Глава пятая. Чаша

Again, going away another time, he prayed, saying: My Father! If this cup cannot pass from Me, lest I drink it, Thy will be done. Gospel of Matthew, ch. 26, art. 42 The trials of Maxim the Greek in 1525 and 1531 have been mentioned more than once, and the reader, of course, had a question - for what? Why was a monk, absorbed in scientific works, which were copied in many lists and sent to monasteries and dioceses, tried - and twice - for? The Athonite monk had been asking to be released to the Holy Mountain since December 1522, but instead he found himself in captivity. What did he do wrong? Were the accusations true? Did he want to raise the Turkish Sultan to Rus', as some witnesses said, was he a Turkish spy, as even some modern researchers believed? We know about his trials from two main sources and a number of individual references, but their information is incomplete, tendentious and often contradictory. The materials of the investigative case and secular court proceedings are contemporary with the events - protocols of interrogations, confrontations, testimonies of witnesses and accused. But they were not preserved in full, in fragments on 22 pages, located in the archives of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, since among the accused there were persons of foreign origin 1. Another great source is the “Judgment Lists” of Church Councils, which examined the heresy of Maximus the Greek and his other “guilts.” Previously, this source was also known in incomplete form (without ending), court decisions and sentences remained unknown, and it seemed to researchers that the resolution of riddles and secrets, answers and solutions were contained in this then unknown part. Of exceptional importance was the discovery of N. N. Pokrovsky, who discovered in a distant Altai village the full text of the “Judgment Lists,” which contained the final document of one of the Councils and a number of other valuable information 2 . However, after this new questions arose, no less complex than the previous ones. The “Judgment Lists” were preserved as part of a handwritten collection of the late 16th century (previously known ones belonged to the 17th century), among narrative works of various genres and, unlike the previous case, are not original documents, but their processing (with the inclusion of documents or their citation), its purpose will become clear later. However, the archive of the Ambassadorial Prikaz contained a large number of original documents (now lost, with the exception of the mentioned excerpts from the investigative file). In the inventory of this archive, in the section “Greek Discord,” two sets of documents are mentioned. The first is “an extract from the list and an accusation of heresy against Elder Maxim the Greek, and his exile to the Osifov Monastery in 7033” (that is, in 1525). The compilers of the inventory could hardly call the letter of May 24, 1525 from the Metropolitan and Grand Duke to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery a “list extract,” summing up the results of the Council and setting out its decisions. It is rather some kind of final, final document of the work of the Council, in which the main guilt is named - “heresy” - and the decision on “exile”. This means that there were some documentary materials from the Council of 1525, preserved in the Ambassadorial Prikaz (since the convict was a foreigner, a Greek). The second is a set of materials (“bundle”), undated, probably dating back to the trial of 1531: “A bundle, and in it there are investigations, questions, denunciations, and answers against Maxim the Greek about the Christian faith” 3 . The archives of the Ambassadorial Prikaz preserved a large complex of documentary materials about the trials of Maxim the Greek, about his proven (“conviction”) and main, from the point of view of the judges (and compilers of the Inventory), guilt – heresy. This is a much broader set of documents than the one named in the earlier inventory (1614), where, however, the “argument” on Maxim the Greek was specifically named 4. This word has either a more neutral meaning (argument, evidence) or a more odious meaning (denunciation, slander). An excerpt from the investigative file is a pasted-out column; its sheets are stitched and glued along the left margin. It contains only 22 sheets and consists of two parts - per sheet. 1–14 and 15–22, partially coinciding in content. Each of them has an edit (stylistic and semantic), moreover, the edit of the second part is taken into account in the first, so that the part on l. 15–22 seems to be a corrected draft, and part of it is on l. 1–14 – a copy, which was originally thought to be white, but then a new edit was made to it; Moreover, it contains fragments that are missing in its original, so it is obvious that a third, more complete text was also used. The very structure of the document and extensive editing show that the investigation was not easy. The compilers of the protocols sought to “straighten” its course, removing some initial testimony and leaving secondary ones, removing some critical statements, in particular, addressed to the person of the Grand Duke, so that he would not look like a “persecutor and wicked tormentor” when the testimony of witnesses coincided. It is also indisputable that they judged the “speeches” of the accused, words, opinions, and not deeds and actions. The investigation did not have any clear evidence at its disposal, except for the testimony of the accused and their mutual accusations, and confessions were sometimes given not during the first interrogation, but during the second one, and the fact of some kind of pressure is not excluded. It is unclear how the investigation began and in what capacity Maxim Grek was involved in it. At first glance, it seems that he is only a witness, not an accused. No charges are directly brought against him (at least in the part of the investigation that has reached us), but it turns out that the investigation, even before the start of the proceedings, was very interested in his “guilts” that they wanted to discover. This follows from the testimony and semi-confession of one of the accused, Fedor, nicknamed Fried. Another defendant, Bersen Beklemishev, reported that Fedor told him: “They are telling me Maxim to cleave. Should I rivet it?” Fyodor admitted only that he told Bersen the words of Abbot Troitsky addressed to him: “Just tell me the whole truth about Maxim, and I will forgive you.” The text has been edited: “tell” has been replaced with “lie”, “the whole truth” has been crossed out. But Fyodor refused the latter: “And he never told a lie [that is, about the call to lie] to Bersen.” Even if the words about lying were really a slander against Fedor himself, it also follows from what he admitted to that they demanded from him some kind of testimony against Maxim in favor of the investigation. This happened after Maxim was “confiscated,” that is, arrested, which happened around February 15. The surviving part of the investigative file begins with interrogations and testimony on February 20 or 22: “... a Greek tale about Bersen Maximov, and Fedka Fried speeches with Maxim and with Bersen” (“fairy tale” here is “testimony”). Initially, Maxim did not want to give evidence that was unfavorable for Bersen, and replied that the only subject of their conversations was there were “books” and “Tsaregrad customs”, “but I didn’t say any other words to him.” The last words are crossed out (a case of semantic editing, designed to show the unilinearity of the investigation). The investigation apparently insisted, since Maxim named two more points in the conversations. If these testimony of Maxim were unfavorable for Bersen, then to the same extent they were unfavorable for himself; he conveys not only Bersen's words, but also his own answers, and their direct meaning or subtext shows his critical attitude towards the orders that Bersen spoke about. Thus, Bersen asked Maxim how the Greeks “lived” under the “besermensky” “persecuting kings”, in “fierce times”. Maxim’s answer is recorded in the following wording: “Our kings are evil, but the patriarchs and metropolitans do not intervene in their court.” The subtext is obvious: “they are standing up for you in Moscow.” Bersen continued: “Although your kings are wicked and walk like this, you still have God,” Maxim seemed to want to say to the judges: “but not here.” Maxim expressed his own opinion at other stages of the investigation, moreover, such that the compilers of the final edition might not have included it in the text. So, before starting the second part of the document (remember that it reflects an earlier version), on p. 15 there is a crossed out, but easily readable text (probably it refers to the moment of the investigation when Fyodor Zharenny admitted his “speeches” that “the sovereign came cruel and unmerciful to people,” and the judges asked Maxim something about this). “Yes, Maxim said: the truth, sir, I will tell you what is in my heart, I have not heard this from anyone and have not spoken to anyone, but with my own opinion I have kept it in my heart. The widows cry, and the sovereign goes to the church, and the widows cry and follow him, and they (probably the grand duke’s servants, guards) beat them, and I prayed to God for the sovereign, so that God would put it on the sovereign’s heart and the sovereign would show mercy over them” 5 . After Maxim’s refusal to talk in detail about the content of his conversations with Bersen, the investigation brought in another witness, Maximov’s cell attendant Afanasy. His testimony was recorded very succinctly, but it changed the course of the investigation, and Maxim began to give testimony that was unfavorable for Bersen. Whether he was forced to do this by threats or agreed voluntarily is difficult to say. Afanasy told the investigation a circle of people who came to Maxim’s cell for the purpose of “discussing (that is, arguing) about bookish things,” and these conversations were conducted openly; but their conversations with Bersen took place differently: “When Bersen comes to him, he will then send us all out, but with Bersen they sit alone for a long time.” Although these conversations took place face to face, the cell attendant probably told the investigation a lot about them. Maxim's testimony against Bersen is more numerous than the testimony of Fyodor Zharenny, but the latter was no less difficult for Bersen, as well as vice versa - Fyodor's testimony against Bersen. It must be remembered that, firstly, Maxim was forced to testify against Bersen (at least part of it) (this is obvious from the change in the nature of the testimony after the interrogation of the cell attendant); secondly, contradictory testimony of other persons that cannot be verified, as well as changes by them in their testimony, raise doubts about their reliability. Next came the usual investigative actions in legal proceedings of that time. Bersen denies the fact of his conversations with Maxim, Maxim confirms his testimony, Bersen changes his, admitting part of his speeches, Maxim’s confrontation with Fyodor Zharenny, who at first “locked himself up” (that is, began to lock himself away), then admitted his guilt: “those speeches” he said (including that “the sovereign came cruel and unmerciful to people,” probably the above crossed out testimony of Maxim the Greek about the great prince). When assessing the investigation materials, we must take into account that the full scope of the investigation is unknown to us. It is important to establish that no more or less serious charges were brought against Maxim Grek; only his own confessions, caused by excessive trust in the investigation, looked reprehensible (from the point of view of the judges). The investigation was unable to establish any of his guilt. There is no continuation or completion of the investigation. From other sources (chronicles) it is known that Ivan Nikitich Bersen Beklemishev was executed, the “crusader clerk” Fyodor Zharenny had his tongue cut out, two more accused (not mentioned in the excerpts of the investigative case), Archimandrite Savva and Pyotr Mukha Karpov (a relative of F.I. Karpov, already known to us), were also punished 6 . Maxim the Greek and Archimandrite Savva appeared before the church court, the Consecrated Council. It began in the grand ducal chamber in May 1525. Present at the Council were “the Great Prince Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia and with his father Danil, Metropolitan of All Russia,” the younger brothers of the Grand Duke Princes Yuri and Andrey, archbishops, bishops, archimandrites, abbots, the clergy of Moscow cathedral churches, elders from many monasteries, as well as secular persons (“nobles and voivode") 7 . In the full text of the “Judgment Lists,” published in 1971, one of the most valuable pieces of new information are the letters of Metropolitan Daniel and Vasily III to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, where Maxim the Greek was sent into “exile.” A lengthy letter sums up the results of the Council and lists the “guilts” of the condemned 8. There are only two of them - which means, according to the official version, the Council considered only them proven. This is an unlawful and erroneous editing of holy books and the dissemination of heretical views, as well as statements regarding the practice of the Moscow metropolitans and the autocephaly of the Russian Church. One of the most serious accusations - of “treason”, of treasonous relations with the Turkish ambassador - had no documentary basis, was not proven and was not included in the official final document, which were the letters of the Metropolitan and the Grand Duke. In the initial part of the “Judgement Lists”, in the information about the Council of 1525, Maxim’s “heretical” editing is very briefly described, and it is also reported that he disseminated his heretical views, which aggravated his guilt (“Maxim the Greek said and taught Michal that ...”) 9. An example of editing is given in a very important place, in the text included in the Creed: “Where in the local books it was written “Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand 55 of the Father,” and in another 56 “he sat at the right hand of the Father,” and he crossed out some, and scraped out others, and instead wrote “sitting at the right hand of the Father,” and in another “he sat at the right hand of the Father,” in In another place he wrote: “You sat at the right hand of the Father.” These included grammatical corrections, changes in verb forms during translation, and comparisons with the original. It is difficult for the modern reader to comprehend the gravity of such an accusation. We will not analyze its linguistic and theological subtleties, limiting ourselves to the judgment of E. E. Golubinsky that it was an “imaginary heresy.” The historian of the Russian Church even seems to have suggested (without stating it directly) that there may have been inaccuracies in the transmission of statements in the records of court cases; twice he notes: “...if indeed things were as the record of the Council notes...”; “...for his persistence, if it really took place...” 10. It can be added that the attitude towards editing the text of liturgical books as such on the part of the judges (at both Councils) was based on the then existing so-called “substantial” understanding of the text: “the word itself is equal to the designated substance, the object”; “there is a direct and immediate connection between the content of a word and its external design, so that a violation of the external design entails a violation of the content.” Maxim the Greek was a proponent of another translation theory, the “grammatical” one. He did not admit his guilt (“did not obey”) and was accused of heresy: “I am filled with demonic wickedness and heresy and destruction.” The second “guilt” is the attitude towards the practice of installing Russian metropolitans: “... and about the installation of metropolitans, he corrupted many people, [he said that] it is inappropriate for a metropolitan to be installed as his own bishops in Rus'.” “And this,” the Metropolitan sets out the point of view of the Council, “he spoke out of arrogance and pride, so as not to go to be appointed metropolitan in the Besermen Turkish state from the patriarchs in an unfaithful and godless kingdom.” The same accusation would be repeated at the second trial, in 1531; our hero recognizes it only partially - because he will state his true, undistorted position and the circumstances under which he expressed his judgment on this matter. The conditions of detention of a prisoner in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery were prescribed in great detail by Metropolitan Daniel in a letter dated May 24. The most difficult thing for the Svyatogorsk monk was deprivation of the sacrament. The letter states that he was called upon to confess guilt - they stood him once, twice, and thrice before the Holy Council and before the Grand Duke in order to test what “wisdom” he had. When they realized that he was filled with “demonic wickedness, heresy, and destruction,” they condemned him so that he would not live freely, so that he would not become the cause of “spiritual damage to the wise,” and ordered him to be taken to the Joseph Monastery. The conditions were extremely difficult: “And he was imprisoned to be in his cell in silence, and not to leave it, so that no harm from him would spread to any person, so that he would not talk with anyone - neither with the church, nor with the laity, nor with the monks of the same monastery, nor with others; do not write messages, do not receive them, do not teach anyone, do not have friendship with anyone, sit in silence and repent of your madness and heresy.” He was allowed to receive communion only in illness or death, and after recovery he was allowed to remain without communion. The prisoner's reading range was also strictly limited, including only liturgical books, lives of saints and the works of several church authors. Legends about Maxim the Greek at the end of the 16th century tell that they tried to “kill him with smoke” in his cell, that he wrote the Canon of the Holy Spirit the Comforter with charcoal on the walls of the prison. For his patience, an angel appeared to him and said: “Oh Kaluga! With these torments you will escape eternal torment” 12. The case of the Grand Duke's divorce Among the accusations brought against Maxim the Greek, one more is mentioned, however, in a single source of not entirely clear origin, containing information both reliable and even unique, as well as fantastic. In particular, it reports on the position of the Svyatogorsk elder in events that caused great public resonance and various responses. It was about the Grand Duke's intention to divorce Solomonia Saburova, who had not had children for twenty years, and to enter into a new marriage for the sake of the birth of an heir. Vassian Patrikeev took a sharply negative position on this issue; Maxim the Greek was his like-minded person, which was the reason for their condemnation, although they proceeded from canonical norms. Condemnation here is presented as a preventive measure: “So that their presentation and denunciation will not be about the copulation of marriage.” This is reported in the “Extract on the second marriage of Vasily III.” How reliable is it, can you trust this information about Maxim the Greek? The answer depends on the assessment of the “Extract” as a whole, on the determination of the time and circumstances of its creation. Different points of view have been expressed on this matter 13 . We will further try to show that it is based on a rather early work that has not reached us, which arose shortly after the Council of 1531 and was associated with circles close to Vassian Patrikeev. Later it was reworked, perhaps not once, but twice, and the form we know did not appear until the end of the 16th century. To the arguments of A. A. Zimin in favor of late dating, we can add an argument of a terminological nature. The Russian Consecrated Council is repeatedly called “Ecumenical” - this term appeared after the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia in 1589. The assessment of the conviction of Maximus the Greek as a preventive measure given in the Extract is confirmed at least by the chronology of events: the trial of May 1525 preceded the divorce and marriage in the winter of 1525/26. We remember that the Grand Duke’s path to the throne was not strewn with roses. Vasily III went through rivalry with his nephew, his violent death, pressure on his father with the threat of leaving for Lithuania in order to force him to proclaim the son of a Byzantine princess as heir. But all these efforts turned out to be in vain, since there was no one to transfer the much-desired power to. The Grand Duke is already 46 years old. The situation in the family became a state matter, and it was discussed quite widely, while several versions of events were preserved. One of them is presented in the “Extract”. The official version is presented succinctly in the chronicle. In November 1525, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich tonsured Grand Duchess Solomonia in agreement (“advice”) with her, because of her “burden and illness of childlessness, and he lived with her for 20 years, and there were no children. That same winter, January 21, Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich got married for the second time, and chose his bride, Princess Elena, the daughter of Prince Vasily Lvovich Glinsky, and they were married by Metropolitan Danilo” 14. The stories “On the tonsure of the Grand Duchess Solomonida” and “Copulation of the second marriage” contain almost a panegyric to the wife of the Grand Duke; “Seeing the barrenness of her womb,” she began to beg the Grand Duke to command her to “put on a monastic image,” but he did not want to hear it. “I am,” he answered, “a pious sovereign, a lover of truth, a doer of commandments and law.” Seeing his unyielding will, Solomonia begged Metropolitan Daniel to convince the sovereign; he eventually agreed. She took monastic vows with the name Sophia at the Maiden Monastery, called “on the Moat,” and then, also voluntarily, retired to the Suzdal Intercession Monastery. The Grand Duke remained despondent and lamenting, but Metropolitan Daniel, his younger brothers, local princes and boyars persuaded him to marry, and when he agreed, they joyfully decided to take the sin upon themselves. The Grand Duke sent his boyars and nobles to all the towns and villages of his autocratic state, “let them choose a fair-looking and intelligent maiden,” and they found Elena Glinskaya. Metropolitan Daniel and the Most Reverend Council “joyfully bless the sovereign’s marriage and forgive him in this age and in the future” 15. The information from the omnipresent Sigismund Herberstein sounds dissonant to this blissful picture. Although he mistakenly, out of consonance, called Solomonia Salome, he knew a lot of rumors and rumors circulating in Moscow about this matter. They said that Vasily forcibly imprisoned his wife in a certain monastery in the Suzdal principality. “In the monastery, despite her tears and whining, the Metropolitan first cut off her hair and then handed her the monastic kukul, but she not only did not allow it to be placed on her, but grabbed it, threw it on the ground and trampled under her feet. Outraged by this unworthy act, John Shigona, one of the first advisers, not only expressed sharp reproach to her, but also hit her with a whip, adding: “Do you really dare to resist the will of the sovereign? Are you really slow to fulfill his command?” Then Salome asked him on whose orders he was beating her. He replied: “By order of the sovereign.” After that, she, having lost heart, loudly declared in front of everyone that she was putting on the kukul against her will and under duress and was calling on God to avenge such a great insult inflicted on her. Suddenly a rumor arose that Salome was pregnant and would soon be delivered. This rumor was confirmed by two respectable women and assured that they had heard from the lips of Salome herself a confession that she was pregnant and would soon give birth. The Emperor became very angry. Then, wanting to find out the matter with certainty, he sent to the monastery where she was kept... an adviser and a secretary, instructing them to carefully investigate the veracity of this rumor; some swore that Salome gave birth to a son named George, but did not want to show the child to anyone. Moreover, when certain persons were sent to her to investigate the truth, she is said to have replied that they were not worthy to see the child, and when he was clothed in his greatness, he would take revenge for the mother’s insult. Some stubbornly denied that she gave birth. So, the rumor says two things about this incident” 16. Whether there is a grain of truth here or whether there are folklore motifs of punishment for an unfaithful husband or retribution for the ruler is difficult to say. The version of the “Extract on the Second Marriage” focuses mainly on Vassian’s position. First, it talks about the Grand Duke’s deep affection for him, which is not only not required by the main idea of ​​the “Extract,” but even seems to contradict it, but then it turns out that on the part of the Grand Duke this is a means to obtain a favorable response. The Grand Duke, being mournful and sad about the “childbirth”, thought about “separation” from his wife, so that the second marriage could be “combined for the sake of sonship.” He kept “for spiritual conversations” in the monastery of the Simonov Monastery an elder called Vassian the Kosy, a noble man from a royal family, and did not hide anything from him. And so he revealed his thought to him, addressed him with a speech, said that all “the greatness and all the successes of his kingdom are not a consolation, but grief, and sadness, and the groaning of the heart”: “But you, great old man, be my support, give me the word of truth from your lips, do not contradict me, I have no interlocutor like you, you are the support of my power, and the softening of my heart, and the plea to my anger, the joy of my conversation, help to my soul, wind [carrying away] my sorrows, unfeigned love, my mentor, teacher of brotherly love. Tell me, answer what my question expresses.” As we see, the Grand Duke does not immediately ask his question, but, according to the laws of the genre, as if preparing his interlocutor, winning him over. But it's not that simple. Vassian warns, as if anticipating the question: if my answer will be “contrary to”, then “not contrary to you, sovereign,” but only in accordance with the “teaching of the books”: “Tell me in words the matter about which you disgusted me and forbade me.” This means that some conversations have already taken place before. The mention of the previous prohibition, as well as the Grand Duke’s earlier request “don’t contradict me,” indicates some previous disagreements, and now the ruler is making a last attempt to get advice favorable to him, even as if persuading the interlocutor to say what he wanted to hear. The previous “ban” was not something new for Vassian; it did not go beyond the customs of that time, since the Grand Duke had previously forbidden Joseph of Volotsky to speak out against Vassian 17 . The Grand Duke motivates the question-request with the idea of ​​“The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir”: “For the sake of childbearing and so that the seed of our Vladimir ancestor is not exhausted.” Vassian’s answer reads: “The Scripture, great sovereign, writes: God has united, let not man destroy. You asked me about such a great matter, but I have never been legally married (a hint of forced tonsure?) and I don’t know what to tell you in the future about such a great matter. And if you want to know, then convene (“conduct”) a Council with your father, Metropolitan Danil, about such a great matter. And if they waver in their minds, they will command you to do according to your will. But I will not say so, but according to the Rules of the Holy Fathers of Carthage and in Trul Polatne: I do not command! For you are named by the gift of the Holy Spirit from your ancestors as the holder of the royal banner and stand against the barbarians for the holy faith and for Orthodoxy. And if you separate yourself from your first marriage and have intercourse with a second one, you will be called an adulterer. But I won’t keep silent about anything else. If for our sins God brings barbarians against Christians, then because of our sins the power of the Holy Spirit will not help your army to fight against them. If you are surrounded by city walls and the walls are destroyed, where will your royal head go? After all, the Rules do not command that the soles of your feet even touch the church threshold. And if, sir, the wrath of God comes to your city, either by an attack of barbarians, or by a fire, or by a loud earthquake, but finds you in your first marriage, then you, sir, are commanded to go to the royal church doors, taking your royal scepter and the royal diadem (that is, the scarlet robe), and the carnelian crab, and the hat of your ancestor Vladimir Monomakh, and sit on the throne and surrender in the hands of the Zhivago God. And you will remain the heir of the kingdom and eternal blessings for ever and ever.” After this, the Grand Duke “was filled with rage and anger, cursed Vassian” and sent him into custody to the Chudov Monastery. Archimandrite Jonah 18 of the Chudov Monastery acted as a witness, in a “reprimand” against Elder Vassian, he reported the names of his “like-minded people” and “unanimous people”: Maxim the Greek and Savva “Svyatogorsk”, “good writer” Mikhail Medovartsev and Selivan Chernets. The Grand Duke sent the “speech” of Archimandrite Jonah to Metropolitan Daniel, and he convened a Council that condemned all of these individuals. The decision of the Council is presented in the “Extract” in accordance with the information that is given in the “Judgment Lists” about the Council of 1531 (which will be discussed later), but in a reduction to the volume of one paragraph, although there is also new information. The main fault is the unauthorized (“at one’s own discretion”) correction of books. It is here that condemnation is defined as a preventive measure (“so that their presentation and denunciation will not be about the copulation of marriage”), and it applies not only to Maxim and Vassian, but to all five named persons. It can be concluded that the compiler of the “Extract” (in its original version) had as a written source part of the “Judgment List” of the Council of 1531, without the preambles of 1525 and without the charters of the same year with the decisions of the first Council. He does not know the First Council; the divorce contaminates the second. The compiler's second source, reporting the position on the second marriage and some other information not included in the Judgment List, is most likely oral, coming from circles close to Vassian (if not from himself). This source knows about two stages of discussion of the issue by the Grand Duke and Vassian. The first remained outside the scope of the narrative and is reflected only in vague mentions of “dispute” in the request of Vasily III and “prohibition” in Vassian’s first response, and the second stage is already in the Grand Duke’s detailed pleading request and in Vassian’s second categorical response “I do not command!” The credibility of this information is confirmed by the fact that a similar categorical command formula is found in another piece of advice from Vassian to the Grand Duke regarding land ownership. In “Debate with Joseph Volotsky” he writes: “I order the Grand Duke to take away villages from the monasteries!” The second part of the “Extract” is not directly connected with Maxim, it does not name him, but it describes in detail the discussion of the problem of divorce and marriage on Mount Athos, and above all in Vatopedi, where the Council of all Svyatogorsk Elders took place, in which one can see the influence of the case of Maxim the Greek. Moreover, the position of the Holy Mountain is contrasted with the position of the four patriarchs and the ominous prediction emanating from one of them, Patriarch Mark of Jerusalem. The “extract” reflects that layer of historical consciousness or historical psychology that accumulates the need for predictions, miracles, the intervention of higher powers and authorities, the need for the predetermination of the destinies of kingdoms and their rulers, noble and prominent persons in critical historical eras, events that attract everyone's attention. The story of the events set out in the “Extract” shows how, in the era when Maxim the Greek lived in Russia, the Svyatogorsk monk himself, his role and place, and most importantly, the relevance of the Athos theme, its connection with the whole complex of relations in the Eastern Mediterranean, in the Orthodox East, in the context of the expansion of conquests and the growing importance of the Ottoman Empire, were perceived by contemporaries. The “Eastern Question” has already arisen, which will be one of the pillars of international politics in the next centuries. The “Extract” reports that after the Council, which condemned those who could denounce the intentions of the Grand Duke, he sent an “epistole” to the four patriarchs regarding his family-sovereign affairs - a fact not confirmed by other sources and hardly reliable. A negative answer was received: “Not appropriate.” Patriarch Mark additionally “described ferocity”: “If you reject the first and copulate with the second, then be careful, and I will say again: “Be careful!” Even if the Lover of Mankind gives you a child and you say: Here is my heir, the sovereign of the power of my kingdom, but not like that. For adultery, the children of the kings are rewarded, the destruction of their kingdom, the boyar families and strategists will be oppressed in fear, they will despise everything and will be a robber of someone else's property. The moth will eat the vestments, and he will destroy all the property, both his own and that of others, and your kingdom will be filled with passion and sorrow, and then there will be murders, he will not spare the young men, impaling some, and cutting off the heads of others without mercy, and many cities will be trampled underfoot.” Some researchers see here a hint of oprichnina, but the set of “ferocity” is too traditional and lacks specificity, as M. N. Tikhomirov drew attention to. After the message from the patriarchs, the sovereign fell into great sorrow and continued to hesitate, and did not even immediately accept the readiness of the Metropolitan and the Council to take the sin upon himself. Meanwhile, ambassador Ivan Kolychev (a real person) came from Crimea, with him the elder of the Athonite Xiropotamian monastery Gabriel, who brought “scripture” from the archpriest and monasteries of the Holy Mountain, the first among them being named Vatopedi. The “scripture” expressed regret that the sovereign turned to the four patriarchs, and not to the Holy Mountain, where the constant help and alms of the Russian rulers are remembered. It tells about the council in Vatopedi with the participation of 12 thousand monks, about the question of Gabriel, to which the priest answered, calling on the monks: “Say, tell, Lord, for the benefit of such a great sovereign, so that his kingdom is not subject to the other kings attacking him, so that there is an heir for him, the holder of the royal banner according to their piety.” The answer is suggested, but still it is expressed complexly, not immediately, and, moreover, is not direct, lacking categoricalness. Theodoret, the steward of the Dochiar monastery, answered Protos and told him how he was in obedience to the great elder Simeon Dekapolite and the elder, before his death, told Theodoret a prediction that there would be a “search” regarding the case of the Grand Duke and some “will rebel against the message, because the Scripture does not command the worldly children to do such things, and not only to such great all-powerful sovereigns.” “And I,” continued Theodoret, “began to seek advice, a teacher of my mind, and with difficulty I found the great elder, and the great elder Barsanuphius talked with the learned elder the great Anthony about how the Holy Mountain survives” (this word is more accurately translated as “survives”), suffering violence “from the wicked kings of the Busurman faith.” The great elders, in their attitude to the cause of the Grand Duke, proceed, in modern language, from considerations of state benefit and necessity; they panegyrically praise the church policy of the Orthodox Tsar and at the same time show condescension towards him: “The Besermensky Tsar commits such violence to the Holy Mountain, he imposed the heaviest tribute on all monasteries. And if the great sovereign had not given us help, and if not for his great salary for us, then there would have been few monks in the Holy Mountain, all would have been expelled.” And the final argument: “The tribes of the wicked are fertile, but our sovereign has no heir, his wife is barren, and for this the sovereign is in great sorrow, and wants to separate from his first marriage and reunite with his second. Does this command him to create or not? And is there a combination for a second marriage?” This concludes the speech of the great old man. The answer is clear, but the author adds an allegorical moral maxim - (on behalf of John Chrysostom) about a “spiritual deposit” and a “physical deposit”, about two types or modes of behavior. The first “pledge” is a property, a way of behavior of perfect people: if someone hits you on the cheek, give him the other one, and so on; to endure harm from everyone - “the work of saints is above nature.” The “corporal pledge” prescribes: as people do to you, so do you to them. The author also adds about two other possible types of behavior: and if someone does not harm anyone himself and does not receive harm from others, this corresponds to “nature.” But if you harm everyone, this is no longer natural, but brutal and demonic. Only the great Athonite elders found the answer that they had been looking for for a long time and others could not find. Did these elders really exist? Representatives of the “skeptical school”, of course, will doubt this; adherents of the “realistic typification” will answer that if they did not exist, then they could have existed. We will hope for new finds in the archives. Is the information from “Extract” about Maxim Grek’s attitude to the divorce case reliable? Let us note once again that, unlike Vassian (“I do not command”), his position is not categorically indicated, not formulated definitely, just like - we add - the answer of the great Svyatogorsk elders. The “Extract” speaks about the reason for the conviction of Maxim the Greek as a preventive measure, but what he actually thought and said – “The Extract” does not dare to reconstruct. If the “investigative case” of the first court found that it was not deeds and actions that were judged, but opinions and conversations, then the “Extract” goes even further and essentially states that they condemned a future crime, and a potential one at that. Of course, it is possible that Maxim the Greek had some conversations with Vassian or other persons about divorce, about the canonical norms relating to it, but these conversations could be misunderstood, interpreted, retold, transmitted - and a potential position was built. We will encounter similar phenomena at the second judgment. Who was the author of the “Extract”, more precisely, its original form? It has a name indicating its Svyatogorsk origin: “An extract from the Svyatogorsk charter that was sent to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich about the combination of a second marriage and about the separation of the first marriage for the sake of childbearing. The creation of Paisius, the elder of the Serapon monastery" (a distorted name of the monastery of Xiropotamus). We will return to the question of the likelihood of the Svyatogorsk origin of the document when talking about the second trial. If the first trial raises the question “why?”, then the second – “why?”. In fact, why was it necessary to try a second time a prisoner already in captivity, deprived of communication with people and communion? To make the punishment worse? But this required very serious new charges. The former and new “guilts” of Maxim the Greek in the “Judgment Lists” are presented intermixed, and researchers have spent a lot of effort to separate them and thereby clarify the content and severity of the new charges. Despite all the variety of interpretations, there was no clear and definite answer. The introduction of a new source, albeit a laconic one, into scientific circulation made it possible to lift the veil of secrecy about the second trial. In the inventory of the Ambassadorial Prikaz of 1626, among the “Greek charters,” a charter is mentioned that has not been preserved, but has the following description: “A charter on haratje (that is, on parchment) to the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich of All Russia by Archpriest Anthimus of the Holy Mountains of the Hieromonk, written in the summer of 7039, under the hand and seal of Archpriest Holy Mountains hieromonk" 20. The contents of the letter are not disclosed in the inventory, but the coincidence of its date - 1531 (more precisely, the period from September 1530 to August 1531) with the date of the second trial of Maxim suggests that the fate of the Svyatogorsk monk occupied some place in it. And another chronological coincidence - in August 1530, the long-awaited heir to the throne was born, and the Holy Mountain could not help but send congratulations to its patron, the Grand Duke, on this joyful occasion. Let us recall that in 1515 two requests from Moscow to the Svyatogorsk authorities were combined - for a translator and a prayer for an heir; Now, in the charter of the Svyatogorsk authorities, it was appropriate to talk about the translator, confirming what Maxim the Greek himself wrote to Prince Vasily back in 1522 - he is remembered and expected on the Holy Mountain. From the very beginning, the fate of the Athonite learned monk was intertwined with the life of the grand ducal family. And one more coincidence - the name of the archpriest who sent the letter of 1531 coincides with the name of the abbot of the Vatopedi monastery Anthimius, who sent brother Maxim to Moscow in 1516. Perhaps by 1531 he had become a prot? If we correctly reconstructed the contents of the letter mentioned in the inventory, then we can assume that the purpose of the judicial Council was to develop a response to the letter of the prot (in the part concerning “brother Maximus”). This hypothesis removes and resolves many of the confusions and questions raised by the “Judgment Lists.” How do they set out the reasons and circumstances of the beginning of the Council? It turns out that even before the start of the consideration of the case, a conciliar meeting took place with the participation of the accused, which is described without the names of the participants. It previously established new guilt (“blames”) of Maximus the Greek, which predetermined the outcome of the Council and its response. On the “advice” of the Council of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich and Metropolitan Daniel, “everyone gathered together” and discovered (“isobretosha”) “in addition to many previous blasphemies, new blasphemies against the Lord God, and against the Most Pure Mother of God, and against church charters and laws, and against holy wonderworkers, and against monasteries, and against other Maxims of the Greek monk of the Holy Mountain. When he was in seclusion and in prison in the Joseph Monastery for the sake of conversion, and repentance, and correction, and it was forbidden for him to teach, write, or compose scriptures and send to anyone, and accept from anyone, he did not show repentance and correction and said that he was not guilty of anything, and philosophized the forbidden, and wrote messages. And so, having examined and judged not only his reverse character, but also the newest arrivals (newly discovered. - I. S.) blasphemies,” they sent for him to Joseph’s Monastery and placed him in front of the Council 21. This Council, unlike the first, took place without the participation of the Grand Duke; only Metropolitan Daniel, the episcopate, and the Holy Council were named. The month when the Council took place is unknown, but some of its meetings were held in conjunction with the meetings at which Vassian Patrikeev appeared before the court. His trial began on May 11, 1531 22 . Probably, the beginning of the trial of Maxim was close to this date, but perhaps it took place somewhat earlier than the named date. The introduction to the conciliar sessions shows that the “guilts” and “blames” were established before the start of the trial, and a kind of presumption of guilt arose. The main thing on the list was, of course, the lack of repentance and “correction,” because the condition for forgiveness and the removal of charges was, first of all, repentance. And this became the main argument in the negative response to the prot - in conjunction with accusations of heresy. It was these preliminary sessions (and, perhaps, the first conciliar session) that Bishop Dosifei had in mind when beginning the interrogation of Maxim and speaking about the Councils of April-May, which meant precisely the events of 1531, and not the “double” Councils of 1525 23 . Inaccurate placement of punctuation marks and division of the text gave rise to historiographical confusion. The interrogation of Dosifei begins with the message that the Metropolitan instructed him to “ask Maxim” about the two “blasphemy” groups. We can propose the following division of the text (based on the twice-repeated addition about “blasphemies”): “ask Maxim about the blasphemies of previous Councils (that there was a punishment both Councils against Maxim the Greek and against Savva in the Grand Duke’s chamber, the same later many Councils were held at the Metropolitan in his chamber, in the summer of 7033), against the same Maxim about the same blasphemies and about others that arrived and discovered the month of April and the month of Maya, and the Metropolitan himself was also at the Council with the archbishops, bishops and the entire Holy Council.” Undoubtedly, in the second part of the phrase we are talking about those Councils of April-May, which took place only in the metropolitan chambers in 1531. Why did the court proceed from the presumption of guilt, why was the answer assumed in advance to be negative? It is difficult to answer with certainty. Perhaps Bersen Beklemishev was partly right when he said: “You saw our kind and dashing spirit here” 24 . But only partly. The charges that were brought against him related to very sensitive issues, but their gravity significantly exceeded the evidence. The Metropolitan's indictment speech begins with a repetition of the 1525 accusation of treasonous relations with Turkey, and it is also addressed to the Greek Savva, convicted in 1525. But what did the prosecution have in reality? Letters are mentioned: “And you and Savva... sent letters to the pashas of the Turk [king], raising him up” against Vasily III and his power. But when considering the issue, during interrogations and confrontations, the “witnesses” who reported “closed letters” 25 were clearly confused. At first, Arseny of Serbia and cell attendant Afanasy the Greek reported that a certain elder Fedor, who was going to Constantinople, told Arseny that Savva (accused together with Maxim) allegedly sent “closed letters” with some merchants (“guests”) to the Sultan. At the same time, Fyodor did not inform Arseny of the contents of the “letters” (“I dare not say”). But then the cell attendant Afanasy tells a different story: Maxim and Savva wrote the letters together, but not to the Sultan, but “to the Pasha of Kafa” (the Turkish commandant of Kafa, present-day Feodosia), and “they sent that letter with Deacon Fyodor,” “and I,” the cell attendant reports, “saw that letter from him.” But the cell attendant did not read the letter; he learned its contents (the compromising part of the contents) from some old man Okatey. All this was so confusing and implausible that further proceedings were stopped. They did not search for or interrogate Okatei. Maxim only remarked: “Your soul, brother, will rise.” He often gave this answer. The only reality that could serve as a reason for accusations of treasonous relations with Turkey was the letter that Maxim the Greek had - a translation of the message of the Turkish Sultan Suleiman I Kanuni, called the Magnificent in Europe, to the Venetian Doge Anthony Grimani dated January 28, 1522. It reported the conquest Turkey of the island of Rhodes, which formerly belonged to the Catholic Order of St. John 26. A.I. Pliguzov, who published the letter, believed that “here we find the main details, which in oral transmission could grow into frightening details” of the testimony of Maximov’s cell attendant Afanasy: the Sultan, correspondence with the unknown “Prince of Venice,” the army, the sea, ships. The motives coincide, and they are quite enough to weave threads of oral news, “rumors and rumors,” “retelling of letters,” etc. The translation could have been made by Maxim the Greek himself, as B. M. Kloss suggested, or somehow received from the Turkish ambassador Iskander Saki (Skinder), as A. I. Pliguzov believes. How this letter correlated with what Okatey, on the one hand, and Deacon Fyodor, on the other, told either Arseny or Afanasy, it is, of course, impossible to say. Other accusations related to this topic were also based only on conversations, testimony of witnesses about what they heard and their free interpretations. The prosecution argued: “But you said that the Grand Duke is at war with Kazan, let him be a failure (“dirty”), because the Turks will not keep silent to him.” But we know the true position of Maxim the Greek precisely on the issue of Kazan from a message (perhaps unsent) to Vasily III, where he called on the Grand Duke for an active foreign policy in this direction. He could have told some of his interlocutors that the Russian ruler would meet with resistance from the Turks. What is criminal about this? The accusatory speech also repeats the accusation of 1525 that the Holy Mountain resident called the Grand Duke “a persecutor and wicked tormentor.” But Maxim’s answer, apparently to this very accusation in the investigative case, as we remember, was crossed out, leaving only the accusation of Fyodor Zharenny itself. By the way, the same feature is characteristic of the “Judgment Lists”: the accusations are presented fully, in detail, in detail and nuance, and Maxim’s answers are kept to a minimum, in most cases to two or three lines. Thus, the metropolitan’s indictment, which occupies almost six pages in the source, in a handwritten collection, ends with two lines of the answer of the accused, who says that he “did not say, and did not write, and did not order to write” “blasphemy” against God, the Mother of God and the Orthodox faith. As for the other laconic answers of the accused, we have such a convincing way of verifying them as his own writings, which would be written in the 1530s–1540s specifically to show the injustice of the charges brought against him on all counts. The accusatory speech also recalls the situation of 1521 during the “Crimean tornado,” when the Grand Duke left Moscow (according to Herberstein, he fled and hid in a haystack), and this is again linked to the Turkish theme. Allegedly, Maxim said: “The Great Prince Vasily gave the land to the Crimean Tsar, and he himself, exhausted, ran away. And if he ran away from the Crimean, how could he not run away from the Turks?” Conversations on such sensitive topics always have the peculiarity or danger that when retelling them, changing a small detail or nuance can give them a different meaning and turn against the speaker. Maxim Greek could really talk about the real danger that lurked in the military power of Turkey, known to both Russia and Europe. In another part of the conciliar proceedings, he will explain that he said this “to be careful” so that the great prince would “beware” (beware), that is, would pursue a cautious and deliberate policy 27 . Maxim and Savva are reproached for the fact that they knew about the intention of the Turkish ambassador Iskander to “raise” the Tsar of Tours to the power of the Grand Duke, and Maxim, knowing this, did not inform the Grand Duke and his boyars. At the end of the indictment, it was repeated in relation to Maxim alone: ​​“He sent letters to the Saltan of Tours and his pashas, ​​raising him up and calling on him to destroy the Orthodox faith, and to the holy churches, and to our Christ-loving Tsar, and to all Orthodox Christianity, and to the whole Russian land.” But could it be that the Svyatogorsk Greek monk could have wished for the victory of the conqueror and oppressor of his people, the Turkish Sultan, over the Orthodox Tsar? The fact that the Turkish theme was put forward in the first place in Metropolitan Daniel’s indictment is explained by its relevance both for Russia and for Mount Athos. And if the goal of the Council was to justify a negative response to the request of the archpriest, then the arguments discrediting the Athonite brother were - from the point of view of this goal - chosen very well, since for the Holy Mountain the Orthodox Russian kingdom was a kind of guarantor in their relations with the Muslim power that subjugated them. This was convincingly and expressively evidenced by the “Extract on the Divorce of Vasily III,” the original core of which was probably of Svyatogorsk origin. Another important point of Metropolitan Daniel’s indictment, which is then repeated throughout the proceedings, is also intended to prove the impossibility of forgiveness and the removal of condemnation: persistent and repeated emphasizing the stubbornness of the accused, the persistence of heretical opinions, and most importantly, the lack of “repentance and correction.” It is this that could become the basis for “forgiveness,” and it is its absence that is persistently emphasized. The third major point of the indictment of 1531 was the position of Maxim the Greek on the issue of autocephaly of the Russian Church, condemned back in 1525, but again subject to discussion. Maxim allegedly said that “here in Moscow the Grand Duke is praised for many years and heretics are cursed. And they curse themselves, because they do things neither according to Scripture nor according to the Rules: the metropolitan is appointed by his bishops in Moscow, and not in Tsaregorod from the patriarch.” To this accusation, Bishop Dosifei added the judgments of Maxim: “... and all this is out of pride, they do not accept the patriarchal blessing, they are appointed by themselves, by their own bishops, arbitrarily and disorderly.” This accusation, one of the few, was admitted by Maxim the Greek, but admitted only partially, since he explained (at least, tried to explain) his true, undistorted position, which - let's jump ahead several decades - would prevail during the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. Maxim reported that he actually asked (“tortured”) why Russian metropolitans were not installed by the Patriarch of Tsaregorod in accordance with the “previous and old custom.” It turns out that they answered him (it is not reported who exactly) that the Patriarch of Constantinople gave the Russian metropolitans a “blessed letter” “to be freely appointed as their bishops in Rus'.” This means that one of the Russian hierarchs understood that the right to install it should be obtained from Constantinople. Maxim tried to find this letter, but “still haven’t seen it.” And then he said: “If they do not have the charter of the Constantinople Patriarch, it means that out of pride they are not appointed as before and according to the old charter and custom.” The establishment of the patriarchate in the 90s of the 16th century took place according to a model similar to that succinctly set out by Maxim the Greek: he would have considered the issue settled if the charter he was told about had been found. The charter of 1589 states that the patriarchate was established by the “Council of our great Russian and Greek kingdom” with the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II and the Greek clergy. The act of the Council of Constantinople in 1593 confirmed the act of the Moscow Council of 1589. Perhaps the person with whom Maxim the Greek discussed this issue in Moscow was Gerasim Zamytsky, Archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery, where Vassian Patrikeev stayed: it was on the “arguments” of Archimandrite Gerasim and a certain Arseny Serbin that this accusation was built, which Maxim admitted: “I am guilty of that, I said those speeches, that it is all for pride that metropolitans are installed here as their bishops in Moscow, it’s Yaz’s fault.” Both questions - about the appointment of metropolitans and about the “Turkish” accusations - were considered a second time in 1531, but it is difficult to determine which part of the information in the “Judgment List” repeats what happened in 1525 and which is new. A.I. Pliguzov wrote about “fragments of 1525” in the case. Admitting his guilt, Maxim the Greek could not, of course, foresee the events of the end of the century. In the meantime, he apologizes to the Council, and his legs feel relief, freed from their shackles. He was taken from the Volokolamsk Monastery in chains, they were removed at the Council, and then they were chained again. He will remind you of them later, in a letter to Metropolitan Daniel (after his “eruption”): he fell on his face three times before the Holy Council, asking for forgiveness for accidental “small inventories”; they were admitted, as he answered the Holy Council, “not because of heresy, not because of guile or impudence - God is my witness - but by accident, or because of oblivion, or because of grief, which then confused my thoughts, or because of excessive wine drinking” 28 . This answer by Maxim the Greek (like probably many others) is not found in the Judgment Lists, it is omitted because the main tendency and purpose of the Lists is to prove that the accused did not show the repentance necessary for his “forgiveness” and release. Another group of accusations concerned the editing of books in which “heretical lines” were found, and the position of Maxim the Greek regarding church and monastery property, and his attitude towards Russian miracle workers. They were connected, since in 1531 Vassian was also brought to trial, whose Helmsman was copied by the same scribes who collaborated with Maxim the Greek. The problem of the “village” occupied a large place in it. Vassian’s own work, included in the Helmsman, is dedicated to the monastic “promise” about the “rejection of the world” and everything worldly. Although Metropolitan Daniel’s indictment speech began with a Turkish question, during the interrogation that followed it, the “heretic” editing was first discussed, in particular, in the Life of the Mother of God by Simeon Metaphrastus, translated by Maximus the Greek. Moreover, it turns out that the main reason for calling him was not the various “blasphemies” that Metropolitan Daniel spoke about together, but the Life of the Mother of God. The Metropolitan directly told Mikhail about this Medovartsev during his interrogation: “And now he was brought from the Joseph Monastery in the summer of 7039 to Moscow and before us at the Council they put him about those blasphemous lines that were written in the Life of the Most Pure Ones.” They were reported in the list by Vassian Rushanin, who said that he drew the attention of both Maxim and Vassian Patrikeev to the “blasphemous lines”; but the latter did not confirm this and refused to testify on this matter: “I have nothing to do with Maxim, and I did not say anything to him, and Vasyan Rushanin is a free man, he says what he wants and what he wants, he writes. But I didn’t say anything to him, either with Maxim or without Maxim, and I don’t care about them” 29. From the testimony of the calligrapher Mikhail Medovartsev, who was brought to trial, it is clear that Vassian Patrikeev was not only involved in the work of Maxim the Greek’s group of assistants, but actually led it, and Medovartsev was afraid to disobey him. To the question of who ordered Medovartsev to “smooth out” the texts, that is, to replace those originally written with new ones, he answered: “Prince Vasyan the Elder told me to listen to Maxim, and write, and smooth out, as Maxim ordered. And Yaz, sir, did so at their command, but you, sir, vomited to disobey the elder Prince Vasyan, who was once a great temporary man of the Grand Duke’s neighbor, and Yaz did not vomit at the sovereign of the Grand Duke, as he was afraid of him and listened to him.” Medovartsev also spoke about his fear of Vassian (“he will kill me”) during another interrogation. As for the position of Maxim and Vassian, they reported such an important detail: the order to correct the books to Maxim and to work on the new Helmsman to Vassian was given by Metropolitan Varlam, Simeon, Bishop of Suzdal and Dosifei, Bishop of Krutitsky. However, the first two were no longer alive, and Dositheus answered the Metropolitan’s question categorically: “Yaz, sir, was not in that council with Varlam the Metropolitan and Semion, Bishop of Suzdal, nor with Prince Vasyan the Elder, I did not order this to anyone, neither to Maxim, nor to Vasyan, and now that’s what I hear” 30 . At this point, it seems, the analysis of the charges ended - in any case, there is no continuation of it in the “Judgment Lists” - but they returned to the question of editing once again. They considered the “record” given by Archpriest Afanasy, Ivan Chushka and Archdeacon Vasily, who then told Maxim at the confrontation: “You here in our Russian land do not praise any holy books, but rather reproach and sweep away.” Maxim Grek again clarifies his position, which in oral conversations was expressed by him, perhaps more emotionally, but was based on reality; the actual presence of inventories, errors, etc. was stated: “Then ... you are lying to me, the language did not say that, but you said that the books here in Rus' are not straight, the translators spoiled some books, not knowing how to translate them, and other scribes spoiled them, they also need to be translated.” Vassian's statements were much more categorical; his witnesses reported the following words: “The rules were written by the devil, and not by the Holy Spirit” - and reproached him: “But the rule you called was crooked, not the rule” 31 . We can hardly agree that a certain Ivan, nicknamed Chushka, could appreciate the works performed according to the standards and at the level of philological practice of the New Age; he heard only blasphemy and reproach, and the natural reaction of the philologist and his sincere desire to correct the text remained beyond his perception. In addition, Vassian’s more emotional statements and exclamations also had an influence, which was also reflected in the perception of Maxim’s judgments, which were much more balanced. The group of accusations relating to church and monastic acquisitions, as well as “blasphemy” against Russian miracle workers, was based only on the oral testimony of the elders Fyodor Serbin and Arseny Serbin. The accusations were summarized in the accusatory speech of Metropolitan Daniel: “... you reproach and blaspheme churches and monasteries for having money, people, income, and villages... But you, Maxim, the great holy wonderworkers Peter and Alexei and Jonah, the metropolitans of all Rus', and the holy venerable wonderworkers Sergius, Barlaam and Cyril, Paphnutius and You reproach and blaspheme Macarius, but you say this: After all, they held cities and volosts, and villages, and people, and judged, and took duties, taxes and tributes, and had a lot of wealth, and therefore they cannot be miracle workers.” Of these accusations, Maxim admitted only one, concerning statements addressed to Paphnutius: “I didn’t say anything about the miracle workers about Peter, and about Alexei, and about Sergius, and about Cyril. And you said about Paphnutius, because he held villages, and took money with money, and held people and servants, and judged, and beat him with a whip, so how could he be a miracle worker? 32 The question that arose during the trial related to the then-current topic of the canonization of saints, the norms and customs on the basis of which the canonization took place. The statements of Maxim and especially Vassian were harsh, but the very fact of the emergence of doubts corresponded to the spirit of the time and had analogies in real events. E. E. Golubinsky, examining the canonization of saints in the Russian Church, noted, in particular, two cases dating back to the same time (1539 and 1544) of “rejection by the highest church authorities of petitions to canonize two dead people, since the petitions were found by the church authorities not to be satisfied” 33. The Council of 1531 could not help but realize that the testimony on such a responsible issue of two Serbs (and oral testimony, in contrast to various kinds of “records” on other “blasphemies”) could not be the basis for making any decisions, especially since both Maxim and Vassian denied their guilt. Nevertheless, the Council of 1531 confirmed it. At the end of the Judgment Lists, the decisions of the two Councils are presented in a jumbled manner. First, the “testimonies” of the Council of 1525 were read regarding the main accusation (of heresy): “about Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father.” Then the final general judgment of the Councils on Maxim, Vassian and their “like-minded people” of 1531 was read regarding only one point of accusation, confirming the legitimacy of canonizing the wonderworker Paphnutius: “And Maxim and Vassian were right there at the Council and with their like-minded people. And after this they read the testimony about the wonderworker Paphnutius, that many holy wonderworkers of the village had servants and all sorts of people, working and free, at the holy churches and monasteries, and they judged and ruled, but they locked up the disorderly and disobedient in prisons for the sake of their correction and salvation” 34 . Next we read the decree of 1525 on the “installation of metropolitans in Moscow” (already known to us) and on the sending of Archimandrite Maxim and Savva to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery (in the previous part of the “Judgment List” there was no information about the punishment of Savva in 1525, it is known from other sources, but he was sent to the Borovsky Pafnutiev Monastery), followed by a listing of the monasteries and episcopal courts to which many prosecution witnesses were sent and found themselves convicted (without listing their guilt); they were to be kept “in the great fortress forever”: Archimandrite Savva - to the Levkein Monastery, Vassian the Horned Louse - to Ryazan, to Bishop Jonah of Ryazan, Mikhail Medovartsev - to Kolomna, to Bishop Vassian, Isaac the Dog - to Novgorod to the Yuriev Monastery. Cell attendant Afanasy the Greek and Vassian Rushanin were left in Moscow, at the metropolitan court (also “in the great fortress from the beginning”). The operative part, as stated, is not complete; it is limited to indicating the places of imprisonment, without naming its reasons, or the “guilts” of the convicted person. The main function is performed by the very last part, which relates to one Maxim the Greek and includes the letters already described in detail on May 24, 1525, by Metropolitan Daniel and the Grand Duke. Such an unexpected conclusion to the materials of 1531 is quite logical and understandable from the point of view of the main goal and task of the court: firstly, to confirm the legality of the conviction and imprisonment of 1525; secondly, the impossibility of forgiveness, the condition of which could be the repentance of the accused (we observed a silence about it). The guilt was, according to the logic of the “Judgment List,” so obvious and indisputable that it did not even require a new council resolution; and the Council limited itself to repeating the decisions of the Council of 1525. Although it is not specifically said about Maxim, the main accused, where he was sent in 1531, before the list of places of exile of other persons in 1531, that part of the metropolitan’s letter of 1525 is briefly outlined, which states that he was sent to the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery (a little further on the letter is given in full). Therefore, we can reasonably believe that he was sent to the same monastery and was again put in chains. The “Extract on the Second Marriage” reports the sending of the prisoner to Tver to Bishop Akakiy, but this information may reflect the second stage of the formation of the “Extract” and go back to the biographical “Legends”. At present, all that can be said about the “Extract” is that its original version is based on information about the Council of 1531. Some records about it could have been made by the Svyatogorsk monk who brought the archpriest’s letter to Moscow and did not have accurate information about the Council of 1525, or about the chronology of events in general. The tendency of further processing of the “Extract” is to demonstrate the benevolent and condescending attitude of the Svyatogorsk monks to the concerns of the Orthodox ruler, and in relation to Maxim the Greek - to separate his position from the position of Vassian, much more distinct and irreconcilable, although their condemnation is reported together. Right hand - on the right side.