Josephites and non-possessors - a comparison. Religious and philosophical controversy between the non-possessors and the Josephites Who was the ideological inspirer of the Josephites

Former confessor led. book. John III Vasilyevich. Communication between the brethren of the Borovskaya monastery and the brethren of the Volokolamsk monastery continued in the future, as evidenced by observations of the manuscript tradition, in particular, of the synodists. A large part of the Joseph-Volokolamsk patericon is made up of the stories of St. Pafnuty Borovsky.

Administrative and Church-Political Activities of the Josephites

The administrative activities of the Josephites were carried out in three main fields: as abbots of the Volokolamsk monastery, as abbots of other major Russian monasteries, and in bishops' departments. Charter of the Rev. Joseph contributed to the creation of a close-knit monastic brotherhood in the Volokolamsk monastery. High level education and spiritual discipline, which was maintained in the monastery for most of the 16th century, as well as corporate solidarity, encouraged the Josephites, who occupied episcopal chairs, to promote the promotion of the monks of the Volokolamsk monastery to high positions.

Even during the life of St. Joseph, two of his associates occupied the episcopal chairs: the brother of the Monk Vassian (Sanin) in 1506-1515 was Archbishop of Rostov (from 1502 he was archimandrite of the Moscow Simonov Monastery), Joseph's disciple Simeon (Stremoukhov) on August 21, 1509 became Bishop of Suzdal. On February 27, 1522, an igum was erected on the metropolitan see. Volokolamsky Monastery Daniil Ryazanets, who contributed to the appointment of the bishops of the inhabitants of his monastery. On March 30, Akaki, a tonsured monk of the Joseph Monastery, was appointed to the Tver cathedra; on April 2, 1525, the nephew of St. Joseph Vassian (Toporkov), 20 Feb. In 1536, Savva (Slepushkin), another tonsurer of the Joseph Monastery, became the bishop of Smolensk. On March 16, 1539, he was also replaced at the Smolensk cathedra by the monk of the Volokolamsk monastery Guriy (Zabolotsky), who, possibly, was the rector of the Simonov (1526-1528) and Peshnoshsky (from 1529) monasteries. A. A. Zimin also ranked among the Josephites Mitrofan, who was consecrated in February 1507 as Bishop of Kolomna, Nil the Greek, who occupied the Tver cathedra in 1509-1521, Dositheus (Zabela), who on January 23, 1508 was elevated to the Krutitskaya cathedra. However, these hierarchs were not tonsurers of the Volokolamsk Monastery, they should not be ranked among the Josephites on the sole ground that they were not opponents of St. Joseph and supported him in some matters.

About special sympathies led. book. Basil III to the Josephites is evidenced by the frequent trips of the ruler to the Volokolamsk monastery, the choice in 1530 of the Volotsk elder Cassian the Bosoy as the successor of the newborn heir John, as well as the circumstances of the death and burial of the king. prince. It is Mr. Daniil, despite the objections of the boyars, insisted on the deathbed tonsure of Vasily III. The burial ceremony was led by the elders of the Volokolamsk monastery: "The Elders of Osifov began to dress him up, and sent away the Grand Duke of the Solicitors". During the regency of Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (December 1533 - April 3, 1538), Metropolitan. Daniel actively supported government policy. The Metropolitan took the oath of juvenile John IV and Elena Glinskaya brothers Vasily III and the boyars. With the blessing of the metropolitan, in November of the year, a campaign against Lithuania was undertaken, and the construction of Kitay-gorod in Moscow was carried out. In the year, during the rebellion of the specific Prince. Andrei Ivanovich Staritsky, Met. Daniel supported the regent. After the boyar group of princes Shuisky came to power on February 2, Metropolitan. Daniel was brought down from the throne and until his death he lived in the Volokolamsk monastery. The candidacy for the post of metropolitan was another native of the Joseph monastery - hegum. Theodosius, abbot of the Varlaamiev Khutynsky monastery, was not supported. At the head of the Russian Church stood the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of St. Joasaph (Skripitsyn). Under him, Vassian (Toporkov) was brought down from the Kolomna cathedra (1542).

The Josephites had the greatest influence in 1542-1563, when the cathedra of the Metropolitan was occupied by a monk of the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery, St. Macarius, who venerated St. Joseph. Metropolitan Macarius approved the Life of St. Joseph and the service to him, and included in the Great Chet-Minei the works of the Volotsk hegumen: "The Book of the Novgorod Heretics" ("The Enlightener") and a spiritual letter. On June 18, Theodosius, a tonsured monk of the Volokolamsk monastery, was appointed Archbishop of Novgorod. In the 1540s, the former inhabitants of the monastery became abbots of the most important Russian monasteries: in the year Tryfon (Stupishin) was appointed abbot of the Peshnoshsky monastery, in the year Savva (Black) he became archimandrite of the Simonov monastery, abbot. Joseph Monastery Nifont (Kormilitsyn), in the rank of archimandrite, headed the Novospassky Monastery. On February 24, Savva (Cherny) was consecrated Bishop of Krutitsy, Trifon (Stupishin) took the post of Archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery. At the end of the year Archim. Nifont (Kormilitsyn) accompanied Tsar John IV on a campaign against Kazan, in the immediate circle of the tsar's escort to Vladimir Metropolitan. Macarius included Bishop Krutitsky. Savva (Black) and archim. Simonov monastery Tryphon (Stupishin). On March 10, Tryphon was appointed bishop in Suzdal, and brother Alexy (Stupishin) became his successor in the Simonov Monastery. In the Polotsk campaign of the year, Tsar John IV was accompanied among other persons by the Volotsk abbot. Leonid.

Another important department, which for a long time was replaced by the Josephites, was Krutitskaya (Sarskaya and Podonskaya); The bishops of Krutitsa were the closest assistants to the metropolitans. After ep. Savva (Black) (1544-1554) Krutitsa department in 1554-1558. occupied Nifont (Kormilitsyn), in 1565-1568 - the former abbot. Joseph's monastery Galaktion. Simeon (c. 1580-1582) was the last bishop of Krutitsy among the Volotsk tonsured.

After leaving the metropolitan see of Athanasius, Tsar John IV offered the Archbishop of Kazan. German (Sadyrev-Polev) to head the Church, but he refused to approve the oprichnina order and was killed in November. According to the Life of Mr. Philip, archbishop Herman was the only hierarch who supported St. Philip in conflict with the king. The Volokolamsky Monastery was not damaged during the years of the oprichnina; the family of such a prominent guardsman as Malyuta Skuratov was associated with it. However, the king stopped visiting the monastery, his trips there resumed only in the year. In the last quarter of the 16th century, the inhabitants of the monastery were rarely elevated to episcopal chairs, as a result of which the influence of the Josephites weakened. At the end of the year, Archbishop of Rostov. Euthymius allowed himself contemptuous remarks about the Josephites. In response, the only hierarch from among the Josephites at that time was the Bishop of Ryazan. Leonid (Protasiev) filed a petition to Tsar Theodore Ivanovich, in which he asked to protect the Volotsk tonsured from insults. Perhaps, in connection with this, an "extract" was drawn up "About the beginning of the Joseph Monastery, and the Monk Abbot Joseph ... and who were abbots after him, and where in the authorities of the former". In the "extract" the names of 14 abbots after the founder of the Volokolamsk monastery are named and the terms of their rectorship are indicated. In response to the petition of the Ryazan bishop, the government removed both Evfimy and Leonid from the pulpits, showing that it does not want conflicts among the higher clergy. Patriarch St. Job, along with the canonization of St. Joseph Volotsky was also engaged in the glorification of St. Maxim the Greek - an opponent of the Josephites. Apparently, the division of the Russian clergy into parties in the first half of the 16th century began to be forgotten by the end of the century. After the Time of Troubles, the Volokolamsk Monastery lost its significance as an ecclesiastical and political center. In the 17th century, the only hierarch left his brethren: on February 8, 1685, Archim. Alexander was consecrated Bishop of Veliky Ustyug.

M. N. Tikhomirov believed that "the politics and sympathies of the Josephites were largely determined by the social composition of the monastic brethren". Of the 438 Volotsk monks, of which there is news for 1479-1607, 22% of the monks came from the ruling strata of Russian society (6% - from the highest aristocracy, 16% - from small estates), 9% of the inhabitants were from the servants of the monastery, 4% of the monks each came from the clergy and peasants, 2% before the tonsure belonged to the merchant class, the social status of 59% of the monks is unclear. Thus, people from the nobility and the highest aristocracy constituted during the 16th century. at least 1/5 of the brethren of the monastery and occupied key positions in its management. Among the cathedral elders, the leading role was played by representatives of middle-class patrimonial families from Volotsk and neighboring districts. In the 16th century, these were the Lenkovs (Gerasim, Tikhon, Theognost), the Polevs (Nil, Serapion, Simeon, Philotheus, Herman), the Stupishins (Alexy, Tryphon), the Korovins-Kutuzovs (Joasaph, Vassian, Paphnutius), the Mechevs (Job, Macarius ), Tolbuzin (Leonid), Pleshcheevs (Arseny, Theodosius), Rzhevskys (Arseny, Macarius, Tikhon, Theodorite), Pushkins (Vassian, Theodosius), Elchaninovs (German), Sadykovs (Pimen), Rostopchins (Zosima, Macarius).

Josephism as a direction of social thought

As features characteristic of the position of the Josephites, the researchers point out: the upholding of church land ownership, the opinion that the death penalty is necessary for unrepentant heretics, the idea of ​​the Divine nature royal power. On the first two points there was a controversy between the Josephites and non-possessors. Historiography has formed two points of view on the beginning of this controversy. N. A. Kazakova, Yu. K. Begunov, N. V. Sinitsyna attribute the beginning of the controversy to the dispute between the founders of Josephism and non-acquisitiveness - the Monks Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky at the Council of 1503, and the question of the right of monasteries to own villages is considered its main topic . According to the opinion shared by Y. S. Lurie, Zimin, G. N. Moiseeva and I. V. Kurukin, the controversy began no earlier than a year in connection with the question of the executions of heretics (see Judaizers). D. Ostrovsky and A.I. Pliguzov believe that written polemics were discovered no earlier than - prince-monk Vassian (Patrikeev), and the dispute over the monastic lands began no earlier than a year.

The question of church property

The first point of disagreement between the Josephites and non-possessors was the question of the attitude to the fact that "hierarchs and monasteries hold the land." Nonpossessors supported led. book. John III in an effort to eliminate or significantly limit church land ownership, and the Josephites sought to justify the need for church corporations to have villages. The first information about the disagreements between the Monks Joseph of Volotsk and Nil of Sora date back to the year. In the "Letter on Dislikes ..." it is reported that at the Council in August or in September of the year after the pronouncement of the conciliar verdict on the prohibition to serve widowed priests and deacons "Starets Nil began to say that the monasteries would not have villages, but the blacks would live in the deserts, and would be fed by needlework, and with him the hermits of Belozersky". Rev. Joseph "Beginning contrary to what they say, bringing to witness the holy venerable Theodosius, the general life of the chief, and the holy venerable Afonasios of Ofonsky, and the holy venerable fathers Anthony and Theodosius, the Pechersk miracle-workers, and many other monasteries, hedgehog they had a village". Then Rev. Joseph stated: “If there are no villages at the monasteries, how can an honest and noble person take a haircut? And if there are no honest elders, then take a metropolis, or an archbishop, or a bishop, and any honest authority? And if there are no honest elders and noble ones, it will be different to the faith hesitation" .

Rev. point of view Joseph prevailed. The fact that at the Council of 1503 the question of the right of church institutions to own villages was raised is also evidenced by other sources: the Council Answer of 1503 in two editions, The Other Word, the anonymous Life of St. Joseph Volotsky in 2 editions, owned by the pen of Vassian (Patrikeev) "Debating with Joseph", Life of St. Serapion, archbishop Novgorodsky. It is indicative that 2 of these monuments came from the camp of opponents of the Volotsk hegumen, which allows us to consider the news of the disputes at the Council of 1503 as reliable.

In response to the three editions of the Pilot's book, compiled by the opponent of the Josephites Vassian (Patrikeev), in which he sought to show the non-canonical existence of monastic estates, Metropolitan. Daniel compiled the Consolidated Pilot, which included rules justifying the inviolability of church and monastery estates. Surrounded by Mr. Daniel, a collection of the National Library of Russia was created. Soph. No. 1452, which presents two compilations - in defense of the memorial service (mortuary contributions were the main source of monastic land ownership) and church property. To refute the opinion about the uselessness of repentance and prayers for the dead, the compiler of the collection cites 53 articles from the writings of the Fathers of the Church. The compilation "On Church and Monastic Acquisitions, Movable and Immovable" included 19 articles in defense of the property rights of the Church. In one of the writings of Mr. Daniel wrote that "the church, and the monastic, and the priestly, and the monastic, and their deeds, and their acquisition, all of God's essence is sanctified" .

After Mr. Daniel in the year was brought down from the pulpit, it was occupied by Metr. Joasaph (Skripitsyn), who brought Isaac the Dog, convicted at the Council of 1531, closer to him and appointed him archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery. Became Metropolitan in the same year, St. Macarius of Moscow conducted an investigation into the reasons for forgiving Isaac and appointing him to this post. At the Council in February of the year, which again condemned Isaac the Dog, the archim was a witness for the prosecution. Novospassky Monastery Nifont (Kormilitsyn), who previously held the post of Abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery.

The controversy surrounding ecclesiastical landownership reached its apogee by the time of the Council of 1551. On the eve of the Council, the tonsure of the Volokolamsk monastery Archbishop of Novgorod. Theodosius wrote a letter in which he reminded of the inviolability of church estates, "Given to God as an inheritance of eternal blessings". On the eve of the Cathedral of Metropolitan Macarius compiled an "Answer", in which, using the writings of St. Joseph Volotsky, proved the impossibility of alienation from the monasteries of estates. A significant part of this text was included in the 60th ch. "Stoglav", where the legal status of church estates was formalized. Apparently, these writings were a response to the existing dissatisfaction of the secular authorities with the growth of church (primarily monastic) land ownership.

In such a situation, the authorities became susceptible to the arguments of the nonpossessors, who argued that the material enrichment of the monasteries had a detrimental effect on the way of life of the inhabitants. It is characteristic that in the spring of the year, the prominent non-possessor Elder Artemy was placed at the head of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and Elder Theodorit, close to him, became archimandrite of the Suzdal Euthymius Monastery. In an unpreserved message to Tsar John IV on the eve of the Council of 1551, igum. Artemy recommended that the monasteries give up their estates.

Attitude towards heretics

One of the accusations leveled against St. Joseph and his followers, there was cruelty towards heretics. Rev. Joseph refused to accept repentant heretics into the Christian community and offered to send them to prison, while the monk condemned the practice of imprisoning heretics in monasteries. Unrepentant heretics, according to the Volotsk abbot, were subject to the death penalty. The rigidity of his position was due to the idea that the repentance of heretics is often false and they continue to spread false teachings, and this, according to St. Joseph, leads to the death of the state, examples of which he cited in his writings.

According to ep. Sava, against St. Joseph in this matter were made by many. bishops and elders: "Nachasha Joseph with many blasphemy and reproach, scolding, saying: as Joseph does not command those who repent to repentance, accept". In our opinion, the earliest polemical work in which disagreement with the views of St. Joseph regarding the punishment of heretics, is a text published by B. M. Kloss, who erroneously attributed it to St. Joseph. The anonymous author, in response to the call to participate in the persecution of false teachers, writes about God's long-suffering, citing examples from the Old Testament history, and advises his addressee to place their hopes in God. An essay directed against the position of St. Joseph in the question of the attitude towards heretics is the "Answer of the Cyril Elders", which the researchers date to the end of 1504 or not earlier than 1507. In the "Answer ..." the arguments of St. Joseph in favor of the need to execute heretics. It is possible that the initiator of the "Answer ..." was Metropolitan, who lived in retirement in the St. Cyril's Belozersky Monastery. Zosima the Bradaty, who was accused of being involved in the heresy of the Judaizers and who therefore had reason to fear for his fate if the death penalty was applied to heretics. Reply Rep. Joseph Volotsky to the speech of his opponents was the "Message on the observance of the conciliar sentence of 1504" 1504/05.

Meanwhile, the well-known facts of the activities of the Josephites testify otherwise. In an effort to support the Russian autocrats in the positions of church hierarchs, the Josephites firmly defended the interests and rights of the Church in its relations with the authorities, including the traditional right to mourn those who were in disgrace. For opposition to secular power, the Novgorod archbishop lost his chair. Theodosius, because of the rejection of the oprichnina, the Kazan archbishop was killed. German (Sadirev-Polev). The decisions of the Council of 1551, adopted with the sanction of the Josephite majority, reflected the efforts of the Josephites, led by Met. Macarius to defend a certain autonomy of the Church in the face of state power. Apparently, under the influence of Mr. Macarius John IV included in the decisions of the Stoglavy Council numerous texts on the inviolability of the church court and church possessions. The Stoglav records decisions aimed at educating society, the parish clergy, strengthening monastic discipline, and creating church structures capable of promoting changes in society.

Metropolitan Macarius actively used the writings of St. Joseph, interpreting the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In the year, some provisions from the second epistle of St. Joseph "for heretics" were included in the rite of the wedding of Tsar John IV.

Isiflyan is incorrectly considered involved in the development of the concept "Moscow - the Third Rome". Sinitsyna convincingly showed that the Josephites had nothing to do with the development of this doctrine. At the same time, the development of ideas about Moscow as the center of the Christian world was greatly facilitated by the Russian Chronograph, compiled by Dosifey (Toporkov). Here, the ancient Russian chronicle was for the first time united into one whole with the Byzantine chronicles, and the ancient Russian history began to act as the final section. world history. The chronograph, created in the Joseph Volokolamsky Monastery, ended with a message about the fall of Constantinople, then it was said about the conquest by the Turks of many Christian kingdoms, except for Russia, whose importance in the world, on the contrary, had increased.

Josephites in historiography

A.S. Pavlov formulated the idea of ​​St. Joseph as the main ideologist of the inalienability of church property. This opinion was tried to refute by V.N. Malinin, who believed that the Josephites, like their opponents, did not pursue church estates in relation to "strictly defined political doctrine" .

Historians considered the other side of the teachings and activities of the Josephites to be the unconditional support of the Moscow autocrats. "in all the controversial cases of his time". I.P. Khrushchov wrote that "the teachings of Joseph Volotsky, set forth in the vast chapters of the Illuminator, brought up the convictions of Ivan the Terrible". In the future, priority was given not to studying the views of the followers of St. Joseph, but evaluative judgments about the moral character of the Josephites, who were credited with hatred for opponents and servility to the authorities. IN historical literature the support (or non-condemnation) of Metr. Daniel dubious from the point of view of the norms of Christian morality led actions. prince (violations of the cross-kissing, forced divorce). The activities of the Josephites were characterized as "conservative-formal direction" in social thought, while the non-possessors were declared to represent the "critical, moral-liberal direction"". The opinion was affirmed that Rev. Joseph and his followers were not in any way independent thinkers. In many respects, this approach was due to the fact that the historians of the Church in the 19th century were looking for an answer to the question of the reasons for the subordination of the Church to the state in the era of Peter I and were ready to see one of the reasons in the "Josephite tradition", as they understood it. The exception was the work of M. A. Dyakonov and V. E. Waldenberg, in which they were first evaluated as original views of St. Joseph Volotsky on the relationship between spiritual and secular authorities.

Negative assessments of Josephism were reinforced in the historiography of the Soviet period, the views of the Josephites were evaluated from the standpoint of vulgar sociologism. N. M. Nikolsky considered St. Joseph Volotsky as a spokesman for the "religious consciousness of the boyar-princely class" hostile to the grand duke's power. The activity of the Josephites was predominantly disclosed as the ideologists of the Moscow autocracy and was characterized as progressive in the works of I. U. Budovnits, I. P. Eremin and others. In the works of Zimin and Lurie, the political ideology of the Josephites was characterized as expressing the interests of large spiritual feudal lords, who at the first stage of their activity were in opposition to the grand ducal power, and then became the main ideologists of the autocracy. According to this point of view, Rev. Joseph acted as the ideologist of large monastic land ownership, and his followers, "supporting in your daily political activity the power of the Moscow sovereigns ... at the same time guarded their own corporate interests, which were ultimately determined by the program of a strong militant church, which strove to become a kind of state within a state, and, if possible, the highest sanction state activities at all" .

The thinkers of the Russian emigration evaluated historical meaning Josephites is ambiguous. G. P. Fedotov, Fr. G. Florovsky, I. K. Smolich, Fr. John (Kologrivov), Fr. A. Schmemann and others considered the Josephites to be supporters of social organization and statutory piety, hostile to the principles of spiritual freedom and mystical life, their victory in a dispute with non-possessors was regarded as a "tragedy of Russian holiness" . Positive value the social service of the Josephites was emphasized by V. V. Zenkovsky, A. V. Kartashev and others.

In foreign historiography, the most widely held opinion is that the Josephites were the creators of the ideology of theocratic absolutism. The innovation of the Josephites in the organization of commemoration in the development of a differentiated system for accounting for mortuary contributions is described by L. Steindorf.

Literature

• Gorsky A.V., prot. Relations between the monks of Kirillo-Belozersky and Iosifov Volokolamsky monks in the 16th century. // PrTSO. 1851. Part 10. S. 502-527;
• Funeral word of St. Joseph Volokolamsky ... monk Dositheus (Toporkov) / Prepared by: K. I. Nevostruev // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. App. pp. 153-180;
• Life of St. Joseph, igum. Volokolamsk, compiled by Savva, ep. Krutitsky // Ibid. pp. 11-76;
• The same // VMC. Sept. 1-13. Stb. 453-499;
• Life of St. Joseph Volokolamsky, comp. unknown // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. App. pp. 77-152;
• Materials for the annals of the Volokolamsk monastery // Choidr. 1887. Prince. 2. Separate 5. S. 1-128;
• AFZH. Part 2;
• Epistles of Joseph Volotsky / Prepared. text: A. A. Zimin, Ya. S. Lurie. M.; L., 1959;
• Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk: Eine Quelle zur Sozialgeschichte russischer Kloster im 16. Jh. / Hrsg. L. Steindorff et al. Koln; Weimar; W., 1998;
• Old Russian. pateriks: Kievo-Pechersky paterikon. Volokolamsk Patericon / Ed. prepared by: L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov. M., 1999;
• Synodicon of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery: (1479-1510s) / Prepared. text and research: T. I. Shablova. SPb., 2004.
• Khrushchov I. P. Research on the writings of Joseph (Sanin), St. hegumen Volotsky. SPb., 1868;
• Nikolaevsky P.F., prot. Rus. preaching in the 15th and 16th centuries. // ZhMNP. 1868. Ch. 138. No. 4. S. 92-177;
• Nevostruev K. I. Consideration of the book by I. Khrushchov // Report on the 12th awarding of gr. Uvarov. SPb., 1870. S. 84-186;
• Zhmakin V.F., prot. Metropolitan Daniel and his writings. M., 1881;
• Golubinsky. History of the RC. T. 2/1;
• Malinin V. N. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his messages. K., 1901;
• Rev. Joseph, Volokolamsk miracle worker, and the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery founded by him. M., 1915;
• Tikhomirov M.N. Monastery-patrimony of the XVI century. // FROM. 1938. V. 3. S. 130-160;
• Lurie Ya. S. Brief edition of the "Charter" of Joseph Volotsky - a monument to the ideology of early Josephism // TODRL. 1956. T. 12. S. 116-140;
• he is. Ideological struggle in Russian. journalism con. XV - beginning. 16th century M.; L., 1960;
• Moiseeva G. N. "Valaam conversation" - a monument to Russian. journalism ser. 16th century M., 1958;
• Kazakova N. A. Vassian Patrikeev and his writings. M., L., 1960;
• she is. Essays on the history of Russian. societies. thoughts: 1st third of the XVI century. L., 1970;
• she is. When did the controversy between the nonpossessors and the Josephites begin? // From the history of the feud. Russia. L., 1978. S. 111-115;
• Zimin A. A. Correspondence of the elders of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery with Vasily III // Linguist. source study. M., 1963. S. 131-135;
• he is. From the history of the feud. land ownership in the Volotsk specific principality // Culture Dr. Rus'. M., 1966. S. 71-78;
• he is. The struggle of the nobility with the monastic land ownership in the end. XVI - beginning. 17th century // From the history of Tataria. Kaz., 1968. Sat. 3. S. 109-124;
• he is. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (end of the 15th-16th centuries). M., 1977;
• Kloss B. M. Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery and chronicle of the end. XV - 1st floor. 16th century // VIEW. 1974. Issue. 6. S. 107-125;
• Sinitsyna N.V. Non-covetousness and heresy // VNA. 1987. Issue. 25. S. 62-79;
• she is. Controversial issues in the history of non-covetousness, or On the logic of ist. evidence // Controversial issues national history XI-XVIII centuries M., 1990. S. 250-254;
• Kolycheva E. I. The agrarian system of Russia in the 16th century. L., 1988;
• she is. Orthodox mon-ri 2nd floor. XV-XVI centuries // Monasticism and mon-ri in Russia, XI-XX centuries. M., 2002. S. 81-115;
• Steindorff L. Commemoration and Administrative Techniques in Muscovite Monasteries // Russian History = Histoire russe. Pittsburg, 1995. T. 22. N 3. P. 285-306;
• aka [Steindorf]. The commemoration of the dead as a common heritage app. medieval and others. Rus' // “These same memory abides forever”: Mat-ly Intern. conf. M., 1997. S. 41-48;
• idem. Monastic Culture as a Means of Social Disciplining in Muscovite Russia - a Common European Feature // Mesto Rossii v Evrope = The Place of Russia in Europe: Materials of Intern. Conf. Bdpst, 1999. P. 108-112;
• Chernov S. Z. Volok Lamsky in the XIV - 1st half. 16th century: Land ownership structures and the formation of a military service corporation. M., 1998;
• Pigin A. V. Volokolamsk works of the 16th century. about death // Dergachev Thursdays-2000: Rus. Literature: Nat. development and regional peculiarities. Yekaterinburg, 2001, part 1, pp. 167-171;
• he is. About lit. contacts of Joseph-Volokolamsky and Pavlov Obnorsky mon-ray in the 1st half. 16th century // VCI. 2006. No. 1. S. 99-107;
• Pliguzov A.I. Controversy in Rus. Churches of the 1st third of the XVI century. M., 2002;
• Grevtsova OA Legal ideas of non-possessors and Josephites in the area of ​​state-church. relations // State. construction and law. M., 2003. Issue. 3. S. 104-110;
• Dykstra T. E. Russian Monastic Culture: "Josephism" and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery, 1479-1607. Munch., 2006;
• aka [Dykstra]. Monastic names in Muscovite Rus' and the problems of identifying their owners: On the material of the sources of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, 1479-1607 // Imenoslov: Ist. semantics of the name / Comp.: F. B. Uspensky. M., 2007. Issue. 2. S. 238-298;
PSRL. T. 13. 1st half. pp. 157, 159

Nikolsky N. M. History of Rus. Churches. M., 1930. S. 65

Budovnits I. U. Rus. 16th century journalism M.; L., 1947. S. 100; History of Russian. liters. M.; L., 1946. T. 2. Part 1. S. 309

Zimin A. A. On the political doctrine of Joseph Volotsky // TODRL. 1953. T. 9. S. 159-177; He is. 1977. S. 238, 246; Lurie. 1960. S. 480-481

Zimin. 1977. S. 281

Fedotov G.P. Saints Dr. Rus'. M., 1990 3. S. 187; Florovsky. Ways of Russian theology. 1937. S. 19-21; Smolitsch I. Russisches Mönchtum. Würzburg, 1953; John (Kologrivov), Hierom. Essays on the history of Russian. holiness. Brussels, 1961, p. 194; Schmemann A., prot. East path of Orthodoxy. M., 1993; Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. SPb., 2008. S. 36

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian. philosophy. L., 1991. T. 1. Part 1. S. 48-50; Kartashev. Essays. T. 1. S. 407-414

Medlin W. Moscow and East Rome: A Political Study of the Relations of Church and State in Muscovite Russia. Gen., 1952; Stokl G. Die politische Religiostat des Mittelalters und die Entstehung des Moskauer Staates // Saeculum. Munch., 1951. Bd. 2. H. 3. S. 393-416; Idem. Zur Geschichte des russisches Mönchtums // JGÖ. 1954. Bd. 2. S. 221-231; Szeftel M. Joseph Volotskýs Political Ideas in a New Historical Perspective // ​​Ibid. 1965. Bd. 13. No. 1. S. 19-29

JOSEPHLANES - side-ron-no-ki especially-bo-go-right-le-tion of Russian social thought (late XV-XVI centuries), in a better name by name his main breath-but-vi-te-la - Jo-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go.

The term “Josephites” was used by Prince A.M. Kurbsky; in scientific literature, he appeared in the 2nd half of the 19th century

First of all, the Josephites, you-stup-pa-whether side-ron-no-ka-mi of the idea of ​​domination of spiritual power over secular power. The ruler, according to the thoughts of Jo-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go, is an earthly man and a simple use whether, in this way, it is necessary for him to render “royal honor, and not divine honor.” If a ty-wound was waiting for a pre-hundred-le, then he should not-do-wa-lo-vi-no-va-sya, for he is “not God’s servant but the devil, and not a king, but a tormentor. Rapprochement of Io-si-fa Vo-lots-ko-go with the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vas-sil-e-vi-what ob-slo-vi-lo from me -non-views of Joseph on the nature of the ve-li-prince-same-authority. Recognizing her divine character, Io-sif Vo-lots-kiy declared about not-about-ho-di-mo-sti under-chi-not-niya right -vi-te-lyu of all in-sti-tu-tov of go-su-dar-st-va and the Church-vi, while the “sacred-st-vu” from-in-di-las you-with- what a mission - to play the role of the spirits-no-go on-becoming-no-go-su-da-rya.

In the church-kov-noy in-le-mi-ke ru-be-zha of the XV-XVI centuries about the mo-on-styr-sky land-le-vla-de-nii, once-vi-vav-shey-sya on pho-do not fall of the internal dis-qi-p-li-na of the common-living-tel-nyh ob-te-lei, Josephites, in contrast to their ideological opponents kov - not-stya-zha-te-lei (see also Nil Sor-sky), side-ron-ni-kov skit-no-che-for-we-on-she-st-va, you -stu-pi-whether for the preservation of the mo-on-sta-rei and the renewal of their inner life on the basis of the obligatory introduction of construction go-go general-living-tel-no-go mustache-ta-va. Approval of a strict community, according to the Josephites, it is possible to combine the growth of mo-na-styr-sky authorities-de- ny with the principle of qi-pa-mi personal-no-go mo-na-she-sko-go-not-stya-zha-niya and from-re-che-niya from the world. According to the zi-tion of Joseph on the question of mo-on-styr-sky land-le-vla-de-nii in-goiter-la-da-la on the so-bo-re of 1503, and later the day before would-la confirm-de-on the co-bo-rum of 1531. For the Io-Sif-Lyan-skih mo-na-sta-rei, it would be ha-rak-ter-but giving special-bo-go-sign-ing in-sti-tu-tu old-che -st-va: ka-zh-dy mo-lo-doy mo-nah co-sto-yal under the on-cha-scrap experience-no-go-ino-ka, that usi-li-va-lo du-hov- new pre-em-st-ven-nost between teach-te-lem and learn-no-one (Jo-sif Vo-lots-kiy - Kas-si-an Bo-soy - Fo-tiy Vo- pilot cue - Vas-si-an Kosh-ka). The Josephites are active, but for-no-ma-lis mo-on-styr-sky build-tel-st-vom, erection-vo-di-li and uk-ra-sha-li temples, so-bi -ra-li icons and books. Io-sif Vo-lots-ki with-gla-sils for ros-pi-si mo-na-styr-th Us-pen-so-bo-ra (see Io-si-fo-Vo- pilot-kio mo-na-stir) of the best zhi-vo-pis-tsev - Dio-ni-siya and his sons Feo-do-siya and Vladimir-dimi-ra; in the mo-on-sta-re, the icons of the ra-bo-you An-d-rei Rub-le-va, su-sche-st-vo-va-li creak-to-ry and literary school. Josephites you-stu-pa-whether against the extreme-no-stay as-ke-tiz-ma and vi-de-li ideal-al-ino-che-st-va is not in the ry-ve from the outside th world, but in active activities in all spheres of public life. Mo-na-she-st-in, in their opinion, should-but-lo-influence all state institutions-tu-tu-you, support-to-ke-prince -the same power, vo-pi-you-vat bu-du-shchih ar-hi-pas-you-ray, weight-ti-cul-tour-but-pro-sve-ti-tel-skuyu and mis-sio -ner-sky ra-bo-tu, about-ti-to-stand-yat here-syam (so, on the co-bo-re of 1504, oder-zha-la top io-sif-lyan-sky in-zi- tion in the ot-no-she-ni here-ti-kov - “army and knife”, execution and for something).

At the beginning of the 16th century, the Josephites for-ni-ma-li Rostovskaya (Vas-si-an Sa-nin), Ko-lo-men-skaya (Mit-ro-fan), Suz-dal-skaya (Si -me-on) and other departments. Under Metropolitan Mo-s-kov-sky Da-nii-le, many ye-rar-hi of the Russian Church were attached to pro-io-sif-lyan-sky positions [epis- sko-py Aka-ki Tver-sky, Vas-si-an Ko-lo-men-sky (To-por-kov), Sav-va Smolen-sky, Io-na Ryazan-sky, Ma- brown Nov-go-rod-sky]. Metropolitan Da-ni-il, in the past Igu-men of the Io-si-fo-Vo-lots-to-go monastery, active but under-hold-zhi-val-li-ti-ku ob- e-di-non-niya of the Russian lands, pro-in-di-muyu by the Grand Duke of Mo-s-kov-sky Va-si-li-em III Iva-no-vi-what, justify-but-val with chur-kov-but-ka-no-nicheskie points of view of the divorce of the Grand Duke with S.Yu. Sa-bu-ro-howl, wed him with E.V. Clay. Vo-lots-kie mo-na-khi teaching-st-vo-va-li in cre-sche-nii bu-du-sche-go king Iva-on IV Va-sil-e-vi-cha, ru -ko-vo-di-li-nome in-gre-be-niya Va-si-liya III Iwa-no-vi-cha, you-st-pa-whether the main about-vi-ni-te-la- mi on pro-cesses Mak-si-ma Gre-ka and Vas-sia-na (Pat-ri-kee-va), M.S. Bash-ki-na and Feo-do-siya Ko-so-go. In the 1540-1550s, when Ma-ka-riy became mi-tro-po-li-tho Mo-s-kov-skim, close to the Josephites, everything is important the next church posts for-nya-whether it is one-but-mouse-len-no-ki. On the Hundred-headed so-bo-re (1551) io-sif-lyan-bol-shin-st-vo (ar-chi-bishop Feo-do-siy Nov-go-rod-sky, bishop sko-py Sav-va Kru-tits-kiy, Gu-riy Smo-lensky, Tri-fon Suz-dal-sky, Aka-kiy Tver-sky, Ni-kander Ros-tov-sky, Feo-do- this Ko-lo-men-sky, Ki-pri-an Perm-sky) windows-cha-tel-but from-rejected-lo not-stya-zha-tel-sky program-mu, pre-lo-women -nuyu A.F. Ada-she-vym and Sil-ve-st-rum, and ut-ver-di-lo the principle of not-from-chu-well-give-mo-sti of church lands. Bless the deeds of Metropolitan Ma-ka-riy and his “friends” were the members of the “Ve-li-kie Che-tyi-Mi -nei ”- a set of“ all that-myth ”in Rus-si of living and teaching pro-news-de-ni, races-pre-de-lyon-ny on the days of the year, about -ve-de-on ka-no-ni-za-tion more than 30 Russian saints (on co-bors of 1547-1549), creating grand di-oz-pa- mint-ni-ki ar-khi-tek-tu-ry, glorifying the power of the Russian state (for example, Vasi-liya Bla-zhen-no-th temple). The monks of Pskov Elea-for-ro-va of the Fi-lo-fey monastery were close to the Josephites, sfor-mu-li-ro-vav-shiy and justified-but-vav-shiy in his their co-chi-not-ni-yah in a lytic concept "Mo-sk-va - the third Rome."

In general, the union of the Io-Sif-Lyan Church with the state-su-dar-st-vom was preserved until the 2nd half of the 16th century. Later, prak-ti-ka krup-no-go-on-styr-go-land-le-vla-de-niya, ideas not-from-chu-well-dae-mo-sti church-kov- but-go imu-shche-st-va-went into pro-ti-in-re-chie with the idea-lo-gi-she for-mi-ruyu-sche-go-sa-mo-der-ja- wiya. From-go-lo-skom Io-Sif-Lyan church-but-lytic-doc-tri-na in Russian history of the 17th century became-la-li-ti-ka pat -ri-ar-ha Ni-ko-na, bringing him to a conflict with Tsar Alek-se-em Mi-hi-lo-vi-chem.

Additional literature:

Za-ma-le-ev A.F. Philosophical thought in the Middle Ages of Russia (XI-XVI centuries). L., 1987;

Book centers of Ancient Russia: Io-si-fo-Vo-lo-ko-lam-sky mo-na-stir as a center of book-no-sti. L., 1991;

Ol-shev-skaya L.A. lists // Ancient non-Russian pa-te-ri-ki. M., 1999.

(Osiflyans, Osifovlyane), naming the tonsurers of Joseph Volokolamsky in honor of the Assumption of the Blessed. Mother of God husband. mon-rya, in the XVI century. constituting an influential group among the Russian. clergy. In historical literature, starting from the last. third of the 19th century the term "Josephites" is used to refer to supporters of the direction in Russian. social thought, which took shape in the polemical opposition to non-possessors, followers of St. Joseph Volotsky.

The immediate predecessors of I. were associates and closest students of St. Joseph Volotsky - tonsured and monks of Pafnutiev Borovsky in honor of the Nativity of the Blessed. Virgin Mon-rya. The core of the brethren of Joseph Volokolamsk monastery at its creation in 1479 consisted of 7 monks, together with st. Joseph who left the Borovskoye monastery. These were the brothers of St. Joseph Vassian II (Sanin) and Akakiy, nephews of St. Joseph Dositheus and Vassian (Toporkovs), elders of St. Gerasim the Black, Cassian Barefoot, Cassian the Younger. During the period of wanderings in the monasteries, St. Joseph lived for a long time in Kirillov Belozersky in honor of the Assumption of the Blessed One. Monastery of the Theotokos, whose hegumen was the tonsured st. Paphnutia Nifont (later Bishop of Suzdal). When Nifont occupied the Suzdal see, he was addressed with a message by St. Joseph Volotsky, calling him "the head of all of us." It can be assumed that when appointing Rev. Joseph as abbot of the Borovsk monastery, he was patronized by another tonsured st. Paphnutia - Archbishop of Rostov. St. Vassian I (Snout), a former confessor led. book. John III Vasilyevich. In the future, communication between the brethren of the Borovskaya monastery and the brethren of the Volokolamsk monastery, as evidenced by observations of the handwritten tradition, in particular the Synods, was preserved. A large part of the Joseph-Volokolamsk patericon is made up of the stories of St. Pafnuty Borovsky.

Administrative and church-political activity of I.

was carried out in 3 main fields: as abbots of the Volokolamsk monastery, as abbots of other major Russian. mon-ray, at the bishop's chairs. Charter of the Rev. Joseph contributed to the creation of a close-knit monastic brotherhood in the Volokolamsk monastery. The high level of education and spiritual discipline that was maintained in the monastery for most of the 16th century, as well as corporate solidarity, encouraged I., who occupied episcopal chairs, to promote the advancement of the monks of the Volokolamsk monastery to high positions.

In the XVI century. at least 20 abbots were replaced in the Volokolamsk monastery. In the 2nd floor. centuries, the relatively recently founded monastery took the high 19th place in the "Ladder of Spiritual Authorities" (RSL. Vol. No. 564. L. 85). at the same time, according to the degree of influence, the Volokolamsk monastery in the 16th century. not inferior to the largest mon-ryam - Trinity-Sergius and Kirillov Belozersky. Abbots of Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery were participants in the most important church and Zemsky Sobors. In 1566 igum. Lavrenty, among other clerics, signed a conciliar verdict on the continuation of the war with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (SGGD. Vol. 1. No. 192), in 1571 he was abbot. Leonid was among the guarantors for the book. I. F. Mstislavsky (Ibid. No. 196), in 1580 abbot. Euthymius signed the verdict of the Church Council (Ibid. No. 200), igum. Levkiy signed the decision of the Church Council of 1589 (Ibid. Vol. 2. No. 59), the conciliar charter on the election of Boris Feodorovich Godunov to the kingdom was signed by the igum. Gelasius (AAE. Vol. 2. No. 7), a letter of election to the kingdom of Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov - igum. Arseny (SGGD. Vol. 1. No. 203). The abbots of the Joseph Monastery regularly visited the royal residence in the Alexander Sloboda and the camps of John IV Vasilyevich. In the 1st floor. 16th century The Volokolamsk monastery was subordinate to the led. to the prince or his butler, as evidenced by the letters led. Princes Vasily III Ioannovich in 1522 (AFZKh. Vol. 2. No. 87), John IV in 1534 (Ibid. No. 130, etc.). The effect of such charters was annulled by the decisions of the Council of 1551 (see "Stoglav"), but at the same time, apparently, the submission of the abbot and brethren to the Novgorod archbishop did not happen. So, in the charter of 1556 of Tsar John IV, it is indicated that the hegumen and the brethren are judged by the Moscow Metropolitan. St. Macarius "according to the new conciliar code" (Ibid. No. 261). Although in Dec. In 1563, the jurisdiction of the Volotsk brethren to the Archbishop of Novgorod was established (Ibid. No. 302), in 1578 Tsar John IV subordinated the monastery to his court (Ibid. No. 367; after the defeat of Novgorod in 1570, the Volotsk tithe became part of the metropolis). It is not known whether this situation continued under the successors of Ivan the Terrible.

Throughout the 16th century 24 tonsurers of the Volokolamsk monastery occupied 19 episcopal chairs and became archimandrites and abbots of the most influential monasteries the same number of times. The latter circumstance was dictated by the desire of the spiritual and secular authorities to make the rank of abbot or archimandrite in one of the authoritative monasteries in Novospassky Moscow in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord, in Simonov New Moscow in honor of the Assumption of the Presv. Virgin, in Ugreshsky in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker and other monks. Numerical predominance among the episcopate of the XVI century. natives of the relatively young Volokolamsk monastery was of political importance, which was well understood by contemporaries. Mon. Dositheus (Toporkov) wrote about the founded St. Joseph to the monastic community: “Before and after all, the beginning is pleasant, but surpasses many, equaling the great” (Sepulcher Word. 1865, p. 171).

Even during the life of St. Joseph, 2 of his associates occupied the episcopal chairs: the brother of the Monk Bassian in 1506-1515. was the Archbishop of Rostov (since 1502 he was the archimandrite of the Moscow Simonov Monastery), a student of Joseph Simeon (Stremoukhov) on August 21. 1509 became Bishop of Suzdal. Feb 27 In 1522, an igum was erected on the metropolitan see. Volokolamsk Mon-rya Daniel, who contributed to the appointment of the bishops of the inhabitants of his monastery. On March 30, 1522 Akakiy, a tonsured monk of Joseph's monastery, was appointed to the Tver cathedra. In 1525, the nephew of St. Joseph Vassian (Toporkov), 20 Feb. In 1536, Savva (Slepushkin), another tonsured monk of the Joseph Monastery, became the bishop of Smolensk. On March 16, 1539, he was also replaced at the Smolensk cathedra by the monk of the Volokolamsk monastery Guriy (Cherlenogo-Zabolotsky), who, possibly, was the rector of Simonov (1526-1528) and Peshnoshsky (since 1529) mon-ray. (A. A. Zimin also included Mitrofan, consecrated in February 1507 as Bishop of Kolomensky, Nil the Greek, who occupied the Tver cathedra in 1509-1521, Dositheus (Zabela), who on January 23, 1508 was elevated to the Krutitskaya cathedra However, these hierarchs were not vows of the Volokolamsk monastery, they should not be ranked as I. on the sole basis that they were not opponents of St. Joseph and supported him in certain matters.)

About special sympathies led. book. Basil III to I. is evidenced by the frequent trips of the ruler to the Volokolamsk monastery, the choice in 1530 of the Volotsk elder Cassian the Bosoy as the successor of the newborn heir John, as well as the circumstances of the death and funeral of the leader. prince. It is Mr. Daniil, despite the objections of the boyars, insisted on the deathbed tonsure of Vasily III. The burial ceremony was led by the elders of the Volokolamsk monastery: “The elders of Osifov began to dress him up, and the grand prince of the solicitors sent away” (PSRL. T. 6. S. 275). During the regency of Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (Dec. 1533 - April 3, 1538), Metropolitan. Daniel actively supported government policy. The Metropolitan took the oath of juvenile John IV and Elena Glinskaya brothers Vasily III and the boyars. With the blessing of the metropolitan, a campaign against Lithuania was undertaken (November 1534), and the construction of Kitay-gorod in Moscow was carried out. In 1537, during the rebellion of the specific Prince. Andrei Ivanovich Staritsky, Met. Daniel supported the regent. After the boyar grouping of the princes Shuisky came to power on February 2. 1539 Metropolitan Daniel was brought down from the throne and until his death he lived in the Volokolamsk monastery. The candidacy for the post of metropolitan was another native of the Joseph monastery - hegum. Theodosius, rector of Varlaamiyev Khutynsky in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord monastery, was not supported. At the head of the Russian Church stood the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of St. Joasaph (Skripitsyn). Under him, Vassian (Toporkov) was brought down from the Kolomna cathedra (1542).

I. had the greatest influence in 1542-1563, when the cathedra of the Metropolitan was occupied by a monk of the Pafnutiev Borovsky Monastery, St. Macarius, who venerated St. Joseph. Metropolitan Macarius approved the Life of St. Joseph and the service to him, and included in the Great Chet-Minei the works of the Volotsk hegumen: "The Book of the Novgorod Heretics" ("The Enlightener") and a spiritual letter. On June 18, 1542, Theodosius, a monk of the Volokolamsk monastery, was appointed Archbishop of Novgorod. In the 40s. 16th century ex. the inhabitants of the monastery became abbots of the most important Russian monasteries: in 1542 Tryfon (Stupishin) was appointed abbot of the Peshnoshsky monastery, in 1543 Savva (Black) became archimandrite of the Simonov monastery, abbot. Joseph Monastery Nifont (Kormilitsyn), in the rank of archimandrite, headed the Novospassky Monastery. 24 Feb. 1544 Savva (Cherny) was consecrated Bishop of Krutitsy, Trifon (Stupishin) took the post of Archimandrite Simonov Monastery. In con. 1549 archim. Nifont (Kormilitsyn) accompanied Tsar John IV on a campaign against Kazan, in the immediate circle of the tsar's escort to Vladimir Metropolitan. Macarius included Bishop Krutitsky. Savva (Black) and archim. Simonov Monastery Trifon (Stupishin) (PSRL. T. 13. 1st half. S. 157, 159). On March 10, 1549, Tryphon was made bishop of Suzdal, and brother Alexy (Stupishin) became his successor in the Simonov Monastery. In the Polotsk campaign of 1563, Tsar John IV was accompanied among other persons by the Volotsk abbot. Leonid (PSRL. T. 13. S. 347).

By the time of the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551, the tonsurers of the Volokolamsk monastery occupied 5 out of 10 Russian. bishops' chairs (Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, bishops Savva Krutitsky, Gury Smolensky, Tryphon of Suzdal, Akaki Tver). Apparently, defending at the Cathedral of Novgorod archbishop. Theodosius of church landownership brought on him the displeasure of the secular authorities and caused his resignation in May 1551; soon, until June 18 of the same year, Bishop of Suzdal left his post. Trifon (Stupishin). In May 1553, Tsar John IV visited the Peshnosh Monastery and talked with the nephew of St. Joseph Vassian (Toporkov).

According to Zimin's observations, "where the government needed drastic measures to subjugate the newly annexed territories, tonsured members of the Volotsk monastery were appointed to the most important church positions" (Zimin. 1977, p. 307). 3 (or 7) Feb. In 1555, an igum was placed as a bishop on the newly established Kazan cathedra. Joseph's Monastery of St. Gury (Rugotin). Help Archbishop. Guriy was given the Volotsk elder Herman (Lenkov) and the Volotsk tonsurer St. German (Sadyrev-Polev), who became the rector of Sviyazhsky in honor of the Assumption of the Blessed. Virgin Mon-rya. The successors of St. Guria at the Kazan cathedra from among the tonsurers of Joseph's monastery were St. Herman (Sadyrev-Polev; 1564-1567), Lavrenty (1568-1574), Tikhon (Khvorostinin; 1575-1576) and Jeremiah (1576-1581). During the period of the archbishopric of Jeremiah, the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God was acquired. In 1563, the former Polotsk Archbishop's See was appointed. Bishop of Suzdal Trifon (Stupishin).

Another important department, which for a long time was replaced by I., was Krutitskaya (Sarskaya and Podonskaya); The bishops of Krutitsa were the closest assistants to the metropolitans. After ep. Savva (Cherny; 1544-1554) Krutitsa department in 1554-1558. occupied Nifont (Kormilitsyn), in 1565-1568 - the former abbot. Joseph's monastery Galaktion. Simeon (c. 1580-1582) was the last bishop of Krutitsy among the Volotsk tonsured.

After leaving the metropolitan see of Athanasius, Tsar John IV offered the Archbishop of Kazan. German (Sadyrev-Polev) to head the Church, but he refused to approve the oprichnina order and in November. 1567 was killed. According to the Life of Mr. Philip, Archbishop Herman was the only hierarch who supported St. Philip in conflict with the king. The Volokolamsk monastery was not damaged during the years of the oprichnina; the family of such a prominent guardsman as Malyuta Skuratov was associated with it. However, the king stopped visiting the monastery, his trips there resumed only in 1573. The inhabitants of the monastery in the last. thurs. 16th century rarely erected on episcopal chairs, after. this influence I. weakened. In con. 1585 Archbishop of Rostov. Evfimy allowed himself contemptuous remarks about I. In response, the only hierarch from among I. at that time, Bishop of Ryazan. Leonid filed a petition to Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, in which he asked to protect the Volotsk shepherds from insults (AI. T. 1. No. 216). Perhaps in connection with this, an “extract” was drawn up “On the beginning of the Joseph Monastery, and the Monk Abbot Joseph ... and who were abbots after him, and where they were in power” (RSL. Vol. No. 564. L. 73). In the "extract" the names of 14 abbots are named after the founder of the Volokolamsk monastery and the terms of their rectorship are indicated. In response to the petition of the Ryazan bishop, the government removed both Evfimy and Leonid from the pulpits, showing that it does not want conflicts among the higher clergy. Patriarch St. Job, along with the canonization of St. Joseph Volotsky was also engaged in the glorification of St. Maxim Grek - I.'s opponent. Apparently, the division of Russian. clergy at the party in the 1st floor. 16th century to con. centuries has been forgotten. After the Time of Troubles, the Volokolamsk Monastery lost its significance as an ecclesiastical and political center. In the 17th century from his brethren came the only hierarch: 8 Feb. 1685 archim. Alexander was consecrated Bishop of Veliky Ustyug.

Attitude towards heretics

One of the accusations leveled against St. Joseph and his followers, there was cruelty towards heretics. Rev. Joseph refused to accept in Christ. community of repentant heretics and offered to send them to prison, while the monk condemned the practice of imprisoning heretics in monasteries. Unrepentant heretics, according to the Volotsk abbot, were subject to the death penalty. The rigidity of his position was due to the idea that the repentance of heretics is often false and they continue to spread false teachings, and this, according to St. Joseph, leads to the death of the state, examples of which he cited in his writings.

According to ep. Sava, against St. Joseph in this matter were made by many. bishops and elders: “Nachasha Joseph with many blasphemy and reproach, scolding, saying: as Joseph does not command those who repent to repentance, take it” (VMCh. Sept. 1-13. Stb. 474). In our opinion, the earliest polemical work, in which disagreement with the views of St. Joseph regarding the punishment of heretics, is a text published by B. M. Kloss, who erroneously attributed him to St. Joseph (Kloss B. M. Unknown message of Joseph Volotsky // TODRL. 1974. T. 28. S. 350-352). In response to the call to participate in the persecution of false teachers, the anonymous author writes about God's long-suffering, citing examples from the Old Testament history, and advises his addressee to place their hopes in God (Alekseev. 2008, pp. 36-38). An essay directed against the position of St. Joseph on the question of the attitude towards heretics, is the "Answer of the Cyril Elders" ( Kazakova N. A., Lurie Ya. S. Anti-feudal heretical movements in Rus' XIV - beg. 16th century M.; L., 1955. S. 510-513), which the researchers date to the end. 1504 (Kazakova. 1960. S. 176-179) or not earlier than 1507 (Lurie. 1960. S. 424; He is the same. Book review: Kazakova N. A. Essays // History of the USSR. 1972. No. 4. S. 165-166). In the "Answer ..." the arguments of St. Joseph in favor of the need to execute heretics. It is possible that the initiator of the "Answer ..." was Metr. Zosima, who was accused of being involved in the heresy of the Judaizers and who, therefore, had reason to fear for his fate if the death penalty was applied to heretics. Reply Rep. Joseph Volotsky to the speech of his opponents was the "Message on the observance of the conciliar sentence of 1504" 1504/05 (Kazakova, Lurie. Anti-feudal heretical movements in Rus'. 1955. S. 503-510).

Not later than 1511, in polemic with St. Joseph was joined by Vassian (Patrikeev), who became a "great temporary person" at the court led. book. Basil III. From the message of St. Joseph butler V. A. Chelyadnin follows that Vassian composed messages in which he likened Joseph to the heretic Navat (Messages of Joseph Volotsky. 1959. P. 227). The essay, in which Joseph was compared with the heretic Navat, is the "Word on" Writing off Joseph "", which refutes the arguments of the 13th Word of the "Book on Novgorod heretics" about the need to execute heretics (Anhimyuk Yu.V. Word on "Writing off Joseph" - monument of early non-possessiveness // Zap. OR RSL. M., 1990. Issue 49. P. 115-146). A detailed refutation of the views of Joseph in connection with the conflict in the case of the Novgorod archbishop. Serapion is contained in the "Answer of the Unknown" to the message of St. Joseph I. I. Tretyakov (Messages of Joseph Volotsky. 1959. P. 336-366). Apart from main theme- evidence of the rightness of Serapion and the wrongness of the Volotsk hegumen; there is also a condemnation of the monastic land ownership and the position of St. Joseph regarding the punishment of heretics. According to Zimin, Vassian (Patrikeev) could have been the author of the “Answer of the Unknown” (Ibid., p. 273; cf.: Ankhimyuk, Word on “Joseph’s Decommissioning.” 1990, p. 135). All R. 16th century against t. sp. Rev. Joseph, concerning the execution of heretics, the igum spoke. Trinity-Sergius Monastery Artemy. He criticized the "Book on the Novgorod heretics", condemned the execution of heretics, denied the effectiveness of memorial services for inveterate sinners, and other establishments that were important for I.

Rigid stance prp. Joseph in this matter was not implemented by I., who actively participated in the trials of heretics and their opponents in the middle. 16th century In 1553, on behalf of the tsar and metropolitan. Macarius, the search for the heresy of Matvey Bashkin and others was carried out by the elders of the Volokolamsk monastery Gerasim (Lenkov) and Filofei (Polev); Bashkin was sentenced to imprisonment in the Volokolamsk monastery. During the trial, Artemy was accused of involvement in Bashkin's heresy, who in January. In 1554 he was convicted and exiled to the Solovetsky Monastery in honor of the Transfiguration of the Lord. Until 1557, during several litigation those close to Artemy Joasaph (Belobaev), St. Theodoret Kolsky, monk Jonah, Fr. Anikey of Kiyansky from Kirillov Novoezersky monastery, as well as Theodosius Kosoy, who was convicted of heresy. Bishop Ryazan, who was close to the nonpossessors, left his chair. Cassian, who “blasphemed” at the Council the “Book on the Novgorod heretics”, in defense of which the tsar and the metropolitan spoke.

Doctrine of the Divine Nature of Kingship

according to many historians, occupied a central place in the views of I. However, familiarity with the theory and practice of I. allows us to conclude that their idea of ​​royal power corresponded to the Byzantine. the doctrine of the symphony of authorities and was shared by representatives of various areas of social thought in Russia. I. along with the opponent of St. Joseph Metropolitan Zosima (“Outline of Paschalia”, 1492) and Pskov monasteries that did not belong to I. Philotheus (messages from Grand Duke Vasily III) consistently carried out the transfer of the idea of ​​Byzantium. emperor as the head of all Christ. peace on the Moscow led. prince (then king). From the messages of St. Joseph Volotsky and the activities of his followers, it is clear that at that time the Byzantine practice, different from the ancient Russian one, was considered the norm, when the ruler convened Church Councils, presided over them, and organized their work with his instructions. In connection with the conflict with the Novgorod archbishop. Serapion st. Joseph Volotsky turned to led. prince, and he convened the Council and ordered it. The reverend asked for permission. prince to write against Vassian (Patrikeev). In the writings of Rev. Iosif Volotsky's statement runs like a red thread that the most important function of secular power is to protect society from heretics. At the same time, Rev. Joseph urged not to obey the ruler, departing from Christ. teachings, set as an example the K-Polish patriarchs Herman and Nicephorus, who fought against the iconoclast emperors.

The widespread opinion in historiography that I. were apologists for Russian. autocracy in all its manifestations, is based largely on the tendentious statements of their opponents. The historiography of the problem was greatly influenced by the "History of the Grand Duke of Moscow" book. Kurbsky, where a contrast is made between non-possessors, who put devotion to beliefs above the requirements of power, and I. - money-grubbers, currying favor with secular authorities. Book. Kurbsky accused Bishop Kolomna, who had been brought down from the cathedra. Vassian (Toporkov) in that he inspired the young Tsar John IV with the idea not to keep advisers “not a single wiser self, since you yourself are the best of all” (RIB. T. 31. Stb. 212). So, nephew of St. Joseph was accused of pushing the king to the oprichnina. Earlier, Vassian (Patrikeev) addressed St. Joseph Volotsky was reproached: “Why are you a nobleman of the Grand Duke?” (Messages of Joseph Volotsky. 1959, p. 348).

Meanwhile, the known facts of I.'s activity testify to something else. In an effort to support the Russian autocrats at the posts of church hierarchs, I. firmly defended the interests and rights of the Church in its relations with the authorities, including traditions. the right to mourn those who were in disgrace. For opposition to secular power, the Novgorod archbishop lost his chair. Theodosius, because of the rejection of the oprichnina, the Kazan archbishop was killed. German (Sadirev-Polev). The decisions of the Council of 1551, adopted with the sanction of the Josephite majority, reflected the efforts of I., headed by Metropolitan. Macarius to defend a certain autonomy of the Church in the face of the state. authorities. Apparently, under the influence of Mr. Macarius John IV included in the decisions of the Stoglavy Council numerous texts on the inviolability of the church court and church possessions. The Stoglav records decisions aimed at educating society, the parish clergy, strengthening monastic discipline, and creating church structures capable of promoting changes in society.

Metropolitan Macarius actively used the writings of St. Joseph, interpreting the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities (DAI. Vol. 1. No. 25, 39). In 1547, certain provisions from the 2nd Epistle of St. Joseph "for heretics" were included in the rite of the wedding of Tsar John IV (Ibid. No. 39, 145).

I. is incorrectly considered involved in the development of the concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome" (see, for example: Kartashev. Essays. T. 1. S. 414; Zamaleev A. F., Ovchinnikova E. A. Heretics and Orthodoxy: Essays on Old Russian. spirituality. L., 1991. S. 88). Sinitsyna convincingly showed that I. had nothing to do with the development of this doctrine (Sinitsyna N.V. The Third Rome: The Origins and Evolution of the Russian Medieval Concept. M., 1998. P. 245, 330). At the same time, the development of ideas about Moscow as the center of Christ. The Russian Chronograph compiled by Dosifey (Toporkov) contributed greatly to the world. Here is an old Russian. the chronicle was for the first time combined into one whole with the Byzantine. chronicles and ancient Russian. history began to act as the final section of world history. The chronograph, created in the Joseph Volokolamsk Mon-re, ended with a message about the fall of the K-field, then it was said about the conquest by the Turks of many. Christ. kingdoms, except for Russia, whose importance in the world, on the contrary, has increased.

I. in historiography

A.S. Pavlov formulated the idea of ​​St. Joseph as the main ideologist of the inalienability of church property (Pavlov A.S. Historical essay on the secularization of church lands in Russia. Od., 1871. Part 1. P. 55-60). V. N. Malinin tried to refute this opinion, who believed that I., like their opponents, did not pursue “a strictly defined political doctrine” in relation to church estates (Malinin. 1901, p. 640).

Dr. historians considered the unconditional support of the Moscow autocrats “in all controversial matters of their time” (Nikolaevsky. 1868; Zhmakin. 1881. pp. 21-78) to be a side of the teachings and activities of I.. I. P. Khrushchov wrote that “the teachings of Joseph Volotsky, set forth in the extensive chapters of The Enlightener, brought up the convictions of Ivan the Terrible” (Khrushchov. 1868, p. 265). In the future, priority was given not to studying the views of the followers of St. Joseph, but evaluative judgments about the moral character of I., which were attributed to hatred of opponents and servility to the authorities (Kostomarov N. I. Rus. history in the biographies of its main figures. M., 1990P. Book 1. S. 380; Golubinsky, History of the Republican Center, vol. 2/1, p. 875). Historical literature has repeatedly emphasized the support (or non-condemnation) of Met. Daniel dubious with t. sp. the standards of Christ. morality of action led. prince (violations of the cross-kissing, forced divorce). I.'s activity was characterized as a "conservative-formal trend" in social thought, while non-possessors were declared to represent "a critical, moral-liberal trend" (Zhmakin 1881, p. 107). The opinion was affirmed that Rev. Joseph and his followers were not in any way independent thinkers ( Zhmakin V.I., prot. The struggle of ideas in Russia in the 1st half. 16th century // ZhMNP. 1882. Ch. 220. No. 4. Det. 2. S. 147-150; Pypin A.N. Questions of Old Russian. writing: Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky // VE. 1894. Prince. 6. S. 746; Milyukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian. culture. P., 1931. T. 2. Part 1. S. 29). In many ways, this approach was due to the fact that the historians of the Church in the XIX century. they were looking for an answer to the question about the reasons for the subordination of the Church to the state in the era of Peter I Alekseevich and were ready to see one of the reasons in the “Josephian tradition”, as they understood it. An exception was the work of M. A. Dyakonov and V. E. Waldenberg, in which they were first evaluated as original views of St. Joseph Volotsky on the relationship between spiritual and secular authorities (Dyakonov M.A. The power of the Moscow sovereigns. St. Petersburg, 1889. P. 92-129; Valdenberg V. E. Old Russian. teachings about the limits of royal power. Pg., 1916. S. 201-215).

I.'s negative assessments were reinforced in the historiography of the Soviet period; I.'s views were evaluated from the standpoint of vulgar sociologism. N. M. Nikolsky considered St. Joseph Volotsky as a spokesman for the "religious consciousness of the boyar-princely class" hostile to the grand duke's power (Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. M., 1930. P. 65). The activity of I. was predominantly disclosed as the ideologists of the Moscow autocracy and was characterized as progressive in the works of I. U. Budovnits, I. P. Eremin and others (Budovnits I. U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M .; L., 1947. P. 100; History of Russian literature. M.; L., 1946. V. 2. Part 1. P. 309). In the works of Zimin and Lurie, the political ideology of I. was characterized as expressing the interests of large spiritual feudal lords, who at the 1st stage of their activity were in opposition to the grand ducal power, and then became the main ideologists of the autocracy (Zimin A. A. On the political doctrine of Joseph Volotsky // TODRL, 1953, vol. 9, pp. 159-177; He, 1977, pp. 238, 246; Lurie, 1960, pp. 480-481). According to the indicated t. sp., Rev. Joseph acted as the ideologist of large monastic landownership, and his followers, “supporting the power of the Moscow sovereigns in their daily political activities ... at the same time guarded their own corporate interests, which were ultimately determined by the program of a strong militant church, which strove to become a kind of state within a state. , and, if possible, the highest sanction of state activity in general” (Zimin. 1977, p. 281).

Russian thinkers. emigration assessed the historical significance of I. ambiguously. G. P. Fedotov, Fr. G. Florovsky, I. K. Smolich, Fr. John (Kologrivov), Fr. A. Schmemann and others considered I. supporters of social organization and statutory piety, hostile to the principles of spiritual freedom and mystical life, their victory in a dispute with non-possessors was regarded as a “tragedy of Russian holiness” (Fedotov G. P. Saints of Dr. Russia. M. 1990 3. P. 187; Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, 1937, pp. 19-21; Smolitsch I. Russisches Mönchtum. Würzburg, 1953; John (Kologrivov), Hierom. Essays on the history of Russian. holiness. Brussels, 1961, p. 194; Schmemann A., prot. East path of Orthodoxy. M., 1993; Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. SPb., 2008. S. 36). The positive significance of the social service of I. was emphasized by V. V. Zenkovsky, A. V. Kartashev, and others ( Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian. philosophy. L., 1991. T. 1. Part 1. S. 48-50; Kartashev. Essays. T. 1. S. 407-414).

In foreign historiography, the most widely held opinion is that I. were the creators of the ideology of theocratic absolutism (Medlin W. Moscow and East Rome: A Political Study of the Relations of Church and State in Muscovite Russia. Gen., 1952; Stokl G. Die politische Religiostat des Mittelalters und die Entstehung des Moskauer Staates // Saeculum Münch., 1951. Bd. 2. H. 3. S. 393-416; Idem. Zur Geschichte des russisches Mönchtums // JGÖ. 1954. Bd. 2. S. 221-231; Szeftel M. Joseph Volotsky's Political Ideas in a New Historical Perspective // ​​Ibid. 1965. Bd. 13. N 1. S. 19-29). the system for accounting for funeral deposits is described by L. Steindorf.

Source: Gorsky A.V., prot. Relations between the monks of Kirillo-Belozersky and Iosifov Volokolamsky monks in the 16th century. // PrTSO. 1851. Part 10. S. 502-527; Funeral word of St. Joseph Volokolamsky ... monk Dositheus (Toporkov) / Prepared by: K. I. Nevostruev // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. App. pp. 153-180; Life of St. Joseph, igum. Volokolamsk, compiled by Savva, ep. Krutitsky // Ibid. pp. 11-76; The same // VMC. Sept. 1-13. Stb. 453-499; Life of St. Joseph Volokolamsky, comp. unknown // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. App. pp. 77-152; Materials for the annals of the Volokolamsk monastery // Choidr. 1887. Prince. 2. Separate 5. S. 1-128; AFZH. Part 2; Epistles of Joseph Volotsky / Prepared. text: A. A. Zimin, Ya. S. Lurie. M.; L., 1959; Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk: Eine Quelle zur Sozialgeschichte russischer Kloster im 16. Jh. / Hrsg. L. Steindorff et al. Koln; Weimar; W., 1998; Old Russian. pateriks: Kievo-Pechersky paterikon. Volokolamsk Patericon / Ed. prepared by: L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov. M., 1999; Synodicon of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery: (1479-1510s) / Prepared. text and research: T. I. Shablova. SPb., 2004.

Lit .: Khrushchov I.P. Research on the writings of Joseph (Sanin), St. hegumen Volotsky. SPb., 1868; Nikolaevsky P.F., prot. Rus. preaching in the 15th and 16th centuries. // ZhMNP. 1868. Ch. 138. No. 4. S. 92-177; Nevostruev K. I. Consideration of the book by I. Khrushchov // Report on the 12th awarding of gr. Uvarov. SPb., 1870. S. 84-186; Zhmakin V.F., prot. Metropolitan Daniel and his writings. M., 1881; Golubinsky. History of the RC. T. 2/1; Malinin V. N. Elder of the Eleazar Monastery Filofey and his messages. K., 1901; Rev. Joseph, Volokolamsk miracle worker, and the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery founded by him. M., 1915; Tikhomirov M.N. Monastery-patrimony of the XVI century. // FROM. 1938. V. 3. S. 130-160; Lurie Ya. S. Brief edition of the "Charter" of Joseph Volotsky - a monument to the ideology of early Josephism // TODRL. 1956. T. 12. S. 116-140; he is. Ideological struggle in Russian. journalism con. XV - beginning. 16th century M.; L., 1960; Moiseeva G. N. "Valaam conversation" - a monument to Russian. journalism ser. 16th century M., 1958; Kazakova N. A. Vassian Patrikeev and his writings. M., L., 1960; she is. Essays on the history of Russian. societies. thoughts: 1st third of the XVI century. L., 1970; she is. When did the controversy between the nonpossessors and the Josephites begin? // From the history of the feud. Russia. L., 1978. S. 111-115; Zimin A. A. Correspondence of the elders of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery with Vasily III // Linguist. source study. M., 1963. S. 131-135; he is. From the history of the feud. land ownership in the Volotsk specific principality // Culture Dr. Rus'. M., 1966. S. 71-78; he is. The struggle of the nobility with the monastic land ownership in the end. XVI - beginning. 17th century // From the history of Tataria. Kaz., 1968. Sat. 3. S. 109-124; he is. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (end of the 15th-16th centuries). M., 1977; Kloss B. M. Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery and chronicle of the end. XV - 1st floor. 16th century // VIEW. 1974. Issue. 6. S. 107-125; Sinitsyna N.V. Non-covetousness and heresy // VNA. 1987. Issue. 25. S. 62-79; she is. Controversial issues in the history of non-covetousness, or On the logic of ist. evidence // Controversial issues of national history of the XI-XVIII centuries. M., 1990. S. 250-254; Kolycheva E. I. The agrarian system of Russia in the 16th century. L., 1988; she is. Orthodox mon-ri 2nd floor. XV-XVI centuries // Monasticism and mon-ri in Russia, XI-XX centuries. M., 2002. S. 81-115; Steindorff L. Commemoration and Administrative Techniques in Muscovite Monasteries // Russian History = Histoire russe. Pittsburg, 1995. T. 22. N 3. P. 285-306; aka [Steindorf]. The commemoration of the dead as a common heritage app. medieval and others. Rus' // “These same memory abides forever”: Mat-ly Intern. conf. M., 1997. S. 41-48; idem. Monastic Culture as a Means of Social Disciplining in Muscovite Russia - a Common European Feature // Mesto Rossii v Evrope = The Place of Russia in Europe: Materials of Intern. Conf. Bdpst, 1999. P. 108-112; Chernov S. Z. Volok Lamsky in the XIV - 1st half. 16th century: Land ownership structures and the formation of a military service corporation. M., 1998; Pigin A. V. Volokolamsk works of the 16th century. about death // Dergachev Thursdays-2000: Rus. Literature: Nat. development and regional peculiarities. Yekaterinburg, 2001, part 1, pp. 167-171; he is. About lit. contacts of Joseph-Volokolamsky and Pavlov Obnorsky mon-ray in the 1st half. 16th century // VCI. 2006. No. 1. S. 99-107; Pliguzov A.I. Controversy in Rus. Churches of the 1st third of the XVI century. M., 2002; Grevtsova OA Legal ideas of non-possessors and Josephites in the area of ​​state-church. relations // State. construction and law. M., 2003. Issue. 3. S. 104-110; Dykstra T. E. Russian Monastic Culture: "Josephism" and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery, 1479-1607. Munch., 2006; aka [Dykstra]. Monastic names in Muscovite Rus' and the problems of identifying their owners: On the material of the sources of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, 1479-1607 // Imenoslov: Ist. semantics of the name / Comp.: F. B. Uspensky. M., 2007. Issue. 2. S. 238-298; Alekseev A.I. When the controversy between “Josephites” and “non-possessors” began // Nil Sorsky in culture and bookishness Dr. Rus': Mat-ly Intern. scientific conf. SPb., 2008. S. 29-40; he is. The writings of Joseph Volotsky in the context of the controversy of the 1480s - 1510s SPb., 2010.

A. I. Alekseev

JOSEPHLANES, supporters of a special direction of Russian social thought (late 15-16th century), named after its main inspirer - Joseph Volotsky. The term "Josephites" was used by Prince A. M. Kurbsky; it appeared in the scientific literature in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

Initially, the Josephites were supporters of the idea of ​​the dominance of spiritual power over secular. The ruler, according to Joseph Volotsky, is an earthly person and a simple executor of God's will, therefore he must render "royal honor, and not divine." If a tyrant was established on the throne, then he should not be obeyed, for he is "not God's servant, but the devil, and not a king, but a tormentor." The rapprochement of Joseph Volotsky with the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich led to a change in the views of the Josephites on the nature of grand ducal power. Recognizing its divine character, Joseph Volotsky declared the need to subordinate to the ruler all the institutions of the state and the Church, while the “priesthood” was given a high mission - to play the role of the spiritual mentor of the sovereign.

In the church controversy at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries about monastic landownership, which developed against the backdrop of a decline in the internal discipline of cenobitic monasteries, the Josephites, in contrast to their ideological opponents - non-possessors (see also Nil Sorsky), supporters of the monastic form of monasticism, advocated the preservation of monasteries and their renewal internal life on the basis of the obligatory introduction of a strict cenobitic charter. The establishment of a strict communal life, according to the Josephites, made it possible to combine the growth of monastic possessions with the principles of personal monastic non-possession and renunciation of the world. The position of the Josephites on the issue of monastic land ownership prevailed at the council of 1503, and was later confirmed by the council of 1531. It was typical for the Josephite monasteries to attach special importance to the institution of eldership: each young monk was under the supervision of an experienced monk, which strengthened the spiritual continuity between teacher and student (Joseph Volotsky - Cassian Barefoot - Fotiy Volotsky - Vassian Koshka). The Josephites were actively engaged in monastic construction, erected and decorated temples, collected icons and books. Iosif Volotsky invited the best painters - Dionysius and his sons Theodosius and Vladimir - to paint the monastery Cathedral of the Assumption (see Joseph-Volotsky Monastery); the monastery kept icons by Andrey Rublev, there was a scriptorium and literary school. The Josephites opposed the extremes of asceticism and saw the ideal of monasticism not in isolation from the outside world, but in vigorous activity in all spheres of public life. Monasticism, in their opinion, should have influenced everything state institutions, to support the grand princely power, to educate future archpastors, to conduct cultural, educational and missionary work, to resist heresies (for example, at the council of 1504, the Josephite position in relation to heretics prevailed - "army and knife", executions and imprisonment).

At the beginning of the 16th century, the Josephites occupied Rostov (Vassian Sanin), Kolomna (Mitrofan), Suzdal (Simeon) and other departments. Under Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow, many hierarchs of the Russian Church adhered to pro-Josephite positions [bishops Akaki of Tver, Vassian Kolomensky (Toporkov), Savva of Smolensky, Iona of Ryazansky, Makariy of Novgorod]. Metropolitan Daniel, former abbot of the Joseph-Volotsk Monastery, actively supported the policy of unification of the Russian lands pursued by the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich, substantiated the divorce of the Grand Duke from S. Yu. Saburova from the church-canonical point of view, married him to E. V. Glinskaya. Volotsk monks participated in the baptism of the future Tsar Ivan IV Vasilievich, supervised the rite of the burial of Vasily III Ivanovich, acted as the main prosecutors at the trials of Maxim the Greek and Vassian (Patrikeev), M. S. Bashkin and Theodosius Kosoy. In the 1540s and 1550s, when Macarius, who was close to the Josephites, became Metropolitan of Moscow, all the most important church posts were occupied by his like-minded people. At the Stoglavy Cathedral (1551), the Josephite majority (Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, bishops Savva Krutitsky, Gury Smolensky, Tryphon of Suzdal, Akaki Tverskoy, Nikandr of Rostov, Theodosius of Kolomensky, Cyprian of Perm) finally rejected the non-possessive program proposed by A.F. Adashev and Sylvester, and approved the principle of the inalienability of church lands. Thanks to the activities of Metropolitan Macarius and his “retinue”, the “Great Cheti-Minei” were compiled - a collection of “everything” in Rus', life and teaching works, distributed by day of the year, more than 30 Russian saints were canonized (at the cathedrals of 1547-49), created grandiose architectural monuments glorifying the power of the Russian state (for example, St. Basil's Cathedral). The monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus was close to the Josephites, who formulated and substantiated in his writings the political concept “Moscow is the third Rome”.

On the whole, the union of the Josephite Church with the state persisted until the second half of the 16th century. Later, the practice of large-scale monastic landownership, the ideas of the inalienability of church property came into conflict with the ideology of the emerging autocracy. An echo of the Josephite church-political doctrine in Russian history of the 17th century was the policy of Patriarch Nikon, which brought him into conflict with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Lit .: Budovnits I. U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M.; L., 1947; Zimin A. A. I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. M., 1958; he is. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (end of the 15th - 16th centuries). M., 1977; Klibanov A.I. Reform movements in Russia in the XIV - the first half of the XVI century. M., 1960; Lurie Ya. S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. M.; L., 1960; Dmitrieva R.P. Volokolamsk collections of the 16th century. // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. L., 1974. T. 28; Zamaleev A.F. Philosophical thought in medieval Rus' (XI-XVI centuries). L., 1987; book centers Ancient Rus': Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery as a center of book learning. L., 1991; Olshevskaya L.A. The history of the creation of the Volokolamsk Patericon, a description of its editions and lists // Old Russian Patericons. M., 1999.

L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov.

Introduction

The object and subject of this study is non-possessors and Josephites because of the monastic property of the XVI-XVII centuries. The purpose of writing this work is to compare the methods and ways of fighting for the monastic land of two groups - non-possessors and Josephites. The task is to characterize each of the described groups, methods of their struggle, describe the results and consequences.

For this work, I used five sources, four of them are articles and one book. As the main source on this topic, I took an article by Letnyakov D.E. "Controversy between nonpossessors and Josephites as a subject of political science research". This article consists of 17 pages. It talks about the causes of the dispute, about the methods of struggle between the two sides, about the causes and consequences of this struggle. No less important source on this topic, I consider the book of Somin N.V. "Possessors" and "Possessors" This book shows the biography and description of the representative of the Josephites, Joseph Volotsky and the non-possessors of Nil Sorsky. The next three articles are “Ideological foundations of disputes between non-possessors and Josephites”, “Josephites” and “non-possessors” ep. Dionisy Alferov,"Josephites" and "non-possessors" of Arkhangelskaya A.V. I used as auxiliary sources of information. These articles were taken from websites on philosophy, religion and on the educational portal Slovo. All of them characterize the relationship of the described parties with the secular authorities.

Main part

An important phenomenon in the ideological and religious life of Muscovite Rus was the disagreement over monastic property, which divided the Old Russian church into two warring theological parties: the non-possessors and the Josephites. It is known that this began under Ivan III, and finally ended during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Josephites - supporters and followers of Joseph Volotsky defended the idea of ​​a rich, powerful church that owns property and land ("Churches wealth - God's wealth"). Non-possessors, led by Nil Sorsky (1433 - 1508) preached "non-possessiveness", i.e. urged the church to abandon earthly riches. This is what the author of the book says about "Possessors" and "Non-Possessors" Somin N.V. about N. Sorsky and I. Volotsky: “St. Nil Sorsky, from the aristocratic Maikov family, went through the ascetic school of Athos. Neil recorded his understanding of how monasticism should live in his essay Tradition and Rule. There, for the first time in Russian Christian literature, the path of “smart doing” created by Eastern monasticism is described in detail. This is the path of St. Nil confessed with his life in the place he arranged on the river. Sore skete - a tiny church and several cells around, where in the 1490s they settled with the Nile, his like-minded people - the "Volga elders". Everything is focused on silence, scripture study and prayer. There is no common meal. Each elder leads his own wretched household, feeding on his own labor. It is allowed to sell "works of one's needlework" (for a small price), and "alms from the lovers of Christ are necessary, and not superfluous." Finally, “do not decorate churches” and “do not have any valuable things in the cell.” In other words, non-acquisition is both personal and collective. Moreover, it is so radical that “it is not subject to alms”, because “non-acquisition is higher than such alms” and the monk must do “spiritual alms” (help his brother with a word), and not “bodily”. It is clear that Neil sees his task only in correcting the life of monasticism for the sake of spiritual life. Any activity in the social field is alien to him.

"The views of St. Joseph Volotsky were significantly different. He believed that it was possible to perfectly combine the personal wealth of the monks with the wealth of the entire monastery. Joseph was able to embody these ideas in the Assumption Monastery founded by him in Lamsky Volok. The system of commemorations established in the monastery is especially characteristic. The practical Joseph, in addition to the synodic (which was read in the vestibule), also introduced "everyday references", which were read by the priest on the proskomedia with the removal of particles from the prosphora. Everyday mentions were very expensive: "forever" for a contribution of more than 50 rubles per capita, and for a smaller contribution - on the principle of "a year for a ruble." Lack of understanding of this system by investors led to conflicts. So, Princess Maria Golenina was outraged that her husband and two sons were not commemorated every day, although she invested significant sums. Answering her, Iosif calmly points out that her contributions were for synodic. As for daily commemoration, it is necessary to invest 20 rubles over seven years. And do not call it "robbery" - such is the "monastic custom", and the will of the princess to follow it or not. So there was no leniency even towards “our own” (Golenina's son was a monk of the Volokolamsk monastery). This shows that the business of commemoration was placed in the monastery on a solid commercial basis. In addition, thanks to the exceptional authority received by Joseph in the fight against the heresy of the Judaizers, not only money, but also significant land plots with villages were often invested in the monastery for the remembrance of the soul. As a result, the Volokolamsk Monastery acquired huge material wealth in a short time. But these riches were common: each monk had a minimum of personal belongings (the amount of which, however, depended on his spiritual age). In addition, the peculiarity of the views of St. Joseph was that he widely used the wealth of his monastery for charitable purposes. In famine years, up to seven thousand monastery peasants were fed from the monastery, and usually 400-500 people, “except for small children,” and for this the monastery sold livestock and clothes and even got into debt; an orphanage was built for homeless children.”

Indeed, the "spiritual directions" of St. Nile and Joseph were essentially different. But it should be noted that historians do not find facts of enmity or hostility between these Russian saints.

Both parties adhered to the same dogmatic teaching and were in church communion and unity. And yet, their views on church-state relations, their moral ideals were quite different. The difficult questions that confronted the church at that time can be expressed as follows. To what does the right of ownership of vast real estate oblige the Church, and should it take on such obligations to the state and society? What should be the mission of monasticism: is it limited to personal salvation, or should it include church and public service? To what extent is coercion and appeal to the state power that uses violence applicable in the matter of Orthodox pastoring? When building an Orthodox state, what should the Church pay the main attention to: the establishment of church-state relations and the strengthening of its position in society, or the spiritual and moral education of its children?

Meanwhile, the discussion about whether it is permissible for the church to own property was not the only one, and probably not even the most important one. After all, the teaching of the non-possessors (or "Zavolzhsky elders") and the Josephites concerned not only the question of what kind of church should be - "rich" or "poor". Their ideas, besides those, were much broader and went far beyond the framework of intrachurch life, including also a certain vision of the Orthodox faith, a certain idea of ​​the position of the church in the state and society, of the interaction of spiritual and secular power, of royal power, its competence, limits and responsibilities. Therefore, we can say that the dispute between the non-possessors and the Josephites was, in a broad sense, a clash of two worldviews, two socio-political ideals and two directions of the country's development.

Since by the time of the Council of 1503, the Church had accumulated significant land wealth. Some historians indicate that by the middle of the XVI century. The church owned up to 1/3 of cultivated land. The reason why the landed property of the Church increased was the whole period Tatar yoke- thanks to the tolerant religious policy of the Tatars, the Church was completely exempted from paying tribute. Only Basil I introduces a permanent financial taxation of the Church. And also the rise in contributions to the monasteries was also due to the spread in Rus' of the funeral practice, introduced back in the 14th century. St. Metropolitan Cyprian. This situation was of great concern to the Grand Duke Ivan III, since the monastic lands turned out to be useless from the point of view of the state. And therefore, the supreme power was not averse to taking them for itself and distributing them to “service people” for “feeding”. Ivan III, having conquered Novgorod, did just that: he took away the lands from numerous Novgorod monasteries and transferred them to the nobles. Naturally, he was going to carry out these reforms throughout the country. An attempt at such secularization, the first in the history of Rus', took place at the Council of 1503. Ivan III was supported by his sons and some clerks. The hierarchs were not going to retreat, and at first the Metropolitan clerk Levash Konshin read before Ivan III the answer compiled by the participants in the Council, full of quotations from the Bible, references to St. father and on Tatar labels. Ivan was not satisfied with this answer. Then “Metropolitan Simon himself, with the entire consecrated cathedral, carries a corrected answer, where there are even more quotations from the Bible. Finally, Levash reads the third version before Ivan III, in which there is an insert about church possessions under the Ruriks: Vladimir and with his son V.K. Yaroslav, and for them at V.K. Vsevolod and at V.K. Ivan, the grandson of blessed Alexander… the saints and monasteries kept cities, volosts, settlements and villages and church tributes.” Yanov believes that it was this argument that turned out to be decisive: “We must pay tribute to the cathedral elders. The heaviest ideological artillery was advanced against Ivan. He never once raised his hand to “Russian antiquity” in all the long forty-three years of his reign… Unlike researchers of later times, the hierarchy definitely found his Achilles heel. And the Grand Duke turned out to be defenseless before her.

The church managed to defend its land holdings before the state. But within the Church, the conflict was just beginning to escalate. Two "parties" were formed - "Josephites" and "non-possessors" who supported the views on the monastery estates of Joseph and Nile, respectively.

So, what were the socio-political concepts of the Josephites and non-possessors? Let's start with the ideology of the "Volga elders". According to Letnyakova D.E. "founder of this trend, Nil Sorsky, being on Athos, experienced a serious influence of the mystical Orthodox teaching - hesychasm. Since hesychasm was based on the idea of ​​the unity of man with God, the opportunity for people to directly contemplate the Divine essence through moral self-improvement, reflection and certain meditation practices, for Neil and his followers, religion was, first of all, not a fact of public life, but a personal affair of each person. And the idea of ​​this, which opened up the possibility of direct communication between a person and God, was fundamental in the worldview of the “Zavolzhsky elders”. In the opinion of the non-possessors, the main thing in life takes place not in the external world in relation to us, mortal and impermanent, but inside us, in the soul. From it followed, firstly, the well-known call to the church to renounce earthly riches (the same preaching of “non-acquisition”), because for the proper organization of the inner, spiritual life, the minister of the church needs to achieve maximum freedom from the outside world, from various worldly goods. As he writes in his “Charter on the Skete Life”: “Not only should we avoid gold, silver and property, but also all things beyond the needs of life ... This directs us to spiritual purity.” Moreover, the non-possessors also opposed the rich church decoration: "it is not appropriate for us to have vessels of gold and silver, even sacred ones."

In addition, the nonpossessors were against the unification of church and state, i.e. nationalization. They were more satisfied with the separation of the secular and ecclesiastical spheres, they needed a freer religion. The role of monasticism in the state should be reduced to thinking about the salvation of the soul, praying for oneself and other Orthodox. Management of all lands and subjects is the task of the king, he cannot transfer part of his land and people subject to him under the jurisdiction of the church, otherwise he does not have the right to be called "autocrat" and then he rules the state not alone, but already with the church. It is better for such a king to lose his power altogether: “give away the degree and the rod and the royal crown from yourself.” The need for public participation in solving state issues is developed in "Another Tale", where the author proposes a model of governing the country, in which the king exercises power together with two permanent advisory bodies. The first is the “ecumenical council”, which includes elected representatives from various territories. Its main goal is to bring public opinion to the king on a variety of state issues. The ruler should ask the elected every day "about every business of this world." The second body is a council of "reasonable men, wise and reliable close associates ... commanders and warriors." He, too, must relentlessly be with the sovereign - the king should not "not for a single day" dismiss him. If the “ecumenical council” was reminiscent of the Zemsky Sobor, then the council of “reasonable men” is an analogue of the Boyar Duma. It is important to note that at the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV, this non-possessive idea of ​​the “ecumenical council” was put into practice. As you know, in the first decade of Grozny's reign, important personalities in his government ("The Chosen Rada") were people who were somehow connected with the camp of non-possessors or sympathized with their views - Sylvester, Alexei Adashev, Andrey Kurbsky.

V.O. Klyuchevsky. He points out that from the analysis of journalism of the 16th century. “it is clear how the question of zemstvo representation occupied people of the same way of thinking as Vassian and Kurbsky, and it becomes clear how the idea of ​​such a cathedral could arise in the government of Tsar Ivan.” The “Vassian” mentioned by the historian is Vassian Patrikeyev, a prominent non-possessor, a student of Nil Sorsky.

The Chosen Rada also carried out a fairly democratic reform local government: if earlier the counties and cities of the Moscow State were governed with the help of the royal governors, now the population was given the right to completely take local affairs into their own hands, forming elected zemstvo institutions (headmen, zemstvo clerks and kissers), who were supposed to send fiscal, judicial and police functions. According to Letnyakov, “This is also a rather interesting touch, illustrating the “political philosophy” that the non-possessive figures of the “Chosen One” professed.

The political ideology of the Josephites developed like this. Its first version was developed at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, when they were in opposition Ivan III. This was due to the fact that, firstly, at that time the sovereign, relying on the ideas of Nil Sorsky, had plans for the secularization of church lands. Secondly, the Josephites were dissatisfied with the fact that the Grand Duke did nothing to eradicate the "heresy of the Judaizers" and even brought some heretics closer to him - the clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn and Archpriest Alexei.

Volotsky in his work “The Enlightener” defended the idea that the ruler fulfills a divine destiny, while remaining a simple person who, like all people on earth, makes mistakes that can destroy not only himself, but the whole people. Joseph taught that the king should be honored and obeyed, but since kings have power only over the body, and not over the soul of people, they should give royal honor, and not divine, obey them "bodily, and not mentally." Joseph Volotsky also stated that the tsar is not the first person in the state and spiritual power is above the secular power, and the church needs to be "worshiped more" than the ruler.

Thus, initially the Josephites declared the possibility of discussing and criticizing the personality and actions of the king, for not all power is from God, but sometimes from the devil, in addition, they defended the priority of “priesthood” over “kingdom”. But later, after the church council of 1504, when Ivan III nevertheless took the side of the Josephite clergy, abandoning the idea of ​​secularization, Joseph not only softens his position in relation to secular power, but also accepts statements that are directly opposite.

In the opinion of the Josephites, the king is responsible for his subjects before God, he is obliged to take care of them, protect them from any harm, mental and bodily. And therefore, the main task of the grand duke's power is to protect the true faith, the persecution of heretics, who are worse than robbers or murderers, because. they corrupt the souls of people (unlike the non-possessors, the Josephites insisted that heretics should be mercilessly exterminated, in the words of the Novgorod archbishop Gennady, “burn and hang”). And if in the matter of maintaining the purity of the faith, the king, and not the church, has the leading role, this inevitably puts it in a subordinate position in relation to the sovereign. Therefore, according to the new logic of Volotsky, the tsar already has the highest authority in matters of church administration, it was to him that God transferred "both church, and monastic, and all Orthodox Christianity, power and care."

It follows that, firstly, the state invaded a purely spiritual sphere, and, secondly, it was placed over the church and society, receiving unlimited powers. In addition, this led to sole rule, since the king does not need advisers, just as God does not require anyone's help in ruling the world. The proclamation of the power of the king as god-like made it truly absolute, without limits, sacred to the subjects, who had only to unconditionally obey the will of the monarch. Disobedience to the ruler is not only a crime, but also a sin. That is why, in one of his letters, Joseph Volotsky calls for “working” for the tsar as for the “Lord”, and not as a person; and Metropolitan Daniel, the closest associate and follower of Volotsky, proclaims after his teacher that the authorities must be obeyed "as if not a ruler, but God."

To the nonpossessors, on the contrary, the idea of ​​the duties of power to the people seems natural. For example, Prince Kurbsky, in a letter to Ivan the Terrible, singles out two main functions of tsarist power - "a fair trial and protection" of subjects. Maxim the Greek says that the king should take care of the people subject to him, because. the prosperity and strength of his state depends on this, the king on earth must be just, just as the Heavenly Sovereign is just.

But at the same time, the non-possessors did not refute the thesis about the God-established power. For a medieval person, the idea that the ruler is God's anointed was natural. Non-possessors, recognizing that "there is no power except from God," did not endow the ruler with divine powers. The king's responsibility to God, they believed, does not contradict his responsibility to people. The rulers are ordinary sinful people who “by their simplicity” often make mistakes, therefore the king should not rule alone, but “consult with advisers on every matter.”

Maxim the Greek adds to the council with subjects the need for church control over power. In his interpretation of "priesthood" and "kingdom" two principles that operate in the state are interconnected, he calls this "God's chosen marriage." The purpose of secular power is protection from external enemies and ensuring the peaceful life of citizens, the mission of the church is spiritual enlightenment and assistance in the salvation of the soul.

Thus, for nonpossessors, a truly Christian God-chosen sovereign is a ruler who is aware of his high responsibility before God and people, a person who is called to follow the high moral standard that is set by his unique position as God's anointed one. Among the Josephites, the kings were not just chosen and placed on the throne by God, they themselves became almost gods. According to the correct remark of M.A. Dyakonov, "this is no longer a theory of the divine origin of royal power, but a pure deification of the king's personality." Moreover, among the Josephites, even the very figure of the king and his images become the subject of a religious cult, almost like in paganism. As a result, through the efforts of the Josephites, a completely different understanding of the very title “autocrat” is taking shape - if earlier it meant a ruler with independent, sovereign power (it was in this sense that Ivan III was “written” as an autocrat after the overthrow of the Mongol yoke), now autocracy began to be understood first of all, as autocracy, as sacred power, consecrated by God himself, even equal to God, and therefore independent of any social institutions, including the church.

Therefore, it is understandable why the authorities were so interested in the Josephite ideology, even if for the sake of this they had to give up their claims to the huge land fund of the church. In this case, the Moscow rulers became inaccessible to any form of public control, they received a real opportunity to become truly absolute rulers. Thus, the alliance between the government and the Josephites became a mutually beneficial deal: the Moscow rulers left the church its privileges, primarily land ownership, and the church in exchange agreed to submit to the state, recognize that the "kingdom" is higher than the "priesthood", and justify ideologically unlimited power of Russian autocrats.

In addition, the Josephites were directly related to the development of the concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome", which played a large role in the sacralization of the supreme power in Russia. The bulk of the texts substantiating this concept came from the Josephite milieu, such as the famous messages of the Elder Philotheus, who declared Basil III the head of the church and advised him to actively interfere in its affairs. The new religious status of Moscow as the "Third Rome" made it the center of the entire Christian world and proclaimed the Russian autocrat the heir of Byzantium, the only defender of Orthodoxy on Earth and the only truly Christian ruler. The consequence of this was the following title of the Moscow sovereigns, which was established in the 16th century: “noble, Christ-loving, all-powerful, most exalted, most luminous, God-chosen sovereign, autocrat of the eternal, true mentor of the Christian faith, steward of God’s holy churches, the thrones of all bishops…”.

For several decades, these two directions fought among themselves, and the second half of the reign of Grozny, associated with the oprichnina, became the time of the final victory of the Josephite ideology in the political and religious spheres. The connection between the oprichnina and the teachings of the Josephites seems to be quite concrete and obvious. Terror was, of course, not only a manifestation of the tsar's insanity, but also an attempt to put into practice the absolutist ideas on which Russian autocrats were brought up by the efforts of the Josephites from the beginning of the 16th century. Confirmation is the correspondence of Ivan IV with Kurbsky, who commanded the Russian troops in Livonia and, after a series of failures, fled to Poland. Reading these messages, you can see that this is not just a correspondence between two people accusing each other, and sometimes insulting, two political ideals also collide here - this is a non-possessor (Kurbsky) and Josephites (Grozny). Andrei Kurbsky saw in the presence of advisory and representative institutions under the tsar. The prince argues that the king should not rule alone, but together with his closest advisers (“chosen and worthy men”), and also by convening “people of the people” (elected from the people). Kurbsky compares Ivan Vasilyevich himself with Tsar Herod, who in Christian tradition became synonymous with tyranny and cruelty.

Relying on the fact that the power of the king comes from a higher power and he is the vicar of God on earth, Ivan the Terrible wanted to embody in his person not only the state, but also the church with the Almighty. Thus, in the theory of royal power, which Grozny formulates in correspondence with a former favorite, autocracy is a sacred power, the divine origin of which serves, first of all, to justify its complete independence from society, from the church, from any human, social establishments. Based on this understanding of autocracy, Grozny establishes a system of power in the country based on terror against the aristocracy, his own people (the defeat of Novgorod, Tver, Ivangorod, and a number of other cities) and that part of the church that could not accept this anti-social policy. At the same time, the doctrine of non-possessors was officially declared heresy.

As Alexander Yanov correctly noted, the Josephites “thought that by exalting the king to the skies and seducing him with autocratic power, they would be able to keep him in their hands. It turned out that they unleashed a monster.” And therefore, during the oprichnina, Grozny, who felt the taste of unlimited power, did not hesitate to carry out real arbitrariness in relation to the church: he forced the clergy to condemn and defrock Metropolitan Philip, one of the prominent Josephites (later Philip was strangled by order of the king). The tsar ruined and plundered many rich churches and monasteries in the Novgorod and Pskov lands during his punitive campaigns, canceled the letters of grant that freed the monasteries from taxes and duties, and returned them only after paying huge sums of money.

So, the most important part of the struggle between the nonpossessors and the Josephites was a dispute over socio-political problems, including disputes over the correct political structure, the relationship between power and society, secular and spiritual power, etc. The Iosiflyanskaya political concept (the main ideologists are Joseph Volotsky, Ivan the Terrible) was based on the idea of ​​a rigidly centralized state, headed by a sole ruler with sacred absolute power. This power equally extends to all subjects, regardless of social status, origin, as well as to all spheres of the state and society, including the spiritual. The main differences between the political doctrine of non-possessors (Maxim Grek, "The Valaam Conversation", Andrei Kurbsky) consisted in the fact that it did not endow the rulers with god-like unlimited power, did not surround the personality of the king with sacred significance. They thought not only about the duties of subjects in relation to the sovereign, but also about the duty of the ruler to the people. The nonpossessors insisted that the king should govern the country relying on his subjects.

Conclusion

Based on the objectives of this study (characteristics of each of the described groups, methods of their struggle, results and consequences), I will conclude based on the article “The ideological foundations of the disputes between non-possessors and Josephites” that the struggle between Josephites and non-possessors at first glance can be perceived as purely intra-church, as a dispute between two directions of Orthodoxy. But this is not so, because it took place with the participation of secular authorities. Attempts to confiscate church land property were made under Ivan III and Ivan IV. Their actions are not the only case of the struggle of the princely (royal) power with a large patrimony, which the church became as a result of grants, benefits and gifts. If we take the ideology of the dispute, then it resolved the question of the role and appointment of the clergy in society and the limits of state power.