Nil Sorsky years of life. The meaning of Nil Sorsky in a brief biographical encyclopedia
"Non-covetousness" is an ideological trend that took shape within the framework of the Russian Orthodox Church in the second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. The monks of the Trans-Volga region acted as the main conductors of this trend, therefore in the literature it is often referred to as the teaching or movement of the “Trans-Volga elders”. They were given the title of "non-possessors" for preaching selflessness (non-possession) and, in particular, calling on monasteries to give up possession of any property, including land, villages, and turn into schools of purely spiritual life. However, the teachings of the Trans-Volga elders were by no means exhausted by the call for the liberation of monastic life from worldly bustle. The preaching of non-possession, although it was one of the main ones in this teaching, did not express it. deep meaning. The idea of a selfless life, i.e. life, liberated from the desire for material wealth, grew among the Trans-Volga elders from another idea, which was precisely the root in their worldview. Its essence was the understanding that the most important thing in human life takes place not in the external world in relation to the person, but inside the person himself. The real life corresponding to the nature of man is the life of his spirit. The proper arrangement of one's inner, spiritual life requires a person, among other things, to achieve a certain degree of freedom from outside world, including from various worldly goods. At the same time, there is no need to strive for complete liberation from the outside world - hermitage in the view of the Trans-Volga elders is the same extreme as living in material luxury. It is important that the external world does not interfere with the internal self-improvement of human nature. This is where the preaching of non-possession came from. Not being the main one in the teachings of the Trans-Volga elders, it nevertheless affected the interests of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church to the greatest extent, since it resulted in a call to the latter to renounce the possession of huge material wealth. In this regard, the preaching of non-acquisitiveness turned out to be the most noticeable among the ideological slogans of the movement of the Trans-Volga elders. That is why the latter was called "non-covetousness". The political side of this doctrine was manifested not only in the speech of its representatives against the monastic land ownership. Determining their attitude towards the outside world, the non-possessors inevitably had to express their own attitude towards the state, and towards the royal power, and towards the law. They could not avoid solving the problem of the relationship between state power and church power - one of the most important political problems of Russian society both in the era of Kievan Rus and in the era of Muscovy.
The main ideologist of non-covetousness was Reverend Neil Sorsky(1433-1508). There is little information about his life. It is only known that he came from the boyar family of Maikovs. In his youth he lived in Moscow, transcribing liturgical books. Even in his youth, he took monastic vows at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. He was an apprentice to the elder Paisiy Yaroslavov, famous in those days for his virtues. Nil Sorsky died on May 7, 1508, having previously made a testament, surprising in its content, the last flash of his soul. “Throw my body into the desert,” he addressed his disciples, “let the beast and the bird seize it, since it has sinned a lot towards God and is unworthy of burial. , as in this life, so also after death ... I pray everyone, let them pray for my sinful soul, and I ask forgiveness from you and from me forgiveness. May God forgive everyone. " Not only in life, but also in his death, Nil Sorsky remained true to his teaching.
The followers of Nilov's teachings were not as consistent as he was.
Among them, it is necessary to highlight first of all Vassian Oblique(c. 1470 - before 1545). His worldly name is Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev. He was a prince, a representative of the noble family of the Gediminids, a second cousin of Grand Duke Vasily III. Until January 1499 he was in the public service. Among the prominent supporters of the ideology of non-acquisitiveness, one should also include Maxim Grek(c. 1470-1556). He also came from a noble and wealthy family, however, a family not of Russians, but of Greek aristocrats. His original name is Mikhail Trivolis. Before his arrival in Muscovy, he managed to get a solid secular education, listening to lectures at the best Italian universities (Florence, Padua, Milan).
Passion for theology arose from Michael Trivolis in Florence under the influence of the sermons of J. Savonarola, rector of the Dominican monastery of St. Mark. It is possible that the future famous Moscow thinker listened to these sermons in the same crowd as the future great Florentine thinker Niccolo Machiavelli. The latter, however, perceived them without any enthusiasm, but rather, even with contempt for the preacher.
The execution of J. Savonarola, which followed in 1498, did not turn Michael Trivolis away from the teachings of the Dominicans. In 1502 he became a monk of the monastery of St. Mark. However, in 1505, a radical turn took place in his fate: Michael left Italy and settled in the Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos. Here he converts to Orthodoxy and takes the name of Maxim.
The nonpossessors represented that rare example when people, preaching any ideas, themselves strive to live in full accordance with them. The life according to his ideas was especially successful for Nil Sorsky. Other ideologists of non-acquisitiveness were greatly helped to bring their way of life into a more complete conformity with the ideas they preached by the official church and secular authorities - they helped with exactly the punishment that they were assigned, i.e. monastic imprisonment, freeing a person from excessive material wealth and isolating him from the outside world. Maxim Grek wrote almost all of his works, including "The Confession of the Orthodox Faith", during his imprisonment in the Tver Otroch Monastery.
The fates of Nil Sorsky and his supporters are just as real an embodiment of the ideology of non-acquisitiveness as their writings. As already mentioned, for the ideologists of non-possessiveness - and, first of all, Nil Sorsky, selflessness was only one of necessary conditions a righteous life, i.e. life "according to the law of God and the tradition of the fathers, but according to one's own will and human thought." Such a life, from their point of view, can be arranged by a person only within himself, in the sphere of his spirit. The external world in relation to a person, be it a society, a state, a church or a monastery, is organized in such a way that it is impossible to live righteously in it.
According to Neil Sorsky, in order to arrange a righteous life for yourself, you need to become as independent as possible from the outside world. To do this, one should first of all learn to acquire "daily food and other necessary needs" by the fruits of "one's needlework and work." The value of this "needlework" lies, among other things, also in the fact that "by this wicked thoughts are driven away." "Acquisitions, even by violence from other people's labors, are collected, making it by no means beneficial to us."
The ideologists of non-acquisitiveness attributed the call to rely solely on their own strength not only to obtaining means of subsistence. Neil Sorsky and his followers attached great importance to the personal efforts of each person and in the improvement of their own spirit. They believed that the spiritual development of a person is mainly his own business. Neil Sorsky never called his students students, but interlocutors or brothers. "To my brothers and sisters, even the essence of my disposition: I call you like this, not students. We have only one Teacher ...", - he addressed them in his "Tradition". In one of his epistles, the Monk Nil rushed with the words: they say, now I am writing, "teaching for the salvation of the soul," but he immediately made a reservation that the addressee must himself elect"anything that has been heard orally or seen with the eyes." And although Neil Sorsky used to advise "to obey such a person who will be testified, as a spiritual man, in word and deed and understanding," he was generally skeptical about the possibility of achieving perfection on the paths spiritual development through the guidance of an outsider. Now the monks "have become impoverished," he believed, and it is difficult to find a "mentor of the uncharismatic."
Characteristic for the ideologists of non-possessiveness was a critical attitude towards church literature. "There are many scriptures, but not all of them are divine," said Nil Sorsky. Maximus Grek, who repeatedly said that there were many errors in these books, was quite free to treat theological books, and corrected some of their texts in his own way. Vassian Kosoy expressed himself in this regard with his characteristic harshness: “The local books are all false, and the local rules are crooked, not rules; before Maximus, we blasphemed God in those books, and did not glorify, now we know God by Maximus and his teachings " .
There was every reason for such statements; Russian scribes of theological books indeed often made mistakes, and sometimes they deliberately omitted or changed some words in their texts to please the political situation. However, the critical attitude of nonpossessors to church literature stemmed not so much from the realization of this fact as from the spirit of their teaching, from the fundamental foundations of their worldview. The ideologists of non-possessiveness sought support, firstly, in the original texts of the Holy Scriptures, among which the New Testament was given a clear advantage, and secondly, in the mind of a person, without the participation of whom not a single deed, in their opinion, can be done. “Without wisdom, and good for malice, it happens for the sake of timelessness and is unfaithful,” noted Nil Sorsky. In one of his epistles, the elder wrote that he lived in solitude in his desert, and further explained how exactly: "... Testing the divine writings: first the commandments of the Lord and their interpretation and the apostolic devotion, the same lives and teachings of the holy fathers - and thereby I heed .and even according to my mind and the pleasing of God and for the good of the soul I prescribe to myself and by this I learn, and in this I have my stomach and breath "(our italics. - V. T.). From the ideological principles of non-acquisitiveness, an attitude towards any bearer of state power as the embodiment of the most heinous human vices followed. It is this view of the rulers that is expressed in a work with a noteworthy title in this regard - "Monk Maximus the Greek word, voluminously expounding, with pity, the disorder and disorder of the kings and authorities of the last life." The nonpossessors were convinced that sovereigns, overwhelmed by vices, were leading their states to destruction. “Most pious Sovereign and Autocrat!” Maxim the Greek addressed the young Tsar Ivan IV, who had not yet become “Terrible.” “I must tell your kingdom the whole truth, namely, that the kings who have been among us, the Greeks, have no reason to others were betrayed by the common Lord and Creator to destruction and destroyed their state, as soon as for their great pride and exaltation, for the Jewish love of money and covetousness, having defeated which, they unjustly plundered the estates of their subordinates, despised their boyars, living in poverty and deprivation of the necessary, and the offense of widows, orphans and the poor was left without vengeance.
In this message to Ivan IV, Maxim the Greek tried to give an image ideal king. According to him, those who piously reign on earth are likened to the Heavenly Sovereign, if they possess such properties as "meekness and long-suffering, care for subordinates, generous disposition towards their boyars, but mostly - truth and mercy ...". Maxim the Greek urged the king to organize the kingdom entrusted to him according to Christ's commandments and laws, and always to do "judgment and justice in the midst of the earth, as it is written." “Prefer nothing to the truth and judgment of the King of Heaven, Jesus Christ…,” he wrote, “for nothing else will be able to please Him and attract His mercy and beneficence to your God-protected realm, as by your truth to your subordinates and righteous judgment... ". The defeat of the movement of nonpossessors by the official authorities of Muscovy did not mean at all that these people did not achieve success. On the contrary, this defeat is precisely the most obvious evidence of this success. He shows that the non-possessors did not renounce the confessed truths and remained true to their teaching. Namely, this was their main goal, which they achieved. “It’s not good if everyone wants to be willing to be,” said Nil Sorsky. to be hated."
Living surrounded by all sorts of vices, Neil Sorsky set a goal for himself - to remain a man! And he achieved this goal.
The political doctrine of "non-possessiveness" is essentially the doctrine of how to remain human to those who assume the highest state power.
NIL SORSKY
Nil Sorsky is a famous figure in the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Born around 1433, into a peasant family; his nickname was Mike. Prior to entering monasticism, Neil was engaged in copying books, was a "scribe". More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nil took his hair in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, where, over the time of the founder himself, a deaf protest against the landowning rights of monasticism was kept; Archpriest Kirill himself more than once refused the villages offered to his monastery by pious laity. The same views were adopted by his closest students, the "Volga elders", with Nil Sorsky at the head. Having traveled to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and to Athos, Nil spent an especially long time on Athos and, apparently, Athos was most indebted to his contemplative mood. Upon returning to his homeland (between 1473 and 1489), Neil founded a skete, gathering around him a few followers, "who were of his nature," and, indulging in a closed, solitary life, he was interested almost exclusively in book studies. Despite these activities and love for a solitary life, Nil Sorsky takes part in two critical issues of his time: on the attitude towards the so-called "Novgorod heretics" and on monastic estates. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Nil Sorsky and his closest "teacher" Paisy Yaroslavov apparently held more tolerant views than most of the then Russian hierarchs, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph Volotsky at the head. In 1489, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, entering the fight against heresy and informing the Rostov archbishop about it, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil of Sorsky, who lived in his diocese, and involve them in the struggle. Gennady himself wanted to "talk" to them and invited them to his place. The results of Gennady's efforts are unknown; it seems they were not quite what he desired. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady and either Paisius or the Nile; the main fighter against heresy, Joseph Volokolamsky, does not address them either. Meanwhile, both elders are not indifferent to heresy. Both of them are present at the council of 1490, which examined the case of heretics, and almost influence the very decision of the council: initially, all the hierarchs “became strong” and unanimously declared that “you can worthy all (all heretics)” - in the end, the council is limited only by cursing two or three heretic priests, depriving them of their dignity and sending them back to Gennady... The most important fact of Nil Sorsky's life was his protest against the landownership rights of the monasteries, at the 1503 cathedral in Moscow. When the cathedral was already nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Cyril-Belozero elders, raised the issue of monastic estates, which at that time equaled a third of the entire state territory and former cause demoralization of monasticism. A zealous fighter for the idea of Nil Sorsky was his closest student, prince-monk Vassian Patrikeyev. Nil Sorsky could only see the beginning of the struggle he had initiated; he died in 1508. It is not known whether Nil of Sorsk was formally canonized; but throughout our ancient literature, only Nil of Sorsk, in the titles of his few works, left the name of the "great old man." Literary works of Nil Sorsky - a series of messages, a small Tradition to the disciples, brief fragmentary notes, a more extensive monastic charter, a prayer of repentance, reminiscent of the somewhat great canon of Andrei of Crete, and a dying testament. The most important of these are the epistles and the charter: the former serve, as it were, as an addition to the latter. The general line of thought of Nil Sorsky is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than asceticism was understood by the majority of the then Russian monasticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be bodily, but spiritual; it requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-improvement. The soil of monastic exploits is not flesh, but thought and heart. Intentionally weakening, killing one's body unnecessarily: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and should nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “lay it to rest in mala”, condescending to physical weaknesses, illness, and old age. Neil does not sympathize with exorbitant fasting. He is an enemy of any appearance in general, he considers it superfluous to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, to decorate churches; the church should have only what is necessary, "which is everywhere found and conveniently bought." What to donate in the church, it is better to distribute to the poor ... The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rationally conscious. A monk must pass it not due to coercion and prescriptions, but "with consideration" and "do everything with reason." Neil requires from a monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in a feat. By sharply revolting against "self-initiators" and "self-swindlers", he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (as well as of every person) should obey, according to Neil, only one authority - "divine writings." "Testing" the divine writings, studying them is the main duty of the monk. With the study of divine writings, however, a critical attitude to the total mass of written material should be connected: "there are many writings, but not all of them are divine." This idea of criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nil himself and all the "Volga elders" - and for the majority of literate people of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, such as, for example, Joseph Volotsky, any "book" or "scripture" in general was something indisputable and divinely inspired. In this regard, the methods that Neil keeps in continuing to copy books are extremely characteristic: he subjects the material being copied to more or less thorough criticism. He writes off "from various lists, trying to find the right one", and makes a set of the most correct; comparing the lists and finding in them "much uncorrected," he tries to correct, "a little uncorrected," he tries to correct, "as much as possible for his poor mind." If another place seems “wrong” to him, and there is no reason to correct it, Neil leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “it’s not right from here in the lists”, or: “elsewhere, in a different translation, it will turn out to be more famous (more correct) than this , tamo yes it is honored "- and sometimes leaves entire pages so empty! In general, he writes off only what is "according to the possible according to reason and truth ...". All these features, sharply distinguishing the nature of Nil Sorsky's book studies and his very view of "writing" from the usual ones that dominated his time, of course, could not pass for him in vain; people like Joseph Volotsky almost accuse him directly of heresy. Joseph reproaches Nil Sorsky and his disciples that they "blasphemed miracle workers in the Russian land", as well as those "who in ancient years and in the local (foreign) lands were former miracle workers - they did not believe in miracles, and from the writings of their miracles" . From the general view of Nil Sorsky on the essence and goals of the monastic vow, his energetic protest against the monastic property directly followed. Any property, not only wealth, Neil considers contrary to monastic vows. The monk is denied from the world and everything, "what is in him" - how can he then spend time worrying about worldly property, lands, wealth? What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery... Evidently, religious tolerance, which came out so sharply in the writings of his closest students, was added to the noted features, apparently already in the Nile himself. This tolerance, in the eyes of the majority, again made Nil almost a "heretic" ... The literary source of the writings of Nil Sorsky was a number of patristic writers, whose works he became acquainted with especially during his stay on Athos; the writings of John Cassian the Roman, Nile of Sinai, Isaac the Syrian had the closest influence on him. The Nile, however, does not obey unconditionally to any of them; nowhere, for example, does he reach those extremes of contemplation that distinguish the writings of Simeon the New Theologian or Gregory of Sinai. The monastic charter of Nil Sorsky, with the addition of "Tradition by a student" at the beginning, was originally published by Optina Pustyn in the book: "The Monk Nil Sorsky's Tradition by a student about his skete residence" (M., 1849; without any scientific criticism); V Lately it was published by M.S. Maikova in "Monuments of ancient writing" (St. Petersburg, 1912). The messages are printed in an appendix to the book: "The Reverend Nil Sorsky, the founder of the skete life in Russia, and his Charter on the skete life in Russian translation, with the application of all his other writings, extracted from manuscripts" (St. Petersburg, 1864; 2- e ed. M., 1869). With the exception of "appendices", everything else in this book has no scientific value. A prayer found in manuscripts by Professor I.K. Nikolsky, published by him in Izvestia of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences, vol. II (1897). - Literature about Nile Sorsky is detailed in the preface to the study by A.S. Arkhangelsky: "Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeyev, their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'"(St. Petersburg, 1882). See also: Grechev (in the "Theological Bulletin", 1907 and 1908), K.V. Pokrovsky ("Antiquities" Materials of the Archaeological Society, vol. V), M.S. Maykova ("Monuments of ancient letters", 1911, ¦ CLXXVII) and her own introductory article to the "Charter" (ib., ¦ CLXXIX, 1912). A. Arkhangelsky.
Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is NIL SORSKY in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- NIL SORSKY
open orthodox encyclopedia"TREE". Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information. Nil Sorsky (+ 1508 ... - NIL SORSKY in the Dictionary-Index of Names and Concepts on Old Russian Art:
reverend (1433-1508) Russian saint, ascetic and preacher. He received tonsure at the Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery. He made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to Constantinople ... - NIL SORSKY
(Maikov Nikolai) (c. 1433-1508) founder and head of non-covetousness in Russia. He developed the ideas of moral self-improvement and asceticism. Opponent of church land ownership, spoke ... - NIL SORSKY
Sorsky (in the world - Nikolai Maikov) (circa 1433 - 1508), Russian church and public figure, head of non-possessors. Get a haircut in… - NIL SORSKY
sign. leader of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. about 1433, belonged to a peasant family; his nickname... - NIL SORSKY
? famous leader of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. about 1433, belonged to a peasant family; surname ... - NIL SORSKY in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- NIL SORSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(Maikov Nikolai) (circa 1433 - 1508), founder and head of non-covetousness in Russia. He developed the ideas of moral self-improvement and asceticism. Anti-church... - NIL SORSKY
(Maikov Nikolai) (c. 1433-1508), founder and head of non-covetousness in Russia. He developed the ideas of moral self-improvement and asceticism. Opponent of church land ownership, spoke ... - NILE in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Nil Sorsky - familiar. leader of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. about 1433, belonged to a peasant family; nickname ... - NILE in the Bible Dictionary:
(from "nilas" - dark) - the greatest river in Africa, the basis of the physical existence of Egypt. The Nile has an amazing originality - it spills then ... - NILE in the Bible Encyclopedia of Nicephorus:
(Jer 2:18) - the greatest river in Egypt and in all ... - NILE in Dictionary Dictionary Myths Ancient Greece,:
- god of the river Nile. He was considered one of the first kings of Egypt and the creator of the irrigation system. Father of Memphis, wife of Epaphus, king of Egypt, ... - NILE in the Directory of Characters and Cult Objects of Greek Mythology:
In Greek mythology, the deity of the river of the same name in Egypt. Nile is the son of Oceanus and Tethys (Hes. Theog. 337 next). Associated with … - NILE in the Ancient Egyptian dictionary-reference book:
the main river of Egypt, in antiquity was sometimes seen as the border between Asia and Africa. Due to its navigability and occasional spills, it is beneficial … - NILE in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Nil - Bishop of Tver, a Greek by birth; formerly hegumen of Moscow Epiphany Monastery; died in 1521. He owns the "Message to ... - NILE in the Pedagogical Encyclopedic Dictionary:
, Neill, Neill (Neill), Alexander Sutherland (1883-1973), English educator; proponent of free education. In 1921 he organized a private school in Dresden (from ... - NILE in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
in Greek mythology, the god of the Nile River. He was considered one of the first kings of Egypt and the creator of irrigation … - SORSKY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(Neil) - see... - NEIL TEACHER in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
reverend; was the prefect of constants., around 390 he retired to one of the monasteries of Sinai, mind. around 450. Works by N .: "Letters" ... - NIL EP. TVERSKAYA in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Bishop of Tver, Greek by birth; used to be abbot of the Moscow Epiphany monastery; mind. in 1521. He owns the "Message to a certain nobleman ... - NEIL SPIRIT. WRITER in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(in the world Nikolai Fedorovich Isakovich) - spiritual writer (1799-1874). He graduated from the course in St. Petersburg. spirit. academician, was an inspector and rector of spiritual ... - NILO ARCHIMANDRITE OF NIKOLO-UGRESH M-RYA in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(in the world Nikolai Lukich Sofonov, d. 1833) - Archimandrite of the Nikolo-Ugresh monastery; eg. "Historical sketch of the Nikolaev Berlyukovskaya desert" (M., ... - NILE
STOLOBENSKY (? -1555), monk of the Krypetsk monastery, founder of the Nilova desert near Ostashkov (1528), patron of the Seliger region. Canonized by Rus. orthodox … - NILE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
SORSKY (in the world Nikolai Maikov) (c. 1433-1508), church. activist, ideologist and head of the nonpossessors. Developed mystic-ascetic. ideas in the spirit of hesychasm ... - NILE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(modern Egyptian name El-Bahr), r. in Africa (in Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt), the longest in the world (6671 km), sq. … - SORSKY in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
(Neil) ? cm. … - NILE
Egyptian river teeming with... - NILE in the Dictionary for solving and compiling scanwords:
Blue vein... - NILE in the dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian language:
name, river, ... - NILE in the Complete Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language:
Nil, (Nilovich, ... - NILE in Modern explanatory dictionary, TSB:
(modern Egyptian name El-Bahr), a river in Africa, (in Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt), the longest in the world (6671 km), ... - NILO-SORA DESERT in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nilo-Sorskaya hermitage in honor of the Meeting of the Lord (invalid, Vologda diocese). It stands 15 miles from the city ... - NEIL POSTNIK in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nil Postnik, Sinai (+ 451), student of St. John Chrysostom, Rev. Memory 12... - NIL (TYUTIUKIN) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nil (Tyutyukin) (1871 - 1938), hieromonk, reverend martyr. In the world Tyutyukin Nikolai Fedorovich. … - NIL (ISAKOVICH) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Nil (Isakovich) (1799 - 1874), Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov. In the world Isakovich Nikolai ... - NILE (RIVER IN AFRICA) in big Soviet encyclopedia, TSB:
(modern Egyptian name - El-Bahr; lat. Nilus, Greek. Neilos), a river in Africa. Length 6671 km. The basin area is 2870 thousand ... - NICHOLAS OF SERBS in the Quote Wiki:
Data: 2009-06-02 Time: 16:14:49 __NOTOC__ St. Nicholas of Serbia (1880-1956) (Nikolai Velimirovich), Bishop of Ohrid and Zhichsky, a prominent theologian and religious philosopher.- … - JOHN (BERESLAVSKY) in the Wiki Quote:
Data: 2009-05-09 Time: 08:35:05 = Archbishop John. From the book “I believe in the triumph of holy Orthodoxy” = M .: New Holy Rus', ... - ARCHBISHOP JOHN (VENIAMIN YAKOVLEVICH BERESLAVSKY) in the Wiki Quote:
Data: 2009-02-04 Time: 20:27:38 = From the book "The Fire of Repentance" = "" First edition in 1982, Samizdat, under the literary pseudonym Yakovlev"" ...
POLITICAL AND PUBLICISTIC STRUGGLE OF THE "NON-ACHAULTERS" AND "JOSIFLYANS" // Zolotukhina N. The development of Russian medieval political and legal thought. - M.: Legal literature, 1985
1. THE POLITICAL AND PUBLICISTIC STRUGGLE OF THE "NON-POSSESSORS" AND THE "JOSIFLYANS"
a) Socio-political doctrine of Nil Sorsky
Nil Sorsky (1433-1508) is considered to be the founder of the doctrine of "non-possessiveness". Biographical information about him is extremely scarce. Researchers define his social origin in different ways [Thus, A. S. Arkhangelsky, referring to the word "villager" used by Nil himself as a self-characteristic, made a conclusion about his peasant origin (see: Arkhangelsky A. S. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 3); A. A. Zimin believes that Nil Sorsky was the brother of the prominent embassy clerk Andrei Maikov (see: Zimin A. A. Large feudal estate and socio-political struggle in Russia. M., 1971, p. 60)].
The program of "non-possessiveness" as a current of socio-political thought is heterogeneous. But there is no doubt that the main ideas of "non-possessiveness" were formed under the influence of the anti-feudal reform movement and therefore in many respects expressed the interests of the exploited strata of society. Most modern researchers see in the theory of "non-possessiveness", formulated in its main provisions by its ideologue Nil Sorsky [The works of Nil Sorsky are published: "Nil Sorsky's Tradition and Charter" (see the publication of M. S. Borozkova-Maykova. St. Petersburg, 1912) and " The Messages of Nil Sorsky" (see: Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature, vol. XXIX. L., 1974, pp. 125-144).], a definite expression of the interests of the black-mossed peasantry, who most tangibly suffered during this period from the monastic land expansion. The activation of the feudal land policy of the monasteries was expressed not only in the appropriation of the black-mowed land, but also in the conversion of the peasants who sat on it into dependent people.
The basic set of socio-political ideas of "non-possessiveness" precisely contributed to the popularity of this current of social thought in the lowest social strata of feudal society. Subsequently, it was in this environment that the heretics formulated a utopian social ideal on the basis of the acquisitive teaching.
In modern literature, the opinion has been established, which was formed even in pre-revolutionary Russian science, that the “non-possessors” were supporters of feudal fragmentation in their political convictions, while their opponents, the “possessors” (“Josephites”), defended a unifying policy and supported centralization. In our opinion, this point of view is clearly erroneous.
Neil's methodological positions are in many respects close to a number of provisions of the school natural law. At the center of his theoretical constructions is an individual with a complex of psychobiological invariable qualities (passions). Such passions (according to the terminology of the Neil, - thoughts) he has eight: gluttony, fornication, love of money, anger, sadness, despondency, vanity and pride. Neil especially criticizes one of the passions - "love of money". It is "out of nature" and appears only as a result of an incorrectly organized public life, in which wealth (the accumulation of property) is given functions that are completely uncharacteristic of it by nature - honor and respect. In his opinion, “love of money” gave rise to a fatal vice for the human race - “acquisition”, and the task righteous man lies in its rational (reasonable) overcoming6.
Today, in the literature, both Soviet and foreign, there are different points of view regarding what kind of acquisition is condemned by the Nile: only personal or also monastic.
Analysis of it social program shows that Neal's general non-possessive position is consistent and consistent. The ideal variant seems to the thinker to be the early Christian community, the basis of the social organization of which was the common property and the obligatory labor of each of its members (“the necessary needs” acquired “from the righteous labors of handicrafts”).
No types of labor activity are condemned by the Nile. If no one is infringed on the rights, then any work is allowed and encouraged. The main thing is to be able to be satisfied with the fruits of "doing one's own" in personal "needs" and not allow forcible appropriation of the results of someone else's labor ("by violence from other people's labors we collect ... to our benefit"), which, regardless of goals, is a violation of divine commandments. Neil does not share the widespread belief in the then society about the "good" use of private property for the purpose of almsgiving. The denial of alms is the logical conclusion of his construction - a person who does not have anything superfluous ("but only necessary"), who earns only his daily bread with his labor, should not do alms. And the very principle of almsgiving is incompatible with non-acquisitiveness. The poor cannot do alms, for "non-acquisition of the higher is such alms." A non-possessive person can only provide spiritual Help and support: "mental alms and a fraction of the higher is bodily, as the soul is higher than the body."
Do these statements refer only to an individual who embarked on the path of carrying out monastic deeds (monks), or do they mean the usual form of a monastic corporation - a monastery? N. V. Sinitsyna rightly notes that in order to determine the position of “non-possessiveness” of one or another publicist, first of all, it is necessary to understand what significance in his system “is the idea of a monastery as a social organism and its connection with environment". The status of the modern Nilu monastery is clearly condemned by the thinker. Here his platform is quite consistent and does not allow any deviations. He condemns the existing monastic form of organization of black monasticism. Although the monastery is a traditional form of association of people who have decided to leave the world, but now it has lost its significance, so how he stands on the path of "impoverishment", since he has obviously fallen into the affliction of "love of money" and cares not about the spiritual, but about the "external": "about the attraction of villages, and about the maintenance of many estates, and other things to the world of interweaving", which directly leads people who trusted him to "spiritual damage", and sometimes even to bodily death ("multiply the love of money for the sake of not only a pious life, but you have sinned spiritually and bodily). Such a state of monasteries does not correspond to those goals and tasks, which they arose, therefore, Neil prefers skittishness ("life is silent, carelessly mortified by everyone"), in which all people united for spiritual purposes fully ensure the achievement of a harsh labor non-possessive ideal. There is only one reason for the negative attitude towards the traditional form: the disease of "love of money", which seems to the Nile indestructible in large monasteries. Only approaching nature and working life will help to achieve the ideal of the early Christian community. Nilo's denial of the monastic system as inconsistent with the goals and objectives that determined its emergence, and contrasting it with the monastic skete, based on the principles of free self-government and existing economically only at the expense of the labor of the nomads, caused obvious damage to the theory of the Josephites, who preached a strict hierarchy of the entire church structure with a clear disciplinary and the administrative ratio of all its members, the economic basis for the existence of which were land holdings cultivated by forced labor.
The Nile himself settled far beyond the Volga in a deaf swampy, inaccessible side of the Vologda Territory, where he founded his Nilo-Sorskaya hermitage.
The opposition of the views of "Josephites" and "non-possessors" was expressed in the fact that Neil Sorsky contrasts the Josephite ideal of personal non-acquisition with the personal labor property of a monk, which provides him with the necessary means of subsistence. Real ascesis is opposed to imaginary asceticism, for the personal non-acquisitiveness of the monks of a rich monastery was based on imaginary, and not on real, poverty.
In this regard, his class and social position met the interests of the small producer to the greatest extent.
On the other hand, the support provided by Nil and his supporters to the government plans for the secularization of church lands testifies to Nil's understanding of the political line of Ivan III, who wanted to justify the plans for the secularization of church and monastery lands in favor of the state with the help of the religious ideal of Nil Sorsky.
In this regard, the assumptions that “non-covetousness” in its class program was associated with the boyars and expressed the ideology of the big feudal nobility seem completely unfounded.
At the Council of 1503, Ivan III, relying on the ideological line of non-possessors, "wish ... from the metropolitan and all the rulers and all the monasteries of the village to take ... and attach to their own", and transfer the clergy to the salary from the royal treasury. These measures, in addition to satisfying the economic claims of the grand duke's power, provided it with full political priority in state affairs. And in all these undertakings, Ivan III was supported by Elder Nil, who began "to say that there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the blacks would live in the deserts and feed on needlework, and with them the Belozersky hermits." In the event that this point of view was victorious and the Council of Ivan III satisfied the requirements of Ivan III, the process of achieving state unity would be noticeably accelerated, and the church, which is a powerful feudal corporation, would suffer economic and political damage, which would immediately place it in a position subordinate to the state and prevent the independent policy, which in many respects does not coincide with the main political line of the Grand Duke.
Therefore, Neil's theoretical position, expressing his social views, gives every reason to consider the nonpossessors as "practical supporters of the Russian centralized state, and by no means its opponents." The hierarchically organized Josephite clergy, in whose hands were all the highest church posts, resisted the secularization plans of Ivan III. The united church forces, headed by Metropolitan Simon, announced in the Sobor answer to the questions of the Grand Duke that church acquisitions "are not sold, nor given away, nor borrowed by anyone, never forever and indestructible to be ...", and if the princes "or someone from the boyars they offend or intervene in something churchly ... may they be damned in this age and in the next.
In a difficult external and internal situation, the cautious and prudent politician Grand Duke Ivan III was forced to come to terms with the decision of the Council. He did not dare to enter into open conflict with the church. He needed it as a powerful ideological weapon in the fight against his political opponents.
As a result, such a large feudal relic as an economically powerful church, which owns huge land holdings, was mothballed, causing considerable damage to the overall process of state unification.
Neil's political views are most clearly seen when analyzing his attitude towards heretics and determining the forms of participation of the church and state in their exposure and persecution.
All participants in the journalistic polemic that flared up around the church-secularization issue were inevitably drawn into the resolution of political problems.
The controversy about the attitude towards heretics and their teachings and behavior caused a revival of disputes in society about free will. "God created man sinless by nature and free by will," asserted the Byzantine philosopher and theologian John of Damascus. I. Damaskin defined freedom as the will, which is naturally (that is, from nature) free, and obedience as an unnatural state, signifying the "submission of the will." A person, according to this philosopher, bears the full measure of responsibility for his deeds, "for everything that depends on us is not a matter of craft, but of our freedom." Gregory of Sinai - representative of the Hesychast philosophical school considered the free will of a person to be the main driving force in the complex process of self-improvement. The fight against world evil and, in particular, against evil passions that have taken root in a person, can only be done through the realization of a person’s free will, directed towards good and based in its manifestations on such a subjective factor as personal experience.
The postulate of free will was the core problem of the philosophical disputes of Italian religious thinkers of the 15th-16th centuries, who, in confrontation with the official Catholic doctrine, defended the requirement of free will for every person, "which in practice meant the recognition of freedom of thought, creativity, scientific discussions..." .
In Russian political literature, various points of view were expressed regarding the right of each individual to possess free will and personal responsibility for its implementation.
The views of Nil Sorsky are closest to the hesychast philosophical tradition. He connects the category of "spiritual salvation" directly with the presence of a person's free will. Free will is not simply following one's "wants". Such a formulation of the question is impossible for a Christian thinker. Neil means behavior in which every person (not just a monk) does all "good and noble deeds" "with reason", determining his behavior by free choice based on personal experience and knowledge. For a man who is obedient to someone else's will, acting without reasoning, and "good things happen to evil." Therefore, a reasonable assessment of all actions is mandatory. Blindly following someone else's will is not at all commendable. On the contrary, the mind should be open to knowledge (“before planting an ear, everything hears and create an eye that looks everywhere”).
Neil is characterized by respect for the opinions of others, he denies the senseless following of authorities. A. S. Arkhangelsky also noted that the Nile "not only does not suppress personal thinking (tm) ... on the contrary, it requires it as a necessary and main condition." It is not at all necessary for a student to follow the teacher senselessly in everything. If any of the students, on some important issues of philosophical and practical significance, manages to establish something "greater and most useful", then "let him do this and we rejoice about it."
Neil calls for complete inner independence, personal responsibility for one's actions, deep philosophical reflection and rational (intellectual - in his words) perception. The theory of the Nile did not know the humiliation of the individual. In the person of Nile, the Russian history of political thought meets for the first time with a theoretical substantiation of its significance. Moreover, here the teaching of Neil goes beyond the limits of the task he set for improving the monk, for he also raises the question of "the personal legal capacity of every layman in the religious sphere."
In the teachings of Neil, the tradition of respect for the book and book knowledge found its affirmation. Book knowledge, according to Neal, is a mandatory step on the difficult path of self-improvement. The institution of self-improvement itself is deeply individual and excludes gross interference from outside. A person's actions should be the fruit of his deep reflection, because "without wisdom" it is not always possible to distinguish between good and evil. If a person obviously deviates from the right path in matters of faith, then all the same "it is not appropriate for such speeches and askakati, neither reproach, nor reproach, but the gods leave sleep; God is strong to correct them." You should not "look at the shortcomings of your neighbor", it is better to "weep your sins", the reproach "and do not reproach a person about any sin" is not useful here, only reading "uncharming" literature and a friendly confidential conversation with a wise mentor can help a person take the right path Not only the state, but even the church cannot officially prosecute him for his beliefs.
Theoretically, Neil's position on this issue ruled out state intervention in general, and even more so in such a harsh form as the use of criminal prosecution and punishment up to the death penalty.
In resolving this issue, the nonpossessors touched on such an important political issue as the relationship between church and secular authorities. In contrast to the principle of their complete combination adopted in the Byzantine political doctrine, Nil makes an attempt to determine the scope of their action, as well as the methods and methods for exercising their power. The activity of the church is limited to him only by the spiritual area, in which state (political) measures of influence on people are absolutely and fundamentally inapplicable. These theoretical positions were decisive in his attitude to the heretical movement and the forms of its persecution.
But considering the question of the real persecution of heretics, which already took place in the state, Neil tried to mitigate as far as possible the forms of this persecution and limit the number of persons to be punished. Thus, he believed that those who did not openly preach their beliefs, or those who repented, should not be persecuted. Here Neil directly raises the question of the inadmissibility of persecuting a person for his beliefs. No one before him in Russian literature spoke of this, and not soon after him will this question be formulated and expressed as a political demand.
Neal then had to not only state his views theoretically, but also take care of them. practical implementation. The assertions of a number of researchers that the Council of 1490 did not pass a decision on the death penalty for heretics, as demanded by the "denunciators", seem quite reasonable to us, precisely thanks to the influence of Nil's teacher Paisius Yaroslavov, Nil himself and Metropolitan Zosima.
The fact that in Russia persecution for the faith never took on such a character as in Catholic countries, Yuna owes a lot to Nil, his supporters and followers, who zealously proved the impossibility of applying the death penalty for apostasy. death penalty for religious beliefs"non-possessors" were considered as a deviation from the basic postulates of the Orthodox dogma. And although they lost in the dispute about the forms of influence on heretics (the Council of 1504 sentenced the heretics to death), the influence of "non-possessors" on the formation of public opinion is undoubted. The executions of heretics were of a single nature and did not receive distribution.
The very posing of the question of the obligatory nature of "mental work" for every person (not only a monk) led to the ability to think and reason, and, consequently, to critically perceive the existing reality in its entirety (i.e., material and spiritual. A rationalistic approach to considering any question is contraindicated to the authoritarian method of reasoning. And this was new for medieval Russia. Neil was one of the first to practically assert the rationalistic method of cognition and reasoning instead of the reckless following of generally accepted authorities, as a result of which he made it a duty for every Christian to analyze the writings of holy men and ascetics before using them as an example.Based on the hesychast technique of "intelligent doing", the Sorsky ascetic laid the foundation for a critical rational attitude to all scriptures ("the scriptures are much, but not all of them are divine").
Nile's teachings were continued by his friend and follower Vassiai Patrikeev, whose ideas were already clothed in clearer political formulas. Vassian politically sharpened all the issues that the Nile touched.
Applying the teachings of Neil "on mental doing", Vassian began to criticize not only the activities of the church, but also the main religious dogmas.
Developing the provisions of the Nile on non-possession, Vassian directly and clearly raised the issue of depriving all monasteries of their property rights and all privileges associated with them. The denial of monastic acquisitions led him to raise the question of the destruction of the institution of monasticism. Vassian insisted on the need for a clear distinction between the spheres of activity of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. He also poses the question of the need to protect the interests of the black-haired peasantry as a social element that suffers most from the feudal policy of the monasteries. In this direction, Vassian continued the traditions of progressive Russian political thought, drawing attention to the peasant question and demanding that the government take a number of measures aimed at alleviating the plight of the peasants32. Giving a class characterization of the doctrine of "non-possessiveness", in general, it should be noted that its ideologists, despite their undoubted belonging to the privileged class of feudal lords, in many ways managed to overcome their class limitations and take progressive positions in the field of state building, as well as to formulate an ideal that takes into account the interests of the lower layers of the social structure of society.
The famous figure of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. about 1433, belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Mike. Prior to entering monasticism, Neil was engaged in copying books, was a "scribe". More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nil got his hair cut in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, where from the time of the founder himself there was a deaf protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. Reverend Kirill he himself more than once refused the villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laity; the same views were adopted by his closest students ("Zavolzhsky elders"; see). Having traveled to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Nil spent a particularly long time on Athos, and perhaps most of all he was indebted to Athos for the contemplative direction of his ideas.
Neil Sorsky. Icon with life
Upon returning to Russia (between 1473 and 89), Neil founded a skete, gathered a few followers around him, "who were of his nature," and gave himself up to a closed, solitary life, especially interested in book studies. He tries to substantiate all his actions on the direct indications of "divine Scripture", as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to be engaged in the correspondence of books, he subjects the material written off to more or less thorough criticism. He writes off "from different lists, trying to find the right one", makes a set of the most correct: comparing the lists and finding "a lot of uncorrected ones" in them, he tries to correct "as much as possible for his bad mind." If another place seems “wrong” to him, and there is nothing to correct, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “From here in the lists it’s not right”, or: “If somewhere in a different translation it will turn out to be more famous (more correct) than this , tamo yes it is read "- and sometimes leaves entire pages so empty. In general, he writes off only what is "according to the possible according to reason and truth ...". All these features, which sharply distinguished the nature of Nil Sorsky's book studies and his very view of "writing" from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not pass for him in vain. Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called. "Novgorod heretics" and about monastic estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the then Russian hierarchs, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph Volotsky at the head. In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering the fight against heresy and informing the Rostov archbishop about it, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky, who lived in his diocese, and involve them in the struggle. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady's efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite as he wished. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady and either Paisius or the Nile; the main fighter against heresy, Joseph Volokolamsky, does not address them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to heresy: both of them are present at the council of 1490. , who dealt with the case of heretics, and hardly influence the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs "became strong" and unanimously declared that "all (all heretics) are worthy of life" - and in the end the council is limited to cursing two or three heretic priests, depriving them of their dignity and sending them back to Gennady. The most important fact of the life of Nil Sorsky was his protest against the landowning rights of the monasteries, at the cathedral of 1503 in Moscow. When the council was nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirillo-6 Elozero elders, raised the question of monastic estates, which at that time equaled a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of the demoralization of monasticism. A zealous fighter for the idea of Nil Sorsky was his closest "disciple", prince-monk Vassian Patrikeyev. Nil Sorsky could only see the beginning of the struggle he had initiated; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a "Testament", asking his disciples "to throw his body in the wilderness, let the animals and birds eat it, because they have sinned against God a lot and are unworthy of burial." The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor. It is not known whether Nil of Sorsk was formally canonized; in manuscripts there are occasionally traces of a service to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. On the other hand, throughout our ancient literature, only Nil Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, left the name of the "great old man."
Neil Sorsky. Icon 1908
The literary works of Nil Sorsky consist of a number of messages to students and generally close people, a small Traditions to the disciples, brief fragmentary Notes, more extensive Charter, in 11 chapters, and dying Wills. They came in the lists of the XVI - XVIII centuries. and all are published (most and the most important ones are extremely faulty). The main work of the Nile is the monastery charter, in 11 chapters; all the rest serve as an addition to it. The general line of thought of Nil Sorsky is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than asceticism was understood by the majority of the then Russian monasticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be bodily, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-perfection. The soil of monastic exploits is not flesh, but thought and heart. Intentionally weakening, killing one's body unnecessarily: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and should nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it in mala”, condescending to physical weaknesses, illness, and old age. Neil does not sympathize with exorbitant fasting. He is an enemy of any appearance in general, he considers it superfluous to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be alien to all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, "obtained everywhere and conveniently bought." It is better to give to the poor than to donate in the church. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rationally conscious. A monk must go through it not due to coercion and prescriptions, but "with consideration" and "do everything with reason." Neil requires from a monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in a feat. By sharply revolting against "self-initiators" and "self-swindlers", he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (as well as every person) should be subject, according to Neil, to only one authority - "divine writings." "Testing" the divine writings, studying them is the main duty of the monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, exclusively depends, according to Neil, "from the hedgehog the holy scriptures do not lead us ...". With the study of divine writings, however, a critical attitude to the total mass of written material should be connected: "there are many writings, but not all of them are divine." This idea of criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nil himself and all the "Volga elders" - and for the majority of literate people of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any "book" in general was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the Church Fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to interpretations that appeared later, finally, even all sorts of Greek "city laws", that is, decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Pilot - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchanging, equally authoritative. Joseph Volokolamsky, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned "city laws" "are similar in essence to prophetic and apostolic and holy father writings", and the collection of Nikon Montenegrins (see) boldly called "divinely inspired writings" . It is understandable, therefore, reproaches from Joseph to Nil Sorsky and his disciples that they "blasphemed miracle workers in the Russian land", as well as those "like in ancient years and in the local (foreign) lands of former miracle workers, who believed in their miracle, and from the Scriptures sweeping away their wonders." One attempt at any critical attitude to the material being written off seemed, therefore, heresy. Striving for the gospel ideal, Nil Sorsky - like the whole trend he headed - does not hide his condemnation of the disorganizations that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From a general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, the energetic protest of the Nile against the monastic property directly followed. Any property, not only wealth, Neil considers contrary to monastic vows. A monk denies himself from the world and everything, "even in it" - how can he then spend time worrying about worldly property, lands, wealth? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and they can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They should not “not exactly have no property, but not want to acquire it” ... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a collection of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible to a monk is also reprehensible for a monastery. To the noted features, apparently, religious tolerance was added already in Nile himself, which came out so sharply in the writings of his closest students. The literary source of the writings of Nil Sorsky was a number of patristic writers, whose works he became acquainted with especially during his stay on Mount Athos; the writings of John Cassian the Roman, Nil of Sinai, John of the Ladder, Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, and Gregory of Sinai had the closest influence on him. Some of these writers are often referred to by Neil Sorsky; some of their works, both in external form and in presentation, are especially close, for example. , to the main work of Nil Sorsky - "The Monastic Charter". The Nile, however, does not obey unconditionally to any of its sources; nowhere, for example, does he reach those extremes of contemplation that distinguish the writings of Simeon the New Theologian or Gregory of Sinai.
The monastic charter of Nil Sorsky, with the addition of "Tradition by a student" at the beginning, was published by Optina Hermitage in the book "The Reverend Nil Sorsky's Tradition by His Disciple About His Skete Living" (Moscow, 1849; without any scientific criticism); the messages are printed in an appendix to the book: "The Monk Nil of Sorsky, the founder of the skete life in Russia, and his charter on the skete life translated into Russian, with the application of all his other writings, extracted from the manuscripts" (St. Petersburg, 1864; 2nd ed. M., 1869; with the exception of "Appendices", everything else in this book does not have the slightest scientific value).
Literature about Nil Sorsky is detailed in the preface to the study by A. S. Arkhangelsky: "Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeyev, their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'" (St. Petersburg, 1882).
A. Arkhangelsky.
Russian Orthodox Church from the moment of its formation it has been distinguished by extraordinary unity. Periodic attempts to split it into several religious movements and camps were unsuccessful. Even in cases where differences of opinion appeared on the main church issues, the followers of one group or another did not experience outright hostility. They tried to prove their case by referring to church texts and canons. Moreover, they always acted only for the benefit of Christianity in Rus'.
The most serious religious dispute in the Middle Ages was the conflict between two elders - Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky. Both of them were considered the most prominent Orthodox figures of that time and wrote many works on the topic of Christianity. In many ways, their fates are very similar, as are their views on the place of the church in the state system. However, one issue on which they categorically disagreed marked the beginning of a long standoff between their followers.
To describe the situation briefly, Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky actually formed two currents - non-possessors and Josephites, who were often later used by the princely authorities in their own interests. However, this situation must be considered consistently.
Brief biography of Nil Sorsky
Despite the fact that Nil Sorsky is a prominent figure in the Russian Orthodox Church of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, very little reliable information about him has been preserved. Some researchers who have carefully studied the life of the elder believe that much was deliberately hidden, and the record of his speeches at the Council and after it was corrected. We cannot prove or disprove this information, so we will refer to official information.
The biography of Nil Sorsky is briefly just information about his origin and monastic affairs. Little is known about what he did before he was tonsured. Historians claim that the future ascetic was born in 1433 in a fairly wealthy boyar family. Some sources mention that the Nile for a long time was engaged in rewriting books, which testifies to the high level of his education for those times. The church leader very quickly mastered the skill of writing and was even known as a cursive writer. This was a great rarity in medieval Rus'.
It is believed that Nil received his education in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, where he lived almost from childhood. Interestingly, in addition to Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky, he spent some time in this monastery. Future opponents were familiar and often spent time together in religious conversations.
He tonsured Nil in the same monastery, but he felt a great craving for wandering and pilgrimage. He left his monastery and managed to go through many lands, where he carefully studied Christian traditions. The years on Mount Athos made a particularly great impression on this Orthodox figure. He had a deep respect for the elder monks, largely adopting their views on faith and life in general.
Returning home, he left the monastery, forming his own skete. In the "Life of Nil Sorsky" this period is described in some detail. The Sorskaya hermitage, as the monks quickly began to call it, was a rather harsh place, where no more than twelve monks lived at the same time.
The elder died in 1508, never knowing what turn his disagreements with St. Joseph of Volotsk would take. Even before his death, the elder bequeathed to leave his body in the desert accessible to animals and birds. Despite his services to the church, Nil Sorsky was never canonized. In ancient chronicles there are prayers and canons addressed to him. However, they never took root, and centuries later they were forgotten.
Biography of Joseph Volotsky
A little more information has been preserved about this elder than Sorsky. Therefore, it is much easier to compose his biography.
The future educator Joseph Volotsky was born into a noble family. In his family, everyone was very pious and chose the path of salvation for themselves at a fairly early age. And the grandfather and grandmother of Joseph even spent the rest of their lives in the status of monks.
The Monk Joseph Volotsky was born in the autumn of 1439 in the village, which belonged to his family for a long time. Little is known about the childhood years of the Orthodox ascetic. In chronicle sources, he is mentioned only from the age of seven, when he was given up for education in the Volokolamsk monastery. There he showed great aptitude for the sciences and piety.
From a very early age, Joseph thought about serving God, and life in the monastery helped strengthen him in this decision. At the age of twenty, the young man took the tonsure. It is worth noting that he was distinguished by humility, asceticism and had a craving for writing texts. This made him stand out from total number monastic brethren.
He found his place in the Borovskaya monastery, where he spent more than a dozen years. Initially, the enlightener Joseph Volotsky performed a variety of work, which was assigned to him as a monastic obedience. He gained work experience in a bakery, hospital, in the kitchen. The young monk also sang in the church choir and wrote Orthodox works. Over time, he completely renounced the worldly fuss.
However, at this time, Joseph's father fell seriously ill. He was completely exhausted and could not even get out of bed. The son, having asked for a blessing, took his father to his cell, where he accepted monasticism. In the care of his own father, Joseph spent a long fifteen years.
After the death of the abbot of the Borovo monastery, this position passed to the future holy elder. However, he ruled the monastery for a short time. The asceticism of Joseph and his ideas about monastic life did not please the brothers and the Grand Duke. As a result, the ascetic left the monastery together with seven elders. For several years they moved from one monastery to another and finally decided to found their own monastery. This is how the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery arose.
The last years of his life, Joseph Volokolamsky (Volotsky) was very ill. He prayed incessantly, but even when his strength left him, he attended the service lying down. The brothers brought him to the temple on a special stretcher and left him in a niche intended for this purpose.
The elder passed away in the autumn of 1515.
Canonization of Saint Joseph
For his services to the Orthodox Church, Joseph Volotsky was awarded canonization. It happened 64 years after his death. The relics of the saint are kept to this day in the monastery he founded. In addition, you can also see his chains there. About nine years ago, a monument to the great ascetic Joseph Volotsky was unveiled near the monastery.
How does this saint help? Orthodox Christians often ask this question when reading the troparion to the elder. It is impossible to find this information in ancient chronicles, since only a few years ago Patriarch Kirill blessed the saint for help in a certain area.
So how does Joseph Volotsky help? This elder needs to pray to those who are waiting for help in the field of Orthodox entrepreneurship. The saint patronizes such people and helps them to conduct their affairs.
Types of monastic life
We have already mentioned that the fates of Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky are in many ways similar. Therefore, it is not surprising that each of them at one time became the founder of an Orthodox monastery. However, in their very essence, these monasteries were completely different.
The fact is that if we consider monastic life according to a certain typology, it turns out that the monasteries under construction and already operating could be of three types:
- Dormitory. This is the most common category of monastic organization in Rus'. It implies that the monastery has a vast economy, sometimes numbering several nearby villages. A similar amount of land required reasonable management, but often led the abbots into temptation. Therefore, in Russian monasteries, morals were not always appropriate for people who dedicated their lives to serving the Lord.
- Loneliness. Rare monks turned into hermits. They chose absolute solitude and followed it into remote places, where they built very modest housing for themselves. Most often it was a small dugout or a kind of hut. In it, the hermit spent all his time in prayer and serving God. He ate the gifts of the earth, but usually a similar category of monks lived from hand to mouth, thereby humbling their flesh.
- Skit life. This type of monastic abode is a cross between the two already described. The sketes were built like small monasteries with two or three cells. The monks had to earn their living by labor, and devote any free time to prayers. Asceticism and the imposition of certain restrictions on the flesh were natural phenomena in the sketes.
Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky had serious differences in their views on the organization of monastic life. Therefore, when founding monasteries, everyone approached this process from the point of view of the best service to God.
The views of Nil Sorsky on the life of monks differed significantly from those accepted in the Middle Ages. He believed that monasteries should not have a large economy. Ultimately, this leads to a desire to expand their land holdings, which is extremely far from the precepts of Christ. The elder was worried that the abbots were trying to collect as much gold and wealth as possible in their hands, gradually forgetting about their true purpose. Solitude was also considered by Neil Sorsky to be an unsuitable option for serving the Lord. The enlightener argued that not every monk alone can not become embittered. Usually a person runs wild, loses his destiny and cannot fulfill the commandment to love his neighbor. After all, next to the hermits there are never people, so they do not show concern for anyone living.
The elder considered living in a skete the best option for serving God. Therefore, returning to his homeland, he hastened to retire to the dense forests. Leaving fifteen miles from the Cyril Monastery, Nil found a secluded place above the river Sora, where he founded his monastery.
The followers of Nil Sorsky adhered to his views on monasticism. All the inhabitants of the monastery worked tirelessly, because only this, apart from prayers, was allowed to them. The monks had no right to engage in worldly affairs. It was believed that only a very sick monk could be released from work. The elder used to say that he who does not want to work should not eat either. This view of monastic life was quite severe. However, many considered the elder a holy man and sought to find peace and wisdom on the territory of the Sorskaya desert.
Joseph-Volokolamsk Convent
The views of another Orthodox educator of the Middle Ages are difficult to summarize. Joseph Volotsky brought them to life during the construction of his monastery.
In 1479, the elder left the Borovskoye monastery, where he spent several decades, and with seven followers went on a journey. The wise abbot, staying in the surrounding monasteries, pretended to be a simple novice. However, some monks, communicating with him, noticed an unprecedented spiritual experience and depth of knowledge.
It is known that the elder spent a long time in the Kirillo-Belozersk monastery. Here Joseph Volotsky and Nil Sorsky met. Some time later, the monk and seven of his followers stopped near the city of Ruza. The elder decided that this was the place where he needed to found a monastery. In addition, his father's ancestral land holdings were not far away.
Joseph turned to the prince of Volotsk for help. Boris was a very pious person, so with great pleasure he offered the elder several people who knew the local forests very well and could point to best places. Some time later, Joseph Volotsky laid the foundation of the temple on the river bank.
Prince Boris favored the elder, so he immediately granted the new monastery land on which several villages were located. A little later, he increased the possessions of the monastery, giving her two more settlements. In the future, the prince's heirs also adopted the tradition of maintaining the monastery. They often helped the monks with food, the luxurious decoration of the temple was also mostly donated by the princely family.
Initially, the novices and monks of the monastery were common people and those monks who came with Joseph from the Borovskaya monastery. However, over time, noble people, who were close to the prince, began to take the tonsure.
It is worth noting that the charter in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery was very strict. Not everyone who came here to fulfill his duty of serving God was able to stay in the monastery. Every day the monks worked very hard, and spent their free time writing religious books. The abbot believed that only this would help to fully get rid of worldly fuss and open his soul to God. Joseph himself, until his old age, took part in common work along with the rest of the monks. He did not shy away from even hard work, believing that this is exactly what every inhabitant of the monastery should do.
Background of the conflict between the elders
The main differences between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky at the beginning of the 16th century arose because of their attitude to land holdings. To fully understand the essence of this dispute, you need to take a closer look at the Orthodox Church in Rus' of that period.
Monasteries have always been considered that abode of peace and goodness, where a person can come to hide from worldly fuss. Initially, such places were a model of asceticism and labor, but over time, the monasteries began to acquire wealth and lands that princes and boyars donated to them. Often, villages stood on their lands, which, together with all the inhabitants, became the property of the abbots. The temples at the monasteries themselves shone with gold and precious stones. All the decorations in them were also gifts from the parishioners.
The abbots, who led the monastic household and disposed of real wealth, eventually ceased to be models of meekness and humility. They actively intervened in princely politics, influenced the adoption of certain decisions and plunged deeper and deeper into worldly life.
In the fifteenth century, the enrichment of the monasteries became widespread. During this period of time, there were ideas about the last years of the existence of the world. Therefore, many made wills in favor of church monasteries in the hope of avoiding hellfire. Many priests received their next appointment only through a monetary contribution, which did not fit in with the very idea of Christianity.
All these excesses very seriously worried the heads of the church. In addition, by the beginning of the sixteenth century, heretical movements began to appear massively in Rus'. Their representatives first of all pointed out to the clergy their acquisitiveness and greed. The situation became critical and required an immediate solution.
Cathedral of 1504
The dispute between Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky took place on church cathedral when the issue of monastic possessions was on the agenda. Elder Nilus believed that the monasteries should completely renounce the ownership of lands and other riches. Using the example of his skete, he sought to convince the audience of the need to live only by their own labors and not take any donations from the people.
Naturally, such a view of monasticism was far from suitable for all ministers of the church. And in opposition to Sorsky, Joseph Volotsky spoke. Despite the fact that he adhered to strict views on the monastic rule and life, the monk was sure that the monasteries should have riches and lands. But he considered their main purpose to help the poor. In the monastery of hegumen Volotsky in Hard times up to five hundred people could find shelter. They all received shelter and food.
In addition, Elder Joseph spoke at the council about the monasteries as centers of literacy in Rus'. It was possible to get an education, read a book or the work of clergy only within the walls of monasteries. Therefore, depriving them of their wealth would automatically exclude the possibility of helping people and teaching them.
After the performance of the ascetics, those present were divided into two camps. In the future, they began to be called non-possessors and Josephites. We will tell you a little more about each group.
Nonpossessors: the essence of the movement
The philosophy of Nil Sorsky and his speeches at the church council gave impetus to the emergence of such a movement as non-possessors. The elder, in support of his judgments, cited the fact that during tonsure the monks always took an oath of non-possession. Therefore, the possession of any property, including in the form of monastic lands, was considered a direct violation of the vow.
The followers of the elder also had their own attitude towards princely power. It was automatically placed above the church itself. The prince was represented by Nil Sorsky as a wise, just and worthy person who could well perform the function of a church administrator.
The elder believed that all the lands belonging to the monasteries should be distributed to the princes so that they could thank their people for their faithful service with the land allotment. In turn, the non-possessors hoped to receive from the state in return broad opportunities in terms of resolving religious issues. Neil Sorsky was sure that in connection with the renunciation of worldly affairs, the monks would be able to devote more time to their direct duty - prayer. At the same time, they could live only by their own labor and insignificant alms. But the monks themselves were obliged to give alms to all the poor, regardless of their condition and position.
Josephites: Key Ideas
The philosophy of Joseph Volotsky was close to many church leaders. The Josephites argued that a healthy Orthodox Church should have at its disposal lands, villages, libraries, and material wealth. The followers of Joseph Volotsky believed that such opportunities favorably influenced the development of the monastic movement and Orthodoxy itself.
Thanks to their wealth, the monasteries could help all those in need of food in famine years and support the poor who came to the monastery for help. In addition, the church received the opportunity to give alms and perform a missionary function. That is, monasteries and other monasteries had to spend all their wealth on helping people, which is fully consistent with the ideas of Christianity.
In addition, the Josephites categorically condemned any heresy. They defended the position of suppressing any dissent, up to the physical destruction of heretics.
Landmarks of the struggle between the two church currents
To describe the situation briefly, Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky first expressed their views on the monastery possessions at the cathedral. This caused fierce controversy, but the ministers of the church nevertheless decided in favor of the Josephites. Many historians believe that this happened only because they were in the vast majority.
However, not everyone was happy with this outcome. The fact is that in the sixteenth century the size of Muscovite Rus' was relatively small. And the number of nobles who claimed the mercy of the prince in the form of a land allotment was constantly increasing. All this made the head of state look at the church allotments with great interest. But still, the princes did not dare to take any action towards them.
After the end of the council, the question of heretics remained open. The non-possessors believed that they should not be destroyed, since every sinner has a chance for repentance. The Josephites, in turn, were increasingly ardent in defending the position of applying physical punishment for heresy. A few years after the end of the council, their influence increased, so the church adopted a decision on heretics, proposed by the followers of Elder Volotsky.
For many years, the struggle between the two religious movements did not take any serious turn. But soon the behavior of Prince Vasily III began to be condemned by non-possessors. The reason for the first such attack against the princely power was Vasily's divorce. With his legal wife, he could not have children in any way, so he filed for a divorce and chose a new wife for himself. Since the only reason for a divorce that the church could support was treason, the non-possessors publicly condemned the prince's act. Vasily III did not dare to take measures against the representatives of this trend, he hoped that history would be forgotten over time. But soon another unpleasant situation arose for the prince - he imprisoned representatives of a noble family, whom he himself summoned to him and even met quite affably. Complete meanness was again condemned by non-possessor Vasily Patrikeyev. The prince decided to imprison him in the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery, where he soon died.
From that moment on, the Josephites were in power in favor. In the future, their representatives more than once had a serious influence on events in the state. For example, it was they who became the ideologists of the introduction of the oprichnina, managed to strengthen the idea of the divinity of princely power in the minds of the people, achieved the introduction of the status of the patriarchate relative to the Moscow metropolis, and also tried with all their might to glorify Rus' and raise its authority in the international arena.
