Ideology of the Josephites. The struggle between the Josephites and the non-possessors. Final victory of the Josephites

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

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

In the church polemics at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries about monastic land ownership, which developed against the backdrop of the decline of the internal discipline of cenobitic monasteries, the Josephites, in contrast to their ideological opponents - non-acquisitive people (see also Nil Sorsky), supporters of the hermitage form of monasticism, advocated the preservation of monasteries and their renovation internal life on the basis of the mandatory introduction of strict communal regulations. The establishment of a strict community life, according to the Josephites, made it possible to combine the growth of monastic possessions with the principles of personal monastic non-covetousness and renunciation of the world. The position of the Josephites on the issue of monastic land ownership prevailed at the council of 1503, and was later confirmed by the council of 1531. Josephite monasteries were characterized by attaching special importance to the institution of eldership: each young monk was under the supervision of an experienced monk, which strengthened the spiritual continuity between teacher and student (Joseph Volotsky - Cassian Barefoot - Photius Volotsky - Vassian Koshka). The Josephites were actively involved in monastery construction, erecting and decorating churches, collecting icons and books. Joseph Volotsky invited the best painters to paint the monastery's Assumption Cathedral (see Joseph-Volotsky Monastery) - Dionysius and his sons Theodosius and Vladimir; Icons by Andrei Rublev were kept in the monastery; there was a scriptorium and a literary school. The Josephites opposed the extremes of asceticism and saw the ideal of monasticism not in isolation from the outside world, but in active activity in all spheres of public life. Monasticism, in their opinion, was supposed to influence all state institutions, support grand-ducal power, educate future archpastors, conduct cultural, educational and missionary work, and resist heresies (thus, at the council of 1504, the Josephite position in relation to heretics prevailed - “the army and the knife ", executions and imprisonment).

At the beginning of the 16th century, the Josephites occupied Rostov (Vassian Sanin), Kolomna (Mitrofan), Suzdal (Simeon) and other departments. Under Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow, many hierarchs of the Russian Church adhered to pro-Josephite positions [bishops Akaki of Tver, Vassian of Kolomensky (Toporkov), Savva of Smolensk, Jonah of Ryazan, Macarius of Novgorod]. Metropolitan Daniel, former abbot of the Joseph-Volotsk Monastery, actively supported the policy of unification of Russian lands pursued by the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich, justified from the church-canonical point of view the divorce of the Grand Duke from S. Yu. Saburova, married him to E.V. Glinskaya. Volotsk monks participated in the baptism of the future Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich, supervised the burial of Vasily III Ivanovich, and acted as the main prosecutors in the trials of Maxim the Greek and Vassian (Patrikeev), M. S. Bashkin and Theodosius Kosoy. In the 1540-50s, when Macarius, who was close to the Josephites, became Metropolitan of Moscow, all the most important church posts were occupied by his like-minded people. At the Council of the Stoglavy (1551), the Josephite majority (Archbishop Theodosius of Novgorod, Bishops Savva of Krutitsky, Gury of Smolensk, Tryphon of Suzdal, Akaki of Tver, Nikandr of Rostov, Theodosius of Kolomna, Cyprian of Perm) finally rejected the non-covetous program proposed by A. F. Adashev and Sylvester, and approved the principle of inalienability of church lands. Thanks to the activities of Metropolitan Macarius and his “squad”, the “Great Chetya Menaion” was compiled - a collection of “all the hagiographic and teaching works that were celebrated” in Rus', distributed by day of the year, the canonization of more than 30 Russian saints was carried out (at the councils of 1547-49), the creation of grandiose architectural monuments glorifying the power of the Russian state (for example, St. Basil's Cathedral). The monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus was close to the Josephites, who formulated and substantiated in his writings the political concept “Moscow is the third Rome.”

In general, the union of the Josephite Church with the state remained until the 2nd half of the 16th century. Later, the practice of large monastic land ownership and the idea of the inalienability of church property came into conflict with the ideology of the emerging autocracy. An echo of the Josephite church-political doctrine in Russian history of the 17th century was the policy of Patriarch Nikon, which led him to conflict with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

Lit.: Budovnits I. U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M.; L., 1947; Zimin A. A. I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. M., 1958; aka. Large feudal estate and socio-political struggle in Russia (late 15th - 16th centuries). M., 1977; Klibanov A.I. Reformation movements in Russia in the 14th - first half of the 16th centuries. M., 1960; Lurie Y. S. Ideological struggle in Russian journalism at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. M.; L., 1960; Dmitrieva R.P. Volokolamsk chets collections of the 16th century. // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. L., 1974. T. 28; Zamaleev A.F. Philosophical thought in medieval Rus' (XI-XVI centuries). L., 1987; Book centers of Ancient Rus': Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery as a book center. L., 1991; Olshevskaya L. A. History of the creation of the Volokolamsk patericon, description of its editions and lists // Old Russian patericon. M., 1999.

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

Can't solve the test online?

We will help you pass the test successfully. More than 50 universities are familiar with the features of taking tests online in Distance Learning Systems (DLS).

Order a consultation for 470 rubles and the online test will be passed successfully.

1. V.N. Tatishchev in “Russian History” convinced that the impossibility of democracy in Russia mainly stems from:
multinationality of the state
low culture of the population
the vastness of the state's territory
religiosity of the population

2. The state in Machiavelli’s theory means:
political state of society
relations between the powerful and the subordinate
the presence of appropriately structured, organized political power, justice, institutions of law
all answers are correct

3. Who in Ancient China came up with the rationale for management based on laws (fa) and severe punishments?
Shan Yang
Mozi
Confucius
Lao Tzu

4. Find a false proposition. The Tale of Bygone Years includes a story that:
the family of Kyiv princes goes back to the Varangian prince Rurik
Rurik was called upon by the South Slavs to serve as a governor
Rurik is declared the father of the Kyiv prince Igor
all princes are brothers and they are all equally obliged to obey the Grand Duke in Kyiv

5. Which of the statements is false? The idea of the state, according to Hegel, manifests itself in three ways:
as immediate reality in the form of an individual state (internal state law)
in relations between states as external state law
in subjective freedom (private law)
in world history

6. Who was the ideological inspirer of the Josephites?
N. Sorsky
I. Volotsky
V. Patrikeev
S. Helmsman

7. The main works of early Christianity:
Revelations of John the Theologian (Apocalypse)
Gospels
letters of the apostles
all answers are correct

8. How do representatives of the Frankfurt school interpret fascism (T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, M. Horkheimer)
the ideology of the middle class movement is also incorrect
a random local phenomenon, the result of the action of “outstanding demonic personalities such as Mussolini and Hitler”
a consequence of self-sufficient mental phenomena, “false consciousness” generated by modern “technical culture”
expression of the reactionary tendencies of monopoly capitalism

9. In “Capital” by K. Marx, law is most often interpreted as:
the result of the economic, political, spiritual properties of the individual
the core of relations between individuals and classes in the sphere of ideology
machine of political domination, instrument of the dictatorship of the class of free owners
a certain form of production relations, which is not merged with the latter, but is secondary in relation to the economic structure of society

10. In accordance with the religious and mythological views of the ancient Egyptians, truth, fairness and justice are personified by the goddess:
Lamaya
Ma-at
Sidora
Isis

12. What tactics did the Narodnaya Volya society follow?
individual terror
political dialogue
political compromise
political-economic cooperation

14. What does Marcus Tullius Cicero see as the main reason for the origin of the state?
weakness of people
fear of hostile neighboring peoples
the innate need of people to live together
weight answers are correct

15. In the economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844, K. Marx analyzes the concepts of “alienated labor”, “self-alienation of labor”, which, according to his point of view, give rise to exploitation, the division of society into classes and the struggle between them. For K. Marx, “alienated labor” is:
the labor of the worker is not for himself, but for the bourgeoisie
unskilled labor
materialized labor
twelve hour labor

16. Whose interests were defended by J. Roux, T. Leclerc, J. Varlet - the authors of the “mad” program?
the nascent proletariat, the rural poor
petty, radical bourgeoisie
wealthy peasants and artisans
republican-minded nobility

17. The most prominent representative of the bourgeois-liberal theory of state and law in Russia was:
S.A. Muromtsev
MM. Kovalevsky
B.N. Chicherin
all answers are correct

18. In what work did F. Engels give a systematic Marxist analysis of primitive communal relations?
"German Ideology"
"The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"
"Outlines for a Critique of Political Economy"
all answers are correct

20. The Pythagoreans considered the worst evil:
poverty
anarchy
democracy
illiteracy

21. The leader of which direction in the First International was M.A. Bakunin?
Bolshevik
Menshevik
anarchist
national socialist

22. Who was the representative of the Westerners?
P.V. Annenkov
Yu.F. Samarin
K.S. Aksakov
all answers are correct

23. Which of the dialogues does not belong to the work of Plato?
"Apology for Socrates"
"Protagoras"
"Laws"
"People"

24. Who was not a representative of Slavophilism?
K.S. Aksakov
I.V. Kireyevsky
Yu.F. Samarin
P.V. Annenkov

25. What did A.N. mean? Radishchev, calling it “a brutal custom, signifying a petrified heart and a complete absence of soul.”
reign of Peter I
internecine wars of the times of Kievan Rus
patriarchal Russian family
serfdom

Since the time of two spiritual movements - the “Josephites” and the “non-possessors” at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, it has been the apogee of intra-church contradictions of this period, which coincided with a number of vitally important events in the history of our Fatherland. At the same time, many aspects of the spiritual quest of those years remain relevant, since, on the one hand, they left a deep mark on our mentality, and on the other, the Russian Orthodox Church is still guided by them in its daily life.

First of all, it is necessary to characterize the historical situation in the Russian land at this stage, since the Church has never separated itself from the destinies of the country. Moreover, it was with the blessing and with the direct participation of Church leaders that many of the main events took place.

The 15th century was in many ways a landmark for the Moscow state. First of all, these are the foreign policy successes of Rus', revived after the Mongol-Tatar devastation. A century has passed since the bloody battle on the Kulikovo field, and the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III in 1480 managed to bring to its logical conclusion what Dmitry Donskoy began - to finally legally consolidate complete independence from the Golden Horde, which was inevitably disintegrating into a number of khanates. “The people were having fun; and the Metropolitan instituted a special annual feast of Our Lady and a religious procession on June 23 in memory of the liberation of Russia from the yoke of the Mongols: for here is the end of our slavery.”

At the same time as achieving this goal, Moscow succeeded in the historical mission of gathering Russian lands into a single centralized state, surpassing its competitors in the process. Despite the fact that in the second quarter of the 15th century North-Eastern Rus' was struck by a brutal internecine feudal war, the Moscow princes managed to subjugate Tver, Novgorod and a number of other appanage territories to their influence, as well as recapture a vast part of the western Russian lands from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In addition, another event occurred on the world stage that greatly influenced the worldview of the Russian people, the spiritual and political situation in Rus'. In 1453, the Byzantine Empire fell under the blows of the Ottoman Turks, or rather, the fragment that remained of it in the form of Constantinople and its suburbs. Muscovite Rus' remained virtually the only independent Orthodox state in the world, feeling like an island in an alien sea. Together with the Byzantine princess Sophia Palaeologus and the double-headed eagle, as a state emblem, the idea of the succession of power of the Russian prince from the Emperor of Constantinople and of Moscow as the last and true custodian of the Orthodox faith gradually penetrated into the consciousness of its society.

This idea was formulated in Church circles. Monk Philotheus was not the first to express it, but in his messages to Vasily III and Ivan IV it sounded most loudly and confidently: “The now united Catholic Apostolic Church of the East shines brighter than the sun throughout the sky, and there is only one Orthodox and great Russian Tsar in everything in the heavens, like Noah in the ark, who was saved from the flood, governs and directs the Church of Christ and affirms the Orthodox faith.” The concept of “Moscow - the third Rome” for a long time determined the spiritual priorities of Russia in the world, and during that period it strengthened the foreign policy position of our country in Europe and the East. Even in official titles in relation to the great princes, the Byzantine term “tsar,” i.e., emperor, began to be increasingly used, although the Russian monarchs did not adopt all the traditions of Byzantium, but mainly only the Christian faith and the institution of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the idea of Byzantine universality became isolated within “all Rus'”, and many elements of ancient Greek philosophy, language and Roman antiquity were completely rejected.

The religious situation in North-Eastern Rus' in the 15th - early 16th centuries. remained extremely complex and ambiguous. Several problems made themselves known loudly at once. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to attract and prepare the Russian Church for the Ferraro-Florentine Union with Catholics led to the deposition of Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv and All Rus' (Greek by origin) and opened up the possibility for the Russian Church, from 1448, to independently elect metropolitans from among their own compatriots. Fearing the prospects of subordination to the Latin faith, “Moscow became determined to violate the imaginary rights of the Uniate Patriarch over the Russian Church.” De facto The Russian Orthodox Church became independent from Constantinople, and the Moscow princes gained even more influence on its politics.

At the same time, ten years later, from 1458, a long period of administrative division of the united Russian Orthodox Church began into the Moscow and Kyiv metropolises, respectively, into the spheres of influence of the Russian state and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which included the southern and western regions of the former Kievan Rus).

This is how things stood in external church relations. In the 15th century, the Church, with renewed vigor, waged the most decisive struggle against the remnants of ancient Russian paganism, as well as against the influential heresies that appeared in Rus'. Subsequently, the “non-covetous” and “Josephites” will diverge sharply in terms of methods for resolving these issues.

Paganism and its remnants still continued to pose a serious problem for the Church. The influence of pagan remnants on the Russian people at the beginning of the 15th century is evidenced by a document of that period, “The Word of a Certain Lover of Christ...”, which indicates a high level of dual faith, and even inveterate paganism within Rus'. In particular, the unknown author notes the predilection for pagan rituals and superstitions of even educated Christians: “And not only the ignorant do this, but also the enlightened ones - priests and scribes.” In addition, a number of northern Finno-Ugric peoples, included in the orbit of the Russian state, remained in paganism, and in the XIV-XVI centuries there was active missionary activity of the Church to convert them to Christianity.

During the same period of time, dangerous religious doctrines penetrated into Rus', which were, in fact, not just heresies, but sometimes even apostasy. The so-called heresies of Strigolniks and Judaizers acquired especially strong influence. The teaching of the former had its roots in the highly modified Manichaeism of the Bogomils, which came to Rus' from Bulgaria back in the pre-Mongol period, based on ancient Eastern dualism.

Another teaching came to Novgorod from the west in the second half of the 15th century, along with the free-thinking Polish-Lithuanian Jews who found refuge there. Their dogma contained a call to return to the true faith of the times of the Savior, or rather, to the religious experience of the first sects of Judeo-Christians with a large share of the Jewish religion itself, mixed with the rationalistic ideas of the Western forerunners of Protestantism. Since all this was presented from the standpoint of criticism of a fairly large part of the Orthodox clergy, who did not meet the requirements for them and were mired in bribery, drunkenness and debauchery, these heresies found a response in the hearts of not only ordinary people, but even the secular and spiritual aristocracy. Moreover, even Ivan III himself, after the conquest of Novgorod in 1479, “was fascinated by the talents and courtesy of the cunning freethinking archpriests. He decided to transfer them to his capital." For some time, adherents of the sect were able to influence government and government affairs, but soon their activities were outlawed, and Metropolitan Zosima, who provided them with patronage, was removed from power, officially accused of “excessive drinking.”

In such a difficult situation, disputes emerged and began to grow more and more within the Church itself over spiritual and moral guidelines. At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, they formed into two groups - the “Josephites” and the “non-covetous”, who did not oppose each other and did not lead to a schism of the Church, but through polemics sought ways of further spiritual priorities in the new established reality. The terms “Josephites” and “non-possessors” themselves have a later origin than these events, and are associated with the names of two luminaries of Orthodox thought of this period, by whose works the Church largely lives and is guided today - these are the venerables and, surrounded by their outstanding followers.

What is the essence of the disagreement between them? There were many controversial issues, but the central questions remained about church land ownership and the structure of monastic life. Historian N. M. Nikolsky wrote in the late 1920s. in Soviet Russia there is a very critical work on the history of the Church (in the spirit of the times, as they say), but even with it one cannot but agree that the Church in this period was a very large landowner. For example, as the same M.N. Nikolsky reports, Ivan III, weakening the Novgorod freemen, subjected local church lands to secularization, taking away from the Church 10 lordly volosts and 3 out of 6 monastic landholdings only in 1478. Enormous wealth often led to great temptations for the unjust distribution of income from land and the personal enrichment of church leaders, which negatively affected the entire authority of the Church. As a result, the question of the need for land ownership and enrichment of the Church (especially monasteries) in general arose within the Church.

On this occasion, the “non-possessors”, led by Rev. Nil Sorsky (who also received the name “Trans-Volga elders”), who inherited the Byzantine tradition of hesychasm, had a strict opinion about the absence of any property not only from an individual monk, but also from the monastery as a whole. The idea of Christ-loving poverty forbade the members of the monasteries “to be the owners of villages and hamlets, to collect taxes and to conduct trade,” otherwise, a different way of life did not correspond to the gospel values. The Church itself was seen by the “non-covetous” as the spiritual shepherd of society with the right of independent opinion and criticism of princely policies, and for this it was necessary to depend as little as possible on the rich grants of secular power. The “non-possessors” saw the understanding of monastic life in ascetic silence, avoidance of worldly concerns and in the spiritual self-improvement of monks.

The “Josephites” looked at the problem of monastic land ownership somewhat differently. Having an extremely negative attitude towards personal enrichment, they supported the wealth of monasteries as a source of social charity and Orthodox education. The monasteries of the comrades-in-arms of St. Joseph spent enormous, at that time, funds on supporting the needy. The Assumption Volotsk Monastery alone, founded by him, annually spent up to 150 rubles on charity (a cow then cost 50 kopecks); over 7 thousand residents of surrounding villages received financial support; the monastery fed about 700 beggars and cripples, and the shelter housed up to 50 orphans. Such large expenses required a lot of money, which the Church, while maintaining its independence, could receive independently, without princely alms.

In relation to heretics, Joseph Volotsky was more severe than the “non-acquisitive” ones, who had the opinion that heretics should be discussed and re-educated. Nilus of Sorsky spoke out in favor of abandoning repression against heretics, and those who repented of errors should not have been subject to punishment at all, since only God has the right to judge people. In contrast to this point of view, relying on Russian and Byzantine sources of church law, Joseph decisively declares: “Where are they who say that neither a heretic nor an apostate can be condemned? After all, it is obvious that it is necessary not only to condemn, but to brutally execute, and not only heretics and apostates: those who know about heretics and apostates and did not report to the judges, even if they themselves turn out to be true believers, will accept the death penalty.” Such harsh statements by the monk and the obvious sympathies of the “Josephites” for the Catholic Inquisition in the 19th century gave reason to some liberals to reduce the role of Joseph only to the inspirer of future repressions of Ivan the Terrible. However, the inconsistency of such a judgment was proven not only by church historians, but even by researchers of the Soviet period. Vadim Kozhinov calls this “pure falsification,” citing, for example, the fact that “the main denouncer of the atrocities of Ivan IV, Metropolitan of All Rus' Saint Philip, was a faithful follower of St. Joseph.” In heresies, Joseph saw not only a threat to the Orthodox faith, but also to the state, which followed from the Byzantine tradition of “symphony,” i.e., parity of cooperation between secular and church authorities as two forces of one body. He was not afraid to speak out against heretics as ordinary criminals, even when they were favored by Ivan III and some erring church hierarchs.

The differences of opinion between the “non-possessors” and the “Josephites” on the issue of the role and responsibilities of the Orthodox monarch are of no small importance. The “non-covetous” saw the monarch as fair, taming his passions (anger, carnal lusts, etc.) and surrounding himself with good advisers. All this closely resonates with the concept of the “Trans-Volga elders” about personal spiritual growth. “According to Joseph of Volotsky, the main duty of the king, as God’s vicegerent on earth, is to care for the welfare of the flock of Christ,” the extensive powers of the head of state echo no lesser responsibilities to the Church. The sovereign was compared to God in his earthly life, since he had supreme power over people. Joseph Volotsky proposes to correlate the personality of the monarch with Divine laws, as the only criterion “allowing one to distinguish a legitimate king from a tyrant,” which essentially implies in a certain situation the disobedience of subjects to their sovereign, who does not correspond to such qualities.

It is clear that for such reasons, Ivan III, who needed lands for the serving nobility, initially sympathized with the “non-covetous people.” However, as the heresy of the Judaizers was exposed, he began to listen to the authority of the Monk Joseph, although the Grand Duke expressed his desire to seize church lands until his death. This desire was facilitated by the elimination or obsolescence of previously interfering external factors - “the dependence of the Russian Metropolis on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the close alliance of metropolitans with the Moscow princes, the Horde policy of granting Tarkhanov to the possessions of the Church, and finally, the constant support of church institutions, which the Grand Duke enjoyed in the fight against appanages.” . In the end, the debate between the two spiritual movements, expressed in numerous letters and messages from opponents, found its way out at the church council of 1503.

The decisions of the council summed up, in a way, the first result of the dispute between two intra-church movements. Supporters of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky (they themselves were also present at the council) mutually condemned the heresy of the Judaizers and other apostasy from the Orthodox faith. At the same time, the “non-possessors” opposed the persecution of heretics, but their position was in the minority. As for church land ownership, the “Josephites” managed to defend it, motivating their right with the “Gift of Constantine” and other legal acts of Orthodox (and not only) monarchs, confirming the donations and inviolability of church lands from the time of the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Great (IV century AD .). Ivan III, who actively took part in the work of the cathedral, tried to secularize the lands of the Church in exchange for monetary compensation and bread allowance (which would have led the Church to a decline in authority and would have made it highly dependent on the princely power), but a serious illness that suddenly struck him stopped this. an event that seemed quite real.

Thus, the “Josephites” won the struggle for inalienable church property, and the grand ducal government had to look for new ways of coexistence with the Church in the next twenty years. Meanwhile, the spiritual image of the monk and his personal non-covetousness, as well as many elements of the monastic community modeled on the Nile of Sorsky, were finally established by the council in monastic life.

The dispute between the “non-possessors” and the “Josephites” continued after the council and the death of Saints Nile and Joseph. Gradually, the “Josephites” gained the upper hand, especially after 1522, when their representatives began to invariably occupy the metropolitan throne. Oppression began against some prominent “non-possessors”, as a result of which the “peaceful” stage of disputes ended, and by the middle of the 16th century, many of the monasteries of the “Trans-Volga elders” were empty. And yet this cannot be called a confrontation, since the dispute itself had the character of true Christian humility. Thus, A.V. Kartashev emphasizes that “the quiet, silent victory of the Josephites is very significant. The quiet, passive retreat of “non-covetousness” is also indicative.” In Western Europe, for example, a somewhat similar spiritual dispute resulted in the Reformation with its 150 years of bloody religious wars.

The “Josephites” who gained the upper hand, without rejecting the best from non-covetousness, established the Church as an independent institution, independent of secular power, but at the same time outlined close cooperation with the state, bringing closer the subsequent “symphony” in their relations. At the same time, from a historical perspective, the constant strengthening of the absolute power of the monarchy led to its desire to subordinate the critical voice of the Church to its interests, which was realized in the 18th century by Peter I.

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 passed 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 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.

Yakhimovich S.Yu.

The dispute between two spiritual movements - the “Josephites” and the “non-possessors” at the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries is the apogee of intra-church contradictions of that period, which coincided with a number of vitally important events in the history of our Fatherland. At the same time, many aspects of the spiritual quest of those years remain relevant, since, on the one hand, they left a deep mark on our mentality, and on the other, the Russian Orthodox Church is still guided by them in its daily life.

The 15th century was in many ways a landmark for the Moscow state. First of all, these are the foreign policy successes of Rus', revived after the Mongol-Tatar devastation. A century has passed since the bloody battle on the Kulikovo field, and the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III in 1480 managed to bring to its logical conclusion what Dmitry Donskoy began - to finally legally consolidate complete independence from the Golden Horde, which was inevitably disintegrating into a number of khanates. “The people were having fun; and the Metropolitan established a special annual feast of the Mother of God and a religious procession on June 23 in memory of the liberation of Russia from the yoke of the Mongols: for here is the end of our slavery.”

In addition, another event occurred on the world stage that greatly influenced the worldview of the Russian people, the spiritual and political situation in Rus'. In 1453, the Byzantine Empire fell under the blows of the Ottoman Turks, or rather the fragment that remained of it in the form of Constantinople and its suburbs. Muscovite Rus' remained virtually the only independent Orthodox state in the world, feeling like an island in an alien sea. Together with the Byzantine princess Sophia Palaeologus and the double-headed eagle, as a state emblem, the idea of the succession of power of the Russian prince from the Emperor of Constantinople and of Moscow, as the last and true custodian of the Orthodox faith, gradually penetrated into the consciousness of its society.

This idea was formulated in Church circles. Monk Philotheus was not the first to express it, but in his messages to Vasily III and Ivan IV it sounded most loudly and confidently: “The now united Catholic Apostolic Church of the East shines brighter than the sun throughout the sky, and there is only one Orthodox and great Russian Tsar in all in heaven, like Noah in the ark, saved from the flood, governs and directs the Church of Christ and affirms the Orthodox faith.” The concept of “Moscow - the third Rome” for a long time determined the spiritual priorities of Russia in the world, and during that period it strengthened the foreign policy position of our country in Europe and the East. Even in official titles in relation to the great princes, the Byzantine term “tsar”, i.e. emperor, began to be increasingly used, although the Russian monarchs did not adopt all the traditions of Byzantium, but mainly only the Christian faith and the institution of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the idea of Byzantine universality became isolated within “all Rus'”, and many elements of ancient Greek philosophy, language and Roman antiquity were completely rejected.

The religious situation in North-Eastern Rus' in the 15th - early 16th centuries. remained extremely complex and ambiguous. Several problems made themselves known loudly at once. The attempt of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to attract and prepare the Russian Church for the Ferraro-Florentine Union with Catholics led to the deposition of Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv and All Rus' (Greek by origin) and opened up the possibility for the Russian Church, from 1448, to independently elect metropolitans from among their own compatriots. Fearing the prospects of subordination to the Latin faith, “Moscow became determined to violate the imaginary rights of the Uniate Patriarch over the Russian Church.” De-facto, the Russian Orthodox Church became independent from Constantinople, and the Moscow princes gained even more influence over its politics.

Paganism and its remnants still continued to pose a serious problem for the Church. The influence of pagan remnants on the Russian people at the beginning of the 15th century is evidenced by a document of that period, “The Word of a Certain Lover of Christ...”, which indicates a high level of dual faith, and even inveterate paganism within Rus'. In particular, the unknown author notes the predilection for pagan rituals and superstitions of even educated Christians: “And not only the ignorant do this, but also the enlightened ones - priests and scribes.” In addition, a number of northern Finno-Ugric peoples, included in the orbit of the Russian state, remained in paganism, and in the 14th - 16th centuries there was active missionary activity of the Church to convert them to Christianity.

In such a difficult situation, disputes emerged and began to grow more and more within the Church itself regarding spiritual and moral guidelines. At the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries, they formed into two groups - the “Josephites” and the “non-covetous”, who did not oppose each other and did not lead to a schism of the Church, but in polemics they looked for ways to further spiritual priorities in the new established reality. The terms “Josephites” and “non-possessors” themselves have a later origin than these events and are associated with the names of two luminaries of Orthodox thought of this period, by whose works the Church largely lives and is guided today - these are the Venerable Joseph of Volotsky and Nil of Sorsky, surrounded by their outstanding followers.

In relation to heretics, Joseph Volotsky was more severe than the “non-acquisitive” ones, who had the opinion that heretics should be discussed and re-educated. Nilus of Sorsky spoke out in favor of abandoning repression against heretics, and those who repented of errors should not have been subject to punishment at all, since only God has the right to judge people. In contrast to this point of view, relying on Russian and Byzantine sources of church law, Joseph decisively declares: “Where are they who say that neither a heretic nor an apostate can be condemned? After all, it is obvious that one should not only condemn, but brutally execute, and not only heretics and apostates: those who know about heretics and apostates and did not report to the judges, even if they themselves turn out to be true believers, will accept the death penalty.” Such harsh statements by the monk and the obvious sympathies of the “Josephites” for the Catholic Inquisition in the 19th century gave reason to some liberals to reduce the role of Joseph only to the inspirer of future repressions of Ivan the Terrible. However, the inconsistency of such a judgment was proven not only by church historians, but even by researchers of the Soviet period. Vadim Kozhinov calls this “pure falsification,” citing, for example, the fact that “the main denouncer of the atrocities of Ivan IV, Metropolitan of All Rus', St. Philip, was a faithful follower of St. Joseph.” In heresies, Joseph saw not only a threat to the Orthodox faith, but also to the state, which followed from the Byzantine tradition of “symphony,” i.e., parity of cooperation between secular and church authorities as two forces of one body. He was not afraid to speak out against heretics as ordinary criminals, even when they were favored by Ivan III and some erring church hierarchs.

The decisions of the council summed up, in a way, the first result of the dispute between two intra-church movements. Supporters of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky (they themselves were also present at the council) mutually condemned the heresy of the Judaizers and other apostasy from the Orthodox faith. At the same time, the “non-possessors” opposed the persecution of heretics, but their position was in the minority. As for church land ownership, the “Josephites” managed to defend it, motivating their right with the “Gift of Constantine” and other legal acts of Orthodox (and not only) monarchs, confirming the donations and inviolability of church lands from the time of the Byzantine emperor Constantine the Great (IV century AD .). Ivan III, who actively took part in the work of the council, tried to secularize the lands of the Church in exchange for monetary compensation and bread allowance (which would have led the Church to a decline in authority and would have made it highly dependent on the princely power), but a serious illness that suddenly struck him stopped this. an event that seemed quite real.

The dispute between the “non-possessors” and the “Josephites” continued after the council and the death of Saints Nile and Joseph. Gradually, the “Josephites” gained the upper hand, especially after 1522, when their representatives began to invariably occupy the metropolitan throne. Oppression began against some prominent “non-possessors”, as a result of which the “peaceful” stage of disputes ended and by the middle of the 16th century, many of the monasteries of the “Trans-Volga elders” were empty. And yet this cannot be called a confrontation, since the dispute itself had the character of true Christian humility. Thus, A.V. Kartashev emphasizes that “the quiet, silent victory of the Josephites” is very significant. The quiet, passive retreat of “non-acquisitiveness” is also indicative.” In Western Europe, for example, a somewhat similar spiritual dispute resulted in the Reformation with its 150 years of bloody religious wars.

The “Josephites” who prevailed, without rejecting the best from non-covetousness, established the Church as an independent institution, independent of secular power, but at the same time outlined close cooperation with the state, bringing closer the subsequent “symphony” in their relations. At the same time, from a historical perspective, the constant strengthening of the absolute power of the monarchy led to its desire to subordinate the critical voice of the Church to its interests, which was realized in the 18th century by Peter I.