I. Жизнеописание преподобного Сергия

At the head of the numerous host of Russian ascetics are three great, truly all-Russian ascetics - St. Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk and St. Sergius of Radonezh. Throughout the vast expanse of the Russian land there is not a simple person who does not know about Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk and who does not know about Sergius of Radonezh; throughout the vast expanse of the Russian land there is not a simple woman who would not teach her children to pray: “Reverend Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, pray to God for us sinners.” Saints Anthony and Theodosius shone at the beginning of our Christianity in the Kyiv borders of our Fatherland. Saint Sergius, three centuries after Anthony and Theodosius, shone within the Moscow borders of our fatherland. This sketch of the life of St. Sergius was compiled 1 on the basis of his ancient life, which belonged to his personal disciple and monk of his monastery Epiphanius 2, and was compiled in such a way that the reader was given a narrative about the venerable one, on the one hand, brief, and on the other hand, complete, without omissions, reproducing all the details of his life, both natural and supernatural in nature. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say about the ancient life of St. Sergius that it would be completely satisfactory, that it would represent such a biography of him, or such a biography of him, in which we would find both a living image of his personality and a detailed narrative about his activities. But this regret should be expressed not in relation to one life of St. Sergius, which is still comparatively very good and even quite outstanding, but in relation to the decisive majority of our ancient lives. Here we are no longer able to help ourselves in any way and can only complain that, although we had great ascetics in ancient times, we did not have people who would be adequately capable of compiling their biographies. The Monk Sergius, who bore the name Bartholomew in the world, belonged by his origin, in today's language, to the nobility class and even to that upper class in the class, which is given the name aristocracy: his father, named Kirill, by surname, if he had the latter, is unknown, was a service man of the Rostov appanage princes and among the service people, representing one of the few the most honored, was part of a small selection of them, which made up government dumas, or councils, princes and was called the boyars. The name of the mother of St. Sergius was Maria 3. Besides him, his parents had two more children: his older brother, Stefan, and his younger brother, Peter 4. As the biographer reports, even before the birth of the saint, it was miraculously announced about him that he would become a great saint of God and a dedicated servant of the Holy Trinity. His mother, being pregnant with him, came, as usual, to church one Sunday for the liturgy. During the liturgy, to the extreme amazement of everyone present in the church, the baby in her womb began to scream in a loud voice three times (“scream,” as the life writer puts it), precisely before the reading of the Gospel, before the singing of the Cherubim song and when the priest proclaimed: “holy of holies” 5. The Monk Sergius was born not in Rostov itself, but on his father’s estate, or estate, located somewhere not particularly close to Rostov 6 . The year of his birth is not reliably known, but according to the most probable assumptions it is 1314 7 . At baptism, as we have already said, he was given the name Bartholomew (the name of the Apostle Bartholomew, one of the 12, whose memory is celebrated by the Church on June 11 and August 25 8). According to the biography writer, Bartholomew’s infancy and childhood were also marked by miraculous manifestations of God’s grace on him. For forty days from birth to baptism, the baby forced his mother to fast, because he did not want to touch her nipples if she took meat food on the fast days. A short time after baptism, the baby himself became a great faster: on Wednesdays and Fridays he did not touch his mother’s nipples and did not want to taste cow’s milk, but for whole days he remained without food. At the same time, the baby did not want to feed on the milk of other women except the mother herself, so the mother in vain took for him nurses richer in milk than herself. In explaining the last unusual behavior of the baby, the biography writer says: “Behold, a sign came, so that the good root of the good summer plant would be raised by the undefiled milk” 9 . Having reached the age of seven, Bartholomew was sent by his parents to learn to read and write (to one of the teachers, a clergyman or a layman, who, as was usual then, ran a school in his home). Together with Bartholomew, his brothers Stefan and Peter also learned to read and write. But while both brothers learned to read and write well and progressed quickly in their studies, Bartholomew turned out to be very incapable, or stupid, for learning, so he was scolded by his parents, subjected to punishment from the teacher and ridicule from his comrades. This was, says the biography writer, according to God’s will, so that the child would receive book intelligence not from people, but from God. Bartholomew often prayed to God in secret with tears that He would give him the understanding of literacy, and his prayer was heard. One day he was sent by his father into the field to look for horses 10 (the morals of ancient times, apparently, were much simpler than ours, so it was not considered reprehensible for boyar children to do other things that, according to our concepts, exclusively fall within the circle of activities of servants and workers; however, looking for horses in the field was also entertainment, a kind of walk). In the field, Bartholomew saw an old man unfamiliar to him, holy and angelic, standing under an oak tree and praying diligently, with tears. He approached the elder and began to wait for him to finish his prayer. Having finished the prayer, the elder blessed and kissed him and asked him what he was looking for and what he wanted. Bartholomew answered that most of all and ardently he would like to gain understanding for learning to read and write, and asked the elder to pray to God for him. The elder, raising his hands, made a diligent prayer 11 and at the end of the prayer, he took out of his pocket a kind of vessel and gave him from it with three fingers, as it were, a particle from the prosphora, commanding him to taste it and promising that at the same time he was given from God the understanding for teaching. After this, the elder wanted to go on his way, but Bartholomew earnestly asked him to visit his parents’ house, to which he agreed. In Cyril’s house, before sitting down to the meal offered by the latter, the elder, taking Bartholomew with him, went to his former home chapel to sing the funeral service. During the singing of the hours, he forced Bartholomew to speak a psalm, and when he said: “I don’t know how, father,” he answered him: “From this day on, the Lord will grant you the ability to read and write,” after which the child began to verse the psalter well and harmoniously, becoming from that hour very proficient in reading and writing. Having tasted the meal offered by Bartholomew’s parents and assuring them that the Lord had given them a blessed child in him, who, for the sake of a virtuous life, would be great before God and before mankind, the elder left them. Bartholomew's parents went to see him off, but he suddenly became invisible, from which they knew that he was an angel of God. The lives of the saints provide us with numerous examples of how the hearts of people chosen by God are inflamed with a gracious zeal for salvation from the days of their earliest youth, so that, without going out, they burn until old age. Bartholomew, the future St. Sergius, belonged to the number of these chosen ones of God. From less than twelve years of age, he began to try to live the life of an ascetic, which he never abandoned until his death. Not being forbidden by his pious parents, he began to keep a strict fast, so that on Wednesdays and Fridays he did not eat food at all (as especially pious adults did then), and on other days he ate bread and water; began to diligently attend the church of God for prayer and spend whole nights at home in prayer; began to diligently read holy books teaching the way of salvation. When Bartholomew was about 15 years old, his parents saw themselves forced to move from Rostov to another place. In the winter of 1327–1328, the appanage Moscow prince Ivan Danilovich Kalita received the great reign of Russia in the Horde. The new Grand Duke, a man with very great state abilities, managed to gain the favor of the Khan to such an extent that this, a year after the granting of the Grand Duke's throne to him, incidentally gave the principality of Rostov, neighboring to Moscow, into deliberate subordination to him 12 . The Grand Duke sent one of the Moscow boyars (Vasily Kocheva) to Rostov as his governor. Whether on the authority of Ivan Danilovich or on his own, his governor conducted the matter in such a way that soon all of Rostov was filled with tears and crying. In Rostov, of course, there were those dissatisfied with its deliberate subordination to Moscow; this dissatisfaction was presented by the governor as treason by the Rostovites to the Grand Duke, and he began to bring treason out of Rostov... Fairly and unfairly, people were accused of hostility to Moscow, and then physical torture and torture and confiscation or completely extortionate confiscation of property followed; it got to the point that even the governor of the city of Rostov princes (a boyar named Averky) was subjected to cruel and at the same time shameful bodily torture. Fleeing from the terrible terror that came in Rostov, many of its residents decided to flee from it in order to seek refuge in other places 13. Among others who decided to flee Rostov was Bartholomew’s father Kirill. In addition to the grave violence of Moscow, he was also forced to move out of Rostov by the fact that in his old age he experienced a cruel vicissitude of fate - from a rich and noble man, thanks to the unfortunate circumstances of the time, he became a pitiful poor man, who was inconvenient to stay where he lived as a rich man 14. As a place for his new residence, Bartholomew’s father chose a small town or town, Radonezh, which corresponded to his own more than modest position, located in the Moscow region (54 versts from Moscow in the direction of Rostov and 14 versts from the present Trinity Lavra in the direction of Moscow). The town was given by the Grand Duke as an inheritance to his youngest son Andrei, and in order to attract new residents to it, many benefits were given to the settlers and great relief was promised (in taxes and duties). The equally humble Kirill moved to humble Radonezh with some others from Rostov and settled in it near his church in honor of the Nativity of Christ 15. Having reached the age of twenty, Bartholomew, who had long ago decided to devote himself to God in monasticism and had long been a strict monk in his life, began to ask his parents for permission to become a monk. His parents had nothing against his intention, for they themselves were zealous adherents of monasticism, but they asked him to wait to take tonsure until he had conducted them to the next world. “For,” they told him, “your brothers Stefan and Peter got married and take care of themselves, and we, in our old age and poverty and in our sickness, have a guardian only in you.” Bartholomew obeyed his parents and, devoting himself to caring for them, prepared himself for those exceptional monastic feats that he decided to undertake. Soon Bartholomew's sick parents, one not far from the other, moved from this life to eternal life, and both of them first took monasticism in the Khotkov Monastery located (and still located) near Radonezh, which at that time was both male and female 16 . Having buried his parents, Bartholomew gained freedom to manage himself. And he, having given the meager inheritance left by his parents to his younger brother Peter 17, hastened to take advantage of his freedom. However, to become a monk, he did not go to the Khotkov Monastery, in which his parents took monastic vows and in which his widowed elder brother Stefan took monastic vows, and also did not go to any other monastery. He wanted to become a monk outside the monastery. This did not mean that he wanted to choose for himself the easiest and most imperfect type of monasticism; on the contrary, he was looking for the most difficult and most perfect type of monasticism. The strictest monasticism is a withdrawal from the world in both senses - figurative, or spiritual, and literal, or proper: in the spiritual sense it is a renunciation of all attachment to everything worldly, in the proper sense it is a withdrawal into the desert from human habitations. In Russia, people had been monastics until then to the best of their ability in the spiritual sense, but until then we did not have monasticism in the proper sense - as desert living. Our monks looked at the example of the Greek monks of their time, and the later Greek monks no longer left the cities for the desert. And so God’s chosen youth Bartholomew, turning his gaze away from the example of the Greek monks of his day and turning it to the example of the ancient Egyptian founders of monasticism - Anthony, Pachomius and Macarius, decided to become a monk in the proper sense of asceticism in the desert, far from human habitations. Having decided not to go to any monastery to become a monk, but to retire into the desert, Bartholomew went to his brother Stephen at the Khotkov Monastery and invited him to be his companion in the desert life. Stefan, carried away by the idea of ​​the delights of desert life and not thinking well about all its difficulties, expressed his consent. The brothers left the Khotkovo Monastery to look for a place for desert living in the forest surrounding it, and, walking around it a lot, they finally decided to stop where the Lavra now stands and exactly where the Trinity Cathedral stands in the Lavra. A small river flowed among the forest (in the acts of the 15th century it was called Konsera, in the legends of the 17th century - Konshura, currently called Konchura) 18, and a thicket of trees on the bank of the river with a spring flowing from under the bank (the water of which was intended to be used for consumption instead of the insufficiently usable water of the river itself), and the brothers chose for their desert life. The place belonged to Prince Andrei Ivanovich of Radonezh himself, from whom the brothers, of course, asked permission to sit on it (in fact, from their father, Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich, since Andrei Ivanovich, born in 1327, was still less than a 10-year-old child at that time). The place with its surroundings was called Makovets, Makovskaya Mountain, which is why St. Sergius in the most ancient news is sometimes given the nickname Makovsky, Makoviysky, and about his monastery it is sometimes said that it is located in Makovets, in Makovskaya Mountain 19. Having sat down and initially settled down in a hastily made hut, the brothers prayed to God and began clearing the forest in order to build themselves a cell and a small church 20 . It was probably the case that they called in a real carpenter and, with his guidance and teaching, they completed their construction. When the church was erected, the brothers went to Moscow, to Metropolitan Theognostus, to ask priests to consecrate it, which request was granted by the metropolitan 21. The church was consecrated in the name of the Holy Trinity. After the consecration of the church, the brothers began to live in the desert. But Stephen could not endure this new kind of monasticism, chosen by his younger brother, for very long. The desert was real, and a harsh desert: all around for a long distance in all directions there was a dense forest, in the forest there was not a single human dwelling and not a single human path, so that it was impossible to see faces and it was impossible to hear human voices, but only animals and birds could be seen and heard. Stefan could not endure such solitude for long and, leaving Bartholomew alone in his desert, left him for Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery. Left alone, Bartholomew first of all took care of becoming a real monk, that is, to receive monastic tonsure. In ancient times, it was acceptable and quite common for us to have hieromonks serve as priests at parish churches; if these hieromonks were also confessors for the surrounding population (in ancient times the right of confessorship was not given to all priests, but only to the most worthy and capable among them), then they were called abbots, elder abbots; These abbots were deliberately given the right to tonsure as monks those wishing to become a monk 22 (precisely those wishing to become a monk not in monasteries where there were real abbots for tonsure, but in secular churches, in secular houses and in general in the world, which was then permissible). Bartholomew found one of these elder abbots, named Mitrofan, in one of the parishes surrounding his desert, and brought him to himself so that the elder would tonsure him as a monk. Mitrofan tonsured him, giving him a name in honor of the saint of the day on which the tonsure was performed - the martyr Sergius, whose memory, together with the memory of the martyr Bacchus, is celebrated by the Church on October 7. On the day of his tonsure, Mitrofan performed the liturgy in the church of Bartholomew-Sergius and honored him with the sacrament of the Holy Mysteries. The biography says that some people present in the church, probably relatives and Radonezh acquaintances of Bartholomew, who came to him for his tonsure, testified that at the moment of his communion as a new monk, the church and the surrounding area of ​​the church were filled with fragrance. For seven days after his tonsure, the Monk Sergius remained continually in his church in prayer and ate only the prosphora that the abbot gave him after the liturgy. Mitrofan stayed with him for some time to teach him instructions regarding monastic life, and then withdrew from him, leaving him, as the biography writer puts it, “alone in the desert, silent and united.” The Monk Sergius became a monk when he was 23 years old; therefore, if he was born in 1314, it was in 1337. In subsequent times, in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, monastic asceticism through completely solitary desert living was not very rare among us, but it began with us precisely from St. Sergius, and he was the first to introduce it among us. It is not so difficult to do something difficult when many others have already done it before us, as it is difficult for the first person to decide on it; It’s not too scary to spend the night alone in an empty house after many others have spent the night in it, but it’s scary to be the first to go spend the night in it. The Monk Sergius, retiring into the desert, had as his intention not only to asceticize in it completely alone, but rather to asceticize in it in a greater or lesser community with others, remote from cities and villages and generally worldly human habitations. But when his first accomplice in the desert life left him, he had to begin his desert asceticism with perfect living together. The older brother, who could not endure the desert and fled from it, of course, strongly called out from it for his younger brother, who was faced with complete loneliness in the desert. But the Monk Sergius, having once arrived in the desert, no longer wanted to leave it; and when his comrade fled from him, he, placing his trust in God, decided to remain in the desert and alone in order to strive for a feat that he did not intend to undertake, and to represent an ascetic hitherto unprecedented in our Rus'. In the desert, in complete solitude, the Monk Sergius lived for a period unknown to the exact biography - from two to four years 23. Two to four years in itself is a very short time, but two to four years of living in the desert, completely alone, is a completely different matter. It’s scary to spend just one night in the forest alone, without comrades, it seems like a year and one such night, but a whole two-year series of such nights truly appears before the imagination as something very terrible, making you involuntarily shudder at the thought of everything that a person had to endure. The dreams of his own imagination, which it is not in human power to suppress, must have terrified St. Sergius; he was supposed to be frightened by various ghosts and demonic phenomena, of which, according to the biography, there were a great many, and at the same time, in full reality, the roar of predatory animals, wolves and bears around the cell 24. And every night, full of all sorts of fears, was followed by a day, during which it was necessary to fight, if not with fears, then with the despondency of painful and soul-depressing loneliness 25 . But having courageously doomed himself to everything that threatened a lonely life in the desert, the Monk Sergius was to receive the greatest benefit from this two-year or four-year desert-solitary life. Not entertained by anyone or anything, he had to spend time in constant contemplation of God, which represented a reliable protection from all fears, and thus firmly root in himself the holy mood for which he ardently strove. The time of the deserted solitary life of the Monk Sergius passed in external, church prayer, which consisted of performing the entire range of daily services, with the exception of the liturgy, in internal, or mental, domestic prayer, in unceasing contemplation of God, in reading the word of God and in bodily labor. There is no doubt that the library of the four books of St. Sergius was very small, but if he had only the psalter and the gospel, if, reading and rereading them, he knew them by heart and imprinted as many of them firmly on his heart as he knew well, then he had no reason to envy the owners of entire large libraries of the four books 26 . As for bodily labor, he had to cut down the forest near his church and cell in order to form a larger or smaller clearing around them, in which he could plant a vegetable garden, if not an entire arable field. Having settled among the animals, the Monk Sergius acquired their favor, and with some of them he even entered into a commonwealth, so to speak. Packs of wolves ran past his cell, but did not harm him; Sometimes bears passed by and also did not bother him. Among the bears there was one who often began to visit the monk; Seeing that the beast did not come with malicious intent, but in the hope of receiving a handout, Sergius began to share his meager meal with him, giving him a slice of bread on a stump or on a log, and shared it in half with him even in the case when he himself barely had enough. When it happened that the saint had no bread at all and the bear, coming to his cell, did not find his portion in the appointed place, then, according to the biography, he did not leave (from the cell) for a long time, but stood, looking here and there and waiting (with persistence), as if an evil creditor urgently wanting to collect a debt. The bear's daily visits continued for more than a year. The food of the Monk Sergius during his solitary life in the desert consisted of bread and water. He took water from a source, or spring, near which his cell stood; where did he get the bread? The biography writer says nothing about this: in all likelihood, from time to time his younger brother Peter, who remained to live in Radonezh, brought it or sent it to him. A city cannot hide on top of a standing mountain (Matthew 5:14), and St. Sergius could not remain unknown for long in his desert. The fame of him spread among the surrounding monks, and the latter began to visit him to see this unusual desert ascetic. Soon there were found among the monks those who were kindled with the desire to labor together with the monk in his wilderness; These began to turn to him with a request that he allow them to settle near him. As we said, Saint Sergius withdrew into the desert not with the idea of asceticizing alone, but with the idea of striving in greater or lesser partnership outside the world. Therefore, he not only could not have anything against accepting those who expressed a desire to live with him, but also had to rejoice greatly at this. 27 Pointing out to those who expressed a desire to live with him the difficulty of desert life, the monk readily and with joy he began to accept those who were not afraid of this difficulty. And this is how the Sergius Monastery was conceived - the subsequent and current famous Trinity Lavra of Sergius. All our monasteries of that time were so-called special monasteries. In the monastery there was a common abbot's supervision over all and there was a church common to all, but then, as regards housing, clothing and food, each monk was completely independent and completely his own master: each had his own cell, set up by himself or acquired through purchase 28, each dressed himself, and each fed himself not only in the sense that he himself acquired material for food, but also in the sense that he prepared his own food. As it was in all other monasteries, so it was to be in the Sergius Monastery. Having begun to accept those who expressed a desire to live with him, he invited them to build cells for themselves, and some of those under construction were probably provided with general fraternal assistance, and he himself, having more or less knowledge of the carpentry craft, no doubt, was a diligent assistant to all those under construction. In a short time, all 12 brothers gathered to Sergius. Having no priests among them, the brethren sang the Midnight Office, Matins, Hours and Vespers with Mephimon or Vespers every day in their church, and to serve the Liturgy they called upon them a white priest or hieromonk (“elder abbot”) 29 . When cells were erected for all the brethren, the Monk Sergius, transforming the resulting monastic settlement into a real monastery, surrounded the cells with a fence, which, as a common structure, of course, was the work of the entire brethren. The biographer says that the cells were surrounded by a tyn “not very spacious.” But this should not be understood to mean that the original monastery was very cramped, but only that it was not as spacious as the later one. The same biography makes it known that in the monastery there were vegetable gardens 30, that is, as, in all likelihood, it should be understood - for each cell, or for each brother, there was a special vegetable garden, and this required not a very small space. The original monastery of St. Sergius, or the hermitage that served as the ancestor of his monastery, should be imagined in this form: in a remote forest, on the bank of a river, a half-cleared clearing, in which a large forest has been cut down, but here and there there are still trees in the form of a rare grove, and on which logs from felled trees lie everywhere and stumps stick out everywhere; in the clearing there is a small wooden church and around the church under the trees and between the trees there are 13 small wooden cells; the entire clearing, or a significant part of it, is surrounded by a tine, and inside the tine, vegetable gardens are laid out behind the cells. In a real monastery there should have been an abbot over the brethren. Of course, the brethren could have wished no one else to be their abbot than St. Sergius himself. But when the question of the abbot was raised, he was not yet 30 years old; given his too young years, he was afraid to accept the abbot. For some time he avoided being an abbot by being able to give the brethren a ready-made abbot. The above-mentioned abbot, Elder Mitrofan, who tonsured St. Sergius as a monk, came to live with him when the brethren gathered to him; this Mitrofan, turning from an abbot in the improper sense into an abbot in the proper sense, became the first abbot of the Sergius Monastery, becoming at the same time its priest. But Mitrofan, having lived in the monastery for about a year, died. Then the brethren resolutely approached the monk with a request and demand that he assume the abbess, and after a more or less long hesitation, due to the same consciousness of his youth, he finally, yielding to the most decisive insistence of the brethren, accepted the abbess along with the reception of the priesthood. He was appointed abbot in 1344, having 30 years of age. Even at a younger age, the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk was appointed abbot, and one can very well think that the example of Theodosius, which Sergius undoubtedly constantly had before his eyes in subsequent times, inspired him with the determination to accept the abbess, despite his young years 31 . For some time, the number of brethren in the monastery remained the same - 12 people with the 13th abbot: those who could not stand the desert life and left, as well as those who died, were compensated by those who came again, so the number remained unchanged 13. But an archimandrite named Simon came to St. Sergius from Smolensk and destroyed this sacred number of the Savior with the 12 apostles, for with his arrival the multiplication of brethren in the monastery began. The fame of St. Sergius and his desert reached Smolensk. Archimandrite Simon, who was the oldest archimandrite in the Smolensk region 32 and a highly revered person in it, was kindled by the desire for a desert life and, leaving glory and honor, went to St. Sergius to become one of his disciples. Being a very rich man, Simon entrusted his wealth to Sergius to build a monastery, which the latter immediately began to do. First of all, he erected in the monastery a new, much larger or even larger and real church (also wooden, like the first), and then he rebuilt the monastery itself, adding to its area and placing the cells in a regular quadrangle around the church 33 (from the further history of the monastery it is clear that the quadrangle of the cells, being not particularly large in size, fit the church quite close to it, or closely, and that between the cells and the walls of the monastery there was a large space in which, as one must think, there were the brothers' vegetable gardens and all sorts of outbuildings). Great abundance and wealth awaited the monastery of St. Sergius, and he himself saw this abundance and wealth. But he started from poverty. Having received a small inheritance from his parents, he gave it all to his younger brother Peter, so he went into the desert, having nothing. While he lived alone in the desert, he needed only bread, which, as we have said, was probably supplied to him by his younger brother. But when a monastery was formed in its desert, church wine became needed for serving dinners, and wax candles became needed for serving all kinds of church services. Sometimes one and the other were missing, so the dinner service had to be postponed, and matins had to be sung instead of candles with a splinter of birch or pine. According to the testimony of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, in the Sergius Monastery in its early days they wrote books, we must mean liturgical ones, not on parchment or paper, but on birch bark 34 . Despite all the possible limitations of his needs, the monk himself sometimes experienced need. Once, when he was already the abbot of the monastery, all the brethren had an extreme shortage of food, and he himself had no bread or salt at all. For three days he endured hunger, but on the fourth day, being unable to endure it any longer, he took an ax and went to an old man named Daniel, whom he knew had some extra bread and at the same time needed carpentry work. “I heard, elder,” he said to Daniel, “that you want to add a vestibule to your cell; so as not to be idle, I came to you to set up a canopy.” “Indeed, I want to add a canopy to the cell,” answered Daniel, “I have long ago prepared the wood for this, and I am just waiting for a carpenter from the village; “And as for you,” he added to Sergius, “I’m afraid that you will charge me too much for the work.” Sergius replied that, on the contrary, he wanted to take it very cheaply, namely only those rotten bread that he had and which he, Sergius, wanted to eat, and added that he would make him a canopy better than any carpenter. Daniel brought out a sieve of rotten bread to Sergius, that is, broken pieces of bread 35, and said: “Now, if you want to get this for your work, then I will gladly give it to you, but I can’t give anything else.” Sergius replied that this was more than enough, and, telling Daniel to take the loaves for now, because he, Sergius, did not want to receive payment for the work before he had not done it, he set to work. He worked all day, and by evening the canopy was ready. Then he took the produced bread from Daniel and went to satisfy his hunger with it. During the early days of the monastery’s existence, it happened that all its brethren suffered hunger for several days. The brethren ate mainly alms from Christ-lovers, but Sergius was commanded not to go to the villages and villages to collect alms, but to accept only that alms that would be brought to the monastery by the Christ-lovers themselves. Sometimes the alms offering became scarce, and the brethren suffered hunger for two days or more. When a murmur arose among the brethren against the abbot that he did not allow people to go to villages and villages to collect alms, Sergius admonished and exhorted the faint-hearted to trust in the mercy of God. This firm trust of the monk in the mercy of God did not put him to shame. In moments of famine, when the brethren were close to despair, the Lord aroused the lovers of Christ, who sent abundance of bread and all edibles to the monastery. The biography writer tells one particular incident that relates to this. Once the brethren remained without food for two days. There was one in the brotherhood who armed everyone against Sergius by pointing out that the latter did not allow them to go out into the world to collect alms. Everyone came to the monk and told him that, being unable to endure hunger any longer, tomorrow they intended to leave the monastery so as not to return to it again. The monk extended an admonishing word to the grumbling brethren, and he had not yet finished his words when the monastery goalkeeper came running and informed the meeting that an unknown Christ-lover had sent many brushes (and the first sending was followed by a second and third sending, as abundant as the first). The Monk Sergius had the intention of asceticizing in a desert completely remote from human habitations. But lay people wanted to settle in the vicinity of his monastery, he could not prevent this; and thus, although his monastery remained outside the worldly human habitations, as it should have been, it found itself surrounded by them at a more or less close distance. Ten years after its foundation, its peasant farmers began to settle on all sides, cutting down the forest and setting up their own villages and villages. The settlement of the area proceeded so quickly that in a very short time it changed beyond recognition: where recently there had been one continuous dense forest, villages and hamlets could be seen, surrounded by vast fields and separated from one another only by copses. And the road from Moscow to the northern cities, which had hitherto gone far from the monastery, was brought closer to the monastery itself, so that it found itself, so to speak, on the side of one of the most traveled roads 36 . Its original desertion, which was not preserved by the monastery, served as a model for subsequent adherents of asceticism to establish desert monasteries. And the separation preserved by the monastery from worldly human dwellings later became an indispensable condition for the establishment of any monastery somewhat worthy of its name. With the settlement of the surrounding area of the monastery of St. Sergius, it began in the monastery, according to the testimony of the biography of Sergiev, instead of the initial scarcity, there was great abundance in everything, for the new neighboring residents with the greatest zeal began to supply it with everything necessary: “and began, Epiphanius says about them, to visit and frequent the monastery, bringing diverse and varied needs, which they have to carry.” numbers." The elder brother of the Monk Sergius, Stefan, who left him in the desert, then returned to him in the monastery. Stefan left Sergius for Moscow and here he bought himself a cell and settled in the Epiphany Monastery. Among the monks of the monastery he found Saint Alexy 37, the subsequent metropolitan, with whom he labored for some time, being, like him, one of the church singers. With his strict life, he soon gained the favor of Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, who ordered him to be ordained a hieromonk and made him abbot of the monastery, and who at the same time, together with all his elder boyars, elected him to be their spiritual fathers 38 . We don’t know what made Stephen give up such an honorable life in Moscow, the abbess of the monastery and spiritual guidance to the Grand Duke, but we most likely think that it was the desire for a stricter monastic life than what he could lead in Moscow. Stefan brought with him his youngest son, John, who was a 12-year-old boy, so that he too would become a monk at the Sergius Monastery. Tonsured by Sergius with the name Theodore, this latter later became famous as the founder of the Moscow Simonov Monastery and died in the rank of Bishop of Rostov with the title of Archbishop acquired from himself 39 . It is very likely that Stefan brought money to Sergius for the improvement and beautification of the monastery, but at the same time, his arrival at the monastery was the cause of great sorrow for his younger brother, as we will discuss below. The Monk Sergius introduced desert life among us in a double sense - in the sense of solitary, or solitary, asceticism in the desert and in the sense of building entire monasteries in the desert; Regarding the second, he made it mandatory for us that monasteries be built, if not in real deserts, then at least outside worldly human habitations and at a greater or lesser distance from them. But he also has another, and very important, merit regarding our monasticism - a merit for which he is rightly called the father of our northern, or Moscow, monasticism of Mongolian and post-Mongolian times, just as the Monks Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk are called the fathers of our southern, or Kyiv, monasticism of pre-Mongolian times. He was the leader of communal living, or hostelry, in the monasteries of northern, Moscow, Rus'. True monasticism must be the strictest communal living, so that the monks have absolutely nothing of their own, down to the needle and thread, but everything is common, so that their cells do not have any locks and so that there are no chests or caskets in their cells. This is how it was in ancient times, while monasticism flourished, but then communal living was forced out of monasteries by separate living, which we spoke about above. Apparently, nothing can be better than being ready for everything and not having to worry about anything. This is indeed so, but only under the condition that a person suppresses feelings of self-interest and greed and introduces into himself a feeling of selfless brotherly love; and the constant triumph of self-interest over brotherly love is the main reason why human history is very sad. Monasteries first appeared as a restoration of that apostolic times of the Christian community, when the entire assembly of believers had one heart and one soul, when no one called anything of his property his own and when they had everything in common (Acts. 4:32), but then in the monasteries brotherly love was overcome by self-love, as a result of which, partly with the addition of some collateral reasons, the overwhelming majority of them became from communal living to singular living, so that single living became the decisively predominant and dominant type of monastic life. But just as among the Greek monks God raised up zealots of true monastic life, who took upon themselves the work of restoring it, so it was also among the Russian monks. Having adopted Christianity from the Greeks, we borrowed from them, along with Christianity, monasticism, but precisely in the form of singular living. About 50 years after the baptism of Russia, God raised up among our monks the Monks Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, who introduced a hostel among us. When the community life introduced among us by Anthony and Theodosius again completely disappeared from our monasteries, God raised up St. Sergius of Radonezh to be its restorer among us. The biography of St. Sergius presents the matter of his introduction of a hostel in his monastery in such a way that one day, quite unexpectedly, messengers from the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus came to Sergius, that these messengers brought him a cross, a paramand and a schema as a funeral service, or as a gift, from the patriarch, and together they brought him a scripture, in which the patriarch, after expressing his joy about his virtuous life, exhorted him to complete The only main thing that was insufficient for him was to introduce a common life in his monastery, and that St. Sergius, after consulting with the holy Metropolitan Alexy and fulfilling the will of the patriarch, introduced a common life in the monastery. It is necessary to imagine the matter somewhat differently, namely to think that the Monk Sergius introduced a hostel in his monastery not because the patriarch advised him to do so, but because he himself wanted it, and that the holy Metropolitan Alexy wanted it with him, and that they - Sergius and Alexy - only resorted to the authority of the patriarch in order to give their undertaking greater firmness. The Patriarch could not send letters to Sergius on his own, for he could not at all to know about him (and to think that the glory of Sergius could have reached the patriarch already at the time to which his introduction of a dormitory in the monastery should be attributed is absolutely impossible. It is necessary to assume that the patriarch wrote a letter to the Monk Sergius at the request of Saint Alexius, addressed to him by the latter during his stay in Constantinople for his ordination as a metropolitan (a two-year stay in 1353-1355). Sergius and Alexy, as we said, needed a letter from the patriarch so that with its help they could give their undertaking greater firmness. Representing themselves as exceptional people and God's chosen men, they were inspired by zeal to restore the true monastic way of life - communal living - in our monasteries. But what they were jealous about could not be at all pleasant for the majority of our monks and could not at all be greeted by them with readiness and joy. And so, in order to influence this majority, Alexy and Sergius decided to resort to the authority of the patriarch, who, with his voice as the supreme shepherd of the Russian Church, would confirm and approve their good enterprise. It is necessary to think that the messengers of the patriarch who brought Sergius his letter were those sent by him who accompanied Saint Alexis to Russia after he was made metropolitan by the patriarch. And Saint Alexy returned from Constantinople after being installed as metropolitan in the fall of 1355 40 . If the Monk Sergius had undertaken to introduce a hostel in his monastery, without having the patriarch’s charter, then, undoubtedly, he would have met with strong murmurs against himself and even direct protests. In view of the patriarch’s letter, which not only approved the enterprise, but even seemed to deliberately demand it, grumbling, we mean open, and protests were impossible; however, not all the monks of the Sergius Monastery agreed to live in a new way; Among them there were those—we don’t know how many—who absolutely did not want to live together and secretly left the monastery 41. The year 1354, to which the introduction of the hostel in his monastery by St. Sergius should be attributed, was the 11th year from his installation as abbot. The introduction of a dormitory in the monastery required the construction of new buildings in it (meals, cookhouses, bakeries, etc.) and the establishment among the monks of various economic and generally public positions (cellarer, treasurer, refectories, cooks, etc.), an ecclesiarch, or the head of the church and the administration of worship, with his assistants, hospital servants, or service workers who would look after weak, etc. St. Sergius immediately did all this. By the time the hostel was introduced, the monastery was already in such a position that there could be no obstacles to organizing life in it according to a new model from the financial side. With the introduction of a hostel in the monastery, monastic life had to be organized in it with all rigor. The biography of St. Sergius, unfortunately, does not tell us details in this regard. We know some, although very few, third-party indications regarding this - partly direct, partly indirect. In the Simonovsky monastery of Sergiev's nephew, Theodore, orders were, of course, taken from the example of his, Sergiev, monastery; and about the Simonov Monastery, the Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk says: “The custom of that monastery (at first) is this: in the cells, not yadyahu, below piyahu, below outside the monastery, without the blessing of the abbot, below the youth in the monasteries alive, below at the palaces (monastic services and institutions located outside the walls of the monastery), but everything they had was according to the testimony divine scriptures and communal traditions" 42. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, in his well-known teaching and accusatory message to the Kirillov Belozersky Monastery, speaking with general great praise about the strong life that was before him at the Trinity, in particular, says that for quite a long time after the death of St. Sergius, his disciples kept the covenant he left not to go beyond the gates of the monastery 43 . Inspired by the ancient example of St. Theodosius of Pechersk, St. Sergius of Radonezh introduced a hostel in his monastery. He tried to follow the example of the same Theodosius in all his abbot activities before and after the introduction of a hostel in the monastery, so that the speeches of his biography about this activity of his are an almost literal reproduction of the speeches of the Monk Nestor about the same activity of the Monk Theodosius. Sergius did not immediately tonsure those who wanted to become monks in his monastery, but first dressed them in long clothes made of black cloth and forced them to walk in them for quite some time, until those who wanted to become a monk became accustomed to his entire monastic rite; after this, he tonsured into a small monastic image with vestments in a mantle and hood, and, finally, he honored the perfect monks to accept the holy schema. To observe the life of the monks, St. Sergius walked around the cells in the evenings and looked through the windows to see who was doing what. If he saw that a brother was practicing handicrafts, or saying a prayer, or reading a holy book, he gave thanks to God for him. If he saw two or three monks gathered in a cell, spending time in idle conversations, he would hit the cell door or knock on the window, letting those interlocutors know that he had seen their inappropriate activity. The next day, he called the guilty to himself and with his meek denunciations, and with all mercy he personally treated the accused themselves, he tried to bring them to the consciousness of the reprehensibility of their behavior and to repentance of it. From what has just been said, it is clear that the brethren of the Sergius Monastery were engaged in prayer, handicrafts and reading holy books, that is, the works of their fathers, in their cells. This is how it should be according to the ancient laws on the activities of monks 44. But reading books is possible under the condition that they are in the monastery. Consequently, if the Monk Sergius approved of the reading of books by his monks, then this suggests that he took care of the acquisition and production of four books, or the compilation of a monastic library of such books. And we have positive indications that this was indeed the case. Prince of Serpukhov Vladimir Andreevich, son of Andrei Ivanovich, whom we mentioned above, cousin of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy and his famous associate in the Battle of Kulikovo, to whom Radonezh and its volost belonged, wished to take from St. Sergius to found a monastery in his Serpukhov, his student Afanasy. The monk did not find it possible to refuse his prince’s request, but he sent Athanasius away from him with great regret, and this is because he was a book-reader. “Be Athanasius,” says the biography writer, “the man is wonderful in virtues and very intelligent in the divine scriptures, and his many good writings bear witness to this day, and for this reason we love the elder dearly” (i.e., St. Sergius). The communal charter requires that all monks of the monastery, not excluding the abbot, participate equally in all monastic work. The Monk Sergius worked not only equally with everyone, but also more than everyone else, and in work that required physical strength, since he was a very strong man by nature, 45 he worked for at least two people and was not ashamed of any work - neither cooking and carpentry, nor cutting and sewing clothes and shoes for the brethren. His deliberate work consisted of making what was required for worship: baking prosphoras with the very making of flour for them (by pounding grain and grinding it with a hand mill), rolling candles, boiling kutya and preparing the so-called canons, or kanuns (kutya and canon, or kanun, were to be brought to church, firstly, to commemorate the dead on daily after-evening funeral litias, for requiem services held after Vespers on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays, and for all customized requiem services; secondly, as was the case in ancient times, in honor of the Lord, the Mother of God and the saints - on all the Lord’s, Mother of God and special holy feasts 46). The communal regulations require that all monks of the monastery, not excluding the abbot, wear clothes of the same quality. The Monk Sergius wore not only the same clothes as everyone else, but also the worst clothes of all. Once, among other pieces of cloth for clothing, a piece was purchased that was completely unusable, in which the coloring had faded by half, so that the cloth had some kind of piebald (“pinkish”) quality. Not a single monk wanted clothes made from such cloth. Then the monk took it for himself and sewed a cassock from it (the current cassock), which he wore until it fell off his shoulders. The monk’s usual, or everyday, clothing, the usual material for which was simple household cloth, called homespun, was so modest and poor, or, as the life writer puts it, “thin,” that it was not far from being called rags. Regarding this thinness of the monk’s clothes, the writer of his life tells one incident. When the fame of his virtuous life spread widely throughout Russia and when many began to come to him to see him and enjoy his soul-saving conversation, one peasant from places far from the monastery wished to see him. Having chosen free time, he went to the monastery. It so happened that at the moment of his arrival at the monastery, the Monk Sergius was digging ridges in the monastery garden. When he asked the monks to show him their famous abbot, they answered that the abbot was digging soil in the garden and that he should wait a little. Burning with impatience to see Sergius, the peasant ran to the garden fence and pressed himself to the well. Through the well he saw that some monk in tattered and worn rags was digging a ridge. “Where,” he asks the monks, “is the abbot?” They answer him that he is looking at the abbot. The peasant, thinking that the monks were making fun of him, was very offended... Then he really became convinced that in the tattered and paid rags was the famous Sergius, whose fame spread throughout Russia and whom, judging by other, unfamous, abbots, he imagined in a completely different way - “surrounded by the youths coming and the servants who are waiting and a multitude of servants or honor givers”... Some time after this, the peasant took monasticism in the Sergius Monastery (Pachomius, probably on the basis of his own information, says in the service to St. Sergius that he “rejected perishable garments, walked in winter without warm clothes, as in summer”). We have said more than once above that the monastery of St. Sergius, after an initial, not particularly long-lasting scarcity, began to abound in everything it needed. Abundance appeared in the monastery thanks to the zeal for the monk, on the one hand, of the surrounding inhabitants of the monastery, which Epiphanius directly speaks about, and on the other hand, and most importantly, which Epiphanius does not directly talk about, but which must be assumed, - thanks to the zeal for the monk of his many admirers among the Moscow boyars and among the Moscow merchants. The question arises whether the monastery of St. Sergius already owned immovable estates or estates during his time. The most likely answer to the question is negative. It is true that the words of Epiphanius about Sergius not acquiring the red villages cannot be recognized as any convincing evidence, for, firstly, we know other examples when this is told to us and when the speeches should be understood in a far from accurate and improper sense (the speeches of Nestor about the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk and Pachomius Serbin about the Monk Kirill of Belozersky), and secondly, Epiphanius uses the word “villages” in a simple oratorical set of words, some of which do not suit St. Sergius at all, and the purpose of which, in addition to any accuracy, is only to generally express the idea of his (Sergius’s) great non-covetousness. But there is another reason to think that St. Sergius himself did not yet accept the contribution of real estate, or estates, to the monastery. Of the subsequent estates of the Trinity Monastery, there is not a single one about which it would be positively known that it was given to the monastery under the Venerable Sergius himself. It may be objected that there are estates for which it is unknown when they entered the monastery. But if the Monk Sergius himself began to accept fiefs, then with the great multitude of his admirers among the boyars, he would have been given more or less significant numbers of fiefs, and it is incredible to admit that out of many fiefs, direct news of at least one has not been preserved, that it entered the monastery under the Venerable Sergius himself. Accepting that the Monk Sergius himself did not have patrimonial estates, it will be necessary to understand this not so that he was generally against patrimonial ownership of monasteries, but in such a way that he only wanted him to not have patrimonial estates in his monastery. His immediate successor and personal disciple, the Monk Nikon, began to acquire estates for the monastery, and one cannot think that this one acted contrary to the will and testament of his teacher. We know not about the patrimony, but about one craft, that it was attached to the monastery under the Venerable Sergius himself - this is half a brewery and half a salt well at Sol Galitskaya, which is the current city of Soligalich, Kostroma province, given to the monastery by one Galich boyar shortly before the death of the Venerable Sergius, precisely when he, having transferred the abbess to Nikon, was preparing for death. But, taking it as most likely that under the Venerable Sergius himself the monastery did not yet have immovable estates or estates, in all probability one should think that the monastery had its own arable farming under him, namely that the Venerable Sergius established arable fields around the monastery, which were cultivated partly by the monks themselves, partly by hired peasants, and partly by peasants who wanted to work for the monastery for God’s sake (as examples of this latter we see in the future) 47. The biography of St. Sergius was a man who knew him personally and well: he was a monk of his own monastery, who came to the monastery, although not at the very beginning of the latter, but, in any case, many years before his, Sergius, death. Consequently, the speeches of the biography writer, when he tells us about the personal character and personal moral qualities of St. Sergius, we have every reason to accept not as speeches in which a fantastic portrait would be arbitrarily drawn to us, but as speeches in which the real St. Sergius is more or less correctly portrayed to us. And by repeatedly attempting to portray the personal character and personal qualities of the monk throughout the narrative and constantly depicting them with the same features, the biography writer assures us even more that he is portraying to us not the dreams of his imagination, but precisely the true Sergius, as he really was. We do not need information about what Sergius was and what he was like in relation, so to speak, to himself, that is, in his own, for himself, life - we know without any outside evidence that he was a highly holy, strictly ascetic life, but we want to know what Sergius was like in relation to other people or in relation to his neighbors. So, according to the depiction of the biography, in relation to other people the Monk Sergius was filled with immeasurable humility, he was quiet and meek in such a way that anger and rage, cruelty (severity) and ferocity were completely alien to him, he was gentle and simple without any admixture of cunning and the so-called “on his own mind” (there was “simplicity without variegation” in him, as the biography puts it), he was filled with love unhypocritical and impartial towards all people. “Reverend abbot,” we read from the life writer, “our holy father Sergius, a wonderful old man, adorned with all sorts of virtues (be), having a quiet, meek disposition, and humble and good-natured, friendly and benevolent, comforting, sweet-voiced and gracious, merciful and kind-hearted, humble-wise and chaste, reverent and poor-loving, strange-loving and peace-loving... acquisitive, above all, immeasurable humility and unfeigned love for all people, and equally loving and honoring everyone together, not choosing, neither judging, nor in vain on the face of man and not being proud of anyone, nor condemning, nor slandering, nor anger, nor rage, nor cruelty, nor cruelty, holding below malice whom." Of the beatitudes of the Gospel, as his biography depicts St. Sergius for us, they were undoubtedly attached to him: blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are the pure in heart. But the evangelical beatitude was also fully attached to St. Sergius - blessed are the merciful. As far as we know the history of the monasteries of northern, or Moscow, Rus', the best of them were distinguished by zealous charity in the sense of feeding the poor, poor passing wanderers and poor surrounding residents, and it must undoubtedly be said that this charity originates from him, St. Sergius. This charity could only take place in communal monasteries, but not in private monasteries (for a very understandable reason). And since communal monasteries began in northern Rus' only with Sergius, then charity could only begin with him. That it not only could have begun, but actually began with him, the biography assures us of this. He says that love of strangers and love of poverty were the distinctive virtues of the monk, that he had it legalized and commanded not to let any of the poor who came to the monastery leave empty-handed, and to put the poor and strange to rest. In later times, in the 15th-16th centuries, we find at the monastery an almshouse for poor beggars who were unable to collect alms, and with a very considerable probability the construction of the almshouse should have been taken over by the Monk Sergius himself. When the road from Moscow to the northern cities was close to the monastery itself, all passing officials and all passing troops began to stop there - and, according to the biography, everyone was received there with great hospitality. Bearing in mind that the monastery of St. Sergius, even in later times, tried to observe the commandment of its founder about love of poverty and love of hobbies, as it is conveyed by the biography, and that this was deliberately demanded of the monastery, according to the commandment of St. Sergius, recorded in his life, 48 we will convey the original words of Epiphanius. “The food brought to the monastery multiplied,” he writes, “more than the strange-loving man of age, and no one came to the monastery from the poor with their hands; The blessed one left the commandment to do good and to those who serve in the monastery: to give peace to the poor and strange and to give to those who demand it, saying: if you keep this commandment of mine without grumbling, you will receive a reward from God and after I depart from this life, this monastery will spread greatly and will stand indestructible for many years by the grace of Christ; and so his hand is stretched out to those who demand it, like a river with plenty of water and quiet streams; and if it happens to anyone in winter, it lies on the green scum or blows on the snow with the green wind, and is unable to leave the cell outside (i.e. if it was impossible for someone who came to the monastery to set off on a further journey due to severe frost or bad weather), for the duration of their stay (in the monastery) for the sake of need, everything required from the monastery to the priest; wanderers and the poor, and from them, in illness, I rested for many days in contented peace and food, which anyone demanded, generously, according to the commandment of the holy elder, and to this day it happens; I am on the way from many countries, and for the sake of the princes and governors and the countless army, I supply all the hosts with sufficient honest needs, as if from an inexhaustible source, and on the journey of the future I will receive the necessary food and drink in abundance, and these serving in the monastery of the saint with joy give abundantly to everyone” (fol. 191–193 vol.). The biography writer and other contemporaries call St. Sergius a wonderful old man and say that with quiet and meek words and speeches and benevolent verbs, the grace given to him from the Holy Spirit could act on the most hardened and hardened hearts 49; These words involuntarily evoke the image of an old man, personifying all-conquering love. One of his contemporaries, writing about the serious illness that befell the Monk Sergius in 1375, calls him “the venerable abbot,” “saint Sergius”: “That same summer, the venerable abbot, Saint Sergius, suffered a serious illness,” 50 in which words one can clearly hear the great respect that was felt for the venerable Sergius even during his lifetime. Thus, “a wonderful old man, Saint Sergius” - this is how they spoke about the monk and this is how his contemporaries imagined him! We read in our manuscripts the message of the unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople to the unnamed Russian abbot. By abbot we must mean St. Sergius, because it is clear that to him and only to him go those signs that characterize the abbot in the letter. As for the patriarch and the time he wrote the message, then in all likelihood one must think that it was Callistus I, who wrote the message in 1362–1363. The message, which is not particularly large, after a general admonition regarding a good monastic life, contains a very specific admonition about the complete obedience and subjugation of the brethren of the monastery to their father and mentor, the abbot. We think that the letter was written by the patriarch at the deliberate request of Sergius himself from Russia to the patriarchal ambassador, who came to Russia at the end of 1361 and was personally known to him, Sergius, or at the request of Metropolitan Alexy, and most likely, at the request of Sergius, supported by Alexy’s petition. Regarding the reason that made Sergius and Alexy desire the patriarchal message, it seems likely to us to think that the reason for this was the displeasure and grumbling that had lasted in the monastery for quite a long time about the hostel introduced there by Sergius 51 . We noted above that the coming to St. Sergius of his elder brother Stephen was the cause of great sorrow for him. Stefan, as we said, came to Sergius, in all likelihood, out of a desire for a stricter life than what he could lead in Moscow, but despite this desire and his refusal to be abbess at the Epiphany Monastery, he did not, however, abandon his passion to rule. He was Sergius's older brother; he laid the foundation of a monastery with him, although he later fled from him; he probably brought Sergius from Moscow money for the improvement and beautification of the monastery; for all this, he wanted it not so much Sergius to be revered as the abbot of the monastery, but he, Stefan. For some reason, these claims of Stephen found approval in some of the brethren of the monastery 52: perhaps he hoped that those who were dissatisfied with the community life among them would be more or less weakened by him. Be that as it may, the claims put Sergius in a very awkward position, and he, waiting for an opportunity, decided on a unique way out of the difficulty. One Saturday, Vespers was going on in the monastery church, Sergius served and was in the altar, and Stefan stood on the left choir. Suddenly the latter saw in the hands of the canonarch a book, which he had taken with the blessing not of him, but of Sergius. With irritation, he asked the canonarch: "Who gave you this book?" And he must have then allowed himself to shower Sergius with more or less strong abuse, for the biography writer does not find it convenient to convey his further speeches and limits himself to the remark that after the above words he “also uttered some other things that were not so simple.” Sergius heard Stefan’s entire cry in the altar, as, of course, the brethren in the church heard him, and said nothing. At the end of Vespers, having waited until everyone had left the church, the monk left it and, without entering his cell, secretly left the monastery; he headed (on foot, as he made all his journeys, both short and long) to his friend, the Monk Stefan of Makhrishchsky, whose monastery was located 30–35 versts east of his own monastery (in the present-day Alexandrovsky district of the Vladimir province, 10–12 versts to the south of the city of Alexandrov, this is the still existing Makhrishchi monastery). Having informed Stephen of his intention to build himself a new monastery, he asked his friend to give him a monk who knew the surrounding area well and who would help him choose a place for the monastery. Having walked around the area, he chose a place for the monastery on the banks of the Kirzhachi River (which flows into the Klyazma), 10–12 versts south of the Stefanov Monastery and 45–50 versts southeast of his own Trinity Monastery. The Trinity brethren, of course, missed the disappeared abbot. Guessing that Sergius had gone to Stefan, they sent an ambassador to the Makhrishchi Monastery, from whom they learned that Sergius had been in the monastery and left it, and that he had already chosen a place to build a new monastery for himself. Immediately, a number of the brethren of the Trinity Monastery decided to go to the monk to live with him. Together with those who came, he set up several cells, and then sent to Metropolitan Alexy with a request for permission to build a church, and, probably, the matter was presented to the Metropolitan not in such a way that he, Sergius, would flee from the Trinity Monastery, giving way to anger, but in some more plausible way. Having received permission, the monk immediately began building the church, as well as building the entire monastery. Diligently supported by the surrounding residents, as well as by his admirers from the princes and boyars, he soon built a church (in the name of the Annunciation of the Mother of God) and soon built the entire monastery, establishing in it, as this should naturally be implied, the same hostel as in the Trinity Monastery. After Sergius's removal from it, the Trinity Monastery was left without a real abbot with the actual, or actual, abbot Stefanov in it. We do not know whether Stefan tried to become a real abbot, but the brethren of the monastery, that is, as it should be understood, the majority of them, decisively and earnestly wished for St. Sergius to return to them. Probably, after in vain appeals to him about this, the brethren sent to Metropolitan Alexy to ask that the Metropolitan, by his authority, force him to return to the monastery. Saint Alexy sent an embassy of two archimandrites to St. Sergius with an exhortation to fulfill the request of the brethren, and promised to remove from the monastery all those who had annoyed him. Sergius did not dare to listen to the metropolitan’s admonitions and returned to the Trinity Monastery, leaving in the Kirzhach Monastery, which he made dependent on the Trinity Monastery, the builder of his disciple Roman (the Kirzhach Annunciation Monastery was abolished when the states were established in 1764; the churches remaining after it were converted into the parish churches of the city of Kirzhach, which was formed from sub-monastery settlements) 53 . As a great righteous man, St. Sergius was awarded by God the gift of miracles during his lifetime. These are those of these miracles, stories about which are read by the life writer. Choosing a place to live in the desert, the Monk Sergius chose it on the banks of a small river. But since the water in the river was unfit for consumption, 54 he chose a place on it where a source, or spring, of clean water flowed from under the bank. Some time or another after the founding of the monastery, the source closed (dried up), as a result of which the monks were forced to bring themselves water from afar (this must mean from another source or spring they found). This aroused murmurs among the brethren, who said that the monk had foolishly built the monastery in a waterless place. The monk excused himself before the brethren by the fact that he did not think of building a large monastery, as was pleasing to God, and at the same time exhorted them to pray to God for water, reminding them that if the Lord brought water out of the stone for the rebellious Jewish people, then all the more would he not despise them, working for Him day and night. Trusting in the prayers of his brethren, he boldly turned to God’s miraculous help. Taking one brother with him, he went with him into the wilds, or lowlands, under the monastery and, having found some rainwater in one ditch, he performed a fervent prayer over it; At the end of the prayer, an abundant source of water suddenly appeared. From this abundant source, the monks began to use water for all their needs from that time on. For a long time it was called Sergius, but then the monk, having learned that they called him that, indignantly forbade calling him that, saying that it was not he, Sergius, who gave the water, but God gave it 55. One lover of Christ, who lived near the monastery and had great faith in St. Sergius, had his only son, who was a small youth (child), seriously ill. The lover of Christ, relying on the prayers of the monk, carried the sick man to him. But as soon as he entered his cell, at the very time he conveyed his request to him, his son gave up the ghost. The grief-stricken father, complaining to the monk that he had disgraced his hopes in him, went to bring a coffin for the child. But while he was walking, the monk prayed over the deceased, and through his prayer the child came to life. He announced to the father who returned with the coffin that the child had not died at all, but had become numb from the extreme cold - apparently it was winter - and that now he had moved away, had come to his senses and was healthy. Knowing well that he had left his son dead, the father did not believe it at all and firmly stood on the fact that the deceased had come to life through the prayers of the monk. Then the latter forbade him to disclose the miracle for fear of losing his son. One nobleman, who lived far from the monastery of St. Sergius, on the Volga, was subjected to the disease of the most severe demonic possession, so that dozens of people had to subdue him with chains. The relatives of the sick man, hearing about the miracles that happened through the prayers of the monk, decided to take him to Sergius to the monastery. When they approached the monastery with the sick man, the latter flew into a terrible frenzy and shouted so loudly: “I don’t want to go there, I don’t want to go there,” that they were afraid that the shouting might give him a blow. The Monk Sergius, having been notified of this, ordered the beater to be struck and, when the brethren gathered in the church, he began to sing a prayer service for the sick man. While singing the prayer service, the patient gradually calmed down, so they brought him into the monastery. At the end of the prayer service, the monk came out to him from the church with a cross, and when he marked him with the cross, he jumped to the side, threw himself into a puddle that was nearby, and from that moment he became healthy. When they later asked him why he threw himself into the puddle, he answered: “When the monk marked me with a cross, I saw a great flame emanating from him, which completely surrounded me and in which I was afraid of burning, and therefore I threw myself into the water.” One man, who lived near the monastery of St. Sergius, fell into a serious illness, so that for twenty days he did not eat or sleep. His brothers, who were grieving over the sick man, had the good thought that if through St. Sergius God was doing so many miracles, then perhaps he would have mercy on them, too, and they brought the sick man to the saint, asking him to pray for him. The monk said a prayer over the sick man and sprinkled him with holy water, and he immediately felt better. Following this, he fell into a long and deep sleep, after which he felt completely healthy. Near the monastery of the monk there lived a rich man who had the disposition of a covetous man. He forced one of his poor neighbors to give him a hog (“boar”), which he had fed for himself, and then, having killed the hog, he did not want to pay money for it. The offended poor man went to complain about him to St. Sergius, the comforter of the sorrowful, the protector of the poor, the helper of the poor. The monk called the offender to him and addressed him with a fatherly admonition. “My son,” he said to him, “if we believe that there is a God, a Judge of the righteous and sinners, a father to orphans and widows, ready for vengeance (for every sin), so that it is terrible to fall into His hands, then how can we not tremble to rob and rape and do evil without number? Not content with what has been given to us by His grace, do we constantly desire what is not ours and despise His forbearance? Don’t we see with our own eyes that those who do this become impoverished, and their houses become empty, that the memory of many strong people disappears, while endless torment awaits them in the next world?” From this and many other things said by the monk, the accused became so moved that he not only promised to pay for the pig he had taken from a poor neighbor, but to correct his entire life. But he returned home - his tenderness passed, and he forgot not only about his promise to correct his whole life, but also to pay his poor neighbor... But then he enters his cage and sees a pork carcass hanging in it, all infested with worms, although it was winter time. Fear and trembling fell upon him for disobeying the words of the holy elder; He immediately repaid the debt, but did not dare to show himself to St. Sergius, even for shame’s sake. As for the pork meat that was thrown out, then, according to the life writer, even animals and birds did not want to touch it to denounce the covetous people. One day a Greek bishop from Constantinople came to Moscow. Listening to many stories about St. Sergius, he did not want to believe them and said to himself: “How can such a lamp appear in these, that is, in Russian, countries, especially in the present, last time?” He decided to go to the monastery to see the monk in order to see him for himself. But when he approached the monastery, fear attacked him, and when he entered the monastery and saw the monk, blindness attacked him. Then, involuntarily, he confessed his unbelief to the monk and, reproaching himself, asked him for insight. The monk touched his pupils; it was as if scales fell from his eyes, and his vision returned to him again. After this, he began to preach to everyone that the monk was truly a heavenly man and an earthly angel. Along with the gift of miracles, Saint Sergius was endowed by God with the gift of providence, or clairvoyance. Prince Vladimir Andreevich, in whose inheritance and land, as we said, the Trinity Monastery was located, had great faith and love for the monk, for which reason he often visited him and supplied him with what he needed. Once the prince sent various drinks and drinks to the monastery with one of his servants “for the amusement, as the biography says, of the elder and his brethren.” On the way, the servant was tempted and tried both the food and the drink. When he arrived at the monastery, the monk, in his insight, learned about his sin and, not accepting what the prince sent from him, reproached him for the fact that he, seduced by the enemy of the human race, ate from the meat and drank from drinks that should not have been eaten or drunk before the blessing. After the servant’s sincere repentance for his sin, the monk forgave him. One day, a close friend of St. Sergius, Bishop Stefan of Perm, was traveling from his diocese to Moscow. For some reason, in a hurry to reach the capital as quickly as possible (in all likelihood, this was in 1390, when Stefan could have been in a hurry to meet the newly arrived Metropolitan Cyprian, who arrived from Constantinople to Kyiv in mid-February, and from Kyiv to Moscow at the beginning of March 1390), he decided not to call on the monk in order to be on his way back, and was traveling on the wrong route. the road that went near the monastery, and that old and shortest road that went at some distance from it. But still, Stefan did not want to pass by the monk without at least sending him a greeting in absentia. When he was on the road opposite the Sergius Monastery, he stopped, said “It is worthy to eat” and the usual prayer and bowed towards the monastery with the words: “Peace be with you, spiritual brother.” Saint Stephen sent his greeting in absentia to Saint Sergius while he was at dinner. Seeing Stephen with spiritual eyes, Sergius, in turn, stood up at the table, stood for a while, said a prayer and bowed in his direction with the words: “Rejoice, you too, shepherd of Christ’s flock, and may the peace of God be with you.” The brethren saw the extraordinary rise of the monk at the table and worship; everyone was surprised at this, and some realized that it was not for nothing, but for the sake of some vision. At the end of the meal, the brethren began to ask the monk about the reason for his rising and worship; he answered: “At that hour Bishop Stefan rode along the road to Moscow and, being opposite our monastery, bowed to the Holy Trinity and blessed us, the humble ones,” and indicated the place on the road where Stefan stopped. Some of the brethren, wanting to verify the words of the monk, chased after Stephen and learned from the bishop’s companions that it really was as Sergius said. At the place from which Stefan Sergius blessed, in memory of this a cross was erected, over which a chapel was then built (the place and the chapel are known as the place and chapel “at the cross”), and in the Trinity Monastery itself this event is still remembered in such a way that during dinners before the last course a bell is struck, the brethren stand up and the successive hieromonk proclaims: “Through the prayers of the saints, our father, Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us." The biography of St. Sergius tells about two visions that were given to his chosen disciples and in which it was revealed to the latter the extent to which he, Sergius, showed himself (was) a gracious and holy man of God. Once the monk served the liturgy with his brother Stefan and nephew Theodore. Standing in the church, Isaac the Silent One, one of the most perfect and strict disciples of the monk in life, looks and sees not three servants, but four - the fourth was a very wonderful man, indescribably bright in appearance and wearing unusually shining robes. Isaac turned in bewilderment to another disciple of the monk, standing near him, named Macarius. This one was also awarded a vision and guessed that the fourth servant was probably the priest of Prince Vladimir Andreevich, who was then in the monastery. They asked a question to one person from the prince’s retinue and received the answer that there was no priest with them. Then Isaac and Macarius realized that they had seen an Angel of God concelebrating with St. Sergius. At the end of the service, having waited for the time when they could speak with the monk in private, they approached him with a question about the fourth one who served with him, and received from him a confession, under the condition of keeping the secret until his death, that it was indeed an angel of God who would concelebrate with him constantly, every liturgy. Another time, the third disciple of St. Sergius, equal in severity of life to Isaac, the ecclesiarch, or guide, Simon, was granted a wonderful vision. While the monk is celebrating the Liturgy, he “sees fire walking along the altar, overshadowing the altar and circling around the holy meal; and when the saint wanted to take communion, then the divine fire curled up like some kind of shroud and entered the holy chalice, and so the saint took communion.” The vision filled Simon with horror and trembling. Coming out of the altar at the end of the service, the monk realized from his face that something extraordinary had happened to him. In response to his question about this, having received the answer from him that “I saw the grace of the Holy Spirit acting with you,” the monk forbade him to tell anyone about this during his lifetime. Beginning with solitary asceticism in the desert, which had never been seen before in our country, and continuing to introduce communal living in his monastery, which amounted to nothing more and no less than a transformation of our monasticism, spending his life as perhaps the most perfect ascetic and perhaps as a most blessed holy elder, the Monk Sergius appeared in the spiritual sky of our church as a completely unusually bright star and therefore attracted the surprised gaze of everyone. His greatest glory was not limited to the boundaries of the Moscow principality alone, but spread throughout the entire Russian land, so that he was seen not only as a local Moscow ascetic, but as an All-Russian ascetic. “Glory and hearing,” says his biographer, spread about him everywhere... all having him as one from the prophet.” That this really was so is what our chronicles convince us of: as the only exception in relation to saints, almost all of them contain a record of the death of St. Sergius, and some of them offer deliberate legends about him (and a record, unprecedented in relation to anyone else, is made about the serious illness that befell him in 1375). Holy Metropolitan Alexy wanted to see St. Sergius as his successor at the see of the Russian Metropolis. Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy chose as successor to Saint Alexy the archimandrite of his court Spassky Monastery (which is now the palace Cathedral of the Savior on Bor) Mikhail, nicknamed Mityai, whom he loved as much as Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich loved Nikon, and who, representing an extraordinary man, was filled with as many virtues as the latter, even if not big, without having the major shortcomings of the latter. But for one reason or another (which is not the place to go into lengthy speeches here) Saint Alexy did not quite like him, and this one preferred Sergius to him. The Metropolitan summoned Sergius from his monastery to Moscow. When the monk appeared to him, he began his conversation with him by ordering the metropolitan paramand with a golden cross to be brought and saying that he wanted to bestow him with this paramand 56 . Not understanding the meaning of the gift and refusing it, the monk with a humble bow said: “Forgive me, master, from my youth I was not a gold-bearer, especially since I want to remain in poverty in my old age.” Then Saint Alexy directly told Sergius that he was giving him the paramand as a kind of betrothal to the priesthood and that he wanted to leave him as his successor. For the humble Venerable Sergius, to whom the idea of ​​becoming a bishop had never even occurred to him, Saint Alexy’s proposal was extremely unexpected, and he was thrown into the greatest confusion. Having come to his senses, he responded with both a humble and a decisive refusal. And when Saint Alexy wanted to insist, he replied that he would be forced to flee somewhere into the desert. Saint Alexy stopped insisting and sent the monk in peace to his monastery. With Archimandrite Michael, to whom Saint Alexy later gave his blessing for the metropolis, Saint Sergius had a misunderstanding without the fault of either of them. Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal wanted to capture the metropolitan throne from Michael, intending for this purpose to warn him by traveling to Constantinople. The Grand Duke ordered to keep the bishop in custody until he went to Constantinople and Michael was installed as metropolitan. But Dionysius outwitted the Grand Duke. He began to ask him for freedom, assuring that he would not go to Constantinople, and gave himself as a guarantor the Monk Sergius, who was on friendly terms with him. The Monk Sergius, in his simplicity, actually vouched for Dionysius, after which the Grand Duke, relying on his guarantee, released the bishop. But Dionysius did not have time to get to his Suzdal, before he crossed from it to his Nizhny Novgorod, and from this latter, betraying his guarantor, he hastily ran along the Volga to Constantinople. Michael thought that the Monk Sergius was in conspiracy with Dionysius, which is why he became very angry against him for his supposedly dishonest act and threatened to ruin his monastery. If Michael had not suffered a quick death, then, no doubt, the misunderstanding would have been cleared up and he would have been reconciled with the Monk Sergius, although he was of a significantly different spirit than the latter 57. Humbly recognizing himself as unworthy to serve the Church as a bishop, much less a metropolitan, St. Sergius did not refuse to serve the Fatherland to the extent possible for him as a monk. It goes without saying that the monk could be called to serve the fatherland only after he had become famous and acquired moral authority as an ascetic. He became a renowned ascetic under the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, during whose reign (1362–1389) we actually see him providing his services to the fatherland. But, in addition to in some cases turning to the help of his moral authority and the assistance of his prayers, Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich generally wanted to have him as a zealous prayer book for his home, for which purpose he entered into a relationship of spiritual compatriotism, or nepotism, inviting him to baptize his sons (Reverend Sergius baptized Dmitry Ivanovich’s two sons - Yuri in 1374 and Peter in 1385; he also baptized one son of Vladimir Andreevich, John, in 1381). For his part, the Monk Sergius, for deliberate prayers for the Grand Duke, erected in his monastery, on its holy gates, a church in honor of the angel of the sovereign, the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica. As for individual cases when the monk was used to serve the fatherland, two of them are known. In 1365, the princes of Suzdal Dmitry and Boris Konstantinovich quarreled among themselves because the younger brother captured Nizhny Novgorod, which remained after the third, deceased brother, and did not want to give it up to his older brother. Dmitry addressed a complaint against Boris to the Grand Duke of Moscow Dimitri Ivanovich and to Metropolitan Alexy, who during the childhood of the Grand Duke (born in 1350) was the ruler of the state. The Grand Duke and the Metropolitan wanted to force the younger brother to satisfy the demands of his older brother without the intervention of weapons and for this purpose they sent St. Sergius to Nizhny Novgorod to Boris, and the Metropolitan instructed Sergius, if Boris persisted, to close all the churches in Nizhny or impose ecclesiastical excommunication on the city. However, the hope of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan to do without the intervention of weapons was in vain: Boris did not heed the admonitions of Sergius and did not even want to submit even after he, according to the Metropolitan’s instructions, closed the church in Nizhny (he submitted when the Moscow army was subsequently sent against him) 58 . The Ryazan prince Oleg Ivanovich stubbornly fought against the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, who remained the only Russian appanage prince whom the Grand Duke did not bring under his hand. Either defeated by Dmitry Ivanovich, or inflicting defeat on him himself, Oleg Ivanovich in 1385, with his victory over the Moscow army, put the Grand Duke in such a position that he found it good to seek reconciliation with him. They sent several ambassadors to the Ryazan prince with a peace offer, and all in vain; Finally, the Grand Duke decided to send to him, as the chronicler puts it, the Venerable Abbot Sergius of Radonezh. Sergievo's journey to Oleg was completely successful. The chronicler says about him: “Reverend Abbot Sergius, a wonderful elder, with quiet and meek words and speeches and benevolent verbs, by the grace given to him from the Holy Spirit, talked with him (Prince Oleg) about the benefits of the soul and about peace and love; “Great Prince Oleg turned his ferocity into meekness and calmed down and became humble and were humbled by his great soul, ashamed of his holy husband, and took with the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich eternal peace and love for generations and generations” 59 . The name of St. Sergius is inextricably linked with the famous Kulikovo, or Don, victory of Dmitry Ivanovich over Mamai, which decided the fate of Russia. Expecting the terrible invasion of the khan, the Grand Duke placed his trust most of all in the mercy of God, and the Monk Sergius was his most zealous assistant. A year before the invasion, the Sovereign founded a monastery with the hands of the monk in order to gather in it deliberate prayer books for victory over the enemy (Stromynsky, or Dubensky, in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God, located 50 versts northeast of Moscow, near the village of Stromyn, on the Dubenka River, which flows into the Sherna River, a tributary of the Klyazma River 60, currently non-existent) 61 . Going to battle with the khan, Dmitry Ivanovich, accompanied by princes, boyars and governors, came to St. Sergius in his monastery to pray with him for victory and receive a parting blessing from him. The Grand Duke came to the monk in a hurry - on the day or on the very day of his departure from Moscow against the enemy (he was with Sergius on August 18, and on August 20 he set out not from Moscow, but from Kolomna), so that he wanted to leave the monastery immediately after the end of the venerable prayer service, especially since while the monk was singing a prayer service, messengers were brought to him (the sovereign) with reports on the movement enemy and with a warning to hurry up. But the monk, encouraging the Grand Duke with the help of the Lord God and the Most Pure Mother of God, begged him to eat bread at the monastery meal. At the end of the meal, he blessed the Grand Duke with the cross and sprinkled him with holy water and again reassured him with help, mercy and glory from the Lord God, the Most Pure Mother of God and all the saints. The Grand Duke began to ask the monk for his two monks - Peresvet and Oslyaba, who, belonging to the military class in the world, were great warriors known to everyone, and strong heroes, and people very knowledgeable in military matters and attire. The monk ordered the monks to immediately prepare for the journey, and they, for their part, wholeheartedly expressed their readiness to obey. Instead of perishable helmets, he placed incorruptible helmets on their heads - the holy schema with crosses sewn on it - and commanded them to fight mightily for Christ against His enemies. After this, he also blessed with the cross and sprinkled holy water on the Grand Duke, all the princes, and boyars, and his governor, and also said to him: “The Lord God will be your helper and intercessor, He will defeat your adversaries and glorify you” 62. The army brought by Mamai for battle was terrible: it reached a huge number - four hundred thousand people. When the Russians saw the countless Tatar hordes, many of them were seized with involuntary fear. But the Monk Sergius sent his greyhound to the battlefield with his blessed letter, in which he wrote to the Grand Duke: “Without any doubt, Sovereign, go against them and, without giving in to fear, firmly hope that the Lord will help you” 63. During the battle, at the beginning of which one of Sergius’s two monk-warriors gloriously sacrificed his life, it was Peresvet (who entered into single combat with the Tatar hero and fell along with the latter), the monk and his brethren fervently prayed to God to grant victory over the filthy of our army and, seeing the course of the battle with spiritual eyes, announced to the brethren at its end that the Lord had granted a glorious victory to the Grand Duke. Upon returning to Moscow from the battle, Dmitry Ivanovich did not hesitate to make a trip to the Monk Sergius to thank him for the advice he gave to resist Mamai and for his prayers and to commemorate with him the soldiers killed in battle. Epiphanius speaks about this visit by Dmitry Ivanovich to St. Sergius: “And without delay (upon returning to Moscow) the (Grand Duke) came to the elder Saint Sergei, giving him grace (gratitude) for the good consultation and the omnipotent God, glorifying and for the prayers, thanking the elder and the brethren, in joyful hearts they all confessed how the Lord had magnified his mercy on it, and give a lot of alms to the monastery.” The commemoration of slain soldiers through the singing of the funeral liturgy and requiem service is spoken of in the legends about the Massacre of Mamaev 64. Having created a monastery with the hands of St. Sergius while asking for victory over the enemy, the Grand Duke now created, in gratitude to God for the great victory granted by the hands of the same monk, another monastery (Dubensky Shavykinsky, or Dubensky, on the island 65, also in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God, located 40 versts northwest of the Trinity Monastery, on the Dubenka River, which flows into Dubna, in the present time also non-existent) 66 . The Monk Sergius was also present at the death of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich on May 19, 1389. The spiritual testament, written by the sovereign on his deathbed, was written by him “before his fathers, before the abbot before Sergius, before the abbot before Savastyan...” and, together with the three bishops who buried his body, is called in his lives “Sergei hegumen, reverend elder” 67. After the Battle of Kulikovo, a change occurred on the khan’s throne in the Horde - Mamai defeated Tokhtamysh. This latter made an invasion of Rus' in 1382. From his hordes, which the Grand Duke did not find it possible to resist, the Monk Sergius had to leave the monastery with his brethren to the Tver region: “and from Tokhtamyshev’s presence, it is said about him in the chronicle abbreviation of his life, he fled to Tfer” 68. The monastery of St. Sergius became a great monastery and a famous monastery, richer in monks than any other of all the North Russian monasteries, even during the life of the saint himself. But it was revealed to him in a vision that the monastery would never be depleted of monks. One day, late in the evening, the monk stood in his cell at his usual rate and prayed for the brethren of the monastery, that the Lord would hasten them, as the life writer puts it, “in their daily routines and prayers”; suddenly he hears a voice calling him: “Sergius!” Surprised by the unusual call in the night, he said a prayer and opened the window of his cell to see who was calling. And then he sees a wonderful vision: on the monastery in front of him there is an extraordinary light, which was brighter even than daylight, and another time a voice exclaims: “Sergius! you pray for your children, and the Lord accepted your prayer, look how many monks have come together in the name of the holy and life-giving Trinity into your flock and under your leadership.” The Monk Sergius looked and saw many “green red” birds, which not only filled the entire monastery, but also flew around it. The voice said: “As you see these birds, the flock of your disciples will increase in number, and they will not miss you if they want to follow in your footsteps.” Wanting to have an accomplice and witness to the wonderful vision, the monk called Ecclesiarch Simon, whose cell was not far from his cell. Surprised by the untimely title of the elder, Simon immediately came to the call, but was no longer honored to be a spectator of the entire vision, but only of a certain part of it. The Monk Sergius told him everything in order, what he saw and what he heard, and they spent the night together, rejoicing, as the biography says, and their souls trembling from the indescribable vision. The Monk Sergius reached the years of venerable old age, and the time of his departure from this life approached. But before moving to another life, he was honored with a visit to the Mother of God, who with her own lips confirmed to him about his monastery what an unknown heavenly voice told him in a vision of birds. Once, the biography narrates, the blessed father prayed in his usual rule before the image of the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and, often looking at the icon, said: “Most Pure Mother of my Christ, intercessor and intercessor, strong helper of the human race! Be an unworthy intercessor for us, always praying to His Son and our God, that He may look upon this holy place, which is entrusted to the praise and honor of His holy name forever; For you, Mother of the sweet Christ, we offer you an intercessor and a prayer book, for I have gained much boldness towards Him, Thy servants, and for the salvation and refuge of all.” So the monk prayed and sang the canon of the Most Pure One, that is, the akathist, and performed the rule, after which he sat down to rest a little. Suddenly he says to his student (cell attendant) named Micah: “Son, be sober and watchful, because now we are about to have a wonderful and terrible visit.” And while he was still saying this, a voice was heard: “The Most Pure One is coming.” The monk, hearing the voice, hastily went out into the vestibule of the cell. And suddenly a great light illuminated him, greater than the sun, and he sees the Most Pure One with the two apostles, Peter and John, shining in unspeakable light. And he prostrated himself, unable to bear the unbearable light. The Most Pure One touched him with Her hands and said: “Do not be dismayed, My chosen one, I have come to visit you. Your prayer has been heard for your disciples, for whom you prayed, and for your monastery; Do not grieve any more, for from now on it will abound in abundance for everyone, and not only as long as you are alive, but also after your departure to the Lord, I will never depart from your monastery, giving you what you need in abundance, supplying it and covering it” 69 . Having said this, the Most Pure One became invisible, but the saint seemed to be in a frenzy of mind, overcome by fear and trembling. Having come to his senses, he found his disciple lying in fear, as if dead, and raised him up; the disciple began to rush at the elder’s feet, saying: “Tell me, father, for the Lord’s sake, what this wonderful vision meant, for my spirit almost left my body from the brilliant vision.” But the saint rejoiced in his soul, so that his face bloomed with joy, and could not answer anything except one thing: “Be patient, child, because my spirit trembles within me from the wonderful vision.” And so they stood in silent surprise facing each other. Then the monk said to his disciple: “Son, call Isaac and Simon to me.” And when they arrived, the monk told them in order how he had seen the Most Pure One with the apostles and what wonderful promises She had spoken to him. Hearing this, Isaac and Simon were filled with unspeakable joy. After this, all four of them sang a prayer service to the Mother of God together, and the saint remained awake all night, listening with his mind to the ineffable vision. If the year of the death of St. Micah is correctly recorded, then the visit of the Mother of God to St. Sergius took place no less than 7 years before his repose, because the death of Micah is placed by the records on May 6, 1385 70 . It was revealed to the Monk Sergius about his death six months in advance. Having called the brethren of the monastery, he entrusted the abbess over them to his disciple Nikon, and he himself surrendered to complete silence 71. At the beginning of September 1392, he fell into a dying illness, and on September 25, having extended the final teaching to the brethren about monastic goodness, he gave up his spirit to God after 78 years of life and after 55 years of monasticism 72 . He ordered to lay his body not in the church, but outside it, in the general monastery cemetery, along with all the others, but the brethren were very saddened by his order; She turned with demand and for advice to Metropolitan Cyprian, and this, after reasoning about where it would be more decent to bury the monk, ordered him to be placed in the church on the right side. Since, for the reason now indicated, the burial of St. Sergius had to slow down somewhat, many people from Moscow and from all the surrounding areas of the monastery managed to gather for it. In all likelihood, one must think that in the Trinity Monastery itself, St. Sergius began to be locally revered as a saint more or less in a short time after his death, for he became famous for the gift of miracles, which were supposed to testify to his holiness, even during his lifetime, and not later, as from 1449–1450 we already find him among the all-Russian saints (then still very few in number) 73 . In 1463, the Novgorod Archbishop Jonah, who was also canonized, erected the first known church in the name of St. Sergius in Novgorod, in the lord’s courtyard. The bodily remains of St. Sergius were in the ground for 30 years and were taken out of it by a special revelation. Near the monastery of the monk there lived one pious man who had great faith in him and who often came to pray at his tomb. One night, when after prayer at home he was put into a subtle sleep, the Monk Sergius appeared to him and said: “Tell the abbot of my monastery that it is in vain that he leaves me covered with earth for so long, in which the water oppresses (floods) my body.” The pious man, filled with fear and joy from the vision, hastened to inform the abbot about it, who remained the same disciple of the monk, Nikon. Having listened to his husband’s story, Nikon announced it to the entire brotherhood of the monastery, everyone rejoiced and decided to carry the saint’s body out of the ground. The news of the monastery's intention to open the relics of the monk spread far, and many sacred persons and many princes gathered for the celebration of their opening, among whom the godson of the monk and the zealous trustee of his monastery, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod-Galich (son of Donskoy and brother of the then Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich), took precedence. “And so,” says the narration of the discovery of the relics 74, “the sacred cathedral, having opened the miraculous tomb, was filled with fragrances and spiritual aroma and saw wonderful sight and tenderness worthy, as not only the honest saint’s body was intact and brightly preserved, but also his clothes, in which he was buried, were intact in every way and in no way corruptible.” is involved, and the water from both sides of the ark (coffin) is visible, but the body of the saint and his robe are in no way touched.” The opening ceremony of the relics took place on July 5, 1422 75 . We said above that the Monk Sergius of Radonezh is rightly revered as the father of true monasticism in northern, or Moscow, Rus' during Mongol times, just as the Monks Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk were the fathers of the same monasticism in southern, or Kievan, Rus' during pre-Mongol times. A real monastery should be located, if not in a complete desert, then outside worldly human dwellings and at a greater or lesser distance from them; in a real monastery, “the life of monks should not be singular, but strictly communal. This type, or model, of monasteries as real monasteries was established by St. Sergius in Muscovite Rus' for a more or less long time. After his two monasteries - Trinity and Kirzhach - he founded several more foreign monasteries, in fulfillment of the instructions given to him and requests addressed to him, and he placed all the monasteries, if not at a large distance, then at least at some distance from human habitations, and in all of them, which was an indispensable condition for the construction of the monastery by him, he introduced a hostel. Simultaneously with him and with his approval and blessing, or after his death, a significant number of monasteries, identical to his monasteries, were built by his students and interlocutors. And for quite a long time after him, only monasteries of his model (type) were considered true monasteries in Muscovite Russia, so that subsequent founders of monasteries, who wanted their monasteries to be and be considered real monasteries, arranged them according to this model (although in each of the monasteries, including Trinity itself, a real, or very strict, communal community, which was initially introduced at the founding of each, and then did not last very long) 76 . After two monasteries of his own, of which one was voluntary, and the other, so to speak, forced, the Monk Sergius built several more monasteries on the instructions of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, on the instructions of the Prince of Serpukhov Vladimir Andreevich and on the instructions of the holy Metropolitan Alexy. We have already mentioned the two Dubensky monasteries, built by St. Sergius on behalf of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich before and after the Battle of Kulikovo. In addition to these two monasteries, he founded, on behalf of the Grand Duke, two more monasteries - Moscow Simonov and Kolomna Golutvin. The Moscow Simonov Monastery, which he built on the banks of the Moscow River at a distance of 5-6 versts from the then city (originally in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, currently it is a parish church in a sub-monastery settlement called Old Simonov, and then, after moving the monastery to a new, current location, in honor of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary), was founded by him around 1370 77; to be the builder and abbot of the monastery, he gave the Grand Duke, according to his persistently expressed desire, his nephew Theodore 78, whom the Grand Duke chose as his spiritual father, who, having been the Grand Duke’s ambassador for church affairs in Constantinople in 1384-1385, received from the patriarch the right of stauropegy for his monastery, and for himself the rank of archimandrite, who in In 1387 he was installed as bishop of Rostov and who, with the title of archbishop given to him by the patriarch or metropolitan and remaining after him and his successors, died on November 28, 1394. Kolomna Golutvin Monastery, located 4–5 versts from the city of Kolomna, at the confluence of the Moscow River with the Oka (in honor of the Epiphany), was founded around 1385; St. Sergius appointed his disciple Gregory as its builder and abbot (currently the Golutvin monastery, founded by St. Sergius, is called the Staro-Golutvin monastery. At the end of 1799, the Kolomenskaya diocese was closed, and the monks of the Golutvin monastery were transferred to the bishop's house, which remained idle, in order to close it due to the dilapidation of its buildings, and the monastery formed from bishop's house, to name it Novo-Golutvin in memory. But then the former monastery was restored and, unlike the new monastery, which was not closed with its restoration, it was named the Old-Golutvin Monastery). On behalf of Serpukhov, and together with his Radonezh prince Vladimir Andreevich, the Monk Sergius founded the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery (in honor of the conception of St. Anna, when the Holy Mother of God was conceived, the Mother of God Conception). The monastery was founded 2 versts from the city of Serpukhov, on a very high bank of the Nara River (hence the name), in 1374; Fulfilling the prince’s urgent desire, the monk, although with regret, gave one of his favorite disciples, named Athanasius, as its builder and abbot. From the biography of St. Sergius we read: “And the God-loving prince (the monk) prays to give him one of his disciples, the name of Athanasius; Saint, even if it is necessary (it is difficult) for him to receive a gift, but bow down to the request with love, for Athanasius is a wonderful man in virtues and very intelligent in the divine scriptures, and his hands bear witness to many of his additions to this day, and for this reason we love the old man dearly.” In 1382, leaving his abbess at the Vysotsky monastery, Athanasius went to Constantinople, in whose monasteries he labored, as his disciple put it, “as one of the poor,” and was partly engaged in book writing 79 . The Monk Sergius did not build the Holy Metropolitan Alexis, but helped him build the Moscow Andronikov, or Androniev, Monastery. Saint Alexy, returning from Constantinople in 1355 from his appointment as metropolitan, was caught in a storm on the Black Sea. Praying to God for deliverance from danger, he vowed to build a monastery in honor of the saint or holiday of the day on which he would safely land on the shore. He landed on the shore on August 16, which is why he decided to build a monastery in honor of the miraculous image of the Savior, which is celebrated on this day. Having visited Constantinople another time, in 1356, he purchased for the future monastery a wonderful icon of the Savior not made by hands, decorated with gold. The monastery, the location for which was chosen at a distance of about 3–4 versts from the then city of Moscow, on the banks of the Yauza River, was founded, in all likelihood, more or less soon after Alexy’s return from a second trip to Constantinople, which was at the end of 1356–beginning of 1357. Deciding to build a monastery, the Metropolitan went to the Monk Sergius, with whom he was, in the words of the biography, in a spiritual union of great love, to his Lavra and asked him to be the builder of the monastery for his disciple Andronik (from whom the monastery received its name. The Monk Andronik died on June 13, 1375). Two monasteries were built with the blessing of St. Sergius, which he gave to third-party builders, which should imply that he could express his readiness to bless the building of only communal monasteries. Around 1365, the Monk Sergius went to Rostov to venerate the shrine of his hometown. During his stay in Rostov, two hermits, named Theodore and Pavel, came to him and asked him to, through his prayer, lay the foundation for the monastery that they proposed to create. This is the Boriso-Glebsky Ustinsky Monastery, which exists to this day, located 18 versts northwest of Rostov, on the banks of the Ustye River. Returning from Nizhny Novgorod in the same year 1365, the Monk Sergius laid the foundation for a monastery in Gorokhovetsky district (present-day Vladimir province), on the Klyazma River, with his prayer requested from him by unknown builders. This is the Georgievskaya Hermitage, which has long ceased to exist (at present it is a village called Georgievskaya Slobodka, 16 versts from Gorokhovets up the Klyazma, with a wooden church, which, dating back to the time of St. Sergius, is in any case very old, for already in 1782 it was completely renovated). The disciples and interlocutors of St. Sergius, who, during his life or after his death, built communal and not only remote from worldly dwellings, but for the most part outright deserted monasteries (being listed in order not chronologically, which is unreliable, but topographical), are the following: St. Methodius of Pesnosh, St. Savva of Storozhevsky, St. Sylvester of Obnor, St. Pavel of Obnor, or Komelsky, Reverend Sergius of Nuromsky, or Obnorsky, Reverend Avramiy of Galich, or Chukhlomsky, Reverend Jacob of Zheleznoborovsky, Reverend Nikita of Serpukhov-Borovsk, Reverend Stefan Makhrishchsky, Reverend Demetrius of Prilutsky, Saint Dionysius of Suzdal, Reverend Euthymius of Suzdal, Reverend Kirill of Belozersky, Reverend Ferapont Belozersko-Mozhaisky and Saint Stephen of Perm. The first eight of those named are disciples, and the last seven are interlocutors of St. Sergius 80. The Monk Methodius, about whom nothing biographical is known except the year of his death, left the Monk Sergius to found his own monastery, as one must think, more or less long before his death, for, having built his own monastery, he died in the same year as him, if the record of the year is reliable (June 4) 81 . The monastery, built by him in the name of the wonderworker Nicholas and existing to this day, is located in the Moscow province, 65 versts northwest of the Trinity Lavra and 25 versts to the same northwest from his district town of Dmitrov, at the confluence of the Pesnosha River with the Yakhroma River. The Monk Savva, unknown by origin, came to the Monk Sergius more or less long before 1381, for in that year, before being appointed abbot of the Dubensky Shavykinsky Monastery, he was the confessor of the entire brotherhood in his monastery. Not much time after the death of the Monk Sergius, when Nikon, who he left behind as abbot of the monastery, refused the abbess for a silent stay, the brethren of the monastery begged Savva to move from the Dubno monastery to become abbess for them - to the Trinity, which abbot he held for six years, until the Monk Nikon again replaced him. After this, around 1400, Prince Yuri Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod, to whom he was the spiritual father, begged him to build a monastery near Zvenigorod, on a place called Watchmen. In fulfillment of the prince’s wishes and at his expense, Savva built the Storozhevsky Monastery in honor of the Nativity of the Mother of God (located on the banks of the Moscow River at the confluence of the Razvarnya River, one and a half to two versts from Zvenigorod). The Monk Savva died on December 3, 1407. The Monk Sylvester, about whom as little information has been preserved as about Methodius of Pesnosh, founded a monastery in the north-eastern corner of the present Yaroslavl province, on the Obnora River, which flows into the Kostroma River (in honor of the Resurrection of Christ, or Resurrection, abolished when the states were established in 1764; currently the village of Voskresenskoye on Obnora, located 20 versts from his district town of Lyubim). The Monk Sylvester died, according to later records, on April 25, 1379. The Monk Paul, a very stern ascetic, who, according to his life, enjoyed great respect from Metropolitan Photius, was born in Moscow from noble and pious parents in 1317, so that he was three years younger than the Monk Sergius. He became a monk at the age of 22 in a monastery on the Volga. Having come to Sergius, he first labored for a considerable time in the monastery itself, and then for 15 years outside the monastery, in a retreat, or secluded, cell. Having received a blessing from Sergius to go into the desert, he walked around many deserts and finally came to the Komel forest on the Gryazovitsa river, in the Gryazovets district of the present Vologda province, and here he lived in a hollow linden tree for three years. From here he moved in the same Komel forest to the Nurma River, which flows into the Obnora River, where in 1389 he founded the Trinity Obnorsky, or Komelsky, monastery that exists to this day (received its name not from the Obnora River, but from the Obnorskaya volost, located 15 versts from its district town of Gryazovets). The Monk Paul died, having made a strong dying will to the brethren of the monastery not to destroy the rules of the hostel, 112 years old, on January 10, 1429. The Monk Sergius, of unknown origin, mistaken by some for a Greek without any real basis, came to the Monk Sergius of Radonezh from Athos and, as it seems, was already a tonsured monk. Having spent quite some time with Sergius, he asked him for permission to go into the desert and found a place for desert life in the same Komel forest and on the same river Nurma as the Monk Paul, at a very close distance from whose monastery (3-4 versts) he founded his monastery in honor of the All-Merciful Savior, in remembrance of the origin of the honorable and life-giving cross of the Lord (Spassky, called in the news and Spasopreobrazhensky, probably from the later Church of the Transfiguration, abolished in 1764). The Monk Sergius died on October 7, 1412. The Monk Abramius, unknown by origin, came to the Monk Sergius in his youth and labored with him, among other things, in a special feat of silence for one or another long time, for in his monastery he was awarded the rank of priesthood. Having asked St. Sergius for a blessing to go into the desert, he retired to the borders of Galich (the present-day Kostroma province) and here founded four monasteries one after another. The first monastery is on the shore of Lake Galich, opposite the city of Galich, in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God (abolished in 1775, currently the village of Uspenskoye, or New Monastery). The second monastery, 60 versts to the northeast of the first, above a small lake, in honor of the position of the honorable Belt of the Most Pure Mother of God (Rizpolozhensky), called the Great Desert (abolished in 1764, currently the village of Ozerki). The third monastery is 15 versts to the west of the second, on the Viga River, in honor of the Cathedral of the Mother of God, called the Upper Desert (abolished at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries, currently the village of the Upper Desert, or Korovye). The fourth monastery is on the shore of Lake Chukhloma, opposite the city of Chukhloma, in honor of the Intercession of the Mother of God, called by its location on a high hill, or town, Avramiev Gorodetsky, which exists to this day. According to his life, the Monk Abramius died on July 20, 1375, but, one must think, in fact much later. The Monk Jacob, by origin from the family of the Galich nobles Anosov, probably one of the later disciples of the Monk Sergius, who lived in his monastery for an unknown length of time, returned to his homeland to pursue a life of desert life in one of the forests surrounding Galich, in the very year of the death of the Monk Sergius, that is, in 1392. Having settled in a forest, which was called Iron Bork because of the mineral ferrous springs or iron ore deposits located in it, in an area 30 miles west of the city of Galich, on the banks of the Tebza River; At first he labored alone, and then built a desert monastery in honor of John the Baptist, which was named Zheleznoborovsky from the area and which exists to this day (located 15 versts southeast of his district town of Buya). The Monk Jacob died on April 11, 1442. The Monk Nikita was not the founder of his own monastery, but was an abbot in a monastery that was already ready, but it is necessary to assume about him that he, as a disciple of the Monk Sergius, agreed to be an abbot in the monastery only on the condition that a hostel was introduced in the latter. Probably, having been begged from the Monk Sergius by Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov, Nikita, as it is related about him in the life of the Monk Paphnutius Borovsky, was at one time or another abbot in the Serpukhov Conception Monastery (now defunct and unknown when destroyed), and then, having come to old age and having lost his sight, he lived in retirement in Borovsky Pokrovsky, which High monastery (hegumen here the newly tonsured Venerable Paphnutius was given over to his leadership) 82 . The Monk Stefan of Makhrishchi was a native of southern Kievan Rus' and a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. It is unknown what forced him to leave Kyiv 83, he arrived in Moscow around 1355. Received with honor by the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan Ivanovich (1353–1359) as he probably came from a noble family, he asked the sovereign for land for a monastery, which he built in the current Alexander district of the Vladimir province, at the confluence of the Makhra river with the Moloksha river, at a distance of 35 versts east of the Saint Trinity Monastery Sergius (12 versts south of the city of Alexandrov), with a church also in honor of the Holy Trinity. This is the still existing Makhrishchi Monastery (under the jurisdiction of the Trinity Lavra). Having been forced to leave the monastery by the enmity of one family of worldly neighbors (who feared that the land they owned could be taken away from them and given to him as a person close to the Grand Duke), he headed to the Vologda region and here, after 1371, he founded another monastery, near the Sukhona River, along the Yuryev stream, 60 versts northeast of Vologda, in the volost Avnezhskaya, as well as the first monastery in honor of the Holy Trinity. This is the Avnezh Trinity Monastery, abolished in 1764. At the invitation of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, returning from the Avnezh Monastery to Makhrishchi (and the former entrusted the management to his disciples, Gregory and Cassian), the Monk Stefan died on July 14, 1406. The Monk Demetrius was born in the city of Pereyaslavl into a wealthy merchant family. He took monastic vows and was awarded the priesthood at the Pereyaslavl Goritsky Monastery. Having left the Goritsky monastery, he founded his own monastery in Pereyaslavl in honor of the wonderworker Nicholas (the Nikolaevsky on the Swamp that still exists to this day). Having been the interlocutor of the Monk Sergius, the Monk Demetrius, like him, enjoyed the respect of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, who invited him, along with Sergius, to be the successors of his children. Fleeing the glory of man, he rushed to the northern deserts, to the borders of Vologda, and here he first chose a habitat on the Lezhe River, which flows from the right side into the Sukhona River 20 versts below the city of Vologda, not far from the village of Avnegi (after which the volost was called Avnezhskaya). Forced to leave his chosen place by the inhabitants of the now-mentioned village, who feared that he would take away their land, he moved to the city of Vologda itself and in 1371 founded a monastery 5 versts from it, on the banks of the Vologda River, at the last bow, or bend, which is why the monastery received the name of Prilutsky (in honor of the feast of the Savior and Mother of God, celebrated on August 1 - Spassky, Spaso-Prilutsky). Having been the first owner of a hostel within the Vologda region, the Monk Demetrius died seven and a half months before the Monk Sergius, on February 11 of the same year, 1392. Saint Dionysius, about whom there is no biographical information, founded the Pechersky Ascension Monastery, which exists to this day, near Nizhny Novgorod. The beginning of his acquaintance with the Monk Sergius should be dated back to 1365, when Sergius, on behalf of the Grand Duke and Metropolitan, came to Nizhny Novgorod to reconcile the Suzdal princes Dmitry and Boris Konstantinovich, and the monastery was founded by him (Dionysius), in all likelihood, earlier than 1365. Thus, regarding the introduction of a hostel in his monastery, one must think that initially he set it up as a special living community, which all our monasteries of that time were, but that later, after becoming acquainted with the Monk Sergius, who was, as it were, the personification and, as it were, the personified preaching of a hostel, he turned it into a communal one. Consecrated by the holy Metropolitan Alexy in 1374 as Bishop of Suzdal, Dionysius tried after the death of Alexy to seize the metropolitan table from Archimandrite Michael (Mitya); later elected as a candidate for the metropolis by the Grand Duke himself, on his way back to Moscow from Constantinople he was captured in Kiev 84, at the solicitation of Metropolitan Cyprian, by the local prince Vladimir Olgerdovich, in whose custody he died on October 15, 1385. The Monk Euthymius, a native of Nizhny Novgorod, tonsured by Dionysius in his Pechersk Monastery, built in Suzdal, at the request and at the expense of Prince Boris Konstantinovich, the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery (known as Spaso-Evfimiev), which still exists to this day. The Monk Euthymius became the interlocutor of the Monk Sergius after he founded his monastery, in which he established a hostel. But before his direct acquaintance with Sergius, he became his student in relation to the community through the medium of his teacher, Dionysius. The Monk Euthymius died on April 1, 1404 85. St. Cyril, the most famous ascetic of northern Moscow Rus' after St. Sergius himself, was born in 1337, that is, in the year of the latter’s monastic tonsure, into a Moscow noble family and received the name Cosmas at baptism. Having lost his parents in his youth, he was taken into the care of a relative of the deceased, one of the noblest boyars of Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, Timofey Vasilyevich Velyaminov, from whom he gained such favor and trust that when he reached adulthood, the boyar made him his housekeeper, or butler. Through the mediation of the Monk Stefan of Makhrishchi, Kosma managed to ensure that the boyar, who had been against his tonsure as a monk for a very long time, finally expressed his consent to this in 1380, when he was 43 years old. Having become a monk in the Simonov Monastery, with Sergius's nephew Theodore, Cyril indulged in such severe asceticism that the Monk Sergius honored him with his exceptional respect: when he came to the Simonov Monastery to visit his nephew, he first of all, without going to the abbot, went to Cyril in the bread room that was the place of his obedience and his exploits, in order to conduct a spiritual conversation with him. After Theodore was elevated to Bishop of Rostov in 1387, Kirill was installed instead as archimandrite of the monastery. But, burdened by the position of archimandrite, which obliged him to receive everyone who came to him and which deprived him of the opportunity to remain silent in solitude, he soon abandoned the position entrusted to him and locked himself in a cell (on Old Simonov) for the silence that was dear to him. However, in Moscow, silence turned out to be impossible for him: his fame attracted many people from all over the world who sought his conversations for the sake of spiritual benefit. Then the Monk Cyril decided to retire into the desert. From another monk of the Simonov Monastery, named Ferapont, sent to Belozerye for monastic work, he learned that in this Belozerye there are places convenient for silence, and, agreeing with the same Ferapont, he decided to retire there. In Belozerye, not reaching 35 versts from the city of Belozersk, at three lakes, Kirill built his famous Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery in 1397 (in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God), in which he introduced a strict dormitory and the strictest monastic regulations and in which he died at the age of 90 on June 9, 1427 (currently the monastery is located in the town of Kirillov, a district Novgorod province, located 601 versts northeast of Novgorod, formed from a sub-monastery settlement). Near the Kirillov Monastery, many small monasteries and deserts soon arose, which, having it as their center, constituted the so-called monastic Trans-Volga region (for the Kirillov Monastery was located from Moscow beyond the Volga). St. Cyril's companion to the Belozersk Hermitage, St. Ferapont (a native of the city of Volokolamsk, from the noble family of the Poskochins), is also considered by some to be the interlocutors of St. Sergius. He founded two monasteries following the example of Sergiev, that is, communal ones. The first monastery, founded simultaneously with Kirillov (in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary) and located 15 miles from it, was named after the founder Ferapontov and was closed in 1798 (currently Ferapontova Sloboda). The second monastery is the Mozhaisk Luzhetsky monastery, founded by the Monk Ferapont in 1408 near the city of Mozhaisk at the request of the Mozhaisk, and together with the Belozersky prince Andrei Dmitrievich, son of Donskoy (also in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary), which exists to this day (located one mile from Mozhaisk, on the banks of the Moscow River). The Monk Ferapont died on May 27, 1426. Saint Stephen of Perm was born in Veliky Ustyug from one of the clergy of the cathedral church there; accepted monasticism and practiced monasticism in the Rostov Monastery of Gregory the Theologian; in 1378 or 1379 he went to preach Christianity to the pagan people living near his homeland - the Zyryans, most of whom he converted to Christianity during a four- or five-year preaching - until 1382; at the end of 1382–beginning of 1383 he was appointed Bishop of Perm, died in Moscow on April 26, 1396. The Monk Stefan built four monasteries in his new diocese and among the people newly baptized by him, we do not know whether they were communal or all communal, during the eighteenth century all closed: Annunciation and Arkhangelsk, located in his cathedral city of Ust-Vym (at the confluence of the Vym River with the Sysola River, currently the village of Yarensky district), which served as his place of residence, or his pulpit, and in which also a school was located for the training of clergy, and then the Ulyanovsk Spasskaya Hermitage, located on the Vychegda River, 165 versts from Ust-Sysolsk, in the direct direction of it to the east, and the Stefanovskaya Hermitage, located on the river Votchinka, or Ozhinka, flowing from the right into Sysola, 60 versts south of Ust-Sysolsk 86. So, the Monk Sergius and his disciples and interlocutors founded up to 30 monasteries of that new type, or species, which we indicated above and which, after the name of its leader, the Monk Sergius, can be called Sergius, or Sergius, precisely monasteries, established if not in real deserts, then outside worldly dwellings and at a greater or lesser distance from them, but in relation to the way of life of the monks - communal living, or cenobitic. These monasteries established monasticism of the Sergius type, as it (monasticism) should be, in the entire eastern half of what was then northern Rus', which consisted of the current provinces: Moscow, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma, Yaroslavl and Tver. The disciples and interlocutors of St. Sergius did not extend to the western half of the then northern Rus', which consisted of the Novgorod region with the Pskov region, to establish monasteries of our kind in it (Belozerye, which currently belongs to the Novgorod province, belonged in ancient times not to the Novgorod region, but to the Rostov region). But the monasticism of Sergievo was soon transferred here too from the eastern half of Rus'. In 1382, the Suzdal Archbishop Dionysius was in Pskov, who came to arrange church affairs here (as well as in Novgorod) (to calm the unrest caused by the Strigolniki), which was entrusted to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople, from whom he had just returned. While he was in Pskov, Dionysius introduced a hostel in the then main monastery of the Pskov region - Snetogorsk (located five miles from Pskov; currently the bishop's house). From the Snetogorsk monastery came the Monk Euphrosynus of Pskov, who founded the famous Trekhsvyatitelsky (later Spassky, Spaso-Elizarov) monastery in the region and who not only introduced a community life in his monastery, but also wrote a deliberate charter for it, and the disciples of the Monk Euphrosynus were the planters of desert communal living in general in the Pskov region. From the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery came the Monk Savvaty of Solovetsky, one of the founders of monastic habitation on Solovetsky Island (died on September 27, 1435), and from the Solovetsky Monastery desert communal living spread throughout Pomorie, which makes up the current province of Arkhangelsk, from which, in turn, it spread throughout the Onega region and in general throughout the present Olonets province. We don’t know who exactly established the hostel in the Novgorod region itself (in fact, it was restored after the ancients Anthony of Rome and Varlaam of Khutyn), but in the middle of the 15th century we find it in this last region 87. Before building a monastery in the desert and introducing a hostel in the monastery, the Monk Sergius labored for some time in a solitary desert life. By this he showed a model and example of a special feat - solitary desert living, which after him was very widespread among us. Almost all the famous subsequent founders of monasteries, before building monasteries, labored in our feat for more or less a long time, and it was either that a person went straight from the world into the desert, or that he went into it from the monastery in which he took monastic vows. In the 15th and 16th centuries, all the forests of northern Moscow Rus' were more or less inhabited by solitary hermits. Thus, in order to have a complete understanding of St. Sergius, we must not forget that these hermits, who were such temporarily or remained so forever, constituted a host of his children and imitators, that they also originated from him. Let us finish our speeches about St. Sergius by listing those of his disciples known to us who did not leave his monastery to found their own monasteries, but remained monks of the first until the end of their lives. We don’t know very many of these students. At the same time, they are divided in two: about some we have some reviews depicting them, while others we know only by name. The first are Simon, Archimandrite of Smolensk, Isaac the Silent, Simon the Ecclesiarch (statutor), Elijah the cellarer, Epiphanius the Wise, Ignatius and the Monk Nikon, the successor of the Monk Sergius as abbess. We spoke above about the coming of Archimandrite Simon to St. Sergius (p. 30). The biography of the saint speaks of him: “Simon lived for many years (in the Sergius Monastery) in submission and obedience, moreover in wandering and in humility, and was filled with all the virtues, and in his old age he reposed kindly towards God.” About Isaac, the biography of St. Sergius says that he was a very virtuous man and that he struggled with great abstinence, suppressing his body with fasting, vigil and silence. The Monk Sergius very much wanted to leave him behind as abbot of the Kirzhach monastery, but he resolutely refused this, and instead asked the monk for his blessing to undertake the feat of perfect silence, which he then observed for the rest of his life. When the monk blessed Isaac for the feat he desired, then, according to the biographer, he (Isaac) saw, as it were, some great flame emanating from the hand of the monk and surrounding him completely. He was honored to see the angel of God co-serving with the Monk Sergius, and together with Ecclesiarch Simon the saint told him about the visit of the Mother of God. In the inventory of the monastery, compiled in 1641, two manuscripts of his letter are mentioned, which makes it clear that his obedience or one of his obediences in the monastery was writing books. He died in the winter of 1387 or 1388 88. About Simon the Ecclesiarch, the biography of St. Sergius says that he was “perfect in many virtues,” that “the holy elder himself, that is, St. Sergius, testified to your (his) perfect life.” He was honored to see the divine fire during the saint’s communion at the liturgy. He was honored to be a spectator of some part of the vision of the “red birds”. Together with Isaac, the monk told him about the visit to the Mother of God. About the cellarer Elijah in one of the chronicles it is written under 1384: “Elder Elijah, the cellarer of the Trinity Monastery, kind and obedient, reposed on Pentecostal week (i.e., the week of Holy Pentecost) 89 . Epiphanius, for his exceptional eloquence, with which he wrote two Lives - of his teacher St. Sergius and St. Stephen of Perm, called by the ancients the wisest and wisest, and by the moderns bearing the title of the Wise, was, as one must think, not only an exceptional person in mental terms, but also distinguished by a particularly strict monastic life, for in his old age he was the confessor of the brethren in the monastery. He came to the monk after more or less lengthy wanderings in the East, at the age of approximately 30, and lived in the monastery with him for about 16-17 years, dying around 1420-1422 90. Ignatius. This monk from the brotherhood of Sergius, as having evidence of a virtuous life, soon after the death of the monk was awarded a vision in which it was announced to the brotherhood of the monastery that he, the monk, was constantly with them: during one all-night vigil the monk saw Sergius standing in his place and singing with the brethren 91. The Monk Nikon was from the city of Yuryev, Vladimir region, present-day Vladimir province. Even in his youth, having a desire to become a monk, he went to the Monk Sergius, but Sergius sent him to Serpukhov, to Vysokoye, to his disciple Afanasy, by whom he was tonsured a monk. Having reached adulthood in the monastery of Athanasius and having been awarded the priesthood, he returned to the Monk Sergius (perhaps after Athanasius left the monastery for Constantinople, see above, p. 77). With his character and his life, he acquired such love from the monk that he took him to his cell and decided to leave him as his successor as abbot in the monastery. Having been foreshadowed of his death 6 months before it, Sergius immediately entrusted him with the abbess in order to spend the rest of his days in silence. More or less soon after the death of the Monk Sergius, he abandoned the abbess in order to retire to practice the feat of silence, and for 6 years he was replaced by the abbess, which he later assumed again, by Savva of Dubensky (later of Zvenigorod). Before the invasion of Moscow by Khan Edigei, which took place at the end of 1408, the Monk Sergius, appearing to him in a vision together with the holy metropolitans Peter and Alexy, forewarned him of the burning of the monastery and together consoled him with the promise that after that the monastery would spread even more. To save the brethren from the Tatar sword, he took them somewhere safe from the Tatars, and when the monastery was actually burned out by the Tatars, he resumed it in a more extensive form. In 1422, he discovered the relics of St. Sergius, and after that he built a beautiful stone church over the relics of the saint instead of a wooden one. His great fame among his contemporaries is evidenced by his biography, Pachomius Serbin, who says in his Life that “everywhere you can hear Nikon’s name, as if a certain sacredness is carried around and praised by every human mouth.” Pachomius is confirmed by the chronicles, in which, under the year 1428, it is written that “hegumen Nikon, a wonderful old man, reposed.” 92 He died on November 17, 1428 or 1429 93. The second disciples of St. Sergius, that is, known only by name, are three of his initial cohabitants in the desert, when he began to accept the latter to himself: Vasily, nicknamed Sukhoi, was one of the first to come to the monk from the upper reaches of Dubna, that is, from some village not far from the Lavra on its northern side, because the upper reaches of the Dubna River are not far to the north of the Lavra (the camp of the Pereyaslav district along the Pereyaslav road from Trinity was called Verkhnedubensky). Jacob, whose name was Yakuta, served as an “ambassador” for the desert-dwelling community, that is, a messenger to the world in the event of some very important matters. Onisim the deacon, a former Rostov nobleman, who moved as a layman from Rostov to Radonezh together with the parents of St. Sergius, the father of another deacon, Elisha. The Monk Micah, cell attendant of the Monk Sergius, who was present when the saint visited the Mother of God, died on May 6, 1385 94. Macarius, who, together with Isaac the Silent, was honored to see the Angel concelebrating with St. Sergius. Joannicius and Elisha. These two, not being mentioned in the life of St. Sergius, are depicted together with his other disciples on the same icon located in the Lavra sacristy. The second of them is probably the mentioned son of Deacon Onesimus, and about this last Elisha, the biography of the monk makes it known by the way he mentions him that he was a man famous or famous for something 95 . Bartholomew and Nahum. Also not mentioned in the life of the Monk Sergius, they are called by the monk himself in one vision that happened during the siege of the Lavra by the Poles 96. We spoke above about the warrior monks Peresvet and Oslyab (pp. 62–63). On the significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the history of our monasticism 97 The Moscow Theological Academy, which today has the honor of welcoming you as its visitors, has been located within the walls of the Lavra, under the roof of St. Sergius, since 1814 - therefore, for 78 years now. Such a long period of time gives the Academy the right, and at the same time, the duty to consider the Lavra as its home place. Considering the Lavra its native place, the Academy cannot but take a heartfelt part in all its joys. Yesterday the Lavra had the great joy of celebrating the five hundredth anniversary of the death of St. Sergius, in other words, the great joy of giving praise and thanks to the saint of God for the fact that for five hundred years he kept the monastery he created in prosperity with his prayers to God, and the Academy, sharing this great joy of the Lavra, wants to declare its participation in action. As an educational and scientific institution, the academy is a representative of the scientific word, and its characteristic way of declaring participation may consist in the use of this latter dedicated to the hero of the celebration. So, let it be permitted to offer to your favorable attention some readings, some conversations about St. Sergius of Radonezh. In order to expound in detail the holy and wonderful life of St. Sergius, it would take too much time, moreover, this holy and wonderful life of his is more or less known to everyone. Selecting the most particular of what can be said about St. Sergius, in the first conversation about him we will talk about his significance in the history of our Russian monasticism. This significance is extremely great, and yet in a strange way it is completely or almost not noticed at all, so that speech about it is very desirable for establishing a correct and proper view of the Monk Sergius and for giving him all the glory that is due to him. The name of St. Sergius is usually pronounced together with the names of St. Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk. By this they want to declare recognition, and absolutely fair, that the Monk Sergius was as great an ascetic as the Monks Anthony and Theodosius. But besides the fact that Sergius was the same great ascetic as Anthony and Theodosius, he also has in the history of our monasticism exactly the same significance as the second of these latter, that is, Theodosius. The Monk Theodosius was our leader in strict monasticism after we accepted Christianity from the Greeks and after we borrowed from them, along with Christianity, not entirely strict monasticism. The Monk Sergius was the restorer of strict monasticism among us, after it, having been introduced among us by the Monk Theodosius, then over time again gave way to a less strict monasticism. True, strict monasticism is, firstly, a person’s complete renunciation of the world, therefore, complete renunciation of all acquisitions, all property. The canonical rule prescribes: “monks should not have anything of their own” 98, and the interpreters of the rule Zonara and Balsamon explain it: “Those who combine monastic life, that is, those who take on monasticism, are considered dead to the world: just as the dead have nothing, so the rule requires that monastics should not acquire anything.” Secondly, the canonical rules teach 99 that monastic communities must reproduce that original community of all Christians, about which in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is narrated that the entire multitude of believers had one heart and one soul (IV, 32), and this is only possible under the condition that, as was the case in the original community of all Christians, no one called anything his own, but everyone had everything in common, otherwise discord and discord between people would be inevitable. quarrels, as Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom say 100, and unanimity between people is impossible, as Saint Theodore the Studite says 101. Thus, true monasticism should be a strict community, in which none of the monks would have absolutely nothing of their own, but they had everything in common - a community about which the Monk Theodore the Studite commands his successor to the abbess in the monastery: “May you preserve in every possible way so that the brotherhood has everything in common and inseparable and no one has anything privately owned (even) to the point of a needle” 102. We consider it necessary to make some, so to speak, note to our words: when we say that true monasticism should be a strict community, we do not at all want to say that it consists of one community, but we want to say that it cannot exist without a community (and at the same time, of course, we mean monasteries, and not lonely hermits) and that it is precisely this external structure of monastic life that is necessarily conditioned and certainly required by what monasticism must be from its inner side. Monasticism was a strict community life in the first days of its existence. Saint John Chrysostom writes about contemporary monasteries: “They don’t say there: this is mine, this is yours; These words were expelled from there, serving as the cause of countless strife” 103. But then monasticism, which is not entirely true, appeared to true monasticism in order to enter into a struggle with it, in order to never yield to it complete victory over itself, and in order to at times gain an almost complete victory over it. Monasticism is an exclusive and deliberate path leading to the kingdom of heaven; All believers want to reach the kingdom of heaven, and therefore there were a lot of people who wanted to become monks. But true monasticism is very difficult. In the complete absence of private property, life in the communities of true monks was arranged not so that it represented the same coolness for everyone, but so that it represented the same “all sorrow and oppression” for everyone - the same poverty of food for everyone, the same thinness in clothing for everyone, the same hard work for everyone, the same duration of church prayers and vigils for everyone. And people who wanted to follow the right path leading to the kingdom heavenly, and at the same time, those who found this path too difficult for themselves, decided, so to speak, to smooth it out: they formed the conviction that monasticism would still remain the true path of salvation if, to a greater or lesser extent, they made it easier for themselves; just as later they formed the conviction that even the mere putting on of monastic clothing could save a person. They introduced a lighter, not entirely strict monasticism. The thing was that a rich man took monastic vows and entered the monastery, but did not join the community of monks, so that, having renounced all property, he would submit to all the requirements of the community regarding clothing and food, work and public prayer, but he set up his own special cell in the monastery and in his own special cell, remaining the complete owner of everything that he had before, fed and dressed himself as he wanted, did not participate at all in the general monastic works and participated in public monastic prayers at will. These people, who wanted to reach the kingdom of heaven through monasticism, were joined by people who wanted to become monks not for monasticism itself, but only so that, as the canonical rules say, they would be honored with monastic clothing and in order to perceive the glory of piety from the revered attire 104: it is clear that these people, who took on monasticism not for themselves, were as much for monasticism as possible lightened. The now indicated two classes of rich people were joined by poor people who began to become monks in order to acquire support for themselves with the help of monastic clothes, that is, as monks, to beg for their support from Christ-lovers; It is clear that these people were also for the same monasticism, as light as possible. At first, special living cells were set up in communal monasteries, and then entire monasteries became special living cells. Each monk in these monasteries, living in his own cell and having his own separate household from the others, was the same special cell attendant as the worldly cell attendants and lay cell attendants who live somewhere in entire settlements. Each monk of a special monastery had his own cell, either built by himself, or purchased as a ready-made one; if purchased, then either from the heirs of the previous owner, or from the monastery itself, depending on whether the previous owner refused the cell to the heirs or the monastery. All the income that the monastery received was divided among the brethren in a certain proportion by hand, or in person, and then everyone fed and clothed himself in his own cell and in general was a complete special owner. In the monastery there were hieromonks (or lay priests), who received a special payment for performing services or who served as hired servants, and the rest of the brethren participated in public prayers as much as they wanted, and any deviation from these prayers could be excused by economic needs. If we are not mistaken, we currently do not have special monasteries in Russia (until recently there were special monasteries for women, but now, it seems, they no longer exist). But these single-family monasteries still exist in Greece, they still exist on Athos: out of 20 Athonite monasteries, 12 are currently communal and 8 are single-family (their Greek name is idiorhythms, idiorrythmoi, monasteria idiorrythma, and the Russians living on Athos adopt the name of regular monasteries). These monasteries present a truly sad sight. Not to mention the fact that the monk-owner represents the same incongruity as a living dead, or, in other words, that he is a feigned and deceptive dead - in these monasteries there is absolutely nothing similar to the fact that, following the example of the Early Christian Church, all the brethren of each monastery had one heart and one soul. On the contrary, the poor monks in them are consumed with envy of the rich monks and servilely grovel before the latter, and the rich monks treat the poor with contempt and treat them as slaves, so that instead of brotherhood with one soul and one heart, lordly arrogance and servile humiliation reign in them. As for the monastic exploits, in these monasteries, in the words of one Russian who lived for quite a long time on Mount Athos, “the matter of salvation is left to the will of the person being saved, and therefore everyone lives as his conscience allows: he has money, eats and drinks what he wants (even eats meat), dresses as he wishes, and no one has the right to interfere in his affairs.” The monks of the communal monasteries of Athos speak about the special, or regular, monasteries of their Holy Mountain with nothing more than a shake of the head, a shrug of the shoulders and deep sighs. That in Russia the life of the monks of separate monasteries was no better than it was and is in Greece, one teaching of the 16th-17th centuries that has survived to this day, dedicated to the types or forms of monastic life, lets us know. The teaching does not describe in detail the special life, which in the interest of history cannot but be regretted, but it is inscribed: “The teaching about the general life of the monastic existence (i.e., the real, true) rite of the saving sojourn of the holy fathers and about the self-made, about the svarobotsky and bad monastic life, that is, about the special and self-willed life, and about the skete about deserted good life,” and then it (the teaching) says that the monks, who do not want to hear about the common God-devoted life, instead “keep the Svarobotsky life, and throughout their entire life they boil and talk about every thing in the wasteland and love to maintain the damned self-will and justification and originality and laziness.” Calling the life of the monasteries the Svarobotsky life, the author of the teaching makes it clear that a distinctive feature of the life of the monasteries of the monasteries was quarrels, or quarrels, over acquisitions and the division of income, because of fighting off benefactors and benefactors from each other, and so on - consequently, that in the monasteries of the monasteries there was a most deplorable struggle for the means of subsistence. Monks who wanted to be saved by an easier way of living a special life appeared very early, for the fourth ecumenical council, which took place in 451, already speaks of people who put on the monastic dress not for monasticism itself, but to satisfy the goals of their ambition, 105 while it must be recognized that people who wanted to monasticize in an easier way appeared earlier than people who wanted to use monasticism to achieve secondary goals. In the first half of the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, among his other instructions regarding monastic life, also made an order that under no circumstances should monks have their own homes in monasteries, or that there should not be so-called cells in monasteries 106 . In subsequent times, despite this order of Emperor Justinian, not only did monastic life remain in cenobitic monasteries, but most of the monasteries turned from mixed, communal-separate monasteries into completely separate monasteries, so that communal life, which is the true way of monastic life, became only a rare exception among the Greeks, and monastic life, which was invented and introduced by lovers of facilitated monasticism, became decidedly dominant. We cannot say exactly when monasticism reached such a state, but although the positive evidence known to us about this dates back only to the second half of the 12th century, 107 it should be taken as more than probable that this happened even before we adopted Christianity from the Greeks, that is, until the end of the 10th century. Be that as it may, but having borrowed Christianity from the Greeks, along with Christianity we borrowed from them monasticism exclusively in the form of monasticism, and dormitory was introduced to us about 75 years after our adoption of Christianity by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk. The biographers of the Monk Theodosius - the chronicler unknown by name and the Monk Nestor - do not directly say that when he introduced the Studite Rule in his monastery, he introduced this communal rule in place of the one that had hitherto been in the monastery. But this, firstly, must be assumed; secondly, regarding this we have positive indirect indications. If the original charter of the Pechersk Monastery had been cenobitic, then it would have been the Studian one, so that Theodosius would not have needed to introduce the same charter in the monastery another time: the fact is that in Greece, in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which our monasticism came, in those very few monasteries in which there was a cenobitic charter, it was precisely the Studian charter. Therefore, the Monk Nestor, telling about the Monk Theodosius, how, after being appointed hegumen of the monastery, he wanted to be a servant of the brethren entrusted to him, he says, among other things, that while the brethren indulged in sleep during the night, the blessed one took the life divided (by the brethren) and, having ground (on hand millstones) a part of each brother, placed (each part) in its place, that is, at the door of each brother’s cell 108. But if in the Pechersky Monastery, before the introduction of the Studite Charter, each brother was given his share of grain, so that everyone could prepare his own flour and bread from the flour, then from this it is clear that in the Pechersky Monastery before the introduction of the Studite Charter, there was a special life, for this manual distribution to each monk of his share of grain, so that everyone would grind it himself and bake his own bread from it, is precisely the special life or represents part of the special living orders. From the fact that in the Pechersky Monastery there was first a separate life, and then the Monk Theodosius introduced a hostel, apparently it does not directly follow that before Theodosius there was a separate life in all our monasteries and that the hostel was first introduced among us only by Theodosius. But in fact, this follows directly, and we also have indirect indications and evidence regarding this. The founder of the Pechersk Monastery was the Monk Anthony; The Monk Anthony was undoubtedly a man who preferred true monasticism to half-true monasticism, or strict monasticism to light monasticism, but if he had seen before him in Kyiv not only special monasteries, but also communal ones, then he would have introduced in his monastery not special living, but communal living. The Monk Nestor says that when the Monk Theodosius came from his Kursk to Kyiv with the goal of taking monastic vows in one of the latter’s monasteries, he was not accepted into any monastery because of his poverty. This attribute goes specifically to special monasteries, about which we have evidence that they accepted those wishing to become monks only with a contribution of money, or the so-called contribution 109, while the communal Studite Charter directly prohibits taking money from those wishing to become monks 110. Finally, if before the Monk Theodosius we had cenobitic monasteries, then he would not have had the need to write out the cenobitic charter from Constantinople, but could have taken it from one of the Kyiv monasteries, but in fact it was he who wrote it out from Constantinople. So, initially, together with the adoption of Christianity, we borrowed monasticism from the Greeks in a not entirely our own, not entirely authentic and true form of community life, but in a completely our own, completely authentic and true form of community life, it was introduced to us about 75 years after our adoption of Christianity by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk. But the common life, having been introduced by the Monk Theodosius, did not have the destiny for us to completely supplant the separate life and then forever remain the only form of our monastic life. If this were so, then our monasticism would be unparalleled in its height in the entire Christian Orthodox Church. But this was not the case. The dormitory introduced by the Monk Theodosius in his Pechersk monastery was borrowed from the latter by the best monasteries that had previously existed, and began to be borrowed by the best monasteries that were newly established, and thus became a form of monastic life in our best monasteries (while single living remained a form of life in the worst monasteries). But it did not become a form of life in the best monasteries forever, and not for a particularly long time. The strict dormitory introduced by the Monk Theodosius, not too long after it, gave way in the monasteries, with the inclusion of Pechersk itself, to a non-strict dormitory, in which some things were common, but in which each monk was provided and allowed to have his own, private, property. The lax community life seemed to last in the monasteries for quite a long time (in the Pechersky Monastery it lasted until the Mongol invasion) 111 . But then this too gave way to complete separate living, so that our monasteries again became what they were from the beginning of our Christianity until St. Theodosius, that is, solely and exclusively separate living. But just as three quarters of a century after our adoption of Christianity, God raised up the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk to be our leader of strict monasticism, so three and a quarter centuries after the Monk Theodosius, God raised up the Monk Sergius of Radonezh to be our restorer of strict monasticism. However, if the Monk Theodosius was the introducer of strict monasticism throughout all of Rus', then the Monk Sergius was its restorer in one half of Rus'. During the time of St. Theodosius, all of Rus' was one; During the time of St. Sergius, it was divided into two halves: the northeastern - Moscow and the southwestern - topographically Kyiv, politically Lithuanian. The Monk Sergius was the restorer of strict monasticism in Moscow Rus'. People who for the first time introduce in any area of ​​life something better in place of something worse, or who restore this best after it existed and disappeared, are called transformers (in secular language, instead of the Russian word “transformer”, the foreign word “reformer” is used). And just as the Monk Theodosius was a reformer of our monasticism, so after him the Monk Sergius was a reformer of monasticism (some have in us a blind hatred for the word “transformer”; let them know that their blind hatred should extend to such people as the Monk Theodosius and the Monk Sergius). Everything good is from God, especially in a deliberate way everything that is exceptionally good is from God, and this is precisely the truly transformative activity, which consists in replacing the worst in some area of ​​life with the best. Ordinary people, the human crowd, are not affected by the evil that exists in any area of \u200b\u200blife, they look at it as something normal or natural, but God sends his chosen husband, whom he endows with exceptional moral vision to discern evil, exceptional moral sensitivity in order to be struck by it, and exceptional will to determine to eliminate it, and God's chosen husband, God's deliberate messenger, becomes (if circumstances permit) either a preacher of reformation or the most transformer in one or another area of life. The Monk Sergius was the chosen man of God, destined to restore strict monasticism in northern, Moscow, Rus'. He felt an attraction to monastic life in his early youth, and, having indulged in reading holy books, between which, as one must think, he mainly read the lives of ascetics and patericons, he, while still a youth and before taking monastic vows, reached the knowledge of what true and strict monasticism should be, and having reached knowledge, or at the same time as he reached knowledge, he made the decision to become true and the strictest monk. Having the opportunity, after burying his parents, to fulfill his intention to become a monk, the Monk Sergius, who was at that time a 22-year-old youth, did not go to some monastery, but retired into the desert. All our monasteries of that time were in cities and villages, but the dwelling of the strictest monk should be a desert far from worldly human habitations, and so, wanting to be such a strict monk, the Monk Sergius did this unusual thing - instead of a monastery he went to the desert to monk. When in the desert the Monk Sergius formed a monastery from people who wanted to work together with him, he, restoring strict monasticism among us, introduced a hostel in the monastery. Regarding this restoration of strict monasticism in Muscovite Rus' by St. Sergius, the same question is asked as regarding the first establishment of strict monasticism in Rus' by St. Theodosius of Pechersk, that is, is it true that before St. Sergius there was no community life in the monasteries of Moscow Rus' and that he was the first to introduce it? That this is really so, first of all, it must be accepted on the basis of the same conclusion that we indicated above, speaking about the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk. There is no doubt that St. Sergius was a zealot for true monasticism and that if he had to choose between true monasticism and not quite true monasticism, he would choose the first. But if this is so, then if before him, in the monasteries of Muscovite Rus', along with single living and communal living, he (Sergius) would have introduced in his monastery at its foundation not the first, but the last - not single living, but communal living, while he initially introduced single living in his monastery 112. Then, in our manuscripts we read the message of the unnamed Patriarch of Constantinople to the unnamed Russian abbot, in which the patriarch praises the abbot for having organized a monastic life in his monastery, which does not exist in Russian monasteries 113 - the abbot, undoubtedly, is the Venerable Sergius, and by the monastic life, which did not exist in Russian monasteries, we must understand what was introduced by the venerable Sergius in his monastery hostel. Further, we have more direct evidence: we are told who was the first after St. Sergius to introduce community life in Moscow monasteries, which had not existed in them before 114. Finally, the author of the laudatory word for St. Sergius, who is one and the same with the author of his life - his disciple Epiphanius the Wise, calls him the “initial hostel” 115, that is, the first leader of the hostel in Moscow monasteries. The Monk Sergius, as it is necessary to think, reached the knowledge and conviction that true monasticism is a community life, even before he began to build his monastery, at the same time as he reached the knowledge and conviction that the strictest monasticism is desert living. If he did not act in such a way as to directly make his monastery a communal one, but first made it a separate habitation and introduced a hostel in it only after some time, then he did so as required by prudence. He wanted to introduce a hostel in his monastery with the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which approved and blessed his intention, in his hands, which he later received. But when he founded his monastery, he was a 25-26 year old youth who had become known as a hermit among the surrounding monks, but who still had too little authority or importance to appeal to the highest church authorities for the required approval. More or less within a short time after the founding of the monastery, he became famous as a great ascetic; his fame as an ascetic earned him the close friendship of the holy metropolitan Alexei; Saint Alexei delivered or solicited for him a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, which approved and blessed his intention to introduce a hostel in his monastery 116 - then he began to carry out his intention. To introduce a dormitory in a monastery meant venturing into such an innovation, to which the vast majority of monks should have reacted with decisive unsympathy and positive hostility, for people, accustomed to very light monasticism, could not at all like “this idea” - to introduce strict monasticism, and monastic life from a life of cool and free for some and a life, if not cool, then free for others would be for everyone into a life filled with sorrow and cramped conditions and subject to severe discipline. In particular, the abbots, or abbots, of monasteries should have rebelled against St. Sergius with his innovation. The abbots of single-family monasteries were a kind of good landowners: they received half of all monastic income 117 and lived for their own pleasure, while in common monasteries they were threatened with complete equality in everything with the brethren of the monasteries, with the exception of excelling before the brethren in work and virtue. And there is no doubt that a fierce battle would have risen and been heard against St. Sergius with his innovation. In the old days, we had a terrible word to call innovators who dared to encroach on existing abuses: “heretic”. No matter what obvious and blatant abuses protests were raised, the defenders of abuses had a harsh word ready for the protesters, who were innovators: “You bigots are starting a new heresy... you have a demon in yourself, you bigots” 118 . The Monk Sergius did not want a fight to be raised against him, not because he was afraid of it - he was one of those people who are ready and glad to endure any unfair fight - but because, as one should think, so as not to cause confusion in the Church of God. For this reason, he wanted to receive his intention, before bringing it into action, the blessing and formal approval of the then supreme leader of the Russian Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople. His friend, Saint Alexei, being the same zealot of true monasticism as himself, fully sympathized with his intention to introduce a community life in his monastery, and therefore obtained a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople, which approved and blessed his intention to introduce a community life in his monastery. The Monk Sergius did in relation to the hostel only that he introduced it in his own monastery. He did not imagine himself as an authority that could prescribe that coenobitism should be introduced in other monasteries, and as for the actual authority in the person of Saint Metropolitan Alexei, although she fully sympathized with him, at the same time she did not find it possible or convenient to resort to her decrees and coercive measures to introduce coenobitism in our monasteries. However, having done as little as possible for the community, St. Sergius became its restorer in our monasteries: good prevailed over evil by its own strength. The Monk Sergius, who introduced a hostel in his monastery, and his monastery, in which he introduced a hostel, soon became famous throughout Russia, through their example they became silent preachers of the fact that the true form of monastic life should be a hostel; Heeding this preaching of the example of St. Sergius and his monastery, the subsequent best founders of monasteries, many of whom were personal disciples or interlocutors of St. Sergius, began to found monasteries other than communal ones; Following the example of the best new monasteries, the best old monasteries began to accept hostels. And thus, thanks to St. Sergius, the hostel was restored in Moscow Rus', just as thanks to St. Theodosius of Pechersk it was originally established throughout Rus'... So, these are the proper ideas one should have about St. Sergius of Radonezh! He is a great ascetic in the host of our Russian ascetics, but, in addition to this particular, so to speak, dignity, or in addition to this particular height, he also has an unusually important general significance in the history of our Russian monasticism: after the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, who was for us the leader of true monastic life in the form of community life, he was for us the restorer of this true monastic life. The significance of St. Theodosius of Pechersk in the history of our monasticism is duly recognized by everyone; let the significance of St. Sergius of Radonezh also be duly recognized! But if St. Sergius was the restorer of true monastic life among us, then we would not have honored his memory in a worthy manner if, at the end of speeches about him, we had not turned from the past to the present and ended these speeches with good wishes for our modern monasticism. The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk introduced among us true monasticism in the form of community life, and it, having existed among us for not a particularly long time, completely disappeared, to again give way to a not entirely true monasticism in the form of community life. The Monk Sergius of Radonezh restored true monasticism among us, but even after him it was not so that this monasticism remained with us forever. And after him, as after Theodosius, it fell, and if after the falls it rose again, it no longer reached the height at which it had been placed by him. We would be unfair to our modern monasticism if we were to say that it is at the level of decline to which monasticism reached or to which it fell in other former times, but we would be flatterers and liars if we said that it is at a completely proper height and that in relation to it there is nothing more to be desired. Without going into detailed speeches about the shortcomings of our modern monasticism, for which this is neither the place nor the time, but being prompted by the memories of the great man and great saint of God, who once restored true monasticism among us, we earnestly wish our modern monasticism to rise to the height to which it was raised by St. Sergius. The general sources and manuals from which we took information for this Guide and which we used in its preparation are the following. 1. A number of brief historical records about the Trinity Monastery from 1512 to 1640, read in one manuscript, which formerly belonged to the monastery, and is now in the Synodal Library, printed by A.F. Bychkov under the name of “Brief Chronicler of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra” in the III issue of the “Chronicle of the Activities of the Archaeographic Commission” and reprinted by the Archimandrite Leonid in the appendices to his 2nd, 1890, edition of Description of the Lavra by A.V. Gorsky. 2. The inventory of the Trinity Monastery, made during the years 1641–1643 by a commission of his officials commissioned by Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, is very detailed and thorough, so that it is a huge small manuscript, currently stored in the monastery sacristy. 3 and 4. Two brief inventories of the monastery, one compiled in 1768 for St. Synod, another in 1785 for the Boundary Office, for the composition of the atlas of the Moscow province, located in the monastery archive. 5. A brief historical description of the Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius with an appendix of notable incidents that happened in it, compiled in 1781 by the vicar of the Lavra, Hieromonk Pavel Ponomarev (who died in 1806 as Archbishop of Yaroslavl), published the following year, 1782, and then reprinted eight or more times, each time corrected and supplemented according to what changes and additions reality required (the first edition, 1782, and the second edition, 1790, were printed with the name of the compiler; subsequent editions, starting with the third, 1796, since they were no longer printed by the compiler, who in 1794 was appointed Archimandrite of Novospassky to the Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, but by the monastery, were printed without his, the compiler, name, or unnamed. The first edition, very rare, was published under the title “A brief historical description of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. With the addition of incidents that happened in it. Composed by the Viceroy of the Lavra, Hieromonk Paul in St. Petersburg in 1782.” The third, and untitled first, edition was published under the title “A brief historical description of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius with an appendix of notable incidents that happened in it, contrary to the previous edition, largely corrected and supplemented by newly discovered circumstances until 1796.” Moscow. In the free printing house of A. Reshetnikov. 1796". The subsequent editions known to us date back to 1801, 1809, 1815, 1818, 1824 and 1829. Since the edition of 1801, a description of the “Saviour-Bifan School Monastery” has been added to the description of the monastery, and the last two editions, 1824 and 1829, have also “added a description of the Makhrishchi Monastery” (although in fact, the “Brief Historical Description of the Makhrishchi Monastery” is already in the first edition). On the 1809 edition it is stated that it is the “third edition”, and further editions are counted from it, so that the 1829 edition is the seventh; this means that the count of editions began with the first untitled edition, or with the first edition made by the monastery itself after the compiler of the description. Reverend Filaret in Review of Literature (book. II, § 120) claims that the description was printed before 1837, but he is hardly mistaken and as if the edition of 1829 is the last edition. 6. The autobiography of Metropolitan Plato, printed for the first time from an imperfect copy by I. M. Snegirev in the appendix to his work “The Life of Moscow Metropolitan Plato” (first edition - 1831, second - 1856), and for the second time - from an autograph stored in the Lavra sacristy, by S. K. Smirnov in Nos. 9 and 10 “Soulful Reading” for 1887. 7. Letters of Metropolitan Philaret to the governors of the Lavra, Athanasius and Anthony, of which the first were published in the 38th part of the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers (1886, books 3 and 4), and the second - separately, in four parts, in the continuation of 1877-1884. 8. Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, owned by A.V. Gorsky, printed for the first time in 1842 and then reprinted eight times to date, namely in 1852, 1857, 1865, 1873, 1878–1879, 1882, 1889 and 1890. Of these eight editions, two editions made by Archimandrite Leonid - 1878–1879, placed in the “Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities”, and 1890, issued separately - were printed with the restoration of the original text of the author, abridged by Metropolitan Philaret, and supplied with many appendices of the publisher. Only in these two editions is the name of the author of the description displayed; in all other editions, starting from the first, it is without the name of the author. 9 and 10. We find a small amount of special, but quite important news in two works belonging to common sources by the famous, glorious worker in the field of Russian history, Gerard Frederick Miller, namely (in) a brief description of the Trinity Monastery or a note about it, compiled between 1770–1775, and (c) a description of a trip to the Trinity Monastery, made in 1778. Both works are preserved in manuscript along with Miller's other papers in the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The second work was published by Miller, both in German and Russian, in the then German and Russian journals of the Academy of Sciences (the German original, which we have not seen and which we indicate according to the Dictionary of Russian Secular Writers by Metropolitan Eugene - in the 3rd part of the St. Petersburg German Journal of 1778, Russian translation, - in New Monthly Works, part XLI, 1789, November, pp. 28–45). They belong not to general, but to private sources, but due to their importance for us, the articles of the [deceased] hieromonk of the Lavra, its former librarian and compiler of the description of its manuscripts, Father Arseny, deserve to be specifically mentioned, which are the essence: 1) “On the patrimonial possessions of the Trinity Monastery during the life of its founder, St. Sergius,” published in 1877 in the VII issue of the “Chronicle of Occupations” Archaeographic Commission"; 2) “Chronicle of the governors, cellars, treasurers, sacristans, economists and librarians of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra”, published in 1868 in the IV issue of the same Chronicle; 3) “Reports, letters and other acts of the Trinity Sergius Monastery on servants”, published in 1867 in the III book of “Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” for this year; 4) “Historical information about icon painting in the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius”, published in 1873 in the Collection for this year of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum; 5) very important is the publication by Father Arseny of two letters of grant to the Trinity Monastery of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna dated June 11, 1752, of which one is about all the estates of the monastery, and the other is about all its farmsteads, printed in 1865 in the IV book of the “Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” for this year (reprinted by Archimandrite Leonid in the appendices to the Description of the Lavra A. V. Gorsky); 6) of considerable importance for us are the descriptions of the churches of the township parishes compiled by Father Arseny - Klementyevsky (printed in “Reading General History and Ancient Russian”, 1887, book II), Rozhdestvensky (ibid., 1891, book III), Pyatnitsky (ibid., 1894, book IV) and Ilyinsky (ibid., book III). 1897., book I). Other private sources and manuals, with the exception in the first case of well-known or related to church and national history, are indicated in the notes. About the relationship of the sketch of the life of St. Sergius that I am giving to his biography compiled by Fr. Nikon, I said in my response to the article of the magazine “Wanderer” “Moscow academic historian about the life of St. Sergius", published in the Theological Bulletin in 1893. (No. 10 and 11). The author of the life of St. Sergius, monk Epiphanius, in addition to our life, wrote another life of St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm. In this second life, indicating the sources of his information about Stephen, he among other things says: “There is another thing that I saw with my own eyes, and another thing that I talked with myself many times and from that I learned.” Then, depicting his relationship with Stefan, he speaks with an appeal to him: “Sometimes, as I live, you were an annoyancer,... I once quarreled with you about certain things that happened, or about a word about an ester, or about someone else, or about a strotz,... I am your servant, I remember the extra love you had for me, with which I fall in love, and shed tears for me like many times” (printed in Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature by Kushelev-Bezborodko, issue IV, p. 119, col. 2, 166 col. 1 fin. and 167 col. 1). Based on the above words of Epiphanius, it is believed that he took monastic vows and lived for some time in the same monastery with Stephen, namely in the Rostov Monastery of St. Gregory the Theologian, called “in the Shutter” or “Shutter” and located near the bishop’s cathedral. But if Epiphanius lived for some time in the same monastery with Stephen, then, being his student according to his years, he would call himself his student, while in fact he does not call himself that (V.O. Klyuchevsky claims that sometimes Epiphanius calls Stephen his teacher (“Old Russian Lives of Saints,” p. 89), but if he calls it, which we absolutely do not argue against and that (we could have seen it), then, in any case case, not deliberately, as he actually called the teacher, but by chance, in the form of a simple compliment). Therefore, it seems more likely to think that Epiphanius was a monk of the only Sergius Monastery and that he made a very close acquaintance with Stefan (as an outstanding bookish person, which he was, with another outstanding bookish person, which was Stefan) and conducted with him those disputes that he speaks of during Stefan’s visits to St. Sergius, and these visits could be more or less long. Epiphanius, who does not speak particularly sympathetically and respectfully about Moscow in the story of the resettlement of the parents of St. Sergius from Rostov to Radonezh, and also in the life of Stefanov speaks reproachfully about the relations of Muscovites to Stefan (printed p. 161, col. 1), is rightly considered to be a non-Muscovite. Considering him to be from Rostovets, to which there are no obstacles (although the sympathy with which he speaks about the disaster that befell Rostov cannot be taken as a positive proof of this, for in sympathy it is equally likely to see both a manifestation of patriotism and natural human participation or compassion for the disasters suffered), it will be possible to present the case in such a way that he met Stefan for the above-mentioned impulse, while still a layman, after returning from a trip to East and before he entered the monastery of Sergius. Regarding the arrival of Epiphanius to St. Sergius, the addition and shortener of the life of St. Sergius written by him, Pachomius Serbinus, about whom below, says that he lived with the saint “from the very age of youth” (in the afterword to the supplemented life and to the abbreviation of the life). Since Epiphanius died around 1420 (as discussed below) at an old age of approximately 75 years, then, assuming that he came to Sergius for 16–17 years, we would get that he lived in the monastery of the monk during his lifetime for no less than 30–31 years. But if the praiseworthy word of St. Sergius belongs to Epiphanius, to whom it is assimilated by the overwhelming majority of lists, and not to Pachomius, to whom it is assimilated by some, very few lists (see Klyuchevsk. ibid., p. 90 fin.); if it should be considered with absolute certainty as the work of the first, and not the second, on the basis of its internal features (oratorical style and composition) and internal data (the author’s speeches about himself as a direct contemporary of St. Sergius, which Epiphanius was and which Pachomius was not), then this author of the word, praising the many years of continuous stay of St. Sergius in his monastery, speaks about him about himself: “He did not seek (he) the Reigning city, nor the Holy Mountain or Jerusalem, as I am cursed and devoid of reason, - I have fiercely, crawling here and there and swimming around the court and the ovud...” (Lavra edition 1853, fol. 366 vol. fin.). Two lives written by Epiphanius, which make it possible to see in him a person exceptional among our writers of lives in terms of mental qualities and writing talents, force us to assume in him a person not only well-read in books, but also more or less in the real sense educated, or at least treated educated people. Epiphanius could receive some real education or deal with educated people only in the East, and his stay there is expected to be more or less long. There are indications that Epiphanius knew the modern Greek language: when talking about the bear’s coming to St. Sergius for bread (below, p. 29), he calls the bear arcuda (“the beast, called arcuda, the hedgehog is said to be a bear”), “arkuda” is the modern Greek arkouda from the ancient Greek arktos; in one Lavra manuscript, written in 1380 by a certain Epiphanius, in which, in all likelihood, our Epiphanius should be seen, there is a scribe’s entry: “Lord, holy Epiphanes of Cyprus, my sons, eleisons” (about the manuscript, see below). And in the Life of Stefanov, Epiphanius’s speeches about the Greek language seem to be not only borrowed from books, but are partly based on his own knowledge of the language (printed p. 152, col. 2). Epiphanius calls broken dry pieces of bread posmagami, which is the Greek paxamas - cracker (Dukangzha Glossar. Graecit., the word paxamas), but it is likely that he does not take the word himself from Greek, but borrows it from Serbian, in which paxamas is posmaga (Rechnik Danicic, the word “posmaga”). After wandering around the East, which could not have been undertaken in the years of too early youth and which, as follows from the words just given, were more or less long, Epiphanius probably came to St. Sergius no earlier than at the age of 30. From this it will follow that he lived in the monastery of the monk under him for about 16–17 years. But if Epiphanius lived in the monastery of St. Sergius with himself and not for 30-31 years, but for 16-17 years, then, in any case, he had every opportunity to collect the most complete and most detailed information about the life of the saint. Firstly, the 16–17 years for which Epiphanius found St. Sergius alive was not a short time at all; secondly, according to his own testimony (in the preface to the life), he found ancient and reliable elders in the monastery, with Sergius’s elder brother Stephen at their head, who knew the life of the monk well from the very day of his birth. Thus, Epiphanius had every opportunity to write a complete and detailed historical account of the life of St. Sergius. If he had done this, then we would have had a good biography, or a good biography, of St. Sergius. But, unfortunately, he did not do this. Following the Greeks, we had accepted conventional forms of life, according to which it was supposed to be a work not so much of a historical narrative, but rather an oratorical and edifying one. As a result of this, our compilers of the lives of the saints did not write their real biographies, and if they had complete and detailed information about them, they reported this information lightly and selectively, in a fragmentary and very insufficient manner, and the main thing they believed in their panegyric oratory, according to which lives from biographies, or biographies, were turned into words of praise (those who wish can read a detailed description of our Russian lives saints in the aforementioned work by V. O. Klyuchevsky “Old Russian Lives of Saints”). The biographer of St. Sergius, monk Epiphanius, was not among our writers of the lives of saints, not only one of the bad ones, but even one of the rank and file, but was one of the very few outstanding ones, but he was not so outstanding as to create something special from the others, to write a real and complete biography of St. Sergius, and not the lives that were usually written. He greatly rises above other writers of hagiography, but, so to speak, in the same direction as the others; not because he wrote something special from others, but because, having written the same thing as them, he wrote incomparably better than how most of them wrote. Considered as an orator, Epiphanius is not only very good, but, so to speak, more than very good; despite his eloquence, he is too infected with the passion of verbosity (he is reminiscent of the Serbian writers of the lives of saints, who, representing people uncontrollable in oratorical verbosity, perhaps actually served as his role models); and it is completely clear to us that the ancients, surprised both by what he really had very good, and by what was only taken for very good (they should have been especially struck by his passion and ability to collect synonyms and epithets by several dozen), called him the wisest and most wise (as Pachomius calls him in the inscription of his life and in the inscription of his abbreviation of his life). Among the new ones, from the middle of the 17th century, he was given the title of the wise: “Epiphanius the Wise” (see Simon Azaryin in the preface to “new miracles” (printed edition of General. Ancient Writings, p. 1) and “The Book, a verbal description of the Russian saints” (printed edition of the group M. V. Tolstoy in Reading. General. History and Ancient Ross., 1887, book IV, no. 200, p. But as a biographer, Epiphanius, unfortunately, cannot be considered satisfactory. In our presentation we convey everything factual that he has, and the reader himself can judge the insufficiency of this fact. It is only necessary to add, in the interest of justice, that in comparison with our other lives, this insufficiency is not a deficiency, but an excess, in other words, that in comparison with other lives, in fact, it should still be recognized as one of the best. Epiphanius began compiling notes about St. Sergius in separate chapters the next or third year after the death of the monk and compiled them over the course of 20 years (at the same time as he wrote the life of Stefanovo), and then, having waited to see if the life of Sergius, written by someone else, would appear (one should, however, think that these speeches about waiting are more simple words), he brought the notes into one place and gave them the appearance of this life gave away this last one (in the sense that he put it into circulation among bookish people, giving it to be read and copied) 26 years after the death of the monk, or in 1418 (see the preface to the life). It is also known about the biographical Epiphanius that he was in the monastery, of course in his old age and most likely after the death of St. Sergius, the confessor of the brotherhood (Pachomius calls him a confessor in the inscription of his abbreviation of his life). As for the time of the life of the Monk Sergius, it is likely that all the time under him he remained a deacon, as he is called in the lists of saints and revered dead (see. now the above-mentioned “Book, verb description...”, in which the entry about him reads: “Reverend Epiphanius the deacon, the wise, disciple of St. Sergius the wonderworker”). Epiphanius's life of St. Sergius has not come down to us quite in the original form in which it came from the pen of the author. Around 1440 (between 1438–1443) the monk Pachomius, a Serbian by birth (Pachomius Serbinus), arrived in Russia from Athos (Pachomius Serbinus), who became famous among us as a compiler of the lives of saints and services to saints (see about him in Klyuchevsk. ibid., p. 113 sqq.). Let us note here by the way that the loud and not entirely clear title of logothete, which Pachomius bore, can simply mean a clerk, i.e., that in the Athos monastery from which he arrived in Russia, he was a clerk, or clerk (see Ducange in Glossar. Crecit. word logothetes and in Danichich in Rechnik the word “logophete”). In Russia, he initially settled in the Trinity Monastery, where he began his literary work by working on the life of St. Sergius Epiphaniev (we consider it very probable to think that Pachomius was summoned from Athos to Russia for literary work by the abbot of the Trinity Monastery, Zinovy. Be that as it may, he not only initially settled in the Trinity Monastery, but also lived there for most of his life, being awarded the degree of hieromonk there, and in the chronicle he is called a monk of the Trinity Monastery (Poln. sobr. Russian let., vol. IV, p. 196): “Pachomius Serbin, mnich of the Sergius Monastery”). His activity in relation to the life was expressed in the fact that, firstly, he himself edited it and supplemented it with either a story about the discovery of the relics and several stories about the posthumous miracles of the monk, or only the last stories and that, secondly, he made several abbreviations from it (the life). Why the authorities of the Trinity Monastery instructed Pachomius to subject the Life of Epiphanius to his own edition, or to go through it with his own edition, is not entirely clear. It seems not incredible to think that there were goals, so to speak, censorship - the desire to clear life of everything that was not entirely convenient in it. To confirm this assumption, we can point to one example. In the Nikon Chronicle one reads an extract from the Life of Epiphanius of St. Sergius, made, as one must think, according to the original edition of Epiphanius himself (vol. IV, pp. 203–239). It says here that when Sergius introduced a dormitory in his monastery, the monks, who did not want this latter, secretly left the monastery (p. 225); in the complete Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius, edited by Pachomius, nothing is said about what is now indicated. Then it can also be pointed to the story about Theodore’s construction of the Simonov Monastery, as it is read in the full life and in the Nikon Chronicle (and about which see below), as well as the story about the removal of St. Sergius from his monastery and about the construction of another (Kirzhach) monastery for himself, which is also discussed below, on p. 48–49. How much Pachomius made changes in the life of Epiphanius during his editing remains unknown, but the most likely assumption is that the changes were generally very insignificant (clear additions are in the stories about the founding of the Andronikov and Simonov monasteries; the edition known to us and remaining incomprehensible to us is the silence about the sending of the monks of his monastery Peresvet by St. Sergius with Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy to the Battle of Kulikovo and Oslyaby, about which see below). Regarding the additions made by Pachomius in the life of Epiphanius, it is customary to think that after Epiphanius ended his life with the death and burial of the Monk Sergius, the story about the discovery of the relics and the stories about the miracles of the monk belong to him. But it is almost more likely that only the last stories belong to him, and that the story about the discovery of the relics belongs to Epiphanius himself. The life of Epiphanius, as edited by Pachomius, is followed by a word of praise to the Monk Sergius, which, through the inscription, is attributed to Epiphanius himself (“The word is commendable to our reverend father Sergius, created by his disciple the holy monk Epiphanius”) and, according to internal signs, should undoubtedly be assimilated to him, and not to Pachomius. But in the word it seems to be clear that it was written after the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius (see lithographic editions of the life, l. 349, 350, 360, 362 vol. and 371 fin.), and if we consider the prayer with which the word ends and which begins: “O saint of God, saint of the Savior, to belong to Epiphanius!” O reverend, chosen one of Christ!..” (lithographic ed., fol. 371 vol., fin.), then it seems that the above is given to know, and quite clearly, for the prayer says: “behold, the relics of your coffin are always before our eyes” (fol. 372 vol.). In appropriating the story of the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius to Epiphanius himself, one would have to imagine the matter in such a way that in 1418 Epiphanius wrote the life of St. Sergius, concluding it with the death of the saint, but when the relics were discovered in 1422, he added, or added, to the life a story about this discovery of the relics. The story begins with the words: “And this will be added to those predicted about the discovery of the relics of the saint, when and at what time” (ibid., l. 284). In the appendix they want to see Pachomius making an addition to the life of Epiphanius, but there is no obstacle to seeing Epiphanius himself making an addition to the life he himself wrote. Taking into account that the story about the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius belongs to Epiphanius himself, and his death would have to be attributed not to the time interval between the years 1418–1422, of which in the first he ended his life, and in the second the relics of St. Sergius were discovered, but to the time after the second year. Pachomius made four or two abbreviations of the Epiphanian life of St. Sergius, so to speak, menaic, more extensive, and two prologue, as short as prologue lives in general. We can answer with sufficient satisfaction the question why the authorities of the Trinity Monastery needed three abbreviations - one menain and two prologues, but we cannot answer with the same satisfaction the question why the monastery authorities needed a fourth abbreviation, or a second menain. Epiphanius's life of St. Sergius is very extensive (being such, as we have already made it known, not due to the richness of the factual content, but due to the richness of the oratory belonging to the author himself) - people who wanted to read it should have been intimidated by this vastness; for people who wanted to have his lists, it must have been expensive to acquire them. And thus, it was desirable for his (the Life) to have a menaic abbreviation that would be both convenient and easily accessible. The authorities of the Trinity Monastery needed two short abbreviations of the life for reading at all-night vigils on the feast days of St. Sergius. The authorities of the Trinity Monastery wanted that out of the five or six readings that were to take place at the festive all-night vigils (the first number is an Athos custom, see Barsky in his speeches about the Lavra of St. Athanasius; the second number is prescribed by the charter, see its 2nd chapter), two readings at the all-night vigils on the feasts of St. Sergius, precisely according to the 2nd kathisma or before “Praise the name of the Lord,” and according to the 6th canon of the canon, were readings of the prologue life of the saint, but the authorities did not want the same prologue life to be read both times, and therefore Pachomius, on their instructions, made two prologue abbreviations of Epiphanius’s life: one, comparatively more extensive, for reading according to the 2nd kathisma and the other, according to the 6th canon of the canon. As for the second menaion reduction of the life of Epiphanius, regarding the need for which no assumption can be made, the monastery authorities, multiplying the new editions of the life of St. Sergius to the number of four, probably wanted to contribute to this deliberate exaltation of the saint, and Pachomius, for his part, supporting the authorities in their thoughts, could have in mind his own monetary interest (for it is necessary to think that, representing the first Russian writer who received for his labors fee, he worked for the monastery not for nothing, but for money). Since Pachomius himself could also collect information about St. Sergius in the Trinity Monastery, he has minor additions to Epiphanius in the menaine abbreviations (see the note on the previous page). On the other hand, in his abbreviations he wants, so to speak, to improve Epiphanius in terms of hagiography and for this purpose allows himself to change some of his news accordingly (see note on pp. 7–8). The true Epiphanius life of St. Sergius as edited by Pakhomieva is known to us in manuscripts from the lists: 1) library of the Moscow Theological Academy: a) foundation. department: No. 50, l. 57 (no start); No. 88, l. 276; No. 144, l. 444; No. 208, l. 10; b) Fiber. department: No. 644, l. 206; 2) libraries of the Trinity Lavra: No. 663, l. 410; No. 698, l. 1, and No. 699, l. 36. There are currently four printed editions of the original Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius as edited by Pachomiev: 1) made in the 17th century, in 1646, by the cellarer of the Trinity Monastery Simon Azaryin, together with the life of St. Nikon and with services to both, under the title “Services and Lives and about the miracles of the decommissioning of the St. Our Father Sergius” Radonezh wonderworker and disciple of his reverend father and wonderworker Nikon"; 2) made in 1853 by the Lavra with an illustrated, or decorated with pictures, manuscript of the 16th century through a lithographic reproduction of the manuscript under the title “The Life of the Venerable and God-Blessed Father Sergius of Radonezh and All Russia, the Wonderworker. 1853. In Lithography of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra"; 3) found in the September month of the Great Menaion-Chetii of Metropolitan Macarius, printed by the Archaeographic Commission, in the 3rd issue of the month, published in 1883, col. 1463, and 4) made in 1885 by Archimandrite Leonid through the Society of Ancient Writing under the title “The Life of our venerable and God-bearing father Sergius the Wonderworker and a word of praise to him, written by his disciple Epiphanius the Wise in the 15th century.” In 1698, it was intended to repeat the publication of Simon Azaryin with the addition of new miracles (see the postscript to the “Book of the Miracles of St. Sergius,” which constitutes the work of Simon Azaryin, printed by Platonov, p. 130), but, in all likelihood, the intention was not carried out, at least in the bibliography there is no repetition of the edition belonging to Simon Azaryin. If there is a need to quote the Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius, we will quote it from the second printed edition, i.e., the Lavra lithographic edition. The Pachomius abbreviations of Epiphanius are found in the manuscripts of the Lavra Library (to which we alone will make references): The first menain abbreviation, made between 1438–1443 (Klyuchevsk. “Old Russian Lives,” p. 118), is in manuscripts No. 746, fol. 209, and No. 771, l. 196. After the attack, which begins: “The honorable and holy fasting class will come, the fathers and brethren will come...”, the very abbreviation begins: “For a certain man is blessed, and Mary is his friend bound by law.” The second menaine reduction, made between 1449–1459 (Klyuchevsk. Ibid., p. 116), is in manuscripts No. 136, fol. 557; No. 641, l. 156; No. 669, l. 279; Nos. 761–763, 777, 778 and 787; Nos. 136–778 begin with the same attack as the previous abbreviation, after which the abbreviation itself begins: “There was a certain man in the city of Rostov, named Kiril, blessed and fearing God.” The first prologue abbreviation, more extensive, assigned for reading according to the 2nd kathisma, is in manuscripts No. 264, fol. 112, and No. 466, l. 278. After an attack that begins with the same words as (in minea contractions, the contraction itself begins [in RKP. No. 264] with the same words as the second minea contraction; in RKP. No. 466: “there was a certain man in Rostov named Kiriil with his wife Maria, named faithful and fearing God.” In No. 466, the abbreviation is placed in the service to St. Sergius on September 25 as a reading from the 2nd kathisma, and in No. 264 – separately and not during the service. The second prologue abbreviation, assigned for reading from the 6th song of the canon, is in manuscripts No. 116, fol. 412; No. 136, l. 555, and No. 599, 640, 641, 643, 699, 717 and 718. It begins: “This reverend and God-bearing father of ours, Sergius, was born in the city of Rostov...” In No. 136, 599, 641, 643 and 718, the abbreviation is placed in the service itself to St. Sergius as a reading after the 6th canto canon, and in Nos. 116, 640, 699 and 717 – separately, following the service. In addition to the Pachomius prologue abbreviations of the life of St. Sergius belonging to Epiphanius, his short life is also known, read in the first part of Stroev’s “Sophia Temporary” (398) or in the second Sophia Chronicle of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” (vol. VI, p. 120); begins: “This blessed Sergei was born in Rostov to a blessed parent.” When and by whom this life was compiled remains unknown, but in it we find several new pieces of information taken from an unknown source against Epiphanius and Pachomius. Finally, in the Nikon Chronicle there is placed under the year 1392, as we mentioned above, an extensive extract from the Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius, inscribed: “The Tale of St. Sergius” (vol. IV, pp. 203–239 beginning). If the extract were made from the life in Pachomiev’s edition, then it would not have any meaning for us, but it is necessary to think that it was made from the original of Epiphanius himself, for some events are spoken of in it differently than in Pachomiev’s edition, or it is superfluous against this latter. Thus, on the one hand, it gives us, albeit in incomplete form, the original Epiphanius and reports from the latter several news that are not in the Pachomiev edition or which are read in this edition differently than how they were read in the original; on the other hand, it gives us the opportunity to see how much Pachomius, in his editing of the life of Epifaniev, corrected and remade the latter; precisely, as we said above, it gives us the opportunity to see that, with the exception of the above, the correction and rework was very insignificant. The late I. I. Sreznevsky in his “Ancient Monuments of Russian Writing and Language” points under 1392 to “Memory of the Life and Repose of St. Sergius" and says that "this legend was preserved in the Collections and, it seems, served as the main guide for the compilers of detailed lives (of which one was included in Nikon. let., vol. IV, pp. 203-239)." What I-l I-ch means remains completely unknown to us, and we think that there is some kind of misunderstanding here. In the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1863 (part III, p. 324–328) an extract from the message of Hieromonk Epiphanius, who wrote to a certain friend of his Kirill, was printed, which the publishers of the “Interlocutor” confidently accept as an extract from the letter of our Epiphanius the Wise to the Monk Kirill of Belozersky. But this is completely unfounded. The message was written in 1415 by some Moscow icon painter Epiphanius, who had not seen Constantinople (and to assume about our Epiphanius that he traveled to Constantinople after 1415 would be against all probability), and not to the Monk Kirill of Belozersky, but, as it clearly states, to some Kirill of Tver, that is, Kirill, a resident of the city Tver. The parents of St. Sergius, at their dying tonsure into monasticism, about which below, in all likelihood, had their names changed. Under what names, secular or monastic, we now know them, i.e. what names they are - Cyril and Maria - remains unknown (more likely, not secular, but monastic). The family of St. Sergius in the ascending line remains completely unknown. As for his closest descendant family, in the Lavra Fodder Book of the end of the 16th century, after his parents, Cyril and Maria, his brothers, Stefan and Peter, and Stefan’s children, Clement are recorded (see about him “Russian Time Book” from 862 to 1681, called the Kostroma Chronicle by Karamzin, printed in Moscow in 1790, part I, p. 272) and Theodore (in the world Ivan, who died as Archbishop of Rostov). The feed book was printed by Archimandrite. Leonid in the appendices to his editions of “Historical Description of the Lavra” by A.V. Gorsky. In the Lavra Synodik of the beginning of the 17th century (manuscript No. 43, fol. 11 vol. fin.), after the parents, Cyril and Mary, brothers, Stefan and Peter, and Stefan's son Clement, unknown people are also mentioned - the priest monk Cyprian and Matthew (some suggest that the son of Peter's brother). In one of the synodics of the Rostov Epiphany Monastery, after Cyril and Mary, Stephen and Peter, Clement and Archbishop Theodore, the unknown ones are still remembered - Varvara and Simon. In the synodikon of the Pereyaslav Nikitsky Monastery, the family of St. Sergius, Maria, Clement, Stefan, Archbishop Theodore, Peter, schemamonk Levkiy (see extract from the synodikon in the “Collection” of Count M.V. Tolstoy, vol. IX, p. 9, printed catalog of the library of the Moscow Theological Academy No. 21026). The family of St. Sergius is recorded in the RKP. Trinity-Sergius Lavra (No. 295, fol. 4 vol.), in the Description (p. 74); in the synodikon of the Andronikov Monastery (see Historical description of the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery by Arch. Sergius, appendix, p. 18 fin.). In the Khotkovsky monastery, above the tomb of Cyril and Mary, there is an icon of the Sign of the Mother of God, on which their children are depicted, and it is Bartholomew, that is, St. Sergius, Stephen and Peter, and then Stephen’s wife Anna and Peter’s wife Catherine (see the book “Pokrovsky Khotkov nunnery”, 8th ed., 1896, which we have at hand, p. 31) beginning S.K. Smirnov in his “Month of the Lavra” on September 28 names the spouses of Stephen and Peter, Anna and Catherine, incorrectly referring to the stern Lavra book, but probably borrowing information from the now mentioned Khotkovo icon). It is said about the mother of St. Sergius that during the liturgy she stood “with the other wives in the vestibule.” This means that in our ancient and ancient times, following the Greeks and equally with the Bulgarians and Serbs, women stood in churches for worship separately from men and precisely behind them, in the rear sections of the churches. Among the Serbs this is still the case, and the back half of the churches is called the women's church - "women's church"; we don’t know if this is still the case in Little Russia, but the back half of the churches there is still called Babinets (in Great Russia, at least in some places, the back half of the churches, which was the place where women stood, is called or was called a meal. See also my “History of the Russian Church” I vol., 2nd half., pp. 205–209 of the 1st edition and pp. 239– 243 according to 2nd ed.). About the estate, or estate, of the parents of the Monk Sergius Epiphanius says that it “was not within the boundaries of the Rostov reign, not very close to the city of Rostov” (l. 49 beginning). From these words of Epiphanius it follows that the legend of the Rostov Varnitsky Monastery, located only three miles from Rostov, to the west of it along the Uglich road, that it was erected on the site of the estate of the parents of St. Sergius, cannot at all claim to be particularly reliable. “It’s not very close to the city of Rostov... within the boundaries of the Rostov reign” - this, obviously, is not talking about a three-verst distance. From the “History of the Hierarchy” it follows that the tradition of the monastery is not old, but completely new, recent. The author of the “History of the Hierarchy”, writing according to information that was brought from the monasteries themselves, says that the monastery existed, according to the certificate of Tsar Michael Fedorovich, under the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich (1505–1533), “it was built first by whom and in what year exactly, on what occasion, by whose permission and at whose expense it is unknown” (vol. III, p. 500, volume printed in 1811). And Metropolitan Platon, in his Notes about the trip to Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir, made in 1792, mentioning the Varnitsky Monastery (under the name of the Trinity), says nothing about our tradition, whereas if the tradition existed, then, in his relationship to the Lavra and St. Sergius, he could not help but turn his attention to it and say something about it (see Notes in “Life” Metropolitan Plato”, owned by Snegirev, according to a new edition in Moscow (1856) in the appendices to the 2nd part, p. If the main church in the monastery is in honor of the Holy Trinity, which is why the monastery is called Trinity, and in the church there is a chapel in the name of St. Sergius of Radonezh, then this does not give any reason to assume that the monastery was built on the site of the estate of the parents of St. Sergius; unknown builders of the monastery could dedicate the main church of the monastery to the same name of the Holy Trinity with the Sergius monastery and build a chapel in it in honor of St. Sergius only because he was from Rostovets. Returning from Nizhny Novgorod to Moscow in 1365, the Monk Sergius blessed unknown creators to erect the St. George Hermitage in the Gorokhovetsky district of the Vladimir province on the Klyazma River. From the very beginning and until the very end of its existence, this desert was under the authority of the Trinity Monastery, and in one letter about it to the Trinity Monastery of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich it is written: “I am (am) granted to the desert of the life-giving Trinity and to the great martyr of Christ Yegorgius, where the conception of the great miracle worker Sergius took place, which (in Gorokhovsky district, for in order for the miracle-working name of Sergius to be glorified" (see the letter in the 1st edition of the Mukhanov Collection, No. 130, p. 201; reprinted in the Guide from Moscow to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra by I.M. Snegirev, M., 1856, note 3, and by Archimandrite Leonid in his editions of the Historical Description Lavra of A.V. Gorsky, to Chapter X, note 28). But it seems incredible to admit that such a completely unfounded legend could arise, and in the words of the letter one must see a peculiar and not particularly good expression of the idea that the desert was begun, founded by St. Sergius (moreover, it was St. George’s and at the same time the Conception, see East. Description. Rumyants. music., p. 80 fin., No. 52, l. 101). In this letter, the place of a desert that had been deserted for 70 years before and overgrown with forests is “in Gorokhovsky district, on the Klyazma river, in the floodplains of the swamp.” “Lake Glushitsa on the river on the Oka, which flowed into the river at Ushna,” which Varsonofy Yakimov asked for and which was given to the desert, was probably located not far from it. In another letter from Fyodor Ivanovich about the same desert in the Trinity Monastery, it says without ambiguity: “And the miracle worker Sergius himself erected that desert and the church, as our great-grandfather Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy sent him to Nizhny Novgorod to Prince Boris Konstantinovich about peace” (letter from Archimandrite Leonid, ibid., to Chapter X note 10). The culprit of the incorrect and ambiguous expression of the royal letter about the desert, in all likelihood, was the elder of the Trinity Monastery, Barsanuphius Yakimov, who made requests to the king about the desert and who was later made its builder (in the sense of a ktitor). In his petitions to the Tsar about the desert, he wrote that there was “in the Gorokhovsky district the Hermitage of Sergei the Wonderworker, the conception” (see the royal letter to the Trinity Monastery in Volume I of “Historical Acts”, No. 229, p. 434), and by conception he meant, as he puts it in his spiritual letter, “the installation and conception of Sergius the Wonderworker,” i.e. e. the founding of the desert by Sergius the Wonderworker (the spiritual letter was printed by Father Arseny in the appendix to the “Description of the Vvedenskaya and Pyatnitskaya churches of Sergiev Posad”, placed in the IV book of “Readings of General History and Ancient Russia” for 1894). But the royal office understood his words in the sense that there was a conception, that is, a carnal conception, of Sergius the Wonderworker himself. It is likely to think that the Zachatievskaya Hermitage is also called the Conception Hermitage in the royal charter (Vostokov in the Description of Rumyants, music., p. 80 fin.) due to the same misinterpretation of the word “conception”. (See about the St. George Desert below, in the speeches about the monasteries assigned to the Lavra). One gentleman reproached us for explaining the words of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich’s letter as completely unnecessary and could not mislead anyone. But in 1897, P. Konchalovsky published the book “From Moscow to Arkhangelsk along the Moscow-Yaroslavl-Arkhangelsk Railway,” from which it turns out that our explanation was not at all unnecessary, indeed. Konchalovsky, misled by the letter of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, specifically claims that the parents of the Monk Sergius, before settling in Rostov, lived in the Gorokhovetsky district of the Vladimir province and that the conception of the saint followed here (p. 97 fin.). Epiphanius is in mutual contradiction between the testimony about the year of birth of the Monk Sergius and the testimony about the age at which he died, or the number of years of his life. As for the year of birth of the monk, without indicating or indicating it directly, Epiphanius says that Sergius was born “in the great reign of Tfer, under the Grand Duke Dimitri Mikhailovich, when (there was) the army of Akhmulov.” Dmitry Mikhailovich occupied the grand-ducal throne from 1322 to 1326; the army of Akhmulov, namely Akhmul, or Akhmyl, the Khan's ambassador, took place in 1322 (about this rati- Novgorod. 1st year. in the Complete collection of Russian let., vol. III, p. 72; Sofiysk. let., ibid., vol. V, p. 216; Voskresensk. let., ibid., vol. VII, p. 198; Nikon. years., vol. III, p. 127: “that same summer, a strong ambassador came to Rus' from the Horde with Prince Ivan Danilovich, named Akhmyl, and did a lot of dirty tricks on the Nizovsky land and took Yaroslavl and killed many Christians and took countless numbers of them.” Consequently, according to the testimony given, the Monk Sergius was born in 1322. But then we read from Epiphanius that the monk died in 1392, “living 70 and 8 years” (in the life itself), that he reposed from this life “seventy and eight years” (in the laudatory speech), from which second testimony it follows that he was born in 1314. Regarding two contradictory testimonies, at first glance and in itself it would seem most likely to think that the contradiction does not belong to Epiphanius himself, but to some later copyist of the life, who made a mistake, or error, when reproducing it. Considering this most likely, one would have to think that an error was made not in the testimony about the year of birth of the Monk Sergius, but in the indication of the number of years of his life, for in the first testimony, made not by indicating the annual figure, but by indicating the event, an error could not be made, and it could only be made in the second testimony - by changing the number 70 (what age would have been in 1392 the Monk Sergius, born in 1322) to the number 78. In reality, however, it seems most likely to think that the contradiction belongs to Epiphanius himself and that, while making a correct statement in the second case - regarding the years of life of St. Sergius, he makes a mistake in the first case - regarding the year of his birth. If we accept that the Monk Sergius was born in 1322, then this year will not agree with the other testimony of Epiphanius, which cannot be viewed as errors of the scribes and regarding which it is less likely to admit his own fallacy than regarding the testimony about the year of birth of the monk. Sergius's parents, as Epiphanius lets us know, moved from Rostov to Radonezh in 1330–1331 (see below); if he, Sergius, had been born in 1322, then at the moment of the resettlement he would have been 8 or 9 years old; meanwhile, the same Epiphanius makes it known that at that moment he was at least 15 years old (Sergius’s mother, admonishing him to abandon the harsh fast that was beyond his years, tells him in Rostov that he is not yet 12 years old, i.e., that he is still only 12 years old (fol. 46), and after this Sergius’s parents, as we know, lived in Rostov for some more time, not a very short one). If it can be objected to what is now indicated that here Epiphanius simply did not particularly care about strict chronological sequence, then here is another case regarding which this objection can no longer apply. The Monk Sergius retired to the desert for monastic asceticism together with his elder brother Stephen; Stefan, who soon left Sergius in the desert and retired to Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery, found Saint Alexy, the future metropolitan, in the monastery, with whom he lived in it for some time, again, as we know, not a particularly short time, but Saint Alexy was taken from the monastery to become the governor of Metropolitan Theognostus no later than 1340, for he was installed as bishop on December 6 1352, he was before that governor for more than 12 years, but if Stefan came from Sergius to Moscow some time before 1340, then, on the other hand, we know that Sergius, who took monastic tonsure immediately after Stefan left him, was 23 years old at the moment of this tonsure. Sergius, who died in 1392, served as abbot for 48 years (as evidenced by the catalog of the Trinity abbots, as well as individual records, as discussed below), but if he had been born in 1322, it would have turned out that he was appointed abbot for 22 years, while he took monastic vows for 23 years. From what has been said, it follows that Sergius was born earlier than 1322, in other words, it follows that of the two disputed years, 1314 should be accepted. As for Epiphanius’s contradiction to himself, it does not seem likely to think that he would allow it precisely as a contradiction, because it would be very rude on his part. It is much more likely to think that he was misled by some chronicle in which the years were set incorrectly. Not on his own, as he should think, but precisely misled by some bad chronicle, the chronograph itself, Epiphanius makes that undoubted very gross mistake that he dates the birth of St. Sergius to the time of the Patriarch of Constantinople Callistus, while of the two patriarchs Callistus Callistus 1st occupied the patriarchal see for the first time only in 1350. “I want to say,” writes Epiphanius, “times and years, the monk was born in nyaz; in the years of the pious, glorious, sovereign king Andronik, autocrat of Greece, who reigned in Constantinople (1282–1328) under the archbishop of the city of Constantine Calista, the universal patriarch” (l. 35). It is remarkable that we find a similar erroneous chronology in the legend, or record, about the Nizhny Novgorod princess Vasilisa, the wife of Prince Andrei Konstantinovich, about whom it is said that she was born in 1331, during the reign of the Greek Emperor Andronicus and under the Patriarch of Constantinople Callistus (Nikon. Let., vol. IV, p. 78; Degree Book., vol. I, p. 486). It is likely that the source of erroneous information in both cases is the same. There are scholars who recognize the testimony read from Epiphanius that St. Sergius died at the age of 78, not for what was transferred by later scribes, but for what belonged to him and who, however, consider it most likely to see an error in his testimony precisely in this testimony, and not in the testimony about the year of birth. But if it could be positively proven that the number 78, denoting the years of life of the Monk Sergius, is the true Epiphanius figure, then the dispute would undoubtedly be resolved in the sense, on the contrary, that the Monk Sergius was born in 1314, for it is impossible to admit that Epiphanius, who lived in the monastery of the Monk Sergius with him for 15-17 years, was in the monastery at the moment of his death and who began collecting materials for his life immediately after his death, did not know or did not find out how many years of life he died. The late N. S. Tikhonravov, who was specially involved in the chronology of the life of St. Sergius (what he did for the life of St. Sergius, see in the Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Words. Imperial Academy of Sciences, vol. LIV, St. Petersburg, 1893, report, p. 11 and “Bulletin of Europe”, 1897, March, p. 230 sub fin., article by A. Pypin), assured us that there are a considerable number of lists of the life of Epiphaniev, according to which the Monk Sergius was tonsured a monk not for 23 years, as in the well-known lists, but for 20 years, was a monk not for 55, but for 50 years, and died, having not 78, but 70 years. It may very well be that this is completely true (although, in any case, we have reason to think that regarding the number of lists, N. S. fell into exaggeration). This will obviously mean that one of the two rows of numbers represents a later crossing. But which one exactly - this cannot be decided through lists, and the solution is not through lists, but through other data from life - in favor of seeing the crossing in a series of numbers - 20, 50 and 70, taking them for the unsuccessful conjecture of some later scribe. V. O. Klyuchevsky (Old Russian Lives, p. 106, note) indicates that the number 78 appears as an insertion in the Pachomius abbreviation of the life of Epifaniev. This is absolutely true, but it is not at all an insertion in the life of Epiphanius itself. Pachomius, literally rewriting Epiphanius in this place, omitted the words: “the monk is alive for all the years 70 and 8,” and after that these words were inserted somewhat out of place. Moreover, it is quite possible that the insertion of words out of place does not belong to Pachomius himself, but to the copyists of his life, for in some of the latter’s lists they are in the proper place (see, for example, Volokolamsk RKP. No. 645, fol. 330 fin.). Talking about the baptism of Bartholomew by the priest, Epiphanius says: “The priest, having announced him and prayed a lot over him, baptized him with spiritual joy and diligence” (l. 19). It may lead the reader to bewilder what “having prayed a lot” means, that is, what does it mean that at the baptism of Bartholomew the priest read more prayers than usual and than was required. But this “having prayed a lot” does not mean anything real and is simply an oratorical clumsiness used to produce a greater effect (Simon Azaryin corrects the awkward “having prayed a lot” into the coherent “having prayed as usual”). Epiphanius also has similar spectacular oratorical inconsistencies, but we will not indicate them. Of the Greek saints, it is said about St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in his life that “he was still a baby, from the gums to the breast, and from that alone he fed during the day, on Wednesday and Friday at the appointed ninth hour of milk” (see excerpt from the life in Pandects of Nikon the Montenegrin, f. 57, printed sheet 470). Of our Russian saints, the same thing that is said about St. Sergius is said about St. Macarius of Kolyazin, who died a century after St. Sergius (1483). In the biography writer’s original: “they fall for punishment.” The Old Slavonic “klyusya”, which was hardly used in living Russian speech and which Epiphanius probably takes from books to show off his learning, in Russian means “beast of burden, hinny, horse” (see Vostokov’s “Dictionary of the Church Slavonic Language”). Pachomius did not find it possible to present the matter in such a way that the boyar’s son was sent into the field to look for horses, and says in his abbreviations that he himself went out into the field for a walk. “The elder raised his hand, hands and eyes to heaven, and sighed to God and made a diligent prayer” (l. 39 vol. beginning). This constitutes evidence that in the time of Epiphanius we still prayed by raising our hands. Epiphanius says: “The great reign went to the great prince Ivan Danilovich, and the reign of Rostov went to Moscow” (l. 50). Since the Rostov appanage was not destroyed in order to be annexed to Moscow, it remains to understand Epiphanius in the sense that the reign of Rostov was given into deliberate subordination to the Grand Duke. We cannot say what this deliberate submission meant, because, except for Epiphanius, we do not find any speech about it in anyone (cf.: Karamz., vol. IV, p. 141 and Solov., vol. III, 4th ed., p. 281 fin.). That the principality of Rostov was given into deliberate subordination to Ivan Danilovich a year after he received the great reign - this is made clear by Epiphanius when he says that in Rostov rape began from Moscow “in (one) year” after the army of Fedorchukova-Turalykova, which took place immediately after Ivan Danilovich received the great reign, and about which see note on next page. The power book says that under Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich one half of Rostov was annexed to Moscow, and that the other half was bought from the Rostov princes by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich (II, p. 132 fin.). The Typographical Chronicle makes the same thing known, dating the purchase by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of the second half of Rostov and the entire principality to 1474 (p. 284). But if Moscow had received one half of Rostov into its power, then from the terror that had come in it, which is now being discussed, people could go to the other half, which remained free from Moscow. Yes, and Epiphanius does not present the matter this way, but precisely in such a way that the entire reign of Rostov went to Moscow, becoming more or less dependent on it. This terror, which is not entirely clear to us, is, of course, not Epifanieva’s invention. But the incomprehensibility for us is increased by the fact that in 1328 Ivan Danilovich married his daughter to the Rostov prince Konstantin Vasilyevich (Academic chronicle under this year, Karamz., vol. IV, note 303 fin.). However, the Grand Duke was in the most hostile relationship with his other son-in-law, Prince of Yaroslavl Vasily Davidovich (Karamz., vol. IV, p. 143). Epiphany's story about the terror of Rostov, in order not to find it incredible, compare with the story of the 1st Pskov Chronicle about the terror that arose in Pskov after the latter was subjugated to Moscow (Complete collection of Russian let., vol. IV, p. 288). From Pskov, as well as from Rostov, from taxes and from the violence of the Moscow governors, “many fled to foreign cities.” About how the father of the Monk Sergius turned from a rich man into a poor man, Epiphanius writes: “This already mentioned servant of God Cyril, who formerly had a great life in the Rostov region, was a boyar, one of the glorious and deliberate boys, abounding in wealth to many, but later, in old age, poverty and poverty; what and what (what) for the sake of impoverishment, and let’s say this: like frequent marches, hedgehog with the prince, to the Horde, frequent Tatar armies, hedgehog to Rus', frequent Tatar ambassadors, frequent heavy tributes and exits, hedgehog to the Horde, frequent grain famines, above all these and more, when there was a great Tatar army, the verb Fedorchyukova-Turalykov” (fol. 49 fin.). The army of Fedorchukov-Turalykov took place in 1328. On August 15, 1327, the residents of Tver, led by their prince Alexander Mikhailovich, who was also the Russian Grand Duke at that time, beat the khan's ambassadors living with them. The Khan gave the great reign to the Moscow Prince Ivan Danilovich, and to devastate the Tver region as punishment for the murder of the ambassadors, in the winter of 1328 he sent with him five of his temniks (ten-thousandth governors) - Fedorchuk, or, as in other chronicles, Fedor, Chuk, Turalyk, Syuga and one or two unknown names. Temniki, taking advantage of the opportunity, as most of the time happened on other occasions, devastated not only the Tver region, but also others, with the exception of the Moscow region. The Nikon Chronicle speaks of our army: “And then there was great burden and languor and bloodshed for the entire Russian land from the Tatars... many peasants were killed and captured... and the Tatars returned with many to the Horde” (vol. III, p. 138; see also Sophia let. in Complete collection of Russian let., vol. V, p. 217 fin., and Voskresensk let., ibid., vol. VII, p. 200 fin.). As for the fact that trips to the Horde could ruin people, then, firstly, numerous bow distributions to the khan’s officials there, from large to small, must have been very expensive, and secondly, it sometimes happened that Russian princes with their retinues were literally robbed there. About the Rostov princes it is said in the chronicles under 1361 that they were robbed in the Horde and released naked (Tversk. let. in the Complete collection of Russian let., vol. XV, p. 428; Voskresensk. let., ibid., vol. VIII, p. 11; in Nikon. let., vol. III, p. 218, it is read erroneously: “izbezhasha robbery” instead of “izbezhasha robbery”, and “izbezhasha” means “ran out”). About Radonezh, see below, in Chapter XII. Guidebook. About the tonsure of the parents of St. Sergius in the Khotkovo monastery, Epiphanius expresses that “each of them departed in due time to their own monastery” (l. 55). This speech about one dual monastery as two separate monasteries should be understood in such a way that, in view of the not particularly plausible dual monasteries, which constituted only a tolerable evil, it was undesirable for Epiphanius to inform the reader that the parents of St. Sergius took monastic vows in one of such monasteries. About the Khotkovo Monastery, see below, in Chapter XII of the Guide. Pachomius, in his abbreviations, correcting Epiphanius for the better, as we said above, forces Bartholomew not to give the inheritance to his younger brother Peter, but to distribute it to the poor. The river on which the Trinity Lavra stands is called Konsera in one “data” of the monastery, dating back to the time of the abbess of St. Nikon (1392–1428) (see Hieromonk Arseny in the article “On the immovable estates of the Trinity Monastery during the life of its founder St. Sergius,” p. 7), and in the calendar under the name of St. Sergius this ancient name of the river is retained even in the 17th century century: “the repose of our venerable father Sergius... also in Makovets on the river on Konser” (Academic. fundamental. RKP. No. 78, fol. 27 vol.); Palitsyn calls it a kennel, ch. 35 and 51 (in some manuscripts in the first case, instead of Konshur, Konshor is read). The river on which the monastery stands, near the northwestern corner of the monastery, is formed from two rivers (the insignificant of the two insignificant). According to the monastery acts, the one of the two rivers that flows in the Blagoveshchensk enemy is Konchura itself; on Konchura there was a monastery stable yard (see. file of the Lavra archive of 1777, No. 26, about digging a pond near the stable yard, and it stood on a river flowing in the Blagoveshchensk enemy, as well as on the plan of the Lavra of 1775, No. 32/290); it is the river that flows in the Blagoveshchensk enemy that is called Konchura, and the one of the two rivers that flows in the Mishutinsky enemy, separating Kokuevo from the Shtatnaya Sloboda, is Vandyuga (see the case of the Lavra archive of 1844, No. 162, about the construction of a new bridge over the Vandyuga river to the Shtatnaya quarter). On the contrary, among the residents of Posad, who know the names of their rivers (and many do not), the river flowing in the Mishutinsky enemy is taken for Konchura, and the river flowing in the Blagoveshchensky enemy is taken for Vandyugu. And one of the residents of Posad, posing as a person who knows more than others, told us that Konchura is only a river formed from two rivers; As for the latter, the current one in the Mishutinsky enemy is Vondyuga, and the real name of the current one in the Blagoveshchensky enemy is Butyrka. Since the Blagoveshchensky enemy is adjacent to the back of Posad (on the right, or western, side) by a hay meadow called Butyrki, it is very possible that my more knowledgeable person incorrectly transfers the name of the meadow to the river, but, on the other hand, it is also possible that the meadow is named after the river and that the name Butyrka is really one of the names of the latter (only this would contradict Dahl’s interpretation of the word “Butyrka” in his The dictionary, according to which it is applicable to villages, and not to rivers, and our townsman Butyrki can mean a courtyard from a former settlement or settlement). In the chronicle abbreviation of the life of St. Sergius regarding the place that the brothers chose for settlement, the following is read, taken from nowhere: “An ancient verb: I saw in that place the light, and another fire, and another fragrance I heard” (Full collection of Russian let., vol. VI, p. 120 fin.). The name of the place on which the monastery stands is explained by Makovets in such a way that the monastery stands “on a mountain, rounded on three sides,” that is, they accept that the word “Makovets” is another form of the word “makovka,” which means “top,” “top” (actually, the head on the church). But the word “makovka” has a different form - “makovitsa” and does not have the form “makovets” at all, which word does not exist in the Russian language at all. Moreover, in the case of the identity of the word “makovets” with the word “makovka”, it would be said about the monastery on Makovets, and not in Makovets, whereas the latter expression is always used (see, for example, Complete collection of Russian let., vol. IV, p. 213 beginning: “... one hundred in Makovets, in the Sergeev monastery”). When they say that the monastery stands on a mountain, they obviously mean not that it actually stands on a mountain, but that its area was called Makovets and that the name is given the meaning of a mountain. In fact, the monastery, surrounded on two sides by a ravine, and on the third having a ravine in front of it, which in itself really constitutes some kind of mountain, in relation to its entire area does not stand on a mountain at all, but, on the contrary, in a lowland, in a depression (so the famous Paul of Aleppo, a companion of the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, quite rightly points out among the disadvantages of its location that “it is located in a deep valley, and not on a hill”). Therefore, the expression found in old manuscripts about the location of the monastery “in Makovskaya Mountain” (see, for example, the entry on the back board of Academic Fundamental Manuscript No. 102) should be understood to mean that our old philologists, like some new ones, identified the word “Makovets” with the word “Makovka” and that by mountain they meant that particular mountain that we indicated. The name of the place, inexplicable from the Russian language, should in all likelihood be considered Finnish, left over from the original inhabitants of the area (not disappeared, it is implied, but Russified). Epiphanius says: “First she created for herself one hizina and covered it, then she created one cell and covered a small church” (l. 58). Odrina hizina (but not odrina and hizina, as the word “yu” also shows), that is, a hut, a hut for firewood, for beds, a hut for sleeping. About the time of the consecration of the church, Epiphanius says: “The church was sacred under the Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich, I remember, as he decreed at the beginning of his reign” (l. 60). If we accepted that the Monk Sergius was born in 1322, then the consecration of the church, which took place in the same year as his tonsure as a monk, would have to be attributed to 1345 - this would indeed have been during the reign of Simeon Ivanovich, but it was impossible to say about this that at the beginning of the reign, because Simeon Ivanovich occupied the grand-ducal throne from 1340 to 1353. And since it must be accepted that St. Sergius was born in 1314, then the consecration of the church must be dated back to 1337, which will be one of the last years of the reign of Ivan Danilovich Kalita, who died on March 31, 1340. See the Slavic blessed letter to the confessor in Kalachov’s “Legal Acts” (I, no. 24, col. 63), and in A. S. Pavlov’s “Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law” (1, no. 133, col. 913 fin.), and the Greek letters in the Syntagma of Rally and Potli (V, p. 573 sqq.). (The hieromonks who served in the parish churches and did not have the right to clergy were initially called black priests, and then, it seems, they also began to be called abbots (cfr. “Act. Exped.”, vol. I, no. 85, p. 61); Addition to “Act. Histor.” (vol. I, no. 20, p. 24); Stroeva, “Lists of Hierarchs” (col. 889–890). About the duration of the solitary stay of the Monk Sergius in the desert, Epiphanius says: “I don’t know (I don’t know), God knows” (fol. 83). Between the tonsure of St. Sergius as a monk in 1337 and between his installation as abbot in 1344, there was a period of seven years. This interval of seven years embraces, or during this interval falls, the solitary stay of the Monk Sergius in the desert and the gradual coming to him of the brethren, or the gradual formation of a real monastery around his cell. Since within seven years we cannot assign a specific time for the gradual formation of a monastery, then within the same seven years a specific time cannot be assigned for the solitary sojourn of St. Sergius in the desert. Epiphanius says that many animals - wolves and bears - often came upon the saint not only at night, but also during the day, and that he suffered a lot of anger and sorrow from demons and from animals and from reptiles (l. 71 vol., 72). Pachomius has no animals or reptiles, but only demons, who were sometimes transformed into animals, and sometimes into snakes. And Simon Azaryin in the “Book of New Miracles...” speaks about the many reptiles and creeping serpents that appeared to the monk to intimidate him, that “now, with his prayers, around his monastery for ten miles and more there are no crawling snakes, and until the bell rings out, they will not come powerfully close” (printed, p. 10 beginning). As for the demonic phenomena, the biography writer, saying in general that the devil brought many different dreams and menacing ghosts to the monk, tells two particular cases of these dream phenomena. One day the monk entered his church at night to sing matins. Suddenly the church wall parted, and through the hole formed in it, the devil entered the church with many demonic warriors, who were dressed in Lithuanian clothes and Lithuanian pointed hats. The demons rushed at the monk, although they destroyed the church and the place to the ground, and gnashed their teeth at him and threatened to kill him. But the monk, turning to the psalm prayer, took a cross instead of a weapon, with which he immediately drove away the devil and his demons. Another time, the monk performed his all-night prayer in his cell. Suddenly there was a noise and a knock, “there was much rebellion and confusion and fear” - the demons again came to the blessed one in a herd, shouting uncontrollably and threateningly saying: “Get away, get away from this place, what did you come to look for in this desert,” etc. But the monk drove away the demons in the same way as the first time. In the inventory of 1641–1643. Mention is made of “two missals on the harati, bundles on a tree, the wonderworker Sergius.” Similar “haratean scrolls” were in the sacristy of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral (see “Inventory of the Patriarchal Sacristy of 1631” in the “Bulletin of the Society of Old Russian Art”, 1874, p. 16 and separately: M., 1876, pp. 64–65). When presenting particulars, due to the desire for greater edification and greater, so to speak, effectiveness, Epiphanius sometimes allows obvious self-contradictions and some inconsistencies. With the exception of one case, namely the story about the miracle of extracting a source, we will not point out these self-contradictions and inconsistencies and will not accuse him of them, but will simply present the matter as it should be presented. [This was also observed in the 18th century:] The Valaam monks wrote in 1732 that “fraternal cells are built by the brethren who want to live and work in this monastery” (see Chistovich’s “Feofan Prokopovich”, p. 334, note). “And at mass you called (St. Sergius) a certain foreign priest with the rank or abbot of an elder” (fol. 89 fin.). Here it is absolutely clear that by the abbot-elder one should mean not the abbot of the monastery, but the hieromonk who served in the parish church, for the abbots of the monasteries, of course, would not go to some hermits in order to serve mass for them for hire. Epiphanius says that in the monastery “various seeds are sown, as if for the establishment of a potion” (fol. 91 vol.). Although in all the lists known to us it reads “okladny,” we believe that this is a common mistake in all lists—instead of “ogradny,” that is, “garden,” because the word “okladny” seems completely incomprehensible in this case (Archimandrite Leonid printed “okladny,” p. 64, but in Lavra manuscripts No. 663 and 698, from which he printed, in both, “okladny”). Epiphanius says that St. Sergius was made abbot by Bishop Athanasius of Volyn, who lived in Pereyaslavl, while St. Alexis was in Constantinople to be ordained metropolitan (fol. 101 vol.). But Saint Alexy was in Constantinople to be appointed metropolitan from May-June 1353 to July-August 1355 (see “History of the Russian Church,” vol. II, 1st half, pp. 182–183 notes), so this represents a mistake on the part of Epiphanius for as much as 9–10 years. In explanation of Epiphanius’s very large, or very gross, mistake, the following can be said. He knew that the Monk Sergius was made abbot not by the metropolitan himself, but by Bishop Athanasius; he could know this, if not from the commission, or commission, of the letter to Sergius (which may not have had a chronological date), then by seeing the performance by the monk, during which he lived in the monastery for about 16–17 years, of deliberate commemorations of Athanasius as his dedicator (this is still considered obligatory for good priests, and the missal makes it obligatory for priests to remember the bishops from whom they received ordination at every liturgy). In explaining why the Monk Sergius was appointed abbot not by the metropolitan himself, but by Bishop Athanasius, Epiphanius suggested that this was due to the non-existence of the metropolitan in Moscow. For some reason, he could not imagine that this would be during the Metropolitan’s absence in Moscow, so to speak, at home, that is, when the Metropolitan was absent from Moscow to visit any place of his metropolis, but thought about the absence, so to speak, abroad, when there was no metropolitan in the metropolis at all. But the case of the second absence around the time when the Monk Sergius was installed as abbot, represented precisely and only the time of Saint Alexis’s journey to Constantinople for his installation as a metropolitan. And thus, by making a major, or gross, mistake, Epiphanius could diverge from reality for as much as 9–10 years. And that on the part of Epiphanius there were possible gross chronological errors and that they actually occur in him - we pointed out this above. The Monk Sergius could have been installed as abbot not by Metropolitan Theognost himself, but by Bishop Athanasius of Volyn, who was living in Pereyaslavl, for the reason that the Metropolitan was leaving Moscow somewhere and that during his absence he entrusted the bishop with the management of the part of the metropolis closest to him, and the area of the monastery of St. Sergius should have been part of this part (positive information there is no information about the existence or non-existence of Metropolitan Theognost in Moscow in 1344). But it seems most likely to us to think that Metropolitan Theognostus gave Athanasius the permanent administration of the part of the metropolis closest to Pereyaslavl so that the bishop would have something to live with, that is, so that he could be supported by income from the part of the metropolis given to him. As for Athanasius himself, he was installed as a bishop in 1328 (see the article “Notes on the installation of Russian bishops under Metropolitan Theognostus in the Vatican Greek Collection,” published in the Journal of Min. Nar. Prosveshch., 1888, No. 2, p. 450), he arrived in Moscow before 1344, as one might think, due to his reluctance to submit to the separate Galician-Volyn metropolitan appointed between 1341–1344 (for which see the decree of Patriarch Isidore of 1347 on the closure of the Galician metropolitanate, printed in the Acta Patriarchat. Constantinop. Miklosic (I, p. 267), and in “Monuments of Canon Law” by A. S. Pavlov (1, appendix No. 7). According to the assumption of the author of the Historical and Statistical Description of the Smolensk Diocese (unknown, St. Petersburg, 1864), this was the archimandrite of the Borisoglebsky Monastery on Smyadyn, which was built on the site of the murder of St. Gleb and which should be taken as the oldest monastery of the Smolensk region in the 14th century (p. 212). Epiphanius only says that Simon “brought the property with him and gave it to the abbot (i.e., St. Sergius) for the construction of the monastery” (l. 114). Pachomius speaks about the construction of a new church and the reconstruction of the monastery in his shortened life. From this latter we read: “And bring a lot of property (Simon) with you and give it in the hands of the saint, so that he can build a great church, and it will be; Elma (in the meaning then) a wise shepherd and a wise man in virtues (i.e. Sergius) erected a larger monastery, so he commanded to create cells in four shapes, in the middle of them the church in the name of the life-giving Trinity is visible from everywhere, like a mirror.” In the “Answer to the Curious,” which constitutes the 10th chapter of his “Spiritual Letter,” or monastic charter. In Epiphanius it is read according to some lists: “Bring him a sieve of rotten loaves of bread,” according to other lists: “Bring him a sieve of rotten loaves of bread.” We don’t know what the first of the two learned words taken by Epiphanius from books means (compare note 1 on p. 18); the second, as we said above (note on p. 6), means “broken dry pieces of bread” (actually, crackers). Epiphany presumably attributes the settlement of lay people around the monastery to the reign of Grand Duke Ivan Ivanovich, who occupied the grand-ducal throne from 1353 to 1359: “there was no feeling, as in the days of the reign of Prince the Great Ivan, son of Ivan” (fol. 127 vol.). But we think that in reality it was somewhat earlier - during the reign of Simeon Ivanovich and no later than 1350. With the settlement of lay people around the monastery, there came an abundance of everything in it, and Epiphanius himself makes it clear that the time of scarcity was not particularly long. Patriarch Joachim writes the name of the holy Metropolitan Alexy - Alexey (Historical Russian Hierarchy, vol. II, p. 538 fin.). This information about Stephen is reported by Epiphanius (l. 61 fin. sqq.). Stefan, returning to Sergius, brought his youngest son to him as a 12-year-old boy. It must be assumed that this youngest son was born to Stephen a year and no more than two years before St. Sergius was tonsured as a monk. And since the Monk Sergius became a monk in 1337, then the return of Stephen to him must be attributed to 1348 or 1347 (in the very story about the return of Stephen to Sergius, Epiphanius says that John was at that time, according to some, 10, and according to others, 12 years old, but then in the story about the construction of the Simonov Monastery he directly says that he was 12 years old, Therefore, we, for our part, accept only the last indication). From the contractual document between Grand Duke Simeon Ivanovich and his brothers, written in 1341, and from his spiritual will, written in 1353 (Collected State Charters and Treaties, vol. I, pp. 37 and 38), it follows that in the first year Stefan was not yet, and in the second year he was no longer Simeon Ivanovich’s confessor, for among those present at the writing his letters and wills are not listed as spiritual. Referring to Alexy's stay in Constantinople only the installation of Sergius as hegumen, Epiphanius, of course, dates his introduction of a dormitory in the monastery to a much later time, although in this case he does not say anything directly about the time. Philotheus, according to whose charter Sergius introduced the hostel, occupied the patriarchal see twice: the first time for a short time - from May 1354 to the beginning of 1355, the second time - from October 1364 to the end of 1376. To attribute the introduction by Sergius of the community in his monastery to the second patriarchate of Philotheus would mean to attribute it to too late a time, against which simple considerations and the positive data and indications we have speak against. The Monk Sergius founded his monastery in the years 1330-1344, and, therefore, 1365, which constitutes the first year of the second patriarchate of Philotheus, will be the 25th-21st year from the founding of his monastery, but it seems very incredible to think that for such a long time the thought of introducing a hostel in the monastery did not occur to Sergius. Saint Alexy built his Andronikov Monastery in 1358–1359, and in this monastery, as Epiphanius directly says (fol. 219 vol.), immediately after its construction a hostel was introduced. Below we are talking about the letter sent to St. Sergius by Patriarch Callistus in 1362–1363, but this letter presupposes a hostel in the Sergius monastery. This is not mentioned in the life of Epiphanius, edited by Pachomius, but it is said in an extract from the original life of Epiphanius, read in the Nikon Chronicle (cfr. above, in the note on pp. 7–8, about the reason for editing Pachomius Serb’s life of Epiphanius): “The Elites did not want to live in a communal manner, and left the monastery Sergius" (vol. IV, p. 225). They wanted to kill Cornelius of Komelsky for introducing a hostel in his monastery (by Philaret in “Russian Saints”, May, p. 116). In “Answer to the Curious.” Act. Ist., vol. I. No. 204. P. 382, ​​col. 2. See Justinian's novella 133 (ch. 6), cfr. our “History of the Russian Church” vol. I, floors. 2 (p. 609 according to the 1st ed. and p. 725–726 according to the 2nd ed.). Epiphanius says about him: “Being strong in body, he could have the strength of two people” (l. 88). Kutya, or kolivo, is food, or food, and kanon, or kanun, is drink. The Greek koukia, from which our Russian “kutya”, is the plural of the word kouki and means “feve” - “beans” (by Byzantium), and kolybon, used in the plural kolyba, means one type of pea. These names of kutya show that initially it was prepared by the Greeks from beans or peas. Then it began to be prepared from boiled wheat (kolyba sitos). epsetos, Svida) with a different “set”, about which see the statute of Patr. (Sar. 371), in Patrol. Minya (t. 155, col. 688–689). Kutya - wheat boiled and dried with honey (see in the Description of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery, compiled by Bishop Nikodim (Belokurov), charter of Grand Duke Ivan III, p. 9 beginning (Readings of the General History and Ancient Ross. 1876, book IV). Kanon, or kanun, is honey in the sense of a drink (drink), prepared in a certain way, or sychen beer (not quite detailed about the preparation of honey as a drink - in Domostroy, chapter 65). The Greeks brought wine to church along with kutia (Simeon Solunsk, ibid.); We didn’t have wine, but instead honey served as our drink; instead of wine, we began to bring it to church along with kutia. The name we give to honey - canon, or eve - is either the Greek kanoun, as the Greeks called the dishes in which kutia was brought to church, or from canon - a well-known song sequence. Accepting the second, it will be necessary to explain the assimilation of the name to honey by the fact that it, together with kutya, was brought to church on church holidays, when after Vespers there were prayer services with a canon (hence the name of the day preceding the holiday, canon, as it was sometimes called in the book language of the past, or eve, as it was usually called and is called). In subsequent times, in the Trinity Monastery there was always a large supply of “sung”, or consecrated, honey as a drink, which, under the name of the honey of the miracle worker, that is, St. Sergius, was distributed for blessing (Simon Azaryin in the preface to the “Book of New Miracles...” and see. Below, in Chapter 1 of the Guide, speeches about the economy and wealth of the monastery). Nowadays, in cities, tea cups with raw honey are worn in churches as funeral eves, but that the canons of St. Sergius were precisely honey-drinking - this, in addition to what is now indicated, is clear from the fact that about the preparation of them by the Monk Epiphanius, he uses the expression: “and the canon is created” (l. 120). They drank the eve (see the Word of Elijah, Bishop of Novgorod, opened and printed by A.S. Pavlov, p. 25). The question of whether or not the Trinity Monastery owned patrimonies under the Venerable Sergius himself is deliberately addressed in the article by Hieromonk Arseny “On the patrimonial possessions of the Trinity Monastery during the life of its founder, St. Sergius,” published in the VII issue of the Chronicle of the Archaeographical Commission. Agreeing with the venerable Father Arseny in his conclusions and offering him sincere gratitude for his wonderful work, we must only say that he did not give an explanation regarding one piece of evidence. In addition to the later entry, taken as a letter from Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy to the Trinity Monastery, and in addition to his forged letter to the same monastery, there is not a forgery, but real evidence of the existence of his letter to our monastery. There is a well-known charter of Prince Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka, given to the monastery on December 5, 1440, which begins: “The saints for the sake of the Life-Giving Trinity, according to his grandfather and Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, and according to his father, the charter and Grand Duke Yury Dmitreevich, heretofore Prince Dmitry Yuryevich granted I am the abbot of Zinovy Sergius Monastery with his brothers, or whoever else will be abbot after him” (Act. Expedition, vol. I, no. 37, p. 28 fin.). From Dmitry Yuryevich’s letter it is not clear what Dmitry Ivanovich’s letter contained, but the question remains what it contained, and if the position is firm that under the Venerable Sergius himself, the Trinity Monastery did not own estates, then what could be discussed in it, besides estates? Given by the Galich boyar Semyon Fedorovich to the Trinity Monastery for half of the brewery and half of the salt well at Solya Galitskaya - in the “Acts of Legal Affairs.” Kalachov (vol. I, no. 63, col. 441, IV) about Semyon Fedorovich himself, named Morozov, see Karamz., vol. V, p. 152–153 and approx. 273). In 1651, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in response to the request of the authorities of the Trinity Monastery addressed to him about how to receive guests and all kinds of traveling and passing people in the monastery, answered: “To the guest and all traveling and passing people against the miracle workers, give worthy honor and give them all peace, since the great miracle worker commanded his disciple” (see Father Arseny in the article “On the servants of the Trinity St. Sergius Monastery”, published in the III book of Readings of History and Ancient Russia, p. 59). See: Nikon. years. T. IV. P. 148 (story about the journey of St. Sergius to Oleg Ryazansky). The so-called Academic Chronicle under the specified year (see also: Nikon. Chronicle, vol. IV, p. 41). The message was published in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1860 (Part I) and in Pavlov’s “Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law” (Vol. I, No. 21). An unknown patriarch writes to an unknown abbot in his message: “Honorable guardian, about Saint Dus, the beloved son of our humility, Deacon George, exalted to our humility about the squad and about copulation with God, the resha of monastic life, which you have created between the calico men, where even that very image cannot be changed, but is equal To worldly people it is both an image and a thing for the ignorance and wildness of that land, as it seems to me, your good kindness (s) is a correction.” In these speeches of the patriarch, which are not entirely intelligible due to poor translation, it is in any case clear that in the silent and wild Russian country, in which monks do not differ from the laity either in appearance or in deed, the abbot, on his own initiative (“your good benevolence is...”) compiled some kind of special monastic life. This, obviously, is the Monk Sergius, who introduced a hostel in his monastery, for there is no one else and nothing else to understand. The guardian deacon George, obviously, is the nomophilax deacon George Perdika, who in 1354 accompanied Saint Alexis from Constantinople to Moscow in order to seat him as a representative of the patriarch at the see of the Russian Metropolis (see Pavlov, ibid., Greek acts, second account col. 59), (in 1354 Perdika was canstrisius and skevophilax), and who at the end of 1361 was sent to Russia by Patriarch Callistus to investigate the complaints that Saint Alexius addressed to the Patriarch against the Lithuanian Metropolitan Roman (see Pavlov, ibid., col. 82 and 90). We say that George Perdika was personally known to the Monk Sergius, on the grounds that he should be taken for the patriarchal envoy, who in 1354 presented the monk with Philotheus’s letter, which contained an admonition to introduce a hostel in the monastery. Epiphanius reads: “Not after many times (we are talking about the establishment of a hostel in the monastery by Sergius above) a rumor arises again - the enemy who hates good, cannot endure even the shining dawn from the venerable one, in vain we despise ourselves from the venerable one, and put it into our thoughts that we do not want Sergius’s eldership, in the same way from the day" etc. (l. 194). One may suspect that this strange vagueness of speech is the work of the Pakhomievs, who did not find it possible to completely throw out the words of the Epifanievs about the uprising of rumors, because otherwise it would remain unclear why Sergius left the monastery, but who also wanted to eliminate the direct name of the brethren of the monastery. Be that as it may, in any case, it is clear that rumors arose among the brethren of the monastery and that some of the same brethren did not want Sergius’s eldership, as Simon Azaryin adds to this (he says: “It is not for many years that rumors rise up among the brethren... and put it into the mind of some that you do not want Sergius’s eldership”). Below, Epiphanius reads that Metropolitan Alexy, persuading Sergius through his archimandrites to return to his monastery, told him: “And those who vex you, I will drive out of the monastery, so that no one will do that dirty trick” (l. 205 vol.). The chronicle abbreviation of the life speaks of the removal of Sergius from the monastery: “Then (after Sergius established the common life in the monastery) the enemy envied him, teaching some not to want Sergius among the elders” (Poln. sobr. Russian let., vol. VI, p. 121). In his abbreviations, Pachomius says that St. Sergius withdrew from the monastery, seeking greater solitude. Metropolitan Philaret, in one of his words spoken on the day of the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius, July 5, speaks about our case: “In the life of our God-bearing Father Sergius, we find that during his abbotship, he once heard a word of love come out of the mouth of his brother Stephen: who is the abbot in this place? Was it not I who sat before in this place? - immediately left the monastery to settle in another remote and secret place. The patience, meekness and humility of the Saint are obvious in this act. But here’s what’s puzzling: why didn’t he admonish his brother about the abbot’s duty? How, for one person, did he leave all the brethren and the ministry into which he was placed by sacred authority? - There are special ways of the Saints, before which everyone should revere, since they are governed by the special grace of God and are justified in their consequences; but which not everyone has the right to follow, because it would be daring if everyone began to attribute to themselves the same grace. This is the case now under consideration. ...The perspicacious Sergius saw that it was inconvenient to directly expose the man in charge; because in this case, reproof would be a quarrel for the authorities, and the appearance of personal strife between the Abbot and his elder, and, moreover, between brothers in the flesh, would not be without stumbling for the other brethren of the monastery. In these difficult circumstances, the wise Elder found a way not only to avoid stumbling on his part, but also to destroy the temptation laid down by others. He did not tell anyone about his brother’s act, and by his removal from the authorities he also provided the strongest cure against the passion of covetousness. God, justifying the path of His Pleasant, through his voluntary exile, strengthened the brethren of his original monastery in love for him more than before, and returned him to it by the power of St. Alexis...” (Words and Speeches of Metropolitan Philaret, 1882, vol. IV, p. 126, conversation about temptations). In this episode of the temporary removal of St. Sergius from his monastery, it remains incomprehensible at first glance how St. Alexy could tolerate the fact that Sergius was forced to found another monastery for himself. One must think that initially the matter was understood by Saint Alexis (and was presented to him) in such a way that Sergius retired from his monastery, not being forced to do so by the behavior of his brother, but having his own desire, after the founding of one monastery, to found another monastery (which examples of the gradual founding of several monasteries by one ascetic were quite common in the old days). And therefore he could not take any measures for a long time to return Sergius to his monastery, and left Stefan as abbot in the latter. Having learned how the matter really was, Alexy returned Sergius to his monastery, but it is likely that he did not treat Stefan cruelly, for the elder brother Sergiev, as we said, was his fellow ascetic in the Epiphany Monastery and, according to the life of Sergius, during his fellow asceticism in the monastery he was connected with him by ties of friendship. There is no further news about Stefan. But there are indications that make us think that he reconciled with Sergius and remained in his monastery. Epiphanius says that among the people who gave him information about the Monk Sergius was Stefan, and he, Epiphanius, as one must think, came to the Sergius monastery much time after our episode. However, since there is absolutely no news about the death of Stephen in the Sergius Monastery, it is more likely to think that he did not die there (maybe with his son Theodore in the Simonov Monastery). Currently, no one in Posad takes water from the river, but everyone takes it from springs, or springs (“tanks” placed on the keys), and from wells; Posad pancake houses, which exist for pilgrims, stand on the very bank of the river and take water not from it, but from a spring well located next to it. Epiphanius talks about the miraculous discovery of the source by the Monk Sergius with a contradiction to himself. He presents the matter in the story in such a way that Sergius built a monastery in a waterless place, that the brethren, forced to carry water from afar, grumbled at him for the foolishness of setting up a monastery in such a place, and that this forced Sergius to turn to God with a prayer for the miraculous gift of water. But earlier in his life, he himself says quite clearly that Sergius chose a place for the monastery that had water (l. 58), that, living alone in the desert, he took water from a source located near his cell (l. 73 vol.), and that when the brethren gathered to him, he carried water from this source (l. 92 vol.). According to what has just been said, it is necessary to present the matter as we present it, that is, that the place to live was chosen by the Monk Sergius at the source, but that then this original source was closed. He was under the mountain, as Epiphanius makes it known, saying that St. Sergius carried water up the mountain (l. 92 vol.), and it is necessary to think that it was located under the mountain from the west of the present monastery, since under the mountain from the north it would have been very far from the cell of St. Sergius, which otherwise he would have placed much closer to the northern ravine. Where to look for the source miraculously produced by St. Sergius - this is the question. To see it in the so-called Pyatnitsky well, located near the Pyatnitsky church, across the highway from it, how this last well has been mistaken for the well of St. Sergius, at least from the first half of the 17th century (Palitsyn in The Tale of the Siege, chapters 29 and 54, ed. 1784, pp. 102 and 176 fin., and inventory of the monastery 1641, l. 613: “on the side of the Pyatnitsky Monastery there is a well of the miracle worker Sergius, lined with white stone, above it the tent is covered with planks, on the tent there is a cross”), seems very unlikely. This well, assuming that it was made from a natural source into an artificial well in later times, is located very far from the monastery, and walking to it through a swampy and dirty lowland would be very difficult, and in spring and autumn, when the lowland was supposed to turn into a real swamp, it was almost completely impossible (the lowland was filled in very recently, mainly during the construction of a hospice house in 1892). About this well you need to think that it was dug either for the Podolny Monastery, the current Pyatnitskaya Church, or for the almshouse located near the monastery (see in the Guide). If the miraculous spring of St. Sergius did not close over time and disappear without a trace, which could have happened, then the only probable thing is to see it in the well, which is located behind the southern wall of the monastery, in the Pafnutiev Garden, somewhat obliquely to the east of the bishop's chambers, between them and the Onion Tower, at a distance of 5-6 fathoms from the wall (and the former stone chapel above which, unfortunately, has now been destroyed the aforementioned construction of a hospice house). Epiphanius says that the Monk Sergius, taking with him one brother, descended into the wilds, which is under the monastery (“descended into the wilds, even under the monastery”). This indication of the area goes more to the southern side than to the western (on both of which there may be a source), for on the western side there is a ravine, about the descent into which the expression “went downhill” would be more likely to be used. meanwhile, the expression “went into the wilds” is more correct, or more likely, to mean the lowland, which is on the southern side. The Monk Sergius brought out a natural source, or a spring, and we are talking about an artificial well, but the natural source could be turned into an artificial well through some excavation and deepening of it and by throwing a log into it, as this should have been understood about the Pyatnitsky well, already in later times. What is read in one or several lists of Pachomius’ abbreviation of the life, as A.V. Gorsky points out in the Description of the Lavra (according to the edition of Archimandrite Leonid in Readings, p. 5, note 2), that the Monk Sergius did not drain the source, but miraculously created the river Konchura, should be taken as a boldly unsuccessful conjecture either by Pachomius himself, or - that (much more likely - one of later ones, apparently caused by the bewilderment that people would complain about the lack of water if they had a river nearby (if the monastery was built on a river, and when it is said that they began to draw water from the river for all needs, then the words of Epiphanius about the source are simply repeated). Those interested in the absurd question about this river supposedly created by St. Sergius can also look at my answer to the article “The Wanderer” - “Moscow academic historian about the life of St. Sergius,” published in the 10th book of the “Theological Bulletin” for 1893. And isn’t it nonsense that St. Sergius, satisfying the need of the brethren for water, created a river from which it was impossible to take water, then Isn’t it just funny for him to understand the creation of such a river? In the chronicle abbreviation of his life it is said that the monks had to bring water from afar for seven years (Complete collection of Russian years, vol. VI, p. 121). But such a long period of time seems very unlikely: St. Sergius could not have decided for a long time to turn to God’s miraculous help, but in this case there was a simple natural means to help the trouble - this. dig a well (as later two wells were dug in the monastery). As for another source, or spring, located at a greater or lesser distance from the monastery, from which the monks had to take water for some time, then in all likelihood it should be placed in the northern ravine of the monastery, in which there were springs in the 17th century (Simon Azaryin in the “Book of New Miracles...”, printed, p. 10) and in which a very abundant source was found in recent times. In ancient and ancient times, our bishops, in addition to the monastic paramand, which is worn on their shirt, also had a service paramand, which they put on their surplice or cassock during worship. This last paramand is, of course, in our case (see about it: Proskinitary of Sukhanov, Synodal RKP. No. 574, sheet 313 volume, Kazan edition, p. 230, note; Archim. Leonid Description of the manuscripts of the Moscow Theological Academy, issue I, p. 166 fin.; Rev. Savva “Explanatory Dictionary to the Index of the Patriarchal Sacristy”, under the word “paramand”). The common ideas that exist in our church history about Michael as a very low-quality upstart are completely unfounded. On the contrary, he was a most remarkable man, who was thinking about a radical correction of our clergy, which, as far as we know, only two of the metropolitans, Theodosius and Macarius, thought about. Michael was denigrated in front of posterity by Metropolitan Cyprian, from whom he had captured the metropolitan see (and who should have assimilated the blasphemous legend about him read in the Nikon Chronicle). After the refusal of St. Sergius, St. Alexy gave Michael his blessing, as is well documented. We consider it inappropriate and inconvenient to enter into lengthy speeches about Michael here. Metropolitan Cyprian himself, after the death of Saint Alexis (February 12, 1378), sought the assistance of Saint Sergius and his nephew Theodore in occupying the metropolitan see in Moscow. See Nikon. years. (Vol. IV, p. 9); Sofiysk years. in Full collection Russian years. (vol. V, p. 230) and Voskresensk. years. (ibid., vol. VIII, p. 13). Nikon. years. vol. IV, p. 148. See about this monastery, which is mostly mixed with the Dubensky Shavykinsky monastery and the construction of which Epiphanius does not speak about, in the article by Count M.V. Tolstoy “A few words about the Dormition Dubensky Monastery”, published in the Readings of the Historical Society. and Ancient Ross. (1860, book I); also his article “Memory of the Dormition Dubensky Monastery”, published in “Soulful Reading” (1877, part II, p. 245). In "History of Hierarchy." the monasteries of Dubensky Stromynsky and Dubensky Shavykinsky differ: about the first - vol. VI, p. 333, about the second - vol. VI, p. 61. The Stromynsky Monastery was assigned to the Lavra by a charter from Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich dated November 30, 1616. (Chronicle is busy. Archaeographer. Com., vol. V, department IV, p. 55, b). Sergius appointed his disciple Leonty as abbot of the monastery. Nikon. years. IV, 98 fin. sqq. Alexander Peresvet in the world was the boyar of Bryansk, and Herodion Oslyabya, or Oslebya, in the world was the boyar of Lyubutsky (the city of Lyubutsk, currently the village of Lyubutskoye, 48 versts from Kaluga at the confluence of the Lyubuti river with the Oka). According to the stories about the Battle of Mamaev, Peresvet fell in single combat with the Tatar hero before the start of the battle; he fell so that his opponent fell along with him: “hitting hard, just loudly and strongly, as if the earth was shaking, and both fell to the ground dead” (Nikon. let., vol. IV, p. 113). That Oslyabya remained alive in the battle and remained alive at least until 1398 - see Description of the Lavra manuscripts (No. 252; postscript on the manuscript) and Karamzin (Vol. V, note 230). Peresvet's body, brought from the battlefield to Moscow, was buried with Sergiev's nephew in the Simonovsky Monastery (originally in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary), the church of which is currently the parish church of Simonovskaya Sloboda (see below about the construction of the Simonovsky Monastery). The legend is that Oslyabya was buried together with Peresvet in the Simonov Monastery (Karamz., vol. V, approx. 82), appeared, perhaps, simply because the latter, as is said in the legends about the Battle of Mamaev, was considered to have fallen in battle along with the first. We have already said above that the life of Epiphanius as edited by Pakhomieva is completely silent about Peresvet and Oslyab. We cannot say how to explain this silence, but it is unlikely that the authorities of the Trinity Monastery contemporary with Pachomius disapproved of the act of St. Sergius, who sent his monks to fight. It is quite possible that the silence is simply an accidental omission resulting from an oversight. In an extract from the original life of Epiphanius, read in the Nikon Chronicle, it is said about Peresvet and Oslyab: “And he (the Grand Duke) was given from his monastery, from his brethren, two monks, Peresvet and Osleby, who were skilled in military affairs and how to train regiments, and also those who had strength and daring, greatness and courage” (vol. IV, p. 235). In more detail, as we conveyed in the text, our monastic warriors are spoken of in “The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev” (Nikon. let., vol. IV, p. 99). Epiphanius speaks briefly and not in a deliberate manner about the visit of St. Sergius by Dmitry Ivanovich, but about the founding of the St. Dubensky (Shavykinsky) monastery by the venerable one; in more detail, as in our text, in the same “Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev.” There are three legends about the Massacre of Mamaev: 1) the chronicle entry in Poln. collection Russian years. (vol. IV, p. 75; vol. VI, p. 90; vol. VIII, p. 34) and in Typographic. years. (p. 152 fin.); 2) The story, or narrative, about the massacre, read in the Nikon Chronicle (vol. IV, p. 86), and in the Chronicle of the Riots (vol. II, p. 127), and published in the “Russian Historical Collection of the Society of History and Antiquities of Russia.” (vol. III, 1); 3) “The Word about Zadonshchina”, published in the “Vremennik Obsch. Histor. and Ancient Ross." (book XIV), in Izvestia Acad. Sciences (vol. VI, p. 337, and vol. VII, p. 96) and in Uchen. Notes of Academician Sciences (vol. V, III, 57). See Sreznevsk. “Russian monuments of writing and language” under 1380; for a different division of legends, see Porfiryev in “History of Russian Literature.” A detailed analysis of the legends about the Massacre of Mamaev is in the article by S.P. Timofeev “Tales of the Battle of Kulikovo”, published in the August and September books of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1885. See also Nazarov’s article here, part XXIX (Ikonnikov, p. 1281, note 1), Buslaev’s “Chrestomathy” (col. 1311), E.V. Barsov’s “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (vol. I, p. 435), S.K. Shambin’s “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” (Journal of Min. Nar. Pros. 1902) and in the Collection of the Russian department. language and literature Imperial. Academy of Sciences (vol. 81, St. Petersburg, 1906). Vasily Ivanov Peresvetov is the boyar son of Metropolitan Daniel (Acts of History, vol. I, no. 129, p. 191). Recently, an altar cross appeared, on the frame of which the inscription is read: “With this cross the Reverend Abbot Sergius blessed Prince Dmitry against the trash of Tsar Mamai and the rivers: with this conquer the enemy. In the summer of 1380 August 27 days" (currently the cross is in the museum of the Kyiv Theological Academy). There can be no doubt that this cross is a falsification: St. Sergius could bless the Grand Duke in the sense of giving a body cross, but why on earth would he bless him with an altar cross? With the last cross, the monk blessed the sovereign several times in the sense of overshadowing and presenting him for kissing. The inscription on the cross (made by a not particularly skilled philologist and archaeologist) is not older than the 18th century, and it may very well be even the 19th century; and August 27, which serves to expose the falsifier, is unsuccessfully taken from the Synopsis of Innocent Gisel. During the Kazan campaign, Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich had a life-giving cross erected on his banner, which Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy had in the Battle of Kulikovo (Nikon. Chronicle, vol. VII, p. 151), but, of course, not an altar cross, but a princely breast cross (large body cross). Epiphanius (l. 242) and the chronicle record of the massacre indicated in the previous note. It is usually accepted that Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy established commemoration on Dimitrievskaya Saturday as a deliberate remembrance of the soldiers who died in the Battle of Kulikovo. However, this is very doubtful. There is no reliable evidence that the commemoration of Dimitrievskaya Saturday was established by Dmitry Ivanovich (we do not include among such evidence the folk verse about Dmitrievskaya Saturday, which can be found in Bezsonov’s “Kaliki Passers-by” (I, No. 156), and yet the records about this commemoration do not speak at all about the commemoration of the soldiers who died in the Battle of Kulikovo, but about ordinary “ecumenical”, or annual, commemoration of all Orthodox Christians. Demetrius’ day is a memorial day in Novgorod in the middle of the 15th century (Meletia Description of the Solovetsky mon., in collection No. 10, p. 7 fin.). they feed on Saturday in Dmitrievskaya” (see the everyday life book in the appendices of Archimandrite Leonid to the Description of the Lavra by A.V. Gorsky in the editions of this latter he made). In the charter of the Volokolamsk monastery regarding the commemoration of depositors and the meal of the brethren, dating back to the same first half of the 16th century, it is written about Demetrius Saturday: “On the Saturday of Demetrius (memory) of our reverend father, the head of the holy monastery of this monastery, Abbot Joseph, and throughout the brethren” (Volokolam. RKP. No. 681, fol. 16 vol. fin.). In the decree on the meal of the Tikhvin Monastery, written in 1590, regarding the dates of October 19–25, it is prescribed: “If a Sabbath day happens on these dates, we create a memory for our father and brothers and for all Orthodox Christians” (Addition to “Act. History”, vol. I, no. 135, p. 222). The same is in the Trinity Lavra everyday life book of 1645 (Lavra. RKP. No. 249, fol. 171 volume) and in the consolidated charter of the Trinity and Kirillov Belozersky monasteries, dating back to the same time with the everyday life book (Description of the Synod. RKP. Gorsk. and Nevostr., No. 400, fol. 30 volume. (place, one and the same in everyday life and description, given in the latter). In the patriarchal charter of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, on October 23, an entry relating to the second half of the 17th century is read: “Before the memory of the Holy Great Martyr Demetrius, on Friday evening there is a pannikhida for all Orthodox Christians” (Vivliof., vol. X, p. 68). One Lavra synodik of the 17th century records soldiers killed by Mamai (No. 818, l. 196), but nothing is said about the time of their commemoration. Since the Greeks do not have the Demetrius Memorial Saturday, it follows that we do not have it from them. (But don’t they have it? Pavel of Aleppo, in his description of the journey of Patriarch Macarius, says that the Greeks “everywhere they are, observe the Dmitrov Fast, starting from the first of October, and completely abstain from fasting food until the day of the Holy Festival,” see Reading. General. Historical and Ancient Ross., 1886, book IV, p. 18). The fast, if it really exists, doesn’t it end with a deliberate commemoration of parents on Demetrius Saturday, instead of the usual commemoration of every Saturday?). It is possible and very likely to attribute its establishment to Saints Constantine and Methodius, the first Slavic teachers, who, being natives of Thessaloniki, could convert the local Thessalonian custom of commemorating parents before the city, so to speak, the holiday of Thessaloniki, which is the holiday of its patron, the Great Martyr Demetrius, into the general custom of the Slavic peoples among whom they preached. But, as it seems, other Slavs do not have Dimitrievskaya Saturday. It is remarkable that in the oldest Lavra canteen everyday books, the second half of the 15th - first half of the 16th century, there is no Demetrius Saturday (see Archimandrite Leonid in the appendices to the Description of the Lavra by A.V. Gorsky, everyday life books No. I and in the Addendum to the “Act. Ist.”, vol. I, no. 135, p. 216). This seems to indicate that in the Lavra commemoration on Demetrius Saturday was not introduced soon. In general, the issue of Dmitrievskaya Saturday remains unresolved and, as they say, an open question. Those who wish can also read about Dimitrievsky Saturday from I.M. Snegirev in the essay “Russian Common Holidays” (vol. IV, p. 106) and from Rev. Demetrius (Sambikin) in the Monthly Book of Russian Saints (1st ed., issue I, p. 125 fin.). A. N. Muravyov asked Metropolitan Philaret about Demetrius Saturday, and Filaret, in response to the question, wrote to Muravyov: “I don’t know about the decree about Demetrius Saturday, except our Russian tradition; perhaps the commemoration by St. Sergius of those who fell at the Battle of Mamaeva was the beginning of a general commemoration..." (see Letters of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.N.M... Kyiv, 1869, No. 121, p. 168). We said that other Slavs do not seem to have Dimitrievsky Saturday, but the Bulgarians also have a commemoration of those who died before Dimitriev Day (see Sreznevsky’s Dictionary, the word “zadushne”). In Russia, not only the Great Russians have it, but also the Little Russians and Belorussians (see the publication by N.V. Zakrevsky “Old World Bandurist”, M., 1860, in the “Dictionary of Little Russian Idioms” the word “grave”, p. 306 beginning, and Historical Description of the Minsk Diocese of Archim. Nicholas, St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 312), and this speaks against its establishment by Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy and forces it to be attributed to that more ancient time, when all of Rus' was still one whole. For Catholics and Protestants, November 1 of the new style is the holiday of omnium sanctorum, that is, of all saints, and November 2 is commemoratio omnium pie defunctorum, that is, of all the piously departed. But November 2 of the new style is October 21 of the old style, and this seems to give reason to bring our commemoration closer to the Catholic one, that is, to understand the matter in such a way that both of them come from the same antiquity, and about the Greeks (with other Orthodox Slavs), if they do not have a commemoration, it could be accepted that it was left to them sometime in a later time. As for the commemoration by Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of the soldiers who died in the Battle of Kulikovo, then, according to the legends about the Mamaev Massacre, the boyars told him: “It is appropriate for you, sovereign, to create the memory of those who laid down your head, and to write in the books of the cathedral,” and by cathedral books we mean the synod of the week of Orthodoxy; and the surviving modern or almost modern copy of the synodik shows that this was actually done (Vivliof., vol. VI, p. 451 beginning) (for the original from which it was printed, see Rev. Savva “Index for viewing the Synodal Library”, I. I. Sreznevsky “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language” under “before 1400.” and F.I. Uspensky Synodik on the week of Orthodoxy). Then, everyone says, although we don’t know on what basis, that deliberately to commemorate the soldiers who died in battle, Dmitry Ivanovich built the Church of All Saints in Moscow, which is on Kulizhki (isn’t it a mistaken rapprochement of Kulizhek with the Kulikovo Field?). See the note indicated on p. 55 article by Count M.V. Tolstoy. Sergius appointed his disciple Savva (later Zvenigorodsky) as abbot of the monastery. See: “Sofiysk. Vremnik" by Stroev (vol. I, p. 391; "Complete collection of Russian years." (vol. V, p. 109, and vol. VIII, p. 58). Full collection Russian years., vol. VI. s. 122. It is permissible to think that Epiphanius conveys the speech of the Mother of God to St. Sergius incompletely, that She, not limiting herself to the assurance that the monastery will abound in everything, spoke also about something more important, spiritual... According to the abbreviations of the life of St. Sergius, read in the Nikon and Sofia chronicles, his visit to the Mother of God took place on the Nativity Fast, on the day of the week of Fridays (the first chronicle - vol. IV, p. 236, the second - in the Complete Collection of Russian Let., vol. VI, p. 122). There is one known entry, given to the Trinity Monastery to “Elder Sergei and Abbot Nikon,” namely the entry of the Galich boyar Semyon Fedorovich, about which above, p. 44. It is obvious that the entry was written at a time when the Monk Sergius, having transferred the abbess to Nikon, was preparing for his death. The Monk Sergius died on September 25, 6900 from the creation of the world. Since around the time of his death our chronology was changed, namely, instead of March, as had been the case until then, they began to count the year from September, the question arises according to which numeral his death is recorded - the old or the new, for in the first case, the year 6900 from the creation of the world will be 1392, and in the second case, 1391 from the Nativity of Christ. The chronicles clearly and undoubtedly answer our question that the death of St. Sergius is recorded in them under the year 6900 according to the old March count, from which it follows that St. Sergius died in 1392, and not in 1391 from the Nativity of Christ. The March reckoning, which we originally used, was replaced by the chroniclers with the September reckoning around the time of the death of St. Sergius, but not before it, but somewhat later. Karamzin certifies that in the so-called Trinity Chronicle, which he found in the Lavra and burned in Moscow in 1812, events were recorded under the year 6900, and among them the death of St. Sergius, according to the March account (Vol. V, note 246). In the Resurrection Chronicle, under the year 6900, events are recorded, and among them the death of St. Sergius, according to the March count, which continues in it at least until 6929 (Complete collection of Russian let., vol. VIII, p. 62). In this last chronicle, under the year 6900, we find the following entries indicating the months directly and indirectly: on Friday of the 6th week of Easter, the Metropolitan of Andrianople, who was in Russia, reposed; On July 16, Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich went to the Horde; On September 25, St. Sergius died; On October 24, the Grand Duke returned from the Horde. The Friday of the 6th week of Easter and July 16, 6900 from the creation of the world, according to both accounts, both March and September, were in 1392 from the Nativity of Christ. But the September following the aforementioned heel and July 1392, of course, was the September of the same year 1392, and not the previous year 1391. In the Typographical Chronicle (printed in the Synodal Printing House in 1784), in which the death of St. Sergius is recorded under the year 6900, from the very entries read under this year, it is not clear by what account - March or September - they (the entries) were made. But as for the March count, and not the September count, this follows from the fact that the March count continues in the chronicle for quite a long time and after 6900 (as far as the records with months allow us to decide, at least until the same 6929 above). If in some chronicles, such as the Nikonovskaya, the September count begins earlier than 6900 (so the death of St. Sergius refers to the year 6900 not in March, but already in September), then it is obvious that this is due to a later crossing, since in the above chronicles it is impossible to allow a reverse crossing (from the September count to the March one), because this would be a crossing the accepted account (such as the September one) to the left account (the same as the March one). To say the same thing differently, in the chronicles the death of St. Sergius is recorded under the year 6900 according to two accounts: in some chronicles - according to March, in others - according to September, and, therefore, one of the two accounts should be taken as later transferred; Since, according to what is now indicated, it is impossible to accept the March account as such, it is obvious that it is necessary to accept the September one. As for the biography of St. Sergius himself, in whose life it is impossible to see whether he adheres to the March or September account, then in the life of St. Stephen of Perm, speaking about the latter erecting a church in honor of the Annunciation of the Mother of God, which is celebrated in the month of March, he makes it quite clear that he still adheres to the March account, and not the September one, for he says: “March is the beginning of the whole month and everything.” summer and everything in the year, time, since March is the beginning month” (“Monuments” by Kushelev-Bezborodko, vol. IV, p. 131). The defenders of 1391 make two references in support of their case. Firstly, they refer to the Stichirarion stored in the Lavra Library, “composed,” as its title says, “from one year to another, from September to August.” But if we refer to liturgical books, then it would be necessary to refer to the Ostromir Gospel itself, which is the oldest liturgical book that has survived to us, for in it the month with God begins with the month of September. That is, we want to say, who doesn’t know that our liturgical year is September, or starting with the month of September, from the very beginning of our adoption of Christianity from the Greeks? But we are not talking about the liturgical year, but the year of the chronicle, or chroniclers, which was in itself from the liturgical year (and currently the 48th chapter of the church charter is inscribed: “The sequence of church psalmody and compositions of the entire summer, starting from the month of Septemria to the month of August.” Will anyone, on the basis of the chapter, assert that we are now counting chronology from September?). Secondly, they refer to one Gospel kept in the Lavra sacristy. “But the surest key, they say, to the solution of the question (the year of the death of St. Sergius is recorded according to the March or September account) is given to us by the inscription on the frame of the Lavra handwritten Gospel: “in the year 6900 mrt indict 31 (this number obviously refers not to the indict, but to the month) the fast was bound under the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich all of Rus'" (see: Complete description of the Lavra, part I, p. 41). On this frame, St. Sergius is depicted already among the saints with the following inscription: agios Sergie (the inscription is reproduced incorrectly; in fact, it is Slavic, not Greek). If this frame, as this inscription shows, was made in March 1392, and St. Sergius died later, in September of the same year, then we have to assume that the image of the saint of God among the saints was made during his lifetime. But is such an assumption possible? And taking the year of his death to be 1391, it is not difficult to understand that the reverent reader of his memory, the servant of God Theodore (Goltyaev, in fact, the gospel is not Goltyaev and is not passed off as Goltyaev’s in the sacristy), donating this gospel to the monastery of St. Sergius six months after his death, and made his image on the frame.” Of course, it is impossible to assume that the image of St. Sergius was made among the saints, or as a saint, during his lifetime, but it would not be easy, but on the contrary, it would be extremely difficult to understand that St. Sergius is depicted among the saints, or as a saint, only six months after his death. But the main thing is not this, but the fact that St. Sergius is depicted not at all on the gospel frame made in 1392, but on a later addition to it. In later times, three silver plates were attached to the frame, hung on hinges to cover the three edges of the book, to protect it from dust, and on one of the plates there is an image of St. Sergius. There is no need to carefully examine the frame and plates, but just look at them to clearly see that one and the others have nothing in common with each other in terms of work, or that the latter were added to the first later (approximately at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries). As if the most reliable key to solving the problem is the salary of the Gospel - this is what people who have seen the salary say. But to say this, having seen the salary, is more than strange... Some of the newest people attribute the death of St. Sergius to 1393, repeating the obvious mistake of Metropolitan Plato, which he made in the life of Sergius and consisting in the fact that the year 6900 from the creation of the world is the 1393rd from the Nativity of Christ: St. Sergius died “in the year from the creation of the world 6900, from the birth of Christ 1393.” In the History of the Russian Church, he correctly dates the death of St. Sergius to 1392 (vol. I, p. 235). That the veneration of St. Sergius as a saint began with a local celebration of him in the monastery, this is evident from the inscription read on the prologue of his life, which is: “the gathering of him (Sergius) takes place in the same monastery, where it was appointed, in the month of September 25.” We see the exact indication of the time when St. Sergius was numbered among the all-Russian saints in the following. There are two princely charters written shortly before the installation of Saint Jonah as metropolitan, or before December 15, 1448, in which the Venerable Sergius and the Venerable Kirill of Belozersky, having been commemorated along with the great wonderworkers and saints Peter the Metropolitan and Leonty, Bishop of Rostov, are called venerable elders (Collected State Charters and Treaties, vol. I, no. 63 and 68, pp. 139 and 152), and then there is a letter from Metropolitan Jonah himself, written by him in 1449 or 1450, in which Sergius and Cyril, being commemorated with the same wonderworkers and saints, are called reverend fathers (Act. Histor., vol. I, no. 43, p. 87, and in Pavlov in “Memorial”, col. 541, restoration of the letter in its original form - in Paul). In the last charter they are commemorated as all-Russian saints, but regarding the first two charters we think that they are also commemorated in them as local saints of their monasteries (and we think that the proclamation of the two of them and Metropolitan Alexy, who was missed by mistake in the list of metropolitan charters known to us, as all-Russian saints, was one of the first acts of Metropolitan Jonah upon his occupation of the see). The initial troparion and kontakion preceding the service to St. Sergius in Lavra manuscripts No. 308 and 363 were printed by Archimandrite. Leonid in additions to the Description of the Lavra by A.V. Gorsky and Fr. Nikon at the beginning of the life of St. Sergius. The service to St. Sergius was written by Pachomius Serbin; it is still used to this day, for which reason we will not indicate the very many manuscripts of the Lavra Library in which it is located. The second current canon in the service, written by an unknown person, is read in manuscripts of the 16th century (Undolsky, No. 101, l. 43, ch. 4, and No. 103, l. 31 vol.). In one Solovetsky manuscript (No. 616, Description, part II, p. 359) there is a third canon unknown to us. A canon with an akathist to St. Sergius, which is no longer printed, in the additional inventory of the Lavra Library, No. 143 (rkp. included in the inventory until 1887 inclusive; 278 numbers in total), rkp. Pachomius Canon to St. Sergius - Description Synod. RKP. (No. 358, l. 238, p. 75); also RKP. Undolsky (No. 51, l. 329), Descriptions (p. 70, No. 103, l. 8, and No. 104, l. 20). “Canon prayer service for the discovery of the relics of St. Sergius and bringing the relics to the miracle worker Nikola”, see in the RKP. Volokolamskaya (No. 389, l. 298). The currently printed akathist to St. Sergius was compiled in the middle of the 17th century by the famous writer of that time, Prince Semyon Ivanovich Shakhovsky (Simon Azaryin in the “Book of New Miracles...”, miracle 33, printed, p. 75, cfr.; Descriptions of the Lavra Manuscripts, No. 764). In the manuscript of the Synodal Library of the late 17th century (according to the Description of Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 337, l. 224) there is an akathist to St. Sergius of an unknown compiler, not quite skillfully composed, as the compilers of the Description speak of it. In the Undolsky manuscript (No. 113) there is a table of contents of an akathist to St. Sergius, which was compiled by an unknown author in 1689, being dedicated to Prince Boris Alekseevich Golitsyn, who is called in the table of contents the Crown of Prayer and which in a note (not entirely intelligible) of another unknown is assimilated to Saint Demetrius of Rostov (in 1689 he was in Moscow (see Nechaev’s work “St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov,” pp. 30–31). In the Tsar’s manuscript (No. 727) there is a canon compiled in the same year of 1689, which has the inscription: “Newly created kontakia and ikos, written in the reigning city of Moscow, in the summer of 7197 (1689), Maya.” on the 28th day, M.N.g. S.M.” (I would be tempted to read: an unworthy, sinful monk, Sylvester Medvedev, but in May 1689 Medvedev seemed to have no time for writing akathists, except to assume that he consoled himself in his sad situation by composing hymns to St. Sergius. This is the current, that is, now printed and used akathist; against RKP., the current one has some corrections. It is also in the RKP. Library (No. 2) and the Archives of Min. If the canon is the same as the one whose table of contents is in Undolsky’s manuscript, then it cannot be assimilated by Medvedev, for Prince B. A. Golitsyn was his enemy). About the akathist, composed by Metropolitan Plato and published for the first time during the service in 1795, see Metropolitan. Eugene in the Dictionary (vol. II, p. 560). There are at least 4 akathists to St. Sergius: 1) Pachomius Serbina (Filaret. Review of spiritual literature, § 95, p. 143 sub. fin.); 2) Prince Shakhovsky, 3) that of Undolsky and 4) Metropolitan Platon. The currently used service for July 5, the day of the discovery of the relics, according to the descriptor of the Lavra manuscripts, was compiled no earlier than the middle of the 16th century (see No. 283, l. 248). There is another service, read in a manuscript from the second half of the same sixteenth century, according to the review of the same descriptor, belonging to the pen of a not particularly gifted writer (No. 619, l. 238). There is a common canon for St. Sergius and St. Nikon (Lavra RKP. No. 351, l. 313, and No. 662, l. 37), which was printed in Moscow in the middle of the 17th century (Description of early printed books of Tsarsky, No. 117). Of the three prayers to St. Sergius, currently printed at the end of the akathist to him, the first prayer begins: “O sacred head, venerable and God-bearing Father Sergius! By your prayer and faith and love for God, and the purity of your heart, you have established your soul on earth in the monastery of the Most Holy Trinity...”, which began to be printed recently (of the services to St. Sergius that we have at hand, it is in the service printed in 1886, but it is not yet in the service printed in 1837), as we guess, belongs to Metropolitan Plato and was taken from his akathist to St. Sergius; the second prayer, beginning: “O sacred head, reverend father, most blessed Abvo Sergius the Great! Do not forget your poor to the end, but remember us in your holy and auspicious prayers to God...”, in all likelihood, is the prayer above which is in the Tsar’s list (No. 112, fol. 141) there is an inscription: “A prayer to the Monk Sergius the Wonderworker, created in his monastery by the holy monk Sergius the Old in the summer of 7006” (1498), only for a smaller part it is independent, and for the larger part it is taken from the prayer of Epiphanius, with which he ends the eulogy of the saint. Sergius, (lithographic edition of his life, fol. 371 vol. fin. and 377); third prayer, beginning: “O heavenly citizen of Jerusalem, Reverend Father Sergius! Look upon us graciously and bring us to the earth of those who are devoted to the heights of heaven...”, judging by the layout, belongs to Metropolitan Philaret. In one of the Undolsky manuscripts and in one of the Solovetsky manuscripts an unprinted prayer is read to St. Sergius (Undolsk., No. 288, l. 77; Solovetsky., No. 42 (749), l. 237), beginning: “O great intercessor of the Christian race, warm intercessor to the all-generous God for all Orthodox.” In addition to the two feasts of St. Sergius - September 25, on the day of his death, and July 5, on the day of the discovery of his relics - since 1585 and it is unknown how long later in the 17th century, the monk was still celebrated in one Trinity Cathedral of the Lavra on August 14 - this is in memory of the transposition of the relics of the monk, which took place of the indicated year and date from the old shrine to the present one (see in the Description of the Lavra. RKP. No. 366 and in the Synod of the RKP Gorsky and Nevostruev, No. 400, l. In the RKP. Tsarsky (No. 448, fol. 138 vol., p. 551) reads the inscription to Sergius of Radonezh, the miracle worker (the creation of Sheshkov, who owned the manuscript, see the end of it). There is news, although not ancient, but more recent, about the existence of a portrait image of St. Sergius, which was copied from him while he was alive. In the Klintsovsky original, belonging to Count Stroganov, it is reported about Archbishop Theodore of Rostov, nephew of St. Sergius: “Saint Theodore, Archbishop of Rostov, a relative of St. Sergius, painter of the holy icon; The one who, when she was an archimandrite in the Simonov Monastery in Moscow, painted the image of her uncle, St. Sergius the Wonderworker, was extremely wonderful.” The original, one must think, records a reliable or unreliable legend that was circulated between icon painters orally. Be that as it may, absolutely nothing is known in the monastery about this image of St. Sergius, which, according to the original, should have been in the Trinity Monastery, either at the present time or from the records of previous times. Usually attributed to Pachomius Serbinus, but perhaps, as we said in the note on p. 5–12, which belongs to Epiphanius himself. The legend about the discovery of the relics does not directly indicate the year, but says that it (the discovery) took place 30 years after the death of the monk. Unknown by name, or anonymous, the author of the life of the Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk speaks of the monasteries founded by the Venerable Sergius and his disciples: “I behold good customs for decorating these monasteries, even the great Sergius did with himself, and with his disciples; But according to Father Sergius, over the years (by some), little by little, the society of them has become more inclined towards the Lavra (special life) custom, but the only Kirilov Monastery of the society (hostel) to observe the regulations is unharmed.” The author of another life of St. Joseph, Savva, Bishop of Krutitsky, speaking about the saint’s journey through the Russian monasteries, which he undertook in 1480–1481 with the aim of observing the order of life in the monasteries, like the author of the first life, notes only about one Kirillov monastery that “this monastery is not a common word, but a deed.” As for the Trinity Monastery separately, from the second half of the 15th century we have evidence that it no longer had a strict community life (see the letter of Metropolitan Philip to the Trinity Abbot Spyridon from 1472 in Volume I of “Historical Acts”, No. 278, p. 510, and in Pavlov’s “Monuments...”, No. 104, col. 734, and loan bondage of the second half of the 15th century to one Trinity monk in volume II of Kalachov’s “Legal Acts”, No. 126, III, col. 5, from which it is clear that the Trinity monks had private property, which even consisted of the monks’ own horses). According to the unknown author of the life of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, the latter was in the Trinity Monastery in 1478, and then there was already a special residence there (p. 16 fin. ed. Nevostruev). Having become the abbot of the Simonov Monastery, Theodore, according to his life, was elected as a confessor by the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and his, the sovereign, thousand; and the last thousand of Moscow died in 1374, so the foundation of the monastery should have been laid several years before. The Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, according to the Resurrection Chronicle, was founded by Theodore in 1379 (Complete collection of Russian let., vol. VIII, p. 77 fin.). The Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior on Old Simonovo, founded by a certain abbot Athanasius, whom Stroev speaks of in the “Lists of Hierarchs” (col. 153–154), was a special monastery from the Feodorov monasteries. Epiphanius in the life of St. Sergius talks about Theodore's founding of the Simonov Monastery in such a way that he (Theodore) had his own desire to found a monastery, that St. Sergius approved of this desire, that he chose a place for the monastery near Moscow, on the banks of the Moscow River, etc. In the abbreviated summary of the life, located in the Nikon Chronicle, two stories are read about Theodore's founding of the monastery: the first is the same as (in Epiphanius, and the second, abbreviated also read in the chronicle abbreviation of the life (Complete collection of Russian let., vol. VI, p. 121 fin.), is completely contradictory to him, which says that the Monk Sergius wanted to keep Theodore with him and leave him as his successor as abbot, but that he had to give him to the Grand Duke (to found a monastery near Moscow), yielding to the latter’s urgent desire (vol. IV, p. 227; the stories are partly intertwined with each other, but we will not make a detailed analysis of them in order to distinguish them from one another, because this would be unnecessary for us. We give strong preference to the second story, seeing in it the genuine story of the Epiphanies (see notes on pp. 8, 11 and 62). That Theodore built a monastery near Moscow at the request of the Grand Duke is completely understandable to us, but that he could have his own desire to build a monastery near Moscow, and that St. Sergius could approve his own desire, this would be completely incomprehensible to us. On the part of Theodore, this would mean going from the desert into the world and deliberately seeking those honors that awaited him in Moscow, and on the part of St. Sergius, this would mean giving his approval to such a very uncommendable desire. The Greek acts, which cannot, however, be recognized as indisputably authentic, present to us Theodore, who was involved in the case of the false metropolitan Pimin, in a far from impeccable form (see Pavlov in Pamyatn., Greek acts No. 33). That he was not entirely free from the passion of ambition is also hinted at in the Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius (according to Greek acts, he received the rank of archbishop not from the patriarch, but from Pimin (in Pavlov, ibid.). The construction of the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery, in addition to Epiphanius, is spoken of under the year 1374 and in the Nikonovskaya chronicle (vol. IV, p. 38 fin. sqq.) and Voskresenskaya (in the Complete collection of Russian let., vol. VIII, p. 21). In 1697, the monk of the Chudov Monastery, Karion Istomin, wrote the life of Athanasius, which says that he was from the Novgorod region, from the Obonezh Pyatina, the son of a priest, but in the abbreviation of the life of St. Sergius, read in the Nikon Chronicle, it is said that he was from Rostovets (vol. IV, p. 232). In Constantinople, we find him first in the monastery of John the Baptist, which bore the nickname “Rich God,” and then in Perivleptus (see: East., Description of Rumyants. music., p. 517 and 177). In one of these monasteries, he bought himself an “androfate” (Nikon. let., vol. IV. p. 39), that is, adelphat- adelphaton, which means the right of lifelong or some definite term maintenance in the monastery acquired with a one-time contribution of a certain amount of money. In 1401, while in the Perivelepte monastery, Athanasius translated the church charter of St. Savva the Sanctified from Greek into Slavic, or only wrote a list of the finished translation, which, due to the ambiguity and uncertainty of his afterword, cannot be decided (Vostok., p. 70). While briefly reporting ordinary information about the named saints and the monasteries they founded, we do not consider it necessary to indicate the sources from which we take information and which are the lives of the saints, and then well-known sources. To the year 6900 from the creation of the world, which is 1392 from the Nativity of Christ, the death of many saints is recorded. But this can be understood in two ways - either that the saint really died in 1392, or that he died in a year unknown to the compilers of the records, which uncertainty is indicated in the records precisely by round centenary digits. The invention of the legend that the name of the monastery is not from the Pesnosha river on which it stands, but because the Monk Methodius carried the forest across the river on foot to build the church and cells of the monastery, which is why it (the monastery) should be called not Pesnosha and Pesnosha, but Pesnosha and Pesnosha (and this word, unprecedented in it, “Peshnosha”, is boldly imposed on the Russian language), before we learned from K. F. Kalaidovich, who lived in the monastery in 1815–1816 and who compiled its description (in response to the article “Moscow academic historian on the life of St. Sergius,” published in the 10th book of the “Theological Bulletin” for 1893). But it turns out that he has the honor of only the final sanction, or approval, of the legend (in the aforementioned description of the monastery), and that it was invented by someone before him. The author of the “History of the Hierarchy” reports information about the monastery under the word “Pesnoshsky”, and calls it Pesnoshsky, Pestushsky and Pestushensky and says that it has its name from the Pesnosha River, on the banks of which it stands (vol. V, pp. 520–521), but then, when in alphabetical order he comes to the word “Peshnoshsky”, he also cites this name of the monastery, referring for information to the word “Pesnoshsky” (“Peshnoshsky Nikolaevsky monastery of the Moscow diocese. See: Pesnoshsky”, vol. V, p. 551). This obviously means that the author of the “History of the Hierarchy” was informed from the monastery along with its real name Pesnoshsky and its newly invented name Pesnoshsky. But since the author of the “History of the Hierarchy” does not say anything in explanation of the second name and since he writes “Peshnoshsky”, not Peshnoshsky, that is, through e, and not through yat, as in the second case, one should think that the monastery authorities, having informed him of the newly invented name of the latter, were embarrassed to tell him the very legend about the origin of the name. There is a charter from Prince Vladimir Andreevich to the Pesnoshsky Monastery in 1555. The monastery is called Pesnosha Monastery, Pesnosha. The beginning of the letter, stored in the Archives of the Ministry of Justice (No. 3794), was printed by Karsky in “Essay on Slavic Cyril Paleography” (p. 440). The Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk, in his “Answer to the Lustful”, says that Elder Nikita, a student of St. Sergius and the teacher of the Monk Paphnutius, was an archimandrite of the Vysotsky monastery, which, reconciling with the life of Pafnutius, should probably be understood as an inaccurate designation of the fact that Nikita, having the rank of archimandrite, lived in retirement in the Vysotsky monastery. The non-existent Nikifor Borovsky obviously arose from our Nikita Borovsky. The life of St. Stephen says that he left Kyiv along with many of its other inhabitants because it was taken over by the godless Latins, who began to oppress and rape the Orthodox. But since 1320, Kiev was ruled by pagan Lithuanians, from whom there was no oppression of the Orthodox faith (although Latin propaganda was given freedom). Dionysius was not made metropolitan by the patriarch in Constantinople, as is usually accepted, but had to be made metropolitan by the patriarchal exarchs in Moscow. The Monk Euthymius also assimilated the foundation of the Vasilyevskaya Hermitage, which was located five miles from Gorokhovets and was in charge of his Suzdal Spassky Monastery. The class, or department, of the disciples and interlocutors of St. Sergius, who were the founders of the monasteries, also includes the following: Theodosius and Athanasius of Cherepovetsky, Pachomius of Nerekhotsky (Nerekhtsky - Ed.), Nikita of Kostroma, Savva of Tver, Xenophon of Tutansky and Ferapont of Borovensky. Theodosius and Athanasius, about whom there is no biographical information (except that the second acquired the nickname “Iron Staff”), founded the Cherepovets Resurrection Monastery, currently a cathedral in the city of Cherepovets (Novgorod province), the author of the “History of the Hierarchy” (vol. VI, p. 656 sqq.) considers to have left the Trinity Monastery on the basis that the original church in the monastery was built by them in the name of the Holy Trinity and Saints Sergius and Nikon of Radonezh. If this were so, then it is obvious that the basis for the conclusion would be far from sufficient; but the original, like the later, main church of the monastery was in honor of the Resurrection of Christ, which is why the monastery was called Resurrection. In any case, the author of the “History of the Hierarchy” does not call Theodosius and Athanasius disciples of St. Sergius, as further researchers do, supposedly based on him, but, assuming that they came from the Trinity Monastery, regarding the time of their lives, he speaks of ignorance (and if a church had been built not only in the name of the Holy Trinity, but also of St. Sergius and Nikon, then this could only have been after the canonization of Nikon, and he was canonized only at the council 1547). According to the acts (printed in the “History of the Hierarchy”) it is clear that the monastery, which was the metropolitan house, already existed in the middle of the 15th century. Pachomius of Nerekhotsky, who was born in Vladimir, became a monk in the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, founded his monastery near the city of Nerekhta, Kostroma province (Troitsky Sypanovsky, converted to the parish church in 1764) and died on March 23, 1384, counts the deceased among the disciples of St. Sergius, without indicating the reasons Archimandrite Leonid (see his appendices to the Description of the Lavra by A.V. Gorsky, published in Readings of the Society of History and Antiquities of Russia, 1879, p. 114). As far as we know, there are no grounds (except for the fact that the monastery church was dedicated to the Holy Trinity). But if it is true that Pachomius introduced a strict community life in his monastery, then, not being considered a student or interlocutor of St. Sergius, he should be considered his imitator. Nikita Kostroma, about whom there is no biographical information, except that he lived under the Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich the Dark (1425–1462), founded the Epiphany Monastery located in the city of Kostroma (in 1864 it was converted from male to female). There is a description of the Epiphany Monastery, published in 1837 under the title “Historical news about the Kostroma second-class Epiphany Monastery from the 15th to the 19th centuries” and belonging to the rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Afanasy, who died in the rank of Archbishop of Astrakhan. In this description, not a single word hints at the existence of a tradition that would consider Elder Nikita (as the founder of the monastery is called in monastic synodics) to be a disciple of St. Sergius. And from this it undoubtedly follows that our tradition was created or created only in very recent times... (And to unite Nikita Kostromsky with Nikita Serpukhovsko-Borovsky, as can be seen from what we said about the latter, is completely unfounded). Savva Tverskoy is listed among the disciples of St. Sergius in the list of the latter’s students, read in the Academic Foundation. manuscript No. 201 (one of the disciples of St. Sergius - “Sava, like him in Tver, in the Savinsky monastery,” fol. 332 vol.). In the Savvinsky monastery, located 20 versts from Tver, founded in 1397 and closed in 1764, there were two abbots of Savva - the eldest of the Borozdin family, most commonly nicknamed Yora, in all likelihood the founder of the monastery, who later left the monastery for Athos (unfairly considered by many to be the same person with the Monk Savva Vishersky, who, being a separate person from him, only took monastic vows in his monastery), and the younger, who accepted the abbot of the monastery five years after the departure of the elder Savva to Mount Athos and then abbotted for more than 50 years. It would be necessary to consider Savva the Elder, of course, as a disciple of St. Sergius, but it is doubtful that this would be so, because St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, who reports information about both Savvas (in “Answer to the Curious”), does not say anything about this; The year of foundation of the monastery is indicated in the entry on one synodal manuscript, which see. by the Right Reverend Philaret in the Lives of the Saints on March 2; Probably, Savva Borozdin took from Athos the Slavic Helmsman's Book, which Vassian Kosoy had in his hands (Description of manuscript. Tolstoy, part. I, no. 169). Xenophon of Tutansky, who was the abbot of the Tutansky monastery, located in the same Tver province, on the river Darkness, flowing from the left into the Volga, 25 versts above the city of Tver (currently the village of Tutan, 30 versts from Tver), is classified among the disciples of St. Sergius by A.V. Gorsky, due to a misunderstanding incomprehensible to us (Description of the Lavra according to published by Archim. Leonid in Readings, p. 51 fin.). The basis for A. V-cha to classify Xenophon as one of the disciples of the Monk Sergius is that he is listed among the disciples of the monk in one Academic manuscript (note 6; of course the aforementioned Academic RKP. No. 201 with a list of the disciples of the Monk Sergius read in it, in which about Xenophon of Tutansky as one of the disciples of Sergius: “Reverend Xenophon, of Tutansky head of the monastery, like in Tver district", fol. 332 vol.). But in the manuscript the disciples of St. Sergius are named not only in their own sense, but also in a distant sense, who lived long after him, and yet he himself (A. V-ch) cites (p. 182 beginning) a record of the builders of the monastery, from which it is clear that the monastery was built only in the middle of the 16th century (cfr. Stroeva in “Lists of Hierarchs”, col. 477, No. 38). Ferapont Borovensky, who founded the Assumption Monastery in the Kaluga province, 10 versts from the city of Mosalsk (closed in 1764, currently the Borovensk churchyard), is considered a disciple of the Monk Sergius by local tradition, which adds that the monk, releasing him from himself, blessed him with an icon of the Mother of God (see article about Ferapont Borovensky gr. M. V. Tolstoy in “Soulful Reading”, 1877, part II, p. 241). But since in the monastery synodik of 1752 that has survived to this day, Ferapont is not called a disciple of St. Sergius (in Count Tolstoy ibid., p. 244 fin.), one can very well suspect that the legend is not much older than the legend about Nikita of Kostroma... See in “Legal Acts” (1838, No. 110, IV, p. 145) “given” to the St. John the Theological Monastery by the mayor Vasily Stepanovich (who died in monasticism with the name Varlaam in 1462), written in 1452. The death of Isaac is attributed to the year 1387 by the Nikon Chronicle (vol. IV, p. 152) and the list of disciples of St. Sergius indicated in the previous notes, which reads: “The St. Isaac the silent, who pleased with his good life and reposed in the summer of 6895” (l. 332 fin.). A record read by Karamzin dates the death of Isaac to 1388 (vol. V, note 137, col. 60). In Karamzin ibid., col. 59. See about Epiphanius in the note on p. 6 et seq. In the Lavra Library there is a parchment Stichirarion, written in 1380 by a certain Epiphanius, by which most likely we should mean our Epiphanius (No. 22). On the back of the 1st sheet of the manuscript, from which the text begins, in the lower margin is written in script: “the many-sinful servant of the bi (God) Epiphanes in his unworthiness wrote si (si, to himself).” On l. 48 in the lower field there is an entry that “in the year 6988 September. 26,” that is, in the summer of 6988, the month of September 26, “they began to quickly write tetr” (ad.) The entry was made in a very small semi-format, which has half faded and is therefore very difficult to read, but the number 6988 in it is clear, only the letters p and i are written in script: gi (so the reading of A.V. Gorsky: 6911, according to which he attributed manuscript to 1303, undoubtedly erroneous). On l. 98 on the lower field, under May 12, in which the memory of Epiphanius of Cyprus, is written: “To the lord of the saints Epiphanius of Cyprus, my sons, oleisons.” For all the entries in the manuscript, see I. I. Sreznevsky, second edition of “Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language,” under 1380, and “Slavic-Russian paleography,” p. 251 (only in the entry on l. 40 the reading of “Andreikov” is doubtful, more likely “Adronikov”, and the reading of “kelar” is arbitrary and erroneous: the word has half faded, and its remains do not at all allow us to assume the word “kelar”). For an attempt to explain one of the entries (according to Sreznevsky’s reading of it), see article no. N. Shlyakova “Unexplained news from the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh”, published in No. 41 “Additions to the Church Gazette” for 1892. Of the miracles of St. Sergius, recorded by Pachomius Serbinus, the 1st miracle. See Karamz. (vol. V, note 386, col. 159 fin. The owner of Radonezh and his region, Prince Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov, wrote in 1410 his dying spiritual letter “before his fathers, before the abbot before Nikon of Radonezh, before the abbot before Savoy Spassky” (Collected state grams and treaties, vol. I, p. 79 fin.). In the abbreviations of the Epiphanius Life of St. Sergius, Pachomius says that Nikon was abbot for 36 years (1392361428), and in the life of Nikon himself he says that he was abbot for 37 years (1392371429), as is the case (the latter) and according to the catalog of abbots-archimandrites of the Trinity Monastery. An entry on one Lavra manuscript made in 1459 (No. 264), the Typographical Chronicle and the chronicles of Karamzin (see previous note) date Nikon’s death to 1428, and the “Book, a verb description of Russian saints” compiled in the 17th century dates his death even to 1426. (printed edition by M.V. Tolstoy in Readings of General History and Ancient Russia, 1887, p. 77, No. 193). In the so-called Typographical Chronicle, which, according to Metropolitan Eugene, was compiled precisely in the Trinity Monastery (Dictionary of Spiritual Writers, words “George”, vol. I, p. 92 beginning), the death of St. Nikon is recorded under the year 6936 (p. 250). According to the initial, March, account it will be 1428, according to the later, September, 1427, and since in the Typographical Chronicle in this case the account is undoubtedly still March, then according to it the Monk Nikon died in 1428. In the “Book, verb description...” indicated in the previous note, the entry about Micah is read: “Reverend Father Micah, cell attendant and disciple of St. Serius the Wonderworker, reposed in the summer of May 6893 on the 6th day” (printed edition, p. 78, no. 194, see also Lavra manuscript no. 662, fol. 115 fin.). By the one who walked after the Monk Sergius for a long time and poured water on his hands, that is, by his cell attendant, whom Epiphanius indicates among the persons who gave him information about the monk, they usually mean Micah. But it is almost more likely to mean Nikon - this was also the cell attendant of the Monk Sergius, and meanwhile, Epiphanius is more likely to understand the collection of information about the monk not during his (the venerable) life, but after his death. About Onesimus, the father of Elisha, Epiphanius says: “Onesimus is a deacon, the father of deacons of Elisha the verb” (l. 90 vol.). In the Lavra Library there is a very good parchment manuscript of 16 words of Gregory the Theologian (No. 8), on which the signature: “Eliseevskaya”, and in the half of the 17th century in the Lavra sacristy there was a well-written and richly decorated Gospel tetra. “Eliseevskoe” (inventory of the monastery of 1641); it is possible that both manuscripts belonged to our Elisha. Palitsyn (chapter 50, ed. 1784, p. 164). One list of saints also names the disciple of St. Sergius, Martyrius (see Barsukov’s appendix to “Sources of Russian Hagiography,” p. IV, col. 1). But it is likely to think that this unknown Martyrius mistakenly arose from Macarius. In the northern porch of the Trinity Cathedral there is an icon depicting St. Sergius with his disciples [see the picture from it in “The Life and Deeds of St. Sergius", compiled by hieromonk, now Bishop Nikon, ed. 5th, 1904, building 215]. Speech delivered at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Theological Academy, which took place on September 26, 1892. It was published in the November 1892 book of the Theological Bulletin. Council of double rights (il) 6. See in “The History of Orthodox Monasticism in the East” by P. S. Kazansky, I, 16. See in our “History of the Russian Church,” vol. 1, sex. 2, p. 504 according to the 1st edition and p. 609 – according to the 2nd. Ibid., p. 682 on 1st and s. 788 on the 2nd. In Kazansky ibid., I, 16. Council of Chalcedon, rule 4. Double Council, rule 2. Novella 133, ch. 1: Medena (monachon) pantelos idian echein oikesin, mede to kaloumenon kellion eie kata to monasterion. Belonging to Balsamon and read in the interpretation of the 41st rule of the Trullo Council (in Ralli and P. vol. II, p. 405, cfr. of our “History of the Russian Church”, vol. I, half 2, p. 502 according to the 1st edition and p. 607 - according to the 2nd. “Brothers who are in favor, the blessed one took the divided life and took out each part and put it in its place.” Balsamon or unknown in the note to the 24th chapter of the 1st title of the nomocanon of Fotiev (in Rally and P., vol. I, p. 63). See my “History of the Russian Church”, vol. I, floors. 2, p. 504–505 according to 1st ed. and s. 609–610– according to the 2nd. See our “History of the Russian Church,” vol. I, sex. 2, p. 522 according to 1st ed. and s. 628 according to 2nd ed. For people unfamiliar with the history of monasticism and this so-called singular life, it may remain incomprehensible to read in the life of the Monk Sergius, that when monks came to him who wanted to labor with him in his desert, he told them: “I accept you with joy, just try to create your own cell for each of you” - and that later, having become abbot of the monastery, he (Sergius) built a cell for a fee. one monk of his monastery goes to his cell. But this, incomprehensible to people unfamiliar with the history of monasticism, speaks of a special monastic life or indicates the features of this life. It is precisely that this first was Archimandrite John of the Petrovsky Monastery (Nikon. let. under 1377, vol. IV, p. 73): “Ivan, Archimandrite Petrovsky, was the first director of general life in Moscow.” And about the Monk Demetrius of Prilutsk, the interlocutor of the Monk Sergius, it is reported that he was the first to introduce a hostel within the Vologda region. About the elder brother of St. Sergius, Stephen, it is said in the life of Sergius that he, having left the monk from the desert, came to Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery, and found himself a cell in the latter (“and you will find yourself a cell”), this means that in the Epiphany Monastery, as in all Moscow monasteries before St. Sergius, there was a separate residence and that Stephen bought himself a cell (and the expression “found” means “found” a cell that could be bought). Lithographic Lavra edition of the life of St. Sergius (fol. 351 vol.). On the division of income in special monasteries, see the letter of the unknown metropolitan in the “Act. Exp.” (Vol. I, No. 381, and in Pavlov’s “Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law” (No. 128). See in “History of the Russian Church” by Rev. Macarius (vol. XI, p. 175). You might be interested in: