal system” in Florence on the basis of “original equality between people.” However, a careful reading of the biographies of both figures reveals striking similarities in their character and fate, in their views and especially in the direction of their activities. Both of them were distinguished by a strict way of life, courage in exposing contemporary social vices, merciless criticism of abnormalities and abuses in religious, moral and socio-political life, sincerity and directness in words and actions, and for all this both were subjected to severe persecution: Maxim the Greek was kept in prison for 26 years, under the supervision of spies assigned to him, and Savonarola after slanderous legal accusations, imprisonment and torture, he was burned alive at the stake with two of his like-minded people. Such similarities in character, fate, and especially in the activities of Maxim the Greek and Savonarola were not a coincidence. It was determined by several reasons and, above all, by the similar, in many respects, environment in which they had to move. In Italy, where Savonarola worked, in the 15th century a major turning point took place in the socio-economic and political life of the country. In the depths of feudalism, a new system arose - the capitalist one; the feudal classes were replaced by new classes - the bourgeoisie and the predecessors of the future proletariat. There was a fierce struggle between these classes, especially in Italian cities. In political life, a process of centralization of power was observed. In Italian cities, the dictatorship of the ruling elite took on the character of tyranny. The aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie, through trade, usury and exploitation of the “small people,” amassed huge fortunes and wallowed in luxury. Along with luxury, all sorts of vices developed, especially among the aristocracy and the highest Catholic clergy. The surrounding situation could not but affect Savonarola’s worldview and activities. The deep decline of morals and the extreme corruption of the Catholic Church, flagrant abuses and injustices in social life and political tyranny awakened in Savonarola the spirit of a passionate denouncer and a stern reformer. At the same time, all the main contradictions of the era were reflected in his views and character. On the one hand, this is a child of the multifaceted Renaissance period, and on the other, a true son of the Middle Ages. This aspect of Savonarola’s life and work has always been a mystery to his biographers. Therefore, there are sharp differences in the assessment of this figure in science. Some authors consider him a limited religious fanatic who resolutely rejected all the best achievements of ancient culture and the progressive ideas of the contemporary Italian Renaissance, which sought to turn Florence into a medieval monastery, 1 others, on the contrary, see in him a man of high morality and incorruptible honesty, who passionately loved his people, selflessly fought for the religious and moral transformation of the entire society and tried to create in Florence a new system of political structure on the basis of universal equality and freedom. 2 Conflicting and in many cases one-sided opinions about the Florentine preacher are explained, on the one hand, by the fact that historians who wrote about Savonarola considered his activities out of connection with the era in which he lived, and on the other hand, by insufficient familiarity with his literary heritage. A similar picture in many respects of serious changes in the socio-economic and political structure of society was observed in Muscovite Russia in the first half of the 16th century, during the stay of Maxim the Greek there. In the depths of Russian feudalism, a commodity-money economy arose and developed. The consequence of this was the uncontrollable desire of landowners and city leaders to accumulate monetary wealth, which was accompanied by increased exploitation of workers and widespread usury. In the political sphere, there was an expansion and strengthening of the centralization of the Russian state. An essential feature of the advanced socio-political thought of that time was the struggle against social and political disorders and especially against the negative aspects of church and monastic life. Maxim the Greek, like Savonarola, could not remain an indifferent spectator of the negative phenomena of Russian reality and acted as a fiery denouncer of the vices of secular and church society, the injustices of the authorities, the lack of rights of the common people and other flagrant evils of Russian life. It should be noted, however, that Maxim the Greek in many respects continued to remain in the positions of medieval scholasticism. This explains the duality and inconsistency that are observed in his literary works. Hence, the judgments of historians and literary scholars about him, as well as about Savonarola, are very contradictory. Some of his biographers speak enthusiastically about him as a representative of Russian progressive thought of the 16th century, as an outstanding figure of the humanistic movement and even as the first enlightener of ancient Rus', 3 others speak about him rather reservedly, noting in a number of cases the conservative nature of his views and activities, 4 and, finally, others completely deny the humanistic principles in the views of Maxim the Greek and classify him among the representatives of the reactionary trends in Russian social thought of the 16th century. 5 The second and most important reason for the close similarity in the views, mood and nature of the activities of Maxim the Greek and Savonarola lies in the direct influence of Savonarola on Maxim the Greek. It is known that Maxim the Greek spent the first six years of his stay in Italy (1492–1498) in Florence, with short breaks. Here, under the worldly name of Michael Trivolis, he took a course in various sciences at the “Plato Academy” under the guidance of outstanding representatives of the Italian Renaissance of the late 15th century: John Lascaris, Angelo Poliziano, Dmitry Chalkondil, Marsilio Ficino and others. Simultaneously with his studies at the Platonov Academy, young Michael Trivolis listened to sermons and witnessed the reform activities, and, possibly, the martyrdom of Hieronymus Savonarola. Judging by numerous testimonies of contemporaries, Savonarola’s sermons made a stunning impression on his listeners. They fascinated men and women, artists and poets, philosophers and ordinary people alike. If we add to this that those around him were irresistibly influenced by the very personality of the Florentine preacher, who was distinguished by high morality, unselfishness, and selfless love for the people, then it will not be surprising that many outstanding representatives of science and art of that time, including the great Michelangelo Buonarotti, who re-read Savonarola’s sermons into old age, became his admirers. 6 It is quite clear that the young, impressionable Greek Mikhail Trivolis could not help but fall under the influence of Savonarola. We learn about the deep and indelible impression that the sermons, personality and fate of Savonarola made on the young Maxim the Greek from the extensive legend about Savonarola by Maxim the Greek himself, which we read in his essay “The Tale is Terrible and Memorable and about the Complete Monastic Residence.” 7 Here Maximus directly declares that he is ready to count Savonarola and his two comrades after martyrdom “with joy” among the “ancient defenders of piety, even if there was no Latin faith.” This is what Maxim the Greek said many years after the Florentine tragedy. There is no doubt that under the influence of Savonarola, that internal change occurred in Mikhail Trivolis, which he later recalled in Moscow in his writings, already speaking under the name of Maxim the Greek. The courageous struggle of the Florentine preacher against the iniquities of Rome and in defense of the freedom of Florentine citizens, his fearlessness at trial and before being burned at the stake in 1498 finally strengthened the young Greek in his determination to devote himself to the same transformative activities for the benefit of his neighbor, for which Savonarola suffered. Apparently, Michael Trivolis intended to continue the high feat of his teacher as a preacher in the same Dominican monastery of St. Mark in Florence, headed by Savonarola in the last years of his life. To this end, on June 14, 1502, he took monastic vows, retaining his secular name, and remained in the monastery until the spring of 1504. 8 It can be assumed that his removal from the monastery was caused mainly by the extremely hostile atmosphere towards the memory of Savonarola that had persisted here since the execution of the heroic prior. 9 In 1505, Michael Trivolis retired from Italy to Athos, where he soon became a monk in the Greek Vatopedi monastery with the name Maxim. During his ten-year stay on Athos, Maxim the Greek could not show his zeal as a preacher-accuser or writer-publicist there, since Athos did not provide the appropriate conditions for such activity. The situation changed when Maxim arrived in Russia in 1518 at the call of the Moscow government. Here he encountered many blatant disorders in the church-religious, moral-everyday and socio-political life of the then Russian society and, “burning with jealousy,” following the example of his Florentine teacher, came out with sharp denunciations of social vices and shortcomings. His accusatory voice, without stopping, mercilessly and persistently resounded for 35 years, forcing all layers of society to listen to him, from the prince to the commoner. Thus, the life and work of Maxim the Greek in Russia bore traces of the undoubted influence of Savonarola. This influence was noted by some researchers who wrote about Maxim the Greek. 10 However, the question of what exactly Savonarola’s influence on Maxim the Greek was and how it affected the latter’s literary activity has not yet received a full and thorough disclosure. Most researchers limited themselves to either general comments on this issue or consideration of one particular detail, which naturally led to one-sided judgments. 11 Compared to others, they dwell in more detail on the question of Savonarola’s influence on Maxim the Greek in their major works V. S. Ikonnikov 12 and I. Denisov. 13 However, the named scientists had very little material at their disposal about the Italian period of the life of Maximus the Greek, and they did not try to involve and compare the literary works of both figures to clarify the issue. Therefore, the judgments of these researchers also suffer from one-sidedness and lack of objectivity. Thus, the question of Savonarola’s influence on Maxim the Greek has not yet been fully identified and its new formulation can be considered completely justified. I. Religious and moral influence of Savonarola on Maxim the Greek 1. A complete and specific clarification of the directions and to what extent Savonarola’s influence affected the worldview and literary activity of Maxim the Greek is extremely important for restoring the true appearance of the latter and his place in the socio-political and cultural life of Russia in the 16th century. Undoubtedly, the first and most powerful impression on the young Michael Trivolis should have been made by that religious exaltation or, in the words of Savonarola himself, that “jealousy for Bose” with which he was obsessed and which infected everyone around him. But this religious “zeal” of the Florentine preacher did not have the character of the frenzied fanaticism of an ascetic monk, but was the source of that inner strength that pushed Savonarola to fight against flagrant abuses in the Church, against the moral vices of his contemporary society, against the tyranny and lawlessness of secular princes, against the extortion and theft of the rich, to protect the poor and oppressed. Recalling Savonarola’s transformative activity, Maxim the Greek later wrote: “This man, who was rich in the wisdom of the God-inspired scriptures... was kindled by the zeal of God, advising good and godly advice, that is, with a teaching word, hedgehog from the Divine Scriptures, to help this city and destroy from it to the end of this wickedness.” 14 It is known that initially Savonarola intended to retire to a monastery cell and become a silent man and a hermit, so as not to see the great depravity of the age, the strengthening of vices and the trampling of all truth and virtue, as he wrote about this in a letter to his father on April 25, 1475 and in his short work “On Contempt for the World.” “There is no one left,” he says there, “you cannot find a single person who would love goodness: we need to learn from children and from ordinary women, for only they have at least a shadow of innocence left. The good are oppressed, and the Italian people are like the Egyptians, who kept the people of God enslaved.” 15 However, contrary to the opinion of V.S. Ikonnikov, 16 the hermit’s life did not correspond to Savonarola’s mental makeup. The bleak picture of the surrounding situation awakened in his chest the fire of indignation, which required an outlet, aroused in him that “jealousy for Bose” that lay at the basis of his activities. “Jealousy is nothing else,” he said in one sermon, “as deep love in the heart of a just man, who does not remain inactive, but constantly strives to eliminate everything that he finds inconsistent with the glory of his beloved Lord.” 17 “I would like,” he exclaimed another time, “to remain calm and not speak, but I cannot, for the word of God is in my heart like fire, which will burn the marrow of my bones if I do not give it a way out.” 18 2. We observe the same jealousy in the activities of Maxim the Greek during the Moscow period. He did not take this jealousy out of the closed cell of the Athonite monastery, remote from the world, where for 10 years he was engaged mostly in in-depth study of ancient Greek church writers. The Florentine preacher inspired religious zeal in the young Michael Trivolis with his fiery denunciations and reform activities. When, after Athos, Maxim arrived in Moscow and was faced with many shortcomings in Russian life, he could not remain silent and, following the example of his Florentine mentor, made sharp denunciations. He himself speaks about this and, moreover, in expressions extremely similar to the above statements of Savonarola. In the “Discourse on the Correction of Russian Books...” 19 Maxim declares that he writes and speaks not out of hypocrisy, not for the sake of flattery and not in search of glory, “but because he burned with Divine jealousy.” In the “Instruction to a Monk on the Correction of Monastic Life and the Power of the Great Schema,” Maxim, citing the words of the prophet David (Ps. 119, 46, 139 and 158), writes that the prophet teaches us “to be zealous for God, and to speak a word without reproach about the truth.” And then he continues about himself: “For no one will scorn me, even if he himself, obeying this Divine teaching, I write more boldly and, out of the zeal of God, I rise up to expose some of my brethren who are committing outrages.” 20 In the essay “A more expansive discourse expounding with pity the disorganization and disorder of the kings and authorities of the last life,” an allegorical woman crying in the desert says to Maxim the Greek: “I see you with zeal for God and unfeigned love, even for the kind of vitriol of people who want to lead you from me, even about me, so that all sorts of benefits will come to you.” by your diligent discipline." 21 Thus, the basis of the accusatory journalistic activity of Maxim the Greek was the religious jealousy that Savonarola instilled in him. II. Savonarola and Maximus the Greek's denunciations of disorder in church life 1. Savonarola's religious zeal was aimed primarily at exposing the disorders of the Roman Church, especially the vices of its highest prelates, against the hypocritical religiosity of that time, and in general at the renewal of all church life. While still a young man, Savonarola writes the poem “On the Destruction of the Church,” in which he expresses his innermost thoughts. In it, he addresses the Church, which he represents in the form of a weeping lonely maiden, with the question: “Where are your ancient teachers, where are the ancient saints? Where is pure teaching, mercy, original purity? In response, the maiden, taking him by the hand, leads him into the cave and says to him: “When I saw that pride and lust for power had penetrated Rome and desecrated everything there, I left and locked myself in this place, where I spend my life crying.” 22 In a letter to Fra Domenic da Pescia in 1491, Savonarola states: “I preach the renewal of the Church.” 23 Subsequently, this topic becomes one of the main ones in his accusatory speeches. He considers the Roman prelates to be the culprits of church disorder. “The prelates,” he says, “filled the Church with the fire of greed, the fire of ambition, the fire of envy and lust for power.” Savonarola goes on to describe the luxurious setting of church services and the expensive vestments of the prelates. “The first prelates (in the ancient Church),” he notes, “were, one might say, prelates compared to those of today. Yes, of course, the first prelates were prelatish, for they were modest and poor, they did not have rich episcopal sees, they did not have profitable monasteries, like ours today. They did not have so many golden mitres, nor so many vessels. Even the few they had, they sold to help the poor; Our prelates, in order to make vessels, take away from the poor even that without which they cannot live. But do you know what I want to tell you? In the original Church the vessels were wooden, but the prelates were gold. Now the Church has vessels made of gold, but prelates made of wood.” 24 In a sermon delivered in the cathedral of Florence in 1491, Savonarola complains that the choice of a ecclesiastical career is made for profit, in order to enjoy church income and privileges. “Now there is no grace,” he says, “there is no gift of the Holy Spirit that cannot be bought or sold.” 25 With particular force he attacked the vices of Rome. “Rome is the second Babylon,” Savonarola said in one of his sermons, “the center and breeding ground of all vices and abominations, full of arrogance, debauchery and greed; all love is lost there, only the devil triumphs there. Rome is more godless than all other cities and countries, even more godless than the Turks and pagans.” 26 The main demand that Savonarola put forward was to deprive the Church of all its wealth, to return it to the state of poverty and simplicity of the first centuries of Christianity. “It would be better for the Church,” he says, “to renounce all wealth, for then unity with God would be more complete. That is why I tell my monks: hold fast to your poverty, because as soon as wealth enters your house, death also enters with it.” 27 It is quite understandable that Savonarola at the same time sharply opposed the wealth and luxury of the prelates, and against the extreme licentiousness of the clergy, which was associated with wealth. “You have been to Rome and know the life of these priests,” he exclaims in one of his sermons. “Tell me how they seem to you: are they people who care about the Church, or are they worldly rulers? They have courtiers, stables, horses, dogs, their houses are full of carpets, silks, fragrances, slaves. Do you think that this is the Church of God?.. They do everything for money, their bells ring for the sake of insatiable greed: they only demand money, candles and bread. They sing vespers and mass in the choirs, because this brings in income. They sell benefices, they sell sacraments, they sell marriage masses, they sell everything.” 28 Savonarola's sermons denouncing the vices of Rome and the higher Catholic clergy quickly spread not only in Italy, but throughout Europe. Undoubtedly, these sermons played a significant role in preparing the Reformation in the West. Therefore, the statements of some Western scientists who consider Savonarola to be Luther’s predecessor are not far from the truth. 2. Young Michael Trivolis listened to and read Savonarola's sermons against the vices of the Catholic clergy, and they remained in his memory for a long time. This opinion is supported by the fact that in his tale of Savonarola, Maximus the Greek not only recalls the impression made by the Florentine preacher’s denunciations, but also cites brief excerpts from them. Thus, he writes: “Thirsting for the correction of many, for this reason neither those who are in the authorities of the church are, but do not live like apostles and do not care about the flock of the Savior Christ, as if falsely, praising them below, but without fear denouncing their sins and often saying: if we lived worthy of the Gospel of the Savior Christ, all the tongues of other faiths would turn to The Lord, seeing that our life is equal to the angels, and it would be great for us to have this salvation and the enjoyment of eternal blessings, but now we live contrary to the Gospel commandments, and we correct ourselves below, we strive to lead others to piety, lest we hear otherwise from the righteous Judge except this: woe to you, scribes and hypocrites, for you are closing the Kingdom of Heaven before people, do not enter in yourselves, and those who want to enter, forbid them. Saying this without hesitation, and even with the cruelest words of these words, despising their astonished pope and the cardinal who is about him and the rest of them, he gave great hatred and enmity to those who hated his sacred teachings from the beginning, because he was a heretic and a blasphemer and a flatterer to the narcis, as if he had opened his mouth against their sacred pope and all Churches of Rome." 29 Such a message can only belong to the direct listener of Savonarola's sermons. If we now turn to the works of Maximus the Greek, we will find in some of them a clear reflection of the influence of Savonarola’s accusatory speeches against the vices of the church clergy. Of course, the denunciations of Maxim the Greek are of a slightly different nature, since they were caused by a different situation. They do not put forward a demand for renewal of the entire Church, but only castigate the vices of the church clergy and, above all, the higher clergy and monasticism. Here, by the way, we note one curious phenomenon: neither Savonarola nor Maxim the Greek in their denunciations almost touches on the moral state of the lower clergy, but concentrates all their indignation on the lawlessness and licentiousness of the higher hierarchs. Apparently, both preachers took into account that the lower clergy were people, mostly poor, oppressed by poverty. Maxim the Greek is primarily devoted to exposing the vices of bishops in several translated works from the works of ancient Eastern church writers. Such are, for example, the word “St. John Chrysostom about negligent bishops from the prologue on the 5th day of July” 30 and his second word “On negligent bishops.” 31 In the original works of Maximus the Greek, a gloomy picture of the decline in morals of the higher clergy is painted in expressions very similar to the denunciations of Savonarola. In the second “Word on Maomef,” indicating the signs of the imminent end of the world, Maxim considers one of these signs to be the absence of a teaching word. 32 The main vices that were observed among the highest Russian clergy were the same as among the Catholic prelates; this is a passion for enrichment and a cheerful, luxurious life, ostentatious, external piety and complete disregard for the needs of the lower classes. Speaking against these vices, Maxim the Greek sometimes directed his denunciations against certain individuals, hiding the names under a general appeal to the soul. Here is how he writes about one hierarch: “But you, the repentant one, mercilessly drink the blood of the poor, with usury and every unrighteous deed, and from there abundantly prepare for yourself all that you please, whenever and however you want, in cities you ride on noble horses with many, for those who follow, and for those in the future. with cries and scourges breaking, routing or troubling peoples. Is it pleasing to create mischief with your long prayers and this black hair-haired image of Christ, who loves mercy more than sacrifice, and condemns every beggar-hater?” Such, Maxim notes, “like some kind of bloodsucking beast... he strives to piss off the brains of dry bones, just like the race of dogs and corvids” and “with both hands, mercilessly depleting the property of the poor in all kinds of pleasures of his heart. We ourselves are always having fun in the light, but we are negligent about the beggars who perish in poverty and hunger and filth, we ourselves warm ourselves with deliberate sables (clothes) and eat lightly and sweetly all day long, with many slaves and servants coming, but the Divine law commands us to feed widows and orphans and the poor, as if in volitional opposition.” 33 Like the Western prelates denounced by Savonarola, Russian bishops furnished their homes with extraordinary luxury and decorated themselves with “valuable silk vestments and gold and silver.” 34 Like the Catholic prelates, the Russian archpastors, in the words of Maxim the Greek, “having acquired all kinds of acquisitions,” began to live “in joy and glory and all peace,” knew only feasts and amusements, but did not even want to think about the Church and the truth, about the instruction of their flock. 35 Maxim the Greek especially vividly and fully reveals the negative aspects in the behavior and life of the highest Russian clergy of the 16th century in his famous “Lay” on the fire in Tver on July 22, 1537, which destroyed the cathedral and all the churches of the city. 36 Having noted at the beginning of the “Tale” that the fire serves as God’s punishment for the numerous vices and crimes of the clergy, Maxim further lists these crimes and vices. Representatives of the clergy, he points out, decorate churches with gold and silver, but the funds for decorations were obtained “from unrighteous and godless profits, covetousness and theft of other people’s estates”; they perform magnificent church services with “magnificent singing, coupled with bright noisy bells and fragrant myrrhs” and at the same time “having been conquered by the love of gold, having hated every judgmental law, bribes for the sake of justifying everyone who offends”; they decorate the holy book (the Bible) “with silver and gold, but they do not accept the power of the commandments (of God) written in it,” they do not fulfill them and do what is contrary to them; they are considered mentors and teachers and must set an example of “chaste living”, but in reality they are teachers of “all disorder and stumbling temptation”; they try to surpass each other with “sweet food and honor and temporary glory, and various decorations and a multitude of servants” and to achieve by all means greater honor and glory and, finally, instead of feeding “the blind, the lame, the poor and the poor,” the representatives of the clergy feast with the rich, to whom they give the estates of the poor, and the latter, standing at the gate and “bitterly weeping from poverty, having previously robbed with bitter laibs (curses), they drive away by throwing a piece of rotten bread.” There is no doubt that with his accusatory writings against the clergy, Maxim the Greek, following the example of Savonarola, sought to prepare Russian society for the awareness of the need for reforms in church life. III. Non-acquisitive views of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek 1. Savonarola’s activities in transforming the Dominican monasteries of Tuscany Savonarola began the work of renovating the Church with the transformation of the Dominican monasteries of the Tuscan congregation he headed, and above all the monastery of St. Mark in Florence, of which he was elected prior by the monks of the monastery in July 1491. 37 Savonarola dreamed of organizing his monastery in such a way that it would serve as a model of real monastic life and an example for all people. 38 Since he considered wealth to be the main reason for the decay of the Church and the corruption of the spiritual authorities and monasticism, his first measure to reform the monastery was to restore the vow of poverty in it in all its severity. As is known, the founder of the order, Dominic, in the most severe terms, threatened with his curse anyone who would dare to seduce the monks of his order in their vow of non-covetousness. 39 However, this vow was subsequently forgotten, and at the disposal of the monastery of St. Mark accumulated great wealth. Savonarola sold all the property and valuables of the monastery, and distributed the proceeds to the poor. According to his views, the appearance of the monastery should be in harmony with the inner, spiritual simplicity. Therefore, he tried to give the monastery the most modest appearance. He even forbade hanging an iron lock on the gate, considering it a luxury, dressed the monks in poor clothes, and removed all kinds of decorations from their cells, fearing that they could have a harmful effect. A statute was introduced in the monastery, according to which the monks were forbidden to acquire any personal property; they all had to earn their living by their own labor. “We are returning to simplicity and poverty, these ancient rules of our order,” Savonarola wrote in his letters. 40 In one short address to Princess Magdalena della Mirandola, who in 1494 intended to enter monasticism, Savonarola gives her advice on how to prepare herself for the monastic rank. Here, by the way, he writes that the richer the princess lived in the world, the poorer she should live in the monastery; she should be content there with an old, mended dress, have with her a cheap prayer book without any decorations; her cell must be so poor that it can remain open without causing fear of being robbed. 41 In his instructions, he exhorts the monks to love poverty, to be faithful to the vows of chastity, to avoid all kinds of amusements, to be humble not only in relation to superiors, but also to equals and inferiors. Savonarola himself was the first and best executor of the orders he introduced. His clothes were the coarsest, the bed the hardest, the cell the poorest. He spent all his free time from preaching in book studies. A detailed description of Savonarola's activities in the monastery of St. Mark and monastic life under him are given by Regrens. 42 Savonarola's enthusiasm caused a great influx into the monastery of St. Brand of new monks. People from different walks of life sought tonsure there. At the same time, this enthusiasm infected other monasteries in Tuscany, which began to imitate the monastery of St. Mark, introducing the same rules of voluntary poverty and complete non-covetousness. 2. Non-covetous views of Maxim the Greek It can be considered undeniable that Maxim the Greek had in mind mainly the monasteries transformed by the efforts of Savonarola, as exemplary in non-covetousness, in his writings written in Russia: 1) “A terrible and memorable story about perfect monastic residence” 43 and 2) “Epistle on the Catholic Dominican and Franciscan monastic orders.” 44 In these narratives, especially in the first, details of the internal monastic life are described that could only be known to an eyewitness. 45 At the same time, there is no doubt that even then, during his stay in the monastery of St. Mark and under the influence of Savonarola, Maxim the Greek developed the same non-covetous ideas about the structure of monasteries and monastic life, which were reflected in all his subsequent non-covetous literary activities. We discussed this issue in detail in a special article “On the issue of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek.” 46 Here we will limit ourselves to brief references to the works of Maxim, in which he outlined his views on monasticism and monastic estates. A clear idea of ​​the non-acquisitive views of Maximus, formed under the influence of Savonarola and the “mendicant” orders, is given by the above two works: “The Terrible and Memorable Tale of the Perfect Monastic Residence” and “The Epistle on the Catholic Dominican and Franciscan Monastic Orders.” The first work is one of the earliest, written by Maxim the Greek before 1525, and the second belongs to the Tver period, to the time after 1531, since, according to all data, it was addressed to the Tver Bishop Akakiy. Despite the significant distance from each other in terms of the time of writing, both works are very similar in content. They praise the non-covetous lifestyle of Catholic monks. The most important of the works written by Maxim the Greek to denounce the acquisition of Russian monasteries are: “The word is spiritually beneficial to those who listen to it. The mind speaks to its soul, and in it also to covetousness”; 47 “The Word of Repentance is greatly beneficial to those who listen to it with faith and unfeigned love and read it with a sober mind” 48 and “The Contest of the Known Monastic Residence. The faces of those who are covetous: Philoctimon and Actimon, that is, covetous and non-covetous.” 49 All of these works share the same views on monastic life, which Maximus acquired in his youth in Italy under the influence of the teachings of Savonarola and his reforms. But Russian reality, with its acute social conflicts - the wealth of monasteries and the plight of peasants, especially in monastic estates - had a huge direct influence on Maxim the Greek and contributed to his transformation from a passive theorist into an active fighter, a fiery denouncer of the vices of monasticism. Maxim the Greek showed here the jealousy that burned his teacher Savonarola. In order to more clearly imagine the features of the non-acquisitive views of Maxim the Greek, let us note the main features of his sermon. The cornerstone of the non-acquisitive ideology is the prohibition of monks from having any personal property. In all the works of Maxim the Greek, a red thread runs through the demand for complete personal non-acquisitiveness of the monks. In this demand, he, like Savonarola, proceeded from the Gospel commandment of poverty: “Distribute all your possessions to the poor.” 50 Since the gospel call is addressed to the followers of Christ in general, it must be assumed that Maxim the Greek considered acquisitions a vice, unacceptable not only for monks, but also for lay people. He viewed wealth as the main evil that underlies all human disorder and crimes. “Fiercely, fiercely indeed,” he says, “the desire for gold and all evils is guilty, according to the Apostle.” A few lines below he adds: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” 51 The second requirement underlying the non-acquisitive teaching of Maximus the Greek is the obligation for each monk to obtain food and everything necessary for life through his own labor. This requirement, like the first, Maxim often repeats in his writings devoted to describing the life of some Catholic and Athos monasteries. Having cited examples from the life of these monasteries, Maxim the Greek, in his accusatory words and conversations, addresses Russian monks and every reader of his works with a strict call not to use the work of others, but to live by his own. “For, say, bear your bread all the days of your life in the sweat of your brow, acquire it under the hands of the villagers like a ruler, and like a disciple of Christ, live an apostolic life, earning your own bread with your own hands, having previously distributed all your own to the poor, according to the commandment of the Savior, work even more yourself (soul - A.I.) other than above own others." 52 “By your works,” says Maxim in another place, “you are commanded to nourish the wretched, and not to drink the blood of others with interest and to serve others, and not to rule over others.” 53 “Do not liken yourself to the destructive cyfin (drones - A.I.) of other people’s works,” he continues, “always filling your belly. Be jealous of the most righteous deeds of the wise bee; always be satisfied with your righteous ones.” 54 Closely related to the above two principles of non-covetousness is the third requirement, which prohibits monasteries from owning estates or any other profitable property. Criticism of monastic patrimonial land ownership was one of the main points of the teaching of non-possessors. The most formidable denouncer of the acquisition of monasteries and the most persistent opponent of monastic land estates was Maxim the Greek. In his accusatory writings, he points to the ownership of property by monasteries as the main cause of the evil that demoralizes monasticism. Maxim outlined his negative view of the monastery estates with exhaustive argumentation in the famous essay-dialogue “The Controversy about the Known Monastic Residence...”, to which we referred above. These are the three main requirements that underlay the views of Maxim the Greek and other possessors on the issue of the organization of monasticism and monastic property. But there was one more point in the teaching of Maxim the Greek, which distinguished this teaching from among others, giving it an acute social orientation - this is the question of the position of peasants in monastic estates. Maxim the Greek rebelled not only against the monastery estates, but also against the brutal exploitation of the feudal-dependent peasantry in them. In the above-mentioned works: “The Word... The mind speaks to his soul...”, “The quest for a certain monastic residence...” and “The Word of Repentance...” - he paints a stunning picture of the plight of the peasant population subject to monasteries. True, Maxim the Greek was not a strong-willed reformer preparing to make any major changes in public life following the example of the Florentine preacher. But it should be noted that such active reform activity could not be expected from a person who had been imprisoned all his life under strict supervision. Maxim was forced to limit himself to a theoretical struggle against social injustice, which, however, found a lively response among all the advanced strata of Russian society. Thus, the widespread view in literature of Maxim the Greek as an ideologist of reactionary boyarism does not find the slightest support in his works. The true non-acquisitive people of the first half of the 16th century, including Maxim the Greek, pursued deeply humane goals in their struggle against monastic acquisitions and the inhumane exploitation of peasants in monastic estates. They would like to resolve the issue of monastic estates by the monks themselves by voluntarily giving up these estates and distributing them to the poor, that is, to the peasants, which they constantly called for in their writings. 55 Maxim the Greek has works in which he denounces the secular feudal elite. And this is all the more remarkable because Maxim the Greek maintained the closest cultural ties with some representatives of the Moscow boyars (F.I. Karpov, Prince P.I. Shuisky, V.M. Tuchkov-Morozov, Prince A. Kurbsky and others). However, friendship and closeness with the best representatives of the boyars did not obscure from Maxim’s gaze the negative phenomena and facts in the activities of the ruling circles. 56 Maximus dedicated two works to their denunciation: 1) “The Word about God’s unspeakable providence, goodness and love for mankind, in the same way against those who take covetousness” 57 and 2) “The Word expounds in greater detail with pity the disorder and disorder of the kings and authorities of the last life.” 58 In the future, we will dwell in detail on Maxim’s denunciations of secular feudal exploiters in connection with his struggle for the moral transformation of Russian society. So, all the non-acquisitive journalistic activity of Maxim the Greek is permeated with passionate protest against social injustices, deep sympathy for the masses and a decisive condemnation of various forms of feudal dependence and oppression. Maxim the Greek did not draw radical practical conclusions from his denunciations, but their vital effectiveness was extremely great. They found a warm response among those sections of the population they were aimed at protecting, and above all among the enslaved and cruelly exploited peasantry. In the context of the social movement of the first half of the 16th century, the preaching of Maxim the Greek, like other true non-covetous people (Nil of Sorsky, Vassian Patrikeev, Elder Artemy), against enslavement acquired a definitely anti-feudal character. As proof, it is enough to recall the following passages from the works of Maxim the Greek. In his “Message of Comfort to a Certain Princess Grieving over the Death of her Son,” 59 Maxim proposes to distribute all his property to the poor and needy. Elsewhere - in the “Message to an Unknown Nun”, 60 intending to accept the schema before her death, Maxim declares that the hopes of “receiving salvation only with black cloth and skima in the last breath” are in vain, and advises abandoning the unjustly collected estate and releasing enslaved people. IV. The struggle of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek for moral reform A. Speech against extortion and usury 1. In close connection with the struggle for the renewal of the Church, for church and religious reform, Savonarola fought for the reform of morals, for building life on the principles of evangelical simplicity, love and mercy. The idea of ​​a moral transformation of society was the goal of Savonarola’s entire life. Both the religious and political reformation activities of the Florentine preacher were actually subordinate to her. This idea arose and took possession of Savonarola’s entire being under the influence of those cruelties and inhumanity, self-will and all kinds of violence of the rich over the defenseless poor, and at the same time that boundless decline in morality that characterized Italian society of the era of primitive accumulation. As a young man in 1472, Savonarola, in a short poem “On the Destruction of the World,” expressed his view of the gloomy reality surrounding him: “I notice that everything in the world is going topsy-turvy, that all virtue and all good customs are ultimately perishing; I do not see the true light, I do not find anyone who would be ashamed of their vices... Happy is the one who lives by predation, who becomes fat, reveling in the blood of others, who robs widows and their little children, who accelerates the ruin of the poor. That person is noble and graceful, who collects wealth by deceit and violence, who despises heaven with Christ, who only thinks about how to destroy his neighbor: the world is proud of such people.” 61 Two years later, in 1474, in another of his works, “On Contempt for the World” (Del dis pregio del mondo), written before entering the Dominican monastery, he described with even greater expressiveness his moods and feelings about the great depravity of the age. 62 Here Savonarola compares the morals of his time with the morals of Sodom and Gomorrah. Turning to his soul, he tells it: “Flee from the land of Sodom and Gomorrah! Flee from Egypt and from Pharaoh! Flee from this country, where vice is praised and virtue is ridiculed, where a person who studies art and philosophy is called a dreamer, where a person who lives modestly and honestly is called a madman, where a virtuous person and a believer in the greatness of God is treated as a fool, where he who trusts in Christ becomes the subject of mockery, and those who love mankind are mocked by everyone as if they were a woman! Flee from this land, where he is called prudent, who robs the poor, the widow and the orphan; he is considered wise who thinks only about the accumulation of wealth; He is the pious one who robs another with the greatest skill! Nothing is seen anywhere except wickedness, usury, robbery, gross blasphemy, rapacity, sodomy and debauchery; envy and murder, pride and ambition, hypocrisy and lies, wickedness and lawlessness reign everywhere. In this world, vice is virtue, and virtue is vice.” 63 In this short passage, Savonarola gave a comprehensive picture of the vices of the world around him. But he did not run away from this world, but rushed into a selfless fight against its vices. Savonarola considered wealth to be the main evil that underlay all human disorder and crimes. Therefore, as the first requirement for the moral transformation of society, he puts forward patriarchal simplicity, by which he means the inner simplicity of the heart, as well as poverty and non-acquisitiveness. Savonarola deals with this issue in detail in his treatises “On the Simplicity of the Christian Life” 64 and “On the Exercise of Charity.” In his last work he declares: “The true Christian must say, like the ancient philosopher: ‘Omnia mea mecum porta’.” 65 The question of mercy was the main theme of all Savonarola's speeches. In a sermon on February 11, 1498, he said: “The apostles burned with love and Christian charity. All theology, all civil and ecclesiastical laws, all religious rituals - all this is aimed at Christian charity, the whole world was created by the Lord for its manifestation. Therefore, whoever issues a decree that is not in accordance with mercy, which is the completeness of all laws, let him be anathema. If even an angel, all the saints, the Virgin Mary herself said this (which, of course, is impossible) - let him be anathema. If any law, or canon, or council says this, let him be anathema.” 66 Hence the constant and harsh denunciations of the rich, spiritual and temporal rulers for their inhuman oppression of the poor by imposing excessive taxes and especially by usury. Back in 1491, Savonarola, in one of his sermons, decisively denounced the clergy, who, according to him, thirsts only for profit, who were all devoted to performing only external rituals, making them an object of trade, and who completely forgot the interests of internal life. 67 Savonarola came out with even more severe condemnation against usury. In the same 1491, in another sermon, he said: “Thanks to your greed, neither you nor your children live happily. You have found many ingenious ways to get money, many operations that you call legal, but which are in fact completely dishonest. You have introduced corruption into the administration and magistrates... No one can assure you that it is sinful to engage in usury or improper exchange of money, you defend this to the destruction of your souls... There is no shame in anyone to give money at high interest rates, on the contrary, anyone who does otherwise is considered a fool. So, the word of the prophet Isaiah is being fulfilled on you: you have proclaimed and revealed your sin like Sodom.” 68 Extortion and usury were the main subject of Savonarola’s accusatory speeches. This is also noted by Maxim the Greek in his tale about the Florentine preacher, when he writes that the latter with particular zeal tried with his teaching to “exterminate to the end” in Florence the “ungodly sin of godless extortion and inhuman usury.” 2. That contrast between the life of the rich, in all sorts of ways, “intrigues, slander and various impurities” 69 striving to increase their wealth, and the participation of the suppressed and oppressed poor people and slaves, which caused Savonarola’s fiery denunciations, was also inherent in the ancient Russian society of the times of Maximus the Greek. In his views on the situation of the working poor and in his denunciations of exploiters - secular and church - Maxim the Greek undoubtedly proceeded from the ideals of patriarchal equality between people that Savonarola instilled in him through his teaching and reform activities. This explains Maxim the Greek’s special love for the works of St. Gregory the Theologian, from whom he found confirmation of his humanistic ideas. Thus, in the 14th word “On Love for the Poor,” Gregory the Theologian expresses the following wonderful thoughts: “According to the original law, people were all equal and owned with the same right all the benefits of the earth. They were not subject to any authorities, were not limited by law, or were not blocked by state boundaries... Poverty and wealth, slavery and other similar names were unknown. All this appeared in recent times and invaded life along with untruth, like some illnesses. But from the time when the kinship between people was dissolved, their alienation from each other was expressed in various names of titles, and covetousness, calling on the law to the aid of its power, made us forget about the nobility of human nature.” 70 Covetousness and covetousness and usury, inextricably linked with it, in the eyes of Maxim the Greek were the main plagues that corroded ancient Russian society. Following the example of Savonarola, he armed himself primarily against these evils in his writings. This should include, first of all, several translated articles by Maximus the Greek from the works of the ancient Fathers of the Church, in which the mentioned vices were exposed. These are: “Basily the Great’s conversation on the covetous people”; 71 “The Word of the Great Basil” (about the same); 72 excerpts from the “Word of Gregory the Theologian on poverty”; 73 “The Sermon of John Chrysostom “On Usury on July 6th.” 74 From the original works of Maxim the Greek, in which he specifically touches on “ungodly usury and extortion,” we will name the following: “The Word about God’s ineffable providence, goodness and love for mankind, in the same way for those who take covetousness”; 75 “The word is beneficial to those who listen to it. The mind speaks to its soul, and in it also to covetousness”; 76 “Words, like from the face of the Most Pure Mother of God to the covetous and the nasty, filled with all malice, and the canons with all sorts of different songs to please those who are waiting”; 77 “An instructive word.” 78 In a number of his other journalistic works, Maxim the Greek touches on these phenomena in passing. In general, it must be said that no matter what reason he spoke in the form of a word or a message, he almost always dealt with the oppression of the poor, extortion and usury. B. Denunciations of external ritualism and ostentatious religiosity 1. External ritualism, which reached extreme development in medieval society, stemmed not only from a one-sided, purely formal understanding of religion, but also from the desire to atone for one’s crimes against one’s neighbor by observing a religious appearance. That is why external ritualism and religious hypocrisy were observed mainly among the ruling classes and the clergy. The ruler, convicted of violence and oppression, realizing his guilt, in order to atone for it, hurried to a distant monastery; the judge, accused of greed, went to church and bought an expensive candle with the money obtained by the unjust court; the rich man, accused of covetousness, to calm his conscience, separated part of his plundered estate to build a church or to purchase a large bell; the slave owner, accused of hard-heartedness, to atone for his guilt, also brought donations to the church from the estate obtained by the sweat and blood of slaves, etc., etc. 79 All this was most clearly reflected in the sermons of Savonarola and the writings of Maxim the Greek. In a number of his sermons dedicated to the reform of morals, Savonarola constantly emphasized that “the Christian life does not consist in rituals, but in being kind, that is, compassionate and merciful.” Thus, in one sermon in 1491, he said: “It is easy to persuade people to a certain external life: to attend the liturgy, to go to confession. But it is very difficult to lead them to inner life, to predispose them to grace. Unnecessary ritualism should be avoided. This ritual does not amount to anything significant, for it is not the same at different times and in different places. The ancients lived piously even without it. Now, with many church ceremonies, everything began to be treated with disdain and everything was made an instrument of profit, as is proved by the general greed for benefits.” 80 In his sermons during Advent in 1493, he speaks out against the hypocrisy of the prelates. “They speak against pride and self-love,” we read, “but they themselves are immersed in them up to their ears, they preach chastity, and they themselves keep concubines, order them to fast, and they themselves live in luxury.” 81 Savonarola paid special attention to exposing false and hypocritical religiosity in his sermons during Lent in 1496. “Watch,” he says in one place, “such hypocrites in the last three days of Holy Week: they go to churches and try to get indulgences and forgiveness of sins. They rush here and there, kissing St. Peter, to St. Paul, to one, to another saint. Go, go, ring the bells, decorate the altars, churches... God laughs at your deeds and does not listen to your ceremonies.” 82 In De simplicitate vitae Christianae, written in 1495, Savonarola views ceremonies and external rites without internal virtue as flowers without roots. He who limits himself to external rituals, he points out, is praying to the devil. Savonarola always put forward love for one's neighbor as the main virtue. “I have never read in the Gospel,” he said in one sermon, “the requirement to keep gold and silver crosses and all sorts of other precious things in churches. But, on the contrary, the Gospel says: “I was thirsty and you did not give Me something to drink, I was hungry and you did not give Me anything to eat,” etc.” 83 2. Maxim the Greek was guided by the same impulses of love for one’s neighbor in his denunciations of external ritualism and hypocritical religiosity, which were extremely widespread in Rus'. He devoted several special essays to this issue. These are: “The message to those who live in sin is constant, and the canons with all sorts of prayers of the saints pray to God all their days, hoping to receive salvation”; 84 “Words, like from the face of the Most Pure Mother of God, both covetous and nasty, filled with all sorts of malice, and the canons with all sorts of different songs to please those who are waiting”; 85 “Teaching to a monk on the correction of monastic life and what is the power of the great schema”; 86 “Message to certain nuns.” 87 In addition, Maxim the Greek touches on this issue in a number of his other works of a moralizing nature, such as: “The Word of Repentance”; 88 “Message to an unknown nun”; 89 “About internal fasting, not just fasting from food, but also observing and running away from all soul-destroying passions.” 90 Let us cite, as an example, several excerpts from the works of Maxim the Greek, in which external ritualism and religious hypocrisy are exposed. How can those please God, he says in one place, who “believe all the hope of salvation in a single deprivation of meat and fish and oil, during sacred fasts, and yet offend and extort the poor henchmen and drag them into judgment and fight against them in hostility and embitter the difference.” 91 “It is known to us pious people,” Maxim says in another place, “that we are still in sin... even though we say all the prayers of the saints and troparia and kontakia and prayer canons all the days and hours, nothing is corrected at all.” 92 Maxim the Greek’s denunciations of contemporary pharisaism and external ritualism are especially strict and strong in his famous word mentioned above, written on the occasion of the terrible Tver fire. Here Maxim represents the Tver Bishop Akakis begging God to reveal how the Tverites sinned and brought upon themselves God’s wrath. The reason for such terrible anger seemed all the more inexplicable to the victims because they zealously cared about the splendor of churches, the decoration of icons with gold and silver, the observance of religious holidays and other external matters of religion. To this request, God Himself answers: “You are especially angering My womb, offering Me the sound of kind singing and bells, and valuable icon decorations and various worlds of fragrance, even if you bring Me... from unrighteous and abominable profits, covetousness and theft of other people’s property.” “Not only will My soul hate these offerings, but it will also be mixed with the tears of orphans and touched widows and the blood of the poor, but it will also be indignant at you.” And then, as an example, the ruin of Greece is given, which was not saved from disaster by “neither the splendid singing, coupled with the bright noisy bells and fragrant myrrhs,” nor the “all-night singing,” nor the “beauty and heights of the wondrous churches,” nor “even the relics of the apostles and martyrdom,” hiding in these churches, “even though there (in Greece. - A.I.) the wretched people hated and I killed the sir because of the love of gold, injustice and bribery.” 93 B. Negative view of astrology 1. Among the superstitions and misconceptions that existed in medieval society and had a negative impact on morality, beliefs in astrological predictions occupied a significant place. The passion for astrology during the time of Savonarola became especially widespread in Italy. In one of his sermons in 1493, Savonarola says: “There is not a single prelate, not a single dignitary, who does not have a close relationship with an astrologer, who shows him the hour and moment when he should mount a horse or do some business. And they, these important dignitaries, will not take a single step against the will of the astrologers.” 94 In a sermon on January 13, 1495, he declares that astrology, which claims to know the future from the stars, is a false science, because it contradicts the rules of faith and the principles of knowledge. 95 Savonarola developed these thoughts in some detail in his special essay “Against Astrology.” 96 Savonarola's views on astrology stem from his philosophy, which we will discuss below. Here we will only note that already in his early philosophical treatise “Morals” Savonarola insisted on recognizing the freedom of human waves. “If anything distinguishes man from animals,” he says, “it is free self-determination, which is not only a certain trait or character of actions, but the very essence of the will, “est ipsa hominis voluntas.” And then he takes up arms against astrologers who claim that freedom is subject to the stars. 97 Negative views on astrology as a false science were also held by some of the outstanding contemporary Savonarola, figures of the Italian Renaissance, such as Angelo Poliziano, Pico della Mirandola and others, and all of them concerned mainly the side of astrology that sought to connect the movement of the stars with the fate or fortune of people. 2. Maxim the Greek became thoroughly acquainted with Western astrology during his stay in Milan under the guidance of the famous Italian astrologer, physician and philosopher Varese de Rosate (Ambrose Rosada), whom he calls the first astrologer of his time. However, Maxim developed a negative view of astrology, undoubtedly, not in Milan, but under the influence of Savonarola and his admirer Pico della Mirandola. It must be said that theoretically there was a difference between “fortune-telling astrology” and “scientific astrology”. The first claimed to recognize the character and fate of people by the movement of the stars, and the second sought to predict solar and lunar eclipses, periods of drought and rain, and other weather changes. In practice, both astrologies were often mixed. Maxim the Greek, like Savonarola, opposed fortune-telling astrology, since he found that it, making the fate of a person and all his actions dependent on the movement of the stars, did not correspond not only to the doctrine of Divine Providence, but also to common sense and the fact of human free will. The main disseminator of astrological ideas in Rus' during the time of Maxim the Greek was Nikolai Nemchin, a doctor by profession, and an astrology adept by conviction, close to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich. Living in Russia for quite a long time, he spread the astrological teaching not only orally, but also through his writings and messages to various people. Maxim the Greek wrote a number of essays against fortune-telling astrology. These include: “The word against those who strive to predict with stargazing about the future and about autocracy by man”; 98 Message to Fedor Ivanovich Karpov; 99 “The word is that by the Providence of God, and not by the stars and the wheel of happiness, all human things are arranged”; 100 “Message to a certain monk, who was an abbot, about German charm, the verb fortune, and about its wheel”; 101 “Message to a certain prince, an instructive word about the charm of stargazing and comforting to those living in sorrow”; 102 “Tale on Nikolai Nemchin, charmer and astrologer”; 103 three separate “Tales of part 3 songs of Anna the prophetess” 104 and several other articles. In all polemical works directed against astrological errors, the argumentation of Maximus the Greek is the same as that of Savonarola. He notes, first of all, the inconsistency of astrological fortune-telling with the idea of ​​Divine Providence, which “takes care of everything and corrects everything.” Maxim also points out that fortune telling and prediction by the stars contradicts the principle of free will and the laws of reason. “The Hellenes are by these stars,” he writes in one place, “by the sun and the moon, the east and the west, understanding everything that is being built about us; We say to the faithful: as if there are signs from them, rain and lack of rain, students and warmth, wetness and dryness and wind, but nothing like our deeds; We were autocrats (created) by the Creator, and we are the rulers of our own affairs.” 105 In refutation of the stargazers, Maxim the Greek refers, among other things, to the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, calling them “the most honest and truly loving Hellenic philosophers,” 106 and also cites as historical examples the victories of Themistocles and Alexander the Great over the Persians, Constantine over Maxentius, Demetrius Donskoy over Mamai, pointing out that these victories were not won by “stargazers.” fortune-telling,” but “the military art and speed of the mind.” 107 V. Attitude to the Italian Renaissance The question of the relationship of Savonarola and Maximus the Greek to the Italian Renaissance deserves special attention, since it is mainly with this question that many researchers associate the idea of ​​the character and historical significance of both figures. Based on Savonarola's negative and sometimes very harsh and disparaging comments about ancient philosophers and poets, some of his biographers are ready to see in him a narrow-minded fanatic, hostile to the Italian Renaissance and cultural progress in general. Some scientists hold approximately the same opinion about Maximus the Greek, since in his statements about the Hellenic sages he is very close to Savonarola. It seems to us that this kind of judgment is too one-sided. Their main mistake is that they do not take into account the peculiarities of the worldview of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek and all the complexity of their contemporary era. The views and sentiments of both figures were based on a moral principle. Savonarola considered moral philosophy the mother of the sciences. 108 From a moral point of view, he approached the assessment of almost all phenomena, including the extreme passion for the ancient world that was observed in Italy at the end of the 15th century. This hobby had not only positive, but also negative sides. In all large Italian cities, passion for antiquity often led to the oblivion of Christianity and its replacement with paganism, to contempt for established concepts of morality and even denial of the latter. This was evident in Rome and Florence. In the Vatican itself, moral laws and religion were publicly laughed at. Among the clergy, only those who adhered to pagan views were considered educated. Plato was elevated to the same level as Christ. In Florence, corruption flourished under the leadership of Lorenzo de' Medici. The “Carnival songs” he invented, which young people sang on the streets, were completely indecent in their content. In schools and sermons, they tried to replace Christian names with ancient pagan ones and instill respect for pagan heroes and mythological events. Many vices, even the most shameful ones, were sought to be justified by the examples of the ancient Greeks. 109 It is quite understandable that Savonarola, with his religious mood and high moral sensitivity, could not look with indifference at such a passion for pagan writers, which led to the elimination of Christianity and the desecration of moral principles. But in his speeches against the fascination with ancient writers and philosophers, Savonarola armed himself not against ancient culture in general and the study of it by humanists, but against paganism and immorality. Savonarola's accusation of religious fanaticism is based mainly on the "Burning of Vanities" carried out in 1497 and 1498. What kind of “fuss” this was, we don’t know for sure. Not only later historians, but also Savonarola’s contemporaries report extremely contradictory information about the event. The most detailed description of the “Burning of Vanities” in 1497 is found in the biography of Savonarola compiled by his contemporary Burlamaki. 110 From this description it is clear that the masks, false beards, masquerade clothes, lutes, false hair and, in general, all kinds of things used during the carnival, collected by the children, were placed in a huge bonfire, since their very burning was intended to combat the bad customs associated with the celebration of the carnival. From the biography of Savonarola we know another reliable fact, which indicates that the Florentine preacher not only was not an enemy of ancient writers and a destroyer of monuments of ancient culture, but treated them with love and respect. When, after the death of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Florentine Republic was faced with the question of selling all his property, including the famous library to cover debts, Savonarola spent all the funds of the monastery of St. to purchase this library. Mark and even made a new heavy loan just to save the magnificent collection of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts and precious miniatures, which is still kept in the Laurentiana Library in Florence and is one of the richest in the world, from being dispersed into private hands. 111 Savonarola's attitude towards Renaissance culture is best revealed from his philosophy and views on science and art. Considering the philosophical statements of Savonarola, we come to the conclusion that the philosophical views of the Florentine preacher were extremely contradictory. In his treatise “A Brief Exposition of Philosophy” 112 he describes the world as Aristotle’s followers imagined it in the Middle Ages, that is, as a huge living being in which there are three souls: vegetative, sensitive and rational. But elsewhere, when presenting the theory of knowledge, he displays the bold mind of a progressive thinker, free from medieval scholasticism. “To go to the unknown,” he says, “you need to start with known things, because only this way can you easily find the true. The sensations are closer and more understandable to us. They are collected by our memory and processed by the mind, which draws one general conclusion from many individual facts. This is experience... So, all our knowledge begins with sensation.” 113 In the treatise “Morals” Savonarola, on the one hand, follows the views of the pillar of the Middle Ages - Thomas Aquinas, whose works he studied in his youth, and on the other hand, he approaches the ideas of the Neoplatonic school, which was influenced by the famous Florentine humanist philosopher Marsilio Ficino. Here, by the way, he persistently emphasizes the freedom of human will. 114 In these works, the best qualities of Savonarola’s mind are revealed, which embraced almost all areas of philosophical and religious knowledge of that century. But here the contradictory nature of his views was especially clearly demonstrated. He has many ideas that do not fit well with each other. He mixes the teachings of Plato and Aristotle with the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and no harmonious connection is noticed between them. The same duality and inconsistency is observed in Savonarola’s views on science, which he outlined in his short work “On the Division, Order and Benefit of All Sciences.” 115 In this treatise, he seeks to show that he does not despise any of the areas of knowledge, does not deny the importance of any of the secular sciences (and advises considering each from the point of view of one’s own experience, one’s own mind). However, he places theology at the head of all sciences and considers all other sciences to be the handmaidens of theology. Hence the critical attitude that Savonarola expressed towards philosophical and secular sciences in general. As for Savonarola’s views on art and literature, it must be said that the Florentine monk was far from alien to the understanding of true beauty. “What is beauty? - he asks in one of his sermons. - In colors? No. In the lines? No. Beauty is a form in which all its parts, all its colors are harmoniously combined. Beauty is a quality that arises from the proportionality and harmony of all members and parts of the body. You can’t call a woman beautiful just because she has a beautiful nose or beautiful hands; she is beautiful when everything in her is proportional.” Further, Savonarola complements the concept of beauty from the standpoint of Christian morality. “Where does this beauty come from? - he continues. - Look closely, and you will see that from the soul... Place two women of equal beauty next to each other. One of them is good, moral and pure, the other is a harlot. In the good one, an almost angelic beauty shines, and the other cannot even be compared with a pure and moral woman, although she shines with external forms... This comes from the fact that a beautiful soul comes into contact with the Divine beauty and reflects its heavenly charm in the human body.” 116 From the above excerpt it is clear that in the concept of beauty, Savonarola proceeded from the ideas of Plato and Thomas Aquinas. Like Plato, he sought beauty not in the mother, not in form, but in participation in the Divine, in the manifestation of ideas through the bodily shell. 117 In this regard, Savonarola, in his views on the tasks of art, was in agreement with the best representatives of the Italian Renaissance. Savonarola, being an idealist, did not at all exclude the study of nature. “The beauty of works of art,” he says, “lies in its imitation of nature, and the proof of this is that the highest praise we give to a painting is in the following expressions: “These animals are exactly alive,” “These flowers are completely natural.” 118 So, to seek the ideal and study nature are two of Savonarola’s aesthetic principles. The third is simplicity. “Ask a painter,” he declares, “what is most pleasant: the image in a tense or free, natural position? He will tell you that the best and most pleasant is the freest and most natural.” 119 Equally deep and sublime are Savonarola’s judgments about poetry, to which he devotes in his treatise “On the Division, Order and Benefit of All Sciences” a special section entitled “Apology for Creativity.” Here he begins the introduction with the words: “I never thought of condemning poetry, as many accused me of this, both verbally and in writing, but only of its abuse, as many have noticed.” Savonarola further points out the difference between the essence and form of poetry. “Some would like to limit poetry to just form. They are sadly mistaken; the essence of poetry lies in philosophy, in thought, without which there cannot be a true poet.” Moving on to a discussion about contemporary poets, he sharply condemns those of them who blindly imitate the ancients not only in form, but, referring to the authority of the pagan gods, sing in verse about nasty carnal passions and debauchery. He ends his reasoning with the statement that the only high and true poetry is that which serves to glorify religion and morality. So, Savonarola, in his views on ancient culture and the achievements of the Italian Renaissance in the field of science, art and literature, was far from being a narrow religious fanatic who rejected everything that was best and progressive in these achievements. He rebelled only against extreme enthusiasm for pagan antiquity, which led to the oblivion of Christianity and immorality. Despite all the contradictory opinions that were characteristic of most early humanists, Savonarola joined the most advanced part of the representatives of the Italian Renaissance. One of Savonarola's modern biographers calls him in the third part of his extensive work "the apostle of the Renaissance" (L'apotre de la Renaissance), in the fourth - "the Christian Socrates" (Le Socrate chrétien), and in the fifth - "the martyr of the century." 120 It is quite clear that such a figure could not have had that one-sided, extremely negative influence on Maxim the Greek in terms of his attitude towards the Italian Renaissance, which some researchers talk about. This influence was dual, as Maximus the Greek himself points out when he says that he learned from Savonarola “wisdom and reason, and the art of God-inspired scriptures and external ones.” 121 1. Anatoly (Kuznetsov), bishop. Holy Scripture in Lithuanian in connection with the history of the biblical text // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 7. P. 72–76. 2. Burega V. Eminence Simeon, Bishop of Olomouc-Brno // Orthodoxy. Ru. URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru /orthodoxchurches /40298.htm (access date: 12/22/2017). 3. Bukharev A. M. About the Council Apostolic Epistles // BT. M., 1972. No. 9. P. 149–225. 4. BUKHAREV Alexander Matveevich // Orthodox Encyclopedia. URL: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/153711.html (access date: 12/23/2017). 5. Vetelev A. prot. Emaus Supper // ZhMP. M., 1967. No. 4. P. 76–78; No. 5. P. 53–56; 1968. No. 5. pp. 64–68. 6. Vetelev A., prot. About the Fall of our ancestors and its consequences // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 11. P. 61–75. 7. VETELEV Alexander Andreevich // Orthodox Encyclopedia. URL: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/158274.html (access date: 12/25/2017). 8. V-sky P. The meaning and composition of six psalms // ZhMP. M., 1968. No. 10. P. 62–64. 9 . Gilyashev I., priest. Christian love according to the writings of St. Apostle John the Theologian // ZhMP. M., 1965. No. 5. P. 74–77. 10. Gregory (Lebedev), bishop. Gospel images. (Diary of reflection on the Gospel. The Gospel of the Holy Evangelist Mark) // BT. M., 1976. No. 16. P. 5–32; 1977. No. 17. P. 3–84. 11. Gregory (Lebedev), bishop. Gospel images. (Diary of reflection on the Gospel. The Gospel of the Holy Evangelist Luke) // BT. M., 1980. No. 21. P. 170–180. 12. Dobykin D. G., Tarnakin N. A. Current issues in the works of Orthodox biblical scholars in the USSR. Period from 1953 to 1964 // Christian reading. St. Petersburg, 2017. No. 6. pp. 108–122. 13. Dobykin D. G., Tarnakin N. A. Russian Orthodox biblical studies in the USSR. Period from 1922 to 1953 // Christian reading. St. Petersburg, 2017. No. 4. pp. 225–237. 14. Dobykin D. G., Tarnakin N. A. Textual criticism and biblical history in the works of Orthodox biblical scholars in the USSR. Period from 1953 to 1964 // Christian reading. St. Petersburg, 2017. No. 5. pp. 61–73. 15. Ivanov M. S. Biblical stylistic symmetry // ZhMP. M., 1981. No. 7. P. 69–72. 16. Ivanov M. S. Associate Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich Richko [obituary] // ZhMP. M., 1972. No. 7. P. 30–32. 17. Ivanov M. S. Features of biblical terminology // ZhMP. M., 1975. No. 10. P. 72–78. 18. Ivanov M. S. Psalter - Book of Prayer // ZhMP. M., 1979. No. 9. P. 73–77. 19. Ivanov M. S. The language of the Bible // ZhMP. M., 1975. No. 8. P. 75–80. 20. IVANOV Mikhail Stepanovich // Orthodox Encyclopedia. URL: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/200487.html (access date: 12/25/2017). 21. Ivanov N. Baptism of the Cross // ZhMP. M., 1967. No. 2. P. 71–76. 22. K. L. Main problems of Greek and Slavic biblical textual criticism // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 1. P. 77–79. 23. K. L. Professor I. E. Evseev (on the 50th anniversary of his death) // ZhMP. M., 1971. No. 12. P. 64–67. 24. Kirill (Gundyaev), Archbishop. On the issue of reconstruction of the Cyril and Methodius translation of the Holy Scriptures // ZhMP. M., 1981. No. 3. P. 49–54. 25. Kirill (Gundyaev), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' // St. Petersburg Theological Academy. URL: http://spbda.ru/about/history-of-academy/academy-rectors/kirill-gundyaev-patriarh-moskovskiy-i-vseya-rusi/ (access date: 12/20/2017). 26. Logachev K.I. Bible group at the Leningrad Theological Academy // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 9. P. 78–80. 27. Logachev K.I. Biblical Commission and the study of the history of the Bible among the Slavs (based on unpublished documents of the Commission) // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 7. P. 76–80. 28. Logachev K.I. Documents of the Biblical Commission. Organization, principles of work and activities of the Commission in 1915–1921 // BT. M., 1975. No. 14. P. 166–255. 29. Logachev K.I. Documents of the Biblical Commission. Handwritten material for the scientific publication of the Slavic translation of the Old Testament // BT. M., 1975. No. 13. P. 208–235. 30. Logachev K.I. Publications of Russian translations of the Bible (to mark the centenary of the creation of the first complete translation of the Bible into Russian) // ZhMP. M., 1975. No. 7. P. 72–78; No. 9. pp. 73–80. 31. Logachev K.I. On the issue of improving the Russian translation of the New Testament (lexical and phraseological problems of Russian translation) // BT. M., 1975. No. 14. P. 160–165. 32. Logachev K.I. Critical editions of the texts of the Holy Scriptures as representatives of handwritten material // BT. M., 1975. No. 14. P. 144–153. 33. Logachev K.I. About some experiments in working on the translation of the New Testament // ZhMP. M., 1975. No. 1. P. 76–79. 34. Logachev K.I. Problems of the Slavic translation of the New Testament and modern Western biblical textual criticism // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 11. P. 75–79. 35. Logachev K.I. Works of Professor I.E. Evseev on the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures // ZhMP. M., 1973. No. 2. P. 79–80. 36. Logachev K.I. Russian translation of the New Testament (for the 150th anniversary of publication) // ZhMP. M., 1969. No. 11. P. 61–68. 37. Logachev K.I. Work of Professor I.E. Evseev on the history of the Slavic Bible // ZhMP. M., 1972. No. 8. P. 76–77. 38. Macarius (Tayar), archimandrite. Arabic translations of the Bible in the 19th century // ZhMP. M., 1976. No. 11. P. 41–42. 39. Moiseev N. Ostroh Bible // ZhMP. M., 1981. No. 12. P. 75–80. 40. Pivovarov B., diac. Agraphs // ZhMP. M., 1974. No. 8. P. 72–77. 41. Richko N. N. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14) // ZhMP. M., 1969. No. 12. P. 58–62. 42. Richko N.N. What does Psalm 86/7 tell us? // ZhMP. M., 1968. No. 10. P. 73–75, No. 11. P. 70–77. 43. Simon (Novikov), archimandrite. Founder of Russian biblical science and exegetical school // ZhMP. M., 1968. No. 2. P. 59–64. 44. Simon (Novikov), archimandrite. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M. D. Muretov and his works on the Four Gospels // ZhMP. M., 1972. No. 4. P. 75–80. 45. Sorokin V., prot. Millar Burrows. More light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York, 1958, 425 pp. // BT. M., 1971. No. 6. P. 235–240. 46. Sorokin V., prot., Logachev K. I. Current problems of the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures // BT. M., 1975. No. 14. P. 154–159. 47. Speransky M., prot. Supreme Apostles Peter and Paul (on the 1900th anniversary of their martyrdom) // ZhMP. M., 1967. No. 7. P. 60–76. 48. Tikhon (Agrikov), archimandrite. Above the pages of the Passion Gospels // ZhMP. M., 1968. No. 4. P. 47–49. 49. Uspensky N.D. The Last Supper and the Lord’s Table // ZhMP. M., 1967. No. 3. P. 70–74; No. 4. pp. 65–76. 50. Feofan (Govorov), bishop. Explanation of the 118th Psalm // ZhMP. M., 1976. No. 8. P. 67–73. 51. Theophylact, Bishop of Dmitrov, Vicar of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (Moiseev Nikolai Alekseevich) // Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate URL: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/31589.html (access date: 12/23/2017). 52. Filaret (Denisenko), Metropolitan. About the spiritual appearance of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel // ZhMP. M., 1981. No. 5. P. 55–60. 53. Khibarin I.N. The Path to Golgotha ​​// ZhMP. M., 1966. No. 3. P. 56–62. 54. Chevyaga S., priest. The teaching of the twelve minor prophets about God // ZhMP. M., 1976. No. 5. P. 69–73. 55. Six Psalms (new Russian translation) // ZhMP. M., 1968. No. 10. P. 64–68. 56. Yakovlevich Radivoy, Rev. New translation of the Bible into Czech // ZhMP. M., 1979. No. 12. P. 45–46. See Vita del padre Girolamo Savonarola. Ginevra, 1781. Ed. anonymous; Franc. Réformateurs et Publicistes de l'Europe. Paris, 1864; in “Dictionnaire historique et critique” on the word “Savonarole”, etc. F.K. Meier. Girolamo Savonarola aus grossen Teils handschriftlichen Queller dargestellt. Berlin, 1836; P.V. Marchese. Storia del Convento di San Marco. Firenze Le Monnier, 1855; A.K. Scheller, Savonarola. His life and social activities. St. Petersburg, 1893, etc. Γρ. Παπαμιχαήλ. Μάξιμος ὁ Γραιχός, ὁ πρῶτος φωτιστὴς τῶν Ῥώσσων. Ἑν Ἀθῆναις 1950, etc. V.S. Ikonnikov. Maxim the Greek and his time. Kyiv. 1915; M.N. Speransky. History of Old Russian Literature. Ed. 3rd. M., 1921, etc. N.K. Gujii. Maxim the Greek and his attitude to the Italian Renaissance. "University News". Kyiv, 1911, No. 7; F. Nelidov. Maxim Grek. M., 1895, etc. P. Villari. Girolamo Savonarola and his time. T I. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 375–376; N. Osokin. Savonarola and Florence. Kazan, 1865, p. 216–219. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 194–205. In the printed edition and in most manuscripts, the legend of Savonarola occupies the second half of the Tale. See in detail: A.I. Ivanov. The literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. L., 1969, p. 156–157. In this work, links to handwritten sources are provided for each work of Maxim the Greek. In this article we leave links to manuscripts only on the unpublished works of Maxim the Greek. See in detail about this my article “On the stay of Maximus the Greek in the Dominican monastery of St. Mark in Florence." “Theological works”, collection No. 11. – A.I. F.T. Perrens. Jerome Savonarole. D'après les documents originaux et avec des pièces justificatives en grande partie inédites. Paris, 1856, p. 293–300; E. Denissoff. Said essay, p. 265. Γρ. Παπαμιχαήλ, said work, οελ. 438, etc. N.K. Gudziy. Said essay, p. 19; F. Nelidov. Said essay; A.I. Klibanov. To the study of the biography and literary heritage of Maxim the Greek. “Byzantine temporary book” (Vv), vol. XIV. M., 1958; B. I. Dunaev. Works of Savonarola and Maxim the Greek. "Antiquities. Proceedings of the Slavic Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society." T.IV, no. 1. M., 1907. Protocols No. 60–90, p. 56–58: K. Viskovaty. On the question of the literary influence of Savonarola on Maxim the Greek. "Slavia. Casopis pro slovanskou filologii.” Prague, 1939, t. XVII, N 1–2, p. 128–133. V. S. Ikonnikov. Quote cit., p. 84–149, 560–578. E. Denissoff. Quote cit., r. 147 etc. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 195. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 14–15. V. S. Ikonnikov. Quote cit., p. 563. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. II, p. 205–206. Ibid., vol. I, p. 310; vol. II, p. 99–100. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 61. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 220. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 18. Savonarola’s poem “On the Destruction of the Church” published: Audin de Rians. Poesie di Hieronymi Savonarole (Firenze, 1847) under the title "Canzone de ruine ecclesiae"; V. Piccoli. Girolamo Savonarole. Poesia (Torino, 1926, pp. 15–23) in Collezione di classici italiani con note. II ser. diretta da Balsamo Privelli.” P. Villapi. Quote cit., vol. 1, p. 100. Ibid., vol. II, p. 205–207; J. Schnitzer. Savonarola. Ein Kulturbild aus der Zeit der Renaissance. V. II. München, 1924, pp. 713–714. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 99. Ibid., vol. II, p. 220–233; J. Schnitzer. Quote cit., S. 709. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. II, p. 6; J. Schnitze. Quote cit., S. 713–714. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. II, p. 71; F. T. Perrens. Quote cit., r. 71–72. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 198–199. Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rumyantsev, No. 264 (XVI century), l. 31 rev. Not published. Found in the same manuscript, pp. 239 rev. – 240 rpm Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part I, p. 139–140. Compare the above-mentioned poem by Savonarola “On the Destruction of the Church.” Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 43–44, 32, 39–40. There, p. 174–175. How rich the high clergy was then can be judged from the letter of Bishop Nil of Tver to Vasily Korobov, in which he lists his belongings sent as a gift to the Byzantine Patriarch. Here it is mentioned: “robes and stoles of Kamchatka, embroidered with gold, silver and set with pearls... Yes, 40 sables, yes 740 ermines, yes 2000 made squirrels, 440 hamsters, and 15 large fish teeth, and a silver charm... Yes, a sable fur coat, under black velvet...” and many other very expensive things (S. M. Solovyov. History of Russia since ancient times. T. V. pp. 384–385). Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 260–276 F. T. Perrens. Jérome Savonarole, sa vie, ses prédications, ses écrits. Paris, 1853, t. I, p. 59. F. T. Perrens. Jerome Savonarole. D'après les documents originaux..., p. 73. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 129, vol. II, p. 334. F. T. Perrens. Jerome Savonarole. D'après les documents originaux..., p. 75; P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 130. J. Schnitzer. Quote cit., V. I, S. 375–376; V. II, S. 1060. The letter was published under the title “Epistola a Magdalena contessa della Mirandola della perfezzione del stato religiose.” Firenze, 1495. F. T. Perrens. Jerome Savonarole. D'après les documents originaux..., p. 76–80. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III. With. 178–205. Published by V.F. Rzhiga in the article “Unpublished works of Maxim the Greek” (“Byzantinoslavica”, t. VI, p. 99–101) based on the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rumyantseva. No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 177–178 vol. Maxim the Greek's descriptions of the internal order and life of Catholic monasteries have many similarities with the description of the internal life in the monastery of St. Mark, which appears in the biography of Savonarola, written by his contemporary (Vita del P. F. Girolamo Savonarola, serirta P. F. Pacifico Burlamacchi, Lucchese, nuova edizione Lucca, 1764, p. 39). "Byzantine Temporary". 1968, vol. XXIX. With. 135–147. N.A. considers the issue in even more detail. Kazakov in “Essays on the history of Russian social thought. The first third of the 16th century” (L. 1970, pp. 155–243). Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 5–52. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II. With. 110–111. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II. With. 30; “The Answering Word” by Vassian Patrikeev (N.A. Kazakova. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. M.L. I960, pp. 257–259), etc. V.F. Riga. Experiments on the history of Russian journalism of the 16th century. Maxim Grek as a publicist. TODRL. vol. I, L. 1934. p. 37. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 185–212. Not published. Found in the manuscript GBL f 256. collection. Rumyantseva. No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 298–299 vol. Not published. Located there too. ll. 203–204 vol. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I. p. 11; vol. II, p. 294; Audin de Rians. Decree, cit., r. 3 etc. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I. p. 15; Vol. II. With. 295–296. The work is given in the appendices (document III) to the Italian original of the work by P. Villari. Author (A. Mn) of the article “Jerome Savonarola” in “Christian Reading” for 1898, part II. With. 865–867, gives a complete translation of this short work, but gives it its title: “On Flight from the World.” Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 58. Below we will note that Maxim the Greek also built his denunciations of a moralizing nature in the form of an appeal to the soul. In 1496, the treatise was published in Florence in Latin (De simplicitate vitae Christianae) and Italian (Fratta della simplicita della vita Christiana). Then it was published in Paris in 1511 and in Venice in 1547. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. II, p. 51. Works of Gregory the Theologian. Ed. 3rd. Part II. M., 1899, p. 25–26. Not published. Found in manuscripts: GBL, f. 113, collection Volok. mon., No. 488 (1572), pp. 202–211; Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, No. 176 (XVI century) (X. Loparev. Description of the OLDP manuscripts, p. 186). Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rum., No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 60 rpm, –61. Not published. Found in manuscripts: GBL, f. 292, collection Stroeva, No. 8290 (XVI–XVII centuries), pp. 539 rev. –542; f. 304, collection Trinity I, No. 200 (XVII century), pp. 519–520; f. 98, collection Egorova, No. 1508 (XIX century), pp. 598–599. Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rum., No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 31 rev. – 32. Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rum., No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 262–265. I. Preobrazhensky. The moral state of Russian society in the 16th century according to the writings of Maxim the Greek and his contemporary monuments. M., 1881, p. 112. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 104. P. J. Carle. Histoire de Fra Hieronimo Savonarola Paris, 1842, p. 186–187. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 213–214. Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rum., No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 203–204 vol. V. F. Rzhiga mentions this Message in his essay (“Byzantinoslavica”, t. VI, p. 93–94). Not published. Located in the same place, ll. 69–70. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 161. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part II, p. 261–263. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 141. Right there. With. 252–253; J. Schnitzer. Quote cit., S. 700–709. Opera singolare contra l'astrologia. Fir., 1497; Ven., 1513 (K. von Hase. Neue Propheten, 3rd Aufl. Leipzig, 1893. S. 157). P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I. p. 81–82. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part I, p. 399–434. Not published. Found in the GBL manuscript, f. 256, collection Rum., No. 264 (XVI century), pp. 11 rev. – 18, 22–26 rev. The legends are mentioned by V. F. Rzhiga in his article “Unpublished works of Maxim the Greek” with a brief summary of the content and with small literal excerpts (“Byzantinoslavica”, t. VI, p. 89–90). Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part I, p. 387, 391. A. Mn. Hieronymus Savonarola. Characteristics of his personality, teachings and activities. "Christian Reading". St. Petersburg, 1898, part 2, p. 885. E. Denissoff. Quote cit., r. 152; P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 31–32; N. Osokin. Savonarola and Florence. Kazan, 1865, p. 158. Vita del P. F. Girolamo Savonarola..., p. 113 etc. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 373–375. Compendium totius philosophiae tam naturalis quam moralis. Venet., 1534, 1542. See P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. 1, p. 78–79. J. Schnitzer. Quote op., V. I, S. 106; V. II, S. 1163; P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. II. With. 78–84. P. Villari. Quote cit., vol. I, p. 374–378; J. Schnitzer. Quote cit., V. II, S. 801–804. History of philosophy. Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. v. 1. p. 100. De simplicitate vitae Christianae. Book 3. Venice, 1547. Compare. A. Mn. Quote Sermons for holidays; May 20, 1496. Compare A. Mn. Quote article, from 880. V. Magni. Savonarole ou Cagonie de Florence. (Translated from Italian.) Paris, 1941, p. 171–227, 228–268, 269. Works by Rev. Maxim the Greek. Part III, p. 194–195, 203.