Who was the ideological inspirer of the Josephites? Josephites and non-covetous people - comparison. Doctrine of the Divine Nature of Royal Power

Plan

1. Concepts of independence of the Russian state. Literary and journalistic monuments
2. Philotheus and his theory “Moscow - Third Rome”
3. Concepts of strong government. "Message to Ugra"
4. Political struggle between the non-covetous people and the Josephites. I. S. Peresvetov
5. The concept of “Orthodox Christian autocracy” of Ivan the Terrible
6. Political and legal views of A. Kurbsky
7. Political and legal ideology of church schism
8. The concept of enlightened absolutism of Simeon of Polotsk
9. Political and legal ideas of the second half of the 17th century. Y. Krizhanich and A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin

From the second half of the 13th century. The rise of the small appanage Moscow principality began. The Battle of Kulikovo (1380), “standing on the Ugra” (1480) became decisive events in the acquisition of sovereignty by the Moscow state. Ivan III completed the collection of the lands of North-Eastern Rus' around Moscow. At the head of a single sovereign Russian centralized state is a single ruler who has accepted the title “Sovereign of All Rus'” and has great power and authority. The process of centralization continued throughout the 16th century, and its result, indicator and one of the factors was, in particular, the Code of Law of 1497, uniform for all lands - the first all-Russian legal code, the main task of which was the creation of all-Russian law. In the first quarter of the 16th century. two most important state- and religious-political concepts took shape. One of them is set out in “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir”. The main idea is the existence of a successive connection between the Moscow princes directly and the Roman Empire of the era of Emperor Augustus. Another concept is based on the idea of ​​the “Third Rome”, the creator of which is Philotheus. This concept was as follows: in the power of Augustus the birth of Christ took place, and here he performed his deeds. Therefore, not only Russian statehood, but also the Russian church is rooted in the era of Augustus. The “Roman kingdom”, which arose in the era of Augustus, eventually moved to Russia. Its mission is predetermined by the real situation, since the Russian state is the only Orthodox kingdom that has retained political independence, and the Russian Tsar is the only defender of Orthodox Christians and the “external” guarantor of Orthodoxy, as the Byzantine emperor previously was.

1. Concepts of independence of the Russian state. Literary and journalistic monuments

The work that substantiates the theory of independence of the Russian state was "The Tale of the Florence Cathedral" Simeon of Suzdal, which defended the idea of ​​succession of power of the Moscow princes from the Byzantine emperors.

The Byzantine Emperor John Palaiologos, having agreed to the Union, thereby, according to the author, forever deprived himself of the right to be considered the patron of the Orthodox Church. The Moscow Grand Duke remained her true protector. Despite the machinations and intrigues of Metropolitan Isidore, he remained faithful to the “only true” church.

The author of the story believed that history had entrusted the great sovereign of all Rus' with the responsibility of protecting Orthodoxy throughout the world. The author recognized the right of Russian tsars to install Russians as metropolis in Moscow as unconditional and indisputable.

The “Tale of the Council of Florence” expressed ideas that were soon more fully developed and received complete expression in the political theory “Moscow - the third Rome.”

The political theory developed in “The Tale of the Council of Florence” asserts the complete independence of the Russian Church. According to this theory, the Russian sovereign, as the successor of the Byzantine emperors, was declared the head of all Orthodox Christians throughout the world and thereby received the right to consider his power as received directly “from God” and independent of any earthly influences.

In the 15th-16th centuries, when the memory of the difficult years of the Mongol yoke and the dependence of Moscow and the entire Russian land on the Golden Horde khans was still alive, the issue of the power of the Russian sovereign was given special importance.

The title “autocrat of all Rus'” at this time was understood primarily as an assertion of the sovereignty of the Russian state.

To the title “autocrat” in 1485, after the annexation of Tver, the title “sovereign of all Rus'” was added, which expresses the just claim of the Moscow sovereigns to unite all Russian lands under their rule.

The documents of diplomatic relations of the Russian state with foreign powers and historical legends reflected the protection in the 15th and 16th centuries. ideas of external independence of the Russian land, which had just thrown off the Mongol yoke.

The idea of ​​independence of the Russian state also had enormous internal political significance, since it was also directed against the defenders of feudal fragmentation.

To exalt the Moscow sovereigns and strengthen their power, magnificent genealogies are compiled. By the end of the 15th century. known "The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir", in which Russian sovereigns are declared successors to the Roman Emperor Augustus. According to the legend, August's brother, Prince Prus, sat down to rule the Vistula. It was here that the Novgorod ambassadors came to the Prussian tribe to choose a courageous and wise prince. Here the Novgorodians found Rurik, who came “from the family of King Augustus of Rome.”

The signs of the royal dignity of Russian princes, according to the author of “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir,” rightfully went to Vladimir Vsevolodovich from Konstantin Monomakh. “And from that time,” it is stated in the “Tale,” “the great prince Vladimer Vsevolodovich was named Monomakh, the king of the great Russia... From then until now, the great princes of Vladimir are crowned with that royal crown, it was sent by the Greek king Constantine Monomakh when they are appointed to the great reign Russian."

In Novgorod and Pskov, during the formation of the Russian state, there was a fierce struggle between representatives of the interests of the common people, the townspeople and merchants, who stood for subordination to Moscow, and the boyars, who feared the strengthening of the power of Moscow and relied on foreigners in the fight against it.

The Church did not remain indifferent in this struggle. A significant part of the churchmen did not share the separatist aspirations of the boyars and energetically supported the idea of ​​​​creating a strong Russian state.

2. Philotheus and his theory “Moscow - Third Rome”.

Filofey(dates of birth and death unknown) - monk and abbot of the Pskov Spaso-Elizarov Monastery. He belonged to the educated part of the Josephite churchmen (see: Joseph Volotsky).

Major works: Filofey outlined his concept in the works: “Message to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich”, “Message to Tsar Vasily Ivanovich”, “Message to those in trouble and wishing for consolation”.

Philotheus argued that the destinies of all humanity are determined by “divine providence” and that all history is the history of three world kingdoms: Rome, Byzantium and Moscow. Rome fell under the blows of the pagans due to heresy, Constantinople - the second Rome - was conquered by the Turks due to the fact that the Orthodox Church entered into an alliance with the Catholic Church. Moscow - the third Rome - is the guardian of Orthodoxy until the end of the world: “Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands and there will not be a fourth.”

State.

The relationship between secular and ecclesiastical power. The power of the king was given directly by God, therefore his power is higher than spiritual. Relations between these authorities must be harmonious; subordination to spiritual authority is compensated by reserving the right of clergy to “speak the truth” to secular authority.

The legality of the origin of royal power is not questioned and requires unconditional submission to it on the part of its subjects. The sovereign has the responsibility not only to take care of his subjects, but of the faith and the church. Philotheus considers the church one of the departments of the state, and the most important one, therefore, the prince’s responsibilities include the arrangement of all church affairs: eradicating shortcomings in Orthodoxy, appointing bishops, fighting heresies, etc.

Right. Without highlighting law as an independent social regulator of social relations, Filofey emphasizes that the laws of the state are only part of the “truth”, supported by the power of government. They are based on divine commandments and are implemented through them. Philotheus calls laws truth, violations lawlessness. However, he does not separate morality and law, therefore he calls any immoral act lawlessness, regardless of whether there is an element of offense in it. Therefore, immoral acts are listed on the same level as direct violations of the law: for example, “or did shame or humiliation to someone,” and here, “the judge unjustly, through enmity or friendship, or through bribery, created the rights of the guilty.”

3. Concepts of strong state power. "Message to Ugra"

Vassian Rylo(?-1481) Russian church and political figure, publicist. In his youth, he became a monk at the Pafnutiev-Borovsky Monastery. In 1455-66 hegumen of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Member of the embassy to Lithuania (1458-61). Since 1467 Rostov Archbishop.

Main work: “Message to the Ugra.”

He was an active supporter of the creation of a Russian centralized state. He influenced the appanage princes and Russian clergy, calling on them to unconditionally submit to the authority of the Moscow prince. In his “Message to the Ugra,” the thinker warns Ivan III against the policy of “pacification” with the khan. Wanting to inspire the sovereign to openly fight with the successor of the Golden Horde, Akhmat, Vassian Rylo reminds him of the exploits of Dmitry Donskoy and his other glorious ancestors.

The church and political leader points out to the sovereign the only path compatible with the dignity and honor of the Russian land - the need to fight in open battle with Akhmat and rid the Russian land of tribute. “Message to the Ugra” reflects the progressive views of the majority of Russian people - fighters for the liberation of Rus' from the Mongol yoke, who stood for the creation of a strong, sovereign Russian state.

The theories of the sovereignty of tsarist power were of greater public importance in the struggle to strengthen the Russian centralized multinational state. Theories of state power at the end of the 15th and mid-16th centuries. had a religious connotation characteristic of that time, which gave them great strength in a feudal society.

4. Political struggle between the non-covetous people and the Josephites. I. S. Peresvetov

Liberation from the Tatar-Mongolian dependence and the formation of a single state had a beneficial effect on the economy of Rus' and caused an economic and economic recovery. During this period, the Orthodox Church owned vast lands and actively developed economic activities. From the end of the 15th century. Its interference in the political life of the state is also increasing. The policy of the great princes, dissatisfied with the ever-increasing economic and political power of the church, was aimed at limiting its power. These ideas were embodied in the doctrine of “non-covetousness.” At the Council of 1503, non-covetous people supported the Grand Duke’s proposal to abolish church land ownership.

They were opposed by adherents of preserving the existing church system; initially they were called “money-grubbers”, then “Josephites” - after the name of their ideologist Joseph Volotsky. The goal of the “acquisitive” and “non-acquisitive” was still the same - to improve the work of the church, but they had different ideas about the ideals of monastic service and the relationship between spiritual and secular power.

Non-covetous - supporters of a special direction of Russian socio-political thought, opposite to money-grubbers.

The main ideas of non-possessors:

• the ideal of the monastic structure is the early Christian community;
• separation from the church of all wealth and deprivation of its right to own inhabited lands;
• Monasteries should not have private property; the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified even by good goals;

The founder of the doctrine - Neil Sorsky(1433-1508). Little is known about him. Biographical information is contradictory and fragmentary. According to some sources, he came from a peasant family, according to others, he came from a Moscow service family, and according to a third, he belonged to a boyar family. Before being tonsured, he served as a reader in Moscow and was involved in copying books. Traveled to Palestine, Constantinople, Athos. Between 1473 and 1489 returned and founded a monastery on the river. Sore.

The doctrine of non-covetous people is most fully expressed in the works of Maxim the Greek.

Maxim Grek(Michael Trivolis) (1470-1555) came from a noble Greek family close to the Palaiologos. Received a university legal education in Italy. Witnessed the movement of J. Savanarolla. He took monastic vows as a Dominican, and later as an Orthodox monk. At the monastery he studied philosophy and theology. In 1518, at the request of Vasily III, he came to Moscow to unify liturgical books. But when non-possessors began to be persecuted, Maxim the Greek was put on trial in 1525. Charges: disrespectful comments about Vasily III, opposition to his divorce from his wife, espionage for Turkey and, of course, speaking out against the rights of the church to own land. He was found guilty and sentenced to exile, in which he spent more than 20 years. Both the Greek patriarch and the head of the Russian church appealed to the authorities with a request to release the Greek and allow him to return to Athos. However, their request was not granted. In recent years, the Greek lived in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and was buried here. Canonized in 1988

Major works: “A Word about God’s Unspeakable Providence”, “Message to the Righteous Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilyevich of All Rus'”, etc.

The relationship between secular and spiritual power. Spiritual and secular authorities must be separated, each of them has its own sphere of activity, which determines the measures of influence that are permissible only for it.

State. M. Grek paid much attention h The legal methods of origin of power are hereditary and elective, when ordinary people participate in elections. The goal of the state is to ensure a peaceful and calm life for people and stable internal order.

The essence of power is considered by M. Greek traditionally - as the implementation of the Divine will. He believed that it was possible to criticize a ruler to the point of recognizing his rule as “tormenting,” but doing anything against him was unacceptable.

Form of government preferable, according to the Greek, is one in which the king controls his subjects “in the royal synclite councils,” which include boyars and nobles, i.e. to a certain extent we are talking about an estate-representative monarchy. Listing the duties of the king, Maxim the Greek repeated provisions such as: listen to the advice of wise advisers and clergy, protect and organize the lives of his subjects on the basis of good laws.

Right. Maxim the Greek consistently develops the idea of ​​limiting royal power not only by advice, but also by law. Distinguishes between “truth” (law) and “untruth” (violation of the law).

A significant place in the works of M. Grek is given to criticism of the court. He notes the bribery of judges, criticizes the practice of extrajudicial arbitrariness and lawless extortions, expressed in planting evidence on the innocent in order to obtain a payoff, medieval forms of judicial combat as an unfair way of resolving cases, while giving preference to testimony and oath.

Attitude towards heresy. Official church hierarchs insisted on the persecution of heretics, and not only by the forces of the church, but by all means of state coercion, up to the imposition of the death penalty on them. Non-covetous people considered it unacceptable to persecute heretics, proposing to influence them only with persuasion and wise conversations.

Josephites (money-grubbers) - supporters of a special direction of Russian social thought, who received their name after their main inspirer - Joseph Volotsky . Term "Josephites" appeared in scientific literature in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

The main ideas of the Josephites:

• preservation of existing orders and all forms of church organization and its economic situation;
• the need to increase (“acquire”) church property, which will allow the church to more successfully realize one of its main tasks - to do “good deeds”: building monasteries, maintaining the clergy, helping those in need;
• recognition of the personal “non-covetousness” of the monks.

Joseph Volotsky(Ivan Ivanovich Sanin) (1439-1515), church leader, spiritual writer, saint of the Russian Orthodox Church. He came from the family of a poor Volokolamsk landowner. At the age of 20, he took monastic vows at the Borovsky monastery founded by Paphnutius. After the death of Paphnutius, he became the abbot of the monastery, but in 1479, due to the dissatisfaction of the brethren with his introduction of a strict cenobitic rule, he left the abbess, left the monastery and, after visiting many Russian monasteries, founded the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, where he was abbot until the end of his days. In 1591 was canonized.

We especially note that Volotsky became a rather significant person in the state: he led the Josephite spiritual party, whose members occupied key positions in the church, Volotsk monks participated in the baptism of the future Tsar Ivan IV, and acted as the main prosecutors in the trials of Maxim the Greek, M. S. Bashkin and Theodosius Oblique. The monk Philotheus was close to the Josephites, who formulated and substantiated the concept of “Moscow - the third Rome”.

Major works: “Messages to various persons”, “Spiritual letters”, “Words of anti-heretical content” (for example, the Word against the heresy of the Novgorod heretics), which were then collected in a Collection called “The Enlightener”.

State. The relationship between spiritual and secular power. The position of the Josephites in relation to the royal power was not constant. Initially, the Josephites supported the idea of ​​​​the dominance of spiritual power over secular power. The ruler, according to I. Volotsky, is an earthly man and a simple executor of God’s will, therefore he should be given only “royal honor, and not divine honor.” If a tyrant was established on the throne, then one should not obey him. Volotsky's subsequent rapprochement with Grand Duke Ivan III led to a change in his views on the nature of grand-ducal power: recognizing, as before, its divine origin, he already declares the need to subordinate all institutions of the state and church to the ruler. The only limitation on the power of the sovereign is the inadmissibility of going beyond the limits of God and state laws.

Right. Volotsky classifies laws traditionally for his time. But in his classification there is no distinction, widespread in Western European thought, between divine law and state (positive) law. The source of all legislation, in his opinion, is the Divine will.

The hierarchy of laws according to his teaching is as follows:

Attitude towards heresy. I. Volotsky shows absolute intolerance towards heretics. He considers dissent a crime not only against religion and the church, but also against the state. Heretics must be severely punished.

In general, the union of the Josephites with the state lasted until the 2nd half of the 16th century. Later, the ideas of the inalienability of church property began to contradict the ideology of the emerging autocracy. An echo of the Josephite doctrine was the policy of Patriarch Nikon.

The most prominent Russian publicist of the 16th century. was Ivan Semenovich Peresvetov(dates of birth and death unknown), in whose person the nobility found a persistent defender of their interests.

Major works: The political program of I. S. Peresvetov is set out in a number of petitions to Ivan the Terrible and other works.

Most of the specific provisions put forward by I. S. Peresvetov touched upon such major issues as the complete abolition of servitude in Rus', the abolition of feeding, the reorganization of local government, the army, the implementation of judicial reform, and the publication of the Code of Laws.

Expressing his negative attitude towards large nobles and boyars, the ideologist of the nobility spoke of them as “lazy rich people” who do not care about the interests of the state, but think only about themselves. The boyars, in his opinion, oppress the volosts and cities, “get rich from the tears and blood of the peasants.” Militarily, the tsar cannot rely on the boyars: they “do not stand firmly for the Christian faith and do not play the mortal game fiercely against the enemy, so they lie to the demon and the sovereign.” Having sat in the boyar duma, they limit the power of the tsar and “take away the tsar’s thought.”

Boyars who resist the policy of state centralization, according to I. S. Peresvetov, should be “given fire and other cruel deaths to them so that evil does not multiply.”

The true support of the sovereign, his military and service strength, according to the writer, are the “warriors,” that is, the nobles. In the fight against internal and external enemies, the tsar should rely primarily on the nobility. The tsar must “raise the names of the warriors and gladden their hearts, and increase salaries from his sovereign’s treasury... and invite them close to him, and trust them in everything,” “love them like a father of his children, and be generous to them.” .

Without touching on the situation of the peasants and considering their exploitation natural, I. S. Peresvetov rebels against both complete and “bonded servitude”, into the networks of which individual seedy nobles fell. He recommends to the sovereign the organization of a standing army with “fire combat.”

The political ideal of I. S. Peresvetov is a strong centralized state with tsarist power at its head, which, relying on the nobility, will organize an army, create a flexible and obedient state apparatus to the will of the tsar, clear the court of bribery, and defeat the boyars during the struggle to strengthen the state.

In accordance with the specific conditions of the political struggle in the 16th century. I. S. Peresvetov demanded from the tsar that he deal with the traitors and keep his kingdom “in a thunderstorm.”

The primary task of Moscow's foreign policy is I.S. Re-
Svetov considered the conquest of Kazan. By annexing Kazan to the Russian state and taking possession of this “sub-heaven land”, the “Great Sovereigns of All Rus'” will secure their country from enemy attacks and open new trade routes.

In the person of I. S. Peresvetov, the rising nobility and service people, who rose to prominence as a result of “talent and service,” received their talented thinker. I. S. Peresvetov’s program touched upon all issues of the political struggle between princes and boyars, defenders of the appanage-patrimonial order, on the one hand, and the tsarist power, which relied on the nobility, on the other.

5. The concept of “Orthodox Christian autocracy” Ivan the Terrible

The political theory of sovereign and independent state power found its strongest defender in the person of the Tsar IvanaIVGrozny(1530-1584).

Ivan the Terrible outlined his doctrine of autocratic power in correspondence with Prince A.M. Kurbsky, in letters to one of his guardsmen Vasily Gryazny, who was captured by the Crimean Tatars, in a message to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.

The sovereign defended the idea of ​​the completeness of royal power, its indivisibility and divine establishment. He believed that all of his ancestors had full autocratic power, and therefore persistently pursued the idea of ​​​​the continuity of his autocratic rights.

Any idea of ​​fragmentation or diminishment of royal power is resolutely rejected by Ivan the Terrible. The diminution of the king's power by his feudal servants, in the opinion of the sovereign, leads to civil strife in the state.

Criticizing the reactionary oligarchic theories of A. M. Kurbsky and Vassian Kosy, Ivan the Terrible notes the inadmissibility of belittling royal power by the boyars, which he tries to support, in particular, with references to the divine establishment of this power. The tsar considered A. M. Kurbsky’s betrayal of the fatherland not only a state crime, but also a sacrilegious deed.

The feudal-serf essence of the political views of the sovereign is clearly revealed in the way the tsar looked at his subjects.

Considering his subjects as his slaves, Ivan the Terrible considered the absolute right of the tsar to be the right to control their life and death. “By God’s help we have many commanders and will put you away from traitors. But I am free to pay my slaves, and I am also free to execute them,” the sovereign declares to Kurbsky.

The socio-economic meaning of such a major public event of Ivan the Terrible as the oprichnina comes down to the defeat of the boyars - the sovereign's enemies - zealots of antiquity and to solving the problems of strengthening the centralized feudal state.

Ivan the Terrible opposed theocratic theories and, defending the ideas of the sovereignty of the tsarist power, considered the interference of the church in the affairs of secular power unacceptable: “It is not proper for a priest to do tsarist work”; “...The power of the saints is different, and the royal rule is different.”

The sovereign's speech against the reactionary part of the clergy and his struggle for the subordination of the church to royal power contributed to the strengthening of the centralized state.

6.Political and legal views of A. Kurbsky

In the second half of the 16th century, under Ivan the Terrible, the struggle between the tsarist government and the boyars intensified even more. The reforms of Ivan IV, which strengthened centralized power, met resistance from the boyar nobility.

In 1564, during the Livonian War, together with several other boyars, after the defeat near Orsha, the prince fled to Lithuania Andrey Mikhailovich Kurbsky(1528-1583). The traitor sent a letter to the sovereign in which he attacked his entire internal policy, accusing Ivan the Terrible of not ruling in the old way and exterminating boyars and princes.

A.M. Kurbsky acted as an ardent defender of the Old Boyar order. The ideal of the prince was a sovereign, limited in power by the boyar duma, without whose advice he could not make important decisions. Moreover, the right of “advice” was to be supplemented by the right of “departure” in the event of the boyar’s dissatisfaction with the tsar.

The sovereign had to reckon with the boyars as “the bright princes of the Russian land” and preserve their social liberties and benefits, and not lock up his kingdom “like a stronghold of hell,” argued A. M. Kurbsky. The prince protests against Ivan the Terrible’s nomination of “high-born people,” since the development of the command system of government strengthened the power of the tsar and belittled the importance of the boyars, who at one time did not allow anyone other than high-born people into the tsar’s entourage.

The political program of A. M. Kurbsky as a defender of the order of the times of state fragmentation was condemned. It is directly opposite to the theory of autocratic power, which Ivan the Terrible developed in his responses to the boyar. In the person of Prince A.M. Kurbsky, the anti-state (for that time) program of the defenders of antiquity received the most complete expression.

7. Political and legal ideology of church schism

The 17th century is the beginning of the gradual transformation of medieval Rus' into Russia. By this time the Church had great land wealth, administrative and judicial privileges, which it acquired during the Time of Troubles and in the first years of the reign of the Romanovs. After the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the authorities sought to unite the Orthodox churches. The Church of Ukraine was in close connection with the Greek Church, while the Russian Church in church-ritual terms was still significantly different from the Greek. It was necessary to introduce uniformity into church life, so a decision was made to correct liturgical books according to Greek models (Vasily III tried to solve this problem, inviting Maxim the Greek to correct church books in 1518). The creator of the church reform of 1654, aimed at unifying the theological system and church ritual practice, was Patriarch Nikon. The opposition, led by Archpriest Avvakum, was against this decision, which led to a church schism: a movement of Old Believers arose, representing a collection of religious groups and churches in Russia that did not accept church reforms and became oppositional and even hostile to the official Orthodox Church.

In 1656, defenders of ancient Russian rites were excommunicated. The church reform was supported by Alexei Mikhailovich, because. corresponded to his plans in the field of foreign policy and strengthening the state as a whole.

Nikon(Nikita Minov -1605-1681) - son of a peasant. At the age of 19 he became a priest in his village. In 1635 he entered a monastery and became a monk. In 1646 he became archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. He was a brilliant preacher, a powerful administrator, and a good courtier. Since 1652 - patriarch. However, Nikon’s views on the essence of the relationship between secular and spiritual power (he put forward the thesis “The priesthood is higher than the kingdom”) led to a complete break with the tsar. On the initiative of Alexei Mikhailovich, at the church council of ecumenical patriarchs convened in 1666, Nikon was deprived of his patriarchal rank and exiled to the Ferapontov monastery. In 1658, there was a final break with the tsar and Nikon, leaving the patriarchate, went into a monastery, hoping, however, that the tsar would return him. But this did not happen. In 1664 Nikon came to Moscow without permission and tried to take the patriarchal position, but he was sent back and defrocked. Only in 1681 did the new Tsar Fyodor allow Nikon to return, but he dies on the way.

The relationship between secular and spiritual power. Through church reform, Patriarch Nikon intended to strengthen church power in Russia, to raise the authority of the autocracy under the leadership of the church, i.e. was a supporter of the theocratic state. In his view, theocracy implied the distinct primacy of the church, i.e. even outwardly, state power had to recognize the primacy of church institutions and hierarchs.

The archpriest became the ideological inspirer of the Old Believers Avvakum (Petrov) ( 1620-1682). He came from a priest's family. At the age of 20 he became a deacon, and 2 years later he became a priest. Unyielding and unyielding, Avvakum did not get along with his superiors and therefore, soon leaving his village, he moved with his family to Moscow. Here he met Nikon, he was introduced to the king. In 1652 he became archpriest in Yuryevets. When church reform began, Habakkuk resolutely opposed it. His further path was full of suffering and hardship. He was exiled with his family to Siberia. In 1663, the tsar decided to reconcile him with the official church and summoned Avvakum to Moscow, but he did not renounce his convictions. In 1666 he was stripped of his hair, anathematized and exiled to the Pustozersky prison. But Avvakum did not stop fighting here either and sent letters to his like-minded people. In 1682, by decision of the Church Council and in accordance with the royal decree, he, along with several like-minded people, was burned.

The defenders of the old faith were the direct heirs of the non-covetous and heretics of the 14th-16th centuries. They developed heretical ideas, put forward popular socio-political demands, denounced the church hierarchs and the highest ranks of secular power (including the tsar) for their immorality, gluttony, unmercifulness, etc.

State. Archpriest Avvakum was a staunch supporter of the concept of “Moscow - the third Rome”. In his understanding, the Russian state must serve its national interests, live according to its own laws, the norms of true Orthodoxy. He viewed the king as a protege of divine providence, at the same time emphasizing his human nature, and condemning him for the fact that the king “wanted to become God,” i.e. for excessive self-aggrandizement.

The political ideal of the Old Believers and the basis of a fair society is a community based on early Christian values: faith, truth, equality, community of property, universality of labor, condemnation of wealth and private property.

8. The concept of enlightened absolutism of Simeon of Polotsk

Educational activities Simeon of Polotsk(1629-1680) had a huge influence on the strengthening of the Russian state and society. Due to the versatility of his interests, Simeon of Polotsk was close to the figures of the Renaissance: monk, theologian, philosopher, writer, poet, church and public figure, teacher and educator. Since 1661, having settled permanently in Moscow, Simeon became a Latin teacher at the school of the Spassky Monastery. His successful work as a teacher became known to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and he invited him to be a mentor to his children. Being an educator by nature, Simeon of Polotsk launched extensive educational activities in Moscow - he taught, opened a printing house in the Kremlin, free from church censorship, and headed the first new type of school in Russia, created under the Order of Secret Affairs, where he taught the Latin language to future government officials. He also developed a project for organizing a higher school in Moscow, which later became the basis for the creation of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy.

Simeon of Polotsk took an active part in carrying out church reform and in the fight against the Old Believers. In 1666-1667 he wrote the treatise “The Rod of Government,” denouncing the Old Believers. At the request of the king, Simeon met with Archpriest Avakuum and had a conversation with him. It was a meeting of two outstanding personalities of the era and two antipodes, people with opposing views and life values. The archpriest is a religious rebel who wants to preserve Moscow antiquity, not spoiled by education, “the simplicity of the soul.” Simeon is a supporter of a strong state, enlightened absolutism. He considers it necessary to raise the culture of the Russian people, because the higher the culture, the higher the morality.

Polotsk devotedly served the cause of education. He became the first professional writer in Russia, translated from Latin and Polish and literary edited church and secular works, and participated in the preparation of a complete translation of the Russian Bible.

Simeon of Polotsk paid a special role in education to the “seven free sciences” - the traditional set of sciences taught in Western European universities (trivium - grammar, rhetoric, dialectics; quadrium - arithmetic, geometry, astrology, music). It must be remembered that the ancient Russian tradition did not recognize the relevance of this set, especially since it included astrology, which is prohibited by Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, Simeon of Polotsk put a lot of effort into instilling these “free sciences” on Russian soil.

Faith, “reasonableness” and education made it possible to solve the main task - the education of “a perfect person, prepared for every task.” In the mind of Simeon of Polotsk, a “perfect man” is a respectable, widely educated Christian and a faithful son of his sovereign. Most of all, of course, the “monastic life” corresponds to this ideal.

In the understanding of Simeon of Polotsk, a “perfect person” includes many, primarily moral qualities. It is moral qualities that constitute the spiritual basis of a person. But Simeon of Polotsk also understood teaching “good manners” as teaching a child “reasonable” knowledge.

Simeon of Polotsk considered love and loyalty to the sovereign to be one of the most important qualities of a “perfect man.” In the Primer of the Slavonic Language, published by him (1667), the generalized image of the “perfect man” acquires the specific features of a loyal tsar. This book argues that the well-being of the king is the main purpose of existence for the rest of society.

In Simeon Polotsky’s understanding of the role of the Russian monarch, one more important feature can be traced - he seeks to designate the Russian Tsar as universal, for it is in the creation of a universal Orthodox kingdom that he sees the main task of Russia as the “New Israel” in new historical conditions.

In other writings his ideal is expressed even more clearly. Thus, in “Rhythmologion” he not only glorifies the Russian Tsar, but formulates the semantic and target guidelines for the future development of Russia: “To the Tsar of the East, to the Tsar of many countries.”

Simeon actively elevated the authority of the royal person, comparing the king to the sun. He introduced the formula “sun king”, which is a characteristic attribute of an absolute monarchy, into Russian political culture for the first time. The king and God are almost equal in size. “I dare to call Russia the sky, for I find planets in it. You are the Sun, the Moon is Queen Mary.”

Polotsky insists on the difference between the king and the tyrant. “Who is the king and who is the tyrant, if you want to know, try to read Aristotle’s books.”

He is convinced that an enlightened monarchy should be a state whose activities are based only on laws. “Under the law, all executions must suffer,” and there are no exceptions to this rule for anyone, not for the king himself, nor for his son. All people in citizenship are obliged to fear the law, obedience to which strengthens the state and “constructs the kingdom with dignity and glory.”

The thinker also drew attention to the inadmissibility of untruth. The court is obliged to restore the truth, and not to take revenge, because revenge is inhuman and, moreover, is contraindicated for the truth, since it comes “from a fierce hatred of the truth.” He dreams of an equal court for everyone, which will “judge the small and the great equally,” regardless of their faces (“don’t look at your face, your judgment will be equal”). The organization of judicial institutions, in his opinion, should be uniform, capable of implementing a single court for everyone. “One court for all... people who are in the same region.” Court cases should be completed in a timely manner and without red tape.

The thinker stands for peace and adheres to the traditional Russian political thought orientation toward the peaceful resolution of all foreign policy conflicts. He advises the king to live in peace with all states “to the end of the earth”, reign “peacefully and wisely”, never seek “battle” and enter into war only in the event of an enemy attack, and always show mercy to the vanquished. The glory of Russia should expand not by the sword, “but by a fleeting type through books.”

9.Political and legal ideas of the second halfXVIIV. Y. Krizhanich and A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin

In the political literature of the 17th century. It should be noted the works of the Croatian theologian, philosopher, writer Yuri Krizhanich(c. 1617 - 1683), who devoted his entire life to the idea of ​​Slavic unity. Having received a good education in Western Europe, Yuri Krizhanich spent a long time in Russia, but was unable to find a common language with the Russian authorities. His views on a single church, independent of earthly disputes, did not receive support, and he was exiled to Tobolsk. Krizanich stayed in exile for 16 years, here he wrote his most significant works.

In 1663, Krizhanich began to write in the common Slavic language the main work of his life - the treatise “Conversations on Government,” later called “Politics.” In his essay, he carefully analyzes the economic and political situation of Russia, characterizes the role of trade, crafts and agriculture, and emphasizes the role of the army in maintaining state independence. Krizanich points out the need for cultural development and opposes worship of foreigners.

State. Origin of the state. Krizhanich's book is addressed to all Slavs, but first of all to the Russian monarch, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It is in the monarchy that he sees the most suitable form of government, ensuring the unity of the people and state stability. He considers the king to be God's deputy on Earth, and his power is sacred. “No man can make kings, but God alone. God makes kings either by miraculous prophecy, by popular agreement, or by force of arms.” Krizhanich believed that the Russian tsars received power from the hands of God, and called the theory about the calling of the Varangians a “fable,” and “stupid and absurd” the theories about receiving power from Constantine Monomakh, the origin of the family of Russian tsars from the Roman Emperor Augustus. He was also against the concept of “Moscow - the third Rome”.

State form. Of all the forms of government (based on the works of Plato and Aristotle, highlighting correct and incorrect forms), he considers “perfect self-rule” - an unlimited monarchy - the best for Russia. “This is the rod of Moses, with which the king-sovereign can perform all necessary miracles. With such a system of government, all errors, shortcomings and perversions can easily be corrected and all sorts of good laws can be introduced.”

Addressing the king, Krizhanich speaks not only about the rights, but also about the responsibilities of the ruler to the people. The king must be modest, wise, calm, righteous, and sacredly observe divine laws. Krizanich sharply condemns the cruelty of Ivan the Terrible.

Economy. In the field of economics, Krizanich was guided by the most advanced views of that time. He emphasizes that ruinous taxes on peasants harm the economy, and advises encouraging talented craftsmen. Krizanich’s thought about the danger posed by bureaucracy sounds unusually relevant today.

Religion. As for religious issues, Krizanich finally rejects the Union and calls for strengthening Orthodoxy. The ultimate goal of “Politics” is to show how to rule the state so that all the people in it are happy, so that the Russian people become “the most famous among nations” and lead all the Slavic tribes.

One of the first places among political figures of the second half of the 17th century. belongs Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin-Nashchokin(1605-1680), who held the post of chief administrator of the Ambassadorial Prikaz under Alexei Mikhailovich. Being a progressive statesman, Ordin-Nashchokin well understood the need for reforms in Russia.

Ordin-Nashchokin criticized and condemned the old order, believing that the Russian people should rebuild a lot within themselves, called for taking into account the example of “foreign lands,” but at the same time emphasized that “not everything should be taken indiscriminately.”

The orderly administration and the obsolete localism of the boyars outraged Ordin-Nashchokin. “With us,” he wrote, “they love the work and hate it, depending not on the work, but on the person who does it.”

When he was a governor in Pskov, Ordin-Nashchokin spoke out for expanding the rights of local government. He believed that it was not necessary for governors to wait for instructions from the center when deciding all local matters, that is, he believed that local authorities could better resolve a number of matters independently, taking into account local characteristics. In Pskov, he developed a project for organizing city government.

The urban government reforms carried out in Pskov largely anticipated the reforms carried out in this area by Peter at the beginning of the 18th century.

Ordin-Nashchokin saw the nobility as the main support of the feudal state. He was a supporter of the unlimited power of the king.

Based on personal experience as a participant in the wars with the Poles and Swedes, Ordin-Nashchokin considered it necessary to strengthen the army and replace the mounted noble militia with a standing army.

In the field of foreign policy, he was a supporter of a close alliance between Russia and the Slavic countries.

Ordin-Nashchokin’s disagreements with his inner circle on a number of political issues led to his resignation and then his tonsure as a monk in 1672.

Educational and methodological literature

1. Anthology of world political thought. - M., 1997. T. 1-5.
2. Anthology of world legal thought. - M., 1999. T. 1-5.
3. History of state legal doctrines. Textbook. Rep. ed. V. V. Lazarev. - M., 2006.
4. History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. V. S. Nersesyants. - M., 2003 (any edition).
5. History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. O. V. Martyshina. - M., 2004 (any edition).
6. History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. O. E. Leista. - M., 1999 (any edition).
7. History of political and legal doctrines: Reader. - M., 1996.
8. History of political and legal doctrines. Ed. V. P. Malakhova, N. V. Mikhailova. - M., 2007.
9. Rassolov M. M. History of political and legal doctrines. - M., 2010.
10. Chicherin B. N. History of political doctrines. - M., 1887-1889, T. 1-5.
11. Isaev I. A., Zolotukhina N. M.. History of political and legal doctrines in Russia 11-20 centuries. - M., 1995.
12. Azarkin N. M. History of political thought in Russia. - M., 1999.
13. Russian political and legal thought 11-19 centuries. - M., 1987.
14. Issues of state and law in the social thought of Russia 16-19 centuries. - M., 1979.
15. Zolotukhina N. M. Development of Russian medieval political and legal thought. - M., 1985.

1. Griboyedov F. A. The story of the tsars and great princes of the Russian land. - St. Petersburg, 1896.
2. Gromov M. N. Maxim Grek. - M., 1983.
3. Gromov M. N., Kozlov N. S.. Russian philosophical thought 10-17 centuries. - M., 1990.
4. Datsyuk B. D. Yuri Krizhanich. - M., 1946.
5. Zimin A. A. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. - M., 1959.
6. Ivan groznyj. Messages. - M.-L., 1951.
7. Joseph Volotsky. Messages of Joseph Volotsky. - M.-L., 1959.
8. Klibanov A. I. Spiritual culture of medieval Rus'. - M., 1996.
9. Kobrin V. B. Ivan groznyj. - M., 1989.
10. Krizhanich Yu. Policy. - M., 1965.
11. Kurbsky A. M. The story of the Grand Duke of Moscow. - St. Petersburg, 1913.
12. N. Nikolsky. Nikon's reform and the religious and social movement of the second half of the 17th century. In the book. M. Pokrovsky “Russian history from ancient times.” - M., 1910-1912.
13. Peresvetov I. S.. Essays. - M.-L., 1956.
14. Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible with Andrei Kurbsky. - L., 1979.
15. Pushkarev L. I. Yuri Krizhanich. Essay on life and creativity. - M., 1984.
16. Word of Daniil Zatochnik according to editions of the 12th and 13th centuries. and their alterations. - L., 1932.
17. Simeon of Polotsk. Rod of government // Selected works. - M., 1953.
18. Sinitsyna N. V.. Third Rome. Origins and evolution of the Russian medieval concept. - M., 1998.
19. Chichurov I. S. Political ideology of the Middle Ages: Byzantium and Rus'. - M., 1990.
20. Shchapov A. Russian schism of the Old Believers. - Kazan, 1859.

Questions for self-control and preparation for testing:

1. What did Philotheus understand by laws?
2. What are M. Grek’s views on the judicial system?
3. What is the difference between the views of the Josephites and the non-possessors?
4. What are the views of non-acquisitive people on the state and law?
5. What is the attitude of the Josephites towards heretics?
6. What are the main reasons for church schism?
7. What are the views of Nikon and Avvakum on the state?
8. What is the essence of the concept of enlightened absolutism of Simeon of Polotsk?
9. What form of government, according to Yuri Krizhanich, is the best?

“The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” is a literary monument of the 16th century, created on the basis of legends about the origin of the family of Russian great princes from the Roman Emperor Augustus, about Vladimir Monomakh receiving royal regalia directly from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh.

In Florence in 1439, a union was concluded - an agreement to unite the Catholic and Orthodox churches on the condition of the supremacy of the Catholic Church, and the acceptance by Orthodoxy of its dogmas, including purgatory. The Greeks hoped in this way to receive help from the West in the fight against the Turks.

Bashkin M.S. (?-1554) - head of the heretical movement, nobleman. By decision of the Council of 1553, he was imprisoned in the Volokolamsk Monastery and subsequently executed.

Church councils are congresses of the highest clergy of the Christian Church to resolve issues of doctrine, governance, election of senior hierarchs, their removal or trial, and condemnation of heresies. They are divided into ecumenical councils (congresses of representatives of all independent local churches; the highest authority in the church; dogmatic and other definitions and decisions of the council have the status of infallibility) and local councils (congresses of the highest clergy of independent local churches).

Holy Fathers (or Church Fathers) is an honorary title used since the late 4th century to refer to prominent church figures from the 2nd to 8th centuries who created the dogma and organization of the Christian church. In Orthodoxy, the Holy Fathers include, for example, John Chrysostom.

One of the first major intra-church ideological conflicts of Muscovite Rus' was the famous dispute between the Josephites and the Trans-Volga elders (non-possessors) (see also in the article Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky). Here, in essence, two understandings of Orthodoxy collided in its relation to the “world.” Although this conflict also did not receive a principled formulation into force, it was precisely a matter of principles. A dispute between the Josephites and the Trans-Volga elders arose over two specific issues: over the fate of the monastic property and over the issue of methods of combating the “heresy of the Judaizers” that had then appeared in Novgorod. But in relation to these two issues, the difference between the social and ethical worldview of both movements clearly emerged.

First we need to say a few words about the historical background of the dispute. From the very beginning of Christianity in Rus', monasteries were hotbeds of Christian enlightenment and played a decisive role in the Christianization of morals. However, over time, when the monasteries turned out to be the owners of vast lands and all kinds of wealth, life in the monastery became a temptation for all sorts of parasites who went there not so much for the salvation of the soul, but for a comfortable and safe life. Monastic morals, which had been strict before, were significantly weakened. But, in addition, a movement arose in the monasteries themselves, led by Nil Sorsky, who believed that monasteries should be, first of all, a focus of asceticism and prayer, that monks should be “non-acquisitive” - not have any property and eat only from the fruits of their own labor. The energetic and powerful Joseph Volotsky, abbot of the Volokolamsk monastery, spoke out against him. Joseph was also aware that there was a decline in morals in the monasteries, but he proposed to combat this evil by introducing strict discipline. He considered the very concentration of wealth in monasteries useful for strengthening the authority and power of the church. Speaking in defense of the monastic property, Joseph was at the same time a prominent apologist for the authority of the royal power. He seemed to offer the state a very close alliance with the church, in every possible way supporting the princes of Moscow in their unification policy. Therefore, at the convened Church Council, the Grand Duke of Moscow ultimately supported the Josephites, who emerged victorious in disputes with the “Volga residents.”

Joseph Volotsky

The victory of the Josephites corresponded to the then trends in the general development of Rus' towards strengthening unity at the expense, perhaps, of spiritual freedom (XV - XV centuries). The ideal of the Volga residents, who called for non-covetousness, for spiritual rebirth (“smart prayer”), for going to a monastery, was too impractical for that harsh time. It should be noted that Nil Sorsky, one of the most enlightened Russian saints, also spoke out against the excesses of external asceticism (asceticism, mortification, etc.). Above all, he placed “smart prayer”, purity of mental state and active help to others. His students even spoke out in the spirit that it was better to help people than to spend money on decorating temples too splendidly. It was not for nothing that he spent many years on Athos, which was experiencing its revival, where the influence of the great ascetic and father of the church, St. Gregory Palamas. In contrast, Joseph primarily emphasized the strictness of the monastic rules, the purity of ritual and church “splendor.” If Nile appealed to the highest strings of the soul - to inner freedom, to purity of spiritual orientation, then Joseph, as a strict teacher and organizer, had in mind primarily ordinary monks, for whom discipline and, in general, strict adherence to the rules should have the main educational significance. Joseph acted with severity, St. Neil - with kindness.

In Russian historiography, the sympathies of historians invariably fell on the side of the Nile, and many consider the very figure of Joseph fatal for the fate of the church in Russia. Nil of Sorsky became the favorite saint of the Russian intelligentsia. This assessment, both from our modern point of view and in general, is correct. However, historically it needs reservations: from a historical point of view, it is impossible to portray Neil as an “advanced, enlightened shepherd”, and Joseph as only a “reactionary”. Neil advocated for “old times” - for the restoration of the former moral and mystical heights of the monasteries. Joseph, for that time, was a kind of “innovator”; he emphasized, speaking in modern language and in relation to the conditions of that time, the socio-political mission of Orthodoxy, which he saw in the correction of morals through the rigor and sincerity of the ritual and charter and in the closest cooperation with the grand ducal authority. The ideals of the Nile were actually put into practice at the dawn of Christianity in Rus', when the church was not so closely connected with the political life of the country and was more concerned about the moral education of the people.

Neil Sorsky

The difference between both camps was even more pronounced in their attitude towards the heresy of the Judaizers. The founder of the heresy was the learned Jew Skhariya, and it spread mainly in Novgorod. “Judaizers” gave the Bible priority over the New Testament, they denied the sacraments and doubted the dogma of the Holy Trinity. In a word, it was a rationalistic, as it were, Protestant sect. It is no coincidence that this heresy spread precisely in Novgorod, which always maintained close relations with the West, but its worldview was really close to Judaism. At one time, the “Judaizers” were successful - the Metropolitan of Novgorod himself was close to her, and at one time even Grand Duke Ivan III was inclined towards this heresy. But thanks to the accusatory sermons of the new Novgorod Archbishop Gennady and then Joseph of Volokolamsk himself, this heresy was exposed and suppressed.

However, the disciples of Nil Sora at the Church Council proposed to fight the new heresy with word and conviction, while Joseph was a supporter of the direct persecution of heretics. And in this matter the Josephites prevailed, and some of the Volga residents (in particular, the “prince-monk” Vassian Patrikeev) subsequently paid with their lives.

We briefly recalled the history of this dispute. But what is most important to us is its meaning. Some historians, for example father Georgy Florovsky, consider the victory of the Josephites to be essentially a break with Byzantium in favor of the Muscovite-Russian principle. They refer to the fact that the movement of the Trans-Volga elders arose due to the influence of the Greek " Hesychasts"- teachings about the need for moral cleansing and removal from worldly vanity that came with Athos Monastery. This teaching was also associated with the so-called Light of Tabor, foreshadowing the imminent end of the world. However, the tendency of Joseph Volotsky has its parallels in Byzantium. Emphasizing the strictness of the charter and ritual, close cooperation between the church and the state - after all, this is also a Byzantine tradition. Essentially, the dispute between the Josephites and the Volga elders was a dispute between two Byzantine traditions, which were already quite firmly transplanted onto Russian soil. But in any case, the victory of strictly “everyday confessionalism” over the mystical, grace-filled stream contributed to the further nationalization of the Russian Church and separation from the tradition of universal Christianity. The victory of the Josephites was a prerequisite for the later schism, based on the opposition of “Russian” Orthodoxy to “Greek” Orthodoxy. It also contributed to further theological lethargy, for, although Nilus of Sora cannot be considered a Christian thinker, he is only a more free-thinking reader than Joseph, but his tradition, which gave great scope to the mind, could create the preconditions for an earlier awakening of religious and philosophical thought in us .

Speaking about the “Volga region people,” one cannot ignore Maxim the Greek, who was invited by Ivan III to translate the Greek originals. This remarkable scientist, a Greek from Italy, could, according to the reviews of his contemporaries, become the pride of Greek-Italian science; however, he preferred to accept the invitation of the Grand Duke and go to Muscovy, where his fate was sad. Exiled for many years to remote places, he died prematurely. Charges of a political nature were brought against him, which may have been justified. But it is characteristic that he supported the “Volga residents” with his authority and even managed to create a small circle of “Christian humanists” around himself.

The only more or less independent Russian theological writer of the 16th century came out of the school of Maxim the Greek - Zinovy ​​Otensky, author of the work “Truth, testimony to those who asked about the new teaching.” He moves entirely in the traditions of Greek patristics, and it is difficult to call him more than a knowledgeable compiler, but still it was the fruit of the rudiments of Russian theology worthy of the attention of a historian. Unfortunately, he was subjected to repression, and this tradition was not continued. From this circle later came such an outstanding figure as the first Russian emigrant, Prince Kurbsky. In the well-known correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible, the prince, among other things, accused Ivan of having “closed the Russian land, that is, free human nature, like a stronghold in hell.” This emphasis on “natural law” (“free human nature”) undoubtedly comes from Italy and, through Maxim the Greek, somehow resonates with the more humanistic direction of the “Volga residents.” Ivan, in his “long-winded” writings, especially emphasized the divine origin of royal power and his right to “execute and pardon” at his own discretion. He will give an answer only before God's court.

However, it should be noted that the famous Council of the Hundred Heads, convened under Ivan the Terrible, was organized on the initiative of Macarius and Sylvester, students of Joseph of Volokolamsk. Macarius, chief compiler Chet'i-Minei", this encyclopedia of ancient Russian church education, was an enlightened Josephite. It is known that he had a good influence on young John. This already indicates that the Josephites, having defeated the Trans-Volga people, in the second generation did not become “reactionaries”, but to some extent adopted the Trans-Volga spirit of tolerance and humanity.

S: What is the meaning of M. Luther’s idea of ​​“omniholiness”?

-: in comparison with God, absolutely all mortals are insignificant

-: every believer justifies himself before God personally, becoming his own priest and, as a result, no longer needs the services of the clergy

-: reliance only on the state, institutions of secular power

-: only that monarch should rule for whom power is not a privilege, but a burden placed on him by God

-: M. Luther

-: N. Machiavelli

-: J. Calvin

-: J. Buchanan

S: What term was introduced into political and legal use by the monarchomachs - writers who defended the interests of the noble-opposition circles?

-: “sovereignty of the people”, “social contract”

-: “legitimacy of state power”

-: “the right to resist”

- : “sovereignty of the nation”

-: J. Bodin

-: A. Derbe

-: F. Brander

S: According to J. Bodin, the most natural form of the state is:

-: republic

-: federation

-: monarchy

-: confederation

-: T. Campanella

-: N. Machiavelli

S: T. Campanella in his essay “City of the Sun” comes to the conclusion that the cause of all evil in society is:

-: civic selfishness

-: spiritual nihilism

-: private property

-: freethinking

-: democracy

-: anarchism

-: liberalism

-: dictatorship

S: In the history of political and legal thought, a significant mark was left by the following work of B. Spinoza:

-: “Theological-political treatise”

-: “Ethics”

-: “Political treatise”

- : "Policy"

S: According to the position of B. Spinoza, only those states that are built on:

-: Republican-Democratic

-: socialist

-: communist

-: monarchical mode

S: A significant step forward in the science of state and law was the methodology of political and legal phenomena developed by B. Spinoza. Treating the state and law as a system of natural forces that organically extends into the more general mechanism of the universe, he applied:

-: sociological

-: naturalistic

-: psychological

-: philosophical approach

S: During the period of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. The theory of the patriarchal origin of the state was outlined by R. Filmer in the essay “Patriarchy, or the natural power of the king.” He proves that the power of the English kings originates directly from:

-: Richard the Lionheart

-: Roman emperors

-: the progenitor of the human race - Adam

-: Plantagenet

-: monarchical absolutism

-: socialist utopianism

-: early bourgeois liberalism

-: great power chauvinism

V3: Political and legal teachings of Russia during the formation of a single sovereign state, the formation of an estate-representative and absolute monarchy (second half of the 14th – 17th centuries)

-: Spiridon-Sava

-: Apolinarius

-: Filofey

-: Alexy

S: How do you understand the idea of ​​secularization of monastic lands in Rus' in the 16th century?

-: distribution of state lands to church ministers

-: transfer of monastic lands into the hands of the state

-: expansion of monastic lands due to the “advancement” of Rus' to the East

-: development of agriculture in territories belonging to monasteries

S: Who are they Josephites?

-: supporters of preserving the church of all its land holdings

-: supporters of obtaining new “worldly benefits” ??????

-: adherents of wars of conquest with neighboring states

-: champions of non-covetousness, the ascetic lifestyle of the clergy

S: Who was the ideological inspirer of the Josephites?

-: N. Sorsky

-: I. Volotsky

-: V. Patrikeev

-: S. Helmsman

S: To A.M. Kurbsky dedicated “The Story of the Grand Duke of Moscow”?

-: Vasily III

-: Ivan III

-: Ivan IV

S: In “The Tale of Tsar Constantine” I.S. Peresvetov proves that the main reason for the capture of Constantinople by the Turks was:

-: the weakness of the Byzantine emperor: “But it is impossible for the king to be without a threat; like a horse under a king without a bridle...”

-: Betrayal of Orthodoxy by Byzantium

-: the dominance of the Byzantine nobles, who “exhausted” the state, robbed its treasury, took “promises…. from legal and guilty"

-: the invincibility of a strong and disciplined Turkish army

S: How did radicalism manifest itself in the views of the heretic F. Kosy?

-: denial of the official church, monasticism, monasteries

-: opposition to monastic and church land ownership???????

-: a call to disobey the church and authorities

- : denial of God

The heresy of Theodosius Oblique is the most radical of all heretical movements of Ancient Rus'. Heretics denied Holy Tradition, the necessity of the Church and church land ownership, Orthodox prayers and sacraments. They also denied the worship of the cross, because the cross is only a tree.

S: Find the false proposition. The peasants' dissatisfaction with the existing system resulted in a peasant war under the leadership of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606-1607). Moving towards Moscow, Bolotnikov sent out “sheets” that outlined the main goals of the uprising:

-: deal with feudal lords and rich townspeople

-: a complete renewal of the state apparatus was planned

-: establishment of republican rule

-: overthrow the king and replace him with the “legitimate king”

S: The direction of social thought in the 16th century. called "humanism". Choose a historical synonym for this word.

-: anti-reformation

-: existentialism

-: ideology of the Renaissance

-: anticlericalism

Josephites is 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, careful attitude to patristic tradition and the preservation of church and monastery possessions. The Josephites were ideological opponents of non-covetous people. We bring to your attention the chapter “Joseph Volotsky” from the book by B.N. Putilov "Ancient Rus' in faces. Gods, heroes, people."

---
He was six years younger than Nil Sorsky and outlived him by seven. His entire adult life took place in monasteries - first in Borovsky (near Moscow), where he came as a twenty-year-old youth and spent eighteen years there, then in Volotsky, which he himself founded under the patronage of the appanage prince Boris Vasilyevich and which he led for almost forty years (by name monastery - and the second name of Joseph).
There were eighteen monks in the family of Joseph (in the world - Ivan), including his grandfather and grandmother, and then his parents and brothers.
As a church leader, thinker, writer, and simply as a person, Joseph was in many ways the direct opposite of the meek and tactful Nile and his “non-covetous” followers. “We will first take care of bodily beauty, then we will take care of internal preservation,” Joseph did not hide his position. Various facts of his life speak about Joseph’s toughness, severity, and intransigence. He introduced the strictest discipline in the monastery, describing in detail the entire routine of life: when and how to go to church, how to stand during prayers, hold hands, where to look, where to sit during meals, what and when to eat, and so on. He made no 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 to let her in and did not go out to see her.
If Nile’s ideals were love, forgiveness and meekness and he called for contemplation detached from the world, then Joseph was concerned primarily with observing external rituals and demanded severity towards violators. Neil argued little - Joseph was a hot debater, knew how to persuade and fiercely attacked those who disagreed. The respectful attitude towards other people's opinions, which Neil adhered to, was not characteristic of Joseph. He preferred submission to authority and dealt with opponents mercilessly. Contemporaries were struck by the story of his conflict with the Novgorod Archbishop Serapion. Joseph, without his knowledge, transferred his monastery to the rule of the Grand Duke. Serapion achieved Joseph's excommunication from the Church - the most severe punishment at that time. Joseph complained to the Grand Duke himself - and at the same time he betrayed his soul, hiding the reason for the excommunication. The matter ended with the Council returning Joseph to the fold of the Church, and Serapion was condemned, 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 the monastery.

Joseph sharply disagreed with Nile and his followers regarding the role of monasteries in the life of Rus'. He advocated for monasteries to be rich and strong. For him, a monastery is a small state built on the principles of complete community life. Of course, the monastery must own its own land, villages with peasants who would work for the monastery. At the Church Council of 1503, a sharp clash occurred between the Nile and the “non-covetous”, on the one hand, and the “Josephites” led by Volotsky, on the other. Victory went to the latter: despite the fact that Ivan III supported the Nile (“it is unworthy for the monks to have villages”), the majority at the Council took Joseph’s side (“Acquisition” church - “God’s acquisition”), Joseph made sure that his Volotsk monastery Rich offerings and contributions flowed. He was not, however, a hoarder “for himself.” They said that when there was a famine, Joseph opened the monastery sacristies, fed hundreds of people every day, and set up 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; he addressed 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, monastic power - overwhelmed Joseph. She even “pushed him into conflict with Ivan III. This was in the 80-90s, when Joseph defended the superiority of spiritual power (that is, the Church) over secular (that is, grand ducal). In his writings of those years you can find statements that the king is "God's servant", and the "unrighteous king" can and must be resisted. Unexpectedly, Joseph turned out to be the defender of the appanage princes, with whom Ivan III was then fighting. Joseph called it "the ancient evil of Cain" (that is, a crime similar to murder by Cain his brother Abel) and downright mourned the fate of the younger princes and the entire princely family, which “like a leaf withered, like a flower fell away, like the light of a golden lamp went out and left the house empty.”

It is appropriate to note here that, unlike Neil 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 this, Joseph Volotsky eventually changed his attitude towards the grand-ducal 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 achieve an alliance between them. Thus, completely new words appeared in his writings: “Autocrat and Sovereign of All Rus'” was appointed “the highest hand of God”; “The king is similar in nature to all people, and in power he is similar to 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 the virtue and duty of everyone. “Josephiteism” played an important role in strengthening monarchical power in the 16th century.
Intransigence and fanatical severity were especially reflected in the struggle of Joseph Volotsky with heretics. He was a true guardian of the official Church, one of the most merciless persecutors of the Moscow-Novgorod heresy. Joseph not only denounced heretics in his writings, but sought their decisive 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 by order of the prince. Meanwhile, Ivan III, joining the church’s condemnation of heretics, was not inclined to take physical action against them, and Joseph Volotsky openly reproached him for going easy on the heretics and demanded executions. To kill a heretic, in his opinion, is no sin; on the contrary, it meant “to sanctify the hand.” With angry words, Joseph addressed those who were ready to grieve over those executed and give alms to the apostates. For them there is only “an army and a knife,” they need to “tear out their eyes,” “cut out their tongues,” “give two hundred belt wounds.”
Nil Sorsky also condemned the views of the heretics, but of course, he could not even imagine anything like that. In essence, Joseph Volotsky was ready to play the role of the Inquisition in Rus'. And his works “The Book on Heretics” and “The Word on the Condemnation of Heretics” did not allow for the slightest tolerance, reconciliation, mercy - only to “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 unified state and the establishment of autocratic power was considered historically progressive, the militant activity of the Josephites was seen primarily as contributing to this process.
Maybe this is partly true. But we will not justify, much less exalt, cruelty, inhumanity, fanaticism, inhumane methods of struggle and reprisals against dissidents - especially when dissent acted with words and not with the sword.
In fairness, however, one should add a few “warm” strokes to the portrait of the stern Joseph Volotsky. According to biographers, he had a handsome face, like “ancient Joseph” (meaning the biblical character Joseph the Beautiful), with dark brown hair and a round beard, stately, cheerful and friendly in his manner, and had 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 of reading.” He was not alien to secular behavior, but he remained an abbot, observing order and the rules of virtue in everything. He ate once a day, and sometimes every other day.
His strictness towards monks and observance of monastic rules did not turn into extreme asceticism; the statutory service he introduced was not difficult to fulfill.
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 of Volotsky we will name here Elder Philotheus from the Pskov Monastery. In his messages addressed to Vasily III and other persons, Philotheus came up with the idea of ​​“Moscow-Third Rome”. Let us outline the essence of this theory, based 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 created and destroyed, nations prosper and perish. God's providence leads humanity according to a plan predetermined by Him. The history of mankind is the history of world kingdoms. God chooses in turn the peoples who are destined to inhabit these kingdoms. World kingdoms are dying one after another. The first such kingdom was Ancient Rome, the second was Constantinople - it 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 never be a 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 the world kingdoms and at the same time preserves the true faith. At the same time, the Russian Tsar was also given great responsibility for the fate of the entire Christian world, and he was obliged to take every possible care of the Church.
Philotheus' epistles were written in the 20s of the 16th century. Already under Ivan the Terrible, the theory of “Moscow - the Third Rome” became the official theory of the Moscow state.

The former confessor led. book John III Vasilievich. Communication between the brethren of the Borovsk monastery and the brethren of the Volokolamsk monastery continued in the future, as evidenced by observations of the manuscript tradition, in particular of the synodics. A considerable part of the Joseph-Volokolamsk patericon consists of the stories of St. Paphnutius 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 largest Russian monasteries, and in bishops' departments. Charter of Rev. Joseph contributed to the creation of a close-knit monastic brotherhood in the Volokolamsk monastery. The high level of education and spiritual discipline maintained in the monastery throughout most of the 16th century, as well as corporate solidarity, encouraged the Josephites who occupied the episcopal sees to promote the promotion of the tonsured Volokolamsk monastery to high positions.

Even during the life of St. Joseph, two of his associates occupied the episcopal sees: the brother of the Monk Vassian (Sanin) in 1506-1515 was the Archbishop of Rostov (from 1502 he was the archimandrite of the Moscow Simonov Monastery), Joseph’s student Simeon (Stremoukhov) on August 21, 1509 became the Bishop of Suzdal. On February 27, 1522, an abbot was elevated to the metropolitan see. Volokolamsk Monastery Daniil Ryazan, who contributed to the installation of the inhabitants of his monastery as bishops. On March 30, 1525, Akaki, a monk of the Joseph Monastery, was appointed to the Tver See; on April 2, 1525, the nephew of St. Joseph Vassian (Toporkov), February 20. In 1536, another monk of the Joseph Monastery, Savva (Slepushkin), became Bishop of Smolensk. On March 16, 1539, he was also replaced at the Smolensk See by the tonsured Volokolamsk Monastery Gury (Zabolotsky), who may have been the abbot of the Simonov (1526-1528) and Peshnoshsky (from 1529) monasteries. A. A. Zimin also counted among the Josephites Mitrofan, who was consecrated in February 1507 as Bishop of Kolomna, Nil the Greek, who occupied the Tver See in 1509-1521, Dosifei (Zabela), who on January 23, 1508 was elevated to the Krutitsky See. However, these hierarchs were not tonsures of the Volokolamsk monastery; they should not be counted among the Josephites on the sole basis that they were not opponents of St. Joseph and supported him in some matters.

He talked about special sympathies. book Basil III to the Josephites is evidenced by the ruler’s frequent trips to the Volokolamsk monastery, the choice in 1530 of the Volotsk elder Cassian Bosogo as the successor of the newborn heir John, as well as the circumstances of the death and funeral of the leader. prince It is Metropolitan Daniil, despite the objections of the boyars, insisted on the dying 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’s solicitors.”. During the regency of Elena Vasilievna Glinskaya (December 1533 - April 3, 1538), Metropolitan. Daniil actively supported the government's policies. The Metropolitan swore the oath to the young John IV and Elena Glinskaya, the brothers Vasily III and the boyars. With the blessing of the Metropolitan, a campaign against Lithuania was launched in November of the year, and the construction of Kitay-Gorod in Moscow was carried out. In the year, during the rebellion of the appanage prince. Andrei Ivanovich Staritsky, Metropolitan. Daniel supported the regent. After the boyar group of princes Shuisky came to power on February 2, Metropolitan. Daniel was removed from the throne and lived in the Volokolamsk monastery until his death. Candidate for the post of metropolitan of another native of Joseph's monastery - abbot. Theodosius, abbot of the Varlaamiev Khutyn Monastery, was not supported. The head of the Russian Church was the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, St. Joasaph (Skripitsyn). Under him, Vassian (Toporkov) was removed from the Kolomna See (1542).

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

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

After Athanasius left the metropolitan see, Tsar John IV offered Kazan Archbishop. German (Sadyrev-Polev) to lead the Church, but he refused to approve the oprichnina order and was killed in November of the year. According to the Life of Metropolitan. Philippa, archbishop. Herman was the only hierarch who supported St. Philippa is in conflict with the king. The Volokolamsk Monastery was not damaged during the oprichnina years; the family of such a prominent oprichnika 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, residents of the monastery were rarely elevated to episcopal sees, as a result of which the influence of the Josephites weakened. At the end of the year, Rostov Archbishop. Euthymius allowed himself to make contemptuous remarks about the Josephites. In response, the only bishop at that time from among the Josephites was the Ryazan bishop. Leonid (Protasyev) submitted a petition to Tsar Theodore Ioannovich, in which he asked to protect the Volotsk tonsures from insults. Perhaps in connection with this an “extract” was drawn up "About the beginning of the Joseph Monastery, and the Venerable Abbot Joseph... and who were the abbots after him, and where they were in power". The “extract” names the names of 14 abbots after the founder of the Volokolamsk monastery and indicates the terms of their abbot. In response to the petition of the Ryazan bishop, the government removed both Euthymius and Leonid from their chairs, showing that it did not want conflicts among the higher clergy. Patriarch of St. Job, along with the canonization of St. Joseph of Volotsky was also involved in the glorification of St. Maximus the Greek - 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 emerged from his brethren: on February 8, 1685, Archimandrite. 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 about whom there is news for the years 1479-1607, 22% of the monks came from the ruling strata of Russian society (6% from the highest aristocracy, 16% from small patrimonial estates), 9% of the monks were from the monastery servants, 4% of the monks each came from the clergy and peasants, 2% before tonsure belonged to the trading class, the social status of 59% of the monks is unclear. Thus, people from the nobility and the highest aristocracy constituted throughout 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-income patrimonial families from Volotsk and neighboring districts. In the 16th century these were the Lenkovs (Gerasim, Tikhon, Theognost), the Polevs (Nile, Serapion, Simeon, Philotheus, Herman), the Stupishins (Alexiy, Tryphon), the Korovin-Kutuzovs (Joasaph, Vassian, Paphnutius), the Mechevs (Job, Macarius ), Tolbuzin (Leonid), Pleshcheevs (Arseny, Feodosius), Rzhevskys (Arseny, Makariy, Tikhon, Theodorit), Pushkins (Vassian, Theodosius), Elchaninovs (German), Sadykovs (Pimen), Rostopchins (Zosima, Makary).

Josephiteism as a direction of social thought

As features characteristic of the position of the Josephites, researchers indicate: defense of church land ownership, an opinion on the need for the death penalty in relation to unrepentant heretics, and an idea of ​​​​the Divine nature of royal power. On the first two points there was a controversy between the Josephites and the non-possessors. In historiography, two points of view have taken shape 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 Venerable Joseph of Volotsky and Nil Sorsky at the Council of 1503, and its main topic is the question of the right of monasteries to own villages . According to the opinion shared by Ya. S. Lurie, Zimin, G. N. Moiseeva and I. V. Kurukin, the controversy began no earlier than a year in connection with the issue of executions of heretics (see Judaizers). D. Ostrovsky and A.I. Pliguzov believe that the written controversy was opened no earlier than the years. Prince-monk Vassian (Patrikeev), and the dispute about the monastery lands began no earlier than a year.

The question of church land ownership

The first point of disagreement between the Josephites and the non-possessors was the question of the attitude towards the fact that “the saints and monasteries hold the land.” Non-covetous people supported the leader. 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 disagreements between the Monks Joseph of Volotsky and Nil of Sorsky dates back to the year. The “Letter about Dislikers...” reports that at the Council in August or September of the year after the conciliar verdict was passed prohibiting widowed priests and deacons from serving “Elder Nil began to say that there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the monks would live in the deserts and feed themselves on handicrafts, and with him the hermit dwellers of Belozersk”. St. Joseph “began to speak against them, contrary to the verb, bringing to the testimony of the holy Venerable Theodosius, the commander of the common life, and the holy Venerable Afanasy of Ophonsk, and the holy venerable Fathers Anthony and Theodosius, the Pechersk miracle workers, and many other monasteries that were villages with them”. Then Rev. Joseph stated: “If there are no villages near the monasteries, how can an honest and noble man take monastic vows? And if there are no honest elders, how will he be appointed to the metropolis, or archbishop, or bishop, and to all honest authorities? And if there are no honest elders and nobles, then the faith will be different.” hesitation" .

Rev.'s point of view Josepha 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: “Conciliar Answer” of 1503 in two editions, “Another Word”, the anonymous Life of St. Joseph of Volotsky in 2 editions, written by Vassian (Patrikeev) “The Debate with Joseph”, Life of St. Serapion, Archbishop. Novgorodsky. It is significant that 2 of these monuments came from the camp of opponents of the Volotsk abbot; this allows us to consider the news of the disputes at the Council of 1503 as reliable.

In response to three editions of the Kormcha book compiled by the enemy of the Josephites, Vassian (Patrikeev), in which he sought to show the non-canonical nature of the existence of monastic estates, Metropolitan. Daniel compiled the Consolidated Helmsman's Rule, which included rules justifying the inviolability of church and monastic estates. Surrounded by Met. Daniel, a collection of the National Library of Russia was created. Soph. No. 1452, which presents two compilations - in defense of the funeral service (funeral deposits were the main source of monastic land ownership) and church property. To refute the opinion that repentance and funeral prayers are unnecessary, the compiler of the collection cites 53 articles from the writings of the Church Fathers. The compilation “On Church and Monastic Acquisitions, Movable and Immovable” included 19 articles in defense of the possessory rights of the Church. In one of the works of Met. Daniel wrote that “Church, and monastic, and priestly, and monastic, and their works and their acquisitions are all sanctified by God.” .

After Met. In the year Daniel was removed from the pulpit, it was occupied by Metropolitan, who did not belong to the Josephites. Joasaph (Skripitsyn), who brought Isaac the Dog, condemned at the Council of 1531, closer to himself and appointed him archimandrite of the Chudov Monastery. St., who became Metropolitan in the year. Macarius of Moscow conducted an investigation into the reasons for the forgiveness of Isaac and his appointment to this post. At the Council in February of the year, which again condemned Isaac the Dog, Archimandrite was a witness for the prosecution. Nifont (Kormilitsyn) of the Novospassky Monastery, who previously served as abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery.

The controversy over church land ownership reached its climax by the time of the Council of 1551. On the eve of the Council, the Novgorod Archbishop was tonsured at the Volokolamsk Monastery. Theodosius wrote a message in which he reminded of the inviolability of church estates, "given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings". On the eve of the Metropolitan Council. Macarius compiled the “Answer”, in which, using the writings of St. Joseph of Volotsky, proved the impossibility of alienation from monasteries of estates. Much of this text was included in Chapter 60. "Stoglava", 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 non-covetous people, who argued that the material enrichment of monasteries had a detrimental effect on the lifestyle of the inhabitants. It is characteristic that in the spring of the year, the prominent non-covetous elder Artemy was placed at the head of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and the elder Theodorit, close to him, became the archimandrite of the Suzdal Euthymius Monastery. In an unpreserved letter to Tsar John IV on the eve of the Council of 1551, Abbot. Artemy recommended that monasteries give up ownership of estates.

Attitude towards heretics

One of the accusations brought against Rev. Joseph and his followers were cruel to heretics. St. Joseph refused to accept repentant heretics into the Christian community and proposed sending 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 destruction of the state, examples of which he gave in his writings.

According to Bishop Savva, against St. Joseph in this matter were spoken by many. bishops and elders: “He began to reproach Joseph with many blasphemies and reproaches, saying: for Joseph does not command those who repent to accept repentance.”. In our opinion, the earliest polemical work, which expressed 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 a call to participate in the persecution of false teachers, writes about God's long-suffering, citing examples from Old Testament history, and advises his addressee to place his hopes in God. An essay directed against the position of Rev. Joseph on the question of attitude towards heretics is the “Answer of the Cyril Elders,” which researchers date back to the end of 1504 or no earlier than 1507. In the “Answer...” the arguments of the Rev. are refuted. Joseph in favor of the need to execute heretics. It is possible that the initiator of the “Response...” was Metropolitan, who lived in retirement in the Kirill Belozersky Monastery. Zosima Bradaty, who was accused of involvement 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 from Rev. Joseph Volotsky's response to the speech of his opponents was the “Message on the observance of the conciliar verdict of 1504.” 1504/05.

Meanwhile, the known facts of the activities of the Josephites indicate something else. Striving to support the Russian autocrats in their positions as church hierarchs, the Josephites firmly defended the interests and rights of the Church in its relations with the authorities, including the traditional right to grieve for those who were in disgrace. For opposing secular authorities, the Novgorod archbishop lost his chair. Theodosius, because of his rejection of the oprichnina, the Kazan archbishop was killed. German (Sadyrev-Polev). The decisions of the Council of 1551, adopted with the sanction of the Josephite majority, reflected the efforts of the Josephites, led by Metropolitan. Macarius defended a certain autonomy of the Church in the face of state power. Apparently, under the influence of Metropolitan. Macarius John IV included in the decisions of the Stoglavy Council numerous texts on the inviolability of the church court and church property. “Stoglava” 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 works of St. Joseph, treating issues of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In the year, some provisions from the second letter of St. Joseph "on heretics" were included in the wedding ceremony of King John IV.

The Isiflyans are incorrectly considered to be 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 Russian chronograph compiled by Dosifei (Toporkov) greatly contributed to the development of ideas about Moscow as the center of the Christian world. Here the Old Russian chronicle was for the first time combined into a single whole with Byzantine chronicles, and Old Russian history began to act as the final section of world history. The chronograph, created in the Joseph Volokolamsk monastery, ended with a message about the fall of Constantinople, and then talked about the conquest of many Christian kingdoms by the Turks, except for Russia, whose importance in the world, on the contrary, has increased.

Josephites in historiography

A. S. Pavlov formulated the idea of ​​St. Joseph as the main ideologist of the inalienability of church property. V.N. Malinin tried to refute this opinion, who believed that the Josephites, like their opponents, did not persecute church estates "a 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 controversial matters of his time". I.P. Khrushchov wrote that "the teachings of Joseph Volotsky, set out in the extensive chapters of The Enlightener, fostered the beliefs of Ivan the Terrible". Subsequently, priority was not given to studying the views of the followers of St. Joseph, but value judgments about the moral character of the Josephites, who were credited with hatred of their opponents and servility before the authorities. The historical literature has repeatedly emphasized the support (or non-condemnation) of Metropolitan. Daniel carried out actions that were questionable from the point of view of the norms of Christian morality. prince (violations of kissing the cross, forced divorce). The activities of the Josephites were characterized as "conservative-formal direction" in social thought, while non-acquisitive people were declared to represent the "critical, moral-liberal direction". The opinion has been established that St. Joseph and his followers were not at all independent thinkers. This approach was largely due to the fact that Church historians 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 exceptions were the works of M. A. Dyakonov and V. E. Waldenberg, in which they were first assessed as the original views of St. Joseph Volotsky on the relationship between spiritual and secular authorities.

Negative assessments of Josephites were strengthened in the historiography of the Soviet period; the views of Josephites were assessed from the standpoint of vulgar sociologism. N. M. Nikolsky believed St. Joseph of Volotsky as an exponent of the "religious consciousness of the boyar-princely class" hostile to the grand-ducal power. The activities of the Josephites were primarily revealed as ideologists of the Moscow autocracy and were characterized as progressive in the works of I. U. Budovnitsa, 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, "while supporting the power of the Moscow sovereigns in their daily political activities... at the same time they protected their own corporate interests, which were ultimately determined by the program of a strong militant church, which sought to become a kind of state within a state, and, if possible, the highest sanction of state activity in general" .

Thinkers of the Russian emigration assessed the historical significance of the Josephites ambiguously. 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-covetous people was regarded as a “tragedy of Russian holiness.” The positive importance of the social service of the Josephites was emphasized by V.V. Zenkovsky, A.V. Kartashev and others.

In foreign historiography, the most widespread opinion is that the Josephites were the creators of the ideology of theocratic absolutism. The innovation of the Josephites in organizing funeral commemoration in the development of a differentiated system for recording funeral deposits is described by L. Steindorf.

Literature

• Gorsky A.V., prot. Relations between the monks of the Kirillo-Belozersky and Josephov Volokolamsk monasteries in the 16th century. // PrTSO. 1851. Part 10. P. 502-527;
• Funeral homily for St. Joseph of Volokolamsk... monk Dosifey (Toporkov) / Prepared by: K. I. Nevostruev // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. Adj. pp. 153-180;
• Life of St. Joseph, abbot. Volokolamsk, compiled by Savva, bishop. Krutitsky // Ibid. pp. 11-76;
• The same // VMC. Sep. 1-13. Stb. 453-499;
• Life of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, comp. unknown // CHOLDP. 1865. Book. 2. Adj. pp. 77-152;
• Materials for the chronicle of the Volokolamsk monastery // CHOIDR. 1887. Book. 2. Dept. 5. P. 1-128;
• AFZH. Part 2;
• Messages of Joseph Volotsky / Prepared by. text: A. A. Zimin, Y. S. Lurie. M.; L., 1959;
• Das Speisungsbuch von Volokolamsk: Eine Quelle zur Sozialgeschichte russischer Kloster im 16. Jh. /Hrsg. L. Steindorff et al. Cologne; Weimar; W., 1998;
• Old Russian Patericon: Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. Volokolamsk Patericon / Ed. prepared by: L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov. M., 1999;
• Synodic of Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery: (1479-1510s) / Prepared by. text and research: T. I. Shablova. St. Petersburg, 2004.
• Khrushchov I.P. Study on the writings of Joseph (Sanin), St. Abbot Volotsky. St. Petersburg, 1868;
• Nikolaevsky P.F., prot. Rus. preaching in the 15th and 16th centuries. // ZhMNP. 1868. Part 138. No. 4. P. 92-177;
• Nevostruev K.I. Review of the book by I. Khrushchov // Report on the 12th award ceremony gr. Uvarov. St. Petersburg, 1870. pp. 84-186;
• Zhmakin V.F., prot. Metropolitan Daniel and his works. M., 1881;
• Golubinsky. History of the RC. T. 2/1;
• Malinin V.N. Elder of Eleazar Monastery Philotheus and his messages. K., 1901;
• St. Joseph, the Wonderworker of Volokolamsk, and the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery founded by him. M., 1915;
• Tikhomirov M. N. Monastery-patrimony of the 16th century. // FROM. 1938. T. 3. P. 130-160;
• Lurie Y. S. Brief edition of the “Charter” of Joseph Volotsky - a monument to the ideology of early Josephiteness // TODRL. 1956. T. 12. P. 116-140;
• aka. Ideological struggle in Russian. journalism con. XV - beginning XVI century M.; L., 1960;
• Moiseeva G.N. “Valaam Conversation” - a Russian monument. journalism ser. XVI century M., 1958;
• Kazakova N. A. Vassian Patrikeev and his works. M., L., 1960;
• she is the same. Essays on Russian history. society thoughts: 1st third of the 16th century. L., 1970;
• she is the same. When did the polemic between the non-covetous people and the Josephites begin? // From the history of 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;
• aka. From the history of feud. land ownership in the Volotsk appanage principality // Culture of Dr. Rus'. M., 1966. S. 71-78;
• aka. The struggle of the nobility against monastic land ownership in the end. XVI - beginning XVII century // From the history of Tataria. Kaz., 1968. Sat. 3. P. 109-124;
• aka. Large feudal estate and socio-political struggle in Russia (late 15th-16th centuries). M., 1977;
• Kloss B.M. Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery and chronicles of the end. XV - 1st half. XVI century // VIEW. 1974. Vol. 6. P. 107-125;
• Sinitsyna N.V. Non-covetousness and heresies // VNA. 1987. Vol. 25. P. 62-79;
• she is the same. Controversial issues in the history of non-covetousness, or On the logic of history. evidence // Controversial issues of Russian history of the XI-XVIII centuries. M., 1990. P. 250-254;
• Kolycheva E.I. Agrarian system of Russia in the 16th century. L., 1988;
• she is the same. Orthodox mon-ri 2nd floor. XV-XVI centuries // Monasticism and mon-ri in Russia, XI-XX centuries. M., 2002. P. 81-115;
• Steindorff L. Commemoration and Administrative Techniques in Muscovite Monasteries // Russian History = Histoire russe. Pittsburgh, 1995. T. 22. N 3. P. 285-306;
• aka [Steindorf]. Commemoration of the dead as a common heritage of the West. Middle Ages, etc. Rus' // “The memory of these endures forever”: Materials of the international. 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. XVI century: Land tenure structures and the formation of a military service corporation. M., 1998;
• Pigin A.V. Volokolamsk works of the 16th century. about death // Dergachevskie cht.-2000: Rus. Literature: Nat. development and regional characteristics. Ekaterinburg, 2001. Part 1. pp. 167-171;
• aka. O lit. contacts between Joseph-Volokolamsky and Pavlov of Obnorsky mon-ray in the 1st half. XVI century // VCI. 2006. No. 1. P. 99-107;
• Pliguzov A.I. Polemics in Rus. Churches of the 1st third of the 16th century. M., 2002;
• Grevtsova O. A. Legal ideas of non-possessors and Josephites in the field of state-church. relations // State. construction and law. M., 2003. Issue. 3. P. 104-110;
• Dykstra T. E. Russian Monastic Culture: “Josephism” and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery, 1479-1607. Münch., 2006;
• aka [Dykstra]. Monastic names in Muscovite Rus' and problems of identifying their owners: On the material from the sources of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, 1479-1607 // Name book: Ist. semantics of the name / Compiled by: F. B. Uspensky. M., 2007. Issue. 2. P. 238-298;
PSRL. T. 13. 1st half. pp. 157, 159

Nikolsky N. M. History Rus. Churches. M., 1930. P. 65

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

Zimin A. A. On the political doctrine of Joseph Volotsky // TODRL. 1953. T. 9. P. 159-177; It's him. 1977. pp. 238, 246; Lurie. 1960. pp. 480-481

Zimin. 1977. P. 281

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

Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian. philosophy. L., 1991. T. 1. Part 1. P. 48-50; Kartashev. Essays. T. 1. P. 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. 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 Volotskýs Political Ideas in a New Historical Perspective // ​​Ibid. 1965. Bd. 13. N 1. S. 19-29