1. The latest article to appear, Marc Szeftel, “Joseph Volotsky's Political Ideas in a New Historical Perspective,” Jahrbiicher fur Gcschichtc Ostcuropas, n.s., 13, no. 1 (April 1965): 19-29, reviews the development of scholarly understanding of Iosif's most important, and seemingly contradictory, political doctrines. Of the standard American textbooks of Russian history, only Michael Florinsky's Rrissia: A History and an Interpretation, 2 vols. (New York, 1953), 1: 167, refers to Iosif's monastic “regulations. “ A. A. Zimin does not even mention the Rules in Rossiia na porogc novogo vrcmeni (Ocherki politichcskoi istorii Rossii pervoi trcti XVI v.) (Moscow, 1972).

2. Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov), Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi, 12 vols., 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1857-83), 4: 226-41, 7: 55-57, 70-72, 87-99 (vols. 13-14 of Slavica Reprints), and Igor, Smolitsch, Russisches Mbnchtum: Entstchung, Entwicklung, mid Wesen, 988- 1917 (Wurzburg, 1953), pp. 254–62 Google Scholar, for example, rely heavily on losif in their treatment of Muscovite monasticism.

3. losif had a decisive influence on the monastic rules and writings of Kornilii Komel'- sky, Metropolitan Daniil, and Archbishop and Metropolitan Makarii. See “Kornilii Komel'skii, II. Ustav ili pravila,” in Bishop Amvrosii, Istoriia Rossiiskoi Ierarkhii, 6 vols. (Moscow, 1807-15), 4: 662-704; Zhmakin, V. I., Mitropolit Daniil i ego sochineniia (Moscow, 1881)Google Scholar, also published in Chteniia v Impcratorskom Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh (hereafter ChOIDR), 1881, nos. 1 and 2, esp. “Otdel prilozheniu, “ 2: 39-44; V. G. Druzhinin, “Neskol'ko neizvestnykh literaturnykh pamiatnikov iz sbornikov XVI-go veka,” Letopis1 saniatii Arkheograficheskoi komissii, 21 (1909): 30, 71-75; Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i isdannye Arkheograficheskoiu komissieiu (hereafter AI), 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1841-42), vol. 1, no. 292, pp. 531-34; and Stoglav, isdannyi D. E. Koshanchikova (St. Petersburg, 1863), gl. 39, 49, 50, 52.

4. The actual title of what la. S. Lur'e named the “Brief Redaction” of Iosif's Rule ( “Ustav “) is “Abba Iosif's Discourses to His Disciples from the Divine Scriptures on the Coenobitic Life” ( “Awy Iosifa ot bozhestvennykh pisanii o zhitel'stve obshchezhitel'- nem slovesa k svoim emu uchenikom “), and was named by a seventeenth-century scribe, “The Old Monastery Book of Iosif Volotsky” ( “Kniga Iosif Volotskii Monastyrskaia staraia “). It was published by Lur'e in la. S. Lur'e, and Zimin, A. A., Poslaniia Iosifa Volotskogo (Moscow and Leningrad, 1959)Google Scholar, “Prilozheniia,” pp. 296-319.

5. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 302–3, 309, 314, 318Google Scholar.

6. The earliest copy of the Brief Rule is found, along with the earliest copy of the “Brief” Enlightener, which Lur'e reasonably dated 1502-4, in a Solovetsky (originally Iosifov-Volokolamsky) manuscript of no later than 1514. The formulas of address of discourses rewritten in the Extended Rule correspond to the way Iosif wrote to his monks around 1504-7, which would indicate that the Brief Rule was written earlier. However, a few parts of the extant Brief Rule may have been written later than corresponding parts of the Extended Rule, because the latter is closer to the ultimate source, Nikon “of the Black Mountain.” See Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 290, 296-97, 303-5Google Scholar; N. A. Kazakova and la. S. Lur'e, Antifeodal'nye ercticheskie dvisheniia na Rusi XlV-nachala XVI vcka (hereafter AfED) (Moscow and Leningrad, 1955), pp. 438-45; Kazakova, N. A., Vassian Patrikeev i ego sochineniia (Moscow and Leningrad, 1960), pp. 343-47, 355–56 Google Scholar; Velikie Minei-Chetii, sobrannye vserossiiskim mitropolitom Makariem (St. Petersburg, 1868- 1917), vol. 1, for September (hereafter VMCh), cols. 503, 520, 523-24; Taktikon … Nikona Chernogortsa (Pochaev, 1795), regular text, p. 13 ob.

7. The title of what Lur'e calls the “Minea Redaction” of Iosif's Rule is “The Authentic and Detailed Last Will and Testament [literally, ‘Spiritual Charter’] of the Reverend Abbot Iosif—'To the Spiritual Superior Who Shall Succeed Me and to All My Brothers in Christ, from the First Down to the Last'—Concerning the Monasterial and Monastic Institution, According to the Witness of the Divine Scriptures, from the Cloister of the Venerable and Glorious Dormition of the All-Glorious Mother-of-God, in Whom We Dwell” ( “Dukhovnaia gramota prepodobnago igumena Iosifa o monastyrskom i inocheskom ustroenii, podlinno zhe i prostranno i po svidetel'stvu bozhestvennykh pisanii, dukhovnomu nastoiateliu izhe po mne sushchemu i vsem, iazhe o Khristem, bratiam moim, ot pervago dazh1 do posledniago, v Obiteli Preslavnyia Bogoroditsa, Chestnago i Slavnago Uspeniia, v neizhe zhitel'tsvuem “). It was published in VMCh in 1868 (cols. 499-615). It is often called his Testament ( “Dukhovnaia gramota “), as well as his Rule ( “Ustav “), but should not be confused with his official testament of his monastery to Vasilii III in 1507 (see AI, vol. 1, no. 288). What I call Iosif's Brief Rule (from Lur'e's designation, kratkaia rcdaktsiia) should not be confused with Discourse no. 12 of the Extended Rule, which is entitled “The Second Will and Testament of the Sinful and Miserable Abbot Iosif, ‘To My Fathers and Brothers Who Wish To Hear in Brief About Everything Written Here Concerning the Monasterial and Monastic Institution'” ( “Dukhovnaia gramota vtoraia … vkrattse “), VMCh, cols. 567-70.

8. VMCh, cols. 509, 525-27, 543, 547-63, 574-87, 602-3.

9. Discourses nos. 10 and 11, 12 and 14, and 13, as well as the introductory and some inserted sections, appear to represent various stages of Iosif's monastic legislation. The final act, the institution of the sobor, did not take place until 1514-15. See below, note 105.

10. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 297, 310Google Scholar; VMCh, cols. 504, 529.

11. See Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 145–51, 179-82, 187-228Google Scholar. In almost all of his works, Iosif is either imperious or combative.

12. See, for example, Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 314, 317Google Scholar, and VMCh, cols. 532, 542.

13. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 310 Google Scholar; VMCh, col. 528.

14. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 297–303 Google Scholar; VMCh, cols. 503-13; Kazakova and Lur'e, AfED, pp. 351-56; J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca (161 vols., Paris, 1857-66, hereafter PG), 48: 718, 725-26, 734, 744-46, 882, 56: 997-1007 (and the Old Russian translation in VMCh, cols. 798, 807, 809, 833, 836, 971-81).

15. Kazakova and Lur'e, AfED, pp. 414-19; Prosvetitel', Hi oblichenie eresi shidovstvuiushchikh, tvorenie prepodobnago ottsa nashego, Iosifa, igumcna Volotskago, 3rd ed. (Kazan, 1896), pp. 253-88 (Discourse no. 11).

16. Thomas Spidlik, S.J., Joseph de Volokolamsk: Un chapitre de la spiritualite russe, vol. 146 of Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, 1956). This was the first work to seek losif's monastic sources. In order to explain losif's monastic theology, Spidlik went beyond the Extended Rule to losif's Enlightencr (pp. 66-67, 70-75, 111-12, 123, 125-26) and to the coenobiarch Basil of Caesarea (pp. 60-61, 66-67, 72-73), though not to the monastic psychologist John Climachus, who was almost as important as Basil for Iosif. Spidlik also may be inaccurate in claiming that losif's “semi-Pelagianism” and his failure to include “imaginative discretion” as a desired trait for the superior in his theory of clerical authority were peculiarly Eastern Christian traits, at least for the Middle Ages (pp. 33-34, 43-44, 68-69).

17. A. S. Arkhangel'sky, Nil Sorskii i Vassian Patrikeev, vol. 25 of Pamiatniki drevnei pis'mennosti i iskusstva (St. Petersburg, 1882), p. 224. According to Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba v russkoi publitsislike kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka (Moscow and Leningrad, 1960), pp. 14-15, 22-23, 286-87, the original scholarly presentation of these ideas is found in Zhmakin, , Mitropolit Daniil, pp. 23-24, 91-92, 107Google Scholar.

18. Arkhangel'sky, Nil Sorskii i Vassian Patrikeev, p. 214.

19. Kologrivof [Kologriwof], Ivan, Essai sur la saintete en Russie (Bruges, 1953), p. 220 Google Scholar.

20. Kologrivof, , Essai, p. 221 Google Scholar; George, Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1946-66), 2: 311Google Scholar.

21. Kologrivof, , Essai, p. 220 Google Scholar.

22. Fedotov, , Russian Religious Mind, 2: 312Google Scholar. The statement cited by Fedotov actually derives from Chrysostom's and Iosif's instructions concerning the lay congregation's choral prayer. See Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, p. 352; Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 299–300 Google Scholar; VMCh, cols. 506, 819, 982.

23. Fedotov, , Russian Religious Mind, 2: 283 Google Scholar.

24. Georges, Florovsky, Puti russkago bogosloviia (Paris, 1937), p. 18 Google Scholar.

25. In the final analysis, losif relies in both Rules chiefly upon the New Testament, Basil of Caesarea, Efrem of Syria, John Climachus, the “Apophthegmata patrum,” and the Patericons—thus even more upon Semitic or Middle Eastern traditions (the wellspring of all Christian monasticism) than on any other group of literary sources.

26. Irenee Hausherr, S.J., “Les grands courants de la spiritualite orientale,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1 (1935): 114-38.

27. See, for example, Max, Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 3 vols. (New York, 1968), 2: 541-77, 3: 1158–73 Google Scholar.

28. See, for example, M. N. Tikhomirov, “Monastyr'-votchinnik XVI v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski, 3 (1938): 130-60; Kopanev, A. I., Istoriia zemlevladeniia Beloserskogo kraia XV-XVI w. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1951)Google Scholar ; Budovnits, I. U., Monastyri na Rusi i bor'ba s nimi krest'ian v XIV-XVI w. (Moscow, 1966)Google Scholar.

29. Kologrivof, , Essai, p. 223 Google Scholar; and Florovsky, , Puti, p. 18 Google Scholar. Smolitsch, , Russisches Mbnchtum, pp. 180–246Google Scholar, treats the economic aspects of Muscovite monasticism, but is more interested in the colonization of lands than in the acquisition of villages and dominion over people and labor.

30. Lilienfeld, Fairy von, Nil Sorskij und seine Schriften: Die Krise der Tradition im Russland Ivans III (Berlin, 1963), pp. 151, 170, 183Google Scholar.

31. Ibid., p. 171; Spidlik, , Joseph de Volokolamsk, p. 138 Google Scholar; Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 367 Google Scholar.

32. Kazakova, , Vassian Palrikeev, pp. 355–56Google Scholar; A. A. Zimin, “O politicheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi litcratury (hereafter TODRL), 9 (1953): 168-69.

33. Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikccv, pp. 349–53Google Scholar; Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 179–83, 258-60Google Scholar.

34. The classical Marxist statement concerning the ideological role of the “feudal “ church is found in Friedrich Engels, Dcr deutsche Bauernkrieg, vol. 7 of Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Werke, 39 vols. (Institut fur Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, Berlin, 1957-68), pp. 330–41 Google Scholar. ‘

35. Budovnits, I. U., Russkaia publitsistika XVI vcka (Moscow and Leningrad, 1947), pp. 61–82 Google Scholar, and Monastyri na Rusi, pp. 239-44.

36. B. A., Rybakov, “Voinstvuiushchie tserkovniki XVI v.,” Antireligiosnik, 1934, no. 3, pp. 21–31Google Scholar, esp. 28; no. 4, pp. 21-30. 37. Zimin, A. A., S. Percsvctov i ego sovrcmcmiiki (Moscow, 1958), pp. 71–90 Google Scholar.

38. Zhmakin, , Mitropolit Daniil, pp. 19–22Google Scholar.

39. la. S. Lur'e, “Kratkaia redaktsiia ‘Ustava’ Iosifa Volotskogo, pamiatnik ideologii rannego iosiflianstva,” TODRL, 12 (1956): 116-38.

40. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 314 Google Scholar.

41. Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba, pp. 249-58.

42. The doctrinal and social analogies between the heretical and reformational movements of fourteenth to sixteenth-century Russia and twelfth to sixteenth-century Western and Central Europe are the basis for applying Engels's typology of “urban,” “plebeian,” and “undifferentiated urban-plebeian” movements to Russia. See Engels, , Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, pp. 244–47Google Scholar; Kazakova and Lur'e, AfED, pp. 72-73; Klibanov, A. I., Reformat tsionnye dvizhcniia v Rossii v XlV-pervoi polovine XVI w. (Moscow, 1960), pp. 93-94, 344–46 Google Scholar; Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba, pp. 127-84; and Zimin, /. S. Peresvetov, pp. 168-216. The application by Soviet historians of Engels's “model” to Russia has not been rigorous and has been challenged, though in no way refuted, by some Western historians. See Fine, J. V. A. in Kritika, 2, no. 2 (Winter 1966): 39 Google Scholar, and Edgar Hosch, “Sowjetische Forschungen zur Haresiengeschichte Altrusslands: Methodologische Bemerkungen,” Jahrbiicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, n.s., 18, no. 2 (June 1970): 279-312, esp. p. 292, n. 55.

43. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 144–53, 158-59, 162-63, 173, 179-83, 185-227, 232-36Google Scholar; Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, pp. 466-67, 474.

44. F., Kalugin, Zinovii, inok Otenskii i ego bogoslovsko-polemichcskiia i tserkovnouchitel'nyia proizvedeniia (St. Petersburg, 1894), pp. 274-75, 281, 295, 306Google Scholar, and “Prilozhenie, “ pp. 21-22. The corpus of Iosif's apologetics is found in Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, pp. 320-73, 391-419, 466-510; Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 139–44, 154-79, 229-32Google Scholar; and Prosvetitel’ (any of the four editions, 1857, 1882, 1896, 1904).

45. I. S., Zimin Peresvetov, pp. 206–10 Google Scholar; Cherepniri, L. V., Obrazovanie russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow, 1960), pp. 462–82 Google Scholar.

46. Iosif's defenses of monasticism are part of his apologetical corpus and are found in Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, pp. 414-19, and Prosvetitel’ (any edition), Discourse no. 11. In his Rules he was only concerned with the accuracy of texts and ritual codes, and he treated the preservation of them as a monastic duty and virtue. See Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 295 Google Scholar, and VMCh, col. 527.

47. Weber, , Economy and Society, 3: 1167-68Google Scholar. “The educated strata of Carolingian, Ottonian, and Salic imperialism worked toward an imperial and theocratic cultural organization, just as did the Josephite monks in sixteenth-century Russia” (2: 513).

48. Cherepnin, L. V. and Zimin, A. A., eds., Akty feodal'nogo semlevladeniia i khoziaistva XIV-XVI w. (hereafter AFZKh), 3 vols. (Moscow, 1951-61), vol. 2, nos. 1–8 Google Scholar, and Savva Cherny, “Zhitie i prebyvanie vkrattse prepodobnago ottsa nashego igumena Iosifa, grada Volokolamskago,” VMCh, col. 546.

49. Weber, , Economy and Society, 3: 1170Google Scholar. Budovnits, , Monastyri na Rusi, pp. 239–42Google Scholar, points to the similarity between the strict regime in the Brief Rule and what is known of the constructional period of other fifteenth-century Russian coenobia.

50. See, inter alia, Arkhangel'sky, JViV Sorskii i Vassian Patrikcev, pp. 188-97, and Ikonnikov, V. S., Maksim Grek i ego vremia, 2nd ed. (Kiev, 1915), pp. 381–425 Google Scholar.

51. See above, note 6.

52. The reference by Innokentii Okhlebinin (d. 1491) to Nil's slovcsa, as well as to his predanie, indicates that both his “Predanie” and his “Ustav” may have been composed by 1491. See Arkhangel'sky, Nil Sorskii i Vassian Patrikecv, . “Prilozhenie,” pp. 14-16. Lur'e, however, is cautious (Idcologicheskaia bor'ba, p. 300).

53. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 296–97 Google Scholar; V. O., Zhmakin, “Nil Polev,” Zhurnal Ministcrstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, 1881, no. 8, pp. 189–96Google Scholar.

54. According to the accounts of contemporaries, the synod of 1503 concerning monastic and ecclesiastical lands initiated the open conflict between Iosif and Nil's followers. See Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikcev, p. 279 Google Scholar, and Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 366–69 Google Scholar.

55. Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, pp. 223-49, 254-71Google Scholar; Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 351–55 Google Scholar.

56. M. S. Borovkova-Maikova, Nila Sorskago Predanie i Ustav, s vstupitel'noi stafei, vol. 179 of Pamiatniki drevnei pis'mennosti j iskusstva (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 5, 11-15, 87-90.

57. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 272–76 Google Scholar, 351 (the anonymous missive in response to losif's missive to Prince I. I. Tret'iakov). Zimin makes the case for Vassian's having composed this work, while Kazakova, ﹛Vassian Patrikeev, pp. 171–75 Google Scholar) disagrees.

58. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 318 Google Scholar.

59. For the early period of the monastery, peasants as well as elders took part in estate business (AFZKh, vol. 2, nos. 8, 22).

60. For the hagiographical accounts of losif's early Rule and his leading ascetics see Savva Cherny in VMCh, cols. 465-69, and “Zhitie prep. Iosifa Volokolamskago sostavlennoe neizvestnym,” ChOIDR, 1903, vol. 3, pp. 23-32.

61. Max, Weber, Economy and Society, 3: 1121–23 Google Scholar. The distinction between noneconomic, charismatic, archaic monasticism and rationalized, productive monasticism is more or less valid for the difference between Nil Sorsky's Rules and losif's Extended Rule, but not between losif's Brief Rule and Extended Rule. The primitive coenobitic monastery, described by the Brief Rule, is already on the way to rationalization. Rather, the Brief Rule represents the early, personally charismatic period of any institution.

62. VMCh, col. 586.

63. The records of the material development of Volokolamsk Monastery are found in Titov, A. A., Rukopisi slavianskie i russkie, prinadlezhashchie I. A. Vakhramecvu, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar, “Prilozhenie,” and AFZKh, vol. 2, pp. 1-60. This growth is summarized in Budovnits, Monastyri na Rusi, pp. 235-38.

64. Borovkova-Maikova, , Nila Sorskago Predanie i Ustav, p. 10 Google Scholar. See Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, p. 278 Google Scholar. Vassian claimed that Iosif allowed himself to be called a prophet in his own time.

65. Georgii, Plekhanov, Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli, “Mira” ed. (St.-Petersburg, 1914), pp. 70–92 Google Scholar, and Wittfogel, K. A., Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven, 1957), pp. 201-2, 222-25, 260–62 Google Scholar, whose sources of information are definitely dated, nonetheless applied Marxist concepts to Russian history in such manner as to account for both class developments and political structure. Politically “feudal,” seigniorial medieval Europe, unlike Russia or Byzantium, produced truly constitutional seigniorial monastic orders as well as self-governing communities.

66. Iosif's top officials, sobor members, and monks of the first “order” almost all came from wealthy families. On the other hand, his successor, the future Metropolitan Daniil, was a “new man.” See AFZKIi, vol. 2, ’ nos. 6, 7, 10, 36, 37, 39, 43, 61, 68, 72, 77; Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 239-40, 285-86Google Scholar; Savva Cherny in VMCh, cols. 541-42.

67. Ibid., cols. 550-52, 580.

68. Ibid., cols. 606-9.

69. Ibid., cols. 610-14.

70. Ibid., col. 601.

71. Ibid., col. 526.

72. Ibid., cols. 523-24; Zhmakin, , Mitropolit Daniil, “Prilozhenie,” no. 19Google Scholar.

73. “Zhitie … neizvestnym,” pp. 44-45; VMCh, col. 603.

74. VMCh, cols. 591, 594, 596, 598-99.

75. Ibid., cols. 511-12.

76. Savva Cherny in VMCh, cols. 466-67; “Zhitie … neizvestnym,” pp. 43-45. 77. Ernst, Troelsch, The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, 2 vols. (New York, I960), 1: 239–45 Google Scholar. Without any evidence from losifov sources to justify their position, Soviet historians assume that the three orders masked the material privileges enjoyed by the upper-class monks. See Rybakov, B. A., Remeslo drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1948), p. 587 Google Scholar; Budovnits, , Monastyri na Rusi, pp. 244–45Google Scholar; and Lur'e, Idcologicheskaia bor'ba, pp. 454-55. The prestige that losifov asceticism had under Vasilii III, however, indicates that fidelity to rigorism was useful and important for the Iosifites. See Dopolneniia k Aktam istoricheskim, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1842), no. 218, p. 365.

78. Weber, , Economy and Society, 3: 1198–1200 Google Scholar.

79. See above, note 20.

80. Iosif was conscious of the need for “the superior and all the brothers to be zealously responsible that the divine liturgy be performed in the holy church. Similarly, the one who reads the Synodicon shall be responsible for total accuracy.” See Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, p. 356 Google Scholar.

81. VMCh, cols. 587-606.

82. Dosifei Toporkov, “Nadgrobnoe slovo prepodobnomy Iosifu Volokolamskomu,” in Archimandrite Gerontii Kurganovsky, Volokolamskii Iosifov mushskit monastyr’ i ego sovremennoe sostoianie (St. Petersburg, 1903), p. 134; “Zhitie … neizvestnym,” pp. 32- 33; and Sawa Cherny in VMCh, cols. 482-84.

83. Toporkov, “Nadgrobnoe slovo,” p. 135; VMCh, cols. 562-63; Lev. 26: 3-5.

84. VMCh, cols. 522, 562, 610. Compare to Nil Sorsky in Borovkova-Maikova, Nila Sorskago Predanie i Ustav, pp. 13-14, 87-90, and also to the Brief Rule, Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 314 Google Scholar.

85. VMCh, col. 535. Compare to John, Climachus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent (London, 1959), p. 56 Google Scholar (also in PG, 88: 641-43), and Basil of Caesarea, “Long Rules, “ Saint Basil, Ascetical Works (New York, 1950), pp. 247-52 (also in PG, 31: 927-34).

86. Compare VMCh, cols. 564, 575-80, 611; Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, pp. 482-92; Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, pp. 251-52, 274Google Scholar; Zhmakin, “Nil Polev,” pp. 192-93; and also Pandekty … Nikona Chernogortsa (Spaso-Prilutskii pod Vologdoi, 1670), pp. 285-98.

87. VMCh, cols. 523, 563-65, 575-79; Matt. 5: 13-14, 18: 8, 15-18, 25: 21; Luke 10: 16; Rom. 13: 1-2; 1 Cor. 5: 6, 13; Col. 5: 9; 1. Tim. 4: 14, 5: 20; Heb. 13: 17; 1 Pet. 5: 2-3; Jude 22-23.

88. Lur'e, Idcologichcskaia bor'ba, pp. 407-28.

89. AI, vol. 1, no. 288.

90. See the account of Zimin in Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 262–67Google Scholar, and Rossiia na poroge novogo vremeni, pp. 100-109, 124-38.

91. Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikecv, pp. 56–61Google Scholar, and Lur'e, Idcologichcskaia bor'ba, pp. 468-69.

92. This is carefully analyzed in Szeftel, “Joseph Volotsky's Political Ideas” (see note 1 above). Compare Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 229–32Google Scholar, and ProsvetiteV, 1896 ed., pp. 318-43 (Discourses nos. 15-16), with Kazakova and Lur'e, AjED, pp. 503-10. Iosif also included in his Extended Enlightener his position concerning the impotence of the anathema of a “heretic” bishop, as if to emphasize that obedience to metropolitans and archbishops (such as Varlaam and Serapion) is conditional upon their canonical behavior.

93. For Vassian's somewhat less severe inquisitional program see Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, pp. 272–74Google Scholar.

94. VMCh, cols. 546-47. The source of Iosif's colorful introduction and characterization is Philippus Solitarius's Dioptra (the old Russian Zertsalo). See ‘O ‘A065, 'AYOIPEITIJCOV nepiodwov, vol. 1 (1920), pp. 224-25.

95. Iosif also wrote falsified histories of the Novgorod Heretics and of the “conspiracy “ of Prince Fedor, Aleksei Pil'mev of the rival Vozmitsky Monastery in Volokolamsk, Archbishop Serapion, and his servitor Krivoborsky. On the first see Lur'e, Ideologicheskaia bor'ba, pp. 95-127, and for the second see the hardly credible rendition in Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 220–22Google Scholar.

96. VMCh, cols. 547-48, and Pandekty … Nikona Chernogortsa, p. 63 ob.

97. VMCh, col. 548; Matt. 25: 27; PG, 58: 714.

98. For example, the “traditions” of Varsonofii of Tver-Savvin Monastery were prohibitions against “eating in secret,” women, boys, and leaving without permission. Should this indicate that he allowed inebriation, inattentiveness to prayer, and idle chatter in the refectory? See VMCh, cols. 554-55.

99. Arkhangel'sky, Nil Sorskii i Vassian Patrikeev, “Prilozhenie,” pp. 14-16; Borovkova-Maikova, Nila Sorskago Predanie i Ustav, pp. 1-91Google Scholar; and Lilienfeld, Nil Sorskij, pp. 195-256, 295-313.

100. Lur'e's grounds for suspecting Vassian as the opponent were that in addition to his being Iosif's most vocal enemy Vassian definitely accused Iosif of introducing new principles to justify the persecution of heretics. See “Kratkaia redaktsiia,” pp. 133-36; Ideologichcskaia bor'ba, pp. 452-54; and also Kazakova, , Vassian Patrikeev, pp. 272–74Google Scholar,

277. Furthermore, the structure of this discourse (no. 10) does not require the postscript on the need to avoid avarice and attachment when attending to the monastery's material needs and affairs. See VMCh, cols. 560-63.

101. By the end of 1509 the Novgorod archbishopric was vacant, and Iosif's allies held at least the sees of Moscow, Sarai-Krutitsky (auxiliary to the Metropolitan of Moscow), Rostov-Iaroslavl, Tver, and Kolomna. At that time there were only three others in the Muscovite realm: Suzdal-Vladimir-Nizhny Novgorod, Vologda-Perm, and Riazan. See Stroev, P. M., Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelci monastyrci Rossiiskiia tserkvi (St. Petersburg, 1877), cols. 332, 441, 1030, 1034, et alGoogle Scholar.

102. VMCh, cols. 549-50; Goetz, L. K., Das Kiever Hohlcnkloster als Kultursentrum des vormongolischen Russlands (Passau, 1904), pp. 124–29 Google Scholar.

103. L. V. Cherepnin, I. A. Golubtsov, S. V. Veselovsky, et al., eds., Akty sotsial'noekonomicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi kontsa XlV-nachala XVI v., 3 vols. (Moscow, 1952-64), vol. 2, nos. 215, 311, 315; Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, 4: 185-87, 23: 153, 157-58; L. V. Cherepnin and S. V. Bakhrushin, eds., Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel'nykh kniazei XIV-XVI w. (Moscow, 1950), no. 157, p. 162; and VMCh, cols. 550-52.

104. VMCh, cols. 549-59.

105. During the crisis period of 1507 a large group of elders (nine to thirteen) represented the monastery along with losif for estate affairs. A similar situation prevailed in 1516 and 1517, right after the death of losif and the accession of Daniil. For spiritual affairs, however, the sobor did not take over, according to the monastery's scant records, until the last year of losif's life. See AFZKh, vol. 2, nos. 36, 37, 72, 77; Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 239–40Google Scholar; AI, vol. 1, no. 288; and Ieromonakh losif, Opis’ rukopisei perenesennykh is biblioteki Moskovskoi dukhovnoi akademii (Moscow, 1882) (also in ChOIDR, 1881, vol. 3), nos. 20/39, 146/507.

106. AI, vol. 1, no. 288; VMCh, cols. 570-87, esp. col. 580.

107. According to one of losif's disciples, “Vassian really hated losif and wanted to raze his monastery.” According to another, losif's “enemies” almost succeeded in a campaign to have all of his writings burned after his death. See Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, p. 369 Google Scholar, and Toporkov, “Nadgrobnoe slovo,” p. 135.

108. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 161-63, 173-75Google Scholar.

109. Kazakova and Lur'e, AfED, pp. 468-75.

110. Lur'e, and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 158-69, 162-63, 173Google Scholar; ProsvetileV, 3rd ed., p. 329.

111. Iosif was no trained scholastic in the Western medieval sense, but he did believe syllogistically in “necessary causes which result in the salvation of souls” (viny nushnye s'kliuchaiushchie k spasenim dusham). These “causes” are both the acts which make up “good order” and “good reverence” and also the absence of vices and transgressions of rules. See VMCh, cols. 501-2, 544-46, 570. Viny nushnye is found throughout Nikon's works, but not the s'kliuchaiushchie k spasenim dusham.

112. Florovsky, , Puti, p. 18 Google Scholar.

113. See above, notes 4 and 7. U4. Lur'e and Zimin, , Poslaniia, pp. 97, 99, 381Google Scholar; Spidlik, , Joseph de Volokolamsk, p. 144 Google Scholar.