Historical sketch of the secularization of church lands in Russia

Contents Part I. Attempts to convert the land holdings of the Russian Church into state ownership in the 16th century (1503–1580) I. The vital formulation of the question of church and monastic estates in the 15th and 16th centuries. – The legal nature of these estates. – The attitude of the secular government towards them II. Double secularization of church lands in Novgorod, under Ivan III. - Measures taken by this sovereign regarding the clergy of the cities and regions newly annexed to Moscow. Council of 1503. – How was the question of church and monastic estates raised at it? - Cathedral response to the Grand Duke. – Ivan III’s attitude to the moral side of the issue III. Works written after the council of 1503 in defense of church and monastic property. – Dispute with Joseph of Volotsky, monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev. – Maxim the Greek, supporter of Vassian. – The attitude of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich towards the disputants. Why did he not touch the patrimonial rights of the clergy? – The fall of Vassian and Maxim and the conciliar trial of them. Subordination of monasteries to state control IV. The state of the issue of church and monastic estates during the childhood of Ivan IV. – New works by Maxim the Greek. - Their influence on the young sovereign. – The party of Sylvester and Adashev, sympathetic to the ideas of non-acquisitive people. – An attempt to secularize the metropolitan estates in the Moscow district, around 1550. – Answer of Metropolitan Macarius. Cathedral of 1551. - Non-acquisitive people in church-hierarchical positions. The teachings of Nil Sorsky in the heretical edition of Bakshin and Theodosius Kosy. - Councils against heretics and the fall of the non-covetous as an ecclesiastical and political party. - Dispute between the monk Zinovy ​​and the followers of Kosoy over the issue of monastery estates. Apocryphal conversation between Sergius and Herman, Valaam wonderworkers. – Later legislative measures of Ivan IV against the expansion of church and monastic estates. – Attempts to convert bishops’ and monastic incomes to general church and state needs. – Examples of secularization V. General overview of the obstacles that the Muscovite sovereigns of the 16th century had to fight, who sought to limit the patrimonial rights of the clergy Part I. Attempts to convert the land holdings of the Russian Church into state ownership in the 16th century (1503–1580) According to the definitions of canon law, adopted in our country, together with Christianity, in the Greek nomocanon, immovable church property has the character of immobility not only in the physical, but also in the legal sense: as dedicated to God (sacrae), they can neither be taken away nor alienated. 1 By virtue of these definitions, already the first Christian princes of Rus', and after them private lindens, donating one or another constant source of income for the maintenance of churches and the clergy, usually ended their deeds of gift with solemn curses on those who would dare to “offend” the Church in the possession of the property granted to it. 2 For its part, the spiritual hierarchy was obliged - by the same canonical definitions and letters of gift - to maintain the inviolability of the earthly acquisitions of the Church in the name of their common and unchangeable purpose: to serve the beneficent goals of the Christian religion. How zealously the ancient pashas fulfilled this duty is evident from the countless literary and legal monuments of the 13th–15th centuries, which aimed to protect the Church from any outside intrusions into the sphere of its property rights. 3 It is clear, however, that the canonical principle of inalienability and inalienability of church property, neither in Greece nor in our country, could receive the unconditional meaning that the spiritual hierarchy sought to give it. It is determined, first of all, by the actual state of law among one or another people, among which is the Church as the owner of certain material benefits. Where any private right is not strong, there church property is not strong primarily: for the Church, as a Kingdom not of this world, does not have in itself any material means of defense against the violent seizure of its property. This thought was perfectly expressed, regarding his time, by the Monk Kirill of Belozersk, who in his spiritual letter (1427), by the way, wrote to the local appanage prince: “And that you, sir, gave your salary - your letters to the house of the Most Pure Mother of God and to my poverty, so that, sir, your salary and letters would remain motionless: as hitherto, sir, with my life, so it would be, sir, and it was in my stomach; “before, sir, great prince, we, your beggars, have nothing to fight against those who offend us, but only, sir, by God and the Most Pure Mother of God and yours, sir, by the salary of our lord and ruler.” 4 Further, the property of the Church, as a legal entity embodying a specific goal, is subject to the requirements of expediency. “The Church, as Schulte aptly put it, does not exist in order to acquire property, but has property only in order to achieve general or specific goals.” 5 Whatever ceases to serve these purposes necessarily loses the internal character of church property. It may become non-ecclesiastical in the legal sense - already because the private life goals that serve as the basis for the right of church ownership of certain property do not have the nature of necessity and immutability. Much that was previously in charge of the Church, and for which it received rich material donations from the state and society, over time naturally passes into the sphere of purely state and public relations, and at the same time, the centuries-old building of the property rights of the Church is deprived of its most durable foundation - its vital foundation. Finally (and this is the most important thing), religious inspiration, which once enriched the Church beyond measure, is gradually weakening and cooling, like any other inspiration: times of reaction are coming, which not only does not favor the further enrichment of the Church, but also makes us see in its existing wealth, especially in land wealth, something abnormal, outdated, hindering general economic progress. The effect of these conditions extends throughout the entire history of immovable church property in any Christian state. 6 In Rus', examples of the seizure of church lands by princes can be found already in the 12th century. 7 In the following centuries, complaints from the spiritual hierarchy about “those who offend the holy churches of God” and teachings about the inviolability of “immovable things dedicated to God” are repeated more and more often - of course, not without reason on the part of the powers that be. 8 But all these examples were nothing more than local and random violations of the property rights of one or another church institution, and, moreover, were in the nature of gross physical violence, untruth, “offense”, against which the spiritual hierarchy, generally speaking, successfully acted by the force of its admonitions or the fear of anathema. 9 This is not what we see in the 15th and especially in the 16th centuries. Now danger is beginning to threaten the entire Church, and all the more so because the government and society have become aware of the moral, national-economic and state disadvantages arising from the excessive enrichment of churches and monasteries with estates. True, the spiritual hierarchy even now still had enough strength to defend the inviolability of land church property for two centuries. Nevertheless, already in the 16th century, the idea of ​​secularization finally took the form of a state question, which then, one might say, did not leave the queue. The first period of historical development of this idea (1503–1580) is undoubtedly of particular significance. He presents us with a fierce struggle between parties interested in the issue and conducting open literary polemics among themselves: a phenomenon exclusively characteristic of the 16th century. This struggle, in essence, was a struggle of opposing life principles and conditions, the effect of which was equally manifested in both the Church and the state. The Church fought for the inviolability of its property, first of all, not with the state, but with representatives of its own moral spirit and consciousness - with a new direction among the clergy itself (namely, monasticism). The state, striving to convert church lands into its own property, encountered insurmountable obstacles not so much in the external power and social significance of the spiritual hierarchy, but in the force of age-old customs and traditions, which continued to dominate over itself. Hence the striking, at first glance, contradiction in the activities of all the Moscow sovereigns of the 16th century: on the one hand, they take away their estates from churches and monasteries, or at least ways to acquire new estates, on the other hand, they do not stop distributing their grants of land and lands to them. Thus, a historical review of the 16th century, as the era when the question of church and monastic estates arose in our country, should cover a) the circumstances that gave rise to this question, b) attempts and c) obstacles to its resolution. I. The vital formulation of the question of church and monastic estates in the 15th and 16th centuries. – The legal nature of these estates. – The attitude of the secular government towards them Both in literature and in the legislation of Moscow Rus' of the 16th century, the question of church and monastic estates is primarily a moral and religious issue. Its original production belongs to representatives of a strict view of monasticism, who have long noticed the seductive contradiction between monastic vows; consisting in renunciation of the world and all property, and the actual life of monks who own lands, farms, villages, and entire volosts. Thus, Metropolitan Cyprian (at the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century) wrote to one abbot: “the holy fathers did not give over to monks to rule over people and villages. How can one who has once renounced the world and everything worldly again bind himself to worldly affairs, again build what he himself has destroyed, and thus be a transgressor of his vows? And the ancient fathers, like St. Pachomius, St. Theodosius, head of the hostel, St. Herman and many other holy fathers in Palestine, on Mount Sinai, in Raifa and on the Holy Mount (Athos), which I myself saw, did not acquire for themselves either villages or acquisitions. Only later, when little by little the former strictness weakened, did monasteries and monasteries begin to own villages and other property. This matter requires more attention and caution: you ask me about the village that the prince gave you for the monastery, what to do with it? Listen to my answer and accept my advice: if you and your brethren trust in God, and if God has hitherto fed you without a village and will continue to feed you in the future, then why bind yourself to worldly concerns and, instead of remembering God and serving him alone, think about villages and be entertained by worldly cares? Pay attention to the fact that while the monk lives without any worldly care, he is at peace with all the laity, everyone loves him, everyone gives him honor; and when he becomes obligated to villages and worldly cares, then the need will arise to go to princes and volosts, seek courts, stand up for one’s own, quarrel with strangers and involuntarily humiliate oneself before everyone, just so as not to let one’s own be offended, in a word, take on great labors and abandon one’s own rule. And what is most important, when the Chernetsy begin to own villages, judge men and women, often go to them and grieve about them, then how will they be different from the laity? After all, it is dangerous for blacks to approach and talk to women. But, if possible, it would be good to arrange it this way: let the village be behind the monastery, but the monk should never be in it, but order the village to some God-fearing layman and he will take care of all the affairs, so that he brings everything ready to the monastery with livestock and other things, because it is harmful for the monk to own villages and make frequent trips there." 10 For the same reasons, St. Kirill of Belozersk († 1427) more than once refused the villages that neighboring landowners offered his monastery, and only the murmur of the brethren, dissatisfied with the non-covetousness of their abbot, and perhaps fear for the future fate of their monastery, prompted him to follow the general monastic example. 11 The moral disadvantages of the landowning life of monasteries became more obvious the more the sources of monastic income increased. The freedom and tranquility of life in monasteries rich in estates attracted quite a few people who, putting on a monastic robe, did not think at all about monastic deeds. It was precisely these monks that the strict Belozersk hermit-dweller Paisiy Yaroslavov, who was appointed abbot here by the will of Grand Duke Ivan III, found in the Trinity Lavra. Paisius’s attempts to “convert the brethren to the path of God, to prayer, fasting and abstinence” justified only the proverb: “don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules”: - the brethren rebelled against the strict abbot, and the tonsured princes and boyars even wanted to kill him, so Paisius was forced to leave his abbot. 12 Another zealot of ancient monastic discipline, Joseph Sanin (later the builder and abbot of the monastery on Volok Lamsky) visited several northern monasteries, once famous for their strict regulations, and was not completely satisfied with any of them. 13 Thus, those who were inspired by the spirit of the former ascetics had no choice but to break all moral ties with modern monasticism and create new monasteries - with ancient forms of life and discipline. Thus, at the end of the 15th century, two transformative directions arose among Russian monasticism: strictly cenobitic, whose representative was Joseph Volotsky, and monasticism, which began in our country with Nil Sorsky, a student of the aforementioned Paisius Yaroslavov. In relation to the patrimonial life of monasteries, as the main source of all seductive phenomena in the life of modern monasticism, the views of representatives of both directions were completely different: Joseph Volotsky found it possible to combine the monastery’s right to own patrimonial estates with the vows of monks who renounce the world and all property, subordinating the latter to the rules of strict communal life, so that all monastic wealth belonged to the monastery itself and nothing to the monks personally. 14 On the contrary, Nil Sorsky, who saw the ideals of true “eldership” on Athos, unconditionally rejected the right of monasteries to own villages and demanded that the monks feed on their own handicrafts or, in case of need, “alms from Christ-lovers.” 15 At the beginning of the 16th century, his disciple, the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev, became a literary fighter for the ideas of the Sorsk hermit-dweller, whose side was later taken by the famous Maxim the Greek. Moral protest against the patrimonial life of monasteries could not, of course, be limited only to a close circle of “dissatisfied” among monasticism itself. Nil Sorsky, as we will see below, even considered it a duty of his conscience to speak in the ears of the sovereigns themselves about the need to take away the estates from all monasteries. On the other hand, daily experience made it clear to everyone that the monastic wealth was used for more than one good purpose. The moral sense of the people should have been especially indignant at the fact that in the 15th and 16th centuries, during the era of the decline of monastic discipline that we described, monasteries had already ceased to serve their religious and social purpose: to be a shelter for the “poor brethren”, who from time immemorial had been accustomed to feed from the churches of God, but in front of which now the monastery gates were now often closed. And so, according to the people’s faith, deeply offended by such indifference of the monks to the fate of the “poor brethren”, the holy saints of God, the fathers of Russian monasticism, often now begin to rise from their miraculous cancers and cruelly punish the monastic authorities for violating their statutes. In the life of St. Varlaam of Khutyn, up to five “miracles” of this kind are recorded. Here is one of them: “under Abbot Nikifor, who was sent from Moscow to the monastery of the wonderworker Varlaam by Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, there was a severe famine throughout the entire Novgorod land. Then hungry people from Novgorod, with their wives and children, began to come to the saint’s monastery, asking for bread from the abbot and brethren. But the abbot ordered them to be expelled from the monastery and the monastery gates to be locked. The very next night, the Monk Varlaam appears in his cell, with a rod in his hand, which now stands at his shrine, and with these menacing words: “Why have you, Abbot Nicephorus, shown such disfavor towards the poor who are dying of hunger? You not only did not give them alms, did not feed them or give them something to drink, but you even ordered them to lock the monastery gates. And when I went to the Lord God, I ordered my brethren to live in a monastery according to my tradition and, above all, to have love for the poor and not to forget the love of hospitable people, which is why, by the grace of Christ, my monastery will never become scarce. And you insulted Christ by driving away His brethren, the poor, hungry.” Having said this, the wonderworker Varlaam began to beat Abbot Nicephorus so hard with his staff that he, Nicephorus, lost his arm and leg, and in such relaxation he left the abbot and went back to Moscow.” 16 But while the offended faith of some found its avengers in the miracle workers themselves, who did not cease from the next world to ensure the fulfillment of their statutes, the lack of faith of others saw in the patrimonial life of the monasteries nothing more than a product of monastic greed and a lead to idleness, parasitism and other vices. From this view, back in the 14th century, the Strigolniki heresy developed in Novgorod and Pskov. The essence of this heresy was the denial of the saving power of church sacred rites performed by the clergy “for a bribe.” In particular, the heretics taught: “it is not worthy to chant over the dead, to bring offerings for the dead in churches, to create feasts (the well-known monastic “fodder”), or to give alms for the soul of the deceased.” 17 It is clear that this point of heretical teaching was directed against the general custom of giving all kinds of property to churches and monasteries “for the wake of souls” and, at the same time, against the main basis for the inviolability of church property, as “given by God, as an inheritance of eternal blessings, as a memorial to the last generation.” 18 The heresy of the Strigolniks, although condemned in its dogmatic provisions, did not remain, however, without influence on the fate of church and monastic estates in Novgorod and Pskov: during the 14th and 15th centuries, the Novgorodians and Pskovites, “inserting some vain words and philosophizing carnal, and not spiritual,” several times took away from churches and monasteries the lands and lands “given to them for eternity, in heart-to-heart memory." 19 In the second half of the 15th century, the heresy of the Strigolniks resumed, with some modifications, in the heresy of the so-called Judaizers. 20 The hostile attitude of these new heretics towards the patrimonial life of the monasteries is evident from the fact that they rejected monasticism altogether, calling the monks “apostates of the prophetic, evangelical and apostolic teachings, who invented their own way of life and adhere not to divine, but to human traditions.” 21 Subsequently, Theodosius Kosoy, literally repeating the same review about the monks, directly condemned Russian monasteries for owning villages. 22 While bookish people protested against the patrimonial life of monasteries primarily in the name of the religious and moral principle, to the service of which monasticism devoted itself, the people and society were most immediately and directly interested in the economic side of the issue, since the enrichment of monasteries with land property was not carried out without prejudice to other landowners - individuals and entire communities (rural, peasant). The interests of the former most often suffered from the general custom of giving patrimonial lands to monasteries in wills “for soul-to-heart funerals,” and it often happened that testators, concerned about the salvation of their souls, endowed the monastery with such generosity that it was or seemed to be an insult to their legitimate heirs. So, for example, if one testator, giving up his courtyard to the monastery, asked the abbot and the brethren to “grant, his wife would not be thrown out of that courtyard until her death, or tonsure as a nun, or until her second marriage”; 23 if another, having given all his property to the monastery, left it to the mercy of the monks “to give him a wife, as God will notify them, the sovereigns”; 24 if, finally, still others, and very many, bequeathed their patrimonial lands to monasteries, set too high a price for redemption by their legal heirs, 25 or, having no descendants, completely bypassed lateral relatives and gave all their property to the monasteries “in the future, without redemption,” 26 then in all these and similar cases it is natural to assume an extreme degree of dissatisfaction on the part of persons interested in the property of the testator. In Novgorod, under the influence of the Strigolniki heresy, this displeasure reached the point that public authorities and private individuals began to “mind spiritual letters” - not to carry out orders to give back to churches and monasteries property that was refused “for a wake of the soul.” 27 Such examples of disrespect for the last will of the dying prompted the clergy in the 15th century to attach to the church “synodik” (where the names of the deceased contributors were recorded for eternal remembrance) a special instructive preface, which was intended for weekly reading in churches on Saturdays, and in which, along with evidence about the need for generous donations to churches and monasteries “heart to heart,” the following typical family scene is presented: the dying head of the family orders his wife and children, after his death, to “widely distribute their property among the churches.” But the wife-executor, having buried her husband, begins to complain about him to the children, saying: “My child, what are the plans of your crazy father, and my husband? - He commanded that he give away his property to the churches and the poor, and leaves me and you as wretched orphans. Truly, this word of my husband is mad! My child, I have this idea, because with such wealth I will marry a rich husband, and he will love me and feed you.” – “And in that reflection, the unknown author concludes, their souls (i.e. testators who were left after death without church commemoration) are tormented in hell, and the children (whose stepfather took away all their father’s property) are in squalor and forced to work.” 28 Probably, this teaching is hinted at by Kurbsky in his complaint against the monks, who, according to him, by instructing the dying not to leave their property to their relatives, even the poor, but to give everything to the monasteries in order to receive the kingdom of heaven for that, ruined the peasant lands, and made the military rank (of service people) worse than Kaliks. 29 Just as the interests of the landowning class (votchichi) suffered from the public custom of giving patrimonial lands to monasteries “per soul,” so the interests of rural communities were constantly threatened by the government custom of granting newly created monasteries the lands and lands closest to them. Hence, it often happened that peasants drove away monks who settled on neighboring empty lands and founded a monastery here - they drove away precisely out of fear that the newcomers would not subsequently take possession of their lands and villages. This happened, for example, with Dmitry Prilutsky, Stefan Makhrishchsky, Daniil Pereyaslavlsky and Anthony of Siysky. 30 In order to protect the newly created monastery from such a nuisance, the great and appanage princes, with the actual granting of lands and lands to it, sent there with their grant letters one of the persons close to them, who brought the monastery into possession of the property given to him. 31 Since the 16th century, and perhaps even earlier, it has become a custom to give peasants living in villages newly granted to the monastery special, so-called obedient letters, the meaning of which is clear from their very name. 32 But even under all these conditions, the granting of populated lands to monasteries did not always go without resistance from the local peasantry. So in the life of Anthony of Siysk it is said that “when an envoy from the autocratic sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich arrived at the monastery of the saint, to arrange royal mercy for the needs of the brethren, the disciples of the monk, the inhabitants of the surrounding villages, not wanting to submit to the monastery, raised a strong murmur against the saint and began to shower him with blasphemies and curses.” In this popular unrest and grumbling, the priest of the neighboring Yemetsk camp, named Khariton, also took an active part, 33 a case that was probably not entirely exceptional, since the clergy of the monastic villages were in a kind of tax relationship with the landowner monastery. The disadvantages of enriching churches and monasteries with estates in the 15th and 16th centuries began to be revealed from the point of view of purely state interests. Now, with the political unification of the Russian land under the rule of the Moscow autocrats, new state needs naturally appeared, to satisfy which new means of state economy were needed. The main wealth of Rus' has always consisted of lands, which therefore had to bear the full brunt of the Moscow state tax. This burden is now becoming an indispensable condition for any private right to land, so that, in the end, all land is considered as the property (“father and grandfather”) of the Moscow sovereigns. 34 This look deeply captured the entire system of state taxes and duties during the period of Moscow unity. The people who sat on black (state) lands owned them only because they contributed to the sovereign’s treasury; the descendants of the former warriors and appanage princes, who owned the land on patrimonial right, retained this right only under the condition that they served the sovereign. Thus, all land, from a political-economic point of view, was divided into tax and service. Due to the circumstances of the time, which is characterized by the intensified collection of Russian land and almost continuous wars on all its borders, 35 the need for service lands was in the foreground. In view of this need, the Moscow sovereigns strive, on the one hand, to concentrate land ownership in the hands of the service class (hence, by the way, the distribution of a huge amount of palace and black lands to boyar children on estates); on the other hand, to prevent the transfer of lands from service hands to non-service hands, “so that there is no loss to the service.” 36 On the way to both goals, there was inevitably a clash with the clergy - a class that was not personally in the service, which, however, owned vast expanses of land on patrimonial right 37 and, due to the age-old custom of giving away estates per soul, did not cease to enrich themselves with new land holdings, most often at the expense of the service class. And from taxable lands in the Moscow period, the amount required was far from what was required in earlier times. Hence, a new task for the government: to destroy those various privileges that the clergy had long enjoyed among other landowners 38 and which were unprofitable for the state already in the sense that they encouraged taxed people to flee from black lands to the white estates of churches and monasteries. 39 But the interests of the treasury and the service did not exhaust the entire content of the issue of church and monastic estates. The Moscow sovereigns already recognize themselves as obligated to care for the common good of the people, and from this point of view, they demand that church wealth faithfully serve its religious and social purpose, which in the sources of canon law and in the consciousness of society itself was defined in this way: “church wealth is the wealth of the poor, sharing the wealth of orphans, and old age and infirmity, and those who have fallen into illness, feeding, children of many, strange diligence, provision for the orphaned and wretched, relief for widows and needs for girls, intercession for the offended, help in times of adversity - in fire and flood, and redemption for the drowned, in famine, feeding, in thinness for the dying, coverings and coffins and burials, raising empty churches and monasteries, refuge and consolation for the living, and memory for the dead. For this reason, people gave their property for church needs.” 40 On this canonical basis, the question of the land holdings of the Church obviously took the following formulation: either use church wealth, in accordance with their purpose, for matters of public charity, or abandon them in favor of the state, which takes these matters into the circle of its department. Before we begin to describe the activities of the Moscow sovereigns of the 16th century in one or another of these directions, we consider it necessary to establish a general view of the very, so to speak, essence of church and monastic estates and the relationship in which our secular government has long stood towards them. It would be a gross historical mistake to imagine the land holdings of the ancient Russian Church as something whole, as a special property mass, subject to the same definitions of canon law and, under the control of the authorities established in the Church, serving the same (church-wide) goals. 41 The landowning life of our Church, from the very beginning, was formed not according to canonical dogma, but according to the national type of patrimonial law. The lands that bore the name of saintly and monastic estates constituted the private property of individual church institutions (bishop's houses, monasteries, etc.), and not the common canonical property of the entire Church. We see, for example, that bishops and monks, as complete owners of their house and monastery lands, change them, sell them, mortgage them, in a word, dispose of them at their own personal discretion. 42 Hence, the ancient canonical rules on the inalienability and inalienability of church property were necessarily understood in our country only in the sense of a religious sanction of the private right of ownership of individual church institutions to the lands belonging to them. Therefore, the expropriation of the lands of one church institution in favor of another seemed just as sinful and ungodly as any other violent seizure of church property. In 1471, the Pskov veche gave some monastery part of the lands and grounds of the local Trinity Cathedral. But before the evening had time to break up, a fire broke out in the city, which in the eyes of the pious chronicler was a sign of God’s wrath against the “fearless and rebellious people who dared to rebel against the very cathedral church.” 43 Here another, very important, side of the patrimonial life of individual, church institutions is revealed, namely, the one by which they, as private owners of the lands belonging to them, were turned to the secular government. If the Pskov veche considered itself to have the right to give the land of one church to the ownership of another, then this only expressed, with particular energy, the effect of the general rule according to which the supreme administration of church and monastic estates, as the property of legal entities, was in the hands of secular, and not spiritual, authorities. We also see it in princely regions or appanages; only here this attitude was manifested in a softer form of patronage, which the princes acquired over local churches and monasteries by virtue of granting them lands or granting privileges to own lands acquired in another way. For this reason, in the appanage areas, the very right of ownership of church institutions to their estates to a much greater extent acquired the character of a convention, dependence on the personal will and mercy of the prince-grant. That is why the clergy usually asked each new prince to confirm the grants of land grants issued by the previous princes. 44 The Moscow autocratic sovereigns, the supreme patrimonial owners of the entire Russian land, are already directly and decisively expressing the view that the ownership of churches and monasteries on land, without their sovereign grant, has no basis. So Ivan III, having demanded from the conquered Novgorod half of the volosts of the local clergy, said in justification of this demand: “these (= those) volosts from time immemorial were the great princes, but they (the rulers and monasteries) seized them themselves.” 45 It is not surprising, therefore, if, in view of the political dominance of Moscow over the appanages, monastic monasteries, following the example of servicemen-patrimonial people, begin to come under the authority of Moscow sovereigns. 46 This is what the famous founder of the Volokolamsk monastery Joseph Sanin did, for example, in 1506, out of displeasure with the local appanage prince Theodore Borisovich, who burdened the monastery with his exactions. 47 However, this act, although not the first of its kind, 48 was still so contrary to established views and relationships that Joseph found many detractors in Moscow itself, and his diocesan bishop, Serapion of Novgorod, even sent him his “unblessed” letter and, in defense of himself and the Volokolomsk prince, later said at a council convened on this matter: “I am free in my monk, and Prince Fyodor is free in his monastery: he wants - he robs, he wants - he favors.” 49 These few words express the entire essence of the general, long-established relationship of monasteries and monasticism to secular and spiritual power: monks, as church people or hierarchs, were subject and subject to the jurisdiction of their diocesan bishops; but the monasteries, like patrimonial lands, depended on local princes, who might or might not favor them. 50 During the period of Moscow autocracy, these relations received legal sanction - in the sense that the supreme management of the estates and income of individual church institutions is concentrated in the Order of the Greater Palace. Namely: the council of 1551, having abolished the so-called non-judgmental charters, which, due to the patrimonial independence of monasteries from diocesan bishops, established the personal autonomy of monks regarding the spiritual hierarchy, at the same time confirmed “that monasteries and monastic treasuries should be managed and described by the royal butlers and clerks, who count the archimandrites, abbots and builders in every parish and expense." 51 Bishop's estates could also be subject to the same control, which was the case in Novgorod, under the veche government, which in many cases managed the treasury of the rulers as state savings. 52 The bishops of the Moscow state were, in this respect, more independent of the secular authorities. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to recognize the validity of the recently expressed general observation about the estates of the metropolitanate itself: “if by letters of grant from princes and kings, metropolitan lands were separated from the dependence of local government, separated from connections with local zemstvo communities and became under special management, the bodies of which were dependent on the metropolitan; this did not mean that the metropolitan lands were outside of any relationship to the administrative structure of the state. The more the possessions of the department were freed from the dependence of local government, the more the dependence of the central government of the metropolitan lands on the kings increased.” 53 For our part, we note that the concentration of management of monastic estates in the palace department should have been reflected in the fate of the bishop's lands. If our church history did not develop an administrative center for them in the Church itself, then it had to be formed - in the state. Thus, the long-established relationship between secular power and the land holdings of the clergy, on the one hand, gave a legitimate reason to the Moscow sovereigns to look at church and monastic estates as their own (palace estates), on the other hand, they indicated the right, although not close, path to the complete merger of church lands with state lands. Let us now see how this matter was accomplished throughout the 16th century. II. Double secularization of church lands in Novgorod, under Ivan III. - Measures taken by this sovereign regarding the clergy of the cities and regions newly annexed to Moscow. Council of 1503. – How was the question of church and monastic estates raised at it? - Cathedral response to the Grand Duke. – Ivan III’s attitude to the moral side of the issue The first attempts to resolve all of the above state problems regarding church and monastic estates belong to Grand Duke Ivan III. Initially, these attempts were local and seemingly random in nature. It was precisely when annexing this or that Russian region to Moscow that Ivan III took advantage of these cases to one way or another limit the patrimonial rights of the local clergy. The most important territorial acquisition of this sovereign was the conquest of Veliky Novgorod and its entire region in 1478. Here we are presented with the first and typical example of the activities of Ivan III regarding the church and monastic estates of the conquered region. Dictating his terms to the conquered veche, the Grand Duke, among other things, demanded volosts for himself and sat down, “without which, he said, we great princes cannot maintain our state in our homeland Veliky Novgorod.” Since the Novgorodians had already been promised the inviolability of their private lands or “boyar estates,” in response to the Grand Duke’s demand, they first offered him two state volosts (Luki Velikie and Rzhev Empty); but this proposal was rejected. It remained, therefore, to sacrifice the ruler and the monasteries, from which, as we have seen, the veche itself in the old days more than once took away lands and lands. Indeed, the second proposal of the Novgorodians to Ivan III consisted of four volosts of lords and six monasteries. The Grand Duke’s idea was guessed, but not completely: he demanded for himself, on the basis already known to us, half of all the volosts of the lords and monasteries and ordered a complete list of them to be submitted, without any concealment. However, when this list was presented, the Grand Duke “granted” the ruler with monasteries, took from the first, instead of half the volosts, only ten; and regarding the latter he acted in accordance with the size of their land holdings, namely: from the six richest monasteries (Yuryev, Arkazhsky, Blagoveshchensky, Nikolsky at the Nerevsky end, Antonev and Mikhailovsky) he took half of their estates; I did not touch the rest of the monasteries at all, out of respect for their poverty. 54 It goes without saying that the Novgorod clergy could not be satisfied with this award. Two years later, the Grand Duke brought the local ruler Theophilus to Moscow: “the ruler, according to the Moscow chronicle, did not want Novgorod to belong to the Grand Duke, but to the king (Polish) or to another sovereign. The great prince, when he first took Novgorod, then took away half of the volosts and villages from the Novgorod ruler, and from all the monasteries, and about this the ruler held dislike.” 55 This constant “dislike” of the Novgorod rulers for the Moscow state, and even for the metropolitans there, was the reason why, during the difficult time of the Novgorod capture, they did not find the slightest protection in the head of the Russian Church, whereas in former times the metropolitans strictly condemned the Novgorodians for encroaching on church and monastic estates. 56 But it is remarkable that the later Novgorod bishops, already sent from Moscow and Muscovites by birth, did not enjoy the trust and favor of the Moscow government, secular and spiritual. On them, as well as on the previous veche rulers, fell the full burden of measures aimed at the complete merger of the conquered, but not always submissive, region with the Moscow state, and in these cases the metropolitans not only did not “sorrow” for the Novgorod Church, but also acted together with the Grand Duke. So in 1500, Ivan III, with the blessing of Metropolitan Simon, again took away lands and lands from the Novgorod clergy and distributed them to the boyar children as estates. 57 The reason for this new secularization of church lands in Novgorod was, it seems, the recently completed description of the Novgorod region by Moscow scribes, which could have revealed that the list of half of the volosts of the lords and monasteries, submitted to the Grand Duke during the conquest of Novgorod, was incomplete and incorrect. 58 Be that as it may, only from the two Novgorod scribe books that have come down to us from that time, it is clear that this time much more land was taken from the ruler and the monasteries (not including the poor) to the Grand Duke than before, during the conquest of Novgorod. 59 The remaining lands of the local clergy are now put into taxation “in Moscow plows,” and in such a way that the plow of church and monastery land, as a unit of payment, is placed after the plow of black land - the tax par excellence. 60 Probably around the same time, the ruler of Novgorod and the monasteries were forbidden to increase their lands by purchase or through refusals to perform soul-to-heart funerals. 61 And in other regions and principalities annexed to Moscow by Ivan III, we also notice some phenomena reminiscent of the fate of church and monastic lands in Novgorod. Thus, when describing the Belozersk region (around 1490), the grand ducal scribes, of course, in accordance with the order given to them, took away the courtyards (the units from which the suburban settlements were composed) from all the monasteries there, leaving them only in a certain size and a certain number. 62 It is also remarkable that Ivan III took away from the richest of the Belozersk monasteries, Kirillov, all the serfdom deeds for the lands belonging to him, 63 although we do not know for what purpose this order was made and whether it concerned other monasteries. Finally, the prohibition for service people to give their patrimonial lands to monasteries per soul already under Ivan III extended to the residents of all the cities newly annexed to Moscow (Tver, Mikulin, Torzhok, Obolensk, Belaozer and, perhaps, even Ryazan), as well as to the descendants of the former appanage princes (Suzdal, Yaroslavl and Starodub). 64 To understand the full importance of this last measure, one must take into account that the offspring of the named princes then consisted of 30 service families of different names or surnames. 65 From local attempts there was a natural transition to a general and more decisive measure, directed against the patrimonial rights of the entire Russian Church. Of course, in view of this goal, Ivan III became close to both representatives of non-covetous monasticism - Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky. To the first, the Grand Duke even offered the metropolitan see in 1484, but the humble desert dweller, who had already experienced failure at the Trinity Abbess, did not want to take on an incomparably greater burden, which, in all likelihood, would have been associated with an inevitable struggle against the entire spiritual hierarchy. 66 About other non-covetous people, led by Nil Sorsky, contemporaries note that they, “for the sake of strong living and the virtue of the multitude, had great boldness towards the sovereign and were extremely acceptable and respected by him.” 67 Relying on this party and, probably, assuming that Metropolitan Simon, who had recently given his blessing to the confiscation of church lands in Novgorod, would not contradict himself, the Grand Duke in 1503 convened a large spiritual council in Moscow - “for the sake of priests, like the holder of a concubine” (notes Joseph Volotsky, who was present at the council), Moreover, say: “You want to take away villages from holy churches and monasteries.” 68 From this it is clear that the cautious Ivan III did not suddenly reveal to the council the main purpose of its convening. But both leaders of the Trans-Volga non-covetous people were also called to the council. It was to them that the Grand Duke gave the initiative to the issue of monastic estates. And so, when the discussions about the subjects indicated by the sovereign himself ended, and when some of the members of the cathedral (including the Volokolamsk abbot Joseph) had already left Moscow, “Elder Nil began to pray to the autocrat that there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the monks would live in the deserts and feed on their handicrafts.” 69 This demand was supported by other Trans-Volga hermits. The Grand Duke again ordered a council to be held, for consideration of which the question raised by Nil Sorsky was proposed. The fathers of the council, finding that without Joseph of Volotsky they “would not hear many wise proofs” in defense of the landowning rights of monasticism, summoned him again to Moscow for a debate with the non-covetous. Since from the ideal-ascetic point of view, on which the Sorsk hermit-dweller stood, it was difficult to say anything in favor of the patrimonial life of the monasteries, Joseph, upon arriving at the council, transferred the question to a positive, historical and practical basis. Speculation began about on what basis did monasteries own villages since ancient times? “The reason of the monastic villages, upon careful consideration of the matter, turned out to be the following: many monasteries were built by bishops and princes at the beginning of the enlightenment of the Russian land with faith; the founders of the monasteries made it their first duty to build churches in them; For worship in churches, bread, candles, incense were needed, as well as funds for maintaining the clergy. So that the monasteries did not fall into decay even after the death of their patrons, it was necessary to ensure their continued existence with reliable and constant means of maintenance. Such means were villages and other sources of income that pious patrons endowed their monasteries with, among other things, for the purpose that those obsessed with poverty and illness would find shelter and repose here. And monks who renounced the world had to perform all monastic work, with fasting and prayer, and manage charitable affairs. Working for the repose of wanderers and the sick, for the maintenance of church people and primates, the monks not only do not deserve condemnation, but for their labors and fasting they will receive an even greater reward. And the blessed ktitors will receive reward from God for their offerings, for in the monasteries eternal remembrance is performed for them, for the benefit of their souls. If some of the monks, infected with the disease of greed, use God’s property for evil, then they alone will be responsible for their sins, and for the sake of these few, inattentive to the salvation of their souls, one should not block the path to salvation for many who enter monasteries for monastic deeds, and deprive the blessed ktitors of the spiritual benefit. For all these considerations, the council determined that the monasteries’ property rights to the villages and lands that belong to them should be strictly observed, which in no case can harm monks who are sincerely concerned about the salvation of their souls.” This conclusion is confirmed by the examples of the ancient, great fathers of Russian monasticism, Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk and others, who had villages at their monasteries. Finally, Joseph Volotsky, in defense of the inviolability of monastic estates, brought up another original, but at that time extremely practical and convincing consideration: “if there are no villages near the monasteries, then how can an honorable and noble person get tonsure? And if there are no honorable and noble elders, then where can we get people to become metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and other church authorities? And so, if there are no honorable and noble elders, then faith itself will be shaken.” 70 All these arguments were directed, in fact, against the objections of Nil Sorsky and his supporters. It still remained to give an answer to the Grand Duke, who was hiding behind the non-covetous people. The council first sent the metropolitan clerk Levash to him with a preliminary report with the following content: “your father, sir, Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, and the archbishops and bishops and the entire consecrated council say that from the first pious and holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine, the king, and after him, under the pious kings reigning in Constantine, the saints and monasteries cities and authorities (volosts) and villages and lands held, and at all the councils of the saints the father was forbidden by the 71 saints and monasteries to sell or give away immovable church property, and this was confirmed by great oaths. Likewise in our Russian countries, under your ancestors, under the Grand Duke Vladimir and under his son Grand Duke Yaroslav, even to this day, the saints and monasteries held cities and authorities, and villages.” After that, “Metropolitan Simon himself with the entire consecrated cathedral was with the Grand Duke” and read before him a detailed report or “list” of evidence of the inviolability of the property rights of the Church. Since this report has not yet been published by anyone, we will present it here in full, according to the 1563 manuscript: “From Genesis: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt, for they were overcome by famine, and the whole land became Pharaoh, and the people were enslaved to him from one end of Egypt to the other, except the land of the priests: for that Joseph did not buy. Pharaoh himself and the people gave tribute to the priests, and I collected the tribute from the priests and yadyahu, which Pharaoh gave to them. And Joseph gave a commandment to all the people until this day in the land of Egypt: a fifth for Pharaoh, except for the land of the priests: that shall not be given to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:20–22, 26). From the books of Leviticus: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel this way: if a man sanctifies his church, holy to the Lord, let the priest judge him between good and evil. And as the priest appreciates, so be it. If he sanctifies and redeems his church, let him add five parts of the price of its silver, and so be it to him. If he is sanctified by the Lord from the fields of his possession, then his price will be according to his sowing, to sow that field, like fifty bushels of barley, thirty didrachms of silver. And if he redeems his field, sanctified by the Lord, let him add five parts of the price of its silver, and so be it to him. If he does not redeem the field and gives the field to his friend, let him not redeem her, so that the field may be holy and praiseworthy for the past abandonment of the Lord, like the land called by the priest, so that their possession will be forever and ever (Lev. 27:14-16, 19-21). 72 From this: the cities of the Levites and the authorities and the villages of their cities, possessions and lessons and tributes and duties, may the Levites always be like the city of the Levites, their possession among the children of Israel, and the villages named in their cities, may they not be sold or given away, for their possession is eternal. (Lev.27:22, 32–34). 73 From the life of the pious and equal-to-the-apostles great king Constantine and his Christ-loving and equal-to-the-apostles mother Helen: this whole thing they diligently arranged in a good and pious manner. holy and blessed Queen Helena, mother of the blessed great King Constantine, gave many treasures, cities and villages to churches and other countless countless treasures, and decorated the holy icons and sacred vessels with gold and silver and stone and beads; there is a lot of gold and countless amounts distributed to churches and the poor; Holy Patriarch Macarius with many gifts in the mail. From the same thing: the speech of blessed Constantine the Tsar: throughout their universal churches, maintenance for the sake of and fortress by their lordships - acquisitions, land, villages and grapes and lakes, combining duties, dah. 74 And by divine and our command, in the eastern and western and southern countries and throughout the entire universe, where Orthodoxy the kings and princes and rulers under us possess, the saint will rule, and no secular rank will dare to touch church duties, we conjure by God and by His divine command and our command we affirm immutably and observed to be even until the end of this century. From this: all this, even for the sake of divine and many instructions, was established and commanded by the sacred and our scriptures until the end of this world, even throughout the entire universe, the church duties given by the saint are inviolable and unshakable, we command to remain. Moreover, before the living God and who commanded 75 us to reign and before His terrible judgment, let us testify for the sake of the divine and ours for the sake of this royal instruction to all our successors, like us who want to be king, all the thousands, all the centurions and all the nobles and the entire most extensive synclite of the clan of our kingdom, and everyone who has been king and prince throughout the world and the power of us, and everyone like us throughout the universe of the people who now exist and then want to be throughout the whole of life, not one of these will be changed or transformed for the sake of an image, even by the divine and our royal command of the sacred saints of the Roman Church and to all who are under it by the saint, throughout the entire universe, who are given, so that no one dares to destroy or touch, or in any way annoy.” “If you want to know more about this, let him read the spiritual words of the pious and great Tsar Constantine and the words of praise about him and others about him. And if the cities and authorities and villages and grapes and lakes and duties were indecent and unprofitable for the divine churches, the holy fathers of the first council would not have remained silent, but they would have forbidden Tsar Constantine in every possible way to do such a thing, and not only not forbidden, but also holy to the Lord and commendably and favorably favored.” “And from the first pious Tsar Constantine, and after him, under the pious kings reigning in the city of Constantine, the saints and monasteries held cities and villages, and lands and now hold them in those same Orthodox countries that reign. Otherwise, all the councils of saints were forbidden by the 76 saint and the monastery of villages and church lands to neither sell nor give away, and this was confirmed by great terrible oaths [The same rule in Carthage Council 32, 33, the fourth council, canon 24, the fifth cathedral ruled against those who offend the saints of God’s church, Justinian’s canon 14, 15, etc. in Sardicia rule 14, Justinian rule 30, seventh gathering rule 12, 18]. 77 And in Spiridonov of Trimythia the life was written, and in Grigoriev the Theologian’s life was written, and in Chrysostom the life was written, and in Besedovitsa it was written that the villages were churched, it is also revealed in the life of St. Savin, the bishop and miracle worker. Likewise, villages had monasteries in previous years, after the great Anthony: our venerable and great father Gelasius the Wonderworker had villages, and Athanasius of Athonia had villages, and Theodore of Studi had villages, and Saint Simion the new theologian in his writing reveals that from villages and vineyards monasteries and laurels will be established. And in our land, the miracle workers Anthony the Great and Theodosius of Pechersk, and Varlaam of Novograd, and Dionysius and Demetrius of Vologda - all had villages. Likewise, the saints of Rust in Kyiv, and after them Saint Peter the Wonderworker and Theognostus and Alexei the Wonderworker, all cities and authorities and villages had power. And Saint Alexei the miracle worker, Metropolitan of All Russia, created many monasteries and provided them with lands and waters. And the blessed great Vladimer and his son Grand Duke Yaroslav gave towns and villages to the saints and monasteries, and to the holy churches and to this day the great princes of Rust gave piety and love for Christ - power, villages, lands, waters, and fisheries. And this is holy to the Lord and favorable and praiseworthy, and we bless this, and praise it, and keep it.” Probably the Grand Duke demanded some additional explanation; at least, the council once again sent the same clerk Levash to him with a new report, in which the contents of the first were repeated verbatim, and only said in much more detail about the Russian princes who gave the Church volosts and villages, namely: “it’s the same in our Russian countries, under your ancestors the great princes, under the Grand Duke Vladimir and under his son the Grand Duke Yaroslav, and after them under the Grand Duke Vsevolod and under the Grand Duke Ivan, the grandson of Blessed Alexander, who was in the years of the great holy wonderworker Peter, Metropolitan of All Russia, even to this day, saints and monasteries, cities, authorities, settlements and villages, and courts, and councils, and duties, and dues, and church tributes held. By divine command and instruction and by the divine rule of the holy apostles and holy fathers and equal-to-the-apostles Christ-loving kings and according to your ancestors, 78 equal-to-the-apostles Christ-loving Grand Duke Vladimir. and his son, Grand Duke Yaroslav, to the rules and affirmation, as in their rules it truly says: “If anyone transgresses, says, these rules, as we ruled according to the holy apostles and the holy fathers by the rule and the first pious kings - whoever has the power to transgress these rules, or my children, or my grandsons, or my great-grandsons, or according to them from my family, or from the boyars, wherever you are, or in which towns there are boyars and governors, or governors, or judges, or tiunis, or anyone else: if they offend, or interfere with anything that belongs to the church, or in courts and councils and in duties and tithes of the saints, they will be cursed in this age and in the future.” And according to the divine commands, established by the holy fathers and the Equal-to-the-Apostles Christ-loving kings and all the holy holy councils in the Greek, as well as in our Russian countries, even to this day, the saints and monasteries of the earth have held and are holding, but they do not dare to give them away and are not pleased, since all such church acquisitions - God's essence are acquisitions, have been entrusted and named and given to God, and not for sale, nor given away, nor accepted by anyone ever for ever and ever, and indestructible to be (and) to be observed, as sanctified by the Lord, and favorable, and praiseworthy. And we, in humility, please this, and praise it, and hold it.” 79 From this answer we learn in part how the question of church property was raised at the council by the Grand Duke himself. First of all, it is obvious that the matter was not only about monastic estates (against which non-covetous people fought), but also about hierarchal or bishop’s estates. Further, the entire course of the case and the entire content of the answer show that the Grand Duke proposed to the spiritual hierarchy some kind of voluntary deal on the subject of church and monastic estates, to which the council, due to the canonical grounds it cited, could not agree (“they do not dare and do not favor giving them away”). This deal could consist, for example, in replacing the estates with another, which was then actually issued to many churches and monasteries either with money from the treasury, or (which was more often) in kind from the palace reserves. This formulation of the question was also in agreement with the demands of the non-covetous, who (as we have seen) did not deprive the monks of the right to feed on “alms from the lovers of Christ,” which also meant charity from the government. 80 Finally, the very fact that the Grand Duke, along with the monastic estates, also touched upon the bishop’s estates, takes away any possibility from the assumption that the matter was about the unconditional secularization of all land holdings of the clergy, without any preliminary obligations on the part of the sovereign to provide the Church with other means of maintenance. 81 Ivan III did not even take such an extreme measure regarding the Novgorod ruler and the monasteries, who still had enough land left and after distributing it twice to the serving people, 82 and the Sofia cathedral clergy in 1504 even received a generous grant from all Novgorod pyatins. 83 Didn’t the Grand Duke now demand only a certain part of the lands from bishops and monasteries, especially those rich in estates? The conciliar response says nothing against this assumption. Having received a triple refusal from the cathedral, the Grand Duke no longer dared to renew his claims. Contemporaries even claim that “something divine” happened to him then. 84 The following year, the Grand Duke, as if to prove his sincere repentance for his intention to encroach on church property, gave Metropolitan Simon two letters of non-conviction, covering almost all of the metropolitan estates. 85 But even then it was well understood that the example of Ivan III and the “insults” that he partly did, and partly planned to do to the Church, could sooner or later be repeated again. In view of this possibility, in Novgorod, probably soon after the second confiscation of lands from the local clergy, and even before 1503, the following anathematism was included in the “Rite of Orthodoxy” or “Synodikon”, annually proclaimed in the first week of Lent: “all those who rule and offend the saints of God to the church and monastery, taking away from them the villages and grapes given to them, If they do not cease from such an undertaking, let them be cursed.”86 Other dioceses followed the example of Novgorod in this regard. 87 It is not clear from anywhere that Ivan III was particularly interested in that side of the issue of monastic estates, which his allies, the non-covetous people, had in mind exclusively. It seems that this side occupied him only as much as it served as a justification for attempts at secularization. In any case, the reign of Ivan III does not introduce any legislative measures that, without affecting the property rights of monasteries to the lands belonging to them, would be directed only against morally tempting phenomena in the life of patrimonial-secular monasticism. 88 However, after the council of 1503, the Grand Duke did not have time to do anything important in this regard: in 1505 he died, but the idea that he had so long and persistently pursued did not die with him; it moved only from the field of administrative and legislative measures to the field of literary disputes, in which it mainly moved throughout the reign of Vasily Ivanovich. III. Works written after the council of 1503 in defense of church and monastic property. – Dispute with Joseph of Volotsky, monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev. – Maxim the Greek, supporter of Vassian. – The attitude of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich towards the disputants. Why did he not touch the patrimonial rights of the clergy? – The fall of Vassian and Maxim and the conciliar trial of them. Subordination of monasteries to state control No more than three years passed after the council of 1503, when Joseph of Volotsky again had to fight for the inviolability of monastic property, this time defending his own monastery from the oppression of the local appanage prince. This struggle, as we have already seen, began with Joseph transferring his monastery under the direct patronage of the Grand Duke. Since this act was a violation of the patrimonial rights of the Volokolamsk prince and the saintly rights of the Novgorod archbishop, Joseph was subjected to strong censure from the zealots of the church-hierarchical order and enemies of Moscow centralization, especially when the Novgorod ruler Serapion, who excommunicated “his monk” from the Church, was deprived of his see for this. Even friends and admirers of the Volokolamsk abbot doubted his rightness and found it best if, without starting a seductive struggle with his bishop and prince, he left the monastery and retired to another place. In response to such accusations, Joseph wrote to one of his Moscow friends, boyar Boris Vasilyevich Kutuzov: “I really wanted to leave the monastery, but when I told the brethren about this, they began to tell me: “God will punish your soul if the Church of the Most Pure One is empty, because the monastery was built by the Most Pure One, and Prince Fedorov has nothing. 89 Do you know how many good people gave money and sat down, and ordered to write themselves into eternal remembrance and set food for themselves. If you leave the monastery, then the memory of all of them will perish, and we will all go to the courtyards. But we gave all our belongings to the Most Pure One, and not to the prince, and hoped that you would rest us until death and remember us after death.” And I was afraid of the judgment of God (Joseph continues) and did not dare to leave the monastery and go away, and the monastery to be plundered, because the divine scriptures do not command to do so: our venerable and God-bearing fathers, shepherds and teachers, had a feat and care for the divine churches and monasteries, did not hand them over to plunder and did not leave them to desolation, but fought for them to death, and those who could, passed from the smaller kings to the larger ones and received defense from them, and the large kings stood up for churches and monasteries in the patrimony of the smaller kings.” In conclusion, Joseph offers. Kutuzov to read his message, written on the same occasion to Ivan Tretyakov, “where it is truly shown what destruction and oath comes to those who plunder church property and rob holy churches and monasteries, and to those who contribute to them.” 90 This last message actually contains quite a few examples from church history to prove the inviolability of monastery property and to refute the words of Novgorod Archbishop Serapion: “Prince Fedor is free in his monastery: he wants, he robs, he wants, he favors.” 91 But in both of these messages the idea of ​​​​the inalienability of monastic property is developed only in passing, along with many other points that Joseph had to prove regarding his enmity with Serapion. Meanwhile, the words of the Novogorod ruler, as an expression of an ancient and general legal view, were repeated so often that the defender of the monastery property had to take special care to refute them. Indeed, Joseph was not slow to write a special treatise on the inviolability of monastic property, which has much in common with the letter to Tretyakov and still remains in manuscript. “Many have heard - this is how the author begins his reasoning - that it is not a sin to take anything from a monastery. For this reason, for the sake of receiving from the nobles, I really do not love me and say: did you bring the stink with you? does not give monastery! Will this impoverish the monastery? And the tongue, fearing the divine rules, did not obey the speech of those who do not know the divine scripture, but even if they do know, they are darkened by covetousness. Divine Scripture does not command us to take anything innocent from ordinary people.” A reference follows to John Chrysostom and to examples from biblical and church history that prove this truth. “And those who offend the Church of God,” Joseph continues, and from the monasteries who want to take something, what kind of destruction comes, we will write about this in advance. Formerly, monasteries and churches are called prayers of God: the abbot and his brethren pray to God for the sovereign and for his boyars, and for all the peasants, and accept alms from them. But to give the abbot a monastery is a waste. He writes fearfully: whoever squanders church property, except for the poor and the poor and the captives and his own necessary monastic needs, is a blasphemer; and whoever wants to take something from the monastery is an offender. The sacred rules swear an oath on such people.” The oath “against those who offend the holy churches and monasteries of God”, already known to us from the conciliar response of 1503, is cited, allegedly uttered by the fifth ecumenical council in a special rule. “And that rule was written by the great Orthodox Tsar Austinian and with him four patriarchs and the Pope of Rome, and one hundred and sixty and five saints. And not one of them wrote that it would not be a sin to charge a hedgehog from the monastery, but they wrote: “If they themselves wear the crown; and not only the nobles (will take something from the monastery), let them be cursed.” And when the Netis say: “We do not eat by force; It is appropriate for us to give to the abbot,” then they forget that it is written: “if the abbot begins to squander church estates, he is a blasphemer and will fly out of the monastery.” A link follows to Nikon the Montenegrin, from whom this was written, and who, according to the author, was “a deified man, given the gift of teaching from the Holy Spirit, and the Most Holy Theotokos herself entrusted him with teaching, the word, and from all the patriarch and bishop his teaching was blessed.” However, Nikon, in a letter to the Antiochian prince Marape, who offended the monasteries, did not dare to write that “you are free in this, sovereign,” but forbade and forbade him, sin laid sacrilege on him and brought torment.” And other princes, who sinned like Marapa, already in the present century received an merciless execution from the Lord Christ, and in the future - even more terrible and cruel torment in unquenchable fire.” Examples are given from the lives or, more precisely, from the “miracles” found in the lives of saints; Stephen of Serbia, Leonty of Rostov (about the boyar Zacharias, who appropriated part of the land of the Rostov cathedral church), the Great Martyr Mina (about the firewood given to the church of the saint, and about the boar stolen from the church flock), Savva the Sanctified (about the shepherds who did dirty tricks on the monastery flock), Theodosius of Pechersk (about the robbers who came to rob the monastery village), Euthymius the Great (about the refectory servant who stole monastery money, about the monk who stole altar things, and about the Saracen who damaged the monastery well). Each of these miracles represents a formidable example, a divine punishment that strikes sacrilege, - especially the miracles of Stephen of Serbia, which Joseph retells in his letter to Tretyakov: so they coincided with the occasion for which both of these works were written, and so answered the spirit of the author himself! The Serbian wonderworker punished precisely the princes who raised their hands on church property and were generally quite similar to the Volokolamsk prince Theodore Borisovich. One of them, who decided to take for himself all the property of the monastery in which the relics of St. Stephen, was punished in the following way: one day, when he was riding to the monastery on horseback, the wonderworker Stephen appears to him, throws him off his horse to the ground, and plunges two great nails into his larynx, going even to his chest. In response to the questions of the people who came running to his aid, he ordered to call a blacksmith to remove the nails from his larynx: “and with such malice he has perverted his cursed soul.” Even more terrible was the execution of another prince, named Yunets, who also wanted to take possession of all the riches of the monastery of St. Stephen, and to the abbot and monks “to give a small portion of bread and other needs.” Having learned about this intention, the abbot began to pray to St. To King Stephen: “See our bitterness, your people, Christ’s warrior! see the cloud of sorrows covering us! see the last enslavement of your property! See, how you created this monastery for God in a dwelling, but the nasty Youth ate the den for robbers! see and don’t be silent!” At the same hour, the Youth, sleeping in the camp in the midst of his army, dreams that he is going to the monastery of the saint; at the church doors he was met by a certain terrible man, decorated with church robes, with a long and gray beard and with a lamp in his hand, and approaching the Young Man, he hit him in the face with this lamp so hard that it broke. The young man fled, but the terrible man caught up with him and hit him on the ridge with the rest of the lamp, saying: “Behold your reward, for you have learned not to be angry with my monastery.” Roaring like a wounded animal, the Youth jumped up from his sleep with terrible pain in his limbs that had been struck. He was as if on fire, and in this state he was brought to the monastery of St. Stefan, where he lay for seven weeks, “decaying flesh and bone-pierced places.” The very death of the sacrilegious prince was extraordinary: “not first will he give up his soul, then the body will decay, but the body will be destroyed first, but the soul is held inward in a threatening and unusual way, and will give up his very soul for the punishment of others.” – Behind these and the above-mentioned miracles from the lives of the saints come the canonical rules and laws of the Greek kings on the inalienability and inalienability of church property, namely: the fourth ecumenical council rule 24, the Carthaginian - 26 and 33rd, Cyril of Alexandria - 2nd from the letter to Domnus, an excerpt from the canonical letter of Nikon the Montenegrin to Prince Marapa, from the Patericon about Abba Gelasius, from the acts of martyrdom of St. Arefs, from the deed of gift of Constantine the Great, the full text of the rule of the fifth ecumenical council “on those who offend the church,” and, finally, again an excerpt from the message of Nikon the Montenegrin. A general overview of the content of all the extracts presented or just indicated by us is made in the very table of contents of the treatise, which we present here in full: “as it is not appropriate for the holy churches of God and monasteries to create insults and violence and to steal property and acquire them and these for the sake of admiring God; and those who adore God in these and anger His goodness will be subject to considerable misfortune both in this age and in the future, and will suffer a great deal (great?) of misfortune and torment; but if they enter such a thing, by power or by passion, or into a princely or into the kinship and splendor of such a thing, they are consumed by fire and even from various collected profits are destroyed. Church and monastic, as well as monastic and their works and fruits, all of God’s essence is sanctified, they are not wasted on anything else, except for the wretched and strange and captives and such, likewise for church needs and monastic and monastic needs, both lower in this through needs. 92 So, the strictest economy in the use of monastic property and income, as the property of God, the plunder or waste of which is sacrilege, this is the idea for which Joseph now advocated against his appanage prince and even against the diocesan bishop! The latter, obviously, adhered to other rules, although (when he was still the Trinity abbot) he strongly supported Joseph at the council of 1503. 93 But now, having become the ruler of Novgorod, Serapion, according to the testimony of the Volokolamsk abbot, showed an example of reprehensible wastefulness in the use of church income: “he distributed them to the boyars and boyars’ children, and depleted other church property; He opened the cellars to drunkards and troublemakers, and they, having drunk, call him saint, sovereign. Yes, there was nothing left to give and nothing to drink, and therefore he wanted to leave power. But you know, sir (Joseph wrote this to Tretyakov): if a simple person gives away his wealth, not that of the church, to the rich and drunkards... otherwise it is not praiseworthy either from God or from man; and if an archbishop or a bishop should crush the church property not for the poor, but for the rich and drunkards... this is forbidden by the correct law, and the blasphemers are condemned by the court for doing such a thing.” 94 It is impossible not to notice that all of Joseph’s works that we have examined are distinguished by a certain one-sidedness and, so to speak, monotony: he is almost exclusively occupied with the thought of supernatural executions to which robbers of church property are subjected as blasphemers. However, the very case on which Joseph now wrote did not give rise to general and comprehensive discussions about the inviolability of the property rights of the Church. This is not the case with an essay written in 1505, on behalf of some Russian archbishop, by an unknown author, under the following title: “a word briefly against those who stand in and take away sacred things, movable and immovable, the conciliar Churches, against the salvation of their souls, they dare to despise the commandments of God and the Church and the Orthodox kings and great princes of the true the law is ruined by an oath.” What is meant here is no longer a particular case of violation of the property rights of the Church, but the general spirit of the times, which everywhere directed Christian governments towards the secularization of church property. “The rulers of our time,” says the author, starting his argument, in different countries of the world, not only do not give their own, but even the essence is sanctified by the Orthodox leaders of the Church and Christ, they dare to take away and add to their estates, to fill their treasures by learning.” In accordance with this broad view of the subject, the author naturally puts the question of the property rights of the Church in close connection with the general question of the relationship of the Church to the state. The idea of ​​the inalienability of “things of the Church” is affirmed by our canonist not only on the positive grounds contained in the Bible, in conciliar definitions and in the legislation of Christian sovereigns, but also on the general principles of church and state law, on the concepts of the essence and mutual relationship of authorities - temporal and spiritual. Both of these powers, says the author, “are derived from divine power, and there is only worldly power under spiritual power, since there is spiritual dignity presupposed by God.” From here the conclusion naturally follows that in the event of an encroachment by worldly power on the property rights of the Church, spiritual power should not yield, on the contrary, it must fight even to the point of shedding blood: “before, according to the apostolic teaching, it is more appropriate to obey God than man. For the rulers of the world are men: they can take away the body, but not the soul.” The author is even aware of the famous medieval Latin theory about the two swords at the disposal of the Church. Citing the well-known words from the Evangelist Luke (Luke 22:28), on which this theory is built, our unknown canonist argues: “here we understand that there is a need, as the sword is a sword. There is only one material sword, which Peter the Apostle had when he cut off the ear of Malchus in Vertograd: that sword is worthy for the shepherds of the church to have the protection of their Church, even to the point of bloodshed, even if only with a spiritual sword it achieves nothing. The second sword is spiritual, which the Lord gave to Peter and those who follow him, saying: “Even if he listens to you, let you be as a pagan and a sinner” (sic), in the image of words, with the power to bind and decide, Christ gave to his disciples the power of excommunication and anathema of tradition. And we will call this power the sword of the Spirit. With this sword the shepherd of the Church deserves to defend himself and defend himself first. If, after the third punishment, the disobedient ones do not obey the commandment and remain resistant, not wanting to be punished, nor bend their proud shepherd and obey Christ: then with the help of the shoulders of the world (brachium saculare) they can act with a material sword, the forces are resistant to disgust.” 95 It cannot be said that this theory did not have its practical application in our country; let us only recall examples of the transfer of monasteries from the power of appanage princes to the power of the strongest Russian sovereigns, the Grand Dukes of Moscow. Meanwhile, in the wilderness of the Trans-Volga desert, strong opposition was being prepared to the defenders of the patrimonial rights of monasticism. Here, while in silence, all the grounds on which the cathedral verdict of 1503 on the inalienability of monastic estates was affirmed were critically examined. The Monk Nilus of Sorsky himself wrote about his studies in the desert: “with our disciples we test the lives of the saints and other scriptures and, according to our reason, we copy for ourselves for the sake of pleasing God and the salvation of the soul.” 96 The critical direction and ultimate goal of these studies - to prove the superiority of the non-acquisitive skete life over the patrimonial-secular life of other monasteries - was also known to the Monk Joseph of Volotsky. It was not for nothing that he accused Nil of Sorsky of blaspheming Russian miracle workers, of disbelieving their miracles, and of distorting their lives. 97 Neil did not respond to these accusations, just as he generally did not like to engage in direct and open literary polemics against patrimonial-secular monasticism. 98 His zealous disciple, the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev, took upon himself the defense of his good name and, at the same time, the propaganda of the ideas of the Sorsk ascetic. Soon after the death of his teacher (in 1508), he was summoned by Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to Moscow, for permanent residence in the Simonov Monastery. 99 Strong in spirit and word, Vassian managed to endear himself to the sovereign so much that, according to his contemporaries, he called him nothing more than “a support for his power, a softener for his heart and a calmer for his anger, the joy of conversation and the good of his soul, the sail of sorrows and the teacher of unfeigned love.” 100 The meek, ascetic-minded abbot of the Simon Monastery, Varlaam, also fell in love with our hermit, and in 1511 he was installed (perhaps at the request of Vassian) as metropolitan. 101 Taking advantage of his position, Vassian “began to fight against his elder Nile so that the monasteries would not have villages.” He waged this struggle both in oral conversations with the Grand Duke, 102 and in written polemics against Joseph of Volotsky, who, in the matter of transferring his monastery to the Moscow state, was now in a rather difficult position. The main idea of ​​Vassianova’s polemic against monastic estates is not new. It consists of contrasting monastic vows with the real life of monks who own lands and villages, and, we must agree, our non-covetous man masterfully draws these contrasts. “The Lord said,” he writes against Joseph: “Give away your possessions. And we, having entered the monastery, do not stop, out of our madness, in every possible way to acquire for ourselves other people’s villages and estates, either shamelessly begging from the nobles with flattery, or buying. Having thus become, contrary to the commandment, the masters of other people's estates, we consider it a great truth and virtue to constantly increase them, and, instead of remaining silent and feeding on our handicrafts and labors, we constantly travel around the cities and look into the hands of the rich, caressing them in every possible way, pleasing them in every way, in order to somehow get from them a village, or a hamlet, or money, or some kind of animal. The Lord commands: give to the poor. And we, having become infected with an insatiable love of money, insult our brothers living in our villages in various ways, offend them with unjust exactions, impose upon them interest upon interest, and show no mercy to them in any way. And if they do not have the strength to give us the surplus, then we, without pity, deprive them of their property, take away their cow or horse, and we drive ourselves with their wives and children, like filthy infidels, far from our borders, and, having betrayed others to the princely power, we bring them to final ruin... And here’s another thing - what a nasty thing! Monks, whom the Lord commanded to be the salt of the earth, through imitation of the apostolic virtues, these monks, forgetting their vow and rejecting all reverence, already in gray old age, rise from their monasteries and jostle in worldly courts, either competing with wretched people about their many-liable loans, or suing their neighbors about the boundaries of lands and villages” 103 From this strictly evangelical point of view, Vassian not only constantly touches on the national economic side of the issue, but also refutes all the grounds on which defenders of the patrimonial rights of monasticism usually relied. Thus, against historical and practical grounds, he objects: “Try and understand, which of those who have shone in holiness and built monasteries from time immemorial took care to acquire villages for their monastery? Who begged the kings and princes for benefits for themselves or for insults to the surrounding villagers? Who had a dispute with someone about the boundaries of lands, or tormented human bodies with a whip, or put them in chains, or took away property from brothers, torturing their own interest, as those who present themselves as miracle workers do now? Neither Pachomius, nor Euthymius, nor Sava, nor Gerasim, nor Athanasius of Athos,” - not one of them adhered to such rules, nor prescribed anything similar to his disciples.” 104 Vassian also asserts regarding “our Russian leaders of monasticism and miracle workers” - Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk, Varlaam of Novgorod, Sergius of Radonezh. Dionysius Glushitsky, Dmitry Prilutsky and Pavel Komelsky. 105 “If you carefully read their lives,” writes the non-possessor, you cannot help but see that they lived in extreme poverty, so that they often did not even have a day’s bread; however, their monasteries did not become desolate from poverty, but grew and prospered in everything, filled with monks who worked with their own hands and ate their bread by the sweat of their brow. 106 Vassian's opponents immediately noticed the weak side of this objection. Referring to the example of the ancient miracle workers, who did not take lands and villages for their monasteries, our non-acquisitor was guided exclusively by their lives, i.e. the initial legends about the life of the fathers of Russian monasticism, 107 but did not pay attention to the later section of “miracles”, from which, as we have seen, Joseph Volotsky mainly drew his historical evidence. This explains the meaning of the accusation that the zealous defender of monastic land ownership leveled against non-covetous people: “Oh, how about Nile and his disciple Vassian, who blasphemed not only the miracle workers in the Russian land, but also the former miracle workers in ancient times and in the local lands, they did not believe in their miracles and swept away their miracles from the scriptures.” Responding to this accusation, Vassian wrote: “You lie against me, Joseph, and against my elder Nile, as if we have blasphemed all the miracle workers. We honor the Kyiv and all Russian miracle workers and call them standard bearers... because they kept the commandments of God and lived according to the Gospel and the Apostle, and not as you live with your disciples. You live not only like the laity, but also worse than them... However, you, Joseph, call yourself a saint and standard-bearer, having the gift of prophecy, and your disciples tell the same thing about you. It is written about such miracle workers in Nikon’s book, in the 43rd word: “these are demonic miracles, performed by God’s permission, God knows by what destinies, but we do not need to believe in such miracles.” But Elder Nil did not throw out miracles from the lives of the holy wonderworkers; on the contrary, he corrected them from other correct lists. And you, Joseph, lie against him like a misanthrope.” 108 In defense of the inviolability of monastic estates, they most often pointed to the fact that most of them belonged to monasteries by refusal “for the eternal remembrance of the soul,” so that the monks were only the guardians and stewards of other people’s property, given to God “for the inheritance of eternal cronyism, na. memory of the last generation." To this objection, Vassian answered Joseph: “Let us not justify ourselves by the fact that the noble princes refused villages to monasteries for the salvation of their souls and as a memorial for their parents, so that the refusers themselves cannot take back what was given to God. And you are not ashamed to refer to princely piety and, deceiving yourself, to say that you are the builder not of your own, but of someone else’s property! What benefit can there be to the pious princes who brought all this to God if you use their offerings unrighteously and covetously, completely contrary to their pious intentions? You yourself abound in wealth and overeat beyond your monastic needs, while our peasant brothers, working for you in your villages, live in extreme poverty... How well you pay the faithful princes for their pious offerings! While they brought their property to God so that His saints, having everything they needed, could freely practice prayer and silence, and spend the surplus from their annual income with love on the poor and wanderers, you, out of great madness, pride and ingratitude, having despised the God-loving intention of the pious princes, take all the annual surplus for yourself: either you turn it into money to give at interest, or store it in storerooms so that later, during a famine, you can sell it at a high price.” 109 Finally, the entire Kormchaya Book, with its generally recognized “divine” authority, served as a justification for the patrimonial life of Russian monasteries. Vassian could not do without the Helmsman in his polemics. But while reading this book, he noticed contradictions in it. “In some of the canons of the saints, the father,” he wrote, namely in canons 17 and 11 of the seventh council, in canons 1 and 2 of the double council, in canons 3 and 4 of the Council of Chalcedon and in the second chapter of the letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Domnus, monks were not ordered to interfere in worldly affairs, nor in villages, nor in anything like that. And in the 24th rule of the same Council of Chalcedon, writings were made at the monasteries of the village; too – in Canon 18 of the Seventh Council. Who else should we believe and what should we allow? “- the non-possessor asks himself and, without further ado, answers: “nothing can resolve this contradiction except the Gospel and the Apostle and the holy rules,” i.e. those who agree with the Gospel and the Apostle! From here the idea arose for Vassian to compose a new edition of the Helmsman, in which there would not be such a contradiction - and so he goes to Metropolitan Varlaam and the entire consecrated council of spiritual authorities and reports “that in the holy rules there is something contrary to the Gospel and the Apostle and the holy father’s life,” but that he, Vassian, “does not dare to put it on his soul” and asks for the saint’s blessing to write a new book of rules. 110 The blessing was given, but with the condition “not to put anything out” (not to throw out) from the Helmsman: “for, said Metropolitan Varlaam, who clearly sympathized with our non-covetous, he who has a chaste mind will adhere to the best, whatever pleases God; That’s what we want and we bless.” 111 Fulfilling this condition and at the same time not losing sight of his polemical goal, Vassian chose as the original for his Kormcha the list of the Serbian edition, which was then in the Simonovsky library, which contained only canons set out in the system of the Photius nomocanon, but there were no other (non-canonical) articles, especially favorable to the patrimonial rights of monasticism. True, in the canons Vassian encountered “monastic villages” more than once, but he rightly explained this expression in a sense unfavorable for the patrimonial life of Russian monasteries, which owned villages as private property, without any control from the highest church authorities. “Also, monastery villages are called rules,” the non-covetous noted after the 11th facet of the Photius nomocanon, where all such rules are summarized, “but he does not command the monk to own them, but the villages given to them from the cathedral church, by their bishop, are kept by the cathedral churches by the icon, and are fed from him with all sorts of needs, by command from the bishop, them, or by alms from the lovers of Christ, if they are not satisfied with their handicrafts.” Vassian wrote his Helmsman in 1517. 112 The following year Maxim the Greek came to us, and on the issue of monastic estates he took the side of our non-covetous people. Vassian acquired in the person of the Holy Mountain the necessary assistant for comparing the Slavic Helmsman with the Greek and outlined the results of this comparison in a special canonical treatise, which he placed at the end of his Helmsman, under the title: “a collection of a certain elder, to remember his promise (i.e., monastic vow), from holy scripture, about the rejection of the world.” 113 Here our non-acquisitive person already decisively rejects the old Slavic text of the rules that spoke about monastic villages. “If,” he argues, in our Russian rules it is written: “villages to monasteries,” then this is tempting, judging by the divine scripture, and has anyone falsely added to the holy rules in our Russian rules that monasteries should keep villages? But in the Greek Nomokonon of the Moscow cathedral church, which was taken from Tsariagrad by Metropolitan Photius, in the same rules, villages near monasteries were not ordered to be kept.” What follows is a new translation of three conciliar rules (IV Ecumenical 24, VII Ecumenical 12 and 18), made for Vassian by Maximus the Greek. 114 In this translation, the expression: “monastic villages” is replaced by another: “village suburb”, about which it is noted: “this is interpreted (i.e., this is how it is translated) proasion (προάστειον), that is, arable land and grapevines, and not villages with everyday Christians.” 115 From here it is clear why the former expression: “monastic villages” so confused Elder Vassian: he understood it the same way as the defenders of the monastic estates, i.e. in the sense of lands inhabited by the taxing peasantry. But now, having seen, with the help of Maxim, the difference in the landowning life of monasteries in Greece and Russia, our non-covetous man began to openly call the ancient Slavic rules that spoke about monastic villages “crivils, not rules.” It is clear, however, that the Helmsman, written in such a polemical spirit, could not enter into general church use, even if Metropolitan Varlaam personally sympathized with the ideas of Nilus of Sorsky. It was approved only as an edifying book, for those who, in the words of the Metropolitan, had “a chaste mind and a willingness to adhere to the best that pleases God.” So Vassian himself later said that he wrote his Helmsman, in fact, for his cell use, in memory of his monastic vows and for the salvation of his soul. 116 However, persuading the Grand Duke to take away the patrimony from the monasteries, our non-possessor delivered to him a list of her Helmsman. 117 Vassian's polemics were directed exclusively against monastic estates. He did not deny the right of bishops and parish churches to own lands and lands, but demanded only strictly canonical changes in the management and use of church revenues: “in cathedral churches and in lay churches, he wrote, the holy rules allow holding lands, but neither the bishop nor the priests should own them, but the steward should be in charge of all church property, and give from it, with the bishop’s report and with the consent of the entire consecrated council of priests, church clerks - everyone, as much as they need, including the poor and wretched, ransom prisoners and help everyone living in squalor. For this purpose, it is precisely the lovers of Christ who bring their property and wealth to the cathedral and secular churches.” 118 As a model for the Russian rulers, Vassian points to the example of the ancient saints, who, using church wealth for their canonical purpose, themselves personally strictly observed the Gospel commandment of non-covetousness. “Thus, Basil the Great, in his letter to Amphiloxius, writes that he does not have at his disposal a sufficient number of servants necessary for the timely transmission of letters. Before today’s saints, Vassian exclaims, how many dressed-up servants are worth, ready for every call of their masters! This is not enough, they keep with them many coat-bearers (bailiffs, week workers, customers, etc.), through whom they scourge, torture and in every possible way insult the priests and laity who are on trial before them... Blessed John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria, despite the fact that he was the head of one of the richest churches, did not have a fur coat; Having bought this robe for himself, the saint covered himself with it only for one night, and in the morning he ordered it to be sold and the money given to the poor... The current primates, owning such great church property, invent for themselves an endless variety of clothes and foods, but have no care for the Christian brothers who are perishing from cold and hunger. While the divine rules instruct bishops, under pain of deposition, to use church property to help the poor and needy, our saints give church money at interest to the poor and rich, and those who are unable to pay back the interest are ultimately ruined.” 119 “So,” says Vassian, summing up his entire polemic, do not say that our goal is for the monasteries to be deserted and the churches of God to be left without leaders. We wish and pray to God that the love of money, covetousness, cruelty and inhumanity that have now settled in them will move away from God’s holy churches and monasteries. We want the monks to live in complete non-covetousness, in accordance with their vows, in fervent prayer, in chaste silence, doing handicrafts, according to the image and charter originally handed down by the holy fathers... And it is fitting for the saints of God, putting aside all worldly arrogance, to arrange church affairs, as if in the eyes of God himself, as builders and servants of God, and not as rulers and to the tyrants of people... No, we wish for the churches of God not desolation, as you slander me, but correction and a return to their former spiritual beauty and kindness, which the primates, overcome by pride and vanity, voluntarily lost... What am I doing that is inappropriate or contrary to the holy scriptures if I talk about this with God-loving princes, bitterly mourning the church disorder? I do not corrupt Christ-loving princes with the word of God, but those who transgress God’s commandments and follow human traditions are the ones who seduce and confuse the people of God.” 120 Vassian explains the personal motives of his polemics as follows: “you call me shameless and impudent in my tongue. But what should I do? The need befalls me, enlightened by the Holy Scriptures, to preach to all people the way of salvation. How do I offend you if I talk to you about my salvation and yours? I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, to talk about this. From the beginning, the Church of the Savior was full of those who spoke about malice and virtue and were hated for the truth - not only bishops, priests and other spiritual ranks, but also simple monks and laymen who showed the zeal of God... So, will you understand that my words against those who break their vows and live disorderly come from spiritual love, and not from excessive curiosity, as you unfairly think? But I am far from being offended by our reproaches, and I pray to the Lord of all that I may be covered with even greater reproaches from you.” 121 However, these humble words do not fit well with the general tone of Vassian’s polemics and with the abusive names with which he so often showers his literary opponent. 122 He transferred his hatred of Joseph to his monastery, which, they say, he even wanted to ruin, and to all the Volokolamsk tonsures, whom, as he himself admitted, he did not allow into his cell. However, justice requires us to note that the enmity was mutual. Joseph, according to the testimony of one of his impartial disciples, 123 “removed all the blessings from the Kirillov Monastery” (where Patrikeev took monastic vows and where the entire party of non-covetous people came from), and Vassian, already after the death of his opponent (1515), addressed him with the following reproach: “You did not ask for forgiveness from us, insulting us and embarrassing us, nor did you forgive us, departing on the eternal path!” 124 The writings of Vassianov’s literary ally, Maxim the Greek, bear a different character. He stood up for a pure idea; he has no personal enmity with anyone, and there is no harsh abuse against the defenders of the monastery estates. He calmly develops his thoughts either in a “conversation with his own soul” or in a dialogue between two fictional persons: Philoctimon (covetous) and Akitimon (non-covetous), representing two opposite directions among Russian monasticism. But the truly Greek dialectic of Maximus strikes opponents much deeper and more powerfully than the sweeping, disorderly and irritated speech of our monk-prince. Without touching anyone’s personality, without calling anyone by name, Maxim skillfully breaks down, one after another, all the provisions of the strictly communal charter of Joseph Volotsky, who, as we have seen, hoped to destroy with this severity all the temptation in the life of patrimonial monasticism. Here, for example, is how the non-covetous Holy Mountain resident responded to the main provision of the Volokolamsk charter, which he put into the mouth of his Philoctimon: “It’s funny when you say that none of you who own lands and villages have anything of your own, but everyone has everything in common! It’s the same as if several people, being in a criminal relationship with one harlot, and then, having been exposed, each began to say in his own justification: I am not a sinner, because she is not mine, but everyone else’s; or if someone, having joined a gang of robbers and plundered wealth with them, then, caught, began to answer during torture: I am not to blame, because everything was left with my comrades, and I took nothing from them... I will remind you, reverend, one word of the Apostle Paul: “No one is woven into war with the purchases of this life, so that he who pays with it in war may be pleased” (2 Tim. 2:4). 125 In the life of patrimonial-secular monasticism, no matter how strict its communal rules and external exploits may be, Maxim reveals a constant moral discord, occurring precisely as a result of the infidelity of the “covetous” to the basic, evangelical principles of monastic life. “How will you acquire meekness, humility and sacred silence,” the contemplative saint talks to his soul, “if you are often busy with rage and litigation over lands with peasants and neighbors, if you intensify to take revenge on them as enemies? How would you want to die for your neighbor, whom you are tormenting with hard work and punishment? And without these virtues, you will not be freed from eternal torment, because frequent and prolonged prayers and the black clothes that you wear will not help you. For these prayers and black clothes are only pleasing to God when you carefully fulfill His commandments - not as you understand them, but as the Lord commanded and instructed, who requires you to fulfill His commandments, and not prolonged prayers or abstinence from food.” 126 The most remarkable feature in the content of Maxim's literary polemic against the patrimonial life of Russian monasteries is his sympathetic reference to the example of the Catholic monastic order of the Carthusians, with the charter of which our saint personally became acquainted during his travels through Western Europe. What Maxim liked most was the non-covetousness of the monks of this order: “they have nothing of their own,” he wrote, but everything is common. They love non-covetousness as the greatest spiritual feat, and feed on alms, which two of the brothers, in turn, collect around the city every day. In addition, the townspeople themselves, loving them for their godly lives, bring them various alms: some a vessel of wine, some butter, some fish, some cheese and eggs... Of course, Maximus stipulates, the Latins were tempted in many ways, having adopted some alien and strange teachings, out of addiction to Hellenic wisdom, but did not completely fall away from the Christian faith, hope and love. The monks there strictly observe the commandments of Christ, so it is not superfluous for us to imitate their non-covetous, quiet and carefree life, so as not to remain behind them.” One can imagine the impression these words must have made on Maxim’s opponents: to imitate the Latins, while Orthodox Russian monasticism ruled the villages following the example of its great saints of God and miracle workers! No reservations could protect the daring stranger from accusations of heresy and blasphemy against the holy fathers of Russian monasticism, especially since Maxim concluded his accusatory speech with these words: “at the Last Judgment they will not be recognized by the Righteous Judge and those who boast that they performed many miracles in the name of the Lord, prophesied and cast out demons, they will hear from the Judge: “depart from me, lawless people: I never knew you!” Why doesn't he recognize them and drive them away? Because the divine paradise does not accept the covetous and inhuman, who gather up treasures for themselves on earth, feeding on the annual torture of growth from the poor and wretched.” 127 Like Vassian, Maxim did not affect the landownership rights of bishops and white clergy, but recognized the need for decisive measures against the anti-canonical use of church property. So, at least, he spoke later, in his “instructive chapters” to Tsar Ivan IV, which will be discussed below. Let us now see whether the preaching of our non-covetous people had any practical success. Vasily Ivanovich was sincerely disposed towards Vassian and Maxim, fed them from his table, willingly listened to their inspired speeches about the impropriety of monks owning villages, but did not touch the patrimonial rights of monasticism. Even in those cases when this sovereign was in the same position regarding church and monastic estates as his father was in during the conquest of Novgorod, he acted completely contrary to his father’s example. Thus, in 1510, during the capture of Pskov, the Grand Duke, having taken away several estates from the best Pskovites, “did not enter into church lands for the sake of reverence for the Pskov priests,” 128 and during the conquest of Smolensk in 1514, he even solemnly promised to protect the inviolability of the property rights of the local Church. 129 This contradiction in the activities of Vasily Ivanovich, on the one hand, patronizing the literary development of the idea of ​​secularization, on the other hand, missing the most convenient cases for the implementation of this idea, is explained both by general political considerations and by the special personal circumstances of the Grand Duke, which, however, were also of a political nature. The question of monastic and church estates, as it was already understood in the 16th century, was at the same time a question of the relationship of the Church to the state, or, more precisely, of the relationship of the spiritual hierarchy to the secular government. The example of Ivan III showed that raising this issue only meant providing the former with an opportunity to triumph over the latter. Meanwhile, the patrimonial life of the church hierarchy placed it in necessary dependence on the secular government, which was felt the more strongly the more often and more decisively the idea was repeated, close to the grand-ducal throne itself, about the impropriety of monks owning villages and the misuse of church revenues by bishops. In order to protect their interests, which were threatened by the preaching of non-covetous people, the spiritual authorities naturally had to enter into the plans and types of government with special zeal and help it with the power of their spiritual authority. On the contrary, the final goal of the non-covetous people was precisely to restore the church hierarchy, unbound by any earthly interests, to the previous height of spiritual independence from the worldly government; they would like to see in the shepherds of the Church, following the example of the good, old times, “sorrowers of the Russian land,” representatives of the moral and religious strength of the people, before whom the Moscow sovereigns with their material forces and despotic tendencies would bow. 130 So, the question of church and monastic estates, from a political point of view, also had its unfavorable side. Vasily Ivanovich preferred the idea of ​​power to the benefits of the treasury, and did not disturb the hierarchy with attempts in the spirit of Ivan III. He knew from experience that the non-acquisitives, as a political party, stood on the side of the old state order and, striving for the elevation of spiritual power over the worldly, at the same time stood up for the rights of appanage princes and boyar warriors. So Metropolitan Varlaam, an obvious supporter of Vassian and Maxim, or Trinity Abbot Porfiry, “a man of simple customs and a disciple of the desert,” forcibly elevated to this high and unsafe abbot, dared to speak “to meet the sovereign,” to distinguish between matters of politics and conscience and to stand up for the appanage, for example, for the famous Shemyachich. Vasily Ivanovich did not like such meetings, and both mourners paid dearly for their loyalty to the ancient church spirit and custom. 131 This was not the party of “covetous” people: it diligently served the new state idea. Thus, the transition of Joseph Volotsky with his monastery to the power of the Moscow sovereign was, on the part of the authoritative abbot, a solemn and, without a doubt, extremely flattering expression for Vasily Ivanovich of the thought of the political supremacy of Moscow over the appanages and even the superiority of worldly power over spiritual power. Justifying his action, Joseph wrote, among other things: “I beat with my forehead the one who not only Prince Theodore (of Volokolamsk), but also Archbishop Serapion and all of us, the common sovereign of the entire Russian land, whom the Lord placed in his place and seated on the royal throne, and to whom he transferred justice and mercy and all church and monastic care, along with power over the entire Orthodox state and over all of Russia. earth." Therefore, Joseph calls the protest of the Novgorod bishop against the will of the Grand Duke to annex the Volokolamsk monastery to the Moscow state “contempt for the divine scriptures and rules, which command to honor the king, and not to get along with him.” 132 The monastery of Joseph became, as it were, a school of such ecclesiastical and political views, from where all the famous “Osiflanes” of the 16th century came. The typical personality of the Osiphlite hierarch was Metropolitan Daniel, who was elevated to the place of the deposed Varlaam from the Volokolamsk abbots. The new metropolitan, according to contemporaries, was the complete opposite of his predecessor: he did not grieve for anyone, but only praised the Grand Duke for his policies and, by the way, for the removal of the “back-to-back enemy” - Shemyachich, forgetting that he himself wrote a letter to Shemyachich, and took him to the image of the Most Pure One, and to the miracle workers, and to his soul. 133 The Grand Duke needed just such a metropolitan for another, more important matter. It is known that Vasily Ivanovich had no children during his 20-year marriage with Solomonida Saburova. This circumstance prompted him to think about divorce and a new marriage. Church rules did not allow either one or the other, and the non-covetous Vassian, to whom the Grand Duke first revealed his idea of ​​divorce in order to enter into a new marriage, resolutely spoke out against such an anti-canonical intention. Metropolitan Daniel acted differently, on whom, in fact, the authoritative resolution of the issue depended: he gave his consent to the divorce, solemnized the second marriage himself and calmed the conscience of the Grand Duke with the promise to take this matter upon his soul. 134 These and similar political services, of course, were worth not disturbing the ancient patrimonial rights of the church hierarchy. On the other hand, the religious idea, by virtue of which the Church had from time immemorial been enriched by estates, had a much stronger effect on the Grand Duke than all the arguments of the preachers of secularization. Not only did he not dare to offend the Church by taking away from her the pious donations of others, but he also recognized himself as religiously obligated to generously endow her with his own gifts. Vasily Ivanovich was especially encouraged to do this by a well-known circumstance in his family life - prolonged childlessness, which, apparently, threatened to become permanent, since the second marriage of the Grand Duke remained fruitless for about five years. The unfortunate spouse-sovereign, hoping to obtain an heir through the power of church prayers, often went on pilgrimages to monasteries, “gave great alms and pleasure to the monks and priests, and ordered them to pray that God would give him an offspring.” 135 In general, quite a few letters of commendation and other letters from this Grand Duke have reached us, proving his constant and unchanging zeal for the Church. Under such circumstances, the preaching of Vassian and Maxim threatened with real danger - except for themselves. She, naturally, restored the entire spiritual hierarchy against them, in the eyes of which the teaching of non-covetous people was nothing more or less than a daring encroachment on the age-old rights of the Church, a blasphemy against the holy fathers of Russian monasticism, and heretical wisdom. So, at least, Metropolitan Daniel judged when the preachers of the secularization of monastic estates, one after another, fell into disgrace with the grand princes. At the council of 1525, convened to try Maxim as a political and ecclesiastical criminal, the Metropolitan said to the defendant: “You, Maxim, reproach and blaspheme the saints, cathedral and apostolic churches and monasteries because they have wealth, people, income and villages. And in your monasteries, in the Holy Mountain and in other places in your land, there are villages near churches and monasteries. 136 And in the writings of the fathers, holy churches and monasteries were commanded to own villages.” “But you, Maxim,” continued the Metropolitan, reproach and blaspheme the holy wonderworkers Peter, Alexei, Jonah, the metropolitans of all Rus', and the Venerables Sergius, Varlaam, Cyril, Paphnutius and Macarius, and say: since they held cities, volosts and villages, judged people, took duties and taxes and tributes and had a lot of wealth, then they cannot be miracle workers." 137 Maxim’s answers, unfortunately, are not recorded in the court list. However, bearing in mind the entire polemic of the Holy Mountain resident against the “beloved” Russian monasticism, it is easy to understand what he had to say now in his own defense. It is also clear what kind of “testimonies from the divine scriptures were read more than once to Maximus at the council, so that he might gain knowledge and understanding of the truth and correction.” It’s only a pity that from the judgment list it is not clear how the Metropolitan convicted the non-possessor of blaspheming the Russian miracle workers who owned the villages. In all likelihood, this accusation reminded Maxim of his laudatory comments about Catholic monks, combined with reproachful allusions to St. fathers of Russian monasticism. So, after some time, the disciples of the famous heretic Theodosius Kosoy, referring to the writings of Maxim, said: “they were deceived by those who called Saints Saints Cyril (Belozersky), Paphnutius (Borovsky), Nikon (successor of Sergius of Radonezh) and other leaders of monasticism, who acquired villages for themselves. For, according to Maxim, they are alien to salvation... Maxim applies to them what is said in the Gospel, that “on this day many people will say to me: Lord, have not they created many mighty powers in your name, and have prophesied in your name?” And he will say to them: “We don’t know you, get away from Me.” 138 But it seems that Maxim’s enemies and admirers equally distorted the meaning of his words. It is more likely to say that he was aiming here at Joseph of Volotsky, who was already revered by his disciples as a saint and miracle worker, but whom Vassian openly called a false prophet and false miracle worker. After Maxim’s conviction and exile to the Volokolamsk monastery for repentance, Vassian remained in Moscow and, apparently, in the same relationship with the Grand Duke. 139 Without a doubt, the monk-prince warmly took to heart the disastrous fate of his literary ally and was not afraid to openly reproach the spiritual hierarchy for him. And Maxim himself, despite the prohibition to spread his “blasphemies” in writing or orally, “did not show repentance and correction, and was innocent of everything in his verb, and renounced his wisdom and wrote his epistles.” 140 As a result, in 1531 a new conciliar court was formed, to which Vassian Patrikeev was already involved. Now Maxim was no longer judged for his opinions about the monastery estates. 141 On the contrary, the trial of our Russian non-covetous almost exclusively consisted of a dispute or “debate” between the defendant and Metropolitan Daniel about the right of monasteries to own lands and villages. This dispute in many respects complements the literary polemics of non-covetous people and, in addition, vividly depicts before us the very personalities of those arguing - with their views, characters, passions. The main indictment against Vassian was his encroachment on the integrity and sacred authority of the Helmsman's Book. “Do you know,” Metropolitan Daniel began his interrogations, “do you know the great book “The Sacred Rules of the Apostles and Fathers of Ecumenical and Local Councils,” as well as the extracts from the city laws that are in agreement with the sacred rules? No one dared to destroy or shake this book from the Seventh Council to the Russian Baptism. And in our Russian land, that book has supported the Catholic Church for more than five hundred years and enlightens and saves all Orthodox Christianity... In those years, saints and great wonderworkers - saints, graceful and deliberate, and reverend fathers, wise and learned - according to those rules they themselves lived and were saved, and they taught and saved people. From this divine book... You wrote out a certain small part suitable for your feeble-mindedness, but you scattered everything else, determined and compiled by the holy fathers at previous and subsequent councils... Why and for what? You are neither an apostle, nor a saint, nor a priest. How did you dare to do this? For the holy scriptures and divine rules prohibit ordinary people, monks and laity, from attacking statutes and ranks, (church) laws and the thrones of teachers.” “Metropolitan Varlaam forced me to do this with the consecrated cathedral,” answered Vassian; at that cathedral there were Vassian, Archbishop of Rostov, Simeon of Suzdal and Dositheus, Bishop of Krutitsky. Dosifei was present, present at the council as a judge and witness. The Metropolitan, turning to him, asked: “Is it true that the Right Reverend Metropolitan Varlaam, the archbishops, bishops and you, Dositheus, and the entire consecrated council had a plan to destroy the divine rules, and the commandments of the holy Apostles and holy ecumenical and local councils, to reject the ancient presentation of the paternal rules and to make a new one, which not only from the century, not happened, but that is strictly prohibited, - and who did you entrust this matter to, Elder Vassian? Dosifei, as one would expect, answered negatively: “I did not attend that council,” he said, and I did not hear about it, and Metropolitan Varlaam did not order that to Elder Vassian. From the time Elder Vassian destroyed the holy rules and wrote his new ones, 14 years have passed, and the Rostov Archbishop Vassian and the Suzdal ruler. Simeon introduced themselves two years earlier. So, Vassian made a lie against me: we are not his advisers in anything; he has his own advisers, Maxim Grek and others.” 142 In response to this testimony, the defendant only remarked: “let God’s will be done, and yours, sir.” The Metropolitan continued: “It is written in the holy scriptures and divine rules that in some times, due to a lack of church teachers, non-sacred people were forced to take on this or that church ministry; but these were holy, wise and blessed men, and not obstinate and corrupt, like you, who speak, teach, and write everything obstinate and corrupt.” - What, sir, is my obstinacy and corruption? – Vassian asked. “You have corrupted into your mind the holy and great book of the apostolic and paternal rules, which no one dared to make or think of such a daring attack. And you wrote such depraved words in the rules of your essay: “there is in the holy rules the opposite of the Gospel and the Apostle and the holy Father’s life.” And in other places, in your rules, you wrote a lot seductively, and in front of witnesses you often said: “The rules were written from the devil, and not from the Holy Spirit,” and you call the rule a crook, not a rule; you call miracle workers troublemakers, because they have villages and people near the monasteries.” “Yes, I wrote about villages,” answered Vassian, as it is written in the Gospel: monasteries were not ordered to keep villages. The Metropolitan ordered the Gospel to be read to him from the divine scriptures, from the rules and lives of the saints, just as churches and monasteries were not ordered to keep volosts, villages and people. And a long series of testimonies were read, already known to us from the council’s response of 1503 and the writings of Joseph Volotsky. To this, Vassian remarked: “those (ancient saints, fathers) held villages, but had no attachment to them.” “And the current miracle workers,” the Metropolitan objected, had no predilection for the villages, but kept them in the monasteries, as dedicated and given to God, and not as their own... Why do you consider the current miracle workers to be passionate people? “I don’t know if they were miracle workers,” answered the brave non-possessor. Turning again to the main indictment, the Metropolitan asked; “It is written in the sacred rules that nothing should be added to them and nothing should be taken away from them; but you added Hellenic teachings to them, and threw out and discarded many of the conciliar and patristic rules, as well as from city laws.” “I don’t remember why I wrote something like that,” answered the defendant, but if anything is wrong, you correct it. “This is what you wrote in your rules,” the Metropolitan explained: “For monks to live according to the Gospel, the villages are not to hold or own them; if the monks do not keep their vow, then the Holy Scripture threatens them with torment, condemns them to eternal fire, calls them apostates and condemns them to damnation.” 143 So you slandered the divine scriptures and sacred rules, which command monasteries to keep villages, and monks to eat from them, and those who give villages to the Lord God and the Most Pure Mother of God and all the holy churches and monasteries, for the salvation of their souls and as a memorial to their family, are not reproached by the divine scriptures and sacred rules, they are not condemned to eternal fire, they are not called apostates and they are not subjected to damnation - not just as you call the monks of all monasteries apostates, and wrote many blasphemous lines against them, as worthy of damnation. But such wisdom of yours is heresy; for if one of the Orthodox sins, he is not called an apostate, but you call everyone sinners, only you consider yourself sinless and a lawmaker. “I wrote this for myself, for the remembrance of my soul,” answered the non-possessor, and I don’t praise those who hold the villages.” 144 The council sentenced both non-possessors to monastic imprisonment: Vassian was exiled to the Joseph Monastery, where he soon died, and Maxim was exiled to the Tver Otroch, from where, already during the reign of Ivan IV, he was moved to the Trinity Lavra. Condemning Vassian and Maxim for denying the right of monasteries to own villages, the spiritual hierarchy could not help but recognize the reality of the moral evil with which, according to the instructions of the non-covetous, the patrimonial life of monasticism and the hierarchy itself was combined. Everyone saw this evil with their own eyes; it is attested to by the defenders of church and monastic estates themselves. We have already heard the complaint of Joseph of Volotsky about the general decline of discipline in monasteries, once famous for the severity of their regulations and the exploits of the brethren. Let us now listen to a review of the highest spiritual hierarchy from the lips of the same Metropolitan Daniel, who so strictly judged the teaching of our non-covetous people: “Woe is me! he says in one of his teachings: upasosha (spiritual shepherds) have expanded their bellies with food and drunkenness... It is for glory and honor and for peace, the hedgehog of the sweetest and dearest and most honest food, and for vanity and contempt and for accepting bribes... Why, brethren, let us be proud and exalted, the authority of the abbess or possesses a bishopric? It is the passions of existence and weakness to ascend to such majesty, what is it for these sakes that we seek? Should we eat and drink a variety of foods and drink the most expensive and the sweetest, and gold and silver and collect much wealth and property, or have fun and chill out and invite the famous and rich to dinner and waste the church income in vain for the parasites, even the Church and the church needs, and the strange and the poor? We despise these people.” 145 It would be strange if these self-accusations, in no way inferior in power to the “bitter words” of Vassian and Maxim, completely passed over the ears of the Grand Duke! But the defenders of the landowning rights of the clergy had a special argument for this case, with which they aptly struck their opponents: “it is true, says Joseph Volotsky, that monks sin, but the churches of God and monasteries do not sin in anything.” 146 This means that it was only necessary to deprive bishops and monks of ways to abuse church and monastic wealth, and not to deprive churches and monasteries of their patrimony. We have already seen what a means to end all unrest in the life of patrimonial-secular monasticism was indicated by the same Joseph of Volotsky: this is the subordination of the monks to the rules of strict community life. The validity of this remedy was justified, in the eyes of contemporaries, by the living example of the Volokolamsk monastery itself. Joseph's monks, in fact, did not have any personal property: everything they had was monastic, everything was common and identical. Despite the fact that the monastery owned numerous estates and, therefore, was secular and not deserted, the brethren were cut off from all tempting communication with the world. The immediate and, so to speak, routine management of the estates was entrusted to the good monastic servants who lived near the monastery “in the palaces.” For matters of particular importance, patrimonial court and administration were carried out, on certain days, by the cathedral elders, in a special courtyard behind the monastery. An elder was appointed to the village, a person who was not disgraceful in all respects, who, having corrected the monastic affairs in the village, immediately returned back. In general, no one could leave the monastery even a single step without the abbot’s blessing. Women and “hairless youths” were strictly forbidden to enter the monastery, and monks were prohibited from having any conversation with them. The pilgrims were accommodated in special hotels, and even here they could not have any strong drinks with them, for which there was no place at all in the Volokolamsk monastery. In monastic solitude, the entire life of the brethren had to be spent in constant prayer and labor. The hours of the day were distributed to everyone in such a way that no one had any idle time, everyone had their assigned work for the community and everyone looked after each other. 147 This discipline alone, imprinted in all its details by the strict nature of external asceticism, was capable of glorifying the new monastery throughout the Russian land. But in addition, Joseph’s monastery was also distinguished by its cordial hospitality and generous charity. Thus, in one hungry year in 1512, the monastery distributed bread from its reserves for free to the entire surrounding population; For the sick and homeless, a hospital with an almshouse was built near the monastery. When the monastery treasury and granary were depleted, the abbot, despite the grumbling of the brethren, began to make loans so as not to refuse those asking for food. For this charity, the Grand Duke and his brothers repaid the monastery with rich donations. 148 The ordinary patrimonial economy of the monastery was distinguished by strict order and humane treatment of the monastery villagers. Joseph himself adhered to and inspired other landowners to adhere to the rule that the welfare of the patrimonial economy was directly dependent on the welfare of the tax-taxing peasantry. “There is no need,” he used to say to secular patrimonial owners, to overburden the plowmen with work and tribute. If the peasant becomes poor, the lord of the land will also become poor; the peasant will rest on benefits, and the master will not be left at a loss from him.” In accordance with this view, Joseph freely gave his peasants, from the monastery treasury, funds for the initial establishment and assistance in cases of special need; and in his charter he once ordered, forever, to “take court duties from peasants at half the rate as written in the Code of Laws.” 149 The internal life of the Volokolamsk monastery was well known to the Grand Duke himself. Vasily Ivanovich loved to come here on pilgrimage and hunting and, in accordance with the spiritual charter of the builder, he himself observed order and discipline here. The brethren looked at him as their abbot, and often heard the following instructions from him: “keep the charter handed down to you by Elder Joseph, and do not adopt customs from other monasteries; I’m also your clerk.” 150 Recognizing his beloved “paganism” as exemplary, the Grand Duke ordered other monasteries, not only newly created ones, but also old ones, to introduce communal rules, i.e. imitate the example of the Volokolamsk monastery. 151 Here he could be guided not only by moral motives, but also by purely state considerations. The dormitory, introducing strict order into the economy of the monasteries, facilitated government control over the use of monastic income and made it possible to use surpluses for general church, public charity and, perhaps, state needs. Of course, in view of this goal, Vasily Ivanovich, much more resolutely than his father, entered into the internal management of the monasteries, he himself appointed abbots, gave them instructions “how to take care of the treasury and please the brethren,” demanded from the monastic authorities strict accountability in the use of government money, and for this he established a procedure for the acceptance and delivery of monastic property by the abbots - according to inventories compiled by the grand ducal scribes. 152 In short, under Vasily Ivanovich, the monasteries were for the first time subject to proper state control, which, in the end, led to their complete economic dependence on the government. Under the same sovereign, a remarkable order was made regarding bishop’s income, namely, it was ordered that the metropolitan, archbishops and bishops give a “duty” from their treasury in favor of the Smolensk see, which was newly annexed to Moscow, which, in comparison with its Great Russian sisters, suffered various “shortcomings.” 153 So, the reign of Vasily Ivanovich is far from being an empty page in the history of the gradual transition of church and monastic lands into a full state department. On the contrary, this sovereign undoubtedly took the initiative in that wise policy, thanks to which the work of secularization was accomplished, so to speak, by itself, without direct and open claims of the government to church property. IV. The state of the issue of church and monastic estates during the childhood of Ivan IV. – New works by Maxim the Greek. - Their influence on the young sovereign. – The party of Sylvester and Adashev, sympathetic to the ideas of non-acquisitive people. – An attempt to secularize the metropolitan estates in the Moscow district, around 1550. – Answer of Metropolitan Macarius. Cathedral of 1551. - Non-acquisitive people in church-hierarchical positions. The teachings of Nil Sorsky in the heretical edition of Bakshin and Theodosius Kosy. - Councils against heretics and the fall of the non-covetous as an ecclesiastical and political party. - Dispute between the monk Zinovy ​​and the followers of Kosoy over the issue of monastery estates. Apocryphal conversation between Sergius and Herman, Valaam wonderworkers. – Later legislative measures of Ivan IV against the expansion of church and monastic estates. – Attempts to convert bishops’ and monastic incomes to general church and state needs. – Examples of secularization During the early childhood of Ivan IV, while the reign was in the hands of his mother Elena Glinskaya (1535–1538), several remarkable orders were made to the detriment of the landowning rights of the clergy. Thus, in 1535, the prohibition was confirmed for monasteries to buy and take in mortgage or by heart-to-heart the patrimonial lands of service people, without the knowledge of the government. 154 The following year, a fairly significant amount of land was once again taken from the Novgorod churches and monasteries for the treasury, namely, all the suburbs were reaped. 155 But the willfulness of the boyars (1538–1547) went in a completely different direction: seizing palace villages and volosts for themselves, the boyars generously distributed them to the clergy (monasteries and rulers 156). During this same troubled time, when all the “old customs were shaken,” state control over the economy and discipline in the monasteries, established during the previous reign, weakened or even ceased altogether. The unrest here has reached glaring extremes. 157 At the same time, moral dissatisfaction with the modern state of the Church and the clergy began to be expressed wherever the works of Vassian and Maximus were read. The latter, having received some “weakness” in captivity in Tver, again begins to write in the same accusatory tone. A long stay in Tver could not fail to provide him with opportunities to become more closely acquainted with the economic life of our people and to see more clearly their “sweat and labor” on the powers that be, among whom, after the sovereign, the first place was occupied by saints and monks. This determined the direction of Maxim's later literary activity, as far as it concerned the old issue of church and monastic estates. Now the long-suffering Holy Mountain no longer directly attacks Russian monasteries for owning villages, but rebels against the anti-canonical use of church wealth, reproaching the bishops themselves for indifference and indifference to the difficult, often disastrous lot of the people. In this regard, especially remarkable is the beautiful word written by Maxim in captivity in Tver, on the occasion of a fire that destroyed the local cathedral church, the episcopal courtyard with the entire treasury, many other churches and almost the entire city in 1537. The burned-out Tver ruler Akaki appears here speaking before the Lord God the following “words of sadness and madness”: “You yourself, Vladyka, are a witness that I have never been negligent towards your divine chants and your other magnificent services; I constantly celebrated spiritual holidays for You, glorifying You with the eloquent singing of godly priests, the loud ringing of euphonious bells and the smoking of various incense; I magnificently decorated your honorable icons and your Most Pure Mother with gold, silver and precious stones. But the more I thought I would please You, it seems that I only angered You more. Being essentially righteous and good, You would not have destroyed with an all-consuming fire all the beauty and kindness (of the Church), if we ourselves had not angered Your boundless goodness by breaking Your commandments. So, we pray to You, your servants, tell us what we have sinned in, so that with repentance equal to sin, we can appease You, the righteous and terrible judge? The answer that Maximus put into the mouth of the Almighty greatly offended Bishop Akakios. It was said to him on behalf of God: “Why do you, men, slander my righteous judgment? Instead of repenting before Me of your sins, you anger Me even more with the sounds of good-harmony songs and bells, the precious decoration of my icons and the burning of various incense to Me. Your offerings would be pleasing to Me if you brought them from your lawful acquisitions and righteous labors. If you bring me all this from unrighteous and nasty covetousness, from the robbery of other people’s estates, then my soul will not only hate such offerings as those mixed with the tears of widows and orphans and the blood of the poor, but will also be indignant at you as bringing the opposite of my truth and love for mankind, and that is why I either destroy your riches with fire, or hand them over for plunder Scythians 158 What service is pleasing to me from you? If I wear a golden crown on your icon, then in life I die from hunger and cold, while you yourself overeat, get drunk and dress in light clothes. My decoration, my gold-plated crown is charity and sufficient food for orphans and widows, while their poverty in necessities is an annoyance to Me from you and extreme dishonor, even if you incessantly thundered in your churches with good-willed songs. What pleasure do I have from these songs when they reach Me along with the sobs and groans of a beggar crying out from severe hunger? I have given you saving commandments in the sacred books on how to please Me. And you decorate the book of my words (the Gospel), inside and outside, with silver and gold, but you do not accept the power of my commands written in it and do not want to fulfill... I threaten through the prophet to take revenge for the suffering and sighing of the poor (Ps. 11:5), and you, without fear of my rebuke, not only do not give anything from your imaginary wealth to those dying of hunger, cold and extreme need, but You unlawfully deprive the churches of my faithful princes for feeding the poor, orphans and widows; you squander the honest gifts of valiant and rich nobles on the various pleasures of your souls, on decorating your clothes and on luxurious feasts.” 159 Probably, at the very beginning of Ivan IV’s independent reign, Maxim sent to him, through Adashev, 27 “instructive chapters” about public administration. Here again there is a complaint that “all the property given by pious kings and princes to the holy churches of God, the bishops turn to their unnecessary needs and everyday life: they themselves live in complete contentment, eating luxuriously and enriching their relatives, and the poor of Christ, perishing from hunger, nakedness and disease, are completely forgotten by them.” The young sovereign is instilled with the duty to “correct such priestly shortcomings, following the example of the great kings Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian.” Although in passing, monasticism is also touched upon: “We believe that all the hope of salvation, writes the Holy Mountainer, is to abstain from meat, fish and butter on fasting days, but we do not cease to offend the poor peasants and ruin them with our extortion and litigiousness.” 160 The influence of these instructions on the young and impressionable soul of Ivan IV is undoubtedly - especially since among Maxim’s friends and admirers were such persons as the famous temporary workers, the priest Sylvester and Adashev, whom the tsar brought closer to himself “to help his soul.” 161 The famous speech spoken by Ivan from the front, the questions he proposed to the council of 1551, and partly the later writings of the Tsar-writer were deeply imprinted by the views of that literary party, headed by Maxim the Greek. It is clear that this party, having the sovereign himself in its ranks, could not only speak and write, but also act. Her political aspirations, hostile to the material interests of the spiritual hierarchy and monasticism, are revealed from the tsar’s later correspondence with Prince Kurbsky, an ardent supporter of Sylvester and Adashev and a student of Maxim. From this it is clear that the then favorites and advisers of the sovereign tried to moderate his generosity to the monasteries, where he so often went on pilgrimages, 162 in return, they demanded an improvement in the economic life of the service people (the children of the boyars, to whom Adashev himself belonged by birth), even if this meant touching the vast estates of the monasteries and rulers. 163 The last requirement was probably justified by the need to protect Moscow itself from frequent and devastating Crimean raids, against which it was necessary to have a sufficient number of well-armed troops ready and at hand. Indeed, in 1550, according to a boyar verdict, a huge amount of quitrent and black lands in the Moscow district were distributed to service people (including Adashev and Kurbsky). 164 We think that now, precisely before this extraordinary expenditure of state lands and, consequently, income for the needs of military service, the tsar turned to Metropolitan Macarius with a request for his house, church and monastery estates, of which there were so many near the capital. The Metropolitan responded with an extensive message in which, repeating almost verbatim the arguments of the Council of 1503 “about the inviolability of immovable things given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings,” he added strong and eloquent admonitions to the Tsar, so that he would abandon his intention, as hostile to God, contrary to all the laws of the Church and dangerous for the state itself. The starting point for these admonitions is the label of Khan of Uzbek given to Metropolitan Peter. Based on this example of the beneficent relationship of even unfaithful and wicked kings to the Church, the Metropolitan appeals to the religious feeling of the Orthodox sovereign: “how much more befitting is it for you, pious and God-crowned king, to show your royal faith to God and great diligence to all God’s churches and monasteries - not only to collect immovably, but also to give to you yourself. Just as all your holy royal ancestors and parents gave to God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, it befits the king and you to create the kingdom for the sake of heaven, being pious and Christ-loving and wise to the king... in the end, knowledgeable of Christ's law of the Gospel teaching and the holy father's commandments. And for this reason, it is appropriate for you, having judged, to see and do what is useful and pleasing to God... Guard and protect your royal soul and your Christ-loving kingdom from all enemies, visible and invisible...” Then, turning to his hierarchical duty - to stand for the rights and laws of the Church, Macarius says: “I cannot dare or think such a terrible thing - from the gifts of God and the Most Pure Mother of God, the great wonderworker gave away immovable things as an inheritance of eternal blessings from the house of the Most Pure Mother of God and the great wonderworkers, such as to give or sell; do not wake up this until our last breath, and deliver us all, Almighty God, and save us from such crime, and do not allow it to be not only with us, but also for us, until the end of the age... Whenever they were ordained, that is, ordained to the priesthood, and then in the midst of the sacred gathering, in the holy, congregational and apostolic church, and before God and before all the heavenly powers and before all the saints, and before you, the pious king, and before the entire synclite and before all the people, they swore: to preserve our judgments and laws and our justification, great is our strength, and before the kings for righteousness to be ashamed; Even if there is a need for me from the king himself, or from his nobles, who command me to speak besides the divine rules, I will not listen to them; but even if they are disgusted with death, there is no way to listen to them. And for this reason, for the sake of fear, I say to you, pious king, and I pray to your royal majesty, stay, sir, and do not create such an undertaking, which God does not command you, the Orthodox king, and us bishops (holy fathers) to strictly prohibit the sacred rules... And for this reason, we pray to your royal majesty and with many tears, we beat you, so that you, the Tsar and Sovereign, Great Prince Ivan Vasilyevich, the autocrat of all Russia, according to that divine rule from the Most Pure Mother of God and from the great miracle workers, did not order those immovable things given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings to be taken from the house.” 165 After such an answer, the “pious king” could only deal with other aspects of the issue of church and monastic estates. The very next year (1551) a council was convened to discuss “many different church rites,” among which one of the most prominent places was occupied by questions about moral and economic unrest in the life of patrimonial-secular monasticism, about the social purpose of church and monastery property, and about measures against the further enrichment of churches and monasteries with patrimonies. And at this cathedral we see the Trans-Volga hermits, from the school of Nile of Sorsky. Of these, however, only one is known - the monk of the Corniliev Monastery Artemy, who attracted the special attention of the sovereign and, on the recommendation of Sylvester, was recognized worthy of the high abbot of the Trinity Lavra. 166 During the council meetings, the tsar had an intimate conversation with this “teaching elder” about the current state of monasticism. The content of these conversations was subsequently conveyed by Artemy himself in a letter to Grozny: “They say about me that I spoke and wrote to you about the need to take away villages from the monasteries. Indeed, I wrote to you at the council, informing my mind (i.e., expressing my personal view of the matter), and did not tell them (members of the council) about this subject, and I do not advise you to do anything like that by authority or coercion. Yes, we (the Trans-Volga hermits) spoke among ourselves, as it is written in the books about monastic life... Our wisdom is such that we must live, as the holy fathers prescribed, according to the charter of Basil the Great... We did not say anything to others, except among ourselves we say that we should live by our own handicraft and not ask the laity. And what I told and wrote to you about the true and not charming path of the commandments of Christ, about that, for the Lord’s sake, do not hasten to be tempted... I am guilty of telling you at the wrong time in allegories. Namely, I once made a mistake with the parable that I told you: “If you, the king of the earth, entrust someone with an estate so that it is transferred to well-known persons, and he gives it to whomever he wants, and not according to your order: will you not scold him?” To this you exclaimed: “I want to not only scold him, but also execute him!” From here I saw your understanding that we must keep the commandments of the Lord as He commanded, and not as we ourselves want or think with our human thoughts.” 167 Let us now listen to the official conversation between the king and the council. Drawing the attention of the spiritual authorities to the moral and economic unrest in the life of monasticism, the tsar in his questions to the council said: “they take monastic vows not for the salvation of their souls, but for the peace of their bodies, so that they can always indulge in revelry, and travel around the monastic villages for their own pleasure (“to cool off for”). Archimandrites and abbots buy up their places, know neither the service of God, nor brotherhood, nor the common meal, but rest in their cells with guests, and place their relatives in monasteries and villages, on the entire monastic maintenance, and the old servants and investors survive, and thus devastate the monasteries... God-lovers give to the monasteries according to their souls and according to their parents for the funeral of patrimony and purchases, and the monks themselves buy villages for themselves, and ask me for other lands - and they have already captured a lot from all the monasteries! They also have tarhan, preferential and non-conviction certificates. Meanwhile, the brethren did not arrive anywhere, and in other monasteries they even left; the fraternal food and drink became worse, no buildings were added again, and the old ones were empty. Where did they come from and who benefits from them? In all monasteries, intoxicating drinks are kept, and the monks indulge in drunkenness... Wives and girls shamelessly walk around the cells, and timid young people live there without restraint... And such outrage, and complete negligence about the Church of God and the monastery building - on whom is all this sin to be exacted? And how can worldly souls receive benefit and aversion from all evil? If there (in monasteries) everything is not done according to God, then what good can be expected from us, worldly children? And through whom should we ask God for mercy?” 168 These questions make it possible to see how tightly the system of strict communal life was grafted onto our monasteries, through which they hoped to destroy all moral temptation in the life of patrimonial-secular monasticism and stop all the unrest in the monastic economy. The experience of the previous troubled times fully proved that without external, state control over monasteries, cenobitic charters could easily remain only on paper. The idea of ​​the need to restore this control is also visible in all the conciliar responses to the tsar’s questions. Here the royal order to the monasteries, proposed for discussion at the council, is almost completely given, along with questions. 169 According to this order, order and deanery in the monasteries, as well as the management of all monastic incomes and the treasury, are assigned to the general responsibility of the abbots and cathedral elders, who are obliged to report the most important matters to the tsar himself, 170 and about other “needs and administrations” - to the tsar’s officials, “to whom those monasteries will be ordered,” and on whose report the tsar “therefore orders the administration to be repaired.” The order threatens the unruly and disobedient with a hierarchical prohibition and royal punishment. Indeed, the very next year, an “excerpt” was given to Andrei Bersenev and Master Tyutchev about monks who, “forgetting the fear of God and despising the sacred rules, and the royal commandment, and the cathedral code, will learn to go to taverns, and get drunk on piano, and wander around the yard and the streets with pianos, or learn to use foul language, go swearing bark to someone, to the temptation of a worldly person, or the Piani will learn to fight and fight.” From such disorderly persons it was ordered to take “the royal commandment, according to zemstvo custom, just as from other people the disorderly persons and hawks are given the commandment, and to send those monks to monasteries, to the archimandrite and abbot, and they humble them according to the monastic rank.” 171 The cathedral left the moral qualities of the abbots themselves to a preliminary test of the sovereign, as was the case under Vasily Ivanovich. 172 Finally, control over the integrity of the monastery treasury, as we have already seen, was entrusted by the cathedral to the royal butlers and clerks, who “order the monasteries, with all their property, to the new archimandrites, abbots and builders with the cathedral elders, and count them in every income and expense” according to inventories stored in the monasteries themselves and in the royal archives. 173 Taking measures against the unrest in the monastic economy, the tsar had in mind, on the one hand, to reduce direct and indirect state expenses for the maintenance of the monasteries, which already had quite a few fiefdoms, but did not cease to pester the tsar with petitions for new lands and benefits, on the other hand, to turn the monastic incomes, selfishly squandered by the monks, to their original, religious and social purpose. In response to the tsar’s first thought, the council forbade the archimandrites, abbots and elders of the monasteries, who, judging by the number of brethren, have enough land, to ask for extra lands and lands, or new tarhan, non-judgmental and preferential charters, “unless there is a great need, and then with great entreaty and God-loving prayer.” 174 Thus, the assumption of the Code of Law (Article 43) about the selection of old Tarkhanov, in relation to the monasteries, remained one assumption. A special state expenditure for the maintenance of monasteries was ruga. During the early childhood of Ivan IV, many monasteries and churches that owned villages and other sources of income managed to convert the temporary rule assigned to them under Vasily Ivanovich into a permanent (annual) one, and others again received charters from the boyars. At the direction of the tsar, 175 the council determined: “to search, as it was under the late Grand Duke, and together to take into account the existing methods of maintaining churches and monasteries that became strong during the tsar’s childhood, if they have villages and other sources of income sufficient for their existence, then in the royal will, give or not give them a rug, if poor churches and monasteries “live without that rug” “it is not possible,” then it is worthy and righteous for the pious king to welcome such wretched places into his Christ-loving kingdom (that is, to accept them, as guards, into the palace department.” 176 But it is clear that after the search it turned out that those “wretched places” can exist without hostility: for by a special conciliar verdict (May 11 of the same year) this issue was resolved in the exact sense of Vasily’s orders Ivanovich. 177 Finally, a very remarkable attempt was made for that time to reduce the number of churches and monasteries that could not find means of maintenance. This is what the Tsar said to the cathedral about this: “The elder will build a cell in the forest or cut down a church, and go around the world with an icon to ask for a building, and he asks me for land and rugs, and what he collects, he drinks, and the exhibition church, having stayed in it for a year, leaves, complaining about the oppression of the bishops’ ten-year-olds and the lack of land and rugs. We need to think about this so that there is no such temptation, and the saints and us are not reproached.” 178 The Council decided: “all such hermitages should be demolished into one hermitage or into cenobitic monasteries, and exhibition churches should be moved to old churches in graveyards, so that both will have something to live on.” On. in the future, to build new hermitages and churches, only “by royal authority and with the blessing of the local bishop.” 179 Thus, for the first time, the idea was expressed about the need to take measures against the uncontrollable popular desire for religious desert living! As for the goal of Ivan IV - to convert church and monastic wealth to their religious and social purpose, it is clear from the following royal questions: “the church and monastery treasury is given at interest. And in the sacred rules it is written: “Church wealth is wealth for the poor and for other needs.” 180 “Monks and nuns wander around the world collecting alms, and do not know what a monastery is, we need to think about how to feed them and arrange them in monasteries, so that the world will not be tempted, and their souls will not be destroyed.” 181 – “Annual alms are given from our treasury - bread, salt, money and clothing in almshouses in all cities are given by Christ-lovers. But healthy men and wives buy from the clerks there, and the poor and crippled, aged in squalor, endure hunger and cold, heat and nakedness, and all kinds of sorrow, not having anywhere to lay their heads, they are abhorred everywhere, and many of them die in that extreme need without Christian guidance... What should Orthodox kings and saints do for them? 182 – Captive boyars and boyars and all sorts of people are brought from the hordes for ransom, but no one ransoms them; and such Polonyaniks, men and women, are again taken back to Busurmanism... It is necessary to figure out how to ransom them so as not to let them go back to the infidels.” 183 The conciliar responses fully confirmed the validity of the above complaints of Maxim the Greek about the extreme impoverishment of the spirit of Christian charity in our hierarchy. Only to the first question the council answered quite closely to the thoughts of the tsar-questor, and then not because of the rule cited in the question about the ownership of church wealth to the poor, but for purely economic reasons, which were once guided by the great abbot-host, Joseph of Volotsky. 184 Namely, the council ordered the rulers and monasteries to lend their peasants money and bread without growth - “so that the peasants would live behind them, and their villages would not be empty.” 185 Then, on the issue of the “poverty” of monks and nuns, who “were not accepted into any monastery without a contribution,” the council sentenced: “to place them in monasteries and give contributions for their maintenance to the metropolitan, the rulers and the tsar himself, as God informs him, the sovereign.” 186 The question of the charity of the laity, “the lepers and the maimed, lying along the streets in boxes or carried on carts and sleds,” is resolved only from the administrative side. “Let the pious king command,” answered the council, to enumerate all such kaliks and place them in almshouses, so that they are supported here by royal alms and offerings from lovers of God. And to stop the abuses committed by the previous clerks, entrust the supervision of the almshouses to good priests, city people and kissers.” 187 The cathedral does not say a word about the financial participation of rulers and monasteries in this matter - probably because the question concerned only the city almshouses, which, like the cities themselves, belonged to the sovereign and the state, and not to the monasteries and rulers. The latter also built and maintained almshouses, but only on their estates and for their people, and even this was hardly a general and unchanging rule. 188 In any case, the tsar, citing in his questions the canonical saying: “the wealth of the church is the wealth of the poor,” obviously counted on greater participation of bishops and monasticism in matters of public charity. Even more characteristic is the answer about the ransom of prisoners, which, according to the cathedral verdict, had to be made from the royal treasury with compensation for what would be spent on this item, a special tax, which is equally distributed on plows across all lands, no matter whose they were: “for, the council said, that ransom is called general alms.” 189 So the spiritual authorities did not express a desire to donate anything extra, in comparison with the latter a peasant, for such a business for which the Pilot’s Book even allowed the sale of sacred vessels. 190 However, the conciliar answer was not tempting news for contemporaries: the personal and obligatory collection of Polonian money, under the name of general alms, was already in use at that time. So in 1535, during the tsar’s minority, a demand was sent from Moscow to Archbishop Macarius of Novgorod (now the metropolitan and chairman of the council) to “be cooperative” in the redemption of the prisoners, namely: to collect 700 rubles from their lands and from the monasteries throughout the diocese according to the general account.” 191 However, the conciliar verdict met with objections - from the side of the former Metropolitan Joasaph, who at that time lived in retirement in the Trinity Lavra, and to whom the royal questions and conciliar answers were sent for consideration. In response to the ruling on the ransom of the captives, Joasaph remarked: “The ransom should not be taken from dry land, but from the treasury of the metropolitan, archbishops, rulers and from all monasteries, as you, sir, grant, from whom you order to take what. And the peasants, sir, already have a lot of burden in your taxes. Sir, show them mercy, as God puts on your heart. Under your father, they took a tax from the metropolitan, from the archbishops and bishops for the ruler of Smolensk, for the sake of his shortcomings, and they did not bother about it. And the Polonyaniki, sir, are more needed than that.” 192 But this protest remained without any consequences. The collection of Polonian money in the 16th–17th centuries was carried out in accordance with the definition of the Hundred Glavny Cathedral. 193 The indifference of the spiritual authorities to matters of public charity, in itself, justified the measures of Ivan IV, with which he, soon after receiving the stated conciliar answers, partly took away some of the possessions of bishops and monasteries, and partly limited for them the ways of further enrichment with estates. Both were done at a special council meeting on May 11, 1551. In the first respect it was decided: 1) Local and black lands that bishops and monasteries took away from the children of boyars and peasants for debts, or that were incorrectly recorded for them by scribes, should be returned, upon search, to their former owners, even if the rulers and monasteries have already made their repairs on such lands. 2) Villages, volosts, fishing grounds, lands and quitrent villages distributed to rulers and monasteries by the boyars during the sovereign’s minority should be taken away and assigned to those to whom they belonged under Vasily Ivanovich. In the second respect, Ivan IV finally raised the private orders of his grandfather about the estates of the service class into a general rule. 194 We have already seen that Ivan III forbade the descendants of the former appanage princes who were in the service of the Moscow sovereigns, as well as the serving people of the regions newly annexed to Moscow, from alienating their estates into non-service hands and, in particular, from giving them to monasteries per soul. 195 Having confirmed these old decrees, Ivan IV, by the mentioned conciliar verdict, generally prohibited bishops and monasteries from both buying and accepting under spiritual wills of anyone’s patrimonial lands without a preliminary report on both to the government. 196 For violation of this law, the patrimony purchased and given to one's liking was taken away from the sovereign without money. However, the second part of the conciliar verdict, concerning the transfer of patrimonial lands to monasteries per soul, is softened by the following restrictions: a) The estates of service people, given soul-to-heart before the publication of this verdict, will continue to remain with the monasteries. But this restriction of the retroactive force of the law did not extend to those patrimonial lands, the giving of which to monasteries was prohibited by Ivan III. The latter were supposed to be taken away from the spiritual owners and distributed to the boyars’ children on estates, however, for a certain reward to the monasteries from the treasury (“depending on the measure”). b) Estates given per soul before the present verdict with the permission of the sovereign, as well as those that are to be given away in the future, under the same condition, should no longer be subject to redemption by the relatives of the testator, except in the case when in this or spiritual charter the persons having the right to redemption are named, and the price for which they can redeem the property given to the monastery will be indicated. In this case, the relatives must exercise their right, in accordance with the orders of the testator and with the decrees issued on this subject by Ivan III and Vasily Ivanovich. Although in none of the questions proposed by the tsar to the council of 1551, there is a direct hint of the need to turn to the treasury the “ancient” church and monastic estates, nevertheless, the council, bearing in mind, of course, the recent encroachments of worldly power on the lands of the metropolis itself, considered it necessary, in some of its answers, to repeat the old evidence of the inviolability of church property. The visible reason for this argument was two royal questions: about the hierarchal courts and about estates given to monasteries per soul. The saintly courts, as is known, were generally of a financial nature and, in particular, contained patrimonial court over the peasants who lived on the lands of the rulers. 197 And since the tsar in his question vividly depicted the abuses of the bishop's judges (tenniors, boyars, tiuns and clerks), 198 the fathers of the council could easily see in this an indirect encroachment on the integrity of not only church jurisdiction, but also church property, especially since the inviolability of both was often asserted in the same sources of church law, Byzantine and Russian. 199 The second question, apparently, was aimed at undermining the most solid thing - the religious basis of the property rights of monasteries to their land holdings. We have already seen that monasteries, contrary to church rules and orders of spiritual and depositary letters, allowed themselves to sell, exchange, and generally alienate the estates given to them for an eternal soul-to-heart funeral. 200 From here it naturally happened that in the monasteries, little by little, the very names of the depositors were forgotten and their commemoration ceased. These two circumstances, which sharply contradict the canonical principle of the “immobility” of church property, were pointed out by the tsar, as if in passing and without any ulterior motive, to the council in one of his questions: “they take villages and estates into monasteries, but do not honor the souls of the depositors and their parents and do not carry out their orders.” 201 The Council understood well what types and purposes could be hidden behind this question, and in its answer it decided: 1) Find out the names of the investors who gave estates to the monasteries per soul, and write them to the monastery synodics for eternal remembrance. 2) Estates and villages given to God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, as well as other monastic lands, will no longer be given away or sold. Thus, for the first time, a formal prohibition was expressed on behalf of our spiritual hierarchy for monasteries to alienate their land property. 202 That by this prohibition the cathedral precisely wanted to deprive the government and other interested parties of the most plausible reason for claiming estates given to monasteries per soul, is evident from a further reference to the well-known rule of the fifth ecumenical council, which “placed a terrible ban not only on ordinary people, but also on the kings themselves and nobles who offended the holy churches of God” (Stoglav, pp. 338–341). Thus, at the council of 1551, the issue of church and monastic estates was raised on all sides, but none was finally resolved, so that there was no reason left for old complaints, denunciations, and protests. At the head of those dissatisfied with the council's definitions, as before, stood the party of the Trans-Volga non-covetous people - with its constant ascetic preaching about the inappropriateness of monks to own people and villages. Now this party, thanks to the sincere desire of the sovereign himself to restore religious order and discipline in the monasteries, begins to move out of the wilderness of its remote deserts and occupy some important church-hierarchical posts. We have already seen one hermit at the cathedral - Artemy, who managed to attract the special attention of Ivan IV and was then appointed to the high abbess of the Trinity Lavra. Artemy, of course, knew in advance what awaited him in the great royal “pagan pilgrimage”, where, according to the remark of the cathedral itself, strict adherence to the rules of the hostel was impossible: “beyond that place is miraculous, and the guests are unceasing day and night,” and therefore not before he went to his abbess, having received permission to “rest” in his monastery the famous Tver prisoner, Maxim the Greek. But despite Maxim’s moral help, the hermit abbot soon felt out of place, he again withdrew into his hermitage, “so as not to perish in soul from God, and to fulfill Christ’s commandments, both the Gospel and the Apostles, and to have food and clothing from his own hand.” 203 In a word, with Artemy, almost the same thing that Paisiy Yaroslavov once experienced was repeated at the Trinity Abbess: the fight against “covetous, long-time criminal deceives” (as Kurbsky puts it) was beyond his strength. 204 Another hermit, the famous enlightener of the Lapps, Theodorit, who, on the recommendation of Artemy, was appointed abbot to the Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery of Suzdal, found here the same “unbridled and self-willed monks” with whom his like-minded person fought in the Trinity Lavra, and with his severity he turned against himself not only the entire brethren, but also the local bishop, whom he also denounced love of money and drunkenness. 205 At the same time, in the Trans-Volga deserts themselves - in this spiritual homeland of all Russian non-acquisitive people - protest against the worldly spirit and way of life of the church hierarchy and monasticism began to be expressed in sharp free-thinking arguments, reminiscent of the old heresy of the Judaizers. From here, the famous religious freethinkers of that time, Matvey Bakshin and Theodosius Kosoy, brought out or at least understood, substantiated and developed their teachings here. 206 Having assimilated the ideas of Nilus of Sora, they gave them the following heretical edition: “the spiritual authorities at the councils wrote everything for themselves, so that they could own everything - both royal and saintly.” 207 “Monasticism is a human invention, and monastic regulations are an invention of selfish monks who introduced a law so that monasteries would rule over people and villages.” 208 The search for heretics, carried out at the councils of 1553 and 1554, discovered their real nest in the Trans-Volga deserts. The covetous party took advantage of this circumstance to bring to trial, along with the heretics, those hermits whom we have already seen in high abbot positions and who were strong in their influence on the sovereign. The former Trinity abbot Artemy is designated as an “adviser” with Bakshin, and Theodorit of Spaso-Evfimievsky is designated as an advisor with Artemy, and both are exiled to monasteries “under strict authority.” One of the members of the council, the Ryazan Bishop Cassian, who came from the same Trans-Volga deserts, decided to “fight” against these imaginary heretics, but, according to modern testimony, he was subjected to a miraculous punishment for this, which forced him to abandon the see. 209 Even Maxim the Greek, judging by his relationship with Artemy, apparently faced a new danger. They demanded that he denounce Bakshin's heresy in writing, which greatly alarmed the long-suffering saint. However, the tsar himself, who took an active part in theological disputes with heretics, was not slow to write to reassure Maxim, “we heard that you are offended by our demand and think that we equate you with Matvey (Bakshin); but do not place the faithful alongside the unfaithful.” 210 Soon after the conciliar trial of heretics, the teaching of one of them, namely Theodosius Kosoy, was subjected to strict literary criticism by Maximov’s student, the Oten monk Zinovy, who partly shared the fate of his teacher, but did not share his thoughts about monastic estates. Since the heretics, rebelling against Russian monasticism for the possession of people and villages, directly referred to the writings of the monk-prince Vassian and Maxim the Greek, whose authority, as true teachers of faith and piety, was assumed to be indisputable, 211 Zinovy ​​considered it necessary to direct his objections not so much against the ideas of Vassian and Maxim, but against their personality. He tries to cast a shadow over the very moral character of both preachers of monastic non-covetousness, accuses them of insincerity, hypocrisy, of unfairly demanding from others what they themselves did not observe, in a word, he derives all their polemics against the patrimonial life of Russian monasteries from personal, reprehensible motives. With particular force, Zinovy ​​attacks his teacher - for pointing to the example of the Latin monks, given by Maxim as if only in order to prick the Orthodox Russian monasticism, which owns the villages, more painfully. “Why,” he asks, are our monasteries more sinful than the Latin ones, if they accept alms from the villages? The only difference between one and the other is that Latin monks collect alms around the city twice a week, and Russians once a year, in the summer, go out to their villages to collect fruits from the peasants, and then remain silent in the monastery, remaining in fasting and prayer, unless some need forces them to go out... It is obvious that Maxim pointed to the example of the Latin monastery only in order to reproach Russian monasticism. For he could offer Russian monasteries, as a model to follow, the Egyptian monasteries, famous for miracles, like the sky with stars (although their example cannot be a law for our monasteries: for Egypt is a midday and fertile country, and Rus' is midnight and harsh); but Maxim did not point out either Egypt, or the Holy Mountain, or Greece, from where the Russian Church received the faith, but praised, obviously, only as a reproach for us, the monastery of the Latin country and the heresy, from which the Russian Church in every possible way turns away. 212 This reproach seems to Zinovy ​​all the more unfair because Maxim and Vassian, living at the court of the Grand Duke, did not at all know the life of the Russian monasteries that owned the villages. “Tears come to my eyes,” writes Zinovy, when I remember what kind of monks I saw in those monasteries that Vassian and Maxim reproach for the villages. Their hands were crumpled from hard work, the skin on their hands was hardened and cracked, their faces were exhausted, their hair was disheveled... The tax collectors dragged them without mercy and beat them mercilessly. Their hands and feet turned blue and swollen; some of them limped, others fell. They had the same amount of property as the beggars: some had five or six silver coins, others three or two, and many often did not find even one copper coin. Their food is oatmeal bread, unwinnowed, or rye bread made from crushed ears of grain, and it is dry and without salt. Drink – water, brew – cabbage; only the more prosperous have beets and turnips as greens; Their vegetables are rowan and viburnum. And what does he say about clothes? “It’s scattered and... sprinkled.” 213 In contrast to this picture, Zinovy describes the life of the preachers of monastic non-covetousness themselves, at the court of the Grand Duke: “I saw those who called themselves non-covetous, who had 1000 silver coins or more in their wallets, and who ate wheat bread, clean and soft, white and black caviar, beluga and sturgeon vizig, white fish and steam fish, white, black and red; they had vegetables: figs, stapidae (raisins), horns, plums, cherries, duli, apples; and seasonings; ginger, pepper, cinnamon, saffron, cloves, nutmeg, sugar. The clothes are soft, warm and light.” Here we are talking about Maxim the Greek, who is not named, perhaps because at that time (in 1555) he was still alive, but to whom Zinovy ​​clearly points out, moving after that to the description of another non-possessor: “let’s also look, he says, at the monk-prince Vassian and his law. Probably dissatisfied with the monasteries for the villages, he chose to live in the desert. But then, by the will of the Grand Duke, he lived in the Simonov Monastery and did not want to eat Simonov’s food - rye bread, brew from cabbage leaves and beet stems, porridge seasoned with pounded juice or sour milk, and did not drink the monastery drink, which cleanses the stomach. Since the monastery received all this from the villages, Vassian did not consume monastic food and drink. He ate food brought to him from the Grand Duke's table: clean and coarse wheat bread, and other dishes with various seasonings, in a word - everything that was brought to the Grand Duke's table from fish, butter, milk and eggs. So, the reverent monk-prince Vassian differed in food from the brethren of the Simon monastery, who (as I heard) have two thousand howls, but did not differ in food from the great prince, who has thousands of thousands of howls. And this non-covetous man drank romanea, baster, mushkatel, and Rensky white wine.” 214 From this contrast, Zinovy ​​draws the conclusion that Vassian and Maxim, as they knew no need for anything, had no right to be legislators for Russian monasticism, which, despite owning the villages, still suffered incomparably more needs and deprivations than the preachers of non-covetousness themselves. But in the heat of his polemics, Zinovy ​​forgets that Vassian and Maxim did not of their own free will live near the Grand Duke and fed from his table, and that they did not exchange their convictions for the Grand Duke’s dishes and favors. Zinovy’s hints about the insincerity of his teacher’s ascetic preaching are especially unfair: the conveniences of life supported by the Russian sovereign did not seduce Maxim so much that he could forget the place of his monastic exploits - the Holy Mountain, where he asked to go while still in the favor of the Grand Duke. 215 The beginning of Maximova’s polemic against the “beloved” Russian monasticism also dates back to this time. 216 But Zinovy, having forgotten his own argument about the impropriety of people living on the generous support of the Grand Duke, to prescribe laws to monks who receive meager support from monastic estates, decides to assert that Maxim began to reproach our monasteries for owning villages - in annoyance at his imprisonment. 217 The mocking mention of 1000 silver coins in the purse of “some non-covetous people” is also unwelcome; this was alms that Maxim, in the hope of returning to Athos, collected for the monasteries there. And in his reviews of Vassian, the author became carried away with his irony to the point of contradictions and absurdities. Let us assume that the monk-prince exchanged Simon's fraternal meal for dishes brought from the Grand Duke's table, not at all out of hatred for the monastery for owning the villages, but out of the old habit of eating for satiety and sweetness. But what is the meaning of the same irony in relation to Vassian’s transition from the Cyril monastery, rich in estates, to the harsh Nilova hermitage, where he had to feed himself by his own labors and only in cases of extreme need was he allowed to accept alms from Christ-lovers? Finally, in the very contrast between the life of the preachers of non-covetousness and the life of the monasteries owning estates, there are some exaggerations; the picture of the extreme poverty of landowning monasticism, even if taken by Zinovy ​​from reality, does not embrace all the monasteries condemned by Vassian and Maxim for owning villages. For example, in the Trinity Lavra and the Kirillov Monastery, the monks lived and fed hardly worse than how, according to Zinovy’s description, our non-covetous people lived and fed at the court of the Grand Duke. 218 The political significance of the non-covetous party had been shaken even before the church trial of them at the councils of 1553 and 1554. It is not without reason that in the case of Bakshin and Artemy, some illiterate clerk (Viskovaty) managed to bring the almighty Sylvester to account as an “adviser” to the heretics. 219 Not long before, at a critical moment, when the sick king was close to death, Sylvester and Adashev found themselves on the side of the boyars who did not want to swear allegiance to the heir to the throne, the baby Dimitri. 220 The Tsar, who unexpectedly rose from his sick bed, of course, could not forgive this either to the boyars, or even less so to his favorites. In general, Sylvester and his party did not demonstrate such an understanding of the highest state interests as was required by the political traditions of Moscow and the personal character of the sovereign. The tsar wanted unlimited, unfettered autocracy, the essence of which he later defined as follows: “I am free to reward my slaves, but I am also free to execute.” 221 Sylvester, on the contrary, considered himself obliged to restrain the manifestations of autocratic will, guided by such unconditional rules, and defended the interests of the boyars, as the closest and necessary royal advisers. All this led to the fact that the tsar apparently lost interest in the “helper of his soul” and, having set himself the goal of breaking the willfulness of the boyars, began to look for another moral support for this struggle. Recent experience directly indicated where it was easiest to find people most devoted to the unconditional principle of Moscow autocracy, and so, having barely recovered from illness, the tsar, despite the resistance of Sylvester and his party, went on pilgrimage to the monasteries and in one of them (Pesnoshsky) had a meeting with his father’s friend and adviser, the former Kolomna ruler “Osiflanite” Vassian Toporkov, who was completely in the spirit of his party and politics Vasily Ivanovich gave his son advice: to rule completely autocratically, to decide everything according to his own extreme understanding and not to listen to advisers. 222 From Toporkov’s cell, from conversations with another “beloved” monk of the “Osiflan” school, Ivan IV carried out in his soul those seeds from which the moral character of Tsar the Terrible, the tsar in the monastic robe, the abbot of his oprichine, was not slow to develop. Probably, at the very beginning of this formidable reign, an extremely remarkable apocryphal conversation between Sergius and Herman, the Valaam wonderworkers, appeared, written, apparently, in the Trans-Volga (Novogorod) deserts by some tonsured boyar. 223 The main content of this conversation is a sharp polemic against monastic estates, but here the old question is resolved from a new, original point of view, indicated by modern circumstances. The imaginary Sergius and Herman are ardent defenders of the interests of the service class and strict denouncers of the unreasonable “simplicity” of the Russian tsars, distributing the best lands to monasteries and sharing their power with monks, and not with princes and boyars. This main idea of ​​the “conversation” is quite skillfully tied to the lofty concepts of Ivan IV himself about the political significance of autocracy. “Tsars in their titles are written as autocrats - this is how the pseudo-Valaam miracle workers begin their conversation - but this name is not suitable for kings who hold the kingdom given to them by God and rule the world not by themselves and not with their friends - princes and boyars, but share power and talk with the unburied dead (i.e. monks). It is better for such a king to leave his degree and rod, take off the royal crown and not have the royal name on himself and the royal throne under him, rather than turn the monks away from spiritual salvation with worldly vanities. This is not royal mercy towards monks, but spiritual harm and eternal destruction for them, if kings give them, as soldiers (serving people), princely and boyar salaries, i.e. volosts with peasants." Thanks to such royal simplicity, “in our last times, many want to be monks and dress up in this image, like grooms at a wedding, not for humility and spiritual benefit, but for glory and majesty: for the enviable time has come for the monks, for the destruction of their souls.” Just as the spiritual hierarchy at the councils of 1553 and 1554 recognized the teaching of the non-covetous as heresy, so the imaginary authors of the conversation “simply” declare: “this, beloved brothers, is a new heresy invented by the devil against the new grace, so that monks own volosts with peasants, judge the world, give peasants bail, send bailiffs for them, collect from the world, like kings and others to the rulers, all kinds of royal income and tear down the world, in the monasteries there will be drunkenness and voluptuousness, to keep the monks special from the laity, the best, so-called fraternal food and drink, to collect all kinds of treasures for themselves (private property) and to receive for the monasteries, as an insult to the peasants, the best lands and lands. All these “unlike articles” are proposed to be noted with “ready-made alms” (ruga) and “industrial uluses special from the laity, so that they, the monks, can be well-fed, and not feed on worldly tears and sighs.” The conversation ends with the following petition to the Tsar on behalf of the unknown author himself: “Look at what the venerable Sergius and Herman wrote about, and ordered to inform about such a matter, for the government of this world. Without your royal virtue to God, you cannot overcome and trample down enemies and all sorts of rioters, you cannot correct your army in joy and you cannot unite the whole (Russian) world into one being. Tsar-Sovereign, please have mercy, raise him up and live!” 224 The Tsar-Sovereign, of course, was now in no mood to share his power with the boyars, or to favor them on the account of monasticism. But he still did not lose sight of those state tasks that were related to the issue of monastic estates. The terrible king was also terrible to his friends - the monks. Who doesn’t know the famous satirical message of Ivan the Terrible to the Kirillov Monastery? Even earlier (in 1557), responding to the request of the Kazan Archbishop Gury for a grant of land for the monastery being established there, the tsar wrote, among other things: “just remember what I often said, when you were abbot, that it is unkind to enrich monasteries through demand, and to give great wealth to the monasteries; Because of this, they are more idle, drunken and lazy, and idleness leads to all kinds of evil. And if he’s poor, he works harder to get bread and clothes, but he can’t think of anything else.” 225 Remaining true to this view, Ivan IV now had to not only moderate the generosity of his own grants to monasteries that already had estates, but also insist on the measures taken at the council of 1551 in order to block all other paths to the transfer of lands into monastic ownership. Both were required by the ever-increasing state demand for land, as the only source of support for the service class, which was abundantly filled, instead of the “retiring” boyars, with people from the lower strata of society.” 226 For all these reasons, Ivan IV, even after the conciliar verdict on May 11, 1551, did not cease to constrain the spiritual landowners more and more in the ways of acquiring new estates. It seems that soon after the aforementioned conciliar verdict, a decree was issued on the estates and purchases of service people - childless. Such persons are given the right to alienate and, in particular, to give to monasteries of their choice only up to half of their estates; but the purchase was personal, and not family property, and everyone was free to sell, mortgage, and give away according to their liking. 227 In 1557, the procedure adopted at the council of 1551 for the redemption of ancestral lands (patrimonial estates) given to monasteries per soul was confirmed and more precisely defined. Namely, the legal heirs of the testator are given the right to challenge the redemption price prescribed in the will, if it seemed to them too high and if the most spiritual one has not yet been signed and sealed. According to the lawsuit, begun under this last condition, it was allowed to give the plaintiffs “measurers” and buy back the estates from the monasteries “according to what they are worth.” 228 In 1562, an ancient decree was confirmed, with some important additions, prohibiting the service princes and residents of the cities recently annexed to Moscow (namely: Tver, Torzhok, Yaroslavl, Ryazan, Bela-Ozero and Romanov) to alienate their estates and, in particular, to give them to monasteries per soul. 229 At the same time, it is stated as a general rule that the estates of childless service princes are taken over by the sovereign. All personal orders of such patrimonial owners, contrary to the stated rule, are declared invalid. In particular, it is determined: if a childless serving prince writes in his spiritual charter “to build his soul from that patrimony,” then the fulfillment of this clause shall be attributed either to the movable property of the testator (“from the bellies”), or, in the absence of such, to the royal treasury (“judging by the patrimony”), or, finally, to the responsibility of relatives whom “the sovereign will grant with that patrimony.” Other votchinniki - boyars and boyar children - are subject to the same rules, with the only difference being that the dispensation of their souls is directly attributed to the royal treasury. 230 Having once again, in general terms, confirmed the same “old sovereign code,” the council of clergy and boyars on October 9, 1573, sentenced a new and more decisive measure: “from now on, large monasteries that have a lot of land should not be denied patrimony, but if someone bequeaths his patrimonial land to such a monastery, then in the Local Izba it should not be registered as a monastery, but given to the family and tribe - to the serving people, so that in the service there was no loss, and the land would not go out of service.” But poor, land-poor monasteries are still left with the right to acquire estates by refusing to pay the funeral service, however, only by a boyar’s verdict and a report to the sovereign. The estates assigned in this way to the monasteries would henceforth no longer be subject to redemption by the relatives of the testator. 231 The result of all the activities of Ivan IV and together the last legislative word of ancient, pre-Petrine Rus' on the issue of church and monastic estates was the conciliar verdict on January 15, 1580. 232 This sentence finally deprived the bishops and monasteries of all ways to increase their estates, except for one thing - grants, which, however, were promised only to “poor” monasteries, those with little land and landless. The motivation for such a decisive measure was explained in detail by the council itself, or, more accurately, by the tsar himself, who convened the spiritual authorities regarding the critical circumstances in which the state was then located. The council was confronted with the plight of the country, exhausted by long and, for the most part, unsuccessful wars with almost all its neighbors; the sacrifices made for the defense of the fatherland by the sovereign and all classes have been calculated, except for the non-service and light-duty clergy, who lost comparatively nothing, on the contrary, used their influence and wealth to increase their possessions “not only through a blessed fault, but also with cunning and hard work”; The inconsistency of such relations is indicated neither with the benefit of the Church itself, since all bishops’ and monastic incomes are “exhausted into wasteland, for the sake of the drunken, indecent and weak life” of spiritual landowners, nor with the needs of the state, which, due to the extraordinary accumulation of land wealth in the hands of the clergy, no longer found the means to support the military ranks, which suffered “impoverishment of greatness.” For these reasons, or, in the words of the conciliar verdict, in order to “let the churches of God and sacred places remain without rebellion, and the military ranks take up arms stronger against the enemies of the cross of Christ,” the cathedral - 1) Solemnly proclaimed the inviolability of the existing possessions of the Church, both ancient and indisputable, and those that, before the date of publication of this verdict, were newly acquired by churches and monasteries under wills for soul-to-heart funerals. “This is how the council expressed this definition: yes, as much as there are lands and farmlands, there are villages and hamlets, and reapings and hay crops, which has hitherto been given and entrusted to God in the metropolitanate, and in the bishoprics, and in the monasteries, but nothing has been transformed, and from the metropolitanate, and from the bishoprics, and from the monasteries. And estates (that is, lands given to churches and monasteries by private owners) are not taken away or redeemed from the metropolitan, or from the rulers, or from the monasteries by any court or by any law; although a place is not established by fortresses, one cannot redeem it from the monastery, and in the future the monastery will not compete for estates.” Only about the princely estates, which were “previously given” in a heart-to-heart manner, a reservation was made that “God and the sovereign will be free in them, as he bestows upon his pilgrims.” 2) Finally and unconditionally, he forbade bishops and monasteries from buying and taking as mortgages or per capita the estates of service people, and in general from increasing their possessions in any way (“no matter”). All such acquisitions will henceforth be taken away from the sovereign without money. Only with regard to refusals to perform heart-to-heart funerals, an exception was made - in the sense that patrimonial owners have the right to bequeath to monasteries, instead of patrimonies, an amount of money equal to their value, which is paid by the heirs of the testator, whether it be his relatives or the treasury itself. But poor monasteries are still allowed to ask the sovereign to supply them with land: “and the sovereign, talk to the metropolitan council and the boyars, will build that monastery, with land, as it will be useful, as it will be possible for him to live.” 3) He ordered that all the estates that, before January 15, 1580, were bought or mortgaged by bishops and monasteries from serving people be taken away from the sovereign: “but in terms of money, God and the sovereign knows how he will reward his pilgrims” i.e. will return the buyers and trustees their money, or not. Speaking about the cathedral of 1580, we cannot pass in silence the story of the Englishman Horsey, who was a close person to Ivan IV in the last years of his reign, and whom Karamzin recognizes as the most reliable witness to the court events of this time. 233 According to Horsey, the king, having decided to flee to England and not finding sufficient funds for this in his treasury, depleted by prolonged wars, demanded emergency donations from the spiritual authorities for state needs. The Council, convened to discuss this matter, prepared a negative answer. Having learned about this decision through his spies, the king called to him the bishops and abbots, who opposed his demand more strongly than others, and made a formidable speech before them, in which he said, among other things: “we have been informed of your meetings and what you have decided on... My words about the disasters of the state and the needs of the people, about the sad outcome of many cases, did not arouse regret in you and did not soften you. What will we reward you for this? The nobility and the people cry out to us with their complaints that you, in order to maintain your power, have appropriated all the wealth of the country for yourself, trade in all kinds of goods, impose and take taxes from all travelers, enjoy privileges, do not pay our throne any duties or military costs. You have intimidated the timid conscience of the noblest, best and most useful class, our subjects, and seized ownership of a third part, as it turns out, of the cities, towns, and villages of our state... You buy and sell the souls of our people, lead the most evil life, drown in pleasures and delights, allow yourself the most terrible sins: extortion, bribery and exorbitant growth... We must answer a lot before God for the fact that many more worthy were allowed to die in your place: God forgive me for my partiality towards you! I have often been forced by your vices to restore the rights of thousands of my poor nobility, from whose ancestors most of the estates and incomes passed to you, which in all fairness should belong to them, for they sacrificed their lives and labor for your safety and for your enrichment. All my once prosperous people have become poor through your robberies and devilish deceptions, while you should have been restoring and maintaining the flourishing state of the zemstvo... Your income far exceeds what you can usually spend, even with your luxurious and wasteful lifestyle. Since my nobility and service people are in decline as a result of all this, and our treasury is depleted, then we, by the secret inspiration of the holy souls of miracle workers, to whom you serve and owe your numerous riches that lie with you and are not used for spiritual needs - in the name of them and all your saintly deceased investors and benefactors, we conjure you so that on the appointed day you deliver to me the most accurate and accurate inventory of all treasures and income received by each of your monasteries from what is listed in its possession.” While the bishops, Horsey continues, were looking for means to ward off the danger, the tsar organized bear baiting of the bishops and monks, which prompted the council to hasten the preparation and submission of the required equipment. The report attached to this document said that all the wealth calculated here constitutes the property of each saint or founder of the monastery, entrusted to the disposal of their successors for eternity, for the maintenance of the churches and monasteries founded by them, for all ages, and that the holy souls of God's saints will not tolerate arbitrariness or violation of what they have bequeathed for this purpose. Otherwise, wouldn’t it please the king to give genuine evidence to declare what happened to future posterity? The matter ended, according to Horsey, with the tsar demanding a huge sum of money from the clergy (300 thousand pounds sterling) and, in addition, taking upon himself many districts, towns, villages, lands and other real estate. under the pretext of a more worthy disposal of them. 234 Despite the obvious confusion of events in this story, we have no doubt that we see in it a story, and a very plausible one, about the cathedral of 1580. Firstly, the formidable speech of the tsar, even if embellished by a loquacious foreigner, is partly heard in the conciliar verdict itself, which, as we have seen, is quite sharply expressed about the moral life of spiritual landowners and generally describes modern circumstances and the reasons for convening the council in exactly the same way as the tsar in Horsey. Another feature of the story, namely the fact that the tsar demanded from the bishops and monastic authorities an accurate and detailed inventory of their income, in order to turn the excess into military costs, is confirmed by some (probably draft) lists of the council’s definition, which were later included in the number of additional decrees to the Code of Law. So in the consolidated Sudebnik, according to the publication of Maksimovich, the conciliar verdict on January 15, 1580 begins with the following article: “firstly, let all consecrated archbishops and bishops and monasteries' dues be counted and equalized according to the rank of each: by the archbishop equally, by the rulers equally, also by the elders and Elders everywhere, according to their number, equally, as long as they have enough for food and clothing, so that they do not lack in anything, nor indulge in excess in drunkenness and lewdness, which is disgusting to God. And if there is too much in the wasteland (it becomes exhausted), it will be taken to military rank, fighting the wicked in the royal court.” 236 This point was not included in the actual act of the conciliar verdict because, of course, it was nothing more than a draft of a new legislative measure, the implementation of which required preliminary work that was too complex and difficult for that time. 237 Further, Horsey’s testimony about the report, which was attached to the inventory of bishops’ and monastic incomes, deserves credibility in itself (for the contents of the report are conveyed in such typical expressions in which one cannot help but see a fairly accurate translation of the Russian original), 238 and in comparison with the first paragraph of the original conciliar charter, which, as we have seen, contains a decree on the inalienability of existing church property. Finally, the news of the confiscation of a significant amount of bishop's and monastic lands to the tsar is directly justified by the order of the council on estates purchased or mortgaged by the clergy before 1580. From a historical point of view, the conciliar verdict on January 15, 1580 is important, not only in the sense of the law, which precisely determines the future fate of church and monastic estates (their non-decreasing and non-adding), but also as an administrative measure caused by frequent violations of previous laws that prohibited the clergy from increasing their holdings. We see from here that the monasteries, even after the cathedral determination of 1573, continued to acquire lands for themselves, both by heart-to-heart refusals, and by purchase, and by accepting them as a mortgage. Indirect reasons for such illegal acquisitions were often provided by the legislator himself. We are talking about the famous disgraces and executions that filled the second half of the reign of Ivan the Terrible (1564–1584) and which in two ways contributed to the increase in monastic estates. Firstly, many of the disgraced boyars, willingly, or more often unwillingly, took monastic vows; Before entering the monastery, they were obliged, according to general custom, to make a decent contribution for themselves, i.e. a certain part of their estates. The tsar was all the less able to prevent such contributions from being made, since otherwise, political tonsures would have constituted a heavy burden for monasteries and monks, capable of introducing a spirit of sedition into the very “sovereign pilgrimages.” And was it worth it for the tsar to feel sorry for the resulting loss of service lands, when along with it the number of the seditious boyars themselves was decreasing 239 and when the rest (and, no doubt, the majority) of their estates was taken into the palace department? - Secondly, the fear of executions and executions prompted the patrimonial owners to enter into various secret deals with the monasteries in order to save something for themselves or their families for a rainy day. Most often, it seems, purchase and sale were carried out under the guise of a heart-to-heart refusal, a preliminary contribution for tonsure, a loan secured by estates for the needs of the service, etc. By entering into such illegal transactions, the monasteries, of course, risked losing both money and patrimony; but this risk was not great, since among private individuals there were more willing to sell than to buy estates; consequently, due to the lack of competition, monasteries were able to acquire rich plots of land at the cheapest prices. On the other hand, the “royal pilgrims” could always count on a royal grant, i.e. to strengthen their rights with a charter. All this must be kept in mind in order to correctly understand the historical meaning of the conciliar verdict on January 15, 1580 and generally not exaggerate the actual significance of the legislative measures of Ivan IV on the issue of monastic and church estates. He not only did not save Russia from turning into monastic property, as some claim, 240 but perhaps more than all his predecessors he contributed to the extraordinary enrichment of monasteries with lands. By placing votchinas on the same line as estates, conditioning all private rights on both on the obligations of service, keeping service people in constant fear for their lands and heads, Ivan the Terrible diminished the benefits of private land ownership to such an extent that the votchinniki, without much regret, sacrificed their family property to the clergy, counting, at least in the event of disgrace and execution, to ensure eternal church remembrance for themselves. And the tsar himself, who had now lost his balance of spirit, constantly moving from fierce executions to fervent prayers and generous alms for the repose of those executed, often acted contrary to his own prohibitions to give away patrimonial lands on a heart-to-heart basis. So in 1575, he gave, to the liking of Prince Ivan Belsky, two villages to the Kirillov Monastery (the richest after Sergiev) and one to the Suzdal bishop's house. 241 The general result of all the above circumstances is clearly presented in the scribe books compiled shortly after the death of Ivan the Terrible. Thus, from an excerpt from a Moscow edition book of 1586 242 it is clear that in the Goretovo camp, near the capital itself, where service lands were especially expensive, churches and monasteries owned much more land than other private owners and even the sovereign himself, 243 it is also clear that many of these lands again passed to spiritual owners from secular ones. 244 It remains for us to say a few words about the measures taken by Ivan IV in the second half of his reign regarding the existing existing church and monastic estates, those that were recognized as indisputable in the legal sense, and in the canonical sense as inalienable and inalienable. Here the whole task for the government was limited only to the question of the correct and expedient use of bishops' and monastic incomes. The idea of ​​their excess, in comparison with the actual needs of the owners (bishop's houses and monasteries), and the need to turn the excess into general church and state needs - this idea, expressed in the royal questions to the council of 1551, did not leave Ivan IV throughout his long reign. So in 1555, on the occasion of the opening of the Kazan diocese, it was necessary to attribute (temporarily) the maintenance of the local bishop's house and the Sviyazhsk monastery to the account of other bishops and all monasteries in general, 245 from which, indeed, a certain tax was collected for this subject, until the affairs of the newly established department were settled with an ordinary royal grant. 246 The conquest of Kazan served as the reason for imposing on monasteries another church duty - to support newly baptized Tatars until they were confirmed in the Christian faith. 247 As for the state tax on spiritual landowners, under Ivan IV it grew to the same extent that their previous various benefits were taken away. 248 The military service of the clergy especially increased, which they served, instead of personal service, with cash and in-kind taxes, 249 with the supply of datory people, 250 with the placement of boyars and boyars’ children on their lands. 251 More than once Ivan the Terrible resorted to extraordinary, violent measures to enrich the treasury at the expense of spiritual landowners. The Novgorod clergy, who were constantly suspected of treason by the tsar, suffered especially hard in this regard. So in 1570, during the famous Novgorod pogrom, Ivan handed over the local churches and monasteries for plunder, in addition, he ordered a huge indemnity to be “administered” to the archbishop and monasteries and to take away from them all the grants (serfdom and benefits) for the estates. 252 The result of this last measure was the selection of a significant amount of archbishop's and monastic lands for the sovereign, as can be seen from the Novgorod scribe books of 1581–1583. 253 The entire Russian Church suffered something similar to the Novgorod pogrom from Grozny. Namely, in 1575, having installed the famous Kasimov prince Sain-Bulat in St. At the baptism of Simeon Bekbulatovich, tsar over the zemshchina, Ivan, according to the testimony of Fletcher and Horsey, inspired him to take away all serfdom and preferential letters from the bishops and monasteries, for copying them into his royal (i.e. Simeon's) name. Then, as if condescending to the complaints of the clergy, whose privileges under the new tsar had lost all their power, the old tsar, after a year, again took control into his own hands and returned the charters according to their ownership, but did not fail to take from the bishops and monasteries, for this favor, a huge sum of money and, moreover, left behind as much land as he pleased. 254 Bearing in mind, on the one hand, the general political significance of such an emergency measure as the installation of a special king over the zemshchina, 255 on the other, the old custom of confirming letters of grant with each new reign, and finally, the example of the temporary abolition of all tarkhans of the clergy by a council verdict on July 20, 1584, which took place shortly after the death of Ivan the Terrible, 256 we recognize the story of the named foreigners as quite plausible. V. A general overview of the obstacles that the Muscovite sovereigns of the 16th century had to fight when they sought to limit the patrimonial rights of the clergy The council's verdict on January 15, 1580 ends the first period of historical development in our country of the idea of ​​secularization of church and monastic estates. The difficult issue that occupied the Moscow government for almost a century was resolved to the extent required by the glaring needs of the state. But the ultimate goal of the aspirations of Ivan III and his grandson of the same name turned out to be, under the circumstances of that time, completely unattainable. On the way to it there were obstacles that neither the cold prudence of one sovereign nor the passionate energy of another could overcome. What were these obstacles? Outlining in the previous (II-IV) chapters the history of our issue, during the reign of three Moscow sovereigns of the 16th century, we saw that under each of them the actual success of an idea that was already sufficiently recognized by both the government and advanced people in society was not favorable. But besides these special, more or less random conditions, there were also general and constant ones, with a review of which we will finish the first part of our essay. The idea of ​​secularization in the 16th century was new wine in old wineskins. Its power, so to speak, evaporated, disappeared into the general structure of people's thought and life, which was still more favorable to the further enrichment of the Church than to the most plausible claims to its property. Both in the private and in the public life of our ancestors of the 16th century, the conviction that charitable zeal for churches and monasteries, expressed in the usual donations of certain property to them, was the surest guarantee of any good, public and private, prevailed as the highest determining principle. Thus, the highest principles of internal Moscow politics completely coincided with those views of the clergy, due to which churches and monasteries were originally enriched with estates. This is how those sovereigns who sought to limit or even completely destroy the patrimonial rights of the hierarchy and monasticism viewed their relationship to the Church. The activities of Ivan IV are especially typical in this regard. Pointing out to the council of 1551 the harmful consequences for the morality of monks resulting from the excessive enrichment of monasteries with estates, the tsar at the same time said to the spiritual assembly: “and the language must bear your every burden according to reasoning and burdens in all sorrows, as God will help you.” 257 But the reasoning of that time was very simple; it was expressed with remarkable certainty in the words of Joseph Volotsky, known to us, one of the main defenders of the right of monasteries to acquire and hold estates: “it is not for nothing, he wrote, that churches and monasteries are called pilgrimages: the abbot prays to God with his brethren for the sovereign, for the boyars and for all Christians, for which he accepts alms from them.” 258 The theocratic meaning of that time saw in offerings to churches and monasteries direct offerings to God himself and his saints. Due to this view, the distinction between rich and poor monasteries, established in the laws of Ivan IV, was not always respected in the practice of grants. If the government did not deny poor monasteries the right to acquire land property, “so that they had something to live on,” then the rich and noble continued to enjoy the favors of the sovereigns - thanks to the general reverence for the names of their founders, the great miracle workers. These were the primary “royal pilgrims”, who were responsible for a kind of public service. The rights and duties of this service are excellently characterized in well-known letters of prayer, which were usually sent to the most noble monasteries in times of public disasters and joys, and in which each time a more or less generous “sovereign alms” was attached to be distributed among the hands of pilgrims (brothers and beggars). 259 One of these letters, sent by Ivan the Terrible from his deathbed to the Kirillov Monastery (in March 1584), is extremely remarkable. Recalling, probably, his famous accusatory letter to the same monastery (around 1578), the tsar now humbly writes to the abbot and the brethren: “that we, out of sin, have turned against you, and you would forgive us for everything, and for us you would say a diligent prayer to the Creator and the Most Pure Mother of God and the great Wonderworker Kirill, so that the Lord God and The Most Pure Mother of God and the great Wonderworker Kirill, through your holy prayers, granted freedom from sins, and freed me from current mortal illnesses; and I hit you, my pilgrim, with my forehead.” 260 A sharp contrast in the tone of both messages characterizes the very activities of Ivan IV in relation to monasteries and monasticism: on the one hand, he is thinking about reducing the land wealth of his pilgrims and pilgrims, on the other hand, he gives them generous alms not only in money, but also in estates. 261 The same should be said about all the Moscow sovereigns from Ivan III to Peter the Great. The idea of ​​the need for the good of the state itself to grant immovable property to the Church was so deeply rooted in the political views of the 16th and 17th centuries that it was even included in state acts of paramount importance. Thus, in the contractual clauses of the Moscow boyars with the Polish government on the elevation of Prince Vladislav to the Russian throne, among the main conditions, at the insistence of the clergy, the following was set: “and what was given to the churches of God and to the monasteries of estates and lands... and that tribute of all the former sovereigns of Moscow and boyars, and all people, tribute from the churches of God and monasteries, should not be taken away, and For the sake of the great God, for the sake of mercy, add all donations to churches and monasteries.” 262 From here it is revealed, by the way, how the clergy looked at the conciliar verdict of January 15, 1580, which took away from them all ways of further acquiring land holdings: they saw in it an unfair and dangerous for the state restriction of the property rights of the Church and, of course, confirmed their view by indicating the disasters of the troubled times. As for the social environment, there was even weaker opposition to established views and customs, which served as the main source of enriching churches and monasteries with land property. The custom of relinquishing estates heart-to-heart was especially firmly held. The teachings of the Strigolniks and non-covetous people of the 16th century did not have time to take deep roots into public consciousness. In any case, it was met with the opposite teaching of the spiritual hierarchy, which could not have been more consistent with the simple religious concepts of that time. We have already had occasion to mention the preface to the monastic synodikum, written at the end of the 15th century to prove the soul-saving nature of offerings to churches and monasteries for eternal remembrance. We consider it not superfluous to cite here several passages from this preface, which, one must think, had a particularly powerful effect on the religious feeling of his contemporaries. Advising every Orthodox Christian to personally and in advance take care of the order of his soul through a refusal that gives the right to enroll in the monastic synodik, and not to entrust this great task to others, even those very close to himself, the unknown author says: “woe to those who do not care about their souls: they rob, rape, offend, extort, and give nothing to the churches of God, and, the departure of this world, They order their souls to be arranged by the same evil people, robbers and unmerciful ones, who, rejoicing at such wealth, begin to think: “Why didn’t he himself, my friend, give away during his life, but knew where he got what from - right or wrong? I don’t know how or to whom to give it.” In the midst of these reflections, the demon of selfishness approaches him and inspires: “good man! God has given you this for your good deeds: own, drink, eat and feed your children, your heirs, and they will give it away after you.” So he, a weak-minded man, seduced by the demon, takes all that property for himself; then, having lived for many years in immeasurable gluttony and drunkenness and departing from this world, he orders his wife and children to generously distribute the unjustly appropriated property to the churches and the poor after his death.” The wife (as we have already seen) did not fulfill her husband’s last will, and thus everyone, starting from the first testator, went to hell. A different fate awaits beyond the grave - those who “order their souls well,” i.e. they appoint faithful executors or, even better, they themselves directly deny certain property to churches and monasteries, for which they are registered, upon death, in the synodik, for eternal remembrance. “And when the priests, according to this synodik, remember the names of the deceased over the prosvira, saying: “Remember, Lord, the souls of your male and female servants who gave alms to this holy church and who were included in the synodik of this holy church”; then the Angel of the Lord, having heard these words, joyfully departs to heaven and writes those names in the eternal abodes, in the books of animals, in the unflickering light, where there is no end to joy.” Having thus proved the soul-saving value of writing in the church memorial, the author gives him the following praise: “this saving book is more useful than all the divine scriptures. For the Divine Scripture benefits only the living, but the Synodik also benefits the souls of the dead. Moreover, divine scripture speaks and teaches only about spiritual benefits, but says little about bodily peace. And for the sake of the saving Synodik there is not only deliverance from eternal torment and the enjoyment of endless blessings in the next century, but also in this life - the construction and decoration of divine churches, as well as all church contentment, for priests, deacons and all the brethren, bodily rest, food and drink, clothing and shoes and all cell household goods, and finally, from here - villages and helicopter cities, rivers and lakes, pastures and monastic livestock. 263 Yes, the synodik had then enormous economic significance for each monastery. Registration in the so-called annual and eternal synodik, according to which a special commemoration of the dead was carried out annually, on the days of their memory, with the singing of funeral liturgies, with the distribution of alms and the provision of “feed” for the brethren and the poor, required preliminary registration with the monastery and, in any case, was not cheap. “They don’t write in commemoration without rows,” Joseph Volotsky responded to the claim of one princess, who demanded such a commemoration of her dead, to which she, at the price of her contribution, did not have the right: “and whoever writes in commemoration, and they dress up either to give money or bread for every year, or they will give a village to their liking, and it will be written in the annual commemoration.” 264 All wealthy people, of course, wanted to be enrolled in the annual synodik and most often paid for this to the monastery - with estates, since it was both more convenient, due to the comparative cheapness of land and the high cost of money, and more consistent with the purpose of the very contribution to the eternal remembrance of the soul, “until the world stands.” How difficult it was for the government in the present case to go against the prevailing concepts and views of its time, can be seen from the fact that the giving of lands by souls was prohibited, after all other methods of acquisition of estates by monasteries (namely by the cathedral verdict of 1573), and this prohibition expressed opposition not to the very custom of making refusals by souls, but only to such refusals, the subject of which were lands. The votchinniki, as we have seen, were always given the right to arrange their souls from the votchina, i.e. assign a certain part of the patrimonial land for this item so that its price is paid to the monastery by the heirs or, in certain cases, by the treasury. Finally, we have already noted above that the sovereigns themselves (namely Grozny) gave away patrimonial lands per soul at a time when they forbade this to the patrimonial owners themselves. 265 If it was not easy for sovereigns and private individuals to renounce the custom of giving to monasteries, then it is clear that it was even more difficult to take away from them what they already owned. For this, the Church threatened with anathema, which, as we have seen, since the time of Ivan III, was actually pronounced, as a preventive measure, on all those in power who offended God’s holy churches and monasteries. At the same time, defenders of church property pointed to examples of terrible supernatural executions to which all blasphemers were subjected. The fear inspired by such examples was all the more akin to the soul of the ancient Russian man, because most of the real estate belonged to churches and monasteries under deposits and spiritual charters, in which testators usually called for the terrible judgment of God on everyone who would encroach on the integrity of the property given “for the redemption of the soul, for the inheritance of eternal blessings, as a memorial to the last generation.” Not infrequently, for a more solemn expression of the idea of ​​the inalienability and inalienability of the contribution, the very contribution letter was placed in the shrine of the saint whose church was denied certain property. 266 Hence, the encroachment on church and monastic estates seemed doubly criminal: it offended God, in whose service refusals and contributions were made, and at the same time destroyed at the very foundation the soul-saving economy of pious refusers and depositors. Whoever took away from the monastery the property given to the soul, he took away from this soul the hope of eternal salvation. This idea was expressed with particular force and persuasiveness for the modern government and society in 1467 by Metropolitan Philip in a letter to the Novgorod archbishop and the council. “Now, son,” he wrote, hearing that people of Orthodoxy, leaving this world, helped themselves and their souls, and wrote their spiritual letters, and donated their villages and their estates to the cathedral church, the house of St. Sophia, the Divine Wisdom, and to all the holy churches and monasteries, for the cleansing of their sin and for the commemoration of their only begotten and immortal souls and of all his family, which is to atone for the debt, and to redeem the terrible and inevitable tormented place, where he is a rich and merciless guardian; and for this reason they wrote off and gave their estates to the holy churches, as many pray for them in the holy churches of God, in the offering of holy bloodless sacrifices, absolution for the sake of and forgiveness of many sins... So for the sake of, son, I wrote to you, Jonah the archbishop, what are your children, some posadnitsy and the thousand, yes, and from the Novgorodians many people insert some vain words, wisely carnal, and not spiritual, but they want to rudely repair the holy Church of God and rob holy churches and monasteries. Namely: “Whoever wants to redeem his poor soul from eternal torment by acquiring it, gave his lustful property and villages to the holy churches of God and the monastery, for the sake of prayer from eternal torment and the remembrance of his soul and his family - and your children, some Novgorod residents of those church estates and villages, want to have for themselves, and the order and spiritual They steal their letters, and they plunder the churches of God, but they themselves want to make money.” 267 Well aware of the full power of this argument, defenders of the inviolability of church and monastic estates usually spoke of immovable church property as “given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, as a memorial to the last generation,” 268 although, of course, not all land holdings of the Church were acquired by it through heart-to-heart refusals. And experience has constantly justified confidence in the irresistible power of such argumentation. Before her, not only the fair claims of politics receded, but the indisputable demands of law. Thus, Ivan IV, having determined at the council of 1580 to take away to the treasury all the lands that, contrary to existing laws, were acquired by monasteries by purchase or mortgage, did not dare to touch those estates that, also illegally, were given to the monasteries per soul. See for example Apostolic Canon 38; Ancyra Cathedral 15; Antioch 24; Carthaginian 35, 42. VIΙ ecumenical 12 and interpretation of all these rules. Such curses are already contained in the well-known church charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav and are repeated in almost all of the church-legal monuments of the same kind closest to them, for example: in the charter of Mstislav Vladimirovich and his son Vsevolod to the Yuryev Monastery, 1128–1132 (Additions to historical acts, I, No. 2): in the charter of Vsevolod Mstislavich, this church of St. John the Baptist on Opoki, 1134–1135 (ib no. 3); in the charter of Svyatoslav Olegovich, a long-standing Novgorod bishop in 1137 (Russian sights, part 1. p. 84); in the charter of Izyaslav Mstislavich to the Novogorod Panteleimon Monastery, 1146–1154 (History of the Russian Hierarchy, part V, p. 554); in the charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav Mstislavich, given in 1150 to the newly established Smolensk bishopric (Additions to historical acts, I, No. 4); in the contribution letter of Varlaam Khutynsky (ib. No. 5) and others. Let us point out, for example, 1) the teaching of an unknown Vladimir bishop of the 13th century to the Grand Duke, son of Alexander Nevsky (Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 281); 2) to the (false) rule of the Fifth Ecumenical Council compiled by us “on those who offend the holy churches of God,” which is so often found in the Helmsman of the Sofia edition and to which already in the 15th century Metropolitan Philip referred in his letter to the Novgorodians (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, No. 82, p. 133); 3) to the khan’s labels, in which (obviously, from the words of our metropolitans) the idea of ​​​​the inviolability of church property is expressed even with greater force and solemnity, the rank in the Russian princely charters of the same content. 4) to the legends included in the lives of Russian saints about the miraculous executions to which the thieves of church property were subjected (See, for example, the miracle of the boyar Zacharias, placed in the life of Leonty of Rostov Buslaev, Historical Reader of Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages, p. 735). Other monuments of this kind will be discussed below. Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, no. 52. Lehrbuch des Katolischen Kirchenrechtes, 2-te Auflage. 1863 s. 488–489. Thus, in the Byzantine Empire, significant masses of church property were subject to secularization under Julian the Apostate, during the turbulent period of iconoclasm, under Nikephoros Phocas (10th century) and under Isaac Angelus (12th century). For the last two see Leunclavius ​​in Jus Graeco-Romanum, t. I, pp. 112–117, 124–126. The oldest examples from the history of Western Christian states are described in detail in Roth's work: Roth, “Geschichte des Beneficialwesens von den ältesten Zeiten bis ins 10 Jahrhundert,” 1850, pp. 313–366, 466–470. So, in 1175, the Vladimir princes Yaropolk and Mstislav Rostislavich took away from the local episcopal church the villages and settlements given to it by Andrei Bogolyubsky (Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. II, pp. 159–160). For example, in 1224, Smolensk Bishop Lazar left the department “for many insults to the holy churches, which the rulers offended, taking away property and doing evil without truth, and offending widows and orphans” (Filaret, “Lives of Russian Saints,” August, p. 82, note 131). Four years later, Patriarch Herman of Constantinople wrote to Metropolitan Kirill I of Kyiv: “Let our humility in the Holy Spirit, with indestructible excommunication, be confessed to all pious princes and other elders there, so that they may rake in monastic and church acquisitions” (Kormchaya, Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 477, l. 428 vol. 427. Compare Macarius, History of the Russian Church, vol. III, p. 338 (ed. 1). In the second half of the 13th century, an unknown bishop of Vladimir complained to the Grand Duke about the destruction of the local church and the devastation of its houses (“the church was robbed and its houses are empty.” See the previous note). Metropolis and Novgorod Archdiocese (Orthodox Interlocutor, 1860. II, p. 97. Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 7 and 9). His successor Photius, who arrived in Moscow four years after his death (precisely in 1410), found the metropolitan house and treasury in complete desolation, and the volosts of his see plundered from princes, boyars and other people (Makariy, History of the Russian Church, vol. V, p. 94). Most of them were taken by the Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich himself, to whom the Metropolitan twice addressed messages or teachings about the inalienability of church property. Extracts from these (unpublished) messages are found in the article about Photius, placed in the Addendum to the works of the holy fathers, part XI, page 223. This is partly evident from the same evidence that speaks of the seizure of church property by princes. Thus, the Rostislav princes of Vladimir, who took away villages and settlements from the local bishopric, were expelled by the citizens for this, probably at the insistence of the clergy. The new prince Mikhail Yuryevich, called in their place, again returned to the Church the property that had been taken from it. (See previous note). Metropolitan Photius managed, although with great trouble and grief for himself, to return all the estates of his metropolis (ibid.). Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, vol. I, no. 253, p. 480. In the life of St. Cyril there is even the idea that until the end of his life he remained faithful to the view that it was indecent for monks to own villages. The following two cases are narrated here. Some boyar Roman Ivanovich, wanting to give his village to the monastery, sent the monk this letter to him. Having received this letter, Elder Kirill began to think to himself: “If we want to own the villages, then we will have troubles that could disturb the silence of the brethren; it will be necessary to send settlers and soldiers there; no, it’s better for us to live without villages, for the soul of one brother is more valuable than any property.” So, the monk sent back this letter to the boyar and wrote to him: “If you, man of God, wanted to give a village to the monastery of the Most Pure Mother of God, then give us 100 measures of life per year, and own the village yourself, because we don’t need villages and the brethren are not useful.” The boyar fulfilled the desire of the monk, and only after his death the village was given to the monastery (manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, 219, l. 71–72). Another boyar, Danilo Andreevich, wanted to deny the monastery a village according to his soul. But when one of the brothers brought news of this to St. Cyril, he said: “I don’t need villages with my stomach, and when I leave you, then do as you want.” The brother grieved greatly at the abbot because he did not listen to him and did not take the village (Ibid., l. 88 vol. 89). But this news is contradicted by the legal acts of St. Cyril, namely: a) a spiritual document, which mentions the letters already granted to the Belozersk monastery of Prince Andrei Dmitrievich (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 32), b) a bill of sale for the village (Legal Acts, No. 72) and c) other serfdom deeds for the land, calculated e Tarkhan charter of 1556 (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, 163). It remains, therefore, to imagine the matter as it is presented by us in the text. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. VI, p. 236 (under 1484). Joseph's travels through the northern monasteries and his notes about their internal life are described in detail in Khrushchev's book under the title; "Research on the writings of Joseph Sanin, Venerable Abbot of Volotsk." St. Petersburg, 1868, pp. 34–37. This thought is expressed in the following words of the monastery charter of Joseph Volotsky: “Whoever wants to be worthy of divine grace in the present world and in the future must have complete non-acquisitiveness and Christ-loving poverty, and have nothing or think of his own, but everything is monastic,” Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 329. Here is the ideal of monastic life outlined in the monastic rule of Nil Sorsky, obviously in contrast to the life of patrimonial-coenobitic monasteries: “let us not rule for excessive deeds (i.e., not for matters of external discipline), let us do this, choose villages of silence... but let us retreat from rebellion and unconventional rumors and others displeasing to God, and let us abide in His commandments, acquiring the necessary I will demand from my labors; Otherwise, it is a little to accept alms, from where His grace will provide. Those who are superfluous should be shunned in every possible way (move away); battles and burdens and which, bodily for the sake of covetousness (i.e., litigation from property interests), like the poison of death, we run away from these creative works, which are pleasing to God, singing, prayer, reading and teaching from the spiritual, handicrafts” (Manuscripts of the same library No. 831, l. 301). The ascetic simplicity of the desert dweller’s life, according to the charter of Nile of Sorsky, should have been consistent with the simplicity of the skete church, in which he did not give place to any jewelry, for example, gold or silver vessels and frames on icons. Cm. the works of Vassiav Patrikeev, published by me in the Orthodox Interlocutor, October 1863, p. 209. Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, (now Kazan Theological Academy) No. 226. l. 93 et ​​seq. Abbot Sergius, treasurer Tarasius, some elder cup maker and cellarer Asaf were subjected to the same punishment for violating the monastery charter on poverty. Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, vol. I. No. 6, pp. 13–14. Below we will see that the clergy, in defense of the inviolability of the land holdings of the Church, most often pointed out that these possessions were formed as a result of pious donations “for wakes of souls,” although, of course, not all church and monastic estates arose in this way. Epistle of Metropolitan Philip to Novgorod in 1467 (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, vol. 1. No. 82). In earlier times, the same messages were written to Novgorod and Pskov by Metropolitans Cyprian (ibid., No. 7 and 9) and Theodosius (No. 77 and 277). The successive connection between the Judaizers and the Strigolniki was already noted by Gennady Novgorodsky in his letter about the first heretics to Metropolitan Zosima and the council of 1491. See Ethnographic Acts, vol. 1. No. 380 and Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, April, pp. 476–481. The Enlightener of Joseph Volotsky, word 2, ch. 1. This will be discussed below, in Chapter IV. Legal acts, No. 421. II. Complaints about the not too high price set by testators for the redemption by relatives of property given to monasteries “per soul” also attracted the attention of the government in the 16th century, which gave the heirs the right to demand revaluation if the spiritual one had not yet been sealed and approved, Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, vol. I. No. 154 VI. In the first half of the 16th century, the government itself became aware that many patrimonial owners were giving their patrimonies to monasteries “so that their neighbors would not get them” (See the letter of 1535 on behalf of the young Ivan IV to the Glushitsky monastery, in History of the Russian Hierarchy, III, p. 712). This can be seen from the remarkable message of Metropolitan Philip to Novgorod about the inviolability of lands and villages given to churches and monasteries per soul, 1467 (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I. No. 82). We used this wonderful literary monument from the manuscript of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 329. The main content of this manuscript is the monastic charter of Joseph Volotsky, did the preface to the “synodikon” belong to him? In the statute there is already a reference to this preface: “It is fitting for the cathedral brethren with the rector or the rector to have no concern about this, as if the senate and daily remembrance and flight memories are read, and feed them in the same way as it is written to eat in the senate. For the sake of the Lord, if he truly cares about this, let him who is in the Senate read the word written about this, and for him there is an inscription in the text of the legend: a testimony from the divine scriptures about saving and soul-helping books, about the Senate and about daily commemoration” (Tradition 1, at the end). So Joseph quotes his own writings in the charter; The same is the table of contents and preface to the Senate. Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 244. In the life of Dmitry Prilutsky we read: “you found (Reverend Demetrius) in an empty place, on the river on Lezhe, and built that church. Hating the good of the human race, the envious devil incites unfaithful people from those nearby, called by Avneg, to raise a great murmur against the holy anointed head, saying: Father, it is not pleasing for you and for us to be here. I thought within myself that this great old man had settled here near us, and in a little time he would take possession of us and our villages. The saint, hearing their hatred, turns away from evil” (Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 508, l. 195). In the life of Stefan Makhrishchsky: “the devil incites (the devil) wicked people against the saint, near those living in the monastery - I say Alexei, and Theodore, Ivan and Peter, like the Yurtsovskys say; often to a parishioner in a monastery, blaspheming the saint and tempting him to die if he does not leave the monastery. The vedyakha of the saint is revered by people, especially by the autocrat and Grand Duke Demetrius himself, and I imagine that I can own their village and fields. He departs with Gregory, his disciple, and rushes to the northern countries.” (Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 79, l. 369–370). In the life of Daniel of Pereyaslavl: “those who own in the villages near that monastery with weapons and spears come and in the fence of the monastery do not give the monks the earth to dig, and with rebuke, as if unwillingly, they prophesied to the saint, saying: “Why did you build a monastery on our land? Or do you want to possess our lands and villages?” “It will come true later,” notes the biography of the monk (Book of Degrees, Chapter 15). - Finally, in the life of Anthony of Siysk we find the following story: “having come to the river Yemtsa, to the Dark Threshold of the word, and that place, you will love that place... Build yourself a small hut and a chapel for prayerful solitude... In due course, build that church... and build cells... But the devil, who hates the good of the human race, erects ungrateful people from those approaching weigh there, Skorbotov’s recommendations... and the gathered Blessed Anthony from there... Having thought within ourselves that this great old man has settled near us, in a little time he will take possession of us and our villages” (Manuscript No. 230 fol. 131). About this, see Gorbunov’s article “Charter of benefits granted to monasteries and churches in the 13th–15th centuries,” Archive of Historical and Practical Information about Russia, ed. Kalachova. 1860–1861 book. 5, pp. 19–20. The oldest known obedient letter to monastery peasants dates back to 1557. Ethnographic acts, vol. I. No. 251. The fact that such charters were issued in former times can be concluded from the existence of more ancient charters, the so-called import ones, which were given to secular patrimonies and the content of which is the same as for obedient ones (Legal Acts, No. 161 I–III). Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 230, l. 255 et seq. So the Moscow boyars, on behalf of Ivan III, said to the Hungarian ambassador: “It’s not just these Russian cities and volosts that are now behind us, our fatherland, and the whole Russian land with God’s will from ancient times, from our ancestors, our fatherland” (Mukhanov’s Collection, pp. 122–123). See about this in Khlebnikov’s essay: “On the influence of society on the organization of the state in the tsarist period of Russian history,” 1869, pp. 5–6. A detailed development of these provisions is contained in the excellent study of I. D. Belyaev “on land ownership in the Moscow state.” Temporary of the Russian Society of History and Antiquities, 1851, book. XI. Foreigners who visited Rus' in the 16th century agree that the clergy then owned a third of all Russian territory. The first evidence of this belongs to the Englishman Adam Clement, who visited us in 1553. Here are his true words: “His (monasteries) magni sunt agrorum reditus. Nam tertiam fundorum partem totius imperii tenent monachi" (Rerum Moscoviticarum Scriptores Varii, Francofurti, 1600). Horsey, a close person of Ivan IV, puts the same testimony into the mouth of the sovereign himself (this will be discussed in Chapter IV). Finally, Collins repeats the same thing about the times of Alexei Mikhailovich, Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, year. I, No. 1. Part I. Dept. IV. Without attaching particular importance to the agreement of these testimonies, since the last two witnesses could write, from the words of the first, their fellow countryman, we nevertheless do not dare to follow others (the author of the History of the Russian Hierarchy, Part I. Introduction, and Milyutin, on the real estate of the clergy, p. 121) to unfoundedly reject the fact that with the publication of scribe books and other materials necessary for compiling a complete and accurate inventory of land possessions of our Church in the 16th and 17th centuries may turn out to be close to the truth. A full calculation of these privileges can be seen in Milyutin's study, pp. 220–262. So in 1552, the Vazhans and Shenkurtsy beat Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich with their foreheads that their peasants had dispersed from “the camps and volosts and the monasteries indefinitely and without refusal,” and according to this petition the Tsar commanded them: “to bring back their old tax-paying peasants from behind the monasteries indefinitely and duty-free, and put them in the old villages where anyone lived in which village before that” (Ethnographic Acts, vol. 1. No. 234, pp. 231, 238). There are indications of this in scribe books of the 16th century (Nevolin, about pyatinas in churchyards, appendix, p. 167). “The rule about church people, and about tithes, and about episcopal courts, and about city measures” - in Kalachov’s essay on the meaning of the Helmsman, page 122. The same, almost word for word, is found in the letter of some Russian hierarch XIII (Metropolitan Kirill II?) to the Grand Duke of Vladimir, the son of Alexander Nevsky. Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, pp. 281, 295. In general, the idea that church wealth is the wealth of the poor was current among us. It was repeated by the spiritual hierarchy every time it was necessary to protect the inviolability of church property. The source of this thought was, of course, the Helmsman’s Book and, in particular, the interpretation of the 59th Apostolic Canon, which says: “The church wealth of the poor is called wealth by the Holy Scriptures.” However, Milyutin falls into this error when speaking about bishops as the highest authority for the management of church and monastic property in the diocese (On the real estate of the clergy, pp. 284–286). The mistake occurred because the author did not understand the difference between the jurisdiction of monks, as church people or saints, and monasteries, as patrimonial people. If the bishops took “numerous taxes and duties” from the monks, then it does not in any way follow that they, the bishops, had administrative power over the monastic estates. The author himself in another place (p. 389 note 749) rightly notes that the mentioned taxes and duties “had no connection with land ownership; tic as all churches and monasteries were subject to them, regardless of whether they owned estates or not.” See bills of sale and exchange documents, Legal Acts, No. 78, 80, 106, in Kalachov’s Acts, vol. II. No. 156, Additions to Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, 1. No. 14, 18, 20 and others. It is also not for nothing that in the given and deposited letters to churches and monasteries the order is so often repeated: that land, village, estate, etc. should not be sold, exchanged, or given to anyone.” (See, for example, Kachalov’s Acts No. 63, VIII, XVI, XVIII). Examples of mortgaging church and monastery lands are much less common - not because, of course, the clergy did not consider themselves to have the right to put the real estate of their institutions into such circulation, but because (generally speaking) they had no need for it. See, however, the Historical Acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I. 252 and Supplements, I. No. 66. Cf. Scribe books of Obonezhskaya Pyatina, 1582 (Nevolin about Pyatina and churchyards, appendix, VI, p. 135). Complete collection of Russian chronicles, IV, pp. 237–238. These confirmations were usually written on the reverse side of the previous letters of grant, which was called “sign the letter” in the name of the new prince. But sometimes confirmations were given in the form of a special letter of complaint, in which the content of the previous ones was repeated, completely or abbreviated. In this regard, the charter of 1497, given by Prince Daniil Alexandrovich to the Spaso-Kamensky Monastery for the possession of lands and lands granted by the prince’s father and grandfather, is remarkable. Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, I. No. 21. Tatishchev, book. V, p. 65. But here this place reads like this: “occupy the great princes from time immemorial,” etc. The word occupation, which does not give any meaning, we read: zane tei (= those), bearing in mind a parallel passage in another, genuine chronicle: “the great prince, when he first took Novgorod, then took away from the Novgorod ruler half of the volosts and villages, and from all the monasteries... Besha te (= zane te) volosts of the great princes, otherwise they mastered them” Complete collection of Russians Chronicles, VIII, p. 204. Cf. Typographical Chronicles, edition 1853, p. 206. On the transition of secular patrimonial monks to the service of the Moscow sovereigns, see the works: Sergeevich, Veche and the Prince, p. 412, approx. 78, and Duvernoy, Sources of Law and Court in Ancient Russia, pp. 222–223. The influence of these examples on monasteries is clear from the fact that Joseph Volotsky, in justifying the transfer of his monastery “to the power of the Grand Duke,” referred, among other things, to zemstvo customs. See his letter to Metropolitan Simon in Khrushchev, page 213. True, the monastery was accepted into the Moscow state on the condition that the lands and villages of the monastery, located in one or another region, remained under the authority of local princes and, as before, were subject to ordinary taxes and duties (Life of Joseph, written by an unknown person, p. 63. See also the grant letter of Theodore Borisovich, given to the Joseph monastery in 1510, in Acts of Kalachov, vol. I. No. 31. XXII). But what could the power of an appanage prince mean over a monastery that was under the special patronage of the Moscow autocrat? So, according to the testimony of Joseph himself, during the time of Vasily the Dark, the monasteries of Sergiev, Kamensky and Tolgsky moved to the Moscow state from appanage principalities; under Ivan III - Pafnutiev Borovsky (Ancient Russian Vivliofika, ed. 2 parts XIV, pp. 178, 188). This is how Joseph himself conveys the words of Serapion in his message of justification in the case of the transition (Ancient Russian Vivliofika, XIV, p. 196). He puts the same words into the mouths of the courtiers of the Volokolamsk prince (ibid., p. 188). The latter, of course, could use a harsh phrase: rob the monastery. But it is difficult to allow a bishop to express himself this way, especially in front of the council that judged him. Serapion, in all likelihood, spoke as we explain his words in the text, namely: “the prince is free in his monastery, if he wants, he favors, if he wants, he does not favor.” In general, the dependence of monasteries in property terms was established by the ownership of the land on which they were located. By virtue of this rule, the bishops also had property power over the monasteries, which were built on their house lands and constituted the patrimonial property of the latter. Such monasteries were called bishops' estates (Lokhvitsky, Essay on church administration in ancient Russia, Russian Bulletin, 1857 No. 2, p. 257. - Gorbunov, preferential letters to churches and monasteries of the XIII-XV centuries, Archive of historical and practical information about Russia, ed. Kalachov, 1860, book 1, p. 32). Stoglav, Kazan edition, pp. 235, 297–298. For examples from the chronicles, see Tomilin’s brochure entitled: Veliko-Novogorodskaya Holy See in Historical Significance, pp. 39–40. St. Petersburg, 1851. Gorchakov, on the land holdings of all-Russian metropolitans, patriarchs and the Holy Synod, pp. 263–264. St. Petersburg, 1871. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. VI. pp. 216–217. Here the volosts now taken by the Grand Duke from the Novogorod ruler are counted by name, namely; 1) Ladoga threshold. 2) Melegezhsky churchyard, 3) Kolbyazhsky churchyard, 4) Kremenetssky churchyard, 5) Belaya volost on Meta, 6) Udomlya volost, 7) Kirva, 8) Okhona, 9) Pirossky graveyard and 10) Kupetskaya volost. - In the six named monasteries, in half of their estates taken over by the Grand Duke, it is shown: at Yuryev - 720 obzhes, at Arkazhsky - 333, at Blagoveshchensky - 253, at Nikolsky - 251, at Antonev - 150, at Mikhailovsky - 100 obzhes. This list must be kept in mind in order to distinguish the volosts now taken from the Novgorod clergy from those that were selected in 1500 and indicated in the scribe books of that time, as discussed later in the text. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. VIII. page 204. See above, note. 19, from the words “Message of Metropolitan Philip to Novgorod...” Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. IV: p. 271. During the conquest of Novgorod, Ivan III granted favor to the Novgorodians, promised them not to send Moscow scribes and tribute collectors to their land, “since it’s hard for Christianity,” but put this matter on the Novgorod soul, so that they themselves would say how much dry they had” (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, VI, p. 217). But, apparently, the Novgorod soul was false. At least from 1491 or 1492, the description of the local lands by the Grand Duke's scribes began (Nevolin, about Pyatina and Novgorod churchyards, pp. 11–12). We are talking about two published Novgorod scribe books: Derevskaya Pyatina (around 1495) and Votskaya (1500). The first was published by the Archaeographic Commission (vol. I. 1859, vol. II. 1862. St. Petersburg); the second - by Belyaev (Vremennik of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, vols. XI and XII) and partly - by Nevolin (about Pyatina and Pogosts, Appendix No. 1). Using these books, it is possible to compile a complete and accurate list of the cavities and villages of the rulers and monasteries, taken in one and another pyatina for the Grand Duke, for the scribes carefully indicated the names of the former landowners; For example; “in the Gorodensky churchyard in the prince’s volost, which was the Spassky Kovalevsky Monastery” (Belyaev, Census salary book for Votskaya Pyatina, p. 6); or; “in the Mikhailovsky churchyard there was a quitrent for the prince, which was for the ruler” (ibid., p. 94), etc. The secularization of the lordly and monastic lands in Novgorod, of course, was not limited to only the two named Pyatina, but everywhere followed in the footsteps of the Grand Duke’s scribes. So, in one excerpt from the unpublished scribal book of Matthew Valuev from 7006 (1498) we read: “in the Shelonskaya Pyatina there is a graveyard of the Grand Duke, which was the Most Pure Mother of God of the Shchilov Monastery” [Nevolin, about Pyatina, p. 11, note. 5). So, for example, a plow of local land was entitled to 126 quarters of land, and a plow of a monastery - only 18 (See an extract from the scribe book of 1500 in Belyaev’s study “on land ownership in the Moscow state,” pp. 57–58). This means that for the same amount of land, the monastery was obliged to pay a monthly salary seven times more than the landowner (126:187). Traces of such a prohibition are found: a) in a charter that has not reached us, but known from a later description, to the then Novgorod Archbishop Gennady “for villages and courtyards” (remaining to him after the two-time selection of both for the Grand Duke): “yes, in the same charter that he cannot buy lands” (Inventory of the Tsar’s Archives of 1575–1584. Acts ethnographic, vol. I. No. 284, box 150). b) In the scribe book of the Derevskaya Pyatina of 1495, in which there are notes about the confiscation of the lands given by the local patrimonial monasteries to the monasteries in a heart-to-heart manner for the Grand Duke; for example: “in the Ostrovsky graveyard of the Grand Duke of the village of Yurkinsky, Grigoriev’s son Marinin, that they were given to the Otensky Monastery” (vol. II, column 106): or “in the Oksochsky graveyard of the Grand Duke of the village of Vasyukovsky Rodivonov, that they were given to the Kirillov Monastery” (Ibid., column 284). c) In the tsar’s charter of 1556 about permission for the Kirillov Belozersk monastery to buy a votchina, “to define the Novgorod lands,” where votchinas were “not ordered to be sold without the tsar’s knowledge” (Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 246). At the same time, it should be noted that in the cathedral verdict of May 11, 1551, in which, as we will see below, the cities where patrimonial owners could neither sell their estates nor give away souls are counted, no mention is made of Novgorod. This means that the charter of 1556 to the Kirillov Monastery contains an indication of the same prohibition, issued once before and especially for Novgorod. Legal acts, No. 5, p. 8. Historical Acts, vol. I, no. 163. This prohibition is mentioned in the conciliar verdict on May 11, 1551, which is usually placed at the end of Stoglav’s lists, and sometimes among additional decrees to the Tsar’s Code of Laws (See Code of Laws published by Tatishchev in Prod. Ancient Russian Vivliophics, Part I, pp. 321–222). Stoglav's lists differ from each other in that according to some of them the prohibition to give away estates by heart is attributed to Vasily Ivanovich (the Trinity list, according to which the mentioned conciliar verdict was published in Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 227, and those according to which the entire Stoglav was published in Kazan), according to others - to Ivan Vasilyevich (see Stoglav, published in 1860 in London, p. 237), according to the third - both together (Stroevsky list, about which see Ethnographic Acts, I, p. 219, note, and Uvarovsky, former Tsar No. 596 - both 16th centuries). The latter also includes the list of the conciliar verdict on May 11, 1551, published in the Tatishchev Code of Laws. In view of these discrepancies, we imagine the matter as follows: 1) the prohibition given in the text was originally issued by Ivan III. This is confirmed by a) the authority of two lists of Stoglav, close to the cathedral of 1551; b) the name of the law or prohibition itself “from ancient times” (and what is from ancient times, according to the code of the Grand Duke, etc.); c) the general nature of the state activities of Ivan III, who, as we have seen from other sources, actually issued such a ban for the former Novgorod region; finally, and most decisively; d) in the following words of Ivan IV in his letter to Kurbsky: “and you (Sylvester and Adashev) began to be counted towards the estates, to the cities and to the villages, even as our great sovereign’s grandfather, by the code, which estates took from you and to which estates there was no need to be given from you, and he distributed those estates like the wind in an inappropriate way, and then he destroyed our grandfather’s code.” (Tales of Prince Kurbsky, ed. 3, p. 164). 2) Under Vasily Ivanovich, the same prohibition was extended to Ryazan and Smolensk, annexed to Moscow by this sovereign (Compare Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 246). However, regarding Ryazan, it should be noted that Ivan III already ruled in it as in his own region. This is what he punished the princess there: “your service people, boyars and children of boyars and villagers should all be in my service” (Solovieva, History of Russia, vol. V ed. 3, p. 59). If so, then why not assume that Ivan III, in the interests of service, could limit the right of Ryazan servicemen to dispose of their estates? These serving princely families are indicated by Khlebnikov in the above-cited work. That the Grand Duke hoped to have in Paisius an assistant or, perhaps, an instrument in the implementation of his plans regarding the spiritual hierarchy, is evident from the reasons for which Paisius refused the metropolis: “it is impossible, to speak of the chronicle about him, to turn the Chernets (Trinity) on the path of God - and therefore the metropolis does not want it” (Complete collection of Russian chronicles, vol. VI, p. 236). Life of Joseph Volotsky, written by an unknown person. Published by Nevostruev. Moscow. 1863, p. 39. Orthodox interlocutor, 1863, October, 206. Message from an unknown person about enmity against the Josephites. Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part X, p. 505. The details presented about the conciliar reasoning of 1503 are borrowed from the life of Joseph of Volotsk, compiled by an unknown person (pp. 39–44), and from the message about the enmity against the Josephites, published in the Additions to the works of the holy fathers, part X, pp. 504–505. In the manuscript: not prohibited. In the printed Slavic Bible, the translation is different, and there are no words printed in italics. Words marked in italics are not found in the printed Bible. In the printed Helmsman, this passage from the famous deed of gift of Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester reads as follows: “even to the churches all over the world, many luminaries and lights were arranged for the sake of both strength and lordship of acquisition, land, and so on. At the end, l. 5 rev. All these rules, of course, were read before the Grand Duke according to the Helmsman's Book. In the manuscript: “and according to your ancestors” and further to the word: “instruction” the same (prepositional) case is repeated. The text of the conciliar response of 1503 that we published was borrowed from the handwritten collection of the Moscow Theological Academy, which formerly belonged to the Volokolamsk monastery (No. 151/514 l. 426–433). On the release page of this collection it is said that it was written in the summer of 7071 (1563) in the monastery of St. Joseph of Volotsk, by the hand of the local monk Evfimy Turkov. The entry about the cathedral of 1503 begins here like this: “the cathedral was about the lands of the church, saints and monasteries. Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, with the entire sacred assembly, send this message to the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilevich of All Russia with the clerk and Levash. Speak to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilevich of All Russia from Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, and from the entire consecrated council, clerk Levash” and so on, as in the text. Above the second report through the same clerk there is the title: “second message” and this is followed by a transitional historical note: “and therefore send again to the Grand Duke of Sitsa and speak to the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilevich of All Russia from Simon, Metropolitan of All Russia, and those like him of the consecrated council, clerk Levash. Thy Father,” etc., as in the first letter. - Evfimy Turkov, no doubt, had at hand a list of the conciliar answer, brought from the cathedral by Joseph Volotsky himself, in all likelihood, the author of the main part of the answer, namely the one with which Metropolitan Simon himself went to the Grand Duke with the entire cathedral. In later copies, according to which the conciliar verdict of 1503 was published partly by Karamzin (History of the Russian State, VI, note 622) and completely by Kalachov (on the meaning of the Helmsman, note 15), the text of our monument appears with significant changes. Firstly, the report read before the Grand Duke by the council itself was omitted; secondly, both reports, through clerk Levash, are combined into one whole, under one common title: “first message” and are distributed with interpolated thoughts, taken for the most part from the same answer of Metropolitan Macarius to Tsar Ivan IV (See Tikhonravov, Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity, vol. V, department III, p. 129 et seq.); thirdly, labels of Mongol khans are attached to these “messages”, as was the case in Macarius’ answer (ibid., p. 133). The Synodal manuscript, which Karamzin used in the original and in a later copy (located in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy) Kalachov, previously belonged to the famous Patriarch Nikon, who is known, among other things, for his struggle for the inviolability of church property (See his answers to boyar Streshnev, published in “Notes of the Archaeological Society,” vol. II, p. 450 and next). Didn’t all the indicated changes in the original edition of the council’s response of 1503 belong to him? Below (in Chapter IV) we will see that the later non-covetous people, from the school of Nilus of Sorsky, already directly demanded the replacement of the monastery estates with another and themselves received charters. And here we note in general that the monks in their petitions for the rugue usually called themselves “poor pilgrims”, and for the rugue - “sovereign alms”: a name that was repeated in the most granted (ruler) charters (See, for example, Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, I, 33). This assumption was recently made by His Eminence Macarius, History of the Russian Church, vol. VI, book. I, p. 133 (St. Petersburg, 1870). “If,” says the author, the sovereign himself, proposing to the clergy the question of confiscation of church property, had announced in advance that he was ready to replace this with annual definite benefits to the monasteries, sufficient for their existence, then the question would have been posed correctly and the fathers of the council, in all likelihood, would not have refused to agree to the sovereign’s proposal and would not have sent him the answer that they sent.” In support of this probability, the author points (in a note) to the example of the Assumption Vladimir Monastery, the elders of which, together with their entire clergy, themselves asked the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich (1512) to buy the monastic villages from them and, having given the following money in interest, ordered only to give the monastery a certain amount of money and bread annually (Ethnographic Acts, 1. No. 155). But this example only proves that the elders of the named monastery (and not the elders, as printed by the Right Reverend Macarius, the monastery was for women), for a very understandable reason, found it more convenient for themselves to receive ready-made maintenance than to engage in patrimonial farming. In any case, one cannot draw conclusions about the entire clergy from this single example. See the Novgorod scribe books of that time, indicated above with the words “We are talking about two,” note 59. This document was published in Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1866 book. 3. dept. V, page 5. Life of Joseph Volotsky, written by an unknown person, p. 44. Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 139. This anathematization is taken from the well-known (forged) rule of the fifth ecumenical council “on those who offend the saints of God’s church,” to which (as we have seen) the council of 1503 also referred, the Novogorod “Synodik”, already with this addition, is found in the 16th-century handwritten collection of the former Solovetsky Library No. 844 (fol. 325). Here, by the way, the following Novgorod heretics (Judaizers) are cursed, named as newly appeared: Zakhar Chernets, Sofia archpriest Gavrilo, priest Denis of Arkhangelsk, priest Maxim Ivanovsky, priest Vasily Pokrovsky, Makar clerk Nikolsky, Gridya clerk Borisoglebsky, Ivashko Maksimov son of priests, Vasyuk priest son-in-law of Denisov, Samukha clerk Nikolsky (fol. 320). The council against these heretics took place in 1490–91. Thus, the anathema against “those who offend God’s Church” was included in the Novgorod Synodik not before 1491 (it stands here below the anathema against heretics) and not after 1504, when they were subjected to a conciliar curse (other Judaizing heretics, whom our Synodik does not yet know. In the Synodikon of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, published in volume VI of Novikov’s “Vivliofika,” both heretics are cursed, but there is no anathema for those who offend the church. In the Moscow Typographical Library there is a handwritten Rostov Synodikon, according to which the rite of Orthodoxy was performed in Rostov in 1642, and in which a special note was made for the protodeacon against the anathema “on those who offend the holy churches and monasteries of God”; “exclaim velmi!” (No. 443/13310 (or 443/13315 illegible - editor of the ABC electronic library) l. 4). According to the same Synodic, the rite of Orthodoxy was performed in 1763 by the famous Arseny Matseevich, Archbishop of Rostov (Day, 1864. No. 39, p. 5). But since there is no such anathema in the printed “Rite of Orthodoxy”, the Holy Synod, which tried Arseny for his sharp protests against the confiscation of church and monastic estates into the treasury, blamed him for this (as if unprecedented) addition to the general church “Rite”. This only includes the sentence of the previous council of 1503, prohibiting monks and nuns from living in the same monastery (Ethnographic Acts, vol. 1, no. 183). This seductive phenomenon was also in connection with the patrimonial life of monasteries. Namely, women’s monasteries found it profitable and convenient for themselves to give their estates to the management of men’s monasteries in order to receive ready-made maintenance from here. And from the general economy, naturally, there was a spatial rapprochement of both monastic communities. However, back in 1500, Fyodor Borisovich gave the Joseph Monastery a charter for the village of Medvedka and half of the settlement. Timofeevsky, A.E. vol. I, no. 136 Ancient Russian vivliophics, part XIV pp. 182–183, 202–203. The contents of the message to Ivan Tretyakov are set out in Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847 No. 8 and in even more detail in Khrushchov’s study “on the writings of Joseph Sanin,” pp. 219 et seq. We used this work by St. Joseph from a handwritten collection that formerly belonged to the Volokolamsk monastery, and now to the Moscow Theological Academy, No. 233/659 l. 532–556. On the back of the 2nd sheet, after the table of contents, there is the following note: “in the summer of 7045 (1536) this book was completed by the command and blessing of our lord father abbot Nifont, under the rule of the blessed Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia and under Archbishop Macarius the Great of Novograd and Pskov.” A contemporary collection of this, written by Abbot Nifont himself and containing the same word by Joseph Volotsky, is located in the Imperial Public Library, in the department of manuscripts that formerly belonged to Count Tolstoy. See the “Description” of these manuscripts by Kalaidovich and Stroev, dep. II, no. 254, p. 413. This was noted in the Life of Joseph, compiled by an unknown author, p. 44. Khrushchev, about the writings of Joseph Sanin, p. 231. For considerations about the place where this treatise was written and about the person of the archbishop to whom it is dedicated, see “Description of Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by Gorsky and Nevostruev. Dept. II part 3, pp. 609–616. The only thing that is certain is that the treatise was written in Russia, which the author calls his “worthy fatherland,” but in western or northern Russia (specifically in Novgorod)? There were reasons to write in defense of the inviolability of church property both here and here: we have the attempt of Ivan III, rejected by the council of 1503, and even before that, the double secularization of church lands in Novgorod; in the Western Russian Church - frequent encroachments by princes and boyars on the integrity of church property, condemned by the Vilna Council of 1509 under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Joseph Saltan (Historical Acts collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, vol. I No. 298, p. 528). The author's close acquaintance with the Catholic canon, of course, speaks in favor of the Western Russian origin of the treatise. But here, precisely in Novgorod, there were people who knew the Latin language and Latin theological science, for example, famous collaborators of Archbishop Gennady - Dmitry Gerasimov and the Dominican (Serb) Veniamin (Filaret, Review of Russian Spiritual Literature, No. 108, 111). True, there was no archbishop in Novgorod in 1505: Gennady left the see the year before, and his successor Serapion was installed already in 1506. But the order to write a word in defense of the inviolability of church property could have been given by Gennady, soon after the council of 1503, at which he himself was present; the sudden removal of the archbishop could not stop the unknown author from carrying out the work entrusted to him, since it was not difficult to foresee that Gennady’s successor would also react with sympathy to the work devoted to the protection of church property. In a word, we are inclined to the assumption that the treatise that occupies us was written in Novgorod by one of the above-mentioned employees of Gennady, who remained there under subsequent archbishops. This assumption is supported by the fact that the author of the treatise wrote, in fact, against sovereigns who encroached on church property, and that he calls the Russian princes ours. This could not be said by a resident of Western Russia, where the property rights of the Church were violated by the aristocracy, and where the sovereigns were not Russian. Message of Nil Sorsky in the manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy, entitled “Eldership”, No. 185. See the indictments of Joseph Volotsky against Nil and Vassian, set out in the latter’s writings. Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, October, pp. 204, 208. Only one brief and as yet unpublished note by him is known “about the mnisekh, who spend money for the sake of acquisitions” (Vostokov, Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 628, Stroev, Description of Tsarsky’s manuscripts, no. 274). Here the Monk Neil complains that monastic life, once “precious,” has become “abominable.” For all the cities and villages are burdened with false monks, who go around and go around in vain, with much incompetence and inconsistency. All the rulers of the house are embarrassed and do not have a sweet heart even when they see those rogues who are standing coldly at their doors.” Hence, according to the remark of the Monk Neil, those monks who “live rightly, according to virtue” are subject to criticism and condemnation. “And that now a new Jeremiah would appear, to weep more usefully and according to the heritage of our times? I shame you for writing too much, otherwise do not be discouraged when you do good, and may the Lord of bounty and all kinds of joy be with you.” The time of Vassian’s migration from the desert to the Simonov Monastery is quite difficult to determine with accuracy. The Right Reverend Macarius thinks that, having arrived in Moscow for the council of 1503, he never returned (Makarii, History of the Russian Church, vol. VI p. 126; cf. p. 152). But it is not visible from anywhere that Vassian was present at this council; on the contrary, it is more likely to assume that he was not there. Here are the reasons for our guess. Joseph Volotsky, in his indictments against Nil Sorsky and Vassian, distinguishing what belongs to both of them, what belongs to each in particular, speaks only about the presence of Nil Sorsky at the council (“about how Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich ordered both Nil and Joseph to be a saint in Moscow”). He especially mentions Vassian in the paragraph that follows: “about how sometimes (i.e. at other times, and not in the days of the council of 1503) Vassian the hermit came to Moscow, so that all noble people would teach the Grand Duke to take away villages from monasteries and secular churches” (Orthodox Interlocutor, October 1863, pp. 206–207). This “sometimes” is more accurately determined by the testimony of other witnesses close to the case. Thus, in the message of an unknown Volokolamsk monk about enmity against the Josephites, it is said: “when Elder Nile passed away, and his disciple Prince Vassian Kosoy... began to fight against his elder Nile, so that there were no villages near the monasteries.” Elder Nile died in 1508. Indeed, next year we already see Vassian in Moscow. Then the cathedral trial of Serapion of Novgorod took place; excommunicated Joseph from the Church. The brother of the Volokolamsk abbot, Archbishop Vassian, was also present at the council, to whom Joseph sent a letter of indictment against the Nile hermits. The archbishop handed over this letter to the Grand Duke, and the Grand Duke to Elder Vassian Patrikeev (Additions to the works of the holy fathers, parts X 506–507. Compare Review of Russian Spiritual Literature, Philaret, part I, p. 183). This is how the relationship of the Grand Duke to Vassian is described in the “Extract” from the letter of Vasily Ivanovich’s second marriage. See Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847, No. 8, in Mixture. Subsequently, at the council of 1531, one of Maxim the Greek’s collaborators, Mikhail Medovartsev, spoke about Vassian: “I was vomiting, lord, to listen to Prince Vassian the elder, because he was a great temporary man, the Grand Duke’s neighbor, and the tongue did not vomit the sovereign as much as he vomited and listened to him” (Ibid., No. 7). It is also remarkable that “Elder Vassian, Prince Ivanov” sat at the spiritual record of Vasily Ivanovich, written in 1523 before the Kazan campaign, along with the Grand Duke’s confessor (Continuation of Ancient Russian Vivliophics, Part V, No. 164, p. 143). Joseph Volotsky speaks about Vassian’s close relationship with Metropolitan Varlaam, not without bitterness, in a letter to his friend and patron, boyar Chelyadin (Khrushchev, pp. 260–261). Here, by the way, the story is told of how Vassian once called Joseph and his disciples apostates in the metropolitan chamber. And it’s wonderful: Joseph asked Chelyadin to complain about this insult not to the Metropolitan, but to the Grand Duke. Vassian himself, in response to Joseph’s accusation that he is teaching the Grand Duke to take away villages from monasteries, says: “This Joseph, do not lie to me, for I command the Grand Duke to take away villages from the monasteries” (Orthodox Interlocutor, October 1863, pp. 207, 268). A word on monastic life and church structure in the Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, September, pp. 108–112. Collection on Joseph of Volotsky in the Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, October, pp. 189–190. A reference to these Russian miracle workers is found in Vassian’s Helmsman, which will be discussed below. It is remarkable that Vassian names the same Russian saints to whom the council of 1503 also referred; only Sergius of Radonezh and Pavel Kozelsky are not mentioned in the conciliar response. See above. Collection on Joseph, page 190. The lives of the named Russian saints, indeed, spoke in favor of Vassian. Thus, in the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, it is told more than once how he, in his monastery, was left without a piece of bread for several days; and in the word of praise of St. We read to Sergius his disciple Epiphanius: “I have not acquired anything for myself in the land, nor in property from perishable wealth... nor in the villages of the red ones” (Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 97). – From the life of Kirill Belozersky, we have already provided evidence that completely exonerates Vassian. The life of Varlaam Khutynsky says that, before his tonsure, he distributed all his property to the poor, and, having settled on the banks of the Volkhov, they began to make the land with themselves, as if they were eating from their own sweat, and not from strangers,” and that everyone marveled at “his uncovetous and cruel life” (No. 226). – Dionysius Glushitsky, according to his biography, resolutely refused the donations that Prince Yuri of Bostyuzh offered to his monastery, and only at the strong request of the prince, began to receive timely alms from him for monastic needs (No. 984). - Demetrius of Prilutsky had a “small field” on which “little grain” was sown, enough to feed the brethren - only through the prayer of the monk (No. 508). - Finally, the entire life of Pavel Kozelsky (Obnorsky), who lived for fifteen years in secluded silence near the Sergius Monastery and three years in a linden hollow in the Komel forest, of course, could serve as proof of the complete non-covetousness of this ascetic. But the news of the lives is not always justified by legal acts, from which it is clear that the named fathers of Russian monasticism had lands and villages at their monasteries. See, for example, the charter of Demetrius Donskoy to the Sergius Monastery (Ethnographic Acts, vol. I, No. 7), the depositary charter of Varlaam Khutynsky (Additions to the historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, vol. 1, No. 5), the exchange charter of Dionysius Glushitsky (History of the Russian hierarchy, part V p. 569). Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, October, pp. 204–205, 208. “Collection from the Divine Scriptures” about the inappropriateness of monks to own villages, according to the list of Vassian’s Helmsman, located in the Rumyantsov Museum (from Piskarev’s manuscripts No. 474). The news of this report to the Metropolitan and the decision that followed it is in all the lists of the Vassian Helmsman known to me, namely: the Public Library (formerly Tolstoy, about which see, Description of the Manuscripts of Count Tolstoy" No. 169, pp. 92–93), the Moscow State Ancient Repository (No. 146) and the Rumyantsev Museum (See previous note). In the afterword of all the lists of Vassian’s Helmsman mentioned in the previous note, it is said that it “was copied with the blessing of Metropolitan Varlaam, from Simonov’s rules, and compared with another list - Vassian, Archbishop of Rostov, taken from the Holy Mountain by Savva, a monk of the Tver Savvina Monastery, in the summer of 7025 (1517) of the month of May in 27 day." This “collection”, in the lists of Vassian’s Helmsman known to us, has a different edition: in two (the Public Library and the State Ancient Repository) it is complete or extensive, in one (Piskarevsky) it is abbreviated and, it seems, the original, not yet finished. In the text we set out the contents of the “meeting” according to the lists of the first category. The third edition of the same literary monument is presented in the handwritten collection of the Moscow Theological Academy, No. 183/566 (l. 207–218). Tikhonravov, who used this collection, passes it off as the Helmsman of Vassian Patrikeev (Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity, vol. V, department III, p. 140). But, apart from our “gathering”, there is nothing here from Vassian’s Helmsman. A direct reference to Maxim as a translator of some church rules for Vassian is found in the list of Vassian’s Helmsman, belonging to the Moscow State Ancient Repository (No. 145). Here, in the first facet, in chapter 26, after Theodore Balsamon’s interpretation of the 14th apostolic canon, it is said: “this canon was translated from the Bogorotsky canons from the conciliar canons from the Greek ones in Moscow by Maxim, the elder of the Holy Mountains, who translated the interpretive Psalter.” In the old Slavic translation of the cited rules, the expression “monastic villages” is actually used, as corresponding to the Greek words: ἀγρός - field, προάστειον - suburban dacha. For example, in canon 12 of the VII Ecumenical Council the Greek phrase: εἰ δὲ προφασίζοιντο... μηδὲν πρὸς ὄνησιν τυγχάνειν τὸν ἀγρὸν {If they make excuses... that the field does not bring any benefit. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. } in Slavic was translated as follows: “if he feels guilty, as if the village is nothing for success” (Manuscript of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 477, l. 122 vol.). In canon 18 of the same council, the words of the Greek text: προάστειον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἢ τοῦ μοναστηρίου {A suburban dacha belonging to a diocese or monastery – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. } translated: “a village existing under a bishopric or monastery” (Ibid., l. 124 vol.). In both cases, Vassian could only be tempted by the meaning of the word “village,” which he understood in the sense of a populated fiefdom. But in the Slavic interpretations of the cited rules, the expression “monastic villages” and other similar ones are indeed deliberate pleonasms in comparison with the Greek text. Thus, in the interpretation of the 24th rule of the Council of Chalcedon it is said: “let their (monasteries’) estates and acquisitions, villages and grapes, and all other things integral and inseparable from them be preserved” (Ibid., l. 59 vol.; cf. Printed Helmsman, part 1, l. 72 vol.). The original only says: ἀνεκποιήτους {The real estate of their [monasteries] must be preserved without interference. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. } (interpretation of Aristinus, in Bevergius, vol. I, p. 141). In the interpretation of the 12th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council: “immovable, rekshe villages, fields, grapes, hayfields, forests, sides, waters (church and monastery), there is no profit in them, but it brings a dirty trick to the Church, neither of which should be sold by the ruler of that place” (Ibid., l. 143; Printed Helmsman, l. 149 vol.). In the original it is simple: ὅσα δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀκινήτων ἀκερδῆ καὶ ζημίαν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπάγοντα, οὐ τοῖς κατὰ τόπον ἄρχουσιν {And that of real estate, which is unprofitable and brings a loss to the Church, should not [be sold] to local authorities. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. } and so on. See below in Vassian's answers to the council of 1531. This is mentioned in the court list in the case of Maxim the Greek (Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847, No. 7, p. 7). Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, October, p. 203. Vassian calls Joseph an apostate, a lawbreaker, a teacher of lawlessness, a false prophet, even the Antichrist! See the message of an unknown Volokolamsk monk about enmity against the Josephites. Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, October, p. 210. Op. Maxima, part II. pp. 114–116. Op. Maxima, part III, pp. 187–189; 202–205. So says the Degree Book (Degree Book 16, Chapter 5. Manuscripts of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 40). And local Pskov chronicles, complaining about the confiscation of estates from the best Pskov residents in favor of Moscow governors and clerks, do not mention church lands and lands at all. True, soon after the capture of Pskov, the elder of the local Eleazar Hermitage Philotheus, in a letter to Vasily Ivanovich, wrote among other things: “do not transgress, O Tsar, the commandments laid down by your great-grandfathers, the great Constantine and the blessed Vladimer and the great God-chosen Yaroslav and the rest of the blessed saints, whose roots are before you. Do not offend, O Tsar, God’s holy churches and honorable monasteries, which were given by God as an inheritance of eternal blessings, as a keepsake for the last generation. For this reason, the holy great fifth council laid down a terrible prohibition” (Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, March) But these words rather contain a warning against a possible encroachment on church property than a complaint about “an act that has already been committed. Probably, Elder Philotheus hinted to the Grand Duke about Vassian Patrikeev, who at that time was so terrible for the defenders of the monastic property. Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. I, p. 412. So Maxim the Greek bitterly complains that among modern Russian shepherds “there is no Samuel the Great, a priest of the Most High God, who took up arms against the criminal Saul; there is no Nathan, who healed King David with a piously cunning parable; there are no zealots like Elijah and Elisha, who exposed the iniquities of the kings of Samaria; there is no wonderful Ambrose, the bishop of God, who was not afraid of the royal height of Theodosius the Great; there is no Basil the Great, the horrified persecutor of the Church, Volens; there is no John Chrysostom, who exposed the money-loving queen Eudokia” (Works of Maxim, vol. II, pp. 336–337). What caused such a sad change in the spirit of the church hierarchy? - “Because,” answers Maxim’s student, Prince Kurbsky, “each of them (the bishops) cares only about his wealth and, having embraced it, lies motionless, caressing the authorities in every possible way and pleasing them in order to preserve what is his and acquire even more” (Epistle of Kurbsky, Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, August, pp. 564–566). About Varlaam, see History of the Russian Church by Philaret, part III, ed. 3, pp. 564, 566; about Porfiria – Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3, p. 112. Joseph's Message to Ivan Tretyakov - in Khrushchev, pp. 225–226. - Compare an article by the same author entitled “on the subject of the history of Russian literature” in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1866. This is how the disgraced boyar Bersen-Beklemishev spoke about Daniel in a conversation with Maxim the Greek. Ethnographic Acts, vol. I, no. 172. See “Extract from the letter” about Vasily Ivanovich’s second marriage. Karamzin, History of the Russian State, vol. VII, approx. 308. - Sofia Vremennik vol. II, pp. 314–315, 360. - The degree book speaks of Vasily Ivanovich: “he went around towns and honest monasteries, especially erecting wonderful monasteries and holy churches” (Art. 16, chapter 22). Daniel's testimony about the Athos monasteries as owning villages is valid only in the sense that the Svyatogorsk monasteries, even then (under Turkish rule) had some land property, namely fields and lands, which are counted in detail in the legend about Mount Athos, abbot of the local Panteleimon monastery Joachim, who was in Moscow in 1561 (Readings in the History Society and Russian Antiquities, 1846, No. 5). But we have already seen in what sense Vassian and Maxim were right when they said that on the Holy Mountain the monasteries do not have villages, i.e. inhabited lands. The difference between Athonite land ownership and the patrimonial life of Russian monasteries was even more clearly outlined in the words of the Hilandar monks, who, having arrived to us in 1552 to collect alms, as if in reproach to Russian monasticism, said: “We don’t have villages, but we ourselves make grapes and dig the ground” (Karamzin, VIII, note part 587). Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847. No. 7. – Here is the actual protocol of the cathedral trial of Maxim, which took place in 1531. But this protocol contains some excerpts from the court list of 1525, including the indictments of Metropolitan Daniel, which we presented in the text. In the previous court list (1525), of course, the defendant’s answers were also recorded, which were now not found necessary to repeat, since the trial was already taking place in a different case. Zinovy, “Testimony of Truth,” pp. 908, 913. Vasily Ivanovich’s letter of non-conviction, given to the Nilova Hermitage, is known, based on Vassian’s petition already in September 1526 (Ethnographic Acts, vol. I, no. 173). Maximus was now interrogated about the blasphemous lines found in his translation of the Metaphrastian Life of the Mother of God, and about other items of a dogmatic nature. Vladyka Dosifei did not see or hear anything at all in which Vassian and Maxim referred to him as a witness. True, in the present case he points to facts that really do not speak in favor of the monk-prince; Vassian of Rostov and Simeon of Suzdal, for sure, died two years before the writing of Kormcha by Vassian Patrikeev (the first in August, the last in November 1515; see Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, VI, p. 257). But, on the other hand, it is difficult to admit that our non-possessor would decide to write in the afterword of his Helmsman an obvious lie against Metropolitan Varlaam, who then (in 1517) still occupied the see and with whom he, as we saw, was in close and friendly relations. Such a lie was all the more impossible since Vassian did not hide his Helmsman from anyone, and we have already noticed that her list (the same one that was now brought to the council) was in the hands of the Grand Duke himself. In all likelihood, it happened like this: Elder Vassian asked Metropolitan Varlaam for the blessing to write the Helmsman during the lifetime of the above-mentioned rulers, Rostov and Suzdal, precisely in March 1515, when in Moscow, indeed, there was “the entire consecrated council of the Russian metropolis” for the installation of the Smolensk bishop (See ibid.). But the Helmsman itself was written two years later, and, as stated in its afterword, it was compared with the list of the Rostov Archbishop Vassian, who died five months after the council, not yet leaving Moscow (in Dorogomilov). Then, after the arrival of Maxim the Greek (in 1518), the Helmsman was again revised and, as we have seen, supplemented with a special “meeting” on the indecent nature of monks owning villages. In the collection of Vassian, which, as we saw, he placed in his Helmsman, there is indeed the following passage: “all the holy fathers wrote about the rejection of the world: as a monk live according to the Gospel and according to the Apostle, and according to the Great Basil, sat down not to tremble, nor to control them, but to live in silence and silence, fed with their own hands... If they do not keep their promise, this saint he detests the scriptures with torment, and condemns them to eternal fire, and calls them apostates and consigns them to damnation.” See the court list in the Vassian case, Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847, No. 9. Inventory of manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, Dept. II, part 3, pp. 152–153. Joseph's Message to Boyar Kutuzov, Ancient Russian Vivliofika, part XIV, p. 189. We used the charter of Joseph Volotsky according to the Manuscript of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 329. Wed. presentation of this charter made by Khrushchov, pp. 54 et seq. Life of Joseph, written by Savva Krutitsky, pp. 50–52. Life of Joseph, compiled by an unknown person, pp. 22–23, 61. Monastic Rules, ch. 5. Life of Joseph, written by Savva Krutitsky, page 65. Thus, having arrived on a pilgrimage at the Trinity Bozhedomsky Monastery, founded in 1508 by Daniil of Pereyaslavl, Vasily Ivanovich ordered here “to compile a general life” (The Tale of Daniel in the Degree Book). Archbishop Macarius, introducing community life in the Novogorod monasteries, also acted on behalf of and on the orders of the Grand Duke (Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, 1. No. 25. Wed. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, VI, pp. 284–285). Macarius gave charters to the monasteries that accepted the hostel, which in the main provisions are completely similar to the charter of Joseph of Volotsky (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, 1, No. 292). Herberstein describes this order of monastic administration as a general rule (Notes on Muscovy, translation by Anonimov. 1868, pp. 45–46). Russian literary and legal monuments of that time provide quite a few individual examples confirming the testimony of an observant foreigner. So in 1514, according to the inventory, the Solovetsky Monastery was handed over to the temporary management of Hieromonk Gelasius and the cathedral elders, according to the inventory of the Grand Duke's scribes, to whom the scribes, according to the sovereign's charter, ordered: “to take care of the monastery, take care of the brethren, and the varnitsa, and the children until the Grand Duke gives them the abbot, or the same (Gelasia) will give; and you, matchmaker brethren, would listen, according to the word of the Grand Duke: they will protect you until the abbot (Dosifei, Description of the Solovetsky Monastery, 1836, pp. 67–68) The chronicles also speak about the appointment of abbots by the Grand Duke (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, VI, pp. 288–289), issued letters (Legal Acts, No. 381) and the lives of the saints. Thus, a remarkable legend is attributed to the life of Varlaam Khutynsky about the appearance of this saint to the Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich with the demand that he should not delay any longer in appointing abbots to the Novgorod monasteries: Khutynsky, Yuryev and Antoniev. According to this requirement, they were appointed: to the Khutyn Monastery - Nikifor, to Yuryev - Jonah, to Antoniev - Gerontius (Manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, No. 226, fol. 98 ff.). Finally, there are examples from which it is clear that under Vasily Ivanovich, abbots and cathedral elders disposed of the monastery treasury only with the permission of the Grand Duke. So, at least, new churches were built in monasteries (See Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, III, p. 247, under 1515, which talks about the construction of churches in the Tikhvin and Khutyn monasteries). Stoglav, Kazan edition, p. 428. Evidence of this prohibition is found in a curious charter given in 1535 to the Vologda Glushitsky monastery and, obviously, constituting the result of a general legislative measure that affected all monasteries. Here is the main content of this letter: “that in our state many villages, villages and hamlets buy estates for monasteries and from the children of boyars, and monasteries buy estates as mortgages and purchases; But deys buy votchina at a high price, and votchinniki deys, who are the votchiniki of those lands, outbid with oprichnaya people, and past the monastery-patrimonies it is not possible for anyone to buy from anyone. And other children of the boyar estates donated their estates to monasteries according to their liking so that their estates would not go to their neighbors. And you will have bought estates from the children of the boyars, or taken them as a mortgage or as a purchase, or the children of the boyars have given their estates to you in the monastery to your liking before this charter of ours, a year or two before, and you would have our pilgrim abbot Theodosius and the brethren send a statement to our clerk to Theodore Mishurin, that before this charter of ours, a year or two before this charter of ours, they bought additional estates in the Glushitsky monastery from the children of the boyars, or as a mortgage or for purchase, or to the soul, and how much in which city they bought from the children from the boyar estates, or sculpted as a mortgage or for purchase, go to their hearts, and how many villages and villages and repairs in which estate, and that there are courtyards and people and arable land in them in one field, and in two because, and that there is hay and forest and all sorts of land. And in the future, of course, without our knowledge, we would not have bought the estates on our own, and we would not have bought them as mortgages or purchases, and we would not have taken them from anyone to our liking. And if you decide to buy estates without our knowledge, or to mortgage them, or to purchase them, or to take possession of your liking, and tell me to sign those estates over to you” (History of the Russian Hierarchy, III, pp. 713–714). In the Novgorod chronicle, under 1536, it is written: “the sovereign Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia sent from Moscow to Veliky Novgorod his son, the boyar groom Bunda, and the clerk Ivan, and ordered the harvest from all the monasteries around the entire city, and from the churches of God in the entire city, and give them to the waste (?), which is worth the harvest, by the same monastery and clergyman. And this happened through the slander of a certain wicked and insane person” (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, VI. pp. 299–300). The scribal books mentioned here have also been preserved. See “Description of documents and files stored in the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Justice,” book. 1. 1869 No. 1736 (p. 169). Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3, p. 159 – Stoglav, p. 431. We will see this from the questions of Ivan IV proposed to the council in 1551. Of course, probably the frequent devastating raids of the Crimeans. Works of Maximus, vol. II, pp. 260–276. Works of Maximus, vol. II, pp. 161, 174–175. – The fact that these “instructive chapters” were written to Ivan and transmitted to him through Adashev is evidenced by the writer himself in his letter to the latter; “And the notebook, which contains chapters 27, was copied by me wisely and kindly to the great ruler himself” (ibid., p. 383). In the printed (Kazan) edition the number of “instructive chapters” is not indicated; but according to the manuscripts, there are exactly 27 of them (See Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, section II, part 2, p. 531). Maxim was in friendly correspondence with Sylvester and Adashev. See his works, vol. II, page 379 and the previous note. In a letter to Kurbsky, the tsar, now (in 1564) had already changed in many ways, complained about Sylvester and Adashev that they did not allow him to travel to holy places and make “offerings” and vows to the saints about spiritual salvation and physical health, and about all the good things of his stay, and about his queen, and about his children” (Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3, p. 167). Elsewhere, a general reproach is made for Sylvester’s party that they “evilly advised the Tsar against the Church of God (ibid., p. 175). Kurbsky, a literary interpreter of the political aspirations of his party, explains in this way the motives for which she tried to counteract the royal travels on pilgrimage: “for rich-loving men do not see what is pleasing to God, and do not advise according to spiritual reason, but in every possible way they diligently hear, whatever would please the king and the authorities, this speech, in order to lure out estates with monasteries, or a lot of wealth” (there same, p. 36). It is remarkable that the chronicles also speak disapprovingly of the king’s frequent pilgrimages, which were accompanied by the distribution of lands and lands to monasteries. So in the Pskov Chronicle, under 1547, it was noted that the king was in the local Pechersk monastery and “he gave many villages to the monastery and granted many isads, but did not rule his fatherland in anything” (Complete collection of Russian chronicles, IV, p. 307). Kurbsky in his writings often contrasts the enormous wealth of the monasteries with the beggarly poverty of the boyars' children. See, for example, his letter to some Ivin, published by me in the Orthodox Interlocutor, 1863, August, p. 566, and Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, p. 244. That these contrasts express not the personal and later views of Kurbsky himself, but the views of an entire political party that dominated in the first years of the independent reign of Ivan IV, is clear from the facts, further set out in the text. Ancient Russian vivliofika, ed. 2, part VIII. pp.1–34. Temporary of the Russian Society of History and Antiquities, part 20, department. III, pp. 41 et seq. This answer was fully published by Tikhonravov in the Chronicle of Russian Literature and Antiquity, vol. V, sec. III, pp. 126 et seq. That the royal question concerned only the metropolitan estates is evident from the following circumstances: a) the answer is given on behalf of the metropolitan alone; b) the metropolitan speaks only about the lands of the “Most Pure Mother of God and the great miracle workers” (Peter, Alexei, Jonah), i.e. Assumption Cathedral. In the estates of the metropolis there were also several monasteries, for example, near Moscow itself - Novinsky. That is why, in the title of the answer, monastic, “immovable things” are also mentioned. Ethnographic Acts, I, no. 238. III, p. 246. Manuscript of the Rumyantsev Museum, from the Undolsky collection No. 494, fol. 196. Comp. “Description” of these manuscripts, made by the collector himself. Moscow. 1870, p. 369. See also the note about Artemia, published in the Vologda Diocesan Gazette for 1868, No. 15; add., p. 387. Stoglav, royal questions 8 (p. 51), 15 (p. 60) and 17 (p. 61). Stoglav, ch. 49, pp. 236–240, starting with the words: “about the same from the royal writing.” Thus, the famous message of Grozny to the Kirillov Monastery was written based on a report from the monastic authorities about the unrest caused by the newly tonsured boyars (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 204, pp. 372–373). Some time later (around 1582–1583), the abbot and brethren of the same monastery complained to the king about the willfulness of Elder Alexander (ibid., 212). Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, No. 154. II. Stoglav, page 374: “they elected archimandrites and abbots to honorable monasteries as metropolitans and archbishops and bishops, according to the king’s word and advice... And having elected them, they send them to the pious king, if you please God and the king.” Right there. pp. 235, 297–298. That this decree was carried out is clear from the monastery inventories of that time (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, l 158. Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 337). On the storage of inventories in the royal archive, see the description of the latter, published in Ethnographic Acts, I. No. 298, (box 196, p. 350). At some monasteries and bishops' houses, there were undoubtedly almshouses (for examples, see Nevolin “on the space of the church court in Russia,” op. vol. VI, p. 326. note 190, and Leshkov: “Russian people and state,” p. 591). But the insignificance of donations for this cause brought by the rulers and monasteries during the cathedral is proven not only by the writings of Vassian Patrikeev and Maxim the Greek, but also by the reviews of the defenders of the inviolability of church and monastic estates themselves (for example, Metropolitan Daniel; see above. The parish churches did comparatively more, on the land of which cells were usually erected for the poor, “fed from the Church of God,” or, as explained in some scribe books, from the parish,” This land, having been given for housing to artisans or merchants, could have brought more or less significant income, indeed, monasteries and bishops used this income, giving space for entire settlements on their city plots (see, for example, Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 252), which, however, was prohibited by the Code of Law (chap. 91) and a special conciliar verdict on September 15, 1550 (Stoglav, pp. 412–413). See, for example, in the printed Helmsman ch. 49; part 2. l. 35 rev. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, VI, pp. 293–294. This can be seen from the Code of 1649 (Chapter 8), in which the procedure for collecting polonyany money, established by the Stoglian Cathedral, is already a general state law. Wed. Kotoshikhin, The Tale of Russia under Alexei Mikhailovich, ch. VII, art. 3. The first attempt at such a generalization, as shown above (p. 102), was made under Elena Glinskaya. In the Kazan edition of Stoglav (pp. 433–434), the articles of this conciliar verdict concerning the transfer of estates to monasteries by souls are mixed, so that it is difficult to distinguish the general law of Ivan IV from the decrees of his grandfather, mandatory only for service princes and residents of regions and cities newly annexed to Moscow. According to a more correct list, the same conciliar verdict was issued in Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 227. Here the general law is stated after the local and special and constitutes the penultimate article, which says: “who, without the sovereign’s knowledge, in which the monastery will give its patrimony to the soul, and that patrimony from the monasteries will be given to the sovereign without money.” Nevolin, about the space of the church court in Russia (works, vol. VI p. 377 et seq.), Lokhvitsky, church administration in ancient Russia (Russian Bulletin, 1857, No. 2. Pp. 212 et seq.). These sources are entirely contained in chapters 60–65 of Stoglav. Probably, regarding the royal question about the hierarchal courts, Metropolitan Macarius in the same year asked for a letter of non-judgment for all his estates (Gorchakov, on land holdings, appendix, p. 34). The original view is unequally expressed that the theory of the inalienability of church property was finally formed in Rus' by the end of the 15th century (Gorchakov, on land ownership, p. 163). In the sense of the canonical principle, it existed before, although, as we have seen, it could not prevent the formation of an opposite custom, which was formally abolished for the first time by the council of 1551. But the author’s main mistake, in our opinion, is that he identifies the principle of inalienability with the principle of inalienability of a part of church property. The latter never disappeared from the consciousness of the clergy and was persistently repeated every time the right of church property was violated by third parties. It was only in this sense that we, before the council of 1551, understood the theory of the legal “immovability” of church property (cf. pp. 26–27). Ethnographic Acts, No. 238 end. Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3. page 117. Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3. page 116. According to the Nikon Chronicle (VII, 304), Bakshin, when searching for his heresy, pointed to the Trans-Volga elders, “that they did not blaspheme his malice, but confirmed him in it.” And Theodosius Kosoy himself was tonsured at the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery - the center of the Trans-Volga desert. This is what Bakshin taught. See Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 161 Ethnographic Acts, I. No. 239. This is the teaching of Theodosius Oblique. See Zinovia. "Truth testimony." Kazan. 1863, p. 888. Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 239 Legends of Kurbsky, pp. 119–120. Councils against heretics of the 16th century. Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1847, No. 3. Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 161, p. 298. Not to mention Maxim, whom Metropolitan Macarius himself treated with the greatest respect, we can cite several evidence proving that our monk-prince found admirers not only among secular persons (Kurbsky’s review of him is known), but also among the hierarchs themselves. Thus, one of the members of the council of 1551 (in all likelihood, Cassian of Ryazan) had with him, during the council meetings, a well-known “collection”, placed by Vassian in his Helmsman (Tikhonravov, Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity, vol. V. section III, p. 140. Compare with the note from the words “This is a “collection”, in those known to us lists". Truth Testimony, pp. 890–898. Maxim asked for leave to go to Athos after completing the translation of the Explanatory Psalter, and this was the next year after the arrival of the Holy Mountainer to us (Moskvityanin 1842, No. 11, pp. 47–48). So, for example, the works of Maxim: “a conversation between a covetous person and a non-covetous person” and “a conversation between the mind and the soul about covetousness,” which mainly contains raspberries against monastic estates, were written by him before 1525, i.e. before his exile to Joseph's Monastery. (Ibid., p. 53, note 25). Proof of Truth, page 909. See the regulations on meals of these monasteries, written in 1590 (Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, I. No. 135). From this it can be seen (according to the fair remark of Milutin, p. 378, note 738) how varied the monastic cuisine was at that time and how far the monks’ way of life had deviated from the original simplicity. At the lunches and dinners of the monks, the following dishes and drinks were served: white, rye and wheat bread, kolaches, cabbage soup, botvinya, borscht, fish soup, milk noodles, noodles with pepper, oatmeal, buckwheat, with head, grated, with juice, milk, Easter cakes, pancake pies, pies with poppy seeds and fish, with eggs and cheese, with carrots, peas and turnips, whitefish, bream, crucian carp, salmon, herring, pike with garlic, pike perch, freshly salted sturgeon, scrambled eggs, eggs, caviar, jelly with milk, jelly with honey, berries, raisins, crackers, nuts, pancakes, pancakes with honey, etc. kvass (in the preparation of which the monks were great masters, and which, as can be seen from Stoglav, was divided into several varieties: old, stale, sour, grain, honey, etc.), honey, fresh beer, wine. The Council of 1551, which prohibited the keeping of intoxicating drinks (“drunken drinking”) in monasteries, allowed the monks to drink “Fryazhian wines” for the glory of God, especially where there were tonsured boyars (Stoglav, pp. 256–258). According to the fair remark of His Eminence Philaret of Chernigov (History of the Russian Church, III, p. 232), the above regulations on monastic meals also reveal a weakening of the former strictness in rich monasteries, which allows monks to eat fish and caviar even in the first week of Lent. How common such deviations from the general church charter were in monasteries, can be seen from the “Obikhodnik” of the Volokolamsk monastery, in which a general remark was made: “in Lent ... fish should not be presented as a guest at meals, and a pianist drink should not be kept, so that they should not say that in the Joseph Monastery they eat fish during Lent” (Description of manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, Div. III, part I. p. 400). Ethnographic Acts, 1, No. 238. III. Soloviev, History of Russia; vol. VI, ed. 5. pp. 189 et seq. Tales of Kurbsky, ed. 3, p. 156. Ibid., pp. 37–38 (History of John); compare 212 (message to the king). It was published by Professor Bodyansky in Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, 1859, No. 3, under the title: “Discussion of the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev about the impropriety of monasteries owning ancestral lands.” The venerable publisher did not provide evidence why he gave this conversation such a title, i.e. why he attributed it to Vassian Patrikeev. This was noticed by me back in 1883, during the publication in the Orthodox Interlocutor of the undoubtedly authentic works of the monk-prince. I then expressed doubts about the ownership of the monument published by Bodyansky to Vassian Patrikeev, bearing in mind the fact that “Vassian conducted his polemic against the monastic estates on his own behalf and wrote quite logically, in correct, bookish language, while the imaginary conversation between Sergius and Herman is distinguished by a disorderly presentation of thoughts and simple, unlearned speech” (September book, pp. 96–97). But recently, K. N. Nevostruev recognized these doubts as “in vain” and even contradicting one of my own comments, in which I, citing (October book, p. 208) one place in the conversation directly points to Nil Sorsky and Vassian, thereby allegedly attributing it to Vassian (Analysis of Khrushchov’s book on the writings of Joseph Sanin, p. 64). The quoted note actually says that Vassian and his disciples, in the interests of their polemics against the monastery estates, suspected some legends about the ancient wonderworkers of forgery, and as proof, a reference was made to one place contained in the imaginary conversation between Sergius and Herman. But here there is only Vassian’s assimilation of the thoughts expressed in the “conversation”, and not the assimilation of the conversation itself. The idea belonged to a whole school, and in this sense we are, perhaps, ready, together with Mr. Nevostruevs, to attribute the conversation not only to Vassian, but also to Nil Sorsky himself. The question is another matter: who in this case was the exponent of the thought, who put it into the mouths of the Valaam wonderworkers? That it was not Vassian Patrikeev is clear from the most superficial comparison of his original works with the literary monument that occupies us. Our venerable critic, in proof of the opposite view, refers to some places in the “conversation” in which there are expressions that seem to directly indicate Vassian, who was once in the military and diplomatic field, such as: articles, armed regiments, uluses. But it is precisely these expressions that speak most strongly against the attribution of the “conversation” to Vassian Patrikeev, since not one of them is found in his original works. Another witty guess by Mr. Nevostruev, that under the name of the “two monks” Sergius and Herman one cannot help but recognize Vassian with his teacher Nilus of Sorsky (ibid., p. 65), may be probable, but is not at all sufficient to substantiate the idea of ​​Vassian as the author of the conversation. If he valued the authority of the Valaam wonderworkers (at that time not yet canonized) so much that he decided to put into their mouths his and Nil Sorsky’s polemics against the monastery estates: then in the works written by him directly on his own behalf, he, of course, would not fail to mention Sergius and Herman along with other Russian wonderworkers, whom he called by name (see the page with the words “Nor Pachomius”). Finally, in the content of the “conversation” there are clear signs of a later pen and time. Here: a) the same social and church shortcomings are indicated that Stoglav also talks about (namely: wearing shlyks and other clothes characteristic of non-believers, cutting beards and mustaches, disorderly singing in churches); b) Russian sovereigns are constantly called tsars - not only in the literary style of the conversation itself, but also in the official petition formula with which it ends (“Tsar-Sovereign, please have mercy”!); c) the general point of view and individual thoughts of the conversation, which we set out in the text, could not be more befitting of the era of disgrace and executions that began the second half of Ivan the Terrible’s reign. In the publication of Professor Bodyansky there is no this petition, as well as a table of contents of the conversation, in which it is directly assimilated by Sergius and Herman, namely: “On the 11th day of the month of September, the transfer of the relics of our venerable fathers Sergius and Herman, the leaders and abbots of the Valaam monastery, the new miracle workers, from Veliky Novgorod to the Korelsky district, to the monastery of the All-Merciful Savior, to Valama Island, on Lake Neva. The image of them, Sergius and Herman, was quickly painted, with the blessing of our holy father John, Archbishop of the Great Novagrad, the new miracle worker,” etc. We used this literary monument of the 16th century from two handwritten collections of the former Solovetsky Library, No. 923. 205. Cf. my article entitled: “Zemstvo (folk and public) direction of Russian literature in the 16th century,” published in the Orthodox Interlocutor for 1863, March, pp. 300–306. Continuations of Ancient Russian Vivliofika, part V, p. 244. Around 1565, two disgraced and fugitive boyars, Timofey Teterin and Mark Syrogozin, wrote from Lithuania to the royal governor in Dorpat: “the Grand Duke has new loyalists, clerks, who feed him with half and eat the rest for themselves, whose fathers were not useful to your fathers in servitude, and now they not only own the land, but also your heads trade." Legends of Kurbsky, approx. 220, p. 341. This decree is attributed, without date, to article 85 of the Code of Laws in one (Golitsinsky) list. See Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, p. 246, note. 25. We attribute it to a time close to the publication of the conciliar verdict on May 11, 1551, on the basis that in later decrees on the same subject (for example, in the decree of 1562, set out further in the text) the right of childless patrimonial owners to freely dispose of half of their patrimonial lands is no longer visible. Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, No. 154. VI. Compare above with the page with the words “It’s also wonderful that Ivan III.” Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, No. 154. XVIII. The original text of this conciliar verdict was published in the Collection of State Charters and Treaties (Vol. I, No. 200) and in the Continuations of Ancient Russian Vivliofika, (Part VII, No. 216), the later list, with the wrong date (1581) - in Volume I of Ethnographic Acts, No. 308. Scientists using the latest edition, which is more widespread, do not always pay attention to the publishers' chronological correction, placed at the end of the volume, dates the cathedral to 1581 (See, for example, Milutan, on the real estate of the clergy, p. 413; Gorchakov, on land holdings, p. 165 and others.) Karamzin, History of the Russian State, IX, approx. 754. We used Horsey’s “Note” about Russia in the Russian translation, published in the “Library for Reading” for 1865 (No. 4–6), with a preface and notes by Mr. Kostomarov. Namely, this story combines events separated by at least a five-year interval. Thus, examples of the execution of bishops and monks by bears are mentioned in Russian chronicles only in 1575. On the other hand, Gorsey dates the fifth marriage of the tsar (with the daughter of Fyodor Nagov) to the time of the council on church property, which actually happened in 1580. Maksimovich, Index of Russian Laws, Part I, p. 103. The most difficult thing was to compile accurate inventories of bishop's income, which was received not only from estates, but also from judicial and administrative affairs. However, the beginning of this work, it seems, has now been done; at least in the royal archives of that time there was a record of metropolitan duties and income from the signature of church charters (Ethnographic Acts, 1, No. 289, p. 350). Horsey himself, having outlined the contents of the report, notes: “and as much as he could, he literally translated this original.” Library for home reading, No. 5, p. 46. Kurbsky makes an interesting general remark about these involuntary tonsures: “when the king is angry with some, then by force he tonsures them with their wives and small children, and consigns them to eternal confinement in solid monasteries and in dark cells, repairing holy places with strongholds of hell, those who agree with him and indulge the damned by some and the evil ones. mnikhom (Tales, p. 340, note 214) The last words show that the monks found it advantageous to have noble, even involuntary, tonsured people among the brotherhood. The tsar himself hints at these benefits in his famous message to the Cyril Monastery, attributing the impoverishment of some monasteries to the fact that in them, due to the decline of discipline and piety, no one is tonsured. For example, Lokhvitsky in the cited essay on church administration in ancient Russia. Legal Acts, No. 126. Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I X 200. Compare. No. 182. It was published by Belyaev in the Temporary of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, book. XIII, dept. II, pp. 147–166, with a short but effective introduction, which we partly used in your text. Namely, the monastery and church owned 9422 quarters of arable land; in patrimonial and local - tola about 5780; in the sovereign - 8649 See preface. Belyaev, pp. VI–VIII). This is indicated by notes in the book about the previous owners, for example: “The Resurrection Monastery, which was formerly the estate of Prince Nikita Fedorov Prozorovsky, the village of Korovaev (p. 951). Trinity-Sergeev Monastery Fedorovsky estates of Ivanov's son Khabarov (total 2866 people, p. 155). Novodevich monastery, larger Povolsky, which was formerly the prince of Vasilyevskaya patrimony, prince Andreev’s son Molottsky” (p. 152). Nikon Chronicle, VII, p. 231, “the tsar laid down... the lord and all the churches, the tenth promised to God from all the income of the Kazan land, and first the Metropolitan and all the lords and monasteries will help the Kazan lord with money and bread.” So in the Novogorod chronicle, already under 1555, it was noted about the collection of money from the local monasteries for the Kazan ruler (Karamzin, VIII, note 587). From the payment invoice of the Kirillov Monastery for 1558 it is clear that taxes in favor of the new department were collected from the monasteries at two rubles per plow, so that Kirillov paid in the said year from 23 to a quarter plow 45 rubles and a half, and an increase, due to the then high cost of bread, 16 rubles 5 altyns with money (Legal Acts, No. 209). It was probably from this collection from bishops and monasteries that the sum of the royal salary and 865 rubles, which was issued annually to Archbishop Gury, was made up (Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 202, p. 264). It is unknown when this collection stopped. From the above payment of the Kirillov Monastery it is clear that in 1558 it was still continuing, although the Kazan department, already from the first year of its existence, began to receive grants for lands and lands (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 262). Already in the order, the first Kazan Archbishop Gury was prescribed: to keep the best newly baptized Tatars in the bishopric, teach them the Christian law and put them to rest, and distribute others for baptism in monasteries (Ethnographic Acts, I, 241, p. 259). Chronicles (Complete collection of Russian chronicles, III, p. 157, under 1555) and royal charters (Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, I, no. 97) speak about newly baptized Tatars kept in Novogorod monasteries. The decree of 1559 also mentions “newly baptized. who live in monasteries" (Addition to Code of Laws No. XIII). See about this in Milyutin’s essay “on the real estate of the clergy in Russia,” pp. 384–389. Ethnographic acts, I, No. 205. – Additions to historical acts, collected and published by the archaeographic commission, 1. No. 107, etc. Thus, in 1571, it was ordered that all Novgorod monasteries place monastery servants in service, “with horses and armor and all supplies,” and send them to Moscow. Complete collection of Russian chronicles, item III, p. 168. This duty primarily fell on the bishops, whose staff, as you know, included entire boyar families, who were now increasingly attracted to public service. A remarkable general testimony about them is found in Kurbsky: “there is a custom there, in that land: on the church land many noble men of the bright families earn estates, in times of peace they serve as archbishops, and when there is warfare from the adversaries of the surrounding area, then in the Christian army there are those who are not consecrated.” Legends, p. 106. In particular, about the Sofia boyar children who were placed by the Novogorod archbishops, see Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 183, 185, 285. That this placement was carried out primarily in the interests of the sovereign’s service is clear from the local charter given in 1573 by the archbishop Leonid. It says here that the estate, which previously belonged to the boyar’s son Prokofy Epishkov, is now given to his brothers, on the basis that their brother Prokofy was killed in the sovereign’s service, and in his place the sovereign’s service will serve the Ninth Epishkov” (No. 185). Complete collection of Russian chronicles, III, p. 164: “in the summer of 7079. October 13, they brought from Novogorod to Moscow the treasury, which was ruled by Konstantin Polivanov, and Ugriam Vasiliev Bezopishev, in the monasteries, 13 thousand” - Ibid. p. 163: “in the month of August at 30, on Wednesday, the sovereign took letters from the monastery to himself, to Moscow, complained about everything; and a letter came to the entire monastery from Moscow, according to the letter, to Veliky Novgorod, in the month of August on the 29th day.” These scribe books were published in abbreviation by Nevolin (about Pyatina and Pogosts, appendices No. III, IV, VI, IX, XII) and Belyaev (Vremennik of the Russian Society of History and Antiquities, 1850, book VI, department II). Let us give several examples from the description of each pyatina: 1) Votskaya (1582): “in the Krechvevo churchyard there were villages and hamlets that were behind the archbishop and behind the monasteries, and then assigned to the village (palace) Korolev. There are 9 villages in total, and according to old scribe books, there are 17 obezh with half-obzheyu (Vremennik of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities, p. 28). 2) Obonezhskaya (1583): “in the Kozhelsky churchyard of the village that was the Arkazh monastery, and after... assigned to the sovereign and distributed to the estates of the boyar children of German cities.” In the same churchyard there are 24 empty villages that were newly signed from the Arkazh Monastery (ibid., pp. 69, 71. Compare Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, 1, No. 222). In the Rozhdestvensky churchyard on Olonets there are villages and villages, and wastelands, and settlements and palace palaces of the Tsar and the Grand Duke, which were previously written off from the Novgorod Archbishop Pimin (Nevolin, appendix, p. 153). 3) Shelonsloy (1582–82): “the graveyard of the Vshelskaya Tsar and Grand Duke, which was formerly the lord’s volost” (ibid., p. 81). Pogost Lyubynskaya, which was the newly assigned volost of the Tsar and the Grand Duke, which was the former Yuriev Monastery, and is now distributed according to the sovereign's charter by the new landowner of German cities (p. 94). 4) Derevskoy (1581–82): “in the Naretsky churchyard, the Yuryev landowner - on the land of the former Resurrection Monastery from the Goncharsky end (p. 255). 5) Bezhetskaya (1582–83): “in the Nikolsky churchyard on Vyshny Volochek, the Tsarev and the Grand Duke reaped what they were lords” (p. 321) and others. La Russie en XVI, siècle par Fletcher, trad. par Bouset. 1864. p. 126–127 – Horsey, Note on Muscovy in the Reading Library 1865, No. 4 p. 48. Our chronicles also speak about the appointment of Simeon as king of the zemshchina and his removal, a year later, to Tver. See Velyaminov - Zernov “about the Kasimov kings and princes,” part II, pp. 24–25. Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. I, no. 202. See the page with the words “in refutation of the words of the Novgorod Archbishop” Ethnographic Acts, I, No. 267, 297, 306, 311. Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I. No. 214. Additions I, X 129, 221. Historical acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 214. A few days later, another and the same document was sent to the Kirillov Monastery. Additions to historical acts, I, No. 120. All religious documents speak about monetary alms. It was also heard during royal trips to monasteries on pilgrimage. So in the Obikhodnik of Joseph of the Volokolamsk Monastery it is noted: “the sovereign grants alms, as God informs him, sometimes 100 rubles, sometimes 200, 300, 400, sometimes 600” (Description of the Synodal Library, Section III, part 1, p. 506). The charters granted to the Grozny monasteries for estates will be indicated below. Collection of state charters and agreements, vol. II, pp. 242, 343. See note from the words “We used this wonderful literary” This message was published by Khrushchev in a study of the writings of Joseph Sanin, pp. 255–260. Interesting details about the monastic commemoration are contained in the Obikhodnik of the Joseph Monastery: “Whoever wants to create eternal memory for himself, and as a parent, for his entire family, and to provide food for his brethren every year, as long as the Most Pure Monastery stands, will give 100 rubles, or 200, or 300, or 400, or 500, or a village or villages against that price. And for 100 rubles, write it in the daily list and in the eternal books of hay, and his family will be written in the book, and for every year they will make food according to him for the brethren and in fodder books, and write it in the list. And whoever gives 200 rubles, and for that they will make two feeds; and some are 300, others have three large sterns and three souls of their names in the daily list. And who will give 50 rubles, and write it on the daily list and in the hay for a century? (Description of the Synodal Library, section III, part I, p. 397). See, for example, the contribution letters of the same sovereign - to the liking of Prince Yury Vasilyevich Novinsky Monastery 1554–55 (Acts of Kalachov I, No. 50, V), according to his brother Prince Yury Vasilyevich Spaso-Evfimiev Suzdal Monastery 1572 (Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of Rumyantsevsky museum, p. 92), and an obedient letter to the peasants of the village of Pravdiva, given in the same year to the same monastery according to the soul of Prince Belsky (Historical Acts, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission, I, No. 182). Grozny's monetary deposits were sometimes worth good estates. So he gave the Sergius Monastery for his son Tsarevich John 5,500 rubles (Description of the Sergius Lavra. 1857, p. 88). Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, ed. Kalachov, vol. I, no. 63. XVIII and XIX. Historical acts collected and published by the Archaeographical Commission, I, no. 82. This is how the already known (false) rule of the fifth ecumenical council “on those who offend the church” is formulated. In the same sense, Metropolitan Photius spoke about the inviolability of church property in his spiritual charter of 1431 (Collection of state charters and agreements, I, p. 21), and Metropolitan Macarius in his response to Ivan IV (see above). You might be interested in: