N Sorsky taught about influence. Political and legal views of nonpossessors (Nil Sorsky, Vassian Patrikeev, Maxim Grek)

POLITICAL AND PUBLICISTIC STRUGGLE OF THE "NON-ACHAULTERS" AND "JOSIFLYANS" // Zolotukhina N. The development of Russian medieval political and legal thought. - M.: Legal literature, 1985

1. THE POLITICAL AND PUBLICISTIC STRUGGLE OF THE "NON-POSSESSORS" AND THE "JOSIFLYANS"

a) Socio-political doctrine of Nil Sorsky

Nil Sorsky (1433-1508) is considered to be the founder of the doctrine of "non-possessiveness". Biographical information about him is extremely scarce. Researchers define his social origin in different ways [Thus, A. S. Arkhangelsky, referring to the word "villager" used by Nil himself as a self-characteristic, made a conclusion about his peasant origin (see: Arkhangelsky A. S. Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeev, St. Petersburg, 1882, p. 3); A. A. Zimin believes that Nil Sorsky was the brother of the prominent embassy clerk Andrei Maikov (see: Zimin A. A. Large feudal estate and socio-political struggle in Russia. M., 1971, p. 60)].

The program of "non-possessiveness" as a current of socio-political thought is heterogeneous. But there is no doubt that the main ideas of "non-possessiveness" were formed under the influence of the anti-feudal reform movement and therefore in many respects expressed the interests of the exploited strata of society. Most modern researchers see in the theory of "non-possessiveness", formulated in its main provisions by its ideologue Nil Sorsky [The works of Nil Sorsky are published: "Nil Sorsky's Tradition and Charter" (see the publication of M. S. Borozkova-Maykova. St. Petersburg, 1912) and " The Messages of Nil Sorsky" (see: Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature, vol. XXIX. L., 1974, pp. 125-144).], a definite expression of the interests of the black-mossed peasantry, who most tangibly suffered during this period from the monastic land expansion. The activation of the feudal land policy of the monasteries was expressed not only in the appropriation of the black-mowed land, but also in the conversion of the peasants who sat on it into dependent people.

The basic set of socio-political ideas of "non-possessiveness" precisely contributed to the popularity of this current of social thought in the lowest social strata of feudal society. Subsequently, it was in this environment that the heretics formulated a utopian social ideal on the basis of the acquisitive teaching.

In modern literature, the opinion has been established, which was formed even in pre-revolutionary Russian science, that the “non-possessors” were supporters of feudal fragmentation in their political convictions, while their opponents, the “possessors” (“Josephites”), defended a unifying policy and supported centralization. In our opinion, this point of view is clearly erroneous.

Neil's methodological positions are in many respects close to a number of provisions of the natural law school. At the center of his theoretical constructions is an individual with a complex of psychobiological invariable qualities (passions). Such passions (according to the terminology of the Neil, - thoughts) he has eight: gluttony, fornication, love of money, anger, sadness, despondency, vanity and pride. Neil especially criticizes one of the passions - "love of money". It is "outside of nature" and appears only as a result of an improperly organized social life, in which wealth (accumulation of property) is given functions that are completely uncharacteristic of its nature - honor and respect. In his opinion, "love of money" gave rise to a fatal vice for the human race - "acquisition", and the task of a righteous person is to rationally (reasonably) overcome it6.

Today, in the literature, both Soviet and foreign, there are different points of view regarding what kind of acquisition is condemned by the Nile: only personal or also monastic.

An analysis of his social program shows that Neil's general non-possessive position is consistent and consistent. The ideal variant seems to the thinker to be the early Christian community, the basis of the social organization of which was the common property and the obligatory labor of each of its members (“the necessary needs” acquired “from the righteous labors of handicrafts”).

No types of labor activity are condemned by the Nile. If no one is infringed on the rights, then any work is allowed and encouraged. The main thing is to be able to be satisfied with the fruits of "doing one's own" in personal "needs" and not allow forcible appropriation of the results of someone else's labor ("by violence from other people's labors we collect ... to our benefit"), which, regardless of goals, is a violation of divine commandments. Neil does not share the widespread belief in the then society about the "good" use of private property for the purpose of almsgiving. The denial of alms is the logical conclusion of his construction - a person who does not have anything superfluous ("but only necessary"), who earns only his daily bread with his labor, should not do alms. And the very principle of almsgiving is incompatible with non-acquisitiveness. The poor cannot do alms, for "non-acquisition of the higher is such alms." A non-possessive person can only provide spiritual Help and support: "spiritual alms and a fraction of the higher is bodily, as the soul is higher than the body."

Do these statements refer only to an individual who embarked on the path of carrying out monastic deeds (monks), or do they mean the usual form of a monastic corporation - a monastery? N.V. Sinitsyna rightly notes that in order to determine the position of "non-possessiveness" of one or another publicist, first of all, it is necessary to understand what significance in his system "is the idea of ​​a monastery as a social organism and its connection with the environment." The status of the modern Nilu monastery is clearly condemned by the thinker. Here his platform is quite consistent and does not allow any deviations. He condemns the existing monastic form of organization of black monasticism. Although the monastery is a traditional form of association of people who have decided to leave the world, but now it has lost its significance, as it stands on the path of "impoverishment", since it has obviously fallen into the affliction of "love of money" and cares not about the spiritual, but about the "external": " about the attraction of villages, and about the maintenance of many estates, and other things to the world of interweaving ", which directly leads people who trust him to "mental damage", and sometimes even to bodily death ("multiply the love of money for the sake of not only pious life, but also about Faith has sinned mentally and suffered bodily). This state of the monasteries does not correspond to the goals and objectives for which they arose, therefore Nil prefers skit-making (“life is silent, carelessly mortified by everyone”), in which all people united for spiritual purposes fully ensure the achievement of a harsh labor non-possessive ideal. There is only one reason for the negative attitude towards the traditional form: the disease of "love of money", which seems to the Nile indestructible in large monasteries. Only approaching nature and working life will help to achieve the ideal of the early Christian community. Nilo's denial of the monastic system as inconsistent with the goals and objectives that determined its emergence, and contrasting it with the monastic skete, based on the principles of free self-government and existing economically only at the expense of the labor of the nomads, caused obvious damage to the theory of the Josephites, who preached a strict hierarchy of the entire church structure with a clear disciplinary and the administrative ratio of all its members, the economic basis for the existence of which were land holdings cultivated by forced labor.

The Nile himself settled far beyond the Volga in a deaf swampy, inaccessible side of the Vologda Territory, where he founded his Nilo-Sorskaya hermitage.

The opposition of the views of "Josephites" and "non-possessors" was expressed in the fact that Neil Sorsky contrasts the Josephite ideal of personal non-possession with the personal labor property of a monk, which provides him with the necessary means of subsistence. Real ascesis is opposed to imaginary asceticism, for the personal non-acquisitiveness of the monks of a rich monastery was based on imaginary, and not on real, poverty.

In this regard, his class and social position met the interests of the small producer to the greatest extent.

On the other hand, the support provided by Nil and his supporters to the government plans for the secularization of church lands testifies to Nil's understanding of the political line of Ivan III, who wanted to justify the plans for the secularization of church and monastery lands in favor of the state with the help of the religious ideal of Nil Sorsky.

In this regard, the assumptions that “non-covetousness” in its class program was associated with the boyars and expressed the ideology of the big feudal nobility seem completely unfounded.

At the Council of 1503, Ivan III, relying on the ideological line of non-possessors, "wish ... from the metropolitan and all the rulers and all the monasteries of the village to take ... and attach to their own", and transfer the clergy to the salary from the royal treasury. These measures, in addition to satisfying the economic claims of the grand duke's power, provided it with full political priority in state affairs. And in all these undertakings, Ivan III was supported by Elder Nil, who began "to say that there would be no villages near the monasteries, but that the blacks would live in the deserts and feed on needlework, and with them the Belozersky hermits." In the event that this point of view was victorious and the Council of Ivan III satisfied the requirements of Ivan III, the process of achieving state unity would be noticeably accelerated, and the church, which is a powerful feudal corporation, would suffer economic and political damage, which would immediately place it in a position subordinate to the state and prevent the independent policy, in many respects not coinciding with the main political line of the Grand Duke.

Therefore, Neil's theoretical position, expressing his social views, gives every reason to consider the nonpossessors as "practical supporters of the Russian centralized state, and by no means its opponents." The hierarchically organized Josephite clergy, in whose hands were all the highest church posts, resisted the secularization plans of Ivan III. The united church forces, headed by Metropolitan Simon, announced in the Sobor answer to the questions of the Grand Duke that church acquisitions "are not sold, nor given away, nor borrowed by anyone, never forever and indestructible to be ...", and if the princes "or someone from the boyars they offend or intervene in something churchly ... may they be damned in this age and in the next.

In a difficult external and internal situation, the cautious and prudent politician Grand Duke Ivan III was forced to come to terms with the decision of the Council. He did not dare to enter into open conflict with the church. He needed it as a powerful ideological weapon in the fight against his political opponents.

As a result, such a large feudal relic as an economically powerful church, which owns huge land holdings, was mothballed, causing considerable damage to the overall process of state unification.

Neil's political views are most clearly seen when analyzing his attitude towards heretics and determining the forms of participation of the church and state in their exposure and persecution.

All participants in the journalistic polemic that flared up around the church-secularization issue were inevitably drawn into the resolution of political problems.

The controversy about the attitude towards heretics and their teachings and behavior caused a revival of disputes in society about free will. "God created man sinless by nature and free by will," asserted the Byzantine philosopher and theologian John of Damascus. I. Damaskin defined freedom as the will, which is naturally (that is, from nature) free, and obedience as an unnatural state, signifying the "submission of the will." A person, according to this philosopher, bears the full measure of responsibility for his deeds, "for everything that depends on us is not a matter of craft, but of our freedom." Gregory of Sinai, a representative of the hesychast philosophical school, considered the free will of a person to be the main driving force in the complex process of self-improvement. The fight against world evil and, in particular, against evil passions that have taken root in a person, can only be done through the realization of a person’s free will, directed towards good and based in its manifestations on such a subjective factor as personal experience.

The postulate of free will was the core problem of the philosophical disputes of Italian religious thinkers of the 15th-16th centuries, who, in confrontation with the official Catholic doctrine, defended the requirement of free will for every person, "which in practice meant the recognition of freedom of thought, creativity, scientific discussions..." .

In Russian political literature, various points of view were expressed regarding the right of each individual to possess free will and personal responsibility for its implementation.

The views of Nil Sorsky are closest to the hesychast philosophical tradition. He connects the category of "spiritual salvation" directly with the presence of a person's free will. Free will is not simply following one's "wants". Such a formulation of the question is impossible for a Christian thinker. Neil means behavior in which every person (and not just a monk) does all "good and noble deeds" "with reason", determining his behavior by free choice based on personal experience and knowledge. For a man who is obedient to someone else's will, acting without reasoning, and "good things happen to evil." Therefore, a reasonable assessment of all actions is mandatory. Blindly following someone else's will is not at all commendable. On the contrary, the mind should be open to knowledge (“before planting an ear, everything hears and create an eye that looks everywhere”).

Neil is characterized by respect for the opinions of others, he denies the senseless following of authorities. A. S. Arkhangelsky also noted that the Nile "not only does not suppress personal thinking (tm) ... on the contrary, it requires it as a necessary and main condition." It is not at all necessary for a student to follow the teacher senselessly in everything. If any of the students, on some important issues of philosophical and practical significance, manages to establish something "greater and most useful", then "let him do this and we rejoice about it."

Neil calls for complete inner independence, personal responsibility for one's actions, deep philosophical reflection and rational (intellectual - in his words) perception. The theory of the Nile did not know the humiliation of the individual. In the person of Nile, the Russian history of political thought meets for the first time with a theoretical substantiation of its significance. Moreover, here the teaching of Neil goes beyond the limits of the task he set for improving the monk, for he also raises the question of "the personal legal capacity of every layman in the religious sphere."

In the teachings of Neil, the tradition of respect for the book and book knowledge found its affirmation. Book knowledge, according to Neal, is a mandatory step on the difficult path of self-improvement. The institution of self-improvement itself is deeply individual and excludes gross interference from outside. A person's actions should be the fruit of his deep reflection, because "without wisdom" it is not always possible to distinguish between good and evil. If a person obviously deviates from the right path in matters of faith, then all the same "it is not appropriate for such speeches and askakati, neither reproach, nor reproach, but the gods leave sleep; God is strong to correct them." You should not "look at the shortcomings of your neighbor", it is better to "weep your sins", the reproach "and do not reproach a person about any sin" is not useful here, only reading "uncharming" literature and a friendly confidential conversation with a wise mentor can help a person take the right path Not only the state, but even the church cannot officially prosecute him for his beliefs.

Theoretically, Neil's position on this issue ruled out state intervention in general, and even more so in such a harsh form as the use of criminal prosecution and punishment up to the death penalty.

In resolving this issue, the nonpossessors touched on such an important political issue as the relationship between church and secular authorities. In contrast to the principle of their complete combination adopted in the Byzantine political doctrine, Nil makes an attempt to determine the scope of their action, as well as the methods and methods for exercising their power. The activity of the church is limited to him only by the spiritual area, in which state (political) measures of influence on people are absolutely and fundamentally inapplicable. These theoretical positions were decisive in his attitude to the heretical movement and the forms of its persecution.

But considering the question of the real persecution of heretics, which already took place in the state, Neil tried to mitigate as far as possible the forms of this persecution and limit the number of persons to be punished. Thus, he believed that those who did not openly preach their beliefs, or those who repented, should not be persecuted. Here Neil directly raises the question of the inadmissibility of persecuting a person for his beliefs. No one before him in Russian literature spoke of this, and not soon after him will this question be formulated and expressed as a political demand.

Neil then had to not only express his views theoretically, but also take care of their practical implementation. The assertions of a number of researchers that the Council of 1490 did not pass a decision on the death penalty for heretics, as demanded by the "denunciators", seem quite reasonable to us, precisely thanks to the influence of Nil's teacher Paisius Yaroslavov, Nil himself and Metropolitan Zosima.

The fact that in Russia persecution for the faith never took on such a character as in Catholic countries, Yuna owes a lot to Nil, his supporters and followers, who zealously proved the impossibility of applying the death penalty for apostasy. The "non-possessors" considered the death penalty for religious beliefs as a deviation from the basic postulates of Orthodox dogma. And although they lost in the dispute about the forms of influence on heretics (the Council of 1504 sentenced the heretics to death), the influence of "non-possessors" on the formation of public opinion is undoubted. The executions of heretics were of a single nature and did not receive distribution.

The very posing of the question of the obligatory nature of "mental work" for every person (not only a monk) led to the ability to think and reason, and, consequently, to critically perceive the existing reality in its entirety (i.e., material and spiritual. A rationalistic approach to considering any question is contraindicated to the authoritarian method of reasoning. And this was new for medieval Russia. Neil was one of the first to practically assert the rationalistic method of cognition and reasoning instead of the reckless following of generally accepted authorities, as a result of which he made it a duty for every Christian to analyze the writings of holy men and ascetics before using them as an example.Based on the hesychast technique of "intelligent doing," the Sorsky ascetic laid the foundation for a critical rational attitude toward all scriptures ("the scriptures are much, but not all of them are divine").

Nile's teaching was continued by his friend and follower Vassiai Patrikeev, whose ideas were already clothed in clearer political formulas. Vassian politically sharpened all the issues that the Nile touched.

Applying the teachings of Neil "on mental doing", Vassian began to criticize not only the activities of the church, but also the main religious dogmas.

Developing the provisions of the Nile on non-possession, Vassian directly and clearly raised the issue of depriving all monasteries of their property rights and all privileges associated with them. The denial of monastic acquisitions led him to raise the question of the destruction of the institution of monasticism. Vassian insisted on the need for a clear distinction between the spheres of activity of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. He also poses the question of the need to protect the interests of the black-haired peasantry as a social element that suffers most from the feudal policy of the monasteries. In this direction, Vassian continued the traditions of progressive Russian political thought, drawing attention to the peasant question and demanding that the government take a number of measures aimed at alleviating the plight of the peasants32. Giving a class characterization of the doctrine of "non-possessiveness", in general, it should be noted that its ideologists, despite their undoubted belonging to the privileged class of feudal lords, in many ways managed to overcome their class limitations and take progressive positions in the field of state building, as well as to formulate an ideal that takes into account the interests of the lower layers of the social structure of society.

"Non-covetousness" is an ideological trend that took shape within the framework of the Russian Orthodox Church in the second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. The monks of the Trans-Volga region acted as the main conductors of this trend, therefore in the literature it is often referred to as the teaching or movement of the “Trans-Volga elders”. They were awarded the title "non-possessors" for preaching selflessness (non-possession) and, in particular, calling on monasteries to give up ownership of any property, including land, villages, and turn into schools of purely spiritual life. However, the teachings of the Trans-Volga elders were by no means exhausted by the call for the liberation of monastic life from worldly bustle. The sermon of non-possession, although it was one of the main ones in this teaching, did not express its deep meaning. The idea of ​​a selfless life, i.e. life, liberated from the desire for material wealth, grew among the Trans-Volga elders from another idea, which was precisely the root in their worldview. Its essence was the understanding that the most important thing in human life takes place not in the external world in relation to the person, but inside the person himself. The real life corresponding to the nature of man is the life of his spirit. The proper arrangement of one's inner, spiritual life requires a person, among other things, to achieve a certain degree of freedom from the outside world, including from various worldly goods. At the same time, there is no need to strive for complete liberation from the outside world - hermitage in the view of the Trans-Volga elders is the same extreme as living in material luxury. It is important that the external world does not interfere with the internal self-improvement of human nature. This is where the preaching of non-possession came from. Not being the main one in the teachings of the Trans-Volga elders, it nevertheless affected the interests of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church to the greatest extent, since it resulted in a call to the latter to renounce the possession of huge material wealth. In this regard, the preaching of non-acquisitiveness turned out to be the most noticeable among the ideological slogans of the movement of the Trans-Volga elders. That is why the latter was called "non-covetousness". The political side of this doctrine was manifested not only in the speech of its representatives against the monastic land ownership. Determining their attitude towards the outside world, the non-possessors inevitably had to express their own attitude towards the state, and towards the royal power, and towards the law. They could not avoid solving the problem of the relationship between state power and church power - one of the most important political problems of Russian society both in the era of Kievan Rus and in the era of Muscovy.

The main ideologist of non-covetousness was Reverend Neil Sorsky(1433-1508). There is little information about his life. It is only known that he came from the boyar family of Maikovs. In his youth he lived in Moscow, transcribing liturgical books. Even in his youth, he took monastic vows at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. He was an apprentice to the elder Paisiy Yaroslavov, famous in those days for his virtues. Nil Sorsky died on May 7, 1508, having previously made a testament, surprising in its content, the last flash of his soul. “Throw my body into the desert,” he addressed his disciples, “let the beast and the bird seize it, since it has sinned a lot towards God and is unworthy of burial. , as in this life, so also after death ... I pray everyone, let them pray for my sinful soul, and I ask forgiveness from you and from me forgiveness. May God forgive everyone. " Not only in life, but also in his death, Nil Sorsky remained true to his teaching.

The followers of Nilov's teachings were not as consistent as he was.

Among them, it is necessary to highlight first of all Vassian Oblique(c. 1470 - before 1545). His worldly name is Vasily Ivanovich Patrikeev. He was a prince, a representative of the noble family of the Gediminids, a second cousin of Grand Duke Vasily III. Until January 1499 he was in the public service. Among the prominent supporters of the ideology of non-acquisitiveness, one should also include Maxim Grek(c. 1470-1556). He also came from a noble and wealthy family, however, a family not of Russians, but of Greek aristocrats. His original name is Mikhail Trivolis. Before his arrival in Muscovy, he managed to get a solid secular education, listening to lectures at the best Italian universities (Florence, Padua, Milan).

Passion for theology arose from Michael Trivolis in Florence under the influence of the sermons of J. Savonarola, rector of the Dominican monastery of St. Brand. It is possible that the future famous Moscow thinker listened to these sermons in the same crowd as the future great Florentine thinker Niccolo Machiavelli. The latter, however, perceived them without any enthusiasm, but rather, even with contempt for the preacher.

The execution of J. Savonarola, which followed in 1498, did not turn Michael Trivolis away from the teachings of the Dominicans. In 1502 he became a monk of the monastery of St. Brand. However, in 1505, a radical turn took place in his fate: Michael left Italy and settled in the Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos. Here he converts to Orthodoxy and takes the name of Maxim.

The nonpossessors represented that rare example when people, preaching any ideas, themselves strive to live in full accordance with them. The life according to his ideas was especially successful for Nil Sorsky. Other ideologists of non-acquisitiveness were greatly helped to bring their way of life into a more complete conformity with the ideas they preached by the official church and secular authorities - they helped with exactly the punishment that they were assigned, i.e. monastic imprisonment, freeing a person from excessive material wealth and isolating him from the outside world. Maxim Grek wrote almost all of his works, including "The Confession of the Orthodox Faith", during his imprisonment in the Tver Otroch Monastery.

The fates of Nil Sorsky and his supporters are just as real an embodiment of the ideology of non-acquisitiveness as their writings. As already mentioned, for the ideologists of non-possessiveness - and, first of all, Nil Sorsky, selflessness was only one of the necessary conditions for a righteous life, i.e. life "according to the law of God and the tradition of the fathers, but according to one's own will and human thought." Such a life, from their point of view, can be arranged by a person only within himself, in the sphere of his spirit. The external world in relation to a person, be it a society, a state, a church or a monastery, is organized in such a way that it is impossible to live righteously in it.

According to Neil Sorsky, in order to arrange a righteous life for yourself, you need to become as independent as possible from the outside world. To do this, one should first of all learn to acquire "daily food and other necessary needs" by the fruits of "one's needlework and work." The value of this "needlework" lies, among other things, also in the fact that "by this, evil thoughts are driven away." "Acquisitions, even by violence from other people's labors, are collected, making it by no means beneficial to us."

The ideologists of non-acquisitiveness attributed the call to rely solely on their own strength not only to obtaining means of subsistence. Neil Sorsky and his followers attached great importance to the personal efforts of each person and in the improvement of their own spirit. They believed that the spiritual development of a person is mainly his own business. Neil Sorsky never called his students students, but interlocutors or brothers. "To my brothers and sisters, even the essence of my disposition: I call you like this, not students. We have only one Teacher ...", - he addressed them in his "Tradition". In one of his epistles, the Monk Nil rushed with the words: they say, now I am writing, "teaching for the salvation of the soul," but he immediately made a reservation that the addressee must himself elect"anything that has been heard orally or seen with the eyes." And although Neil Sorsky used to advise "to obey such a person who will be testified, as a spiritual man, in word and deed and understanding," he was generally skeptical about the possibility of achieving perfection on the paths of spiritual development with the help of a mentor from an outsider. Now the monks "have become impoverished," he believed, and it is difficult to find a "mentor of the uncharismatic."

Characteristic for the ideologists of non-possessiveness was a critical attitude towards church literature. "There are many scriptures, but not all of them are divine," said Nil Sorsky. Maximus Grek, who repeatedly said that there were many errors in these books, was quite free to treat theological books, and corrected some of their texts in his own way. Vassian Kosoy expressed himself in this regard with his characteristic harshness: “The local books are all false, and the local rules are crooked, not rules; before Maximus, we blasphemed God in those books, and did not glorify, now we know God by Maximus and his teachings " .

There was every reason for such statements; Russian scribes of theological books indeed often made mistakes, and sometimes they deliberately omitted or changed some words in their texts to please the political situation. However, the critical attitude of nonpossessors to church literature stemmed not so much from the realization of this fact as from the spirit of their teaching, from the fundamental foundations of their worldview. The ideologists of non-possessiveness sought support, firstly, in the original texts of the Holy Scriptures, among which the New Testament was given a clear advantage, and secondly, in the mind of a person, without the participation of whom not a single deed, in their opinion, can be done. “Without wisdom, and good for malice, it happens for the sake of timelessness and is unfaithful,” noted Nil Sorsky. In one of his epistles, the elder wrote that he lived in solitude in his desert, and further explained how exactly: "... Testing the divine writings: first the commandments of the Lord and their interpretation and the apostolic devotion, the same lives and teachings of the holy fathers - and thereby I heed .and even according to my mind and the pleasing of God and for the good of the soul I prescribe to myself and by this I learn, and in this I have my stomach and breath "(our italics. - V. T.). From the ideological principles of non-acquisitiveness, an attitude towards any bearer of state power as the embodiment of the most heinous human vices followed. It is this view of the rulers that is expressed in a work with a noteworthy title in this regard - "Monk Maximus the Greek word, voluminously expounding, with pity, the disorder and disorder of the kings and authorities of the last life." The nonpossessors were convinced that sovereigns, overwhelmed by vices, were leading their states to destruction. “Most pious Sovereign and Autocrat!” Maxim the Greek addressed the young Tsar Ivan IV, who had not yet become “Terrible.” “I must tell your kingdom the whole truth, namely, that the kings who have been among us, the Greeks, have no reason to others were betrayed by the common Lord and Creator of destruction and destroyed their state, as soon as for their great pride and exaltation, for the Jewish love of money and covetousness, having defeated which, they unjustly plundered the estates of their subordinates, despised their boyars, living in poverty and deprivation of the necessary, and the offense of widows, orphans and the poor was left without vengeance.

In this message to Ivan IV, Maxim the Greek tried to give an image ideal king. According to him, those who piously reign on earth are likened to the Heavenly Sovereign, if they possess such properties as "meekness and long-suffering, care for subordinates, generous disposition towards their boyars, mostly truth and mercy ...". Maximus the Greek urged the king to arrange the kingdom entrusted to him according to Christ's commandments and laws, and to always do "judgment and justice in the midst of the earth, as it is written." “Prefer nothing to the truth and judgment of the King of Heaven, Jesus Christ…,” he wrote, “for nothing else will be able to please Him and attract His mercy and beneficence to your God-protected realm, as by your truth to the subordinate and righteous judgment... ". The defeat of the movement of nonpossessors by the official authorities of Muscovy did not mean at all that these people did not achieve success. On the contrary, this defeat is precisely the most obvious evidence of this success. He shows that the non-possessors did not renounce the confessed truths and remained true to their teaching. Namely, this was their main goal, which they achieved. “It’s not good if everyone wants to be willing to be,” said Nil Sorsky. to be hated."

Living surrounded by all sorts of vices, Neil Sorsky set a goal for himself - to remain a man! And he achieved this goal.

The political doctrine of "non-possessiveness" is essentially the doctrine of how to remain human to those who assume the highest state power.

The famous figure of the Russian church. Information about him is scarce and fragmentary. Genus. about 1433, belonged to a peasant family; his nickname was Mike. Prior to entering monasticism, Neil was engaged in copying books, was a "scribe". More accurate information finds Neil already a monk. Nil got his hair cut in the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, where from the time of the founder himself there was a deaf protest against the landowning rights of monasticism. The Monk Cyril himself more than once refused the villages that were offered to his monastery by pious laity; the same views were adopted by his closest students ("Zavolzhsky elders"; see). Having traveled to the East, to Palestine, Constantinople and Athos, Nil spent an especially long time on Athos, and perhaps most of all he was indebted to Athos for the contemplative direction of his ideas.

Neil Sorsky. Icon with life

Upon his return to Russia (between 1473 and 89), Neil founded a skete, gathered a few followers around him, "who were of his nature," and gave himself up to a secluded, solitary life, especially interested in book studies. He tries to substantiate all his actions on the direct indications of "divine Scripture", as the only source of knowledge of the moral and religious duties of man. Continuing to be engaged in the correspondence of books, he subjects the material written off to more or less thorough criticism. He writes off "from different lists, trying to find the right one", makes a set of the most correct: comparing the lists and finding "many uncorrected ones" in them, he tries to correct "as much as possible for his bad mind." If another place seems “wrong” to him, and there is nothing to correct, he leaves a gap in the manuscript, with a note in the margins: “From here in the lists it’s not right”, or: “If somewhere in a different translation it will turn out to be more famous (more correct) than this , tamo yes it is read "- and sometimes leaves entire pages so empty. In general, he writes off only what is "according to the possible according to reason and truth ...". All these features, which sharply distinguished the nature of Nil Sorsky's book studies and his very view of "writing" from the usual ones that prevailed in his time, could not pass for him in vain. Despite his book studies and love for a closed, solitary life, Nil Sorsky took part in two of the most important issues of his time: about the attitude towards the so-called. "Novgorod heretics" and about monastic estates. In the first case, we can only assume his influence (together with his teacher Paisiy Yaroslavov); in the second case, on the contrary, he acted as the initiator. In the case of the Novgorod heretics, both Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky apparently held more tolerant views than most of the then Russian hierarchs, with Gennady of Novgorod and Joseph Volotsky at the head. In 1489, the Novgorod bishop Gennady, entering the fight against heresy and informing the Rostov archbishop about it, asked the latter to consult with the learned elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Nil Sorsky, who lived in his diocese, and involve them in the struggle. Gennady himself wants to talk with the learned elders and even invites them to his place. The results of Gennady's efforts are unknown: it seems that they were not quite as he wished. At least, we no longer see any relations between Gennady and either Paisius or the Nile; the main fighter against heresy, Joseph Volokolamsky, does not address them either. Meanwhile, both elders were not indifferent to heresy: both of them are present at the council of 1490. , who dealt with the case of heretics, and hardly influence the very decision of the council. Initially, all the hierarchs "became strong" and unanimously declared that "all (all heretics) are worthy of life" - and in the end the council is limited to cursing two or three heretic priests, depriving them of their dignity and sending them back to Gennady. The most important fact of the life of Nil Sorsky was his protest against the landowning rights of the monasteries, at the cathedral of 1503 in Moscow. When the council was nearing its end, Nil Sorsky, supported by other Kirillo-6 Elozero elders, raised the question of monastic estates, which at that time equaled a third of the entire state territory and were the cause of the demoralization of monasticism. A zealous fighter for the idea of ​​​​Nil Sorsky was his closest "disciple", prince-monk Vassian Patrikeyev. Nil Sorsky could only see the beginning of the struggle he had initiated; he died in 1508. Before his death, Neil wrote a "Testament", asking his disciples "to throw his body in the wilderness, let the animals and birds eat it, because they have sinned against God a lot and are unworthy of burial." The disciples did not fulfill this request: they buried him with honor. It is not known whether Nil of Sorsk was formally canonized; in manuscripts there are occasionally traces of a service to him (troparion, kontakion, ikos), but it seems that this was only a local attempt, and even then it was not established. On the other hand, throughout our ancient literature, only Nil Sorsky, in the titles of his few works, left the name of the "great old man."

Neil Sorsky. Icon 1908

The literary works of Nil Sorsky consist of a number of messages to students and generally close people, a small Traditions to the disciples, brief fragmentary Notes, more extensive Charter, in 11 chapters, and dying Wills. They came in the lists of the XVI - XVIII centuries. and all are published (most and the most important ones are extremely faulty). The main work of the Nile is the monastery charter, in 11 chapters; all the rest serve as an addition to it. The general line of thought of Nil Sorsky is strictly ascetic, but in a more internal, spiritual sense than asceticism was understood by the majority of the then Russian monasticism. Monasticism, according to Neil, should not be bodily, but spiritual, and requires not external mortification of the flesh, but internal, spiritual self-perfection. The soil of monastic exploits is not flesh, but thought and heart. Intentionally weakening, killing one's body unnecessarily: the weakness of the body can hinder the feat of moral self-improvement. A monk can and should nourish and support the body “as needed without mala”, even “calm it in mala”, condescending to physical weaknesses, illness, and old age. Neil does not sympathize with exorbitant fasting. He is an enemy of any appearance in general, he considers it superfluous to have expensive vessels, gold or silver, in churches, to decorate churches: not a single person has yet been condemned by God for not decorating churches. Churches should be alien to all splendor; in them you need to have only what is necessary, "obtained everywhere and conveniently bought." It is better to give to the poor than to donate in the church. The feat of moral self-improvement of a monk must be rationally conscious. A monk must pass it not due to coercion and prescriptions, but "with consideration" and "do everything with reason." Neil requires from a monk not mechanical obedience, but consciousness in a feat. By sharply revolting against "self-initiators" and "self-swindlers", he does not destroy personal freedom. The personal will of a monk (as well as every person) should be subject, according to Neil, to only one authority - "divine writings." "Testing" the divine writings, studying them is the main duty of the monk. The unworthy life of a monk, and indeed of a person in general, exclusively depends, according to Neil, "from the hedgehog the holy scriptures do not lead us ...". With the study of divine writings, however, a critical attitude to the total mass of written material should be connected: "there are many writings, but not all of them are divine." This idea of ​​criticism was one of the most characteristic in the views of both Nil himself and all the "Volga elders" - and for the majority of literate people of that time it was completely unusual. In the eyes of the latter, any "book" in general was something indisputable and divinely inspired. And the books of Holy Scripture in the strict sense, and the works of the Church Fathers, and the lives of the saints, and the rules of St. apostles and councils, and interpretations of these rules, and additions to interpretations that appeared later, finally, even all sorts of Greek "city laws", that is, decrees and orders of the Byzantine emperors, and other additional articles included in the Pilot - all this, in the eyes of the ancient Russian reader, was equally unchanging, equally authoritative. Joseph Volokolamsky, one of the most learned people of his time, directly, for example, argued that the mentioned "city laws" "are similar in essence to prophetic and apostolic and holy father writings", and the collection of Nikon Montenegrins (see) boldly called "divinely inspired writings" . It is understandable, therefore, reproaches from Joseph to Nil Sorsky and his disciples that they "blasphemed miracle workers in the Russian land", as well as those "like in ancient years and in the local (foreign) lands of former miracle workers, who believed in their miracle, and from the Scriptures sweeping away their wonders." One attempt at any critical attitude to the material being written off seemed, therefore, heresy. Striving for the evangelical ideal, Nil Sorsky - like the whole trend he headed - does not hide his condemnation of the disorganizations that he saw in the majority of modern Russian monasticism. From a general view of the essence and goals of the monastic vow, the energetic protest of the Nile against the monastic property directly followed. Any property, not only wealth, Neil considers contrary to monastic vows. A monk denies himself from the world and everything, "even in it" - how can he then spend time worrying about worldly property, lands, wealth? Monks must feed exclusively on their own labors, and they can even accept alms only in extreme cases. They should not “not exactly have no property, but not want to acquire it” ... What is obligatory for a monk is just as obligatory for a monastery: a monastery is only a collection of people with the same goals and aspirations, and what is reprehensible to a monk is also reprehensible for a monastery. To the noted features, apparently, religious tolerance was added already in Nile himself, which came out so sharply in the writings of his closest students. The literary source of the writings of Nil Sorsky was a number of patristic writers, whose works he became acquainted with especially during his stay on Mount Athos; the writings of John Cassian the Roman, Nil of Sinai, John of the Ladder, Basil the Great, Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the New Theologian, and Gregory of Sinai had the closest influence on him. Some of these writers are often referred to by Neil Sorsky; some of their works, both in external form and in presentation, are especially close, for example. , to the main work of Nil Sorsky - "The Monastic Charter". The Nile, however, does not obey unconditionally to any of its sources; nowhere, for example, does he reach those extremes of contemplation that distinguish the writings of Simeon the New Theologian or Gregory of Sinai.

The monastic charter of Nil Sorsky, with the addition of "Tradition by a student" at the beginning, was published by Optina Hermitage in the book "The Reverend Nil Sorsky's Tradition by His Disciple About His Skete Living" (Moscow, 1849; without any scientific criticism); the messages are printed in an appendix to the book: "The Monk Nil of Sorsky, the founder of the skete life in Russia, and his charter on the skete life translated into Russian, with the application of all his other writings, extracted from the manuscripts" (St. Petersburg, 1864; 2nd ed. M., 1869; with the exception of "Appendices", everything else in this book does not have the slightest scientific value).

Literature about Nil Sorsky is detailed in the preface to the study by A. S. Arkhangelsky: "Nil Sorsky and Vassian Patrikeyev, their literary works and ideas in ancient Rus'" (St. Petersburg, 1882).

A. Arkhangelsky.

© Siberian Annunciation, composition, design, 2014

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic version of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and corporate networks, for private and public use, without the written permission of the copyright owner.

© Electronic version of the book prepared by Litres (www.litres.ru)

Bishop Justin
The life of our venerable and God-bearing father Nil of Sorsk 1

The great father of the Russian Church, by his asceticism and instructions, teacher of skete simplicity and contemplative life, the Monk Nil, nicknamed Maikov, was born in 1433. Nothing is known about the origin and birthplace of the Monk Nilus. But, without a doubt, he was a Great Russian and, judging by his extensive connections with important people and his high education, it must be assumed that he himself belonged to the boyar family. True, the Monk Nil calls himself an ignoramus and a villager, but he could call himself an ignoramus out of deep humility, and a villager - because he was born and lived in the fatherland of his ancestors among the villagers.

Rev. Nil received monastic vows and believed the beginning of monastic life in the monastery of St. Cyril of Belozersky. Here he used the advice of the intelligent and strict elder Paisius (Yaroslavov), who later was hegumen of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra and was invited to become metropolitans, but, in his humility, refused this great dignity. Having lived in the Kirillovo-Belozersky monastery for several years, Nil, together with his student and collaborator, the monk Innokenty, from the Okhlebinin family of boyars, traveled to holy places, to the East, in order to see spiritual life in the experiences of the ascetics there: he was, in his words, “ on Mount Athos, in the countries of Constantinople and other places.

Living for several years on Mount Athos and traveling through the monasteries of Constantinople, the Monk Nilus, especially at that time, nourished his spirit with the instructions of the great desert fathers, who, through inner purification and unceasing prayer, performed by the mind in the heart, achieved the luminous illuminations of the Holy Spirit. The Monk Nilus not only studied with his mind and heart, but also turned into a constant exercise of his life the soul-saving lessons of the God-wise fathers - Anthony the Great, Basil the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Isaac the Syrian, Macarius the Great, Barsanuphius, John of the Ladder, Abba Dorotheus, Maximus the Confessor, Hesychius, Simeon the New Theologian, Peter of Damascus, Gregory, Nil and Philotheus of Sinai.

That is why the sayings of these great fathers are filled with his book, called "The Tradition of the Skete Life".

Returning to the Belozersky monastery, the Monk Nil no longer wanted to live in it, but built himself a cell not far from it, behind a fence, where he lived for a short time in solitude. Then he went fifteen miles from this monastery to the river Sorka, erected a cross here, first set up a chapel and a secluded cell, and dug a well next to it, and when several brethren gathered for cohabitation, he built a church. He founded his monastery on special hermit rules, following the model of the sketes of Athos; that is why it is called a skete, and the Monk Nilus is revered as the founder of the skete life in Russia, in a more strict and precise structure.

The holy fathers-ascetics divided the monastic life into three types: the first type is a hostel, when many monks live and labor together; the second type is hermitage, when one monk labors in solitude; the third type is wandering, when a monk lives and labors with two or three brothers, with common food and clothing, with common labor and needlework. This last type of monastic life, as it were, is intermediate between the first two, which the Monk Nilus called therefore “the royal way,” and he wanted to realize in his skete.

The skete of the Monk Nil also had similarities with our non-communal monasteries, which very often consisted of two or three monks, sometimes five or ten, while in the skete of the Nile, towards the end of his life, the number of monasteries even increased to twelve; and with cenobitic monasteries, for the wanderers had common things - work, clothes, and food. But the Nilov skete differed from all our other monasteries in its inner direction - in that smart doing, which should have been the main subject of concern and effort for all the sketeers. In his new skete, the monk continued to study the Divine Scriptures and the works of the holy fathers, arranging his life and those of his disciples according to them.

The story of his inner life was partly revealed by the monk himself in a letter to one of his close associates, at his insistent request. “I am writing to you,” he says, “showing myself: your love for God forces me to do so and makes me crazy to write to you about myself. We must act not simply and not according to chance, but according to Holy Scripture and according to the tradition of the Holy Fathers. Was my removal from the monastery (Kirillov) for the benefit of the soul? Hey, for her sake. I saw that they live there not according to the law of God and the tradition of their fathers, but according to their own will and human reasoning. There are also many who, acting so wrong, dream that they are going through a virtuous life ... When we lived with you in a monastery, you know how I withdrew from worldly ties and tried to live according to Holy Scripture, although due to my laziness I did not have time. At the end of my wandering, I came to the monastery, and outside the monastery, near it, having arranged a cell for myself, I lived as long as I could. Now I have moved away from the monastery, I have found by the grace of God a place, according to my thoughts, little accessible to worldly people, as you yourself saw. Living alone, I am engaged in the testing of spiritual writings: first of all, I test the commandments of the Lord and their interpretation - the traditions of the apostles, then - the lives and instructions of the holy fathers. I meditate on all that, and what, according to my reasoning, I find that is pleasing to God and useful for my soul, I copy for myself. This is my life and breath. For my weakness and laziness, I put my trust in God and the Most Pure Theotokos. If I happen to undertake something, and if I do not find it in Scripture, I put it aside for the time being until I find it. Of my own free will and of my own reasoning, I dare not do anything. Whether you live as a hermit or in a community, listen to the Holy Scriptures and follow in the footsteps of the fathers, or obey the one who is known as a spiritual man - in word, life and reasoning ... Holy Scripture is cruel only for those who do not want to humble themselves with the fear of God and depart from earthly things. thoughts, but wants to live according to his passionate will. Others do not want to humbly test Holy Scripture, they do not even want to hear about how one should live, as if Scripture was not written for us, should not be fulfilled in our time. But for true ascetics, both in ancient times, and in modern times, and in all ages, the words of the Lord will always be pure words, like refined silver: the commandments of the Lord are dearer to them than gold and expensive stones, sweeter than honey from honeycombs. The new path of life chosen by the Monk Nilus amazed his contemporaries. Indeed, there was something to be amazed at, especially for the weak.

The place that the Monk Nil chose for his skete, according to the testimony of his eyewitnesses, was wild, gloomy, deserted. The entire area of ​​the skete is low-lying and swampy. The Sorka river itself, which gave its name to the saint of God, barely stretches downstream and looks more like a swamp than a flowing river. And here-?? a Russian hermit labored! The pond dug by the Monk Nil, the well of his labors, with delicious water, which is used for healing, the clothes of the holy ascetic, the hair of which are pricked like needles, are still intact. The whole skete society of the monk consisted of a hieromonk, a deacon and twelve elders, among them were Dionysius 2
Dionysius, when he lived in the monastery of Joseph in the bakery, worked for two, while singing seventy-seven psalms and doing three thousand bows every day.

From the princes of Zvenigorod, and Nil (Polev), a descendant of the princes of Smolensk, both who came out of the monastery of Joseph Volokolamsky; because the Monk Nil shone then, like a luminary, in the desert of Belozersk.

For the construction of a temple and a tomb, a high hill was poured on marshy soil by the hands of the holy elder and his hermits, and for the needs of the brethren, the Monk Nilus built a small mill on the Sorka River. Each cell was placed on a raised platform, and each from the temple and from the other cell was at a distance of a thrown stone. Following the example of the Eastern ones, the nomads gathered in their church only on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and on other days everyone prayed and worked in their own cell. The all-night skete literally lasted all night. After each kathisma, three and four readings from the fathers were offered. During the liturgy, only the Trisagion, Alleluia, Cherubim, and It is worthy to eat were sung; everything else was read in a long, sing-song voice.

On Saturdays, a common requiem for the repose of the dead was performed in the fraternal tomb. Such were the structure of the skete and the church charter of St. Nil of Sorsk! Regarding external behavior and activity, the Monk Nilus prescribes complete skete non-acquisitiveness and simplicity in everything. Necessary for life orders to acquire only by the labors of his hands, repeating the words of the apostle: If someone doesn't want to do it, then yes(2 Thess. 3:10).

“Monastic almsgiving is to help a brother with a word in time of need, to console him in sorrow with spiritual reasoning; mental charity is as much higher than bodily as the soul is higher than the body. If a stranger comes to us, we will reassure him according to our strength, and if he requires bread, we will give him and let him go,” said the Monk Nilus. The new, hitherto unknown in Rus', skete life, the often expressed spiritual sorrow about the damage to church books and the effort, if possible, to correct them, of course, aroused against the reverend displeasure, but he patiently went his own way and was in respect of good saints and even great ones. princes.

The Monk Nilus was at the Council on Judaizing Heretics in 1491. The zealot of Orthodoxy himself, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in 1492 wanted to personally see and hear the judgments of the Monk Nil about the subjects of perplexity, on the case of them. Even the Grand Duke kept Nil (Maikov) and his teacher Paisius (Yaroslavov) in great honor. At the end of the Council of 1503 on widowed priests and deacons, Elder Nilus, as having access to the autocrat, due to his strong life and great virtue, and as respected by the autocrat, proposed that there should not be villages near the monasteries and that the monks would live by the labors of their hands. All Belozersky ascetics agreed with him.

In his dying testament, the Monk Nil, commanding his disciples to throw his body into the desert - as food for animals, or bury it in a pit with contempt, wrote: “It sinned grievously before God and is unworthy of burial, - and then added: How much was in my strength, I tried not to enjoy any honor on earth in this life, so be it after death. 3
And after his death, the holy father remained true to himself. So, when in 1569 Tsar John the Terrible, out of his zeal, wanted to build a stone church in the skete of the Monk Nilus on the site of a wooden one, then St. Nilus, appearing to John, strictly forbade him to build such a temple. - Note. ed.

The Monk Neil died on May 7, 1508. The holy relics of the monk rest under a bushel in his wilderness.

Bishop Justin
The writings of our venerable and God-bearing father Nil of Sorsk 4
"Our reverend and God-bearing father Nil, the ascetic of Sorsky, and his Charter on the skete life, set forth by the rector of the Kostroma Theological Seminary, Bishop Justin." Ed. 4th. - M., 1902.

From the Monk Nil of Sorsk, his epistles and the Rule of the Skete Life have come down to us.

The epistles of the Monk Nilus have as their subject an inner ascetic life, about which he set out his thoughts in detail in the Rules of the Skete Life. The Monk Nilus wrote two epistles to his tonsured Cassian, the former prince of Mavnuk, who came to Russia with the Greek princess Sophia, served for some time as a boyar under Archbishop Joasaph of Rostov, and in 1504 died a monk in the Uglich monastery.

In one of his epistles, the holy elder teaches Cassian how to deal with thoughts, advising for this the Jesus Prayer, doing needlework, studying Holy Scripture, protecting oneself from external temptations, and sets out some general instructions about obedience to a mentor and other brethren in Christ, about humility , patience in sorrows, about prayer for the most enemies and the like.

In the second epistle, recalling briefly about the disasters and sorrows endured by Cassian from his youth, about his noble parents, his captivity, resettlement in a foreign land, and wanting to console him, the monk reveals to him from Holy Scripture that the Lord often brings sorrows to those who love Him, that all the saints - prophets, martyrs - achieved salvation through suffering, points, in particular, to Job, Jeremiah, Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist and others, and concludes that if the saints endured so much, then all the more we should endure on earth , sinners, that we should take advantage of these disasters and sorrows to cleanse ourselves from sins and our salvation.

In a letter to his other disciple and associate, Innokenty, who had already founded a special monastery at that time, the Monk Nil spoke briefly about himself, about his life with him in the Belozersky monastery, about his settlement after the end of his journey to the East, outside the monastery, the rationale for his skete, about his constant study of the Holy Scriptures, the lives of the holy fathers and their traditions; and then instructs Innocent to fulfill the commandments of the Lord, imitate the life of the saints, keep their traditions and teach the same to his brethren.

Two more epistles were written by the Monk Nilus to unknown monks. In one of them, very brief, he commands the monk - remembrance of death, sorrow for sins, permanent stay in the cell, humility, prayer.

In another, rather extensive one, he gives answers to the following four questions proposed by some elder: how to resist fornication thoughts, how to overcome blasphemous thoughts, how to retreat from the world and how not to stray from the true path. These answers, especially to the first two questions, are almost literally placed in the Rules of the Skete Life, or the Tradition of the Skete Life. From the content of Saint Nilus's epistles, it is clear that he was occupied for a long time and many needed the very thoughts that were collected and systematically set forth in his "Rules of Skete Life." The most precious thing left to us after the Nile, and which, of course, will pass through a number of centuries as an immortal mirror of the monastic life, is its contemplative mains, or the Skete Rule, worthy of the first times of the hermitage of Egypt and Palestine, for it is imbued with the spirit of Anthony and Macarius.

"The Charter of the Skete Life, or the Tradition of the Skete Life" is the main and most important work of the Monk Nilus. In the preface to the "Charter", the holy elder touches upon the external behavior of the monks, speaks briefly about their obedience to the abbot, about bodily labors, about food and drink, about receiving strangers, commands to observe poverty and misery not only in the cells, but also in decorating the temple, so , so that there was nothing in it of either silver or gold, it forbids leaving the skete without the will of the rector, letting women into the skete, keeping youths in it. But in the Rule itself, the holy father speaks exclusively of intellectual or mental activity, by which he means inner, spiritual asceticism.

Having previously spoken with the words of Holy Scripture and the holy fathers about the superiority of this internal activity over external activity, about the insufficiency of one external activity without internal activity, about the need for the latter not only for hermits, but also for those living in cenobitic monasteries, the Monk Nilus divides his “Charter” into eleven chapters. . In chapter 1 he speaks of the difference in mental warfare; in the 2nd - about the struggle with thoughts; in the 3rd - about how to be strengthened in a feat against thoughts; in the 4th he sets out the content of the whole feat; in the 5th he speaks of eight thoughts; in the 6th - about the struggle with each of them; in the 7th, on the significance of the remembrance of death and the Judgment; in the 8th - about tears; in the 9th - about the preservation of contrition; in the 10th - about death for the world; in the 11th - that everything be done in due time. All these chapters, however, can be conveniently summarized under three sections.

1) In the first four chapters, the holy elder speaks in general about the essence of inner asceticism, or about our inner struggle with thoughts and passions, and about how we should wage this struggle, how to strengthen ourselves in it, how to achieve victory.

2) In the fifth chapter, the most important and extensive, shows, in particular, how to wage internal warfare (mental warfare. - Note. ed.) against each of the eight sinful thoughts and passions from which all others are born, namely: against gluttony, against the thought of fornication, against the passion of the love of money, against the passion of anger, against the spirit of sorrow, against the spirit of despondency, against the passion of vanity, against thoughts of pride.

3) In the remaining six chapters, he outlines the general means necessary for the successful conduct of spiritual warfare, which are: prayer to God and invoking His Holy Name, remembrance of death and the Last Judgment, inner contrition and tears, protecting oneself from evil thoughts, eliminating oneself from all cares, silence, and, finally, the observance for each of the enumerated occupations and actions of a decent time and method. In the afterword, the Monk Nilus says with what dispositions he proposed his "Ustav".

Much was learned from the writings of the Monk Nile by the Monk Cornelius of Komel, who soon after him labored in Kirillov, in his monastic charter, and the interlocutor of Saint Nile, Innocent, who gathered together for his coenobitic monastery 11 spiritual chapters of his blessed teacher, calls him an elegant manifestation of monasticism in our times , a zealot of the spiritual fathers, and says that he collected from inspired writings these main things, imbued with spiritual wisdom, for the salvation of souls and as a model of monastic life.

Let us also peer into this pure mirror of ascetic life, and make an extract from it, without omitting, however, a single thought of it that pertains to the matter, and adhering, where necessary and possible, to the very expressions of the holy father, so that, in this way, , to depict, if possible, his complete teaching about the ascetic life in his own edification.

Foreword
borrowed from the writings of the holy fathers about mental activity, about keeping the mind and heart, why it is necessary and with what feelings it should be dealt with 5
Mental activity is reflection, contemplation, contemplation and heartfelt prayer, or inner conversation with the Lord. In the book: "The Life and Works of the Monk Nil of Sorsk, the First Founder of the Skete Life in Russia, and His Spiritual and Moral Instructions on Skete Hermitage". - M., 1889.

Many holy fathers proclaimed to us about the work of the heart, the observance of thoughts and the preservation of the soul, in various conversations that were inspired by the grace of God - each according to his own understanding.

The holy fathers learned to do this from the Lord Himself, who commanded to cleanse the interior of their vessel, for evil thoughts come from the heart, defiling a person (see: Mt. 23:26; 15:18), and understood that it is fitting to worship the Father in spirit and in truth ( see: John 4, 24). They also remembered the apostolic word: even more ... I pray with my tongue(that is, by mouth only), my spirit(i.e. my voice) prays; but my mind is barren. I pray with the spirit, I pray with the mind(1 Cor. 14:14-15); and therefore they took special care of mental prayer, according to the commandment of the same apostle: I want to speak five words with my mind ... rather than the darkness of words with my tongue(1 Cor. 14:19).

About inner work, Saint Agathon said that “bodily work—outer prayer—is nothing more than a leaf; the inner, that is, mental prayer, is a fruit, and every tree, according to the terrible saying of the Lord, that does not create fruit, that is, intelligent work, is cut down and thrown into the fire: whoever prays with his mouth, but neglects his mind, he prays into the air for God listens to the mind.

St. Barsanuphius says: “If inner work with God does not help a person, he labors in vain in the outer.” St. Isaac the Syrian compares bodily work without spirituality with barren beds and withered nipples, since it does not bring one closer to the understanding of God. And Philotheus of Sinai commands to pray for such monks who, by simplicity, do not understand mental warfare and therefore neglect the soul, and to inspire them so that, as they actively move away from evil deeds, they would also cleanse their mind, which is the eye soul or its visual power.

Previously, the former fathers not only kept their minds in desert silence and acquired the grace of dispassion and spiritual purity, but many of them, who lived in the cities in their monasteries, like Simeon the New Theologian, and his blessed teacher Simeon the Studite, who lived among the crowded Tsaregrad, shone there like luminaries, with their spiritual gifts. The same is known about Nikita Stifat and many others.

That is why the blessed Gregory of Sinai, knowing that all the saints received the grace of the Spirit through the fulfillment of the commandments, first sensually, and then spiritually, orders to teach sobriety and silence, which are the protection of the mind, not only hermits, but also those living in a community, for Without this, this wondrous and great gift will not be obtained, - said the holy fathers. According to Hesychius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, “just as it is impossible for a person to live without food and drink, so without guarding his mind it is impossible to achieve the spiritual mood of the soul, even if we force ourselves not to sin fear for the sake of future torment.” “From a true executor of the commandments of God, it is required not only that he fulfill them by outward actions, but that he also preserves his mind and heart from violating what is commanded.”

St. Simeon the New Theologian says that “many have acquired this luminous work through instruction, and few have received it directly from God, by the effort of achievement and the warmth of faith, and that it is not a small achievement to receive instruction that does not deceive us, that is, a person who has acquired experienced knowledge and spiritual path of Divine Scripture. If even then, in ascetic times, it was difficult to find an unflattering mentor, now, with spiritual impoverishment, it is even more difficult for those who need it. But if a mentor had not been found, then the holy fathers commanded to learn from the Divine Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord Himself: Test the Scriptures, as you think in them to have eternal life(John 5:39). Elika bo was written bysha, in the Holy Scriptures destined for our punishment, says the holy apostle (Rom. 15:4).

biography

The social background of Reverend Neil is not exactly known. He called himself "an ignoramus and a peasant" (in a letter to Gury Tushin), but this does not imply his peasant origin: self-deprecating epithets are characteristic of this kind of literature. The Monk Nilus himself said on this occasion: “If anyone is from the parents of the manifested world, or relatives from those who are preeminent in the glory of the world, or he himself is in some rank or in honor in the world be. And this is madness. This more befits to hide. On the other hand, it is known that before the tonsure, the future ascetic served as a clerk, was engaged in copying books, and was a “scribe”. In the collection of Herman Podolny, one of the monks of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery close to the Nile, under 1502, the death of "Nil's brother" - Andrei, who was tonsured there with the name Arseny, is reported. Andrei Fedorovich Maiko is a well-known personality. This is one of the prominent clerks under the governments of Vasily II and Ivan III. His name is often found in documents of those years. Andrey Maiko became the ancestor of the noble family of Maikovs. Thus, Nikolai Maykov was an educated citizen and belonged to the service class.

Nil Sorsky was tonsured at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery under Abbot Cassian, a tonsuret of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery. The time of his tonsure can be considered the middle of the 50s.

Apparently, the Nile occupied a prominent position in the monastery. A number of monastic documents from 1460 to 1475 named Nile among the monastic elders who dealt with household issues. Perhaps another monastic obedience of the future saint was copying books. In any case, his handwriting is guessed in a number of manuscripts from the library of the Kirilov Monastery.

Approximately between 1475-1485, the Monk Nil, together with his disciple Innokenty Okhlyabin, made a long pilgrimage to Palestine, Constantinople, and Mount Athos. For a long time, Nil Sorsky stayed on Athos, where he thoroughly got acquainted with the skete device.

After returning to Russia on the Sora River, a short distance from the Kirilov Monastery, Nil founded a skete (later the Nilo-Sorskaya hermitage). The construction of the skete was based on the traditions of the skete residence of the ancient sketes of Egypt, Athos and Palestine. The Monk Nilus, who wished to asceticize in the skete, required knowledge of the Scriptures and the determination to follow them. “If it is also the will of God that they come to us, then it is fitting for them to know the traditions of the saints, to keep the commandments of God and to fulfill the traditions of the holy fathers.” Therefore, only literate monks who had passed the test in cenobitic monasteries were accepted into the skete.

Literary activity

Ascetic in silence with the small brethren, the monk, however, did not leave book studies to which he attached great importance. Judging by the number of citations, the greatest influences on Nile were Gregory of Sinai and Simeon the New Theologian, John of the Ladder, Isaac the Syrian, John Cassian the Roman, Nile of Sinai, Basil the Great.

His main work should be called "Charter of Skete Life" consisting of 11 chapters. The "Charter" is preceded by a brief preface:

“The meaning of these writings embraces the following: how it is fitting for a monk to do a deed who wants to truly be saved in these times, which, both mentally and sensually, according to the divine Scriptures and according to the life of the holy fathers, as far as possible, it is appropriate to act.”

Thus, the "Charter" of the Monk Nilus is not a regulation of skete life, but an ascetic instruction in the spiritual struggle. The monk pays great attention to “intelligent” or “heartfelt” prayer, while quoting Gregory of Sinai and Simeon the New Theologian. There is no doubt that Nil Sorsky belongs to the mystical-contemplative direction in Orthodox monasticism, the revival of which is associated with the name of St. Gregory of Sinai. M. S. Borovkova-Maikova wrote about the connection of the Monk Nile with hesychasm, as the monastic charismatic movement of the XIV-XV centuries is widely called. Of the modern authors, this aspect was paid attention to by G. M. Prokhorov, E. V. Romanenko.

Engraving "View of the Nilo-Sorskaya coenobitic desert", XIX century

The attitude of Nil of Sorsk to the heresy of the Judaizers

There is no unanimity among historians on the issue of Nil Sorsky's attitude to the heresy of the Judaizers. The assumption of the proximity of the ideas of Nil Sorsky with heretical ones was previously expressed by a number of researchers, including F. von Lilienfeld, D. Fenel, A. A. Zimin, A. I. Klibanov. In one way or another, his views are closer to those of the Judaizers, A. S. Arkhangelsky, G. M. Prokhorov. Doubts are raised by his criticism of the writings, the suspicion of rejecting church tradition, his non-possessive convictions, and tolerance for penitent heretics. Ya. S. Lurie insists on his unconditional orthodoxy. The well-known church historian Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Fr. Georgy Florovsky.

The confession of the Monk Nilus does not allow one to doubt the Orthodoxy of the Sorsky elder. It is noteworthy that the text of the confession reflects provisions that are unacceptable to the Jews. Neil Sorsky affirms the confession of "the one God in the glorious Trinity", the Incarnation, faith in the Mother of God, the veneration of the "holy fathers of the holy Church" of the fathers of the Ecumenical and local councils. The Monk Nilus ends his confession with the words: “I curse all the false teachers of heretical teachings and traditions - I and those who are with me. And heretics are all strangers to us, let them be.” It is quite appropriate to assume that this confession included in the "Tradition to the Disciples" is precisely aimed at warning them from heretical vacillations.

Of greater interest is not Nile's attitude to heretical ideas, there is nothing particularly to doubt, but his attitude to heretics themselves and heresy as a phenomenon (A. S. Arkhangelsky, for example, speaks of Nile's religious tolerance).

It is known that, together with his elder Paisiy Yaroslavov, he took part in the council against Novgorod heretics in 1490. In the IV Novgorod Chronicle, the names of authoritative elders are mentioned on a par with bishops. There is a strong assumption that the relatively mild conciliar sentence was adopted under the influence of the Cyril elders. However, we do not have any information as to how much their opinion influenced the decisions of the council. Earlier, in 1489, one of the main fighters against heresy, Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod, in a letter to Archbishop Iosaph of Rostov, asked for the opportunity to consult with Elders Nil and Paisius on matters of heresy. However, this meager information cannot clarify the picture: absolutely nothing follows from them.

An indirect indication of the position of the monk can be the well-known attitude of the Trans-Volga monks towards repentant heretics, expressed by one of the disciples of the monk Vassian Patrikeyev. Already after the death of Nile, in a number of "words" he spoke out against the punitive measures of the Monk Joseph, urging him not to be afraid of theological disputes with heretics. Repentant heretics, according to Vassian, should be forgiven. Not executions and cruel punishments, but repentance should heal heresy. At the same time, Vassian refers to the holy fathers, in particular, John Chrysostom.

E. V. Romanenko drew attention to a selection of lives in the collection of Nil Sorsky. This selection testifies to the interest of the monk in the history of the Church, specifically, in the history of heresies. The Life of Euthymius the Great tells how the saint resisted "Jewish" Nestoria. Here, the heresies of the Manicheans, Origen, Arian, Sabellian, Monophysite are denounced. An idea about these teachings is given. Examples from the life of Euthymius the Great and Theodosius the Great show firmness in the confession of the faith of the saints, testify to the behavior of the saints during times of trouble. Romanenko believes that such a selection of hagiographical literature is connected with the struggle against the Judaizers, who, as you know, denied the Incarnation and the Divine nature of Christ. He also draws attention to the lives of the saints - fighters against iconoclasm: Theodore the Studite, John of Damascus, Ioannikios the Great.

As you can see, Nil Sorsky was by no means a supporter of the destruction of the monastic community and the complete deprivation of the monastic brethren of common property. But in monastic life, he called for adherence to "consumer minimalism", being content with only what was necessary for subsistence and the organization of an elementary life.

Speaking of decorating churches as something superfluous, the monk quotes John Chrysostom: "No one has ever been condemned for not decorating a church."

G. M. Prokhorov drew attention to the marks made by the hand of the Monk Nilus on the margins of his lives copied by him. They refer to texts that speak of stinginess, cruelty, love of strangers, love of money. "Look, unmerciful ones," written by the reverend's hand, "This is terribly scary." The monk is primarily concerned with issues related to the unworthy behavior of the monks. He singles out examples of non-acquisition and avoidance of worldly glory as worthy of imitation. The marks “see” also refer to examples of non-acquisition, avoidance of worldly glory (The Life of Hilarion the Great, who retired to Egypt to the pagans). The emphasis of the non-possessiveness of the Nile is transferred to the area of ​​personal morality, becomes the subject and means of monastic work.

Warning Gury Tushin from conversations “about the profit of the monastery’s wealth and the acquisition of property by bakers,” he also warns against polemics with them: “It is not appropriate to jump on such people with a word, neither to vilify, nor reproach them, but you must leave it to God.” The main task of a monk is prayer and inner work. But if one of the brothers turns to him with a corresponding question, then we must give him his soul as well. “With people of a different kind, conversations, however small, wither the flowers of virtue.”