V3: Political and legal doctrines during the early bourgeois revolutions. Religious-philosophical controversy between the non-possessors and the Josephites The question of the land of the Josephites

Until a certain point in Rus', there were practically no serious conflicts and reprisals on religious grounds. While the infamous Holy Inquisition was spreading in the Catholic West, and countries like the Czech Republic or France were torn apart by religious wars between different currents of Latins and Protestants, Orthodoxy reigned supreme in Muscovite Rus'. The dogmas of the Orthodox Church seemed unshakable, but by the end of the 15th century, we too had a contention over a number of issues related to the life of the Church, which soon turned into a lot of bloodshed.

In contact with

Classmates

Parties' arguments

In the XV-XVI centuries, a conflict occurred in the church environment over the property of monasteries, as a result of which the Orthodox were divided into two irreconcilable camps:

nonpossessors
Josephites.

The non-possessors include the monks-followers of the leader of the teachings of the holy elder Nil Sorsky who were opposed to the Church having any property. During monastic tonsure, a monk takes a vow of non-possession, implying an absolute renunciation of property and life in hope of God's will, and therefore non-possessors considered the presence of land in monasteries a violation of monastic vows.

The disciples of Nil Sorsky treated the prince with respect, considering him fair, wise and therefore worthy to personally manage church property. Therefore, the land and buildings that belonged to the Church had to be, in their opinion, transferred to the hands of the state, so that it could strengthen its borders and pay money to the nobles for their service.

In return, the non-possessors wanted the government to be able to speak freely on various issues related to religion. The monks, left without property, had to completely leave all worldly affairs and engage only in “smart doing”, i.e. prayer. It was allowed to earn a living only by their own labor or alms.. At the same time, the monks themselves had to give alms to anyone who asked them.

In turn, supporters of the founder of the Joseph-Volokolamsky monastery, the Monk Joseph of Volotsky, called the Josephites by the name of their leader, believed that the church must own all its property, including libraries, households, church utensils. This was necessary so that the Church could subsequently lead next activity:

carry out missionary tasks,
do charity,
support poor people
to supply the people with food in lean years.

The Josephites treated the ruler as the vicar of God on earth and therefore believed that he should combine responsibility before the people with responsibility before the Church.

Another point in which the opinions of the non-possessors and the Josephites differed was the question of the correction of the supporters of heretical teachings. In Rus' in that era, the so-called. "the heresy of the Judaizers", and the Orthodox pastors had to figure out how to ensure the reign of the canonical form of confession in the Christian world. Joseph Volotsky believed that it was necessary to fight heresy by physically influencing heretics up to being burned alive at the stake.

In turn, Neil Sorsky believed that God was waiting not for the death of the sinner, but for his repentance, and therefore denied the possibility of applying death penalty against heretics, showing Christian mercy. Those who stubbornly refused to leave the heresy, the elder suggested isolating them from society or send them abroad, but do not deprive them of their lives.

Development and aggravation of the conflict

The role of princely power in the dispute

Given the enormous influence of Christianity on the politics of European states, including Muscovite Rus' of the 15th-16th centuries, it is not surprising that these disputes began to occupy the minds of high statesmen. Moscow Rus', small in area, could not provide all the nobles with worthy land allotments, and therefore the head of the principality, Ivan III, at first leaned on the side of non-possessors who were ready to provide church lands for this. Wikipedia reports that as more and more officials and clerks who adhered to the heresy of the Judaizers were denounced, the prince's sympathy towards the Josephites increased. However, almost to last days his life, Vasily Ivanovich expressed a desire to receive church property in state ownership.

Formally, the struggle between the nonpossessors and the Josephites had no negative consequences for the Church. Both movements were in Eucharistic communion and unity; no facts of hostility between Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky were found. The confrontation between the two church groups was sharply outlined at the council of 1503, where representatives of both currents strongly condemned the heresy of the Judaizers, but could not find a consensus on the issue of punishment for heretics. The Josephites, who constituted the majority at this council, were able to defend their position on the issue of the property of the Church.

When in 1500 Prince Ivan III was stricken by a serious illness, Vasily Ivanovich, the son of his second wife Sophia Paleolog, began to help him rule the principality. Joseph Volotsky had a tremendous impact on the prince, and four years later, Vasily Ivanovich, Ivan III, together with the cathedral of the episcopate ruled against the heretics.

After that, in Rus', in fact, a home-grown analogue of the Catholic Holy Inquisition appeared. Both ordinary people and influential officials and merchants suspected of heresy became victims of the fires. Some, instead of being burned, were sentenced to long prison terms, which they usually did not survive. The consequence of this was that the party of the Josephites was in favor.

Another reason that non-possessors were left out of work was a difficult period in the personal life of Prince Vasily III. He and his first wife, Solomonia Saburova, never managed to have children. This was the reason that the prince divorced his wife and married Elena Glinskaya (the future mother of Ivan the Terrible). Saburova, against her will, was imprisoned in a monastery, where she died on December 18, 1542 (she was canonized as a saint in 1984).

The head of the non-possessors, a well-known Orthodox figure, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev (monastic Vassian), denounced Vasily III in this act, since Christian canons forbid divorce from his wife if she did not commit treason. Vasily III was angry with the monk, but he did not dare to go into open confrontation, believing that over time this whole story would be forgotten.

However, in the near future, the prince provoked another conflict, which increased the intensity of the struggle between the non-possessors and the Josephites. Having summoned to Moscow from Chernigov representatives of the Shemyachichi princely family, who had recently transferred to the service of the Moscow prince from the King of Poland Sigismund I, Vasily Ivanovich greeted them warmly, but soon arrested and sent them to prison. Such a low and vile act again did not go unnoticed by Vasily Patrikeev, and the monk again publicly condemned the betrayal of the prince. Vasily III refused to endure the accuser and the monk was forcibly imprisoned in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery by the Josephites, where he died (according to some reports, he was poisoned).

As the official reason for Vassian's arrest, they announced that he allegedly fell into heresy and rejected the doctrine of the dual nature of Jesus Christ, divine and human, recognizing only the divine essence of Him. After that, the ideology of the Josephites established itself as the dominant one in the Russian Orthodox Church..

The final victory of the Josephites

In 1551, at the Stoglavy Cathedral, the priest Sylvester tried to make a proposal to limit the land allotments near churches and monasteries, but the Josephites, who occupied leading positions at the council, did not accept this statement. Also the Josephites became one of the ideologists of the introduction of the oprichnina in the second half of the 16th century. Subsequently, this led to the fact that the repressions of Ivan the Terrible turned against the Church itself. Many priests and monks became its victims, including Metropolitan Philip (Kolychev), one of the most famous Josephites. Wikipedia reports about 4.5 thousand victims of the guardsmen.

It was the Josephites who enveloped the institution of princely power in Rus' with an aura of divine origin (which was then assigned to the royal family of the Romanovs). Arguing that after the death of Byzantium and the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Rus' remained the only stronghold of Orthodoxy in the world, the followers of Joseph Volotsky in 1589 managed to achieve the acquisition of the status of patriarchy by the Moscow Metropolis. They also contributed to the emergence of the ideological concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome". This was able to increase the authority of the state in the international arena.

The ideological struggle of the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century was expressed not only in heresies, it also affected the official Orthodox Church, which was forced to respond to the above phenomena. Part of the clergy took the path of toughening their positions in relation to heresies and expanding church power as opposed to secular. Already at the end of the 15th century, militant churchmen were grouped around the Novgorod archbishop Gennady, who were determined to ruthlessly fight against heresy, following the example of the “Spanish” (Spanish) king. In the circle of Gennady, ideas were developed about the superiority of church power over secular power and about the inviolability of monastic land ownership. The "Tale of the White Klobuk" said that the white klobuk (a symbol of the power of the Novgorod archbishop) came to Novgorod from Rome, and this klobuk was "more honest" than the royal crown, i.e. royal authority must be subordinate to the church.

Abbot of the Volokolamsk (Volotsky) Monastery Iosif Sanin (Volotsky) was a student and follower of Gennady. His main work, The Book of Heretics, which in the 17th century was called The Enlightener, and other publicistic works are devoted to criticizing the views of Novgorod and Moscow heretics, substantiating the provisions of militant churchmen (especially the defense of monastic land ownership). IN last years In his lifetime, the Volotsk hegumen tried to strengthen the alliance between the militant clergy and the grand ducal government. By establishing the strictest discipline in the monasteries, raising external piety and suppressing any free-thinking, Joseph Volotsky and his followers (the Josephites) sought to raise the shaken authority of the church.

Joseph did not immediately come to such views on royal power. At first, the Josephites supported the specific princely opposition and opposed the grand ducal power, which was striving for the secularization of church lands. At the council of 1503, they opposed the project for the elimination of monastic land ownership, which was put forward by non-possessors (about them we will talk below), supported by Ivan III. Needing the help of a strong church organization to fight heretical movements, Ivan III yielded on this issue: the "acquisitive" demands of the Josephites were satisfied. In return, Ivan III secured support from the church.

At the council of 1504, the Josephites achieved the condemnation of heretics and reprisals against them. From that moment on, the Josephites supported the idea of a divine origin royal power put forward by their ideological leader Joseph Volotsky.

Filofey the Josephite, an elder of one of the Pskov monasteries, during the reign of Vasily III developed the idea of the historical succession of the power of the Moscow sovereigns from the Byzantine emperors. This theory (“Moscow is the third Rome”) played an important role in the formation of the official ideology of the Russian autocracy. According to this theory, in the world there is an eternal state in its spiritual essence - Rome; its earthly outlines may change and may bear different names. Rome is the most powerful state in the world. The First Rome is the ancient Roman Empire, which over time became stagnant in sins and, according to God's intention, was destroyed by the barbarians. The Second Rome is its successor Byzantine Empire. Her sin is the conclusion of the Union of Florence in 1439 with the Catholics, after which God's punishment was the capture of her by the Turks. After that, Moscow became the third Rome as the only major stronghold of Orthodoxy, which is the capital of not only a powerful state, but also a stronghold of spirit and morality - “the earthly support of heavenly virtues”, which should stand forever. As Philotheus wrote, "two Romes are fallen, and the third is standing, and the fourth will not happen." The theory “Moscow is the third Rome”, despite its certain originality and completeness, is not a unique phenomenon. For example, the Turks who captured Constantinople had a similar theory, they also called their country Rome (Rum), and themselves - Rumians. This name was also used by their eastern neighbors.

Many of the highest church hierarchs of the 16th century came out of the Josephites: Metropolitan Daniel, Archbishop Vassian of Rostov (brother of Joseph Volotsky), Bishops Savva Slepushkin, Vassian Toporkov (nephew of Joseph Volotsky), Akakiy, Savva Cherny, and others. Metropolitan Macarius closely adjoined the Josephites. As an intra-church movement, Josephism existed until the 17th century.

Compared to the Josephites, the paths of church reform were proposed by Nil Sorsky, a native of the deacon's Maikov family. Having visited Mount Athos in Greece in his youth, Nil settled on the Sora River in the Trans-Volga region (hence his followers are sometimes called the “Volga elders”), where he began to preach his doctrine. The views of Nil Sorsky were formed under the strong influence of medieval mystics, he had a negative attitude towards external piety and insisted on the need for asceticism and moral self-improvement. Unlike the Josephites, who were devoted to every letter of church literature, Nil of Sora demanded a critical approach to church writings. His followers objected to the Josephite cruelties towards heretics, and the Trans-Volga sketes often became hotbeds of heresies. The teachings of Nil Sorsky were used by the ideologues of the boyars, and above all by Vassian Patrikeev, who defended the idea of the need to secularize the real estate of the church.

An open clash between Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky took place at the church council of 1503, at which Nil Sorsky, supported by Ivan III, raised the issue of the secularization of church possessions (hence the followers of Nil are called non-possessors). The Josephite majority of the cathedral resolutely rejected the proposal to liquidate the monastic land ownership. Ivan III, as already mentioned, took the side of the Josephites in this dispute.

The struggle of the Josephites and non-possessors continued. At the church council of 1531, the controversy ended with the condemnation of the teachings of nonpossessors.

Maksim Grek and Nonpossessors

The years of the reign of Vasily III (1505 - 1533) were a time of further strengthening of the grand ducal power. A decisive struggle against the noble boyars was preceded by a period when Vasily III tried in his secularization policy to rely on non-possessors and increase his domain. He brought Vassian Patrikeyev closer to him. A special code forbade the inhabitants of a number of regions of the Russian state, as well as the descendants of the Yaroslavl, Suzdal and Starodub princes, to sell and give their estates to monasteries without the knowledge of the Grand Duke. In 1511, Var-laam, who was close to the non-possessors, became metropolitan, and in order to correct the liturgical books, he summoned from Athos the learned monk Maximus the Greek (Greek humanist Michael Trivolis), who at one time was under the influence of Savonarola.

In Rus', Maxim Grek became a prominent publicist who adopted the non-possessive ideas of Vassian Patrikeev. However, the rapprochement of Vasily III with non-possessors turned out to be short-lived, because it turned out to be in conflict with the main line of the grand duke's power, aimed at limiting the boyars' willfulness. The nonpossessors and their allies, the boyars, were not inclined to support the autocratic aspirations of the Muscovite sovereigns. In 1522, instead of Varlaam, who fell into disgrace, the disciple of Joseph Volopky, the head of the Josephites Daniel, an ardent supporter of strengthening the grand ducal autocratic power, became the metropolitan of Moscow. In 1525, the government uncovered a conspiracy led by one of the court figures, Bersen-Beklemishev. He defended the privileges of the feudal nobility and was indignant at the fact that "our sovereign, locking himself up at his bedside, does all sorts of things," with the boyars, as before, without consulting. Bersen-Beklemishev was executed, the persecution of non-possessors began. In 1525 and 1531, Maxim the Greek was condemned twice and imprisoned in a monastery. In 1531, after a trial, Vassian Patrikeyev was also imprisoned, who died shortly thereafter.

Josephites - the name of a group of Russian church leaders led by Joseph Volotsky (1439 - 1515), who advocated strengthening the role of the Church in the state and society, respect for patristic tradition and the preservation of church and monastery possessions. The Josephites were ideological opponents of nonpossessors. We bring to your attention the chapter "Joseph Volotsky" from the book of B.N. Putilov " Ancient Rus' in faces. Gods, heroes, people."

---
He was younger than Nil Sorsky by six years and outlived him by seven. His entire conscious life flowed in monasteries - first in Borovsky (near Moscow), where he came as a twenty-year-old youth and spent eighteen years in it, then in Volotsky, which he himself founded under the auspices of the appanage prince Boris Vasilyevich and which he led for almost forty years (by name monastery - and the middle name of Joseph).
In the family of Joseph (in the world - Ivan) there were eighteen monks, including his grandfather and grandmother, and then his parents and brothers.
As a church leader, thinker, writer, just as a person, Joseph was in many ways the direct opposite of the meek and tactful Nile and his followers, the "non-possessors." “First, we will take care of bodily goodness, then we will take care of internal preservation,” Joseph did not hide his position. Various facts of his life speak about the rigidity, severity, intransigence of Joseph. In the monastery, he introduced the strictest discipline, described in detail the entire routine of life: when and how to go to church, how to stand at prayers, hold hands, where to look, where to sit during meals, what and when to eat, and so on. He did not make concessions in fulfilling the rules. He forbade women to enter the monastery, and when his mother, a nun, came to see her son after a long separation, he did not order her to be let in and did not go out to her himself.
If the ideals of the Nile were love, forgiveness and meekness, and he called for contemplation detached from the world, then Joseph cared primarily about observing external rituals, demanded strictness towards violators. Neil argued little - Joseph was an ardent debater, knew how to convince and fiercely attacked those who disagreed. The respectful attitude to the opinions of others, which Neil adhered to, was not peculiar to Joseph. He preferred submission to authority and dealt with opponents mercilessly. Contemporaries were struck by the history of his conflict with the Novgorod Archbishop Serapion. Joseph, without his knowledge, transferred his monastery under the authority of the Grand Duke. Serapion achieved the excommunication of Joseph from the Church - the most severe punishment for those times. Joseph complained to the Grand Duke himself - and at the same time he grimaced, hiding the reason for the excommunication. The matter ended with the fact that the Council returned Joseph to the bosom of the Church, and condemned Serapion, he was deprived of his dignity and imprisoned. Joseph refused to ask for the convicted archbishop, and only later Vasily III released Serapion from prison to a monastery.

Joseph sharply disagreed with the Nile and his followers regarding the role of monasteries in the life of Rus'. He advocated for the monasteries to be rich and strong. For him, the monastery is a small state, built on the basis of a full hostel. Of course, the monastery must own its own land, villages with peasants who would work for the monastery. At the Church Council of 1503, there was a sharp clash between the Nile and the "non-possessors", on the one hand, and the "Josephites" with Volotsky at the head, on the other. The victory went to the last: despite the fact that Ivan III supported the Nile (“it is not worthy for the blacks to have villages”), the majority at the Council took the side of Joseph (“Acquisition” of the church - “God’s is an acquisition”), Joseph made sure that in his Volotsky monastery rich offerings and contributions flowed. He was not, however, a hoarder "for himself." It was said that when there was a famine, Joseph opened the monastery sacristies, fed hundreds of people daily, and arranged a shelter for abandoned children. Joseph spared no expense, so that even the monks grumbled at him for his generosity. He showed concern for the surrounding peasants, turned to one boyar with a message, convincing him that taking care of the peasants was beneficial for his own interests.
The thirst for power - his own, church, monastery overwhelmed Joseph. She even "pushed him into conflict with Ivan III. It was in the 80-90s, when Joseph defended the superiority of spiritual authority (that is, the Church) over secular (that is, grand ducal). In his writings of those years, one can find statements that the king is "God's servant", and the "unrighteous king" can and should be resisted. Unexpectedly, Joseph turned out to be the defender of the specific princes, with whom Ivan III was then fighting. Joseph called it "the ancient Cain evil" (that is, a crime similar to the murder of Cain his brother Abel) and downright mourned the fate of the younger princes and the entire princely family, which “was like a leaf withered, like a color fell away, like the light of a golden lamp went out and left the house empty.”

Here it is appropriate to note that, unlike Nile the writer, with his quiet, judicious manner of presentation, Joseph loved and knew how to resort to strong emotional expressions, his writing voice rang with passion, anger, sorrow, loud appeals and denunciations.
With all that, Joseph Volotsky eventually changed his attitude towards the grand duke's power. Either his clashes with the appanage prince Fyodor Volotsky played a role, or, and this is most likely, he realized that it was necessary not to oppose the Church to the Grand Duke, but to seek an alliance between them. Thus, completely new words appeared in his writings: “The autocrat and sovereign of all Rus'” was appointed “the highest right hand of God”; “The king is similar in nature to all people, and in power is like the highest God.”
Already under Vasily III, Joseph Volotsky became, as we would now say, the ideologist of the Russian autocracy, which began to rely on the power of the Church. Obedience to the ruler is a virtue and a duty for everyone. "Josephism" played an important role in strengthening monarchical power in the 16th century.
Irreconcilability and fanatical severity were especially pronounced in the struggle of Joseph Volotsky with heretics. He was a real guardian of the official Church, one of the most merciless persecutors of the Muscovite-Novgorod heresy. Joseph not only denounced heretics in his writings, but sought their resolute condemnation and punishment not only by the Church, but also by the princely authorities: in Rus', heretics could be executed and thrown into prison only at the behest of the prince. Meanwhile, Ivan III, joining the church condemnation of heretics, was not inclined to physical reprisal against them, and Joseph Volotsky openly reproached him for indulging the heretics and demanded executions. To kill a heretic, in his opinion, is not a sin, on the contrary, it meant "to sanctify the hand." With angry words, Joseph addressed those who were ready to grieve over the executed and give alms to the apostates. For them, there is only "an army and a knife", they need to "twirl their eyes", "cut out their tongues", "give two hundred belt wounds."
Neil Sorsky also condemned the views of heretics, but of course, he could not even think of something like that. In essence, Joseph Volotsky was ready to play the role of the Inquisition in Rus'. And his writings "The Book of Heretics" and "The Word on the Condemnation of Heretics" did not allow the slightest tolerance, reconciliation, mercy - only "search" and eradicate heretics and heresy.
For a long time in our science, the words and deeds of Volotsky were justified by political circumstances: since the very process of creating and strengthening a single state and establishing autocratic power was considered historically progressive, the militant activity of the Josephites was considered primarily as contributing to this process.
Perhaps this is partly true. But let's not justify, much less exalt cruelty, inhumanity, fanaticism, inhumane ways of fighting and reprisals against dissidents - especially when dissent acted with a word, and not with a sword.
In fairness, however, one should add a few “warm” strokes to the portrait of the stern Joseph Volotsky. According to biographers, he was handsome in face, like “ancient Joseph” (meaning the biblical character Joseph the Beautiful), with dark blond hair and a rounded beard, stately, cheerful and friendly in manner, possessing an excellent voice (he began to sing in church in childhood and at the same time there was a reader). Biographers especially note the purity of his language, the sweetness of his voice and "the tenderness in reading." Secular behavior was not alien to him, but he remained an abbot, observing the order and rules of virtue in everything. He ate once a day, and sometimes every other day.
His strictness towards the monks and the observance of the monastic rules did not turn into extreme asceticism, the statutory service introduced by him was not difficult to perform.
He was a man of extensive education and in his monastery he created one of the largest libraries for his time, in which, along with Christian books, there were secular works, including ancient authors.
Joseph Volotsky left about thirty teaching messages and polemical "Words", which reflected his gift for persuasiveness and stylistic diversity in polemics. Canonized in 1591.
Among the followers of Joseph Volotsky, we will name here Elder Philotheus from the Pskov Monastery. In his messages addressed to Vasily III and others, Filofey came up with the idea of "Moscow-Third Rome". Let us state the essence of this theory, relying on the lectures of the outstanding historian of ancient Russian literature, I. P. Eremin. According to Philotheus (who, of course, was based on the Bible, on the works of Byzantine authors and on the writings of some Russian scribes), everything that happens in the lives of individuals and entire nations is determined and accomplished by the grace of God: by the power and providence of God, kings are enthroned kingdoms are built and destroyed, peoples prosper and perish. The providence of God leads mankind according to a plan predetermined by them. The history of mankind is the history of world kingdoms. God chooses in turn the peoples who are destined to be the inhabitants of these kingdoms. The kingdoms of the world are falling one by one. The first such kingdom was Ancient Rome, the second - Constantinople - he fell, betraying Orthodoxy. Now God has chosen the Russian kingdom as the third Rome, since it is the only one that preserves the true Orthodox faith. There will be no fourth Rome. Moscow - the Third Rome will remain until the end of time, that is, until the end of the world, until the Last Judgment> predicted by the Bible.
This idea incredibly exalted the power and importance of the Russian Tsar, who inherits the greatness of world kingdoms and at the same time preserves the true faith. At the same time, a great responsibility for the fate of the entire Christian world was imposed on the Russian Tsar, and he was obliged to take care of the Church in every possible way.
The Epistles of Philotheus were written in the 20s of the 16th century. Already under Ivan the Terrible, the theory "Moscow - the Third Rome" became the official theory of the Muscovite state.

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. 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 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 about the need for the death penalty against unrepentant heretics, the idea of the Divine nature of 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-covetousness - the Monks Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky at the Council of 1503, and her main theme consider the issue of the right of monasteries to own villages. 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 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 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. Historical literature has repeatedly emphasized the support (or non-condemnation) of Met. 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 Basil 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;

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