The first monastery in Kievan Rus: name, founder.

Monk Anthony and Hilarion's Cave

lampada.in.ua

The name of the founder of the first monastery in Kievan Rus is Anthony. This man was a simple monk. Born and raised in the city of Lyubech. He came to Kyiv to become a priest and lived in one of the Kyiv monasteries. Anthony wanted to find himself a quiet place where he could rest from prayers and retire from all people. One day he came across a hill that was on the banks of the Dnieper. There was a cave under the hill. As it turned out later, this place was called Hilarion’s Cave. Once it was dug by the priest Hilarion in order to live in it, and not in the monastery. Afterwards, Hilarion received the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and abandoned the cave. Now the monk Anthony began to live there with his students.

Old Russian monasticism and the first monasteries in Rus'

Yu.A. Artamonov

Report by Yu.A. Artamonov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Research Fellow at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences at the International Theological Scientific and Practical Conference “Monasticism of Holy Rus': from Origins to the Present” (Moscow, Intercession Stavropegic Convent, September 23−24, 2015)

The early history of Russian monasticism is an area of our knowledge where there are still more questions than answers. When did the first monks and the first monasteries appear in Rus'? Who initiated the creation of monasteries? Who were they inhabited by? In whose jurisdiction were they? It is currently not possible to give unambiguous and comprehensive answers to all these questions. Much about the organization of life in ancient monasteries still remains a mystery to us. It is no coincidence that A.V. Kartashev, the author of “Essays on the History of the Russian Church,” summing up the work of the pre-revolutionary church historical school, wrote: “The beginning of Russian monasticism represents, as it were, some kind of mystery”[1]. The same admission is made today by one of the most authoritative medievalists, professor of Slavic studies at Cambridge University Simon Franklin: “The beginning of monasticism in Rus' is shrouded in the darkness of obscurity”[2].

What is the reason for this “mystery” and “unknown”? The answer is obvious: there is an acute shortage of sources. That is why researchers of the past of the Russian Church are sometimes forced to begin the history of our monasticism from the moment of the establishment of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, as the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P.S. did back in the middle of the last century. Kazansky[3]. Meanwhile, the birth of the Pechersk monastery dates back to the middle of the 11th century. What preceded this event? Did monasticism exist under the Kyiv princes Vladimir Svyatoslavich (980–1015) and Yaroslav Vladimirovich (1019–1054)? Direct evidence from sources on this matter is negligible, but it still exists...

Chronologically, the first is the testimony of the Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion (1051), who in his Praise to Prince Vladimir (as part of the “Sermon on Law and Grace”) reports that with him “the monastery on the mountains of Stasha, the Chernorisians appeared”[4]. The second belongs to Jacob Mnich, the author of “Memory and Praise to the Russian Prince Vladimir” (second half of the 11th century [5]). Referring to the ruler’s custom of establishing three meals on the Lord’s holidays, he writes: “The first is for the metropolitan with the bishops, and the monk, and the priests, the second is for the poor and wretched, the third for himself, and his boyars, and all his husbands.”[6] . A skeptic could probably object that the reliability of this information cannot be considered absolute, since in both the first and second cases we are dealing with the genre of praise, which allows for some exaggeration. But we have at our disposal another source - “The Tale of Bygone Years” - a chronicle from the beginning of the 12th century. Under the year 6545 (1037), in a story about the large-scale construction activities of Prince Yaroslav in Kiev, the chronicler reports: “At seven (Yaroslav - Yu.A.) the Christian faith began to be fruitful and expand, and the Chernorisians began to multiply more and more and began to be monasteries.” [7].

Thus, three independent sources attest to the fact that monasticism existed in Rus' already in the first decades after the official adoption of Christianity. But common sense suggests that without monks the organization of the first episcopal sees, which at the turn of the 10th–11th centuries. already existed in Novgorod, Polotsk, Chernigov.

But the strange thing is that when turning to the events of the late X - first half of the XI century. “traces” of monasticism are “lost.” It is not where it should certainly be! For the entire first half of the 11th century. We do not know of a single case (documented) when representatives of ancient Russian monasteries took part in any significant socio-political event.

The most important events in the church and socio-political life of Rus' in the first half of the 11th century. there were transfers of the relics of the holy passion-bearers Boris and Gleb in Vyshgorod. For the first time, the relics of the brothers were transferred from the burnt church of St. Vasily into a small wooden chapel (“klet’kou malou”), and the second into a specially built large five-domed wooden temple. Both the first and second transfers were initiated by Prince Yaroslav the Wise. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that the monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle (“Telling miracles to the holy passion-bearer of Christ Roman and David” (XI-XII centuries) and “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” (beginning of the 12th century) ) do not name monks among the participants in these celebrations. Only the prince, boyars, metropolitan, clergy of St. Sophia Cathedral, as well as the parish priesthood of Kyiv and Vyshgorod are mentioned. This is all the more significant since subsequent transfers (1072 and 1115) took place with the participation of tonsures from several monasteries at once.

For the entire first half of the 11th century. We do not find a single chronicle mention of the participation of monasticism in the burial of any of the representatives of the ruling princely dynasty. So, for example, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Kyiv prince Yaroslav (1054) was seen off on his last journey by the “priests,” and “for the sake of him, Vsevolod and all the people” cried [8].

These omissions cannot be considered accidental. There is no mention of the participation of monasticism in significant public events of the first half - mid-11th century. suggests that during this period it was still small in number, fragmented and did not play an independent role in the life of society and the state. This conclusion finds its explanation in the very nature of the first Russian monasteries.

What were the ancient Russian monasteries like during the reign of Vladimir and Yaroslav? Over the past two hundred years, various opinions have been expressed on this matter. In modern historical science, the opinion has been established that the initiative to create the first monasteries came from secular authorities, therefore in Ancient Rus', princely monasteries predominated (Ya.N. Shchapov, B.N. Florya, N.V. Sinitsyna, A. Poppe, etc. .).

This opinion is not without foundation. Indeed, the first reliable news about the construction of monasteries is read in the chronicle report on the urban planning activities of Prince Yaroslav in Kyiv. The chronicler writes that along with the Golden Gate, the Church of St. Sophia and the Church of the Annunciation, the prince founded the monastery of St. George and St. Irina. These monasteries were dedicated to the patron saints of Yaroslav and his second wife Ingigerda (baptized Irina), daughter of the Swedish king Olaf. The example of Yaroslav was followed by his sons, who created their own monasteries in Kyiv: Prince Izyaslav (1054 - 1078, with interruptions) rebuilt the monastery of St. Demetrius, Svyatoslav (1073–1076) – St. Simeon at the Kopyrevo end, Vsevolod (1078 – 1093) – St. Andrey. It is obvious that the Rurikovichs were guided by the Byzantine experience. There, the practice of creating monasteries by emperors and wealthy people in general (officials, military officers, merchants, etc.) was extremely widespread[9].

This experience of private construction became widespread in Ancient Rus'. Suffice it to say that by the beginning of the 11th century. in Kyiv alone there were about 400 churches, and by the beginning of the 12th century. their number has already exceeded 600. Such a significant number of churches in one city is difficult to explain unless we take into account the fact that medieval authors took into account not only parish, but also private churches of the nobility, which were located on the territory of city estates. The construction of temples in the estates of the nobility is well known from the example of Western Slavic states: Great Moravia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Here, as in Ancient Rus', in the period after official baptism there was a weak development of the parish church organization, while private church construction predominated[10].

At first, Greek or Bulgarian clergy served in private churches, mainly represented by monastics. Therefore, the ancient Russian monasteries of the first decades after the adoption of Christianity were predominantly relatively small groups of monks who lived on the territory of the city estates of the nobility, performing services in their home churches-monasteries. Their functions were mainly limited to satisfying the religious needs of the ktitor’s family[11]. Thus, the emergence of the first monasteries was due, so to speak, to a “movement from above.” The small number and dependence on the will of ktitors prevented the establishment of monasticism as an independent and socially significant force in ancient Russian society.

This finding explains a lot. For example, he explains why at first ancient Russian authors did not distinguish between the concepts of “church” and “monastery”, but perceived them as synonyms. This is clearly seen in the example of the monastery of St. built by Yaroslav. George, which in the chronicle article of 6571 (1063) about the death and burial of Prince Sudislav is called simply “the Church of St. George”[12]. He also explains why the Monk Anthony of Pechersk, having returned from Athos, did not want to settle in any of the Kyiv monasteries. Apparently, the clergy monasteries of the capital were far from the ideal of monastic service that Anthony learned on the Holy Mountain. And finally, he explains why young Theodosius of Pechersk was not received in any of the capital’s monasteries. Private monasteries were not interested in increasing the number of tonsures, since this threatened to increase costs. Nestor directly writes: “They (the inhabitants of the Kyiv monasteries. - Yu.A.), having seen the youth in simplicity, clothed themselves with thin garments, not wanting to accept it.”[13].

The situation began to change in the second half of the 11th century: the black clergy increasingly came to the attention of ancient Russian scribes. The first case of monks participating in a significant public event dates back to May 20, 1072, when the sons of Yaroslav - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod - organized the third transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb. Among those present, the sources are named by the names of three abbots of the Kyiv monasteries, noting that there were “other abbots”[14].

The first news of the participation of monasticism in the funeral of Rurikovich dates back to 1078. In the story about the burial of the Kyiv prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich (1054–1078, with interruptions) we read: “And taking his body, bringing it to the boats, and placing it opposite Gorodets, the whole city of Kiev was opposite him, and putting his body on a sleigh, carried it and , with the songs of the priest and the monks, they carried it to the city”[15]. Here, to the already familiar “popov”, the author adds “and chernoristi”. The participation of the black clergy marked the funerals of the princes: Yaropolk Izyaslavich (1086), Vsevolod Yaroslavich (1093) and Rostislav Vsevolodovich (1093)[16].

On the significant increase in the role of monasticism in the social life of the country at the end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century. say the messages of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6604 (1096) and 6609 (1101). In the first case, the chronicle quotes the words of the Kiev prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich (1093–1113) and the Pereyaslavl prince Vladimir Monomakh (1094–1113), addressed to the Chernigov prince Oleg To Svyatoslavich (1094–1097): “Go to Kiev, so that we can lay order for the lands of Russia before the bishops, and before the abbots, and before the men of our fathers, and before the people of the city, so that they may defend the Russian land from the filthy ones.”[17] As can be seen from the text, the abbots are mentioned among those who were supposed to testify to the princely agreement (“order”) to end strife and organize joint actions against the external enemy - the Polovtsians. Another message is the first documented fact of the speech of a meeting of abbots as peacemakers and guarantors for the disgraced Rurikovich: “That same summer, Yaroslav Yaropolchich of Berestia came and went to Svyatopolk, and the outpost and in the city, and eat, and shackles, and brought and Kiev. And the metropolitan and the abbess and the omolisha Svyatopolk prayed for him”[18]. The intercession of the Metropolitan and the abbots had an effect: after an oath at the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb, Yaroslav’s shackles were removed and then released.

Thus, starting from the 70s of the 11th century. Old Russian monasticism became a participant in significant public events and political actions. This was preceded by a surge of interest in monasticism in ancient Russian society, which occurred in the 50s and 60s of the 11th century. This period became fateful in the history of Russian monasticism.

In order to understand the meaning of the changes that have occurred, let us turn to the list of participants in the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb on May 20, 1072 (as presented in “Tales of Miracles to the Holy Passion-Bearer of Christ Roman and David”): “And all the brethren were drunk: Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod; Metropolitan George of Kyiv, drougy Neophyte of Chernigov; and bishoprics: Peter of Pereyaslavsky, Nikita of Belogorodsky and Mikhail Gurgevsky; and abbots: Theodosius of Pechersk and Sophronia of St. Michael, and Herman of the Holy Savior, and other all abbots” [19].

As you can see, when listing the participants in the ceremony, the author of the Legend uses a hierarchical principle from higher to lower. Among the princes, the eldest Izyaslav is named first, the middle Svyatoslav is the second, and the youngest Vsevolod is the third. In the ranks of bishops, the Metropolitan of Kiev first appears, then the titular Metropolitan of Chernigov, and only then the bishops of Pereyaslavl, Belgorod and Yuryevsky. The list of abbots opens with Theodosius of Pechersk, followed by Sophrony “St. Michael” and Herman “St. Savior”, and then “others”.

The first in the list of abbots is the abbot of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, which was founded by the Athonite tonsure Anthony. According to the “Tale of the Beginning of the Pechersk Monastery” (in the chronicle of 6559 (1051), upon returning from the Holy Mountain, the “father of Russian monasticism" expected to settle in one of the already existing Kyiv monasteries, but soon abandoned this plan. He chose the high right bank of the Dnieper, covered with forest, as the place of his exploits. Here, not far from the grand-ducal village of Berestovo, Anthony dug a cave, fasted, and remained in vigil and prayer. Soon he gained followers. The monastery grew quickly: by the beginning of the 60s of the 11th century. the total number of brethren reached 100 people, which by the standards of that time was an incredibly large figure[20]. Suffice it to say that the average Byzantine monastery of that time housed approximately 8–10 monks.

The second in the list is the abbot of “St. Michael”. We are talking about the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Vydubitsky Monastery, the founding of which is sometimes attributed to Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich. However, it is not. Archaeological research of the territory of the Vydubitsky monastery, carried out by M.K. Karger (1945) and T.A. Bobrovsky (2003), showed that the construction of the stone St. Michael's Cathedral, which began with the financial assistance of Prince Vsevolod in 1070, was preceded by a cave settlement of anchorites that arose in the middle of the 11th century. It was a group of underground chambers isolated from each other, each of which had a separate exit to the surface of the slope towards the Dnieper. Subsequently, the settlement of cave dwellers evolved into a land-based cenobitic monastery. Some of the caves were destroyed during the construction of the cathedral, but some continued to be used until the mid-13th century.[21] Thus, the construction of the stone cathedral was not the actual beginning of the monastery. Consequently, Vsevolod was not the founder of the Vydubitsky monastery, but its patron. It should also be noted that in written sources the monastery is never called “stepfather” in relation to the descendants of Vsevolod. Moreover, not one of them was buried within its walls. The family necropolis was located in the monastery of St. Andrew, which Vsevolod founded in honor of his heavenly patron.

The last person named among the participants in the ceremony of transferring the relics of Boris and Gleb was Herman, abbot of the “Holy Savior”. The hagiographer calls the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery “Holy Savior”. Already Macarius (Bulgakov) noticed that at the end of the 11th century. it had a second name - Germanech[22]. It indicates that the founder of the monastery was Herman, a participant in the third transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb. The time of its occurrence should be attributed to the 50–60s of the 11th century.

The above allows us to conclude that, firstly, in the list of participants in the celebrations on May 20, 1072, abbots of monasteries are mentioned, whose emergence was not due to the initiative of the princely power, but it was they who occupied a leading position among the ancient Russian monasteries of that time. Secondly, it does not name the abbots of the princely monasteries, the existence of which is reliably attested by sources. Thus, it does not mention the abbots of the following monasteries: St. George and St. Irene, rebuilt by Prince Yaroslav the Wise (no later than 1054), St. Dmitry, founded by Prince Izyaslav (no later than 1062), and St. Nicholas, created by his wife Gertrude (no later than 1062).

And finally, the last observation, which seems to me very significant, is that the three named monasteries were closest neighbors. This means that we can talk about the emergence in the third quarter of the 11th century on the southern outskirts of Kyiv, not far from the grand-ducal village of Berestovo, of a large monastic center that received wide public recognition. Moreover, this center continued to actively develop. Around 1078, the construction of the Klovsky Monastery began here, dedicated to the miracle of the Virgin Mary in Blachernae. Probably at the turn of the 11th–12th centuries. The Zverinetsky Monastery arose to the southwest of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Like neighboring monasteries, it began with a cave settlement of hermit monks, and then developed on the surface[23]. The independence of the monastery is evidenced by a cave graffito with a mention of the “abbots of the menagerie”: Leonty, Markian, Michael, Jonah, Mina, Clementy and Manuel[24]. The monastery is not mentioned in written sources and is known only through archaeological research of its underground structures. Consequently, it can be assumed that the complex of monasteries on the southern outskirts of Kyiv was not limited to the five named monasteries. It is obvious that other monastic communities existed here for more or less a long time, the names of which were not preserved by the sources.

The monastic complex in the Berestovo region remained the center of monastic life in Rus' until the tragic events of the mid-13th century. It was the largest center for the development of writing. Here translations were carried out and original works of ancient Russian literature were compiled. The first libraries were collected here, crafts and arts flourished. A “school” for training Orthodox hierarchs was located here. More than 50 heads of Russian dioceses emerged from the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery alone in the pre-Mongol period.

The proximity of the location and common interests of the monastic communities in the Berestovo region contributed to internal consolidation and the maturation of corporate consciousness among the inhabitants. These processes took place in different forms. The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk, for example, contains interesting evidence according to which the brethren of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, led by their abbot, visited the monastery of the same name in the city on the day of remembrance of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica (heavenly patron of Prince Izyaslav). It is obvious that the tradition of mutual visits with common worship and joint meals was also practiced among the monasteries located in the neighborhood. Chernorizians of different monasteries could gather together on the occasion of the installation of abbots, the consecration of cathedrals and churches, the funerals of abbots and prominent tonsures. This rapprochement of monastic communities in the Berestovo area ultimately led to the emergence here in the 70s of the 12th century. the first archimandrite in Rus'.

The proposed observations allow us to cast doubt on the thesis established in science about the predominant role of princely-boyar (“father”) monasteries in Ancient Rus'. In fact, such a predominance can only be spoken of in relation to the first half of the 11th century, when Christianity was mainly “the faith of an aristocratic society.” In the 50s - 60s of the 11th century. the monasteries founded by the monks themselves come to the fore, and, above all, the complex of monastic communities in the Berestovo area, led by the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. This is our “Russian Thebaid”! Its emergence was not connected with money and power, but with a “movement from below”, which was based on deep faith, genuine piety and asceticism. This new phenomenon in the life of ancient Russian monasticism was subtly noticed by the chronicler, who, talking about the emergence of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, wrote: “For many monasteries were established by the Tsar and by the boyars and by wealth, but they are not the essence of tatsi; , keep vigil”[25].

[1] Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. – St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 1. P. 237.

[2] Franklin S., Shepard D. The Beginning of Rus'. 750–1200. – St. Petersburg, 2009. P. 479.

[3] Kazansky P.S. The history of Orthodox Russian monasticism from the founding of the Pechersk monastery by St. Anthony to the founding of the Lavra of St. Trinity by St. Sergius. – M., 1855.

[4] Moldovan A.M. "The Sermon on Law and Grace" by Hilarion. – Kyiv, 1984. P. 93.

[5] Podskalski G. Christianity and theological literature in Kievan Rus (988–1237). – St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 198.

[6] Zimin A.A. Memory and praise of Jacob Mnich and the Life of Prince Vladimir according to the most ancient list // Kr. message Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1963. No. 37. P. 70.

[7] PSRL. T. I. Laurentian Chronicle. Stb. 151.

[8] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 162.

[9] Sokolov I.I. The state of monasticism in the Byzantine Church from the middle of the 9th to the beginning of the 13th century (842–1204): Experience of church-historical research. – St. Petersburg, 2003. pp. 118–119.

[10] Christianity in the Old Polish and Ancient Bohemian states in the 2nd half of the 10th – 1st half of the 11th century. // Christianity in the countries of Eastern, South-Eastern and Central Europe on the threshold of the second millennium / Rep. ed. B.N. Florya. – M., 2002. P. 190‒266.

[11] For more information about this, see: Artamonov Yu.A. Monastic construction in Rus' in the era of Yaroslav Vladimirovich // Yaroslav the Wise and his era. – M., 2008. pp. 187–201.

[12] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 163.

[13] Assumption collection of the XII–XIII centuries. / Prepare to the stove O.A. Knyazevskaya and others - M., 1971. P. 80.

[14] Bugoslavsky S.A. Monuments of the XI–XVIII centuries. about the princes Boris and Glib: Development of texts // Textology of Ancient Rus'. T. 2: Old Russian literary works about Boris and Gleb / Comp. Yu.A. Artamonov. – M., 2007. P. 533.

[15] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 202.

[16] Ibid. Stb. 206, 217, 221.

[17] Ibid. Stb. 229–230.

[18] Ibid. Stb. 274–275.

[19] Bugoslavsky S.A. Decree. Op. P. 553.

[20] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 155–160.

[21] Bobrovsky T.A. Underground spores of Kiev from recent times to the middle of the 11th century. (speleo-archaeological drawing). – Kyiv, 2007. P. 59. In addition, see: He is the same. Caves of the Vidubitsky monastery near Kiev (for materials follow the section “Kiev-underground”) // Kiev and Kiyani (materials of the scientific-practical conference). – Kyiv, 2005. pp. 6–9.

[22] Macarius (Bulgakov). History of the Russian Church. – M., 1995. Book. 2. P. 171. See also: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. – M., 1904. T.1. Part II. pp. 585–586.

[23] Vorontsova E.A. Kyiv caves. – Kyiv, 2005. pp. 67–127.

[24] The opinion was expressed that the Zverinetsky caves were the necropolis of the Kiev-Pechersk or Vydubitsky monasteries (Ertel A.D. Ancient caves in Kyiv on the Zverinets. - Kyiv, 1913. P. 34–36).

[25] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 159.

27.09.2015

Social media

The emergence of a church on the site of a cave

Together with his student Theodosius, the monk gathered a group of twelve aspiring priests, and together they organized one of the first churches in Kyiv. The church was small. There were only a couple of icons and prayers. But she quickly became famous throughout Kievan Rus. Over time, people began to come to pray. More and more people began to come to look at the new church. There wasn't enough space. And Anthony decided to create a new cave under the neighboring hill in order to live there. The monk decided that he needed to build a real church. I went to the Prince of Kievan Rus Izyaslav Yaroslavich for permission to build.

Monasticism and monasteries

Monasticism arose in antiquity, in the first centuries of Christianity, but the heyday of monastic life dates back to the 4th century[1]. Monasticism is a special service. Monks, according to the word of Christ the Savior, leave everything and follow the Lord. They sacrifice everything that constitutes earthly good for an ordinary person: family, property, their will and worldly pleasures - in order to serve God especially diligently. Christians are sometimes called soldiers of Christ. Continuing this analogy, we can say that monks are not just warriors, but special-purpose warriors. “Monasticism is the flower of Christianity in terms of the purity and sublimity of the spiritual life of the elect who have dedicated themselves to serving God,” said Bishop Peter (Ekaterinovsky).

During tonsure, a person entering monasticism takes three vows: non-covetousness , chastity and obedience . These vows are an expression of complete “devotion of oneself to God, with such a disposition of spirit, according to which a Christian leaves all of himself, everything that belongs to him, everything that can come with him, to the will and Providence of God, so that he himself remains only the guardian of his soul and bodies as God’s acquisitions” (St. Philaret of Moscow). A person who accepts monasticism is given a new name because he was spiritually born for a new life.

tonsure

Monastics renounce the world in order to lead a strict spiritual life, daily intensified warfare with passions and the enemies of our salvation - demons. With their prayer life, monks serve not only God, but also people. They pray for people and provide spiritual and social assistance to those in need. Our Russian monasteries have always been centers of spiritual life. Much scientific and theological work was carried out in them, and church arts and crafts flourished. But the monasteries were not only spiritual fortresses, but also fortified outposts, outposts on the path of the enemy, the invader. During the invasion of foreigners, they held the defense, sometimes for many months, and sheltered the inhabitants of nearby settlements within their walls. Let us remember the courage of the monks during the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in the 17th century, during the Time of Troubles.

Nowadays, great spiritual, educational, publishing, and social work is being carried out in monasteries. Some monasteries have nursing homes, orphanages, and Sunday schools.

There are monasteries for men and women. Large, especially famous monasteries are called laurels (Trinity-Sergius, Alexander Nevskaya, Svyato-Uspenskaya Pochaevskaya, Svyato-Uspenskaya Svyatogorskaya).

Before taking monastic vows, those entering a monastery sometimes go through a period of preparation and obedience for several years. These people are called novices .

The next degree is the cassock , when certain prayers are read over the novice, the hair is cut crosswise and a cassock is put on.

Upon initiation into the next degree, which is called minor schema , the monk takes vows and is tonsured with a change of name. He is put on monastic clothes: cassock, cassock, mantle and cowl, and given a rosary in his hands.

There is also a more strict degree of monasticism - the great schema . The vows are more strict. The monk takes on a new name. Instead of a hood, he puts on a schematic doll that covers his head and shoulders.

Schemnichesky cockle

A monk ordained to the priesthood is called a hieromonk . Hieromonasticism has its own degrees: abbot , archimandrite .

A monk-deacon is called a hierodeacon , the senior hierodeacon is called an archdeacon .

The first monastery in Kievan Rus

And so, in 1051, the first church was built in the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv. Now, in our days, in its place is the main cathedral of the Pechersk Lavra. Immediately the built church was renamed a monastery. Pechora - this was the name of the first monastery in Kievan Rus. The answer to the question why the church was called Pechora is simple. Because from the Ukrainian language, the word “pechera” is translated as “cave.” In 1074, Anthony died. The monks decided to bury him in the labyrinth between the caves. Since then, it has become a tradition. Many employees were buried in the church tomb. In 1089, construction was completely completed. It was a beautiful, large, stone church, decorated with fresco paintings, icons, and candles.

Orthodox wedge

Author: Abbot Tikhon (Polyansky)

Usually, already at the construction stage, the monastery was surrounded by a wall. The wooden and then stone fence that separated the monastery from the world made it look like a special city or a spiritual fortress. The place where the monastery was located was not chosen by chance. Safety considerations were taken into account, so traditionally the monastery was built on a hill at the mouth of a stream flowing into a river, or at the confluence of two rivers, on islands or the shores of a lake. Until the very middle of the 17th century. Russian monasteries played an important military and defensive role. Patriarch Nikon of Moscow and All Rus' said that “in our country there are three very rich monasteries - great royal fortresses. The first monastery is the Holy Trinity. It is larger and richer than the others, the second... is known under the name of Kirillo-Belozersky... The third monastery is Solovetsky...” The monasteries also played a great role in the defense of Moscow, as if encircling the capital in a ring: Novodevichy, Danilov, Novospassky, Simonov, Donskoy. Their walls and towers were built according to all the rules of military art.

During an enemy attack, residents of surrounding villages gathered in a “siege seat” under the protection of the monastery walls, and together with monks and warriors they occupied combat posts. The walls of large monasteries had several tiers, or battle levels. Artillery batteries were installed on the lower one, and from the middle and upper ones they hit enemies with arrows, stones, poured boiling water, hot tar, sprinkled ash and hot coals. Each tower, in the event of a section of the wall being captured by the attackers, could become an independent small fortress. Ammunition depots, food supplies and internal wells or underground streams made it possible to independently withstand the siege until help arrived. Monastery towers and walls performed not only defensive tasks. Most of the time, their role was completely peaceful: the internal premises were used for the needs of the monastery household. Here there were storerooms with supplies and various workshops: cooks, bakeries, breweries, spinning mills. Sometimes criminals were imprisoned in the towers, as was the case in the Solovetsky Monastery.

The towers could be blind or drive-through, with gates inside the monastery fence. The main and most beautiful gate was called the Holy Gate and was usually located opposite the monastery cathedral. Above the Holy Gates there was often a small gate church, and sometimes a bell tower (as in the Donskoy and Danilov monasteries). The gate church was usually dedicated to the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem or holidays in honor of the Most Holy Theotokos, which signified the patronage of the Lord and the Most Pure Mother of God over the monastic “city”. Often in this temple, at the very entrance to the monastery, monastic tonsures were performed, and the newly tonsured monk, as it were, entered the holy monastery for the first time in his new state.

Inside, along the perimeter of the monastery walls, there were buildings of fraternal cells. At the beginning of the monastery's existence, the cells were ordinary log huts, which, as the monastery's wealth grew, were replaced by stone houses, sometimes multi-story. In the center of the residential development was the main monastery courtyard, in the middle of which stood the most important buildings. Both spiritually and architecturally, the ensemble of the monastery was headed by the monastery cathedral, which they tried to build tall, bright, noticeable from afar. As a rule, the first temple was laid out and built of wood by the holy founder of the monastery himself, then it was rebuilt in stone, and the relics of the founder were found in this cathedral. The main monastery church gave the name to the entire monastery: Ascension, Zlatoust, Trinity-Sergius, Spaso-Andronikov. The main services were held in the cathedral, distinguished guests were solemnly received, the sovereign's and bishop's letters were read out, and the greatest shrines were kept.

Of no less importance was the refectory church - a special building in which a relatively small church was built on the east with an extensive refectory chamber adjacent to it. The design of the refectory church was subject to the requirements of the monastery cenobitic charter: the monks, along with joint prayer, also shared the common eating of food. Before eating and after eating, the brethren sang prayers. During the meal itself, the “masterful brother” read instructive books - the lives of saints, interpretations of sacred books and rituals. Celebrations were not allowed during meals.

The refectory, unlike the large monastery cathedral, could be heated, which was important in the conditions of the long Russian winter. Thanks to its large size, the refectory chamber could accommodate all the brethren and pilgrims. The size of the refectory chamber of the Solovetsky Monastery is amazing, its area is 475 m². Thanks to the large space, refectory churches became places for monastic meetings. Already in our days, the spacious refectory churches of the Novodevichy and Trinity-Sergius monasteries became the venue for Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In northern Russian monasteries, the refectory was often located on a fairly high ground floor - the so-called “basement”. This at the same time made it possible to retain heat and accommodate various services: monastery cellars with supplies, cookhouses, prosphora, and kvass breweries. On long winter evenings, hours-long services were held in the warm refectory; in the intervals between services, monks and pilgrims refreshed themselves with the food prescribed by the charter and listened to the reading of handwritten books. Reading in the monastery was not at all a way of spending time or entertainment; it seemed to continue the divine service. Some books were intended to be read aloud together, others were read privately, that is, by a monk in his cell. Old Russian books contained spiritual teachings about God, prayer and mercy; the reader or listener learned a lot about the world, about the structure of the Universe, received information on anatomy and medicine, imagined distant countries and peoples, delved into ancient history. The written word brought knowledge to people, so reading was treated as prayer, and books were treasured and collected. Empty or idle books in the monastery were simply unthinkable.

In the monastery, in addition to the cathedral, refectory and gate churches, there could have been several more churches and chapels built in honor of saints or memorable events. In many monasteries with extensive buildings, the entire complex of buildings could be connected by covered stone passages that linked all the buildings together. In addition to convenience, these passages symbolized sacred unity within the monastery.

Another obligatory structure of the main monastery courtyard was the bell tower, which in different localities was also called the bell tower or belfry. As a rule, high monastery bell towers were built quite late: in the 17th - 18th centuries. From the height of the bell tower, surveillance was carried out over dozens of miles of surrounding roads, and in case of noticed danger, an alarm bell immediately rang out. The bell towers of the guardian Moscow monasteries are remarkable for their unifying overall design: from each of them the bell tower of Ivan the Great in the Kremlin was visible.

All monastery bells differed both in their size and in the timbre of their sound. By the ringing of bells, the pilgrim learned that he was approaching the monastery, when the monastery itself could not yet be seen. By the nature of the ringing, one could find out about the event for which the bell was ringing, be it an attack by enemies or a fire, the death of a sovereign or bishop, the beginning or end of a divine service. In ancient times, the ringing of bells could be heard for several tens of kilometers. The bell-ringers performed obedience in the bell tower, for whom ringing bells was a special art and their life’s work. At any time of the year, they climbed narrow and steep wooden stairs, in the freezing wind or under the scorching sun, they swung multi-pound bell tongues and struck the bells. And in bad weather, it was the bell ringers who saved dozens of lives: in a blizzard, in a night shower or fog, they rang the bell tower for hours so that travelers caught by surprise by the elements would not lose their way3.

At the monasteries there were fraternal cemeteries where the inhabitants of the monastery were buried. Many lay people considered it a great honor to be buried at the monastery, not far from shrines and temples, and made various contributions to the remembrance of the soul.

As the monastery grew, many special services appeared in it. They formed the monastery's economic courtyard, located between the residential buildings and the monastery walls. Stables, leather and wood warehouses, and haylofts were built on it. Hospitals, libraries, mills, icon-painting and other workshops could be built separately near the monastery. From the monastery there were roads in different directions to monasteries and monastic lands: fields, vegetable gardens, apiaries, hayfields, barnyards and fishing grounds. With a special blessing, the monks, who were entrusted with economic obedience, could live separately from the monastery and come there for services. Elders lived in the monasteries and accepted the feat of seclusion and silence; they could not leave the monastery for years. They laid down the burden of the retreat after achieving spiritual perfection.

In addition to the immediate surroundings, the monastery could own lands and lands in remote places. In large cities, monastic farmsteads were built - like monasteries in miniature, in which a series of services were carried out by hieromonks sent from the monastery. There could be a rector at the metochion; the abbot and other monastic brethren stayed here when they came to the city on some business. The courtyard played an important role in the general life of the monastery; trade took place through it: products produced in the monastery household were brought, and books, valuables, and wines were purchased in the city.

Any monastery in ancient times was ruled by an abbot (or abbess if the monastery was a women's monastery). This name for a commanding person in Greek means “ruling, leader.” Since 1764, according to the “staff schedule,” the abbot headed a third-class monastery, and first- and second-class monasteries began to be headed by archimandrites. The abbot or archimandrite lived in separate abbot's chambers. The abbot's closest advisers were the elders - especially wise monks who did not necessarily have holy orders. The cellarer, who was in charge of the cells and the placement of monks in them, and who oversaw the cleanliness, order and improvement of the monastery, was of great importance in the monastery administration, especially in the economic department. The treasurer was in charge of the monastic treasury, the receipt and expenditure of funds. The monastic sacristy, utensils and vestments were under the responsibility of the sacristan. The charter director was responsible for the procedure for conducting services in the church in accordance with the liturgical charter. To carry out various assignments of dignitaries, cell attendants were assigned to them, usually from among the novices who had not yet taken monastic vows. To perform daily divine services, a series of monk-priests was installed, who were called hieromonks in Greek, or holy monks in Russian. They were concelebrated by hierodeacons; monks who had not been ordained performed the duties of sextons - they brought and lit coal for the censer, served water, prosphora, candles for the service, and sang in the choir.

In the monastery there was a distribution of responsibilities for each monk. Each of the brethren had a certain obedience, that is, work for which he was responsible. In addition to the obediences related to the management of the monastery and church services, there were many obediences of a purely economic nature. This includes collecting firewood, cultivating fields and vegetable gardens, and caring for livestock. The monks who worked in the kitchen knew how to prepare a delicious monastic meal, mainly vegetable or fish (it is no coincidence that today in any cookbook we can find their ancient recipes for dishes “in the monastery style”). The bakery baked fragrant breads, and the baking of prosphoras - special round leavened bread with an image of a cross for the Liturgy - was trusted only to an experienced baker, a prosphora baker. Baking prosphora is a sacred task, because this is where the preparation of the Liturgy begins. Therefore, many venerable ascetics, who reached both the heights of spiritual activity and universal recognition, did not consider baking prosphora to be a “dirty” job. Sergius of Radonezh himself ground and sowed flour, fermented and kneaded dough, and planted sheets of prosphora in the oven.

For early morning services, the monks were awakened by an “alarm boy” - a monk who, with a bell in his hands, walked around all the cells and at the same time exclaimed: “It’s time for singing, it’s time for prayer, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us!” After everyone had gathered in the cathedral, a fraternal prayer service began, usually performed in front of the relics of the holy founder of the monastery. Then morning prayers and the midnight office were read, and after the dismissal, all the brethren venerated the revered shrines of the monastery - miraculous icons and relics. After this, having received the blessing of the abbot, they went to obedience, with the exception of the hieromonk whose turn it was to perform the Divine Liturgy.

The brethren of the monastery worked hard to provide the monastery with everything necessary. The management of many ancient Russian monasteries was exemplary. Not always having the opportunity to conduct agriculture in the capital itself, Moscow monasteries owned villages near Moscow and more remote ones. The life of peasants on monastic estates during the years of the Tatar yoke, and even after it, was richer and easier. Among the monastery peasants there was a high percentage of literate people. Monks always shared with the poor, helping the sick, disadvantaged and traveling. At the monasteries there were hospice houses, almshouses and hospitals served by monks. Alms were often sent from monasteries to prisoners languishing in prison and people suffering from hunger.

An important concern of the monks was the construction and decoration of churches, the painting of icons, the copying of liturgical books and the keeping of chronicles. Learned monks were invited to teach children. The Trinity-Sergius and Joseph-Volotsky monasteries near Moscow were especially famous as centers of education and culture. They contained huge libraries. The Monk Joseph, who copied books with his own hand, is known to us as an outstanding ancient Russian writer. The great icon painters Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny created their masterpieces in the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery in Moscow.

The Russian people loved monasteries. When a new monastery arose, people began to settle around it, and gradually a whole village or settlement, otherwise called a “posad,” was formed. This is how the Danilov Settlement was formed in Moscow around the Danilov Monastery on the Danilovka River, which has now disappeared. Entire cities grew up around the Trinity-Sergius, Kirillo-Belozersky, and New Jerusalem monasteries. Monasteries have always been the ideal and school of Russian spiritual culture. For many centuries they cultivated the unique character of not only the Russian monk, but also the Russian person. It is no coincidence that the struggle to overthrow the Horde yoke was inspired by a blessing from the monastery of St. Sergius of Radonezh, and on the Kulikovo field the holy monks Peresvet and Oslyabya stood shoulder to shoulder with Russian warriors.

Footnotes 3. Among all the monasteries in Russia, the ringing of bells in the Soviet years, despite official prohibitions, never stopped in the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery. It is worth mentioning some of the names of those talented bell ringers who preserved and revived the ancient art of ringing in the 20th century: the famous musician K. Saradzhev, who first proposed a special musical notation of bells, the blind monk Sergius and K. I. Rodionov (in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra), Fr. . Alexy (in Pskov-Pechory), V. I. Mashkov (in the Novodevichy Convent)

Photo: priest Alexander Ivlev

Start of article

About monasticism Author: Irina Filippova About monasticism. Conversation with Abbot Kirill (Fedotov), former rector of the Church of the Transfiguration in the village of Selenskoye, who died tragically at the end of December 2007. Monasticism is not some degree of holiness, it is not some kind of recognition of merit, monasticism is an image of repentance. Therefore, any person, no matter what rank, rank, rank he is in, no matter what position he holds, no matter what life he leads - moral, immoral, he is never deprived of the hope of being a monk.

The origin of the rituals and rites of tonsure into monasticism Author: Compiled by Hierodeacon Nikolai (Letunovsky) Monasticism in the East existed in two forms: desert-dwelling hermits, or anchorites, and monastic cenobitism. An example of desert living is the life of St. Anthony of Egypt (251-356). Simultaneously with the flourishing of desert life in Egypt, the Monk Pachomius (295-345) introduced another form of monastic life - cenobitism. Monasticism, which quickly spread throughout the world, already from the 5th century. became a real force in the Church and played an extremely important role in its life, and the monks became missionaries and preachers of the word of God among the pagans

Reproduction on the Internet is permitted only if there is an active link to the ORTHODOX WEDGE website. Reproduction of site materials in printed publications (books, press) is permitted only if the source and author of the publication are indicated.

Attack on the monastery

temple-troicy.prihod.ru

Throughout its history, the monastery has had to endure quite a few attacks, wars, and destruction. And every time Lavra came back to life.

The first attack occurred in 1096, when the Cumans defeated and destroyed the entire shrine, leaving only stone walls. So it stood until 1108, when Prince Gleb Vseslavich gave an order to restore the cathedral. So the church was supplemented with new buildings, colorful frescoes, books, and icons. There is a reliable, high fence around it. A shelter for the poor appeared, where they were fed, given overnight accommodation, and work.
In 1151 the church experienced a new uprising. This year the Turks captured the city of Kyiv.
This is far from the last thing that the Pechora Church experienced. Attack of Rurik Rostislavich in 1203;
Batu's Horde in 1240;
Crimean army in 1482;

And each time she was restored and held prayers, received parishioners, helped the poor and hungry. And every time she became more and more beautiful. In 1556, the great Pechersk Church became famous throughout the world, beautiful and became the biggest attraction in Kievan Rus. In 1556, the Union of Brest was attacked. For the first time, the fortress was able to provide armed resistance to the Uniates.

ANDREEVSKY STAUROPYGIAL MONASTERY

Published: 10/07/2015

Report by Yu.A. Artamonov , Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Research Fellow at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences at the International Theological Scientific and Practical Conference “Monasticism of Holy Russia: from Origins to the Present” (Moscow, Pokrovsky Stavropegic Convent, September 23−24, 2015)

[1] Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. – St. Petersburg, 2004. T. 1. P. 237.

[2] Franklin S., Shepard D. The Beginning of Rus'. 750–1200. – St. Petersburg, 2009. P. 479.

[3] Kazansky P.S. The history of Orthodox Russian monasticism from the founding of the Pechersk monastery by St. Anthony to the founding of the Lavra of St. Trinity by St. Sergius. – M., 1855.

[4] Moldovan A.M. "The Sermon on Law and Grace" by Hilarion. – Kyiv, 1984. P. 93.

[5] Podskalski G. Christianity and theological literature in Kievan Rus (988–1237). – St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 198.

[7] PSRL. T. I. Laurentian Chronicle. Stb. 151.

[8] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 162.

[11] For more information about this, see: Artamonov Yu.A. Monastic construction in Rus' in the era of Yaroslav Vladimirovich // Yaroslav the Wise and his era. – M., 2008. pp. 187–201.

[12] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 163.

[13] Assumption collection of the XII–XIII centuries. / Prepare to the stove O.A. Knyazevskaya and others - M., 1971. P. 80.

[15] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 202.

[16] Ibid. Stb. 206, 217, 221.

[17] Ibid. Stb. 229–230.

[18] Ibid. Stb. 274–275.

[19] Bugoslavsky S.A. Decree. Op. P. 553.

[20] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 155–160.

[22] Macarius (Bulgakov). History of the Russian Church. – M., 1995. Book. 2. P. 171. See also: Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. – M., 1904. T.1. Part II. pp. 585–586.

[23] Vorontsova E.A. Kyiv caves. – Kyiv, 2005. pp. 67–127.

[25] PSRL. T. I. Stb. 159.

Back
Forward

Development of the Lavra

The first monastery in Kievan Rus developed rapidly. A printing house appeared and they began to produce their own literature. In 1745, the largest bell tower with a height of 96.5 meters was built. The bell tower project was created by the German architect Gottfried Johann Schedel. A reliable stone wall was built. The creator was Mazepa. Construction of the monastery proceeded rapidly. Every year new buildings appeared on the territory of the cathedral. Already at the end of the nineteenth century, the Lavra included six full-fledged monasteries:

sick leave, created in the twelfth century by Prince Saint;
main;
near and far caves;
Goloseevskaya and Kitaevskaya hermitages.

It was in the Pechersk Lavra that the largest icon of the Mother of God first appeared. In 1718 there was a fire that destroyed the entire library, icons, manuscripts, and valuables.

“The importance of monasteries for our region cannot be overestimated”

We met with Bishop Theoktist of Pereslavl and Uglich at the Epiphany Convent of Uglich, where we providentially found ourselves on the day of the transfer of the relics of Tsarevich Dimitri from Uglich to Moscow (1606). On the territory entrusted to the care of His Eminence, the diocese with a population of 120,000 people contains 10 monasteries and more than 200 churches. The region, traditionally attractive for pilgrims and tourists - the diocese includes five districts of the Yaroslavl region - is again preparing to receive guests from the capital and other Russian cities. This summer, when a significant part of Russians spend their holidays in their country, the flow of tourists is unlikely to decrease. We asked Bishop Theoktist to talk about how the inhabitants of the monasteries relate to the need to host numerous guests; about the educational activities of ancient monasteries and the spiritual meaning of obedience.

The Bishop, monasteries and temples of Pereslavl and Uglich are visited annually by a large number of pilgrims and tourists. There are unlikely to be fewer people wanting to pray at the shrines and see the majestic architectural ensembles of Ancient Rus' this summer. Tell me, do numerous guests interfere with the spiritual life of monastery residents?

When a person decides to become a monk and begins to think about which monastery to enter, he, of course, must take into account the characteristics of a particular monastery, which have developed under the influence of the historical, cultural or geographical conditions of its existence. Maybe someone will disagree with me, but I see our Orthodox monasticism as not at all homogeneous. Within the Russian Orthodox Church there are many monasteries that are very different in terms of their structure. Their charters, history, traditions sometimes differ quite significantly from each other... And these differences were not invented artificially, they were laid down by the founders of these monasteries themselves.

Holy Trinity Danilov Monastery

For example, the Danilov Monastery in Pereslavl, founded by Daniil of Pereslavl, was traditionally engaged in social service. The Monk Daniel gave very specific rules and instructions to the brethren regarding this ministry. He himself took care of people who had no one to take care of - he buried the dead who had left no funds for burial, preached a sober lifestyle (he did not even bless the storage of any wine in the monastery, except for what was used in worship), and today the monastery continues the traditions its founder - is engaged in social and educational activities. I am convinced that the life of a monastery is only prosperous when the monastery fulfills the behests of its founder.

If a person who decides to become a monk comes to one of the Pereslavl or Uglich monasteries, this means that he will work in a monastery located in a tourist place and must be ready for missionary service. For a person who, by his nature, is inclined to solitude, it is probably better to look for another place for monastic achievement. In our country there are dioceses remote from the central part of Russia, whose monasteries will gladly accept novices, there are monasteries remote from the bustle of the world... In a word, there are many opportunities for a solitary prayer life, but the inhabitants of monasteries that are located in historically significant places do not have the opportunity to hang put a bolt on the gate and tell the pilgrims: the monastery is for monks, and we will not accept you.

Agree, it will look rather strange, say, the grumbling of a tonsured monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, who decides to be outraged by the sight of tourists and endless buses with foreigners. Wasn’t it initially clear that this historically significant place is visited annually by hundreds of thousands of people from different countries, and they have the same right, like the rest of us, of access to the treasures of architecture, art and spiritual tradition of Holy Rus'?

As for spiritual life itself, and what hinders it and what helps it, then, of course, there cannot be two opinions: the main work of a monk is prayer. But in addition to the main business, every monk must have a field - an occupation by which he earns his living. Shares are different. Serving other people, including pilgrims coming to monasteries, can also be called sharing. Therefore, those who strive to enter the monasteries of our diocese must immediately understand that their work will in one way or another be connected with receiving guests.

You mentioned the Holy Trinity Danilov Monastery, of which Abbot Panteleimon (Korolyov) became the rector. Until recently, Father Panteleimon was a resident of the Holy Transfiguration Skete of the Moscow Stavropegic Danilov Monastery, known in the Orthodox world for its publishing activities. The inhabitants of the monastery were engaged in translations of the works of the inhabitants of Holy Mount Athos and not only them. Will the Pereslavl Danilov Monastery engage in educational work?

Yes, Abbot Panteleimon is an experienced, talented, educated man... He uses his talents to grow, as the Lord requires of us, so with the help of the monastery we plan to develop publishing activities in the diocese. Of course, this business requires financial investments and the presence of creative people, but the plans include the development of educational work. Now Father Panteleimon heads the editorial office of the Ark magazine, and there are other projects.

Please tell us a little about this magazine.

Until recently, “Kovcheg” was an ordinary diocesan publication, published on its pages the chronicle of diocesan life and was interesting, at best, to those who participate in this life. Now we have rethought the concept of the magazine, moved away from the previous idea and tried to make the publication interesting not only to local residents, but also to those who come to our diocese. The current “Ark” is aimed primarily at Muscovites, because they are our most frequent guests. According to statistics, Pereslavl is currently the most popular weekend tourism destination for Moscow, residents of the capital actively visit our churches, monasteries and other historical places, so we try to acquaint readers with the events taking place here, talk fascinatingly about the shrines and attractions of the diocese, and interesting people our region. We actively cooperate with the Uglich State Historical, Architectural and Art Museum, the Pereslavl Museum-Reserve, where wonderful specialists and enthusiastic scientists work who provide information for the magazine and write interesting articles about cultural and historical objects. We want the person who chooses our destination for a weekend trip to have the opportunity to get acquainted with the sights that he plans to visit in advance, to learn more about them, so to speak, from the original source.

“Kovcheg” in its new format has never published and will not publish any images of the ruling bishop. But every issue contains my articles dedicated to the Gospel. I write similar texts for Radio Vera, but in the magazine they appear in a slightly expanded and freer form.

Vladyka, from the news coming from your diocese, the readers of the Monastic Bulletin remember those that were dedicated to the round table “The role of monasteries in the formation of the socio-cultural space of small towns.” Who was the initiator and author of the idea of this forum?

Of course, I would like to say that I was the author, but that would not be true. The diocese, it seems to me, participated quite actively in organizing the forum, but still the initiator was the Feodorovsky Monastery and its abbess Daniil (Severinenko), so I will not attribute to myself the merits of others.

This round table was the first event of the permanent St. Theodore Historical and Cultural Forum. His initial task was local and concerned directly the Feodorovsky Monastery. There are quite a lot of myths around the shrines of the monastery, and guides include information in their texts that sometimes does not correspond to reality. In order to debunk these myths, we gathered experts, historians, and other specialists, together we discussed the existing problem, together we thought about how exactly people who work with tourists and pilgrims should be trained, how to convey reliable information to a wide range of people. And, of course, we wanted to attract public attention to our shrines.

In Pereslavl-Zalessky, where the population is less than forty thousand people, there are four monasteries. The youngest of them, the Holy Trinity Danilov Monastery, turned 510 years old in 2021. The importance of monasteries for the region can hardly be overestimated. Head of the Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the Pereslavl Diocese Yu.Yu. Epishkina in her speech said that from its very foundation the Feodorovsky Monastery has been “not only a spiritual center, but also a city-forming element of the urban environment, a center that shapes the landscape architecture around itself and has a significant impact on the cultural and economic life of the city.” The forum participants were unanimous on the issue of the need to revive monastery and temple ensembles, and most importantly, the spiritual life of our monasteries.

The very posing of the question about the significance of monasteries in the formation of the sociocultural space of Russian cities, it seems, should be of interest not only to historians and cultural experts, but also to teachers, journalists, and indeed the broadest sections of the Russian public. Let us hope that the example of the Pereslavl diocese will be followed by other dioceses and metropolises, whose monasteries have had and continue to have a significant influence on the spiritual and cultural life of the regions in which they are located.

In last year’s interview with the Monastic Bulletin, you talked a little about the features of the monasteries of your diocese. Tell me, how are your relations with the inhabitants of the monasteries currently developing? What are they, the heirs of the oldest monastic tradition in Rus'?

I must say that we generally have a lot of very good people living here - both monks and priests - also absolutely wonderful. Just this morning I opened Facebook, and there someone posted quite well-known, prophetic, as it seems to me, words of the late St. Petersburg Archpriest Vasily Ermakov that people will come to churches, but because it will be popular, fashionable and, perhaps, financially, many random people will come who will come not for the sake of serving Christ, but for the sake of comfort, money and something else.

Let’s not hide it; indeed, in the Church, unfortunately, all this exists. But if we return here to our diocese, we will see that for a hundred thousand population there are about a hundred registered parishes and ten monasteries. The number of clergy is about 150 people. For comparison, in the Volgograd diocese, from where I was sent to Pereslavl, one and a half million people live, but at the same time there are the same 150 clergy people. In other words, the density of clergy, monastics, monasteries and churches per unit of population in our diocese is such that, perhaps, there is no other place in the Russian Federation. Therefore, anyone who decides to carry out church obedience here clearly understands that this is not Moscow, not St. Petersburg, not some large city where there is a dense flow of people and, as a result, a fairly comfortable life in the financial sense. Here I often serve in villages where two or three people live, and villages with a population of one hundred people are considered almost megacities by local standards. It goes without saying that in these settlements there are such priests who can only be called ascetics.

Accordingly, a person who takes monasticism or priesthood in our diocese knows that he will never have an excess of finances here, he will never have comfort, only absolutely selfless service to Christ through service to people awaits him. There are a lot of architectural monuments in our diocese, both federal and regional. Unfortunately, the state is unable to take care of their restoration; such care falls on the shoulders of our clergy. When I see what can be done in some completely remote villages, I want to freeze in awe of our ascetic fathers. Sometimes I don't know how these fathers survive. In my opinion, these are the real saints of our time. In addition, it is impossible to hide here, a fairly significant burden falls on any person, and everyone’s work is easy to see. Of course, the diocese is trying to help, to find some resources, but every time I perceive the service of these people as a miracle that the Lord is showing in our days.

What advice would you give to a person who wants to come to the monastery of your diocese?

The advice is simple: let him come! Let him come, but first you need to test yourself. We need to understand what monasticism is. After all, the most important problem of modern man, it seems to me, is infantilism. There are a large number of divorces in our country because people think they can tell their wife and children: “this is not mine, I’m leaving.” People sometimes treat monasticism the same way. But I think that if you want to be a monk, you need to start fighting your own infantilism, taking yourself, your life, your words and actions seriously. And if there is still some kind of delight, illusions, unhealthy seething of feelings in the soul, then we must wait until all this is over. Well, of course, it’s better to wait in the monastery.

Epiphany Monastery

Photographer: Vladimir Khodakov

Kiev-Pechersk Lavra during the USSR

savok.name

Since 1924, Patriarch Tikhon began to head the Lavra. In the same year, she moved to the All-Ukrainian Holy Synod. This is exactly how the monastery arose. The first monastery in Kievan Rus expanded territorially. New buildings were being built. Expensive icons were brought.

In 1926 it was recognized as a historical, cultural, state reserve. It functioned as a museum town. Every visiting tourist could visit the historical and cultural reserve. In 1930, the monks were completely eliminated. Half were shot, the other half were sent into lifelong exile. During the Second World War, the Pechersk Lavra was a place for execution. Many innocent people were killed, a lot of blood was shed.

In 1941, the Germans blew up the historical reserve to raze national and sacred sites. The fact of the explosion is still considered a controversial issue. The organization of the explosion by the Germans is just one version of history. In historical documents there is a videotape on which there is a video recording of how the explosion occurs. This fact may indicate that everything was planned in advance. After all, all the valuable documents, books, icons, paintings were preserved, which simply could not have been preserved after the explosion. Historians suggest that all the valuables were taken out in advance.

Later in the same year, the territory of the Pechersk Lavra was recognized as a world museum complex. Icons, books, documents, monastic clothes, and dishes were put on public display. Anyone could wander through the caves and see the burial places of the first monks. During the time of Khrushchev and until 2000, the Lavra was closed from public access. The first churches and monasteries in Rus' that arose many centuries ago are still of great value, which people have cherished for generations. Metropolitan of Kiev (Filloret Denisenko) became the first who decided to bring the Lavra back to life. In 1988, the Metropolitan became rector of the monastery. In 1994, his post was replaced by Metropolitan of Vyshegorod (Pavel Lebed). The Theological Seminary and Academy opened. The printing house resumed its work. Many interesting books and brochures were published. The President of Ukraine Leonid Daniilovich Kuchma, in 1995, gave instructions on the restoration, reconstruction and return to work of the Kiev-Pechora Lavra. The Lavra was included in the UNESCO heritage list.

Chapter I. Origins

In the oldest Russian sources, the first mentions of monks and monasteries in Rus' date back only to the era after the baptism of Prince Vladimir; their appearance dates back to the reign of Prince Yaroslav (1019–1054). His contemporary, Hilarion, from 1051, Metropolitan of Kiev, in his famous eulogy dedicated to the memory of Prince Vladimir, “The Sermon on Law and Grace,” which he delivered between 1037 and 1043, while a priest at court,20 said , that already in the time of Vladimir in Kiev “the monasteries on the mountains of Stasha, the Monkmen appeared”21. This contradiction can be explained in two ways: it is likely that the monasteries that Hilarion mentions were not monasteries in the proper sense, but simply Christians lived in separate huts near the church in strict asceticism, gathered together for worship, but did not yet have a monastic charter, did not give monastic vows and did not receive the correct tonsure22, or, another possibility, the compilers of the chronicle, which includes the “Code of 1039”, which has a very strong Grecophile overtones, tended to underestimate the successes in the spread of Christianity in Kievan Rus before the arrival there of Metropolitan Theopemptos ( 1037), probably the first Greek-born hierarch in Kyiv and of Greek origin23.

Under the same year 1037, the ancient Russian chronicler narrates in a solemn style: “And with this, the peasant faith began to be fruitful and expanded, and the monasteries began to multiply more and more, and the monastery began to be. And Yaroslav, loving the church statutes, loved the priests greatly, and was an overflowing monk.”24 And further the chronicler reports that Yaroslav founded two monasteries: St. George (Georgievsky) and St. Iriny (Irininsky convent) are the first regular monasteries in Kyiv. But these were the so-called ktitorsky, or, better said, princely monasteries, for their ktitor was the prince. For Byzantium, such monasteries were common, although not predominant25. From the later history of these monasteries it is clear that the ancient Russian princes used their monastery rights to the monasteries; This was especially true when installing new abbots, that is, we can talk about an exact repetition of the characteristic Byzantine relationship between the ktitor and the monastery he founded. Such monasteries usually received the name after the patron saint of the ktitor (the Christian name of Yaroslav is George, and Irina is the name of the patron saint of his wife); these monasteries later became family monasteries, they received money and other gifts from the ktitors and served as family tombs for them. Almost all monasteries founded in the pre-Mongol era, that is, until the middle of the 13th century, were precisely princely, or ktitorsky, monasteries.

The famous Kyiv cave monastery - the Pechersky Monastery - had a completely different beginning. It arose from the purely ascetic aspirations of individuals from the common people and became famous not for the nobility of its patrons and not for its wealth, but for the love that it gained from its contemporaries thanks to the ascetic exploits of its inhabitants, whose entire life, as the chronicler writes, passed “in abstinence and great repentance, and in prayers with tears.”

Although the Pechersky Monastery very soon acquired national significance and retained this significance and its influence on the spiritual and religious life of the people in later times, much remains unclear in the history of its foundation. Based on various scientific research, this story can be presented as follows26.

The chronicler talks about the founding of the cave monastery in 1051, in connection with the story of the elevation to the metropolitan see of a priest from the church in Berestov (a village southwest of Kyiv, which was in the possession of Yaroslav). His name was Hilarion, and he was, as the chronicle testifies, “a good man, a learned man and a faster.” Life in Berestovo, where the prince usually spent most of his time, was restless and noisy, for the prince’s squad also stayed there, so the priest, striving for spiritual achievements, was forced to look for a secluded place where he could pray away from the bustle. On a wooded hill on the right bank of the Dnieper, south of Kyiv, he dug himself a small cave, which became the place of his ascetic vigils. Yaroslav chose this pious presbyter to the then widowed metropolitan see and ordered the bishops to consecrate him. He was the first metropolitan of Russian origin27. Hilarion's new obedience consumed all his time, and now he could only occasionally come to his cave. But very soon Hilarion had a follower.

This was a hermit who, under the name Anthony, is known as the founder of the Pechersk Monastery. Much in his life remains unclear to us, information about him is fragmentary. His life, written in the 70s or 80s. XI century (but before 1088), which, as A. A. Shakhmatov established, was widely known back in the 13th century, turned out to be lost three centuries later28. This Anthony, a native of the city of Lyubech, near Chernigov, had a strong desire for asceticism; he came to Kyiv, lived there for a short time in Hilarion’s cave, and then went south. Whether he was on Mount Athos, as stated in his life, or in Bulgaria, as M. Priselkov claims (the latter seems more likely to us), is not entirely clear. But this question for the history of the Pechersk Monastery is of only secondary importance, because as the spiritual and religious leader of the monastery and the ascetic mentor of the brethren, it is not Anthony who stands in the foreground, but the abbot of the monastery, St. Feodosius. Anthony belongs to those ascetics who set a shining example with their own lives, but do not have a calling to mentoring and teaching. From the life of St. Theodosius and from the Pechersk Patericon it is clear that Anthony preferred to remain in the shadows and transferred the management of the new monastery into the hands of other brethren. Only the life of Anthony, which was compiled in connection with the very complicated church-political events in Kiev, tells us about the blessing of the Holy Mountain for the founding of the monastery - perhaps with the intention of giving the Pechersky monastery, which grew out of the ascetic aspirations of the Russian environment, the stamp of “Byzantine” Christianity, connecting it with the Holy Mount Athos and presenting its foundation as the initiative of Byzantium. After his return, Anthony, as his life tells, was not satisfied with the structure of life in the Kiev monastery (it could only be the monastery of St. George), again withdrew into solitude - to Hilarion’s cave29. Anthony's piety earned such great reverence among believers that Prince Izyaslav himself, the son and successor of Yaroslav, came to him for a blessing.

Anthony did not remain alone for long. Already between 1054 and 1058. a priest came to him, who in the Pechersk Patericon is known as the Great Nikon (or Nikon the Great). The question of who this Nikon was is interesting and important. I personally agree with the opinion of M. Priselkov that the Great Nikon was none other than Metropolitan Hilarion, who in 1054 or 1055, at the request of Constantinople, was removed from the pulpit and replaced by the Greek Ephraim. At the same time, Hilarion, of course, retained his priestly rank; he appears already as a priest who has accepted the great schema; when he was tonsured into the schema, he, as expected, changed his name Hilarion to Nikon. Now, in the growing monastery, its activities are acquiring a special scope. Being a priest, he, at the request of Anthony, tonsured novices; he, as we will see later, embodied the idea of the national ministry of his monastery; then he leaves the Pechersk monastery and, after a short absence, returns again, becomes abbot and dies, having lived a long, eventful life. Nikon stands at the very center of national and cultural events of the 11th century, since all of them were in one way or another connected with the Pechersk Monastery. He represented that ancient Russian nationally minded monasticism, which opposed both the Greek hierarchy and the interference of the Kyiv princes in the life of the Church30.

If the name of the Great Nikon is associated with the national and cultural flourishing of the Pechersk Monastery, then in the personality of St. We see Theodosius as truly a spiritual mentor and the founder of Russian monasticism. The role of Theodosius is incomparable with the historical role of Anthony. His life, written by the monk of the Pechersk Monastery Nestor in the 80s. The 11th century, at the time when Nikon the Great labored there, depicts Theodosius as an ascetic who embodied the ideal of Christian piety. Nestor was familiar with many hagiographical works of the Eastern Church, and this could have had a certain influence on his narrative about Theodosius, but the appearance of Theodosius emerges from the pages of his life so holistic and alive, so simple and natural, that in Nestor’s narrative one can no longer see only an imitation of hagiographical models . Theodosius came to Anthony in 1058 or slightly earlier. Thanks to the severity of his spiritual exploits, Theodosius took a prominent place among the brethren of the monastery. It is not surprising that four years later he was elected rector (1062). During this time, the number of brethren increased so much that Anthony and Varlaam (the first abbot of the monastery) decided to expand the caves. The number of brethren continued to grow, and Anthony turned to the Kyiv prince Izyaslav with a request to donate the land above the caves to the monastery for the construction of a church. The monks received what they asked, built a wooden church, cells and surrounded the buildings with a wooden fence. In the life of Theodosius, these events are dated to 1062, and Nestor, the compiler of the life, connects the construction of above-ground monastic buildings with the beginning of the abbot of Theodosius. It would be more correct to consider that only the completion of this construction dates back to the reign of Theodosius31. The most important act of Theodosius in the first period of his abbess was the introduction of the cenobitic charter of the Studite monastery. From the life of Theodosius one can learn that he strove for the strictest fulfillment of the brethren’s monastic vows. The works of Theodosius laid the spiritual foundation of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and made it an exemplary ancient Russian monastery for two centuries32.

Simultaneously with the flourishing of the Pechersky Monastery, new monasteries appeared in Kyiv and other cities. From the story in the Patericon about the quarrel between the mentors of the Pechersk brethren, Anthony and Nikon, and Prince Izyaslav (over the tonsure of Varlaam and Ephraim, princely warriors), we learn that there was already a monastery of St. Mines. There is no exact information about how and when this monastery arose. It is possible that such a monastery did not exist in Kyiv at all, but that a Bulgarian Monkorizan from the Byzantine or Bulgarian monastery of St. lived there. Miny, who left Kiev with Nikon33. Nikon left the city to avoid the prince's wrath and headed southeast. He came to the shore of the Sea of Azov and stopped in the city of Tmutarakan, where Prince Gleb Rostislavich, the grandson of Prince Yaroslav, ruled (until 1064). In Tmutarakan, which was known to the Byzantines under the name Tamatarkha, Nikon between 1061 and 1067. founded a monastery in honor of the Mother of God and remained there until 1068, until his return to Kiev, to the Pechersk Monastery, where from 1077-78 to 1088 he labored as abbot34.

Dimitrievsky Monastery was founded in Kiev in 1061-62 by Prince Izyaslav. Izyaslav invited the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery to manage it. Izyaslav’s rival in the fight for Kyiv, Prince Vsevolod, in turn also founded a monastery - Mikhailovsky Vydubitsky and in 1070 ordered the construction of a stone church in it. Two years later, two more monasteries arose in Kyiv. Spassky Berestovsky Monastery was probably founded by German, who later became the ruler of Novgorod (1078–1096) - in sources this monastery is often called “Germanich”. Another, the Klovsky Blachernae Monastery, also called “Stephanich”, was founded by Stefan, abbot of the Pechersk Monastery (1074–1077

78) and bishop of Vladimir-Volyn (1090–1094), he existed until the destruction of Kyiv by the Tatars35.

Thus, these decades were a time of rapid monastic construction. From the 11th to the middle of the 13th century. Many other monasteries arose. Golubinsky counts up to 17 monasteries in Kyiv alone36.

In the 11th century Monasteries are also being built outside of Kyiv. We have already mentioned the monastery in Tmutarakan. Monasteries also appeared in Pereyaslavl (1072–1074), in Chernigov (1074), in Suzdal (1096)37. Especially many monasteries were built in Novgorod, where in the XII-XIII centuries. there were also up to 17 monasteries. The most significant among them were Antoniev (1117) and Khutynsky (1192), founded by St. Varlaam Khutynsky. As a rule, these were princely, or monasteries, monasteries. Each prince sought to have a monastery in his capital city, so monasteries were built in the capitals of all principalities - male and female. Bishops served as patrons of some of them. Just until the middle of the 13th century. in Rus' one can count up to 70 monasteries located in cities or their environs38.

Topographically, the monasteries were located on the most important trade and waterways of Ancient Rus', in cities along the Dnieper, in and around Kyiv, in Novgorod and Smolensk. From the middle of the 12th century. monasteries appear in the Rostov-Suzdal land - in Vladimir-on-Klyazma and Suzdal. To the 2nd half of this century we can attribute the first steps in the monastic colonization of the Trans-Volga region, where small hermitages and hermitages were mainly built. Colonization was carried out by immigrants from the Rostov-Suzdal land, who gradually moved towards Vologda. The city of Vologda itself was imported as a settlement near the founded St. Gerasim († 1178) monastery in honor of the Holy Trinity. Further, monastic colonization rushed to the northeast, towards the confluence of the Yug River and the Sukhona39.

The first steps of monastic colonization north of the Volga, in the so-called Trans-Volga region, subsequently, in the 2nd half of the 13th and 14th centuries, grew into a great movement that dotted a vast area with monasteries and deserts from the Volga to the White Sea (Pomerania) and to Ural mountains.

Formation of church organization in Ancient Rus'

Baptism of Rus'

Initially, Vladimir Svyatoslavich, like his father, had a rather negative attitude towards Christianity, and, as many historians believe, this was what helped him gain the support of veterans of Svyatoslav’s campaigns and remove his brother Yaropolk, who favored Christians, from power. Realizing the need for religious consolidation of society, he considered it more acceptable to unify and adapt traditional pagan beliefs to the political needs of the emerging state. The so-called “pagan reform” of Vladimir, carried out by him in 980, answered precisely this goal. However, after a few years, political circumstances forced him to radically change his views.

Around 987, Vladimir and his retinue appeared in the Balkans and, as an ally of Emperor Vasily II, participated in the suppression of the rebellion of Bardas Phocas. These events contribute to the expansion of his political horizons and a sharp change in his attitude towards Christianity. Gradually, Vladimir is inclined to decide to be baptized. But being a prudent politician, he sees that in the current situation, when the fate of the ruling dynasty depends on the Russian squad, a lot can be demanded from the Byzantines. Even what his predecessors failed to achieve. In exchange for military assistance against the rebels and an obligation to be baptized, Emperor Vasily II promises to marry his sister Anna to the Russian prince.

However, when the troops of Varda Phocas were defeated and the Russian squad returned to Kyiv, the Byzantines began to delay the arrival of the porphyry princess. To force the Greeks to comply with the treaty, Vladimir captures the Byzantine city in Crimea of Chersonesos (Korsun), and issues an ultimatum: the princess in exchange for the city. Forced to accept these conditions, Vasily II sends his sister to Korsun, where Prince Vladimir’s baptism took place, and then his marriage to Princess Anna. After this, Vladimir, returning to Kyiv, overthrows the pagan idols and forces the townspeople to accept baptism, and his governors Dobrynya and Putyata force the Novgorodians to be baptized.

The Tale of Bygone Years dates all these events to the year 988 (6496 from the Creation of the world). However, this is not entirely consistent with data from other sources. Thus, in the “Life of Boris and Gleb” the year 987 (6495) is indicated, in the “Memory and Praise of Prince Vladimir” by Jacob Mnich it is reported that the capture of Korsun occurred in the third year after Vladimir’s baptism, and he lived after baptism for 28 years. Since the death of Vladimir is dated in this monument to 1015, the time of his baptism falls on 987, and the campaign against Korsun - on 989. But the same “Memory and Praise” says that Vladimir was baptized “in the tenth year after the murder of Yaropolk ", i.e. in 990. At the same time, in Eastern and Byzantine sources there are direct or indirect indications of an earlier date of Vladimir’s baptism. Thus, according to the information of the Baghdad astronomer Ibn al-Athir, this happened in 985/86, and the Byzantine historians John Skylitzes and John Zonara, speaking about Vladimir’s participation in the Battle of Chrysopolis in the summer of 988, call him the husband of the sister of Emperor Basil II (hence , by this time he had already been baptized).

This discrepancy in dates gave rise to a heated discussion about the time and political background of the Baptism of Rus'. So, A.G. Kuzmin is a supporter of early dating, and A.P. Novoseltsev believes that the Baptism of Rus' was a whole chain of events stretching from 986 to 990, and various sources reflected memories of various facts related to the Baptism of Rus'. The Polish scientist A. Poppe considers it possible to accept the dating of The Tale of Bygone Years, but this version does not agree with the information of Byzantine authors. From the writings of Michael Psellus it is known that on April 13, 989. Vladimir was still in Byzantium and took part in the decisive battle of Avidos, in which the troops of Bardas Phocas were finally defeated. One of two things: either the chronicle version is unreliable, and the campaign against Korsun was an act of military support for the emperor, and not political blackmail, or all the events described in the “Tale of Bygone Years” occurred later than April 13, 989. A. Poppe is inclined to the first version, however, the assessment of the Korsun campaign as an action hostile to the emperor is confirmed by Leo the Deacon, whose awareness there is no reason to doubt. At the same time, the late dating is consistent with the indication in the “Memory and Praise” of Jacob Mnich that Baptism took place “in the tenth year after the murder of Yaropolk.” Indeed, if we postpone from the date of April 13, 989 (Battle of Avidos), the time required for

- the return of Vladimir and his squad to Rus' (by this time he could have already been baptized and engaged to Anna);

- the emergence of suspicions about the reluctance of the Greeks to fulfill the agreement;

— preparation and implementation of the campaign against Korsun;

- the siege of the city (lasted, according to ancient Russian sources, 9 months);

- repeated exchange of embassies between the Russian prince and the emperor;

— Anna’s arrival in Chersonesus;

— wedding and subsequent road to Kyiv,

then in general terms we will get a period of 15-16 months. O.M. Rapov, who defends this version, considers the most likely date for the baptism of Kiev residents to be August 1, 990. This date, which appears in one of the manuscripts of the 16th century. (without indicating the year), allows us to give a convincing interpretation of a number of fundamentally important facts.

Firstly, the special attitude in Ancient Rus' to the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary becomes clear, since August 1 is the beginning of the Dormition Fast, which is a “pre-preparation” for this holiday. This also explains why the Tithe Church in Kiev, founded, as is known, in memory of the Baptism of Rus', is dedicated to the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, and why its altar chapel is oriented towards sunrise, corresponding to approximately August 1-2 (i.e. the temple was founded immediately after the baptism of the Kievites).

Secondly, it is possible to explain why the Kievans, unlike the Novgorodians, did not resist at the time of baptism. The fact is that August 1 in 990 fell on Friday, which was a trading day in Rus'. Consequently, on that day the bulk of the adult population of Kyiv gathered at the marketplace located next to the pier, on the spit of the Dnieper and its tributary Pochayna. Thanks to this, it was not difficult for the squad to cut off the Kievites who were there from the rest of the city and gradually push them into the river, where the Korsun priests performed baptism. Thus, the townspeople were taken by surprise, and when conversion to the new faith became a fait accompli, they had no choice but to resign themselves: after all, if the pagan gods did not stand up for them and did not avenge their own reproach, then they are weaker than the Christian God.

Soon after the baptism of the Kievites, a similar action was taken in Novgorod, for which the uncle and adviser of Prince Dobrynya and the governor Putyata were sent here. However, they failed to take full advantage of the surprise factor, as happened in Kyiv. Therefore, only a small part of Novgorodians were baptized voluntarily. The rest had to be converted to the new faith by force.

Much later, when Christianity had already become an integral part of Russian ethnic identity, this difference in the treatment of the people of Kiev and Novgorod was reflected in mutual skirmishes between the residents of the two capitals. Now the people of Kiev, in their voluntary (or rather, involuntarily peaceful) introduction to the new faith, were inclined to see a special advantage over the Novgorodians, whom “Putyata baptized with the sword, and Dobrynya with fire.”

Of course, resistance to Christianization continued in Rus' even after the baptism of the Novgorodians. Pockets of paganism persisted until the 14th century. And yet, it was after 990 that the process of Christianization, which began at least a century earlier, became irreversible. This time, the prince's initiation into the new faith was only a prelude to the mass baptism of his subjects, initiated and carried out by the state itself.

Comparison with similar phenomena in the history of the Balkans, Central Europe and Scandinavia indicates a number of common features that make it possible to isolate the main patterns of this stage of Christianization:

1. Mass baptisms of subjects, carried out with the direct support of state power, coincide in time with the completion of the process of politogenesis.

2. The introduction of Christianity sometimes causes passive and sometimes active resistance from the bulk of the free population, who saw in the change of religion not only an ideological, but also an economic catastrophe, because discrediting old beliefs was perceived as discrediting the entire collective economic experience expressed in the images and concepts of paganism. Therefore, as a rule, the authorities are forced to resort to violent measures to carry out mass baptism.

3. Resistance to the new religion is led by the tribal nobility, under whose control were the pagan cult centers. Therefore, most of the clan aristocracy during this period was exterminated.

All this points to the special role of Christianization in the process of politogenesis. Thanks to this very factor, the nascent state in the person of the prince and the squad supporting him, trying to finally get rid of control from the organs of the clan system and push the tribal nobility out of control, receives, in the course of planting a new faith, justification for its physical destruction.

In addition, Christianity contributed to the ethnic consolidation of the Eastern Slavs, which is one of the most important conditions for the irreversibility of the process of politogenesis. Ultimately, the stability of the nascent state depends on how quickly the conglomerate of tribes that form it turns into a single ethnic group. The preservation of tribal cults hinders this process, and the introduction of a new religion, common to all, on the contrary, helps to overcome tribal isolation and disunity. In the conditions of Ancient Rus', this was of particular importance due to the ethnic diversity of its population.

Of course, history knows examples of less painful, although longer-lasting, ethnic consolidation, which is based on the unification of tribal cults, unification and ranking of the pantheon of gods. This is how the history of the Twelve Tribes of Israel or Indo-Aryans developed. A similar attempt was the so-called “pagan reform” of Prince Vladimir, undertaken by him in 980. But this option was never fully realized precisely because Christianity had a number of advantages.

1. The process of forming a single pan-Slavic religion would take a long time, but Christianity is already

was a complete and integral religious system.

2. For the self-awareness of an ethnos, both the characteristics that unite all the individuals included in it and those that distinguish them from their neighbors are equally important. The common Slavic religion could play the role of a consolidating factor, but it was not suitable as a differentiating factor in relation to its neighbors in the West - the same Slavs.

3. Christianity was incomparably better suited to smoothing out the contradictions that inevitably arise as a result of social differentiation: from inferiors it demanded obedience and promised reward for this in the afterlife, from superiors - humanity and justice to the “small”, and for violation of these commandments it threatened hellish torment.

4. It is also important that the oldest layer of Christian Holy Scripture was formed in social conditions similar to those in which the formation of the Old Russian state took place. Therefore, in the Old Testament texts contemporary with the origin and development of the Ancient Israelite state, many characteristic features of the ethics of the military nobility were reflected. It is no coincidence that the biblical image of the generous Solomon is so consonant with the epic image of the hospitable Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko.

Formation of church organization in Ancient Rus'

The oldest mention of the establishment of the church hierarchy in Rus' is contained in the previously mentioned “District Epistle” of Patriarch Photius, which speaks of sending Metropolitan Michael to the “Rose”. However, as already mentioned, even if the message is about Kyiv, this diocese did not last long. It is somewhat more likely that a church organization existed in the mid-10th century. The church of St. mentioned in the treaty of 945. Ilya, in which the warriors swore an oath, is called “cathedral”. This means that she was not the only one, but the main one

in the city, and not one priest, but several (“cathedral”) served in it.
It is quite possible that the priest who headed the clergy of this church and, accordingly, had the right of seniority in relation to other churches, could have the rank of bishop. But if we take into account that before Vladimirov’s baptism, periods of relatively successful spread of Christianity were replaced by periods of pagan reaction, then we must admit that a constantly functioning and self-reproducing
church organization at that time most likely could not have existed.

But does this mean that immediately after Baptism the church organization acquired complete and harmonious forms? Official church historiography interprets this issue precisely in this way: immediately after the conversion of the Kievites to the new faith, a metropolitanate was established headed by Michael, appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, and then bishoprics subordinate to the metropolitan see began to be created. However, source data does not confirm this. The first mention of the Kiev Metropolitan in the “Tale of Bygone Years” dates back only to 1039. This weather article says that the Greek Metropolitan Theopemptos participated in the consecration of St. Sophia Cathedral. On this basis, A.E. Presnyakov concluded that the official list of metropolitans, starting with Mikhail, is clearly of late origin, and the name of the first bishop was “borrowed” from the “District Epistle” of Photius. In fact, in his opinion, the first primate of the Russian Church was that “Priest Anastas”, who, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, was brought by Vladimir from Korsun, supervised the baptism of the people of Kiev, and after that headed the clergy of the Tithe Church. The following facts support this version:

1. The special position of Anastas is evidenced by the fact that it was to him that Vladimir transferred his treasury for safekeeping and entrusted the collection of tithes from all tributes and income in favor of the church.

2. It is known that the Novgorodians were baptized by the Korsun resident Joachim, who after that became a bishop. In relation to this fact, it seems very unlikely that Anastas, who carried out a similar mission in the capital city, would have received a lesser rank in the newly created diocese.

3. The chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg reports that in 1018 the Polish king Boleslav, who supported Svyatopolk, was met in Kyiv by the local archbishop. This is consistent with the chronicle news of the flight of Anastas along with Boleslav, when he was forced to leave Kyiv. From these two facts it is not difficult to conclude that the archbishop mentioned by Thietmar is Anastas. And the chronicle’s silence about his rank as a bishop can be explained by the chronicler’s attitude towards Anastas’ betrayal.

It is difficult to say who was the successor to the first primate of the Russian Church. In the official list of metropolitans, after the mythical Michael, Leon appears. This name is also mentioned in The Life of Boris and Gleb. At the same time, the author calls Leon either a metropolitan or an archbishop, which also testifies in favor of the hypothesis of A.E. Presnyakova. In this regard, his assumption about the initial subordination of the Kyiv Archdiocese not directly to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but to the Bulgarian (Ohrid) diocese, deserves attention. At the very least, the coincidence of dates is very significant: in 1037 the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church was abolished, and soon Metropolitan Theopemptos appeared in Kyiv. Obviously, by raising the status of the Kyiv See and directly subordinating it to Constantinople, the Byzantines sought to strengthen their influence in Rus'.

However, as the future showed, the result was the opposite. It was at the beginning of the 40s. XI century there was a sharp aggravation of Russian-Byzantine relations, the climax of which was the campaign of the princely squad against Constantinople in 1043. Apparently, the activities of the metropolitan played an important role in this, so he turned out to be persona non grata. This is evidenced by the fact that in the next year, 1044, by order of Yaroslav, the baptism of the remains of Oleg and Yaropolk took place - an action that in no way could be approved by the Greek bishop. Consequently, by this time Theopemptos was no longer in Kyiv. And in 1051, a council of Russian bishops elected Hilarion, the protege of the Grand Duke, to the metropolis. True, soon after the death of Yaroslav, he was apparently removed from the see and relations with Constantinople were restored, since under 1055 a new metropolitan was already mentioned - the Greek Ephraim. Only one more time after Hilarion, the Kyiv See was occupied by a “Rusyn”, installed without the knowledge of Constantinople. This was the famous scribe Kliment Smolyatich (1147-1154), elevated to the metropolis on the initiative of Izyaslav Mstislavich and occupied the department until his death.

By the end of the 11th century. The episcopal organization of the Old Russian Church is taking shape. At the beginning of this century there were 9 dioceses in Rus', with Tmutarakan having the status of an archbishopric. Since 1165, the Novgorod see also became an archbishopric. Moreover, according to the unwritten constitution of the veche republic, the ruler was only confirmed by the Kyiv metropolitan, and the veche elected him.

With the increase in the number of cities and the growth of their economic importance, the number of dioceses also grew. By the middle of the 13th century. there were already 16 of them. In comparison with Byzantium, where there were more than 90 metropolises and about 6 thousand bishops, this was a negligible number. The reasons for such a high degree of centralization of the Old Russian Church are explained differently in historical literature. N.M. Nikolsky believed that such a structure was beneficial to the grand ducal power, while the Patriarchate of Constantinople was interested in increasing the number of dioceses in order to export “surplus” clergy to Rus'. According to D. Obolensky, Byzantium benefited from the fragmentation of Rus' (both political and ecclesiastical), since this turned individual principalities into “pawns on the chessboard of Byzantine diplomacy.” At the same time, G.G. Litavrin convincingly showed that Byzantium was not at all interested in the political fragmentation of Rus', because internal instability disoriented imperial politicians. Therefore, it is unlikely that Byzantium would have eliminated such an important factor of ethnopolitical consolidation as a single church organization. In the entire history of Kievan Rus, only once was an attempt made to fragment the metropolis: in the early 70s. XI century (until 1076) in addition to the Kyiv one, there were the Chernigov and Pereyaslav metropolitan sees.

Another mystery of the early history of the Russian church is the silence of sources about the existence in the X - beginning. XI centuries monasteries in Rus'. Mentions of them, even if found in texts, turn out to be late and unreliable. Only from the era of Yaroslav the Wise did the monastic organization develop, which the chroniclers themselves recognized as a new phenomenon

: “The Chernorissians are constantly multiplying and becoming monasteries,” reports “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Most of the monasteries that arose at this time were princely, i.e. based on the funds of princes and in honor of their heavenly patrons. Thus, Yaroslav founded the St. George and Irininsky monasteries in Kyiv in honor of the patron saints - himself and his wife, and by order and at the expense of his son Izyaslav, the Demetrius Monastery was established.

The first non-princely

The monastery in Kyiv was Pechersky. Its founder was Anthony, a “Rusyn”, originally from the town of Lyubech near Chernigov. He took monastic vows on Mount Athos, the largest and most influential center of Orthodox monasticism. Around 1028, he returned to Kyiv and settled on the banks of the Dnieper in a cave he dug next to the cell of Hilarion, the future metropolitan. Soon Anthony gained fame as a great ascetic, and when 12 more hermit caves appeared around his cell, Anthony decided to found a monastery and installed Varlaam as abbot. However, it would be more correct to call this monastery a monastery (“monastery”). It became a monastery (“cinnovia”) in the exact sense of the word only in 1057, when the new abbot Theodosius introduced the “coenobitic” rule of Theodore the Studite.

The authority of the Pechersk Monastery, founded not by a prince, but by devotees of the faith, was extremely great. It became the main center of the spread of monasticism in Rus'. Thus, Anthony himself founded the Eletsky Assumption Monastery near Chernigov in the Boldino Mountains, Varlaam became the abbot of the Demetrius Monastery in Kyiv, and another Pechersk abbot, Stefan, having quarreled with the brethren, founded the Blachernae Monastery next door.

In 1170, the abbot of the Pechersk Monastery received the rank of archimandrite. This meant that this monastery was the most influential in the city and its abbot had the right of seniority in relation to other abbots and could represent the interests of all monasteries before the secular authorities. This function of the archimandrite was most clearly manifested in Novgorod, where he spoke on behalf of the entire monasticism of the city at the veche. The appearance of the archimandrite in Novgorod dates back to the turn of XII-XIII. In the 13th century. archimandrites also appear in Rostov and Vladimir-on-Klyazma.

The forms of material support for the ancient Russian church were very unique. The Kievan state can be classified as a type of state formation that historians call “barbarian” or “pre-feudal”, since they arose long before the full formation of the feudal mode of production. The appropriation of the surplus product by the feudalizing military elite was carried out in such states in the form of centralized rent, i.e. collection of tribute (in Kievan Rus - polyudye

). Under these conditions, the only possible form of material support for the church was the deduction of “tithes”—a tenth of the prince’s income—for its needs. The church received another source of income with the transfer of family and civil law to its jurisdiction. The “viras” collected by the court in these cases also replenished the church treasury. With the development of domestic trade, such an item of income as “trade tithe” was added - a share of trade duties transferred to the disposal of the church.

Since the 11th century. Church land ownership began to play an increasing role. Basically, lands and villages were donated by the princes at the founding of the monastery or transferred to existing monasteries “for the sake of the soul.” About the fact that already in the 11th century. Some monasteries turned into large economic complexes, as evidenced by the existence of an almshouse at the Pechersky Monastery, on the maintenance of which a tenth of the monastery’s income was spent.

Not only monasteries, but also churches owned real estate within the city and its surroundings. In connection with this, a special corporation of urban white clergy even arises, known from written sources as “Kliroshans” or “Kryloshans”. This name comes from the Greek word “kliros” (klhroV), denoting the staff of the “cathedral” church, in which, unlike an ordinary parish church, services were conducted daily, which required the involvement of a significantly larger number of clergy (“cathedral”). As a rule, cathedral churches were cathedral, i.e. Bishops served in them. Therefore, all donations of real estate to the diocese went to the disposal of the cathedral church. Thus, the kliroshans act as a special corporation grouped around the cathedral, the members of which were the hereditary owners of the real estate that belonged to this temple. But since the personnel of other parish churches were also involved in services in the cathedral on weekdays, the clergy were actually a corporate organization of the entire city white clergy. And in this capacity, the choir could even take on some of the functions of the bishop.

Monasteries and monks

If the white clergy, along with the rest of the church people, to some extent adjoined the artisan-merchant group of the urban population, then the black clergy, or monasticism, mainly constituted the layer that brightly painted the church in feudal tones. Of course, here too there were gradations and sharp differences - the gap between a simple monk and a bishop was immeasurable, but we must not forget that each monk was an integral part of his monastic association, and the monasteries jealously guarded their rights not only from the encroachments of secular authorities, but also from the bishops themselves.

Monasticism in Rus' appeared at least from the time of baptism. The number of monasteries in the XI-XIII centuries, according to very inaccurate chronicle information, reached 70. According to E. Golubinsky’s calculations, the monasteries were distributed among cities as follows: in Novgorod there were 17 monasteries, in Kiev - 17, in Vladimir -6, in Smolensk - 5, in Galich - 5, in Chernigov - 3, in Polotsk - 3, in Rostov - 3, in Pereyaslavl South - 2, in Vladimir Volynsky, Pereyaslavl Zalessky, Suzdal, Murom, Pskov, Staraya Russa, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl and Tmutarakan - one at a time ( E. Golubinsky, History of the Russian Church, vol. I, M. 1904, pp. 746-763

). How inaccurate these figures are can be seen from the fact that in the richest Vladimir Volynsky and Galich only one monastery is shown, while according to the chronicle the Tatars in 1237 burned not one monastery, but “monasteries” in small Moscow. In Kyiv itself, in addition to the 17 named monasteries, there were still unknown monasteries outside the city, on the ground. The foundations of a number of stone churches were found in the vicinity of Galich. It can be assumed that these foundations primarily belonged to monastery churches, since there were only a few stone parish churches outside the city fortifications in Kievan Rus.

Monasticism in this initial period of the history of the Russian church was closely connected with cities.

Thus, Golubinsky in his “History of the Russian Church” notes that the monasteries of pre-Mongol Rus' were mainly urban monasteries. Only from the “end” of the 14th century. In North-Eastern Rus', intensive construction of monasteries begins in areas more or less remote from cities. In the XI-XIII centuries, monasteries still clung to the city and the city walls. One of the reasons for this peculiarity of that time is, apparently, the weak spread of Christianity. Dual faith and paganism reluctantly gave way to Christianity, and constant feudal wars threatened the safety of monasteries abandoned deep into sparsely populated areas. Not only the Polovtsians, but also the Russians themselves willingly plundered monasteries and churches, 6 which is reported more than once in the chronicles. Monasteries only firmly settle outside the city when they become landowners, feudal lords, and from that time on they uncontrollably pursue real estate, giving rise to the ideology of monastic “acquisitiveness,” despite the sharp contradiction of this doctrine with monastic vows and charters.

The number of monasteries was in direct proportion to the size and economic well-being of the city. In Kyiv one can count, as we have seen, 17 monasteries, of which the largest was the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, founded around the middle of the 11th century. Most of the Kyiv monasteries were founded by princes and boyars. This is how the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery became, which arose in close proximity to the beloved princely village of Berestov. The founder of this monastery was visited by Prince Izyaslav, after which “the great Anthony was quickly seen and honored by everyone.” However, the same Izyaslav, dissatisfied with the independent policy of the Pechersk monks, built a new monastery, St. Dmitry ( Ipat. let., pp. 110, 112

Already at this time, individual princely branches sought to acquire their own monasteries. In 1070, the “Vsevolozh monastery on Vydobychi” was mentioned for the first time ( Ibid., sire. 122

).
The new monastery arose not far from the Pechersky Monastery - perhaps in close proximity to Vsevolod’s country residence. Monomakhovichs in the 12th century. had their own monastery of St. Theodora. They called it their father’s - “take away”, while for the Olgovichi “take away” was the Kirillov Monastery ( Laurent Let., pp. 324, 391
).

Women's monasteries in Kyiv were also built by representatives of the princely family. In 1086 Vsevolod built the Church of St. Andrei, and with her the monastery in which Vsevolod’s daughter, Princess Yanka, took monastic vows ( Laurent. let., p. 199, note. “Having gathered together many monasteries, she remained with them according to the monastic rank” (Ipat. let., p. 144)

). Subsequently, this monastery, after the name of the founder, was called Yantsin. The Assumption Monastery in Vladimir Zalessky was created by Grand Duchess Maria, wife of Vsevolod the Big Nest.

In the 12th century Among the founders of monasteries, noble and wealthy people of non-princely family appeared. It seems that such monasteries first arose in Novgorod with its rich boyars and merchants, although the first large Novgorod monastery (Yuryev) was still a princely one. It was built by Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, erecting a huge cathedral in it. Almost simultaneously with Yuriev, the Anthony Monastery arose, the founder of which was, apparently, some merchant. At the end of the 12th century. The Khutyn Monastery was founded by the son of a Novgorod boyar, Alexei Mikhailovich.

The total number of monks in the cities was very uncertain and cannot be established even approximately, but it can still be said, without departing from the truth, that in cities such as Kiev and Novgorod, it was measured not in tens, but in hundreds. In the Pechersk Monastery there were 180 Monkmen ( "Pechersk Patericon", p. 201

), not counting the dependent monastic people who worked on the farm. In the Smolensk Avraamiev Monastery in the 13th century. there were 17 monks.

The Pechersk Patericon tries to paint us a picture of complete equality in the monastic community, but reality was extremely far from this ideal. The second abbot of the Pechersk Monastery, Stefan, was forced to leave the monastery because the monks raised “sedition” against him and kicked him out of the monastery even without property (“toshcha”). We meet the image of a dissatisfied and ambitious monk in the Patericon: today he is meek, but tomorrow he is “furious and angry”, remains silent for a short time, and then again grumbles against the abbot.

The composition of the monastic brethren can most easily be traced from the data of the Pechersk Patericon. About the founder of the monastery, Anthony, it is only reported that he was a pious man from the city of Lyubech ( "Pechersk Patericon", pp. 57, 73, 11

).
However, Anthony was not one of the ordinary people, since he made a long journey to Athos, and such a journey required the expenditure of large funds. We know much more details about Abbot Theodosius. His parents belonged to the nobility of the city of Kursk. Feodosia went “with his slaves to the village to do things with all diligence.” The most famous monk of the Pechersk Monastery was Nikola Svyatosha, the son of the Chernigov prince Davyd Svyatoslavich. Even during the life of Abbot Theodosius, boyar Varlaam, the son of boyar John, “who was the prince’s first bolyar,” took monastic vows in the monastery. At the same time, Ephraim became a monk; before, he was “loved by the prince and kept everything with him.” Chernorizets Erasmus possessed great wealth, which he spent on church decorations. Another monk, Arefa, had great wealth in his cell and was distinguished by incredible stinginess. Moses Ugrin, whose touching and sad story is told in the Patericon, was the favorite of Prince Boris, who was killed on the orders of Svyatopolk. Isaac the Recluse came from Toropets. Before becoming a monk, he was a wealthy merchant. Finally, Nikon the Chernorizets was “from the great city” ( Ibid., pp. 11, 17, 83, 23, 24, 86-87, 88, 102, 106, 128, 79
).

Even this limited information allows us to conclude that among the brethren of the Pechersk Monastery there were a significant number of people from rich and noble circles. At least it was they who stood at the head of the monastery and directed its activities.

Observations on the composition of monasticism in Novgorod monasteries lead to the same conclusion. The founder of the famous Anthony Monastery was Anthony the Roman. The name "Roman" hardly indicated the actual origin of Anthony and may have appeared later, but it could also go back to ancient tradition. “Roman country” in Novgorod monuments of the 12th-13th centuries. Sometimes they even named countries where Catholicism reigned. Thus, in the life of Alexander Nevsky, even Birger is called a king “from the Roman part.” One thing can be said with certainty: Anthony was a very rich man, since in a short time he built a huge stone cathedral in the monastery he founded and, after that, a stone refectory. In Anthony’s spirituality there is an indication of the independent origin of the monastery, built without support from the prince or bishop: “neither received the estate from the prince nor from the bishop” ( “Charter of Veliky Novgorod”, p. 160

). The founder of another famous Novgorod monastery, Varlaam, was the son of the Novgorod boyar Mikhail (Michal). In the world, Varlaam bore the name of Alexa Mikhailovich.

Given the general tendency of Russian monasteries to attract rich monks into their walls, who could provide the monastery with large contributions, the leading importance of the aristocratic elite among the rest of the monastic brethren becomes completely clear.

In Novgorod, aristocratic monasticism was grouped around the Khutyn Monastery, the founder of which Varlaam was a childhood friend of another noble boyar, Dobrynya Yadreikovich (“his peer”). Dobrynya was not only rich and noble, but also a very educated man, who described going to Tsar Grad. Shortly before the destruction of Constantinople by the Crusaders, in 1204, he visited this city. Later, Dobrynya became a monk in Khutyn under the name Anthony and subsequently became the Archbishop of Novgorod. In the same monastery, Proksha Malyshevich, in monasticism Porfiry, took monastic vows with his brother Fedor. Proksha’s son, Vyacheslav of Novgorod, also took monastic vows at the Khutyn Monastery ( V. O. Klyuchevsky, Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source, M. 1871, pp. 59-61

). At the beginning of the 13th century. this monastery played the role of a conductor of the interests of the large boyars. From the Khutyn monks came Arseny, who was twice named archbishop of Novgorod and aroused the fierce hatred of the “simple child” against himself.

Close connections between the Chernets and aristocratic circles are found in many monasteries. Hegumen Stefan, expelled from the Pechersk Monastery, immediately found support from many boyars, who “gave him from their estates what he needed for his needs and other matters” ( “Pechersk Patericon”, p. 57

The Patericon talks about the help the Pechersk Monastery received from some “Christ-lovers.” Korchags with wine and butter, carts with bread, cheese, fish, peas, millet and barrels of honey, sent by noble and rich people, often drove into the monastery gates. Russian monasticism had the same aristocratic character as the monasticism of medieval Catholic Europe, and was not at all a shelter for ascetics seeking solitude away from the world.

The composition of the Chernechsk elite, in which aristocratic circles played such a large role, created a constant source from the monasteries, replenishing the ranks of the highest church hierarchy. One of the tonsures of the Pechersk Monastery at the beginning of the 13th century. proudly assured that “from that Pechersky Monastery, the Most Pure Mother of God, many bishops were appointed.” According to his undoubtedly incomplete list, 15 bishops emerged from among the Pechersk monks, and this in a relatively short time of one and a half to two centuries. Their number includes such famous figures as Metropolitan Hilarion, Bishop Ephraim of Pereyaslavl, Bishops Leonty and Isaiah of Rostov, Nifont of Novgorod and Theoktist of Chernigov ( Ibid., pp. 75-76

). Meanwhile, the occupation of the episcopal see in Ancient Rus' was associated with large expenses, sometimes reaching up to 100 hryvnia of silver. That is why so many reproaches against “self-lovers” who seek glory “from man, and not from God,” are heard in ancient Russian church literature. The theme of ordination to the clergy “for a fee,” the so-called simony, does not leave the pages of ancient manuscripts.

The monasteries early began to strive to accumulate real estate wealth. The Kiev-Pechersk Monastery had populated villages and hamlets already during the lifetime of its founder Theodosius. In the monastery estates there was an administration in the person of tiuns and servants, as this clearly follows from the words of the Pechersk Patericon about the orders of Theodosius before his death: “then he ordered to gather all the brethren, and those who were in the villages or went away for some other need and called everyone , began to instruct ministers and attendants and servants on how to remain for everyone in the service entrusted to him" ( "Pechersk Patericon", pp. 52-53

The monks were engaged in some crafts and competed quite successfully in the market with local artisans. In the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, among the monasticism, we find a number of monastic craftsmen. The monks' constant occupation was copying books. The Patericon notes the monk Hilarion, who was “cunning in writing books.” The icon painter Alimpius, who learned his art from the Greek masters, the doctor Agapit, etc., were famous.

However, the main wealth of the monasteries already at this time consisted of land and monetary contributions. The requirement of monetary contributions upon tonsure into a monastery has been established in monastic practice, it seems, since the very appearance of monasticism in Rus'. Nestor with great naivety tells about the wanderings of young Theodosius through the Kyiv monasteries. Wanting to take haircut, Theodosius went to monasteries and asked to be accepted as one of the brethren. The monks, seeing a poorly dressed young man in front of them and considering him a commoner, did not want to accept the neophyte ( Ibid., p. 20

In the 12th century large monasteries, as a rule, owned land property. A typical monastic village is depicted in the contribution of Varlaam Khutynsky, an undisputed authentic monument of the late 12th - early 13th centuries. Varlaam transfers to his monastery “land and a vegetable garden, and fish traps and gogolin, and reapings.” There were two villages on the farmland. In one of them lived a youth with his wife, Volos, a girl Fevronia with two nephews and Nedach. In the same village there were 6 horses and 1 cow. Another village with the Church of St. George was located on Sludnitsa ( "Charter of Veliky Novgorod", pp. 161-162

).
The princes gave villages and entire volosts to the monasteries “with money, and virs, and with sales” ( Ibid., p. 140
).

Some monasteries began to spread their possessions beyond the borders of their cities and even principalities, creating their own courtyards and branch churches. The Kiev Pechersk Monastery, for example, owned a courtyard in Suzdal. The compilers of the index to the Ipatiev Chronicle in vain consider this courtyard to belong to some Pechersky monastery in Suzdal, while we are talking specifically about the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, which was given a courtyard “and from the village” by the Suzdal bishop Ephraim, a Kiev-Pechersk tonsure.

The enormous land and monetary contribution that came to the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in the 12th century is noted in the chronicle on the occasion of the death of the widow of Gleb Vseslavich. Already the father of the princess Yaropolk Izyaslavich, who died in 1087, donated the Neblskaya, Derevskaya and Luchskaya volosts “and near Kyiv” to the Pechersky Monastery. Gleb himself, together with the princess, donated 600 hryvnia of silver and 50 hryvnia of gold to the monastery during his lifetime. After his death, the princess gave another 100 hryvnia of silver, bequeathing 5 villages to the monastery after her death “and with servants, and everything even up to the war” (women’s headdress) ( Ipat. let., pp. 166, 338

Sometimes rivalry flared up between monasteries for the possession of a church or shrine. The chronicler speaks with condemnation about the Pechersk monks, who took over Dmitry’s church for their benefit “with great sin and wrong” ( Laurent. let., p. 284

The great influence that monasticism had on various social circles rested to a large extent on the importance of monasteries as centers of writing and education. A more or less rich ancient Russian monastery usually had a good library. Here, certain skills of scribes who worked on copying books were developed, and literary monuments, similar to the lives of saints, legends and chronicles, were created here. Writing in Ancient Rus', of course, was not the exclusive domain of the clergy, but the very process of writing books was labor-intensive, requiring special attention and a lot of time. In addition, writing materials (parchment, ink, paint) were too expensive for writing to spread among the masses. Therefore, the copying of books and the compilation of literary monuments largely lay on the shoulders of the clergy, and primarily the Chernets. In this regard, the significance of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was especially great, as it brought out several literary talents from its midst. Already the founder of this monastery, Theodosius, is credited with the composition of some teachings and words preserved in manuscripts. Nestor calls himself a student of Theodosius, whom ancient tradition called the “chronicler” and whose name is associated with the greatest historical work of Kievan Rus - the Tale of Bygone Years. At the beginning of the 13th century. Bishop Simon of Vladimir and the monk Polycarp emerge from the walls of the Pechersk Monastery, whose works were included in the Pechersk Patericon. We can talk about an entire literary school that arose in the Pechersk Monastery and powerfully influenced the literature of Kievan Rus.

There was another literary center in Kyiv - the Vydubitsky Monastery, which tried to demonstrate independent activity in the 12th century. Hegumen Sylvester, not without success, revised the Tale of Bygone Years, compiled in the Pechersk Monastery, and thereby immortalized his name in the eyes of posterity, already in the 16th century. who called him Sylvester the Great. The literary tradition was maintained in the Vydubitsky monastery at least until the beginning of the 13th century, as shown by the naive but curious Word about the creation of a stone wall under the church of St. Michael in the Vydubitsky Monastery ( Ipat. let., p. 474 ff.

The same literary forces were concentrated in other monasteries. The largest cultural center in Novgorod was the Yuriev Monastery. The representative of Novgorod scholarship was the monk Kirik, famous for his questioning and Easter calculations. The Khutyn monastery nominated Anthony, who wrote a description of his journey to Constantinople. Near Smolensk there was the Zarubsky Monastery, which received in the 12th century. also some literary significance. The famous Kliment Smolyatich came from here.

Many chronicles that have come down to us were compiled by monks. The participation of monks in chronicle writing was such a widespread phenomenon that a large number of news and stories included in the chronicles retained a church, I would say, monastic flavor, especially strong in the news of the second half of the 12th century, included in the Laurentian Chronicle.

Libraries and special staffs of scribes were created at the monasteries. In the cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Greek books were kept, brought there, according to legend, by the architects who built this wonderful monument of the 11th century. Greek books were placed “on the floors”, in the choirs, which served as a place for the monastery book depository. The relatively rich monastery library suggests the life of Abraham of Smolensk.

Of course, the ancient Russian monastery did not live an isolated life from the urban population. With amazing power, the image of a monk, completely absorbed in worldly vanity, is drawn to us in the Word of Daniel the Imprisoner. “Many,” he writes, “having departed from the world into monasticism, return again to worldly life, like a dog to its vomit, and to worldly walking; they go around the villages and houses of the glorious people of this world, like kind-hearted dogs. Where there are weddings and feasts, there are monks, and monks, and lawlessness”: he has an angelic image on him, and a depraved disposition; he has the dignity of a saint, but is obscene by custom" ( "The Word of Daniel the Imprisoner", p. 70

). The accusations against the monks of greed and desire for honor and wealth are so well known that there is no need to dwell on them at length. However, these words and the teachings of the preachers have the undoubted value for us that they allow us to judge the close connection of monasticism with the urban population. This explains such a thorough knowledge of the chroniclers about city events. Worldly interests are often strangely combined with typically monastic reasoning and quotations from church books. In turn, monastic disputes found a lively response among the townspeople, as we learn about this from the life of Abraham of Smolensk. The figure of a monk in a black cassock often flashed in squares and streets, and the monasteries themselves with their stone churches stood out sharply among the wooden buildings of the townspeople.

Already at this time, there were settlements near the monasteries inhabited by dependent people. There were a variety of categories of dependent people, whose position was not much different from that of serfs. Among them we will find “forgiven people” and “stifling people.” Without entering into a discussion of what these people were, or rather, how they fell into feudal dependence on the clergy ( See B.D. Grekov, Kievan Rus, 1953, pp. 255-257

), we will only note the following here: according to Dahl, alms for the deceased were called “strangulation”; cured people who remained at monasteries and churches were called “forgiven”, as if working out their cure. In the monastery settlements there lived both simple serfs and serfs, as we see from the contribution of Varlaam Khutynsky at the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th century. The feudal appearance of ancient Russian churches and monasteries created real strongholds from them. The medieval “house” of Kyiv or Novgorod Sophia was a kind of feudal state.

The role of monasteries in the life of the Russian state

Hieromonk John (Korchukov), Candidate of Theology

A report read at a conference dedicated to the 680th anniversary of the repose of St. Cyril and Mary, the parents of St. Sergius of Radonezh, the 25th anniversary of their general church glorification as saints and the 25th anniversary of the revival of monastic life in the Khotkovo monastery. July 16, 2021.

The first monasteries appeared in Rus' when monasticism had already passed a long, several centuries, historical path from the Egyptian deserts to Palestine, Constantinople and the Holy Mountain. He developed the rules of asceticism, formalized in various statutes, created great ascetic literature, and tested various forms of monastic life through practice. The newly enlightened Russian Christians had to absorb and assimilate the fullness and integrity of the ascetic tradition and at the same time choose from it that which most corresponded to the new natural-geographical and sociocultural conditions, to create their own ascetic ideal.

Government activities

Monasteries appeared in Rus' immediately after the adoption of Christianity as the official religion. The abbots of monasteries in the second half of the 11th century already had authority in society. Together with the bishops, they represented the highest clergy, who could extend their influence not only over the people, but also over state affairs. The bishops were peacemakers among the princes, and the abbots in this regard were their active and zealous assistants. In their mutual disputes, the princes turned to the bishops, and in their absence to the abbots, looking for mediators in them. The abbots of the monasteries took part in princely congresses, worked for the release of prisoners, and acted as intercessors for widows, orphans, and unjustly convicted people.

Time St. Sergius, abbot of Radonezh (1314–1392), and his disciples - the brightest time in the history of our monasticism. Meaning prp. Sergius for the life of the then Rus' was exceptional and unique. St. Sergius became the moral educator of the people for the Russian land and ideally combined in himself a rare degree of asceticism and service to the world that was unique in its height and influence. Until the 14th century, in Rus' there were predominantly single monasteries, in which the monks lived at some distance from each other, each ran their own household, and the brethren gathered for divine services and common prayers at a certain time. In the monastery of St. Sergius at first also had such a charter, but the Reverend considered it best for the salvation of the soul to have the charter of a cenobitic monastery, when the brethren have nothing personal, they conduct a joint household for the benefit of the entire monastery under the leadership of the abbot.

The spread of communal monasteries in northeastern Rus', begun by St. Sergius and continued by his students, turned out to be in direct connection with the spiritual, cultural and political-ideological needs of the Great Russian society, which had embarked on the path of national-state consolidation. By their example, the monks of the cenobitic monasteries, the structure and way of their lives, showed the advantage of united efforts compared to the fragmentation of feudal society. The principle of conciliarity and the sameness of monks in the monks, subordinate to one abbot, also directed popular thought towards the social ideal - the unification and centralization of Rus'. If in the XII–XIV centuries. there was a contractual model of relations between the princes, and if the contract was not fulfilled by one of the parties, it could be terminated, then in the 15th century. We already see a fundamentally different system of social relations in Muscovite Rus'. All socio-political connections turn out to be one way or another closed on the figure of the Grand Duke.

The ethical standards of cenobitic monasteries also influenced the formation of the moral ideal in Great Russian society. The type of cenobitic monastery was a special holistically organized model of social relations, established on two pillars - brotherhood and obedience. Monastic ethics proceeded from the idea of self-love as the basis of sinful passions in a person, and therefore the entire structure of relations in a cenobitic monastery was aimed at preventing even attempts at personal self-affirmation by anyone from the brotherhood, maintaining fraternal sameness among the monks. All monks in the monks were equally under the authority of the abbot. Being a mediator between God and the novice, the abbot takes on the mission of saving his inhabitants, due to which the brethren must show complete obedience to the abbot and cut off their will. However, the mentor was required to use his enormous power with reasoning, teach “with quietness and meekness,” and instruct by personal example.

The socio-political ideal, which presupposed the unity of the Russian land in the form of a fraternal union of princes under the leadership of the Grand Duke, was a reflection of the structure of the cenobitic monastery. Period from the middle of the 15th century. until the middle of the 16th century. was the time of finalization of the political doctrine of the Moscow autocracy. The writings of John III and John IV show that the ideas of these kings about the essence of their power reproduce the main features that characterize the power of the abbot in a cenobitic monastery: the king’s divine establishment as well as the abbot’s, the king’s standing before God for his subjects as well as the abbot’s for his inhabitants, responsibility before God for his wards, autocracy, complete unanimity of the brethren with the abbot for the organization of life in the monastery for the salvation of the soul, and the inadmissibility of dissent with the tsar, the collaboration of the people with the tsar for the establishment of Russia as the home of the Most Holy Theotokos, as the Guardian of true worship of God, the Orthodox faith. These principles ensured the creation of strong social ties, and on their basis the unity of various social groups.

The Orthodox monarchy in Russia is a unique phenomenon, the only one in the world history of states. Cenobitic monasteries not only took a wide part in the social life of the Russian people, but also served as a model in the very structure of the Russian state.

Educational activities

From the very beginning of their appearance, monasteries were engaged in educational and pastoral activities. The monks were spiritual fathers and teachers of the people. Some monasteries had schools where they taught literacy and theology. The monastery was the place from which education spread; where the inhabitants were instilled with work skills, faith and morality. Since the monks were prescribed, in addition to handicrafts and prayer, to be diligent in reading spiritual and edifying books, the compilation of libraries was the concern of the monastery authorities. Manuscripts were created and copied within the walls of monasteries. In the pre-Mongol period, there was neither scientific nor literary writing in Rus'. We owe the first works of this time exclusively to monks (tales about saints, chronicles of monasteries, soul-saving teachings). Monasteries were the cultural centers of the country. The architectural ensembles of the Trinity-Sergius, Solovetsky, Joseph-Volokolamsky, New Jerusalem and many other monasteries are of high artistic significance. Many works of art were stored and created in the monasteries. The monastery icon painting schools left behind magnificent paintings and iconostases. Shrouds, shrouds, and banners, brilliant in their technique and artistic taste, were created in monasteries; these were mainly made in women's monasteries. And our knowledge about the country’s past would be much poorer without the documents that came from the monastery archives.

Economic activity

Most of the monasteries of Kievan Rus of the pre-Mongol period were urban or located near cities, established by princes and boyars. The trustee of the monastery allocated plots of land to the monastery for its further material support.

From the second half of the 13th century, the time of the beginning of the Mongol yoke, a significant number of new monasteries were created, their location and natural geographical environment changed. Deserts began to predominate, located far from cities, often in wooded or swampy, inaccessible areas. Simultaneously with the colonizing peasant flow, there was also a monastic flow. Under the influence of internal and external factors, the movement of desert dwellers began, a powerful impetus to which was given by the activity of St. Sergius of Radonezh, his students and followers. Their thirst for “rejection of the world” was coupled with the processes of developing the lands of northeastern Rus', cultivating wild nature, clearing forests for arable land, developing natural lands and industries, laying roads, opening water sources, and changing the country’s landscape from natural to anthropogenic.

Some of the desert monasteries turned into large monasteries, the area around which was gradually populated. The desert could have significant land holdings and peasants. An extensive system of economic, trade, judicial and other connections with the outside world was created, the economic function of monasteries in public life was strengthened - not only in the development of land, but also in the organization of production, and lending to peasants. Already in the 15th century. some monasteries achieved economic prosperity. By the beginning of the 17th century. The monastic economy was more stable than the secular one; it was more involved in commodity-money relations, and significant amounts of money accumulated in the monasteries. The largest monasteries of that time: Trinity-Sergius, Kirillo-Belozersky, Joseph-Volotsky, Solovetsky - played a significant role in social production, were strong economic units and had an organizing influence on the economic life of their district.

The Code of the Monastic Order of 1649, the decrees of Peter I of 1701, the Decree on the secularization of church estates of 1764 of Catherine II deprived the Synod, bishops' departments and monasteries of estates. All land now went to the treasury and was transferred to the management of secular authorities. Only small gardens, vegetable gardens and pastures were left to the monasteries. The monasteries fell into decay, and many of them were closed. The gradual softening of the attitude of emperors towards the Church, starting with Paul I, served to revive old monasteries and open new ones. By 1917 there were 1257 of them. Cash benefits from the treasury were increased, the monasteries again began to turn into large landowners, thanks to which they were able to significantly expand their economic activities. In their domains, the monasteries carried out highly efficient arable farming, gardening, horticulture, cattle breeding, poultry farming, beekeeping, and had their own workshops and factories.

In reality, there were few rich monasteries; the vast majority were poor monasteries. Usually they were located in remote, remote places and, having insufficient land, lived meagerly, subsisting on small handicrafts and alms.

In 1917, the spontaneous seizure of church lands began under the Provisional Government, when there was practically no firm power in the localities and essentially anarchy reigned. Peasants arbitrarily seized the lands of monasteries and parish clergy. In 1929, with the beginning of collectivization, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR issued a decree “On Religious Associations.” A new wave of destruction of temples and monasteries swept through. For the latter, this was a complete cessation of any activity.

In 1988, the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' was solemnly celebrated. From that moment on, the revival of Orthodox monasteries began. Some of them faced great difficulties: churches, as a rule, were in a destroyed state, residential buildings were occupied by residents and institutions, the resettlement of which lasted for many years. Providing the monasteries with the necessary lands proceeded more successfully.

Currently, monasteries exist mainly from their own funds: from their own farming on land allocated to them by the state, voluntary donations from parishioners and benefactors. Monasteries in Moscow and other large cities, in addition to subsidiary farms, have their own publishing houses, icon and bookstores.

Social service

In the activities of the first monasteries in Rus', the following forms of social service were already evident: love of strangers, which was expressed in the provision of overnight accommodation and food for pilgrims and travelers, charity, i.e. caring for the sick and infirm, charity, i.e. providing financial assistance to those in need.

By the beginning of the 13th century. internecine wars between the princes led to the collapse of Kievan Rus. If before the invasion of the Mongols there was not only church charity, but also private alms, and princely care for the poor and wretched, then during the period of the yoke the ministry of mercy was concentrated mainly in the bosom of the Church. This was facilitated by the fact that the Mongol khans respected representatives of any religion. They gave the bishops letters of safe conduct and exempted churches and monasteries from extortion.

During this period the number of monasteries increased. A powerful monastic movement arose where there had previously been few monasteries - in the Rostov-Suzdal land and the Trans-Volga region. For 100 years from 1340 to 1440. 150 new monasteries appeared. Having grown stronger, they provided assistance to all those in need. Until the beginning of the 18th century. the sick and elderly in need of treatment and care were kept mainly in almshouses at monasteries and churches. Decrees of Peter I in 1701 and Catherine II in 1764 depriving monasteries of their estates significantly limited their charitable activities. The gradual return of monasteries to economic activity from the end of the 18th century. allowed them to more actively perform social service. And already in 1864, Emperor Alexander II adopted legislation regulating church charity.

The fall of serfdom contributed to a change in the position of women in society; she received relative freedom and could more often make independent decisions. In the 19th century Women's communities appear as a transitional form from secular life to monastic life. Over the course of a century, about a hundred such communities were founded, which mainly worked in almshouses. Some of them were subsequently elevated to the rank of monasteries while maintaining their charitable activities. Social and military upheavals at the beginning of the 20th century, and the First World War, contributed to an increase in the number of nuns in convents. A feature of many women's monasteries was a strict ascetic life, combined with extensive social and charitable activities, the organization of schools, libraries, shelters, all kinds of handicraft and icon-painting workshops, hospitals and almshouses.

After the October events of 1917, the monasteries were closed, so all manifestations of service to society were reduced to nothing.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and, accordingly, the entire social security system, millions of our compatriots found themselves below the poverty line. Restoring monasteries began to revive ancient traditions of charity. In some monasteries, orphanages, shelters, boarding houses, schools, almshouses, and rehabilitation centers began to be organized.

Pokrovsky Khotkov stauropegic convent also participates in social, charitable and educational activities. The monastery hosts free excursions and meals for pilgrims, charity meals and treats on patronal feast days and memorable dates. In 1991, a Sunday school was opened in the parish. Since 2000, the monastery has operated an Orthodox children's boarding school for children in difficult life situations. Since 2005 there has been an almshouse.

The monastery provides all possible assistance to those in need (the poor, the seriously ill, those with many children). Provides charitable assistance to disabled people and lonely old people. Every year, for the holidays of the Nativity of Christ and Easter, the sisters of the monastery visit these people with holiday food packages and spiritual literature. Spiritual literature, “Alive in Help...” belts, and pectoral crosses are regularly sent to the Sofrin brigade.

Traditionally, the monastery hosts Christmas holidays for the children of the city on January 7 and 8, all children are given sweet gifts, and spiritual literature is given to adults. On the Feast of the Myrrh-Bearing Women, a concert is held for parishioners and guests of the monastery, organized by the children of the boarding house and the Sunday school.

Religious activities

But the most important thing that monasteries should do is a religious matter. What is religion? The word "religion" comes from the Latin "religare". Translated from Latin as “restoring communication.” That is, the restoration of that connection with God that Adam and Eve lost. And since God is Spirit, i.e. The essence is speculative, intelligible, then the connection with God is established in the invisible, spiritual realm. This connection is established primarily through prayer, and mental prayer. This is what monks should do first and foremost. In the Gospel, Christ says: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing.” These words are addressed to every follower of Christ. But since people living in the world are burdened with concerns about the improvement of earthly life, they solve issues of economics, agriculture, transport, medicine, education, etc., and we, monks, enjoy the fruits of these activities, then we must pray for the whole world . This matter can be viewed from two sides. Pray for

the whole world, i.e.
stand before God for the whole world. And the second is to pray for the whole world, as if instead of
the world. And the world external to the monasteries should not expect, much less demand, economic, social, state or other activities from monasticism. This activity can exist, but the monks’ attitude towards it should be like handicraft, so that the mind is under no circumstances completely immersed in it. By what criteria then can one evaluate the religious activity of monasticism? The answer is given to us by St. Myrrh-Streaming Nile: “If monks live with a pure disposition, then the world will become beautiful, i.e. becomes more moral. The pure disposition of a monk consists in completely renouncing the worldly, hectic life; The whirlwinds of worldly life are: much care, much care and treasure. The effect of these last three on the world is such that because of them the world darkens itself and does not see the grace of God. Thus, monastic life is definitely darkened by these three.”

After the fall of Western Christianity from Orthodoxy, from true worship of God, Catholic monasticism, along with three vows of non-covetousness, celibacy and cutting off one’s will, introduced another mandatory vow - service to the world. And now we see the result of this obligatory activity. The most base, immoral phenomena come precisely from the Western European environment and are actively attacking the consciousness of our compatriots. Therefore, the main work for the life of our Fatherland that monasteries can and should accomplish is a religious, spiritual, prayerful work.

26.07.2017