home > Psychology of love and love > Cathedral 1551. Stoglav

Cathedral 1551. Stoglav

You will find the most complete selection of Stoglav's texts, as well as learn the history of the emergence and publication of this book. At the end we give the text in civil language. The same text can be downloaded as pdf. Surprisingly, even in the 21st century, it is extremely difficult to find these decrees on the net, although this most important document of our history began to have troubles already 100 years after its publication.

The decisions of the collection concern both religious-church and state-economic issues in the light of the fierce disputes of that time about church land ownership; contains clarifications on the correlation of the norms of state, judicial, criminal law with church law.

tragic story

Tsar Ivan the Terrible

A hundred years after its appearance, Stoglav was deliberately consigned to oblivion at the state level as living evidence of falsifications, catastrophic in scale, that accompanied the church reform of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Europe - was not published at home for 300 years (!). The first printed edition was published only in 1860, and in England! Only two years later, an analogue was published in Russia. The publication was accompanied by a massive campaign to discredit it as a historical document, which pushed back its full-fledged study by almost 50 years. It was only after the fall of tsarist power that it was possible to understand the true level of development of the country before the Romanovs came to power.

The Problem of Authenticity

In connection with the controversy about the authenticity and canonical meaning of Stoglav, the political pressure of the authorities and the synodal church, the problem of the origin of his text was one of the main ones in the historical literature about Stoglav and the Stoglav Cathedral. Until the middle of the 19th century, the literature was dominated by the opinion of Stoglav as not a genuine conciliar code of 1551. Metropolitan Platon from the New Believer Church, not doubting the fact of the convening of the Council of 1551, doubted, however, that the provisions of Stoglav were approved at this Council ...

The text of Stoglav of the first official publication in Russia (1862) and the second in the world

Name: STOGLAV
Publisher: Kazan: Printing house of the Provincial Board, 1862. - 454 p.

Language: Russian (Church Slavonic)
Year: 1862
Format: PDF
Number of pages: 454

In the preface to the first domestic edition of Stoglav, published in 1862, it was stated that “ This book (Stoglav) was compiled by someone, perhaps even a member of the Stoglav Cathedral (1551), but after the council, from draft notes that were or prepared only for consideration at the council, but not considered (entirely), not brought into the form of church ordinances, not approved by signatures and not made public for guidance”.

Lies, dirt and vile slander, which precedes the first domestic edition of Stoglav, shows the face of the ignorance into which the Nikonian church plunged after losing touch with the great history of its own country ...

This point of view was explained by the unwillingness to recognize as authentic the decisions of the official body, which the Russian Church later found erroneous, and which guided the "schismatics".

Only after a number of finds by I. D. Belyaev (in particular, the duty lists for Stoglav, which undeniably confirmed the fact of the adoption of Stoglav at the Council of 1551), the authenticity of Stoglav was finally recognized.

In the future, historians considered Stoglav as a unique monument of Russian law of the 16th century, giving an idea of the lifestyle of the society of that time, which, however, does not exclude the fact that "there are obvious inserts in the text of Stoglav."

It is also surprising that even in the modern virtual space it is still not easy to find the text of decisions, so the site publishes it with great pleasure.

The text of Stoglav of the first official publication in the world (1860, England)

Name: Stoglav. Cathedral, which was in Moscow under the great sovereign, tsar and grand duke Ivan Vasilyevich
Publisher: London: Type. Trubner & Co. Trubner & Co., 1860. - 239 p.
Language: Russian (Church Slavonic)
Year: 1860
Format: PDF
Number of pages: 239

The first edition of Stoglav in 300 years (!) published in England. The division of the document into 100 chapters was, according to the prominent historian of the Russian church E.E. Golubinsky, not by chance: in this way the editor of Stoglav sought to protect the book from arbitrary reduction by subsequent scribes, from omissions by them of unimportant, from their point of view, chapters. For more than a hundred years, Stoglav was regarded as a collection of decrees of indisputable authority. Stoglav is of great importance as a monument of church-state legislation, as well as in historical, literary and linguistic aspects. There are several lists of "Stoglav". Almost all of them open with a table of contents or a legend to the chapters, where as the title of the first chapter there are words that reflect the content of the entire document. The manuscript that served as the basis for this publication belonged to N.A. Field. The publishers did not change anything when printing: the Slavic-Russian way of presentation, the monotony of expressions, was preserved without any change. Saved, according to the publisher, "luxurious illiteracy in spelling, in the endings of words, in punctuation." The original text of the 16th century has been completely preserved, which makes this edition of particular value.

Manuscript of Stoglav of the 17th century from the archive of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra

STOGLAV (decisions of the Moscow Council of 1551)

Half mouth clear, modern, quarter-length, 316 sheets, figured head-saver with gold.

In 1776, by the will of the Rev. Plato, 134 books were taken from the sacristy to the library, including the present Stoglavnik written (Approx. Op. 1767 No. 121). The list of Rum has been removed from him. Muses. No. ССССХХVІ, owned by cellar T. Sergius monastery Avraamy Podlesov in [the date is given in Slavic numbers] and (1642), not in[the date is given in Slavic numbers] and (1600, see signature under No. 249). Ahead is also the table of contents and a copy from the charter of Tsarevich Feodor Borisovich (September 24, 1599) to spiritual father T. Sergius Monastery to Elder Barsanuphius Yakimov. Likewise, at the end, after chapter 101, containing the conciliar verdict on estates (published from here in Act. Archaeological Exped. vol. 1, No. 227), some extracts from the rules of ecumenical councils are added, and in conclusion, the years of the repose of the All-Russian Metropolitan Alexy are noted and Sergius Abbot of Radonezh.The list from the letter and the last remark are attributed by another hand; the first five sheets are empty.

Stoglav's text in electronic form in CIVIL TYPE

The text of Stoglav's resolutions, typed in a modern civilian font (there are technical flaws in the recognition of scanned text in the text):

recognized Russian test

Below is an extended description of the text of the document, borrowed from Wikipedia.

(read the preface to one of the modern editions below)

Stoglav tried to solve the following pressing issues:

Strengthening church discipline among the clergy and the fight against the vicious behavior of church representatives (drunkenness, debauchery, bribery), usury of monasteries,
Unification of church rites and services
Powers of the ecclesiastical court,
Struggle against the remnants of paganism among the population,
Strict regulation (and, in essence, the introduction of a kind of spiritual censorship) of the order of correspondence of church books, writing icons, building churches, etc.

In fact, all these questions are relevant today more than ever.

The title of the first chapter (“In the summer of the 7059th month of February on the 23rd day ...”), it would seem, gives the exact date of the Stoglavy Cathedral: February 23, 7059 (1551). However, researchers disagree whether this date is an indication of the beginning of the meetings of the Council or determines the time when the compilation of the Council Code begins. The work of the Council can be divided into two stages - a meeting with a discussion of a number of issues and the processing of material, although it is possible that these were simultaneous processes. This assumption is confirmed by the very structure of "Stoglav", the sequence of chapters and their content.

In the first chapter in in general terms the program of the Council is outlined: the Council answers the questions of the king, who proposed topics for the council's discussion. The participants of the Council, as follows from the text, limited themselves to expressing their opinions on the proposed topics. In the first chapter, the range of questions of the Council is presented briefly, somewhat confusedly, sometimes answers are given, sometimes not. It was not the intention of the compiler here to fully disclose the content of those "corrections" that the Council was engaged in. But although the compiler does not always cite the Council's answers to questions, he introduces the documents in accordance with which decisions were made at the Council. According to the existing rules, the Council did not have the right to make a decision that was at odds with canonical literature. Some of the monuments of this literature are mentioned in the first chapter of "Stoglav": Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Fathers of the Church, Rules established at Councils of the clergy, as well as teachings of canonized saints. This list expands in the following chapters.

Two chapters (5 and 41) contain royal questions that all participants in the Council were to discuss. To draw up questions, the tsar attracted people from his entourage, primarily members of the Chosen One. Two of them had clergy (Metropolitan Macarius and Archpriest Sylvester), and therefore their role was significant.

Chapters 6 to 40 contain answers to some of the king's first 37 questions. The answers are continued in the 42nd and subsequent chapters. This gap is explained by the fact that the conciliar debate on compiling answers to the king's questions, apparently, was interrupted by the appearance of the king at the Council. During the day, and maybe several days, the Council resolved issues together with the king. Apparently, this is connected with the emergence of the so-called “second royal questions”, which are set out in chapter 41 of “Stoglav”. They concern mainly questions of worship and the manners of the laity.

Royal questions can be divided into three groups:

1. Pursuing the interests of the state treasury (questions: 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 30, 31);
2. Revealing disorders in the clergy and monastic administration, in monastic life (questions: 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 37);
3. Concerning disorders in worship, denouncing prejudices and non-Christian life of the laity (questions: 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 18, 21-29, 32-36).

The last two groups of questions are aimed at strengthening the moral side of the life of the clergy and the population. Since the state completely entrusted this area to the church, saw in it its ideological support, it was natural for the king to desire to see the church as a single one, enjoying authority among the population.

Among the features of the structure of "Stoglav" should be highlighted the presence of the 101st chapter - the verdict on the estates. It, apparently, was compiled after the completion of the Stoglavy Cathedral and added to the main list as an addition.

INTRODUCTION to STOGLAV from the site “ Dig deeper “

STOGLAV- a collection of resolutions of the Church-Zemsky Sobor, held in 1551 in Moscow. The name "Stoglav" was established for this collection only from the end of the 16th century. In the very text of the monument, other names are also mentioned: either the cathedral code, or the royal and saintly code (ch. 99).

Almost all lists open with a table of contents or a legend to the chapters, where as the title of the first chapter there are words that reflect the content of the entire document: Royal questions and council answers about various church ranks. The title of the first chapter serves in a number of lists as the title of the entire document.

This final document, drawn up at the council of 1551, was divided into 100 chapters during editing, probably in imitation of the royal Sudebnik of 1550. Hence the name Stoglavnik, first mentioned in a postscript to one of the lists of a monument from the end of the 16th century. Since the 17th century a shorter form of this word began to be used - Stoglav. Therefore, the cathedral of 1551 itself received the name Stoglavy in the historical literature.

The division of the document into 100 chapters was, according to the historian of the Russian church E.E. Golubinsky, not by chance: in doing so, the editor of Stoglav sought to protect the book from arbitrary reductions by subsequent scribes, from omissions by them of chapters that were insignificant, from their point of view.

The division into 100 chapters is very conditional. The name of the monument is also conditional, especially since many lists end not with the hundredth, but with the one hundred and first chapter, which contains the verdict of the kings with the sacred cathedral on the estates, dated May 11, 7059. (1551). This date is considered by researchers either as the date of completion of the processing of the materials of the Cathedral, resulting in the emergence of Stoglav2, or as the date of closing of the cathedral3. The opening time of the Cathedral should be considered, as L. V. Cherepnin believes, the date indicated in the first chapter - February 23, 7059 (1551). According to D. Stefanovich, this date most likely indicates the beginning of editing Stoglav.

Until the second half of XIX in. in literature, the opinion of Stoglav as not a genuine conciliar code of 1551 dominated. Metropolitan Platon (1829), not doubting the fact of the convening of the council of 1551, doubted, however, that the provisions of Stoglav were approved at this council. The arguments were the chronicles, in which he did not find any mention of the cathedral of 1551, as well as the absence of Stoglav's list sealed with signatures and seals10. Indeed, the original has not yet been found. However, this is not yet an argument for denying the authenticity of the Stoglavy Cathedral and its decisions.

The view of Metropolitan Platon was dominant until the middle of the 19th century. It was repeated and developed by other hierarchs of the Russian Church11. And even in the preface to the first domestic edition of Stoglav, published in 1862, I. M. Dobrotvorsky (publisher of Stoglav), based on the data of Russian church historians, stated that “this book (Stoglav) was compiled by someone, maybe even a member of the Stoglavy Cathedral (1551), but after the council, from draft notes that were or prepared only for consideration at the council, but not considered (entirely), not brought into the form of church resolutions, not approved by signatures and not made public for guidance ”12-13. This point of view was largely explained by the unwillingness to recognize as authentic the decisions of the official body that carried out the ideas that the orthodox Russian church later abandoned and that guided the schismatics.

The attitude to the issue of Stoglav's belonging to the cathedral of 1551 changed after I. V. Belyaev discovered the duty lists for Stoglav. The resolutions of the council were sent in the form of circular decrees (mandatory lists) and were binding on the entire Orthodox population of Russia. Moreover, I. V. Belyaev managed to find the testimony of a chronicler of the 17th century, which convinced him that Stoglav was composed by the cathedral of 1551 “exactly in the volume and form that it is in the lists that have come down to us”14. The new view was confirmed by I.V. Belyaev’s discovery of the so-called mandate lists of the 1551 council code15. Only a few researchers who had developed their opinion about Stoglav before the opening of the punishment lists tried to defend their previous views16, while many others changed them. In particular, Metropolitan Macarius, who substantiated in his “History of the Russian Schism” the view of Stoglav as an unauthentic document, in his later work “History of the Russian Church”17, abandoned his former opinion, convinced by the arguments of I. V. Belyaev.

For more than a hundred years, Stoglav was regarded as a collection of decrees of indisputable authority. But the attitude towards him changed dramatically after the “big” Moscow Church Council of 1666-1667. It condemned some of the dogmas approved by the Stoglavy Cathedral (about the sign of the cross with two fingers, about the august hallelujah, about barbering, etc.). At the Moscow Cathedral, it was recognized that the provisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral were written foolishly, with simplicity and ignorance4. Following this, the authenticity of Stoglav began to be questioned, and thus its significance as a legislative act. Stoglav became the subject of heated debate between the schismatic Old Believers, who elevated the decisions of the Stoglav Cathedral to the rank of an unshakable law, and representatives of the orthodox, official church, who condemned Stoglav as the fruit of delusion. Members of the Stoglavy Cathedral were charged with ignorance, and in order to wash away their shame, even the version of the non-involvement of the Cathedral of 1551 with Stoglav was put forward.

The first attempt to characterize Stoglav from the positions of the orthodox church was made by Feofilakt Lopatinsky in his work “Refusal of schismatic untruth”. The general opinion about Stoglav and the Stoglav Cathedral was expressed by this author in a florid and categorical way: “This Cathedral, not only with a hundred-headed, but also with one-headed heads, is not worthy of being called, because ... it is based on common fables”5.

Destructive criticism of the participants of the Stoglavy Cathedral and its activities is also contained in the work of Archbishop Nicephorus Theotokas. Most of the participants in the council from among the clergy are accused by him of ignorance. The style of presentation of Stoglav seems to the author to be too simple and wordy6.

The actual scientific study of Stoglav by secular authors begins in pre-revolutionary historiography under the influence of general attention to the activities of the Zemsky Sobors in Russia. This attention was due to the historically heightened interest in the 19th century. to class-representative institutions. There are also works entirely dedicated to Stoglav. One of the first were articles by I. V. Belyaev and P. A. Bezsonov about this monument. I. V. Belyaev, in contrast to previous authors, highly appreciated the style and language of the document, noted both its simplicity and examples of oratorical oratory in the presentation of Grozny's speeches. He drew attention to the fact that “as a collection of data for depicting different aspects of Russian life in the 16th century, Stoglav is a monument that is irreplaceable by anything”7. P. A. Bezsonov expressed the same high opinion about the merits of Stoglav. He emphasized that in Stoglav “all the questions of the century are touched upon, the whole position of the church is outlined in its internal structure, in all relations and clashes with the power of the rest of society, with the power of the state”8.

D. Stefanovich, who studied Stoglav already in the 900s, reproached both scientists for some idealization of Stoglav, but nevertheless admitted that “both as a literary and legislative monument, Stoglav is a rare and outstanding phenomenon in the history of Russian church law”9 .

Of the other works of the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries. it is worth highlighting the study of the historian and literary critic, academician I. N. Zhdanov “Materials for the history of the Stoglavy Cathedral”18. He collected more than twenty charters and mandate lists, which mention the Cathedral Code of 1551. Stoglav's research convinced the author that the issues discussed at the council concerned “not only purely ecclesiastical, but also state relations. Along with questions about the behavior of spiritual and monks, about church rites, about non-Christian and immoral phenomena in the life of the people, questions were proposed to the council concerning church-state relations ... This is not enough; the council had to discuss a lot of things that already had a purely state significance. Proceeding from this, I. N. Zhdanov applied the name of the church-zemstvo cathedral in relation to the cathedral of 1551. This definition was subsequently accepted by other scientists, in particular Soviet historians L. V. Cherepnin and S. O. Schmidt19. Stoglav was dedicated to special studies by N. Lebedev20, D. Ya. Shpakov21, I. M. Gromoglasov22, V. N. Bochkarev23 and others. on the External History of Russian Law” dedicated one chapter to Stoglav24; A.S. Pavlov in his “Course of Church Law” considers Stoglav as a source of church law, which was only partially abolished by the Council of 1667, but in general it operated until 1700, that is, for a century and a half25; E. E. Golubinsky in “History of the Russian Church” also evaluates Stoglav as a code of canon law26.

The most significant contribution to the study of Stoglav in pre-revolutionary historiography belongs to D. Stefanovich. In his study, a detailed historiographical review of the previous literature about Stoglav is given, various editions of his text are considered, a review of all the found lists of the monument is made and their classification by editions is given, the sources of the resolutions of the Stoglav Cathedral are clarified and many other issues are resolved.

Thus, in pre-revolutionary Russia, Stoglav was studied by both church and secular historians. In their works, however, attention was paid mainly to the study of the text of Stoglav from the point of view of theology, a scrupulous legal analysis of the norms of church law was given, but the socio-economic conditions of the period when the monument was created were not taken into account. Soviet historiography largely filled this gap.

In the Soviet historical and legal literature, Stoglav was not subjected to a special monographic study. Lawyers showed little interest in Stoglav at all. Historians used it primarily as a source of information on the socio-economic, political, moral, religious and everyday issues of the history of Russia in the 16th century.

N. M. Nikolsky repeatedly addressed Stoglav in his “History of the Russian Church”. This work of his was first published in 1930 and was a fundamental and at the same time popular science work. In subsequent reprints, the character of the work has been preserved. The author, substantiating his thesis about the specific nature of Russian Orthodoxy, in which there was little proper Christian teaching and pagan content predominated, refers to Stoglav, who provides the researcher with rich illustrative material27. As illustrative material, information from Stoglav was used and in “Essays on Russian culture of the 16th century. (in the essays by A. K. Leontiev “Morals and Customs” and A. M. Sakharov “Religion and the Church”28).

When studying the history of Russian political thought Soviet researchers also turned to Stoglav. A special chapter was devoted to Stoglav in the monograph by I. U. Budovnitsa “Russian journalism of the 16th century.” The author considers the Stoglavy Cathedral as an arena of “clashes between the secular authorities and the church organization”29, moreover, clashes that ended in the defeat of the tsar in matters relating to church income. In assessing the role of Ivan IV at the cathedral, I. U. Budovnits follows the point of view of N. M. Karamzin and sees Ivan IV as an active political figure, independently, without anyone's help, pursuing a line on limiting the material power of the church. The author broadly interprets the range of issues discussed at the council, on the basis of which it can be assumed that he classifies the Stoglavy Cathedral as a church-zemstvo council.

A. A. Zimin continued the study of Stoglav as a monument of Russian journalism of the 16th century.30. The author analyzes Political Views members of the council. Unlike I. U. Budovnits, he singles out Sylvester as a politician who prepared materials for the council, in particular royal questions, and stood behind the king, directing his actions. A. A. Zimin considers Stoglav as one of the links in the general chain of reforms of Ivan IV. This position was developed in the monograph by A. A. Zimin “Reforms of Ivan the Terrible”, published in 1960. In this work, the author, just as in the previous one, considers the decision of the council of 1551 to be a compromise between the Josephite majority of the cathedral and the king’s non-possessive environment, while noting that “the bulk of Stoglav’s decisions implemented the Josephite program”, and the program of secularization of church lands suffered complete failure31.

Decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral as component reforms in the middle of the 16th century. considered in the works of N. E. Nosov and S. O. Schmidt. N. E. Nosov, in his monograph “The Formation of Class-Representative Institutions in Russia,” studies the decisions of the council in close connection with the reform of zemstvo administration. Particular attention is paid to them the role of the cathedral of 1551 in solving zemstvo cases and reorganizing the court. In this regard, the zemstvo character of the Stoglavy Cathedral and its decisions are emphasized: the approval of the Sudebnik of 1550, the approval of the “course of reconciliation”, the adoption of a charter that marked the beginning of the formation of the principles of local self-government. However, this point of view is not original: the overwhelming majority of Soviet researchers regard the cathedral of 1551 precisely as a church-zemstvo one.

N. E. Nosov clarified the general assessment of the cathedral given by D. A. Zimin. Thus, the author considers the struggle at the council of various trends not only as a confrontation between the non-possessors and the Josephites, but also as part of the general political struggle of the tsarist government with the separatist tendencies of large estates. From the point of view of N. E. Nosov, the results of the conciliar decisions look like a more significant victory for the supporters of the tsar, especially in terms of limiting the political privileges of large landownership32 than it seemed to A. A. Zimin. Considering the government's land policy, the author traces the development of legal norms that regulated church land ownership from September 1550 to the May verdict of 1551 and comes to the conclusion that significant measures were taken at the council to limit church land ownership33.

S. O. Schmidt considers only Zemstvo decisions of the Zemstvo Council of 1551. He rejects the generally accepted assertions of previous authors that the council adopted the text of the Sudebnik of 1550. S. O. Schmidt believed that at the Stoglavy Cathedral it was about bringing the statutory letters on local self-government in line with the Sudebnik of 1550 and their approval34.

Of the works devoted to the Stoglavy Cathedral, it is necessary to single out the chapter by V. I. Koretsky “The Stoglavy Cathedral” in the book “The Church in the History of Russia (IX century - 1917)”35 and L. V. Cherepnin’s article “On the History of the “Stoglavy” Cathedral” in the collection “Medieval Russia”36. Later, this article, almost unchanged, was included in the monograph by L. V. Cherepnin “Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th-17th centuries.”

V. I. Koretsky considers the goals of convening the council, the order of its work, the main issues discussed at the council. Dwelling on the decisions of the council, the author first of all highlights the chapters on church land ownership and the court, in which, as he believes, the compromise between the Josephites and the non-possessors was reflected.

The chapter devoted to the Stoglavy Cathedral in the monograph by L. V. Cherepnin is in many respects the nature of a generalization of everything that was said about this cathedral earlier. The author gives a complete historiography of the issue and substantiates in detail the church-zemstvo character of the Stoglavy Cathedral. L. V. Cherepnin noted that in his work the main attention was paid to the Stoglavy Cathedral, and not to the document adopted at it. Nevertheless, the author expressed many valuable thoughts about the structure of Stoglav, in a number of cases he gave a textual analysis of the document, which is especially important, since there is no special textual analysis of this monument in the literature.

Thus, Soviet authors who interpreted the content of Stoglav and used it in their studies, as a rule, considered this monument in close connection with the socio-economic and political situation in Russia in the first half - the middle of the 16th century, with intra-class (including intra-church) and the class struggle of that time, as an organic part of the reforms of the government of Ivan IV in the middle of the 16th century. At the same time, they paid their main attention to the reflection in Stoglav of the alignment of intra-class and class forces in the country, to the reflection in it of the tendencies (sometimes contradictory) of the socio-political and ideological struggle of that time.

By the beginning of the XX century. at least 100 lists of handwritten Stoglav were known. A review of them was given by D. Stefanovich37. But after his monograph was written, new lists became known to science. No one has yet carried out their analysis and systematization.

D. Stefanovich also examined in some detail the question of Stoglav's sources. His attention was drawn to written documents, quotations from which were used in the monument. One of the sources of Stoglav's decrees was the Bible. However, the compilers of Stoglav did not turn to this most authoritative source for church leaders very often. D. Stefanovich counted only about a hundred “verses” in the entire monument38. Moreover, some of them are not given in full, others are retold with deviations from the “holy scripture”. This caused further accusations of the compilers of Stoglav of distorting the text of the Bible by representatives of the official church. The sources of Stoglav also include Kormchie (collections of apostolic, conciliar and episcopal rules and messages, laws of secular power and other materials that were a guide in the management of the church, in the church court in the Slavic countries and distributed in Russia since the 13th century) and books of historical and moral teaching content. In general, the most borrowings were made from Pilots. The main source of Stoglav's decrees was church practice. It was the conditions of the moment that demanded the reform of the church court, the introduction of the institution of archpriests. Stoglav, thus, adapted the church structure to the conditions of a class-representative monarchy.

One of the main places in the content of Stoglav is occupied by the issues of the judiciary, the organization of the church court. It was noted in the literature that Stoglav for the first time makes it possible to get an idea of the structure of diocesan courts in medieval Russia and legal proceedings in them40. Indeed, with the appearance of Stoglav, a clear regulation of the structure of the church court, its jurisdiction, legal proceedings, etc. is associated. Here it is especially clear that the decrees on church courts are closely connected with the general judicial reform of Ivan the Terrible40. The significance of the decisions of the council on the ecclesiastical court can be judged by the way they were set out in the mandate lists of the Council Code of 1551: in view of their special importance, these decisions were placed at the very beginning of the lists41. Despite the fact that Stoglav was condemned and abolished by the Moscow Cathedral of 1666-1667, Patriarch Adrian was guided by Stoglav's decrees on the hierarch's court even after the Council of 1666-1667. until 1701. Only with edition Spiritual regulation(1720) Stoglav lost its significance for the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stoglav is a multifaceted monument of law. Like other monuments of canon law, it regulated life not only church people but also laymen. The regulation of marriage and family relations, in particular, was entirely carried out by church law. Many chapters of the monument are devoted to the regulation of this particular sphere of social relations. Stoglav presents vivid pictures from the life of the Russian people, their customs, rooted in the pagan era. The fight against sorcerers, sorcerers, false prophets is reflected only in the monuments of church law, which constitute a significant part of the legal system of the Russian state. Without Stoglav, the idea of the way of life of Russian people of the 16th century is lost. would be incomplete.

Stoglav was first published in 1860 by Tubner's free Russian printing house in London, most likely by one of the Old Believers who signed - "I. BUT.". D. Stefanovich tried to explain the absence of Stoglav's publications in Russia not by the intervention of church censorship, but simply by the fact that no one undertook such a difficult task42. There may be some truth in this explanation. The review of the London edition of Stoglav43 gave the most critical evaluation of the publication. Noting the presence of gross errors in the printed text of the monument, the reviewer concludes that “... it is a thousand times better to have a handwritten Stoglav, or even not have it at all, than to have a printed one in which not only the “splendid illiteracy of the 16th century” is changed, an important thing for lovers of antiquity, but the text itself is corrupted in places, the very meaning of the monument is distorted”44. The shortcomings listed by the reviewer were apparently explained by the desire of the publishers to “translate” Stoglav, to modernize it.

Two years after the publication of Stoglav, the first domestic edition prepared by I. M. Dobrotvorsky45 appeared in London. It was performed in Kazan completely independently, independently of London, and was highly appreciated in the literature. D. Stefanovich called it “the first experience of a scientific publication” by Stoglav46. The text of the Kazan edition was reprinted twice without any changes. Even the preface, written in 1862, was repeated verbatim. The second publication appeared in 1887, the third in 1911.

In 1863, D. E. Kozhanchikov published his own edition47. It received in the literature the same unflattering assessment as the London one. Professor N. S. Tikhonravov declared that he did not attach any scientific significance to the St. Petersburg edition of Stoglav, which was full of the most gross errors, and Professor N. I. Subbotin even called it “miserable”48. D. Stefanovich counted 110 deviations from the original on four pages of this edition and concluded that the edition by D. E. Kozhanchikov was hardly better than the London one, “so its scientific value is very low”49. N. I. Subbotin and D. Stefanovich expressed bewilderment at the fact that D. E. Kozhanchikov preferred the Short version of the monument to the Long one, while the Long version is the original one. Giving preference to the Kazan edition, D. Stefanovich noted that, combining both editions, the Kazan edition alone “contains what the London and Kozhanchik editions separately give, moreover, being free from the shortcomings of these both editions”50.

Considering all previous editions of Stoglav not without flaws, Professor N. I. Subbotin made his attempt to publish Stoglav in 189051. He considered the main drawback of the Kazan edition to be that it was based on a list not of the 16th, but of the 17th century, but, as D. Stefanovich rightly noted later, the list of the 17th century, which was the basis of the Kazan edition52, is closer to the original than the list, published by N. I. Subbotin53, although the latter belongs to the 16th century54.

N. I. Subbotin’s edition was made according to three copies of the 16th century, and the text was typed in Church Slavonic type, observing all the features of the writing of that time, that is, with titles, erics, etc. This greatly complicates the reading of the monument. D. Stefanovich reproached N. I. Subbotin for the fact that the publisher chose the worst of the three lists of Stoglav as the main one, and for the two best he gave options. This happened because, in addition to scientific goals, N. I. Subbotin also pursued polemical ones. The publication was carried out for the sake of the Old Believers, who were given the opportunity to compare the printed text with the manuscript from the Khludov library in the Nikolsky Edinoverie Monastery in order to dispel their doubts about the accuracy of the transfer of Stoglav's text. Such mistrust could well be explained by the fact that all publications were carried out under the supervision of the censorship of the Orthodox Church. In any case, according to D. Stefanovich, the publisher's fascination with polemical goals caused damage to the scientific dignity of his publication55.

After the Subbotinsky edition, two more publications appeared, each of which conveys Stoglav's text from only one single copy. The first one, named Makarievsky stoglanovnik56, is a publication of a list of 1595 from the Novgorod Sophia-fraternal library. In it, the text of Stoglav differs from other lists in the special arrangement of chapters. The second publication is a facsimile reproduction of one of Stoglav's lists57.

Of all Stoglav's publications, preference has to be given to the Kazan edition, which rightly received an approving assessment from specialists. It was made on the basis of 7 lists, 4 of which are lists of the full text of Stoglav, and the other three are excerpts, and quite significant ones.

This edition of Stoglav's text pursues only a limited goal - the publication of Stoglav according to the Kazan edition, as the closest to the original text. There are a number of reasons for this approach to publishing. Stoglav's publications have now become a bibliographic rarity. There is no commentary edition of this monument. There is no source study (including textual) research of Stoglav in modern Soviet historiography, in historical and historical-legal science. The task of such a study, which, of course, will require much effort and time58, is a matter for the future.

The proposed publication is accompanied by comments necessary for the modern reader for a primary understanding of the content of the chapters of this most valuable source on socio-economic and political history medieval Russia, on the history of Russian written and customary law.

The text is given according to the Kazan edition of 1911. It is based on a 17th century list. Lengthy edition (list No. 1). Discrepancies are given according to the lists of the specified edition:

No. 2-list of the Extended Edition of the 17th century. This list contains chapters 1-56;

No. 3-list of the XVIII century. Brief edition;

No. 4 - list of 1848 of the Brief edition;

No. 5 - the list of the Extended edition;

AI - a list of the end of the XVI century. Extended edition. Discrepancies are given for four chapters (ch. ch. 66-69) of this list, published in Acts of History, vol. 1, No. 155;

In this edition, the following order of publication of Stoglav is adopted:

1) the text is printed according to the rules of modern spelling;

2) punctuation marks are arranged according to modern punctuation rules;

3) alphabetic designations of numbers are replaced by digital ones;

4) titles are disclosed and all abbreviations are deciphered;

5) misprints that had crept into the Kazan edition and noticed by D. Stefanovich were corrected;

6) discrepancies that are not essential for the historical and legal analysis of the monument or for understanding the text of the document are omitted.

1 Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. M., 1900, vol. 2, half volume 1, p. 782.
2 Stefanovich D. About Stoglav. Its origin, editions and composition. On the history of monuments of ancient Russian church law. SPb., 1909, p. 89.
3 Cherepnin L. V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian state in the XVI - XVIII centuries. M., 1978, p. 79.
4 Cit. by: Stoglav, ed. 2nd, Kazan, 1887, p. III.
5 Theophylact Lopatinsky. Exposure of schismatic untruth. M., 1745, l 146-06.
6 Nikephoros Theotoks. Answers to the questions of the Old Believers. M., 1800, p. 235.
7 Belyaev I. V. On the historical significance of the acts of the Moscow Cathedral of 1551 - Russian conversation. M. 1858, part IV, p. eighteen.
8 Bezsonov P. A. News in Russian literature - Stoglav's edition. - Day, 1863, No. 10, p. 16.
9 Stefanovich D. Decree, op., p. 272.
10 See: Plato (Levshin). Brief Russian church history. T. 2.M., 1829, p. thirty.
11 See, for example: Innokenty (Smirnov), Bishop. The outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century. T. 2. M., 1849, p. 434-435.
12-13 Stoglav. Kazan, 1862, p. one.
14 Belyaev I. V. Two extracts from the Chronicle Collection. - In the book: Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia. M., 1850, part 1, part. VI, p. 31.
15 Belyaev I. V. Stoglav and the mandate lists of the 1551 council code. Orthodox Review, 1863. T. XI, p. 189-215.
16 See, in particular: I. D. Dobrotvorsky, Canonical book Stoglav or non-canonical? - Orthodox interlocutor, 1863. Part 1, p. 317-336, 421-441; there. Part 2, p. 76-98.
17 Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow. History of the Russian Church. T. 6. M., 1870, p. 219-246.
18 Zhdanov I. N. Materials for the history of the Stoglavy Cathedral. - Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1876, July (part 186, section 2), p. 50-89; August (part 186, part 2), p. 173-225. Reprinted: Zhdanov I.N. Soch. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1904.
19 Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th – 17th centuries, p. 81; Schmidt S. O. Formation of the Russian autocracy. Studies of the socio-political history of the time of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1973, p. 181.
20 Lebedev N. Stoglavy Cathedral (1551). The experience of presenting its internal history. - Readings in the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment, January 1882, M, 1882.
21 Shpakov A. Ya. Stoglav. To the question of the official or unofficial origin of this monument. Kyiv, 1903.
22 Gromoglasov I. M. A new attempt to solve the old question about the origin of Stoglav. Ryazan, 1905.
23 Bochkarev V. Stoglav and the history of the Cathedral of 1551. Historical and canonical essay. Yukhnov, 1906.
24 Latkin V.Y. Lectures on the external history of Russian law. SPb., 1888.
25 Pavlov A. S. The course of church law. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1903, p. 170-174.
26 Golubinsky E. E. History of the Russian Church. T. 2, half volume I, p. 771-795.
27 Nikolsky N. M. History of the Russian Church. M., 1983, p. 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, etc.
28 Essays on Russian culture of the 16th century. Part 2. M., 1977, p. 33-111.
29 Budovnits I. U. Russian journalism of the 16th century. M. - L., 1947, p. 245.
30 See: A. A. Zimin, I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. Essays on the history of Russian socio-political thought in the middle of the XVI century. M., 1958.
31 Zimin A. A. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. Essays on the socio-economic and political history of Russia in the 16th century. M., 1960, p. 99. Life stories

An exclusive study of the site about the nationality, religion, dynamics of socio-economic indicators in the country on a variety of examples and comparisons.

We invite everyone to join our communities on other resources:

Please, a simple request: invite two of your friends to the group!

In contact with:

amplification process state power inevitably raised again 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" 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 assembled, at which the royal questions were read, drawn up 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 king and his entourage were worried about whether it was worthy for monasteries to acquire land, to receive various preferential letters. By decision of the cathedral, royal assistance to monasteries with villages and other possessions ceased. i.e. - at interest, which deprived the monasteries of a permanent income.

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

The program of tsarist reforms outlined by the Elected Rada was rejected in the most significant points by the Stoglavy Cathedral. 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 cathedral), 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. Thus, the control of the royal power over the movement of church land funds was established, 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.

The fate of the reforms of the 50s of the XVI century.

It is generally accepted that the reforms of the Chosen Rada were carried out in order to strengthen the social position of the nobility as opposed to the conservative boyars, which hindered this process. V.B. Kobrin managed to prove that practically all strata of society were interested in strengthening the state. Therefore, the reforms were carried out not to please any one class and not against any class. The reforms meant the formation of a Russian class-representative state. At the same time, a reasonable balance in the distribution of power between a number of estates (Zemsky Sobors), the government (the Chosen Rada) and the tsar was implied and implemented in practice. It took time to establish this system. Due to a number of circumstances, the balance of power structures became unstable already in the first half of the 1950s. Reformist activity was brought to naught in the 60s by external (Livonian war) and internal (oprichnina) reasons. Much here also meant the personality of Tsar Ivan - a man of statesmanship, but with an exaggeratedly developed lust for power, and, perhaps, on this basis, with some mental deviations. Subsequently, as if to justify their actions, Ivan IV wrote that Adashev and Sylvester"They themselves became sovereigns as they wanted, but the state was removed from me: the sovereign was the word yaz, but he did not own anything." However, modern historians give him a slightly different place in public affairs. "The participation of Ivan IV in government activities in the 60s does not contradict the fact that many reforms (perhaps even most of them) were conceived by the leaders of the Chosen Rada. The main merit of Ivan IV in these years was that he called for the rule of such politicians, like Adashev and Sylvester, and, apparently, really obeyed their influence," writes V.B. Kobrin.

The break with those close to him did not come immediately. Their fluctuations during Ivan's illness in 1553, tense relations with the relatives of the tsarina Zakharyins and, possibly, with herself lead to psychological incompatibility. The desire to pursue an independent policy - foreign and domestic - to political incompatibility. By the autumn of 1559, reform activity ceased. In 1560 there is a denouement. Sylvester was sent into exile: first in Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, then to Solovetsky. A.Adashev was sent to the army operating in Livonia, but was soon arrested along with his brother Danil. Only death (1561) saved the former head of the Chosen Rada from further persecution.

The Stoglavy Cathedral is the most important event not only in the history of Russia, but also of the Russian Orthodox Church. It took place in 1551. It is called hundred-headed, since it includes 100 parts from decrees (acts or codes) - separate chapters. Stoglav is a kind of legislative act that concerned many areas of life. And the Church had to strictly follow this document. However, some introductions remained to exist only on paper; in practice, no one followed them.

Venue and participants

The Stoglavy Cathedral was held from February 23 to May 11, 1551 in Moscow. Everything happened in the Kremlin, in the Assumption Cathedral. It was attended by Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the higher clergy, princes and representatives of the Boyar Duma. Among the clergy present were:

Metropolitan Macarius - chairman;
Archbishop Akaki from the Diocese of Tver;
Archbishop Gury from the Smolensk diocese;
Archbishop Kasyan from the Ryazan diocese;
Archbishop Kiprian of the Perm Diocese;
Archbishop Nikandr of the Rostov Diocese;
Archbishop Savva from the Diocese of Krutitsy;
Archbishop Tryphon from the Suzdal diocese;
Archbishop Theodosius of the Novgorod diocese;
Archbishop Theodosius of the Diocese of Kolomna.

History of creation

Ivan the Terrible at the beginning of 1551 began to convene the Stoglavy Cathedral. He took on this mission because he was convinced that he was the successor of the Byzantine emperors. In the second chapter of Stoglav there is a mention that the hierarchs experienced great joy at the royal invitation. First of all, this is due to the need to resolve many issues that were especially significant in the middle of the 16th century. These included the strengthening of church discipline among the clergy, questions about the powers of the church court. It was necessary to fight against the vicious behavior of the clergy and other representatives of the church. There were also many problems with the usury of the monasteries. The struggle against the remnants of paganism continued. In addition, there was a need for the unification of church rites and services. The order of the correspondence of church books, the construction of churches and the writing of icons should be strictly regulated. Therefore, the Stoglavy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church was necessary.

The cathedral began with a solemn prayer service on the occasion of the opening. It happened in the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Then Ivan the Terrible read out his address to the participants, which can be regarded as his early writing. In it one could already notice the artistic style of the king. He talked about his early orphanhood, the mistreatment of the boyars, repented of his sins and asked for repentance. After that, the king presented a new code of laws, which the council quickly approved.

To date, researchers cannot name the exact date when the cathedral began its work. The first chapter says February 23rd. There are two versions of what happened that day:

The meeting of the council began.
The Council Code was drawn up.

All work proceeded in two stages: a meeting (and discussion of issues) and processing of the material.

The first chapter also contains sample program: the cathedral gives answers to the king's questions. He put forward various issues for conciliar discussion. Participants could only express their opinion on the proposed topics. In total, the king proposed 69 questions. The compiler of Stoglav obviously did not set himself the task of fully revealing the corrections with which he worked. Instead of answers, the compiler offers documents in accordance with which decisions were made. Canonical literature did not allow decisions that were not in accordance with it. Some literature is reflected in the first chapter:

the rules of the holy apostles, the fathers of the church;
the rules that were established at the councils of the clergy;
teachings of canonized saints.

Structure of Stoglav:

1-4th chapters - information about the opening of the cathedral, participants, reasons and goals;
royal questions were in two parts, the first 37 are reflected in the 5th chapter, the second 32 - in the 41st chapter;
the answers are in chapters 6-40 and 42-98;
chapter 99 speaks of an embassy to the Trinity Monastery;
Chapter 100 contains Josaph's answer. He offered a number of comments and additions to Stoglav.

Getting acquainted with Stoglav, one can appreciate how strong the role of the king was. But most of all you can see how different the opinions are between the tsar and Macarius. Each of them pursued their goals and tried to move them forward.

Goals of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 considered the overcoming of "disorders" in the life of the Russian Church as the main goal. It was necessary to improve and streamline all aspects of spiritual life. During the work, a huge list of questions and messages was listened to. All of them described the shortcomings and difficulties of church-people life. Council discussed issues church government, compliance church charter in worship. To carry out the last task, it was necessary to elect priestly elders - deans. In addition, much attention was paid to the problems of choosing competent and worthy servants of the altar. Questions arose about the creation of religious schools, where the clergy would be trained. This would also contribute to the improvement of literacy among the population.

Decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Stoglavy Cathedral collected and systematized all the norms of the current law of the Church. Stoglav's decrees speak of bishop's duties, ecclesiastical court, discipline of the clergy, monks and laity, divine services, monastic estates, public education, and so on.

Morality and life control

The riots that discredited the church and threatened its future were nevertheless recognized by the cathedral. That is why the institution of priestly elders was introduced everywhere. In each city, the number of elders was determined individually. So, for Moscow, 7 priestly elders were determined. This number corresponded to the number of cathedrals that were central in their district. The priestly elders also had assistants - tenths. The latter were chosen from among the priests. In villages and volosts, only tenth priests were elected. Duties were fixed in Stoglav: control over the proper conduct of services in subordinate churches and deaneries of priests.

An important decision was also made about "double" monasteries. Both men and women lived in them.

The Stoglavy Cathedral of the Russian Church condemned the atrocities of the people and the remnants of paganism: court fights, drunkenness, buffoon performances, gambling.

The resolutions of the Stoglavy Cathedral also concerned heretical and godless books. These included Secreta secretorum, "Aristotle" - a collection of medieval wisdom, astronomical maps of Emmanuel Ben Jacob. It was also forbidden to communicate with foreigners.

worship

Most of the council's decisions relate to worship.

Double-finger addition (with the sign of the cross) was legalized precisely in 1551. The double hallelujah was also legalized. After a while, these decisions were the main arguments of the Old Believers.

There is an opinion that it was Maxim the Greek who had a hand in ensuring that the sacred books began to be corrected. It was also decided to open a Moscow printing house. But she did not last long. It published revised books.

Icon "Holy Trinity"

During the council, the very important issue of the iconography of the Holy Trinity was also considered. It consisted in discussing the traditional Orthodox image of the Trinity as three angels.

Some researchers believe that the participants in the council did not give a definite answer, or the issue remained unresolved. We know one thing for sure: only the inscription "Holy Trinity" remained without inscriptions and crosshairs. However, the fathers could not give a theological justification for this prescription, referring to Andrei Rublev and ancient examples. It turned out weak point Stoglavy Cathedral, which led to sad consequences. Most of the surviving icons of the Holy Trinity do not have cross-shaped haloes and distinguishing inscriptions.

Another important issue, inextricably linked with the writing of the Trinity, was the question of the "depicability of the Deity" (chapter 43). The text of the decree refers, in its direct meaning, as if to the Divinity of Christ. But the problem is that the Divine is indescribable. Most likely, this refers to an unknown image. Indeed, under Stoglav there were three manners of depiction: traditional, Fatherland and New Testament.

The New Testament Trinity has the most famous image in the Annunciation Cathedral on a four-part icon. It was written by the masters by order of Archpriest Sylvester. It was impossible not to notice this image then. In addition, the king referred to this icon when the issue of depicting non-holy people on icons was discussed.

The cathedral had reasons to hush up the iconography of the Holy Trinity. Firstly, no one had a clear idea how to depict the Deity on the icons. Secondly, some researchers argue that the cathedral and the metropolitan did not have unanimity.

church court

The relationship between spiritual and civil authorities was determined. This happened on the principle of the church's independence in church affairs. Stoglavy Cathedral decided to cancel the "untried" charters. As a result, all parish clergy and monasteries became subject to the jurisdiction of their bishops. Secular courts could not prosecute clerics. But since they could not immediately abolish the existing system, they decided to give the priests the right to participate in the courts through their own elected elders and sots. The last forgot to determine the roles in court.

Church land tenure

Apparently, the issue of land ownership was raised at the council, but it was not included in the Council Code. But after a while, the 101st chapter appeared - "The Sentence on the Estates." In this document, the tsar and the metropolitan reflected their desire to reduce the growth of church land holdings. Five main decisions were enshrined in the last chapter:

Archbishops, bishops and monasteries do not have the right to buy from someone else's fiefdoms without royal permission.
Land contributions are allowed for the remembrance of the soul, but it is necessary to stipulate the condition and procedure for their redemption by relatives.
The estates of some regions do not have the right to sell estates to people in other cities. It is also forbidden to give patrimonies to monasteries without a report to the king.
The verdict has no retroactive effect, it does not apply to transactions made before the Stoglavy Cathedral.
A sanction was established for violation of the contract: the estate is confiscated in favor of the sovereign, and the money is not returned to the seller.

The significance of the cathedral

The reforms of Ivan the Terrible were of great importance:

conclusions

The Stoglavy Cathedral, in short, fixed the legal norms of the internal life of the Church. A kind of code of relations between the clergy, society and the state was also developed. The Russian Church acquired independence.

At the council, it was confirmed that the two-fingered sign and the double hallelujah are correct and saving. But the controversy over the correct spelling did not subside for a long time.

The Stoglavy Church Cathedral demanded that all icons be painted according to the old model, without making any changes. At the same time, it was necessary to improve the quality of icon painting, as well as the moral level of icon painters. The entire 43rd chapter was devoted to this problem. Sometimes she delved into a variety of details of relationships and life situations. This question remains the most lengthy and obscure.

Zemsky and Stoglavy Sobors became equal.

For Ivan the Terrible, it was necessary to limit church and monastic land ownership. The state needed free land to provide estates for the growing military service class. At the same time, the hierarchy was going to firmly defend the property inviolability of the Church. And also it was necessary to legitimize the many emerging church transformations.

The Stoglavy Cathedral cannot be called successful, since many of the issues discussed have become a cause of contention between the Old Believers and the Orthodox. And over time, this controversy only flared up.

After 100 years

Ancient Orthodox tradition it was now shielded from the distortions and changes that manifested themselves abroad. Discussing the need to introduce a two-fingered sign, the council repeated the Greek formula of the 12th-13th centuries, that if someone does not make the sign of the cross with two fingers, like our Christ, he will be damned. The audience believed that such a correction of spiritual disorders contributes to bringing all spheres of church life to grace-filled fullness, perfection. For the next decades, the cathedral was an indisputable authority.

Therefore, the activities of the Stoglavy Cathedral were very disliked by the followers of Patriarch Nikon, the reformers and persecutors of the church. After 100 years - in 1666-1667 - at the Moscow Cathedral, the New Believers not only canceled the oath that was taken by those who were not baptized with two fingers, but also completely rejected the entire Stoglavy Cathedral, condemning some dogmas.

The Moscow Cathedral argued that the provisions of Stoglav were written unreasonably, simply and ignorantly. It is not surprising that soon many doubted the authenticity of this collection. For a long time, a heated dispute between schismatics - the Old Believers and representatives of the official Church did not subside. The first elevated the cathedral to the rank of an unshakable law. The latter condemned the decision as the fruit of error. All participants in the Stoglavy Cathedral were accused of ignorance. Wanting to wash away the shame, the opponents of the decrees put forward the version that the cathedral of 1551 was not involved in Stoglav.

History of Stoglav Cathedral

The Stoglavy Cathedral, which took place in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow from February 23 to May 11, 1551, is the most important event not only in the history of Russia, but also of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Remark 1

The name "Stoglavy" comes from the number of parts (separate chapters) included in it. At its core, it represented a certain legislative act that regulated many areas of life, and was binding on the church. However, some of the adopted introductions remained only on paper.

The participants of the Stoglavy Cathedral, in addition to Tsar Ivan the Terrible, were princes, higher clergy, as well as representatives of the Boyar Duma.

All work took place in two stages:

meeting to discuss issues
direct processing of the material.

According to Stoglav's structure:

Chapters 1-4 contained information about the opening of the cathedral, participants, reasons and goals;
royal questions were in two parts, the first 37 are reflected in the 5th chapter, the second 32 - in the 41st chapter;
the answers are in chapters 6-40 and 42-98;
chapter 99 speaks of an embassy to the Trinity Monastery;
Chapter 100 contains the answer of Iosaph, who offered a number of comments and additions.

Goals

The Stoglavy Cathedral was, first of all, necessary for resolving many significant issues of all aspects of spiritual life. Among them are the strengthening of spiritual discipline in the ranks of the clergy, the scope of the powers of the church court, the fight against the remnants of paganism and the vicious behavior of the clergy, the need for unification church services and rituals, regulation of the construction of churches and writing icons.

The council was also called upon to discuss the problems of church administration, usury of monasteries, the election of deans - priestly elders, as well as worthy and competent servants of the altar.

The question was raised about the need to create religious schools in order to train the clergy. All this would also contribute to raising literacy among the population.

Solutions

The result of the Stoglavy Council was the collection and systematization of the norms of the current church law.

The unrest that discredited the church was also recognized by the cathedral, and in order to eliminate them, the positions of priestly elders were introduced, determined for each city on an individual basis. The positions of assistants to priestly elders were also introduced - tenth, elected from among the priests. Their duties included control over the conduct of services in subordinate churches.

Remark 2

A decision was made on "double" monasteries, where both men and women could live.

The Stoglavy Cathedral condemned the remnants of paganism in the form of buffoonery, drunkenness and gambling, and also forbade communication with foreigners.

Remark 3

But, of course, most of the council's decisions concerned worship services.

For example, two-fingered addition with the sign of the cross was legalized just then. Also important was the question of the iconography of the Holy Trinity, namely in the discussion of the traditional Orthodox image of the Trinity in the form of three angels. However, there is no information on a definite answer, and most likely this issue has remained unresolved.

As for the Church Court, the result of the Stoglavy Cathedral was the definition of the relationship between spiritual and civil authorities. The principle of church independence in church affairs was applied. The "unjudged" charters were abolished, as a result of which all monasteries became subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops. But secular courts could not judge clerics.

The Council also discussed the issue of church land ownership, but it was not included in the Council Code. However, the 101st chapter was later added under the title "Sentence on patrimonies", in which the main decisions on the issue were fixed.

The value of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Stoglavy Cathedral was a significant event, fixing the legal norms of the inner life of the Church. It was also important to develop a kind of code of relations between the clergy, society and the state. In the end, the Russian Church now gained independence.

Remark 4

The Zemsky and Stoglavy Sobors became equal.

Also, church and monastic land ownership was finally legally demarcated, which was especially important for Ivan the Terrible, since the state was in dire need of free land to provide estates for the expanding military service class, and the church firmly defended its property inviolability.

The Stoglavy Cathedral was not entirely successful in terms of the emergence of discord between the Orthodox and the Old Believers on many issues discussed. For a long time, disputes between representatives of the official church and schismatics did not subside. However, for its time, the holding of the Stoglavy Cathedral was very important and relevant.

Revealing the invaluable 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, first of all, he 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 shortcomings in society. Thus, the call of the Apostle Paul was fully fulfilled: “Therefore, having such a cloud of witnesses around us, let us cast off from ourselves every burden and sin that stumbles us, and with patience we will walk the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).

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 the 7059th (1551) month of February on the 23rd day<…>There were many questions and answers about the various church ranks in the reigning city of Moscow in the royal polatekh from the faithful and blessed tsar and sovereign and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, autocrat to his father Macarius Metropolitan of All Russia and to the entire Holy Cathedral<…>Russian Metropolia of those 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”.

E. Golubinsky recognizes the date of February 23 as the beginning of the work of the Council. Priest D. Stefanovich, very carefully examining the contents of Stoglav, says in his master's thesis that the Council began in the first days of January 1551, that it could have ended by February 23, and for the period from February 23 to May 11, the formation and editing of Stoglav's materials.

The Acts of this Council are divided into one hundred chapters, thanks to which this monument of ecclesiastical legal thought has gained great significance. A similar desire for monumentality is also characteristic of the Sudebnik approved at that time, which also contains one hundred chapters. We encounter such a phenomenon both in the theological literature of Byzantium and in Russian monuments contemporary with Stoglav.

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 is said that the work of the Stoglavy Cathedral was preceded by prayers and prayers in the cathedral church of the Most Pure Theotokos, after which the tsar, speaking of disorders, 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 Rule, many Church rites are not performed in full, not according to the sacred rule and not according to the Rule. 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 in the holy churches, except for the sacred and Divine rules, is created, 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) talk about 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<…>the grace of the Holy Spirit and touch 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. it church court, episcopal 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 the sake of the 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 is given religious processions during the whole year.

The council deals with such an 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 childhood 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 a review on them 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. Letters from the end of the reign of John III and Basil III were 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). Approving the jurisdiction of the clergy of the higher hierarchy, Stoglav makes an important reservation: “And at which time the metropolitan will not be helped, sometimes in his place he orders to judge the archimandrites, and abbots, and abbesses, and archpriests, and the entire priestly and monastic rank in spiritual matters to the Sarsky and Podonsky 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, Vladimirsky 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 about the importance and necessity spiritual education and teaching, so that “the priests and the deacons and the clerks do 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 first 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 ordered 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 Holy Scripture and liturgical texts, the works of Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Metropolitan Nikita of Herakle, Sts. Reverend Joseph Volotsky and others. Therefore, 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 speech of the king, “the compiler of Stoglav did not have the text of this speech at hand and he himself reproduced it 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, new literary works were often compiled in this way. 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 quotations.

Observations on the language of Stoglav's decrees 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 the high literary language, basically Church Slavonic. At the same time, elements of colloquial speech can be found in Stoglav, and not only cliches assimilated by business writing, but the living 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 for 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 in such a way 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), the two-fingering when making the sign of the cross (ch. 31, ss. 294-295), the decree on not cutting the beard (ch. 40, ss. 301-302), which before the present time is kept in the Old Believer environment. Doubts about the correctness of Alleluia singing took place even in Novgorod under Archbishop Gennady (1484-1504), and the custom of double Alleluia was once in 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. The 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 31 of 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. His predecessor to correct deficiencies in Russia was, according to E. Golubinsky, St. Vladimir's Cathedral 1274 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 the people’s assembly with a famous speech, reminiscent in part of the speech of John the Terrible at the Stoglav 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 of concern Orthodox person that time. As a source for studying the church life of the 16th 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 has 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 Fathers of the Church, etc. The Stoglavy Cathedral 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.

Application

“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, the autocrat and with the blessing of His Grace Makariy 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 on the settlement beyond Neglinna and in Chertoriy of three elders of Dimitrievsky priest Theodore on Vozdvizhenskaya street, and from John the Baptist from Orbat, priest Leonty, and from Chertoriy from the Olekseyev 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 Yauza there are 107 churches, and 108 priests, and 70 deacons and all the priests and deacons in Bolshoy Posad and beyond 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 towns and suburbs 6 hundred 42 churches, and how to count the temples of the headman and the priests and deacons of the fifties and tenth priests and deacons and the entire Moscow kingdom of both cities and Zapoliya according to your reasoning according to those holy churches ”(GIM. Sobr. A S. Uvarova 578/482/, in ll. 308–309 rev.).

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 the 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 majority of<…>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 of the 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 IV and V 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 Rußland. 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.

See also Acts collected in the libraries and archives of the Russian Empire by the Archaeographic Expedition. T. 1 (1294–1598). SPb., 1836, ss. 226–227; Ignatius, Archbishop of Voronezh and Zadonsk. History of schisms in the Russian Church. Part 1. Ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1862, ss. 247–252.

The appointment of deans is one of the very specific and consistent conciliar acts. Therefore, the statement of Yu. Keldysh seems strange, who believes: “On the whole, Stoglav’s “decrees” were “too general and vague”, they did not contain “practical measures to achieve the set goal.” The significance of the Stoglavy Cathedral consisted mainly in putting forward urgent tasks and drawing everyone's attention to them. Most of these tasks remained unresolved even a hundred years later, when the issues of religious worship were again raised in a broad state plan. - Keldysh Yu. Renaissance tendencies in Russian music of the 16th century // Theoretical observations on the history of music. Digest of articles. M., 1978, p. 185.

Even earlier than the Council, Saint Macarius spoke with a detailed argument about the non-alienation of real estate from the Church, which was then reflected in the cathedral materials ( S/ubbotin/ N.I. To materials for the history of Stoglav and his time // Chronicles of Russian literature and antiquity, published by N. Tikhonravov. T. 5. Mixture. M., 1863, ss. 126–136; Moiseeva G. N. The senior edition of the "Scripture" of Metropolitan Macarius to Ivan IV // TODRL. T. 16. M.–L., 1960, ss. 466–472; Russian feudal archive of the XIV - the first third of the XVI century. M., 1988, ss. 717–748).

He is. Cancellation of tarkhans…, p. 54. For the text of the charter, see Acts of feudal landownership and economy of the XIV-XVI centuries. T. 1. M., 1951, ss. 209–210. According to priest M. Gorchakov, this letter laid the foundation for “the development of the metropolitan estates into the form of a special institution in the state, which appeared by the end of the 16th century. in the form of patriarchal estates”. - Holy M. Gorchakov Sakharov A. M. Russian Spiritual Culture in the 16th Century // VI. 1974, no. 9, p. 126).

Andreev N. Metropolitan Macarius as a figure of religious art // Collection of articles on archeology and Byzantine studies, published by the N.P. Kondakov Institute. T. 7. Prague, 1935, p. 242.

See History of Russian Music. T. I. Ancient Russia of the XI-XVII centuries. M., 1983, ss. 133–136; Gardner I. A. Liturgical singing of the Russian Orthodox Church. Essence, system and history. T. 1. Jordanville, 1978, ss. 445–454.

Miropolsky S. History outline parochial school from its first appearance in Russia to the present. Issue. 3. Education and schools in Russia in the XV-XVII centuries. SPb., 1985, p. 36 See also Kollmann J. E. The Stoglav Council and Parish Priests // Russian history. T. 76. 1980, pp. 66–69; Essays on the history of the school and the pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M., 1989, ss. 22, 54.

Bogdanova E. N. To the question of the use of impersonal sentences in the Old Russian language on the material of the monument "Stoglav" // Stalinabad State Ped. institute. T. G. Shevchenko. Scientific notes. T. 19. Philological series. Issue. 9. Stalinabad, 1957, ss. 123–198; She is. Syntax of Stoglav (Author's abstract). M., 1958).

Mitrov P. The famous ancient Russian priest (Essays on the life and work of the Moscow Archpriest Sylvester) // Wanderer. T. I. Ch. 2. 1903, p. 544; Cherepnin L. V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the 16th–17th centuries. M., 1978, p. 81.

See about it Macarius, archbishop Lithuanian and Vilna. The Rule of the Stoglavy Council on two-facedness from a historical point of view. M., 1874; He is. History of the Russian Church… Vol. 8, ss. 91–142; Information about Stoglav Cathedral // KhCh. Part 2. 1852, ss. 271–294.

In the middle of the XVI century. these issues were resolved at the intra-church level, and a century later at the inter-church level, and Russian liturgical practice was brought into line with Eastern: later Moscow Cathedral 1666/7 We have no right to repeat such an accusation in relation to Metropolitan Macarius, who not only was well acquainted with ancient Russian writing, but also had a significant influence on its further development. - Serebryanskiy N. Essays on the history of monastic life in the Pskov land // Choidr. Book. 3. 1908, p. 80.

At the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, oaths to the old rites were cancelled. See About the abolition of oaths to the old rites. Report of the Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod Nikodim at the Local Council on May 31, 1971 // ZhMP. 1971, no. 7, ss. 63–73; Local Council Russian Orthodox Church. May 30 - June 2, 1971 Documents, materials, chronicle. M., ed. Moscow Patriarchate, 1972, ss. 129–131.

Chaev N. S. Comments A. I. Kopaneva, B. A. Romanova and L. V. Cherepnina. M.–L., 1952, ss. 120–122, 124.

There, ss. 113, 134; Bakhrushin S. V. Scientific works. T. 2. Articles on the economic, social and political history of the Russian centralized state of the XV-XVII centuries. M., 1954, p. 269.

18.08.2020

Psychology of love and love

The most interesting:

Vanga's predictions over the years about Russia and the world, determining fate by the date of birth of Edgar Cayce about the financial well-being and integrity of Russia

Online fortune-telling "Yes - No", free virtual fortune-telling

Divination oracle sphere. Divination online. The meaning of tarot cards in the layout for love