Venerable Sergius of Radonezh. "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh. Life and feat "Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev

Rev. Sergius of Radonezh. Life and deed Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev

(No ratings yet)

Title: St. Sergius of Radonezh. Life and deed

About the book “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh. Life and feat "Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev

Boris Zaitsev is a famous Russian prose writer and translator of the first half of the 20th century. His outstanding work entitled "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" was published in 1925 during the writer's travels abroad. The book is a comprehensive biography of the most revered Russian saint - Sergius of Radonezh. This story is based on the work Saint Epiphanius Wise "The Life of Sergius of Radonezh", written according to the stories of St. Sergius himself.

In the process of working on the book, Boris Zaitsev also turned to many other historical sources, thanks to which it was possible to reproduce the life path of the saint in chronological order. In his story "St. Sergius of Radonezh" the author sets out historical facts, accompanying them with his own comments, reasoning and deep admiration for the feat of St. Sergius.

In the preface to the story "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" it is planned to reveal the contradictions between the clear and the secret, the contemplative and the active beginnings in the soul of Sergius. Already at this stage, that deeply individual style of narration begins to be expressed, which in the main part of the work will result in an active relationship with the principle of historical objectivity. In this work, the phenomenon of holiness is considered by the author in various forms, in the unity of the individual and superhuman principles.

The story about Sergius determined the essence of the spiritual biography and the logic of the writer's fate of Boris Zaitsev. As the main vector of the writer's spiritual evolution, it includes two interrelated aspects. First of all, we are invited to read the biography of a real historical figure who played an important spiritual role in the formation of Russian statehood, which forms the content side of the author's work. Secondly, a significant role is assigned to a special literary form, which made it possible to most fully reflect this sublime content.

In the book "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh", the personality of the Russian saint appears before us as an example of spiritual viability and readiness to resist the destructive force of external circumstances. It is in this way that the author contributes to the reconstruction of the true image of the reverend. This work will be useful to read to every person, as it contains a statement-call for the need for repentance and cleansing from all sins. Thanks to the pen of Zaitsev, Sergius's life path received an independent, reverent and reverent understanding, which causes genuine admiration of readers.

On our site about books lifeinbooks.net you can download for free without registration or read online book"Reverend Sergius of Radonezh. Life and feat" by Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. Buy full version you can have our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you can try your hand at writing.

Foreword

St. Sergius was born over six hundred years ago, died over five hundred. His calm, pure and holy life filled almost a century. Entering it as a modest boy Bartholomew, he left one of greatest glory Russia.

As a saint, Sergius is equally great for everyone. His feat is universal. But for a Russian, there is just something that excites us: a deep consonance with the people, a great typicality - a combination in one of the scattered features of Russians. Hence that special love and worship for him in Russia, silent canonization as a folk saint, which is unlikely to have fallen to another. Sergius lived in the time of the Tatars. Personally, she did not touch him: they covered the forests of Radonezh. But he was not indifferent to the Tatars. A hermit, he calmly, as he did everything in life, raised his cross for Russia and blessed Dimitry Donskoy for that battle, Kulikovo, which for us will forever take on a symbolic, mysterious connotation. In the duel between Rus' and the Khan, the name of Sergius is forever connected with the creation of Russia.

Yes, Sergius was not only a contemplative, but also a doer. A just cause, that's how it was understood for five centuries. All who have been to the Lavra, venerating the relics of the monk, have always felt the image of the greatest goodness, simplicity, truth, holiness, resting here. Life is untalented without a hero. The heroic spirit of the Middle Ages, which gave birth to so much holiness, gave its brilliant manifestation here.

It seemed to the author that now the experience - very modest - was especially appropriate now, to the best of his ability, to restore in the memory of those who know and tell the ignorant about the deeds and life of the great saint and lead the reader through that special, mountainous country where he lives, from where he shines to us like an unfading star.

Let's take a look at his life.

Paris, 1924

SPRING

Sergius's childhood, in his parent's house, is in a fog for us. Nevertheless, a certain general spirit can be caught from the messages of Epiphanius, a student of Sergius, his first biographer.

According to ancient legend, the estate of Sergius's parents, the Rostov boyars Kirill and Maria, was located in the vicinity of Rostov the Great, on the way to Yaroslavl. Parents, "noble boyars", apparently, lived simply, they were quiet, calm people, with a strong and serious way of life. Although Kirill accompanied the princes of Rostov to the Horde more than once, as a trusted, close person, he himself did not live well. It is impossible to speak of any luxury, licentiousness of the later landowner. Rather, on the contrary, one might think that domestic life is closer to that of a peasant: as a boy, Sergius (and then Bartholomew) was sent for horses in the field. This means that he knew how to confuse them and turn them around. And leading to some stump, grabbing the bangs, jump up, triumphantly trot home. Perhaps he chased them at night too. And, of course, he was not a barchuk.

Parents can be imagined as respectable and just people, religious in high degree. It is known that they were especially "hobbyist". They helped the poor and willingly accepted wanderers. Probably, in a sedate life, wanderers are that searching beginning, dreamily resisting everyday life, which also played a role in the fate of Bartholomew.

There are fluctuations in the year of the saint's birth: 1314-1322. The biographer muffled, contradictory talks about this.

Be that as it may, it is known that on May 3, a son was born to Mary. The priest gave him the name of Bartholomew, after the day of the celebration of this saint.

The special shade that distinguishes him lies on the child from early childhood.

Bartholomew was given seven years to study literacy, to a church school, together with his brother Stefan. Stefan studied well. Science was not given to Bartholomew. Like Sergius later, little Bartholomew is very stubborn and tries, but there is no success. He is distressed. The teacher sometimes punishes him. Comrades laugh and parents admonish. Bartholomew cries alone, but does not move forward.

And now, a village picture, so close and so understandable six hundred years later! The foals wandered somewhere and disappeared. Father sent Bartholomew to look for them, probably the boy is not only in the times of the Tatars. Personally, she did not touch him: they hid him wandering around the fields, in the forest, perhaps, near the shore of Lake Rostov and called them, patted them with a whip, dragged halters. With all the love of Bartholomew for loneliness, nature, and for all his daydreaming, he, of course, conscientiously performed every task - this feature marked his whole life.

Now he - very dejected by failures - found not what he was looking for. Under an oak tree I met "an elder of the Chernoryets, with the rank of presbyter." Obviously, the old man understood him.

What do you want, boy?

Bartholomew, through tears, spoke about his grief and asked to pray that God would help him overcome the letter.

And under the same oak stood the old man for prayer. Next to him is Bartholomew - a halter over his shoulder. Having finished, the stranger took out the ark from his bosom, took a particle of prosphora, blessed Bartholomew with it and ordered him to eat it.

This is given to you as a sign of grace and for understanding.

Holy Scripture. From now on, you will master literacy better than brothers and comrades.

What they talked about next, we do not know. But Bartholomew invited the elder home. His parents received him well, as usual wanderers. The elder called the boy to the prayer room and ordered him to read the psalms. The child responded with incompetence. But the visitor himself gave the book, repeating the order.

And the guest was fed, at dinner they told about the signs over his son. The elder again confirmed that now Bartholomew would begin to understand Holy Scripture well and would overcome reading. Then he added: "The lad will one day be the abode of the Most Holy Trinity; he will lead many behind him to the understanding of the Divine commandments."

From that time on, Bartholomew moved on, already read any book without hesitation, and Epiphanius claims that he even overtook his comrades.

In the story with his teachings, failures and unexpected, mysterious success, some of the features of Sergius are visible in the boy: there is a sign of modesty, humility in the fact that the future saint could not naturally learn to read and write. His ordinary brother Stefan read better than he did, he was punished more than ordinary students. Although the biographer says that Bartholomew overtook his peers, but the whole life of Sergius indicates that his strength is not in the ability to science: in this, after all, he did not create anything. Perhaps even Epiphanius, an educated man who traveled a lot around St. places, who wrote the lives of Sts. Sergius and Stefan of Perm, was above him as a writer, as a scientist. But a direct connection, living, with God, was indicated very early in the incapable Bartholomew. There are people outwardly so brilliantly gifted - often the last truth is closed to them. Sergius, it seems, belonged to those to whom the ordinary is hard, and mediocrity will overtake them - but the extraordinary is fully revealed. Their genius is elsewhere.

And the genius of the boy Bartholomew led him in a different way, where science is less needed: already on the threshold of youth, the hermit, the faster, the monk stood out brightly. Most of all he loves services, church, reading sacred books. And surprisingly serious. This is no longer a child.

The main thing is: he has his own. He is not pious because he lives among the pious. He is ahead of others. He is led by a calling. No one forces you to asceticism - he becomes an ascetic and fasts on Wednesdays, Fridays, eats bread, drinks water, and he is always quiet, silent, affectionate in his manner, but with some seal. Dress modestly. If he meets a poor man, he gives the last.

Excellent relationship with family. Of course, the mother (or maybe the father) had long felt something special in him. But it seemed that he was too exhausted. She begs him not to force himself. He objects. Perhaps, because of his gifts, disagreements and reproaches also came out (just an assumption), but what a sense of proportion! The son remains just an obedient son, life emphasizes this, and the facts confirm it. Bartholomew found harmony, in which he was himself, without perverting his appearance, but without breaking with also, obviously, clear parents. There was no ecstasy in him, as there was in Francis of Assisi. If he were blessed, then on Russian soil this would mean b: holy fool. But precisely foolishness is alien to him. Living, he is with life, with family, spirit home and reckoned, as the family reckoned with him. Therefore, the fate of flight and separation is inapplicable to him.

And internally, during these years of adolescence, early youth, he naturally accumulated the desire to leave the lower and middle world for the higher world, the world of unclouded contemplation and direct communion with God.

This was to be realized in other places, not where he spent his childhood.

PERFORMANCE

It is difficult to say when human life was easy. You can make a mistake when naming the light periods, but it seems that you can’t make a mistake in the dark ones. And without risk you will begin to assert that the fourteenth century, the times of the Tatar region, lay like a stone on the heart of the people.

True, the terrible invasions of the thirteenth century ceased. Khans won, ruled. Relative silence. And yet: tribute, Baskaks, irresponsibility and lack of rights even before the Tatar merchants, even before the Mongol rogues, not to mention the authorities. And just a little - a punitive expedition: "always the army of Akhmulov was," "the great army of Turalykov," which means: atrocities, violence, robbery and blood.

But even in Russia itself, a painful and difficult process was going on: "gathering up the land." Yuri and Ivan (Kalita) Danilovichi "collected" the Russian land with not very clean hands. The deep sadness of history, the self-justification of the rapists - "everything is in the blood!" Did Yuri understand or not, when during his time in the Horde his rival, Mikhail of Tverskoy, was under the yoke for a month, that he was doing the work of history, or Kalita, treacherously ruining Alexander Mikhailovich? "High politics", or simply "raised" their Moscow fiefdom - in any case, they were not shy about means. history for them. In a hundred years, Moscow is unshakable...

Sergius Radonezh. Wonderworker of Holy Rus'

B. Zaitsev. Reverend Sergius of Radonezh

Spring

Sergius's childhood in the parental home is in a fog for us. Nevertheless, a certain general spirit can be caught from the messages of Epiphanius, a student of Sergius, his first biographer.

According to ancient legend, the estate of Sergius's parents, the Rostov boyars Kirill and Maria, was located in the vicinity of Rostov the Great, on the way to Yaroslavl. Parents, "noble boyars", apparently, lived simply, they were quiet, calm people, with a strong and serious way of life. Although Kirill accompanied the princes of Rostov to the Horde more than once, as a trusted, close person, he himself did not live well. It is impossible to speak of any luxury, licentiousness of the later landowner. Rather, on the contrary, one might think that home life is closer to that of a peasant: as a boy, Sergius (and then Bartholomew) was sent for horses in the field. This means that he knew how to confuse them and turn them around. And leading to some stump, grabbing the bangs, jump up, triumphantly trot home. Perhaps he chased them at night too. And, of course, he was not a barchuk.

Parents can be imagined as respectable and fair people, religious to a high degree. It is known that they were especially "hobbyist". They helped the poor and willingly accepted wanderers. Probably, in a sedate life, wanderers are the beginning of a seeker, dreamily resisting everyday life, which also played a role in the fate of Bartholomew.

There are fluctuations in the year of the saint's birth: 1314–1322. The biographer muffled, contradictory talks about this.

Be that as it may, it is known that on May 3, a son was born to Mary. The priest gave him the name of Bartholomew, after the day of the celebration of this saint.

The special shade that distinguishes him lies on the child from early childhood.

Bartholomew was given seven years to study literacy, to a church school, together with his brother Stefan. Stefan studied well. Science was not given to Bartholomew. Like Sergius later, little Bartholomew is very stubborn and tries, but there is no success. He is distressed. The teacher sometimes punishes him. Comrades laugh and parents admonish. Bartholomew cries alone, but does not move forward.

And now, a village picture, so close and so understandable six hundred years later! The foals wandered somewhere and disappeared. Father sent Bartholomew to look for them, probably the boy had wandered like this more than once, through the fields, in the forest, perhaps by the shore of Lake Rostov and called them, patted them with a whip, dragged halters. With all the love of Bartholomew for loneliness, nature, and for all his daydreaming, he, of course, conscientiously performed every task - this feature marked his whole life.

Now he - very dejected by failures - found not what he was looking for. Under an oak tree, I met "an elder of the Black Sea, with the rank of presbyter." Obviously, the old man understood him.

- What do you want, boy?

Bartholomew, through tears, spoke about his grief and asked to pray that God would help him overcome the letter.

And under the same oak stood the old man for prayer. Next to him is Bartholomew - a halter over his shoulder. Having finished, the stranger took out the ark from his bosom, took a particle of prosphora, blessed Bartholomew with it and ordered him to eat it.

“This is given to you as a token of grace and for the understanding of Holy Scripture. From now on, you will master literacy better than brothers and comrades.

What they talked about next, we do not know. But Bartholomew invited the elder home. His parents received him well, as usual wanderers. The elder called the boy to the prayer room and ordered him to read the psalms. The child responded with incompetence. But the visitor himself gave the book, repeating the order.

And the guest was fed, at dinner they told about the signs over his son. The elder again confirmed that now Bartholomew would begin to understand Holy Scripture well and would overcome reading. Then he added: “The lad will once be the abode of Preev. Trinity; he will lead many behind him to the understanding of the Divine commandments.”

From that time on, Bartholomew moved on, already read any book without hesitation, and Epiphanius claims that he even overtook his comrades.

In the story with his teachings, failures and unexpected, mysterious success, some of the features of Sergius are visible in the boy: there is a sign of modesty, humility in the fact that the future saint could not naturally learn to read and write. His ordinary brother Stefan read better than he did, he was punished more than ordinary students. Although the biographer says that Bartholomew overtook his peers, but the whole life of Sergius indicates that his strength is not in the ability to science: in this, after all, he did not create anything. Perhaps even Epiphanius, an educated man who traveled a lot around St. places, who wrote the lives of St. Sergius and Stefan of Perm, was above him as a writer, as a scientist. But a direct connection, living, with God, was already very early indicated by the incapable Bartholomew. There are people outwardly so brilliantly gifted - often the last truth is closed to them. Sergius, it seems, belonged to those to whom the ordinary is hard, and mediocrity will overtake them - but the extraordinary is fully revealed. Their genius is elsewhere.

And the genius of the boy Bartholomew led him in a different way, where science is less needed: already on the threshold of youth, the hermit, the faster, the monk stood out brightly. Most of all he loves services, church, reading sacred books. And surprisingly serious. This is no longer a child.

The main thing is: he has his own. He is not pious because he lives among the pious. He is ahead of others. He is led by a calling. No one forces asceticism - he becomes an ascetic and fasts on Wednesdays, Fridays, eats bread, drinks water, and he is always quiet, silent, affectionate in his manner, but with some seal. Dress modestly. If he meets a poor man, he gives the last.

Excellent relationship with family. Of course, the mother (or maybe the father) had long felt something special in him. But it seemed that he was too exhausted. She begs him not to force himself. He objects. Perhaps, because of his gifts, disagreements and reproaches also came out (just an assumption), but what a sense of proportion! The son remains just an obedient son, life emphasizes this, and the facts confirm it. Bartholomew found harmony, in which he was himself, without perverting his appearance, but without breaking with also, obviously, clear parents. There was no ecstasy in him, as there was in Francis of Assisi. If he were blessed, then on Russian soil this would mean b: holy fool. But precisely foolishness is alien to him. Living, he reckoned with life, with his family, the spirit of his native home, just as the family reckoned with him. Therefore, the fate of flight and separation is inapplicable to him.

And internally, during these years of adolescence, early youth, he naturally accumulated the desire to leave the lower and middle world for the higher world, the world of unclouded contemplation and direct communion with God.

This was to be realized in other places, not where he spent his childhood.

Performance

It is difficult to say when human life was easy. You can make a mistake when naming the light periods, but it seems that you can’t make a mistake in the dark ones. And without risk you will begin to assert that the fourteenth century, the times of the Tatar region, lay like a stone on the heart of the people.

True, the terrible invasions of the thirteenth century ceased. Khans won, ruled. Relative silence. And yet: tribute, Baskaks, irresponsibility and lack of rights even before the Tatar merchants, even before the Mongol rogues, not to mention the authorities. And a little bit - a punitive expedition: "always the army of Akhmulov was," "the great army of Turalykov" - which means: atrocities, violence, robbery and blood.

But even in Russia itself, a painful and difficult process was going on: "gathering up the land." Yuri and Ivan (Kalita) Danilovichi “collected” the Russian land with not very clean hands. The deep sadness of history, the self-justification of the rapists - "everything is in the blood!". Did Yuri understand or not, when during his time in the Horde his rival, Mikhail of Tverskoy, was under the yoke for a month, that he was doing the work of history, or Kalita, treacherously ruining Alexander Mikhailovich? "High politics" or simply "raised" their Moscow fiefdom - in any case, they were not shy about the means. history for them. A hundred years later, Moscow unshakably rose above the specific confusion, broke the Tatars and created Russia.

Roots literary activity Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev (1881-1972) - in the "Silver Age" of Russian culture. On the eve of the Great War of 1914-1918, he was already well known to the domestic public: Zaitsev's books were repeatedly reprinted, his plays were shown in theaters, newspapers published his critical articles. In a word, it was a rather prominent figure in the cultural life of Russia at the beginning of the century. In 1922, the writer leaves his homeland forever, leaves for Germany, and since 1924 continues to work in the literary field.in France.

The difficult life of a refugee, as, indeed, the life of any person, was filled with its sorrows and joys. Only, perhaps, in a foreign land they were perceived more sharply, more painfully, with some, perhaps, bright force.

I would like to recall one brightly joyful event in the life of Russia in exile. Far 1928. Congress of Writers and Journalists of the Russian Diaspora in Belgrade. As if the last surge of dying - so as to stand as a Great monument of glory and reproach to the "slanderers of Russia", - but eternal Russian culture.

In the heart of the blessed memory of King Alexander I Karageorgievich, Russia occupied a special place - the second Fatherland - and that says it all! Serbia accepted our exiles into her mother's womb. But not only those Russians who found their refuge here were patronized by King Alexander. He was a real philanthropist for figures of Russian culture scattered throughout Europe: Bunin and Shmelev, Gippius, Remizov, Kuprin, Zaitsev, who lived in Paris, and many others felt his constant support. The Belgrade Forum brought together writers from many countries of the Russian Diaspora. On September 29, King Alexander awarded fourteen writers the high Order of St. Savva, among them was Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev. It seems that it was for him, an Orthodox man, that this award was of particular importance; and for us this fact is filled with a special meaning - just like that, simply, in an earthly way, the great Serbian hierarch touched the chest, heart, soul of the writer ...

The story "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh" (1925) -one of the first works by Zaitsev, which saw the light in a foreign land, and this is no coincidence.

Being far from his homeland, the writer, perhaps even more strongly, even more painfully felt the fundamental, indestructible connection with Russia, with Orthodoxy, with his people. It was natural to want to talk about it, to speak out, to confess love for the Fatherland. It was precisely such a confession that his historical and philosophical book about Sergius of Radonezh became.

Anticipating the story about Sergius, the writer first gives a close-up view of the saint: “... for a Russian, there is in him something that excites us: a deep consonance with the people, a great typicality - a combination in one of the scattered features of Russians. Hence that special love and worship for him in Russia, silent canonization as a folk saint, which is unlikely to have fallen to another. It is through Sergius, who is a national ideal, that Zaitsev introduces the French reader to the Russian people. “It seemed to the author that now the experience is especially appropriate ... to restore in the memory of those who know and tell the ignorant the deeds and life of the Great Saint and lead the reader through that special, mountainous country where he lives, from where he shines for us with an unfading star”, the writer noted in the preface.

The book consists of ten chapters, in the titles of which the direction of Sergius's spiritual evolution is already read, which led to the result of earthly life - "above man." There is no place for the author's fiction in the story (let us note that, in general, Zaitsev's style is characterized by "pure realism": he did not like to invent, but he always described what he had experienced, felt, seen), everything is subordinated to a strict fact, the inexorable legislator of the story about the life of Sergius. The source, the material basis of the work was the first life of Sergius, written by Epiphanius, later processed by the Serb Pachomius. Zaitsev does not report anything new, unknown from the life of Saint Zaitsev. However, the book is read almost in one breath: dryish, restrainedThe narrative is captivating, the work as a whole has a certain attractive power. What is the secret?

Firstly, of course, the figure of Sergius himself, the spiritual appearance amazing person Holy Rus'; there is some inexplicable, but eternal craving for him in the Russian heart, everything connected with Sergius invariably attracts the soul, fills it with high peace, light, inexpressible joy ... Reflecting on the significance of St. Sergius for the Russian people, V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote in particular: “There are names ... which have already lost their chronological significance, stepped out of the time limits when their carriers lived. This is because the deed done by such a person, in its significance, went so far beyond the limits of its century, its beneficial action so deeply captured the life of subsequent generations, that everything temporary and local gradually fell from the person who did it in the minds of these generations, and it has turned from a historical figure into a popular idea, and its very deed from a historical fact has become a practical commandment, testament, what we used to call an ideal. The name of Sergius, according to the historian, is "a bright feature of our moral national content."

Secondly, the philosophical layer of the story, the writer's reflections on this or that event, its assessment is of interest. It is here, at this level, that we read the individual author's understanding of Sergius, his personal experience of the spiritual, civil feat of the monk. It is here that the foundations of the writer's worldview, his philosophy of history, are revealed to us. The author's digressions, as if flesh, clothe the strict event-based "backbone" of the saint's life. Philosophical reflections, as it were, interrupt the description of Sergius's life, slow down the plot of the story - in fact, Zaitsev moves in this case in line with the Pushkin tradition. Two main themes of digressions can be distinguished in the story: assessment (through an act or event) of Sergius's personality and an attempt to comprehend the paths of Russian history. In the discussions on the first topic (especially in the initial chapters of the book), one can read the author's desire to discern the future saint behind this or that human act, to guess the prospect of the movement of the personality, to foresee it. So, for example, talking about the difficulties in the teaching of the lad Bartholomew, the writer says: “In the story with his teachings, failures and unexpected, mysterious success, some features of Sergius are visible in the boy: there is a sign of modesty, humility in the fact that the future saint could not naturally learn to read and write<…>... a direct connection, living, with God, was indicated very early in the incompetent Bartholomew<…>... already on the threshold of youth, a hermit, a faster, a monk stood out brightly ”.

Assessing Bartholomew's relationship with his parents, the author concludes that he was an "obedient son", but “...inwardly, during these years of adolescence, early youth, he naturally accumulated the desire to leave the lower and middle world for the higher world, the world of unclouded contemplation and communion directly with God”. And further - about the decision of Bartholomew to leave the world: “It is possible that the pensive Bartholomew, trying to leave, felt that he was starting a big business. But did he clearly imagine that the feat he had conceived concerned more than one of his soul?<…>Probably not. He was too modest, too immersed in communion with God.

The author reflects, but does not impose his position on the reader (which confirms the presence of introductory words in his judgments), and as if invites us to think, thereby encouraging us to follow the story more actively, to feel and comprehend Sergius' life path more deeply, to understand the movements of his soul. And he does it quite naturally, organically - the reader's response in this case is logically predetermined.

Each of the chapters of the book opens a new stage in the life of the saint, it is, as it were, the steps of a ladder along which Bartholomew-Sergius ascends to God.

So, the chapter "The Hermit" tells about the tonsure of Bartholomew, naming him Sergius, about the period of his seclusion. The story is told in a very laconic style, the events are literally enumerated... But the author's voice intrudes into the strict biography of the saint - a digression about an ascetic feat. And again the reader is invited to reflect: “One might think that this is the most difficult time for him (Sergius).<…>If a person so sharply strains upwards, so subdues the variegation of his line of God, he is subject to ebb, and decline, fatigue. And after the story about the temptations of the hermit, again a purely authorial - a simple human question: “Will he survive, in a formidable forest, in a wretched cell?” But, as if recollecting himself, the writer replies: “He is stubborn, patient, and he is “God-loving”. Cool and transparent spirit. And with him Divine help, like a response to gravity. He overcomes".

Describing the emergence of the Trinity Monastery, Zaitsev rather dryly sets out the facts of his life. But the restraint of the retelling is already as if inspired by the previous reflections on the ascetic feat of Sergius, it is replenished by the conclusion that concludes the chapter: “So from a solitary hermit, a prayer book, a contemplator, a figure grew up in Sergius<…>... this is already the rector of a small community, apostolic in terms of the number of cells, apostolic in the spirit of early Christian simplicity and poverty, and in terms of the historical role that it was supposed to play in the spread of monasticism ".

Talking about the activities of Abbot Sergius (chapter "Hegumen"), the writer highlights such a feature of him as diligence, which the saint also demanded from the inhabitants of the monastery. And then follows a curious, in our opinion, comparison of Sergius with Francis of Assisi: “According to the well-known testament of the Apostle Paul, he demanded labor from the monks and forbade them to go out for alms. This is in sharp contrast to St. Francis. The Blessed One of Assisi did not feel the ground beneath him. All his short life he flew, in a bright ecstasy, above the earth, but he flew “to people”, with the preaching of the apostles and Christ, coming closest to the image of Christ himself. Therefore, in essence, he could not establish anything on earth ... And labor, that industriousness, which is the root of attachment, is not essential for him.

On the contrary, Sergius was not a preacher, neither he nor his disciples wandered around the Great Russian Umbria with a fiery speech and a mug for alms. Fifty years he quietly spent in the depths of the forests, teaching by himself, "quietly doing", but not by direct missionary work. And in this "doing" - along with the discipline of the soul - an enormous role was played by that black labor, without which both he himself and his monastery would have perished. St. Sergius, Orthodox in the deepest way, planted in a certain sense Western culture(labor, order, discipline) in the Radonezh forests, and St. Francis, having been born in a country of superabundant culture, seemed to rebel against it.” As an artistic device, as a desire to shade the image of Sergius, this opposition is, perhaps, justified. However, it is difficult to agree with the writer's reasoning, in particular, that work, order and discipline are the attributes of predominantly Western culture. After all, the whole story tells about Sergius precisely as a phenomenon of Russian spiritual culture, and by no means exceptional, not the only one, which Zaitsev himself confirms is the comparison of the monk, for example, with Theodosius of the Caves.

And isn’t Vladimir Monomakh talking about inner discipline—the discipline of the spirit and reason—in his famous Teachings to children: “If, while riding a horse, you are not doing business, then, in case of ignorance of other prayers, constantly repeat: Lord, have mercy. It's better than thinking about trifles." Isn't it humility, simplicity of life, self-sacrifice, manifested by Russian saints, that testify to it? Is it not about the industriousness of the Russian people, finally, that Nekrasov, for example, speaks in his poem “Who should live well in Rus'” ...

Another thing is that the meaning of these same “labor, order and discipline” is different in the cultures of the West and the East, and this stems mainly from the difference in psychology, worldview of the bearers of these cultures. At one time, the German scientist W. Schubart proposed an interesting typology of European peoples: he attributed the Romanesque and Germanic peoples to the Promethean, heroic type. Such a person “sees chaos in the world, which he must shape with his organizing power; he is full of lust for power; he moves farther and farther away from God and goes deeper and deeper into the world of things. Slavic peoples- and especially Russian - belong, in his opinion, to the John, the messianic type (that is, to the following ideals given in the Gospel of John). A person of this type “feels himself called to create a higher Divine order on earth ... He wants to restore around himself the harmony that he feels in himself ... The Messianic person is inspired not by a thirst for power, but by moods of reconciliation and love. He does not divide in order to dominate, but seeks the divided in order to reunite it. By the way, the whole course of the writer's thoughts about St. Sergius only confirms the above judgment of Shubart. As for the "active" Catholic missionary work, it just lies in the mainstream of the "Promethean" tradition, so it's another question whether Francis "rebelled" against his culture.

Concluding this chapter with a story about a providential incident with bread, the writer moves on to the next (“St. Sergius, miracle worker and mentor”), leading the reader to a conversation about the miracles of the saint. But this conversation is preceded by the author's thoughts about what a miracle is. “This is, of course, the greatest storm of love that bursts from there, to the call of love that comes from here". It must be assumed that this statement is one of the essential elements of Zaitsev's philosophy of being, that is, the main vector of human life is spiritual growth: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you shall find; knock, and it will be opened to you. After all, he writes further that Sergius “In the early period of asceticism, he did not have visions, did not work miracles. Only a long, difficult path of self-education, asceticism, self-enlightenment leads him to miracles and to those bright visions that illuminate maturity.<…>In this respect ... Sergius' life gives an image of a gradual, clear, internally healthy movement ". And already at the end of the chapter, he summarizes: “... the striving for purification and “direction” firmly sits in the living soul. Before our eyes, endless pilgrimages to Optina were made - from Gogol, Tolstoy, Solovyov, with the most complex inquiries of the soul, to women - whether to marry off a daughter, and how it is better to live with a husband. And in the revolution, and to simple priests, the Red Army came to repent - both in blasphemy and in murders.

Building a story about the life of Sergius according to the life of Epiphanius, the writer, naturally, omits something from the life, briefly mentions something, the same episodes in which, in his opinion, the character of the monk is most deeply revealed, his main traits, he literally retells verbatim. And in the very selection of the material (and not only in its interpretation by the author), of course, one can read the individual, Zaitsev's understanding of Sergius - there is also a subjective, evaluative moment. Perceiving the name of Sergius as a national idea, as "eternally active moral engine"(Klyuchevsky), Zaitsev highlights precisely those signs of the saint's personality, which, building up, connecting, give an almost tangible idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe Russian folk ideal.

Thus, in the chapter “Horms and Thorns,” three events from the life of the monk are told: a visit to the monastery by a peasant who sought to get acquainted with Sergius and did not want to recognize the famous abbot in the “poor, wretched old man”; a vision of Sergius, connected with the life of the monastery and strengthening him in the correctness of the choice of the foundations of the dispensation of the monastery (the chapter deals with the introduction of a hostel in the future Lavra), and, finally, Sergius's departure from the monastery.

In the first case, the monk's extraordinary modesty and humility are emphasized (and this is more than once in the story) as the main features of his moral character. After all, at the end of the story, summing up, the writer again reminds: “Sergius came to his Makovitsa as a modest and obscure young man Bartholomei, and left as a glorified old man”. In the second, there is a living relationship with God (it was achieved through humility). The third case is quite special. Ser-gius meets with a sharp manifestation of the pride of his own brother and leaves the monastery without saying a word to anyone. Here is how the writer regards this act of the saint: “From the point of view of the ordinary, he took a mysterious step. The abbot, abbot and “leader of souls” seemed to have retreated.<…>He did not give up to anyone, did not retreat before anyone. How can we know his feelings, opinions? We can only respectfully assume that the inner voice said so. Nothing external, formal. A clear, holy faith that "it will be better this way."<…>If passions are kindled, someone is jealous of me ... then let me leave, I don’t seduce and don’t kindle.<…>If God commands me so, then He already knows - there is nothing to think about.. Of course, Zaitsev, by his own admission, only suggests the reverend's train of thought, trying to materialize, as it were, to reveal the reasons for his departure. The conclusion that the writer makes is not at all without foundation, but stems from the entire context of the life of the saint and at the same time is consonant with the Christian worldview of the author. Get away from temptation: And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it away from you, for it is better for you that one of your members perish, and not your whole body be cast into hell; not to be a temptation yourself - isn't this one of the imperatives of the Orthodox folk ideal - one of the components of B.K. Zaitsev's philosophy of being.

The chapter ends with a story about the return of the hegumen of Radonezh to the monastery four years later. And here is the summary of the event: “Sergius won - simply and quietly, without violence, as he did everything in life.<…>He acted here ... like a saint. And reached the top. ... he also elevated Orthodoxy itself, preferring freedom and love to external discipline”. So, the writer singles out two more constant values ​​of the Russian spiritual and moral code - freedom and love, manifested in the guise of a reverend.

The central episode of the chapter "St. Sergius and the Church" is Sergius' refusal from the metropolitan see, all other narrative material is distributed around him. In this case, in addition to the facts of the life of the saint, the author draws on many events of Russian history of the XIV century, which allows him to create a laconic panorama of the church-state life of Rus' in the Sergius era in a small chapter. A similar artistic and visual trend deepens in the next chapter - "Sergius and the State", where the conversation continues logically on a topic that is still relevant today - Church and politics. This chapter reveals quite fully the philosophy of history of Boris Zaitsev.

Slowly creating the image of Sergius, as if highlighting the figure of the saint from different angles, the writer is now trying to consider him against the backdrop of the socio-political life of Rus' in the XIV century. It should be noted that in this chapter the share of life materials is significantly reduced, it mainly consists of the author’s reasoning about the construction of the Russian state, the collection of lands around Moscow, and Sergius’s participation in these events. “The reverend was never a politician... For his simplicity and purity, he was given a fate far from political intricacies. If you look at his life from the side of touching the state, most often you will meet Sergius - a teacher and encourager, a peacemaker. The icon that they take out in difficult times - and they go to it themselves ”.

Demonstrating the role of Sergius in the construction of the state, Zaitsev, in particular, tells about the peacemaking journey of the monk to the Ryazan prince Oleg, an old enemy of Moscow. Let's take a closer look at how this episode is made in the story.

First a short message: In the deep autumn of 1385, the saint walks to Ryazan…”, then a description of the malevolent Oleg, in a restrained but capacious style, characteristic of the story as a whole, and an exclamation-total: “Be that as it may, Sergius won, an old man from Radonezh, who measured two hundred miles with his seventy-year-old feet through the mud and impassability of Russian autumn!”.

With the word of Christ's love, with the Orthodox faith, Sergius Oleg wins. Confirming this idea, the writer resorts to a contrast in the description of the prince (“... strong, treacherous, hardened in hard times Prince of the type of Tverites") and the monk ("the old man from Radonezh"), as if emphasizing the "poverty of the spirit" of the latter, before which pride turned out to be powerless.

So, cooperating with the princes of Moscow in the creation of Derzhavnaya Rus', Sergius acted not by political means, but heeding the "voice of God", which, in the words of Zaitsev, "went to him so freely." In other words, the writer affirms the idea that one can truly “move” history, set it in the right direction, create only by raising a “truthful voice for truthful deeds” - and this is precisely the core thesis of his philosophy of history.

A significant place in the chapter is given to discussions about the politics and struggle of Prince Dimitri for the unification of the Russian lands around Moscow. And finally, one of the most important earthly deeds of Sergius is a blessing to the prince for the Battle of Kulikovo.

It seems that this is the peak of the "Church and Politics" problem, however, history has long resolved it - the reverend raised "a truthful voice for a truthful cause." But let's look at the text: “... Sergius<…>… faced a difficult task: blessings on the blood. Would Christ bless for a war, even a national one?<…>If a tragic business is going on in tragic land, he will bless the side he considers right. He is not for the war, but since it happened, for the people and for Russia, the Orthodox. As a mentor and comforter, the Paraclete of Russia, he cannot remain indifferent.”. So, this "tricky" problem unfolds in its real, only correct aspect - the Church is always with the people. The Church, as the Body of Christ, is itself a people. It is about this course of thought of the writer that his answer testifies.

Describing the morning before the Battle of Kulikovo, Zaitsev creates a concise, but rather voluminous picture. At the beginning, only the date (exclamation sentence): "September 8, 1380!" Then sparing landscape touches: “A gloomy dawn, Don and Nepryadva, Kulikovo field…” (in the Russian mind, these are not just place names, but philosophical categories of national history full of special meaning – hence the restrained solemnity of the narrative), and suddenly – a large, expressive brushstroke : "... and the spirit of the Word about Igor's Campaign", conveying the very atmosphere of what is happening - a device designed for the "cultural" reaction of the reader, determining his perception, giving the opportunity to feel, get used to, "enter" the event. Behind this brief statement (“the spirit of the Word ...”) one can read the height and tragedy of what is happening, the continuity of the sacred tradition of military duty and, as it were, the uncertainty of the outcome of the battle, although it was predicted by Sergius (the element of doubt, by the way, is completely excluded for the genre of life, because the emotional perception in it is measured by the "golden measure" of faith). And then - the exclamation of the author, his assessment of what is happening: “How deep, tense and serious everything is!” Then, like a summary of events, follows a description of the preparations for the battle in the camp of Demetrius: “Before the battle they pray. They read the letter of the reverend to the rats. And again restrained landscape strokes: “Autumn mists, slow dawn, coldly silver. Dew, morning cold. But here is the drawing of a line in anticipation of the battle - a philosophical statement of the inevitability of fate: “They are going to die. Sadness and fate - and inevitability. Clearly there is no going back."

Zaitsev also describes the fight itself extremely sparingly, literally in a few words recalling its most striking episodes. And, nevertheless, it creates a visible, three-dimensional image of what is happening: “A general battle began, on a gigantic, at that time, ten-verst front. Sergius correctly said: "Martyr's wreaths are woven for many." There were a lot of them.". And it is in the words of the reverend that the main figurative and semantic load is found. Here is the "center of gravity" of the whole picture - the soldiers who fell on the Kulikovo field were worthy of the crowns of martyrs who suffered for the faith of Christ and laid down their lives for their friends.

"Clash of worlds" - this is how Boris Zaitsev defines the Battle of Kulikovo. Struggle in the name of Christ and fight against Christ. Perhaps this is the main result of the writer's reflections on the fateful battle for Rus' and, at the same time, the dominant of his philosophy of history. From the mysterious moment of the incarnation of the Savior, the "appearance of Christ to the people", from that moment humanity could no longer remain in (before that, perhaps excusable) ignorance. I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me, the Lord said. Outside the Highest Truth there is no life, no truth, no love, creativity, inspiration, creation, no heroism and self-sacrifice, no feat, no light, no path. Outside Her, darkness is pitch-black, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The righteous walk the narrow path of God, which, like a life-giving ray, enlightens the seething streams with the Quiet Light. human history. The righteous are the essence of heaven-dwellers. But the wicked disappear like dust thrown up by the wind (from the face of the earth). The history of Christian Rus', its sacrificial, piercing ups (up to this day) is both an offering to God and a gift from God.

What did this victory give the young Muscovite state? Why was it so important then on the Don to say your word to the world? Answering these questions, the writer comprehends the great event of Russian history in the following way: “The victory itself is grandiose, and its significance is primarily moral: it has been proven that we, the European, Christian world, are not slaves, but strength and independence. The people who won on the Kulikovo field could no longer remain a tributary of the Tatars.. In this battle, it was as if an explosion of Russian self-consciousness took place, it will mature and grow stronger in further struggle, nourish future generations, it will triumph on the Ugra ... Such is the result of the blessing of the reverend, the result of the “true word” (this imperative of history, according to Zaitsev).

The writer also reminds us that since the time of the Battle of Kulikovo, panikhidas for the dead have been served throughout Russia on Dmitrov Saturday. This is how the debt of the people's memory is repaid to the defenders of the Fatherland (it is wonderful that on this day all the soldiers who died for the Motherland at different times are remembered, it is unfortunate that this list is growing in our days; but is there anywhere else besides the "uncivilized "Russia, such a custom of noble grief ?!), and, of course, this is a high act of national Russian morality.

Reflecting on the ideal of the Russian people, depicted in the story "Reverend Sergius of Radonezh", let us turn once again to the words of Klyu-chevsky, as if complementing Zaitsev's judgments: “The moral wealth of the people is clearly calculated by the monuments of deeds for the common good, by the memories of the figures who contributed the largest number goodness in your society. With these monuments and memories, the moral feeling of the people grows together; they are its nourishing soil; in them his roots; tear it away from them, it will wither like cut grass. They nurture not popular conceit, but the idea of ​​the responsibility of descendants to great ancestors, for a moral sense is a sense of duty.

Creating the image of Sergius, the author widely uses the technique of contrast, which is greatly enhanced, as if exposed, literally becomes “black and white” by the end of the story. This is especially clearly seen in the chapter "Evening Light", which shows that boundary of the venerable earthly path, where, in the words of Leskov, life ends and life begins. “People of struggle, politics, war, like Dimitri, Kalita, Oleg, often feel burdensome and tired towards the end of their lives.” Sergius at the end of his days - "living schema". “Behind is the active cross, it is already at the height of the contemplative cross…<…>The saint is almost outside. So enlightened, imbued with the spirit, still alive, transformed, that it is already higher than a person.. And this “higher than man”, as far as it is possible to convey in words, Zaitsev re-creates (following the author of his life), talking about the miraculous visions of Sergius.

The sad, elegiac notes of the description of the death of the monk, who concludes the chapter, are replaced by a powerful, solemn chord - Sergius and Russia, Sergius for Russia ... (chapter "Deed and Appearance"): “Five hundred years later, looking at his image, you feel: yes, Russia is great. Yes, the holy power is given to her. Yes, next to the power, the truth, we can live. In difficult times of blood, violence, ferocity, betrayal, meanness - the unearthly appearance of Sergius satisfies and supports.<…>Sergius silently teaches the simplest: truth, straightforwardness, masculinity, work, reverence and faith.

Of course, the writer addressed these final words of the story, first of all, to his contemporaries - Russian people who, by the will of fate, found themselves in a foreign land, trying to maintain the cheerfulness of the spirit of their compatriots, help them to adequately go through the thorns of exiled life, help them remain Russian. But in the same way, these words are addressed to us, readers of the beginning of the 21st century ...

According to ancient legend, the estate of Sergius's parents, the Rostov boyars Kirill and Maria, was located in the vicinity of Rostov the Great, on the way to Yaroslavl. Parents, "noble boyars", apparently, lived simply, they were quiet, calm people, with a strong and serious way of life. Although Kirill accompanied the princes of Rostov to the Horde more than once, as a trusted, close person, he himself did not live well. It is impossible to speak of any luxury, licentiousness of the later landowner. Rather, on the contrary, one might think that domestic life is closer to that of a peasant: as a boy, Sergius (and then Bartholomew) was sent for horses in the field. This means that he knew how to confuse them and turn them around. And leading to some stump, grabbing the bangs, jump up, triumphantly trot home. Perhaps he chased them at night too. And, of course, he was not a barchuk.

Parents can be imagined as respectable and fair people, religious to a high degree. It is known that they were especially "hobbyist". They helped the poor and willingly accepted wanderers. Probably, in a sedate life, wanderers are that searching beginning, dreamily resisting everyday life, which also played a role in the fate of Bartholomew.

There are fluctuations in the year of the saint's birth: 1314-1322. The biographer muffled, contradictory talks about this.

Be that as it may, it is known that on May 3, a son was born to Mary. The priest gave him the name of Bartholomew, after the day of the celebration of this saint.

The special shade that distinguishes him lies on the child from early childhood.

Bartholomew was given seven years to study literacy, to a church school, together with his brother Stefan. Stefan studied well. Science was not given to Bartholomew. Like Sergius later, little Bartholomew is very stubborn and tries, but there is no success. He is distressed. The teacher sometimes punishes him. Comrades laugh and parents admonish. Bartholomew cries alone, but does not move forward.

And now, a village picture, so close and so understandable six hundred years later! The foals wandered somewhere and disappeared. Father sent Bartholomew to look for them, probably the boy is not only in the times of the Tatars. Personally, she did not touch him: they hid him wandering around the fields, in the forest, perhaps, near the shore of Lake Rostov and called them, patted them with a whip, dragged halters. With all the love of Bartholomew for loneliness, nature, and for all his daydreaming, he, of course, conscientiously performed every task - this feature marked his whole life.

Now he - very dejected by failures - found not what he was looking for. Under an oak tree, I met "an elder of the Black Sea, with the rank of presbyter." Obviously, the old man understood him.

What do you want, boy?

Bartholomew, through tears, spoke about his grief and asked to pray that God would help him overcome the letter.

And under the same oak stood the old man for prayer. Next to him is Bartholomew - a halter over his shoulder. Having finished, the stranger took out the ark from his bosom, took a particle of prosphora, blessed Bartholomew with it and ordered him to eat it.

This is given to you as a sign of grace and for understanding.

Holy Scripture. From now on, you will master literacy better than brothers and comrades.

What they talked about next, we do not know. But Bartholomew invited the elder home. His parents received him well, as usual wanderers. The elder called the boy to the prayer room and ordered him to read the psalms. The child responded with incompetence. But the visitor himself gave the book, repeating the order.

And the guest was fed, at dinner they told about the signs over his son. The elder again confirmed that now Bartholomew would begin to understand Holy Scripture well and would overcome reading. Then he added: “The lad will once be the abode of the Presv. Trinity; he will lead many behind him to the understanding of the Divine commandments.”

From that time on, Bartholomew moved on, already read any book without hesitation, and Epiphanius claims that he even overtook his comrades.

In the story with his teachings, failures and unexpected, mysterious success, some of the features of Sergius are visible in the boy: there is a sign of modesty, humility in the fact that the future saint could not naturally learn to read and write. His ordinary brother Stefan read better than he did, he was punished more than ordinary students. Although the biographer says that Bartholomew overtook his peers, but the whole life of Sergius indicates that his strength is not in the ability to science: in this, after all, he did not create anything. Perhaps even Epiphanius, an educated man who traveled a lot around St. places, who wrote the lives of Sts. Sergius and Stefan of Perm, was above him as a writer, as a scientist. But a direct connection, living, with God, was indicated very early in the incapable Bartholomew. There are people outwardly so brilliantly gifted - often the last truth is closed to them. Sergius, it seems, belonged to those to whom the ordinary is hard, and mediocrity will overtake them - but the extraordinary is fully revealed. Their genius is elsewhere.

And the genius of the boy Bartholomew led him in a different way, where science is less needed: already on the threshold of youth, the hermit, the faster, the monk stood out brightly. Most of all he loves services, church, reading sacred books. And surprisingly serious. This is no longer a child.

The main thing is: he has his own. He is not pious because he lives among the pious. He is ahead of others. He is led by a calling. No one forces you to asceticism - he becomes an ascetic and fasts on Wednesdays, Fridays, eats bread, drinks water, and he is always quiet, silent, affectionate in his manner, but with some seal. Dress modestly. If he meets a poor man, he gives the last.

Excellent relationship with family. Of course, the mother (or maybe the father) had long felt something special in him. But it seemed that he was too exhausted. She begs him not to force himself. He objects. Perhaps, because of his gifts, disagreements and reproaches also came out (just an assumption), but what a sense of proportion! The son remains just an obedient son, life emphasizes this, and the facts confirm it. Bartholomew found harmony, in which he was himself, without perverting his appearance, but without breaking with also, obviously, clear parents. There was no ecstasy in him, as there was in Francis of Assisi. If he were blessed, then on Russian soil this would mean b: holy fool. But precisely foolishness is alien to him. Living, he reckoned with life, with his family, the spirit of his native home, just as the family reckoned with him. Therefore, the fate of flight and separation is inapplicable to him.

And internally, during these years of adolescence, early youth, he naturally accumulated the desire to leave the lower and middle world for the higher world, the world of unclouded contemplation and direct communion with God.

This was to be realized in other places, not where he spent his childhood.

Performance

It is difficult to say when human life was easy. You can make a mistake when naming the light periods, but it seems that you can’t make a mistake in the dark ones. And without risk you will begin to assert that the fourteenth century, the times of the Tatar region, lay like a stone on the heart of the people.

True, the terrible invasions of the thirteenth century ceased. Khans won, ruled. Relative silence. And yet: tribute, Baskaks, irresponsibility and lack of rights even before the Tatar merchants, even before the Mongol rogues, not to mention the authorities. And just a little - a punitive expedition: "always the army of Akhmulov was," "the great army of Turalykov," which means: atrocities, violence, robbery and blood.

But even in Russia itself, a painful and difficult process was going on: "gathering up the land." Yuri and Ivan (Kalita) Danilovichi “collected” the Russian land with not very clean hands. The deep sadness of history, the self-justification of rapists - "everything is in the blood!". Did Yuri understand or not, when during his time in the Horde his rival, Mikhail of Tverskoy, was under the yoke for a month, that he was doing the work of history, or Kalita, treacherously ruining Alexander Mikhailovich? "High politics", or simply "raised" their Moscow fiefdom - in any case, they were not shy about means. history for them. A hundred years later, Moscow unshakably rose above the specific confusion, broke the Tatars and created Russia.

And in the time of Sergius, the picture turned out, for example, like this: Ivan Danilych gives two daughters - one to Vasily Yaroslavsky, the other to Konstantin Rostovsky - and now both Yaroslavl and Rostov fall under Moscow. “It was bitter then for the city of Rostov, and especially for its princes. All power and property was taken away from them, but all their honor and glory were drawn to Moscow.

A certain Vasily Kocheva arrived in Rostov as governor, "and with him another, named Mina." The Muscovites stopped at nothing. “They began to act with full power, oppressing the inhabitants, so that many Rostov residents were forced to give their property to Muscovites involuntarily, for which they received only insults and beatings and reached extreme poverty. It is difficult to retell everything that they suffered: the audacity of the Moscow governors reached the point that they hung the head of the Rostov mayor, the aged boyar Averky, upside down ... and left him for reproach. So they acted not only in Rostov, but in all its volosts and villages. The people grumbled, worried and complained. They said… that Moscow is tyrannizing.”

So, they ruined both strangers and their own. Bartholomew's parents, apparently, fell under a double action, and if Cyril spent money on trips to the Horde with the prince (and the trips were treated in such a way that, when leaving, they left wills at home), if he suffered from the "Great Turalykov army", then, of course, Mina and Kochevy were also good. In his old age, Kirill was completely ruined and only dreamed of where to get out of the Rostov region.

He went out as a settler in the village of Radonezh, in 12 faith. from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The village of Radonezh went to the son of Kalita, Andrei, and for his infancy, Kalita appointed Terenty Rtishcha as governor there. Wanting to populate a wild and wooded land, Terenty gave benefits to immigrants from other principalities, which attracted many. (Epiphanius mentions the thick names of the Rostovites: Protasy Tysyatsky, John Tormasov, Dudenya and Onesimus, and others).

Cyril received an estate in Radonezh, but he himself could no longer serve, due to old age. He was replaced by his son Stefan, who married back in Rostov. Cyril's younger son Peter also got married. Bartholomew continued his former life, only more urgently asked to enter the monastery. If his soul was always marked by a special attraction to prayer, God and solitude, then one can think that the woeful appearance of life, its violence, falsehood and ferocity only strengthened him more strongly in the thought of leaving for monasticism. It is possible that the pensive Bartholomew, trying to leave, felt that he was starting a big business. But did he clearly imagine that the feat he had conceived concerned more than one of his soul? That, going to the bears of Radonezh, he acquires some kind of support for influencing the miserable and selfish world? What, refusing it, begins a long, many-year work of enlightenment, ennoblement of this world? Probably not. He was too modest, too immersed in communion with God.

In the very story of the departure, the even and calm spirit of Bartholomew again clearly manifested itself.

His father asked him not to hurry.

We have become old, feeble; there is no one to serve us; your brothers have a lot of care for their families. We rejoice that you are trying to please the Lord. But your good part will not be taken away, just serve us a little while God takes us from here; behold, lead us to the grave, and then no one will rebuke you.

Bartholomew obeyed. St. Francis would have left, of course, would have shaken off the ashes of everything worldly, in bright ecstasy he would have rushed into tears and prayers of achievement. Bartholomew restrained himself. Waited.

What would he do if this situation dragged on for a long time? Probably wouldn't stay. But, no doubt, somehow with dignity he would have arranged for his parents and would have retired without rebellion. His type is different. And in response to the type, fate also developed, naturally and simply, without pressure, without pain: the parents themselves went to the monastery (Khotkovsky, three miles from Radonezh; it consisted of a male part and a female part). Stefan's wife died, he also became a monk, in the same Khotkovo. And then the parents died. Bartholomew could freely carry out the plan.

He did just that. True, he was still attached to his family: and at this hour, the last time he was in the world, he remembered Peter, his brother, bequeathed the remaining property to him. He himself went to Khotkov, to Stefan. As if he did not want to act here without the approval of the elder. Stefan convinced, and together they set off from Khotkovo to the nearby forests.

There were enough forests then. It was worth wishing, and anywhere you could put a hut, dig a cave and settle down. Not all land was privately owned. If several hermits gathered and it was necessary to build a church, to settle firmly, then they asked the permission of the prince and the blessing of the local saint. They consecrated the church - and the monastery arose.

Bartholomew and Stefan chose a place ten versts from Khotkovo. A small square that rose like a dome, later called Makovitsa. (The reverend says of himself: "I am Sergius Makovsky".) On all sides Makovitsa is surrounded by forests, centuries-old pines and firs. A place of great grandeur and beauty. The chronicle claims that in general this is a special hillock: “to speak ancient, I see light in that place before, and others fire, and I hear fragrances.”

Here the brothers settled. They built a hut from the branches (“before creating a single hut and covered it with myself”), then they cut down the cell and the “church”. How did they do it? Did you know carpentry? Probably, here, on Makovitsa, having invited a carpenter from outside, they learned how to cut huts “in the paw”. We don't know for sure. But in the future asceticism of Sergius, this is Russian carpentry and this “paw” is very significant. He grew up in the pine forests, learned his craft, through the centuries he retained the appearance of a carpenter-saint, a tireless builder of vestibules, churches, cells, and in the fragrance of his holiness, the aroma of pine shavings is so clear. Truly, St. Sergius could be considered the patron of this Great Russian craft.

Just as Bartholomew is cautious and unhurried in fulfilling his long-standing intention, he is also modest in the matter of the church. What will they call her? He turns to Stefan. Stefan remembered the words of the mysterious old man he met under the oak tree: the church should be in the name of the Holy Trinity. Bartholomew accepted this. Thus, the work of his life, so balanced and calm, received the patronage of the Trinity, the most deeply internally balanced idea of ​​Christianity. Further we will see that Sergius had a cult of the Mother of God. But still, in the deserts of Radonezh, not the Most Pure, and not Christ, but the Trinity led the saint.

Metropolitan Theognost, to whom they went, on foot, to Moscow, blessed them and sent priests with the antimension and the relics of the martyrs - the church was consecrated. The brothers continued to live on their Makovitsa. But their lives were not going well. The younger one turned out to be stronger and more spiritual than the older one. Stefan had a hard time. Maybe he even became a monk under the influence of his wife's death. Perhaps (and almost certainly) - he has a difficult character. Be that as it may, Stefan could not stand the harsh and truly "desert" life. After all, solitude is complete! Barely get what you need. They drank water, ate the bread that Peter brought them, at times, probably, Peter, It’s not even easy to get to them - there were no roads and no paths.

And Stefan left. To Moscow, to the Epiphany Monastery, where life was easier. Bartholomew, in complete solitude, continued his midnight feat.

Hermit

Not far from the desert lived hegumen-elder Mitrofan, whom Bartholomew, apparently, knew before. In the annals there is a mention that Bartholomew "called for a mass some someone else's priest or abbot of an elder, and commanded to perform the liturgy." Perhaps it was Abbot Mitrofan who came to him for this. Once he asked the abbot to live with him in a cell for a while. He stayed. And then the hermit discovered his desire - to become a monk. He asked to be tonsured.

Hegumen Mitrofan 7th Oct. tonsured the young man, On this day the Church celebrates Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, and Bartholomew became Sergius in monasticism - he took the name under which he passed into History.

Having performed the rite of tonsure, Mitrofan introduced Sergius to St. Secrets. Then he stayed for a week in a cell. Every day he celebrated the liturgy, but Sergius spent seven days without leaving his "church", praying, "tasting" nothing, except for the prosphora that Mitrofan gave. Always so hardworking, now Sergius, in order not to have fun, stopped all "sharing". Psalms and spiritual songs never left his lips. And when the time came for Mitrofan to leave, he asked his blessings for the desert life.

You're already leaving and leaving me alone. For a long time I wanted to retire and always asked the Lord about it, remembering the words of the prophet: behold, I ran away, and settled in the wilderness. Bless me, the humble, and pray for my solitude.

The abbot supported him and reassured him as much as he could. And the young monk was left alone among his gloomy forests.

You can think that this is the most difficult time for him. The thousand-year experience of monasticism has established that the most difficult, internally, are the first months of a hermit. Asceticism is not easily assimilated. There is a whole science of spiritual self-education, a strategy of struggle for the organization of the human soul, for bringing it out of variegation and vanity into a strict canon. Ascetic feat - smoothing, straightening the soul to a single vertical. In this guise, she most easily and most lovingly unites with the Primary Principle, the current of the divine runs through her more unhindered. They talk about the thermal conductivity of physical bodies. Why not call spirituality that quality of the soul, which makes it possible to feel God, connects with Him. In addition to being chosen, grace, there is culture and discipline here. Apparently, even natures, like those of Sergius, previously prepared, do not enter the mainstream so soon and experience deep shocks. They are called temptations.

If a person so sharply strains upwards, so subdues the variegation of his line of God, he is subject to ebb, and decline, fatigue. God is strength, the devil is weakness. God is convex, devil is concave. For ascetics who have not yet found a measure, high rises are followed by falls, melancholy, despair. Weakened imagination falls into concavity. Simple, life-pleasant seems seductive. Spiritual ideal - unattainable. The fight is hopeless. Peace, wealth, fame, a woman... and for the weary, mirages arise.

Hermits have been through it all. St. Basil the Great, the leader of monasticism, left instructions to hermits in the fight against weaknesses. This is a continuous training of the spirit - reading the word of God and the lives of the saints, every evening thinking about your thoughts and desires for the day (examen de conscience of Catholics), thoughts about death, fasting, prayer, cultivating the feeling that God is constantly watching you, etc.

St. Sergius knew and used the instructions of the Bishop of Caesarea, but nevertheless he was subjected to terrible and painful visions. The biographer talks about it. Images of beasts and vile reptiles arose before him. They rushed at him with a whistle, gnashing of teeth. One night, according to the story of the monk, when in his “church” he “sang Matins,” Satan himself suddenly entered through the wall, with him a whole “regiment of demons.” The demons were all wearing pointed hats, in the manner of the Lithuanians. They chased him away, threatened, attacked. He prayed. (“Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered.”) The demons were gone.

Another time the cell was filled with snakes - they even covered the floor. Outside there was a noise, and the "hordes of demons" seemed to sweep through the forest. He heard shouts: “Go away, away! Why did you come to this wilderness of the forest, what do you want to find here? No, don't hope to live here any longer: you won't spend even an hour here; you see, the place is empty and impassable; how are you not afraid to die here of hunger or perish at the hands of murderers-robbers?

Apparently, Sergius was most of all subjected to the temptation of fear, in the ancient, sweetly naive language: "insurance." As if the weakness where he fell into, abandoned by his brother, was: doubt and uncertainty, a feeling of longing and loneliness. Will he survive in a formidable forest, in a wretched cell? The autumn and winter blizzards on his Makovice must have been terrible! After all, Stefan could not stand it. But Sergius is not like that. He is stubborn, patient, and he is "loving God." Cool and transparent spirit. And with him Divine help, like a response to gravity. He overcomes.

The other temptations of the hermits seemed to have passed him by altogether. St. Anthony in Thebaid was tormented by the languor of voluptuousness, the temptation of "food and drink." Alexandria, luxury, the heat of Egypt and the blood of the south have little in common with the northern Thebaid. Sergius was always moderate, simple and restrained, he did not see luxury, licentiousness, "the charms of the world." The carpenter saint of Radonezh is protected from many things by his harsh country and dignified childhood. One must think that in general the desert skill was easier for him than it was given to others. Perhaps, natural calmness, unbrokenness, non-ecstatic nature also protected. There is absolutely nothing painful about it. The full spirit of the Holy Trinity led him along a dry, lonely, clean path among the fragrance of the pines and firs of Radonezh.

So he lived, all alone, for some time. Epiphanius does not vouch for accuracy. He says simply and charmingly: “I will remain unified for him in the desert, or two years, or more or less, God knows.” There are no external events. spiritual growth and maturation, a new temper before the new, no less holy, but complicated life of the head of the monastery and beyond - the elder, to whose voice Rus' will listen. Perhaps rare visits and liturgies in the "church". Prayers, work on a bed of cabbage and the life of the forest around: he did not preach, like Francis, to the birds and did not turn the wolf from Gubbio, but, according to the Nikon chronicle, he had a forest friend. Sergius once saw a huge bear near the cells, weak from hunger. And regretted it. He brought a loaf of bread from the cells, gave it - from childhood, after all, as parents, he was "strangely acceptable." The furry wanderer ate peacefully. Then I started visiting him. Sergius always served. And the bear became tame.

But no matter how lonely the monk was at that time, there were rumors about his hermitage. And now people began to appear, asking to be taken to them, to be saved together. Sergius responded. He pointed to the difficulty of life, the hardships associated with it. Stefan's example was still alive for him. Still, he gave in. And he accepted several: an elderly Vasily Sukhoi from the upper reaches of the Dubna River. Farmer Yakov, the brethren called him Yakuta; he served as a messenger. However, they rarely sent him, to extremes: they tried to manage everything themselves. Mentioned also: Onesimus, a deacon, and Elisha, father and son, fellow countrymen of Sergius, from the Rostov land. Sylvester Obnorsky, Methodius Peshnoshsky, Andronicus.

Twelve cells were built. They surrounded it with a tyn to protect it from animals. Onesimus, whose cell was at the gate, was appointed by Sergius as a goalkeeper. The cells stood under huge pines and firs. The stumps of freshly felled trees stuck out. Between them, the brethren planted their modest garden.

They lived quietly and harshly. Sergius set an example in everything. He himself chopped cells, dragged logs, carried water in two water carriers uphill, ground with hand millstones, baked bread, cooked food, cut and sewed clothes, shoes, was, according to Epiphanius, for everyone "like a bought slave." And he must have been a good carpenter by now. In summer and winter he walked in the same clothes, neither frost took him, nor heat. Physically, despite the meager food (bread and water), he was very strong, "had strength against two people."

He was the first in the service. The services began at midnight (Midnight Office), followed by Matins, the third, sixth and ninth hours. In the evening - Vespers. In the intervals, frequent “prayer singing” and prayer in the cells, work in the gardens, sewing clothes, copying books and even icon painting. A priest from a neighboring village was invited to serve the Liturgy, and Mitrofan, who had tonsured Sergius in his time, also came. Later, he also became a member of the brethren - he was the first abbot. But he did not live long, he soon died.

So from a solitary hermit, prayer book, contemplator, a figure grew up in Sergius. He was not yet hegumen and did not have the priesthood. But this is already the rector of a small community, apostolic in terms of the number of cells, apostolic in the spirit of early Christian simplicity and poverty, and in terms of the historical role that it was supposed to play in the spread of monasticism.

hegumen

So the years went by. The community lived unquestionably under Sergius. He led a clear line, although not so severe and less formalistic than, for example, Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, who made submission to himself the basis. Theodosius demanded the most precise execution of orders. But Theodosius, who did not take off his sackcloth, exposed himself to be eaten by mosquitoes and midges, was also more passionate in the ascetic feat - this is again a different appearance. The vital and organizational work of Sergius was done almost by itself, without visible pressure. Sometimes, as in the story of the abbess, as if even against his will.

The monastery grew, became more complex and had to take shape. The brethren wanted Sergius to become abbot. And he refused.

The desire to be abbess, - he said, - is the beginning and root of the love of power.

But the brethren persisted. Several times the elders “approached” him, persuaded him, persuaded him. After all, Sergius himself founded the hermitage, he himself built the church; who should be abbot, celebrate the liturgy.

(Until now, it was necessary to invite a priest from outside. And in ancient monasteries, usually the abbot was also a priest.)

The insistence turned almost into threats: the brethren declared that if there was no abbot, everyone would disperse. Then Sergius, spending his usual sense of proportion, yielded, but also relatively.

I wish, - said, - it is better to study than to teach; it is better to obey than to rule; but I fear the judgment of God; I do not know what is pleasing to God; the holy will of the Lord be done!

And he decided not to argue - to transfer the matter to the discretion of the church authorities.

Metropolitan Alexy was not in Moscow at that time. Sergius, with two of the elders of the brethren, went on foot to his deputy, Bishop Athanasius, in Pereslavl-Zalessky.

He appeared to the saint early in the morning, before the Liturgy, fell on his knees and asked for blessings. In an age when saints walked and when there was hardly a road to the Lavra, when the bishop was probably addressed without a report, it is not surprising that the bishop asked a modest monk, covered in dust and mud, who he was.

Nevertheless, the name of Sergius was known to him. He ordered without hesitation to accept the abbess. Sergius could not refuse. Everything happened simply, in the spirit of that time. Athanasius with his clergymen immediately went to the church, dressed, ordered Sergius to pronounce the Creed aloud and, signing the cross, made him a subdeacon. During the liturgy, Sergius was elevated to the rank of hierodeacon. I received the priesthood the next day. And the next - he himself served the liturgy, for the first time in his life. When it ended, Bishop Athanasius said prayers over him, consecrating him as abbot. Then, after a conversation in the cell, he let go.

And Sergius returned, with a clear assignment from the Church - to educate, to lead his desert family. He took care of it. But he didn’t change his own life as abbess at all: he just continued to be a “bought slave” for the brethren. He rolled candles himself, boiled kutya, prepared prosphora, ground wheat for them.

In the fifties, Archimandrite Simon from the Smolensk region came to him, having heard about his holy life. Simon was the first to bring funds to the monastery. They allowed the construction of a new, larger church of the Holy Trinity.

Since then, the number of novices began to grow. The cells began to be placed in some order. Sergius' activities expanded. The liturgical charter of Theodore the Studite was introduced, the same as once in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra

Sergius did not cut his hair immediately. He observed, studied intently the mental development of the newcomer. “He will order,” says Epiphanius, “to dress the stranger in a long roll of coarse, black cloth and orders him to undergo some kind of obedience, along with other brethren, until he gets used to the whole charter of the monastery; then he will clothe him in monastic clothes; and only after the test will he cut his hair into a mantle and give him a hood. And when he saw that a monk was already experienced in spiritual achievement, St. schemas."

Despite the construction of a new church, the increase in the number of monks, the monastery is still strict and poor. His type is also "special". Everyone exists on their own, there is no common meal, pantries, barns. Undoubtedly, some of the property appeared - for example, at arch. Simon, at Peresvet, and others. Until the time, Sergius did not forbid this. But he closely observed the spiritual life of the brethren and led it. First, he was a confessor - they confessed to him. He determined the measure of obedience according to the strengths and abilities of each. This is his inner communication. But he also followed external discipline. It was supposed that a monk spends time in his cell either in prayer, or in thinking about his sins, checking his behavior, or reading St. books, rewriting them, iconography - but not in conversations.

In the evenings, sometimes even at night, after finishing his prayers, the monk went around the cell and peered into the “carriage” windows. If he found the monks together, he would knock them on the window with a stick, and in the morning he would call to him, “admonish.” He acted calmly and without offending, most of all trying to convince. But sometimes he imposed penance. In general, apparently, he had the gift of maintaining a fine and high spirit simply by the charm of his appearance. Probably, as abbot, he did not inspire fear, but that feeling of worship, inner respect, in which it is difficult to recognize oneself as wrong next to the righteous.

The industriousness of the boy and young man Bartholomew remained unchanged in the abbot. According to the well-known precept. Paul, he demanded labor from the monks and forbade them to go out for alms. This is in sharp contrast to St. Francis. The Blessed One of Assisi did not feel the ground beneath him. All his short life he flew, in a bright ecstasy, above the earth, but he flew "to the people", with the preaching of the apostles and Christ, coming closest to the image of Christ himself. Therefore, he could not, in essence, establish anything on earth (others established it for him). And labor, that industriousness, which is the root of attachment, is not essential for him.

On the contrary, Sergius was not a preacher, neither he nor his disciples wandered around the Great Russian Umbria with a fiery speech and a mug for alms. He spent fifty years quietly in the depths of the forests, teaching by himself, "quietly doing," but not by direct missionary work. And in this “doing,” along with spiritual discipline, that black labor played a huge role, without which he himself and his monastery would have perished. St. Sergius, Orthodox in the deepest way, planted in a certain sense Western culture (labor, order, discipline) in the Radonezh forests, and St. Francis, having been born in a country of exuberant culture, seemed to rebel against it.

So, the Sergius monastery continued to be the poorest. Often the necessary things were also lacking: wine for the celebration of the liturgy, wax for candles, lamp oil, for copying books, not only parchment, but also a simple haratya. Liturgy was sometimes postponed. Instead of candles - torches. The image of the north, the way of life is ancient, but has almost come down to us: the Russian hut with a torch has been familiar to us since childhood and has come to life again in difficult recent years. But in the Sergius Hermitage, during the crackling, the soot of the torches, they read, sang books of the highest holiness, surrounded by that holy poverty that Francis himself would not reject. Books were copied on birch bark - this, of course, no one in blissfully bright Italy knew. In the Lavra, the poor wooden chalice and paten that served during the liturgy, and the monk's phelonion - made of coarse krashenka with blue crosses, have survived to this day. They ate very badly. Often there was no handful of flour, no bread, no salt, not to mention seasonings - butter, etc.

The next two stories depict the financial situation of the monastery and the role of the hegumen - truly, unthinkable for the West.

In one of the difficult lanes, St. Sergius, having starved for three days, took an ax and went to a cell to a certain Daniel.

Elder, I heard that you want to build a vestibule for your cells. Give me this work so that my hands will not be idle.

True, - answered Daniel, - I would very much like to build them; I have everything already prepared for work, and now I am waiting for a carpenter from the village. And how do you get this job done? Perhaps you will ask me dearly.

“This work will not cost you much,” Sergius told him, “I just want rotten bread, but you have it; I won't ask you for this anymore. Don't you know that I can work as well as a carpenter? Why would you call another carpenter?

Then Daniel brought him a sieve with pieces of rotten bread (“bring him a sieve of rotten posmag bread”), which he himself could not eat, and said: here, if you want, take everything that is here, but don’t ask for more.

Okay, that's enough for me; save it until the ninth hour: I do not take payment before work.

And, pulling himself tightly with a belt, he set to work. Until late in the evening he sawed, hewn, hollowed out poles and finished the construction. Elder Daniel again brought him rotten pieces of bread as an agreed payment for the work of the whole day. Only then did Sergius eat.

So, the abbot, confessor and leader of souls in his personal business turned out to be the last one, almost really a “bought slave”. Elder Daniel begins by saying that he is afraid that St. Sergius “took too much”. Why did he decide that Sergius would take dearly? Why did he allow the abbot to work for him all day long? Why didn't he just share his bread? (He didn’t even “share” it; it is said that he himself could not eat this bread.) Doesn’t this indicate that through the upbringing and influence of the monk in individual monks, the most ordinary, worldly things broke through to callousness and calculation? The elder, who came to Sergius for confession, whose soul and piety he follows, considers it right to pay him for the work of the whole day with worthless bread - a carpenter from the village would not have touched him. And Sergius, obviously, distinguishes spiritual, guiding activity from worldly relations. Modesty is his quality. Here is a brilliant manifestation of it.

Another story is also connected with the poverty of the monastery, the strength of faith, patience, restraint of Sergius himself, along with the greater weakness of some of the brethren.

In one of the attacks of need, there were dissatisfied people in the monastery. Starved for two days - murmured.

Here, - the monk said to the monk on behalf of everyone, - we looked at you and obeyed, and now we have to die of hunger, because you forbid us to go out into the world to beg. Let's endure another day, and tomorrow we will all leave here and never return: we are unable to endure such poverty, such rotten bread.

Sergius turned to the brethren with an admonition. But before he had time to finish it, a knock was heard at the monastery gates; the porter saw through the window that they had brought a lot of bread. He himself was very hungry, but still he ran to Sergius.

Father, they brought a lot of loaves, bless them to accept. Here, according to your holy prayers, they are at the gate.

Sergius blessed, and several wagons loaded with baked bread, fish and various food entered the monastery gates. Sergius rejoiced and said:

Well, you hungry ones, feed our breadwinners, invite them to share a common meal with us.

He ordered to hit the beater, everyone to go to church, serve a thanksgiving service. And only after the prayer he blessed to sit down for a meal. The loaves turned out to be warm, soft, as if they had just come out of the oven.

Where is the brother who grumbled at the moldy bread? - the monk asked at the meal. - Let him come in and try what kind of food the Lord has sent us.

He also asked where they brought them. They answered him: according to the drivers, this is a gift from an unknown donor. And the drivers have to go on, they don't have time to stay. And they've already left.

The incident with the loaves that arrived so on time remained in the memory of the brethren and passed into life as a manifestation of providence that supported the monk in a difficult moment. He brings us close to his miracles.

St. Sergius the Wonderworker and Mentor

One can argue as follows: God supports, inspires and intercedes for a person the more, the more a person aspires to him, loves, honors and burns, the higher his spiritual conductivity. Even a believer, not a saint, can feel the effect of this providence. A miracle, a violation of the “natural order” (an external, thin film, where everything is done according to the rules and under which, deeper, the realm of spiritual forces boils) - a miracle is not given to a “merely mortal” (just as true visions are not given to him). A miracle is a holiday that kindles everyday life, a response to love. The miracle is the victory of superalgebra, supergeometry over algebra and geometry of the school. The entry of the miraculous into our everyday life does not mean that the laws of everyday life are false. They are just not the only ones. What we call “wonderful” is completely “natural” for the higher world, but it is wonderful only for us, who live in everyday life and believe that there is nothing but everyday life. For a mollusc, it would be a miracle to hear the music of Beethoven, for a person, in a sense, a miracle - a drop of water under a microscope (not visible with the naked eye!), a vision of the future and physically invisible, and, most importantly, the least acceptable miracle - the instantaneous cancellation of our little law: resurrection according to of death. This, of course, is the greatest storm of love bursting from there, to the call of love that comes from here.

Even Rev. Sergius, in the early period of asceticism, had no visions, did not work miracles. Only a long, difficult path of self-education, asceticism, self-enlightenment leads him to miracles and to those bright visions that illuminate maturity. (It is remarkable that frightening visions, horror, shocking early years hermitage - there is no Sergius in his old age, when his spirit acquired absolute harmony and enlightenment.) In this respect, as in others, Sergius's life gives an image of a gradual, clear, internally healthy movement. It is a continuous, non-dramatic ascent. Holiness grows in him organically. The path of Saul, who suddenly felt like Paul, is not his path.

Calmly, having matured internally, he performs a miracle with the source. It is connected with ordinary, worldly affairs. While the monk lived alone on his Makovitsa, the question of water did not bother him. Was there a small spring near the monastery, insufficient for many? Or the spring was generally not so close and, without embarrassing Sergius, caused discontent among the brethren, is unknown. In any case, there was talk that it was difficult to carry water.

Then Sergius, taking one of the monks, went down from the monastery and, finding a small puddle of rainwater, stood in front of her to pray. He prayed that the Lord would give them water, as he once sent it through the prayer of Moses. He overshadowed the place with the sign of the cross, and from there he hammered a spring, forming a stream, which the brethren called Sergius River. But he forbade calling him that.

The second miracle of Sergius concerned the child. At this time, many already knew about him as a saint and came with worship and for advice, and most importantly, with their troubles. Epiphanius tells how one man brought him his seriously ill child. While he was asking Sergius to pray for him, and while the monk was getting ready to pray, the child died. The father fell into despair. He even began to reproach Sergius: it would be better if the child had died at home, and not in the cell of the saint: at least faith would not have diminished.

And the father went out to prepare the coffin. And when he returned, Sergius met him with the words:

You are right to be so embarrassed. The lad did not die at all.

The child was now truly alive. Father fell at the feet of Sergius. But he began to reassure him and even convince him that the child was just in a strong fit, and now he warmed up and moved away. The father warmly thanked the monk for his prayers. But he forbade him to divulge about the miracle. It became known later, says Bl. Epiphanius, from the cell-attendant, pr. Sergius. His story is given by Epiphanius.

He also tells about a seriously ill man who could not sleep or eat for three weeks and who was healed by St. Sergius, sprinkled with holy water. About a noble nobleman, demoniac, brought from the banks of the Volga, where the glory of Sergius as a miracle worker has already penetrated. The nobleman was taken by force. He did not want to hear about Sergius, fought, torn, had to shackle him with chains.

Already in front of the monastery itself, he broke the chains in a rage. The cry was heard in the monastery. Sergius ordered to hit the beater and the brethren to gather in the church. A prayer service began - for recovery. Slowly, he began to calm down. Finally, the monk came out to him with a cross. As soon as he overshadowed him, he rushed into the puddle with a cry: “I am burning, I am burning with a terrible flame!”

And recovered. Later, when his sanity returned, he was asked why he threw himself into the water. He replied that he saw "a great flame" coming from the Cross and engulfing him. He wanted to take refuge in the water.

Such healings, and relief, and miracles spread the glory of Sergius widely. To him, as a sage and a saint, there were people of different positions - from princes to peasants. Let the monastery grow and prosper, Sergius remained the same simple-looking "old man", meek and quiet comforter, mentor, and sometimes a judge.

Life gives two cases when, through Sergius, punishing forces also acted, as it were.

Near the monastery, a rich man took a pig from a poor man. The victim complained to Sergius. He called the offender and convinced for a long time - to return what was taken. The rich man promised. But at home he regretted and decided not to give. It was winter. He had just slaughtered the pig, it was lying in his crate. Glancing, he sees that the whole carcass has already been eaten away by worms.

Another story is about the sudden blindness of the Greek bishop, who doubted the holiness of Sergius, a blindness that struck him as soon as he approached the monk in the monastery fence. Sergius had to lead him by the hand to his cell. There he confessed his unbelief and asked for intercession. Sergius, having prayed, healed him.

Probably, there were many such "visitors" and "applicants for intercession". Undoubtedly, very many came simply for advice, repented of deeds that tormented the soul: Epiphanius cannot tell about everything. He conveys the most memorable.

In general, the striving for purification and “direction” firmly sits in the living soul. Before our eyes, endless pilgrimages to Optina were made - from Gogol, Tolstoy, Solovyov, with the most complex inquiries of the soul, to women - whether to marry off a daughter and how best to live with her husband. And in the revolution, and to ordinary priests, the Red Army came to repent - both in blasphemy and in murders.

From half his life, Sergius advanced to the post of a national teacher, intercessor and encourager. In his time, "elderhood" did not yet exist. The “elders” in Orthodoxy appeared late, in the 18th century, with Paisiy Velichkovsky. But the very type of “teaching elder” is ancient, it comes from Greek monasteries, and in the 15th century we know, for example, the teaching elder Philotheus of Pskov.

In later monasteries, the elders stood out in a special category - contemplative sages, keeping the tradition of true Orthodoxy, little touching on monastic life.

Sergius was both an abbot and, as we shall see, even a public and political figure. But he can also be considered the founder of eldership.

Hostel and thorns

It is not entirely clear whether, during the life of Sergius, there were villages near the monastery. Probably not. It is believed that he did not make a ban on accepting donations. Forbidden to ask. At the extreme, Franciscan point (the Franciscans themselves could not stand it), apparently, he did not stand. Irreconcilable decisions are not in his spirit at all. Perhaps he watched that "God gives", which means that he must take, as he accepted carts with bread and fish from an unknown donor. In any case, it is known that shortly before the death of the monk, a Galich boyar donated to the monastery half of the brewery and half of the salt well at Salt of Galicia (today's Soligalich).

The monastery did not need now, as before. And Sergius was still just as simple - poor, poor and indifferent to the benefits, as he remained until his death. Neither power nor various "differences" occupied him at all. But he did not emphasize this. How amazingly natural and imperceptible everything is in it! Separate five hundred years. Oh, if I could see him, hear him. I don't think he would have hit anything right away. A quiet voice, quiet movements, the face of the deceased, the holy Great Russian carpenter. Such is he even on the icon - through all its conventionality - the image of an invisible and charming in the sincerity of his landscape of the Russian, Russian soul. In it are our rye and cornflowers, birch trees and mirrored waters, swallows and crosses and the incomparable fragrance of Russia. Everything is raised to the utmost lightness, purity.

The elders who lived with him for a long time told Epiphanius that the monk never wore new clothes, but “skinned fabric made from simple sheep’s wool, and, moreover, shabby, which, as worthless, others refused to wear.” Most of the time I sewed the clothes myself. “Once a good cloth did not happen in his monastery; there was only one half, rotten, some kind of motley ("cloudy") and poorly woven. None of the brethren wanted to use it: one handed it to another, and so she went around to seven people. But St. Sergius took it, made a cassock out of it and put it on, he didn’t want to part.” A year later, it fell apart completely.

It is clear that in appearance it was not difficult to take him for the last of the monastic novices.

I quote almost verbatim the story of Epiphanius. He simply and vividly draws the saint in the monastery. Many came from afar just to look at the reverend. Wished to see him and one simple farmer. At the entrance to the monastery fence, he began to ask the brethren: where could I see their glorious abbot? And the monk at that time was working in the garden, digging the ground with a spade for vegetables.

Wait a little until he comes out of there, the monks answered.

The peasant looked into the garden through the opening of the fence and saw an old man in patched clothes working on the garden bed. He did not believe that this modest old man was the same Sergius to whom he was going. And again he began to pester the brethren, demanding that they show him the abbot. “I came here from afar to see him, I have important business before him. “We have already pointed out the hegumen to you,” the monks answered. “If you don’t believe me, ask him yourself.

The peasant decided to wait at the gate. When St. Sergius came out, the monks said to the peasant:

Here he is, who you need. The visitor turned away in chagrin.

I came from afar to look at the prophet, and you show some beggar! But I have not yet lived up to such madness as to consider this wretched old man for the famous Sergius.

The monks were offended. Only the presence of the monk prevented them from expelling him. But Sergius himself went to meet him, bowed to the ground, kissed him. Then he took me to dinner. The peasant expressed his grief; he did not have to see the abbot.

Do not grieve, brother, - the monk consoled him, - God is so merciful to this place that no one leaves here sad. And He will soon show you who you are looking for.

At this time, the prince arrived at the monastery with a retinue of boyars. The saint stood up to meet him. The arrivals pushed the peasant away from both the prince and the abbot. The prince bowed to the ground to the saint. He kissed him and blessed him, then both of them sat down, and all the others "respectfully stood around."

The peasant walked among them and kept trying to see where Sergius was. Finally asked again:

Who is this black man that sits to the right of the prince? The monk reproachfully said to him:

Are you a stranger here that you don't know Reverend Father Sergius?

Only then did he realize his mistake. And on the departure of the prince, he threw himself at the feet of Sergius, asking for forgiveness.

Of course, the "beggar" and "wretched old man" was not harsh to him. Epiphanius quotes his words:

Do not grieve, child; you alone judged me fairly, because they are all mistaken. It is believed that Epiphanius even observed this scene himself, which is why he wrote it so carefully.

How amazingly simple and serious the saint is in it! Of course, "life" always gives iconicity to what is depicted. But as far as one can feel Sergius, through the darkness of years and brief messages, there was no smile in him at all. St. Francis smiles sincerely - and the sun, and flowers, and birds, the wolf from Gubbio. There is a smile - warm and vital - at St. Seraphim of Sarov. St. Sergius is lucid, merciful, "loving hospitable", he also blessed nature, in the form of a bear, which came close to him. He interceded before the brethren and for the common man. It has no sadness. But as if he is always in a restrained, crystal-rarefied and cool atmosphere. It has a certain north of spirit.

We saw that the prince came to Sergius. This is the time when the "old man" is heard throughout Russia, when he approaches Met. Alexy, settles disputes, performs a grandiose mission to spread monasteries.

Meanwhile, in his own monastery, not everything is calm - namely, there is a struggle for and against the hostel.

Historically, special monasticism came to us from Greece. Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves introduced a hostel, but later it was again supplanted by a special feature, etc. Sergius deserves the merit of the final restoration of the hostel.

It didn't come to him right away.

At first, the monastery on Makovitsa was also special. It has already been mentioned that for the time being St. Sergius allowed the monks even some property in the cells. But with the growth of the monastery and the brethren, this became inconvenient. There was a difference in the position of the monks, envy, an undesirable spirit in general. The monk wanted a stricter order, closer to the early Christian community. All are equal and all are poor equally. Nobody has anything. The monastery lives in a community.

At this time, Sergius, hegumen, friend of Metropolitan Alexy, already felt that the work of the Lavra was an all-Russian and messianic work. The abode-ancestor itself must take on an invulnerable appearance.

The life mentions the vision of the monk - the first in time - connected precisely with the life of the monastery.

One day, late in the evening, standing in his cell, as usual, at prayer, he heard a voice: “Sergius!” The monk prayed and opened the window of the cells. Wonderful light pours from the sky, and in it Sergius sees many beautiful birds unknown to him before. The same voice says:

Sergius, you are praying for your spiritual children: the Lord has accepted your prayer. Look around - you see how many monks you have gathered under your leadership in the name of the Life-Giving Trinity.

And the birds fly in the light and sing with unusual sweetness.

This is how the flock of your disciples will multiply, and after you they will not become scarce.

The monk in great joy called arch. Simon, who lived in a neighboring cell, in order to show him. But Simon found only the end of the vision - part of the heavenly light. The reverend told him about the rest.

This vision, perhaps, further strengthened Sergius in the need for strong, correct foundations - both for his monastery and for new ones being born.

It is believed that Mr. Alexy helped, supported his intentions - he was for the reform. And in the monastery itself, many are against it. One might think that Mr. Alexy showed some diplomacy here: at his request, Patriarch Cyrus Philotheus sent a message and gifts to St. Sergius - a cross, a paramand and a schema. The letter clearly advised the introduction of a hostel (“But one main thing (rule) is still not enough for you: as if you are not acquiring a common life.” And further: “That’s why I give you good advice: listen to our humility, as if you were to make a common life” ). Such a letter strengthened the position of Sergius as a reformer. And he entered the hostel.

Not everyone was happy with him in the monastery. For some, this both connected and embarrassed. Some even left.

The activity of Sergius was expanded and complicated by innovation. It was necessary to build new buildings - a refectory, a bakery, pantries, barns, housekeeping, etc. Previously, his leadership was only spiritual - the monks went to him as a confessor, for confession, for support and guidance. Now he seemed to be responsible for the very life of the monastery.

All able to work had to work. Private property is strictly prohibited.

In order to manage the more complex community, Sergius chose his assistants and distributed duties among them. The first person after the abbot was considered the cellar. This position was first established in Russian monasteries by St. Theodosius of the Caves. Kelar was in charge of the treasury, deanery and economy - not only inside the monastery. When the estates appeared, he was also in charge of their lives. Rules and court cases. Already under Sergius, apparently, there was own arable farming - around the monastery there are arable fields, partly they are cultivated by monks, partly by hired peasants, partly by those who want to work for the monastery. So the cellar has a lot of worries.

One of the first cells of the Lavra was St. Nikon, later abbot.

The most experienced in spiritual life were appointed as confessors. He is the confessor of the brethren. Savva Storozhevsky, the founder of the monastery near Zvenigorod, was one of the first confessors. Later, Epiphanius, the biographer of Sergius, received this position.

The ecclesiarch supervised the order in the church. (Execution of the church charter. At first Studian, more simple, and now Jerusalem, more solemn: the liturgy was performed every day, because there were already enough priests.) Smaller positions: paraecclesiarch - kept the church clean, canonarch - led "kliros obedience and kept the liturgical books.

The order of life in the cells remained the same: prayer and work. As usual, Sergius was the first to lead by example. We have already seen how the peasant found him in the garden. In addition, he sewed shoes and clothes for the brethren. He prepared "eve", a special kind of kutya. Nowhere does it say that he copied books, was engaged in icon painting. This confirms that the reverend was never a bookish man. Sergius is a carpenter, a gardener, a baker, a water carrier, a tailor and not an artist, not a "writer". And it was in the monastery that both icon painters and “writers” appeared. Sergius' nephew Theodore, who was tonsured in his youth, mastered icon painting in the Lavra. And there is an opinion that the art of icon painting was transferred from there to the Androniev Monastery, in Moscow, where the famous Andrei Rublev also lived.

"Book writing off" flourished in the Lavra. There are many books and leather-bound manuscripts of that time left in the vestry. For example, the Gospel of St. Nikon, the Service Book, written by his own hand in 1381, on parchment, “Teachings of Abba Dorotheus”, 1416, “by the hand of the sinful monk Anthony”, “Ladder”, 1411, “written off by hand rough and thin, strange, the last in a foreign shop, humbled by many sins of Varlaam.

And many others, some with amazing headpieces in colors and gold - for example, the Psalter, written under Abbot Nikon.

So they lived and worked in the monastery of Sergius, now already glorified, with roads laid to it, where it was possible to stop and stay for a while - whether for ordinary people, or for a prince. “Hospitalism” is, after all, a long-standing tradition of the reverend himself, taken out of the world, from his parents. And now she gave a reason to properly spend the surplus accumulated. It is considered probable that the first Lavra almshouse arose under Sergius. In any case, he is the initiator of monastic charity. And it is possible only with a hostel.

However - we have already said - in this orderly and calm community, not everything went smoothly. Not all of the brethren were saints, like Abbot Sergius. In essence, from the first steps of his "desert" life, the monk lived precisely with people, albeit in the guise of a monastic. Once his brother Stefan left him. Others threatened that they would leave when he did not want to accept the abbess, when there was hunger in the monastery. The third left at the introduction of the hostel. There were dissatisfied and from the rest. There was some dull fighting going on. She explains the difficult event that happened in the monastery.

We don't know anything clearly about the "frictions" due to the hostel. Neither Epiphanius nor the chronicle say anything about this - perhaps Epiphanius deliberately omits: it is easier to talk about light than about "too human". And the story about what happened is not fully prepared, it emerges too suddenly from the background of the undeveloped.

He is connected again with Stefan.

Once at Vespers - St. Sergius himself served her, was at the altar - Stefan, a lover of singing, stood on the kliros. The monk heard the voice of his brother addressed to the canonarch.

Who gave you this book?

To this, Stefan sharply, annoyed:

Who is the abbot here? Am I the first to found this place?

Having completed his service, the monk did not return to his cell. He left the monastery and walked along the path to Kinela without saying a word to anyone. Did he leave the monastery he founded, almost built with his own hands, where he spent so many holy years - because of the harsh words of his own brother? This, of course, is not true. We know the clarity and calmness of Sergius. The “nervous” act, caused by a sudden, sharp impression, does not suit Sergius at all - not only as a saint who humbly took rotten bread from Daniel, but also his human character, far from unexpected, impulsive movements. Of course, the case in the church is only the last feature. Of course, Sergius had long felt that some, not only Stefan, were dissatisfied with him, for the hostel, for the feat of a difficult life, where he called. And that it fell to do something.

From the point of view of the ordinary, he took a mysterious step. The abbot, abbot and "leader of souls", seemed to retreat. Left a post. He also left leadership. It is difficult to imagine in his place, for example, Theodosius of the Caves. Of course, he would humble the dissatisfied. It is impossible to think that the same thing happened to the Catholics. The culprits would have been punished, but the abbot, appointed by the archbishop himself, would not have left the monastery in any way.

But the Russian humble and “wretched” old man, whom even the peasant the visitor did not want to recognize as hegumen, on a gloomy evening came out of the Lavra with a stick, measured with senile but hardy carpenter’s legs to the Makhrishchi monastery of the jungle of Radonezh. He did not surrender to anyone, did not retreat before anyone. How can we know his feelings, opinions? We can only respectfully assume that the inner voice said so. Nothing external, formal. A clear, holy faith that "it will be better this way." Maybe, contrary to small mind, but - better. Cleaner. If passions are kindled, someone is jealous of me, believes that he needs to take my place, then let me leave, do not seduce and do not kindle. If they love me, then love will take its toll - albeit slowly. If God commands me so, then He already knows - there is nothing to think about.

And then the dead of night caught on the way - a prayer in the forest, a short dream. Was he afraid of St. Sergius of this forest - a hermit, a friend of bears? And in the morning, as once in front of the bishop in Pereslavl-Zalessky, spattered and dusty, he is at the gates of the Makhrishchi monastery. Its founding hegumen, tonsurer of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and friend of the monk, Stefan, learning that Sergius had visited him, ordered to hit the “beater” and went out with all the brethren. They bow down to the ground to each other, neither wants to go up first. But Sergius had to give in. And he gets up, blesses, - dear, honored guest in the monastery. He stays with Stefan for a while. And then, with the monk Simon, again on foot, again through the forests, he sets off to new lands, to found a new desert. He found them on the Kirzhach River. Pr. Sergius settled there.

But he didn't stay alone for long. Of course, there was confusion on Makovice. Most were upset - deeply. Went for the reverend. In the Makhrishchsky monastery, one of the monks learned that Sergius had gone further. He returned to the Lavra and told about it. And little by little, Sergius's devotees began to make their way to Kirzhach. So it was always with him: love, respect and worship attracted him. He did not dislike anyone. But even if he wanted to, he could not get away from his true glory - pure and spiritual. He could not remain alone in the forests anywhere, although he always sought solitude, always refused to rule, and most of all prayed and taught, worked.

He took up the ax and Kirzhach. He helped the monks build a cell, dug a well, asked Met. Alexy put up a church - and he did. They helped in this and from the outside, of course, sent alms. Introduced a communal charter here as well.

But this was not the end of the matter. The Lavra did not put up with the fact that he was gone. The elders went to the metropolitan, asking for influence. Maybe his departure was portrayed not quite accurately, softened. Nevertheless, it is obvious that without Sergius it was unpleasant for them. The Metropolitan didn't like it either. And he sent two archimandrites, Pavel and Terenty, with an exhortation to Sergius. It was probably half advice, half order. Arose because of the request of the brethren. Like nothing external - in the departure of Sergius, just as freely, in essence, is the return. Sergiy stayed on Kirzhach for 3-4 years. The Metropolitan could have brought him back by force a long time ago. This did not happen. Both were waiting for the time to come, to resolve the difficulty of life in the spirit of liberty and love. True, Alexy offered Sergius to remove those dissatisfied with the hostel. But they did not resort to this. This is not the style of Sergius. After all, if he wanted to, he could have done it much earlier - Alexy deeply honored him.

The Kirzhachsky monastery was consecrated and named Blagoveshchensky. The Metropolitan sent church utensils, ordained a disciple of Sergius - Roman as a "builder".

And Sergius returned to the Lavra. Epiphanius again described this return to us in detail, as if by an eyewitness. “It was touching to see how, some with tears of joy, others with tears of repentance, the disciples rushed to the feet of the holy elder: some kissed his hands, others kissed his feet, still others kissed his clothes; others, like small children, ran ahead to admire their desired abba, and were baptized for joy; From all sides were heard exclamations: Glory to Thee, O God, Who provides for all! Glory to Thee, Lord, that Thou hast vouchsafed us, who were orphans, to see our father again…” And further in the same pathetic tone.

If there is a trace of his own eloquence here (to which Epiphanius is generally inclined), then, undoubtedly, the return of the holy, pure and famous abbot to the monastery, founded by him, glorified by him, the abbot, offended for nothing, could not but excite. In general, we see this scene perfectly.

Stefan was not present. Was he in Moscow, in his monastery of the Epiphany? Unknown. We only know that after the death of Sergius, he is again in the Lavra. From him Epiphanius also knew about the childhood of the monk.

Sergius won - simply and quietly, without violence, as he did everything in life. It was not in vain that I listened to the voice that four years ago said: “Go away.” The victory did not come so soon. But it was full. He acted here not as a boss, as a saint. And reached the top. He still lifted up, still sanctified his appearance, still lifted up Orthodoxy itself, preferring freedom and love to external discipline.

Rev. Sergius and the Church

The story of the reverend's departure leads to his relationship with the church, his place in Orthodoxy.

One can briefly define the position of the church in the time of Sergius in this way: peace in ideas, effectiveness in politics.

There are few ideological differences. Strigolniki are not strong. Schism, Judaizers, Joseph Volokolamsky, Nikon and the Old Believers - everything will come later. There is no one to defend against, “no one to attack. But there are Russian princes and there are Tatars, there is generally Russia, barely holding on, almost swallowed up. And the national task is to defend it. Fight for the state. The Church is deeply involved in it.

Two metropolitans, both wonderful, fill the age: Peter and Alexy. Hegumen Ratsky Peter, a Volhynian by birth, the first Russian metropolitan, based in the north - first in Vladimir, then in Moscow. Peter the first blessed Moscow. For her, in fact, he laid down his whole life. It is he who travels to the Horde, obtains from Uzbek a protective letter for the clergy, continuously helps the Prince, lays with him in 1325 the first stone church, the pride of our Kremlin - the Assumption Cathedral. Arkhangelsk, with the tombs of the kings, the Monastery of the Savior on Bor (the only stone walls that have survived since then) - everything brings us to the legendary palladium of Moscow - St. Met. Peter, also a "collector", a fighter, a politician, a missionary and a healer, a judge and a diplomat. Peter has not yet seen freedom. On his strong and primatial shoulders, he endured the most difficult, pre-dawn times of his homeland. But he did not bend, he did not succumb.

Metropolitan Alexy - from the high-ranking, ancient boyars of the city of Chernigov. His fathers and grandfathers shared with the prince the work of managing and defending the state. At the cathedra of the All-Russian Metropolitan Alexy walked the militant path, this is “ecclesia mi)