Venerable Nil of Sorsky and his place in the history of Russian spirituality

About the Christians of the first centuries, Fr. Georgy Florovsky wrote (in the article “Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert”) that in “this world” they “could only be strangers and wanderers” and could not “completely surrender to any structure of this world.” And when the Roman Empire became Christian, and “churchliness” and “citizenship” not only coincided, but simply became identical, monasticism developed as a reaction to this coincidence. “Monasticism meant, first of all, “renunciation,” a complete renunciation of “this world”..., says Fr. Georgy. – It was an energetic reminder of the radical “otherworldliness” of Christianity. It was also a powerful challenge to the Empire, which was then in the process of construction." At the same time, “it is absolutely obvious,” in his opinion, that in reality monasticism has never been at the height of its own principles and requirements. But its historical significance lies precisely in its principles. Just as in the pagan empire, Christianity was a kind of “resistance movement,” monasticism was a constant “resistance movement” in Christian society” 1. To these words we can add that by this kind of “resistance movement” the state and society were never denied, but only strengthened in their Christianity. And these words are fully applicable, it seems to me, also to the Monk Nil of Sorsky and to all the “non-possessors”, one of whose brightest and purest representatives he was. Born around 1433, during the reign of Vasily II Vasilyevich the Dark, the Monk Nil (we do not know his worldly name) is a man of the third or fourth generation of monks of the “northern Thebaid”, if we consider the first generation of its “golden age” - the founders of the famous monastic monastic hostels, such as Dionysius of Suzdal and Sergius of Radonezh, Demetrius of Prilutsky and Pavel Obnorsky, Kirill and Ferapont Belozersky, Dionysius Glushitsky and Alexander Kushtsky and many others. In the second half of the XIV - early XV centuries. They founded dozens of spiritual, cultural and economic centers in the Great Russian lands, which very quickly took possession of vast lands with villages, fisheries, salt mines and became rich. In the middle of the 14th century, when this movement - the monastic cinenial movement - began, it was undoubtedly a “resistance movement” - resistance to the decline of the Rus-state, which was dragging the Church into this decline. As once in the Roman Empire, “churchliness” and “citizenship” in Rus' have long since coincided, from the very beginning of the process of Christianization, in the 10th-11th centuries, and inseparably determined the church-civil-ethnic affiliation of the “Russians”, Orthodox subjects of the Russian princely family. The plunder of Russian cities during attacks by enemies or in princely feuds was described in chronicles primarily as the robbery of churches, monasteries, icons, the beating of clergy and monks - as damage to Christianity. Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus' in the 13th century. was, however, to a much greater extent a blow to Russian statehood than to Russian Christianity: the division of the country that followed this invasion between the Horde and Lithuania, between the pagan East and the pagan West, caused damage, first of all, not to the Orthodox Christian faith and the Church, but to the main objects of semi-pagan cult in Rus' - the princely family and the “Russian land” belonging to it 2. If not under the Lithuanians (and then the Poles), then under the Tatar-Mongols, the Russian Church even improved its position in the country, because according to Chinggis’s “Yasa” (the Mongol code of laws), it, as serving God, was excluded from taxation. Soon, however, the Church became the object of a political struggle between secular rulers, the princes of Great and Little Rus', and at the same time, inevitably, the subject of the struggle on one side or another (one can point out, for example, the confrontation in the 14th century. Metropolitan of “Kyiv and All Rus'” Alexei, who lived in Moscow, and Roman of Lithuania, who was appointed metropolitan of Kyiv under pressure from the Lithuanian prince who owned Kiev) 3. The Russian monastic cinenial movement was a “resistance movement” to the decline into which the Church was drawn by the disintegrating state. This was a movement for the spiritual revival of “all Rus'” and the unity of its Church. And it found support and even inspiration in Constantinople, especially when the strong orthodox “phil-hesychasts”, Emperor John VI Cantacuzene and Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin 4, were in power there. It was part of the Orthodox revival common to many peoples at that time and had living connections with Balkan monastic hostels and monasteries, where at that time a lot of spiritual, teaching, as well as literary, writing and translation work was going on. It was this monastic movement, which did not set itself direct political goals, but directed minds and hearts to God, to Eternity-in-the-present, that brought Great Rus' out of the spiritual and cultural crisis, but also from the state-political one. Countries in which this movement, for one reason or another, did not have much success - Lithuania and the Novgorod Republic - very soon lost their spiritual, cultural and political independence. Thanks to this movement, a supranational book culture, common to a large number of Christian peoples, came to Rus', not in the form of rare separate lists, as was before, in the X-XIII centuries, but in the form of libraries, large monastic libraries containing many translations of the classics of Christian literature - such, for example, as the corpus of works inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, “The Ladder” of John of Sinai, “The Six Days” of various authors, the works of John Damascene, Isaac the Syrian and others. With a slight degree of simplification, it seems to me that we can confidently say that from the second half of the 14th century. Christian book culture appears in Russia as a social phenomenon. The fate of this culture in Rus' has not yet been exhaustively studied. But it is clear that it experienced crises around the middle of the 15th century, at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, during the Time of Troubles, and in the middle of the 17th century, during the Schism. And it is also clear that at the heart of the crises of this culture lay, or simultaneously with them, the crisis of the main reading and writing class in Ancient Rus' - monasticism. What was the crisis closest to the time of interest to us? Perhaps, in the imbalance between the different aspects of the activities of the participants in the film movement: internal - spiritual, mental, prayer and bookish - cultural and external - social, economic and organizational. Observations on the composition of perhaps the largest monastic libraries - they relate to the one founded in the middle of the 14th century. St. Sergius of Radonezh of the Holy Trinity 5 and founded in 1397 by St. Kirill of Belozersky of the Assumption 6 monasteries - show that literature that teaches a monk to fight “thoughts”, with passions and strive for “peace”, “silence”, “silence”, “hesychia”, appears and arouses interest simultaneously with the founding of these monasteries, which means - among their founders, but about mid-15th century they almost stop rewriting it there, which means interest in it is dropping sharply. Around the middle of the 15th century. The first of the mentioned crises occurs in the life of Christian culture (but, of course, not faith!) in Rus'. There are many reasons for this, I will name two: firstly, at this time there was, as once in the Roman Empire, (i.e. another) identification of “church” and “statehood”, in this case - the emerging Great Russian, henceforth dynastic, statehood. Dreams of preserving or recreating “all Rus'” turned out to be - this was made clear at that time - unrealizable. And secondly, this is the fall of Constantinople, the remnant of the Orthodox Roman Empire. At the same time, a century of highly productive work by monastic scribes, translators, copyists and book carriers ended, which essentially gave Rus' an international, “supranational” book culture. Hesychast teaching literature - the already mentioned works of John of Sinai, Climacus, Isaac the Syrian, Gregory of Sinai, etc. - was only a part of this rich culture. But the part is very important - it teaches a person freedom from the power of the Moment with its passions and the joy of touching the Eternal with His love. Monastic movement of the 14th – early 15th centuries. can, in my opinion, be called “hesychast” because it was spiritually nourished by this translated literature. And around the middle of the 15th century. the heirs of the founders of this movement largely lost interest in “hesychast” literature. A person who discovered a craving for spiritual life at this time, around the middle of the 15th century, like Nil Maykov, the future Sorsky, had to see the change of eras that was taking place then and was faced with a choice: either “swim with the flow”, leading to the complete integration of Russian churchism and Great Russian statehood, or start his own “resistance movement.” “Letter about the dislikes of the monks of the Kirill and Joseph monasteries” 7, compiled in the 30-40s of the 16th century. from the words of the Josephite monks Nil Polev and Dionysius of Zvenigorod, he calls Nil “by advertisement” Maykov, and from the chronicle notes of one of his students and correspondents, Herman Podolny, we know that Nil had a brother Andrei, apparently his eldest, who died five years before him (at the end of 1502 - beginning of 1503). In all likelihood, this is the famous clerk of the Grand Dukes of Moscow Vasily II Vasilyevich and Ivan III Vasilyevich Andrei Fedorovich Maiko, in the Kirillo-Belozersky monasticism Arseny; in the 1450s–1490s. he wrote letters to the Grand Duke and Princess and was their messenger to Spaso-Kamenny, Kirillov and other “Trans-Volga” monasteries 8, in 1494–1501. along with Fyodor Vasilyevich Kuritsyn (inferior to him in importance), he received ambassadors and negotiated with them, and in 1495 he traveled with Boris Kutuzov as ambassador to Lithuania 9 . One might think that the father of Nil and Andrei, Fyodor Maiko, somehow served the Moscow princes. So Nil, apparently, was related to the highest strata of the Moscow service nobility, i.e. was a child of “deliberate children” (as the chronicler in article 988 calls the parents from whom Prince Vladimir, having baptized Rus', took children “for book studies”) 10. And from “The Tale of Our Reverend Father Nile and about that more honorable monastery...”, written in the 17th century, we learn that its author heard that “I was born and raised by him (Reverend Nile. - G.P.) who was in the reigning city of Moscow and of the same reigning city of Moscow, the judges of the same reigning city of Moscow held the rank of book; I will receive the monastic image in the great monastery of Cyril of Beloezersk, the wonderworker...” 11. The name of the position of “book judge” is borrowed from the Bible (see: Deut. 1:15; Joshua 8:33), but it apparently reflects some reality related to books and the court (now we would probably call him a legal adviser). According to the entry in one of the lists of the Charter of Rev. Nila, he “was originally from... Moscow, a cursive writer, a clerk for clerks...” (i.e., in modern terms, a secretary). In any case, it is clear that Neil was a literate person from childhood; before becoming a monk, he lived in Moscow and worked in its judicial system. So his self-deprecating words “I am an ignorant and a peasant” (in a message to Gury Tushin) cannot be taken literally. Before him, like before his brother, the possibility of elevation in the service of earthly rulers certainly opened up, but he abandoned this path, preferring to serve the Lord of Heaven. So, Nil took monastic vows - apparently while still young - at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. Charters 1460–1470 and 1471–1475 called Nila among the elders of this monastery. “If the charter of 1460 already calls him an “elder,” that is, a monk experienced in spiritual asceticism, and the period of obedience in the Cyril Monastery lasted three years, then it is logical to assume (says E.V. Romanenko, and I agree with her - G.P.) that he took monastic vows at the very beginning of the 50s” 12, which means at the age of about twenty years. Why did Neil choose this northern “Trans-Volga” monastery, far from Moscow, and not, say, the glorious Trinity-Sergius Lavra, not far from Moscow? Asking this question, E.V. Romanenko notes that Nile’s brother “Andrei Maiko more than once brought here and to the neighboring Spaso-Kamenny Monastery on Lake Kubenskoye alms from members of the grand ducal family” and that “the first letter signed by clerk Maiko dates from 1450–1453. – the time of the end of the Shemyakino Troubles 13. Knowing the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery well, Andrei Maiko could have influenced the choice of his brother” 14. It’s quite possible, but he’s not the only one. When Neil was growing up, there was a struggle for grand-ducal power in Moscow between princes Vasily II the Dark, who tried to legitimize the dynastic principle of inheritance of power, and Dmitry Shemyaka, who relied on old ideas about the clan as a subject of power. Exiled by Shemyaka to Vologda, Vasily the Dark was supported by the inhabitants of the northern, “Trans-Volga” monasteries, whose prayers for the return of power in Moscow to him and his son were so successful that these monasteries were then to become famous much wider than the boundaries of the grand ducal family and administration. They couldn’t help but talk about St. Kirill Belozersky in Moscow at that time. Thus, Pachomius the Serb writes that even before he was “commanded” he was “commanded by the self-consecrated Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich and with the blessing of Theodosius, Metropolitan of All Rus', to come to the monastery of the saint and there with his ears to hear the former and former miracles from the God-bearing father,” “I am still far away, hearing about holy, how many miracles God can do for his sake” 15. The attractiveness of the personality of St. Kirill of Belozersky for Nile can also be evidenced by the fact that, as we will see later, Nile used, when creating his monastery, the Skete Rules, which he found, without a doubt, in St. Kirill’s own books, where there are not even one, but two of his lists 16 . And the very spirit of the monastery created by Cyril at that time, where his disciples still lived, should have attracted Nile: comparing the intensity of the correspondence by monastic scribes of cell hesychast literature there and in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, we see that after the initial one, associated with the Monk Kirill of Belozersky himself, the rise of interest in hesychast writers followed the decline in the second quarter of the 15th century. - began in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery significantly, twenty-five years, earlier than a similar rise in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra; and if that one did not reach the height of the initial rise coming from St. Sergius (and then the decline continued), then this one, Kirill-Belozersky, significantly exceeded the initial rise both in the Kirillov Monastery and in Sergius, and the high intensity of the correspondence of ascetic literature there remained for a long time, more than a century 17. It turns out that what in the 14th century. inspired young people from good families seeking communion with God both in the Balkans and in Rus', now, about a hundred years later, it inspired them on the Russian outskirts, in the northern Trans-Volga region, more than in Moscow itself and its environs, where the atmosphere was changing and was already significantly different. When Neil arrived at the Cyril monastery, its abbot was one of the founder’s students, Cassian (1448–1469), later abbot of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. Neil could not help but meet there with another wonderful pupil of Kirill, the Monk Martinian. Pachomius the Serb came there (1461–1462) to ask questions about Cyril of Belozersky just when Nile was there. Perhaps Nilus also listened to what people who remembered the Wonderworker Cyril told Pachomius. T. P. Lönngren admits that Pachomius the Serb not only recorded their stories, but also “directed the activities of the scribes. So,” she notes, “in the manuscript RNB, KB 19/1258, at the bottom of the first page there is an entry: “The humble hieromonk Pachomius of Mount Svata,” which may have been made by Pachomius the Serb himself. […] Another detail seems interesting in this manuscript: the handwriting on sheets 176–227 is similar to the handwriting of Nil Sorsky...” 18. Based on this impression of T. P. Lönngren, E. V. Romanenko writes that “being literate and loving book teaching, Nil Sorsky, apparently, also participated in rewriting books for the monastery. In 1458–1470 XV century In the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, an annual cycle of chetiy-minya was created. The handwriting in which several lives are written in these menaions is identified by some researchers with the handwriting of Nil Sorsky" 19. However, this impression (precisely an impression, not an identification!) is erroneous: the handwriting there is different. We have no reason to believe that Neil rewrote these lives, but he probably must have read them or heard them at the monastic meal. “The Letter about Dislikers” reports that Nile’s teacher in monasticism was Elder Paisiy Yaroslavov, the successor of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich from the baptismal font, and that “the great prince held them in honor in the great city” 20. Perhaps the personality of Elder Paisius influenced the choice of the path to God and the formation of the personality of Nil Sorsky? Who is this man? Elder Paisiy Yaroslavov is known as the author of the Legend of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery, written after the fire in 1476 21. This means that he certainly visited there, probably lived there for some years. It is possible that Nil was his student on Kamenny Island, but it seems more likely (for we know nothing about Nil of Sorsky’s stay in the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery) that Paisiy was for some time an “elder” and had the right to teach students in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, the place of Nile’s tonsure. Among the books preserved from the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, there are two manuscripts differently associated with the name of Paisius. One of them is the Russian National Library, Kirillo-Belozersky collection, No. 4/1081, Collection of words and teachings of the late XIV - early XV centuries, called “Paisievsky” 22. The second book from this library, associated with the name of a certain Paisius, is the Russian National Library, Kirillo-Belozersky collection, No. 275/532, Collection of Hours, dating from the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th centuries. It is dotted throughout the margins with extracts from monastic hesychast literature - the same one that Nil Sorsky used in his asceticism and in his writings. At the end of the collection (fol. 365 vol.) it is noted: “Elder Paise [I] had a Book of Hours, he wrote it out.” One of the extracts-postscripts (on the margin of fol. 10 vol.), speaks, for example, of an exemplary person who turned all his feelings inward - “turning the actions of external feelings into internal feelings, and stretched sight to the seeing mind, hearing to the spiritual mind, taste to verbal reasoning, and smell to meaning.” mind, and add vigor to the heart..." 23. Another postscript (on the lower margin of fol. 213 vol. - 214) speaks of the hesychast “observation of the mind and silence”: “Whoever persecutes and seeks every day the observance of the mind and silence, all the sensitive despises this convenience, but does not work in vain. If he despises his conscience, he will fall into a bitter sleep of oblivion and death, but Saint David prays for him without falling asleep. For the apostle says: “To him who does good, and when he does not do it, it is sin for him” (James 4:17). These extracts are quite in the spirit of the interests of the Trans-Volga elders, Russian hesychasts. After looking through this manuscript, T. P. Lönngren wrote: “It is possible that among the numerous notes in the margins there are notes from Paisius’ student, Nil. For example, a rough entry on l. 29 rev. resembles Neil’s handwriting, and there is also the typical spelling of the word “snake” for Neil.” 24 Unlike Cyril of Belozersky and other pioneers of the monastic colonization of the Russian North, who came from the Central Russian lands as fully mature people and experienced monks, the ascetics of the generations that followed them came as young men from the cities to the monasteries already created by their predecessors in the North and there underwent appropriate training under the guidance of experienced elders until they themselves became “elders”, capable of teaching monastic concentration to young tonsures. So when Paisiy walked as a young man in the Volga region - about forty years later, I think, after Kirill Belozersky left Moscow - he probably did not have to dig a cave in the thicket where the peasants had not yet reached, look for a hollow there for the night and build himself a cell-hut, as Sergius of Radonezh, Pavel Obnorsky, Sergius of Nuromsky and many other seekers did “silence” and heartfelt “tenderness” in the XIV – early XV centuries. One can imagine that Paisiy deliberately chose for tonsure one of the most difficult in terms of living conditions and one of the most authoritative in traditions, the Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior on a tiny island in the huge Kubenskoye Lake. His Legend reports that the revivalist of this, founded in the middle of the 13th century. Gleb Vasilkovich became Prince of the monastery in the last quarter of the 14th century. an alien from Constantinople, tonsured on Mount Athos, Dionysius. He came to Moscow under Dmitry Donskoy, settled first, by order of the prince, in the Moscow Epiphany Monastery, one of the most “prestigious” in the capital 25, then, in response to the request of the Spaso-Kamensk monks to give them an abbot, he became, by the will of the same prince, the abbot on Kamenny Island and introduced the charter of Athonite monastic hostels there, Kinoviy. Later, Abbot Dionysius was elevated to the Rostov archdiocese, which was vacated after the death of Gregory. “This same Dionysius was the first bishop from the Trans-Volga land,” - it is written in the Legend with obvious pride for the Trans-Volga land and the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. Paisiy could learn monastic wisdom in the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery from the students and students of the students of Svyatogorets-Tsaregradets and should have been brought up in the Athonite traditions. Complete detachment from the “world” on the island was supposed to contribute to the “preservation” of the mind, its deepening in church services, in book texts and in one’s heart, in oneself - immersion in “mental doing” and “heartfelt prayer.” Perhaps, on Kamenny Island in 1446, Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark, expelled from Moscow by Shemyak, met Paisiy. There, his son, fifteen-year-old Ivan (future III) Vasilievich, could meet and become close to Paisius, especially since in 1452 he visited the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery for the second time, returning after a punitive expedition to the lands of Shemyaki. We do not know for sure whether the acquaintance of the Moscow princes with Elder Paisius Yaroslavov took place in Spaso-Kamenny, Ferapontovo, Kirillov or some other monastery, but it happened, and having regained power, the Moscow princely house tried to thank the monks from whom they found support in difficult times. The Spaso-Kamenny Monastery received generous donations of villages and land from the Grand Duke and Princess, and Elder Paisius was forced by the Grand Duke to become abbot in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Among the manuscripts of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery there are also books associated with the name of Paisius. One of them is Collection of the first half of the 15th century, RSL, collection. Trinity-Sergius Lavra (f. 304), No. 748, named by the entry on fol. 450 rpm as “Sobornik Paseevskaya”. It contains the lives of John of Damascus, Paul of Thebes, Macarius of Egypt, a number of “words”, and in addition the Book of Gregory the Sinaite, one of the most prominent representatives and teachers of Byzantine hesychasm of the 14th century, including the Life of Gregory the Sinaite and his writings 26. This “Collection” apparently belonged to some memorable Paisius. In terms of its content, it is perfectly consistent with the books already mentioned and “suits” Paisiy Yaroslavov. Another manuscript - RSL, same collection, No. 747 (1660), Collection of 1445. On fol. 463 rev. – 464 we read the following entry: “This book of the Collection was written in the summer of 6953 [1445] indictment 8 by the hand of a many sinner, the slightest in the uniform, and in sinners, and indecent in brotherhood, and not included in any virtue, humbled by the many sins of a priest Makarishcha. And this Collection was written by Paisius, the elder of the Sergeev Monastery.” (If this Paisiy is Paisiy Yaroslavov, then he came to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra regardless of the wanderings of Vasily the Dark). The collection contains the lives of saints and some additions. Among the additions there are many poetic, rhythmic, almost poetic texts, but here I will give only two characteristic prose ones. Here, for example, is the interpretation of the words of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 18:20): “Where there are two or three couples in My name, I am in the midst of them”: “There are two couples in the name of Jesus - flesh and soul. Three are the essence: whose flesh and soul are pure, and the Holy Spirit who lives there” (l. 445). This interpretation may well serve as a justification for complete hermitic solitude. And here is a recommendation for constant repetition of the “Jesus Prayer”: “The Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” If anyone, demanding it, says this prayer as if breathing from the nostrils, in the first year Christ the Son of God will dwell in him, and in another year the Holy Spirit will dwell in him, in the third year the Father will come to him and, having entered into him, the Holy Trinity will create an abode in him. And devour the heart with prayer, and devour the heart with prayer, and begin to chant this prayer incessantly day and night, and there will be freedom from all the snares of the enemy in Christ Jesus, in our Lord, to Him be glory with the Most Holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages” (l. 451-452). There is more than one instruction of this kind. Without data to judge where, when and how long Paisiy Yaroslavov lived, we cannot judge to what extent it is likely that these books belonged to him. Judging by their content, it is probable. But he was far from alone; among the monks of that time he probably bore the name Paisius and was an inward-looking man of prayerful fervor. Usually in the literature the manuscript of the Russian State Library, collected by Paisiy Yaroslavov, is associated. Trinity–Sergius Lavra (f. 304), No. 764. Collection of materials for June, XV and XVI centuries. This manuscript is considered his autograph. The book begins with the Life of Kirill Belozersky; after the end of the Life - a small note: “To my lord, abbot Spiridon of the Life-Giving Trinity, this inscription is from the hand of the sinful monk Paiseus. From diligence with love. Even if it’s not fertilized, it’s from stinging.” Spiridon was the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in 1467–1476. It is difficult to recognize at once the autographs of Paisiy Yaroslavov and the extracts and notes in the margins of the Book of Hours from the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, and this Trinity-Sergius list of the Life of Kirill Belozersky: they seem to be written in different handwritings, in any case, too differently to be able to identify them: in one case we have notes for our own use, in the other - a “gift” copy of the life recently written by the famous hagiographer Pachomius the Serb, intended to be presented to his superiors. Assuming the possibility that Paisiy Yaroslavov took part in this collection of four materials for June, let’s look through this book. On l. 122 rev. in the Life of Peter of Athos we find a period that opponents of the increase in monastic wealth, concerned about the growth of monastic land ownership, especially the ownership of villages, should have read with pleasure. Here we are talking about those who considered the departure from the world itself to be a great thing (“... this great thing is unbearable because we must reject the world and those who are in the world...”), but without any hesitation cared “about the acquisition of various and valuable loans, and villages, and acquisitions, and those who are peace-loving and covetous are in a hurry”: such “the acquisitive instead of the non-acquisitive We also call heavenly riches.” Paisiy became hegumen of the Holy Trinity Sergius Monastery no later than 1479: the chronicle records that in 1479 “Abbot of Troytsky Paisiy” baptized two grand-ducal sons, Vasily and George 27 . The following year, 1480, during the campaign of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to meet Akhmat in the Ugra, Paisiy acted as a peacemaker in the grand-ducal family (he reconciled Ivan Vasilyevich with his brothers, Andrei and Boris) and the inspirer of the general struggle of Rus' for liberation from the Golden Horde power 28 . In those same years, Paisiy was a plaintiff against the abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery Nifont in a dispute over land holdings 29 . Obviously, at that time the Service Menaion, RSL, coll. Trinity-Sergius Lavra (f. 304), No. 533 (543), XV century, at the end of which there is an entry: “This book is for the elder cellarer Sava and the abbot of Paisea” 30. The contemplative and prayer book Paisius did not seem to have the organizational and leadership acumen “and it is impossible,” as it is said in the chronicle, “to convert the monks to God’s path, to prayer, and to fasting, and to abstinence,” but he, as the abbot, apparently made such attempts, which is what aroused the hatred of the willful high-born monks, “byahu bo tamo boyars and princes who took monastic vows.” 31. This is another evidence that spiritual life in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in the second half of the 15th century. was in decline. There were much more monks in the monastery at this time than a hundred years ago, during the time of Saints Sergius and Nikon, but “smart work” aroused much less interest among them than among those. The demands of Abbot Paisius kindled such anger among the brethren that they “wanted to kill him.” Whether frightened, or from the consciousness of his own powerlessness, or maybe yearning for inner “silence”, “the sweetness of silence”, or for all these reasons at once, Paisius “leave the abbess” 32. We don’t know where he left the Trinity-Sergius Monastery; probably to the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery, which was burned down by fire shortly before (in 1476), in order to write his own story about it. In fact, the last dated news in the Legend is about the construction of a stone church in 6989/1481 33. In 1484, Paisiy was again in Moscow and again was close to Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich. Just at this time, Metropolitan Gerontius, having fallen ill, left his throne and “moved to the monastery on Simonovo,” however, he recovered and decided to again become the head of the Russian Church. But here he met resistance from the Grand Duke. The prince sent Paisius to Gerontius to dissuade him from claiming the return of the metropolis. Paisius failed. Gerontius made attempts to return to his chambers, but the prince forcibly returned him to the monastery, which is why he “worried a lot about the metropolis.” Not knowing what to do with Gerontius, “the great prince began to think with Paseia whether it would be better to take him back to the metropolitan position.” Paisius, apparently, advised the prince to allow Gerontius what he wanted. The prince came up with the idea of ​​making Paisius himself a metropolitan, this intelligent, honest and kind spiritual adviser - “he wanted him to be the metropolitan,” - and he once forced Paisius to become the head of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. But it was precisely this unsuccessful experience of being an abbess that discouraged Paisius from any kind of power - “that’s why the metropolis didn’t want it either” 34. In 1489, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in a letter to Archbishop Joasaph of Rostov, recommended calling the elders Paisius and Nil as people of authority, to consult with them regarding measures against the spreading heresy and talk about the supposedly approaching end of the world with the end of the seventh thousand years (in 7000/1492) 35 . It can be assumed that Paisius, like Nile, lived at that time again somewhere in the Volga region. In October 1490, both elders, teacher and student, participated in a council against “Jewish wise” heretics who did not believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ and believed that He “was like a prophet, like Moses, and not equal to God the Father.” At the council of heretics, “I excommunicated them, and from the rank of priest (G.P.) Ignorant, and cursed them, and sent them into imprisonment” 36 . There is an opinion in science, but it is also disputed, that the comparative (with later death penalties) mildness of the decisions made by the council is the result of the influence of these two elders 37. According to the already mentioned “Letter about the Nelyubki”, Paisius and Nil also participated in the Moscow Council of 1503 (in the “Letter” the cathedral is dated 7012/1503–1504), where they expressed the opinion that it was not appropriate for monasteries to own villages 38, and this caused indignation of supporters of this right, led by Abbot Joseph of Volotsky, and subsequently - divergence between the followers of some, the “non-covetous”, and others, the “Josephites”. However, two authoritative records of the 16th century have been preserved, according to which Paisius died two years before the council. One of them reports that the elder “Paseya Eroslavov” reposed in Moscow “in the summer of 7010 December 23, on Thursday, at one o’clock in the afternoon” 39, the other says that “Paseya reposed in the month of December 22, on Thursday, at the second hour of the day” 40. The first entry seems more accurate, since in 1501 December 22 was not Thursday, but Wednesday. Thus, the “ever remembered” author of the Legend of the Savior-Stone Monastery, respected by the Trans-Volga elders and Moscow princes, died not on his beloved northern miniature likeness of Athos, but in Moscow, probably ready, together with Nil Sorsky, to take part in the struggle against the right of monasteries to own villages. His position was probably too well known to everyone, so that after a relatively short time it seemed that he and Neil spoke at the famous council together. Paisiy Yaroslavov remained “ever remembered” for some time not only among the scribes, but also in the Moscow princely family: Paisiy’s godson, Vasily III Ivanovich, dying in 1533, bequeathed the “Paisiy cross” - apparently received at baptism from Abbot Paisiy - to his one-year-old son Yuri 41. This, it seems, is all we can say about Elder Paisiya Yaroslavov, the mentor of Nile of Sorsky. Over the years, Nil, who became an “elder” in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, had his own student - also the son of a “deliberate child” from Moscow - Innokenty from the princely family of Okhlebinins (we will talk about him in more detail later). Having started, as we said, his own “resistance movement” to the world, Nil Sorsky clearly turned and turned his student “back” to the bygone era of the founding fathers, one of whom was the Monk Kirill Belozersky. But Neil also looked deeper into history - at the ascetic monks of the era of construction and the existence of the Christian empire, which by his time no longer existed, whose lives he had to read, if not rewrite, in the Kirillo-Belozersky four menaions. Surely, he wanted to see for himself how the spiritual heirs of these great fathers lived and were saved. The movement of Russian monks to the Balkans, to the holy “East”, in the middle of the 15th century, with the final break in 1448 with the “Ecumenical” Patriarchate of Constantinople (the elevation of Jonah to Russian metropolitan status by a council of Russian bishops) and with the fall in 1453. Constantinople, almost stopped; and he and Innocent went to where, about a hundred years earlier, the Athonite Dionysius came to Rus', who became the abbot of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery, and visited, as he himself writes, “Holy Mount Athos and in the countries of Constantinople,” already inhabited by the Turks, in order to see with his own eyes how the Greek “spiritual elders” live in “silence” with one, two or three disciples, and at “similar times” they meet with those who were silent nearby and “enlightened by spiritual conversations” (this, of course, contrasted sharply with the life of a rich and crowded Russian monastic hostel). According to rumors preserved in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, Nile spent “quite a little” time in the Balkans. A. S. Arkhangelsky believes that Nil Sorsky returned to Rus' between 1475 and 1489. 42. But in the literature there is also an indication of 1465–1478. as during Neil's thirteen-year stay abroad 43. It goes back to an article by S.N. Bolshakov, where we read: “In 1465, Rev. Nile, taking advantage of the presence of Greek envoys in Moscow, went with them to the East. (...) The Nile’s stay in the East continued for thirteen years. […] Rev. Nile returned to Rus' in 1478 a different person” 44. But it is completely unclear from what sources such accurate information was drawn. “Until now, researchers have not been able to date the time of the Athos trip of the Nile,” writes I. V. Dergacheva 45 . She herself admits that Neil traveled to Athos as part of the group of Mitrofan Byvaltsev, who went there in 1470 and stayed there for nine years, “going around the entire monastery of the Holy Mountains, looking at and learning the church rites and rules, as they had received from the ancient fathers” (Life of Macarius of Kalyazinsky); “The conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 and the subsequent complete cessation of communication with the Constantinople Patriarchate made Athos the main source of church thought and practice for the Russian Church. […] It is in this context,” she believes, “that the Athos trip of Mitrofan Byvaltsev’s group should be perceived” 46 . I. V. Dergacheva sees the connection between Nil Sorsky and this group in the fact that in the collection stored in the State Historical Museum (collected. Barsova, No. 952) The Synodikon, written in the Pavlo-Obnorsky Monastery before 1481, already contains a Prayer for the remembrance of the departed by Cyril of Jerusalem, translated from Greek by Nil Sorsky, and it should have been in the Synodikon written by Joseph of Volokolamsk (IRLI, op. 23, No. 52) for his newly created monastery, the Assumption Cathedral which was consecrated on August 15, 1479, three days after the consecration of the new Assumption Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. The synodics of the Assumption Cathedral also included the prayer of Cyril of Jerusalem translated by Nil Sorsky. And the list of this prayer could have come to the Pavlov Obnorsky Monastery from Innocent Okhlebinin Komelsky, a student and companion of Nil Sorsky on his journey, who founded his monastery in the forests not far from Obnorskaya 47. But if the prayer translated by Nil came from Innocent of Komel to Joseph of Volotsky (and from him further) through the Pavlov Obnorsky Monastery, then it means not through Mitrofan Byvaltsev. Perhaps Nil and Mitrofan were on Athos at the same time and met there, but nothing is known about Mitrofan Byvaltsev’s visit to the “countries of Tsarigrad”, where Nil studied the life of the “spiritual elders”. And traveling “in a group” doesn’t fit well with the appearance of Nil Sorsky. He loved peace, concentration and traveled, as we know, together with Innocent, a close-minded Muscovite of princely origin, about whom in his place we will talk in more detail as the second Russian writer-hesychast after Nile of Sorsky - the author of the “Nadscript” and “Attaching” to the works of the teacher, as well as a special treatise “On Internal Work”. Returning to Rus', Nile and Innocent left the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, which seemed too vain to them due to hypertrophied collective economic worries and the many “worldly children” coming in (“it was abbotted by Niphon, who shared “acquisitive” views”) 48, and for some time Nile lived, having built himself a cell (having built a hut?) “outside near monastery." But the proximity of a crowded hostel disturbed him, and he, moving further, at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the monastery, settled in a deep swampy forest on the banks of the narrow Sora River, “before,” he wrote to German Podolny, “by the grace of God I found a place that suited my mind, beyond the reach of a worldly child.” He built a hut and a chapel for himself. Innocent also settled there with him, and other monks who were looking for his spiritual guidance began to come to him, “wanting to live” next to him, several brethren gathered, and a monastery was formed 49 . In 1515, seven years after Neil's death, there were 14 people living in it. During his lifetime there were hardly any more of them. To feed the brethren, Nile built a water mill, and for joint prayers and church services, he built a wooden church on a high embankment in the name of the Presentation of the Lord, using earth for this purpose. The organization of life in the monastery (we know about it from the Tradition of the Nile and from the Tale of the Nilo-Sora Monastery) allows us to present a rather expressive “spiritual portrait” of its organizer, an individualist-contemplator, non-acquisitive, reader and writer. They lived alone in the hut-like cells. It was forbidden to cut down the forest on the territory of the monastery. From one cell no more than one other could be seen, and the distance between them should not have allowed one to hear what was happening there, even if a neighbor brother began to pray loudly, sing or cry. They were not supposed to have anything except icons, books and the most necessary, modest, “found everywhere and conveniently bought” items in their cells. There were no servants. There were no cattle either. The hermits had to eat “from the righteous labors of their handicrafts.” They could only engage in “handicrafts” that could be done under the roof of their cell. They were prohibited from using profits obtained by force from others - “acquisitions collected by force from the labors of others.” The Monk Nile allowed alms to be accepted only in extreme cases and only in moderation. The monks of his monastery could help other people in trouble and need not with material benefits, but with “spiritual reasoning.” “Non-covetousness,” Nile repeated the words of Isaac the Syrian, “is greater than such gifts.” Residents of the monastery met twice a week, gathering in church for all-night vigil on Wednesday evening and Sunday. If there was a holiday during the week that required an all-night vigil, the vigil from Wednesday to Thursday was canceled so that the number of all-night vigils per week did not exceed two. This routine shows that, organizing life in his monastery, Nil Sorsky, along with the experience acquired during travels to the Balkan monasteries, used the “Tradition of the charter in the external country by a resident monk,” which, in all likelihood, was used by Kirill Belozersky at the initial, skete stage of the life of his monastery, because his two oldest lists, as we have already said, are in Kirill Belozersky’s own books, and one of the later lists was made partly by the hand of Nile himself (State Historical Historical Museum, Diocesan collection, No. 349/509, l. 6–8 vol.). Obviously, continuing his “resistance movement” to the world, leaving the large cenobitic monastery for the forest, Neil followed in many ways the example of St. Kirill of Belozersky, who left the large Moscow Simonov monastery for the forest Trans-Volga region about a hundred years earlier. These observations correct the opinion expressed in science that Nil Sorsky was the first organizer of the hermitage form of monastic life in Russia, that he became acquainted with it in the Balkans, and that he thereby seemed to break with the traditions of Russian monasticism. In this regard, interesting are the observations of E. V. Romanenko, who noted that Nilos Sorsky’s own “Tradition” coincides with the cenobitic rules of Euphrosynus of Pskov, that “both saints use the same range of hagiographic literature” and that “both in the cenobitic Eleazarovsky monastery and the Nilo-Sorsky monastery, divine services were performed according to the skete rules. Thus, long before the founding of the Sorsk monastery, a monastery already existed in Rus', where the monastery’s liturgical regulations were in effect […]. These coincidences are unlikely to be accidental. Most likely,” she comes to the conclusion, “they are talking about the great influence that the Monk Euphrosynus of Pskov (his personality, charter and life of the monastery he founded) had on the Monk Nilus of Sorsky.” 50 This is quite plausible. Only Nile was forced to abandon the communal form when creating his monastery; During the time of the monks Kirill of Belozersky and Euphrosynus of Pskov (he founded his monastery in 1425), the problem of monastic wealth and village ownership was not yet as acute as in the times of Rus', which was liberated from the Golden Horde rule. Nile departed from the examples of Kirill Belozersky and Euphrosynus of Pskov only in that he put obstacles in the process of growing his monastery into a hostel. Firstly, he limited admission to his monastery by requiring that a person undergo preliminary training in a cenobitic monastery (no one was tonsured in the monastery); and this shows that he did not break with the traditional system of forms of monastic asceticism, in which the monastery is an intermediate link between complete hermitage and a cenobitic monastery, realizing his direction - in accordance with the “Ladder” of John of Sinai - as a “middle path”. He contrasted not the monastery with the hostel, but a non-acquisitive bookish and spiritual life, which, in his opinion, is also possible in the hostel, dissipating attention and giving rise to the “passions” of the life of a group leading a large farm and exploiting the labor of others. The residence of the monks not according to “the holy scriptures and the tradition of the holy fathers, but according to their own wills and human intentions,” their devotion to “the acquisitions of villages and the attractions of many estates” is one of the constant themes of his writings. This is in good agreement with the message we have already mentioned in the “Letters about Loveless Women” that in 1503 in Moscow, at a council dedicated to resolving the issue of widow priests, Nile “... began... to say that monasteries should not have villages... but would feed themselves on handicrafts. And with him are the Belozersk hermits.” The only questionable thing here is that Neil allegedly said at the same time that “the monks should live in the deserts” - no denial of the cenobitic form of monasteries is noticeable in his writings and the traditions of his monastery. And in general, the path of direct struggle to correct the vices of the society around him, even monastic society, was alien to Neil. It is characteristic that he advised Gury Tushin to simply move away from “the worldly philosophizers and those who practice wordless care - even in the profits of the monastery’s wealth and the acquisition of estates,” saying that “it is not appropriate to talk about such people, neither to scold them, nor to reproach them, but to leave God alone: ​​for God is able to correct them.” So, at the council of 1503, Nil Sorsky himself probably did not attack the monastery money-grubbers with “speeches”, did not blaspheme or reproach them, but only in response to the question of what he thought about the ownership of monasteries in villages, he firmly expressed his opinion. “The Word Another” (written, as Yu. K. Begunov, who found it, calculated, “between the beginning of 1506 and the beginning of 1508”) 51 about the attempt made by Ivan III “to capture the villages from all the rulers and all the monasteries” reports that, having decided to do this, and in return “the metropolitan, and the rulers, and all the monasteries from his the treasury with money and bread from their granaries,” the prince met decisive resistance from the metropolitan, rulers and abbots, with the exception of the monks Nil of Sorsky and Dionysius of Spaso-Kamensky: “Nil, the monk from Belaozero, with a high life of spruce, comes to the Grand Duke, and Denis, the monk Kamensky, and they say to the Grand Duke: “It is not worthy for the monks to have a village.” Vasily Borisov, the boyar of the Tfer lands, also joined the children of the Grand Duke: and the Great Prince Vasily, Prince Dmitry Ugletsky, joined the advice of his father. And the diyaks were introduced according to the Grand Duke’s verb: “It is not worthy for a monk to have a village.” 52 Without a doubt, agreeing with what was clear to the statesmen, Nil Sorsky and Dionysius Kamensky thought first of all about the benefits of the Church, not the state: they tried to stop the dangerous process of its involvement in “wordless care,” “landing,” and “peacefulness.” Connected with what St. Neil considered an acceptable and effective method of avoiding “wordless care” is the second requirement that he made to those wishing to live in his monastery - to be literate. In this, Nil Sorsky also deviated from the rules of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, for in the “Tradition by the Charter ...” in the collection of Kirill Belozersky there is a chapter “Behold those who do not know how to read the Holy Scripture” 53. However, before accepting a village boy into the monastery, Kirill Belozersky, whom the relatives of that (the future Venerable Martinian of Belozersky) brought to him, sent him to learn to read and write 54 . But in general, we know nothing about the need to be literate in order to become a monk of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. From the Tale of the Nilo-Sora Monastery it is known that illiterate people were not accepted into the Nilo-Sora Monastery. This condition corresponds to one of the main themes in Nile’s writings, namely the need he affirms to live “according to the divine scriptures and the tradition of the holy fathers,” to resolve all issues “by testing the divine scriptures,” and to constantly “learn from the divine scriptures.” And this constant focus on the “Scriptures” brings St. Nil closer to the Russian ascetics of the 14th century, in particular, to the inventor of the Zyrian letter, Saint Stephen of Perm. In the Life of this remarkable man, written by his fellow student and friend, Epiphanius the Wise, we read: “And having labored well in the monastic life, and striving much for virtue through fasting and prayer, purity and humility, self-control and sobriety, patience and goodness, obedience and love, and most of all by paying attention to the divine Scriptures, which are many and having often read the holy books, and from there acquiring every virtue, and bringing forth the fruits of salvation, “and studying in the law of the Lord day and night, and being like a fruitful tree, planted by the springing waters” and often soldered by the mind of the divine Scriptures […] ... this hardworking laborer was engaged in the destruction of the divine Scriptures, reasoning with the desire for wisdom and chastity, he became well accustomed to the holy books and studied with great diligence in them, with all his heart “seeking God” and “His information.” For this reason, much wisdom from God was given to him in the Divine Scriptures” (i.e.: “And he worked well in the monastic life, striving for virtue through fasting and prayer, purity and humility, abstinence and sobriety, patience, goodness, obedience and love, and especially by attentive attitude to the Divine Scriptures, which holy books he read a lot and often, all kinds of virtue from there, acquiring and multiplying the fruits of virtue, “and studying in the law of the Lord day and night, like a fruitful tree planted by a source of water” (cf.: Ps. 1: 2-3) and often infused with the mind of the divine Scriptures, this hardworking ascetic, opening the divine Scriptures, pondering them with the desire for wisdom and chastity, studied the holy books well and with great diligence in them he studied with all his heart, “seeking God” (cf.: Ps.68:33) and “His testimony” (cf.: Ps.119:22). Therefore, a good understanding of the divine Scripture was given to him from God) 55. The very requirement of literacy from monks makes us recall the rules of the founder of cenobitic monasteries, the Monk Pachomius the Great (IV century), according to which everyone in the monastery had to know how to read and write. A thousand years after Pachomius, salvation was associated with reading books by contemplative monks, hesychasts, whose work was continued by the Monk Nile. But for Nil of Sorsky, this condition is also one of the obstacles to the growth of the monastery into a hostel and corresponds to his goal of turning the monks from the outside world, which was becoming rich, centralized and church-national-state, to the international, or “supranational” Christian book culture in Rus', the fruit of the previous era. It should also be noted that the constant focus of the searching gaze on the “scriptures” (“in that I have my belly and my breath”) brings him closer to the Karaites, the “readers” (a kind of Protestants in Judaism), who, in my opinion, had a decisive influence on the development of both the Novgorod-Pskov heresy of the Strigolniks of the 14th-15th centuries, and the modern Nile Novgorod-Moscow heresy of “Jewish wise men”, thinking in Jewish ways, XV-XVI centuries. 56, namely, those who do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and the Church as the ship of salvation. Heretics were also bookish people, but they tried to reinterpret Scripture in their own way and accepted it selectively (they rejected the Apostle). Perhaps, partly due to the external similarity with heretics, as a “reader,” Neil considered it necessary in writing to testify in writing to his complete acceptance of all church dogmas and patristic writings rejected by them and to curse “the false teachers of all heretical teachings and traditions.” It is also noteworthy that Neil advised to be selective about the “scriptures”: “There are many scriptures, but not all are divine.” Perhaps this is a cautious warning about the bookishness of heretics. There is also reason to believe (this will be discussed in more detail later) that the Monk Neil took a direct part in the creation of the anti-heretical book of Joseph Volotsky, known as “The Enlightener.” “The fact that Nil Sorsky participated in the creation of the lifetime list of “The Enlightener,” prepared during the last struggle against heretics, testifies, in any case, to his full sympathy for this struggle,” Ya. S. Lurie rightly believes 57. Tradition of the Nile (in the handwritten tradition, its title varies somewhat: “About the life of the holy fathers, this is the tradition of the elder Nile the Hermit as his disciple, and this is applicable to all,” “About the life of the monastery from the holy scriptures,” “This is the tradition of the elder Nile the Hermit as his disciple, and if anyone lives in his desert, this is also applicable to all other hermits about the life.” Saints Father”, etc.), where there is a certificate of the rejection of heretical teachings, is a teaching about the general norms of life in his monastery, addressed, as he writes, to “my brothers, my associates, who are the essence of my character,” with conviction to keep the commandments, follow the patristic traditions, not to go beyond the monastery without the need, to be moderate in food and non-covetous, eating from the proceeds from your handicrafts and not cells, or in the church, not allowing precious utensils and decorations. In terms of genre, Tradition is much more a monastic charter than the work of Nile, to which the name “Rule” is assigned in science (“From the writings of the saints about mental activity, why this is necessary and how one should strive for this”). The Charter consists of a preface and eleven chapters. This is Neil's largest composition. It talks mainly about the inner life of the ascetic - about the struggle with passions, about what Neil calls “mental doing”, “doing of the heart”, “mental observation”, “smart storage”, “keeping the heart”, “mental prayer”, etc. It talks about the stages of development of “passion” in the human soul and the types of “passionate thoughts”. Following those going back at least to the 4th century. traditions of psychological, a kind of “scientific-practical”, Christian ascetic literature, quoting, retelling and referring to a number of authors, of whom Neil especially often recalls Isaac the Syrian (8th century), Simeon the New Theologian (11th century), Gregory of Sinaite (14th century) and John Climacus (VI-VII centuries), he distinguishes between “adposition” (when “the thought is simple or an image” or “any thought will be brought to a person’s mind”), “combination” (“acceptance of a thought”), “addition” (“the soul’s sweet inclination to the appeared thought or image”), “captivity” (“when the mind is captivated by thoughts”) and “passion” (when a person is constantly overwhelmed by “passionate thoughts”). Neil distinguishes eight “passionate thoughts”: “gluttonous”, “prodigal”, “lovers of money”, “wrathful”, “sad”, “despondency”, “vain” and “proud”. As a method of dealing with them, Neil recommends “cutting off the beginning of the thought that comes” and “praying unceasingly” in order to “have a silent heart from every thought” and “keep silent in thought.” The reward for this work is “inexpressible joy,” being “in incomprehensible things,” when a person is sure that “there is nothing else than the kingdom of heaven, just this,” and “having been here, not only does not want to leave the cell, but also wants to be hidden in the ditch, dug up underground.” These kinds of themes in Neil’s writings make it possible to place him among the hesychast writers, “silent people” or “silent people” to whom he refers. Undoubtedly, Neil went through some kind of school of “silence” during his stay on Athos and in the “countries of Constantinople,” but his main guide, as he himself says, was books. The lack of good mentors, he writes, also requires those who want to achieve the “heavenly kingdom”, Eternity-in-the-present, to constantly study the “divine scriptures”. In the message “to his brother, asking him about his thoughts” (Vassian Patrikeev), Nile consoles and instructs his addressee, who, it seems, has recently and involuntarily said goodbye to the world; he says that he should rejoice that God loved him, took him out of this world “and placed him in the rank of His service.” In his message to “another about creeping” (Gury Tushin), he answers questions about the fight against “prodigal” and “blasphemous” thoughts and about “how to retreat from the world” and “not to get lost from the true path.” In a letter “to my brother, I asked him to write a hedgehog for the creeping of the soul” (Herman Podolny), Neil writes about his most important rule - to “test” the divine scriptures. The small fourth message - to “a brother from the eastern country for the creep of the soul” (unknown addressee) - was written in anticipation of a meeting when “there will be a more extensive conversation about everything, about everything”; but even here, in a few lines, Neil does not miss the opportunity to note the main, in his opinion, deeds of a monk: “to learn from the divine scriptures, and to teach oneself in handicrafts, and to love silence.” Neil's messages contain textual coincidences with his Charter. The undoubted success of Nile’s calls to constantly read the “divine scriptures” is evidenced by the number of lists of his favorite literature (“The Ladders” of John of Sinai, the works of Isaac the Syrian, Gregory of Sinai, etc.) made at the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th centuries, especially in Belozerie. It must be said that at this time the number of lists and other wonderful books translated from Greek and replenished Russian literature a century earlier was increasing. As we have already said, this was a revival not only of Russian hesychasm, but specifically of Christian book culture, including hesychasm. That Nil Sorsky pursued precisely such a great goal is shown by his publishing activities, so to speak. After all, his book work, as we know, was not limited to the constant reading of Scripture, or scriptures, transcription from the Greek Synodik, the composition of the famous Tradition and Rule, writing reply messages to his disciples, Prayer and Testament. Judging by the watermarks on the paper, in the 80s and 90s. XV century he compiled, edited and rewrote with his own hand a huge “Collection” in three volumes - a collection of the lives of great saints previously translated from Greek. At the same time, he tried to create the most correct texts, checking different lists, editions and translations (he himself did not translate the hagiography) and inviting his readers to continue this textual work. He writes about this in the preface and afterword to the Sobornik. Now these are manuscripts of the RSL, collection. Trinity–Sergius Lavra, No. 684; Volokolamsk collection, No. 630, State Literary Museum in Moscow, ROF 8354, No. 14 and RGADA, Volokolamsk collection, No. 564 58. “When reading lives from the collections of Nil Sorsky,” writes E.V. Romanenko, - one gets the impression of “text filtering”, every word of the life is comprehended, errors and inaccuracies are removed, the texts become as accessible as possible for perception. […] Most likely, the Monk Neil did not create any special editions: his task was to correct errors, clarify incorrect readings, and find a more complete and accurate list. A comparison of the lives from his collections with other lists and editions shows that he did not remove anything from the texts, even what it would seem, according to the general belief of historians, should have contradicted his views” 59 . Neil's prayer is of a penitential nature; its content is borrowed from prayers before communion. Judging by what Neil says in it about his bodily weakness and the expectation of death (“The imam’s mind and body are exhausted, and the time of my life will end, and the end of death is approaching...”), it was written by him shortly before his death. In his Testament, Neil asks to “throw” his body “into the desert, and to devour it from animals and birds, since they have sinned... there is a lot of food and it is unworthy of burial.” If “the gentlemen and brethren, who are the essence of my character,” to whom he addresses, refuse to do this, then let them, he writes, “having dug a ditch in the place where we live, with all dishonor” bury him. “If only they would try to perform a sacred service for me for up to 40 days! I swear by this,” Nil asks the brethren there. According to the entry in the Northern Russian, apparently, manuscript of 1784, containing the works of Nil of Sorsky and Innocent of Komel (IRLI, R. IV, op. 24, No. 66, l. 290), “according to the will of the Venerable Nil, they sing in prayer for him and serve mass, but there is no service for him, namely the troparion, kontakion And Ikos is read in his memory on the 7th day of May.” It is likely that the entry was copied from an older manuscript and, so to speak, has fallen behind the times, because, as E.V. Romanenko shows, they began to commemorate Nile of Sorsky as a locally revered saint around the middle of the 17th century, and as part of the Council of Belozersk Saints - from the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. 60. But it follows from it that, supplementing his written will with a request for forty days of service according to it, Neil asked not to remember him as a saint. Nil Sorsky died on May 7, 1508 and was buried near the Church of the Presentation on the territory of the monastery he founded. Records of posthumous miracles of Nil Sorsky began to appear in the 18th century, and in the first half of the 19th century. in his monastery, which had long since ceased to be a monastery, a poorly informative Life 61 was created, based mainly on his writings. Scientists attributed some other works to Nil of Sorsky, but without sufficient grounds. Among them is the so-called Message to the monk-prince Constantine-Cassian of Mangup, entitled in the list (RSL, collection of MDA fund., No. 36/185, 2nd half of the 17th century, l. 23-26) “Message from the divine scriptures to the father’s house to a grieving brother.” The contents of the message, however, do not provide grounds for attributing it to the Monk Nile and also do not allow us to recognize its recipient as a Greek (this person is spoken of as recently baptized). It is possible that some of the messages that were groundlessly attributed to Nil Sorsky actually belonged to Nil Polev, but this question needs to be studied. Somewhat more thoroughly, a large period is associated with Nil Sorsky, repeated in different messages and related to the so-called “Message to the Icon Painter,” which served as one of the sources of “The Enlightener” by Joseph Volotsky 62. This connection is reinforced by the fact that in the oldest copy of the “Enlightener” that has come down to us (RNB, Solovetsky collection, No. 326/346), Neil himself rewrote exactly (but not only) that part of it, which includes the text based on the “Message to the Icon Painter”. Y. S. Lurie thinks that the creation of the anti-heretical “Enlightener” was a joint response of Joseph of Volotsky and Nil Sorsky to the call of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod to fight the heresy of “Jewish philosophies”: “In 1489, in a letter to the former Archbishop of Rostov Joasaph, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod asked him to be involved in the fight against the heresy of the largest church leaders of northern, “Volga” Rus' - Paisius Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky. Now we can imagine the consequences of this appeal: a direct response to Gennady’s request, the joint compilation by Joseph and Nil of the “Message to the Icon Painter” and “words” about icons, the writing of “The Enlightener” with the direct participation of Nil of Sorsky. How exactly did this cooperation take place? We have already noted that the manuscript of “The Enlightener”, written by Nil Polev and Nil Sorsky (Sol. 326/346), was obviously created in the north, in the area adjacent to the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery. Does this mean that Nil Polev, who went to “Father Nil” on “White Lake” with the blessing of Joseph, brought with him the materials of the book he was preparing, or were contacts made earlier, in other ways? Were those sections of “The Enlightener” that were written by his hand the fruit of the work of Nil Sorsky, or did the boundaries of the autographs not coincide with the boundaries of authorship? We, of course, cannot answer all these questions now.” 63 E.V. Romanenko also considers it probable that “it was the compilation of the “Illuminator” that was the main purpose of Nil’s (Polev’s) visit from the Volokolamsk monastery to the Nilo-Sorsky monastery” and that “we have every reason to assume that his oldest copy was created in the Nilova Hermitage” 64. This is quite likely. In this manuscript, NLR, Solovetsky collection, No. 326/346, sheets 47–51 vol., 67–103 vol., 215–287 vol., i.e., the first (not completely) and second Words, approximately the last two thirds of the seventh and then the eighth, ninth and tenth Words of “Tales of the Newly Appeared” are written by the hand of Nil Sorsky. heresy”, i.e. “The Enlightener” (in a brief edition) by Joseph Volotsky in its entirety (see illustration on p. 19). “Researchers often say that there is no direct evidence of Nil Sorsky’s attitude towards heretics,” writes E. V. Romanenko in this regard. - However, they exist. In the oldest list of the “Enlightener”, by the hand of Elder Nile, it is written: “If anyone dishonors the image of kings, he will suffer the main execution. How much more than the Heavenly King or His likeness saints, or the church, who will dishonor, which are worthy of torment? But according to the divine rules here, the main execution will be executed and be given over to eternal damnation, after death with the devil and the Jews who crucified Christ, who declared ‘His blood on us and on our children,’ will be condemned to eternal fire” (RNB, Sol. 326/346. L. 216 vol.)” 65. But there is no reason to believe that Nil Sorsky is the author of this period in the seventh Word of the Enlightener, and not just its copyist. And what are these “divine rules” that condemn the iconoclast to death and eternal damnation? The translator into modern Russian of Words in Defense of Icons by Joseph Volotsky, Hierodeacon Roman (A.G. Tamberg), apparently did not find such “rules” and translated these words as “according to Divine justice” 66. We know that the iconoclasts dealt with iconoclasts in this way, but we don’t seem to know that iconoclasts dealt with iconoclasts. And Nil Sorsky in his writings usually indicates what or whom he means, quotes or retells. This is not his style and spirit; undoubtedly - Joseph Volotsky. And in addition, the opinion of Nilov’s student Vassian Patrikeev about the inadmissibility of the death penalty for heretics 67 is well known, and that another Nilov’s student, German (obviously Podolny), was opposed to the condemnation of heretics, for from the second message of Nil Polev addressed to him it follows that he said that “it is not appropriate to judge anyone - neither return nor disbelieve, but it is appropriate to pray for them, but don’t send them to prison” (Nil Polev strongly disagreed with this) 68. It seems to me that the position of the teacher of Vassian and Herman, the meek but firm in his meekness of Nil Sorsky, should have been the same. In this, the “non-acquisitives” also returned precisely to the “golden age” of Russian spirituality, more specifically, to the views expressed in the first third of the 15th century. Metropolitan of All Rus' Photius - about the inadmissibility of applying the death penalty to heretics: “... let there be no blood and death on such...” (then these were the predecessors of the “Jewish wise men” - the Strigolniki) 69. Also known, written by the hand of Nilus of Sorsky himself, are the end of the “Tradition of the charter of a monk staying in the outer country”, the beginning of his own Tradition, extracts from the books of Ephraim the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, John Chrysostom, Patriarch Nicephorus, Abba Dorotheus, Basil the Great and others (GIM, Diocesan collection, No. 349/509, pp. 6–15 vol., 110–178 vol.). Contrary to the Testament of Nil of Sorsky, which says: “What books I myself wrote, so do those of my Lord and my brethren, who shall inflict trembling in this place,” the books that he wrote did not remain in his monastery, but ended up in the Volokolamsk Monastery as a contribution from Nil Polev’s soul. It is curious that Nil Polev in one of his messages writes about his trip to the “Belozersky countries”, where Joseph Volotsky sent him, as an unpleasant obedience for him, similar to the resettlement of the biblical Jews to Egypt: “... and we are rudely trying, what is our strength, to leave the fatherland and our land and instead of Egypt to settle in the Belozersky countries, wanting to endure all sorts of sorrows in an unknown land and troubles from unknown people.” Undoubtedly, for some time he lived in the monastery of Nil Sorsky, since they wrote books together 70, but it is also undoubtedly that he was in Belozerye even after the death of Nil Sorsky. Maybe he went there twice, the second time after the death of Nil Sorsky, with Dionysius of Zvenigorod? Each of them founded their own desert there. Apparently fulfilling the main task of this trip, Nil Polev and Dionysius of Zvenigorod sent with Elder Serapion a message to Joseph of Volotsky accusing the hermits of Belozersk of the “great heresy”: Dionysius discovered a cross under the bed of one of them (which means he looked there), and the other, when Dionysius unexpectedly appeared at his place, allegedly threw some book into the oven. Through his brother, Archbishop Vassian of Rostov, Joseph Volotsky conveyed this denunciation to the Grand Duke, who showed it to Vassian Patrikeev, who was in his honor; After this, Elder Serapion, who delivered the denunciation, was tortured and died; The angry prince ordered the hermitages of the informers to be burned, and they themselves to be placed under supervision in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. There, as the “Letter about the Loveless” says, they “endured much sorrow in great need”; Nil Polev later recounted: “When I was in great need and prayed with tears, I remembered how I had passed away from Father Joseph without a blessing...” 71. (This means that this was, indeed, his second trip to Belozerye). His stay with Dionysius of Zvenigorod in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery was not long: approximately in 1511–1512. By order of the same Grand Duke, they returned to the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery. How Nil Polev managed to steal and take with him from the Kirillo-Belozersky and Nilo-Sorsky libraries a number of most valuable books, including the works and autographs of Nil Sorsky, among which is the three-volume “Collected Book” edited and rewritten by Nil Sorsky, which we talked about, is a mystery. During 1512–1514 Nil Polev donated these books, along with money, to the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery as payment for future posthumous prayers for him and his loved ones 72. In “Sobornik” RSL, Volokolamsk collection, No. 630 (fol. 1). - write them down upon their repose in the daily list: Ksenia, monk Mark, monk Nile. […] Far away I have eight books from the daily list and three rubles of money for three forties...” 73 . Reading it, you might think that the book was written in 1513–1514. in the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery. For literature about Nil Sorsky, see the “Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Rus'” 74 , as well as in the book by E. V. Romanenko 75 , which traces the history of the study of the work of Nil Sorsky and the history of his monastery after his death, and it is shown that thanks to the initiative of Vassian Patrikeev, already in 1515 the Nilo-Sorsky monastery began to receive sovereign support from the Grand Duke. The first Russian hesychast writer, the Venerable Nil of Sorsky, seems to me to be a figure of the “Silver Age” in the history of ancient Russian spirituality. He and his like-minded “non-covetous” people opposed not just the money-grubbing abbots with their concerns for the good of society and the state. Just as monasticism of the first centuries was “a powerful challenge to the empire, which was then in the process of construction” - a challenge-reminder of the constant presence of Eternity in the present - so the movement of “non-acquisitors” was a challenge-reminder of the same thing to the Great Russian Church and the state, which was then in the process of construction connecting them. If Elder Nil had lived longer, he probably would have also died hopelessly imprisoned in a solitary cell in the Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery, like his student and follower Vassian Patrikeev. The Church, which identifies itself with the state, met the challenge, of course. But the fact is that all states, except the Kingdom of Heaven, are temporary, and there is no longer either the Muscovite kingdom, or the Roman or Russian empires, and this challenge - like the challenge of the Kingdom of Heaven - is eternal and, therefore, is relevant for Christians until the end of earthly days, and for society and the state it is the only healing thing. Reverend Neil - unlike his opponents - was able to miraculously distance himself from temporary, time-consuming “local” “external” benefits for the sake of integral and limitless internal ones. “The Church is richer the poorer it is economically, relying only on the Lord. That is why in the West there is such love for Francis of Assisi,” said its abbot, Fr. Enzo Bianchi, who created a charter for his community under the great influence of the works of St. Nilus 76. “The hesychasm of Nil Sorsky is educational and cultural, and in this aspect it has not yet been studied,” noted the famous Italian Russian professor Nina Mikhailovna Kaukhchishvili there (I use my recordings of their speeches. - G.P.). Today, as “the worldwide process of secularization continues, violence and moral corruption are on the rise, crass practical materialism is expanding, social injustice and environmental problems are increasing... The Monk Nil of Sorsky can, says schema-hegumen Vasily Grolimund (who wrote a book about Nil of Sorsky and translated his works into Greek) 77, “become one of the greatest spiritual leaders of monks of the 21st century. His writings can be an excellent textbook and reference book on real monastic life not only for Orthodox Christians, but also for Western monks and nuns...” 78. It seems to me that the works of St. Nilus of Sorsky are of interest and can be useful in spiritual life not only for monks, but also for all good people who more or less protect their inner world. The article was originally published in English in The Greek Orthodox Review magazine. T. III. No. 2 (1957), then included in the book: Christianity and Culture. Belmont, Mass., 1974 (Collected Works of Georges Florovskij). Cap. 3: Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert. P. 67–100. I use the translation by Lydia Alexandrovna Uspenskaya (Saint-Genevieve-des-Bois, France), published in the magazine “Measure”, No. 4. St. Petersburg, 1994. pp. 6–22. About the cult of family and land in Rus' in pre-Tatar times, see: Komarovich V.L., The cult of family and land in the princely environment of the 11th-13th centuries. // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (hereinafter referred to as TODL). M.; L., 1960. T. 16. P. 84–104. See: Meyendorff J., Alexis and Roman. A Study in Byzantino-Russian Relations (1352–1354) // Byzantinoslavica. 28 (1967). P. 278–288. See: Prokhorov G.M. Rus' and Byzantium in the era of the Battle of Kulikovo. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. I–II. See: Prokhorov G. M. Cell hesychast literature (John Climacus, Abba Dorotheus, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Sinaite) in the library of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra from the 14th to the 17th centuries. // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 28. P. 317–324. See: Prokhorov G. M. Cell hesychast literature (John Climacus, Abba Dorotheus, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Sinaite) in the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery from the 14th to the 17th centuries. // Monastic culture: East and West. St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 44–58. See: Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers. M., 1854, T. X., pp. 594–598; Arkhangelsky A. S., Education and literature in the Muscovite state at the end of the 15th–17th centuries, Kazan, 1901, Issue. 2., p. 163–166. Messages of Joseph Volotsky. Preparation of the text by A. A. Zimin and Y. S. Lurie. M.; L., 1959. P. 367. See: Acts of the socio-economic history of north-eastern Rus' in the 14th – early 16th centuries. M., 1952. T. 1. No. 549; 1958. T. 2. No. 249; 1964. T. 3. No. 266, 268, 270. See: Likhachev N.P. Bit clerks of the 16th century. St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 67–68. See also: Romanenko E.V. Nil Sorsky and the traditions of Russian monasticism. M., 2003. pp. 6–7. Laurentian Chronicle // PSRL. L., 1926. T. 1. Issue. 1. Page 118–119. Prokhorov G.M. The Tale of the Nilo-Sora Skete // Cultural Monuments. New discoveries. Writing. Art. Archeology. Yearbook 1976. M., 1977. P. 16. See also in this edition, p. 395. Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 7. Acts collected in libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archaeographic Expedition of the Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1836. T. 3. No. 266. Reverends Kirill, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky. Ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg, 1994. P. 54. See: Encyclopedia of the Russian abbot of the 14th–15th centuries. Collection of St. Kirill Belozersky. Russian National Library, No. XII. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 30, 158–164, 344–352. See: Prokhorov G.M. Cell hesychast literature... in the library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. P. 56. Lönngren T. P. Collector of Nil Sorsky. M., 2000. Part I. P. 15. Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 8. Messages of Joseph Volotsky. P. 367. See: Prokhorov G.M. The Legend of Paisiy Yaroslavov about the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery // Holy Ascetics and Abodes of the Russian North. St. Petersburg. 2005. pp. 7–44. For a detailed description of it, see: Sreznevsky I.I., Information and notes on little-known and unknown monuments. St. Petersburg, 1876. T. 2. No. LVI. pp. 297–304. Apparently, this is an extract from the works of Nikita Stifat, a Byzantine author of the 11th century, for on the margin of the previous sheet (9 volumes) it is written: “Nikita, monk-presbyter of the Studite monastery, Stifat.” Lönngren T. P. Collector of Nil Sorsky. Part I. P. 19. See: Budovnits I. U. Monasteries in Russia and the struggle of peasants against them in the XIV-XVI centuries, M., 1966. pp. 69–70. See: Hilary and Arseny, hieromonks. Description of Slavic manuscripts from the library of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1879. Part 3. No. 748 (1647). pp. 143–145. PSRL. St. Petersburg, 1848. T. 4. P. 152; 1853. T. 6. P. 33, 223. See: Acts of the socio-economic history of North-Eastern Rus' at the end of the 14th – beginning of the 16th centuries. M., 1952. No. 467. This document gave rise to Ya. S. Lurie with noticeable pleasure to note: “A very curious document definitely testifies against the idea of ​​​​the non-acquisitive views of Paisius: a court case over land between Paisius as the abbot of the Trinity Monastery and the Kirillov abbot Nifont.” See: Lurie Ya. S., Notes on the history of journalistic literature of the late XIV - first half of the XVI centuries. 2. Imaginary messages of Nil Sorsky to Paisiy Yaroslavov // TODRL. M.; L., 1960. P. 461. Hilarius and Arseny, hieromonks. Description of Slavic manuscripts from the library of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1878. Part 2. P. 172. See: Prokhorov G.M. The Legend of Paisiy Yaroslavov... P. 27, 43. This church was blown up twice by the Bolsheviks: in the 30s and in the Khrushchev 60s. See: Kazakova N. A., Lurie Y. S. Antifeudal heretical movements in Rus' in the 14th – early 16th centuries. M., 1955. S. 318, 320. PSRL. T. 4. P. 158–159; T. 6. P. 279. See: Lurie Ya. S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late XIV - early XVI centuries. M.; L., I960. pp. 311–312. See: Messages of Joseph Volotsky. P. 367. RNL, collection. Pogodina, No. 1554, l. 21. RNL, Kirillo-Belozersky collection, No. 101/1178, “German’s Sobornichek”, XV-XVI centuries, fol. 253 rev. See: The Tale of the Illness and Death of Vasily III // PLDR. Mid-16th century M., 1985. S. 38, 575. Arkhangelsky A. S. Nil Sorsky // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. St. Petersburg, 1897. T. XXI. P. 150. See: Saint Nil Sorsky (1433–1508). La vie, les ecrits, le skite d’un starets de Trans-Volga. Texts traduits et annotes par Sr. Sophia M. Jacamon, osb. Presentation de Dym Andre Louf, ocr. Begrolles-en-Mauges, 1980. P. 23 (Spiritualite orientale, no. 32); Toucas-Bouteau M. Nil Sorskij e il monastero di Kirill di Belozero // Nil Sorskij e I’esicasmo. Atti del II Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualita russa. Comunita di Bose, 1995. P. 73. Bolshakov S. N. Venerable Nil of Sorsky // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. No. 36. Paris, I960. pp. 47–48. Dergacheva I. V. The formation of narrative principles in ancient Russian literature of the 15th–17th centuries (On the material of the Synodic). Diss. for the job application uch. step, candidate of philology, sciences. M., 1987. P. 26. I thank Irina Vladimirovna for providing me with a copy of this work of hers. Dergacheva I. V. The formation of narrative principles in ancient Russian literature of the 15th–17th centuries. From 27. Bolshakov S. N. Venerable Nil of Sorsky. P. 48. S.N. Bolshakov (Reverend Nile of Sorsky. p. 50), again based on what is not clear, writes that to the Nile on the river. Sora “the first to come was Dionysius, from the princes of Zvenigorod, tonsure of Volokolamsk. […] Another Volokolamsk monk, Nil Polev, from the princes of Smolensk, and others came for Dionysius.” Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 141–144. Begunov Yu. K. “The Other Word” is a newly discovered work of Russian journalism of the 16th century. about the struggle of Ivan III with the land ownership of the Church // TODRL. M.; L., 1964. P. 363. See: Encyclopedia of the Russian abbot of the 14th–15th centuries. Collection of St. Kirill Belozersky... S. 162–164. See: Reverends Kirill, Ferapont and Martinian of Belozersky. pp. 236–237. Saint Stephen of Perm. To the 600th anniversary of his repose. St. Petersburg, 1995, pp. 58–61. See Prokhorov G.M. “Conversation” of Gregory Palamas “with the Chions and the Turks” and the problem of “Jewish wisdom” // TODRL. L., 1972. T. 27. pp. 329–369. Lur'e J. S. Nil Sorskij e la composizione dell’ “Illuminatore” di Iosif di Volokolamsk // Nil Sorskij e l’esicasmo. Atti del II Convegno ecumenico internazionale di spiritualita russa. Comunita di Bose, 1995. P. 103. I use the typescript of the Russian text of the article from which the Italian translation was made. The “Cathedral” of Nil Sorsky based on these manuscripts has now been published in three volumes by T. P. Lönngren: Cathedral of Nil Sorsky. Part I. M., 2000; Part II. M., 2002; Part III. M.. 2004. Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 78–79. Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 188–200. See: Prokhorov G.M. Life and miracles of Nil Sorsky in the list of the first quarter of the 19th century. // TODRL. St. Petersburg, 1996. T. 50. P. 558–567; Shevchenko E. E. Service and Life of St. Nil of Sorsky, compiled in the middle of the 19th century. Hieroschemamonk Nil Prikhudailov // Handwritten book of Ancient Rus' and Slavic countries: From codicology to textual criticism. St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 166–186. See also the Appendix to this publication. See: Borovkova–Maikova M.S. On the literary activity of Nil Sorsky // PDPI. St. Petersburg, 1911. T. 177. Lur’e J. S. Nil Sorskij e ia composizione dell’ “Illuminatore”... P. 108–109 Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 96. Rev. Joseph of Volotsky. Message to the icon painter. M., 1994. P. 80. The corresponding Old Russian text is p. 282 in the phototypically reproduced edition of “The Enlightener” (Kazan, 1896). See: Kazakova N.A. Vassian Patrikeev (Slant; in the world Prince Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev) // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Second half of the 14th–16th centuries. Part 1. A–K. L., 1988. pp. 120–123. See: Nile (in the world Nikifor Vasilyevich Polev) (XV–XVI centuries) // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Second half of the 14th–16th centuries. Part 2. L–Y. L., 1989. P. 130. “... let not blood and death be upon such, but otherwise - and by means of imprisonment - bring them into knowledge, so that they do not perish or go down to hell in their darkness.” – Russian Historical Library. St. Petersburg, 1880. T. 6. No. 51; Kazakova N. A., Lurie Y. S. Antifeudal heretical movements in Rus' in the 14th – early 16th centuries. Adj. 4. Photius also asks that heretics not be put to death in another letter, dated September 23, 1427 - Historical Acts. St. Petersburg, 1841. T. 1. No. 34; Russian Historical Library. T. 6. No. 56; Kazakova N. A., Lurie Y. S. Antifeudal heretical movements... App. 6. See: Kloss B.M. Nil Sorsky and Nil Polev - “book writers” // Old Russian art: Manuscript book. M., 1974. Sat. 2. pp. 150–167. Messages of Joseph Volotsky. P. 368. See: Nile (in the world Nikifor Vasilyevich Polev) (XV–XVI centuries) // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Second half of the 14th–16th centuries. Part 2. L–Y. pp. 129–131; Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. M., 1996. Book. 4. Part 1. pp. 336–337. For a photo reproduction of this recording, see: Lönngren T. P. Cathedral of Nil Sorsky. Part III. pp. 15–16. L., 1989. Issue. 2. Part 2. pp. 139–141. Romanenko E. V. Nil Sorsky and traditions... P. 243–249. For considerations on the development of the veneration of St. Nile, starting from the middle of the 16th century, see: Shevchenko E. E. On the history of the canonization of St. Nile of Sorsky // Ancient Rus'. No. 1 (15). March 2004. pp. 95–101. Thanks to his efforts, a book was published in Italian: Nil Sorskij. La vita e gli scritti. A cura di Enzo Bianchi. Torino, 1988. Μονάχος Βασίλιος (Γρολιμοΰνδ). Τού έν όσίοις πατρός ημών Νείλου Σόρσκυ άπαντα τα σωζόμενα άσκετικά. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1985. Grolimund V. II ruolo di Nil Sorskij per il monachesimo del XXI secolo // Nil Sorskij e lesicasmo. Atti del II Convegno ecumenico internazionale... P. 307.