P The appearance of the first monasteries in Rus' dates back to the era of Vladimir, the baptist of Rus', and under his son, Yaroslav the Wise, monastic life was already very diverse. Sometimes the monastics lived near the parish churches in cells that each one set up for himself; they lived in strict asceticism, gathered together for worship, but had no charter and did not take monastic vows.

There were desert dwellers, cave dwellers ( Old Russian.

liverwort). We know about the existence of this ancient form of monasticism in Rus' from the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” about Hilarion, who lived in a cave before being appointed metropolitan in 1051. Later, Anthony settled in his cave, having come to Rus' from Athos. There were monastic monasteries, that is, founded by princes or other rich people. Thus, in 1037 Yaroslav the Wise founded the monasteries of St. George and St. Irina ( christian names

the prince and his wife). The first was located near the St. Sophia Cathedral, the second - near the Golden Gate.

The sons of Yaroslav were also ktitors. Most of the monasteries were male, but by the end of the 11th century. Women also appeared: Vsevolod Yaroslavich built a monastery near the Church of St. Apostle Andrew, in which his daughter Yanka took monastic vows, and this monastery began to be called the Yanchin Monastery. Ktitorsky monasteries in

pre-Mongol Rus' prevailed. Their abbots were closely connected with the princely dynasties, which gave them some independence in relation to the metropolitan, but made them dependent on the princes. These monasteries were family tombs, a place to stay in old age, they had more funds than others, the possibility of entering them was determined by the size of the contribution made by the future monk.

It is symbolic that Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk bore the same monastic names as the fathers of Eastern monasticism - Ven. Anthony the Great, head of the Egyptian anchorites, and Rev. Theodosius of Jerusalem, organizer of the Palestinian community. Contemporaries saw in this a connection with the origins of monasticism; this was mentioned by the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon - the first monastic biography and the Tale of Bygone Years - the first Russian chronicle.

Kiev-Pechersk Lavra

Anthony was from Lyubech, at a young age he went to Mount Athos, there he became a monk, learned the rules of monastic life, and then received a command from God to return to Rus'. One of the Svyatogorsk elders predicted to him: “For from you there will be many rabble.” Arriving in Kyiv, Anthony walked around the monasteries in search of a place of asceticism, but “did not love” any of them. Having found Hilarion's cave, he settled in it.

Anthony led a strict ascetic life, daily and nightly being in labor, vigil and prayer, eating bread and water. Soon many disciples gathered around Anthony, he instructed them, tonsured some of them as monks, but he did not want to become their abbot. When the number of monks reached twelve, Anthony appointed Varlaam abbot, son of a boyar, and he himself retired to a distant cave to live as a hermit.

Kiev-Pechersk Icon of the Mother of God with St. Anthony
and Theodosius of Pechersk. OK. 1288

Varlaam's successor was Theodosius, one of Anthony's youngest students. When he became abbot, he was only 26 years old. But under him the number of brethren increased from twenty to one hundred people. Theodosius was very concerned about the spiritual growth of the monks and the organization of the monastery, he built cells, and in 1062 he founded stone temple

Dormition of the Virgin Mary. Under Theodosius, the Pechersk monastery received a cenobitic charter based on the model of the Studite monastery in Constantinople and became the largest monastery in Kyiv. Theodosius was a talented church writer and left many spiritual works. ABOUT

From the Patericon we learn how diverse the composition of the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was: there were not only Russians, but also Greeks, Varangians, Ugrians (Hungarians), and Jews. Poor peasants, wealthy townspeople, merchants, boyars, even princes became monks. Among the Pechersk monks was the first Russian icon painter Alypiy, doctor Agapit, chronicler Nestor, Kuksha, educator of the Vyatichi, Prokhor Lebednik, who during the famine baked sweet bread from bitter quinoa for the people of Kiev. There were scribes and preachers, missionaries and hermits, prayer workers and miracle workers.

P At first, monasteries were created in Southern Rus': in Chernigov Boldinsky (Eletsky) in honor of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, in Pereslavl of St. John, in Vladimir Volynsky Svyatogorsky Monastery, etc. Gradually, monasteries began to appear in the northeastern lands: in Murom in the pre-Mongol period the Spassky Monastery was founded monastery, in Suzdal - St. Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica and others.

Holy Dormition Eletsky Convent in Chernigov

Monasticism is very quickly becoming a widespread phenomenon in Rus'. According to chronicles, in the 11th century. there were 19 monasteries, on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion - more than a hundred. By the middle of the 15th century. there were 180 of them. Over the next century and a half, about three hundred were opened, the 17th century alone gave 220 new monasteries. On the eve of the revolution, there were 1025 monasteries in the Russian Empire.

N Ovgorod was the second most important city Ancient Rus', and in the pre-Mongol period there were 14 monastic monasteries here. One of the oldest Novgorod monasteries was Yuryev. According to legend, it was founded by Yaroslav the Wise, but the earliest surviving mention dates back to 1119, when Abbot Kiriak and Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich founded stone church

in the name of St. George.

Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary of the Anthony Monastery in Veliky Novgorod

Among the Novgorod monasteries created by ascetics, the most famous was Preobrazhensky Khutyn Monastery. Its founder, Varlaam (in the world - Alexa Mikhailovich), a native of Novgorod, the son of wealthy parents, under the influence of “divine” books, even in childhood, felt an attraction to monasticism. After the death of his parents, he distributed the estate and entered obedience to the elder Porfiry (Perfury), after some time he went to Khutyn Hill ( glory. bad place), ten miles outside the city, and began to live in solitude. Disciples began to come to him, and a monastery was gradually formed. The monk received everyone, taught them to avoid untruth, envy and slander, lies, to have meekness and love, instructed nobles and judges to judge righteously and not take bribes, the poor - not to envy the rich, the rich - to help the poor.

M The Mongol invasion disrupted the natural course of monastic life in Rus', many monasteries suffered from pogrom and destruction, and not all monasteries were subsequently restored. The revival of monasticism began in the second half of the 14th century, and it is associated with the names of St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow, and Rev. Sergius of Radonezh.

There is little information left about monasteries from the Mongol-Tatar era, but the importance of monasticism in spiritual and social life at this time increases, it becomes a spiritually consolidating force in society. The character of monasteries is also changing. If in the initial period the monasteries were mainly urban or located near cities, then from the 14th century. more “desert” monasteries appear. In Rus', a desert was called a secluded place, far from cities and villages; most often it was a wild forest.

The founders of these monasteries, as a rule, are very bright personalities, the most famous are Sergius of Radonezh and a galaxy of his students and followers, the initiators of the spiritual upsurge in Rus' at the end of the 14th-15th centuries. Sergius's personality was so attractive that even those who did not have a monastic calling wanted to live near him.

In the middle of the 14th century. Active development and settlement of the area around the Trinity Monastery began: peasants cleared the forest for arable land, set up villages and courtyards here, and the once deserted area turned into a populated and developed region.

The peasants not only came to worship at the monastery, but also sought to help the monks.

However, in the monastery there was a strict commandment of the abbot: even in the case of extreme poverty, “not to leave the monastery to this or that village and not to ask the laity for bread, but to expect mercy from God.” Requests for alms, and even more so demands for contributions and donations, were strictly prohibited, although voluntary offerings were not rejected. For Sergius, the ancient monastic ideal of non-covetousness was sacred, but in the practice of many monasteries it was violated.

M A hundred years after Sergius, the question of monastic property would lead to a split of monasticism into two parties - the non-covetous people, led by Nil of Sorsky, who preached poverty and independence of the monasteries, and the Josephites, led by Joseph of Volotsky, who defended the right of the monasteries to own property. Sergius of Radonezh died in old age and was canonized in 1452. In addition to Trinity, Sergius founded several more monasteries, in particular Annunciation Monastery in Kirzhach, where he installed his disciple Roman as abbot. He placed another student, Athanasius, at the head of the Vysotsky Monastery in Serpukhov. Savva Storozhevsky became abbot in Zvenigorod (see article on p. 18), and Sergius’s nephew Theodore (later Bishop of Rostov) headed the Simonov Monastery in Moscow.

The monastery movement was especially active in the North, the monks contributed to the development of new lands, bringing civilization and culture to those places where previously it was deserted or lived by wild pagan tribes. One of the first ascetics to go to the North was Dmitry Prilutsky, on the river Sheksne, Annunciation Vorbozomsky, Trinity Pavlo-Obnorsky, etc. The primary role in monastic colonization belonged to the Solovetsky Monastery, founded in the 1420s. St. Zosima and Savvaty.

He had a leading role in the development of the White Sea region. Miracles Monastery.

Vintage postcard. Moscow

In the XIV century. The metropolitan of Rus' was Alexy, a native of the old boyar family of the Pleshcheevs, one of the most educated people of his time. He took monastic vows at the Epiphany Monastery in Moscow and occupied the metropolitan see for 24 years.

Being a wise politician, he retained his love for monastic life and in every possible way contributed to the establishment of monasteries, seeing in them a beneficial, moral influence on society. He founded a monastery in the Moscow Kremlin in the name of the Miracle of the Archangel Michael in Khoneh (Miracle Monastery). An interesting story is connected with him: around 1365, while in the Horde on state affairs, Metropolitan Alexy healed Taidula, the wife of Khan Dzhenibek, from blindness. For this, the khan gave him part of the land of the Tatar courtyard in the Kremlin, where Alexy founded the monastery, which became the home monastery of the Russian metropolitans. The founding of another monastery, Spaso-Andronikov, is also connected with the miracle. During Alexy's journey to Constantinople, the ship was caught in a storm, but the Metropolitan prayed before the icon of the Savior, and the ship miraculously escaped shipwreck. Alexy made a vow, returning to his homeland, to build a monastery.

So he did: on the banks of the Yauza he founded a monastery in honor of the Image of the Savior Not Made by Hands, and appointed Andronicus, a disciple of Sergius of Radonezh, as its abbot. Today this monastery is known as Spaso-Andronikov. Such monasteries are called “votive”, that is, founded by vow. Reconstruction of the appearance of Evdokia (Euphrosyne) of Moscow works by S. Nikitin

Founder convents

was Evdokia, Princess of Moscow, wife of Dmitry Donskoy. Russian monasteries were actively involved in civilizational activities (land development, farming, crafts) and were centers of culture, but the main task of the monk remained spiritual achievement and prayer, “acquiring the Holy Spirit,” as St. Seraphim of Sarov called it. The monks were called monks because they chose a different way of life from the worldly one. Monasticism was also called the angelic order - “an earthly angel and a heavenly man” was said about a monk. Of course, not all monks were and are like that, but the monastic ideal in Rus' was always high, and the monastery was perceived as a spiritual oasis.

A. Vasnetsov. Monastery in Moscow Rus'. 1910s

Usually, monasteries were built away from the bustle, most often outside the city limits, in a deserted place. They were fenced with high walls, which rarely had military-strategic significance, with the exception of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, which withstood several sieges, and some other monasteries.

Monastery walls mark the boundary between the spiritual and the worldly, behind them a person should feel protected from external storms and unrest, fenced off from the world. In the monastery fence there is no running and haste, people speak quietly, idle laughter is excluded here, empty conversations are prohibited, and even more so swear words. There should be nothing here that would distract a person’s attention or seduce him; on the contrary, everything should set him in a high spiritual mood. Monasteries have always been a spiritual school not only for those who have chosen the monastic way of life, but also for the laity, who for centuries were spiritually nurtured in monasteries by the elders. Monk Robe:

1 – schema; 2 – mantle; 3 – kamilavka; 4 – hood; 5 – cassock

“Go and learn from the monks,” said St. John Chrysostom in one of his conversations, these are lamps shining throughout the entire earth, these are the walls with which the cities themselves are fenced and supported.

« Beyond Taganka the city ended. Between the Krutitsky barracks and the Simonov Monastery lay vast cabbage fields. There were also powder magazines here. The monastery itself rose beautifully... on the banks of the Moscow River. Now only half of the original building remains of it, although Moscow could be proud of the architecture of this monastery no less than the French and Germans are proud of their castles."
Historian M.N. Tikhomirov

Vostochnaya Street, 4... official address in directories oldest monastery Moscow - Simonovsky. It is located near the Avtozavodskaya metro station.

Simonov monastery It was founded in 1379 by the nephew and disciple of St. Sergius of Radonezh - Abbot Theodore. Its construction was blessed by Metropolitan Alexy of Moscow and All Rus' and St. Sergius of Radonezh. New monastery located several kilometers from the Kremlin on the high bank of the Moscow River on land donated to the monastery by the boyar Stepan Vasilyevich Khovra (Khovrin), who later became a monk in this monastery under the name of the monk Simonon. Nearby was the busy Kolomenskaya road. From the west, the site was limited by the steep left bank above the bend of the Moscow River. The area was the most beautiful.

For a quarter of a century, the monastery's buildings were made of wood. Vladimir Grigorievich Khovrin builds in Simonov Monastery Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. This temple, one of the largest in Moscow at that time, still stands on a massive white-stone basement and is very decorated in Italian style (a student of Aristotle himself, Fioravanti, took part in its reconstruction at the end of the 15th century). Its construction was completed in 1405. Seeing this majestic structure, contemporaries said: “Such a blunder has never happened in Moscow.” It is known that in the 19th century an icon of the Lord Pantocrator, which belonged to Sergius of Radonezh, was kept in the temple. According to legend, Sergius blessed Dmitry Donskoy with this icon for the Battle of Kulikovo. After perestroika at the end of the 15th century, the Assumption Cathedral became five-domed.

Assumption Cathedral of the Simonov Monastery 1379-1404.

(reconstruction by P.N. Maksimov based on the results of field studies in 1930)

In addition to the monastery’s Assumption Cathedral, Vladimir Grigorievich “made a brick fence near the monastery.” This was the first stone monastery fence in Moscow architecture, erected from a material that was then new in Moscow - brick. Its production has just been established by the same Aristotle Fioravanti not far from Simonov, in the village of Kalitnikov. In the 16th century, unknown architects erected new fortress walls with powerful towers around the Simonov Monastery (some historians suggest the authorship of the famous Russian architect Fyodor Kon, builder of the walls of the White City of Moscow, the Smolensk Kremlin and the walls of the Borovsko-Pafnutev Monastery). Each of the fortress towers had its own name - Dulo, Kuznechnaya, Salt, Watchtower and Taininskaya, which faced the water.

Dulo Tower. 1640s

View from the bell tower to the Moscow River. In the foreground are the Dulo and Sushilo towers. Photography from the beginning of the 20th century.

From the moment of its creation, the Simonov Monastery was located on the most dangerous southern borders of Moscow. Therefore, its walls were made not just monastery, but fortress walls. In 1571, Khan Davlet-Girey looked at the burning Moscow from the tower of the monastery. The capital then burned out in three hours, and about two hundred thousand Muscovites died in the fire. In 1591, during the invasion of the Tatar Khan Kazy-Girey, the monastery, together with the Novospassky and Danilov monasteries, successfully resisted the Crimean army. In 1606, Tsar Vasily Shuisky sent archers to the monastery, who, together with the monks, repelled the troops of Ivan Bolotnikov. Finally, in 1611, during a severe fire in Moscow, caused by the Poles, many residents of the capital took refuge behind the monastery walls.

The Royal Doors from the Simonov Monastery.
Detail. Tree. Moscow. End of the 17th century

Throughout history, the monastery was the most visited in Moscow; members came here to pray royal family. Everyone considered it their duty to take part in the construction and decoration of the monastery, once one of the richest in Russia. The monastery bell tower was also famous throughout Moscow. Thus, in the Nikon Chronicle there is a special article “On Bells”, which talks about the strong and wonderful bell ringing, which, according to some, came from the cathedral bells of the Kremlin, and according to others, from the bells of the Simonov Monastery. There is also a famous legend that on the eve of the assault on Kazan, young Ivan the Terrible clearly heard the ringing of Simon's bells, foreshadowing victory.

Therefore, Muscovites felt respect for the Simonov bell tower itself. And when to 19th century It fell into disrepair, then the famous architect Konstantin Ton (the creator of the Russian-Byzantine style in Moscow architecture) erected a new one over the northern gate of the monastery in 1839. Its cross became the highest point in Moscow (99.6 meters). On the second tier of the bell tower there were the churches of John, Patriarch of Constantinople, and St. Alexander Nevsky, on the third - a belfry with bells (the largest of them weighed 16 tons), on the fourth - a clock, on the fifth - an exit to the head of the bell tower. This majestic structure was built at the expense of the Moscow merchant Ivan Ignatiev.

Simonov Monastery in the 17th century. Reconstruction by R.A. Katsnelson

There was a time when Simonovo was known as a favorite place for country walks among Muscovites. Not far from it there was a marvelous pond, according to the chronicles, dug by the brethren with the participation of Sergius of Radonezh himself. It was called that way - Sergiev Pond. During Soviet times, it was filled up, and today the administrative building of the Dynamo plant is located on this site. A little more about the pond below.

The plague epidemic that began in 1771 led to the closure of the monastery and its transformation into a “plague quarantine.” In 1788, by decree of Catherine II, a hospital was organized in the monastery - there was a Russian-Turkish war.

Refectory of the Simonov Monastery. 1685
Photo from the History of Russian Art by I. Grabar

A major role in the restoration of the Simonov Monastery was played by the Chief Prosecutor of Moscow A. I. Musin-Pushkin. At his request, the empress canceled her decree and restored the monastery's rights. The Musin-Pushkin family is buried in the family crypt of the necropolis of the Church of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God of the monastery.

The first, in the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Mother of God, was buried the contributor and builder of this church, Grigory Stepanovich Khovru. Subsequently, the cathedral became the tomb of the metropolitans Varlaam, the son of the Moscow prince Dmitry Ioannovich (Donskoy) - Prince Konstantin of Pskov, the princes Mstislavsky, Suleshev, Tyomkin, the boyars Golovin and Butyrlin.

Until now, in the ground, under the local Children's Park, rest: the first holder of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, comrade-in-arms of Peter I, Fyodor Golovin; the head of the Seven Boyars, who refused the Russian throne three times, Fyodor Mikhailovich Mstislavsky; princes Urusov, Buturlin, Tatishchev, Naryshkin, Meshchersky, Muravyov, Bakhrushin.

Until 1924, there were tombstones here on the graves of the Russian writer S.T. Aksakov and his early deceased friend A.S. Pushkin poet D.V. Venevitinov (on his tombstone there was a black epitaph: “How he knew life, how little he lived”).

Tombstone over the graves of the Venevitinovs

The monastery was closed for the second time already in 1923. Its last abbot Antonin (in the world Alexander Petrovich Chubarov) was exiled to Solovki, where he died in 1925. Now Abbot Anthony has been canonized among the Russian New Martyrs...

A. M. Vasnetsov. Clouds and golden domes. View of the Simonov Monastery in Moscow. 1920

Only a few buildings have survived from the once powerful fortress:
- Fortress walls (three spindles);
- Salt tower (corner, southeast);
- Blacksmith tower (pentahedral, on the southern wall);
- "Dulo" (corner, southwestern tower);
- “Water” gate (1/2 of the 17th century);
- “Kelarsky building” (or “Old” refectory, 1485, XVII century, XVIII century);
- “New” refectory (1677-1683, architects P. Potapov, O. Startsev);
- “Sushilo” (malt room, 16th century, 2/2 17th century);
- Treasury cells (1/3 of the 17th century).
- One closed temple with 5 thrones was preserved, but five other temples with 6 thrones were destroyed.

Modern photographs of the state of the monastery

Well, now some lyrics. This monastery is also famous for its romantic stories...

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin immortalized the Simonov Monastery:

“... the most pleasant place for me is the place where the gloomy, Gothic towers of the Simonov Monastery rise. Standing on this mountain, you see right side almost all of Moscow, this terrible mass of houses and churches, which appears to the eye in the form of a majestic amphitheater: a magnificent picture, especially when the sun shines on it, when its evening rays glow on countless golden domes, on countless crosses ascending to the sky! Below are lush, densely green flowering meadows, and behind them, along the yellow sands, flows a bright river, agitated by the light oars of fishing boats or rustling under the helm of heavy plows that sail from the most fertile countries of the Russian Empire and provide greedy Moscow with bread.

On the other side of the river one can see an oak grove, near which numerous herds graze; there young shepherds, sitting under the shade of trees, sing simple, sad songs and thus shorten the summer days, so uniform for them. Further away, in the dense greenery of ancient elms, the golden-domed Danilov Monastery shines; even further, almost at the edge of the horizon, the Sparrow Hills are blue. On the left side you can see vast fields covered with grain, small forests, three or four villages, and in the distance the village of Kolomenskoye with its high palace.”

"Lizin Pond"

In his story "Poor Liza" Karamzin very reliably described the surroundings of the Tyufel Grove. He settled Lisa and her elderly mother near the walls of the nearby Simonov Monastery. A pond near the monastery walls in the southern suburbs of Moscow suddenly became the most famous pond, a place of mass pilgrimage for readers for many years. The pond was called Saint, or Sergius, because, according to monastic tradition, it was dug by Sergius of Radonezh himself, the founder and first abbot of the Trinity Monastery on the Yaroslavl Road, which became the famous Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

The Simonov monks bred some special fish in the pond - size and taste - and treated it to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich when he, on his way to Kolomenskoye, stopped to rest in the chambers of the local abbot... A story was published about an unfortunate girl, a simple peasant woman, who ended her life not at all in a Christian way - with an ungodly suicide, and the Muscovites - with all their piety - immediately renamed the Holy Pond to Lizin Pond, and soon only the old inhabitants of the Simonov Monastery remembered the former name.

Numerous trees surrounding him were covered and cut up with inscriptions of compassion for the unfortunate beauty. For example, like this:

In these streams, poor Liza passed away her days,
If you are sensitive, passer-by, sigh!

However, according to contemporaries, more ironic messages appeared here from time to time:

Erast’s bride died here in the pond,
Get warm, girls, there's plenty of room for you here.

In the twenties of the last century, the pond became very shallow, overgrown, and became like a swamp. In the early thirties, during the construction of a stadium for workers of the Dynamo plant, the pond was filled in and trees were planted in this place. Now the administrative building of the Dynamo plant rises above the former Liza Pond. At the beginning of the 20th century, a pond named after her, and even the Lizino railway station, appeared on maps.

View of Tyufelev Grove and Simonov Monastery

Along with the pond, Tyufeleva Grove has become an equally popular place of pilgrimage. Every spring, society ladies specially went here to collect lilies of the valley, just as the heroine of their favorite story did.

Tyufeleva Grove disappeared at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, contrary to existing opinion, it was not the Bolsheviks who exterminated it, but representatives of the progressive Russian bourgeoisie. On August 2, 1916, the groundbreaking ceremony for the first automobile plant in Russia took place here. An enterprise called the Automobile Moscow Society (AMO) belonged to the trading house Kuznetsov, Ryabushinsky and K. However, the October Revolution did not allow the plans of entrepreneurs to come true. In August 1918, the still unfinished plant was nationalized, and on November 1, 1924, the first Soviet truck, the AMO-F-15, was assembled here from Italian parts.

Romantic walks around the Simonov Monastery brought two people closer together - Dmitry Venevitinov and Zinaida Volkonskaya.

V. Odoevsky introduced Dmitry to Zinaida Volkonskaya in 1825. The princess's Moscow house was well known to all connoisseurs of beauty. Its charming owner turned it into a kind of art academy. Pushkin called her “The Queen of Muses and Beauty.”

P.F. Sokolov Portrait of D.V. Venevitinov. 1827

The meeting with Volkonskaya turned Venevitinov’s life upside down - he fell in love with all the passion of a twenty-year-old poet. Alas, it was hopeless: Zinaida was 16 years older than him, and besides, she had been married for a long time to the brother of the future Decembrist.

Z. Volkonskaya

The time has come, and Zinaida asked to break off relations, giving Dmitry a ring as a sign of eternal friendship. A simple metal ring, brought to light from the ashes during the excavations of Herculaneum... Friends said that Venevitinov never parted with the princess’s gift and promised to wear it either when walking down the aisle, or when standing on the verge of death.

To my ring

You were dug up in a dusty grave,
Herald of age-old love,
And again you are dust from the grave
You will be bequeathed, my ring.
But not love now by you
Blessed the eternal flame
And above you, in heartache,
She made a holy vow...
No! friendship in the bitter hour of farewell
Gave to weeping love
You are the key to compassion.
Oh, be my faithful talisman!
Protect me from serious wounds,
And the light and the insignificant crowd,
From the caustic thirst for false glory,
From a seductive dream
And from spiritual emptiness.
In hours of cold doubt
Revive your heart with hope,
And if you are imprisoned in sorrows,
Far from the angel of love,
It will plan a crime -
With your wondrous power you tame
Gusts of hopeless passion
And from my rebellious breast
Turn away the lead of madness.
When will I be at the hour of death
Saying goodbye to what I love here,
I won't forget you when I say goodbye:
Then I'll beg my friend,
So that he is cold from my hand
I didn’t take you off, my ring,
So that the coffin does not separate us.
And the request will not be fruitless:
He will confirm his vow to me
With the words of the fatal oath.
Centuries will fly by, and perhaps
That someone will disturb my ashes
And in it he will discover you again;
And again timid love
He will whisper to you superstitiously
Words of tormenting passions,
And again you will be her friend,
Just as it was for me, my ring is faithful.

When these poems were written, Venevitinov had only a few days left to live. At the beginning of March 1827, he danced at a ball, and then, heated, he ran across the yard to his outbuilding in a barely thrown overcoat. The cold turned out to be fatal. On March 15, Venevitinov passed away. In a moment of agony, his friend, Fyodor Khomyakov, brother of the poet Alexei Khomyakov, put the ring on the finger of the dying man.

In January 1930, the Simonov Monastery, in which Venevitinov was buried, was blown up in order to build a Palace of Culture on the vacant site. The exhumation of the poet’s remains was scheduled for July 22. “Venevitinov’s skull,” wrote M.Yu. Baranovskaya, an employee of the Historical Museum, “surprised anthropologists with its strong development. I was amazed by the musicality of the fingers. A bronze ring that belonged to the poet was taken from the ring finger of his right hand.” Venevitinov’s ring was transferred to the Literary Museum.

House of Culture ZIL

Simonov Monastery will soon turn 630 years old. The first restoration work began here only in the 50s of the 20th century. In the 80s, the restoration of the Salt Tower and the southern wall was underway, and at the same time part of the eastern wall was restored.

On May 29, 1991, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II blessed the creation of a parish in Simonovo for believers with hearing impairments. On December 31 of the same year, the deaf community of the temple in honor of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God of the former Simonov Monastery was registered here. The monastery, which in those years lay in ruins in the very heart of the capital.

Temple of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God

The year 1994 became a turning point for Simonov in the history of the holy monastery - the Moscow government allocated the entire complex of surviving buildings of the Simonov Monastery for free use by the Moscow Patriarchate.

In the community of the deaf and hard of hearing, it is planned to create a step-by-step system of education and training for the deaf: kindergarten- school - college. It is planned to organize a home for the elderly and infirm. For all this, personnel are now being trained at the St. Dimitrovsky School of Sisters of Mercy.

The history of Moscow literary tracts begins with the emergence of full-fledged subjective prose, that is, with “Poor Liza” by N.M. Karamzin (1792). The act of creating this kind of narrative is based on a detailed description of subjective experience, including the experience of favorite places and “dear to the heart” time fragments - times of day and seasons. The sentimental heroine had to be settled in a place that would excite the author’s imagination and be remembered for a long time by the future reader - something similar to the village of Clarens on the shores of Lake Geneva, where, by the will of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the tender Julia and the passionate Saint-Preux were destined to live.

Karamzin chose the vicinity of the Simonov Monastery not by chance: it was covered in legends. From a young age, the writer was interested in ancient Moscow and read the anonymous “Tales of the Beginning of Moscow,” written in the second half of the 17th century, in which Simonovo was named among various options for the location of the villages of the boyar Kuchka. Thus, this place was indirectly associated with the construction sacrifice that preceded the founding of the future capital. Legends connected Simonovo with other important events in Russian history. For example, it was believed that St. Sergius of Radonezh, who founded the Simonov Monastery in 1370, personally dug a small pond near the monastery walls, which for a long time was called Lisin. The heroes of the Battle of Kulikovo - Peresvet and Oslyabya, monks of the Holy Trinity Monastery - were buried right there, very nearby. Whether it was true or not, in fact, no one knew, but that is precisely why this place was enveloped in an atmosphere of increased importance, emotionality and mystery; it exuded lesson- the influence of powerful forces of historical fate.

However, the historical memory and associated legends that the tract “keeps” are insufficient in themselves. The work of the imagination must come to the aid of nature - the properties of the local landscape. And that didn’t stop there: it was beautiful in Simonovo. The monastery stands on the high bank of the Moscow River, from where a majestic panorama of the southern part of the city, from the Donskoy Monastery and the Sparrow Hills to the Kremlin, opens even now; During the time of Karamzin, the wooden palace of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Kolomenskoye was also visible. For the reader who sympathized with the “sentimental” narrator and deeply experienced the legendary-historical associations, it was extremely important for the narrator to admit that he loves to walk there and communicate with nature: “I often come to this place and almost always meet spring there; I come there and grieve with nature on the dark days of autumn” (, 591).

At the end of the 18th century, Simonovo was located at a considerable distance from the city, among water meadows, fields and groves. Moscow could be seen very well from there, but it stood out in the distance - living history framed by eternal nature. Karamzin’s description that precedes the action of the story is first the “majestic amphitheater” of the city, surrounding villages and monasteries in the slanting rays of the setting sun (. The locus has not only topographical, but in many cases also genre definition, which is set by social and cultural purpose: in the temple there are people they pray, shave at the hairdresser, and drink coffee with cakes and gossip in a cafe. On the other hand, a city tract can represent a topos), and then a smooth transition from a panorama of the city and nature to a panorama of history. The role of a connecting link between cosmic and cultural-historical elements is played by the image of autumn winds blowing within the walls of the monastery between the “gloomy Gothic towers” ​​and tombstones. The fragment given below perfectly demonstrates the art of the writer, who, masterfully manipulating the reader’s feelings, intensifies the mood associated with experiencing a place of extraordinary, sad and majestic - and only then moves on to depict the fate of the poor girl. Let us not forget that, according to the beliefs of humanists and educators of the 18th century, it is the specific human personality that is the crown of nature and final goal stories. “I often come to this place and almost always meet spring there; I come there and grieve with nature on the dark days of autumn. The winds howl terribly within the walls of the deserted monastery, between the coffins overgrown with tall grass, and in the dark passages of the cells. There, leaning on the ruins of the grave stones, I listen to the dull groan of times, swallowed up by the abyss of the past - a groan from which my heart shudders and trembles. Sometimes I enter cells and imagine those who lived in them - sad pictures!<…>Sometimes on the gates of the temple I look at the image of the miracles that happened in this monastery - there fish fall from the sky to feed the inhabitants of the monastery, besieged by numerous enemies; here the image of the Mother of God puts the enemies to flight. All this renews in my memory the history of our fatherland - the sad history of those times when the ferocious Tatars and Lithuanians devastated the environs of the Russian capital with fire and sword and when unfortunate Moscow, like a defenseless widow, expected help from God alone in its cruel disasters. But most often what attracts me to the walls of the Simonov Monastery is the memory of the deplorable fate of Lisa, poor Lisa. Oh! I love those objects that touch my heart and make me shed tears of tender sorrow!” ( , 591–592).

Karamzin used the above-mentioned moods of “tender sorrow” with his characteristic talent. He “drowned” the heroine in Fox Pond. After the story was published, this pond immediately became a place of pilgrimage for Muscovites who came here to cry over the bitter fate of poor Liza. In ancient engravings of those years, the texts of “sensitive” inscriptions on different languages, which Muscovites carved on the trees growing around the pond, which oral rumor renamed from Lisinoy to Lizin, for example: “In these streams, poor Liza passed away her days; / Since you are sensitive, passer-by! breathe"; or: “Lisa drowned here, Erast’s bride. / Drown yourself, girls, there will be a place for all of you” (quoted from: , 362–363). Simonovsky locus acquired a reputation as a place of unhappy love. But few of the “pilgrims” realized the deep poetic connection of this image with a much more complex image of Russian history, or more precisely, the history of Moscow. St. Sergius, who stood at the origins of the great future of Moscow, and “poor” Liza were connected by the Simonovo tract as a special source and catalyst of poetry, locus poesiae( , 107–113). However lesson this place even affected those in power: at the time of writing “Poor Liza,” Simonov’s monastery was closed by the will of Catherine II, who was trying to pursue a policy of secularization (therefore, in “Poor Liza” the monastery is “empty” and the cells are empty), but in 1795, At the height of Simonov's popularity, it had to be reopened.

The Simonovskoye tract actively influenced minds and hearts for a relatively short time - while the Karamzin generation lived. Already in Pushkin's times, a semantic de-actualization of this place sets in, and the memory of it gradually fades away. It is curious that Lizin Pond as the place of death of the Karamzin heroine was mentioned in the guidebook of 1938 (, 122–123), when Simonova Sloboda was called Leninskaya (and in the middle of Leninskaya Sloboda Lizin Square still existed!), but by the mid-1970s, the literary pathfinder Alexander Shamaro had to work hard to find out where and when exactly the pond “disappeared”, in the place of which the administrative building of the Dynamo plant grew (, 11–13).

Notes:

Gershtein E. Duel between Lermontov and Barant // Literary Heritage. 1948. No. 45–46 (M.Yu. Lermontov, II). pp. 389–432.

Karamzin N.M. Poor Liza // Russian prose of the 18th century. M.: Fiction, 1971. pp. 589–605.

Inspection of Moscow: Guide. M.: Moscow worker, 1938.

Toporov V.N. “Poor Liza” by Karamzin. Reading experience: To the bicentenary of its publication. M.: Publishing Center of the Russian State. hum. un-ta.

Shamaro A. The action takes place in Moscow: Literary topography. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Moscow worker, 1988.

The history of early monasteries is present to one degree or another on the pages of most works devoted to the problems of the history of religion and the Church. Its study has a long tradition. In the chroniclers one can see the first researchers of the monastic theme. Being, as a rule, people from monasteries, they sought to tell about them in more detail, recording events from local history that were significant not only for the monasteries themselves, but also for the history of ancient Russian society. The main theme touched upon in the most ancient narratives is the founding of monasteries. Thus, information about the establishment of Kiev Pechersky Monastery are contained both in the Tale of Bygone Years and in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, which has a separate part dedicated to the creation of the monastery. The Patericon of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery includes “The Legend that for the sake of being called the Pechersk Monastery.” It was written by the chronicler monk Nestor and placed in the collection as “The Eighth Word”. Chroniclers compiled lists of abbots. The first of these lists are contained in the same Patericon, as well as on the pages of the First Novgorod Chronicle.

The monastic theme took its place in the works of historians only from the 19th century. At the same time, those problems were identified that are being studied to this day, including the study of individual monasteries. One of the first researchers of the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Archimandrite Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, dwelled not only on the history of the monastery, believing that it was the first in Rus', but also drew attention to how life was organized within its walls. The author outlined several main problems when studying each monastery. There are a number of works by researchers of the last century containing a detailed description of the monasteries that arose in the 11th - mid-14th centuries. However, they are predominantly descriptive.

Another direction in the study of the history of monasteries was those works that generalized information about ancient Russian monasteries and posed a wider range of problems. For the first time, Archimandrite Macarius (Bulgakov) tried to determine the time of the emergence of early Russian monasteries.

Later it was prepared Full description ancient monasteries, and a significant place was given to the history of the emergence of the first, largest monasteries. But these works were descriptive in nature.

Another topic that was actively developed by pre-revolutionary researchers is monastic land ownership. One of the first to put it was V. O. Klyuchevsky in his “Course of Russian History”, however, due to scanty source data, the scientist studied the history of monasteries in more detail only from the middle of the 14th century. . Analyzing some lives, V. O. Klyuchevsky reproduced the history of the monasteries, often revised some established facts, and proposed new dating.

From the second half of the 19th century. another direction in the study of monastic issues is determined. This is a question of regulation of intra-monastic life, that is, the problem of monastic typikons (statutes), as well as their adoption in Rus'. There are a number of studies on this issue, which, however, has not been finally resolved, is still relevant and worries modern researchers.

Of great importance for the study of monasteries was the work of E. E. Golubinsky “History of the Russian Church” (M., 1880. Vol. I, first half; M., 1900. Vol. 2, part 1; M., 1917. T. 2, part 2). This work contains a special section devoted to the history of monasteries, where the author touches on all the problems we have noted that occupy historians to one degree or another. E. E. Golubinsky was the first to draw attention to the forms of asceticism that took place in Rus', dwelt in detail on the organization of monasteries, based on data about the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, identified archimandrites in monasteries, believed that this was an honorary title for abbots of especially large monasteries .

Ancient manuscripts contain information about monasteries and monastic life.

In modern historical literature, several main directions can be distinguished. A number of works are devoted to monastic land ownership; they are based on a large amount of factual material. Another interesting topic is being developed: the question of archimandrites - a special urban organization of black clergy in the city, which, according to researchers, had a special status.

The study of monastic regulations that were in circulation in Rus' continues. Thus, the works of I. D. Ishchenko are devoted to the study of this problem. Modern historians are discovering new sources that have brought significant changes to already established conclusions about the development of monasteries and their economy. The poor knowledge of the early history of monasteries is largely due to the insignificant number of surviving sources.

Chronicles remain the main sources containing new Denia on the history of monastic life in Ancient Rus', but the circle is affected they have limited problems. They contain specific information about the structure of the monasteries, construction within their boundaries, to be confirmed dates of abbotship. Depending on where it was created chronicle collection, contains facts about life in monasteries in different regions Old Russian state.

Chronicle information is supplemented by evidence from other peoples rational sources. These include hagiographic Sochi opinions(lives of the saints). The number of early lives that have come down to us not much . Almost all famous lives are associated with figures waved a significant place in the history of Ancient Rus' - these were not only princes, metropolitans, bishops, but also abbots of monasteries. Despite the fact that the lists of lives that have come down to us are significantly removed from the time of the saint’s death, they can reveal information on the history of monasteries in ancient Russian cities. Unlike chronicles, there are no chronological indications in the lives of And Only comparison with other sources allows us to clarify the time of certain events.

A special place is occupied by the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. Telling about the early history of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and its first ascetics, it was formed starting from the first third of the 13th century, its core was the correspondence of the Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal Simon with the Pechersk monk Polycarp. The Patericon contains several dozen stories about the Pechersk ascetics. The events described took place in the middle of the 11th-12th centuries. Thanks to this source, it is possible to trace the gradual growth of the monastery, its internal life, types of asceticism, relations with the prince and boyars, as well as the distribution of responsibilities of the monks.

The third group of sources for the study of monasteries in Ancient Rus' are acts. The number of documents on the early period of monastic history is insignificant, so there is a need to use later acts, since they often contain direct or indirect references to antiquity. The technique of retrospection can be used to study the ancient history of monasteries, their way of life and management.

Birch bark letters are a new source for studying the history of Novgorod, but the number of letters that can be used to study the history of monasteries and monasticism is small.

Archaeological and architectural monuments, works of artistic craft, painting are sources that help supplement the arguments of researchers. In particular, based on them in Lately The dates of the establishment of the monasteries are specified.

* * *

Monasteries appeared in Rus' immediately after the adoption of Christianity as official religion . The first information about the existence of monasteries relates to Kyiv, the capital city, where already in the first half of the 11th century, during the reign of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, “the monasteries began to multiply and the monasteries began to flourish.” Several news about the presence of monasteries in Kyiv are contained in the Life of Theodosius and in the Tale “Why was it called the Pechersk Monastery,” which is part of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. The chronicle tells that returning from Athos, Anthony, the future saint, wandered for a long time and looked for in Kyiv “where to live, and go to the monastery, and do not love, I do not want God...”. What made the ascetic, not remaining in any of the existing monasteries, settle in a cave near Berestov, left earlier by Presbyter Hilarion during his elevation to the holy table? Theodosius later repeated similar wanderings and searches. His Life tells how, having arrived in Kyiv, he “went around all the monasteries,” but was not accepted into any of them, and the reason for this was his poverty. What were the monasteries where one of the virtues of monasticism (non-covetousness) was looked upon with contempt? Further on, the chronicler himself gives us the answer. Under 1037, in the Tale of Bygone Years there is information about the founding of two monasteries by Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich (“... St. George’s monastery and St. Orina’s”). There is no direct mention of the time when the two monasteries were founded, but this evidence deserves attention. The fact is that in holy baptism Prince Yaroslav received the name George, and his wife Ingigerda received the name Irina. Probably following the traditions of the Byzantine emperors, the Kiev prince built monasteries in honor of his saint and patron saint of the princess. Thus, these monasteries formed the cult of the holy grand ducal patrons. This is how the construction of monasteries in Rus' by princes began. What was characteristic of them was that they were rather closed organizations intended to serve princely families. This is probably why there is almost no information about them in the sources. These monasteries were directly under the influence of the princes and were fully provided by them, i.e. they were monasteries. For many years they were associated with certain princely families, which can sometimes be traced through fragmentary chronicle references. For example, there is another mention of the Irininsky Monastery in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1147, when the disgraced Svyatoslav Olgovich sought salvation within its walls from the rebellious Kyiv townspeople. Svyatoslav himself was the great-great-grandson of Ingigerda-Irina and therefore it was no coincidence that he sought shelter in her monastery.

This is where we need to look for the answer to the question posed earlier. The first monasteries that arose in Kyiv were associated with the top of society, directly with the princes, and therefore, being completely dependent SIMOSTI from them, did not need monks, not only did they not have funds for existence, but also with unknown origin.

Sources do not say O what was the number And social composition of the monastic brethren V this period, but it is possible assume What V these monasteries left the world rich, body Kyivians. At this stage there was no need V build body large monasteries.

Subsequently, the descendants of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, his sons, grandchildren and great-grandchildren continued the tradition of founding their own princely monasteries . In Kyiv and its environs, princely dynasties had their own monasteries, which were passed on from generation to generation, which strengthened their connection with the capital of Rus'. But it also happened that one or another prince lost his position and was forced to leave the capital city. Then the position of the family monastery also changed. An interesting example is the Kirillov Monastery, dedicated to the Holy Trinity and created before 1171 by Prince Vsevolod Olgovich. It was a typical clergy, family monastery.

However, by the end of the 12th century. Chronicle information about this monastery ceases. This was probably due to the fact that Vsevolod’s descendants were leaving Kyiv for the Chernigov land. Being a princely monastery, the monastery depended on its patrons, and after the loss of influence in Kyiv of this princely branch and their departure from the city, its importance weakened. He ceases to come into the sight of chroniclers, and any information about future fate there is no monastery.

Otherwise, the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery is formed. Its first mention dates back to 1051. The monastery was not founded at the expense of wealthy investors, like others during this period, but gradually acquired significance thanks to the exploits of its first ascetics. This monastery was founded by the work of the hermit Anthony, who came to Kyiv from Athos, which was already mentioned earlier. Subsequently, the monastery was created through the labor of monks and alms from believers. The number of brethren gradually increased, and the need arose to build cells and churches for worship. Monks come out of the caves. It should be noted that Rev. Anthony defined the framework of the relationship between the monastery and the princely authorities in their initial phase. Anthony received official permission to own the land and mountain where the future monastery was being built from the Kyiv prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich himself. Thus, the monks did not become dependent on the princely authority and were given the opportunity to independently build internal monastic life, which had a positive impact on the further development of the monastery.

In the period from the middle of the XI to the middle of the XIV century. In Kyiv, according to the latest data, about 22 monasteries were created, mostly princely, including 4 for women. Information about these monasteries is preserved in sources. Some of them (such as the monasteries of St. Nicholas of Myra and St. Mina) are known to us only as a place of tonsure for parents. Theodosius of Pechersk. The fact that they were located near Kyiv is undoubtedly, but it is impossible to determine the approximate time of their origin, and it is also difficult to determine whether they belonged to the princely monasteries, like almost all other monasteries in the capital city. The exception in the general group of clergy monasteries was Kiev-Pechersk. Its further development differs in many ways from typical princely monasteries.

With the spread of Christianity in depth and breadth, monasteries appeared in other regions of the Old Russian state. This process can be traced from the beginning of the 12th century. Novgorod stands out in particular, about which more complete information has been preserved. The first monasteries appeared here at the beginning of the 12th century. And here there was a tradition of creating monasteries at the expense of princes, but to a lesser extent. The first monastery arose around 1119. According to the Novgorod First Chronicle (hereinafter referred to as NPL), “hegumen and Prince Vsevolod founded the church of Kuryak and the stone monastery of St. George in Novgorod.” Yuryev Monastery throughout the 12th century. remained princely. Mstislav Vladimirovich and his son Vsevolod took care of him. The monastery was the tomb of representatives of the princely family. However, the political structure of Novgorod itself (feudal republic) did not imply strong princely power, which significantly differed from other regions of the Old Russian state. The princes were elected by the veche, invited from outside and practically did not have the full power as, for example, in Kyiv. It was unprofitable for representatives of the local city elite to have a strong prince, and their influence in the city gradually increased. Novgorod practically did not have its own princely dynasty - therefore, the monasteries, which were created at the expense of the governing princes, did not have a primacy position in the city. There were only three of them: Yuryev (1119), Panteleimonov (1134) and Spaso-Preobrazhensky (1198). The time of their establishment is mainly the 12th century. After this, due to princely strife, when the authority of princely power fell, monasteries were not created at the expense of the princes. Already from the end of the 12th century. both Yuryev and Panteleimon monasteries were included in the sphere of boyar activity (representatives of the boyar nobility began to be buried within the walls of these monasteries). Another princely monastery that existed since 1199, created by the wife of Yaroslav Vladimirovich after the death of her two sons, Izyaslav and Rostislav, also came under the influence of the Novgorod boyars. This is a monastery dedicated to Christmas Holy Mother of God in Mihalice. His first abbess was the widow of the Novgorod mayor Zavid Neveronich (Nerevinich).

Thus, a new phenomenon is emerging, never seen before in Rus' - monasteries are being created in Novgorod at the expense of the boyars. This is, for example, the Shchilov Monastery, which, according to pulmonary scholars, was founded on the means of a monk; however Oloniy Shkil is lied a wealthy investor who belonged to a Novgorod boyar family. With his funds, a monastery was founded, famous in the world. consequence by his name. Gradually the princely monasteries were also connected lis with circles of the Novgorod nobility. This process has been going on since end XII V., which coincided in time with the increasing role of the boyars in the political life of Novgorod. In Novgorod, local rulers also build monasteries. Archbishop John with his brother Gabriel founded two monasteries - Belo-Nikolaevsky in the name of St. Nicholas in 1165 and Annunciation V 1170 At the beginning of XIV V. V Novgorod A prominent figure appears: Archbishop Moses. He founded several monasteries: in 1313 St. Nikola in Nerevsky end, V 1335 – Resurrection on Derevyanitsa women’s mo annoying , V 1352 - the monastery of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary on Bolotov, the so-called Moiseev, etc. All these monasteries subsequently retained their connection with the Novgorod hierarchs.

During the period XI - mid-XIV centuries. There are 27 known monasteries in Novgorod, including 10 for women. (See Appendix).

A different picture is observed in North-Eastern Rus'. In the XII - early XIII centuries. the great reign from Kyiv was transferred first to Suzdal and then to Vladimir. All established traditions of princely families are transferred to the new center of political life. Just like in Kyiv, the princes built churches and monasteries. The first news of this dates back to the middle of the 12th century. (Suzdal and Vladimir - the beginning of the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky) and by the 13th century. (Rostov, Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod). After Yuri Dolgoruky took the princely throne, he continued the construction of temples in North-Eastern Rus'. Unlike Kyiv, where princely monasteries played the role of family tombs, the descendants of Yuri Vladimirovich preferred to bury their family members in the cathedral churches that they founded. The exception is Yaroslavl, where around 1216 Spaso-Preobra was founded by Prince Vsevolod Konstantinovich convent. Yaroslavl had its own princely dynasty, members of the princely family were tonsured before and were buried in their monastery.

As in Novgorod, in the North-East of Rus' monasteries were founded by local hierarchs. Thus, two monasteries were founded in Suzdal and one in Yaroslavl. They served as the place from which bishops were supplied to the Rostov See and where the rulers retired, leaving the throne and accepting the schema. About 26 monasteries are known in North-Eastern Rus', 4 of them are for women. (See Appendix). These monasteries are predominantly princely (ktitor's) monasteries.

Information about the monasteries of South-Western Rus' appears only in the 19th century. This is probably due to the fact that during the reign of Roman Mstislavich (1199–1205) a strong Galician-Volyn principality was created, which occupied one of the leading places in political life

Ancient Rus'. There is little information about the existence of monasteries in this principality, but there is no reason to doubt their existence. In the middle of the 13th century. Southwestern Rus' flourishes. There was a strong princely power here. Princes participated in all areas public life, actively interfered in church affairs. There was a close connection between the monasteries and the princes. According to the chronicler, there were more than ten monasteries directly associated with the princely families. They were created at their expense, i.e. they were patrons. Thus, the Apostolic Monastery in Vladimir-Volynsky was built by the Vladimir prince Vladimir Vasilkovich around 1287. News of the monastery is in the prince’s spiritual will. Dying, he refused to his wife Elena Romanovna the monastery of St. built by him at his own expense. Apostles with the village of Berezovichi granted to the monastery. It is possible to trace the further connection of Vladimir Vasilyevich’s family with this monastery. The few references to the existence of monasteries in this region of Ancient Rus' do not allow us to identify the presence of women's monasteries.

So, already during this period of development of monasteries in Ancient Rus', one can see a certain relationship between the political structure of the territories under study and monastic construction. Where there was strong princely power, the monasteries were created primarily at the expense of the princes and were completely dependent on them. And where there was nominal princely power (as in Novgorod), the number of monasteries created with the participation of princes was insignificant, but monasteries arose that were very closely connected with the circles of the boyars. The position of the monastery in public life largely depended on what social stratum the founder (ktitor) belonged to.

* * *

An important issue in studying the history of monasteries is their location. Currently, thanks to archaeological research, a more accurate and complete picture of the location of ancient temples and monasteries has been created. Characteristic of Rus' was that from the middle of the 11th century. monasteries were founded within cities or very close to them, in the suburbs. Thus, the Novgorod monasteries of Yuriev and Panteleimonov are located south of the city, three kilometers, in close proximity to each other. Another princely monastery, the Spaso-Preobrazhensky monastery, is also located there. Outside the city there is also the Kiev Pechersky Monastery. Almost all monasteries, being in populated areas, were in one way or another connected with their life, that is, they were not completely isolated from the social and political life of the Old Russian state.

What types of monasteries were known in Rus' during the period of the birth of monasticism? In the East, where monasticism first appeared, two main types of monasteries are known - hermitic (deserts, cells) and communal (cenovia). What were the first monasteries that arose in the middle of the 11th century in Ancient Rus'? This question is difficult to answer, since there are no direct indications of sources. It is unlikely that the monasteries that existed in the earliest period were large, with a well-established internal life. They were probably hermits with a small number of monastics. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) calls these first monasteries deserts. Of interest is the mention of Hilarion's cave near Berestov, in which the Venerable settled. Anthony. Since Anthony took monastic vows and lived for a certain time on Athos, it is quite natural that, having arrived in Rus', he was looking for exactly the form of life with which he was familiar, namely hermitage. This form of asceticism was most widespread among monastics on Mount Athos. Anchoriteism is the primary way of life of Byzantine monastic life. Anchorites are monks who labored alone, far from monasteries, in deserted and secluded places. They constituted the largest class of monastics. Moreover, according to the ancient Athos charter (tragos), which consisted of 28 rules, hermitage was allowed to those monks who first labored in monasteries under abbots who recognized them as capable of anchorage. According to the Life of Anthony, it was the abbot of the monastery in which the monk labored who blessed him to return to Rus', “...and may the blessing of the Holy Mountain be upon you, for from you many will become monks.” Having returned, Anthony for a long time could not find the place where he could perform his exploits. “And he began to walk through the wilds and mountains, looking for a place that God would show him.” And I found it. The cave in which Anthony settled had previously belonged to another ascetic. It was here, with “the blessing of the Holy Mountain and his abbot, who tonsured him,” that Anthony began to live, “being day and night in labor, vigil and prayer.”

Thus, already in the middle of the 11th century. In Rus', hermitage was known as a type of asceticism. The first monks lived in the vicinity of Kyiv, digging caves for themselves in the mountains. The Kiev-Pechersk Monastery itself initially consisted of many caves and a cave church until the number of monks grew so much that they could no longer accommodate them in the caves. Then, with the blessing of Anthony, the monks built a monastery on the land that they received into possession from Prince Izyaslav. Anthony himself again retires to the mountains, where he digs himself a new cave for further exploits.

As for the question of the existence of cenobitic monasteries in Rus' of this period, it is quite controversial and does not yet have a final solution. The dormitory presupposes the regulation of intra-monastic life, which is achieved with the help of monastic charters (typicons). Whether the statutes were known in Rus' is a question that has not yet been resolved. Studying ancient Russian monasteries, P. Kazansky expressed the idea that in the first period of the development of Russian monasticism, in addition to the strict Studite Rule widespread in the East, other statutes were known, since not all monasteries were cenobitic, especially those in which the number of brethren was few in number

There is known evidence, the only one of its kind, about the introduction of the Studite Rule in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery by the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk. This information is contained in the “Tale that for the sake of the nickname Pechersk Monastery” of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon and in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. However, the hostel received its most complete development from the era of Rev. Sergius of Radonezh and his students.

Thus, with the adoption of Christianity, along with the new orders, the type of monastery that was widespread there comes from Byzantium. Initially, as in the East, separate hermit cells (caves) appeared in Rus', and already from the middle of the 11th century. the monasteries themselves emerge.

* * *

To show the place of monasteries in the structure of the feudal church, it is not enough just to study their establishment. It is also necessary to consider the regulation of intra-monastic life, the relationship of monasteries with the highest spiritual and secular authorities, political and economic functions monasteries in ancient Russian society. With the increase in the number of monasteries and monastics, it was necessary to streamline life within their walls, as noted earlier, through the adoption of statutes.

Currently, a fully preserved Slavic copy of the Studite Charter of the 12th century is known. It was created for the Novgorod Annunciation Monastery, founded by Archbishop John in 1170. This is clarified by the postscripts preserved on the pages of the manuscript, confirming its belonging to the monastery. Most researchers accept this particular charter of the Alekseevsky edition as the charter of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The presence of a common household, meals, cooks, the existence of the position of a cellarer, i.e., a monastic steward, a monk in charge of the monastery estates, is a manifestation of the hostel introduced into the monastery. The charter itself, even during the abbess of St. Theodosius was received into the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery from Athos and was introduced as a norm of behavior for monks. How accepted were strict rules Charter - a question that we will dwell on later. And the existence of a translation of the Charter of the Studite Monastery in Novgorod allowed lies assume that similar lists were known on the territory of Rus'. The fact is that the Pechersky Monastery was the place where most of the church hierarchs came from. They were well acquainted with the order in their monastery, and later, naturally definitely assume they transferred or tried to transfer them to regions Rus', where they occupied the holy cathedras.

How firmly were the provisions of the monastic charter introduced in Rus'? This question arises reasonably, since it is known that Rev. Feodosius had difficulty introducing new dormitories into his monastery orders. Comparison of some articles of the Studio Charter (choice of abbots, possibility of burials within the walls of the monastery, etc.) with the actual adjective the life of the Pechersk Monastery gives reason to believe that the Studite Charter in its most complete form was practically not accepted in Rus'. Already after the death of the Monk Theodosius himself, non-compliance with this charter began.

Let us dwell on the example of those statutory provisions that related to the possibility of burials on the territory of the monastery. On l. 23 rev. – 238 rev. Russian list of the Studio Charter of the 12th century. an article was placed “about how to bury anyone in monasteries.” The charter strictly establishes a ban on burial within the monastery itself not only of monastics, but also of those who donated money or land holdings to the monastery. The text indicates that such a ban was also adopted in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery after the adoption of the new charter.

What are we really seeing? The lives of Anthony and Theodosius indicate that both of them, even before their death, stipulated that they be buried in the caves in which they labored. As it was established, the charter in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was adopted even before the death of the Monk Anthony, that is, between 1072–1073, since Anthony died during this period. The monk labored as a hermit. Therefore, one can consider it quite natural that he would want to be buried in his cave. Having accepted the monastic charter, according to which it was forbidden to bury the dead within the monastery, Theodosius did not attempt to transfer Anthony’s body to the monastery.

A year later, in 1074, Theodosius himself dies. Sources indicate that Reverend“... commanded brethren lie down in the cave, where the many labors are shown, the rivers say: guard my body in the night...” This is yet another proof that during the period of the abbess of St. Feodosia article on burial outside the walls of the monastery in Pechersk monastery was performed.

However, less than two decades had passed, when in 1091, at a joint council of the abbot and the monks of the Kiev-Pechery Monastery, a decision was made to transfer the relics of Theodosius inside the monastery: “In the summer of 6599. Transferred the abbot Theodosius from Pechera to the monastery.” This fact is significant. Firstly, this decision was made at a general meeting of monastics. Secondly, it indicates a violation of an article of the monastic charter. This confirms our assumption that the Studite Charter in Rus' was not fully adopted, which corresponded to the specifics of Russian monasticism and the living conditions of monks in monasteries. The monks motivated their decision by the fact that “... it is not right for our father Theodosievi to lie except in the monastery (and) his church, since he founded the church, and the monastery united...” Consequently, it is not appropriate for the founder and organizer of the church and monastery to be buried outside their borders . In fact, in this case, a political motive played an important role. Already in 1108, officially, at the request of Abbot Theoktist (1103–1112), Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich ordered Theodosius “to enter the metropolitan into the synodik and commanded to enter it in all bishops, and all the bishops were joyfully entered, and commemorated at all the councils.” . These actions marked the beginning of the canonization of Theodosius of Pechersk and his all-Russian commemoration. According to A.S. Khoroshev, preparations for the canonization of the saint began precisely in 1091 with the transfer of his relics. The cult of Theodosius was necessary for Prince Svyatopolk in his struggle with the authority of Vladimir Monomakh, in whom the people saw a zealous follower of Christianity.

After the transfer in 1091 of the relics of St. Feodosia, the practice of burials within monasteries spread throughout Rus'. At the same time, there is a wide variety of persons who received the opportunity to be buried in monasteries. Already from the beginning of the 12th century. and later, until the middle of the 14th century. not only abbots, church hierarchs and monks, but also secular persons (representatives of princely families, mayors, boyars) were buried in the monasteries.

So, in the XII - mid-XIV centuries. Feodorovsky Votch (Otniy) and Kirillovsky Trinity monasteries were created in Kyiv. The first of them was founded by Mstislav Monomakhovich and was a tomb for his family, and the second - for the descendants of Vsevolod Olgovich. In the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery we find princely burials not only of the 12th century, but also of the mid-13th century. In the same Novgorod from the beginning of the 13th century. The role of the Novgorod boyars is strengthening. Since that time, news has appeared indicating the burial of representatives of the Novgorod boyars in monasteries. Thus, according to the Novgorod Chronicles, the connection between posadnik families and certain monasteries is clearly visible: for 20–40 years, the descendants of the Miroshkinich family are buried in the Yuryev Monastery, in Arkazh - the Mikhalkovich family, and in Khutynsky - the family of Proksha Malyshevich.

Thus, already at the beginning of the 12th century. the procedures regulated by one of the articles of the charter are modified and take the form that is more suitable for the conditions of Rus'.

Was there another charter known in Rus'? This question can be answered answer only presumably; news V no sources howling. But bearing in mind the variety of typikons that exist vovalo in Byzantium, it can be assumed that some were from known and in Rus'. After all, ascetics, visiting holy places as pilgrims, could get acquainted with other statutes adopted in a particular monastery.

Based on the Life of Theodosius and the Patericon, one can trace how life was organized in the Pechersk Monastery not only during the times founder, Rev. Anthony, but also during the time of St. Feodosia. The Patericon contains valuable material for the history of Russian monasticism.

For the earliest period of the history of monasticism in Rus', the character terno almost complete absence of data on the number of monks and their social alny composition. Once again, the exception is the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. On its pages you can find an indication that in the time of Anthony the brethren consisted of four people. Among them was Theodosius himself, who took monastic vows from Anthony after long unsuccessful wanderings around the Kyiv monasteries. When Theodosius became abbot, there were already 20 monks in the monastery; in a short time their number grew to 100 people. It was then that Rev. Theodosius began to look for a charter to streamline inner life expanded monastery.

The social composition of the brethren was diverse - the monastery accepted both people from the common people (Rev. Theodosius himself), and representatives of merchants (Isaac the caveman), boyars (Varlaam, the son of boyar John, was appointed abbot of the Dmitrov monastery under Prince Izyaslav), as well as princes (Chernigov prince Svyatosha - 1106). Among the monks, Polovtsians, Ugrians, Varangians, Greeks are mentioned, there was an Armenian doctor and a Syrian doctor named Peter, etc. Consequently, people of different nationalities took monastic vows in the Pechersky Monastery. The position of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in society attracted a huge number of pilgrims and those wishing to stay forever within its walls.

To more fully understand the place of monasteries in the life of ancient Russian society, it is necessary to turn to the study of their economy and property. But even for this topic there is not a sufficient number of sources from the 11th-14th centuries. Studying only the official material, Ya. N. Shchapov came to the conclusion that using the example of the Pechersky Monastery, one can trace the process of the origin and development of land ownership through the transfer of income to the monastery from state lands, the princely village or other sources.

How did the monasteries acquire land and land ownership? Firstly, patrons of monasteries were obliged to provide their monasteries with means of subsistence. In addition to contributions in the form of Icons, books, money, they transferred the ownership of monasteries and lands with all their lands. Letters have been preserved that give grounds for this cleanup. Several acts relate to the Novgorod St. George's Monastery. The Annunciation Monastery in Novgorod had its own villages, which its creators (Archbishop John and his brother Gabriel) “bought and transferred... to the monastery.” Bishop Nifont gives ownership of land to the Spaso-Mirozhsky Monastery in Pskov, and Archbishop Moses gave many estates to the St. Michael's Monastery on Skovorotka.

Another way for monasteries to acquire land ownership is through contributions. They were made for the purpose of mentioning the name of the investor in everyday monastic services, in most cases - to provide for oneself and “arrange” one’s soul in the decline of life. The message of the Ipatiev Chronicle for 1158 is very interesting: “In the same summer, the blessed princess Glebovaya Vseslavich, daughter of Yaropolch Izyaslavich, died... for this blessed princess had great love with her prince, for the holy Mother of God and for Father Theodosius, jealous of her father Yaropolk. These things Yaropolk spent all his life in the Neblskaya volost and Dervskaya and Luchskaya, and near Kyiv; Gleb, in his belly with the princess, has 600 hryvnias of silver, and 50 hryvnias of gold; and according to the prince’s belly, the princess’s wife got 100 hryvnias of silver, and 50 hryvnias of gold, and according to her belly, the princess’s wife, 5 sat down with her servants, and all the way to the war.” In this case, contributions were made to the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery over two generations by one princely family, which did not rule in Kyiv. This shows the significance of this monastery for the entire ancient Russian society. This phenomenon suggests that this is not an isolated case, although the information from the sources is laconic. The Patericon contains information about the contributions to the monastery not only of representatives of princely families, but also of the boyars.

Sometimes monasteries received not only land holdings, but And the right to collect tribute from them. Investors provide monasteries with immunity rights. This is expressed in the formula for prohibiting entry into monastic land holdings, as indicated in the letter of Izyaslav Mstislavich to the Panteleimon Monastery, where the ban applies not only to the prince, but also to the Novgorod bishop.

In addition to villages and lands, monasteries received other properties as their own. These include “forest, and boards, and traps...”. The Ryazan prince Oleg Ivanovich gave the village of Arestovskoye into the possession of the Olgov Monastery “with wines and red-handed lands, and with soil, and with lakes, and with beavers and with overhanging lands.” The monastery became the owner of the arable land, lakes and beaver deposits located there. Beaver hunting was considered a profitable activity in Ancient Rus'. Usually, the monastic property, in addition to land plots with villages, included meadows and meadows. There is information about the presence of livestock in the monastery villages. The monks and the population of the monastery villages were engaged in fishing and hunting. Borti and bortnye lands indicate the production of honey: just like beaver hunting, this is an original Russian trade that brings good income. Thus, agriculture was one of the activities of the monastery.

Another the form of activity was" the creation of godly orders Denia at monasteries for the poor and those supported by funds himself monastery The monastery used a tenth for this with all monastic income. Unfortunately, we only got to one similar evidence concerning the Kiev-Pechersk monastery asshole during the period of the abbess of Theodosius. But knowing the influence and significance, which had the Pechersky Monastery in Rus', one can assume go, that similar facts were noted in other regions.

The monasteries had significant funds, with the help of which they carried out some financial transactions. So, according to the spiritual Clement of Novgorod, Yuryev Monastery you steps into the role of giving a loan of money for the needs of the boyar. Vpos consequence he returns these funds to the monastery, but in the form of a grant to the village with lands and lands.

Along with the villages and lands, the monasteries received ownership of the people who inhabited them. Thus, in the deed to the Yuriev Monastery for the possession of the Terpuzh churchyard of Lyakhovichi there is a mention: “... transferred with the land and with the people, and with the horses... forever...”. The monastery receives own"of people". They are a free population that was not dependent on the Novgorod prince. If they were dependent on him and paid tribute, then in all likelihood this would be stipulated in the deed (as in the deed for the ownership of the village of Buitsy with polyudye). The Pechersky Monastery also owned villages and the people living there back in the third quarter of the 11th century. Monastic villages are repeatedly mentioned in the Life of St. Feodosia. For example, in the story about how they brought him tied up workers, “they were running wild in a single monastery village, wanting to steal,” Fr. Under 1096, the chronicle mentions the courtyard of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in Suzdal.

Thus, the economy of the monasteries receives favorable conditions and opportunities for its development and enrichment. This turns them into large feudal owners. A study of sources shows that each monastery sought to increase its possessions. At the same time, the monastery owned its own land on its own, strictly dissociating itself from neighboring territories. As Ya. N. Shchapov noted, like church monastery land property appears to researchers not unified and fragmented. And this led to the fact that the monasteries, due to their specificity

closed organism, did not develop their economy in the same way.

* * *

Monasteries in the XI - mid-XIV centuries. were located within the city limits or in nearby suburbs, and this led to the fact that they did not have the opportunity to completely move away from social life. Old Russian monasteries were associated not only with representatives of individual members of princely or noble families, but were also directly involved in the political life of society.

Firstly, conflicts between hostile princes who fought among themselves for possession of the Kyiv table were resolved in the monasteries. In 1169, after the death of the Kyiv prince Rostislav Mstislavich, a struggle between relatives began for the grand princely table. It ended with the reign of Mstislav Izyaslavich in Kyiv. But controversial issues needed to be resolved. The warring princes were gathered in Vyshgorod by Prince Davyd Rostislavich, and the place where the princes gathered was the Pechersk Monastery: “... and Mstislav arrived at the Pechersk monastery, and Volodimir came after him and ordered him to sit in the icon cell, and he himself sat in abbess's cell..." The arriving princes accepted the kiss of the cross, which, however, did not put an end to the strife.

The abbots of large monasteries were among those who tried to resolve inter-princely conflicts. The abbots of the Pechersk Monastery showed the greatest activity. As for Novgorod, the abbots of the Yuriev Monastery took the most active part in the life of society. They often acted as ambassadors, carrying out orders from the prince and Novgorodians. Thus, in 1133, Abbot Isaiah visited Kyiv as an ambassador, after which he returned to Novgorod with Metropolitan Michael. The Novgorod First Chronicle does not indicate the reason for this trip. The news is in close proximity to the news of the brewing conflict between Novgorod and Suzdal, as well as between Kiev and Chernigov. Novgorod was, as it were, the center of these events. In addition to the actions taken against Suzdal, Novgorodians were called upon to participate in the second conflict on the side of each of the two factions. Perhaps the Metropolitan’s arrival in Novgorod was necessary to stop these civil strife. However, something else is also likely - with this long stay in the northern Russian city (from December to February 1133), Metropolitan Michael withdrew from political affairs.

Sometimes the abbots of the Yuryev Monastery act as mediators in the political struggle in Novgorod itself. So, in 1342, Bishop Vasily Kalek (1329–1351) sent Archimandrite Joseph with the boyars to resolve the conflict that arose in the city in connection with the murder of a wealthy Novgorodian, Luka Varfolomeevich. The fact that the bishop sent the abbot of the Yuryev Monastery speaks of the latter’s significant authority among the townspeople, especially since Joseph was also an archimandrite, which placed him above the abbots of the Novgorod monasteries.

An important function of ancient Russian monasteries was the preparation of future church hierarchs, bishops and archbishops. Usually, before being promoted to the bishop's table, future hierarchs underwent extensive training within the walls of monasteries. The monk was obliged not only to fulfill obediences, but to constantly engage in self-improvement, say prayers, reflect on the deity and perform church ceremonies. So, Theodosius had a custom about believe What do the monks do at night: “And whenever you hear someone’s prayers, pray and glorify God for him.” If there were monks busy unnecessary business, i.e. empty talk, Rev. Later reproached or punished them. The monk was obliged to observe decorum and humility, which allowed him, after time move along the hierarchical ladder of positions that existed within the walls of the monastery. The most dean of the monks were chosen as abbots. This is basically the path that future rulers took within the walls of monasteries. Thus, Metropolitan Peter, long before his appointment as Metropolitan of All Rus', was a monk. At the age of 12, he left home for one of the Volyn monasteries, where “he carried out monastic obediences, carried water and firewood to the kitchen, washed the brethren’s hair shirts, and neither in winter nor in summer did he abandon his rule.” After some time, “by the will of the rector, he was promoted to deacon, and then to presbyter.” After a long stay within the walls of this monastery, Peter received the blessing of the abbot and created in a deserted place on the river. Rate has its own monastery in the name of the Transfiguration of St. Spasa. In it, before being placed on the holy table, Peter was abbot. The very fact that the abbot of the monastery in which Peter labored allowed him to leave suggests that he was exceptionally humble and dean, and also prepared to train and mentor new monks already in his monastery.

Based on surviving sources, it is possible to identify those monasteries from which bishops emerged for the cathedras of ancient Russian cities. There are about sixteen of them. They were located in eight cities, distributed accordingly: in Novgorod - 5, in Kyiv - 3, in Vladimir and Rostov 2 each, in Pereyaslavl, Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Tver one each. The abbots of these monasteries were supplied by the rulers, mainly to eight of the sixteen dioceses that existed during this period. Sources indicate that people from the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery were appointed to the lordship departments almost everywhere by princes. This information is very valuable, since in such cases the ruling princes place abbots from monasteries that are “family” for them on the lord’s table. Thus, the Mikhailovsky Monastery on Vydobychi was a family monastery for Rurik Rostislavich, since he was a descendant of the founder of the monastery, Vsevolod Yaroslavich. By placing Andreyan on the Belgorod table, Rurik Rostislav enlisted the support of the ruler in the struggle for possession of Kiev. The same can be said about the installation by Prince Vsevolod Yurievich to the Vladimir table of the abbot of his family monastery (Savior on Berestov, created by his grandfather Vladimir Vsevolodovich). Metropolitan Nikifor opposed this, but without success.

In Novgorod, the monasteries themselves prepared hierarchs for the city. At This Yuriev Monastery during the period when it became an archimandrite (mid-13th century) was a school for future hierarchs. Bishops in Novgorod were often elected at a general meeting with the participation of the local prince and monks. This is due to the political system of Novgorod, which is more democratic than in other cities. A. S. Khoroshev believes that this practice was established in 1157. Based on the choice of the townspeople and secular authorities with the participation of abbots and representatives of the white clergy, the holy see in Novgorod was occupied accordingly: in 1156, abbot Arkady from the Arkazh monastery, Anthony in 1211 and Arseny in 1223 and 1228 - monks from the Khutyn Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, and in 1229 - hegumen of the Annunciation Monastery Feoktist.

Regarding the installation of bishops in the remaining dioceses, it is necessary to note one feature. Here, as in Novgorod, the holy table was occupied by people from monasteries located in the same dioceses. For example, when in the 13th century. The Vladimir bishopric was created, and a separate Vladimir-Suzdal diocese was formed. At the same time Vladimir monasteries prepared their future hierarchs. A similar picture is observed in both the Rostov and Tver dioceses.

Monasteries sometimes served as places of imprisonment. During this period, they included mainly representatives of princely families solely for political reasons. Thus, before being martyred at the hands of the Kiev people in 1147, Prince Igor Olgovich, the son of the Chernigov prince Oleg Svyatoslavich, was arrested and imprisoned first in the Kiev St. Michael's Monastery, and later transferred to Pereyaslavl within the walls of the Ioannovsky Monastery. The Kiev St. Michael's Monastery was founded by Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich during his reign in Pereyaslavl. The monastery was a family monastery for his descendants, and Izyaslav Mstislavich was the great-grandson of Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Consequently, he imprisoned his rival Olgovich in the family monastery. Later he also transferred him to the family monastery of St. John in Pereyaslavl. Expelled from Kyiv, Igor Olgovich was imprisoned in the monastery of the prince who overthrew him.

The case of the imprisonment of the Novgorod bishop Nifont in the Pechersky Monastery is indicative. This happened in 1149, when Nifont stood at the head of the opposition against the installation of Klim Smolyatich on the metropolitan table by Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich. Why was Nifont imprisoned in the Pechersk Monastery, and not, say, in the same Mikhailovsky, Izyaslav’s ancestral monastery? It is possible that the activities of Izyaslav Mstislavich, aimed at the exit of the Russian Church from under the auspices of the patriarch, were supported by the abbot and monks of the Pechersk Monastery. That's why ardent opponent Therefore, Niphon was imprisoned within the walls of the monastery, where he could not find support. In this case, the monastery and the prince are allies in achieving the same goal.

From the second half of the 12th century. In ancient Russian cities, a new organization arose - the archimandrite. This is a monastery that occupied a leading place among the rest. The Archimandrite carried out connection between the black clergy and the city, the prince, the episcopate, and also largely controlled the relationship between the monasteries themselves.

The emergence of archimandrites, according to Ya. N. Shchapov, was Maybe after the monasteries became independent feo distant economic organizations. Being subordinate to the metropolitan and bishops in terms of church discipline, they had independence in administrative terms and in participating in city life, which was largely facilitated by the connection between pigs with their patrons - princely dynasties and boyars (in Novgorod). The earliest information about the participation of “all abbots” of city monasteries is associated with princely funerals, princely congresses, etc. in Kyiv. By According to sources, abbots participate in major political or economic events in the city in addition to the metropolitan or along with him.

The very first archimandrite arose in the capital city of Kyiv in the second half of the 12th century. This title was given to the Pechersk abbot Polycarp (1164–1182), who was very closely associated during this period with the Kyiv princes, especially with Rostislav Mstislavich. In fact, the right to appoint, as well as approve, an archimandrite belonged to the patriarch. In Rus', the metropolitan probably had this right as a protege of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But Polycarp at that moment was not on the best terms with the head of the Russian Church, the Greek Constantine. The reason was some disagreement over church issues. The proximity to the princely house indicates that the initiative for Polycarp to receive the title of archimandrite came precisely from the prince, and the archimandrite itself in Kyiv can be considered as an institution opposed to the metropolitan and associated with princely power.

The institution of archimandrite in Novgorod is unique, although, like in other cities of Rus', it arose in a former princely monastery at the end of the 12th century. during the abbess of Savvaty (1194–1226). Thanks to the research of V. L. Yanin, this organization has been studied in sufficient detail. In Novgorod, the archimandrite was elected at the assembly. His tenure in office was limited, and the abbots of the Novgorod monasteries succeeded each other in this post, while maintaining the abbot in their monastery. The Novgorod archimandrite was also independent of the Novgorod archbishop. In North-Eastern Rus', including Moscow, the archimandrite arose later - in the 13th - first half of the 14th century. also in princely monasteries. For example, in Yaroslavl - in the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery (1311), and in Moscow - in the Danilov Monastery (beginning of the 14th century).

The emergence of archimandrites was caused by the need to organize the black clergy in Ancient Rus'. In this case, according to Ya. N. Shchapov, a special role was played by the princely authorities, who were interested in their own control over the activities of the monasteries through the head of the metropolitan and bishops. This is the reason why archimandrites arose mainly in large princely monasteries.

Monasteries were not only large feudal owners, closely connected with the political life of the city and state, but were also centers of ideological life. Within the walls of monasteries, manuscripts were created and copied, and then distributed among believers. There were schools at the monasteries in which literacy and theology were taught.

Thus, according to V.N. Tatishchev, Vsevolod Yaroslavich’s daughter Yanka founded a school for rich girls at the St. Andrew’s Monastery in Kiev: “Having gathered a few young girls, she taught writing, as well as crafts, singing and other useful knowledge...”. The source of this information is unknown, but such a mention allows us to assert that the monastery was a place from which education, work skills, faith and morality came. There are no references to the existence of schools at monasteries until the mid-14th century. No.

There is some news confirming the literacy of Russian monks. So, in the Pechersky Monastery there was a monk Hilarion “who was cunning to write books, and wrote books all day and night in the cell of our blessed father Theodosius...”. And this information dates back to the second half of the 11th century. Being a nun, Euphrosyne, secluded in the cathedral church of St. Sofia in Polotsk, “began to accept the most ascetic feat of fasting, began to write books with my own hands, to hire those who demanded money.” This evidence shows that one of the activities within the walls of the monasteries is copying books. The need was dictated by the widespread spread of Christianity, connecting all large territories of Ancient Rus'. At the monasteries there were scriptoriums in which church works were created and copied, and there were also libraries where these books were preserved. To this day, a small number of manuscripts from the 12th – mid-14th centuries have survived, giving us reason, according to certain criteria, to classify them as book workshops of already existing monasteries. Thus, using the example of Novgorod-Pskov material, N.N. Rozov determined the presence of book writing in the Novgorod Khutyn Monastery. The Yuryev Monastery also had its own library, but information about this is very scarce.

In Kyiv, in addition to the Pechersky Monastery, a book center probably existed in the Zarubsky Monastery. The chronicle tells us about one of the natives of this monastery: “In the same summer, installed Izya- glory Metropolitan Klim Smolyatich brought out of Zarub, bebo black- cut skimnik and was a scribe and philosopher, just like in Russia land don’t make a fuss..." Abraham of Smolensk, who labored in his monastery, was the author of some works, such as “The Word about the Heavenly Powers, For the Sake of which Man Was Created,” as well as Lithuania, published by S.P. Rozanov. Turov is another enlightenment center tion in Western Rus'. Here an outstanding representative of enlightenment tion and bookishness was Kirill, Bishop of Turov. He was aw torus teachings, solemn words and prayers, such as “The Parable of the Soul and Body”, “The Tale of the Beloriztsy and the Monkishness”, “The Tale of the Black Rite”, 8 words per church holidays, 30 prayers and 2 canons. The work of Kirill Turovsky was one of the most higher achievements of literature of the 12th century. His works have a high artistic level and deep symbolism. In his production Denias the idea of ​​the unity of Rus' is clearly visible, which is one of the main ideas of ancient Russian chronicles and hagiographic works.

Application . List of monasteries in the XI - mid-XIV centuries.

In this appendix an attempt is made to collect information about all the monasteries that existed in Rus' during the period of interest to us. This list contains all the information contained in known and published sources. For convenience, the monasteries are located in chronological order, as far as possible, as well as by dioceses that existed already in the first centuries after the adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The first and last mentions of each of the monasteries in written sources dating back to the period before the mid-14th century are indicated.

1. Kyiv

1. Georgievsky (St. George)	- mention from 1037 to 1063
2. St. Irene	- mention With. 1037 to 1063
3. Kiev-Pechersk	- mention With. 1051
4. Dimitrievsky (St. Demetrius)	- mention from 1051
5. Mikhailovsky on Vydobichi, Vsevolozh	- mention from 1070 to 1250
6. Spaso-Preobrazhensky on Berestovo	- mention from 1072 to 1231
7. Klovsky Bogoroditsky, as well as Stefanech	- mention from 1091, under 1108
8. Andreevsky (Yanchin) – female.	- mention from 1105 to 1231
9. Mikhailovsky Golden-Domed	- mention from 1108 to 1195
10. Lazarev – female.	- mention under 1113
11. Feodorovsky Votch (Otniy)	- mention from 1128 to 1259
12. Simeonovsky	- mention from 1147 to 1162
13. Kirillovsky Trinity	- mention from 1171 to 1231
14. Vasilievsky Trekh-Svyatitelsky	- mention under 1231
15. Nikolaevsky (St. Nicholas)	- mention in the 11th century
16. St. Mina	- mention from ser. XI century

1 . PSRL. T. 1. One hundred. 151; 163; T. 2. Stb. 139; 152; H3J1. P. 210.

2 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 151; T. 2. Stb. 139; 327.

3 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 159; T. 2. Stb. 147; 919.

4 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 159; T. 2. Stb. 147–148.

5 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 174; NPL. pp. 17, 191; PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 806.

6 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 181; T. 2. Stb. 171; 456^57.

7 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 210–211; 283; T. 2. Stb. 202; 260.

8 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 257; T. 1. Stb. 456^57.

9 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 283. See also: Kyiv Synopsis. Kyiv, 1836. P. 97; PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 694.

10 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 276.

11 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 299; T. 2. Stb. 293.

12 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 318; T. 2. Stb. 354; 518.

13 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 544; T. 1. Stb. 456–457.

14 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 456–457.

15 . See: Life of Theodosius of Pechersk // PLDR: XI - early XII centuries. pp. 322–323.

16 . Right there. pp. 328–329. Associated with the name of the future abbot of the monastery Nikon, i.e. before 1078.

2. NOVGOROD

8. Spirits, Spirit of Descent	- mention in 1162, and also in 1357.
9. Our Lady of the Annunciation, Annunciation	- mention from 1170 to 1310
10. Ioanna-Predtechensky, Rostkin- female.	- mention under 1279
11. Petropavlovsky, Peter and Paul	- mention under 1185 and 1192
on Silnishche – female
12. Spaso-Varlaamov, Khutynsky	- mention from 1192 to 1247
13. Kirillov, on Nelezen Island	- mention under 1196
14. Evfimiin in Plotniki	- mention under 1197
15. Nikolaevsky, on Ostrovka	- mention in 1197
16. Spaso-Preobrazhensky in Nereditsy, on Gorodishche	- mention from 1198, under 1219, and also under 1322.
17. Rozhdestvensky, Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Molotkov, on Mihalitsa - female.	- mention under 1199
18. Panteleimonov	- mention in 1134 and 1207
19. Pavlov, Paul the Confessor on	- mention under 1224,1238, 1335
Trading side – women.
20. Nikolaevsky on Lipne	- mention under 1292
21. Lazarev-wives.	- mention under 1300
22. Shchilov, Intercession of the Virgin Mary	- mention under 1310
23. Nikolsky at Nerevsky end	- mention under 1312
24. Kolmovsky, Dormition of the Virgin Mary	- mention from 1310 to 1330
25. Voskresensky on Derevyanitsa - female.	- mention in 1335, 1348
26. Bolotov, Assumption of the Virgin Mary,	- mention under 1352
Moiseev

1 . NPL. C. 20, 204. N4L. P. 2, and NZL. S. 213 (under 1106); NPL. pp. 38, 229

2 . NPL. pp. 21, 205; NZL. P. 214, as well as N4L. P. 2. Under 1345, the news is only in NZL. P. 225.

3 . NPL. pp. 24, 209; 42, 235, N2L. P. 27.

4 . NPL. pp. 25, 210; 60, 262.

5 . NPL. pp. 28, 214; 346–347.

6 . NPL. pp. 29, 215; N4L. P. 8; NPL. S. 60, 262, and also: N4L. P. 47.

7 . Mentioned only in NZL. P. 215.

8 . NPL. pp. 31, 218; 364.

9 . Founded in 1170 NPL. pp. 33, 222; 93, 333, as well as: NZL. P. 223; N4L. P. 47.

10 . NPL. P. 36.

11 . Right there. S. 38, 228, and also p. 40, 231.

12 . Right there. pp. 40, 231; NZL. P. 217; see also: Pskov Chronicles. M.; L., 1941. Issue. 1. P. 10; M., 1955. Issue. 2. P. 77; GVNP. No. 104. pp. 161–162.

13 . NPL. pp. 42–43, 235–236; NZL. P. 217, and also: N4L. P. 18.

14 . NPL. pp. 43, 237; NZL. P. 217 (this news dates back to 1198).

15 . NPL. pp. 43, 237; NZL. P. 217.

16 . Basis: NPL. pp. 44, 237–238; NZL. P. 217, and also: N4L. P. 18; NPL. S. 60, 261, N4L. P. 27; NPL. S. 96, 339, N4L. P. 49.

17 . NPL. P. 44, 238, NZL. P. 218, N4L. P. 18.

18 . GVNP. No. 82. P. 141. This letter gives us the time of the emergence of the monastery. The following news is only for 1207 - NPL. pp. 50, 247; NZL. P. 219; N4L. P. 19.

19 . NPL. P. 63, 267, NZL. P. 219, and also: N4L. P. 27; NPL. P. 74; 346.

20 . NPL. P. 327, NZL. P. 221, N4L. P. 44. Mention under 1194 only: NZL. P. 221.

21 . NPL. c. 91.

22 . Right there. S. 93, 333, and also: N4L. P. 47. 93 NPL. pp. 94, 335.

23 . right there. pp. 93.333; NZL. P. 223, and also: N4L. P. 47; NPL. pp. 342–343; N4L. P. 52; NZL. From 224 (it is specified where Archbishop Moses took monastic vows).

24 . NPL. pp. 346–347; NZL. P. 225; N4L. P. 35; NPL. P. 361; NZL. P. 227; N4L. P. 58.

25 . NPL. pp. 362–363; NZL. P. 228, and also: N4L. P. 62.

PSKOV

1 . NPL. With. 29, 216; Pskov Chronicles. Vol. 1. P. 182, Issue. 2. P. 18; P. 86.

2 . NPL. pp. 79, 297.

3 . Pskov Chronicles. Vol. 1. P. 182; Vol. 2. P. 18; P. 86; 22, 88.

4 . Right there. Vol. 2. P. 93; PSRL. St. Petersburg, 1848. T. IV. P. 186.

OLD RUSSIA

1 . Spaso-Preobrazhensky – reference. from 1192 to 1234

1 . NPL. pp. 40.231; NZL. pp. 216–217; see also: pp. 73, 283; N4L. P. 30, as well as: PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 513.

3. CHERNIGOV

1 . Boldin of the Assumption of St. Mother of God - mention. under 1074

2 . Yeletsky, Dormition of the Virgin Mary – reference. under 1177

3 . Borisoglebsky - mention. under 1231

1 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 193–194; T. 2. Stb. 185.

2 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 606.

3 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 456–457.

4. POLOTSK

1 . Spaso-Evfrosinievsky – female. - mention no year

2 . Bogorodsky -?

3 . Borisoglebsky on Belchitsa -?

4 . Lavrashevsky near Novogrudok - mentioned. under 1262

1· About the existence of this monastery, see: PSRL. T. 21, first half of Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1908.

P. 211. The monastery was created between 1124 and 1128.

2 . See: Ibid. P. 214.

3 . Cm.: Voronin N. N. B Yelchitsa ruins // Architectural heritage. M., 1956. Issue. 6. pp. 3–20. The author dates the creation of the monastery to the beginning of the 12th century.

4 . · PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 859.

5. VLADIMIR VOLYNSKY

1 . Mikhailovsky - mention. under 1268

2 . Apostolic - mention. under 1287 and 1289

3 . ? - mention under 1291

1 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 868.

2 . Right there. Stb. 904, and also 925–926.

3 . Right there. Stb. 937–938.

6. SMOLENSK

1 . Borisoglebsky on Smyadin - mentioned. from 1138 to 1197

2 . Youth - mention. under 1206

3 . Dormition of the Virgin Mary -?

4 . Holy Cross -?

5 . Rispozhensky – Avraamiev – mentioned?

1 . NPL. pp. 25, 210–211; PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 702–705.

2 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 424–425.

3 . For information about this monastery, see: Life of Abraham of Smolensk and services to him // Monuments of Old Russian Literature. St. Petersburg, 1912. Issue. 1. P. 4.

4 . See: Ibid. P. 18.

5 . Right there. P. 29. The monastery was created by the local bishop Ignatius, who took the see after 1197.

7. GALICH

1 . Ioannovsky - mention. under 1189

2 . Lelesov - mention. under 1210

3 . Bogoroditsky Sinevodsky eye - mentioned. under 1240 lo Stryi

1 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 665.

2 . Right there. Stb. 728–729.

3 . Right there. Stb. 787.

8. RYAZAN

1 . Olgov - mention. around 1219

2 . Borisoglebsky on Ushna, Murom - mentioned. under 1345

1 . See: Letter of Complaint from Oleg Ryazansky, the oldest document in the Moscow Archives of the Ministry of Justice. P. 9, as well as: Letters of the XIV century. pp. 32–33.

2 . PSRL. M., 1965. T. X. P. 217.

9. VLADIMIR SUZDAL

1 . Ioannovsky in Pereyaslavl - mentioned. from 1126, under 1146 and 1289.

2 . Pereyaslavsky St. Savva - mention. under 1133

3 . Pereyaslavsky Borisoglebsky - mentioned. under 1133

4 . Pereyaslavsky Nativity of God - mentioned. under 1133

5 . Vladimirsky Spassky - mentioned. under 1164 and 1237 Zlatovratsky

6 . Vladimirsky Kozmodemyansky - mentioned. under 1175

7 . Vladimirsky Rozhdestvensky - mention. from 1175 to 1263

8 . Vladimirsky Voznesensky - mentioned. under 1187, 1218

9 . Vladimirsky Knyaginin New, - mentioned. from 1200 to 1237 Uspensky

10 . Vladimirsky Tsarevo-Konstan - mentioned. under 1276 Tino-Elenovsky

11 . Suzdal Kozmodemyansky – reference. under 1213

12 . Suzdal - mention. from 1216 to 1237

13 . Youth, Assumption Forerunner - mentioned. under 1289 General in Tver

14 . Bogoroditsky on the river Shosha in – mentioned. under 1323 Tver

1 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 296, 313–314; PSRL. St. Petersburg, 1862. T. 9. P. 154, 169, 171, and also see p. 288; T. 2. Stb. 328; Nikon, years. T. 9. PSRL. St. Petersburg, 1885. T. 10. P. 167 (mentioned 1289).

2 . PSRL. T. 9. P. 201.

3 . Right there. P. 201.

4 . Right there.

5 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 463–464 (mentioned by the abbot of the monastery Theodosius); 351 (about the construction of the church in 1164).

6 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 591–592.

7 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 370; T. 2. Stb. 593; NPL. pp. 312–313, 83–84, and also: Pskov Chronicles. Vol. 2. pp. 15–16.

8 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 404 and also 441.

9 . Right there. Stb. 415; Stb. 463–464.

10 . PSRL. T. 10. P. 152.

11 . Chronicler of Rostov bishops. St. Petersburg, 1890. pp. 6–7.

12 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 439, 462, and also: Chronicler of the Rostov bishops... P. 8.

13 . PSRL. T. 10. P. 167.

14 . Right there. P. 188.

10 . ROSTOV

1 . Rostov Petrovsky - mention. under 1214 and 1216

2 . Avraamiev Epiphany - mentioned. under 1119 and 1261

3 . Spassky on Sands, Knyaginin - mentioned. under 1271 and 1280 wives

4 . Ioanno-Bogoslovsky, Kremlin - mentioned. under 1288

5 . Rostov Kozmodemyansky - mention. under 1296 and 1304

6 . Petrovsky – mention.?

7 . Yaroslavl Spaso-Transfiguration - mentioned. from 1216 to 1345 skiy

8 . Nizhny Novgorod Spaso-Blagove - mentioned. under 1288 and 1239 Shchensky

1 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 438, 439.

2· Chronicler of the Rostov bishops... P. 5 (it is indicated that the Rostov bishop was the abbot of Avraamiev Epiphany Monastery; PSRL. T. 10. P. 142.

3 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 525; T. X. S. 150,157.

4 . Chronicler of the Rostov bishops... P. 10 (abbot of this monastery, Tarasius - Bishop of Rostov).

5 . Right there. P. 10 (about the death of Bishop Tarasius and his tonsure before that).

6 . Life of Nikita Pereyaslavsky (OR GBL. Collection of Undolsky. F. 310. No. 565).

7 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 439; T. 10. P. 69, 216–217.

8 . PSRL. T. 1. Stb. 451, 468; T. 10. P. 97.

11. HILL

1 . Danilov, Ugrovsky south of Vlo- – mentioned. under 1268 Dava, near the river. Bug

1 . PSRL. T. 2. Stb. 867–868.

12. LUTSK

1 . Nikolaevsky Zhidychin – mentioned. under 1227

2 . Poloninsky - mention. in 1262, 1268 and 1269

1 . PSRL. T. 2. Sgb. 751.

2 . Right there. Stb. 858–859, 867–868, 869.

13. TUROV

1 . Borisoglebsky - mention. in the 12th century

1 . The Legend of Mnich Martin // Macarius (Bulgakov), archimandrite. History of the Russian Church. T. 3. pp. 300–301.

The activities of the abbots were not limited to concerns related to the improvement of the monastery. They cared equally about the structure and organization of monastic life. These concerns began with the adoption of the Studio Charter by Abbot Theodosius. Subsequently, the life of the monks was determined by the basic rules of the cenobitic monastery: everyone should have everything equal, simple and cheap, necessary and not unnecessary, and not call anything their own.

Judging by the sources, everything in the monastery was done only with the blessing of the abbot, and was illuminated by prayer. Interesting for us in this regard is the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. It tells us that “whenever the brethren of this monastery want to cook, or bake bread, or do any other service, then the only thing they can do is take a blessing from them from the abbot, and then bow before the holy altar three times to the ground, So burn a candle from the holy altar and from there ignite the fire. And whenever you pour water back into the cauldron, say to the elder: “Bless, father!” And I say to him: “God bless you, brother!” And so their entire service is completed with blessing.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': The beginning of Russian literature IX - beginning. XII century M., 1978. P. 359. If any monk did anything without the proper blessing, he was subject to censure from the abbot and penance. Theodosius usually ordered food prepared without blessing to be thrown into the fire or into the river.

It should be emphasized that there were quite strict rules in the monastery. The sets of rules and customs regulated the smallest facts of everyday life: how to sing, bow, read, stand in church, behave at meals. Perhaps such strict regulation of the internal routine was a necessary measure to combat the features of singular residence that remained in the monastery, which took place regardless of the new monastic charter.

The strictest obedience was prescribed, since the normal course of monastic life depended on it. A similar feature was noted by N.I. Kostomarov. He emphasized that “the main thing for monks is boundless obedience to the will of the abbot, obedience without any reflection. It was placed above all labors and exhaustion of the flesh, above prayers. Any alteration of the abbot’s order was declared a sin.” Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures: In 3 volumes. Rostov-on-Don, 1995. T. 1. P. 37. G. G. Proshin also drew attention to a similar feature of monastic life. In one of his works, he wrote that “fasting, prayer, renunciation of worldly temptations and obedience, obedience, obedience are the highest, most important duty and virtue - above fasting and prayer.” Proshin G. G. The truth about Orthodox monasteries // Atheistic readings. Sat. Art. M., 1988. P. 333.

Without the permission of the elder, none of the brethren could not only leave the monastery, but also start new work or move from one place to another. The brethren were not allowed to keep anything of their own in their cells: neither food, nor clothing (besides what was prescribed by the charter), nor any other property. It would seem a simple rule, but from the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk it is clear how much strength the abbot needed to keep this order inviolable.

Having gathered many monks, Theodosius in no way wanted to collect treasures in the monastery, but “with faith and hope he bowed to God, as if he had no hope in his possessions.” And therefore, if Theodosius, going around the cells, found something similar, he ordered things to be thrown into the fire, “as if the enemy were part of the enemy and disobedience to sin,” and he himself gave the opposing monk instructions in non-covetousness. Theodosius called on the brethren “in the same way, brethren, let us be content with the regulation of our clothes and our clothes, offering them to the refectory from the cellarer, and in the cell from the chintz of those who have nothing else, so with all our strength and with all our thoughts we offer our pure prayer to God.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 358.

Theodosius, apparently, rightly believed that the absence of any other property, except for that permitted by the charter, would free the thoughts of the monks from constant worries about it, and would not make them desire more. For, in the words of Christ, “where your treasures are, there will your hearts be also.” When you have nothing, then, therefore, there is nothing to constantly care for, you are free from the corresponding responsibilities and consequences associated with its possession. Theodosius obviously hoped that in this regard the monks would show more zeal in church services. When there is no wealth, then there is no thin thread that connects the monk with the outside world, keeps him there, forcing him to rush about in his thoughts, constantly thinking about where it is better and what is better. When a person is devoid of internal anxiety and is spiritually balanced, it is much easier for him to concentrate on one thing. In this case, on prayers, as the main activity of any monk.

According to N. M. Nikolsky, “prayers are not a goal in themselves: they are only a means for conquering the eight most important human passions.” Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. M., 1985. P. 68. In addition, in the monastery charter there was a ban on “family property” stored in the cell. Based on the information contained in the sources, we can conclude that this point of the charter was strictly observed only during the abbot of Theodosius and for some time after his death, approximately until the end of the 11th century.

This can be confirmed by two extremely contradictory references to monastic cells. We believe that they belong to different periods in the history of the monastery: one - directly to the time of the abbess of Theodosius (second half of the 11th century), the other - to the time of the abbess of his successors (first half of the 12th century). In general, there is practically no information in the sources that would speak about the situation in the cell or describe it. Sometimes, however, there are individual and very laconic references related to this. Unfortunately, they are not exhaustive to create a complete picture, but in the absence of any other data, we consider it appropriate to present them. In our opinion, this will help to trace the evolution of monastic orders and rules, to identify changes that occurred in the life of the monastic brethren during the abbess of Theodosius’s successors.

Earlier, dating back to the end of the 11th century, there is a mention of the cell of the monk Agapit, who was tonsured into the monastery under Anthony, that is, before 1073. According to the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, in Agapit’s cell “and there was nothing stolen in his cell.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': XII century. M., 1980. P. 522. Analyzing this phrase, a number of assumptions can be made. Such an assessment of the cell may indicate the monk’s poverty or moderation, the absence of any luxury items in the cell’s furnishings. In other words, the situation was traditional for that time and, above all, traditional for the life of a monk, which in itself already presupposed the absence of any extraneous property for a person who, having accepted the monastic vow, thereby renounced the past. However, we already mentioned above that Theodosius followed this very strictly.

A later one, dating back to the beginning of the 12th century, is the mention of the cell of the monk Arefa. Apparently, he came to the monastery already during the period of the abbess of Theodosius’s successors. According to the same Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, Arefa “had a lot of wealth in his cell.” Right there. P. 510. This was considered a particularly grave sin for a monk. I note that for this period in the monastery this was not an isolated incident. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that after the death of Theodosius, his successors ceased to strictly observe the procedures established by the charter. A fairly rapid erosion of the previously established norms of monastic life began. Apparently, the Keliot tradition began to spread again in the monastery. The Kiev-Pechersk Patericon repeatedly mentions money and wealth that the monks kept in their cells.

In the sources we also find references to the activities of the brethren in their cells. Basically, these are prayers, reading, singing “the psalms of David and handicrafts.” In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, in the teaching of Bishop Simon to the monk Polycarp, the monk’s activities in the cell are mentioned: “everything you have done in the cell is worthless: if you read the Psalter or eat a psalm that is empty.” Right there. P. 476.

In addition to reading and singing psalms and praying, many monks in their cells were engaged in copying books and binding them. We find mention of this in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. Nestor paints us a rather idyllic picture: “How many times does the great Nikon sit and make books, and the blessed mind sits on the edge of that one who sits and carries out previous threads for the needs of such a work,” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 390. “Ilarion used to write tricks for books, this one wrote books every day and night.” Right there. P. 394.

The statutory daily routine in the monastery, judging by the Tale of Bygone Years, the Life of Theodosius of the Pechersk and the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, was planned with the greatest care literally by hour and minute, from the moment of awakening to going to bed. Around midnight the monastery morning began. The sexton walked around the cells and raised the monks. Thus began the monk's long day. At the signal, everyone went to the church, where the midnight service began, when in the church “the brethren performed the midnight singing.” Right there. P. 334. As a rule, after the completion of this service there followed a teaching from the abbot or one of the “elder brethren”. According to the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, the monk “and when he again taught the brethren in the church his spiritual words and commanded the great Nikon, as the brethren venerated the teachings of the books, then again to our reverend father Stephen, exiarch then existing, I am the abbot that monastery." Right there. P. 392. See also: Macarius. History of the Russian Church: In 3 books. M., 1995. Book. 2. P. 157. Apparently, this manifested the abbot’s concern for moral and spiritual state monks

After the lesson, the monks returned to their cells, but not to sleep. They followed the so-called “cell rule,” consisting of a certain number of bows and prayers. At about five in the morning the monks were again called to service, since “and now the morning singing has come... and the sexton beats the beater.” Right there. P.354. Having stood at Matins, the brethren dispersed to their cells. The Tale of Bygone Years notes that the monks “rest in their cells after matins.” The Tale of Bygone Years // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': The beginning of Russian literature IX - beginning. XII century M., 1978. P. 240. Judging by the data of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, the cells were “far from the church.” According to E.V. Romanenko, “this layout was created deliberately, since the remoteness of the cells from the main monastic services gave the monks the opportunity to avoid temptation.” Romanenko E.V. Daily life of a Russian medieval monastery. M., 2002. P. 75. After the liturgy - the service during which communion is celebrated, ? the monks went to the refectory. There is a mention of this in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, which tells that “we are going to a Lenten lunch according to the holy liturgy.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 366.

Then everyone left for obedience, so that each monk was busy with some kind of work. From the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk it follows that “weaving hooves and building hoods and other manual works... Others in the fence plow the ground for the sake of the plant.” Right there. P. 330. The Kiev-Pechersk Patericon mentions Blessed Gregory, “he has a small fence, but the idea is sowing potions and fruitful trees.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 532. Another monk, Spyridon, “is more saddened to cut dry wood or chop the dough, or knead the dough.” Right there. P. 586. Abbot Theodosius himself worked equally with everyone, regardless of his position in the monastery, and thus, by personal example, instilled in the numerous brethren the skills of monastic collectivism. In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon we find mention that the abbot “sometimes carried water, sometimes chopped wood, and thus gave an image to all the brethren.” Right there. P. 460. Theodosius, in addition, supervised all construction work in the monastery, taking a very direct part in them, and also often “went into the cave and with the bakers, joyfully, mixed the dough and baked the bread.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 388.

When the hour of new prayer came, the monks again “gathered together in the church, singing and singing for an hour, thus performing the holy service.” Right there. P. 330. The blow of the bell at about noon gathered the monks for dinner, “having tasted a little bread and then shared their name with each other.” Right there. The hearings continued until approximately two or three o'clock in the afternoon.

Thus, the monks spent most of the night and all morning in prayers and services, so the brethren were given midday time to rest. The “goalkeeper” locked the monastery gates immediately after lunch and did not allow anyone into the monastery until Vespers. The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk mentions the order of the abbot to the gatekeeper: “After dinner, do not open the gates to anyone, and let no one again enter the monastery until the evening of the year, as the brethren honor the essence of the noon for the sake of prayers and morning singing.” Right there. P. 338. Such an order from Theodosius was also dictated by the reluctance that “just as in the year of noon the brethren should not leave the monastery.” Right there. P. 340.

The monks gathered again in the temple at sunset. At this hour it was time for a new service, Vespers, during which “in the church, as the brethren sing evening prayers.” Right there. P. 354. It took about an hour and a half. After the end of the service, the monks from the temple went to the refectory for dinner and returned to the church again for the so-called “general rule,” which included the same bows and prayers. We went to our cells at about seven in the evening. After Compline, the monks were forbidden to visit each other, even if only for a joint conversation. In any case, the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk mentions the abbot’s ban on such pastimes. Theodosius, instructing the brethren, said: “And do not come from cell to cell, but in your cell let each of you pray to God.” Right there. P. 346. A letter from the Suzdal bishop Simon to the Pechersk monk Polycarp, among discussions about the ideal, from Simon’s point of view, lifestyle of a “true” monk, contains a condemnation of night conversations: “You yourself are in revolt, wanting to often go from cell to cell and marry brother to brother ", the verb is useless." Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 480.

The Monk Theodosius had the custom of visiting all the monastic cells every night, wanting to know how the monks spent their time. “Whenever you hear someone making a prayer, then glorify God about him, and whenever you hear someone talking, two or three gathered in a compartment, the same one, hitting the door with your hand, thus departs, thereby signaling your arrival.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 336. In the morning he called the guilty for a conversation, forgave those who repented, and imposed penance on others. During this period of time it was possible to sleep, because around midnight the “wake-up call” would pass again and a new day would begin. As you can see, no more than five to six hours were allocated for sleep. Although from the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk it follows that “let the brethren of the night rest for the sake of prayer and morning singing.” Right there. P. 338.

It should be noted that coming to church and participating in general worship was a strict obligation for all monks, without exception. We can say that church services were the basis of monastic life. It played a particularly important role in cenobitic monasteries, which included the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. It had a symbolic meaning, being a kind of embodiment of the idea that collective prayer is the best way to salvation rather than individual. We find confirmation of this in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, in one of the “Words” of which it is emphasized that classes in the cell were of less importance than the cathedral service: “Everything you do in the cell is nothing: if you read a psalter or eat a psalm in abundance , then not a single “Lord have mercy” will be like the prefabricated one.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 476. Obediences made up most of the monk's day; the rest of the time free from obedience was occupied by prayers, since the daily life of a monk finds its true meaning only in prayer and worship.

Very little time was allocated for sleep, so the monks often slept right during the service. Sources quite often contain references to monks sleeping during worship. Thus, the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon notes that, standing in the church during Matins, some brother “stood a little and relaxed his mind, feigning guilt to himself for leaving the church, and walking away and not returning to sing.” Other brothers steadfastly endured the time of service, “standing strong in their singing, until I finished the morning drink, and then I went each to my own cell.” Right there. P. 470.

It should be mentioned that some monks did not even strive to attend church. From the mention of the Tale of Bygone Years it follows that one of the brethren named Isaac, overcome by demons, did not want to go to church, so the monks had to force him to the temple for some time. The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 202. Sometimes in sources you can find a mention of how not only a simple monk, but even the abbot himself was not present at the service. Thus, the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon mentions that at the beginning of the service “as if the abbot did not get up to eat”, it was conducted for him by a “demon”, who was recognized by one of the monks who were in the church. As we see, if the abbot himself was not faithful to the monastic vows and duties imposed on him by this spiritual rank, then what can we say about ordinary monks who, by and large, did not have sufficient experience of monastic life.

Some monks “spent their lives in laziness and sins.” Others were weak in their faith and, being “captured by the machinations of demons,” sometimes left the monastery. Although, when tonsured, future monks took a vow “to remain in the monastery until their last breath.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 524. To leave the monastery gates without permission meant breaking the vow made before God. However, the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk mentions that “there was only one weak brother who often ran away from the blessed monastery.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 360. Here we find another example: “If someone from the holy flock weakened his heart, he left the monastery.” Right there. P. 356. Since the time of the abbess of Theodosius, a rule was enshrined in the monastery charter that prohibited a monk from leaving the monastery without the permission of the abbot. Punishment awaited the opposing monk for leaving the monastery without permission. A similar fate befell Michal Tobolkovich, who “went outside the monastery fence after matins.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 472. Curious, in our opinion, are the various symbols and knowledge that appeared to the monk “named Matthew.” Before Michal left, Matthew saw “a large crowd coming from the gate. And he lifted up his eyes and saw a single demon sitting on a pig and magnifying himself, and there were many others flowing around him.” Right there.

In our opinion, such a vision is not accidental. A person who lived in the world, who saw all the diversity of life, becoming a monk, sharply fenced himself off from it. By withdrawing into himself, a person led a different way of life, so in his mind a comparison of the past and the present was inevitable. This comparison, like the memory of a “past” life, led to temptation, which not everyone could successfully fight. “It is the desire for the worldly joys of life, and not the demon,” according to the fair remark of L. A. Olshevskaya, “that helps the monks jump over the monastery wall.” Olshevskaya L.A. Typological and textological analysis of lists and editions of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon // Old Russian Patericon. M., 1999. P. 271. Thus, the vision that appeared to Matthew is nothing more than a symbol expressing the temptation and spiritual weakness of the monk to fight him. Perhaps this is why departures from the monastery were so frequent, but despite this, the abbot “strictly taught” the departed monks, instructing them in the “true faith,” convincing them that everything outside the monastery is perishable, impermanent, and sinful.

As a matter of fact, the monks, having taken monastic vows, did not strive to strictly comply with all the points of the “strict charter”. A. S. Khoroshev wrote on this occasion that “under the monastic robe the human heart was beating, and under the monastic detachment the temperament of a political fighter, a witty and bright publicist was often hidden.” Khoroshev A. S. Political history of Russian canonization of the 11th-16th centuries. M., 1986. P. 40-41.

Many monks who entered the monastery kept a significant part of their property with them, and those who did not have them “grieved for it.” For example, Erasmus, already mentioned by us, gave all his property to the church, “spending his days in all negligence and wantonness.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 514. A monk named Arefa was “stingy and unmerciful.” Right there. P. 510. Fyodor was seduced by the love of money: having found a treasure in his cave, he wanted to secretly leave the monastery, and, “taking up the gold and going to another country.” Right there. P. 572. A similar way of life was led by one of the monks - the spiritual son of the elder Onisphorus, who “not imitating the true life of that saint, this fasting man was a liar and a chaste tor, secretly poisonous and drunk and living in a foul way.” Right there. P. 484. From the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon we learn that this monk labored in the monastery during the abbess of Pimen, that is, in the period from approximately 1132 to 1141.

Analyzing all of the above, we can conclude that by the middle of the 12th century. In the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, processes finally took shape that marked a departure from the strict provisions of the Studio Charter, which defined and regulated the norms of monastic life. The brethren began to neglect the previous rules of monastic life and deviate from them. The temptation of money-grubbing appeared, distorting spiritual ideas.

We find a hint of a similar process in the “Praise of Theodosius of Pechersk”, compiled by Nestor: “Even if we have deviated from the path of the Lord’s commandments and have not corrected the statutes betrayed by you through laziness.” Right there. P. 464. As we see, the monks forgot not only the charter, but also the commandments of Christ, which called laziness one of the seven deadly sins. Another example from the same “Praise”: “Elevate our minds, which have fallen to the earth through laziness.” Right there. P. 468. With all the reverence with which the sources speak about the monks, they, against the will of the authors, appear to be lazy people. Thus, we can talk about the so-called secularization of monastic life, about monks.

In our opinion, the monks were “spoiled” by money and valuables, and the temptation of money-grubbing began to lead to even greater oblivion of the covenants of hard work and love. Thus, we can say that from the time of the abbess of Theodosius, the monastic way of life differed significantly from the ideal that Bishop Simon of Vladimir and Suzdal described in his letter to the Pechersk monk Polycarp. The connection with the world and worldly society is further strengthened. Monks are becoming more and more interested in earthly things, moving away from the spiritual, since “as soon as they are worldly, they are concerned to correct the divine commandments.” Right there. P. 458.

V. A. Zots wrote on this occasion that “the monks were concerned only with everyday affairs and spent their lives in all sorts of disorder.” Zots V. A. Orthodoxy and culture. Facts versus speculation. Kyiv, 1986. P. 88. In our opinion, the words of Bishop Simon most correctly characterize the monastic composition of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery: “From such heights, those who have fallen into the depths of life have fallen.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 494. In this regard, the instructions of Athanasius, given by him before the death of the rest of the brethren, become clear: “Have obedience in everything to the abbot, and repent at all times and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to his most pure mother and the monks Anthony and Theodosius. These three things are more than all things.” Right there. P. 496.

Having correlated the rather scattered information from sources with each other, we came to the conclusion that in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, within the time period we selected for research, two groups of monks can be conditionally distinguished: “Those who were before the law and those who pleased God according to the law.” Right there. P. 486. We believe that the word “law” here, first of all, should mean the monastic charter. The first group includes the first students of Anthony and Theodosius, who carried the ideals of asceticism and actually brought them to life. In other words, they “walk without blemish in the paths of righteousness.” Right there. P. 466. This group was characterized by strict adherence to all the norms and rules that existed in the monastery. The second group includes the monks who came to the monastery at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. This was a new generation of ascetics who had not undergone training in monastic life. This generation introduced certain relaxations into the monastic way of life and into the fulfillment of monastic vows. Despite their stay in the monastery, the young monks were not firm in their desire to follow the path of salvation to the end. They are constantly captivated by temptations, which, judging by the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, “various thoughts shoot into our hearts and take us away from God’s understanding and love, force us into fleeting and decay, and completely plunge us into the depths of sin.” Right there. P. 464.

Under the influence of these and other factors, each of the inhabitants of the monastery developed their own idea of ​​\u200b\u200blove for one's neighbor and the norms of Christian morality. In addition, the social heterogeneity of the brethren left a certain imprint on the life of the monastic community, which, of course, determined the characteristics of the relationships between the monks, which were greatly influenced by life together, forcing the monk to patiently endure the oddities, shortcomings, sins, and infirmities of each and everyone in silence. In addition, a certain impact was exerted by the internal struggle that the monk had to wage every moment with himself, with his impatience, indignation, his outbursts of anger, his exhaustion. The problem of relations within the brethren was constantly touched upon by us to one degree or another when studying other aspects of everyday monastic life. In our opinion, a more complete study of this problem, which is more controversial, is necessary.

In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon one can find the following statements: “And all abiding in love, the lesser ones repenting to the elders, not daring to speak before them, but all with great submission and obedience, and the elders also have love for the younger ones, punishing them and comforting them, like a child my beloved. And if the one who took fell into some kind of sin, I would share the consolation of him and that one penance with any three or four, for great love. Such is the presence of divine love in that holy brethren, trembling and humility.” Right there. pp. 468-470.

In our opinion, this is a somewhat idealized judgment that cannot be taken entirely on faith. In addition, it does not find confirmation among other sources of information concerning relationships within the brethren, and is even refuted by them. Thus, we come to a contradiction, from which follows idealization, an exaggeration of reality, allowed by the author, designed, first of all, to elevate monasticism from the everyday environment, which is an example of another life, contrasted in the consciousness of the rest of the world with existing reality.

Most likely, the authors of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon were wishful thinking. Although from sources, in particular, from the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk and the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, it is clear that Theodosius cared about this aspect of everyday life. In the mutual relations of the monks, Theodosius preached obedience and humility, which were expressed in the fact that when the monks meet, “in humility, let each one bow to each other,” while keeping “the arms bent on each other’s sides.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 392. The monk should not have succumbed to “quick anger”; he should have endured “annoyance” from others. Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 478.

Despite the existence of such mutual understanding in the monastic community, in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon the image of a dissatisfied and ambitious monk is quite often encountered: “Today is meek - and the morning is fierce and evil, in silence - and the hegumen’s murmurs.” Right there. P. 476. It is possible that some moments and processes in the relations of the brethren could have existed at the initial stage of the life of the monastery, but, obviously, over time they could have been subject to change under the influence of new trends, one way or another influencing the monastery and its inhabitants in the process of historical development. As a result, the monks became lazy, careless, hypocritical, envious, evil and selfish.

In the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, we find a mention of how “the demon himself was doing dirty tricks in the temple, but the brothers were creating bread for the idea: sometimes he scattered flour, and sometimes the kvass that was put to eat the bread spilled and he did many other dirty tricks.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 336. We believe that here, through the author’s fiction, obvious human traits, real human relationships are discerned. Comparing scattered fragments of sources, we can conclude that most of the brethren treated the sick, the poor, and those who were previously rich with disdain, but had fallen into poverty. Obviously, such people did not find support and did not enjoy respect among others staying in the monastery. The monks showed their mercy towards each other if their interests were taken into account, if this spiritual impulse was rewarded.

In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the above-cited fragment from the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon that everyone tries to serve the rich both in life and in death in order to receive something as an inheritance. Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 496. This is precisely where monastic self-interest manifested itself, which is so incompatible with the norms of Christian morality.

Speaking about relationships within the brethren, one should emphasize their constant variability: from love, humility and respect for each other, to open hostility, neglect, foul language and hatred. Thus, despite the adoption of the Studite cenobitic charter, in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery the hostel, as Theodosius initially saw the monastery, did not exist as such, for wealth and poverty, sincere asceticism and not Christian greed coexisted side by side.

The great feats of some were accomplished against the backdrop of the weakness and self-will of others, many of whom “live carelessly, spend their days in all sorts of negligence and carelessness.” Right there. P. 508. B. A. Romanov believed that “difficulties in the monastery arose due to the complex social composition and environment of the monastery.” Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus'. Historical and everyday essays of the 11th-12th centuries. M., 1966. P. 157. In our opinion, confirmation of the above judgment is a small fragment from the Kiev-Pechersk patericon from the “Tale” about Lawrence the recluse, according to which a certain demoniac, when approaching the monastery, began to cry out that “in the monastery there are three decades I’m afraid of the only one, but I’m fighting with the others... Then there are 100 and 80 of all the monks in the oven.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 520. Thus, at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century, that is, during the abbot of Nikon or his successor John, only thirty monks from the brethren led a truly monastic lifestyle, while the rest imitated him, being subject to various weaknesses, they were constantly in the power of temptation.

Pop Titus lived in hatred and enmity with Deacon Evagrius, although they were “two brothers in spirit... They had great and unfeigned love among themselves... But one day the devil created enmity and hatred for them.” Right there. P. 512. Theophilus, succumbing to anger, did not deserve death without repentance. Erasmus, who gave all his property to the church, began to “live in all negligence and poverty.” Right there. P. 508. Monk Arefa “be stingy and unmerciful, and never give a single penny to the poor.” Right there. P. 510. Fyodor, seduced by the love of money, wanted to “take up the gold and go to another country.” Right there. P. 574. They could not agree with the strict life of poverty and poverty, and in the monastery they continued to engage in ordinary worldly affairs.

There were cases of theft in the monastery. The prerequisites for this were largely created by the social heterogeneity of the brethren. I. U. Budovnits noted that “some monks kept their property with themselves, others, not having any means, were subject to a strong temptation to appropriate, in a sense, the acquisitions of others. Some were simply stealing." Budovnits I. U. Monasteries in Rus' and the struggle of peasants against them in the XIV-XVI centuries. M., 1966. S. 108-109. Moreover, they not only stole from each other, but also robbed the monastery. There are several mentions of this in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. One of them says that “someone secretly stole bread from the brethren” of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 556. from the monk Prokhor, which he prepared from quinoa. Another case of theft, described in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, occurred with the knowledge of the abbot, who “commanded another brother to do this: take the bread in secret.” Right there. Another mention speaks of the monks who robbed the monastery. I note that such acts did not go unpunished, but, the monks, “the former was exposed, and fell away from all things, and was quickly expelled from the Pechersk monastery.” Right there. P. 594.

Thus, with the exception of a few individuals who were given from above to achieve the highest monastic ideal, except for the poor, weak in spirit and body, incapable of working in society, the monastery was filled mainly with people who imagined about themselves something that was not really there. in fact. This is how one can characterize almost the entire monastic brethren, consisting of one hundred and eighty people, except for those thirty monks who nevertheless led a truly monastic lifestyle.

In general, monasticism, as a social group, carried thousands of iconic symbols that reflected the main thing in their life - the ideal of poverty, humility, and obedience. In addition to prayers, church services and obediences, clothing and food were no less significant features of everyday life and monastic life. To the common man, the appearance of the monk must have seemed very strange.

According to G. G. Proshin, “clothing, of course, does not make a monk, but the robes of monasticism, like any uniform, are designed to demonstrate to the world and cultivate in the monk certain life values, a certain attitude.” Proshin G. G. Black army. Russian Orthodox monastery: Legend and reality. M., 1988. P. 254. In the monastery, as a rule, everyone wore the same and the simplest clothes. The monks received everything they needed for life from the general funds of the monastery. Complete Orthodox Theological Dictionary. M., 1992. T. 2. P. 252.

The sources mention various fragments of the monastic costume. These scattered descriptions give us the opportunity to get a certain idea about the features of monastic clothing. Church historians such as Macarius and M.V. Tolstoy noted that “the brethren of the monastery were divided into four “classes.” Some had not yet been tonsured and wore secular clothes; others, although they were not tonsured, wore monastic clothes; others had already been tonsured and wore a robe; the fourth were clothed in the great schema. These were, as it were, the four degrees of monastic life.” Macarius. History of the Russian Church: In 3 books. M., 1995. Book. 2. P. 157. See also: Tolstoy M.V. Stories on the history of the Russian church. M., 1991. P. 250.

We find an indication of a similar division of the brethren into four “classes” in the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. It follows from it that if someone came to Theodosius, wanting to become a monk, then he “didn’t tonsure him, but commanded him to walk in his own clothes, and until then the entire monastic foundation was eliminated. Thus, after this time, you were clothed in mysterish clothes and in all services, you were tempted, and then you were shaved, and clothed in a mantle (small schema - N.V.). Dondezhe again awakens the blacks, who are skilled in life, to cleanse themselves and then become worthy and accept the holy schema (usually after four years - N.V.).” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 334.

This fragment from the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk allows us to get an idea of ​​the rules of admission to the monastery and the rite of tonsure itself. I note that the entire tonsure ceremony was very symbolic. Firstly, when taking tonsure, the monk put on special clothes provided for such a case. In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, in the “Tale” about Pimen’s tonsure, such attributes as “retinue, mantle and doll” are mentioned. Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 598. Secondly, another indispensable attribute of tonsure was the “Euangel”. Right there. And thirdly, during the tonsure ceremony itself, the monk was asked questions appropriate for the occasion, the nature of which indicates the desire of those tonsured to be convinced of the firmness of the monk’s desire to become a monk. According to the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, during the rite of tonsure of Pimen, “we began to ask questions: “Why did you come, brother, to this holy altar and to this holy squad? Do you wish to be worthy of the great Mnishe angelic image? And he did everything else according to the order, as it is written, and tonsured him in the same way into a great image.” Right there. P. 600.

Judging by the few descriptions from sources, the clothes of the monks were very simple, devoid of any external attractiveness, decoration, or elegance. It was made from the simplest and cheapest fabrics.

In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon and the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, the poverty and dilapidation of monastic attire are repeatedly emphasized. The Patericon mentions that the monks walked “in these worn-out rags.” Right there. P. 505. The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk contains a mention that the abbot’s clothes “were thin and shabby,... and he was one of the poor,” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 300. and many foolish ones “swear at him about these thinner clothes, reproaching him.” Right there. P. 344.

As we see, the sources strongly emphasize the dilapidation and poverty of monastic attire. In our opinion, this is a completely natural phenomenon, since, having entered a monastery, a person renounced all worldly goods, thinking only about the salvation of his soul, and for this it is not necessary to “decorate himself with red vestments,” the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 506. so as not to fall into temptation.

An interesting point of view regarding the unpretentiousness of monastic attire was expressed by V. N. Toporov. He “compared the “patched rags” of the monks and the “thin robes of Jesus Christ - as a symbol of rejection of socially prestigious things, as a symbol of humility and “squalor.” It is “thin clothes,” according to V.N. Toporov, that become a sign of spiritual choice, a new morality.” Toporov V.N. Holiness and saints in Russian spiritual culture. M., 1995. S. 656-657. V.V. Dolgov also pointed out that “the costume for a medieval person was of great importance and was directly related to the social status of a person. Dressing the novice in special clothes during tonsure symbolized his renunciation of his previous condition and indicated a change in his social status.” Dolgov V.V. Essays on history public consciousness Ancient Rus' XI-XIII centuries. Izhevsk, 1999. P. 119.

In addition to numerous references to the poverty of monastic attire, sources quite often mention “black chasuble.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 504. Obviously, they can be considered as a kind of mystical analogue of a military uniform, for monasticism is the army of Christ. Judging by the data of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, dressing in black vestments was supposed to save the monk from torment, from the desire to do unspiritual things, from thoughts about earthly things and finally strengthen him on the path of spiritual improvement. After the novice took monastic vows, taking vows of monastic life, he put on clothes of a different kind, testifying to this. In addition to the already listed attributes of a monastic costume, one should also name a “retinue of coarse fabric” and a “hair shirt”. I note that the hair shirt was not a mandatory attribute of monastic clothing, and the monks wore it at their own request, although in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon there are quite often references to the fact that this or that monk put on a hair shirt. Judging by the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, the hair shirt was made from “spiky wool” and was worn on the naked body. On top of the hair shirt they wore either a “volotnyana retinue”, The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 208. or “the retinue is cramped.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 610. On their heads the monks wore either a hood, which is referred to in sources as the “helmet of salvation,” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. P. 326. or kukol - a pointed hood that tightly covers the head and shoulders. The monk was wearing sandals or shoes.

In addition to written sources, the icon of the Mother of God of Svensk (Pechersk) gives us certain ideas about the robes of monks. The icon, in addition to the Mother of God with the Child Christ, depicts the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Anthony and Theodosius. The icon has long been dated to the end of the 13th century. In the 80-90s of the XX century. Studies have appeared in which the icon is quite convincingly dated to the end of the 12th century. Ovchinnikov A. N. “Panteleimon” from the Pushkin Museum and “Our Lady of Pechersk” from the Tretyakov Gallery in the light of restoration research // Russian art of the 11th-13th centuries. Sat. Art. M., 1986. P. 46-60. See also: Rozanova N.V. Some results of the study of ancient Russian icons using physical methods // Ibid. pp. 166-178. This iconographic image is of great value to us, since it allows us to draw certain conclusions about the appearance of the monks, based not only on the author’s assumptions and brief characteristics of written sources. Having carefully studied the icon, we were once again convinced that the monks were indeed dressed in “black vestments,” very simple and inexpensive. In addition, from the analysis of the images of Anthony and Theodosius, we can conclude that the clothing was not the same for all monks. This circumstance, in turn, may indicate the existence in the monastery of unique stages of monastic life: from a simple novice to a great schema-monk. The fact that Anthony was clothed in the great schema is evidenced by such attributes of his monastic attire as a shirt, mantle, and cape. As for Theodosius, he was most likely a monk of little schema, since, judging by the image, he was tonsured and dressed in a mantle.

All elements of the monastic costume are deeply symbolic. For example, a mantle - a sleeveless cloak that covers the entire figure - is a symbol of the fact that the monk is separated from the world. Another example is hair shirt. E. V. Romanenko calls the hair shirt “the heaviest weapon in the spiritual battle.” In appearance, it resembled chain mail knitted from prickly wool. They put the hair shirt directly on the naked body, under the scroll, to tame the flesh. Romanenko E.V. Daily life of a Russian medieval monastery. P. 285. L.P. Karsavin noted that “hair shirts were made from goat hair. In the minds of medieval man, the goat symbolized voluptuousness, therefore, the hair shirt was fully consistent with its purpose, being a homeopathic remedy for the humility of the flesh.” Karsavin L.P. Monasticism in the Middle Ages. M., 1992. P. 165.

Even the black color of the monastic robe was a sign of humility and sadness, a sign of renunciation of the world. Dressed in black robes, the monk seemed to be dying for the world, for the sake of saving his soul and serving God. The clothing was distinguished by its unusualness and some gloominess, thereby emphasizing the “otherness” of monastic life. For a simple man in the street, a person dressed in a special way was for some reason special, out of this world. Therefore, the sight of a monk dressed from head to toe in all black could inspire him with a certain superstitious fear, which is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years and has already been cited above. It must be admitted that dressed in black, shabby clothes, with a careless appearance, sad eyes cast down to the ground, the monk looked peculiar.

The monastic food was also very simple. Even when the monks lived in the cave, that is, before 1062, “they eat rye bread and water. On Saturday every week you will eat; Many times, even on those days, I couldn’t find the juice, but I brewed only one potion, and then I used it as poison.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk P. 330. Over time, food became more varied. Although monastic food, according to the rules, was supposed to be simple and inexpensive. The food was quite varied and as healthy as possible. Moreover, it was necessary to take into account that not everyone can eat the same thing, because “ovi for fasting women, ... some eat bread and water, or the potion is boiled, and the friends are harsh.” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 468. For example, “Damian the elder, as though bread and water were nothing more than food until the day of his death.” Right there. P. 470.

Judging by numerous references to sources, the basis of the monastic daily diet was “harsh potion and dry bread,” Ibid. P. 500. “Ukrukha bread and sochiva.” Right there. P. 476. Prokhor the Chernorizets “taste no bread, maybe prosphora, no vegetables, no food, just loboda and water.” Right there. P. 555. This can be considered a special type of asceticism. Even Theodosius himself “the food was dry bread and potions boiled without oil and water to drink - but his food was always missing.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk S. 362.

As usual, for lunch at the monastery they served “bread, juice and a little fish.” Right there. P. 356. True, sometimes the monks were offered for a meal “after boiling the wheat, eat some honey.” Right there. P. 360. The monks, as usual, drank water or kvass. Honey, stored in the monastery cellars, was usually treated to high-ranking guests visiting the monastery: the prince and his companions, Ibid. P. 412. It was served to the monks only according to big holidays. Wine, as a rule, was intended for church services and divine liturgies. There is no mention in the sources that the monks drink wine.

Various church holidays also made their own adjustments to the usual monastic diet. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, “fasting time cleanses a person’s mind.” The Tale of Bygone Years. P. 198. Fasting should be carried out “in prayers night and day, to be guarded from unclean thoughts, from demonic infestation. And to this end, have abstinence from many foods; in eating too much and drinking beyond measure.” Right there. P. 196. In the first week of Lent they fasted especially strictly. Theodosius did not demand anything beyond measure, since “God does not want to sin the power of fasting or labor,” Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. P. 500. therefore, on Friday of this week, according to the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, it was his custom to offer the brethren “cleanse the bread whole, and make the friends from them with honey and mash.” Life of Theodosius of Pechersk S. 364.

Thus, we can say that monastic life had its own characteristics. It was characterized by the existence of rather harsh orders. The main activities of the monks were church services, prayers and various obediences. Everything in the monastery had to be done at a strictly defined time. Everything that surrounded the monk, filled his daily life, was deeply symbolic and reflected the main thing: poverty and humility.

About him