September 21 marks the 625th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo. The victory on the Kulikovo Field is undoubtedly one of the most significant events in Russian history. Like any phenomenon of this magnitude, over the years it began to be accompanied by all sorts of speculations, additions, “new details”, usually added with good intentions. At some point, such virtual facts suddenly come to the fore, becoming not just a historical cliche, but an immutable truth. In the history of the Battle of Kulikovo, this kind of “truth” is also found.

Textual test

Monuments of Old Russian writing, which reflect the events of 1380, have long been identified in a special block as “works of the Kulikovo cycle.”

The first of them in terms of the time of writing are the article of 1380 by the Rogozhsky chronicler and the article of 1380, similar in content to it, by the Simonov Chronicle. According to experts, both of these sources were included in the chronicle of 1409, that is, they were read by contemporaries of the Battle of Kulikovo. What is the value! So, when describing the preparation for the campaign and the battle itself, the name of Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned there at all. Consequently, there is no talk of any blessing of the Grand Duke by him.

The second oldest surviving evidence of the events of 1380 is conveyed by the 1st Novgorod Chronicle. Experts also consider it to go back to the code of 1409, in the sense that it was the primary source for the Novgorod author of the chronicle. The Novgorod 1st Chronicle itself appeared in the chronicle code of 1448, therefore, it was created in the 40s. XV century. More than 6 years have passed since the Battle of Kulikovo. There were practically no living witnesses to this grandiose event; at least, they could be counted on one hand.

And here Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned at all.

At the same time, the Novgorod author reports interesting fact, which could not have seen the light of day in the previous narratives of Moscow authors: just before the battle, when the Russians entered the Kulikovo field and saw the Tatar army against them ready for battle, their first reaction was panic, many recruits from the Moscow regiments rushed to run... But then the chronicler pays tribute to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and Prince Vladimir Serpukhovsky, who abruptly stopped the panic in the ranks of their soldiers and quickly put them in a fighting mood.

The third most recent story about the Battle of Kulikovo found a place on the sheets of the 1st Sofia and (with almost similar text) the 4th Novgorod Chronicle. Both of them go back to a common protograph - the Novgorod-Sophia arch of the 30s. XV century But at the same time, the manuscript of the 1st Sofia Chronicle is dated by specialists to 1481. At least, it was completed in this year. The original Novgorod 4th is even later. It is clear that there is no need to talk about any living witnesses to the battle of 1380.

A hundred years have passed, and the name of Sergius of Radonezh is mentioned for the first time in the chronicles. But not at all in the context in which current apologists associate him with Kuliki: “And then a letter arrived from the venerable abbot Sergius from the holy elder, blessed.” But there was no such touchingly now described visit by Grand Duke Dmitry, the future Donskoy, to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in August 1380 and his receipt of personal blessings and parting words from the abbot, Elder Sergius, in the chronicle source. And there was a written wish for good luck (if you went, then go to the end, and may they help you...), which arrived on the Don on September 6, 1380, two days before the battle.

All of the above-mentioned works of the Kulikovo cycle relate to the subject of history, but the next monument in the cycle is literature. "Zadonshchina" is a poetic work based on the motif and style of "The Lay of Igor's Campaign." The authorship of this work is associated with the name of Zephanius of Ryazan.

The name of Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned there at all.

Actually ancient list"Zadonshchina" there are marks of either the author or the copyist, dates: 1470, 1475, 1483. and even an indication that on September 8, 6988, the Battle of Kulikovo “100 years had passed.” That is, for the reader the plot is covered, if not with a haze of fog, then with a certain veil of a long past time. Like the Russian-Japanese War for us. And readers of the late 15th century. They knew, of course, about the fact of the Battle of Kulikovo, but the details were no longer available to them.

Another period of time passed, and on the basis of the “Zadonshchina” at the beginning of the 16th century. a prosaic literary text “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” appeared. Here the author already introduces a lot of fantasies and new collisions into the plot, helping to maintain intrigue in his novel. This is where Sergius of Radonezh already blesses Dmitry Donskoy in full: both verbally in the Trinity Monastery and in writing on the Don. This is where everyone who now speaks passionately about the great old man’s blessing of the Grand Duke draws inspiration from. Agree, in everyday life it looks quite strange and even absurd to try to take episodes of a literary plot at face value, and even earnestly convince others of this.

WITH light hand Karamzin established the thesis about the spiritual participation of Sergius of Radonezh in the preparation of the campaign against the Tatars. He literally wrote the following lines: “...Dimitri, having arranged the regiments for the march, wanted with his brother Vladimir Andreevich, with all the princes and governors, to accept the blessing of Sergius, the abbot of the distant Trinity monastery... Chroniclers say that he predicted a terrible bloodshed for Dimitri, but victory is the death of many Orthodox heroes, but the salvation of the Grand Duke begged him to dine in the monastery, sprinkled holy water on all the military leaders who were with him and gave him two monks as associates, Alexander Peresvet and Oslyabya, of whom the first was once a boyar of Bryansk and a courageous knight. Sergius handed them the sign of the cross on the schema and said: “Here is an incorruptible weapon! May it serve you instead of helmets!..”

It is known that in his work Karamzin actually retold the contents of the Synodal 365th and Nikon Chronicles, in some places rounding it off literary, and in others sharpening it storyline. If you look into the said Synodal Chronicle, which, by the way, was written quite late, in the middle of the 16th century, it is easy to find that the article under 1380 has been replaced by the above-mentioned “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev.” Which is what Karamzin quoted.

Hagiographic test

The author of the “Tale” lived, after all, in the Middle Ages, and therefore would hardly have dared to handle facts from the biography of the saint so freely. Sergius of Radonezh. He, of course, could come up with details, but the texture had to remain canonical, otherwise he would not escape the speedy execution of a church court. And the author of the “Tale” actually gleaned the basis for the meeting of the venerable elder with the Grand Duke in the life of Sergius of Radonezh, compiled by Pachomius the Serb.

The original life of St. Sergius of Radonezh was created in 1418-1419. monk Epiphanius. It is clear from the text that Epiphanius, being a monk of the Trinity Monastery, personally knew Sergius, at least during the last twenty years of his life, from the 60s. before 1392

While working on his life, Epiphanius simultaneously placed biographical information about Sergius of Radonezh in the chronicle he himself compiled (its modern name is Trinity, after the place of creation). His texts are important because, knowing Sergius personally, he could not exaggerate both the main character traits of the Rev. and some important events of monastic life. Moreover, the readers of the life were living students and tonsures of the Venerable. Sergius. In the Life of Epiphanius there is no episode with the blessing of Dmitry Donskoy.

It is not found in the earlier work of Epiphanius, “The Word of Praise to Our Reverend Father Sergius.” It was written on the occasion of the consecration of the new cathedral church on September 25, 1412, on the 20th anniversary of the death of the Reverend. And if there had been a blessing for the battle with the Tatars, then Epiphanius, as a witness to this powerful patriotic gesture on the part of Sergius of Radonezh, would, without a doubt, highlight this fact in praise of the elder. But no!

In 1432-1445. Epiphanius's work underwent significant revision, which was carried out by the Serbian hagiographer Pachomius Logofet, a native of Mount Athos. In the three Pachomius editions that have come down to us, the historical flavor is emasculated and replaced by moralizing commonplaces with many borrowings from the lives of eastern saints. In the lives of Pachomius, we read that Dmitry Donskoy, going to battle with Mamai, says to St. Sergius: “if God helps us with prayers yours, then when I come, I will build a church in the name of our Most Pure Lady Theotokos of the Honorable Dormition, and I will build a monastery for a common life.” Below we read that after the victory at Kuliki, Sergius “summoned the great prince and founded a church, and soon built a church in the name of the Most Pure One on Dubenka and established a common life.”

The Dormition Dubensky Monastery really existed and was located approximately 50 km northeast of Moscow, near the village of Stromyn, near the now widely known Chernogolovka.

In the already mentioned Trinity Chronicle under 6887 (that is, under 1379) it is written: “That same summer, Abbot Sergius, venerable elder, built a church in the name of the Holy Mother of God of Her Honorable Assumption<...>on the river on Dubenka on Stromyn and mnihi together... And the church was consecrated the same autumn month of December on 1 day in memory of the holy prophet Naum. This monastery was built by Sergius by order of the great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich."

It is not indicated here that the Assumption Dubensky Monastery was erected precisely in honor of the victory on the Kulikovo Field. But the time of its consecration is firmly indicated cathedral church– December 1, 1379 Ten months before the Battle of Kuliki!

Meanwhile, the Trinity Chronicle was included in the chronicle code of 1409, in other words, from that time on it was available for reading. That is, at a time when witnesses to the events of 1380 were still alive. It is clear that Pachomius the Serb, who became acquainted with it 20 years later, creatively revised the above text in the direction he needed. But he did not take into account that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, the day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. After all, it is absolutely clear that the votive monastery in this case should be dedicated to the Nativity, and not to the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, which is celebrated on August 15. For example, the Bobrenev Monastery near Kolomna, built at the expense of the hero of the Battle of Kulikovo, voivode Dmitry Bobrok, was named in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.

It should also be noted in passing that Peresvet and Oslyabya were buried in the Simonov Monastery in the church, by the way, also in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. Again, it is quite obvious that if they were inhabitants of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, they would have been interred at their place of residence.

Church history test

In fact, one should not dive deeply into textual criticism and hagiography, which are too specialized and boring for the general reader. It is enough to look at the more dynamic pages of Russian church history.

The “Tale of the Massacre of Mamaev” states that, having received the blessing of Sergius of Radonezh, Dmitry Ivanovich arrived in Moscow. He prayed fervently in the Kremlin, in the Archangel Cathedral and received a blessing for the campaign against the Tatars from the Metropolitan of All Rus' Cyprian.

N.M. Karamzin, diligently rewriting the Legend, nevertheless threw out this episode from his History. Because he knew very well: in 1380, Metropolitan Cyprian was not and could not be in Moscow. Moreover, Dmitry Donskoy would never ask for his blessing.

Since 1355, Metropolitan Alexy was the formally ruling bishop in Rus'. But he was not recognized in the so-called Lithuanian Rus' (Kyiv, Smolensk) and in Tver, which competes with Moscow. In 1375, the Patriarch of Constantinople ordained the local church leader Cyprian as Metropolitan of All Rus'. Under the living and active Metropolitan Alexy. True, he was already 83 years old, and the Greeks hoped that he would not have much time left, and Cyprian, far from Moscow’s influence, would be able to unite the entire Russian metropolitanate.

They hoped in vain, because Dmitry Ivanovich had his own candidate - Bishop Mikhail, who was pro-Moscow and personally owed everything to the Grand Duke.

Alexy died on February 12, 1378. From that moment on, an open struggle between two factions began in the Russian church. One of them supported Cyprian, the other supported Michael, who, by order of Dmitry Ivanovich, was elevated to the rank of metropolitan by a council of Russian bishops. The most active supporters of Cyprian were the abbot of the Trinity Monastery Sergius of Radonezh and his nephew the abbot of the Simonov Monastery Theodore. It was with them that Cyprian, who was in Kyiv, corresponded.
Cyprian decided to act offensively and left for Moscow without a princely invitation. In the first message that has reached us to Sergius and Theodore, dated June 3, 1378, Cyprian writes: “... I’m going to see my son, the great prince, in Moscow... You will be ready to see us, where you can tell your fortune yourself.”

Dmitry ordered not to let uninvited guest to Moscow. His people treated the Metropolitan quite rudely: they punched him, robbed him and sent him back to Kyiv. In addition, the Grand Duke ordered the interception of the monks sent by Sergius and Theodore to communicate with Cyprian - “your ambassadors have been sent out” - as stated in Cyprian’s 2nd letter to the same addressees. In this message dated June 23, 1378, Cyprian anathematized Grand Duke Dmitry, the future Donskoy, his boyars and Metropolitan Michael. Thus, they were all excommunicated.

The answer of Sergius of Radonezh and Theodore Simonovsky to Metropolitan Cyprian, unfortunately, has not reached us. But the fact that he was very favorable for Cyprian can be judged by the 3rd letter to these persons dated October 18, 1378: “Because you have humility and obedience and love for the holy church of God and for our humility, I have learned everything from words yours. And as you obey our humility, be strong.”

Sergius of Radonezh and the circle of his interlocutors and companions from monasteries near Moscow, without a doubt, supported the anathematization of the Grand Duke.

In the summer of the following 1379, the struggle between church factions intensified. The most authoritative supporter of Cyprian (and student of Sergius of Radonezh!) Bishop of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod Dionysius, the only bishop who dared to oppose the will of the Grand Duke, set out to go to Constantinople to ask the patriarch for help there. Dmitry Ivanovich ordered to put him under arrest. Dionysius turned to the Grand Duke with a request: “Loosen me and let me go, so that I may live according to my will. But I will not go to Constantinople without your word. And with that, I entrust to you all the lieutenant of Elder Abbot Sergius.”

That is, Sergius of Radonezh, whose moral authority, despite all his opposition to the Grand Duke, still meant something in the mind of Dmitry Donskoy, gave his word that Dionysius would not go to Constantinople and would not tell there about the excommunication of the Moscow ruler from the church. Dionysius was released, and he... "fled to Constantinople."

The Nikon Chronicle under July 1379 shows the reaction of Dmitry Donskoy: “And there was sadness about this for the Grand Duke... and indignation at Dionysius, and also at the Reverend Abbot Sergius...”

* * *

From the above it is clear that the relationship between Dmitry Donskoy and Sergius of Radonezh, which developed before the Battle of Kulikovo, was not such as to ask for and receive a blessing. In the XIV century. this was clear to everyone. But the XV and XVI centuries. the need arose to impose a sacred sanction on the actions of secular power. Whether this was connected with the completion of the collection of Russian lands and the development of the idea of ​​“Moscow – the third Rome” or with the final liberation of the Tatars from power is now difficult to say. However, it is clear that the emergence of the legend about the blessing of Dmitry by St. Sergius is a vivid example of great state PR, which continues to work successfully today.

I decided to save it in my journal old article Alexander Melenberg from here (there is also), fearing that the Russian Orthodox Church, which is coming into force, will simply rubbish it, as not representing the slightest interest for the flock and having a corrupting, anti-patriotic effect on this flock.

Alexander Melenberg

Untruth and untruth

Sergius of Radonezh did not bless Dmitry Donskoy for the battle with Mamai

Textual test

A. Namerovsky. Sergius of Radonezh blesses Dmitry Donskoy for his feat of arms.

Hagiographic test

The original life of St. Sergius of Radonezh was created in 1418-1419. monk Epiphanius. It is clear from the text that Epiphanius, being a monk of the Trinity Monastery, personally knew Sergius, at least during the last twenty years of his life, from the 60s. before 1392
While working on his life, Epiphanius simultaneously placed biographical information about Sergius of Radonezh in the chronicle he himself compiled (its modern name is Trinity, after the place of creation). His texts are important because, knowing Sergius personally, he could not exaggerate both the main character traits of the Rev. and some important events of monastic life. Moreover, the readers of the life were living students and tonsures of the Venerable. Sergius. In the Life of Epiphanius there is no episode with the blessing of Dmitry Donskoy.
It is not found in the earlier work of Epiphanius, “The Word of Praise to Our Reverend Father Sergius.” It was written on the occasion of the consecration of the new cathedral church on September 25, 1412, on the 20th anniversary of the death of the Reverend. And if there had been a blessing for the battle with the Tatars, then Epiphanius, as a witness to this powerful patriotic gesture on the part of Sergius of Radonezh, would, without a doubt, highlight this fact in praise of the elder. But no!
In 1432-1445. Epiphanius's work underwent significant revision, which was carried out by the Serbian hagiographer Pachomius Logofet, a native of Mount Athos. In the three Pachomius editions that have come down to us, the historical flavor is emasculated and replaced by moralizing commonplaces with many borrowings from the lives of eastern saints. In the lives of Pachomius, we read that Dmitry Donskoy, going to battle with Mamai, says to St. Sergius: “if God helps us with prayers yours, then when I come, I will build a church in the name of our Most Pure Lady Theotokos of the Honorable Dormition, and I will build a monastery for a common life.” Below we read that after the victory at Kuliki, Sergius “summoned the great prince and founded a church, and soon built a church in the name of the Most Pure One on Dubenka and established a common life.”

The Dormition Dubensky Monastery really existed and was located approximately 50 km northeast of Moscow, near the village of Stromyn, near the now widely known Chernogolovka.

Saint Sergius of Radonezh blesses Dmitry for the Battle of Kulikovo. 1904. V.P. Guryanov

It is not indicated here that the Assumption Dubensky Monastery was erected precisely in honor of the victory on the Kulikovo Field. But the time of the consecration of his cathedral church is firmly indicated - December 1, 1379. Ten months before the battle on Kuliki!
Meanwhile, the Trinity Chronicle was included in the chronicle code of 1409, in other words, from that time on it was available for reading. That is, at a time when witnesses to the events of 1380 were still alive. It is clear that Pachomius the Serb, who became acquainted with it 20 years later, creatively revised the above text in the direction he needed. But he did not take into account that the Battle of Kulikovo took place on September 8, the day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. After all, it is absolutely clear that the votive monastery in this case should be dedicated to the Nativity, and not to the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, which is celebrated on August 15. For example, the Bobrenev Monastery near Kolomna, built at the expense of the hero of the Battle of Kulikovo, voivode Dmitry Bobrok, was named in honor of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.

Church history test

Birth of Sergius of Radonezh. Miniature from the front

Sergius of Radonezh at school. Miniature from the front
"The Lives of St. Sergius of Radonezh." XVI century

Punishment of the Rostov boyar Averky. Miniature from the front
"The Lives of Sergius of Radonezh." XVI century

Attack of foresters on Sergius of Radonezh. Miniature from the front
"The Lives of Sergius of Radonezh." XVI century

Many people know that in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, which marked the beginning of the liberation of Rus' from the Horde yoke, two monks played a large role in the success of the Russian army - Alexander Peresvet and Andrei Oslyabya. But not everyone knows that the course of the famous battle between Peresvet and Chelubey has several assessments and interpretations.

Defenders of the Motherland from the Bryansk Boyars

Presumably, both monks came from Bryansk boyars and were famous for their military skill. Perhaps Alexander Peresvet became a monk in the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery, and later he ended up with Oslyabya, who took the name of Andrei, in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and became a student of the famous Radonezh miracle worker.

Venerable Sergius Radonezh blessed both monks before: “And he gave them, instead of a perishable weapon, an incorruptible one - the cross of Christ, sewn on the schemas, and commanded them to place it on themselves instead of gilded helmets.”

Divine Intercession

The Battle of Kulikovo Field was supposed to be and became the decisive clash between Rus' and the Horde, which ruled over the Russian lands for almost a century and a half. The Great Campaign against the Horde was sanctified by the spiritual authority of the “abbot of the Russian land” - St. Sergius. It was to him that Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich went to the Trinity Monastery on the eve of the battle with Mamai. Sergius of Radonezh not only blessed the prince for the battle, but also predicted a victory that turned the Moscow ruler into a great historical figure - in.

A visible image of divine intercession should have been the presence in the Moscow army of the Trinity monastic warriors - Peresvet and Oslyabi, sent on a campaign by Sergius. The news of their participation brought additional calm to Russian army. The battle between Peresvet and Chelubey brought even greater calm. It was a ritual “duel of heroes,” the result of which was regarded by both sides as a sign that predicted the outcome of the entire battle.

Died for a just cause

There are several versions of the battle between Peresvet and Chelubey. According to one of them, both opponents, on horses and with spears, collided with each other and fell to the ground dead. According to another story, Chelubey used a trick: his spear turned out to be longer than required. Thanks to this trick, the enemy was immediately knocked out of the saddle and had no chance of catching the offender. But Alexander Peresvet, knowing this, took off his armor and remained in one schema (a monastic cape with an image of a cross), carrying out the call of St. Sergius to fight with a cross, and not with a sword. As a result, Chelubey’s spear pierced the monk, but thanks to this, Peresvet was able to get close to the Horde, reach him and kill him. He fell from the saddle, and the mortally wounded monk managed to reach his own people and only there gave up the ghost. The sacrificial feat of Alexander Peresvet inspired the army of Dmitry Donskoy to success.

According to one legend, Andrei Oslyabya also died in the battle on the Kulikovo Field. They said that the monk was the first to rush into battle after the death of Peresvet. He carried the wounded Prince Dmitry aside under a birch tree, where he was found after the battle.

Canonized

Alexander Peresvet and Andrei Oslyabya were buried in Moscow next to the Church of the Nativity Holy Mother of God in Stary Simonovo. Both warrior monks are canonized as saints by the Russian Orthodox Church. Their memory is celebrated on September 7 (20).

The story of two monks became a vivid illustration of active and fruitful participation Orthodox Church in the life of the country. The memory of this victory of the Russian troops is also preserved thanks to the implementation of projects of the Russian Military Historical Society. In particular, the Tula branch of the Russian Military Historical Society conducts great job to preserve the historical landscape of the Kulikovo Field.

The victory on the Kulikovo Field is undoubtedly one of the most significant events in Russian history. Like any phenomenon of this magnitude, over the years it began to be accompanied by all sorts of speculations, additions, “new details,” usually invented with good intentions. At some point, such virtual facts suddenly come to the fore, becoming not just a historical cliche, but an immutable truth. In the history of the Battle of Kulikovo, this kind of “truth” is also found.

The first of them in terms of the time of writing are the article of 1380 by the Rogozhsky chronicler and the article of 1380, similar in content to it, by the Simonov Chronicle. According to experts, both of these sources were included in the chronicle of 1409, that is, they were read by contemporaries of the Battle of Kulikovo. What is the value! So, when describing the preparation for the campaign and the battle itself, the name of Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned there at all. Consequently, there is no talk of any blessing of the Grand Duke by him.

The second oldest surviving evidence of the events of 1380 is conveyed by the 1st Novgorod Chronicle. Experts also consider it to go back to the code of 1409, in the sense that it was the primary source for the Novgorod author of the chronicle. The Novgorod 1st Chronicle itself appeared in the chronicle code of 1448, therefore, it was created in the 40s. XV century. More than 6 years have passed since the Battle of Kulikovo. There were practically no living witnesses to this grandiose event; at least, they could be counted on one hand.

And here Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned at all.

At the same time, the Novgorod author reports an interesting fact that could not have seen the light of day in the previous narratives of Moscow authors: just before the battle, when the Russians entered the Kulikovo field and saw the Tatar army against them, ready for battle, their first reaction was panic, many recruits from the Moscow regiments rushed to flee... But then the chronicler pays tribute to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich and Prince Vladimir Serpukhovsky, who abruptly stopped the panic in the ranks of their soldiers and quickly put them in a fighting mood.

The third most recent story about the Battle of Kulikovo found a place on the sheets of the 1st Sofia and (with almost similar text) the 4th Novgorod Chronicle. Both of them go back to a common protograph - the Novgorod-Sophia arch of the 30s. XV century But at the same time, the manuscript of the 1st Sofia Chronicle is dated by specialists to 1481. At least, it was completed in this year. The original Novgorod 4th is even later. It is clear that there is no need to talk about any living witnesses to the battle of 1380.

A hundred years have passed, and the name of Sergius of Radonezh is mentioned for the first time in the chronicles.. But not at all in the context in which current apologists associate him with Kulik: "And then a letter arrived from the venerable abbot Sergius from the holy elder, blessed". But there was no such touchingly now described visit by Grand Duke Dmitry, the future Donskoy, to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in August 1380 and his receipt of personal blessings and parting words from the abbot, Elder Sergius, in the chronicle source. A there was a written wish for good luck (if you went, then go to the end, and may they help you...), which arrived on the Don on September 6, 1380, two days before the battle.

All of the above-mentioned works of the Kulikovo cycle relate to the subject of history, but the next monument in the cycle is literature. "Zadonshchina"- a poetic work based on the motif and style of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” The authorship of this work is associated with the name of Zephanius of Ryazan. The name of Sergius of Radonezh is not mentioned there at all.

On the oldest list of "Zadonshchina" there are marks of either the author or the copyist, the dates: 1470, 1475, 1483. and even an indication that on September 8, 6988, the Battle of Kulikovo “100 years had passed.” That is, for the reader the plot is covered, if not with a haze of fog, then with a certain veil of a long past time. Like the Russian-Japanese War for us. And readers of the late 15th century. They knew, of course, about the fact of the Battle of Kulikovo, but the details were no longer available to them.

Another period of time passed, and on the basis of "Zadonshchina" at the beginning of the 16th century a prosaic literary text "The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev" appeared. Here the author already introduces a lot of fantasies and new collisions into the plot, helping to maintain intrigue in his novel. This is where Sergius of Radonezh already blesses Dmitry Donskoy in full: and orally in the Trinity Monastery, and in writing on the Don. This is where everyone who now speaks passionately about the great old man’s blessing of the Grand Duke draws inspiration from. Agree, in everyday life it looks quite strange and even absurd to try to take episodes of a literary plot at face value, and even earnestly convince others of this.

With the light hand of Karamzin, the thesis about the spiritual participation of Sergius of Radonezh in preparing the campaign against the Tatars was established. He literally wrote the following lines: "...Dimitri, having arranged the regiments for the march, wanted with his brother Vladimir Andreevich, with all the princes and governors, to accept the blessing of Sergius, abbot of the distant Trinity Monastery... Chroniclers say that he predicted terrible bloodshed for Dimitri, but victory - the death of many heroes Orthodox, but the salvation of the Grand Duke; he begged him to dine in the monastery, sprinkled holy water on all the military leaders who were with him and gave him two monks as associates, Alexander Peresvet and Oslyabya, of whom the first was once a boyar of Bryansk and a courageous knight Sergius handed them the sign of the cross. on the schemas and said: “Here is an incorruptible weapon! May it serve you instead of helmets!..”

From the above it is clear that the relationship between Dmitry Donskoy and Sergius of Radonezh, which developed before the Battle of Kulikovo, was not such as to ask for and receive a blessing. In the XIV century. this was clear to everyone. But the XV and XVI centuries. the need arose to impose a sacred sanction on the actions of secular power. Whether this was connected with the completion of the collection of Russian lands and the development of the idea of ​​“Moscow - the third Rome” or with the final liberation of the Tatars from power is now difficult to say. However, it is clear that the emergence of the legend about the blessing of Dmitry by St. Sergius is a vivid example of great state PR, which continues to work successfully today.

Many people know that in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, which marked the beginning of the liberation of Rus' from the Horde yoke, two monks played a large role in the success of the Russian army - Alexander Peresvet and Andrei Oslyabya. But not everyone knows that the course of the famous battle between Peresvet and Chelubey has several assessments and interpretations.

Defenders of the Motherland from the Bryansk Boyars

Presumably, both monks came from Bryansk boyars and were famous for their military skill. Perhaps Alexander Peresvet became a monk in the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery, and later he ended up with Oslyabya, who took the name of Andrei, in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and became a student of the famous Radonezh miracle worker.

The Monk Sergius of Radonezh blessed both monks before: “And he gave them, instead of a perishable weapon, an incorruptible one - the cross of Christ, sewn on the schemas, and commanded them to place it on themselves instead of gilded helmets.”

Divine Intercession

The Battle of Kulikovo Field was supposed to be and became the decisive clash between Rus' and the Horde, which ruled over the Russian lands for almost a century and a half. The Great Campaign against the Horde was sanctified by the spiritual authority of the “abbot of the Russian land” - St. Sergius. It was to him that Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich went to the Trinity Monastery on the eve of the battle with Mamai. Sergius of Radonezh not only blessed the prince for the battle, but also predicted a victory that turned the Moscow ruler into a great historical figure - in.

A visible image of divine intercession should have been the presence in the Moscow army of the Trinity monastic warriors - Peresvet and Oslyabi, sent on a campaign by Sergius. The news of their participation brought additional calm to the Russian army. The battle between Peresvet and Chelubey brought even greater calm. It was a ritual “duel of heroes,” the result of which was regarded by both sides as a sign that predicted the outcome of the entire battle.

Died for a just cause

There are several versions of the battle between Peresvet and Chelubey. According to one of them, both opponents, on horses and with spears, collided with each other and fell to the ground dead. According to another story, Chelubey used a trick: his spear turned out to be longer than required. Thanks to this trick, the enemy was immediately knocked out of the saddle and had no chance of catching the offender. But Alexander Peresvet, knowing this, took off his armor and remained in one schema (a monastic cape with an image of a cross), carrying out the call of St. Sergius to fight with a cross, and not with a sword. As a result, Chelubey’s spear pierced the monk, but thanks to this, Peresvet was able to get close to the Horde, reach him and kill him. He fell from the saddle, and the mortally wounded monk managed to reach his own people and only there gave up the ghost. The sacrificial feat of Alexander Peresvet inspired the army of Dmitry Donskoy to success.

According to one legend, Andrei Oslyabya also died in the battle on the Kulikovo Field. They said that the monk was the first to rush into battle after the death of Peresvet. He carried the wounded Prince Dmitry aside under a birch tree, where he was found after the battle.

Canonized

Alexander Peresvet and Andrei Oslyabya were buried in Moscow next to the Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Stary Simonovo. Both warrior monks are canonized as saints by the Russian Orthodox Church. Their memory is celebrated on September 7 (20).

The story of the two monks became a vivid illustration of the active and fruitful participation of the Orthodox Church in the life of the country. The memory of this victory of the Russian troops is also preserved thanks to the implementation of projects of the Russian Military Historical Society. In particular, the Tula branch of the Russian Military Historical Society is doing a lot of work to preserve the historical landscape of the Kulikovo Field.