ᐉ Stoglav 1551 is the essence of the meaning. Stoglav -

Stoglav

, a collection containing a description of the acts and resolutions of the council of 1551. This name of the collection was established only in scientific literature.
Writers of the 17th century they called it “Stoglavnik”
, due to the fact that it is divided into 100 chapters. Hence the cathedral itself in 1551 is usually called Stoglavy.

Stoglav's decrees provide a wealth of material for studying the cultural life of Moscow society in the mid-16th century, and are of great practical importance. Stoglav serves as one of the main strongholds for the Old Believers in their polemics with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The most important, but also the most controversial question is: was Stoglav an official monument, did it have canonical significance in the form that has survived to this day, or not? The solution to this issue is made difficult by the fact that almost no news has reached us about the order of the meetings of the council and the development of its resolutions.

Only the news has survived that the clerks were to present reports to the cathedral on the decrees of the former princes; in Stoglav itself it is said that all the royal proposals and questions and answers to them were “consigned to the scriptures” and were sent in written form to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for viewing by the former Metropolitan. Joasaph and other clergy who were there, who, having examined the “royal and hierarchical code,” joined this “conciliar code” (chap. 99) and made only a few notes to it, which were also included in the Stoglav (chap. 100).

Indications of the recording of conciliar decisions and their names are confirmed by a number of official documents. So, in the period from May 17, 1551 to 1560. up to 12 charters and acts were issued, which carried out new measures in the order of church administration and court according to the “new cathedral code” or simply “according to the cathedral code,” sometimes also called the Metropolitan’s cathedral code. Macarius, or by the conciliar code of the tsar and the metropolitan together, or, finally, by the “royal council and the conciliar code.” Once it was prescribed to “fix everything because it is written in the conciliar code.” Moreover, quite extensive extracts from cathedral decrees, under the name of orders or order lists, were sent by the metropolitan and bishops to the cities and monasteries of the dioceses subordinate to them.

Until now, two types of such orders are known (three orders for each type): orders of one type were intended to guide the diocesan clergy, the other - for monasteries. In the letter of the metropolitan, in which the order was sent to the Simonov Monastery in July 1551, a postscript was preserved, from which it is clear that with the same letters it was ordered to send out to other monasteries “a teaching, chapters from the same cathedral books to be copied out.”

A similar indication of the existence of a conciliar book was preserved in the record of the acts of the church council of 1553, at which the tsar with the metropolitan and the entire council discussed “about the previous conciliar code, about the various affairs and rites of the church, and according to the book of the conciliar members, which matters have been corrected and who have not yet corrected themselves.”

Finally, it is known that the Great Moscow Council of 1667 was about the Stoglav Cathedral “and that it was written about the sign of the honorable cross, that is, about the folding of two fingers, and about the special hallelujah, and about other things that were written foolishly, in simplicity and ignorance in the book of Stoglav,” and about oath in observance of the cathedral rules) decided that “that council is not a cathedral, and an oath is not an oath, and we are imputed to nothing, as if it never happened.”

The totality of all this official evidence leads some researchers to the belief that the resolutions of the council of 1551 received legislative force in the code known as Stoglav (Golubinsky).

The original cathedral book with the signatures of the cathedral members has not been preserved or has not yet been found. Stoglav's lists of the 16th and 17th centuries. differ significantly from each other; Between them there are three editions: lengthy, medium and short. Which of them should be considered the main one?

Only regarding the middle one was there a consensus that it arose in the 17th century. Regarding the other two, opinions differ: some, including defenders of Stoglav’s officiality, consider the short version to be the main one; others convincingly prove the groundlessness of this point of view and recognize the lengthy lists as authentic.

Detailed observations of the composition of Stoglav lead to the conclusion that “in Stoglav we have only an extract from the conciliar acts; it preserves only a few traces of the original materials that served as the basis for the council's decisions. This collection could and should have served as a historical basis and material for such purely legislative monuments as royal and conciliar orders and charters” (I. Zhdanov).

Stoglav's sources were, first of all, the canonical rules and laws of the Byzantine emperors; some of them are placed in Stoglav in extensive extracts. The same should be said about church-legal monuments of Russian origin, such as church statutes, messages from church representatives, decrees of previous councils, etc.

Not all of these excerpts and references are distinguished by canonical accuracy, which was already noted by the council of 1667, which indicated that Stoglav’s inaccuracies arose from the unfamiliarity of the members of the council of 1551 with Greek and ancient charatean Slavic books.

It is difficult to admit that these sources were collected as needed after the opening of the cathedral; much should have been prepared earlier. Both in the selection of material and in the formulation of the questions themselves, the stormy currents of social thought that have worried Moscow society since the emergence of the Judaizer heresy could not but be reflected.

Stoglav" 1551 General characteristics

In 1551, a church council was assembled, which received the name Stoglavy. It is the result of the legislative activity of the Council, convened at the initiative of the government with the aim of carrying out church reform. The resolutions of the council proclaimed the inviolability of church property, the exclusive jurisdiction of clergy to the church court, and abolished the letters of complaint establishing the jurisdiction of church persons to the tsar. Its edition is usually divided into: lengthy, medium, short. Stoglav was the main code that determined the life of the clergy, their relationships with society and the state. In addition to church legislation, Stoglav contained norms related to the sphere of state, criminal, family and civil law, which ensured enhanced protection of the interests of the clergy.

Cathedral Code of 1649. Its general characteristics.

Adopted and developed by the Zemsky Sobor. The Council Code of 1649 is one of the most important legal acts adopted at a joint meeting of the Boyar Duma, the Consecrated Council and elected representatives of the population. This source of legislation is a scroll 230 m long, consisting of 25 chapters, divided into 959 handwritten columns, printed in the spring of 1649 in a huge circulation for its time - 2400 copies. Conventionally, all chapters can be combined into 5 groups (or sections) corresponding to the main branches of law. Chapters 1–9 contain state law, chapters 10–15 – the statute of legal proceedings and judicial structure, chapters 16–20 – property law, chapters 21–22 – the criminal Code, chapters 22–25 – additional articles about archers, about Cossacks, about taverns.

Structure of Stoglav[edit]

Two chapters (5 and 41) contain royal issues that were to be discussed by all participants in the Council. To draw up questions, the tsar attracted people from his entourage, primarily members of the “Chosen Rada”. Two of them were ordained (Metropolitan Macarius and Archpriest Sylvester), and therefore their role was significant.

Chapters 6 through 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 drawing up answers to the tsar’s questions was apparently interrupted by the appearance of the tsar at the Council. Over the course of a day, or maybe several days, the Council resolved issues together with the Tsar. This is apparently connected with the emergence of the so-called “second royal questions”, which are set out in chapter 41 of “Stoglava”. They concern mainly issues of worship and the morals of the laity. Royal questions can be divided into three groups:

pursuing the interests of the state treasury (questions: 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 30, 31);
exposing disorder in the clergy and monastic administration, in monastic life (questions: 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 37);
concerning disorder in worship, denouncing prejudices and the unchristian 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 life of the clergy and the population. Since the state completely entrusted this area to the church and saw in it its ideological support, it was natural for the tsar to want to see the church united and enjoying authority among the population.

Among the features of the structure of “Stoglava”, special mention should be made of the presence of the 101st chapter - the verdict on estates. It was apparently compiled after the end of the Stoglavy Council and added to the main list as an addition.

Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551. Russian history

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 one hundred chapters because it includes 100 parts of resolutions (acts or codes) - separate chapters. Stoglav is a kind of legislative act that affected many areas of life. And the Church had to strictly follow this document. However, some introductions remained only on paper; no one followed them in practice.

The question of the authenticity of Stoglav

The study of the code, textual analysis and the real date of creation have long been one of the pressing problems in Russian historiography.

Until the mid-19th century, its authenticity was disputed.

In 1862, the first edition was published - now everyone could read the text of the document. But even in the preface, the origin of the code is disputed; it is described as a collection of “draft notes.”

This approach was largely explained by the position of the Russian Orthodox Church - many of the document’s decrees were later canceled by the reform of Patriarch Nikon and were effective only among schismatics. However, the research of history professor Belyaev made it possible to discover the so-called Stoglav punishment lists, which confirmed the historical authenticity of the document.

But in the future, historians did not rule out that the text of the code also contained later insertions.

Venue and participants

Metropolitan Macarius - Chairman;
Archbishop Akakiy from the Tver diocese;
Archbishop Gury from the Smolensk diocese;
Archbishop Kasyan from the Ryazan diocese;
Archbishop Cyprian from the Perm diocese;
Archbishop Nikandr from the Rostov diocese;
Archbishop Savva from the Krutitsa diocese;
Archbishop Tryphon from the Suzdal diocese;
Archbishop Theodosius from the Novgorod diocese;
Archbishop Theodosius from the Kolomna diocese.

History of creation

Ivan the Terrible at the beginning of 1551 set about convening the Stoglavy Council. 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. This is primarily explained by the need to resolve many issues that were especially significant in the middle of the 16th century. These included strengthening church discipline among the clergy and questions about the powers of the church court. It was necessary to fight against the vicious behavior of 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 to unify church rituals and services. The procedure for copying church books, building churches and painting icons must be strictly regulated. Therefore, the Hundred-Glavy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was necessary.

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

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

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

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

The first chapter also contains a sample program: the council gives answers to the king's questions. He put forward various problems for conciliar discussion. Participants could only express their opinions on the proposed topics. In total, the king proposed 69 questions. The compiler of Stoglav clearly 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 to be made that were not in accordance with it. Some literature is reflected in the first chapter:

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

Chapters 1-4 - information about the opening of the cathedral, participants, reasons and goals;
the 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 talks about the embassy to the Trinity Monastery;
Chapter 100 contains Joseph's response. He offered a number of comments and additions to Stoglav.

Login to the site

STOGLAV

INTRODUCTION

Stoglav is a collection of resolutions of the Church Zemsky Council, held in 1551 in Moscow. The name “Stoglav” was established for this collection only from the end of the 16th century. In the text of the monument itself, other names are also mentioned: either the cathedral code, or the royal and hierarchical code (chapter 99). Almost all lists open with a table of contents or a legend to the chapters, where the title of the first chapter includes words that reflect the content of the entire document: Royal questions and conciliar answers about the many different church ranks. The title of the first chapter serves in a number of lists as the title of the entire document.

This final document, compiled at the council of 1551, was divided into 100 chapters during editing, probably in imitation of the Tsar's Code of Law of 1550. Hence the name Stoglavnik, first mentioned in a postscript to one of the lists of the monument at the end of the 16th century. Since the 17th century A shorter form of this word began to be used - Stoglav. Therefore, the cathedral itself in 1551 received the name Stoglavy in historical literature. The division of the document into 100 chapters was, according to the historian of the Russian church E.E. Golubinsky, it is no coincidence: by doing this, the editor Stoglav sought to protect the book from arbitrary abridgement by subsequent copyists, from their omission of chapters that were unimportant, from their point of view1.

The division into 100 chapters is very arbitrary. The name of the monument is also arbitrary, especially since many lists end not with the hundredth, but with the hundred and first chapter, which contains the verdict of the king and the sacred council 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 Council, as a result of which Stoglav2 arose, or as the date of the closure of the Council3. The opening time of the Council 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 Stoglav’s editing.

Until the second half of the 19th century. In the literature, the prevailing opinion was that Stoglav was not a genuine cathedral code of 1551. Metropolitan Platon (1829), without doubting the fact of convening the council of 1551, doubted, however, that the provisions of Stoglav were approved at this council. The arguments were the chronicles in which he found no mention of the cathedral of 1551, as well as the absence of a signed and sealed list of Stoglav10. Indeed, the original has not yet been found. However, this is not yet an argument for denying the authenticity of the Stoglavy Council and its decisions.

The view of Metropolitan Plato 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 (Stoglav’s publisher), based on data from historians of the Russian church, stated that “this book (Stoglav) was compiled by someone, perhaps even a member of the Stoglavy Council (1551), but after the council, from draft notes that were or were prepared only for consideration at the council, but not considered (entirely), not brought into the form of church decrees, not approved by signatures and not made public for the leadership "12-13. This point of view was largely explained by the reluctance to recognize as authentic the decisions of the official body, which pursued ideas that the Orthodox Russian Church subsequently abandoned and which were guided by schismatics.

The attitude towards the question of Stoglav’s belonging to the council of 1551 changed after I. V. Belyaev discovered the punishment lists for Stoglav. The resolutions of the council were sent out in the form of circular decrees (punishment lists) and were obligatory for execution by the entire Orthodox population of Russia. Moreover, I.V. Belyaev managed to find evidence from one chronicler of the 17th century, which convinced him that Stoglav was composed by the council of 1551 “exactly in the volume and form that it appears in the copies that have reached us”14. The new view was confirmed by I.V. Belyaev’s discovery of the so-called mandate lists of the cathedral code of 155115. Only a few researchers who developed their opinion about Stoglav before the opening of the punishment lists tried to defend their previous views16, but many changed them. In particular, Metropolitan Macarius, who in his “History of the Russian Schism” substantiated the view of Stoglav as an inauthentic document, in his later work, “History of the Russian Church”17, abandoned his previous opinion, convinced by the arguments of I.V. Belyaev.

For more than a hundred years, Stoglav was regarded as a collection of decrees of unquestioned authority. But the attitude towards him changed dramatically after the “great” Moscow Church Council of 1666-1667. At it, some dogmas approved by the Stoglavy Council were condemned (about the two-fingered sign of the cross, about the special hallelujah, about barber shaving, etc.). At the Moscow Council it was recognized that the provisions of the Stoglavy Council were written unreasonably, in simplicity and ignorance4. Following this, the authenticity of Stoglav began to be questioned, and thereby its significance as a legislative act. Stoglav became the subject of heated debate between schismatic Old Believers, who elevated the decisions of the Stoglav Council to the rank of an unshakable law, and representatives of the orthodox, official church, who condemned Stoglav as the fruit of error. The members of the Stoglavy Cathedral were accused of ignorance, and in order to wash away the shame from them, even a version was put forward that the 1551 cathedral had nothing to do with Stoglav.

The first attempt to characterize Stoglav from the standpoint of the Orthodox Church was made by Theophylact Lopatinsky in his work “Exposing schismatic untruths.” The general opinion about Stoglav and the Stoglav Cathedral was expressed by this author floridly and categorically: “This cathedral, not only with a hundred heads, but also with one head, is not worthy of being called, since... it is based on single fables”5.

Destructive criticism of the participants of the Stoglavy Council and its activities is also contained in the work of Archbishop Nikifor Feotoki. Most of the clergy participants in the council are accused of ignorance. Stoglav’s style of presentation seems to the author to be too folksy and verbose6.

The actual scientific study of Stoglav by secular authors begins in pre-revolutionary historiography under the influence of general attention to the activities of Zemsky Sobors in Rus'. This attention was due to the historically heightened interest in the 19th century. to class-representative institutions. Works appear that are 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, noting at the same time its simplicity and examples of oratorical floridity when presenting Grozny’s speeches. He drew attention to the fact that “as a collection of data for depicting various aspects of Russian life in the 16th century, Stoglav is a monument that is irreplaceable in any way”7. P. A. Bezsonov expressed an equally high opinion of Stoglav’s merits. He emphasized that in Stoglav “all the questions of the century are touched upon, the entire 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 still admitted that “Stoglav, both as a literary and as a legislative monument, represents a rare and outstanding phenomenon in the history of Russian church law”9 .

Of the remaining works of the second half of the 19th - early 20th 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 punishment lists, which mention the Council Code of 1551. Stoglav’s research convinced the author that the issues considered at the council concerned “not only purely church, but also state relations. Along with questions about the behavior of clergy and monks, about church rituals, about non-Christian and immoral phenomena in people’s everyday life, the council was asked questions concerning church-state relations... This is not enough; The council had to discuss a lot of things that were of purely national importance.” Based on this, I. N. Zhdanov applied the name of the Church-Zemsky Council to the cathedral of 1551. This definition was subsequently adopted by other scientists, in particular the Soviet historians L.V. Cherepnin and S.O. Shmidt19. Special studies were devoted to Stoglav by N. Lebedev20, D. Ya. Shpakov21, I.M. Gromoglasov22, V.N. Bochkarev23 and others. The authors of major courses on the history of Russian law could not ignore Stoglav: V.N. Latkin in “Lectures” on the external history of Russian law” specifically devoted 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 was in force 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. His study provides a detailed historiographical review of previous literature about Stoglav, examines various editions of his text, reviews all found copies of the monument and classifies them by edition, clarifies the sources of the decrees of the Stoglava Cathedral, and resolves many other issues.

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

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

N. M. Nikolsky repeatedly addressed Stoglav in “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 reissues, the nature of the work was preserved. The author, justifying his thesis about the specific nature of Russian Orthodoxy, in which there was little actual Christian teaching and pagan content predominated, refers to Stoglav, who provides the researcher with rich illustrative material27. Information from Stoglav and in “Essays on Russian Culture of the 16th Century” was used as illustrative material. (in the essays by A.K. Leontyev “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 dedicated to Stoglav in the monograph by I. U. Budovnitsa “Russian journalism of the 16th century.” The author considers the Stoglavy Council as an arena of “clashes between secular authorities and the church organization”29, and clashes that ended in the defeat of the tsar in matters relating to church revenues. When assessing the role of Ivan IV at the council, I. U. Budovnitsy follows the point of view of N. M. Karamzin and sees in Ivan IV an active political figure who independently, without anyone’s help, pursued a line to limit the material power of the church. The author broadly interprets the range of problems discussed at the council, based on which it can be assumed that he classifies the Stoglavy Cathedral as a church council.

A. A. Zimin continued the study of Stoglav as a monument of Russian journalism of the 16th century.30. The author examines the political views of the cathedral participants. Unlike I. U. Budovnitsa, he singles out Sylvester as a political figure who prepared materials for the council, in particular royal issues, 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 A. A. Zimin’s monograph “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 council and the non-covetous entourage of the tsar, noting that “the bulk of Stoglav’s decisions implemented the Josephite program,” and the program of secularization of church lands suffered complete failure31.

The decisions of the Stoglavy Council as an integral part of the reforms of the mid-16th century. are considered in the works of N. E. Nosov and S. O. Schmidt. N. E. Nosov, in his monograph “The Formation of Estate-Representative Institutions in Russia,” studies the decisions of the council in close connection with the reform of zemstvo administration. They pay special attention to the role of the 1551 cathedral in resolving zemstvo affairs and reorganizing the court. In this regard, the zemstvo character of the Stoglavy Council and its decisions is emphasized: approval of the Code of Law of 1550, approval of the “course of reconciliation”, adoption of the charter, which laid the foundation for 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 as a church council.

N. E. Nosov clarified the general assessment of the cathedral given by D. A. Zimin. Thus, the author views the struggle at the council of various trends not only as a confrontation between non-covetous people and Josephites, but also as part of the general political struggle of the tsarist government with the separatist tendencies of large patrimonial owners. The results of the conciliar decisions look from the point of view of N. E. Nosov as a more significant victory for the tsar’s supporters, especially in terms of limiting the political privileges of large landowners32, than it seemed to A. A. Zimin. Considering the government's land policy, the author traces the development of legal norms regulating church land ownership, starting 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 the zemstvo decisions of the church council of 1551. He rejects the widespread assertions of previous authors that the council adopted the text of the Code of Laws of 1550. S. O. Schmidt believed that at the Council of the Stoglavy it was a question of bringing the statutory charters on local self-government into conformity with the Code of Laws of 1550 and their approval34.

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

V.I. Koretsky examines the goals of convening the council, the order of its work, and 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 court, which, as he believes, reflected a compromise between the Josephites and non-covetous people.

The chapter dedicated to the Stoglavy Cathedral in the monograph by L.V. Tcherepnin is in many ways 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-zemsky character of the Stoglavy Cathedral. L. V. Cherepnin noted that in his work the main attention is paid to the Stoglavy Council, and not to the document adopted at it. Nevertheless, the author expressed many valuable thoughts about the structure of Stoglav, and in a number of cases 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 contents of Stoglav and used it in their research, as a rule, considered this monument in close connection with the socio-economic and political situation in Russia in the first half - mid-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 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 20th century. At least 100 lists of handwritten Stoglav were known. An overview 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 issue of Stoglav’s sources. His attention was drawn to written documents, quotes 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 subsequently caused the compilers of Stoglav to be accused of distorting the text of the Bible by representatives of the official church. Stoglav’s sources also include Helmsmen (collections of apostolic, conciliar and episcopal rules and messages, laws of secular power and other materials that served as guidelines for the administration of the church, in the church court in Slavic countries and distributed in Russia from the 13th century) and books of historical and moral teaching content. In general, the most borrowings were made from the Helmsman. The main source of Stoglav’s decrees was church practice. It was the conditions of the moment that required the reform of the church court and the introduction of the institution of archpriests. Stoglav, thus, adapted the church structure to the conditions of an estate-representative monarchy.

One of the main places in the content of Stoglav is occupied by issues of the judicial system and the organization of the church court. It was noted in the literature that Stoglav for the first time provides an opportunity to get an idea of the structure of diocesan courts in medieval Russia and legal proceedings in them40. Indeed, the emergence of Stoglav is associated with clear regulation of the structure of the church court, its jurisdiction, legal proceedings, etc. It is especially clear here that the regulations on church courts are closely related to the general judicial reform of Ivan the Terrible40. The significance of the council’s decrees on church court can be judged by how they were set out in the punishment lists of the Council Code of 1551: due to their special importance, these decrees were placed at the very beginning of the lists41. Despite the fact that Stoglav was condemned and abolished by the Moscow Council of 1666-1667, Patriarch Adrian was guided by Stoglav's decrees on the hierarchical court even after the council of 1666-1667. until 1701. Only with the publication of the Spiritual Regulations (1720) did Stoglav lose its significance for the Russian Orthodox Church.

Stoglav is a multifaceted legal monument. Like other monuments of canon law, it regulated the lives of not only church people, but also the laity. 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 wise men, sorcerers, and false prophets is reflected only in the monuments of church law, which form a significant part of the legal system of the Russian state. Without Stoglav, an idea of the lifestyle of Russian people in the 16th century. would be incomplete.

Stoglav was first published in 1860 by the free Russian printing house of Tübner in London, most likely by one of the Old Believers, who signed himself “I. A.". D. Stefanovich tried to explain the lack of Stoglav’s publications in Russia not by the intervention of church censorship, but simply by the fact that no one took on such a difficult task42. There may be some truth to this explanation. In a review of the London edition of Stoglav43 the most critical assessment of the publication was given. 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 to have it at all, than to have a printed one in which not only the “luxurious illiteracy of the 16th century” is changed, an important thing for lovers of antiquity, but the text itself is spoiled 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 Stoglav’s publication, the first domestic edition, prepared by I. M. Dobrotvorsky45, appeared in London. It was carried out in Kazan completely independently, independently of London, and was highly praised in the literature. D. Stefanovich called it “the first attempt at scientific publishing” 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 publication47. It received the same unflattering assessment in the literature as the London one. Professor N. S. Tikhonravov stated that he did not attach any scientific significance to the St. Petersburg edition of Stoglav, which was filled with the most gross errors, and Professor N. I. Subbotin even called it “pathetic”48. D. Stefanovich, on four pages of this edition, counted 110 deviations from the original and concluded that D. E. Kozhanchikov’s edition is hardly better than the London one, “so its scientific value is very low”49. N.I. Subbotin and D. Stefanovich expressed bewilderment that D.E. Kozhanchikov preferred the Short edition of the monument to the Long one, while the Long edition 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 Kozhanchikov editions separately provide, moreover, being free from the shortcomings of both editions”50.

Considering all previous editions of Stoglav not without flaws, Professor N.I. Subbotin made his own attempt to publish Stoglav51 in 1890. He considered the main drawback of the Kazan edition to be that it was based not on a list from the 16th century, but from the 17th century, but, as D. Stefanovich rightly noted later, the list from the 17th century, which served as the basis for the Kazan edition52, is closer to the original than the list published by N.I. Subbotin53, although the latter dates back to the 16th century54.

The edition by N.I. Subbotin was made according to three copies of the 16th century, and the text was typed in Church Slavonic font, observing all the features of the writing of that time, i.e. with titles, erics, etc. This greatly complicates the reading of the monument. D. Stefanovich reproached N.I. Subbotin for the fact that out of Stoglav’s three lists, the publisher chose the worst one as the main one, and gave options for the two best ones. 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 St. Nicholas Edinoverie Monastery in order to dispel their doubts about the accuracy of Stoglav’s text. Such distrust 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 passion for polemical goals caused damage to the scientific merit of his publication55.

After the Subbotin edition, two more publications appeared, each of which conveys Stoglav’s text from only one single list. The first, called the Makaryevsky Stoglavnik56, is a publication of a list of 1595 from the Novgorod Sofia-Brotherly Library. In it, Stoglav’s text 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 must be given to the Kazan edition, which has 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 at that.

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. This approach to publication is due to a number of reasons. Stoglav's publications have now become a bibliographic rarity. There is no commentary edition of this monument. There is no source study (including textual criticism) of Stoglav in modern Soviet historiography, in historical and historical-legal science. The task of such research, which naturally will require a lot of effort and time58, is a matter for the future.

The proposed publication is accompanied by comments necessary for the modern reader to initially understand the content of the chapters of this most valuable source on the socio-economic and political history of 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 list from the 17th century. Lengthy edition (list No. 1). Discrepancies are given according to the lists of the indicated publication:

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

No. 3 - list of the 18th century. Brief edition;

No. 4 - list of 1848. Brief edition;

No. 5 - list of the Long Edition;

AI - list of the end of the 16th century. Long edition. Discrepancies are given in four chapters (chapters 66-69) of this list, published in Historical Acts, vol. 1, no. 155;

AE -list published in AAE, vol. 1, no. 229. According to this list, discrepancies are given in Chapter. 100, 101.

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 placed according to modern punctuation rules;

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

4) titles are revealed and all abbreviations are deciphered;

5) typos that crept into the Kazan edition and were noticed by D. Stefanovich have been corrected;

6) discrepancies that are not significant 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. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 89.

3 Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XVI - XVIII centuries. M., 1978, p. 79.

4 Quoted from: Stoglav, ed. 2nd, Kazan, 1887, p. III.

5 Theophylact Lopatinsky. Exposing schismatic untruths. M., 1745, l 146-06.

6 Nikifor Feotoki. Answers to questions from Old Believers. M., 1800, p. 235.

7 Belyaev I.V. On the historical significance of the acts of the Moscow Council of 1551 - Russian conversation. M. 1858, part IV, p. 18.

8 Bezsonov P. A. News in Russian literature - Stoglav 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: Innocent (Smirnov), bishop. Outline of church history from biblical times to the 18th century. T. 2. M., 1849, p. 434-435.

12-13 Stoglav. Kazan, 1862, p. 1.

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, department. VI, p. 31.

15 Belyaev I.V. Stoglav and the punishment lists of the cathedral code of 1551. Orthodox Review, 1863. T. XI, p. 189-215.

16 See, in particular: Dobrotvorsky I.D. Canonical book of Stoglav or non-canonical? — Orthodox interlocutor, 1863. Part 1, p. 317-336, 421-441; right 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, department 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; Shmidt S. O. Formation of the Russian autocracy. Research into the socio-political history of the time of Ivan the Terrible. M., 1973, p. 181.

20 Lebedev N. Hundred-Glavy Cathedral (1551). The experience of presenting his inner story. - Readings in the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment, January 1882, M, 1882.

21 Shpakov A. Ya. Stoglav. On 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 Council of 1551. Historical and canonical essay. Yukhnov, 1906.

24 Latkin V. Y. Lectures on the external history of Russian law. St. Petersburg, 1888.

25 Pavlov A. S. 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 of the mid-16th 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.

32 Nosov N. E. Formation of estate-representative institutions in Russia. Research on the zemstvo reform of Ivan the Terrible. L., 1969, p. 74.109.

Goals of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Council of the Hundred Heads of 1551 considered the main goal to overcome “disorders” in the life of the Russian Church. 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-folk life. The council discussed the problems of church governance and compliance with church regulations 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 electing competent and worthy altar servers. Questions arose about the creation of religious schools where clergy would be trained. This would also help improve literacy among the population.

100 years later

The ancient Orthodox tradition was now protected from distortions and changes that manifested themselves abroad. Discussing the need to introduce the two-fingered sign, the council repeated the Greek formula of the 12th-13th centuries, that if someone makes the sign of the cross with fingers other than two, like our Christ, he will be cursed. Those gathered believed that such correction of spiritual disorders would help bring all spheres of church life to grace-filled fullness and perfection. For the next decades, the cathedral represented an unquestioned authority.

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

The Moscow Council argued that Stoglav's provisions were written unreasonably, simply and ignorantly. It is not surprising that many soon doubted the authenticity of this collection. For a long time, a heated dispute between schismatics - 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 resolution as the fruit of error. All participants in the Stoglavy Council were accused of ignorance. Wanting to wash away the shame, opponents of the resolutions put forward a version that the cathedral of 1551 had nothing to do with Stoglav.

Morality and life control

The unrest that discredited the church and threatened its future was nevertheless recognized by the council. That is why the institution of priestly elders was introduced everywhere. In each city, the number of elders was determined individually. Thus, 7 priestly elders were appointed for Moscow. This number corresponded to the number of cathedrals that were central in their district. The priest's elders also had assistants - tens. The latter were chosen from among the priests. In villages and volosts, only ten priests were elected. In Stoglav, responsibilities were recorded: control over the correct conduct of services in subordinate churches and deaneries of priests.

An important decision was also made regarding “double” monasteries. Both men and women lived in them.

The 100-Glavy Council of the Russian Church condemned popular outrages and remnants of paganism: judicial duels, drunkenness, buffoon performances, and gambling.

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

Divine service

Most of the council's decisions relate to divine services.

The double-fingered addition (with the sign of the cross) was legalized precisely in 1551. A special hallelujah was also legalized. Over time, 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 it didn't last long. Corrected books were published there.

Icon "Holy Trinity"

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

Some researchers believe that the council participants did not give a definite answer, or the question remained unresolved. We know one thing for sure: only the inscription “Holy Trinity” remains without inscriptions or crosshairs. However, the fathers were unable to provide a theological justification for this instruction, citing Andrei Rublev and ancient examples. This turned out to be the weak point of the Stoglavy Cathedral, which led to sad consequences. Most surviving icons of the Holy Trinity do not have cross-shaped halos and a distinctive inscription.

Another important issue inextricably linked with the writing of the Trinity was the question of the “imageability of the Divinity” (Chapter 43). The text of the decree refers, in its direct meaning, to the Divinity of Christ. But the problem is that the Deity is not depictable. 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 painted by masters commissioned by 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 Council had reasons to suppress the iconography of the Holy Trinity. Firstly, no one had a clear idea of how to depict the Divine on icons. Secondly, some researchers argue that the cathedral and the metropolitan were not of one mind.

The meaning of Stoglav[edit]

Stoglav recorded the order of worship accepted in the Moscow state: “And whoever does not cross himself with two fingers, like Christ and the apostles, let him be anathema” (Stoglav 31 - referring to the numerous icons of the Savior with two fingers); “...it is not proper to trumpet the holy alleluia, but to say alleluia twice, and on the third, glory to you God...” (Stoglav 42).

These norms lasted until 1652, when Patriarch Nikon carried out a reform of the church, which led, in particular, to the following changes:

Replacing the two-finger sign of the cross with the three-finger one;
The exclamation “Hallelujah” began to be pronounced not twice (extreme hallelujah), but three times (three-gut hallelujah);
Nikon ordered religious processions to be carried out in the opposite direction (against the sun, not in the direction of salt).

The harshness and incorrectness of the reforms caused discontent among a significant part of the clergy and laity, which led to a split in the church into New Believers (who accepted Nikon’s reforms) and Old Believers (who did not accept the reforms).

At the Great Moscow Church Council of 1667, the provisions of the Stoglav Council were recognized as written “unreasonably, in simplicity and ignorance”; [1] the very authenticity of Stoglav was questioned.

Until the middle of the 19th century, the prevailing opinion in the literature was that Stoglav was not a genuine conciliar code of 1551. Metropolitan Plato, without doubting the fact of convening the Council of 1551, doubted, however, that the provisions of Stoglav were approved at this Council.[2]

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 Council (1551), but after the council, from draft notes that were or were prepared only for consideration at the council, but were not considered (entirely), not put into the form of church decrees, not approved by signatures and not made public for leadership.”[3]

This point of view was explained by the reluctance to recognize as authentic the decisions of the official body, which the Russian Church subsequently found erroneous and which were guided by the “schismatics.”

Only after a number of finds by I.V. Belyaev (in particular, punishment lists according to Stoglav

, which indisputably confirmed the fact of the adoption
of Stoglav
at the Council of 1551) [4] the authenticity
of Stoglav
was finally recognized.

Subsequently, historians Stoglav

was considered as a unique monument of Russian law of the 16th century, giving an idea of the way of life of society of that time.

By the beginning, at least 100 lists of handwritten Stoglav were known.[5]

Church court

The relationship between spiritual power and civil power was determined. This happened on the principle of the independence of the church in church affairs. The Council of the Hundred Heads decided on charters. As a result, all parish clergy and monasteries became subordinate to their bishops. Secular courts could not put clergy on trial. But since they could not immediately abolish the existing system, they decided to give priests the right to participate in courts through their own elected elders and sotskie. They forgot to define their roles in court.

Church land ownership

Apparently, the issue of land ownership was raised at the council, but it was not included in the Council Code. But after some time, the 101st chapter appeared - “The Verdict on the Estates.” In this document, the tsar and the metropolitan reflected their desire to reduce the growth of church land holdings. In the last chapter, five main decisions were fixed:

Archbishops, bishops and monasteries do not have the right to buy estates from anyone without royal permission.
Land contributions are allowed for the funeral of a soul, but it is necessary to stipulate the condition and procedure for their redemption by relatives.
The votchinniki of some regions do not have the right to sell their votchina to people in other cities. It is also forbidden to give estates to monasteries without reporting to the king.
The verdict does not have retroactive force; it does not apply to transactions completed before the Stoglavy Council.
A sanction has been established for violation of the contract: the estate is confiscated in favor of the sovereign, and the money is not returned to the seller.

Collection of council decisions

The Conciliar, or the Royal and Hierarchical Code, is the name given to the collection of resolutions of the cathedral in the text of the document itself. And only towards the end of the 16th century, the more familiar name to us was established - Stoglav.

He collected and systematized not only all the norms of church law of that time, but also many secular laws.

Financial questions

The collection of duties ceases to be the business of bishops' officials and is transferred to the grassroots level. For this purpose, there is now an elective position of priestly elders - assistants to the local bishop in economic, fiscal and supervisory affairs. Headmen existed before, but from now on they are elected everywhere.

It was the material and monetary issue that turned out to be the aspect where the benefits of religious institutions were reduced to the greatest extent. Thus, the church banned usury in cash and in kind, as well as receiving land and real estate as a gift without royal permission. Sanctions are imposed for violations.

The state begins to persecute people hiding in monasteries from paying taxes under plausible pretexts. Such violators had to be found, expelled back, returned to work and performing duties according to their class affiliation.

Morality of the clergy

Unrest and weak discipline in the ranks of the clergy were officially recognized. The approval of the position of elders was also intended to improve supervision of deanery and the proper administration of services. The ten priests in rural areas, also elected, were subordinate to the elders.

The resolution condemns uncontrolled begging, which sometimes involved the collection of alms by monks. An important innovation was the creation of so-called “double” monasteries. From now on, monastics of both sexes could live in the same monastery, but subject to strict separation of men and women, adherence to the rules and maintenance of chastity.

Immorality of the laity

Attention was also paid to correcting the morals prevailing among the masses.
There is evidence that church ministers wrote to the king complaining about the still remaining remnants of pagan cults and pre-Christian customs. A careless attitude towards services, a lack of reverence among believers, and even sorcery at prosphora - all this, according to the text of the code, became commonplace in Russian life of that time. Western influence led to a certain spread of fashion for shaving beards, which clearly ran counter to the instructions of the church and ancient norms of piety. This was prohibited under threat of fine or excommunication and was almost equated with “heresy” and “Latinism.” Measures were taken against witchcraft, buffoonery, gambling and some other folk amusements.

Worship and religion

Thanks to the influence of Metropolitan Macarius, liturgical and religious issues were also brought up for discussion, on which at that time a lot of unrest had also accumulated.

Therefore, the following norms of Orthodox rituals are officially approved:

double-fingered sign of the cross;
double hallelujah;
baptism through complete triple immersion;
a ban on priests passing through the Royal Doors without liturgical vestments (robes and stoles);
the presence of an antimension with a particle of relics as a prerequisite for the sanctification of the church;
service after the bell ringing;
the performance of worship by a priest only in vestments.

Family and marriage

The marriage age is set at 15 for boys and at 12 for girls.

Only the first marriage was allowed to be crowned; the second was now only allowed to be blessed, but with the imposition of penance for 1-2 years; the third was not blessed at all and was punishable by excommunication for 5 years. The fourth marriage was not recognized as such at all; it was considered a crime, fornication and a “pig’s life.”

Church court

The Code divides the secular and ecclesiastical judicial systems into two separate branches. The so-called “non-judgmental letters” were abolished - monasteries and parish clergy from now on became subject to the jurisdiction of the bishops of their diocese.

Clergymen could no longer be brought to state court.

However, the innovation encountered difficulties, because it was not possible to immediately change the system. A compromise solution is adopted in the form of the right of priests to represent their interests in a secular court through their own elected representatives. However, their role in legal proceedings was never clearly defined.

Church land ownership

The problem of church land and other property turned out to be perhaps the most acute and pressing of those described in the text of the code. In this regard, the clergy were divided into two rival factions. Non-covetous people were a minority, but were supported by the Tsar's Selected Rada, including the priest Sylvester, a close associate of Ivan the Terrible. The Josephites made up the majority and numerically dominated among the participants in the council.

Non-acquisitive people professed an ascetic approach and proposed limiting monastic land ownership, allowing for the seizure of land in favor of the state. Their opponents, the Josephites, promoted the idea of monasteries as strong institutions of feudal society, owning vast lands and controlling food supplies to provide for the population in lean years.

The topic of land ownership turned out to be a sensitive one and was not included in the text of the code, although it was raised in the discussion.

However, a chapter published later as an addition, known as “The Verdict on Patrimonies,” speaks of the following ways to resolve the land issue:

Bishops and monasteries are prohibited from acquiring land without royal permission.
It is equally prohibited to give lands to monasteries without reporting to the king.
At the same time, it is allowed to donate plots of land “for the soul’s remembrance” only if the conditions and procedure for their redemption by the relatives of the person who made the will are established.
The above laws did not have retroactive effect and did not apply to transactions and agreements completed earlier.
From now on, in case of violations, the patrimony must be confiscated in favor of the state without any compensation to any of the parties.

The meaning of the cathedral

The reforms of Ivan the Terrible were of great importance:

they contributed to the strengthening of autocracy;
the balance of power within the feudal class changed in favor of the nobility;
the royal personal power was strengthened;
a class society began to be created. Each layer had its own internal organization and its own organs of self-government. It was possible to negotiate with the authorities;
nobles lost part of their rights and influence. But now they had new weight and significance, having become the top of the emerging noble class. When the role and importance of noble associations began to grow, the nobility relied on their support. Thus, she took a more independent position in relation to her monarch.

conclusions

The Council of the Hundred Heads, 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 sign of two fingers and the special hallelujah are correct and saving. But the controversy surrounding the correct spelling did not subside for a long time.

The Church Council of the Hundred Heads 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 extensive and unclear.

The 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 class. At the same time, the hierarchy was going to firmly defend the property integrity of the Church. It was also necessary to legitimize the many church-wide transformations that arose.

The Stoglavy Council cannot be called successful, since many of the issues discussed became the cause of discord between the Old Believers and the Orthodox. And over time, this dispute only flared up.