The state of the budget of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century

Introduction. The article examines the state of the budget of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century during the reign of Fyodor Ivanovich, Boris Godunov, Vasily Shuisky, and the beginning of the reign of Mikhail Romanov. The aim is to trace the impact of the crisis on the level of economic development and the ability of the monastery to provide financial support to the state. The economic structure of the monastery has been well studied in relation to the 16th century, but the beginning of the 17th century was only touched upon by researchers. Methods and materials . We have at our disposal the economic books of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery of the late 16th - early 17th century. The method of continuous systematization of income and expenses was used for study the economic development of the patrimony. Analysis . The analysis of the budget structure made it possible to identifycategories of income and expenses, measure and compare indicators for different years of the late 16th - early 17th century, identify external factors that influenced the economic development of the patrimony. Results. In the 1580s the position of church patrimony in the Russian state ceased to be privileged, which provoked the economic reform of Misail Beznin in the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery in 1591 and the subsequent peasant unrest in the winter of 1594/95. The monastery’s income in the category of deposits began to fall, but receipts from fees (dues, state duties, “na vere”, “na moleben”) increased. Of particular importance was the sale of investment property. In general, at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century, there was a gradual decline in income until 1609. Unplanned payments affected the monastery budget the most: funds requested by Vasily Shuisky; maintenance of “pososhnye lyudi” and children of boyar “tuleny”. The siege of the monastery by the Poles in 1608-1609 and its capture provoked a sharp economic downturn. Despite the fact that in 1612/13 (after the liberation of the monastery in 1610) the first signs of economic recovery appeared, the monastery subsequently could not return to the previous level of economic development.