Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action. Reasons for the split and its results

In the middle of the 17th century. relations between the church and the authorities in the Moscow state became complicated. This happened at a time of strengthening autocracy and growing social tension. Under these conditions, transformations of the Orthodox Church took place, which led to serious changes in the political and spiritual life of Russian society and a church schism.

Reasons and background

The division of the church occurred in the 1650s - 1660s during the church reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon. The reasons for the schism of the church in Rus' in the 17th century can be divided into several groups:

• social crisis,
• church crisis,
• spiritual crisis,
• foreign policy interests of the country.

Social crisis was caused by the desire of the authorities to limit the rights of the church, since it had significant privileges and influence on politics and ideology. The ecclesiastical one was generated by the low level of professionalism of the clergy, its licentiousness, differences in rituals, and interpretation of the contents of holy books. Spiritual crisis - society was changing, people understood their role and position in society in a new way. They expected the church to meet the demands of the times.

Rice. 1. Dual fingers.

Russia's interests in foreign policy also required changes. The Moscow ruler wanted to become the heir of the Byzantine emperors both in matters of faith and in their territorial possessions. To achieve what he wanted, it was necessary to bring the rituals into unity with the Greek models adopted in the territories of the Orthodox lands, which the tsar sought to annex to Russia, or take under its control.

Reform and schism

The split of the church in Rus' in the 17th century began with the election of Nikon as patriarch and church reform. In 1653, a document (circular) was sent to all Moscow churches about replacing the two-finger sign of the cross with the three-finger one. Nikon's haste and repressive methods in carrying out the reform provoked protest from the population and led to a split.

Rice. 2. Patriarch Nikon.

In 1658 Nikon was expelled from Moscow. His disgrace was caused by both his lust for power and the machinations of the boyars. The transformation was continued by the king himself. In accordance with the latest Greek models, church rites and liturgical books were reformed, which did not change for centuries, but were preserved in the form in which they received them from Byzantium.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

Consequences

On the one hand, the reform strengthened the centralization of the church and its hierarchy. On the other hand, the trial of Nikon became the prologue to the liquidation of the patriarchate and the complete subordination of the church institution to the state. In society, the transformations that have taken place have created an atmosphere of perception of the new, which has given rise to criticism of tradition.

Rice. 3. Old Believers.

Those who did not accept the innovations were called Old Believers. The Old Believers became one of the most complex and contradictory consequences of the reform, a split in society and the church.

What have we learned?

We learned about the time of the church reform, its main content and results. One of the main ones was the schism of the church; its flock was divided into Old Believers and Nikonians. .

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.4. Total ratings received: 18.

"RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE

UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"

VLADIMIR BRANCH

DEPARTMENT social and humanitarian disciplines

TEST

course: Domestic history

on the topic: Church schism and the emergence

Old Believers

Performed :

Petrova Irina Vladimirovna

correspondence student,

well 3 , gr. SPF-409_

specialty: Finance and credit

Vladimir 2010

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………3

1. Prerequisites and causes of church schism…………...4

2. Church reform of Nikon. The emergence of the Old Believers………………………………………………………6

3. Consequences of the Old Believers in Russia………………....9

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….13

LIST OF REFERENCES……………………15

Introduction

The personality of Patriarch Nikon and his church reform left a deep mark on the history of Russia. Since the baptism of Rus', the church has always played a significant role in the life of society and even determined the domestic and foreign policy of the state, although it was always under the authority of the state. Sometimes it united the country, sometimes it split it into opposing camps.

The social crisis of the mid-17th century and the difficult economic situation of the country in one form or another affected the relationship between the state and the church - a large landowner who had judicial and tax privileges and had enormous political weight and ideological influence. The authorities' attempt to limit the rights of the church (for example, with the help of the Monastic Order) met with decisive resistance on its part and even strengthened its political claims.

Crisis phenomena also struck the church itself. The low level of professional training of the clergy, their vices (drunkenness, money-grubbing, debauchery, etc.), discrepancies in the holy books and differences in rituals, distortions of some church services undermined the authority of the church. To restore its influence in society, it was necessary to restore order, unify rituals and sacred books according to a single model.

The purpose of my work is: to show the influence of the church on the social and political life of Russia in the second half of the 16th century, the objective necessity and importance of church reform and the role of the personality of Patriarch Nikon in church reform, which entailed serious consequences in domestic and possibly foreign policy Russia.

The thousand-year history of Russia keeps many mysteries. But one of its many problems is choosing a development path. But during all major political and social transformations, a strong personality was at the helm, capable of leading people.

1. Prerequisites and causes of church schism

By the mid-seventeenth century, differences with modern Greek church practice had accumulated and became apparent, and questions arose about the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church. Particularly heated debates arose back in the fifteenth century about “hallelujah” and “walking with salt” (from the word “salting” - along the sun). And in the sixteenth century, many discrepancies and omissions were clearly noticed in church books, especially in translations of liturgical texts: some translators knew little Greek, others - Russian. At the Council of the Stoglava in 1551, held with the aim of introducing uniformity in the churches, it was decided to correct the books, checking them with “good translations,” but the lack of a unified approach led to even greater distortions of the text. One of the attempts to introduce uniformity in liturgical books was also the opening of a printing house in Moscow, but along with the number of books published, the number of errors also grew.

Their greatest indignation was caused by the morals of the clergy. From the numerous complaints received by the then Patriarch Joseph, a very gloomy picture emerged. Instead of caring for the souls of their parishioners, the priests spent their time in drunkenness and debauchery. Not only did they not deliver sermons, but they also sought to shorten the church service itself by introducing “polyphony” - the simultaneous reading and singing of various prayers and texts. Both the white and black clergy were distinguished by their endless greed. Leadership positions in monasteries were acquired by bribing a boyar or bishop. The people lost respect for their clergy and did not want to go to church or fast.

They were also especially upset by the discrepancies in the liturgical books that had accumulated due to the mistakes of the monastic scribes, and the differences in the performance of church rituals. The widespread spread of printing made it possible to introduce uniformity into liturgical books. However, it was unclear which originals to correct the texts from. For some, these were ancient Russian handwritten books, for others, ancient Greek originals. But both sources turned out to be flawed: in the Russian books there were no two identical texts (due to the mistakes of the monastic scribes), and the Greek texts were changed after the fall of Byzantium and the conclusion of the union between the Byzantine and Catholic churches.

Even in the second half of the fifteenth century, the idea was established in the Russian church that after the Union of Florence in 1439 and the fall of Constantinople, truly pure Orthodoxy was preserved only in Rus'. And at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the idea of ​​Moscow as the “Third Rome” took shape. It was put forward by the abbot of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Philotheus in his letters to Vasily III. Philotheus believed that in the history of Christianity there were three successive great centers. The first - Rome - fell due to apostasy from true Christianity; the second - Constantinople - fell due to the Union of Florence. The third “Rome” is Moscow, and there will never be a fourth. This statement was intended to serve the exaltation of the Moscow sovereigns, but at the same time - the affirmation of the exceptional importance of religion and the church. The doctrine of the “Third Rome” served as an ideological basis for hostility to everything foreign, religious intolerance, and self-isolation. Everything that came from the Greeks seemed false. This opinion prevailed in the seventeenth century. Understanding the danger of careless intrusion into the area of ​​faith, the tsar at the same time considered it useful for the state to strengthen the religiosity of his subjects by all means, including personal example. The government understood that abandoning traditions would not be painless, but at the same time it was inclined to think about the need to revise all church rituals and bring them into line with Greek liturgical practice. This was caused, first of all, by the desire to streamline the ritual practice of the Russian Church in the context of the growth of religious freethinking and the decline of the authority of the clergy. At the same time, rapprochement with the Greek Church was supposed to raise the prestige of the Russian state in the Orthodox East.

2. Church reform of Nikon. The emergence of the Old Believers

In 1652, Nikon, having become patriarch, with his characteristic passion, began to implement reform in the ritual area, without affecting the canonical area at all. The reforms of the Church introduced by Nikon had tragic consequences: church schism and conflict between the Church and state power. A favorite of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who was extremely attracted by the idea of ​​“Moscow – the third Rome,” Nikon wanted to implement the “Ecumenical Orthodox Kingdom” through Moscow. To do this, first of all, it was necessary to unify the worship service.

In February 1653, he ordered all Moscow churches to prohibit believers from “bowing” while kneeling; only bowing from the waist was allowed. Only the three-fingered sign of the cross was allowed. Later, the patriarch decisively replaced with new ones those ancient rituals that did not coincide with the Greek ones: it was prescribed to sing “Hallelujah” not two, but three times; during the religious procession, move not along the sun, but against it; The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of the traditional “Iesus”. In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. Officially, the need for corrections was motivated at the council of 1654 by the fact that there were many errors and insertions in the old printed books, and by the fact that the Russian liturgical order was very significantly different from the Greek. For this purpose, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones, were collected. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the reference workers (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of a Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th-15th centuries. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text. As a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller. The new missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and was soon published.

In the summer of 1654, Nikon began correcting the icons. By his order, icons that were distinguished by some realism were taken from the population. He ordered the eyes of the saints depicted on such icons to be gouged out, or the faces to be scraped off and rewritten. The exclusion of hierarchal prayer from services, mainly from the liturgy, was also of significant importance for church ministers and believers. This entailed a significant reduction in the volume of the text, a shortening of the church service and contributed to the establishment of “unanimity”.

The rites of confirmation and baptism, repentance, consecration of oil and marriage were changed and shortened. The biggest changes were in the liturgy. As a result, when Nikon replaced old books and rituals with new ones, it was like the introduction of a “new faith.”

The majority of the clergy reacted negatively to the newly corrected books. In addition, among the parish clergy and monks there were many illiterate people who had to relearn their voice, which was a very difficult task for them. The majority of the city clergy and even the monasteries found themselves in the same situation.

The reform did not concern either the dogmatic or canonical spheres of Orthodoxy. There were no changes in the essence of the doctrine. Nevertheless, these reforms caused protest and then a split.

It so happened that at this time a severe plague epidemic broke out in Moscow. Rumors spread among the people about God's punishment for the blasphemy committed. And the solar eclipse on August 2 provided even more food for speculation. Some of the clergy themselves opposed the reforms. Both priests and laity have retained a pagan attitude towards the cult as magical, witchcraft actions, and nothing can be changed in magic. A conviction arose that the introduced “new faith” represented a departure from true Christianity, true Orthodoxy, which persists only in Russia. The reform was perceived as a manifestation of the satanic principle. The protest movement against the reform expanded and went beyond the framework of intra-church relations. In essence, the emergence of the Old Believers was a social protest expressed in religious form.

Trying to prevent Nikon, the “zealots” submitted a petition to the king, in which they proved the illegality of the innovations. In response to the petition, Nikon gave rise to accusations and complaints from parishioners against members of the circle. The forces were unequal. Soon many “zealots of ancient piety” were arrested and exiled. And some are defrocked. Imprisoned and humiliated, they only strengthened in their “feat”, fell into religious ecstasy, and prophesied.

Nikon's self-esteem and activity grew along with the successes of Russian foreign policy, since he also took an active part in determining its course.

But for the failures of 1656-1657. in foreign policy, the tsar's entourage placed the blame on Nikon. The relationship between the Tsar and the Patriarch began to cool. The Patriarch was invited to the royal palace less often; Alexei Mikhailovich increasingly communicated with him with the help of messengers from the courtiers and made attempts to limit his power, which, of course, Nikon did not want to put up with. This change was used by secular and spiritual feudal lords. Nikon was accused of violating laws, greed and cruelty

Gradually, Nikon's reformist ardor began to cool down. Court intrigues and excessive autocracy led to the fact that the vain Alexei Mikhailovich began to be burdened by the patriarch. The conflict occurred in 1658, after which the offended Nikon refused to be patriarch in Moscow. Nikon's voluntary departure from the patriarchal throne was an unprecedented event and was perceived tragically in society. But the reconciliation expected by Nikon after his demonstrative departure and seclusion in the monastery did not follow. The Tsar accepted his resignation with indecent haste. Nikon, who only thought of scaring Alexei Mikhailovich, tried to regain his post, but it was too late.

The church reform undertaken by Nikon was combined in his activities with an attempt to establish such a relationship between church and secular power, in which secular power would be dependent on church power. However, Nikon's attempt to subjugate secular power failed. He was deposed by the decision of the council in 1667, expressing the royal will. On December 12, the final verdict in the Nikon case was announced. The place of exile of the deposed patriarch was determined to be the Ferapontov Monastery. But the question of the relationship between the “priesthood” and secular power remained open. In the end, the disputing parties came to a compromise solution: “The Tsar has precedence in civil matters, and the Patriarch in ecclesiastical matters.” This decision remained unsigned by the council participants and was not included in the official acts of the council of 1666-1667.

Subsequently, Alexey Mikhailovich forgave Nikon and allowed him to return to Moscow. Nikon died on the road.

3. Consequences of the Old Believers in Russia

The events of those times showed that, while defending its political interests, church power turned into a serious obstacle to progress. It interfered with Russia's rapprochement with Western countries. Learning from their experience and making the necessary changes.

The issue of the relationship between church and secular authorities, decided in favor of state power, was finally removed from the agenda under Peter I. After the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter I “temporarily” prohibited the election of a patriarch. The locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, a supporter of Peter, Stefan Yavorsky, was installed at the head of the Church. In 1721, Peter approved the “Spiritual Regulations”, according to which the highest church body was created - the Holy Synod, headed by the chief prosecutor - a secular official with the rights of a minister, appointed by the sovereign. The synodal period of the Russian Orthodox Church lasted until 1917. The State Orthodox Church occupied a privileged position, all other religions were either simply persecuted or tolerated, but were in an unequal position.

The February Revolution of 1917 and the liquidation of the monarchy confronted the Church with the problem of strengthening it. A Local Council was convened, at which the main issue was decided - the restoration of the patriarchate or the preservation of synodal governance. The debate ended in favor of restoring patriarchal rule. In November, Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow was elected patriarch.

In January 1918, a decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church” was published. Viewing religion as an ideological enemy hindering the construction of a new society, the Soviet government sought to destroy the structures of the Church. Only church parishes existed legally, having the right to enter into agreements with executive committees on the free use of church buildings. Any non-liturgical activities of the Church, including charitable activities, were prohibited. Temples were closed and destroyed, so that by 1939 there were only one hundred active Orthodox churches in the Soviet Union. In January 1918, Patriarch Tikhon anathematized Soviet power. In 1922, after the publication of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee “On the confiscation of church valuables,” Tikhon called on believers to prevent this, citing the inadmissibility of confiscating utensils from churches, the use of which for secular purposes is canonically prohibited. In response, the authorities brought Tikhon to criminal charges. Since May 1922, Patriarch Tikhon was under house arrest in the Donskoy Monastery, and a year later, in May 1923, he was placed in prison. But already in July of this year, central newspapers published a statement by Tikhon, in which he condemned all agitation, overt or secret, against the new state system.

The destroyed Church still did not become a marginal organization, which became obvious during the Great Patriotic War. State policy towards the Church was changed: in September 1943, Stalin met in the Kremlin with three church hierarchs - the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius, the exarch of Ukraine, Metropolitan Nikodim, and Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod. The Church received permission to open churches and monasteries, religious educational institutions, enterprises serving the liturgical needs of the Church, and, most importantly, to restore the patriarchate. The Local Council of 1944, in addition to the election of the patriarch, restored the Synod as a collegial governing body of the Church, under which the Educational Committee, the Publishing Department, the Economic Administration and the Department of External Church Relations were created.

At the end of 1958, N.S. Khrushchev put forward the task of “overcoming religion as a relic of capitalism in the minds of people.” This task was solved not so much in the form of an ideological struggle against a religious worldview, but in the form of persecution of the Church. The mass closure of Orthodox churches, monasteries, religious educational institutions began again, the authorities began to regulate the number of episcopates, etc.

A trend towards liberalization of policy towards the Church appeared in the country in the late 70s. Subsequently, this trend intensified - in practice, this meant the return of the Church to its previous positions. Temples and religious educational institutions were reopened, monasteries were restored, and new dioceses were created. In 1991, the Council for Religious Affairs was abolished, and relations between the Church and the state began to be built directly, without an intermediary. Religious organizations in the country received the rights of legal entities. In 1988, the Church solemnly, at the state level, celebrated the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. At the Local Council, a new Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church was adopted. The Charter strengthened the structure of the Church - it restored diocesan councils, changed the order of parish administration, determined the frequency of convening Local Councils (at least once every five years) and Bishops' Councils (at least once every two years).

Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest and most influential religious organization throughout post-Soviet Russia and the largest Orthodox Church in the world. However, the Russian Orthodox Church has lost its status as a state church; it lives in a secular state in which there is no state religious ideology. In government documents, Orthodoxy is classified among the four “traditional religions”, declared “respected”, but it has equal rights with all other faiths and denominations. The Church has to reckon with the constitutional right of freedom of conscience.

Conclusion

So, what led to such serious changes in the Russian Church? The immediate cause of the Schism was the book reform, but the reasons, real and serious, lay much deeper, rooted in the foundations of Russian religious self-awareness.

The religious life of Rus' never stagnated. The abundance of living church experience made it possible to successfully resolve the most difficult issues in the spiritual field. The most important of them, society unconditionally recognized the observance of the historical continuity of people's life and spiritual individuality of Russia, on the one hand, and, on the other, the preservation of the purity of religious doctrine, regardless of any peculiarities of the time and local customs. Liturgical and doctrinal literature played an irreplaceable role in this matter. From century to century, church books were the unshakable material bond that made it possible to ensure the continuity of the spiritual tradition. Therefore, it is not surprising that as a single centralized Russian state was formed, the question of the state of book publishing and the use of spiritual literature turned into the most important issue of church and state policy.

It was not easy to carry out reform in the face of resistance from a large part of the population. But the matter was complicated mainly by the fact that Nikon used church reform, first of all, to strengthen his own power. This also served as the reason for the emergence of his ardent opponents and the split of society into two warring camps.

Of course, it is very difficult, and probably impossible, to say unambiguously what caused the split - a crisis in the religious or in the secular sphere. Surely, both of these reasons were combined in the Schism. Since society was not homogeneous, its various representatives, accordingly, defended different interests. Different segments of the population found a response to their problems in the Raskol: the serfs, who gained the opportunity to express protest to the government, standing under the banner of the defenders of antiquity; and part of the lower clergy, dissatisfied with the power of the patriarchal power and seeing in it only an organ of exploitation; and even part of the higher clergy who wanted to stop the strengthening of Nikon’s power. And at the end of the 17th century, denunciations that revealed certain social vices of society began to occupy the most important place in the ideology of the Schism. Some ideologists of the Schism, in particular Avvakum and his comrades, moved on to justify active anti-feudal actions, declaring popular uprisings as heavenly retribution of the royal and spiritual authorities for their actions.

In a word, not a single historian has yet presented an objective point of view on the Schism, which would cover all the subtleties of the life of the Russian people in the 17th century, which influenced the church reform. However, it can be assumed that the main reason for the split was the desire of its main characters on both sides to seize power by any means. Although, this is just a guess.

List of used literature

1. History of the Old Believer Church: Brief outline. – M.: Publishing House of the Old Believer Metropolis of Moscow and All Rus'. – 1991.

2. Kremleva I. “Old Believers” 2008.

3. “RUSSIANS” (M., 1997). Ed. Institute of Ethnography and Anthropology named after. N.N. Miklouho-Maclay.

To prepare this work, material was used from the sites: gumer.info, lib.ru, politstudies.ru

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century

Reasons for church reform

The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors. Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.

Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (the “Third Rome”) the center of world Orthodoxy required rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rituals according to the Greek model.

Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Rus', the Greek Church has experienced a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by “zealots of ancient piety,” opposed the proposed reforms. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, decisively carried out the planned reforms.

Patriarch Nikon

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became Patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his unyielding, decisive character, had a colossal influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobi (special) friend.”

The most important ritual changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, replacement of prostrations with waist ones, singing “Hallelujah” three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not with the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.

For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer pronounced not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! Nikon’s most persistent and consistent opponents were the “zealots of ancient piety” (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing “Latinism,” because the Greek Church since the Union of Florence in 1439 was considered “spoiled” in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.

The emergence of a schism

Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he carried out. At the church councils of 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.

The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. A former court priest, a member of the circle of “zealots of ancient piety,” he experienced severe exile, suffering, and the death of children, but did not give up his fanatical opposition to “Nikonianism” and its defender, the tsar. After 14 years of imprisonment in an “earth prison,” Avvakum was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.” The most famous work of historical ritual literature was the “Life” of Avvakum, written by himself.

Old Believers

The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the tsarist punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation.

The reasons for the fanatical persistence of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was the product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fueled by certain social reasons.

Among the schismatics there were many clergy. For an ordinary priest, innovations meant that he had lived his entire life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and unprepared to master new books and customs. The townspeople and merchants also widely participated in the schism. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” belonging to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy was illegally invading their sphere of activity. Therefore, the posad readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.

Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon heresy.”

There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatics - “non-priests” - was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.

The conflict between the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon

The powerful Nikon sought to revive the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.

Gradually, Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a break between them. The Tsar demanded that Nikon should no longer be called the Great Sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch “in Moscow” and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra.

Report: The split of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century

He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not renounce the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only “in Moscow.”

Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch. Only in 1666 a church council was held in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in a monastery prison, where he died in 1681.

The resolution of the “Nikon case” in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. From that time on, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.

The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.

The schism in the Russian Orthodox Church occurred for the following reasons:

• The need for church reform in the middle of the 17th century. from the point of view of establishing uniformity of worship.

· The desire of the secular and church authorities to correct books and rituals according to Greek models in order to strengthen the leading role of the Moscow state in the Orthodox world.

· A combination of social and purely religious motives in the emergence of the Old Believers.

· Conservative nature of the ideology of schism.

The confrontation between Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich is the last open conflict between the church and state authorities, after which we are talking only about the degree of subordination of the church to secular authorities.

Church schism - Nikon's reforms in action

Nothing amazes as much as a miracle, except the naivety with which it is taken for granted.

Mark Twain

The church schism in Russia is associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who in the 50s and 60s of the 17th century organized a grandiose reform of the Russian church. The changes affected literally all church structures. The need for such changes was due to the religious backwardness of Russia, as well as significant errors in religious texts. The implementation of the reform led to a split not only in the church, but also in society. People openly opposed new trends in religion, actively expressing their position through uprisings and popular unrest. In today's article we will talk about the reform of Patriarch Nikon as one of the most important events of the 17th century, which had a huge impact not only for the church, but for all of Russia.

Prerequisites for reform

According to the assurances of many historians who study the 17th century, a unique situation arose in Russia at that time, when religious rites in the country were very different from those around the world, including from Greek rites, from where Christianity came to Rus'. In addition, it is often said that religious texts, as well as icons, have been distorted. Therefore, the following phenomena can be identified as the main reasons for the church schism in Russia:

• Books that were copied by hand over centuries had typos and distortions.
• Difference from world religious rites. In particular, in Russia, until the 17th century, everyone was baptized with two fingers, and in other countries - with three.
• Conducting church ceremonies. The rituals were conducted according to the principle of “polyphony,” which was expressed in the fact that at the same time the service was conducted by the priest, the clerk, the singers, and the parishioners. As a result, a polyphony was formed, in which it was difficult to make out anything.

The Russian Tsar was one of the first to point out these problems, proposing to take measures to restore order in religion.

Patriarch Nikon

Tsar Alexei Romanov, who wanted to reform the Russian church, decided to appoint Nikon to the post of Patriarch of the country. It was this man who was entrusted with carrying out reform in Russia. The choice was, to put it mildly, quite strange, since the new patriarch had no experience in holding such events, and also did not enjoy respect among other priests.

Patriarch Nikon was known in the world under the name Nikita Minov. He was born and raised in a simple peasant family. From his earliest years, he paid great attention to his religious education, studying prayers, stories and rituals. At the age of 19, Nikita became a priest in his native village. At the age of thirty, the future patriarch moved to the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. It was here that he met the young Russian Tsar Alexei Romanov. The views of the two people were quite similar, which determined the future fate of Nikita Minov.

Patriarch Nikon, as many historians note, was distinguished not so much by his knowledge as by his cruelty and authority. He was literally delirious with the idea of ​​obtaining unlimited power, which was, for example, Patriarch Filaret. Trying to prove his importance for the state and for the Russian Tsar, Nikon shows himself in every possible way, including not only in the religious field. For example, in 1650, he actively participated in the suppression of the uprising, being the main initiator of the brutal reprisal against all the rebels.

Lust for power, cruelty, literacy - all this was combined into patriarchy. These were precisely the qualities that were needed to carry out the reform of the Russian church.

Implementation of the reform

The reform of Patriarch Nikon began to be implemented in 1653 - 1655. This reform carried with it fundamental changes in religion, which were expressed in the following:

• Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
• Bows should have been made to the waist, and not to the ground, as was the case before.
• Changes have been made to religious books and icons.
• The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
• The name of God has been changed in accordance with the global spelling.

  Church schism (17th century)

  Now instead of "Isus" it was written "Jesus".

• Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
• Changes in church service rituals. Now the procession of the Cross was performed not clockwise, as before, but counterclockwise.

All this is described in detail in the Church Catechism. Surprisingly, if we consider Russian history textbooks, especially school textbooks, the reform of Patriarch Nikon comes down to only the first and second points of the above. Rare textbooks say in the third paragraph. The rest is not even mentioned. As a result, one gets the impression that the Russian patriarch did not undertake any cardinal reform activities, but this was not the case... The reforms were cardinal. They crossed out everything that came before. It is no coincidence that these reforms are also called the church schism of the Russian church. The very word “schism” indicates dramatic changes.

Let's look at individual provisions of the reform in more detail. This will allow us to correctly understand the essence of the phenomena of those days.

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

Patriarch Nikon, arguing for his reform, said that church texts in Russia have many typos that should be eliminated. It was said that one should turn to Greek sources in order to understand the original meaning of religion. In fact, it was not implemented quite like that...

In the 10th century, when Russia adopted Christianity, there were 2 charters in Greece:

• Studio. The main charter of the Christian church. For many years it was considered the main one in the Greek church, which is why it was the Studite charter that came to Rus'. For 7 centuries, the Russian Church in all religious matters was guided by precisely this charter.
• Jerusalem. It is more modern, aimed at the unity of all religions and the commonality of their interests. The charter, starting from the 12th century, became the main one in Greece, and it also became the main one in other Christian countries.

The process of rewriting Russian texts is also indicative. The plan was to take Greek sources and harmonize religious scriptures on their basis. For this purpose, Arseny Sukhanov was sent to Greece in 1653. The expedition lasted almost two years. He arrived in Moscow on February 22, 1655. He brought with him as many as 7 manuscripts. In fact, this violated the church council of 1653-55. Most priests then spoke out in favor of the idea of ​​​​supporting Nikon's reform only on the grounds that the rewriting of texts should have occurred exclusively from Greek handwritten sources.

Arseny Sukhanov brought only seven sources, thereby making it impossible to rewrite texts based on primary sources. Patriarch Nikon's next step was so cynical that it led to mass uprisings. The Moscow Patriarch stated that if there are no handwritten sources, then the rewriting of Russian texts will be carried out using modern Greek and Roman books. At that time, all these books were published in Paris (a Catholic state).

Ancient religion

For a very long time, the reforms of Patriarch Nikon were justified by the fact that he made the Orthodox Church enlightened. As a rule, there is nothing behind such formulations, since the vast majority of people have difficulty understanding what the fundamental difference is between orthodox beliefs and enlightened ones. What's the difference really? First, let's understand the terminology and define the meaning of the concept “orthodox.”

Orthodox (orthodox) comes from the Greek language and means: orthos - correct, doha - opinion. It turns out that an orthodox person, in the true sense of the word, is a person with a correct opinion.

Historical reference book

Here, the correct opinion does not mean the modern sense (when this is what people are called who do everything to please the state). This was the name given to people who carried ancient science and ancient knowledge for centuries. A striking example is the Jewish school. Everyone knows very well that today there are Jews, and there are Orthodox Jews. They believe in the same thing, they have a common religion, common views, beliefs. The difference is that Orthodox Jews conveyed their true faith in its ancient, true meaning. And everyone admits this.

From this point of view, it is much easier to evaluate the actions of Patriarch Nikon. His attempts to destroy the Orthodox Church, which is exactly what he planned to do and successfully did, lie in the destruction of the ancient religion. And by and large it was done:

• All ancient religious texts were rewritten. Old books were not treated on ceremony; as a rule, they were destroyed. This process outlived the patriarch himself for many years. For example, Siberian legends are indicative, which say that under Peter 1 a huge amount of Orthodox literature was burned. After the burning, more than 650 kg of copper fasteners were recovered from the fires!
• The icons were rewritten in accordance with the new religious requirements and in accordance with the reform.
• The principles of religion are changed, sometimes even without the necessary justification. For example, Nikon’s idea that the procession should go counterclockwise, against the movement of the sun, is absolutely incomprehensible. This caused great discontent as people began to consider the new religion to be a religion of darkness.
• Replacement of concepts. The term “Orthodoxy” appeared for the first time. Until the 17th century, this term was not used, but concepts such as “true believer”, “true faith”, “immaculate faith”, “Christian faith”, “God’s faith” were used. Various terms, but not “Orthodoxy”.

Therefore, we can say that orthodox religion is as close as possible to the ancient postulates. That is why any attempts to radically change these views leads to mass indignation, as well as to what today is commonly called heresy. It was heresy that many people called the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century. That is why a split in the church occurred, since “orthodox” priests and religious people called what was happening heresy, and saw how fundamental the difference was between the old and new religions.

People's reaction to church schism

The reaction to Nikon's reform is extremely revealing, emphasizing that the changes were much deeper than is commonly said. It is known for certain that after the implementation of the reform began, massive popular uprisings took place throughout the country, directed against changes in the church structure. Some people openly expressed their dissatisfaction, others simply left this country, not wanting to remain in this heresy. People went to the forests, to distant settlements, to other countries. They were caught, brought back, they left again - and this happened many times. The reaction of the state, which actually organized the Inquisition, is indicative. Not only books burned, but also people. Nikon, who was particularly cruel, personally welcomed all reprisals against the rebels. Thousands of people died opposing the reform ideas of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The reaction of the people and the state to the reform is indicative. We can say that mass unrest has begun. Now answer a simple question: are such uprisings and reprisals possible in the event of simple superficial changes? To answer this question, it is necessary to transfer the events of those days to today's reality. Let's imagine that today the Patriarch of Moscow will say that now you need to cross yourself, for example, with four fingers, bows should be made with a nod of the head, and books should be changed in accordance with the ancient scriptures. How will people perceive this? Most likely, neutral, and with certain propaganda even positive.

Another situation. Suppose that the Moscow Patriarch today obliges everyone to make the sign of the cross with four fingers, to use nods instead of bows, to wear a Catholic cross instead of an Orthodox one, to hand over all the icon books so that they can be rewritten and redrawn, the name of God will now be, for example, “Jesus,” and the religious procession will continue for example an arc. This type of reform will certainly lead to an uprising of religious people. Everything changes, the entire centuries-old religious history is crossed out. This is exactly what the Nikon reform did. This is why a church schism occurred in the 17th century, since the contradictions between the Old Believers and Nikon were insoluble.

What did the reform lead to?

Nikon's reform should be assessed from the point of view of the realities of that day. Of course, the patriarch destroyed the ancient religion of Rus', but he did what the tsar wanted - bringing the Russian church into line with international religion. And there were both pros and cons:

• Pros. Russian religion ceased to be isolated, and began to be more similar to Greek and Roman. This made it possible to create greater religious ties with other states.
• Minuses. Religion in Russia at the time of the 17th century was most oriented towards primitive Christianity. It was here that there were ancient icons, ancient books and ancient rituals. All this was destroyed for the sake of integration with other states, in modern terms.

Nikon’s reforms cannot be regarded as the total destruction of everything (although this is exactly what most authors are doing, including the principle “everything is lost”). We can only say with certainty that the Moscow Patriarch made significant changes to the ancient religion and deprived Christians of a significant part of their cultural and religious heritage.

Article: Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church reasons for the schism

RUSSIAN SCHISM IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. CHURCH AND STATE IN THE 17TH CENTURY

1. Reasons for church reform

The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors. Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting of prominent representatives of the clergy. He also sought to correct the morals of the clergy.

The spread of printing made it possible to establish uniformity of texts, but first it was necessary to decide on what models to base corrections on.

Political considerations played a decisive role in resolving this issue. The desire to make Moscow (“Third Rome”) the center of world Orthodoxy required rapprochement with Greek Orthodoxy. However, the Greek clergy insisted on correcting Russian church books and rituals according to the Greek model.

Since the introduction of Orthodoxy in Rus', the Greek Church has experienced a number of reforms and differed significantly from the ancient Byzantine and Russian models. Therefore, part of the Russian clergy, led by “zealots of ancient piety,” opposed the proposed transformations. However, Patriarch Nikon, relying on the support of Alexei Mikhailovich, decisively carried out the planned reforms.

2. Patriarch Nikon

Nikon comes from the family of the Mordovian peasant Mina, in the world - Nikita Minin. He became Patriarch in 1652. Nikon, distinguished by his unyielding, decisive character, had enormous influence on Alexei Mikhailovich, who called him his “sobin (special) friend.”

The most important ritual changes were: baptism not with two, but with three fingers, replacement of prostrations with waist ones, singing “Hallelujah” three times instead of twice, the movement of believers in the church past the altar not with the sun, but against it. The name of Christ began to be written differently - “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”. Some changes were made to the rules of worship and icon painting. All books and icons written according to old models were subject to destruction.

4. Reaction to reform

For believers, this was a serious departure from the traditional canon. After all, a prayer pronounced not according to the rules is not only ineffective - it is blasphemous! Nikon’s most persistent and consistent opponents were the “zealots of ancient piety” (previously the patriarch himself was a member of this circle). They accused him of introducing “Latinism,” because the Greek Church since the Union of Florence in 1439 was considered “spoiled” in Russia. Moreover, Greek liturgical books were printed not in Turkish Constantinople, but in Catholic Venice.

5. The emergence of a schism

Nikon's opponents - the "Old Believers" - refused to recognize the reforms he carried out. At the church councils of 1654 and 1656. Nikon's opponents were accused of schism, excommunicated and exiled.

The most prominent supporter of the schism was Archpriest Avvakum, a talented publicist and preacher. A former court priest, a member of the circle of “zealots of ancient piety,” he experienced severe exile, suffering, and the death of children, but did not give up his fanatical opposition to “Nikonianism” and its defender, the tsar. After 14 years of imprisonment in an “earth prison,” Avvakum was burned alive for “blasphemy against the royal house.” The most famous work of historical ritual literature was the “Life” of Avvakum, written by himself.

6. Old Believers

The Church Council of 1666/1667 cursed the Old Believers. Brutal persecution of schismatics began. Supporters of the split hid in the hard-to-reach forests of the North, Trans-Volga region, and the Urals. Here they created hermitages, continuing to pray in the old way. Often, when the royal punitive detachments approached, they staged a “burn” - self-immolation.

The monks of the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept Nikon’s reforms. Until 1676, the rebellious monastery withstood the siege of the tsarist troops. The rebels, believing that Alexei Mikhailovich had become a servant of the Antichrist, abandoned the traditional Orthodox prayer for the Tsar.

The reasons for the fanatical persistence of the schismatics were rooted, first of all, in their belief that Nikonianism was the product of Satan. However, this confidence itself was fueled by certain social reasons.

Among the schismatics there were many clergy. For an ordinary priest, innovations meant that he had lived his entire life incorrectly. In addition, many clergy were illiterate and unprepared to master new books and customs. The townspeople and merchants also widely participated in the schism. Nikon had long been in conflict with the settlements, objecting to the liquidation of the “white settlements” belonging to the church. The monasteries and the patriarchal see were engaged in trade and crafts, which irritated the merchants, who believed that the clergy was illegally invading their sphere of activity. Therefore, the posad readily perceived everything that came from the patriarch as evil.

Among the Old Believers there were also representatives of the ruling classes, for example, Boyarina Morozova and Princess Urusova. However, these are still isolated examples.

The bulk of the schismatics were peasants, who went to monasteries not only for the right faith, but also for freedom, from lordly and monastic exactions.

Naturally, subjectively, each Old Believer saw the reasons for his departure into schism solely in his rejection of the “Nikon heresy.”

There were no bishops among the schismatics. There was no one to ordain new priests. In this situation, some of the Old Believers resorted to “rebaptizing” the Nikonian priests who had gone into schism, while others abandoned the clergy altogether. The community of such schismatic “non-priests” was led by “mentors” or “readers” - the most knowledgeable believers in the Scriptures. Outwardly, the “non-priest” trend in the schism resembled Protestantism. However, this similarity is illusory. Protestants rejected the priesthood on principle, believing that a person does not need an intermediary in communication with God. The schismatics rejected the priesthood and the church hierarchy forcibly, in a random situation.

The ideology of the schism, based on the rejection of everything new, the fundamental rejection of any foreign influence, secular education, was extremely conservative.

7. Conflict between the church and secular authorities. Fall of Nikon

The question of the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities was one of the most important in the political life of the Russian state in the 15th-17th centuries. The struggle between the Josephites and non-covetous people was closely connected with it. In the 16th century The dominant Josephite trend in the Russian church abandoned the thesis of the superiority of church power over secular power. After Ivan the Terrible's reprisal against Metropolitan Philip, the subordination of the church to the state seemed final. However, the situation changed during the Time of Troubles. The authority of the royal power was shaken due to the abundance of impostors and a series of perjuries. The authority of the church, thanks to Patriarch Hermogenes, who led the spiritual resistance to the Poles and suffered martyrdom from them, becoming the most important unifying force, increased. The political role of the church increased even more under Patriarch Filaret, the father of Tsar Michael.

The powerful Nikon sought to revive the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities that existed under Filaret. Nikon argued that the priesthood is higher than the kingdom, since it represents God, and secular power is from God. He actively intervened in secular affairs.

Gradually, Alexey Mikhailovich began to feel burdened by the power of the patriarch. In 1658 there was a break between them. The Tsar demanded that Nikon should no longer be called the Great Sovereign. Then Nikon declared that he did not want to be a patriarch “in Moscow” and left for the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery on the river. Istra. He hoped that the king would yield, but he was mistaken. On the contrary, the patriarch was required to resign so that a new head of the church could be elected. Nikon replied that he did not renounce the rank of patriarch, and did not want to be patriarch only “in Moscow.”

Neither the tsar nor the church council could remove the patriarch.

Church schism in Russia in the 17th century. We wanted the best...

Only in 1666 a church council was held in Moscow with the participation of two ecumenical patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria. The council supported the tsar and deprived Nikon of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was imprisoned in a monastery prison, where he died in 1681.

The resolution of the “Nikon case” in favor of the secular authorities meant that the church could no longer interfere in state affairs. From that time on, the process of subordinating the church to the state began, which ended under Peter I with the liquidation of the patriarchate, the creation of the Holy Synod headed by a secular official and the transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church into a state church.

Download abstract

Mysteries of history

Split of the Russian Orthodox Church

The 17th century was a turning point for Russia. It is noteworthy not only for its political, but also for its church reforms. As a result of this, “Bright Rus'” became a thing of the past, and it was replaced by a completely different power, in which there was no longer a unity of people’s worldview and behavior.

The spiritual basis of the state was the church. Even in the 15th and 16th centuries, there were conflicts between non-covetous people and the Josephites. In the 17th century, intellectual disagreements continued and resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was due to a number of reasons.

Origins of the schism

During the Time of Troubles, the church was unable to fulfill the role of “spiritual doctor” and guardian of the moral health of the Russian people. Therefore, after the end of the Time of Troubles, church reform became a pressing issue. The priests took charge of carrying it out. This is Archpriest Ivan Neronov, Stefan Vonifatiev, the confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and Archpriest Avvakum.

These people acted in two directions. The first is oral preaching and work among the flock, that is, closing taverns, organizing orphanages and creating almshouses. The second is the correction of rituals and liturgical books.

There was a very pressing question about polyphony. In church churches, in order to save time, simultaneous services to various holidays and saints were practiced. For centuries, no one criticized this. But after troubled times, they began to look at polyphony differently. It was named among the main reasons for the spiritual degradation of society. This negative thing needed to be corrected, and it was corrected. triumphed in all the temples unanimity.

But the conflict situation did not disappear after that, but only worsened. The essence of the problem was the difference between the Moscow and Greek rites. And this concerned, first of all, digitized. The Greeks were baptized with three fingers, and the Great Russians - with two. This difference resulted in a dispute about historical correctness.

The question was raised about the legality of the Russian church rite. It included: two fingers, worship on seven prosphoras, an eight-pointed cross, walking in the sun (in the sun), a special “hallelujah,” etc. Some clergy began to argue that the liturgical books were distorted as a result of ignorant copyists.

Subsequently, the most authoritative historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, Evgeniy Evsigneevich Golubinsky (1834-1912), proved that the Russians did not distort the ritual at all. Under Prince Vladimir in Kyiv they were baptized with two fingers. That is, exactly the same as in Moscow until the middle of the 17th century.

The point was that when Rus' adopted Christianity, there were two charters in Byzantium: Jerusalem And Studio. In terms of ritual, they differed. The Eastern Slavs accepted and observed the Jerusalem Charter. As for the Greeks and other Orthodox peoples, as well as the Little Russians, they observed the Studite Charter.

However, it should be noted here that rituals are not dogmas at all. Those are holy and indestructible, but rituals can change. And in Rus' this happened several times, and there were no shocks. For example, in 1551, under Metropolitan Cyprian, the Council of the Hundred Heads obliged the residents of Pskov, who practiced three-fingered, to return to two-fingered. This did not lead to any conflicts.

But you need to understand that the middle of the 17th century was radically different from the middle of the 16th century. People who went through the oprichnina and the Time of Troubles became different. The country faced three choices. The path of Habakkuk is isolationism. Nikon's path is the creation of a theocratic Orthodox empire. Peter's path was to join the European powers with the subordination of the church to the state.

The problem was aggravated by the annexation of Ukraine to Russia. Now we had to think about the uniformity of church rites. Kyiv monks appeared in Moscow. The most notable of them was Epiphany Slavinetsky. Ukrainian guests began to insist on correcting church books and services in accordance with their ideas.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon
The schism of the Russian Orthodox Church is inextricably linked with these two people

Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

The fundamental role in the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church was played by Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676). As for Nikon, he was an extremely vain and power-hungry person. He came from Mordovian peasants, and in the world he bore the name Nikita Minich. He made a dizzying career, and became famous for his strong character and excessive severity. It was more characteristic of a secular ruler than a church hierarch.

Nikon was not satisfied with his enormous influence on the Tsar and the boyars. He was guided by the principle that "God's things are higher than the king's." Therefore, he aimed at undivided dominance and power equal to that of the king. The situation was favorable to him. Patriarch Joseph died in 1652. The question of electing a new patriarch arose urgently, because without the patriarchal blessing it was impossible to hold any state or church event in Moscow.

Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was an extremely pious and pious man, so he was primarily interested in the speedy election of a new patriarch. He precisely wanted to see Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod in this position, since he valued and respected him extremely.

The king's desire was supported by many boyars, as well as the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. All this was well known to Nikon, but he strived for absolute power, and therefore resorted to pressure.

The day of the procedure for becoming a patriarch has arrived. The Tsar was also present. But at the very last moment Nikon announced that he refused to accept signs of patriarchal dignity. This caused a commotion among everyone present. The tsar himself knelt down and with tears in his eyes began to ask the wayward clergyman not to renounce his rank.

Then Nikon set the conditions. He demanded that they honor him as a father and archpastor and let him organize the Church at his own discretion. The king gave his word and consent. All the boyars supported him. Only then did the newly-crowned patriarch pick up the symbol of patriarchal power - the staff of the Russian Metropolitan Peter, who was the first to live in Moscow.

Alexei Mikhailovich fulfilled all his promises, and Nikon concentrated enormous power in his hands. In 1652 he even received the title of "Great Sovereign". The new patriarch began to rule harshly. This forced the king to ask him in letters to be softer and more tolerant towards people.

Church reform and its main reason

With the coming to power of a new Orthodox ruler in the church rite, at first everything remained as before. Vladyka himself crossed himself with two fingers and was a supporter of unanimity. But he began to often talk with Epiphany Slavinetsky. After a very short time, he managed to convince Nikon that it was still necessary to change the church ritual.

During Lent of 1653 a special “memory” was published, in which the flock was attributed to adopt triplicate. Supporters of Neronov and Vonifatiev opposed this and were exiled. The rest were warned that if they crossed themselves with two fingers during prayers, they would be subjected to church damnation. In 1556, a church council officially confirmed this order. After this, the paths of the patriarch and his former comrades diverged completely and irrevocably.

This is how a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. Supporters of the “ancient piety” found themselves in opposition to official church policy, while the church reform itself was entrusted to the Ukrainian by nationality Epiphanius Slavinetsky and the Greek Arseniy.

Why did Nikon follow the lead of the Ukrainian monks? But it is much more interesting why the king, the cathedral and many parishioners also supported the innovations? The answers to these questions are relatively simple.

The Old Believers, as the opponents of innovation came to be called, advocated the superiority of local Orthodoxy. It developed and prevailed in North-Eastern Rus' over the traditions of universal Greek Orthodoxy. In essence, “ancient piety” was a platform for narrow Moscow nationalism.

Among the Old Believers, the prevailing opinion was that the Orthodoxy of Serbs, Greeks and Ukrainians was inferior. These peoples were seen as victims of error. And God punished them for this, placing them under the rule of the Gentiles.

But this worldview did not inspire sympathy among anyone and discouraged any desire to unite with Moscow. That is why Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich, seeking to expand their power, sided with the Greek version of Orthodoxy. That is, Russian Orthodoxy took on a universal character, which contributed to the expansion of state borders and the strengthening of power.

Decline of the career of Patriarch Nikon

The excessive lust for power of the Orthodox ruler was the reason for his downfall. Nikon had many enemies among the boyars. They tried with all their might to turn the king against him. In the end, they succeeded. And it all started with little things.

In 1658, during one of the holidays, the tsar's guard hit the patriarch's man with a stick, paving the way for the tsar through a crowd of people. The one who received the blow was indignant and called himself “the patriarch’s boyar son.” But then he received another blow to the forehead with a stick.

Nikon was informed about what had happened, and he became indignant. He wrote an angry letter to the king, in which he demanded a thorough investigation of this incident and punishment of the guilty boyar. However, no one started an investigation, and the culprit was never punished. It became clear to everyone that the king’s attitude towards the ruler had changed for the worse.

Then the patriarch decided to resort to a proven method. After mass in the Assumption Cathedral, he took off his patriarchal vestments and announced that he was leaving the patriarchal place and going to live permanently in the Resurrection Monastery. It was located near Moscow and was called New Jerusalem. The people tried to dissuade the bishop, but he was adamant. Then they unharnessed the horses from the carriage, but Nikon did not change his decision and left Moscow on foot.

New Jerusalem Monastery
Patriarch Nikon spent several years there until the patriarchal court, at which he was deposed

The throne of the patriarch remained empty. The Bishop believed that the sovereign would be afraid, but he did not appear in New Jerusalem. On the contrary, Alexey Mikhailovich tried to get the wayward ruler to finally renounce patriarchal power and return all regalia so that a new spiritual leader could be legally elected. And Nikon told everyone that he could return to the patriarchal throne at any moment. This confrontation continued for several years.

The situation was absolutely unacceptable, and Alexey Mikhailovich turned to the ecumenical patriarchs. However, they had to wait a long time for their arrival. Only in 1666 did two of the four patriarchs arrive in the capital. These are Alexandrian and Antiochian, but they had powers from their other two colleagues.

Nikon really did not want to appear before the patriarchal court. But still he was forced to do it. As a result, the wayward ruler was deprived of his high rank.

Church schism of the 17th century in Rus' and the Old Believers. Brief historical background

But the long conflict did not change the situation with the split of the Russian Orthodox Church. The same council of 1666-1667 officially approved all church reforms that were carried out under the leadership of Nikon. True, he himself turned into a simple monk. They exiled him to a distant northern monastery, from where the man of God watched the triumph of his politics.

Church schism and influence on Russian culture

Introduction

More than 350 years have passed since the time when events took place in the Russian Orthodox Church, from which the division of Christians into Nikonians and Old Believers began. It is generally accepted that the schism is a religious and social movement in Russia that arose in the middle of the 17th century. The Old Believers, in turn, are a collection of religious groups and churches in Russia that did not accept the church reforms of the 17th century by Patriarch Nikon. Previously, the words “schism” and “Old Believers” were officially used as synonyms; Ever since the Local Council of 1971 approved the equality of new and old rituals, lifting the “oath” (ban) on the latter, “schism” has been used to refer not to a religion, but to a certain chapter in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church and state.

The phenomenon of Old Believers as such can be classified as a collective concept, since to this day there has not been a single Old Believer identity, since “Old Believers of different consents mutually denied each other’s Orthodoxy,” considering only their own consent to be the true Orthodox Church.

It should be noted that historians consider the events and facts of the 17th century as a preparatory stage for the reforms of Peter I, as a transition from a feudal to an autocratic monarchy, from medieval society to modern times. Experts use the term “pre-Petrine age”, according to which the Petrine era represented such a significant historical period that the previous century should be considered only based on its influence on the process of development and formation of Peter’s reforms. This point of view determined the interest of historians only in those processes and development trends that directly indicated their continuation in the future, while the problems and connections of this period were not considered as valuable in themselves.

Apparently this fact can explain that to this day the roots of the Old Believers and the causes of the Russian church schism of the 17th century are still not fully revealed in historical literature and remain far from clear. It is surprising that the time that has passed since the church reform that unfolded under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not enough to study and clarify the causes of the tragic schism in Russian Orthodoxy.

The schism of the 17th century was the second national tragedy after the “Moscow ruin.” According to historical data, it took about ¼ of the entire Russian people. The reign of Alexei Mikhailovich - a turning point in the history of Russian statehood - became the most difficult moment in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. The severity of the most terrible cataclysm for the Church - the schism - was felt throughout the subsequent course of Russian history. Its consequences have not been overcome to this day.

In scientific literature (as well as in the mass consciousness) there is a consistent practice of personifying complex historical processes, linking them with the activities of a particular historical figure. A similar practice was widely applied to Russian conflicts in the third quarter of the 17th century. The growing autocratic principle is personified in Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The implementation of liturgical reforms in the Russian Orthodox Church is linked to the personality of Patriarch Picon. The defense of an alternative version of reforms of the church service and the state system was assigned to the recognized leader of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum. But is any individual capable of becoming the most important independent factor changing society (the era, the prevailing views) depending on his understanding of the matter?

The study of the church schism would be impossible without the writings of the Old Believers themselves. Most of them are handwritten books, letters, messages, petitions, etc. The most outstanding are the works of Archpriest Avvakum, Epiphanius, brothers A.S. Denisovs and others.

In the 50s of the 19th century. The Synod established journals for the study of the schism: “Orthodox Interlocutor”, “Brotherly Word”, “Spiritual Conversation”, “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy”, “Soulful Reading”, “Wanderer”, “Church News”, “Missionary Collection”, “Theological Bulletin” "and others, and since 1860 - "Diocesan Gazette" and others.

All this led to a surge of public and scientific interest in the split. Having lost its monopoly, the spiritual-academic school “shook itself” from its ideological slumber and put forward a number of bright scientists, whose works became a noticeable contribution to scientific, historical and philosophical thought. The bulk of works on the schism appear after the second half of the 19th century.

The concept of the greatest Russian historian of the 19th century, Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, is of great interest. He did not recognize the split as having a socio-political dimension. He pays great attention to the psychological side of the schism, in which the importance of church ritual and the national view of the special position of Russia in the Orthodox world had a huge influence. The schism, according to the historian, is a religious movement that emerged as a result of protest against Western influence. In the publication of the “Course of Russian History,” the blame for the schism was placed on Nikon, who caused it with his impetuous and ill-considered activities, and on the church hierarchy, which did not teach the flock to distinguish dogma from ritual.

In general, Russian historical thought of the 19th century. literally permeates the idea that the schism was a reaction to the clash of the old with the new, manifested in the form of church rebellion. Until the middle of the 19th century. the value significance of the schism movement as a positive historical phenomenon was not reflected in science.

In Soviet times, due to the well-known circumstances of Russian history, the topic of the split did not arouse such intense interest as in the second half of the 19th century. and especially at the turn of the century. Soviet historical science, squeezed by the strict canons of the class approach, only casually mentioned the split as a secondary phenomenon. Therefore, in Soviet times, literary scholars were more concerned with the schism, or more precisely with its texts, ideologists and ideals. However, as V.V. points out. Molzinsky, “everyone lacks objective impartiality to comprehend the deep meaning and the entire multifaceted spectrum inherent in the split of “socio-political, liturgical-historical and religious-moral ideas.”

One of the best modern works on Old Belief is the monograph by S.A. Zenkovsky “Russian Old Believers. Spiritual movements of the 17th century,” written abroad in 1970 and published at home in 1995. His monograph by historiographer V.V. Molzinsky rightly classified it as an encyclopedic collection of Russian historical thought about the schism. Zenkovsky S.A. I tried, in as much detail as possible, to determine the origins of the conflict in the mid-17th century, to assess the historical role of Archpriest Avvakum, Deacon Fyodor, Monk Abraham and other prominent figures of the early schism in the formation of the Old Believers. Much attention to S.A. Zenkovsky devotes his time to assessing the significance of Moscow, the Solovetsky Monastery, and Pustozersk as ideological and spiritual centers of the Old Believers.

A review of the literature on this topic showed that there are two traditions of considering the essence of the concept of “schism”. A number of researchers note the socio-political orientation of this movement, which opposes the state system and is only clothed in a religious form. Other scholars examine the schism, noting primarily its religious essence, without, however, rejecting the socio-political component of the movement.

For modern Russia, following the path of transformation, the experience of the historical past is of not only scientific, but also practical interest. First of all, historical experience is necessary for choosing the optimal methods of public administration, for ensuring the stability of the political course, as well as for finding the most effective methods for carrying out unpopular or not supported by the entire society reforms, for finding compromise options in resolving social contradictions.

1. Russia in the middle of the 17th century

.1 "Rebellious Age"

With the death of Tsar Fedor, the Rurik dynasty, which had led the Russian state for more than seven centuries, was interrupted. The time has come for semi-legal and completely illegal kings and foreign intervention. Dynastic upheavals coincided with a series of lean years. Russian cities were either in the hands of foreigners or in the hands of Russian traitors and adventurers. Gangs of foreign and Russian robbers burned cities, robbed the population, destroyed churches, tortured and sometimes burned dozens of Russian priests and monks. It seemed that Rus', only recently proclaimed the most pious land in the world, would follow the example of the first and second Rome and perish, leaving the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox Church without any human protection.

Klyuchevsky notes that the Moscow state was still understood in the original specific sense, as the economy of the Moscow sovereigns, as the family property of the Kalitin tribe, which founded, expanded and strengthened it over the course of three centuries. Therefore, when the dynasty was cut short and, consequently, the state turned out to be a draw, people became confused, ceased to understand what they were and where they were, and fell into ferment, into a state of anarchy. The end of the Troubles was put by the accession to the throne of the king, who became the founder of a new dynasty.

The characterization of the 17th century as “rebellious” came from the pen of Klyuchevsky and, of course, not without reason. After the Time of Troubles, confusion and excitement, both at the bottom and at the top, the consciousness of people's backwardness and helplessness were reflected in uprisings and riots, as well as rebellions of minds and hearts: the unrest of 1648-1650 in Moscow, Pskov and Novgorod, in 1662 a new riot in Moscow over copper money; finally, in 1670-1671. Razin's huge rebellion in the Volga southeast.

Numerous popular unrest, anarchy and the arbitrariness of the Polish-Swedish interventionists led the country to unprecedented economic ruin. The consequence of the Time of Troubles was a powerful regression of the economic and socio-political situation compared to what had been achieved by the end of the 16th century. Documentary and literary sources of that time paint gloomy pictures of ruined, depopulated cities and villages, deserted arable lands, and the decline of crafts and trade. Nevertheless, the Russian people coped with the disasters quickly enough, and by the middle of the 17th century, life began to return to its previous course.

In the 17th century, signs of the beginning of the process of initial accumulation of capital emerged - the emergence of merchants who acquired wealth through unequal exchange (traders of salt, precious Siberian furs, Novgorod and Pskov flax). Among all classes and estates, the dominant place, of course, belonged to the feudal lords. In their interests, the state government took measures to strengthen the ownership of the land and peasants by the boyars and nobles, and to unite the strata of the feudal class. Service people took shape in the 17th century into a complex and clear hierarchy of ranks, obligated to the state for service in the military, civil, and court departments in exchange for the right to own land and peasants. Large land holdings with peasants belonged to spiritual feudal lords. In the 17th century, the authorities continued the course of their predecessors to limit church land ownership. The Code of 1649, for example, prohibited the clergy from acquiring new lands. The privileges of the church in matters of court and administration were limited.

1.2 Church and state

In the second half of the 17th century, contradictions arose between church and state. The strengthening of autocracy in Russia was accompanied by the desire of secular authorities to bring the economic activities of the church under their control, limit the growth of monastic land ownership, judicial and fiscal immunity of monasteries, as well as the “white” clergy. This, naturally, met resistance from the church hierarchs, especially after Patriarch Nikon became the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1652, who consistently defended the principle of a “symphony of powers.”

The theory of the “symphony of powers” ​​was first expressed in the introduction to the 6th story of Justinian (IV century): “The greatest gifts of God, given to people by the highest love of mankind, are the priesthood and the kingdom. The first serves divine affairs, the second takes care of human affairs. Both come from the same source and adorn human life. Therefore, if the first is truly blameless and adorned with fidelity to God, and the second is adorned with a correct and decent state system, there will be good agreement between them.” Harmony in the state is possible only when the supreme ruler seeks wisdom and aligns his actions with the right guidelines.

The ideal of the emperor as a theologian undoubtedly influenced the exceptional role that the emperor had in resolving church disputes and in developing theological decisions: by convening councils and largely determining the “personnel policy of the hierarchy, he could significantly influence the adoption of certain theological ideas at the highest level.” theories.

A side consequence of the Byzantine idea of ​​a symphony of the Church and the Christian state was the exaggeration of the role of the patriarch, as supposedly the second element of the symphony.

At the same time, the comparison of the king and the patriarch “on equal terms” was very characteristic of Byzantine political theory, since each of them represented one of the most important institutions: the priesthood and the kingdom. They were called to live unified and inseparably in Byzantium, but in Russia something different happened. In the rivalry between the tsar and the patriarch, victory, starting with Alexei Mikhailovich and Nikon, remained with the tsar. By definition, there is only one king, while the patriarch is only the main, but by no means unique, representative of the clergy.

The traditional morality of Russian people was protected, first of all, by the church, and therefore was associated with religiosity. By that time, church guidelines had become firmly absorbed into Russian life. The religious and moral asceticism of Russians amazed many visitors from abroad. The Church structured its activities in such a way as to influence all aspects of public life:

the church formed a sovereign ideology, putting its preaching at the service of state and national unity, developing the ideas of the school of Sergius of Radonezh with their strong charge of patriotism;

The church supported the geopolitical concept of “Moscow - the third Rome,” according to which Moscow was declared the center of the Orthodox world and the protector of all Orthodox Christians.

It must be said that the idea itself of uniting all Orthodox peoples under the power of the Russian Tsar arose long before Alexei Mikhailovich. After the fall of Byzantium in 1453, there was no doubt that Russia became its spiritual heir. In 1516, Elder Philotheus, in a letter to Grand Duke Vasily III, wrote the words that later became famous: “The entire Christian kingdom has descended into yours as one, as two Romes have fallen, the third (i.e. Moscow) stands, but the fourth will not exist... You are one. there is a Christian king in all the heavens.” In Russia they knew that ancient Rome fell from heresy, the second Rome - Constantinople - fell from the atheists, and Moscow - the third Rome will stand and will be the last refuge of the Orthodox faith. The Russian Orthodox community firmly believed in this and considered itself the true custodian of “correct” Orthodoxy and adhered to the rule of praying and believing as their grandfathers and fathers prayed and believed.

The centralization of the Russian state required the unification of church rules and rituals. Already in the 16th century. a uniform all-Russian code of saints was established. However, significant discrepancies remained in the liturgical books, often caused by copyist errors.

Eliminating these differences became one of the goals of the system created in the 40s. XVII century in Moscow, a circle of “zealots of ancient piety”, consisting of prominent representatives of the clergy. The circle of zealots of piety - (a circle of clergy and secular persons united around Stefan Vonifatiev, the confessor of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich) was made up precisely of Moscow book-readers and respectable people, but unable to appreciate new views.

Also, a circle of zealots of piety sought to correct the morals of the clergy. But if there was nothing new in the disorders of the church and in their denunciations, then the organization of the priests and the fact that the desire for improvement came from them themselves, and not from the episcopate and the patriarch, as was usually the case in Rus', were completely new.

1.3 Tsar and patriarch before the start of church reform

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich “The Quietest” (03/19/1629 - 01/29/1676). Tsar of All Russia, son of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov from his second marriage to Evdokia Lukyanova Streshneva. Until the age of five, he was brought up according to ancient Moscow customs, under the supervision of nannies. Then boyar B.I. was appointed teacher of the young prince. Morozov, a man who contributed to teaching the future autocrat not only to read and write, but also to honor ancient Russian customs. In the fourteenth year of his life, Alexei Mikhailovich was solemnly “announced as the heir to the people,” and in the sixteenth, having lost his father and mother, he ascended the Moscow throne.

In all his affairs and undertakings, the tsar continued, on the one hand, the traditions of old Rus', on the other, he introduced innovations. It was under him that foreigners began to be invited to serve in Russia. As Klyuchevsky notes, Western influence, penetrating into Russia, met here with another dominant influence - Byzantine. Byzantine influence in the sphere of faith and church captured the entire society from top to bottom, penetrating with equal force into all its classes; imparted spiritual integrity to ancient Russian society. On the contrary, Western influence has penetrated into all spheres of life (economics, education, new knowledge, etc.), changing social concepts and relationships, rebuilding the spiritual makeup of the Russian people. So, the Byzantine influence was ecclesiastical, the Western - state.

The sovereign attached great importance to the spread of secular culture and education, which was new to Russia. The king was extremely pious, loved to read holy books, refer to them and be guided by them, no one could surpass him in observing fasts. The purity of his morals was impeccable: he was an exemplary family man, an excellent owner. During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, church and court rituals received special development, which under the sovereign were carried out with particular precision and solemnity.

Despite the excellent qualities of this sovereign as a person, he was incapable of governing: he always had the kindest feelings for his people, wished happiness to everyone, wanted to see order and improvement everywhere, but for these purposes he could not imagine anything other than relying on everything. on the existing mechanism of order management. Considering himself autocratic and independent of anyone, the tsar was always under the influence of one or the other; there were few impeccably honest people around him, and even fewer enlightened and far-sighted people.

Patriarch Nikon, one of the largest, most powerful figures in Russian history, was born in May 1605, in the village of Velyemanovo, near Nizhny Novgorod, and was baptized Nikita. His mother died shortly after his birth. Nikita's father married a second time, his stepmother disliked his stepson, often beat him and starved him. When the boy grew up, his father sent him to learn to read and write. Books captivated Nikita. Having learned to read, he wanted to experience all the wisdom of divine scripture and went to the monastery of Macarius of Zheltovodsk, where he continued to study the sacred books. Nikita’s family did not work out - all the children born in marriage died. He took this as a heavenly command commanding him to renounce the world. The future patriarch persuaded his wife to cut her hair as a nun in the Moscow Alekseevsky Monastery, and he himself went to the White Sea and cut his hair in the Anezersk monastery under the name Nikon. Life in the monastery was quite difficult, the brethren lived in separate huts scattered around the island, and only on Saturday they went to church; the service lasted the whole night, with the onset of the day a liturgy was celebrated. Above everyone was the initial elder named Eleazar. Despite all the difficulties, Nikon, together with Eleazar, made a trip to Moscow to collect alms to build a church. Upon arrival at the monastery, a rift occurred between them, and Nikon went to the Kozheozersk hermitage, located on the Kozheozersk islands. He settled on a special lake, separate from the brethren. After some time, Nikon became abbot.

Meeting Alexei Mikhailovich and Nikon.

In the third year after his installation, in 1646, Nikon, having gone to Moscow, bowed to the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The Tsar liked the Kozheozersk abbot so much that he ordered him to stay in Moscow, and, according to the Tsar’s wish, Patriarch Joseph ordained him to the rank of Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery. This place was especially important, and the archimandrite of this monastery, more likely than many others, could get closer to the sovereign: in the Novospassky monastery there was a family tomb of the Romanovs. The pious king often went there to pray for the repose of his ancestors and gave a generous salary to the monastery. The more the king talked with Nikon, the more he felt affection for him. Alexey Mikhailovich ordered the archimandrite to go to his palace every Friday. Nikon, taking advantage of the sovereign's favor, began to ask him for the oppressed and offended - the tsar really liked this.

In 1648, Metropolitan Athanasius of Novgorod died. The Tsar preferred his favorite to all other candidates, and the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius, who was in Moscow at that time, at the Tsar’s request, ordained the Novospassky Archimandrite to the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod. This rank was the second in importance in the Russian hierarchy.

Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted Nikon with the responsibility of monitoring not only church affairs, but also secular government, reporting to him about everything and giving advice. This taught the metropolitan to engage in worldly affairs in the future. When famine began in the Novgorod land, Nikon set aside a special chamber in his lord’s courtyard, the so-called “burial room,” and ordered the poor to be fed in it every day. The Metropolitan also established almshouses for the constant care of the poor and took funds from the Tsar to support them. Thanks to these actions, Nikon became the people's protector and favorite of the pious king. However, he committed actions that already at that time brought discontent upon him: on the tsar’s orders, he visited prisons, questioned the accused, accepted complaints, reported to the tsar, intervened in government, gave advice, and the tsar always listened to him. In his letters to Nikon, the Tsar called him “the great shining sun”, “the chosen strong-standing shepherd”, “mentor of souls and bodies”, “merciful, meek, merciful”, etc.; the tsar confided to him his opinion about this or that boyar. Because of this, the boyars in Moscow did not like Nikon, considering him a royal temporary worker. Relations with the spiritual subordinates did not work out either due to excessive severity and exactingness; secular people in Novgorod did not have any kindness towards Nikon due to his harsh, power-hungry disposition, despite his good deeds.

As Metropolitan of Novgorod, Nikon ensured that divine services were performed with greater accuracy, correctness and solemnity. And at that time, it must be said, despite the piety of our ancestors, the worship service was conducted in the most inappropriate manner, because for the sake of speed they read and sang different things at once, so that those praying could hardly make out anything. For the sake of the deanery, the Metropolitan destroyed this “polyphony” and borrowed Kiev singing instead of the so-called “separate river”, very dissonant singing. In 1651, having arrived in Moscow, Nikon advised the Tsar to transfer the relics of Metropolitan Philip from the Solovetsky Monastery to the capital and thereby atone for Ivan the Terrible’s long-standing sin before the saint.

At the time when Nikon went to Solovki for relics (1652), Moscow Patriarch Joseph died. Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne. Nikon agreed, but on the condition that the tsar, the boyars, the consecrated cathedral and all Orthodox Christians make a solemn vow before God that they will preserve “the gospel dogmas of Christ and the rules of St. apostles and saints father, and the laws of pious kings” and they will obey him, Nikon, in everything, “like a ruler and a shepherd and a most noble father.” The Tsar, the spiritual authorities behind him and the boyars swore to this, and on July 25, 1652 Nikon was installed as Patriarch.

2. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

2.1 Reasons and motives for carrying out church reform

Before Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne, lovers of God fought against the penetration of heterodox influences and the secularization of ideas among the Russian people. Back in 1647, foreigners entering Russian military service were recommended to convert to Orthodoxy; those who evaded the recommendation were ordered to move to a special settlement outside Moscow. In all areas of life and culture, Nikon tried to preserve the Orthodox style. He struggled with foreign manners and dress, which began to spread among the Russians, and with foreign artistic influence. When some Russian icon painters began to paint icons in the manner of Western secularized painting, he ordered these icons to be burned, and only the intercession of the tsar saved them from the fire. Strict decrees were issued against superstitions, pagan customs among the people, ugly celebrations of holidays, against fist fights, shameful games, drunkenness and ignorance of the clergy, against disorder in worship. Of course, these religious persecutions were often very unjust, although their ultimate goal was to protect the Orthodox from the dangerous example of infidels.

Before his patriarchate, Nikon, like all Russians at that time, was very suspicious of modern Greeks, believing that true piety was preserved only among Russians. He, without hiding, often expressed these views openly even after moving to Moscow, when he became an archimandrite. However, having become a patriarch, Nikon suddenly declares himself an inveterate Greekophile; a sharp revolution takes place - the detractor of the Greeks becomes their admirer and admirer. How long ago did he say: “The Greeks and Little Russias have lost their faith and strength and they don’t have good morals, peace and honor have deceived them, and they work with their morals, but constancy has not appeared in them and there is not a bit of piety.” Having become patriarch, Nikon immediately begins to zealously copy Greek church practice. Indeed, he brings Greek pulpits, the Greek bishop's crozier, Greek hoods and robes, Greek church chants to Russia, invites Greek painters to Moscow, builds monasteries on the Greek model, brings different Greeks closer to him, brings Greek authority to the fore everywhere, etc. P. . In the eyes of the Moscow clergy, this was a departure from “pure” Orthodoxy.

The addition of Kyivians and Greeks to the Orthodox clergy had complex ideological consequences for the Russian Church. On the one hand, in Ukraine, under the dominance of the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the desire to preserve Orthodoxy grew and anti-Catholic sentiments emerged. On the other hand, while the Russian Orthodox Church had long ago received autocephaly, Ukraine continued to remain within the sphere of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Changes in rituals, carried out according to the Greek model, took hold there. Nikon’s desire to introduce Greek rituals was explained by the desire to make reunification with Russia as attractive as possible in the eyes of Ukrainians, to demonstrate the absence of differences between Orthodoxy in Muscovy and Ukraine. At the same time, he relied both on an influential layer of immigrants from Ukraine and on the support of the tsar.

Nikon repeatedly tried to direct Moscow diplomacy to defend Orthodoxy, acting as the universal patron of co-religionists who were under the yoke of the Poles, Turks and Swedes. These efforts and hopes of Nikon to unite all Orthodox Christians under the scepter of the Russian Tsar and under the throne of the Moscow Patriarch had a bitter impact on the fate of the Russian Church and even the Russian state. While Moscow was looking for light in the Greek East, from there came suggestions to Moscow itself to become a source of light for the Orthodox East, a nursery and nursery of spiritual enlightenment for the entire Orthodox world, to found a higher theological school and start a Greek printing house.

It is widely believed that the reform was caused by the need to correct numerous errors and clerical errors that had crept into liturgical texts over time. However, an unbiased comparison of the texts of pre-reform liturgical books (Joseph’s print) and post-reform ones leaves no doubt about the superiority of the old books: there are, perhaps, fewer typos in them than in our modern editions. Moreover, this comparison allows us to draw exactly the opposite conclusions. Post-reform texts are significantly inferior in quality to old printed ones. As a result of the so-called editing, a huge number of errors of various kinds appeared - grammatical, lexical, historical, even dogmatic. So, if the goal was to correct errors in the books of the old press, it can hardly be considered achieved.

2.2 Church reform. Confrontation between Nikon and God-lovers

Nikon moved towards his goal gradually. First of all, the reform was supposed to ensure Nikon's favor with the tsar, for whom the correction of the Russian rite according to the Greek model was the key to the future unification of the entire Orthodox world under the scepter of the Moscow sovereign. For the sake of realizing these large-scale plans, Nikon begins his church reforms. The same goals were to be served by strengthening the external splendor of the Moscow Patriarchate, to which Nikon gave unprecedented grandeur.

The first step of Patriarch Nikon on the path of liturgical reform, taken immediately after assuming the Patriarchate, was to compare the text of the Creed in the edition of printed Moscow liturgical books with the text of the Symbol inscribed on the sakkos of Metropolitan Photius. Having discovered discrepancies between them (as well as between the Service Book and other books), Patriarch Nikon decided to begin correcting the books and rites.

At the beginning of Great Lent (February 11), 1653, the Patriarch sent out a “Memory” to Moscow churches about replacing part of the prostrations at the prayer of Ephraim the Syrian with waist ones and about using the three-fingered sign of the cross instead of the two-fingered one. In this “memory”, the patriarch, without requesting a church council or consulting with prominent church leaders, completely unexpectedly and arbitrarily changed the ritual. “According to the tradition of the saints, it is not proper for the apostle and the saints’ father to throw around the knees in the church, but you should bow to your waist, and also naturally cross yourself with three fingers.”

The God-lovers were surprised by the change that was taking place in Nikon, a faithful comrade-in-arms in the improvement of Russian Orthodoxy, neglecting their opinion and the opinion of the council, made individual decisions without taking into account anyone or anything. Church historians note that none of those whom Nikon relied on in his reform forced him to such an aggressive manner of behavior, much less change the sign of the cross.

The God-lovers were shocked by the order itself, its form, and the disdain shown by Nikon for Russian tradition in favor of his favorite Greeks. For a long time they did not dare to oppose the new patriarch, elected only nine months ago, their former friend, to whom the tsar and the council promised to obey unquestioningly in the affairs of the church. It was decided to submit a petition to the Tsar himself protesting against the actions of the Patriarch. The text of the petition was compiled by Avvakum and Archpriest Daniil Kostroma. The content of the protest was very harsh: lovers of God wrote that the pure Christian teaching could disappear in Rus' and that the head of the church, Nikon, had deviated from the precepts of Orthodoxy. (The content of this first protest against Nikon’s innovations, written in late February 1653, is known from Avvakum’s later letter to Father Ivan Neronov dated September 14 of the same year).

The Tsar handed the petition to the Patriarch and apparently insisted that the Patriarch postpone his innovations. Nikon agreed this time, did not insist on implementing the “memory” and it seemed that peace had come again in the Russian Church. At the same time, the tsar transferred a number of new lands and villages to the patriarchal administration, the patriarch's services became especially solemn, and Nikon's lifestyle became especially luxurious. The external splendor of the Patriarchal service under Nikon reaches its apogee. The pomp and beauty of the services of this time were unusual even for Moscow, which traditionally gave a special place to the ritual. Several dozen clergy, sometimes up to 75 people, concelebrated with Nikon at the Patriarchal services. The beauty and wealth of the Assumption Cathedral were matched by equally magnificent pound-weight vestments and precious utensils, decorated with stones and pearls and shining with royal gold. Tsar Alexei, despite his devout religiosity, did not interfere with Nikon in breaking the previous church structure. According to indirect data, behind the reform was hidden Alexey’s aim to become the head of the entire Orthodox world.

In fact, without engaging in open struggle, Nikon tried to get rid of the advice and cooperation of his former friends and began to take disciplinary measures against them, trying to reduce their influence. With the help of slander and tricks, Nikon dealt with his former comrades. Realizing that making unpopular decisions could cause a wave of disobedience, Nikon decides to convene a council, which with its authority would support and legitimize the cause of correction.

In the spring of 1654, the patriarch and the sovereign convened a church council; there were: 5 metropolitans, 5 archbishops and bishops, 11 archimandrites and abbots and 13 archpriests. The council began with a speech by Nikon, in which he pointed out the malfunction of the fathers' books and rituals and argued for the need to correct them. The Council recognized that correction was necessary and decided that the books should all be corrected, checking with the ancient and Greek books.

Although the decisions of this council spoke only of a comparative study of the Russian charter according to the old lists and correction in case of discrepancies with these old lists, Nikon ordered the Printing House to immediately begin correcting Russian liturgical books according to the new Greek editions. On April 1, 1654, a new edition of the Service Book began to be printed, and on April 25, a completely new book, “The Tablet, or Code of Church Laws,” was published, and this book was printed on the basis of the Venetian edition of the Greek text, printed in 1574.

The most significant amendments to these discrepancies in the new Nikon Service Book of 1655 were: the transition from two fingers with the sign of the cross to three fingers; exclusion of the word “true” from the eighth member of the creed; transition from singing “hallelujah, hallelujah, glory to you God” to “hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah...”; exclusion of services for the rebaptism of Catholics and other non-Orthodox; printing on prosphora a four-pointed cross instead of the old Russian eight-pointed one; replacing in the text of the liturgical, so-called Cherubic chant, the words “offering the thrice-holy hymn” with the words “blessing the most holy hymn”; During the proskomedia, or preparation of the holy gifts, now not one, but nine particles were taken from the third prosphora.

In addition to these particularly important innovations, many other, but less significant, innovations were made, sometimes amounting simply to graphical corrections. The list of all changes in the text of prayers, the order of reading these prayers, changes in the sacred rites of the clergy is already in the first analysis of Nikon’s innovations, made in 1655-1660 by the priest Nikita Dobrynin, later called by the offensive nickname Pustosvyat, more than 200 pages. In some very rare cases, these changes improved the translation or made the texts of prayers and chants more understandable. But in most cases they were unnecessary and extremely controversial.

Nikon challenged the entire past of the Russian church, as well as the surrounding Russian reality. Nikon's orders showed Russian Orthodox society that hitherto it did not know how to pray or paint icons, and that the clergy did not know how to perform divine services properly.

The reform was carried out from an elitist position and discounted the popular spirit of Orthodoxy. The Nikonians relied on “external wisdom” and presented the essence of the controversy as a conflict between knowledge and ignorance. The rebels were equated with rebels against the state, after which there was no doubt about whose side the government should take.

3. Schism. Causes and consequences.

3.1. Church unrest of 1658-1666

The reformation initiatives of the patriarch, carried out imperiously and rudely, only complicated Nikon's life. Many sincerely did not accept his reforms, others used dissatisfaction with the innovations introduced by the patriarch in order to realize their ambitions, to take revenge on Nikon for his arrogance, as a result of constant intrigues on the part of the boyars and clergy who had influence on the king and were hostile to the patriarch Nikon, there was a cooling of relations between the king and the patriarch. Nikon, as a silent protest, was forced to leave the department on July 10, 1658: without refusing to renounce the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, he retired for six years to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, which (along with the Cross and Iversky monasteries) he himself founded in 1656 and had in his personal property.

This ended the short but stormy period of Nikon's Patriarchate. More than eight years passed after the Patriarch left Moscow before at the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667. Nikon’s personal drama ended with the deposition and exile to the Ferapontov Monastery and the tragedy of the falling away of a huge number of Russian people from the Church and the emergence of the Old Believer schism began.

In the period following Nikon's resignation from the patriarchal throne, the Russian Church was in a very difficult state. As Kapterev writes, “everything in our church life at that time from top to bottom was in complete confusion and, as it were, disintegration, there was no stability, a certain order and strength in anything, everything seemed to be staggering, discord, discord, struggle were everywhere... It seemed that the return to the pre-Nikon church order would then be the most suitable way out of the confusing state of church affairs... The matter with Nikon’s reform seemed to be hanging by a thread.”

But after Nikon’s departure, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich becomes the de facto ruler of the Russian church, who directs all his energy to the approval of the reform, subordinating his activities to this, serving the reform often contrary to simple common sense, sacrificing to it truth, honor, and literally everything when reform becomes some kind of all-consuming cult of his life, an obsession. And quite rightly, the same Kapterev concludes that “the reform mainly owes its beginning to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, its implementation under Nikon and its completion after Nikon’s removal.”

By 1666, centers of “standing up for the faith” existed on the territory of the state and the ideological leaders of the confrontation were identified and known. The concentration of the clergy, townspeople and merchants, the circle of aristocracy around the noblewoman Morozova in Moscow made the city one of the centers of disobedience to church reform. Opposition to church corrections was throughout the state; for example, in Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Murom; in the far north, in the Solovetsky Monastery, as early as 1657, a sharp movement against the “novins” was detected and turned into an open rebellion, the well-known Solovetsky indignation, suppressed only in 1676.

Repressions against “church rebels” continued. More than a dozen resistance leaders, led by the old God-lover Fr. Lazar is brought from Siberia to Moscow, Deacon Theodore and priest Nikita Dobrynin are arrested. Premature death allowed Spiridon Potemkin to avoid the shame of prison. Other “church rebels,” such as hegumen Sergei Saltykov, deacon Theodore, former Solovetsky elder Gerasim Firsov, Archimandrite Anthony, holy fools Abraham, Fedor and Cyprian and many others, were detained and put under surveillance.

The enormous moral influence of the Solovki in the north of Rus' leads to the fact that the schism spreads throughout the north. And it should be noted that not only educated people of that time (for example, the clergy), but also the masses of the people took part in this movement for church antiquity. To the east of Moscow, the population of the middle reaches of the Volga and the rivers flowing into it, with centers in the Vyaznikovsky, Krasnoramensky and Kostroma forests, was almost entirely against the “Nikon reforms”, and here the movement acquired the most dangerous character. Even on the Don, where elements who did not get along with the authorities flocked, church “vacillation” and dissatisfaction with the hierarchy were becoming more and more evident. But as long as the population and clergy had hopes that the tsar and the hierarchs would “come to their senses” and “throw out the evil and destructive teaching,” the turmoil in the church did not yet violate its canonical unity.

When Nikon began to correct old books and rituals, people began to say that the Antichrist had already come. When in 1655-56. When a comet appeared, talk immediately began that it was a symbol of God’s wrath for the patriarch’s betrayal of Orthodoxy. “Behold the Orthodox, behold the sign of the wrath of God,” said the opponents of the patriarch. The ominous and unhappy year of 1666 was believed to have been predicted by the “Revelation” of John the Theologian, the writings of John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem and other church fathers as the year of apostasy from Orthodoxy. Many Russian people, including all Old Believers, considered 1666 to be the year of the Antichrist, because 666 is his number. Habakkuk claimed that he himself saw the Antichrist “a mad dog, very bad, and a stinking flame emanating from his nostrils and ears.” This year, none of the Old Believers plowed or sowed; in many places people left their huts, gathered together, took communion and waited for the sound of the Archangel's trumpet. In other villages, Old Believers, in order not to meet the Antichrist, chanted prayers and psalms, burned in fire and “ascended into heaven with their faith.”

No one had yet claimed that Russia had perished, that the tsar had become an unholy apostate, but when Cossack anarchy was already rising in the south and southeast of Russia, and the blessed were predicting natural disasters, to many Orthodox Christians 1666 seemed to be the last year free from the Antichrist. The year of the end of the Third Rome - Moscow. Moscow was turning from the Third Rome into the kingdom of the Antichrist, who had already won in other countries.

The fear of the end of the world freed Orthodox people from any duty of obedience and obedience. Eschatological panic undermined the foundations of social order. In view of the strong social and church tension that existed, concerns were expressed as a call for rebellion and rebellion, which in itself was extremely dangerous for the state.

In 1666-1667 On the initiative of the tsar, a Council met in Moscow with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs - Paisius of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch. It discussed the relationship between the “kingdom” and the “priesthood.” As a result of heated debate, a decision was made: the tsar has precedence in civil affairs, and the patriarch - in church affairs. The Church Council passed a verdict on the deposition of Nikon and his exile as a simple monk to the Belozersky Ferapontov Monastery. 15 years later, under Tsar Fedor, he was allowed to return to the Resurrection Monastery he founded near Moscow, but Nikon was seriously ill and died on the way near Yaroslavl.

Immediately after the council of 1666, the “great council” of 1666-1667 took place in Moscow. with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council approved all the details of Nikon's reform and uttered anathema on those who disobeyed its decrees and did not accept Nikon's innovations. The deeds and oaths were sealed with the signatures of the cathedral participants, placed for preservation in the Assumption Cathedral, and the most significant parts of the decrees were printed in the 1667 Service Book. After the council of 1667, the schism entered a new phase, becoming truly widespread.

3.2 Schism as a tragedy of the people

For most parishioners and clergy, the anathema divided life in half: before and after. The protest was universal: from the episcopate, white and black clergy to the laity and ordinary people. Not only did the parishioners not hear the usual words of prayer, did not participate in the usual divine services, Russia’s mission to protect Orthodoxy was declared an untenable claim. The entire understanding of Russian history was changed by the resolutions of the council. The Orthodox Russian kingdom, a harbinger of the coming kingdom of the Holy Spirit on earth, was turning into simply one of many monarchies - a simple state, although with new imperial claims, but without a special path in history sanctified by God.

Before the council, the struggle for the rite took place within the Russian church, and, despite all the harsh words exchanged by both sides, the defenders of the old piety remained part of the church body. Now the anathemas of the council placed them outside the Church, deprived them of the right to use the Sacraments and the consolation of the Church, but at the same time deprived the Church itself of all canonical and moral power over them.

The rejection of reforms was precisely double - both religious and political in nature. During these years, Rus' experienced unprecedented activity in theological consciousness, which splashed out in furious polemics, which, however, more often than not only reopened wounds, exacerbating mutual hostility. Private statements (such as the words of Patriarch Joachim: “Whoever wants, let him be baptized”) could no longer remove the intensity of the opposing passions.

However, the problem of the schism is in no way reducible to theology, since it was acutely superimposed on the social stresses that had accumulated among different classes as a result of the infringement of local rights by the central government and the final enslavement of the peasants that took shape precisely during this period. Some of the highest church hierarchs (Bishop Pavel Kolomensky), many members of the middle and lower clergy, entire monasteries (the most famous example of the Solovetsky uprising (“seating”) of 1668-1676), as well as representatives of boyar families (I.A. Khovansky, F.P. Morozova, E.P. Urusova, etc.), townspeople and rural people. The protest took different forms - from disturbances in the system of power itself (streltsy riots, including in connection with the Khovansky conspiracy in 1682) to grassroots unrest that found a powerful resonance in the uprisings led by S.T. Razin, and a century later - E.I. Pugachev, who proclaimed the slogan of the struggle for the “old faith.” The adherents of the “ancient piety” fled from the “den of robbers” (as the Nikonian Church seemed to them) by setting up their own monasteries in uninhabited lands, moving to the extreme borders of Russia.

The church schism in Russia led to the emergence of the “Old Believers.” Passionate sermons about Christian brotherhood, angry denunciations of the arbitrariness of the Nikonian clergy, calls for departure from worldly life, as well as persecution and persecution of “schismatic teachers” by the official church and government attracted the people to the leaders of the schism (Archpriest Avvakum, Ivan Neronov, Lazar, Fedor ) . The Tsar issued a number of decrees that ordered the governors to search for and severely punish the Old Believers. A bloody struggle between the state and the church began with all supporters of the old faith; they were brutally persecuted and burned at the stake.

Thousands of families fell into schism, fled to the north, to the Volga region, where, obeying neither the authorities nor the official church, they created their own church organization, their own communities (monasteries), isolated from the world. The ranks of the Old Believers included people from various social strata. The bulk were peasants. Among the schismatics, drunkenness and tobacco smoking were condemned, and family was revered. A special morality has developed, based on respect for elders, modesty, honesty and work. The essence of the Old Believers is the defense not of rituals, but of the faith itself, which is threatened by innovations focused on foreign, foreign models.

Despite all the predictions, the end of the world did not come, and life in it required the solution of such significant issues as the organization of society, relations with the state, baptism, marriage, which, in turn, forced one to adapt to the existing world, and not just radically deny it like the kingdom of evil. Due to the small number of priests who remained completely faithful to the old piety, and the almost complete absence of churches in which they could perform divine services, the question of the possibility of performing the sacraments of confession and communion became especially acute and important for the Old Believers. Avvakum solved the problem of confession by introducing new and very unusual features into Orthodox practice. In the absence of a priest, he advised confession to pious and knowledgeable laymen in church affairs. His advice for communion was no less unusual, for which he recommended, in the absence of a priest, to use spare gifts received in advance from the pious church. He undoubtedly understood that he was introducing into the life of his absentee flock and in general the followers of the old piety morals and rituals that were very unusual in Orthodox life, which in essence were a much greater deviation from the rules than the “Nikonian” innovations themselves, but he advised them only as a temporary, passing exception due to “the current, truly fiery time.”

The family life of the Old Believers was characterized by isolation caused by their religious isolation from the rest of the Russian population. This isolation contributed to the preservation of patriarchal morals. The tradition of mutual assistance, so necessary in the constant confrontation with the outside world, was favorable to the economic life of the Old Believers peasants. As a rule, among them there were not only beggars, but also poor people. The Old Believers considered it a rule to obtain everything they needed from their household. This economic orientation was supported by the preservation of the ancient collectivist foundations of the peasant community, manifested primarily in mutual labor assistance.

Maintaining fidelity to the ideals of Orthodoxy contributed to what Old Believer communities largely determined in the 19th century. life attitudes of the Moscow merchants. The Old Believers, who became rich people, did not break with their environment and showed considerable generosity in charitable activities, donated large sums in the form of alms to both monasteries and individuals, became trustees of communities, helped peasants pay off their duties and “get on their feet,” and gave money loans to independent owners, provided work for those who did not have the means.

The spiritual life of the Old Believers was not under the constant control of the church, therefore the Old Believers were distinguished by independence in judgments related to both the area of ​​​​faith and everyday affairs. The peculiarities of the ideology of the Old Believers are reflected in folklore. The search for a region hidden from the Antichrist, where the “correct” faith flourishes, laid the foundation for the legends about Belovodye or the city-monastery of Kitezh, hidden by the right hand of the Lord.

An important feature of the Old Believers is respect for the book. Many communities had libraries of a hundred or more books belonging to the entire community (“cathedral books”).

3.3 Impact of the schism on Russian culture and history

There were no winners in the fierce dispute between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum. Patriarch Nikon, who tried to place spiritual power above secular power, was deposed by a church council in 1666. The conflict between secular and spiritual power in Russia ended with the increased dependence of the church on the state, but the church managed to maintain internal independence and its land holdings.

The state persecuted the Old Believers. Repressions against them expanded after the death of Alexei, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich and Princess Sophia. In 1681, any distribution of ancient books and writings of the Old Believers was prohibited. In 1682, by order of Tsar Fedor, the most prominent leader of the schism, Avvakum, was burned. Under Sophia, a law was passed that finally prohibited any activity of schismatics.

Until 1690, 20,000 people died from self-immolation, sometimes a group of up to 2,700 people burned at the same time. There were cases of joint flooding in the waters of lakes and rivers, walling up of living Old Believers in the basements of stone buildings, and even group self-destruction using blows or cuts with ordinary knives. Many families of Old Believers left and hid in the remote taiga of the Urals, Altai and Siberia, where their descendants still live.

The Old Believers created a very interesting and largely original culture. Each sect had its own spiritual songs or psalms, often not devoid of poetry; in addition to the original rite of worship, each sect also had its own rituals of the life cycle, its own way of life, and sometimes its own costume. In the culture of the Old Believers, two layers are clearly visible: the cultural layer, reflecting the teachings and worldview of this sect, and the second - Russian traditional culture.

The clergy's monopoly on education and literacy began to become a thing of the past. The percentage of literate people in cities has increased. More books began to be published. The circulation of the Moscow Printing House numbered tens of thousands of copies, among which codes of laws, statutes, and textbooks occupied a prominent place. Foreign books appeared in Russia, specialists were hired abroad, children were sent abroad to study.

The church schism even affected the organization of public education. We thought and decided for a long time how to teach Latin and Greek in schools. At first they were taught in different schools, that is, separately: Latin in one, and Greek in the other. In 1681, at the Moscow printing house on Nikolskaya, a school was opened with two classes for studying Greek in one and Slavic in the other. This printing school was led by Hieromonk Timothy, who lived in the East for a long time, with two Greek teachers. 30 students from different classes entered the school. In 1686 there were already 233 of them. Then a higher school was established, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (M.V. Lomonosov, a great encyclopedist, graduated from this academy), opened in 1686 in the Zaikonospassky Monastery on Nikolskaya. The Greek brothers Likhud were called to lead it.

Secular elements in the culture of the 17th century. manifest themselves in church architecture and in painting and applied art. Monumental princely churches are being replaced by township churches - elegant, with bright colors, with countless patterns, with decorations made of figured bricks and tiles. Patriarch Nikon tried to ban the construction of tent churches, but they continued to be built in Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Rostov and other cities.

It is important to note that after Nikon’s reforms and the Schism that followed, two main currents of social thought emerged: one was nationally conservative, directed against reforms both in the church sphere and in the civil sphere and was equally hostile towards both the Greeks and the Germans as foreigners. , a foreign element. The other direction was Westernizing, moving towards Greek and Kyiv science and Western culture. Over the years, these views will unite the minds of people into certain groups - Slavophiles and Westerners will enter the arena of Russian history.

Historians argue about details, about moments of development, but do not question the vector of development of Russian statehood, the transition to absolutism. Church reforms and church schism fit into the context of the evolution of the state and Russian society and are interpreted as historically inevitable.

rebellious church patriarch reform

Conclusion

In the history of Russian culture of the 17th century. ends the medieval period and begins the transition to modern times. Due to historical conditions, there is a change in worldview - from religious to secular. The schism in the church itself was perhaps the most significant factor in the emerging crisis of the medieval worldview.

The years of the Troubles, and then the church schism, taught people to make their own choices and be responsible for their destiny. Mass popular movements and uprisings awakened and strengthened people's faith in their own strength. The halo of holiness both around the church and around the authorities was shaken.

Neither the “Nikonians” nor the “Old Believers” can be called progressive; rigidity and uncompromisingness, fierce hostility and fanaticism are the main qualities displayed in the struggle by both sides. The main consequence of the reform was a deep spiritual crisis in Russian society: the split affected the consciousness and worldview of the Russian people, and Muscovite Rus', previously united in faith and life, split.

The main result of the schism, its dramatic outcome, was the actual division of the church: with the formation of a special branch of Orthodoxy in the form of the Old Believers. Some of those who disagreed with the innovations left in the 17th-19th centuries. into various kinds of sects.

The schism was a very difficult experience for the people and the Church, but... I think there were benefits from this experience. At least, the self-awareness of the dogmatic and canonical foundations of church life became so strengthened that many attempts during the years of the revolution to weaken and fragment the Church, attempts strengthened by the support of all repressive bodies of the state - all of this fell apart. The Church survived and, having overcome these attempts to divide it, remained united and gathered its children in difficult conditions.

Bibliography

1.Large encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Bolshaya Ross. encycl.; St. Petersburg: Norint, 1999, 1456 p.

2.Desnitsky A.S. The Bible and the Orthodox tradition. - M.: Eksmo.2008. - 448 p. (Orthodox Library)

.Zenkovsky S. Russian Old Believers: Spiritual movements of the 17th century. Munich, 1970. (Forum Slav.; T. 21); 1995 #"justify">. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century: Textbook. manual for university students studying in the direction. and special “History”/Novoseltsev A.P., Sakharov A.N., Buganov V.I., Nazarov V.D.; Rep. ed.: Sakharov A.N., Novoseltsev A.P. - M.: AST, 2000. - 575 p.: ill.

.History of the Fatherland: textbook. aid for students universities - Shevelev V.N. Ed. 5th, revised and additional - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2008. - 603 p. (Higher education)

.Kapterev N.F. Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rites M., 1887.-518 p.

.Kargalov V.V., Savelyev Yu.S., Fedorov V.A. . History of Russia from ancient times to 1917: Textbook. for the humanities non-historical universities specialist. /Under general ed. V.V. Kargalova. - M.: Russian Word, 1998. - 398 p.

.Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history course. Lecture 54 #"justify">. Kutuzov B. Church reform of the 17th century: tragic mistake or sabotage? “The Eye of the Church” - liturgical library, 2000-2005 #"justify">10. Molzinsky. V.V. “Old Believer movement of the second half of the 17th century. in Russian scientific-historical literature". P-g, Ak. culture, 1997.- 141 p.

11.Essays on the history of Russian culture of the 9th-17th centuries. Book for teachers. - 2nd ed., revised. A.V. Muravyov, A.M. Sakharov. - M.: Education, 1984. - 336 p., ill.

12.Patriarch Nikon. To the 400th anniversary of his birth. Life path and Patriarchal service Chapter of the book: Petrushko V.I. Course of lectures on the history of the Russian Church. Church and Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia" #"justify">. Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. Goomer Library #"justify">. Russia in the 17th century / History of Russia from ancient times to the second half of the 19th century: A course of lectures. Part 1. Ed. Academician Lichman B.V. Ural State those. University, Ekaterinburg, 1995 #"justify">. Shakhov M.O. Old Believer worldview: Religious and philosophical foundations and social position. - M.:RAGS, 2002. - 377 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Detailed solution paragraph § 24 on history for 7th grade students, authors N.M. Arsentiev, A.A. Danilov, I.V. Kurukin. 2016

• Gdz workbook on History for grade 7 can be found

Page 75

What were the causes and consequences of the church schism?

The Russian Orthodox Church became involved in the political struggle of the Time of Troubles. After her, the position of the church in the state strengthened; Patriarch Filaret made a significant contribution to church and state affairs. By the middle of the 17th century. conditions developed for church reform, which was carried out by Patriarch Nikon. The reform changed the ritual side of Orthodoxy, but caused a split of believers into Nikonians and Old Believers. The schismatics’ struggle for the old faith became one of the forms of people’s protest against the oppression of the authorities.

Page 77

What do you see as the reasons for Alexei Mikhailovich’s quarrel with Nikon?

Page 28. Questions and tasks for the text of the paragraph

1. What was the position of the Russian Orthodox Church after the Time of Troubles? Why did the position of the church strengthen?

The Russian Orthodox Church became involved in the political struggle of the Time of Troubles. After her, the position of the church in the state strengthened; Patriarch Filaret made a significant contribution to church and state affairs. The position of the church was strengthened because Patriarch Filaret was the de facto ruler of Russia.

2. What were the reasons for church reform? Why do you think it was held in the middle of the 17th century?

Reason for church reform: the need to restore order in church rituals. The church reform took place precisely in the middle of the 17th century. because by this time the position of the church was strong. In addition, an autocratic form of power for the tsar was also being formed.

3. Why did the conflict break out between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon?

The reasons for Alexei Mikhailovich’s quarrel with Nikon are that he suggested that the tsar share power following the example of Mikhail Fedorovich and Filaret. Alexey Mikhailovich did not want to share his power with anyone.

4. How do you understand the essence and significance of church schism?

The essence of church schism: the struggle between old and new in the life of the state and society

The significance of the church schism: it showed the strength of royal power and the inevitability of change.

5. Express your opinion about Archpriest Avvakum.

Archpriest Avvakum is an example of heroic stoism, loyalty to one’s convictions, and devotion to the historical roots of the Motherland.

6. Which figures of the Russian Orthodox Church made a significant contribution to the strengthening of the Russian state in the 17th century?

Significant contribution to the strengthening of the Russian state in the 17th century. contributed by figures of the Russian Orthodox Church: Patriarchs Filaret, Joseph I, Joseph and even Nikon.

Page 36. Studying the document

1. How does Avvakum assess the essence of Nikon’s reform?

Avvakum evaluates Nikon's reform as heretical, destroying true Orthodoxy.

2. Which words in this passage do you approve of and which do you disapprove of?

From this passage one can applaud the words: “Speak in your natural language; do not disparage him in church, in home, or in proverbs.”

Words that do not deserve approval: “Take those heretics who destroyed your soul and burn them, nasty dogs...”

1. Both Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum spoke about the need to correct church books. The first proposed editing books according to Greek originals, the second - according to Old Church Slavonic translations. Why do you think the position of Patriarch Nikon won?

The position of Patriarch Nikon won because Russia and the Tsar sought to build relations with European countries, and the Greek option (read European) was more correct in this sense.

2. Using additional literature and the Internet, collect material about the Old Believers. Determine the main ideas of the Old Believers. Find out whether the Old Believers exist today.

Review of the history of the Old Believers

Followers of the Old Believers begin their history with the Baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles, who adopted Orthodoxy from the Greeks. The Union of Florence (1439) with the Latins served as the main reason for the separation of the Russian local church from the Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople and the creation of an autonomous Russian local church in 1448, when a council of Russian bishops appointed a metropolitan without the participation of the Greeks. The Local Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 in Moscow enjoys great authority among the Old Believers. Since 1589, the Russian Church began to be headed by a patriarch.

Nikon's reforms, begun in 1653 to unify Russian rites and worship according to contemporary Greek models, met strong opposition from supporters of the old rituals. In 1656, at a local council of the Russian Church, all those who crossed themselves with two fingers were declared heretics, excommunicated from the Trinity and cursed. In 1667, the Great Moscow Council took place. The Council approved the books of the new press, approved new rituals and rites, and imposed oaths and anathemas on the old books and rituals. Supporters of the old rituals were again declared heretics. The country found itself on the brink of a religious war. The first to rise was the Solovetsky Monastery, which was devastated by the Streltsy in 1676. In 1681, a local council of the Russian Church was held; The cathedral persistently asks the tsar for executions, for decisive physical reprisals against Old Believer books, churches, monasteries, monasteries, and against the Old Believers themselves. Immediately after the cathedral, active physical violence will begin. In 1682, a mass execution of Old Believers took place. Ruler Sophia, precisely at the request of the clergy, the council of 1681-82, will publish in 1685 the famous “12 Articles” - universal state laws, on the basis of which thousands of Old Believers will be subjected to various executions: expulsion, prison, torture, burning alive in log cabins. . During the struggle against the old rite, a variety of means were used throughout the entire post-reform period by New Believer councils and synods, such as slander, lies, and forgery. Particularly famous and widespread are such forgeries as the Council Act against the heretic Armenin, against the deceiver Martin and the Theognost Trebnik. To combat the old ritual, the decanonization of Anna Kashinskaya was carried out in 1677.

Under Peter I in 1716, the “Twelve Articles” of Princess Sophia were abolished and, to facilitate their accounting, the Old Believers were given the opportunity to live semi-legally, subject to paying “double all payments for this split.” At the same time, control and punishment of those who evaded registration and payment of double tax were strengthened. Those who did not confess and did not pay double tax were ordered to be fined, each time increasing the fine rate, and even sent to hard labor. For seduction into schism (any Old Believer divine service or performance of religious services was considered seduction), as before Peter I, the death penalty was imposed, which was confirmed in 1722. Old Believer priests were declared either schism teachers, if they were Old Believer mentors, or traitors to Orthodoxy, if they had previously been priests, and were punished for both.

However, the repressions of the tsarist government against the Old Believers did not destroy this movement in Russian Christianity. In the 19th century, according to some opinions, up to a third of the Russian population were Old Believers. The Old Believer merchants grew rich and even partly became the main support of entrepreneurship in the 19th century. Socio-economic prosperity was a consequence of changes in state policy towards the Old Believers. The authorities made a certain compromise by introducing unity of faith. In 1846, thanks to the efforts of the Greek Metropolitan Ambrose, expelled by the Turks from the Bosno-Sarajevo see, the Old Believers-Beglopopovs managed to restore the church hierarchy in the territory of Austria-Hungary among refugees. The Belokrinitsky consent appeared. However, not all Old Believers accepted the new metropolitan, partly due to doubts about the authenticity of his baptism (in Greek Orthodoxy, “pouring” rather than full baptism was practiced). Ambrose elevated 10 people to various degrees of priesthood. Initially, the Belokrinitsa agreement was in force among emigrants. They managed to attract the Don Cossacks-Nekrasovites into their ranks. In 1849, the Belokrinitsky agreement spread to Russia, when the first bishop of the Belokrinitsky hierarchy in Russia, Sophrony, was elevated to the rank. In 1859, Archbishop Anthony of Moscow and All Rus' was ordained, and in 1863 he became metropolitan. At the same time, the reconstruction of the hierarchy was complicated by internal conflicts between Bishop Sophrony and Archbishop Anthony. In 1862, great discussions among the Old Believers were caused by the District Epistle, which took a step towards New Believer Orthodoxy. The oppositionists of this document made up the minds of the neo-circulators.

Article 60 of the Charter on the prevention and suppression of crimes stated: “Schismatics are not persecuted for their opinions about the faith; but they are forbidden to seduce and persuade anyone into their schism under any guise.” They were forbidden to build churches, establish monasteries, or even repair existing ones, as well as publish any books according to which their rituals were performed. Old Believers were limited in holding public positions. The religious marriage of the Old Believers, unlike religious marriages of other faiths, was not recognized by the state. Until 1874, all children of Old Believers were considered illegitimate. Since 1874, civil marriage was introduced for Old Believers: “Marriages of schismatics acquire in a civil sense, through recording in the special metric books established for this purpose, the power and consequences of a legal marriage.”

Some restrictions for Old Believers (in particular, the ban on holding public positions) were abolished in 1883.

On April 17, 1905, the Highest Decree “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” was given, which, among other things, abolished legislative restrictions on Old Believers and in particular read: “To assign the name Old Believers, instead of the currently used name of schismatics, to all followers of interpretations and agreements that they accept the basic dogmas of the Orthodox Church, but do not recognize some of the rituals accepted by it and conduct their worship according to old printed books.” He gave the Old Believers the opportunity to openly organize religious processions, ring bells, and organize communities; Belokrinitsky consent was legalized. Among the Old Believers of the non-priest persuasion, a Pomeranian agreement took shape.

The Soviet government in the RSFSR and later the USSR treated the Old Believers relatively favorably until the end of the 1920s, in line with its policy of supporting currents opposed to “Tikhonovism.” The Great Patriotic War was met with ambiguity: most Old Believers called for defending the Motherland, but there were exceptions, for example, the Republic of Zueva or the Old Believers of the village of Lampovo.

Modernity

Currently, in addition to Russia, Old Believer communities exist in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Poland, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the USA, Canada and a number of Latin American countries, as well as in Australia.

The largest modern Orthodox Old Believer religious organization in Russia and beyond its borders is the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (Belokrinitsky hierarchy, founded in 1846), numbering about a million parishioners; has two centers - in Moscow and Braila, Romania.

The Old Orthodox Pomeranian Church (DOC) has more than 200 communities in Russia, and a significant part of the communities are not registered. The centralized, advisory and coordinating body in modern Russia is the Russian Council of the DOC.

The spiritual and administrative center of the Russian Ancient Orthodox Church until 2002 was located in Novozybkov, Bryansk region; since then - in Moscow.

The total number of Old Believers in Russia, according to a rough estimate, is over 2 million people. Russians predominate among them, but there are also Ukrainians, Belarusians, Karelians, Finns, Komi, Udmurts, Chuvash and others.

In 2000, at the Council of Bishops, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia repented to the Old Believers:

On March 3, 2016, a round table was held at the Moscow House of Nationalities on the topic “Current problems of the Old Believers,” which was attended by representatives of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church, the Russian Old Orthodox Church and the Old Orthodox Pomeranian Church. The representation was the highest - Moscow Metropolitan Korniliy (Titov), ​​Ancient Orthodox Patriarch Alexander (Kalinin) and Pomeranian spiritual mentor Oleg Rozanov. It was the first time that a meeting at such a high level between different branches of Orthodoxy took place.

3. What issues were resolved at the Church Council of 1666-1667?

At the Church Council of 1666-1667. Issues were being resolved: the trial of Patriarch Nikon and the reprisal (anathema) of schismatics, recognition of the reform.

4. How did the reform of Patriarch Nikon influence the development of church life?

The reform of Patriarch Nikon had a negative impact on the development of church life and led to a split in the church. At the same time, the country began to serve according to uniform church rituals.

5. Why do you think in the 17th century? in Russia did secular power manage to take a primacy position in relation to church power?

In the 17th century in Russia, secular power managed to take a leading position in relation to the church because the tsarist power had already gained enough strength, the apparatus of the tsarist power was formed, a regular army, autocratic power was recognized in society.

Page 81

Peoples of Russia in the 17th century.

Material for independent work and project activities of students

Like in the 17th century. did the further formation of the multinational Russian state take place? What peoples became part of Russia in the 17th century?

In the 17th century Russia continued to develop as a multinational state. The peoples inhabiting Ukraine, Siberia and the Far East became its subjects. These peoples spoke different languages, had different customs, professed different religions and cults, but from now on they had a common Fatherland - Russia.

Page 81

When did Left Bank Ukraine become part of Russia?

Left-bank Ukraine became part of Russia in 1686.

Page 82

When was the Ukrainian Orthodox Church subordinated to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'?

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church was subordinated to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' in 1687.

Page 82

What was the name of the government agency located in Moscow and in charge of managing the Ukrainian lands that became part of Russia?

The government agency located in Moscow and in charge of managing the Ukrainian lands that became part of Russia was called the “Little Russia” Order. It was established in the middle of the 17th century, after the reunification of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples into a single state. The order was in charge of Little Russia, the Zaporozhye army, the Cossacks and the cities of Kyiv and Chernigov.

Page 83

When was the first Orthodox diocese created in the Volga region? Where was its center located? Who were called newly baptized?

In 1555, the Kazan diocese was formed, which began active work on the Christianization of the peoples of the Volga region. Its center is Kazan. Those who converted to Orthodoxy were called newly baptized.

Page 28. Questions and assignments to the text of the material for independent work and project activities of students

1. How did the Russians develop new lands? What positive and negative consequences did Russian colonization bring to the peoples of Siberia and the Far East?

The Russians' development of new lands occurred in different ways. Some territories were conquered (Khanate of Siberia), but mostly there was a peaceful annexation.

Positive and negative consequences of Russian colonization of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East:

The Russians founded many forts in Siberia, which then turned into cities. Siberia also became a springboard for further colonization of Asia and northwestern North America (Russian America).

Establishment of economic dependence (tax - yasak), forced Christianization

2. Describe the features of management of Ukrainian lands in the 17th century. Why did some Ukrainians oppose reunification with Russia?

Features of management of Ukrainian lands in the 17th century: self-government. The elected hetman ruled the Ukrainian lands together with the elders' council, which appointed ranks to positions. The territory is divided into 10 regiments, headed by colonels and a regimental sergeant major. Large cities retained self-government, but Moscow governors with military garrisons were appointed in all cities.

Some Ukrainians opposed reunification with Russia because property inequality had increased. The Cossack elite got large lands and subjugated the poor peasants. This caused discontent among the peasants. And the Cossack elite demanded more privileges.

3. What was the situation of the peoples of the Volga region?

The entry of the peoples of the Volga region into Russia occurred at the beginning of the 17th century. Cities and fortresses arose here. The composition of the population is multinational. The population paid taxes, the Tatar nobility went into the service of the Russian tsars. Christianization was actively carried out.

4. What steps were taken in the 17th century. to strengthen Russian influence in the Caucasus?

To strengthen Russian influence in the Caucasus in the 17th century. steps have been taken

Acceptance of Kakheti and the Imeretian kingdom into Russian citizenship.

Page 57. Working with the map

1. Show on the map the territory that became part of Russia in the 17th century. What peoples inhabited it?

Russia in the 17th century inhabited by peoples: Ukrainians, Tatars, Chuvash, Mari, Mordovians, Udmurts, Bashkirs, as well as the peoples of Siberia - Nenets, Evenks, Buryats, Yakuts, Chukchi, Daurs.

2. Using the map, list the states with which in the 17th century. bordered by Russia in the south and east.

States with which in the 17th century. bordered Russia in the south: the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate. To the east is China.

Page 87. Studying the document

What new did you learn from the document about the life of the Tungus (Evenks)?

We learned something new from the document about the life of the Tungus: they lived along the banks of rivers and stored dry fish for the year.

Page 87. Studying the document

1. How do Semyon Dezhnev and Nikita Semenov determine the purpose of their campaign?

Semyon Dezhnev and Nikita Semenov define the purpose of their campaign as follows: to find profit for the royal treasury.

2. What profitable trades do they talk about?

They talk about a profitable business - hunting walruses and obtaining valuable walrus tusks.

Page 36. We think, compare, reflect

1. How was our multinational state formed in the 17th century? At what level of development were the peoples who became part of Russia in the 17th century? How did they influence each other?

Our multinational state was formed in the 17th century. very active, but not easy. The annexed territories had to be defended in the struggle in European countries. In the process of peaceful colonization, territories were also annexed.

Peoples who became part of Russia in the 17th century. were at different levels of development: Ukraine - its own statehood with self-government bodies, and the peoples of Siberia - even at the level of primitive communal, tribal relations. The peoples that became part of Russia influenced each other fruitfully, exchanging economic and cultural achievements.

2. Using additional literature and the Internet, collect information about one of the peoples (about the territory of residence, main occupations, way of life, cultural and religious traditions, clothing, etc.) that became part of Russia in the 17th century. Based on the collected material, prepare an electronic presentation.

By the time Yakutia joined the Moscow state, at the beginning of the 17th century, the Yakuts inhabited the Lena-Amga and Lena-Vilyui interfluves and part of the river basin. Vilyuya. The main occupation of the Yakuts was breeding cattle and horses. Cattle breeding was primitive, predominantly meat and dairy.

By the beginning of the 17th century. livestock was no longer tribal, but private family property, with individual families owning several hundred heads of livestock. The majority of the Yakuts had 10 or even fewer heads of livestock, which, in the conditions of a cattle-breeding economy, did not provide a family subsistence level. There were also completely cattleless Yakuts.

Following private ownership of livestock, private ownership of hayfields was established. This happened no later than the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. Mowing was highly valued and was the subject of all kinds of transactions. Mowing fields were sold and passed on by inheritance, rented from the owners for a year or more, and payment was made in furs. The Yakuts waged a constant struggle for meadows and flooded meadows (alas). Let us only clarify that this was not land at all, which was still in communal tribal ownership, but meadows.

Hunting and fishing in the area of ​​the Amgino-Lena Plateau, where the Russians first met the compact mass of Yakuts, played only a supporting role. Only in the northern taiga regions were these industries, along with reindeer herding, the main ones. The Yakuts hunted fur-bearing animals - sables and foxes - and game - hares, migratory birds, etc. The fur was used for their own use - for clothing - and also for exchange. Sable lands were usually located away from the main housing of the Yakuts; the Yakuts rode horses there in the fall, so the poor people who did not have horses could not hunt sables.

Fishing was widespread among the poorest part of the population in both pastoral and hunting areas. The word "balykhsyt" (fisherman) was often synonymous with the word "poor". “I am a thin man, a fisherman,” said Oilga, a Yakut without cattle.

Exchange relations among the Yakuts at that time were already quite developed. Since the main wealth was concentrated in the hands of the top of society - the toyons (Yakut semi-feudal aristocracy). This elite also conducted barter relations. Moscow service people exchanged horses and cows, hay, utensils and food with the princes.

The exchange also took place among the Yakuts themselves, between the population of different regions. Thus, pastoralists exchanged livestock for furs with the Yakuts and Tungus of the taiga strip. The Namsky, Baturussky and other Yakuts sold “their cattle for sable to the distant Yakuts and Tungus.”

By the time of their conquest by the Moscow state, in the 17th century, the Yakuts had already emerged as a people with a common language, territory and a common pastoral culture, opposing themselves as a single whole to the Tungus, Yukagirs and other neighboring peoples and tribes with which they had to come into contact.

The Yakut people consisted of a number of tribes, each of which in turn consisted of several related groups. The tribal system of the Yakuts by the beginning of the 17th century. was in a state of decomposition.

At the head of the clan, numbering several hundred people, was a toyon, called a prince in Russian documents. His power was inherited by one of his sons. The remaining sons, although they belonged to a privileged class, did not have the power of the ancestor. The prince's closest relatives made up the tribal aristocracy. Members of the clan were in a dependent position on the ancestor, they accompanied him on campaigns, robberies, migrated after him, etc., but each of them remained independent economically and lived in their own yurt.

Features of tribal life preserved among the Yakuts of the 17th century. , manifested themselves in the presence of tribal councils, at which military affairs and issues relating to one or more tribes were decided. Such councils met repeatedly during the Yakuts’ struggle against colonial oppression. All questions at the council were raised and resolved by the princes, while the ulus masses were only mute witnesses.

Councils of the Yakuts of the 17th century. were not similar to the democratic meetings characteristic of the Iroquois family and which were their supreme power. However, the presence of tribal, as well as clan councils (for example, the council convened by Baltuga Timereev “Amanats - to give or not”) speaks of strong remnants of the clan system. Remnants of the tribal system were also preserved in the legal structure.

Livestock theft or other offense caused family revenge that lasted for many years. To stop revenge, it was necessary to give a ransom - "golovshchina" - in cattle or a slave. Yardan Oduneev of the Kangalas volost came to rob Okunka Odukeev of the same volost, beat him and for this he had to first give him “his glass”, and then replaced him - he gave him “5 cattle”.

Intertribal and interclan wars, accompanied by the robbery of livestock and the abduction of people, did not stop throughout the 17th century. During the uprising of 1636, the Kangalas tribe “under the prison, the uluses crushed and beat, and drove away about twenty people in a crowd of yasak people and drove away a lot of cattle.” Most of the military booty and prisoners of war were captured by military leaders, who were also clan foremen. Predatory wars were of great importance during the decomposition of the clan; they provided slaves, and slavery was a factor contributing to the further social differentiation of the clan.

The clan also formalized relations of disguised slavery under the guise of “nurturing,” that is, raising orphans and children of poor parents. Having become adults, the fosterlings had to pay for their upbringing with their labor. The owner could sell his nurse - in a word, dispose of it as his own property. Thus, the Yakut Kurzhega gave the following explanation about his nurse: “After his father Toe Bychikai, he took mala, gave her drink and fed her, and fed her for 10 years, and after nursing her, he sold Kurzhega to the Russian people.”

Under the guise of help and support, the rich exploited their poor relatives, oppressed them, and put them in a position of slavish dependence on themselves. The head of the family sold children, wives and other relatives into slavery, mainly for livestock. So, in the deed of sale for Minakaya, Selbezinov’s daughter, it is said: “I am the Yasash Yakut of the Atamaisky volost, Nonya Ivakov, who sold you to the Yasash Yakut Kurdyaga Totrev on the Vilyuya of the Seredny Vyalyuisky winter quarters of the Meginskaya Volost to the Yasash Yakut Kurdyaga Totrev, his wife named Minakaya Selbezinov’s daughter, and for that he took his wife a good horse Yes, 2 pregnant cows."

The Yakuts, who had no livestock, also fell into slavery; they “became impoverished and impoverished and were sold from house to house into servitude.”

Slaves performed household chores, went hunting, fished, herded livestock, mowed hay, earning a living for both themselves and the owner. Often slaves took part in military campaigns with their masters. A female slave could move to a new house as a dowry: “His mother Kustyakova was given a dowry for his mother Nuktueva.”

We can outline the following social groupings among the Yakuts of the 17th century: 1) toyons (princes and best people) - semi-feudal aristocracy, 2) ulus people - members of the clan community, constituting the bulk of the population, 3) dependent part of the ulus population (living “near”, “ zahrebetniki", teenagers, partially bokans, sucklers), 4) slaves (bokans).

A few words regarding the top of Yakut society. By the time the Russians arrived, the Toyons had already ceased to be representatives only of their clans, defending the interests of their relatives. Nevertheless, in appearance they still retained the appearance of clan leaders and used to their advantage certain features of clan life, such as: the former authority of the ancestors, the role of a judge, etc. The position of the toyons was unequal and depended on the strength and power of the clan of which they were representatives. were. A numerous clan was naturally stronger economically.

His boss led other communities related to him, becoming the leader of the tribe. The Cossacks well noticed the difference in the position of toyons and recorded this in various terms, depending on the significance of a particular toyon. The largest toyons, who headed large clans or entire tribes, were called “princes.” Such was, for example, the leader of the Borogonians, Prince Logui. The descendants of Tynan were often called Kangalas princes. At the same time, the founders of small and economically weak clans were simply called: “Chicha with the springs”, “Kureyak with the clan”, “Muzekai Omuptuev with his brothers and with the springs”, etc. The springs of the princes, as well as the heads of the clans, were called Russian non-princes, but "the best people".

Traditional men's and women's clothing - short leather trousers, fur belly, leather leggings, single-breasted caftan (sleep), in winter - fur, in summer - from horse or cow hide with the hair inside, for the rich - from fabric. Later, fabric shirts with a turn-down collar (yrbakhy) appeared. Men girded themselves with a leather belt with a knife and a flint; for the rich, with silver and copper plaques. A typical women's wedding fur caftan (sangiyakh), embroidered with red and green cloth and gold braid; an elegant women's fur hat made of expensive fur, descending to the back and shoulders, with a high cloth, velvet or brocade top with a silver plaque (tuosakhta) and other decorations sewn onto it. Women's silver and gold jewelry is common. Shoes - winter high boots made of deer or horse skins with the hair facing out (eterbes), summer boots made of soft leather (saars) with a boot covered with cloth, for women - with appliqué, long fur stockings.

The main food is dairy, especially in summer: from mare's milk - kumiss, from cow's milk - yogurt (suorat, sora), cream (kuerchekh), butter; they drank butter melted or with kumiss; suorat was prepared frozen for the winter (tar) with the addition of berries, roots, etc.; from it, with the addition of water, flour, roots, pine sapwood, etc., a stew (butugas) was prepared. Fish food played a major role for the poor, and in the northern regions, where there were no livestock, meat was consumed mainly by the rich. Horsemeat was especially prized. In the 19th century, barley flour came into use: unleavened flatbreads, pancakes, and salamat stew were made from it. Vegetables were known in the Olekminsky district.

Orthodoxy spread in the 18th - 19th centuries. The Christian cult was combined with belief in good and evil spirits, the spirits of deceased shamans, master spirits, etc. Elements of totemism were preserved: the clan had a patron animal, which was forbidden to kill, call by name, etc. The world consisted of several tiers, the head of the upper one was considered Yuryung ayi toyon, the lower one - Ala buurai toyon, etc. The cult of the female fertility deity Aiyysyt was important. Horses were sacrificed to the spirits living in the upper world, and cows in the lower world. The main holiday is the spring-summer koumiss festival (Ysyakh), accompanied by libations of koumiss from large wooden cups (choroon), games, sports competitions, etc. Shamanism was developed. Shamanic drums (dyungyur) are close to Evenki ones. In folklore, the heroic epic (olonkho) was developed, performed in recitative by special storytellers (olonkhosut) in front of a large crowd of people; historical legends, fairy tales, especially tales about animals, proverbs, songs. Traditional musical instruments – harp (khomus), violin (kyryimpa), percussion. Among the dances, round dance osuokhai, play dances, etc. are common.

3. Using additional literature and the Internet, write (in a notebook) an essay on the topic “The Peoples of Russia: Our Common History”

The peoples of Russia: our common history

How, from the height of today's knowledge about the fate of our country and the world, can we evaluate the territorial expansion of Russia, accompanied by the inclusion of a whole conglomerate of lands and peoples? There is no shortage of assessments here, but they are often diametrically opposed.

In recent years, those analysts who see first and foremost negative consequences in the territorial expansion of the Russian state - both for the Russian people themselves, and especially for “other peoples” - have been especially active. The once very popular, but seemingly long-discarded by science, openly politicized ideas about Russia as a “prison of nations” and an “agglomerate of stolen provinces” are being revived (the wording of the editorials of one of the social-democratic Polish newspapers of the early 20th century). Or, on the contrary, the past is idealized as the best in the general history of the peoples of Russia.

One can argue endlessly on this topic, but the facts speak for themselves. Having formed as a single state, Russia actually expanded the space of the state in various ways: both peaceful and military. However, the annexed territories were not subjected to severe exploitation and plunder of wealth, as happened with the colonies owned by European powers. On the newly annexed lands, traditions, religion, customs, and way of life were preserved, with rare exceptions.

Of course, one cannot help but notice the sad pages of our common history - the Christianization of the peoples of Siberia, not always voluntary, the tragic events of the beginning of the 20th century. – civil war, preservation of the territories of the Russian Empire with the help of military force, repression of some Soviet leaders in relation to entire nations. However, one can and should remember and know other historical realities. Trials that the peoples of Russia experienced in the 19th (Patriotic War of 1812) and 20th centuries. (First World War, Great Patriotic War) together and together we defeated the enemies who threatened the independence of our common Motherland - Russia, its revival after great trials. Peaceful and friendly coexistence until the end of the 20th century. and many, many achievements of this period were ensured by all the peoples of Russia, then the Soviet Union.

The gap between the peoples of Russia in modern history, which did not add happiness to anyone, occurred at the end of the 20th century, today is already perceived as a big historical mistake. In addition, friendly, mutually beneficial economic, trade and cultural relations have actually been preserved and, moreover, are successfully developing. An example is relations with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Armenia, and Abkhazia.

Complex relations from a political point of view at the moment with Ukraine and the Baltic countries do not exclude, however, cultural and historical ties between peoples.