About the mental battle within us. Political and legal views of non-covetous people (Nil Sorsky, Vassian Patrikeev, Maxim G rek) Elder Nil Sorsky years of life

Follower of John Climacus

Nil Sorsky is a famous figure in the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Born around 1433, he belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Maykov. Before entering monasticism, Neil copied books and was a “cursive writer.” More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nile took monastic vows at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.

At this time, the Kirilov Monastery was already receiving special attention from the Moscow Grand Dukes and Tsars, was well established and quickly grew rich, which, in the opinion of young Neil, did not contribute to a lifestyle according to the law of God. This prompted him to leave the monastery.

“Wasn’t my departure from the monastery (Kirillov) for the sake of spiritual benefit? - Neil writes in one of his messages, - For her, for her sake, because I did not see in him the preservation of a way of life, according to the law of God and the tradition of our fathers, but according to my own will and human thought; There were also many who, acting so perversely, dreamed that they were still living a virtuous life.”

He decided to make a pilgrimage to Palestine.

It remains unknown how and in what way Nil Sorsky met and communicated with the followers of John Climacus, but throughout his subsequent life and activities he can be confidently attributed to the preachers of the Sinaite school.

Considering that during his pilgrimage to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Neil spent a particularly long time on Athos, it can be assumed that it was here that he became acquainted with the works of the Sinai. It is especially necessary to note Neil’s acquaintance with the works of John Climacus, with his “Ladder,” references to which are constantly present in his works.

It is known that already in the X-XI centuries. “The Ladder” was translated from Greek into Slavic in Bulgaria. In the XIV century. Another translation was made in Serbia, with the participation of Georgiy Brankovich and under the leadership of Metropolitan Savvaty. Both of these translations were known in ancient Rus'.

If we do not take into account the fact that the Ladder is a scholastic presentation of what was seen in revelation by John Climacus, then the treatise can be perceived as a process of struggle with one’s own passions and vices, a process of spiritual purification on the path of ascension along the Path of God. Moreover, the monk finds his main help in the constant thought of death. Naturally, at the same time, Lestivitsa does not provide a strict and accurate psychological analysis of a person’s gradual internal self-improvement and is perceived as separate descriptions of various phases of mental state, not always clearly demarcated. It can be assumed that this is where the followers of John Climacus developed the so-called “mystical” branch in theology, which, thanks to Nilus of Sora, also appeared in the theology of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Neil was deeply imbued with the idea of ​​direct conversation between man and God. Here are a few fragments from the main work of Nil Sorsky, “From the writings of the Holy Fathers on mental activity, heartfelt and mental preservation, why this is necessary, and how it should be taken care of this”: “...when (when) this ineffable thing happens joy and prayer are cut off from the lips, for then the mouth and the tongue, and the heart (which is) the guardian of thoughts (desires), and the mind, the pilot of feelings, and thought, the fast-flying and shameless bird, will cease... And the mind does not pray with prayer, but above prayer it happens... by spiritual action the soul will move towards the Divine, and will be formed like the Divine by an incomprehensible union, and will be illuminated by a ray (ray) of high light in its movements... I see the light, the world cannot have it, sitting in the middle of the cell on the bed ; within myself I see the Creator of the world, and I talk, and I love... and united to Him, I transcend the heavens... He loves me and He accepts me in Himself... alive in heaven, and in my heart, here and there... and behold, the Lord equally shows me to the angels and does better than them: below, because by those he is invisible in essence, by nature he is unapproachable; I see that everything is there, and my nature has mixed with its being” (that is, merged into one with me in this heavenly “dialogue”). As we note, in a true “conversation” with God, a person, according to the conviction of Nil Sorsky, is capable, from the point of view of the completeness of “union” with Him, to “surpass” (of course, according to the creative will of God) even the angels themselves...”

It is in this vein that Nil Sorsky perceives the phenomenon of “mental prayer” described by him (which, as he says, is “above prayer”) and in the final section (“Charter”) of his work insists that “mental prayer is above all in monastic activity, just as the love of God is the head of all virtues. And the one who shamelessly and boldly strives to come to God in order to converse with Him purely and to infuse Him into himself with compulsion...” At the same time, pointing out the most reliable “middle” path to “conversation” with God, referring to John Climacus.

“Medium: silently staying with one, going with two is much more reliable. For, he says, woe to one when he falls into despondency, or sleep, or laziness, or despair; no, who would raise him up and encourage him at that hour. To prove this, he cites the verb of the Lord himself: where there are two or three congregations in My name, I am in the midst of them. And the saying of the Wise One: the blessings of two are greater than one, that is, it is good for father and son, with the assistance of the Divine Spirit, to walk together the path of monastic feat...”

In this regard, the closeness of the works of Nil Sorsky to Dostoevsky, which made a very strong impression on him, is understandable.

This circumstance also influenced the further fate of Nil Sorsky, who in the theological dispute on the issue of mental prayer and the Light of Tabor, like all Sinaiites, took the position of hesychasm.

In the 14th century, on Mount Athos, and then throughout the Greek Church, a curious theological and philosophical dispute arose on the issue of “smart” prayer and the Light of Tabor between Barlaam of Calabria, Nicephorus Grigora, Akindinos, Patriarch John the Cripple, and others on the one hand, and others. Gregory of Sinaite, St. Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki (1297-1360), monk David, Theophan of Nikia, Nicholas Kavasila and Patriarchs Kalmit and Philotheus - on the other. The latter belonged to the defenders of the so-called “smart” doing - a special type of prayerful contemplation or so-called hesychasm. The opposing party considered such contemplation to be a non-Christian matter, called the hesychasts omphalopsyches (i.e., pupoums) and recognized the light on Tabor as a light created for the enlightenment of the apostles and which disappeared without a trace. She reasoned according to a syllogism: everything visible was created, the light on Tabor was visible, therefore it was created. The Hesychasts or “Palamites” saw in the Tabor Light a mysterious manifestation of Divine glory, the “Ever-Everlasting Light.” The struggle, in connection with changes on the imperial throne and attempts to unite churches, continued long and stubbornly (councils of 1341 (two), 1347, 1351 and 1352) and ended in the victory of the Gr. Palamas after his death. His teaching was recognized as truly Orthodox at the council of 1368, and he himself was canonized. Most of the documents and works of both sides have not yet been published: of the 60 works related here by St. Gregory Palamas, only one has been published - Θεοφάνης. Views on the struggle of the Varlaamites and Palamites are different: I.E. Troitsky, P.V. Bezobrazov, A.S. Lebedev consider it a struggle between the white clergy and the black, a struggle that appeared in the 13th century, in the so-called case. arsenites; O. I. Uspensky sees in it the struggle of the Aristotelians with the Neoplatonists and brings the hesychasts closer to the Bogomils; K. Radchenko finds here a struggle between Western rationalistic scholasticism and Eastern mysticism. Some things in the teachings of the hesychasts are similar to the teachings of the Western mystics Erigena and Eckart. Their teaching was included in the famous monastic collection “Philokalia.”

Considering this circumstance and the reasons for Neil’s departure from the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, it can be assumed that from his pilgrimage he returned (between 1473 and 1489) to another Kirillov monastery, where since the time of the founder himself there had been a mute protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. The rector of this monastery, the Venerable Kirill, himself more than once refused the villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laymen; the same views were adopted by his closest students, the “Trans-Volga elders.”

But even here Nile, as a follower of the Sinai, could not be content with the dominance of appearance that he encountered in Russian monasticism and in Russian piety in general. He moved fifteen miles from the monastery, to the Sora River, where he founded a monastery, built himself a chapel and a cell, and then, when several brethren “who were of his liking” came to him, he built a church. Thus, a monastic partnership was founded, but on completely different principles than all Russian monasteries.

He devotes himself to a closed, solitary life, being especially interested in book studies. He tries to justify all his actions on the direct instructions of “divine scripture”, as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to rewrite books, he subjects the copied material to more or less thorough criticism. He copies “from different lists, trying to find the right one,” and makes a compilation of the most correct one: comparing the lists and finding “many uncorrected things” in them, he tries to correct them “as far as his poor mind can.” If another passage seems “wrong” to him, but there is no reason to correct it, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “It’s not right from here in the lists,” or: “Where in another translation will be found a more famous (more correct) than this “Let it be honored there,” and sometimes leaves entire pages blank. In general, he only writes off what is “possible according to reason and truth...”. All these features, which sharply distinguish the nature of Nil Sorsky’s book studies and his very view of the “scriptures” from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not be in vain for him.

The coincidence of the views of Nil of Sorsky and the “Trans-Volga elders” becomes clear, since Nil, as it were, theoretically substantiated their positions from the theological side, becoming the first of the Russian clergy to bring the views of the Sinai to Russia, and the founder of the monastery life.

It can be assumed that it was precisely thanks to the example of his monastic service and the mentorship of Paisiy Yaroslavov that Nil Sorsky was recognized as the head of the Trans-Volga elders. Since these views are not welcomed by the official Orthodox Church, it becomes clear why the church still does not canonize St. Nilus of Sorsky.

Grouped around him, besides Paisius himself, were Vassian Patrikev, Elder Herman († 1533), Gury Tushin († 1526), ​​Cassian, bishop. Ryazan, Trinity abbot Porfiry and other elders of the Trans-Volga monasteries. Led by Nil Sorsky, the elders strove for moral improvement through a critical, conscious study of the Holy Scriptures.

It is no coincidence that Nile’s main work is the monastery charter, in 11 chapters, in which the influence of the “Ladder” of John Climacus is especially clearly visible. The general direction of N. Sorsky's thoughts is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than the majority of Russian monasticism of that time understood asceticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be physical, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-improvement. The soil of monastic exploits is not the flesh, but the thought and the heart. It is unnecessary to intentionally weaken or kill your body: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and must nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it down in mala”, forgiving of physical weaknesses, illness, and old age.

Neil does not sympathize with excessive fasting. He is an enemy of all appearance in general; he considers it unnecessary to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, or to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be free from all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, “found everywhere and conveniently purchased.” Rather than donate in church, it is better to give to the poor. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rational and conscious. A monk must go through it not due to compulsions and instructions, but “with consideration” and “do everything with reasoning.” The Nile demands from the monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in the feat. Sharply rebelling against “arbitraries” and “self-offenders,” he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (and equally of every person) must obey, according to Nile, only one authority - the “divine scriptures”. “Testing” the divine scriptures and studying them is the main duty of a monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, solely depends, in Neil’s opinion, “from the holy scriptures that do not tell us...”. The study of divine scriptures, however, must be combined with a critical attitude towards the total mass of written material: “there is a lot of scripture, but not all is divine.” This idea of ​​criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nile himself and all the “Trans-Volga elders” - and for the majority of literates of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any “book” at all was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the church fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to the interpretations that appeared later, finally, even various kinds of Greek “graduate laws”, i.e. decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Helmsman - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchanged, equally authoritative. Joseph of Volokolamsk, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned “graduate laws” “are similar to the prophetic and apostolic and holy ones. father of the scriptures,” and boldly called the collection of Nikon Chernogorets “divinely inspired scriptures.” It is understandable, therefore, that Joseph reproaches Nilus of Sorsky and his disciples that they “blasphemed the miracle workers in the Russian land,” as well as those “who in ancient times and in the local (foreign) lands were former miracle workers, who believed in miracles, and from the scriptures I have squandered their wonders."

Striving for the evangelical ideal, N. Sorsky - like the entire movement at the head of which he stood - does not hide his condemnation of the disorder that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From the general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, Nile’s energetic protest against monastic property directly followed. Neil considers all property, not just wealth, to be contrary to monastic vows. The monk is denied the world and everything “in it” - how can he then waste time worrying about worldly property, lands, and riches? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They must not “not exactly have no property, but neither desire to acquire it”... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a meeting of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible for a monk is reprehensible for the monastery. The noted features were apparently joined by Nile himself in religious tolerance, which appeared so sharply in the writings of his closest disciples.

Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called “Novgorod heretics” and about monastic estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the Russian hierarchs of that time, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph of Volotsky at their head.

In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering into the fight against heresy and reporting it to the Rostov archbishop, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky who lived in his diocese and to involve them in the fight. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady’s efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite what he wanted. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady either with Paisius or with Nile; The main fighter against heresy, Joseph of Volokolamsk, does not address them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to heresy: both of them were present at the council of 1490, which examined the case of heretics, and almost influenced the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs “stood strong” and unanimously declared that “everyone (all heretics) deserves to be burned” - and in the end the council limited itself to cursing two or three heretical priests, depriving them of their rank and sending them back to Gennady.

The most important fact in the life of Nil Sorsky was his protest against the landownership rights of monasteries at the 1503 council in Moscow. When the council was already nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirill-6elozersky elders, raised the issue of monastic estates, which at that time amounted to a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of demoralization of monasticism.

“In his opinion, in general, only that property was recognized as legitimate and pleasing to God, which was acquired by one’s own labor. The monks, condemning themselves to a pious life, were supposed to serve as an example of righteousness for the whole world; on the contrary, owning estates, they not only do not renounce the world, but become participants in all the untruths associated with the patrimonial government of that time. This is how the question of non-covetousness was posed. Ivan III liked this proposal, although for selfish reasons Ivan Vasilyevich extended the issue of owning real estate not only to monastery, but also to bishop’s property. The council, consisting of bishops and monks, naturally armed itself against this proposal with all its might and put forward a whole series of proofs of the legality and benefits of monastic power over estates, proofs compiled mainly by Joseph Volotsky. His work pointed out that monasteries, at their own expense, support the poor, wanderers, commemorate those who gave contributions, and therefore they need candles, bread and incense; the author gave examples from the Old Testament, from Byzantine laws, from conciliar definitions; recalled that the Russian princes, starting from the very first, gave contributions to monasteries, registered villages and, finally, provided the most convincing evidence that if there were no monasteries in villages, then noble and noble people should not be tonsured in them, and in this case there will be nowhere to get metropolitans and other bishops from in Rus'. The cathedral took over. Ivan could not do anything against his decision. From then on, Joseph became a notorious and irreconcilable enemy of the Nile.

The question of heretics was added to the question of monastic property. Nilus, in accordance with his complacency, was indignant at the cruel measures that Joseph preached against heretics, especially because the latter demanded execution of such heretics who brought repentance. Then, of course, with the knowledge of Nile, and perhaps even himself, a witty message was written on behalf of the Belozersk elders, denouncing Joseph.

Joseph burst out with an accusatory message against Nile, reproaching his followers for opinions contrary to Orthodoxy, that, while sympathizing with heretics, he calls them martyrs, does not honor and blaspheme the ancient Russian wonderworkers, does not believe in their miracles, teaches monks to shun community life, does not order them to take care of the splendor of churches and decorate icons with gold and silver. Thus, Joseph wanted to give a criminal meaning, calling them heresy, to the preference that Nile gave to internal piety over external...

Moreover, Nile gave rise to a negative interpretation of his actions by the fact that he was critical of the various lives of saints and threw out from them what he considered a later addition.”

A zealous fighter for the idea of ​​Nil Sorsky was his closest student, Prince Patrikeev, monk Vassian, former boyar Vasily Ivanovich, tonsured forcibly by Ivan Vasilyevich, nicknamed Kosy, grandson of the sister of Grand Duke Vasily Dimitrievich.

Nil Sorsky himself could see only the beginning of the struggle he had excited; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a “Testament”, asking his disciples to “throw his body in the desert, so that animals and birds may eat it, for he has sinned against God many times and is unworthy of burial.” The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor.

Despite the fact that Nil Sorsky is not formally canonized; Manuscripts occasionally contain traces of services to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. But throughout our ancient literature, only N. Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, retained the name of the “great old man.”

NILE SORSKY (in the world Niko-lay Mai-kov) - Russian right-of-glorious mover, spiritual writer, god-word, saint that one.

Information about the life of Nil Sorsky is extremely scarce, the main source is “The Tale of the Nil-Sorsky Ski-t,” preserved in the Rus-co-pi-si of the 17th century. He came from a family of Moscow clerks [his brother An-d-rei Fe-do-ro-vich May-ko (died 1502/1503) was the clerk of the great princes of the Moscow s-kov-skih Va-si-lia II Va-sil-e-vi-cha Dark-no-go and Ivan III Va-sil-e-vi-cha]. I got a good idea about my neck.

Mo-na-she-skiy received his haircut in mo-lo-do-sti in Ki-ril-lo-Be-lo-zer-sky mo-na-sty-re. After 1475, Nil Sorsky went to Kon-stan-ti-no-pol and Athos; perhaps, I visited Pa-le-sti-nu in the same way; in the Athos monasteries he studied the practice of “um-no-go de-la-niya” (see Isi-khazm). By 1489 he returned to Rus', 15 versts from the Kiril-lo-Be-lo-zer-skogo monastery, on the river. So-ra, the main monastery is in collaboration with the principles of the ancient monastery resident. The Sorsky monastery was dedicated in honor of the feast of the Holy Day. Cells in which mo-na-hi lived strictly one by one, stood at a short distance from each other. The foreigners went to work two times a week: from Saturday to Sunday and from Wednesday to Thursday ( if there was a two-year holiday, then the all-night vigil from Wednesday to Thursday was canceled). Most of my time was devoted to prayer, work, reading the Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers -in and; there were no common ceremonies in the monastery, because the establishment forbade mo-na-boorish long-stay outside the cell .

In 1490, Nil Sorsky taught in a church council that condemned the heresy of the “little Jews.” In order to fight the heresy, Nil Sorsky, in collaboration with Nil Po-le-v, created a para-radical list of brief re- Dak-tion “Books on here-ti-kov” (“Pro-sve-ti-te-la”) St. Yo-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go. Nil Sorsky re-re-pi-sal and from-re-dak-ti-ro-val the 3-volume “So-bor-nik” lives; checking different lists, he corrected mistakes, restored the la-ku-ns in the texts. In 1503, he participated in the church council, at which Ivan III Vasilyevich asked a question about se-ku-la-ri -for the churches and mo-na-styr lands. In agreement-but not-with-any-one, Nil Sorsky entered into a po-le-mi-ku with Jo-si-f Vol-lots-kim, who from the flock of the right to the mo-na-sty-ray to rule here-on-mi. The teaching and as-ce-tical practice of Nil Sorsky became the top ideology of non-sty-zha-te-lei.

The main works of Nil Sorsky are “Presentation of teaching by anyone” and the chapter “From the writings of the holy fathers on mental deeds. ..” (known as “Ustav”). “Pre-da-nie...” represents the mo-na-styr-sky ti-pi-con and contains the main. great life in ski-tu. In the chapters “About the mental de-la-nii...” the analysis of the eight sinful passions of man -ka and pre-la-ga-s-spo-s-of-their-overcoming, the main of which is purification by -we-words, i.e. “smart de-la-nie.” The pinnacle of this practice, according to the teachings of Neil Sorsky, is considered “smart prayer”, God’s community. The as-ke-tical views of Nil Sorsky are not ori-ginal-ny-mi, but-on-the-vis-on his co-chi-ne-niya with-sto- It is that it contains a synthesis of the holy father's teaching about the eight passions from the creation of the saint. Gregory of Si-nai-ta about “smart prayer”. Nil Sorsky also has 4 words about the spiritual life of mo-na-ha (one of them is ad-re-so-va-no Vas-sia -well Pat-ri-kee-woo). Above all the goodness, Nil Sorsky established humility. In his “Fore-word”, he asked the ski brethren to throw his body into a ditch or some other place without any honor. Nil Sorsky was buried in the main ski-tank next to the Church of the Presentation of the Lord.

Ka-no-ni-zi-ro-wan in the 1650s; Memorial day according to the calendar of the Russian Right-to-Glorious Church - May 7 (20).

Essays:

Pre-da-nie and Regulations. St. Petersburg, 1912;

Co-bor-nik of Ni-la Sor-sko-go / Comp. T. P. Len-ng-ren. M., 2000-2004. Parts 1-3;

Pre-similar Nil of Sor-sky, In-no-ken-tiy of Ko-mel-sky. Op. / Pre-ready G. M. Pro-khorov. St. Petersburg, 2005.

In 1502, the death of “Nilov’s brother”, Andrei, was reported, who was tonsured there with the name Arseny. Andrey Fedorovich Maiko is a well-known personality. This is one of the prominent clerks under the governments of Vasily II and Ivan III. His name is often found in documents of those years. Andrei Mayko became the founder of the noble family of the Maykovs. Thus, Nikolai Maikov was an educated city dweller and belonged to the service class.

Nil Sorsky was tonsured in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under Abbot Cassian, a tonsure monk at the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. The time of his tonsure can be considered the mid-50s.

Apparently, Nil occupied a prominent position in the monastery. A number of monastic documents from 1460 to 1475 mention the name of Nil among the monastic elders who resolved economic issues. Perhaps another monastic obedience of the future saint was copying books. In any case, his handwriting can be discerned in a number of manuscripts from the library of the Kirillov Monastery.

Approximately between 1475-1485, the Monk Nil, together with his disciple Innocent Okhlyabin, made a long pilgrimage to Palestine, Constantinople and Mount Athos. Nil Sorsky spent a long time on Athos, where he became thoroughly acquainted with the monastery structure.

After returning to Russia on the Sora River, a short distance from the Kirillov Monastery, Nil founded a monastery (later the Nilo-Sora Hermitage). The structure of the monastery was based on the traditions of monastery residence in the ancient monasteries of Egypt, Athos and Palestine. Those who wished to asceticize in the monastery of St. Neil were required to have knowledge of the Scriptures and the determination to follow them. “If it is the will of God that they come to us, then it is fitting for them to know the traditions of the saints, to keep the commandments of God and to fulfill the traditions of the holy fathers.” Therefore, only literate monks who passed the test in cenobitic monasteries were accepted into the monastery.

Literary activity

Asceticizing in silence with the little brethren, the monk, however, did not abandon his book studies, to which he attached great importance. Judging by the number of citations, the greatest influence on Neil was made by Gregory of Sinai and Simeon the New Theologian, John Climacus, Isaac the Syrian, John Cassian the Roman, Neil of Sinai, Basil the Great.

His main work should be called consisting of 11 chapters. The “Charter” is preceded by a short preface:

“The meaning of these scriptures covers the following: what is appropriate to do for a monk who wants to be truly saved in these times, what is appropriate to do both mentally and sensually according to the Divine Scriptures and according to the lives of the holy fathers, as far as possible.”

Thus, the “Charter” of St. Neil is not a regulation of monastic life, but an ascetic instruction in spiritual struggle. The monk pays great attention to “mental” or “heartfelt” prayer, citing Gregory of Sinaite and Simeon the New Theologian. There is no doubt that Nil Sorsky belongs to the mystical-contemplative direction in Orthodox monasticism, the revival of which is associated with the name of St. Gregory the Sinaite. M. S. Borovkova-Maikova wrote about the connection between St. Nile and hesychasm, as the monastic charismatic movement of the 14th-15th centuries is broadly called. Of the modern authors, G. M. Prokhorov and E. V. Romanenko paid attention to this aspect.

Devotion to students pays more attention to the organization of monastic life, attitude towards property, and relationships with people coming from the world. It speaks of moderation in fasting, which should correspond to “strength of body and soul.” At the beginning of the “Tradition”, the confession of faith of Nile of Sora is given.

In addition, a number of his messages are known: to Gury Tushin, German Podolny, Vassian Patrikeev, “the brother who came from the eastern side,” as well as two prayers.

Another side of the literary activity of the Monk Neil was his activity as a copyist and compiler of hagiographic collections. His phrases from his letters to Gury Tushin and German Podolny speak eloquently about the reverend’s method of working with the text. In a message to Tushin, he writes: “If I don’t find something that agrees with my ideas about starting a business, I’ll put it off until I find it; When I find it, by the grace of God, I do it with good confidence as approved. I don’t dare do it on my own, because I am an ignoramus and a peasant.” “When it happens to me to do something, if I don’t find it in the Holy Scriptures, I put it off for a while until I find it,” he writes in a message to Herman Podolny. Comparing the lists, he finds “much uncorrected” in them, and tries to correct “as much as his poor mind can.” Therefore, he copies “from different lists, trying to find the right one.” If this fails, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “It is not right from here in the lists,” or: “If something better known (more correct) than this is found in another translation, let it be read there.”

It would be wrong to assume that the ascetic considers his understanding to be the criterion of the truth of the Scriptures and calls for their rational understanding and coordination with the arguments of reason. An analysis of his hagiographic collections, a comparison with the Great Menaions of Metropolitan Macarius published half a century later, led researchers (N.V. Pokrovsky, Ya.S. Lurie) to the conclusion that it was not the content of the lives that was edited, but only the text. The edits concerned grammar, syntax (in particular, the monk removed tracing papers from Greek), and style. Added edits to clarify the meaning, corrected incorrect use of words. Thus, the text became more understandable and readable.

It should be noted that the works of St. Neil were highly respected in the monastery of St. Joseph. Two monks of the Joseph Monastery, Nil Polev and Dionysius of Zvenigorod, lived in the Cyril Monastery for a long time (until 1512) and made copies of the Nil collections for their monastery. However, starting from the 30s, the writings of the Nile in the Volokolamsk monastery began to be rewritten without attribution.

Hesychasm and non-covetousness

Nil Sorsky in his Message to Gurin Tushin wrote that the “flowers of virtues” bloom from “silence” (Greek hesychia) and dry up from conversations. The feat consists of “cutting off thoughts” and “retreating from the world.” Nil Sorsky reminded his novices of the need for physical work, “for our livelihood and needs must be provided by our own labors.” He recalled the words of the Apostle Paul about the need for work (2 Thess.). He urged not to abuse alms. He recognized “acquisitiveness” as “deadly poison.” If you happen to hire workers, then “it is not appropriate to deprive them of proper pay.” Nilus of Sorsky criticized the desire to decorate the church (“gold and silver vessels, even sacred ones, are not proper to have”), since this could lead to “admiration for the work of human hands” and “pride” in the “beauty of buildings”

On the attitude to the Holy Scriptures and church tradition

The idea of ​​rational fulfillment of the Holy Scriptures is one of the main themes of the messages of the Monk Neil. He speaks about this especially often in his message to German Podolny. In particular, he writes: “To obey God according to the Divine Scriptures, and not as senselessly as some: and when in a monastery with brothers, as if in obedience, they graze senselessly in self-will, and they also carry out hermitage unreasonably, driven by the carnal will and an unreflective mind , not understanding either what they are doing or what they are claiming.” In “self-will,” that is, not according to God’s will, not according to His Scriptures, but in imaginary obedience according to human ideas and without understanding.

Demanding reasonable completion of the monastic feat, the Monk Neil insists on legibility in reading the scriptures. “There are many scriptures, but not all of them are divine,” he writes to Gury Tushin. However, to understand these words as a critical attitude towards patristic tradition would be incorrect. In the “Tradition” of St. Neil, his confession of faith is given, which, among other things, says: “I resort with all my soul to the holy catholic apostolic Church, and all the teachings that she received from the Lord and from the holy apostles, and the holy fathers of the Ecumenical Councils and local , and other holy fathers of the Holy Church and, having accepted, conveyed to us about the Orthodox faith and practical covenants...” It is unlikely that these are stock phrases that the saint retells to his disciples for some reason. And his very activity (as we discussed above) indicates Nile’s respectful attitude towards church tradition. In this case, we may be talking about doubts about any non-canonical books “according to human traditions,” or simply about faulty lists. (Compare: according to the Bulgarian reformer of the Church Slavonic language of the 14th century, Konstantin Kostenchensky, when the word and essence diverge, heresies and distortions are possible.)

The attitude of Nil Sorsky to the heresy of the Judaizers

There is no unanimity among historians regarding the attitude of Nil Sorsky to the heresy of the Judaizers. Assumptions about the similarity of the ideas of Nil Sorsky with the ideas of the “Judaizers” were previously expressed by a number of researchers, including F. von Lilienfeld, D. Fenel, A. A. Zimin, A. I. Klibanov. To one degree or another, his views bring him closer to the heretics A. S. Arkhangelsky and G. M. Prokhorov. Doubts are raised by his criticism of the scriptures, suspicion of rejection of church tradition, his non-covetous beliefs, and tolerance of repentant heretics. Ya. S. Lurie insists on his unconditional Orthodoxy. The famous church historian, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), and Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, do not doubt his Orthodoxy.

The confession of the Monk Neil does not allow one to doubt the Orthodoxy of the Sorsky elder. It is noteworthy that the text of the confession reflects provisions that are unacceptable for Judaizers. Nil Sorsky affirms the confession of “one God glorified in the Trinity,” the Incarnation, faith in the Mother of God, veneration of the “holy fathers of the Holy Church,” the fathers of the Ecumenical and local councils. The Monk Neil ends his confession with the words: “I curse the false teachers, heretical teachings and traditions - I and those who are with me. And heretics will all be alien to us.” It is quite appropriate to assume that this confession, included in the “Tradition to the Disciples,” is precisely intended to warn them from heretical vacillations.

Of greater interest is not Nile’s attitude towards heretical ideas; there is nothing particularly to doubt here, but his attitude towards heretics themselves and heresy as a phenomenon (A.S. Arkhangelsky, for example, speaks of Nile’s religious tolerance).

It is known that, together with his elder Paisius Yaroslavov, he took part in the council against the Novgorod heretics in 1490. In the IV Novgorod Chronicle, the names of authoritative elders are mentioned on a par with bishops. There is a strong assumption that the relatively lenient conciliar verdict was adopted under the influence of the Cyril elders. However, we have no information as to how much their opinion influenced the decisions of the council. Earlier, in 1489, one of the main fighters against heresy, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in a letter to Archbishop Joseph of Rostov, asked for the opportunity to consult with the elders Nil and Paisius on issues of heresy. However, this meager information cannot clarify the picture: absolutely nothing follows from it.

An indirect indication of the position of the monk can be the well-known attitude of the Trans-Volga monks towards repentant heretics, expressed by one of the disciples of the monk Vassian Patrikeev. After Nile’s death, in a number of “words” he spoke out against the punitive measures of St. Joseph, urging him not to be afraid of theological disputes with heretics. Repentant heretics, according to Vassian, should be forgiven. Not executions and cruel punishments, but repentance should cure heresy. At the same time, Vassian refers to the holy fathers, in particular, John Chrysostom.

E. V. Romanenko drew attention to the selection of lives in the collection of Nil Sorsky. This selection testifies to the reverend’s interest in the history of the Church, specifically in the history of heresies. The Life of Euthymius the Great tells how the saint resisted "liquid" Nestorius. Here the heresies of the Manichaeans, Origen, Arian, Sabellian, and Monophysites are exposed. An idea of ​​these teachings is given. Examples from the lives of Euthymius the Great and Theodosius the Great show the firmness in the confession of the faith of the saints and testify to the behavior of the saints during times of unrest. Romanenko believes that such a selection of hagiographic literature is associated with the struggle against the Judaizers, who, as is known, denied the Incarnation and the Divine nature of Christ. Draws attention to the lives of saints - fighters against iconoclasm: Theodore the Studite, John of Damascus, Joannicius the Great.

As we see, Nil Sorsky was by no means a supporter of the destruction of the monastic community and the complete deprivation of the monastic brethren of common property. But in monastic life, he called for adhering to “consumer minimalism”, being content with only what is necessary for food and basic life.

Speaking about decorating churches as something unnecessary, the monk quotes John Chrysostom: “No one has ever been condemned for not decorating a church.”

G. M. Prokhorov drew attention to the notes made by the hand of the Monk Neil in the margins of the lives he copied. They refer to texts that speak of stinginess, cruelty, unholy love, and love of money. “Look, unmerciful ones,” it is written in the hand of the monk, “This is very scary.” The monk is primarily concerned with issues related to the unworthy behavior of monks. He singles out examples of non-acquisitiveness and avoidance of worldly glory as worthy of imitation. The marks “zri” also refer to examples of non-acquisitiveness, avoidance of worldly glory (The Life of Hilarion the Great, who retired to Egypt among the pagans). The emphasis of Nile's non-acquisitiveness is transferred to the area of ​​personal morality, becoming the subject and means of monastic activity.

Warning Gury Tushin against conversations “about the profit of monastic wealth and the acquisition of property by those who care,” he also warns against polemics with them: “It is not proper to jump on such people with a word, nor to vilify them, nor to reproach them, but this must be left to God.” The main task of a monk is prayer and inner work. But if one of the brothers asks the appropriate question, then you must give your soul to him. “Conversations with other kinds of people, even small ones, dry up the flowers of virtues.”

The death of St. Neil and the question of his veneration

see also

Editions

• Nil Sorsky, Rev. About the eight main passions and victory over them. M.: 1997.
• Nil Sorsky, Instruction on the soul and passions. St. Petersburg: “Troyanov’s Path”; 2007.
• Nil Sorsky. The Authentic Writings. Translated, edited, and introduced by David M. Goldfrank. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications. 2008 (Cistercian Studies Series, 221).

Write a review about the article "Nil Sorsky"

Links

Notes

Literature

• /
• Venerable Joseph of Volotsky and Nil of Sorsky / Comp. Hieromonk German (Chekunov). - M.: Russian Publishing Center, Joseph-Volotsky Stavropegic Monastery, 2011. 320 pp., ill., 6000 copies, ISBN 978-5-4249-0003-7
• Venerable Nil of Sorsky and Innocent of Komelsky. Works / Ed. Prep. G. M. Prokhorov. - St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2005.
• Arkhangelsky A. S. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, their literary works and ideas in Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1882.
• Borovkova-Maikova M. S.// History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes/AS USSR. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941-1956. - T. II. - Part 1
• Kirsanova O. T.“Mental doing” is the path to perfection. Neil Sorsky//Russian thinkers. - Rostov-n/D: “Phoenix”, 2003. - P.68-80.
• The direction of Nil Sorsky in the ideological struggle of the late 15th century. // Lurie Y. S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. M.-L., 1960.
• Lurie Ya. S.. - P.182-213.
• Lurie Y. S. // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. - T. XV. - M.-L., 1958. - P.131-152.
• Lenngren, T. P. Collector of Nil Sorsky. Part 1-2. - M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000-2002.
• Lenngren, T. P. Collector of Nil Sorsky. Word index. T. 1-2. A-N, O-Z. - M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 2005.
• Pliguzov, A. I. Polemics in the Russian Church in the first third of the 16th century. - M.: 2002.
• Prokhorov G. M.// Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Vol. 2. Second half of the XIV-XVI centuries. Part 2. L-Y. - M.: “Science”, 1989.
• Prokhorov G. M.
• Romanenko E. V.- M.: Monuments of historical thought, 2003.
• Romanenko E. V. Ancient Life of St. Nil of Sorsky // Bulletin of Church History. - 2009. - No. 3-4(15-16). - pp. 93-106.
• Shevchenko E. E.//Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. - 2004. - No. 1 (15). - P. 95-101.
• Sinitsyna N.V.. - M.: “Science”. 2002 p. 116-149.

Excerpt characterizing Nil Sorsky

Prince Vasily did not think about his plans. He even less thought of doing evil to people in order to gain benefit. He was only a secular man who had succeeded in the world and made a habit out of this success. He constantly, depending on the circumstances, depending on his rapprochement with people, drew up various plans and considerations, of which he himself was not well aware, but which constituted the entire interest of his life. Not one or two such plans and considerations were in his mind, but dozens, of which some were just beginning to appear to him, others were achieved, and others were destroyed. He did not say to himself, for example: “This man is now in power, I must gain his trust and friendship and through him arrange for the issuance of a one-time allowance,” or he did not say to himself: “Pierre is rich, I must lure him to marry his daughter and borrow the 40 thousand I need”; but a man in strength met him, and at that very moment instinct told him that this man could be useful, and Prince Vasily became close to him and at the first opportunity, without preparation, by instinct, flattered, became familiar, talked about what what was needed.
Pierre was under his arm in Moscow, and Prince Vasily arranged for him to be appointed a chamber cadet, which was then equivalent to the rank of state councilor, and insisted that the young man go with him to St. Petersburg and stay in his house. As if absent-mindedly and at the same time with an undoubted confidence that this should be so, Prince Vasily did everything that was necessary in order to marry Pierre to his daughter. If Prince Vasily had thought about his plans ahead, he could not have had such naturalness in his manners and such simplicity and familiarity in his relations with all the people placed above and below himself. Something constantly attracted him to people stronger or richer than himself, and he was gifted with the rare art of catching exactly the moment when it was necessary and possible to take advantage of people.
Pierre, having unexpectedly become a rich man and Count Bezukhy, after recent loneliness and carelessness, felt so surrounded and busy that he could only be left alone with himself in bed. He had to sign papers, deal with government offices, the meaning of which he had no clear idea of, ask the chief manager about something, go to an estate near Moscow and receive many people who previously did not want to know about his existence, but now would offended and upset if he didn’t want to see them. All these various persons - businessmen, relatives, acquaintances - were all equally well disposed towards the young heir; all of them, obviously and undoubtedly, were convinced of the high merits of Pierre. He constantly heard the words: “With your extraordinary kindness,” or “with your wonderful heart,” or “you yourself are so pure, Count...” or “if only he were as smart as you,” etc., so he He sincerely began to believe in his extraordinary kindness and his extraordinary mind, especially since it always seemed to him, deep down in his soul, that he was really very kind and very smart. Even people who had previously been angry and obviously hostile became tender and loving towards him. Such an angry eldest of the princesses, with a long waist, with hair smoothed like a doll’s, came to Pierre’s room after the funeral. Lowering her eyes and constantly flushing, she told him that she was very sorry for the misunderstandings that had happened between them and that now she felt she had no right to ask for anything, except permission, after the blow that had befallen her, to stay for a few weeks in the house that she loved so much and where made so many sacrifices. She couldn't help but cry at these words. Touched that this statue-like princess could change so much, Pierre took her hand and asked for an apology, without knowing why. From that day on, the princess began to knit a striped scarf for Pierre and completely changed towards him.
– Do it for her, mon cher; “All the same, she suffered a lot from the dead man,” Prince Vasily told him, letting him sign some kind of paper in favor of the princess.
Prince Vasily decided that this bone, a bill of 30 thousand, had to be thrown to the poor princess so that it would not occur to her to talk about Prince Vasily’s participation in the mosaic portfolio business. Pierre signed the bill, and from then on the princess became even kinder. The younger sisters also became affectionate towards him, especially the youngest, pretty, with a mole, often embarrassed Pierre with her smiles and embarrassment at the sight of him.
It seemed so natural to Pierre that everyone loved him, it would seem so unnatural if someone did not love him, that he could not help but believe in the sincerity of the people around him. Moreover, he did not have time to ask himself about the sincerity or insincerity of these people. He constantly had no time, he constantly felt in a state of meek and cheerful intoxication. He felt like the center of some important general movement; felt that something was constantly expected of him; that if he didn’t do this, he would upset many and deprive them of what they expected, but if he did this and that, everything would be fine - and he did what was required of him, but something good remained ahead.
More than anyone else at this first time, Prince Vasily took possession of both Pierre’s affairs and himself. Since the death of Count Bezukhy, he has not let Pierre out of his hands. Prince Vasily had the appearance of a man weighed down by affairs, tired, exhausted, but out of compassion, unable to finally abandon this helpless young man, the son of his friend, to the mercy of fate and the swindlers, apres tout, [in the end,] and with such a huge fortune. In those few days that he stayed in Moscow after the death of Count Bezukhy, he called Pierre to himself or came to him himself and prescribed to him what needed to be done, in such a tone of fatigue and confidence, as if he was saying every time:
“Vous savez, que je suis accable d"affaires et que ce n"est que par pure charite, que je m"occupe de vous, et puis vous savez bien, que ce que je vous propose est la seule chose faisable." [ You know, I am swamped with business; but it would be merciless to leave you like this; of course, what I am telling you is the only possible one.]
“Well, my friend, tomorrow we’re going, finally,” he told him one day, closing his eyes, moving his fingers on his elbow and in such a tone, as if what he was saying had been decided a long time ago between them and could not be decided otherwise.
“We’re going tomorrow, I’ll give you a place in my stroller.” I am very happy. Everything important is over here. I should have needed it a long time ago. This is what I received from the chancellor. I asked him about you, and you were enlisted in the diplomatic corps and made a chamber cadet. Now the diplomatic path is open to you.
Despite the strength of the tone of fatigue and the confidence with which these words were spoken, Pierre, who had been thinking about his career for so long, wanted to object. But Prince Vasily interrupted him in that cooing, bassy tone that excluded the possibility of interrupting his speech and which he used when extreme persuasion was necessary.
- Mais, mon cher, [But, my dear,] I did it for myself, for my conscience, and there is nothing to thank me for. No one ever complained that he was too loved; and then, you are free, even if you quit tomorrow. You will see everything for yourself in St. Petersburg. And it’s high time for you to move away from these terrible memories. – Prince Vasily sighed. - Yes, yes, my soul. And let my valet ride in your carriage. Oh yes, I forgot,” Prince Vasily added, “you know, mon cher, that we had scores to settle with the deceased, so I received it from Ryazan and will leave it: you don’t need it.” We will settle with you.
What Prince Vasily called from “Ryazan” were several thousand quitrents, which Prince Vasily kept for himself.
In St. Petersburg, as in Moscow, an atmosphere of gentle, loving people surrounded Pierre. He could not refuse the place or, rather, the title (because he did nothing) that Prince Vasily brought him, and there were so many acquaintances, calls and social activities that Pierre, even more than in Moscow, experienced a feeling of fog and haste and everything that is coming, but some good is not happening.
Many of his former bachelor society were not in St. Petersburg. The guard went on a campaign. Dolokhov was demoted, Anatole was in the army, in the provinces, Prince Andrei was abroad, and therefore Pierre was not able to spend his nights as he had previously liked to spend them, or to occasionally unwind in a friendly conversation with an older, respected friend. All his time was spent at dinners, balls and mainly with Prince Vasily - in the company of the fat princess, his wife, and the beautiful Helen.
Anna Pavlovna Scherer, like others, showed Pierre the change that had occurred in the public view of him.
Previously, Pierre, in the presence of Anna Pavlovna, constantly felt that what he was saying was indecent, tactless, and not what was needed; that his speeches, which seem smart to him while he prepares them in his imagination, become stupid as soon as he speaks loudly, and that, on the contrary, the stupidest speeches of Hippolytus come out smart and sweet. Now everything he said came out charmant. If even Anna Pavlovna did not say this, then he saw that she wanted to say it, and she only, in respect of his modesty, refrained from doing so.
At the beginning of the winter from 1805 to 1806, Pierre received from Anna Pavlovna the usual pink note with an invitation, which added: “Vous trouverez chez moi la belle Helene, qu"on ne se lasse jamais de voir.” [I will have a beautiful Helene , which you will never get tired of admiring.]
Reading this passage, Pierre felt for the first time that some kind of connection had formed between him and Helene, recognized by other people, and this thought at the same time frightened him, as if an obligation was being imposed on him that he could not keep. and together he liked it as a funny suggestion.
Anna Pavlovna's evening was the same as the first, only the novelty that Anna Pavlovna treated her guests to was now not Mortemart, but a diplomat who had arrived from Berlin and brought the latest details about the stay of Emperor Alexander in Potsdam and how the two highest each other swore there in an indissoluble alliance to defend the just cause against the enemy of the human race. Pierre was received by Anna Pavlovna with a tinge of sadness, which obviously related to the fresh loss that befell the young man, to the death of Count Bezukhy (everyone constantly considered it their duty to assure Pierre that he was very upset by the death of his father, whom he hardly knew) - and sadness exactly the same as the highest sadness that was expressed at the mention of the august Empress Maria Feodorovna. Pierre felt flattered by this. Anna Pavlovna, with her usual skill, arranged circles in her living room. The large circle, where Prince Vasily and the generals were, used a diplomat. Another mug was at the tea table. Pierre wanted to join the first, but Anna Pavlovna, who was in the irritated state of a commander on the battlefield, when thousands of new brilliant thoughts come that you barely have time to put into execution, Anna Pavlovna, seeing Pierre, touched his sleeve with her finger.
- Attendez, j "ai des vues sur vous pour ce soir. [I have plans for you this evening.] She looked at Helene and smiled at her. - Ma bonne Helene, il faut, que vous soyez charitable pour ma pauvre tante , qui a une adoration pour vous. Allez lui tenir compagnie pour 10 minutes. [My dear Helen, I need you to be compassionate towards my poor aunt, who has adoration for you. Stay with her for 10 minutes.] And so that you are not very it was boring, here’s a dear count who won’t refuse to follow you.
The beauty went to her aunt, but Anna Pavlovna still kept Pierre close to her, appearing as if she had one last necessary order to make.
– Isn’t she amazing? - she said to Pierre, pointing to the majestic beauty sailing away. - Et quelle tenue! [And how she holds herself!] For such a young girl and such tact, such a masterful ability to hold herself! It comes from the heart! Happy will be the one whose it will be! With her, the most unsecular husband will involuntarily occupy the most brilliant place in the world. Is not it? I just wanted to know your opinion,” and Anna Pavlovna released Pierre.
Pierre sincerely answered Anna Pavlovna in the affirmative to her question about Helen’s art of holding herself. If he ever thought about Helen, he thought specifically about her beauty and about her unusual calm ability to be silently worthy in the world.
Auntie accepted two young people into her corner, but it seemed that she wanted to hide her adoration for Helen and wanted to more express her fear of Anna Pavlovna. She looked at her niece, as if asking what she should do with these people. Moving away from them, Anna Pavlovna again touched Pierre’s sleeve with her finger and said:
- J"espere, que vous ne direz plus qu"on s"ennuie chez moi, [I hope you won’t say another time that I’m bored] - and looked at Helen.
Helen smiled with an expression that said that she did not admit the possibility that anyone could see her and not be admired. Auntie cleared her throat, swallowed her drool and said in French that she was very glad to see Helen; then she turned to Pierre with the same greeting and with the same mien. In the middle of a boring and stumbling conversation, Helen looked back at Pierre and smiled at him with that clear, beautiful smile with which she smiled at everyone. Pierre was so used to this smile, it expressed so little for him that he did not pay any attention to it. Auntie was talking at this time about the collection of snuff boxes that Pierre’s late father, Count Bezukhy, had, and showed her snuff box. Princess Helen asked to see the portrait of her aunt's husband, which was made on this snuff box.
“This was probably done by Vines,” said Pierre, naming the famous miniaturist, bending over to the table to pick up a snuffbox, and listening to the conversation at another table.
He stood up, wanting to go around, but the aunt handed the snuff box right across Helen, behind her. Helen leaned forward to make room and looked back, smiling. She was, as always at evenings, in a dress that was very open in front and back, according to the fashion of that time. Her bust, which always seemed marble to Pierre, was at such a close distance from his eyes that with his myopic eyes he involuntarily discerned the living beauty of her shoulders and neck, and so close to his lips that he had to bend down a little to touch her. He heard the warmth of her body, the smell of perfume and the creak of her corset as she moved. He did not see her marble beauty, which was one with her dress, he saw and felt all the charm of her body, which was covered only by clothes. And, once he saw this, he could not see otherwise, just as we cannot return to a deception once explained.
“So you haven’t noticed how beautiful I am until now? – Helen seemed to say. “Have you noticed that I’m a woman?” Yes, I am a woman who can belong to anyone and you too,” said her look. And at that very moment Pierre felt that Helen not only could, but had to be his wife, that it could not be otherwise.
He knew it at that moment as surely as he would have known it standing under the aisle with her. As it will be? and when? he did not know; he didn’t even know whether it would be good (he even felt that it was not good for some reason), but he knew that it would be.
Pierre lowered his eyes, raised them again and again wanted to see her as such a distant, alien beauty as he had seen her every day before; but he could no longer do this. He could not, just as a person who had previously looked in the fog at a blade of weeds and saw a tree in it, cannot, after seeing the blade of grass, again see a tree in it. She was terribly close to him. She already had power over him. And between him and her there were no longer any barriers, except for the barriers of his own will.
- Bon, je vous laisse dans votre petit coin. Je vois, que vous y etes tres bien, [Okay, I'll leave you in your corner. I see you feel good there,” said Anna Pavlovna’s voice.
And Pierre, with fear remembering whether he had done something reprehensible, blushing, looked around him. It seemed to him that everyone knew, just like him, about what happened to him.
After a while, when he approached the large circle, Anna Pavlovna said to him:
– On dit que vous embellissez votre maison de Petersbourg. [They say you are decorating your St. Petersburg house.]
(It was true: the architect said that he needed it, and Pierre, without knowing why, was decorating his huge house in St. Petersburg.)
“C"est bien, mais ne demenagez pas de chez le prince Vasile. Il est bon d"avoir un ami comme le prince,” she said, smiling at Prince Vasily. - J"en sais quelque chose. N"est ce pas? [That's good, but don't move away from Prince Vasily. It's good to have such a friend. I know something about this. Isn't that right?] And you are still so young. You need advice. Don't be angry with me for taking advantage of old women's rights. “She fell silent, as women always remain silent, expecting something after they say about their years. – If you get married, then it’s a different matter. – And she combined them into one look. Pierre did not look at Helen, and she did not look at him. But she was still terribly close to him. He mumbled something and blushed.
Returning home, Pierre could not fall asleep for a long time, thinking about what happened to him. What happened to him? Nothing. He just realized that the woman he knew as a child, about whom he absentmindedly said: “Yes, she’s good,” when they told him that Helen was beautiful, he realized that this woman could belong to him.
“But she’s stupid, I said myself that she’s stupid,” he thought. “There is something nasty in the feeling that she aroused in me, something forbidden.” They told me that her brother Anatole was in love with her, and she was in love with him, that there was a whole story, and that Anatole was sent away from this. Her brother is Hippolytus... Her father is Prince Vasily... This is not good,” he thought; and at the same time as he reasoned like this (these reasonings still remained unfinished), he found himself smiling and realized that another series of reasoning was emerging from behind the first, that at the same time he was thinking about her insignificance and dreaming about how she will be his wife, how she can love him, how she can be completely different, and how everything that he thought and heard about her may not be true. And again he saw her not as some daughter of Prince Vasily, but saw her whole body, only covered with a gray dress. “But no, why didn’t this thought occur to me before?” And again he told himself that this was impossible; that something disgusting, unnatural, as it seemed to him, would be dishonest in this marriage. He remembered her previous words, looks, and the words and looks of those who saw them together. He remembered the words and looks of Anna Pavlovna when she told him about the house, he remembered thousands of such hints from Prince Vasily and others, and horror came over him, whether he had already tied himself in some way in carrying out such a task, which was obviously not good and which he should not do. But at the same time, as he expressed this decision to himself, from the other side of his soul her image emerged with all its feminine beauty.

In November 1805, Prince Vasily was supposed to go to an audit in four provinces. He arranged this appointment for himself in order to visit his ruined estates at the same time, and taking with him (at the location of his regiment) his son Anatoly, he and him would go to Prince Nikolai Andreevich Bolkonsky in order to marry his son to the daughter of this rich man old man. But before leaving and these new affairs, Prince Vasily needed to resolve matters with Pierre, who, however, had recently been spending whole days at home, that is, with Prince Vasily, with whom he lived, he was funny, excited and stupid (as he should to be in love) in the presence of Helen, but still did not propose.
“Tout ca est bel et bon, mais il faut que ca finisse,” [All this is good, but we must end it] - Prince Vasily said to himself one morning with a sigh of sadness, realizing that Pierre, who owed him so much (well, yes Christ be with him!), is not doing very well in this matter. “Youth... frivolity... well, God bless him,” thought Prince Vasily, feeling his kindness with pleasure: “mais il faut, que ca finisse.” After Lelya’s name day tomorrow, I will call someone, and if he does not understand what he must do, then it will be my business. Yes, it's my business. I am the father!
Pierre, a month and a half after Anna Pavlovna's evening and the sleepless, excited night that followed, in which he decided that marrying Helen would be a misfortune, and that he needed to avoid her and leave, Pierre, after this decision, did not move from Prince Vasily and was horrified felt that every day he was more and more connected with her in the eyes of people, that he could not in any way return to his previous view of her, that he could not tear himself away from her, that it would be terrible, but that he would have to connect with her destiny. Perhaps he could have abstained, but not a day passed when Prince Vasily (who rarely had a reception) did not have an evening at which Pierre should have been, if he did not want to upset the general pleasure and deceive everyone’s expectations. Prince Vasily, in those rare moments when he was at home, passing by Pierre, pulled him down by the hand, absentmindedly offered him a shaved, wrinkled cheek for a kiss and said either “see you tomorrow” or “by dinner, otherwise I won’t see you.” , or “I’m staying for you,” etc. But despite the fact that when Prince Vasily stayed for Pierre (as he said), he did not say two words to him, Pierre did not feel able to deceive his expectations . Every day he kept telling himself the same thing: “We must finally understand her and give ourselves an account: who is she? Have I been wrong before or am I wrong now? No, she's not stupid; no, she's a wonderful girl! - he said to himself sometimes. “She’s never wrong about anything, she’s never said anything stupid.” She doesn't say much, but what she says is always simple and clear. So she's not stupid. She has never been embarrassed and is not embarrassed. So she’s not a bad woman!” Often he happened to start reasoning with her, thinking out loud, and every time she answered him with either a short, but appropriately spoken remark, showing that she was not interested in this, or with a silent smile and glance, which most palpably showed Pierre her superiority. She was right in recognizing all reasoning as nonsense compared to that smile.
She always turned to him with a joyful, trusting smile that was directed towards him alone, in which there was something more significant than what was in the general smile that always adorned her face. Pierre knew that everyone was only waiting for him to finally say one word, to step over a certain line, and he knew that sooner or later he would step over it; but some kind of incomprehensible horror seized him at the mere thought of this terrible step. A thousand times during this month and a half, during which he felt himself drawn further and further into that abyss that frightened him, Pierre said to himself: “What is this? It takes determination! Don’t I have it?”
He wanted to make up his mind, but he felt with horror that in this case he did not have the determination that he knew in himself and that really was in him. Pierre was one of those people who are strong only when they feel completely pure. And from the day he was possessed by that feeling of desire that he experienced over Anna Pavlovna’s snuffbox, an unconscious feeling of guilt in this desire paralyzed his determination.

© Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, composition, design, 2014

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet or corporate networks, for private or public use without the written permission of the copyright owner.

© The electronic version of the book was prepared by liters company (www.litres.ru)

Bishop Justin
Life of our venerable and God-bearing father Nil of Sorsky 1

The great father of the Russian Church, through his asceticism and instructions, a teacher of monastic simplicity and contemplative life, the Monk Neil, nicknamed Maykov, was born in 1433. Nothing is known about the origin and place of birth of the Monk Neil. But, without a doubt, he was a Great Russian and, judging by his extensive connections with important persons and his high education, it must be assumed that he himself belonged to the boyar family. True, the Monk Neil calls himself an ignoramus and a villager, but he could call himself an ignorant out of deep humility, and a villager because he was born and lived in the homeland of his ancestors among the rural inhabitants.

The Monk Neil received monastic tonsure and began his monastic life at the monastery of the Monk Kirill of Belozersky. Here he used the advice of the intelligent and strict elder Paisius (Yaroslavov), who later was the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra and was invited to become a metropolitan, but, out of humility, refused this great rank. Having lived in the Kirillovo-Belozersky Monastery for some time, Neil, together with his student and collaborator, monk Innocent, from the family of Okhlebinin boyars, traveled to holy places, to the East, in order to see spiritual life in the experiences of the ascetics there: he was, in his words, “ on Mount Athos, in the countries of Constantinople and other places.”

Living for several years on Mount Athos and traveling through the monasteries of Constantinople, the Monk Nile, especially at this time, nourished his spirit with the instructions of the great desert fathers, who, through internal purification and unceasing prayer, performed with the mind in the heart, achieved the luminous insights of the Holy Spirit. The Monk Nil not only studied with his mind and heart, but also turned into a constant exercise of his life the soul-saving lessons of the godly fathers - Anthony the Great, Basil the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Macarius the Great, Barsanuphius, John Climacus, Abba Dorotheus, Maximus the Confessor, Hesychius, Simeon the New Theologian, Peter of Damascus, Gregory, Nile and Philotheus of Sinai.

That is why his book, called “The Tradition of Living in the Hermitage,” is filled with the sayings of these great fathers.

Returning to the Belozersky monastery, the Monk Neil no longer wanted to live in it, but built himself a cell not far from it, behind the fence, where he lived for a short time in solitude. Then he went fifteen miles from this monastery to the Sorka River, erected a cross here, first built a chapel and a secluded cell and dug a well next to it, and when several brethren gathered to live together with him, he built a church. He established his monastery on special hermit rules, modeled on the monasteries of Athos; which is why it is called a monastery, and St. Neil is revered as the founder of monastery life in Russia, in its more strict and precise structure.

The holy ascetic fathers divided monastic life into three types: the first type is community life, when many monks live and labor together; the second type is hermitage, when one monk labors in solitude; the third type is wandering, when a monk lives and labors with two or three brothers, with common food and clothing, with common labor and handicrafts. This last type of monastic life, as if intermediate between the first two, which the Monk Neil therefore called the “royal path,” was what he wanted to implement in his monastery.

The monastery of the Monk Nile also had similarities with our non-communal monasteries, which very often consisted of two and three monks, sometimes five and ten, while in the monastery of Nile, at the end of his life, the number of hermitages even increased to twelve; and with cenobitic monasteries, for the hermitages had common labor, clothing, and food. But the monastery of Nilov differed from all our other monasteries in its internal direction - in that intelligent work, which should have been the main subject of care and effort for all hermitages. In his new monastery, the monk continued to study the Divine Scriptures and the works of the holy fathers, organizing his life and that of his disciples according to them.

The history of his inner life was partially revealed by the monk himself in a letter to one of his close associates, at his urgent request. “I am writing to you,” he says, “showing myself: your love according to God compels me to do this and makes me crazy to write to you about myself. We need to act not simply and not according to cases, but according to the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of the holy fathers. Wasn’t my removal from the monastery (Kirillov) for the sake of spiritual benefit? For her sake. I saw that they live there not according to God’s law and paternal tradition, but according to their own will and human reasoning. There are also many who, acting so wrongly, dream that they are living a virtuous life... When we lived together with you in the monastery, you know how I moved away from worldly connections and tried to live according to the Holy Scriptures, although due to my laziness I did not have time. At the end of my wandering, I came to the monastery, and outside the monastery, near it, having built a cell for myself, I lived as long as I could. Now I have moved away from the monastery, and by the grace of God I have found a place that, in my thoughts, is not very accessible to worldly people, as you yourself have seen. Living alone, I study the spiritual scriptures: first of all, I test the commandments of the Lord and their interpretation - the traditions of the apostles, then - the lives and instructions of the holy fathers. I reflect on all this, and whatever, according to my reasoning, I find pleasing to God and useful for my soul, I rewrite for myself. This is my life and breath. For my weakness and laziness, I placed my trust in God and the Most Pure Mother of God. If something happens to me to undertake and if I don’t find it in Scripture, I put it aside for a while until I find it. I don’t dare do anything of my own free will and according to my own reasoning. Whether you live as a hermit or in a community, listen to the Holy Scripture and follow in the footsteps of your fathers, or obey the one who is known as a spiritual man - in word, life and reasoning... The Holy Scripture is cruel only for those who do not want to humble themselves by the fear of God and retreat from earthly things thoughts, but wants to live according to his passionate will. Others do not want to humbly experience the Holy Scriptures, do not even want to hear about how one should live, as if the Scriptures were not written for us and should not be fulfilled in our time. But to true ascetics, in ancient times, in the present, and in all ages, the words of the Lord will always be pure words, like refined silver: the commandments of the Lord are more dear to them than gold and expensive stones, sweeter than honey from the honeycomb.” The new path of life chosen by the Monk Neil amazed his contemporaries. And indeed there was something to be amazed at, especially for the weak.

The place that the Monk Nile chose for his monastery, according to his eyewitnesses, was wild, gloomy, deserted. The entire area of ​​the monastery is low-lying and swampy. The Sorka River itself, which gave its name to the saint of God, barely stretches downstream and looks more like a swamp than a flowing river. And here-?? the Russian hermit labored! The pond dug by the Monk Nile, the well of his labors, with delicious water that is used for healing, the clothes of the holy ascetic, the hair of which pricks like needles, are still intact. The entire monastic society of the monk consisted of a hieromonk, a deacon and twelve elders, among them was Dionysius 2
Dionysius, when he lived in the monastery of Joseph in a bakery, worked for two, while singing seventy-seven psalms and performing three thousand bows every day.

From the princes of Zvenigorod, and Nil (Polev), a descendant of the princes of Smolensk, both came from the monastery of Joseph of Volokolamsk; because the Monk Nile then shone like a light in the Belozersk desert.

To build a temple and a tomb, a high hill was built on swampy soil by the hands of the holy elder and his hermitages, and for the needs of the brethren, the Monk Nile built a small mill on the Sorka River. Each cell was placed on a raised platform, and each was a stone's throw away from the temple and from the other cell. Hermits, following the example of the Eastern ones, gathered in their temple only on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and on other days everyone prayed and worked in their cell. The all-night vigil at the monastery literally lasted all night. After each kathisma, three and four readings from the fathers were offered. During the liturgy, they sang only the “Thrice-Holy Hymn,” “Alleluia,” “Cherubim,” and “It is Worthy to Eat”; everything else was read in a drawling way - in a sing-song voice.

On Saturdays, a general memorial service for the repose of the deceased was held in the brotherly tomb. Such were the structure of the monastery and the church charter of the Monk Nile of Sorsky! Regarding external behavior and activity, St. Neil prescribes complete monastic non-covetousness and simplicity in everything. He orders us to acquire what is necessary for life only through the labor of our hands, repeating the words of the Apostle: If anyone doesn’t want to do it, let him do it below(2 Thess. 3:10).

“Monastic almsgiving is to help a brother with a word in time of need, to console a brother in sorrow with spiritual reasoning; spiritual alms are as much higher than physical alms as the soul is higher than the body. If a stranger comes to us, we will calm him to the best of our ability, and if he demands bread, we will give him and let him go,” said the Monk Neil. The new skete life, previously unheard of in Rus', the often expressed spiritual grief about the damage to church books and the effort, if possible, to correct them, of course, aroused displeasure against the monk, but he patiently followed his path and was in the respect of good saints and even great ones princes.

The Monk Neil was at the Council on Judaizing Heretics in 1491. The zealot of Orthodoxy himself, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in 1492 wanted to personally see and hear the judgments of the Monk Nile on the subjects of perplexity, on the matter about them. Even the Grand Duke held Nil (Maikov) and his teacher Paisiy (Yaroslavov) in great honor. At the end of the Council of 1503 on widowed priests and deacons, Elder Nil, as having access to the autocrat, due to his strong life and great virtue, and as respected by the autocrat, proposed that there should be no villages near the monasteries and that the monks should live by the labor of their hands. All the Belozersk ascetics agreed with him.

In his dying testament, the Monk Nil, commanding his disciples to throw his body into the desert - as food for animals, or to bury it in a hole with contempt, wrote: “It sinned gravely before God and is unworthy of burial,” and then added: As much as was in my strength, I tried not to enjoy any honor on earth in this life, so let it be so after death.” 3
And after his death, the holy father remained true to himself. So, when in 1569 Tsar Ivan the Terrible, out of his zeal, wanted to build a stone temple in the monastery of St. Nile in place of a wooden one, St. Nile, appearing to John, strictly forbade him to build such a temple. – Note ed.

The Monk Neil died on May 7, 1508. The holy relics of the saint rest hidden in his desert.

Bishop Justin
Works of our venerable and God-bearing father Nil of Sorsky 4
“Our venerable and God-bearing father Nil, the ascetic of Sorsky, and his Charter on monastic life, set forth by the rector of the Kostroma Theological Seminary, Bishop Justin.” Ed. 4th. – M., 1902.

From the Monk Nil of Sorsky his messages and the “Rule of the skete life” have come down to us.

The epistles of the Monk Nile have as their subject the inner ascetic life, about which he outlined his thoughts in detail in the “Rule of skete life.” The Monk Nile wrote two epistles to his tonsured man, Cassian, the former prince of Mavnuk, who came to Russia with the Greek princess Sophia, served for some time as a boyar for Archbishop Joasaph of Rostov, and in 1504 died as a monk in the Uglich monastery.

In one of his epistles, the holy elder teaches Cassian how to deal with thoughts, advising the Jesus Prayer, doing handicrafts, studying Holy Scripture, protecting oneself from external temptations, and lays out some general instructions about obedience to the mentor and other brothers in Christ, about humility , patience in sorrows, prayer for one’s enemies, and the like.

In the second letter, briefly recalling the disasters and sorrows Cassian endured from his youth, his noble parents, his captivity, resettlement to a foreign land, and wanting to console him, the monk reveals to him from the Holy Scriptures that the Lord often brings sorrows to those who love Him, that all saints - prophets, martyrs - achieved salvation through suffering, points, in particular, to Job, Jeremiah, Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist and others, and draws the conclusion that if the saints endured so much, then all the more must we endure on earth , sinners, that we must take advantage of these disasters and sorrows to cleanse ourselves of sins and our salvation.

In a letter to his other disciple and associate - Innocent, who had already founded a special monastery - the Monk Neil speaks briefly about himself, about his life with him in the Belozersky monastery, about his settlement at the end of his trip to the East, outside the monastery, the foundation of his monastery, about his constant studies of the Holy Scriptures, the lives of the holy fathers and their traditions; and then instructs Innocent to fulfill the commandments of the Lord, imitate the lives of the saints, keep their traditions and teach his brethren the same.

Two more letters were written by St. Neil to unknown monks. In one of them, a very short one, he commands the monk to remember death, mourn for sins, remain in his cell forever, humility, and prayer.

In another, quite extensive one, he gives answers to the following four questions proposed by some old man: how to resist lustful thoughts, how to overcome a blasphemous thought, how to retreat from the world and how not to go astray from the true path. These answers, especially to the first two questions, are almost literally placed in the “Charter of the skete life, or the Tradition of the skete life.” From the contents of Saint Nile’s messages it is clear that he was occupied for a long time and many were in need of the very thoughts that were collected and systematically presented in his “Rule of the monastery life.” The most precious thing that remains for us after the Nile and which, of course, will pass through a number of centuries as an immortal mirror of the life of monks, is its contemplative chapters, or the Skete Rule, worthy of the first times of the desert habitation of Egypt and Palestine, for it is imbued with the spirit of Anthony and Macarius.

“The Rules of the Life of the Skete, or the Tradition of the Life of the Skete” is the main and most important work of the Monk Neil. In the preface to the “Rules,” the holy elder touches on the external behavior of the monks, speaks briefly about their obedience to the abbot, about bodily labor, about food and drink, about welcoming strangers, commands to observe poverty and destitution not only in cells, but also in decorating the temple, so So that there is nothing in it either made of silver or gold, it is forbidden to leave the monastery without the will of the abbot, to let women into the monastery, and to keep youths in it. But in the “Charter” itself, the holy father speaks exclusively about mental, or mental, activity, by which he means internal, spiritual asceticism.

Having previously spoken in the words of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers about the superiority of this internal work over external work, about the insufficiency of external work alone without internal work, about the necessity of the latter not only for hermits, but also for those living in cenobitic monasteries, the Monk Nil divides his “Charter” into eleven chapters . In Chapter 1 he talks about the difference between mental warfare; in the 2nd - about the fight against thoughts; in the 3rd - about how to strengthen yourself in feat against thoughts; in the 4th, he sets out the content of the entire feat; in the 5th he speaks of eight thoughts; in the 6th - about the fight against each of them; in the 7th - about the meaning of remembering death and Judgment; in the 8th - about tears; in the 9th - about maintaining contrition; in the 10th - about death for the world; in the 11th - about everything being done in due time. All these chapters, however, can be conveniently subsumed under three sections.

1) In the first four chapters, the holy elder speaks generally about the essence of internal asceticism, or about our internal struggle with thoughts and passions, and how we should conduct this struggle, how to strengthen ourselves in it, and how to achieve victory.

2) In the fifth chapter, the most important and extensive, he shows, in particular, how to conduct internal warfare (mental warfare. - Note ed.) against each of the eight sinful thoughts and passions from which all others are born, namely: against gluttony, against the thought of fornication, against the passion of the love of money, against the passion of anger, against the spirit of sadness, against the spirit of despondency, against the passion of vanity, against proud thoughts.

3) In the remaining six chapters, he sets out the general means necessary for the successful conduct of spiritual warfare, which are: prayer to God and invocation of His Holy Name, remembrance of death and the Last Judgment, inner contrition and tears, protecting oneself from evil thoughts, eliminating oneself from all cares, silence and, finally, observance of a decent time and method for each of the listed activities and actions. In the afterword, the Monk Neil says with what dispositions he proposed his “Charter”.

The Venerable Cornelius of Komel, who shortly after him labored in Kirillov, drew a lot from the writings of St. Nile in his monastic rule, and St. Nile’s interlocutor, Innocent, who collected together for his cenobitic monastery 11 spiritual chapters of his blessed teacher, calls him an elegant manifestation of monasticism in our times , a zealot of spiritual fathers, and says that he collected these chapters from the inspired writings, imbued with spiritual wisdom, for the salvation of souls and as a model of monastic life.

Let us also take a closer look at this pure mirror of ascetic life and make an extract from it, without omitting, however, a single thought of his that relates to the matter, and adhering, where necessary and possible, to the very expressions of the holy father, so that , depict, if possible, his complete teaching about the ascetic life for your own edification.

Preface,
borrowed from the writings of the holy fathers about mental work, about guarding the mind and heart, why this is necessary and with what feelings it should be done 5
Mental activity is meditation, contemplation of God, contemplation and heartfelt prayer, or internal conversation with the Lord. In the book: “The life and works of St. Nil of Sorsky, the first founder of the monastery life in Russia, and his spiritual and moral instructions about the monastery hermit life.” – M., 1889.

Many holy fathers preached to us about deeds of the heart, observance of thoughts and preservation of the soul, in various conversations that were inspired to them by the grace of God - each according to his own understanding.

The holy fathers learned to do this from the Lord Himself, who commanded to cleanse the inside of one’s vessel, for from the heart come evil thoughts that defile a person (see: Matt. 23:26; 15:18), and they understood that it is proper to worship the Father in spirit and in truth ( see: John 4:24). They also remembered the apostolic word: also... I pray with my tongue(that is, with the lips only), my spirit(that is, my voice) prays; but my mind is barren. I’ll pray with my spirit, I’ll also pray with my mind(1 Cor. 14, 14–15); and therefore they took special care of mental prayer, according to the commandment of the same apostle: I want to speak five words with my mind... rather than ten thousand words with my tongue(1 Cor. 14:19).

About internal work, Saint Agathon said that “bodily work - external prayer is nothing more than a leaf; the inner, that is, mental prayer, is fruit, and every tree, according to the terrible saying of the Lord, which does not produce fruit, that is, mental work, is cut down and thrown into the fire: he who prays with his lips alone, but does not care about his mind, prays into the air , for God listens to the mind.”

Saint Barsanuphius says: “If internal work with God does not help a person, he labors in vain in external things.” Saint Isaac the Syrian compares bodily work without spiritual activity to barren wombs and withered breasts, since it does not bring us closer to the understanding of God. And Philotheus of Sinai commands to pray for those monks who, in their simplicity, do not understand mental warfare and therefore do not care about the soul, and to instill in them that, as they actively move away from evil deeds, they would also purify their mind, which is the eye soul or its visual power.

Previously, the former fathers not only kept their minds in desert silence and acquired the grace of dispassion and spiritual purity, but many of them, who lived in cities in their monasteries, like Simeon the New Theologian, and his blessed teacher Simeon the Studite, who lived among the crowded Constantinople, shone there , like luminaries, with their spiritual gifts. The same is known about Nikita Stifat and many others.

That is why Blessed Gregory of Sinaite, knowing that all the saints have acquired the grace of the Spirit through the fulfillment of the commandments, first sensually, and then spiritually, orders to teach sobriety and silence, which is the protection of the mind, not only to hermits, but also to those living in a community, for Without this, this wonderful and great gift will not be found,” said the holy fathers. According to the remark of Hesychius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, “just as it is impossible for a person to live without food and drink, so without guarding his mind it is impossible to achieve the spiritual mood of the soul, even if we force ourselves not to sin out of fear for the sake of future torment.” “What is required of a true executor of God’s commandments is not only to fulfill them with external actions, but also to preserve his mind and heart from violating what is commanded.”

Saint Simeon the New Theologian says that “many have acquired this luminous work through instruction, and few have received it directly from God, through the effort of asceticism and the warmth of faith, and that it is no small feat to obtain for ourselves instruction that does not deceive us, that is, a person who has acquired experienced knowledge and the spiritual path of Divine Scripture." If even then, in the time of asceticism, it was difficult to find an unflattering mentor, now, with spiritual impoverishment, it is even more difficult for those who need him. But if a mentor had not been found, the holy fathers commanded to learn from the Divine Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord Himself: Try the Scriptures, for you believe in them to have eternal life(John 5:39). Elika was ordained to be, in the Holy Scriptures, Prescribed as our punishment, - says the holy apostle (Rom. 15:4).

Famous figure of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. around 1433, belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Maykov. Before entering monasticism, Neil was engaged in copying books and was a “cursive writer.” More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nile took monastic vows in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where since the time of the founder there had been a mute protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. The Monk Kirill himself more than once refused villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laymen; the same views were adopted by his closest students (“Trans-Volga elders”; see). Having traveled to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Nile spent a particularly long time on Athos, and it was perhaps to Athos that he owed most of all the contemplative direction of his ideas.

Neil Sorsky. Icon with Life

Upon returning to Russia (between 1473 and 89), Neil founded a monastery, gathered around him a few followers “who were of his kind,” and devoted himself to a closed, solitary life, being especially interested in book studies. He tries to base all his actions on the direct instructions of “divine scripture”, as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to rewrite books, he subjects the copied material to more or less thorough criticism. He copies “from different lists, trying to find the right one”, makes a compilation of the most correct one: comparing the lists and finding “much uncorrected” in them, he tries to correct it, “as far as his bad mind can.” If another passage seems “wrong” to him, but there is nothing to correct, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “It is not right from here in the lists,” or: “Where in another translation will be found a more famous (more correct) than this , tamo let it be honored,” and sometimes leaves entire pages blank. In general, he only writes off what is “possible according to reason and truth...”. All these features, which sharply distinguish the nature of Nil Sorsky’s book studies and his very view of the “scriptures” from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not be in vain for him. Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called. "Novgorod heretics" and about monastery estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the Russian hierarchs of that time, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph of Volotsky at their head. In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering into the fight against heresy and reporting it to the Rostov archbishop, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky who lived in his diocese and to involve them in the fight. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady’s efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite what he wanted. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady either with Paisius or with Nile; The main fighter against heresy, Joseph of Volokolamsk, does not appeal to them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to the heresy: both of them were present at the council of 1490. , who examined the case of heretics, and barely influence the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs “stood strong” and unanimously declared that “everyone (all heretics) deserves to be burned” - and in the end the council limited itself to cursing two or three heretical priests, depriving them of their rank and sending them back to Gennady. The most important fact in the life of Nil of Sorsky was his protest against the landowning rights of monasteries at the council of 1503 in Moscow. When the council was already nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirill-6elozersky elders, raised the issue of monastic estates, which at that time amounted to a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of demoralization of monasticism. A zealous fighter for the idea of ​​Nil of Sorsky was his closest “student,” the monastic prince Vassian Patrikeev. Nil Sorsky could only see the beginning of the struggle he had excited; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a “Testament”, asking his disciples to “throw his body in the desert, so that animals and birds may eat him up, for he has sinned many times against God and is unworthy of burial.” The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor. It is unknown whether Nil Sorsky was formally canonized; Manuscripts occasionally contain traces of services to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. But throughout our ancient literature, only Nil of Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, retained the name of the “great old man.”

Neil Sorsky. Icon 1908

The literary works of Nil Sorsky consist of a number of messages to students and generally close people, a small Traditions to the disciples, short sketchy Notes, more extensive Charter, in 11 chapters, and dying Wills. They came down in the lists of the 16th - 18th centuries. and all were published (most and the most important ones were extremely faulty). Neil's main work is the monastic charter, in 11 chapters; all the rest serve as a kind of addition to it. The general direction of Nil Sorsky's thoughts is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than the majority of Russian monasticism of that time understood asceticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be physical, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-improvement. The soil of monastic exploits is not the flesh, but the thought and the heart. It is unnecessary to intentionally weaken or kill your body: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and must nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it down in mala”, forgiving of physical weaknesses, illness, and old age. Neil does not sympathize with excessive fasting. He is an enemy of all appearance in general; he considers it unnecessary to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, or to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be free from all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, “found everywhere and conveniently purchased.” Rather than donate in church, it is better to give to the poor. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rational and conscious. A monk must go through it not due to compulsions and instructions, but “with consideration” and “do everything with reasoning.” The Nile demands from the monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in the feat. Sharply rebelling against “arbitraries” and “self-offenders,” he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (and equally of every person) must obey, in Nile’s view, only one authority - the “divine scriptures”. “Testing” the divine scriptures and studying them is the main duty of a monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, solely depends, in Neil’s opinion, “from the holy scriptures that do not tell us...”. The study of divine scriptures, however, must be combined with a critical attitude towards the total mass of written material: “there is a lot of scripture, but not all is divine.” This idea of ​​criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nile himself and all the “Trans-Volga elders” - and for the majority of literates of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any “book” at all was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the church fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to the interpretations that appeared later, finally, even various kinds of Greek “city laws”, i.e. decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Helmsman - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchangeable, equally authoritative. Joseph of Volokolamsk, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned “gradist laws” “are similar to the prophetic, apostolic and holy father’s writings,” and boldly called the collection of Nikon the Montenegrin (see) “divinely inspired writings” . It is understandable, therefore, that Joseph reproaches Nilus of Sorsky and his disciples that they “blasphemed the miracle workers in the Russian land,” as well as those “who in ancient times and in those (foreign) lands were former miracle workers, who believed in miracles, and from the scriptures I have squandered their wonders." One attempt to have any critical attitude towards the material being written off seemed, therefore, heresy. Striving for the evangelical ideal, Nil Sorsky - like the entire movement at the head of which he stood - does not hide his condemnation of the disorder that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From the general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, Nile’s energetic protest against monastic property directly followed. Neil considers all property, not just wealth, to be contrary to monastic vows. The monk denies himself from the world and everything “in it” - how can he then waste time worrying about worldly property, lands, and riches? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They must not “not exactly have no property, but neither desire to acquire it”... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a meeting of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible for a monk is also reprehensible for the monastery. The noted features were apparently joined by Nile himself in religious tolerance, which appeared so sharply in the writings of his closest disciples. The literary source of the works of Nil Sorsky was a number of patristic writers, with whose works he became acquainted especially during his stay on Athos; His immediate influence was on the works of John Cassian the Roman, Nile of Sinai, John Climacus, Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian and Gregory the Sinaite. Some of these writers are especially often referred to by Nil Sorsky; Some of their works are particularly close in both external form and presentation, for example. , to the main work of Nil Sorsky - “The Monastic Rule”. The Nile, however, does not unconditionally obey any of its sources; nowhere, for example, does he reach those extremes of contemplation that distinguish the works of Symeon the New Theologian or Gregory the Sinaite.

The monastic charter of Nile of Sorsky, with the addition of “Tradition by a disciple” at the beginning, was published by the Optina Hermitage in the book “The Tradition of St. Nile of Sorsky by his disciple about his residence in the monastery” (M., 1849; without any scientific criticism); The messages are printed in the appendix to the book: “Reverend Nilus of Sorsky, the founder of the monastery life in Russia, and his charter on the residence of the monastery, translated into Russian, with the appendix of all his other writings extracted from manuscripts” (St. Petersburg, 1864; 2nd ed. M., 1869; with the exception of the “Appendices”, everything else in this book does not have the slightest scientific significance).

The literature about Nil Sorsky is described in detail in the preface to the study by A. S. Arkhangelsky: “Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'” (St. Petersburg, 1882).

A. Arkhangelsky.