Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551

Revealing the priceless treasures of the Church - her holy ascetics, glorifying them, Metropolitan Macarius did not forget about church disorders, for the eradication of which he took vigorous measures. The wise archpastoral approach was expressed in the fact that he first of all puts on the candlestick of the Church its glory - the saints, glorified at the Councils of 1547-1549, and with their grace-filled help reveals and eliminates various disadvantages in society. Thus, the call of the Apostle Paul was fully fulfilled: “Therefore, we also, having such a cloud of witnesses around us, will cast off every burden and tumble us, and with patience we will go through the field that is set before us” ().

The Stoglavy Cathedral dealt with various similar issues. The beginning of the work of the Council took place in this way: “In the summer of 7059 (1551) of the month of February, on the 23rd day of the Bysh, these questions and answers were many about various church ranks in the reigning city of Moscow in the royal wards from the faithful and blessed tsar and sovereign and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich autocrat of all Russia to his father Macarius Metropolitan of all Russia and to the entire sacred Cathedral of the Russian Metropolis who were here: Theodosius, Archbishop of Great Novagrad and Pskov; Nikander, Archbishop of Rostov; Tryphon, Bishop of Suzdal and Toru; Bishop of Smolensk and Bryansk Guriy; Kasyan, Bishop of Ryazan; Akakiy, Bishop of Tver and Kashinsky; Theodosius, Bishop of Kolomna and Kashirsky; Sava, Bishop of Sarsky and Podonsky; Cyprian, Bishop of Perm and Volotsk, with honest archimandrites and abbots. The author-compiler of the cathedral documents, like the hymnographers who glorify the participants in the Ecumenical Councils, calls the hierarchs who have gathered in Moscow “unpaired eagles”, “easy-to-have property”. About their coming to Moscow it is said: “And wonderful is the vision, like the whole God-saved city, the father is blushing with the coming.”

Contemporaries-chroniclers do not say anything about the Stoglav Cathedral, as well as about the Councils of the “new miracle workers” of 1547, 1549. Messages about Stoglav can be found in later chronicles. L. V. Cherepnin rightly notes that the chronicle notes about Stoglav of the 17th century “go back as a source to the text of the monument itself”.

Despite the diversity of the content of the materials of the Council, one can, however, see some of their division according to the subject. The first four chapters contain historical material on the preparation and beginning of the work of the Council, on its composition, on the speeches of the king to the participants in the Council. In them, the young tsar addresses a prayer to the Holy Trinity, angels, saints, names “the great miracle workers who, in our land of Great Russia, shone in miracles” (ch. 3, p. 261). He also talks about the Councils, at which “great new lamps were canonized, miraculous by many and unspeakable miracles glorified by God” (ch. 4, p. 266). Then it says that work Stoglavy Cathedral prayers and supplications preceded in the cathedral church of the Most Pure Theotokos, after which the tsar, speaking of disorder, addresses the audience: “... about everything about this, advise yourself spiritually enough. And in the midst of the Council, proclaim this to us, and we demand your hierarchal advice and deeds and wish to advise you, O God, affirm the discordant for good” (ch. 4, p. 267).

The next, fifth, chapter sets out in a row thirty-seven of the most varied questions of the tsar, addressed to the participants in the Council, with the intention of ending the discord. The king says: “My Father Macarius Metropolitan of All Russia and all the archbishops and bishops, look into your houses, you have been entrusted from God with the hierarchy of your pastor of the saints God's churches and about honest icons and about every church building, so that in the holy churches they call and sing according to the Divine Rule and according to the sacred rules. And now we see and hear, in addition to the Divine Charter, many church orders are not fully performed not according to sacred rule and not by statute. And you would have judged about all those church ranks and issued a decree according to the Divine Rule and according to the sacred rule in full” (ch. 5, question 1, p. 268). Chapters, from 6 to 40, contain the answers of the fathers of the Council to the questions of the king, who seek to eradicate the identified shortcomings, “yes nothing is created in the holy churches, except for the sacred and Divine rules, below it will be contemptible by our negligence” (ch. 6, ss. 277-278).

The forty-first chapter contains thirty-two more royal questions, and this time the answers are given along with the questions, separated only by the phrase: "And this is the answer." The following chapters, starting with the forty-second, are only "answers", that is, only decisions without any preliminary questions. The topics of these decisions can be repetitive with previous questions and answers, or fundamentally new. The last two chapters (99 and 100) speak of sending the documents of the Council to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery to the former Metropolitan Joasaph († 1555), who is there, and his answer is an opinion about the cathedral materials.

Reading Stoglav, one might think that the initiative to convene the Council, its work, that is, questions, all belong to the tsar. E. Golubinsky does not agree with this, he sees the initiative of St. Macarius in the implementation of Stoglav; other researchers also speak about the great role of the Metropolitan. In addition, the materials of the Council reflected the messages and documents of Metropolitan Macarius. St. Macarius is characterized by modesty and humility, which manifested itself in giving the initiative to the tsar himself. First, the young autocrat speaks of the Council of 1547: “In the seventeenth and tenth year of my age, the grace of the Holy Spirit touched my mind. As a reminder to me, and my soul longed and jealous, the great and inexhaustible wealth from many times, under our forefathers, was hidden and forgotten. Great lamps, new wonderworkers, many and unspeakable miracles are glorified by God…” (ch. 4, p. 266). At the age of seventeen, the young tsar, brought up without parents, could have had such thoughts only under the influence of Saint Macarius. The same picture, presumably, with the initiative to convene and hold the Stoglavy Council. We can say that the atmosphere of the need for corrections and reforms has matured in the Russian Church. This is evidenced by the “Petition of monks to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich”, published by G. Z. Kuntsevich (St. Petersburg, 1912). And Metropolitan Macarius was the best exponent of these aspirations, giving them cathedral forms. The saint is a great organizer, an admirer of domestic ascetics, a spiritual collector of Russia and an inspirer of the great undertakings of his time. A. Zimin rightly believes: “The entire text of Stoglav’s decisions convinces us that it was compiled under the influence of Metropolitan Macarius.”

In general, the issues addressed by the council were very different. These are the church court, bishopric and monastic estates, the appearance of a Christian and his behavior, church deanery and discipline, church iconography and spiritual enlightenment, and so on. At the Stoglavy Council an effort was made to centralize and unify the structure of the Russian Church and its administration. In the second series of questions, the tsar at the very beginning addresses the hierarchs with the words: “... and the elders of the priests would have naturally set the priests on all the care for the sake of the church” (ch. 5, question 1, p. 268). The “cathedral” answer completes the royal questions, which speaks in great detail about the introduction of the institution of “dean” in the Church. “And for that church rank in the reigning city of Moscow and in all the cities of the Russian kingdom, the Russian Metropolis was commanded to elect an archpriest in any city, according to the royal command and with the blessing of the hierarch, skillful good priests and undefiled lives. In the reigning city of Moscow, it is worthy to be seven elders of priests and seven collections according to the royal code, and to them elect ten good priests, skillful in their lives of immaculate lives. In the same way, the elders of the priests and tenants set up the elders throughout the city, where it is more beautiful in which city. And in the village and in the churchyard, and in the volosts all over the earth, appoint ten priests at the priests ”(ch. 6, p. 278). Like the icons, Stoglav prescribes that the chosen priests be "skillful, kind and undefiled in life." Priest Dimitry Stefanovich in his work quotes the text of the decree of February 17, 1551, which lists the clergy appointed for "church care" in Moscow. Chapter 34 of Stoglav could serve as a kind of instruction for the elected elders. It begins like this: “As a sacred archpriest in the cathedral churches, and as a priest and desyatsky elders in all the churches, watch often ...” (ch. 34, p. 297). Their competence included such issues as the way of life of the parish clergy, accountability to the higher hierarchy, and counseling of the consecrated flock. In the next chapter, using the example of the “deaneries” of Moscow, the order of religious processions throughout the year is given.

Council concerns this important issue, as the financial and economic situation of church institutions in the light of church-state relations. In the second series of questions, the tsar speaks about the monasteries that received “ruga” from the state in the form of money, bread, wine, etc. under Basil III († 1533), then Elena († 1538) (ch. 5, question 31 , p. 275). Chapter 75 (pp. 352-353) indicates measures for raising the level of deanery in monasteries, about praying for monastic contributors. At the same time, the speech of the sovereign is quoted in the text: “And so I, the king, caught a lot in all the monastery ...” The Cathedral instructs the sovereign to no longer chill the monasteries, “is there a great need.” The Council returns to this question again, giving the “Answer about almsgiving and about the friendship in many monasteries” (ch. 97, pp. 372-373). First, it describes how rugi was given under Vasily III, then under Elena Glinskaya, and finally, in the infancy of Ivan the Terrible. Therefore, the materials say: “And tell the sovereign, the pious king, to search about that.” Speaking about the conduct of such a revision, the Council emphasizes: “Which will be a miserable monastery and churches can live without that rug, and then, sovereign, in your royal will, and which will be a miserable monastery and holy churches without your rug, it’s not impossible to live in the future, and you, pious king, it is worthy and righteous to grant such” (ch. 97, p. 373).

The hundredth chapter of the materials is the review of the former Metropolitan Joasaph. Chapter 101 is dated May 11, 1551. It says that the Churches should no longer acquire estates without the knowledge of the king. Moreover, the study of the act material shows that in May a revision of various monastic letters was carried out. S. M. Kashtanov counted 246 letters that have survived to this day. He characterizes this event as follows: “The purpose of the May revision of the Tarkhans was not to consider individual specific letters, but to widely implement the principle of centralization of state finances by limiting the main tax privileges” of monasteries. The letters of the end of the reign of Vasily III were also confirmed, since in them, as a rule, monasteries were not exempted from basic travel and trade privileges. In the signature on the letter to the metropolitan house, “duty-free travel was allowed only once a year.” All this leads to another conclusion. Although we do not have a list of the abbots of the monasteries that were in Moscow in 1551, we have the right to say that this was the most representative church meeting for the entire previous period.

The council abolished the jurisdiction of the monasteries of secular power (ch. 37, p. 340). Claiming the jurisdiction of the clergy higher hierarchy, Stoglav makes an important reservation: “And at which time the metropolitan will not be helped, otherwise in his place he commands to judge the archimandrites, and abbots, and abbesses, and archpriests, and the entire priestly and monastic rank in spiritual matters to the Sara and Podonsk ruler with all the archimandrites and abbots , conciliar, according to the same sacred rule ”(ch. 68, p. 341). This reservation is very important, since it is known that Metropolitan Macarius was by that time at an advanced age and even wanted to resolve the issue of his retirement. His multifaceted ecclesiastical, cultural and educational activities required a lot of effort and time, and he also had a considerable administrative burden. “Judicial authority of the Metropolitan over the abbots is fixed in letters to Trinity-Sergiev, Simonov, Moscow Novospassky, Chudov, Serpukhov Bishop, Trinity Makhrishchsky, Fedorovsky Pereslavl-Zalessky, Trinity Danilov, Vladimir Rozhdestvensky, Vladimirsky Spassky, Chukhlomsky Korniliev, Toropetsky Trinity monasteries, Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir". Reviewing the multifaceted church-administrative and cultural-educational activity of St. Macarius, one has to be surprised at his skill and organizational abilities. Therefore, it seems very providential that at the Stoglavy Council the elder-hierarch was begged to remain on the primatial throne, and this served the good of the Church.

Analyzing some issues of an iconographic nature, the Stoglavy Cathedral prescribes: “The painter should paint icons from ancient images, as the Greek painters painted and as Andrei Rublev and other notorious painters wrote” (ch. 41, question 1, p. 303). In chapter 43, the Council (pp. 314-315) dwells in great detail on the importance and holiness of icon painting, emphasizing the high image of the icon painter: ” (ch. 43, p. 314). Master icon painters must, without concealing secrets, pass on their skills to their students. The highest supervision of icon painting is entrusted to the hierarchy. Archbishops and bishops should, according to the above-mentioned principle of “deanery”, elect “in their limit painters, deliberate masters and order them to look at all icon painters” (ch. 43, p. 315). As the sources show, in pursuance of this cathedral instruction in Moscow, “four elders of iconniks were installed over all the icons, and they were ordered to look over all the icons”. Describing the activities of the Stoglavy Cathedral, V. G. Bryusova emphasizes that “in the context of the expansion of the borders of the Moscow state, the direct management of local icon-painting workshops became practically impossible, instructions of an all-Russian scale were needed, which were carried out by the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551” . According to N. Andreev, the views of Metropolitan Macarius himself were reflected in the cathedral definitions on icon painting. And Father Dimitry Stefanovich notes: “Among other resolutions, these are among the most successful and beneficial. The proof of their fruitfulness can be the fact that in the icon-painting originals of the second half of the 16th century. and throughout the 17th century. chapter 43 is very often found as a guideline for icon painters.

As for such an important type of church art as singing, then conciliar judgments are known exclusively in the context of worship and deanery.

Stoglav speaks of the importance and necessity of spiritual education and training, so that “priests and deacons and clerks can do it in the houses of the school” (ch. 26, p. 291). As we see, the Council entrusts the solution of this problem to the clergy. This conciliar decree is of great importance. “School in Russia is here for the first time is the object of concern for the whole Council, the tsar and the Russian hierarchs. We do not have exact data on the extent to which the Council's decisions on the establishment of schools throughout Russia were carried out; but that the conciliar decrees did not remain a dead letter, we are convinced of this by the “mandates” sent out to the dioceses.

The Stoglavy Cathedral paid great attention to the correction of book production. From the materials we learn that books in the XVI century. were made for sale. The Council prescribed that the rewritten books be compared with the original, identifying and correcting errors. Otherwise, he instructs to seize incorrect books “free of charge without any gap, yes, having corrected them, they gave them to churches, which will be scarce books” (ch. 28, p. 292).

Stoglav's materials contain references to quotations from the canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers, from the Holy Scriptures and liturgical texts, the works of St. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Metropolitan Nikita of Herakle, St. Komnenos, Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, the teachings of the Russian Metropolitans, Saints Peter, Cyprian, Photius, the Monk Joseph Volotsky, and others. Therefore, the cathedral chapters acquire a more narrative, instructive character, while relying on the ancient and Russian church theological and canonical traditions.

Academician D.S. Likhachev notes: “A strong artistic stream has been introduced into the “acts” of the Stoglav Cathedral. Stoglav is a fact of literature to the same extent as a fact of business writing. This can be clearly shown in the following example. When writing the second chapter in the tsar’s speech, “the compiler of Stoglav did not have the text of this speech at hand and reproduced it himself from memory, having processed it literary,” writes S. O. Schmidt. In fact, the text “From the Six Days is chosen about the stomach” from the canonical monument “The Standard of the Righteous” was taken as the basis of this chapter. N. Durnovo says that the “Righteous Measure” was actively used in creating the text of the entire Stoglav. In ancient Russia, it was often in this way that new literary works. It is interesting that St. Macarius, as is known, had a manuscript of “The Measure of the Righteous”. Thus, we see that Stoglav, as a literary monument, meets the ancient Russian requirements for the etiquette of narration and the use of citations.

Observations on the language of Stoglav's resolutions enrich his characterization: “It combines various linguistic elements: Church Slavonic, on the one hand, and the language of business writing, on the other. In this monument, a considerable place belongs to the presentation of the speeches of the participants in the Council, who arrived in Moscow from different regions of Russia, it abounds with judgments and reasonings of the Fathers of the Church on the issues considered at the Council. These parts of Stoglav bring it closer to the monuments of a high literary language, basically Church Slavonic. At the same time, in Stoglav one can find elements colloquial speech and at the same time not only the clichés adopted by business writing, but the lively colloquial speech of the participants in the Council, which to some extent leaked into the text of the book, despite its literary processing. Obviously, such an orientation and unusualness, as well as the formal absence of signatures of the participants in the Council at the end of the acts, caused doubts about their authenticity, expressed in the 19th century. during the polemic with the Old Believers.

The Stoglavy Cathedral opposes the self-will of buffoons, gambling and appeals to the state authorities with a call to take preventive measures against them (ch. 41, questions 19–20, p. 308). Much is said about the life of a Christian, when negative phenomena are forbidden, on the one hand, and on the other hand, instructions are given for a virtuous life. This will permeate the entire text of the materials. Prescribing the need to read the Explanatory Gospel “Chrysostom” and other books during the service, Stoglav emphasizes the importance of this - “for teaching and enlightenment and true repentance and good deeds by all Orthodox Christians for the benefit of the soul” (ch. 6, p. 278) .

Such care of Stoglav about the life of a Christian was continued and completed in another monument of ancient Russian literature, modern to this era - Domostroy, written by the priest Sylvester, an associate of Metropolitan Macarius. It is also important that, according to researchers, he took part in the creation of Stoglav. This monument gives "broad" recommendations - how to arrange your house so that you can enter it - it was "how to enter paradise" (§ 38). In Domostroy, the reader unfolds a grandiose picture of an ideal family life and the ideal behavior of masters and servants. All this together testifies to the penetration of churchness into the structure of ancient Russian life and life, to the churching of the world.

At the Council of 1551, some features were approved, which in the 17th century. were cursed. This refers to the doubling of Alleluia (ch. 42, p. 313), two-fingering when committing sign of the cross(ch. 31, pp. 294–295), the decree on not cutting the beard (ch. 40, pp. 301–302), which has been retained to this day in the Old Believer environment. Doubts about the correctness of the singing of the Alleluia took place even in Novgorod under Archbishop Gennady (1484-1504), and the custom of doubling the Alleluia was once in the Greek Church. Thus, Stoglav only unified the differences in liturgical practice that existed in the Russian Church. The same can be said about the composition. As for barbering, it was certainly associated in Russia with likening the Latins or with immorality, and at the same time it was a reason for criticism. F. Buslaev says the following about this: “The beard, which occupies such an important place in the Greek and Russian originals, has become, at the same time, a symbol of the Russian people, Russian antiquity and tradition. Hatred of Latinism, which originated in our literature even from the 11th century, and then, subsequently, the closest acquaintance and clash of our ancestors with Western peoples in the 15th and especially in the 16th century contributed to the Russian person to compose the concept that a beard is a sign of alienation from Latinism is an essential sign of every Orthodox, and that shaving a beard is an unorthodox affair, a heretical invention to tempt and corrupt good morals.

After the work of the Council is over, the active Metropolitan sends out decrees and mandates with its resolutions. In the letter sent to the Simonovsky Monastery, there is a postscript: “Yes, with the same letter, send the teaching of the head to the monastery, write out the same cathedral books chapter 49, chapter 50, chapter 51, 52, chapter 75, 76 -I, 67th, 68th, chapter 31st royal questions, chapter 68” . This speaks of the vigorous dissemination of the Council's decisions throughout the cities and monasteries. And indeed, texts of other such orders, sent, for example, to Vladimir and Kargopol, have come down to us. Stoglav 's materials were also reflected in contemporary act writing and various monuments of later times .

Researchers note the positive significance of Stoglav in the life of the Russian Church. According to E. Golubinsky, Vladimir's Cathedral of 1274 was his predecessor to correct shortcomings in Russia. Stoglav's comparison in the international context is also characteristic. E. Golubinsky compares it with the Council of Trent, which took place almost simultaneously in the Roman Church. The historian notes that the Stoglavy Cathedral was “incomparably higher than the Roman Catholic” in its purpose and significance. Archpriest Peter Rumyantsev, who worked hard in Russian churches abroad, describes how in Sweden “on February 11, 1577, the king opened popular assembly famous speech, reminiscent in part of the speech of John the Terrible at the Stoglavy Cathedral.

It is also noted the frankness with which Stoglav speaks about the shortcomings in order to eradicate them. F. Buslaev says that in Stoglav “everything new and alien is imprinted with the stigma of damnation and eternal death; everything is its own, dear, from time immemorial going according to antiquity and tradition, holy and saving. K. Zaustsinsky speaks with praise about the measures taken by Stoglav to improve society, since “spiritual means, exhortations and persuasion are put in the foreground; For the most part, punishment is limited to church penance, and only in very rare cases is it given to the king, his "royal commandment and thunderstorm." The historian Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov; †1882) calls the Stoglavy Cathedral the most important "of all the Councils that have hitherto been in the Russian Church."

The Stoglavy Cathedral is contemporary with the Sudebnik of 1550. This clearly shows the intensity of the work of the legal thought of Ancient Russia at that time. Considerations are being expressed that the Sudebnik was approved at this Council. Therefore, the remarkable Russian canonist A.S. Pavlov says that “The Cathedral Code of 1651 is an experience of codifying all current Russian law.” In contrast to the Sudebnik, the Council's resolutions, as noted earlier, are at the same time a monument of literary and theological thought.

The decisions of the Stoglavy Council had a great influence on church and public life. Many questions for the first time received ecclesiastical reflection on it. “If we make a general assessment of the decisions of the Stoglavy Council from the point of view of church-historical and church-legal, then one can easily notice that the fathers of the Council touched on different aspects of church and public life, sought to eliminate all the shortcomings that were clearly evident in this life, to resolve all questions that worried the Orthodox person of that time. As a source for study church life XVI century, Stoglav is indispensable” .

The Council was also highly appreciated in the study of Father Dimitry Stefanovich, whose work is still perhaps the most important on this occasion. He writes: “... Stoglav, both as a literary and as a legislative monument, is a rare and outstanding phenomenon in the history of Russian church law: it is one of the turning pillars that left a strong imprint on an entire era, such a monument in which very many works of the previous time have found their successful completion, and which for the nearest and even remote subsequent time had the value of the current and guiding law. “The Stoglavy Cathedral, according to N. Lebedev, is not only one of the most remarkable actions of the All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius, but also one of major events in the whole of Russian history. In an extensive set of council resolutions, the decisions of the Council are not only stated, but also commented on, supported by the authority of previous Councils and the teachings of the Church Fathers, etc. The Stoglavy Council is closely interconnected in its content, language, orientation with contemporary literary monuments. The materials of the Cathedral are a vivid monument to the aspirations of Russian society in the middle of the 16th century. to fix and update. Therefore, Stoglav is an indispensable source of information about the life of Russian society in the 16th century.

Appendix

“In the summer of the 7059th month of February at 17, by command of the pious Tsar and Christ-loving Grand Duke Ivan Vasilievich of All Russia, Autocrat and with the blessing of His Grace Macarius Metropolitan of All Russia and His Grace Archbishops and Bishops and the entire Holy Cathedral of the Russian Metropolis, priests and deacons of the elders were elected in the reigning city of Moscow in both cities and settlements beyond Neglinna and in Chertoriy of the three elders of Dimitrievsky priest Theodore on Vozdvizhenskaya Street, and from John the Baptist from Orbat priest Leonty, and from Chertoriy from the Olekseev monastery from the maiden from the limit from the Transfiguration of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ priest Dmitry; and on the Bolshaya Posad and beyond the Yauza two elders: the Predtechinsky priest Grigory and Kotelnikov, and from Saint Gavril // priest Andrei from Myasnikov, and across the river beyond Moscow they elected the Archangel priest from Runovka as the elder, and in the new city and in the old they were elected from conception St. Anna, Pope Joseph of the New City. And there are 113 churches beyond Neglimnaya and in Chertoriya, and 120 priests, and 73 deacons, and all priests and deacons beyond Neglimnaya and in Chertolia 193 people. And in Bolshoy Posad and beyond the Yauza there are 107 churches, and 108 priests, and 70 deacons and all the priests and deacons in Bolshoy Posad and beyond the Yauza 178 people. And in the Old City there are 42 churches, and 92 archpriests and priests, and 38 deacons, and 39 priests, and 27 deacons, and all the priests and deacons in both cities are 196 people. And all the churches in both cities and settlements are 6 hundred 42 churches, and how, according to those holy churches, to count the temples of the headman and the priests and deacons of the fifties and tenths and the entire Moscow kingdom of both cities and Zapolia, as much as it can accommodate according to your reasoning ”(GIM. Collection. A S. Uvarova 578/482", in ff. 308-309v.).

List of abbreviations

VI - Questions of history,

GIM - State Historical Museum,

ZHMNP - Journal of the Ministry of Public Education (St. Petersburg),

ZHMP - Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate,

OLDP - Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature (St. Petersburg),

PDPI - Monuments of ancient writing and art (St. Petersburg),

PLDR - Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia,

SKiKDR - Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia,

TODRL - Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature,

KhCh - Christian Reading (SPDA),

CHOIDR - Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities.

For a bibliography of editions of conciliar deeds and studies on Stoglav, see SKiKDR (see the list of abbreviations at the end of the article). Issue. 2 (second half of the 14th-16th centuries). Part 2 L-Z. L., 1989, p. 426–427. It should be noted that the introduction to the said French publication by Stoglav (Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres. Ed. E. Duchesne. Paris, 1920) was published somewhat earlier by the author in a separate article ( Duchesne E. Le Concile de 1551 et le Stoglav // Revue historigue. Paris, 1919, pp. 99–64).

Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 2. Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of Russian centralized state. M., 1985, p. 258; Stoglav. Kazan, 1862, ss. 18–19. Further, the text of this monument is quoted on the line indicating the page of the modern edition.

For the bishops participating in the Stoglavy Council, see Lebedev N. Stoglavy Cathedral (1551). The experience of presenting its internal history. M., 1882, ss. 36–47; Bochkarev V. Stoglav and the history of the Cathedral of 1551. Historical and canonical essay. Yukhnov, 1906, ss. 11–29; Holy D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav. Its origin, editions and composition. On the history of monuments of ancient Russian church law. SPb., 1909, ss. 60–63; Russian legislation X-XX. T. 2, ss. 404–406. Some researchers are inclined to see in the participants of the Council representatives of parties (“possessors” or “non-possessors”), and in its materials - the results of the struggle, compromises and groupings. A. M. Sakharov, A. A. Zimin, V. I. Koretsky write: “Metropolitan Macarius presiding at the Council relied on the overwhelming “Josephite” majority. Only Bishop Cassian of Ryazan expressed the “non-possessive” opposition” (Russian Orthodoxy: milestones of history. M ., 1989, p. 117). In our opinion this problem reflects not so much a historical phenomenon as a historiographic one. On this matter, see Ostrowski D. Church Polemics and Monastic Land Acquisitin in Sixteenth-Century Muscovy // The Slavonic and East European Revew. 1986 Vol. 64. No. 3. July, pp. 355–379; Kurukin I. V. Notes on “Non-Possessive” and “Osiflyane” (Historiographic Tradition and Sources) // Issues of Source Studies and Historiography of the History of the USSR. pre-October period. Sat. articles. M., 1981, cs. 57–76.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1978, p. 78 See also Holy D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, p. 43.

Cm. Yakovlev V. A. To the literary history of ancient Russian collections. Experience of research "Izmaragda". Odessa, 1893, p. 41; Popov K. Blessed Diadochus (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus and his creations. Kyiv, 1903, p. 6.

Priest Dimitry Stefanovich believes that the division of the cathedral materials into one hundred chapters is due to Metropolitan Joasaph, who talked “with Sylvester, Serapion and Gerasimov Lenkov”, who brought materials to the Trinity Monastery ( Holy D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, p. 90). But in our opinion, such a division stands in connection with the contemporary monument to him, as discussed above.

Golubinsky E. History of the Russian Church. T. 2. Part 1, ss. 776–779. see also Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow. History of the Russian Church in the period of its division into two Metropolises. T. 6. Ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 233.

One can also see in this a certain tradition dating back to the origins of Byzantium, when, for example, in 325, none other than Emperor Constantine proposed the term “consubstantial” (see. Lebedev A. P. Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Sergiev Posad, 1896, ss. 22–23).

The author made a statement about this intention in ancient Russian writing on February 12, 1910 in the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing (PDPI. T. 176. Reports on the meetings of the imp. OLDP in 1907–1910 (St. Petersburg), 1911, reports for 1909–1910 , p. 25). In this context, one can also consider the materials published by I. N. Zhdanov ( Zhdanov I. N. Works. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1904, ss. 177-186).

Cm. Kazansky N. Stoglaviyat Sbor // Church Bulletin. Sofia, 21.IV.1987, br. 25–26, p. fourteen; Leonid Erzbischof von Jaroslavl und Rostov. Metropolit Makari von Moskau und ganz Ruéland. Hierarch in entscheidungsreicher Zeit // Stimme der Orthodoxie. 1963, No. 12, S. 38.

Zimin A. A. I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. Essays on the history of Russian social and political thought in the middle of the XVI century. M., 1958, p. 99. For further considerations on this subject, see Cherepanova O. A. Observations on the vocabulary of Stoglav (Vocabulary related to the concepts of spiritual and cultural life) // Russian historical lexicology and lexicography. Issue. 3. Interuniversity collection. L., 1983, p. 21.

Holy D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, ss. 85–86. Since the author quotes verbatim only the beginning of the decree, but not the end, then below, in the appendix, we give the texts of the decree from the same manuscript in full.

In 1551, the so-called Stoglavy Sobor was convened, which was of great importance both for the Russian church and for state affairs.

No transcripts of his meetings have come down to us. The book "Stoglav" (one hundred chapters), which contains an account of the actions of the cathedral, gives an incomplete description of them. It was apparently compiled by a clergyman whose main purpose was to acquaint the clergy with the program of reforms in the life of the church, in particular with the norms of behavior and duties of a clergyman.

Stoglav was recognized as a textbook of Russian church legislation. This is an important historical document. He showed what was the role of the tsar in setting the agenda of meetings and revealed the difference of opinion between the tsar (led by Sylvester and Adashev), who wanted to limit the growth of monastic and church lands, and Metropolitan Macarius, who considered it his duty towards the majority of bishops and rectors to defend during this period the church's right to own land.

Preparing for the cathedral, Ivan IV wrote an appeal, which he read out at the opening. This was the earliest example of his writings, in which some character traits his literary style. In terms of content, it would appear that the speech was at least partly inspired and edited by Sylvester. In it, Ivan IV regretted his early orphanhood, complained about the boyars' bad treatment of him in childhood, confessed his sins, explained all his own and state failures as punishment for his own and others' sins, and appealed to repentance.

At the end of his address, the tsar promised to embody Christian prescriptions together with the members of the council. "If you failed to correct deviations from God's truth in our Christian laws due to your inattention, you will have to answer for this on the Day of Judgment. If I do not agree with you (in your righteous decisions), you must hang me; if I do not I can obey you, you must fearlessly excommunicate me in order to keep alive my soul and the souls of my subjects, and the true Orthodox faith stood unshakable.

Then the tsar presented a new code of law for the Council's approval. The council approved it. The similarity of the church and state legislation of this period in form is characteristic: both the judicial code and the Stoglav were divided into the same number of articles (chapters) - one hundred.

The tsar also asked the Council (and the latter did so) to approve a model charter for the provincial administration. This was due to Adashev's plan to abolish the feeding system (feeding provincial officials by the population) and replace it with local self-government (Chapter 4 of Stoglav).

The tsar then presented a long list of issues for discussion to the members of the council. The first thirty-seven questions dealt with various areas of church life and ritual, the correction of church books, and religious education. The council received the king's advice to take appropriate measures to avoid licentiousness and abuse among the monks ("Stoglav", Chapter 5). These questions were supposedly proposed to the king by Macarius and Sylvester.

In addition to these thirty-seven questions, the king presented for consideration a list of problems relating mainly to state affairs. In some questions of this group, the tsar pointed out the need to transfer at least some church and monastery lands to the use of the nobility (as estates for military service) and townspeople (as estates in cities). These additional questions were not included in Stoglav. Undoubtedly, the same Adashev and Sylvester helped the tsar in formulating these questions.

Having received an answer to these questions, the king presented thirty-two more, which were supposed to come from Macarius and Sylvester. These questions mainly concerned certain details of church ritual, as well as popular prejudices and remnants of paganism, folk music and drama, which were also labeled as paganism.

Metropolitan Macarius, following in this case Joseph Sanin, together with the majority of bishops and abbots opposed any attempt to secularize church and monastic lands, as well as against the subordination of church courts to the courts of the laity. Under the influence of Macarius, the Council confirmed the inalienability of church and monastic land holdings (chapters 61-63), as well as the release of the clergy and church people from the jurisdiction of state courts (chapters 54-60 and 64-66).

Nevertheless, Macarius and the Josephites had to make concessions to the king and Adashev, and I agreed to some measures that would restrain the further expansion of church and monastic land holdings both in rural areas and in cities. On May 11, 1551, monasteries were prohibited from buying land holdings without the king's approval of the deal in every case. The same rule was applied to donations or inheritances of land by monasteries at the behest of the landowners. The king was thus given the right to limit the further growth of monastic landholdings.

At the same time, the Council approved the rules, according to which the church and monastic authorities were forbidden to establish new settlements in cities. Those that were founded illegally were subject to confiscation ("Stoglav", chapter 94).

Historically, these measures meant the continuation of a long rivalry between the Russian state and the church for control over the fund of church lands and judicial power over "church people".

The council proclaimed the Byzantine principle of the "symphony" of church and state, including in "Stoglav" a description of its acts, the essence of the sixth short story of Emperor Justinian, one of the main provisions of the "symphony" ("Stoglav, chapter 62). In the Church Slavonic version of "Stoglav" we read : "Mankind has two great gifts of God, given to him through his love for people - the priesthood. /Sacerdotium/ and the kingdom /Imperium/. The first directs spiritual needs; the second is to govern and take care of human affairs. Both come from the same source

Stoglav contained an honest criticism of the shortcomings of the Russian clergy and the practice of the church, and at the same time recommended remedies. They consisted partly in strengthening the control of the highest figures of the church over the behavior of priests and monks, partly in more constructive measures. For the training of the clergy, it was recommended to establish schools in Moscow, Novgorod and other cities (chapter 26).

Since there were errors in handwritten copies of religious books and church textbooks due to the negligence of copyists, a special committee of learned priests was instructed to check all copies before they went on sale and used (1 handwritten form, because at that time there was no printing house in Moscow (chapters 27 and 28) .

A special chapter of "Stoglav" deals with icon painting and icon painters (chapters 43). The religious nature of art is emphasized. It was recommended that the icons correspond to the sacred tradition. Artists had to approach work with reverence and be themselves religious people.

As Georgy Ostrogorsky showed, “Stoglav essentially does not introduce anything new (into the principles of icon painting), but reflects and confirms the most ancient ideas about icon painting... “Stoglav follows the principles of Byzantine iconography with perfect accuracy... and from a religious point of view, his decisions are interconnected with the essence of the beliefs and ideas of Orthodoxy.

It should be noted that both Macarius and Sylvester were familiar with iconography and its traditions. The chapter of Stoglav on iconography was probably written, or at least edited, by one of them, or jointly by both.

Some other provisions of the Stoglav were not formulated as adequately as the provision on icon painting and later turned out to be open to criticism. Their re-evaluation mid-seventeenth centuries - almost a hundred years after the Stoglavy Cathedral - served as the motivating cause of the conflict between Patriarch Nikon and the Old Believers.

One of these precedents, which eventually led to turmoil and disagreement, was the decision of the Council on the method of joining the fingers during the sign of the cross. Like Metropolitan Daniel in the reign of Basil III, the council endorsed two-fingering (joining and raising the index and fingers adjacent to it) in order to symbolize the dual nature of Christ (chapter 31). And as in the case of Metropolitan Daniel, some of the ancient Greek works (used by the fathers of the Stoglavy Cathedral in Slavic translation to confirm their own decisions) were not written by the authorities referred to by the priests, but only attributed to them. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that in the early Christian church there really were different ways of connecting fingers for the sign of the cross, and two-finger was one of them.

Another decision of the Stoglavy Cathedral, which later turned out to be the subject of controversy, affected the details of the church ritual. It has been noted that "alaluya" was sung three times in many churches and monasteries in Pskov and Novgorod instead of twice, as was customary in Moscow churches. The Council believed that the Latin (i.e., Roman Catholic) hallelujah should be performed three times in the Latin (i.e., Roman Catholic) version and approved the two-time repetition of the hallelujah (excessive hallelujah) (chapter 42).

The third controversial decision of the Stoglavy Council unconsciously led to the addition of a word in the eighth paragraph of the creed. The paragraph in the Orthodox reading reads as follows: / We believe / "in the Holy Spirit, God, the Giver of Life, Who came from the Father ...". In some Slavic manuscripts, "God" (in Church Slavonic and in Russian - Lord) was replaced by "True". Some copyists, possibly linking different manuscripts, have inserted "True" between the words "God" and "The Giver of Life". The Stoglavy Council ruled that one should say either "God" or "True" without pronouncing both words together (chapter 9).

This rule was actually ignored. Gradually in Muscovy it became an established practice to read the eighth paragraph of the symbol "Holy Spirit, True, Giver of Life." This reading was fixed in later copies of Stoglav itself.

Metropolitan Macarius and most of the prelates - members of the council of 1551 - were conservatives. They sought to rid the Russian Church of its shortcomings, but did not intend to introduce anything new into its practice, and especially into dogma.

Nevertheless, the cathedral gave impetus to the gradual rise of new trends in Russian religious and intellectual life. The Council's open and bold criticism of shortcomings in the life of the church served as the ferment for a more conscious attitude towards church problems among priests and laity.

The Council proclaimed the principle of "symphony" of church and state, which implied a certain limitation of the tsarist autocracy. The council stressed the importance of supporting education and establishing schools. The Council's decision to check and correct the accuracy of manuscripts of religious works and church textbooks led to a more critical attitude towards ancient texts and to a better understanding of the value of scholarship.

The art of printing was not mentioned in the acts of the council, but there is no doubt that Metropolitan Macarius (and possibly Sylvester) was already thinking about opening a printing house in Moscow during the Stoglavy Cathedral. This was done in 1553.

In connection with the far-reaching reforms initiated by the government of Tsar Ivan IV, in particular in view of the need to provide members of the noble army with land plots and the proposed restrictions on church land holdings in the monastery, as well as for the introduction of new taxes in order to increase state revenues, it was necessary first of all, to determine the scope of national resources, in particular the size of the land fund for maintaining Agriculture, which at that time was the main source of wealth in Russia.

As early as 1549, Yermolai-Erasmus discussed the problem of revaluation of real estate in Muscovy in his treatise “The Ruler and Land Surveying by a Benevolent Tsar”. The obvious first step in this direction was the new land registry. This was done in 7059 by Anno Mundi (September 1, 1550 to August 31, 1551). On the basis of this cadastre, a new unit of taxation was introduced - "big plow".

The size big plow how tax rates varied relative to various types cultivated lands. To determine the land holdings of the boyars and nobles, as well as for those that belonged to the royal courtiers (yards), the new plow was 800 quarters of good land in one field (with three fields, then used in Muscovy); for church and monastery lands, the size of the plow was set at 600 quarters; for the land of state peasants (blacks) - 500 quarters. In total, the norm for three fields was 2400, 1800 and 1500 quarters, respectively, i.e. 1200, 900 and 750 acres. For lands of poorer quality, the norm was different.

The smaller the size of the plow as a unit of taxation, the higher the tax that had to be paid. This meant that church and monastic landholdings were valued at more high level than the palace and boyar lands, and proportionally more taxes were paid from them.

At first glance, it might seem that the state peasants were in the worst position, but this is not so. In introducing the scale of levels of taxation, the government took into account the fact that the peasants in the first two categories of land, in addition to paying state taxes, had to pay taxes (in monetary terms) to their land owners and perform certain work for them. The general duties of the state peasant were therefore easier, or at least equal to those that fell to the lot of peasants of other categories.

The process of strengthening state power inevitably again raised the question of the position of the church in the state. The royal power, whose sources of income were few and whose expenses were high, looked with envy at the wealth of churches and monasteries.

At a meeting of the young tsar with Metropolitan Macarius in September 1550, an agreement was reached: the monasteries were forbidden to establish new settlements in the city, and to establish new courtyards in the old settlements. Posad people who fled from the tax to the monastery settlements, in addition, were “brought out” back. This was dictated by the needs of the state treasury.

However, such compromise measures did not satisfy the government. In January-February 1551, a church council was convened, at which royal questions were read, drawn up by Sylvester and imbued with a non-possessive spirit. The answers to them amounted to one hundred chapters of the verdict of the cathedral, which received the name Stoglavy, or Stoglav. The tsar and his entourage were worried about whether “it is worthy for monasteries to acquire land, to receive various preferential letters. By decision of the cathedral, the royal
assistance to monasteries with villages and other possessions. Stoglav forbade giving money from the monastery treasury in “growth” and bread in “nasp”, i.e. - at interest than
deprived the monasteries of a permanent income.

Since 1549, the centralization of the Orthodox cult began. A list of revered saints has been compiled, in which almost none of the specific princes and princes of the former grand principalities got into it. Political maxims alien to Moscow views are excluded from the lives. The canonization of new saints henceforth only by decision of the metropolitan and the consecrated cathedral.

Stoglavy Cathedral = Zemsky. Judge approved.

Metropolitan Macarius relied on the Josephite majority. The property of the church is inviolable. But internal church discipline has been strengthened.

Archpriests, priestly elders and tenth priests - supervision of the parish clergy, the correspondence of books and the writing of icons.

The canons were approved according to the samples of the 15th century.

Literacy is taught in churches.

Double-fingered cross (Old Believers will refer to this in the 17th century).

Fixed sums for church sacraments (crown).

Strict order in the monasteries (drink "in moderation", monks and nuns do not live in the same monastery, etc.).

The clergy are outside the jurisdiction of secular authorities. True, the metropolitan boyars, elders, tenant priests, zemstvo elders and kissers are included in the holy court.

But no centralization did not get rid of heresies. In the fight against them, the church and the secular authorities are united.

Heresies of Theodosius Kosoy and Matvey Bashkin.

The union of the church and secular authorities in missionary activity in the Volga region.

A number of participants in the Stoglavy Council (Josephites) met the program outlined in the royal questions with fierce resistance.

The program of tsarist reforms outlined Chosen by Rada, in the most significant points, the Stoglavy Cathedral rejected. The wrath of Ivan IV fell upon the most prominent representatives of the Josephites. On May 11, 1551 (that is, a few days after the completion of the council), the purchase of patrimonial lands by monasteries “without a report” to the tsar was prohibited. From the monasteries, all the lands of the boyars, transferred by them there in the early childhood of Ivan (since 1533), were taken away. This established control royal power over the movement of church land funds, although the possessions themselves remained in the hands of the church. The church retained its possessions after 1551.

At the same time, transformations were carried out in the inner life of the church. The previously created pantheon of all-Russian saints was approved, a number of church rites were unified. Measures were also taken to eradicate the immorality of the clergy.

Significance of the reforms of Ivan 4

1. Contributed to the strengthening of autocracy.

2. Created the foundations of the state apparatus of a centralized state.

3. Contributed to a change in the balance of power within the class of feudal lords in favor of the nobility.

4. Strengthened the personal power of the king.

5. An important step has been taken towards the creation of a class society. Estates received their internal organization and their own governments. The authorities already had to not only dictate, but also negotiate with them.

6. As a result of the reforms, the nobles, as persons representing the power of the state, lost some of their rights and influence, but gained new weight and importance as the top of the emerging nobility. With the growing role and importance of noble associations in the life of the country, the nobility, relying on their support, could take a more independent position in relation to their monarch.



Church-Zemsky Sobor in Moscow in January-May 1551. Rejected the secularization plans of the government, but limited church possessions in cities and the financial privileges of the clergy. Accepted "Stoglav".

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

STOGLAVY CATHEDRAL

a church council with the participation of Tsar Ivan IV and representatives of the Boyar Duma, which met in Moscow in January - February 1551 (the final completion of the Stoglavy Cathedral dates back to May 1551). It got its name from the collection of council decisions, divided into 100 chapters - "Stoglav". The Stoglavy Cathedral was convened at the initiative of the government, which sought to strengthen the position of the Church in the fight against heretical movements. The reform program proposed by the Stoglavy Cathedral in the form of the so-called. The tsarist questions, drawn up, apparently, with the participation of Sylvester Blagoveshchensky, provided, along with a significant restructuring of intra-church life, the secularization of church lands and the establishment of the jurisdiction of clergy to a secular court. This part of the government proposals was categorically rejected by the majority of the Stoglavy Cathedral.

The Stoglavy Cathedral proclaimed the inviolability of church property and the exclusive jurisdiction of clergy to the church court. At the request of the church hierarchs, the government canceled letters of commendation establishing the jurisdiction of the clergy to the tsar. At the same time, the members of the Stoglavy Cathedral agreed with the government on a number of issues (forbidding monasteries to establish new settlements in cities, etc.). Parts of the government program aimed at strengthening the position of the Church did not meet with objections from the members of the Stoglavy Cathedral and were put into practice. By the decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral, the unification of church rites and duties throughout Russia was carried out, the regulation of the norms of internal church life was carried out in order to increase the educational and moral level of the clergy and the correct performance of their duties (one of the decisions provided for the creation of schools for the training of priests); the church authorities established control over the activities of book scribes and icon painters, etc. During the 2nd half. XVI-XVII centuries Stoglav, along with the Pilot's book, was the main code of legal norms that determined the inner life of the clergy and its relationship with society and the state.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

A significant event in the history of relations between the state and the Church, in search of a solution to the internal problems of church life, was the Church and Zemstvo Council of 1551, called Stoglavy - by the number of chapters in its extensive final document. Both Tsar Ivan IV and the clergy had great expectations from the Cathedral, but their interests diverged in many respects. It was important for the tsar to achieve the restriction of church and monastic land ownership, because the government needed free lands to provide the growing military service class with estates. The hierarchy needed, firstly, to defend the property inviolability of the Church, and secondly, to legitimize whole line overdue ecclesiastical reforms.

The cathedral was solemnly opened on February 23, 1551 in the royal chambers; Metropolitan Macarius and other bishops, abbots and archimandrites, as well as princes, boyars and duma clerks were present. The actual leader of the Council was the king: he spoke at its opening, the discussion proceeded according to the questions he had asked in writing, he took part in the discussion.

Knowing the negative attitude of the hierarchy towards his intention to limit church land ownership and take control of the state's monetary receipts of the Church, the tsar raised the problem not directly, but through denunciation of the moral ailments of the monastics and the higher clergy, pointing out that their main source was the excessive wealth of the Church. According to him, monks are often tonsured "for the sake of bodily peace, in order to always go out to dine," "and casually (i.e., openly) women and girls come to the cells" (Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries: In 9 vols. Vol. 2. M., 1985. S. 269.)

As a result, a compromise was reached, which, however, did not suit Ivan IV much: the authorities did not encroach on the property of the Church, however, the monasteries were forbidden to continue to beg the tsar for additional land and benefits; the lands that had gone to the Church during the years of boyar rule due to Ivan's infancy (1538-1547) were assigned to the tsar; control of the monastic treasury was transferred to secular officials.

Questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction occupied a special place in the work of the Council. Attempts to interfere in the judicial prerogatives of the Church, undertaken by the Grand Dukes from the beginning of the 15th century, were recognized as unlawful. It was emphasized that not a single representative of a secular court - neither a prince, nor a boyar, nor any lay judge - has the right to judge persons of a clergy, including monastics, except for cases of murder and robbery. Disputes between clergy and secular persons must be resolved by an ecclesiastical court. It is significant, however, that in the proceedings of civil and petty criminal cases committed by persons subject to ecclesiastical court, the participation of secular persons - civil elders, kissers, zemstvo clerks, "whom the tsar will order" was envisaged. They were entrusted with keeping the minutes of the court session. On the other hand, the powers of bishops in the secular sphere were somewhat expanded: they could participate, if the parties so desired, in a secular court; in the election of city government officials; supervise order in prisons.

For the first time since the time of Kievan Rus, the state, by decision of the Council, assumes the obligation to fight against the remnants of paganism, which still have a wide influence. The authorities were obliged to carry out a search and reprisal against the magi and magicians, over the distributors of "forsaken books" (apocrypha, interpretations of dreams and signs, etc.). For breaking the rules church service measures were provided from corporal punishment to beheading (Chapter 57 of Stoglav) (Ibid., p. 332.).

As if summing up the compromise reached between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, Stoglav stressed the need for their close interaction and mutual support. The priesthood and the kingdom are two of God's gifts. The first takes care of the divine, the second takes care of people in their earthly affairs. Both come from the same beginning. Therefore, kings should not be more concerned about the dignity of priests, who always pray to God for them (chapter 62) (Ibid., p. 336.).

Questions of internal church life were extremely acute at the Council. As the king stated, "priests and church clerks in the church are always drunk and stand and scold without fear, and all sorts of dissimilar speeches always come from their lips. And the laity, in vain (that is, looking) at their outrage, perish, doing so" (Question 22) (Ibid., p. 273.). In order to strengthen control over the lower clergy, the Council decided to introduce a special institution of archpriests who would see to it that priests and deacons reverently perform divine services, read Holy Bible and the lives of the saints for the edification of the parishioners. The archpriests also had to watch that church services were performed according to serviceable books.

The Council raised the norm of the inheritance of church service from father to son, and at bishop's houses decided to open schools for priestly children, where they would comprehend reading and writing, church canons and liturgical ranks. "Multiple voices" at the divine service were condemned, but the Council did not give specific instructions on how to proceed. Stoglav put an end to the controversy about the composition and hallelujah. Under fear of anathema, two-fingeredness and "a double (i.e. double) hallelujah" were legalized.

The council also spoke out on certain aspects of the non-church way of life of people. Thus, the wearing of a beard was recognized as corresponding to the Orthodox everyday norm, barbering was condemned as a sign of "latinism." The game was condemned musical instruments and silly action. It was forbidden to communicate with foreigners outside the official framework, so as not to be defiled by "iniquities different countries", do not accept evil customs from them, for "for this sake God will execute us for such crimes."

Stoglavy Cathedral, of course, was a major event in both church and state life in Russia. Some of his definitions remained valid until the Petrine reforms of the early 18th century. However, far from all the problems of intrachurch life were solved at it. The contradictions between the hierarchy and secular power in the question of church possessions were not overcome.

The problem of providing parishes with liturgical books free from errors remained urgent. It was clear that to solve it traditional way- handwriting is not possible. In 1552, at the request of Ivan the Terrible, the printer Hans Messingheim (Bockbinder) was sent from Denmark. It turned out that there are also people who know the typographic business - deacon Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Timofeev Mstislavets. In 1564, the first printed book in Russia, the Apostle, was published, two years later, the Book of Hours.

However, the scribes of books, sensing a threat to their trade in the printing press, began to stir up public opinion against the printers, accusing them of heresy. The printing yard was set on fire and burned to the ground. The first printers fled to Vilna. But already in 1568 book printing resumed - first in Moscow, then in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda.

So, during the XV-XVI centuries. The Russian Church strengthens economically, spreads its influence among the non-Russian population of the country, becomes the largest of the Orthodox churches and, at the initiative of the Grand Duke, becomes autocephalous. At the same time, its dependence on secular power is steadily increasing, and within it contradictions are intensifying between adherents of various paths of its own development.

Establishment of the Patriarchate

After the Turks conquered Byzantium and other countries of the Middle East in the 50s. 15th century position of the Church of Constantinople, like other Orthodox Churches(Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), has changed dramatically for the worse. The eastern patriarchs turned out to be subjects of the Muslim sultans, completely dependent on them politically, and the financial situation of the Churches was also undermined. At the same time, Russia was turning into a powerful state, claiming the role of the "Third Rome". The authority of the Russian Church also increased. Therefore, the question of its appropriate hierarchical design became more and more urgent.

The validity of these claims probably became especially convincing when representatives of the Eastern patriarchates, and then the patriarchs themselves, began to come to Moscow for material support. The Moscow authorities generously endowed them, demonstrating their generosity.

In the summer of 1588 Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople arrived in Moscow. Boris Godunov, the de facto ruler under the weak Tsar Fyodor (1584-1598), son of Ivan the Terrible, started a subtle intrigue with the distinguished guest. First, he suggested that Jeremiah move the residence of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Moscow, to which he agreed. Having thus received an indirect recognition that Russia was worthy of having a patriarch, Godunov then, referring to the presence of a metropolitan see in Moscow, suggested that the patriarch settle in Vladimir. His expectation that Jeremiah would refuse this offer was justified. The patriarch began to get ready for the return trip, but the hospitable hosts agreed to let him go with honor and gifts only on the condition that he appoint Metropolitan Job as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

The solemn ceremony took place on January 26, 1589. Councils of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1590 and 1593. officially recognized the Russian Patriarchate, placing it in fifth place among the Orthodox Patriarchates. The right to elect the Russian Patriarch was granted to the Council of Russian Bishops.