The turmoil became a severe test for the church. Part of the clergy, led by Patriarch Ignatius, supported False Dmitry I. However, most of the clergy showed examples of high service to the fatherland and the church.

The Poles, who were in Moscow during the Time of Troubles, not only plundered church utensils and desecrated the relics of saints, but also destroyed almost 450 Moscow churches during the retreat. Among the prisoners was Metropolitan Philaret.

After an eight-year stay in Polish captivity, Metropolitan Philaret, the father of Tsar Michael, returned to Moscow in 1619. The participants in the Church Council elected him the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. He was, in essence, the second tsar: the tsar and the patriarch heard all reports on state affairs jointly, and Michael never made decisions without the consent of his father.

The main thing that Filaret managed to achieve was to strengthen the authority and power of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. However, many issues of a church nature were not resolved either under him or under his successors, Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph. In an effort to counteract the Western influence that increased during the Time of Troubles, the church intensified its struggle against heterodoxy during these years.

In the middle of the 17th century. it became clear that in Russian church books, copied by hand, there are many descriptions and distortions of the text in comparison with the originals. There were many doubts about the custom of polyphony during the church service (everyone could pray at the same time using different prayers), baptism with two fingers, etc. Believers are divided. Some suggested correcting church books and ceremonies by returning to ancient Russian models. Others believed that it was necessary to turn not to old books, but to the Greek sources themselves, from which they corresponded in their time.

After the death of Patriarch Joseph, the new primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the suggestion of Alexei Mikhailovich, was elected Nikon, Metropolitan of Novgorod. He was instructed to carry out church reform.

It took place in 1653-1655. and dealt mainly with church rites and books. Baptism with three fingers was introduced, waist bows instead of earthly ones, icons and church books were corrected according to Greek models.

Convened in 1654, the Church Council approved the reform, but proposed to bring the existing rites into line not only with the Greek, but also with the Russian tradition.

The new patriarch, having received immense power over the believers, soon came up with the idea of ​​the primacy of church power over royal power and suggested that Alexei Mikhailovich share power with him, following the example of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Patriarch Filaret. But the king did not want to endure this statement for a long time. He stopped attending patriarchal services in the Assumption Cathedral and inviting Nikon to state receptions. This was a serious blow to the pride of the patriarch. During one of the sermons in the Assumption Cathedral, he announced the resignation of patriarchal duties and retired to the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery, thinking that the king would ask him to return, however, the king acted quite differently. He began to prepare a church trial over Nikon. For the trial in 1666, a Church Council was convened. The tsar condemned Nikon for having personally renounced the patriarchate, while the church hierarchs present supported the tsar and condemned Nikon, imprisoning him forever in a monastery.

At the same time the Cathedral of 1666-1667. supported church reform and cursed all its opponents. The participants of the Council decided to transfer the leaders of the Old Believers into the hands of the secular authorities. According to the Council Code of 1649, they were threatened with death at the stake.

Thus, the Council of 1666-1667. initiated a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

An outstanding leader of the Old Believers was Archpriest Avvakum, who from a young age devoted himself to the church. He took Nikon's reforms sharply negatively, believing that if he turned to the fundamental principle of faith, then in Russian sources. For his views, he was deprived of a place in the Moscow Kazan Cathedral, and then arrested and imprisoned in a monastery. Later he was exiled to Siberia. But nowhere could he come to terms with the new reform, and at the Church Council he was cursed by the Church and dismissed from the priesthood, and then re-imprisoned. On April 11, 1682, the archpriest and his associates were executed, burned alive.

Thus, the church, having strengthened its position after the Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in political system countries. However, in the context of the strengthening of autocracy, this led to a sharp conflict between the church and secular leadership. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its actual transformation into an appendage of autocratic power.

Church schism (briefly)

Church schism (briefly)

The church schism was one of the major events for Russia in the seventeenth century. This process had a rather serious impact on the future formation of the worldview of Russian society. As the main reason for the church schism, researchers name the political situation that developed in the seventeenth century. And the disagreements of a church nature themselves are classified as secondary.

Tsar Michael, who was the founder of the Romanov dynasty, and his son Alexei Mikhailovich sought to restore the state, which had been devastated in the so-called Time of Troubles. Thanks to them, state power was strengthened, foreign trade was restored, and the first manufactories appeared. During this period, there is also a legislative registration of serfdom.

Despite the fact that at the beginning of the reign of the Romanovs they pursued a rather cautious policy, the plans of Tsar Alexei included the peoples living in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe.

According to historians, this is what created a barrier between the king and the patriarch. For example, in Russia, according to tradition, it was customary to be baptized with two fingers, and most other Orthodox peoples were baptized with three, according to Greek innovations.

There were only two options: to impose their own traditions on others or to submit to the canon. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich took the first path. A common ideology was needed due to the ongoing centralization of power at that time, as well as the concept of the Third Rome. This was the prerequisite for the implementation of the reform, which split the Russian people for a long time. A huge number of variations various interpretations rituals - all this had to be brought to uniformity. It should also be noted that the secular authorities also spoke about such a need.

The church schism is closely connected with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who had a great mind and love for wealth and power.

The church reform of 1652 was the beginning of a split in the church. All the changes outlined were fully approved at the council of 1654, but too abrupt a transition entailed many of his opponents.

Soon Nikon falls into disgrace, but retains all the honors and wealth. In 1666, the hood was removed from him, after which he was exiled to the White Lake to the monastery.

The 17th century in Russia was marked by a church reform that had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in the church life of that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. Many studies are devoted to the study of this phenomenon, but they are not distinguished by the uniformity of opinions. This publication tells about the reasons for the existence of different points of view on the authorship and implementation of the church reform of the 17th century.

1. The generally accepted view of the church reform of the XVII century

The middle of the 17th century in Russia was marked by a church reform that had far-reaching consequences both for the Church and for the entire Russian state. It is customary to associate changes in the church life of that time with the activities of Patriarch Nikon. In various versions, this point of view can be found both among pre-revolutionary and modern authors. “Under him (Nikon) and with his main participation, the correction of our church books and rites, which was almost never before, really began, quite faithful and reliable in its foundations…” writes Metropolitan Macarius, an outstanding church historian of the 19th century. It should be noted how carefully the metropolitan speaks about the participation of Patriarch Nikon in the reform: the correction began "with him and with his main participation." We find a somewhat different view among the majority of researchers of the Russian schism, where the correction of "liturgical books and church rites" or "church liturgical books and rites" is already firmly connected with the name of Nikon. Some authors make even more categorical judgments when they claim that Nikon's diligence "set a limit to sowing tares" in printed books. Without touching for the time being on the individuals who were engaged in "sowing tares", we note the widespread belief that under Patriarch Joseph "the opinions that later became dogmas in the schism were mainly included in the liturgical and teaching books" , and the new patriarch "gave a correct formulation of this issue" . Thus, the phrases “the ecclesiastical innovations of Patriarch Nikon” or “his ecclesiastical corrections” become a common cliche for many years and wander from one book to another with enviable persistence. We open the Dictionary of Scribes and Bookishness of Ancient Russia and read: “From the spring of 1653, Nikon, with the support of the tsar, began to implement the church reforms he had conceived ...” The author of the article is not alone in his judgments, as far as one can judge this from their articles and books , the same opinion is shared by: Shashkov A.T. , Urushev D.A. , Batser M.I. and others. Even written by such famous scientists as N.V. Ponyrko and E.M. Yukhimenko, the preface of the new scientific edition of the well-known primary source - "The Story of the Solovki Fathers and Sufferers" by Semyon Denisov - did not do without a paraphrase of the above statement, moreover, in the first sentence. Despite the polarity of opinions in the assessment of Nikon's activities, where some write about "ill-conceived and ineptly implemented reforms carried out by the patriarch", while others see him as the creator of the "enlightened Orthodox culture”, which he “learns from the Orthodox East”, Patriarch Nikon remains a key figure in the reform.

In church publications of the Soviet period and our time, as a rule, we meet the same opinions in their pre-revolutionary or modern versions. This is not surprising, because after the defeat of the Russian Church at the beginning of the 20th century, on many issues one still has to turn to representatives of the secular scientific school or resort to the legacy of tsarist Russia. An uncritical approach to this heritage sometimes gives rise to books containing information that was refuted in the 19th century and is erroneous. In recent years, a number of commemorative publications have been published, the work on which was either of a joint ecclesiastical-secular nature, or representatives of ecclesiastical science were invited for review, which in itself seems to be a gratifying phenomenon in our life. Unfortunately, these studies often contain extreme views and suffer from tendentiousness. Thus, for example, in the voluminous folio of the works of Patriarch Nikon, attention is drawn to the panegyric to the First Hierarch, according to which Nikon “brought Muscovite Russia out of the position of isolationism among the Orthodox Churches and through ritual reform brought it closer to other Local Churches, recalled the unity of the Church under local division, prepared a canonical the unification of Great Russia and Little Russia, revived the life of the Church, making available to the people the creations of her fathers and explaining her ranks, worked to change the morals of the clergy ... ”, etc. Almost the same can be read in the appeal of Archbishop Georgy of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, published in a regional publication dedicated to the 355th anniversary of Nikon's accession to the Primate Throne. There are also more shocking statements: “To put it in modern terms, the then “democrats” dreamed of “Russia's integration into the world community,” writes N.A. Kolotiy, - and the great Nikon consistently put into practice the idea of ​​"Moscow - the Third Rome". It was the time when the Holy Spirit left the “Second Rome” - Constantinople and consecrated Moscow,” the author concludes his thought. Without going into theological discussions about the time of the consecration of Moscow by the Holy Spirit, we consider it necessary to note that A.V. Kartashev expresses a completely opposite point of view - in the matter of reform: "Nikon tactlessly blindly drove the church ship against the rock of Rome III."

There is also an enthusiastic attitude towards Nikon and his transformations among Russian scientists abroad, for example, N. Talberg, who, however, considered it necessary to write the following in the introduction to his book: “This work does not claim to be scientific research value”. Even about. John Meyendorff writes about this in a traditional way, comprehending the events somewhat deeper and more restrained: organizational relations identical to the contemporary Greek Church. His reform, - continues the archpriest, - was actively supported by the tsar, who, not at all in the custom of Moscow, solemnly promised to obey the patriarch.

So, we have two versions of the generally accepted assessment of the church reform of the 17th century, which owe their origin to the division of the Russian Orthodox Church into the Old Believers and New Believers or, as they said before the revolution, the Greek-Russian Church. Due to various reasons, and especially under the influence of the preaching activities of both sides and fierce disputes between them, this point of view has become widespread among the people and established itself in the scientific community. The main feature of this view, regardless of the positive or negative attitude towards the personality and activities of Patriarch Nikon, is its fundamental and dominant importance in the reform of the Russian Church. In our opinion, it will be more convenient to consider this point of view in the future as a simplified-traditional one.

2. A scientific view of church reform, its gradual formation and development

There is another approach to this problem, which apparently did not take shape immediately. Let us first turn to the authors, who, although they adhere to a simplified traditional point of view, nevertheless cite a number of facts from which opposite conclusions can be drawn. So, for example, Metropolitan Macarius, who also suggested the beginning of reform under Nikon, left us the following information: “Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself turned to Kyiv with a request to send learned men who knew Greek to Moscow to correct the Slavic Bible according to the text of seventy interpreters, which they then intended to reprint. Scholars soon arrived and “during the lifetime of Patriarch Joseph, they managed to correct one, already ending in printing, book “Shestodnev” according to the Greek text and printed their corrections at the end of the book ...” Count A. Heiden, pointing out that “the new patriarch put the whole thing corrections of church books and rituals on an inter-church soil ", immediately stipulates: "True, even Nikon's predecessor, Patriarch Joseph, in 1650, not daring to introduce unanimous singing in churches, applied for permission of this "great church need" to the Constantinople Patriarch Parthenius. Having dedicated his work to the confrontation between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest John Neronov, the count draws attention to the activities of the “chief leader of the schism” before his opponent took the patriarchal throne. Neronov, according to his research, “took an active part in the corrections of church books, being a member of the council at the printing house” and “together with his future enemy Nikon, at that time still Metropolitan of Novgorod, he also contributed to the establishment of church deanery, the revival of church preaching and the correction of some church rituals, for example, the introduction of unanimous singing ... ". Interesting information about publishing activity during the time of Patriarch Joseph is given to us by the Olonets diocesan missionary and the author of a completely traditional textbook on the history of the schism, priest K. Plotnikov: did not come out under any of the former patriarchs. Even among the supporters of the deliberate introduction of errors into printed publications under Patriarch Joseph, one can find some discrepancy between the facts. “Destruction of church books,” according to Count M.V. Tolstoy, - reached the highest degree and was all the more regrettable and bleak that it was made explicitly, apparently asserting itself on legal grounds. But if the “grounds are legitimate”, then the activity of the spravniks is no longer “corruption”, but the correction of books, according to certain views on this issue, carried out not “from the wind of their head”, but on the basis of an officially approved program. Even during the time of Patriarchate Filaret, in order to improve book corrections, the Trinity Spravshchiks proposed the following system: “a) to have educated spravschikov and b) special printing observers from the capital’s clergy”, which was organized. Based on this alone, we can come to the conclusion that even with the participation of such personalities as “Archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum Petrov and the deacon of the Annunciation Cathedral Fedor”, whose influence, according to S.F. Platonov, “it was introduced and distributed ... a lot of errors and wrong opinions in new books”, the so-called “spoilage” could turn out to be an extremely difficult matter. However, the venerable historian expresses this point of view, already outdated and criticized in his time, as an assumption. Along with Heiden, Platonov argues that the correction of books undertaken by the new patriarch "lost its former importance as a domestic affair and became an inter-church affair." But if the “work” of church reform began before it became “inter-church,” then only its character changed and, consequently, it was not Nikon who started it.

More in-depth studies on this issue in the late 19th and early 20th centuries conflict with generally accepted views, pointing to other authors of the reform. N.F. Kapterev in his fundamental work convincingly proves this, shifting the initiative of church reform onto the shoulders of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor, Archpriest Stefan. “They were the first, even before Nikon,” the author reports, “thought to carry out a church reform, previously outlined its general character and began, before Nikon, to gradually carry it out ... they also created Nikon himself, as a Grecophile reformer.” The same view is held by some of his other contemporaries. HER. Golubinsky believes that the assimilation by Nikon alone of the enterprise of correcting rites and books seems "unfair and unfounded." “The first thought of correction,” he continues, “belonged not to Nikon alone ... but as much as he, as much to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the other closest advisers of the latter, and if the sovereign, like Nikon, was not able to heed the ideas about the injustice of our opinion regarding later the Greeks, as if they had lost the purity of the Orthodoxy of the ancient Greeks, the most Nikonian correction of rites and books could not have taken place, for the veto of the sovereign could have stopped the matter at the very beginning. Without the approval and support of the tsar, according to Golubinsky, Nikon with his ideas simply would not have been allowed to the Patriarchal throne. “At present, it can be considered already fully proven that the ground for Nikon’s activities, in essence, was prepared earlier, under his predecessors,” we read from A. Galkin. He considers only the predecessor of the "first Russian reformer" Patriarch Joseph, who "just like Nikon, came to the realization of the need for a radical correction of books and rituals, and, moreover, according to Greek originals, and not according to Slavic manuscripts." In our opinion, this is an unjustifiably bold statement, although, of course, one cannot agree with the statements of some scholars who called Joseph “indecisive and weak” and declared: “It is not surprising that such a patriarch did not leave a good memory among the people and in history.” It is possible that Galkin drew such hasty conclusions from the events of the last years of the reign of the First Hierarch, and it was precisely at this time that the arrival of Kyiv learned monks in Moscow, the first and second trips of Arseny Sukhanov to the East, or the fact that Joseph turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople for clarification on the introduction of unanimous worship . “Many outstanding things happened in the Russian Church under his administration,” writes A.K. Borozdin, - but recently his personal participation in the affairs of the church has significantly weakened, thanks to the activities of the circle of Vonifatiev and the Novgorod Metropolitan Nikon adjoining this circle. Archpriest Pavel Nikolaevsky shares his observations on the course of this activity, reporting that the books published in 1651 “in many places bear obvious traces of corrections according to Greek sources”; as we can observe, the reform in the form in which it is usually assimilated to Nikon has already begun. Consequently, the circle of zealots of piety initially worked on the implementation of church reforms, and some of its representatives are the creators of this reform.

February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917 made their own adjustments to research activities, as a result of which the study of this issue went in two directions. Emigration was the successor of the Russian pre-revolutionary scientific school and preserved the church-historical tradition, and in Soviet Russia, under the influence of Marxism-Leninism, a materialistic position was established with its negative attitude towards religion, extending in its denial, depending on the political situation, even to militant atheism. However, the Bolsheviks initially had no time for historians and their histories, therefore, in the first two decades of Soviet power, there are studies that develop the direction set even before the great upheavals.

Adhering to a simplified traditional point of view, the Marxist historian N.M. Nikolsky describes the beginning of church reform activities as follows: “Nikon really began reforms, but not the ones and not in the spirit that the zealots wanted” . But a little earlier, falling into contradiction, the author reasonably leads the reader to the conclusion that "the headship in the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not to the patriarch" . The same view is held by N.K. Gudziy, seeing the reason for the “gradual loss by the Church of its relative independence” in the “destruction of dependence ... on the Patriarch of Constantinople” . Unlike the previous author, he calls Nikon just a "guide of reform". According to Nikolsky, having headed the Church, the patriarch-reformer promoted his reform, and everything that came before him was preparation. Here he echoes the émigré historian E.F. Shmurlo, who, although he claims that “the tsar and Vonifatiev decided to introduce a transformation in the Russian Church in the spirit of its complete unity with the Greek Church”, but in the “Course of Russian History” the period devoted to church transformations under Patriarch Joseph, for some reason, calls “Preparation reforms". In our opinion, this is unfounded, contrary to the facts, both authors unconditionally follow the established tradition, when the issue is much more complicated. “The religious reform, begun without a patriarch, has now gone past and further than the God-lovers,” writes the researcher of the Siberian exile, Archpriest Avvakum, namesake and contemporary of N.M. Nikolsky, Nikolsky V.K., thus indicating that both patriarchs were not its initiators. Here is how he develops his thought further: “Nikon began to pass it through people obedient to him, whom until recently, together with other God-lovers, he honored as “enemies of God” and “destroyers of the law” ”. Having become the patriarch, the "friend" of the tsar removed the zealots from the reforms, shifting this concern onto the shoulders of the administration and those who were completely indebted to him.

The study of questions of Russian church history, in its classical sense, has fallen on the shoulders of our emigration since the middle of the 20th century. Following Kapterev and Golubinsky, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky also writes that “the “reform” was decided and thought out in the palace,” but Nikon brought his incredible temperament to it. “... It was he who put all the passion of his stormy and reckless nature into the fulfillment of these transformative plans, so that this attempt to defame the Russian Church in all its life and way of life was forever associated with his name.” Of interest psychological picture patriarch, compiled by Fr. George, in which, in our opinion, he tried to avoid extremes, both positive and negative. Apologist of Patriarch Nikon M.V. Zyzykin, referring to the same Kapterev, also denies him the authorship of the church reform. “Nikon,” the professor writes, “was not its initiator, but only the executor of the intention of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his confessor Stefan Vonifatiev, which is why he completely lost interest in reform after the death of Stefan, who died in monasticism on November 11, 1656, and after the termination of friendship with king." Zyzykin reports the following about Nikon’s influence on the nature of the transformations: “... having agreed to carry it out, he carried it out with the authority of the Patriarch, with the energy characteristic of him in any business.” Due to the specifics of his work, the author pays increased attention to the confrontation between the first hierarch and the boyars, who sought to push the “common friend” away from the tsar and for this did not disdain anything, even an alliance with the church opposition. “The Old Believers,” according to Zyzykin, “although erroneously, considered Nikon the initiator of the reform ... and therefore they created the most unflattering idea about Nikon, they saw only bad things in his activities and put various low motives into his actions and willingly joined any struggle against Nikon » . Russian scientist of the German school I.K. Smolich touches on this topic in his unique work on Russian monasticism. “Nikon’s measures to correct church books and change some liturgical rites,” the historian reports, “in essence, did not contain anything new, they were only the last link in a long chain of similar events that either had already been carried out before him, or should have been be carried out in the future." The author emphasizes that the patriarch was forced to continue correcting the books, "but this compulsion just contradicted his character, could not arouse in him a genuine interest in the matter" . According to another representative of our abroad, A.V. Kartashev, the author of the reform was Archpriest Stefan, who led the God-loving movement. “The new patriarch,” he writes in his essays on the history of the Russian Church, “set about with inspiration the fulfillment of the program of his ministry, which was well known to the tsar from long-term personal conversations and suggestions and was shared by the latter, for it came from the tsar’s confessor, Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev » . The work of correcting books and rituals, the author believes, "which gave rise to our unfortunate schism, has become so well known that to the uninitiated it seems to be Nikon's main work." The real state of affairs, according to Kartashev, is that the idea of ​​a book right for the patriarch "was a passing accident, a conclusion from his main idea, and the very thing ... was for him the old traditional business of the patriarchs, which had to be simply continued by inertia" . Nikon was obsessed with another idea: he dreamed of exalting spiritual power over secular power, and the young tsar, with his disposition and caresses, favored its strengthening and development. “The thought of the primacy of the Church over the state clouded Nikon’s head,” we read from A.V. Kartashev, and in this context we must consider all his activities. The author of the fundamental work on the Old Believers S.A. Zenkovsky notes: “The tsar hurried with the election of a new patriarch, since the conflict between the God-loving people and the patriarchal government, which dragged on for too long, naturally disrupted the normal life of the Church and made it impossible to carry out the reforms outlined by the tsar and the God-loving people.” But in one of the prefaces to his research, he writes that “the death of the weak-willed Patriarch Joseph in 1652 completely unexpectedly changed the course of the“ Russian reformation ”. This kind of inconsistency in this and other authors can be explained by the uncertainty and undeveloped terminology on this issue, when tradition says one thing, and facts another. However, elsewhere in the book, the author limits the transformative actions of the “extreme bishop” to the correction of the Service Book, “to which, in fact, all Nikon’s “reforms” came down.” Zenkovsky also draws attention to the change in the nature of the reform under the influence of the new patriarch: "He sought to carry out the reform autocratically, from the position of the growing power of the patriarchal throne." Following N.M. Nikolsky, who wrote about the fundamental difference in views on the organization of church corrections between the God-lovers and Nikon, when the latter “wanted to correct the church ... not by establishing a conciliar principle in it, but by elevating the priesthood over the kingdom”, S.A. Zenkovsky points out that "the authoritarian beginning was opposed to them in practice by the beginning of catholicity."

A visible revival of church-scientific thought in Russia itself fell on the events connected with the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Russia, although the gradual weakening of the pressure of state power on the Church began earlier. Somewhere since the mid-1970s, there has been a gradual fading of the ideological influence on the work of historians, which was reflected in their writings by greater objectivity. The efforts of scientists are still focused on finding new sources and new evidence, on describing and systematizing the developments of their predecessors. As a result of their activities, autographs and previously unknown compositions of participants in the events of the 17th century are published, studies appear that can be called unique, for example, “Materials for the“ chronicle of the life of Archpriest Avvakum ”” by V.I. Malyshev is the work of his whole life, the most important primary source not only for the study of Avvakum and the Old Believers, but for the entire era as a whole. Working with primary sources inevitably leads to the need to evaluate the historical events touched upon in them. Here is what N.Yu. writes in his article. Bubnov: "Patriarch Nikon carried out the will of the tsar, who deliberately set a course for a change in the country's ideological orientation, embarking on the path of cultural rapprochement with European countries." Describing the activities of the zealots of piety, the scientist draws attention to the hopes of the latter that the new patriarch "will consolidate their predominant influence on the course of ideological restructuring in the Muscovite state" . However, all this does not prevent the author from linking the beginning of the reforms with Nikon; apparently, the influence of the Old Believer primary sources is affecting, but they will be discussed below. In the context of the problem under consideration, the remark of the church historian Archpriest John Belevtsev is of interest. The transformations, in his opinion, "were not a personal matter of Patriarch Nikon, and therefore the correction of liturgical books and changes in church rites continued even after he left the patriarchal chair." The famous Eurasianist L.N. Gumilyov did not bypass church reform in his original research. He writes that "after the Troubles, the reform of the Church became the most urgent problem", and the reformers were "zealots of piety". “The reform was carried out not by bishops,” the author emphasizes, “but by priests: Archpriest Ivan Neronov, confessor of the young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Stefan Vonifatiev, the famous Avvakum.” Gumilyov for some reason forgets about the secular component of the “God-loving circle”. In the candidate’s work devoted to the activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph, priest John Mirolyubov, we read: “The “God-lovers” stood for the lively and active participation of the lower clergy and laity in the affairs of church life, up to participation in church councils and the management of the Church.” John Nero, the author points out, was the "link" between the God-lovers of Moscow and the "zealots of piety from the provinces." The initiators of the "news" Fr. John considers the core of the metropolitan circle of God-lovers, namely: Fyodor Rtishchev, the future Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who “gradually came to the firm conviction that ritual reform and book correction should be carried out in order to bring Russian liturgical practice in line with Greek » . However, as we have already noted, this point of view is quite common, only the composition of the faces of the circle, inspired by this idea, changes.

The change in the political course of Russia was not slow to affect the increase in interest in this topic, life itself in an era of change makes us study the experience of our ancestors. “Patriarch Nikon is a direct parallel with the Russian reformers of the 1990s - Gaidar, etc.,” we read in one Old Believer publication, “in both cases, reforms were necessary, but there was a significant question: how to carry them out? » Extensive publishing activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the support of the government, commercial organizations and private individuals, Old Believer publications, as well as scientific and commercial projects, on the one hand, made it possible to make available many wonderful works of pre-revolutionary authors, works of the Russian emigration and little-known modern studies, but on the other hand, splashed out everything accumulated over three centuries, a wide variety of opinions, which is extremely difficult for an unprepared reader to navigate. Perhaps that is why some modern authors often begin with a simplified view of the reform, describing first the great ideas and stormy activities of the patriarch-reformer, such as, for example, “the last attempt to reverse the process unfavorable for the church” of its fall political role and considering church-ceremonial corrections in this context as "the replacement of specific variegation with uniformity" . But under the pressure of facts, they come to an unexpected result: “After the deposition of Nikon, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself took over the continuation of the reforms, who tried to negotiate with the anti-Nikon opposition, without yielding to it in essence.” The question is, why should the tsar engage in the reform of the disgraced patriarch? This is possible only if the changes owe their existence not to Nikon, but to Alexei Mikhailovich himself and his entourage. In this context, it is possible to explain the exclusion from the reforms of the circle of God-lovers, who sought "to carry out a reform of the church based on Russian traditions." They interfered with someone, perhaps the “moderate Westerners” from the tsar’s entourage, these experienced intriguers could well play on the repentant feelings of the tsar, Archpriest Stephen and Nikon himself regarding the late Patriarch Joseph, whom they, along with other God-lovers, actually removed from business. Calling the zealots "a society of clergy and secular persons interested in theological issues and focused on streamlining church life", D.F. Poloznev adheres to a simplified traditional point of view on the issue of the beginning of the reform. At the same time, he draws attention to the fact that the tsar was promoted to the patriarchs of the Metropolitan of Novgorod against the wishes of the courtiers and notes: “In Nikon, the tsar saw a man capable of transforming in the spirit of the ideas of the universal significance of Russian Orthodoxy close to both of them.” It turns out that Nikon began the reforms, but the tsar took care of this in advance, who, due to his youth, himself still needed support and care. V.V. Molzinsky notes: "It was the tsar, driven by political thoughts, who initiated this state-church reform, which is most often referred to as "Nikon"" . His opinion about Nikon coincides with the view of Bubnov: “The current level of scientific knowledge ... forces us to recognize the patriarch only as the executor of the “sovereign” aspirations, although not without his goals, political ambitions and vision (deeply erroneous) of the prospects for his place in the structure supreme power » . The author is more consistent in his judgments regarding the term "Nikon's reform". He writes about the "total spread" and rooting of this concept in Russian historiography due to the established "stereotypes of thinking". One of the last major studies on the church reform of the 17th century is the work of the same name by B.P. Kutuzov, in which he also criticizes the "stereotypes" on this issue, common among the "average believers". "However, such an understanding of the reform of the 17th century," the author argues, "is far from the truth." “Nikon,” according to Kutuzov, “was just an executor, and behind him, invisibly to many, stood Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ...”, who “conceived the reform and made Nikon the patriarch, confident in his complete readiness to carry out this reform.” In his other book, which is one of the continuations of the author's first work, he writes even more categorically: when he was only 16 years old! This indicates that the tsar was brought up in this direction from childhood, there were, of course, both experienced advisers and actual leaders. Unfortunately, the information in the works of B.P. Kutuzov is presented tendentiously: the author focuses on the “conspiracy against Russia” and the apology of the Old Believers, so that all the rich factual material is reduced to these problems, which greatly complicates the work with his books. S.V. Lobachev, in a study dedicated to Patriarch Nikon, through “comparison of sources from different times”, also comes to the conclusion that “the history of the early schism, apparently, does not fit into the framework of the usual scheme.” The result of the chapter on church reform is the conclusion already known to us from the works of emigration: "... Nikon's main business was not reform, but the elevation of the role of the priesthood and universal Orthodoxy, which was reflected in the new foreign policy of the Russian state" . Archpriest Georgy Krylov, who studied the books of liturgical meenaias in the 17th century, traditionally connects the beginning of "the actual liturgical reform, which is usually called Nikon's", with Nikon's accession to the patriarchal throne. But further in his "plan-scheme" of this "immense", according to the author of the topic, he writes the following: "The last two mentioned periods - Nikon's and Joachim's - must be considered in connection with Greek and Latin influence in Russia" . Father George divides the book right of the 17th century into the following periods: Filareto-Joasaph, Joseph, Nikon (before the council of 1666-1667), pre-Joachim (1667-1673), Joachim (includes the first years of the reign of Patriarch Adrian). For our work, the very fact of the division of book corrections and the church reform associated with them into periods is of the greatest importance.

Thus, we have a significant number of studies in which reforms were initiated by other members of the God-loving movement, namely: Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (in the vast majority of works), Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev, “experienced advisers and actual leaders,” and even Patriarch Joseph. Nikon is engaged in reform "by inertia", he is the executor of the will of its author, and only at a certain stage. The church reform began (for a number of historians it was being prepared) before Nikon and continued after his departure from the pulpit. It owes its name to the unbridled temperament of the patriarch, his imperious and hasty methods of introducing changes and, consequently, to numerous miscalculations; one should not forget about the influence of factors that are not dependent on him, such as, for example, the approach of 1666, with all the ensuing circumstances, according to the Cyril Book. This point of view is supported by logical conclusions and numerous factual material, which allows us to refer to it as scientific in the future.

As we can see, not all the mentioned authors fully share the scientific view on the problem under consideration. This is connected, firstly, with the gradualness of its formation, secondly, with the influence of the prevailing stereotypes and the influence of censorship, and thirdly, with the religious beliefs of the scientists themselves. That is why the works of many researchers have remained in a transitional state, i. contain elements of both simplified traditional and scientific points of view. It is worth emphasizing the ongoing ideological pressure that they had to overcome along with scientific research difficulties, this applies both to the 19th century and to the 20th, although it must not be forgotten that the communist pressure had an all-encompassing anti-religious character. These factors will be discussed in more detail in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. The Old Believer point of view and its influence on science

Echoes of a simplified traditional point of view, which are found everywhere in various modern publications, do not seem to be something unusual. Even N.F. Kapterev resorts to the term "Nikon's reforms", which has become a term. To be sure of this, it is enough to look at the table of contents of his book; this, however, is not surprising, because the author considers the patriarch "during the entire time of his patriarchate ... an independent and independent figure." The vitality of this tradition is directly related to the Old Believers, the views and works of whose representatives on the issue under study we will consider. In the preface of one anti-Old Believer book, one can read the following passage: “At present, the Old Believers are fighting the Orthodox Church in a completely different way than before: they are not satisfied with old printed books and manuscripts, but “are prowling, as St. Vincent of Lirinsk, according to all the books of the divine law”; they carefully follow modern spiritual literature, noticing everywhere, in one way or another, thoughts favorable to their delusions; they cite testimonies "from outside", not only Orthodox spiritual and secular writers, but also non-Orthodox ones; especially with a full hand draw evidence from patristic writings in Russian translation. This statement, quite intriguing in terms of the polemical and research activities of the Old Believers, left hope to find some objectivity in the presentation of the history of the beginning of church division by the Old Believers authors. But here, too, we are faced with a split of views on the church reform of the 17th century, though of a slightly different nature.

In the traditional vein, as a rule, pre-revolutionary authors write, whose books, like ours, are now being actively reprinted. For example, in a brief biography of Avvakum, compiled by S. Melgunov, published in a brochure containing the canon to this “martyr and confessor” revered by the Old Believers, in the preface to the Justification of the Old Believer Church of Christ by the Belokrinitsa Bishop Arseny of Ural, and so on. Here is the most characteristic example: “... Having been haughty in the spirit of pride, ambition and uncontrollable lust for power,” writes the well-known Old Believer clerk D.S. Varakin, - he (Nikon) pounced on the holy antiquity, along with his "hangers" - the eastern "Paisii", "Makarii" and "Arseny" let's "blaspheme" ... and "blame" everything holy and saving ... "

Modern Old Believer writers should be analyzed in more detail. “The reason for the split,” we read from M.O. Shakhov, - served as an attempt by Patriarch Nikon and his successors, with the active participation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, to transform the liturgical practice of the Russian Church, completely likening it to modern Eastern Orthodox churches or, as they used to say in Russia then, "Greek Church". This is the most scientifically verified form of the simplified-traditional point of view. The further presentation of events is such that in the context of "news" the author mentions only Nikon. But elsewhere in the book, where Shakhov discusses the relationship of the Old Believers to the tsar, we already meet a different opinion, which looks like this: could remain neutral. Moreover, the author immediately reinforces his idea with the statement that “from the very beginning, the civil authorities were in full solidarity with Nikon,” which contradicts, for example, the statement of E.F. Shmurlo: "Nikon was hated, and to a large extent this hatred was the reason that many of his measures, in themselves quite fair and reasonable, met with a hostile attitude towards themselves in advance solely because they came from him" . It is clear that not everyone hated the patriarch, and in different time this hatred manifested itself in different ways, but it could not have an impact only in one case: if the patriarch carried out the instructions of the state authorities, which is what we observe in the matter of church reform. We have before us a typical transitional variant from one view to another, which has arisen as a result of the influence of the author's confessional affiliation, and is characterized by a simplified traditional perception of the reform, combined with data that contradict this tradition. It is more convenient to call this point of view mixed. The same position is taken by the creators encyclopedic dictionary called Old Believers. There are works containing two views at once, for example, S.I. Bystrov in his book follows a simplified tradition, speaking of the “reforms of Patriarch Nikon”, and the author of the preface, L.S. Dementieva looks at the transformations more broadly, calling them already "the reforms of Tsar Alexei and Patriarch Nikon." By brief statements of the above authors, of course, it is difficult to judge their opinions, but both this and other similar books in themselves serve as an example of an unsettled point of view and an uncertain state of terminology on this issue.

To find out the reasons for the origin of this uncertainty, let us turn to the famous Old Believer writer and polemicist F.E. Melnikov. Thanks to the publishing activity of the Belokrinitsky Old Believer Metropolis, we have two options for describing the events of the 17th century by this author. In the earliest book, the author mainly adheres to a simplified traditional view, where Nikon uses the “good nature and trust of the young king” to achieve his goals. Following Kapterev, Melnikov points out that the visiting Greeks seduced the sovereign with “the highest throne of the great Tsar Constantine”, and the patriarch by the fact that he “will consecrate the Cathedral Apostolic Church Sophia the Wisdom of God in Constantinople”. It was only necessary to make corrections, since, according to the Greeks, "the Russian Church has largely departed from true church traditions and customs." The author attributes all further activity in the matter of reform exclusively to Nikon, and this continues until he leaves the patriarchate. Later in the story, the king looks like a completely independent and even dexterous ruler. “It was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich who killed Nikon: the Greek and Russian bishops were only an instrument in his hands.” Moreover, the author informs us that “at the palace and in the highest circles of Moscow society, a rather strong ecclesiastical-political party has developed”, which was headed by “the tsar himself”, who dreamed of becoming “both the Byzantine emperor and the Polish king” . And indeed, such a sharp change in the character of the Russian autocrat is difficult to explain without taking into account his environment. F.E. Melnikov lists the multi-tribal composition of this party, naming some by their names, in particular Paisius Ligarid and Simeon of Polotsk, who led the Greeks and Little Russians, respectively. "Russian courtiers" - Westerners, "boyars - intriguers" and "various foreigners" are indicated without their main bosses. These people, according to the author, thanks to Nikon, seized power in the Church and were not interested in restoring the desecrated antiquity, and given the dependence of the episcopate on the government and the fear of the bishops to lose their position and income, the adherents of the old rite had no chance. The question immediately arises, did this “church-political party” really appear only at the time the patriarch left his cathedra? Let us turn to another work by the author in question, written in Romania after the Russian catastrophe of 1917. Just as in his first work, the historian of the Old Belief points to the influence of the Greeks who came to Moscow, led by the Jesuit Paisius Ligarides, who helped the sovereign in condemning the patriarch who was objectionable to him and managing the Church. He mentions “southwestern monks infected with Latinism, teachers, politicians and other businessmen” who arrived from Little Russia, points to Western trends among courtiers and boyars. Only the reform begins differently: “The Tsar and the Patriarch, Alexei and Nikon, and their successors and followers, began to introduce new rites into the Russian Church, new liturgical books and rites, to establish new relations with the Church, as well as with Russia itself, with the Russian people; to root other concepts about piety, about the sacraments of the church, about hierarchy; impose on the Russian people a completely different worldview and so on. Undoubtedly, the historical information in these books is presented under the influence of the author's religious beliefs, but if in the first, Nikon plays the main role in the reform, then in the second, the emphasis in the matter of transformations is already placed on the tsar and the patriarch. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the second book was written after the fall of tsarism, or perhaps Melnikov changed his view of some events under the influence of new research. It is important for us that three factors can be traced here at once, under the influence of which a mixed point of view on church corrections is formed, i.e. the author's religious beliefs, overcoming ingrained stereotypes, the presence or absence of ideological pressure. But the most important thing is that in his brief history of F.E. Melnikov writes further: “Those who followed Nikon, accepted new rites and rites, adopted a new faith, the people began to call those Nikonians and new believers.” On the one hand, the author tells us the facts stated in the Old Believer interpretation, i.e. a mixed vision of the problem, and on the other hand, a simplified-traditional popular perception of events related to the reform. Let us turn to the origins of this perception, which was most directly influenced by people from the people - the persecuted traditionalists, led by Archpriest Avvakum.

So, the roots of the simplified tradition in its Old Believer version go back to the very first Old Believer writers - eyewitnesses and participants in these tragic events. “In the summer of 7160,” we read from Habakkuk, “on June 10, by the permission of God, the patriarchal former priest Nikita Minich crept to the throne, in Chernetsy Nikon, seducing the holy soul of the archpriest of the spiritual tsar, Stefan, appearing to him like an angel, and inside is the devil." According to the archpriest, it was Stefan Vonifatiev who "admonished the king and queen to put Nikon in Joseph's place." Describing the attempt of the God-loving people to elevate the tsar confessor to the patriarchate, the leader of the emerging Old Believers in another work says: “He did not want to himself and pointed to Nikon the Metropolitan.” Further events, according to the memoirs of Avvakum, look as follows: “... Whenever the evil leader and boss were the patriarch, and the orthodoxy began, commanding three fingers to be baptized and in Great Lent in the church in the belt to create throwing.” Another prisoner from Pustozero, priest Lazar, supplements Avvakum's story, reporting on the activities of the new patriarch after the "fiery archpriest" was exiled to Siberia. Here is what he writes: “To God who allowed for our sin, to you the noble king was in battle, the evil shepherd, being a wolf in sheep’s skin, Nikon the patriarch, change the holy rank, pervert the books and the beauties of the holy Church, and absurd strife and ranks into the holy The Church has brought in from various heresies, and the persecution of his disciples by the faithful is great even to this day. ” Protopopov’s fellow prisoner and spiritual father, monk Epiphanius, is more interested in the unsuccessful tandem of the patriarch and the adventurer Arseny the Greek, who was freed by him, discredited the entire Nikon book right. The monk probably knew him personally, at least he was the cell-attendant of the elder Martyrius, who had Arseny "under his command". “And as a sin for our sakes, God allowed Nikon, the forerunner of the Antichrist, to the patriarchal throne to jump on the throne, and he, accursed, soon planted the enemy of God Arseny, a Jew and a Greek, a heretic, who was imprisoned in our Solovetsky Monastery,” writes Epiphanius, - and with this Arseny, the mark-maker and with the enemy of Christ, Nikon, the enemy of Christ, they began, the enemies of God, to sow heretical, cursed tares in printed books, and with those evil tares those new books began to be sent to the whole Russian land for weeping, and for the mourning of the churches of God, and for the destruction of the souls of men. The very title of the work of another representative of the “Pustozero bitter brethren,” Deacon Fyodor, speaks of his views on what is happening: “About the wolf, and the predator, and the God-marker Nikon, there is reliable evidence, who was a shepherd in sheep’s skin, a forerunner of the Antichrists, as the Church of God is torn apart and the whole universe anger, and slander and hate the saints, and create much bloodshed for the true faith of Christ's right. Half a century later, in the works of Vygov writers, these events take on a poetic form. Here is how it looks like with the author of Vinograd of the Russian Simeon Denisov: “When, by the permission of God of the All-Russian church government, is the ship handed over to Nikon, on the highest patriarchal throne, in the summer of 7160 unworthy of a worthy gray-haired one, which dark storms did not erect? What multi-stormy anxiety on the Russian do not let the sea in? Which vortex-vibrating tremors on the all-red do not cause a ship? Did this strife find all-graceful spiritual dogmas, did this discord pierce the all-good church charters, mercilessly break the walls of the all-strong divine laws, cut them with all fury, break the oars of the paternal all-glorious clerical orders, and in a short speech, all the church robe shamelessly tore, the whole ship of the Russian Church crush all the wrath, madly confuse the whole church refuge, fill the whole of Russia with rebellion, embarrassment, hesitation and bloodshed lamentably; before the ancient church in Russia, Orthodox decrees, and pious laws, even though I adorn Russia with all grace, from the church, I’m more repugnantly rejected, but instead of these, I betrayed others and new ones with all boldness. ” The historian of the Vygovskaya Hermitage Ivan Filipov, repeating word for word much of Denisov's above statement, gives the following details: asks the royal majesty to order him to rule in the printing house of Russian books with ancient Greek charities, saying that Russian books from many translators who prescribe are wrong appearing in ancient Greek books: but the royal majesty does not tea in him such evil fierce crafty intent and deceit and let him do it his evil crafty invention and petition, giving him the power to do this; he, having taken power without fear, began his desire to fulfill the great embarrassment and rebellion of the Church, great bitterness and troubles people, great hesitation and coward all of Russia, fulfill: shake the unshakable church boundaries and foresee immovable piety charters, break the oaths of the cathedral saints. Thus, we can observe how the participants in the events, in this case the Pupustozero prisoners, formed a simplified traditional view of the reform, and how the later iconization of this point of view took place on Vyga. But if you take a closer look at the works of the Pustozero people, and especially the works of Avvakum, more carefully, you can find very interesting information. Here, for example, are the statements of the archpriest about the participation of Alexei Mikhailovich in the fateful events of the era: “You, autocrat, raise judgment on all of them, and such is the boldness that they give to us ... Who would dare to say such blasphemous verbs against the saints, if it were not for your state to allow to be? .. Everything is in you, the king, the matter is shut up and it is only about you. ” Or the details reported by Avvakum about the events of Nikon’s election as patriarch: “The tsar calls for the patriarchate, but he doesn’t want to be, he gloomed the tsar and the people, and at night they lay with Anna what to do, and having a lot of fun with the devil, he ascended patriarchate by God's allowance, strengthening the king with his intrigue and an evil oath. And how could all this be invented and carried out by the “Mordvin man” alone? Even if we agree with the opinion of the archpriest that Nikon "took away the mind from Milov (Tsar), from the current one, how close he was", we must remember that the Russian monarchy was then only on the way to absolutism, and the influence of the favorite, and even with such origin, could not be so significant, unless of course it was the other way around, as, for example, S.S. Mikhailov. “The ambitious patriarch,” he declares, “who decided to act on the principle of “reform for the sake of reform,” turned out to be easy to use for the cunning Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with his political dreams of pan-Orthodox domination.” And although the author's judgment seems overly categorical, the "cunning" of one king in such a case is not enough, and it is doubtful that this cunning was inherent in him from the very beginning. Eyewitness accounts show in the best possible way that strong and influential people stood behind Nikon: the tsar's confessor Archpriest Stefan, the deceitful Fyodor Rtishchev and his sister, the second close noblewoman of the queen Anna. Undoubtedly, there were other, more influential and less visible personalities, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich took the most direct part in everything. Betrayal, in the understanding of the lovers of God, by the new patriarch of his friends, when he “did not let them into Krestovaya”, sole decision-making on issues of church reform, the passion and cruelty that accompanied his actions and decrees, apparently, shocked the zealots so much that behind the figure of Nikon, they no longer saw anyone and nothing. To understand the currents of Moscow politics, the intricacies of palace intrigues and other behind-the-scenes fuss that accompanied the events in question, it was extremely difficult for John Neronov, and even more so for the protopopes of the provinces, and even impossible, because. they went into exile very soon. Therefore, Patriarch Nikon was primarily to blame for everything, who, with his colorful personality, overshadowed the true creators and inspirers of the reform, and thanks to the sermon and writings of the first leaders and inspirers of the fight against the "Nikon novelties", this tradition was entrenched in the Old Believers and throughout the Russian people.

Returning to the issue of establishing and disseminating simplified traditional and mixed points of view, we note the influence of the Old Believers on the formation of scientific views in the Soviet era. This happened primarily for ideological reasons under the influence of the socio-political explanation of the events of the 17th century that the new government liked. “... The split, - notes D.A. Balalykin, - in the Soviet historiography of the first years was assessed as passive, but still resistance to the tsarist regime. Back in the middle of the 19th century, A.P. Shchapov saw in the schism the protest of those dissatisfied with the Code (1648) and the spreading "German customs" of the Zemstvo, and this hostility to the overthrown authorities made the Old Believers "socially close" to the Bolshevik regime. However, for the communists, the Old Believers have always remained just one of the forms of "religious obscurantism", although "in the first years after the revolution, the wave of persecution had little effect on the Old Believers." Works related to the search for new monuments of the history of the early Old Believers and their description, undertaken in the Soviet era and brought rich results, represent another way in which the Old Believer tradition influenced the Soviet scientific school. The point here is not only in the "new Marxist concept" developed by N.K. Gudziy and focusing on the "ideological and aesthetic value of the monuments of ancient literature" . Historical truth was on the side of the Old Believers, which naturally affected the critical understanding of their scientific achievements.

Summing up, I would like to note that the description of events, received from the martyrs and confessors of the Old Believers, was established among the masses not as scientific knowledge, but was perceived and perceived in most cases as an object of faith. That is why the Old Believer authors, although they try to use new materials and facts in their scientific research, are almost always forced to look back at the teaching that has become a church tradition and sanctified by the suffering of previous generations. Thus, a point of view arises, more or less successfully, depending on the author, combining the religious-historical tradition and new scientific facts. The same problem may arise before the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the nature of the research of authors who are supporters of the canonization of Patriarch Nikon. This scientific view is called mixed by us and, due to its non-independent nature, is not considered in detail. In addition to supporters of the old faith, this point of view is widespread both in secular circles and among New Believers. In the scientific community, this view was most widespread in the Soviet period, and retains its influence to this day, especially if scientists are Old Believers or sympathize with him.

4. Reasons for the emergence and spread of different points of view on church transformations

Before solving the main issues of this paragraph, it is necessary to determine what types of understanding of the events under study we have. According to the reviewed material, there are two main points of view on the topic under consideration - simplified traditional and scientific. The first arose in the second half of the 17th century and is divided into two variants - official and Old Believer. The scientific approach was finally formed towards the end of the 19th century, under its influence the simplified tradition began to undergo changes, and many works of a mixed nature appeared. This point of view is not independent and, adjoining the simplified traditional view, it also has two variants of the same name. Mention should be made of the socio-political tradition of explaining the events of the church schism, which originates from the works of A.P. Shchapov, is developed by democratically and materialistically minded scientists and argues that church reform is only a slogan, an excuse, a call to action in the struggle of the discontented, and under the communists, the oppressed masses. She fell in love with Marxist scholars, but besides this characteristic explanation of events, she has almost nothing independent, tk. the presentation of events is borrowed, depending on the sympathies of the author, either from some version of a simplified or mixed point of view, or from a scientific one. It is more convenient to show the relationship between the main views on the Church Reform of the 17th century with historical facts, the degree of influence of various circumstances on them (benefit, controversy, established church and scientific traditions) and the relationship between them schematically:

As you can see, the most free from various external influences the view of the reform and related events is scientific. In relation to the arguing parties, he is, as it were, between a hammer and an anvil, this feature should also be taken into account.

So, why, despite the abundance of facts, despite the existence of the fundamental research, do we have such a variety of views on the authorship and implementation of the church reform of the 17th century? The path to solving this problem is shown to us by N.F. Kapterev. “... The history of the emergence of the Old Believers in our country was studied and written mainly by polemicists with a split,” the historian writes, “who, in most cases, studied events from a tendentious-polemical point of view, tried to see and find in them only that which contributed and helped them controversy with the Old Believers ... ”Modern authors also say the same thing, this is what reports on the consideration in the scientific literature of the issue of book corrections under Patriarch Nikon T.V. Suzdaltseva: “... a pronounced trend of anti-Old Believer polemics did not allow most authors of the 19th - n. 20th century to take a critical look at the results of this right and the quality of the books that came out after it. Consequently, one of the reasons is the polemical nature that both versions of the simplified traditional point of view on the events under consideration initially received. Thanks to this, “Archpriests Avvakum and Ivan Neronov, Priests Lazar and Nikita, Deacon Feodor Ivanov” turned out to be referees. From this originates the myth of the “secular Russian ignorance”, which distorted the ranks and rituals, of the famous “letter-rite-belief” of our ancestors and, undoubtedly, the assertion that Nikon is the creator of the reform. The latter, as we could already see, was facilitated by the teaching of the apostles of the Old Believers - the Pustozero prisoners.

The polemic itself is also dependent, secondary to another factor, about which even the most progressive pre-revolutionary authors tried to speak as accurately as possible. State policy gave rise to both church reform and all the controversy around it - that's main reason, which influenced both the emergence and the vitality of the simplified tradition in all its variants. Even Alexei Mikhailovich himself, when he needed to ensure that the trial of Nikon did not extend to transformations, "put and brought to the fore such bishops who, of course, were devoted to the church reform that had been carried out." In doing so, the tsar, according to Kapterev, carried out "a systematic selection of persons of a strictly defined direction, from whom ... he could no longer expect opposition." Peter I turned out to be a worthy disciple and successor of his father, very soon the Russian Church was completely subordinate to the royal power, and its hierarchical structure was absorbed by the state bureaucracy. That is why, before it even had time to appear, Russian ecclesiastical-scientific thought found itself forced to work only in the direction envisaged by the censorship. This state remained almost until the end of the synodal period. As an example, we can cite the events associated with Professor MDA Gilyarov-Platonov. This outstanding teacher, I.K. Smolich, "read hermeneutics, non-Orthodox confessions, the history of heresies and schisms in the Church, but at the request of Metropolitan Filaret, he had to stop lecturing on the schism because of his "liberal criticism" of the positions of the Orthodox Church" . But the matter did not end there, because "as a result of a memorandum he submitted demanding religious tolerance for the Old Believers, he was dismissed from the academy in 1854." A sad illustration of the era - the statement of V.M. Undolsky about the work of censorship: “My more than six months work: the review of Patriarch Nikon on the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was not allowed by the St. Petersburg censorship in the harsh words of His Holiness the author of the Objection.” It is not surprising if, after the publication of the well-known work of Academician E.E. Golubinsky, dedicated to the controversy with the Old Believers, the scientist was accused of writing in favor of the Old Believers. N.F. Kapterev also suffered when, through the machinations of the well-known historian of the schism and publisher of the Old Believer primary sources, prof. N.I. Subbotina Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev ordered that the printing of his work be interrupted. Only twenty years later the book saw its reader.

Why obstacles were erected so zealously to an objective study of the fateful events of the 17th century by the church hierarchy, one interesting statement by Metropolitan Platon Levshin can tell us. Here is what he writes to Archbishop Ambrose (Podobedov) on the issue of establishing Edinoverie: “This is an important matter: after 160 years the Church stood against this, the advice of all the pastors of the Russian Church is needed, and general position, and, moreover, to observe the honor of the Church, that it did not in vain fight so much against and condemn with so many definitions, so many proclamations, so many published works, so many establishments of their accession to the Church, so as not to leave us in shame and opponents would not proclaim the former “victorious” and already and scream." If the then church hierarchs were so worried about issues of honor and shame, if they were so afraid to see their opponents as winners, then it was impossible to expect understanding, and even more so love and mercy from the state bureaucratic machine, the nobility and the royal house. The honor of the imperial family for them was much more important than some Old Believers, and a change in attitude towards the schism necessarily led to the recognition of the unjustified and criminal persecution.

The events of the middle of the 17th century are the key to understanding the entire subsequent development of the Russian state, which was first fed by the Westerners, and then passed into the hands of their idols - the Germans. Lack of understanding of the needs of the people and the fear of losing power led to total control over everything Russian, including the Church. Hence the long (more than two and a half centuries) fear of Patriarch Nikon, “as an example of a strong independent church authority”, hence the cruel persecution of traditionalists - Old Believers, whose existence did not fit into the pro-Western regulations of that era. As a result of unbiased scientific research, “inconvenient” facts could be revealed that cast a shadow not only on Alexei Mikhailovich and subsequent rulers, but also on the Council of 1666-1667, which, in the opinion of synodal officials and the church hierarchy, undermined the authority of the Church and became a temptation for Orthodox people. Oddly enough, but the cruel persecution of dissidents, in this case, the Old Believers, for some reason, was not considered such a temptation. Apparently, concern for the “honor of the Church” under the conditions of Caesaropapism was primarily connected with the justification of the actions of its head, the tsar, caused by political expediency.

Since the secular power in the Russian Empire subordinated the spiritual power to itself, their unanimity in matters of attitude to church corrections of the 17th century does not seem surprising. But Caesaropapism had to be somehow theologically justified, and even under Alexei Mikhailovich, the state authorities turned to the bearers of Western Latin learning in the person of the Greeks and Little Russians. This example of political influence on the formation of public opinion on the issue of reform is remarkable in that the unborn church education was already perceived as a means designed to protect the interests of the powerful. In the Latin and even Jesuit character of scholarship, we see another reason that influenced the emergence and spread of a simplified understanding of the transformations of the 17th century. It was beneficial for the creators of the reform to carry out external transformations, changes in the letter of the rite, and not the education of the people in the spirit of the Divine Law, therefore they removed from corrections those of the Moscow scribes for whom the achievement of a spiritual renewal of life was main goal reforms. In this place were put people whose church education was not burdened by excessive religiosity. The program of holding the Council, fatal for the unity of the Russian Church, and its determination did not go without the active participation of such representatives of Jesuit science as Paisius Ligarid, Simeon of Polotsk and others, where they, together with the Greek patriarchs, in addition to the trial of Nikon and all Russian church antiquity, even then tried to push through the idea that the head of the Church is the king. The methods of the further work of our home-grown specialists directly follow from the church-educational policy of the successor of his father, Peter I, when Little Russians ended up in the episcopal chairs, and the overwhelming majority of schools were organized in the manner of the Latinized Kyiv Theological College. The opinion of Empress Catherine II about the graduates of contemporary theological schools in Ukraine is interesting: “Students in theology who are trained in Little Russian educational institutions to the occupation of spiritual positions, they become infected, following the harmful rules of Roman Catholicism, with the beginnings of insatiable ambition. The definition of the cellar of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, and part-time Russian diplomat and traveler Arseny Sukhanov, can be called prophetic: “Their science is such that they do not try to find the truth, but only argue and hush up the truth with verbosity. That science they have is Jesuit ... in Latin science there is a lot of slyness; and the truth cannot be found by deceit.

For a whole century our spiritual school had to overcome dependence on the West, to learn to think independently, without looking back at Catholic and Protestant sciences. Only then came the realization of what we really need, and what we can refuse. So, for example, in the MDA “the church charter (Tipik) ... began to be studied only from 1798.” , but the History of the Russian Church since 1806. It was the overcoming of scholastic influence that contributed to the emergence of such scientific methods, which, in turn, led to the formation of a scientific view of church reform and the events associated with it. At the same time, a mixed point of view begins to appear, since it took time to overcome the prevailing stereotypes and the personal feat of impartial coverage of the problem. Unfortunately, throughout the 19th century, the Russian ecclesiastical school had to endure almost constant interference from the state authorities and conservative-minded representatives of the episcopate. It is customary to give examples of the reaction during the time of Nicholas I, when seminary students went to church in formation, and any deviation from traditional views was considered a crime. M.I., a researcher of the Old Believers on Vyge, who did not abandon the historical methods of Marxism and materialism. Batser describes this era in this way: “Sworn historians considered the times of Peter the Great through the prism of “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”, which obviously excluded the possibility of an objective attitude towards the figures of the Old Believers” . Problems arose not only because of the negative attitude of the emperor and his entourage towards the Old Believers, but the methodology for studying this issue left much to be desired. “In school teaching, and in scientific consideration,” writes N.N. Glubokovsky, - the schism did not separate into an independent area for a long time, except for utilitarian works of a polemic-practical nature and private attempts to collect, describe and systematize various materials. The direct question of the scientific specialization of this subject, he continues, was put forward only in the early 50s of the 19th century, to which time the opening of the corresponding professorial departments at the Theological Academies belongs. In connection with the above, one can cite the remark of S. Belokurov: “... only from the 60s of the current century (XIX century) more or less satisfactory studies based on a careful study of primary sources begin to appear, as well as very important materials are made public, from of which some are precious, irreplaceable sources. What else to talk about, if even such an enlightened hierarch as St. Philaret of Moscow, “considered the use of scientific-critical methods in theology ... considered a dangerous sign of unbelief” . By the assassination of Alexander II, the Narodnaya Volya procured for the Russian people a new long period of reaction and conservatism, which was also reflected in scientific and educational activities. All this was not long in affecting the theological schools and church science. “The ever-deepening application of scientific-critical methods in research and teaching was subjected to the strongest attacks of the Holy Synod,” writes I.K. Smolich about the times of the "authoritarian church-political regime" K.P. Pobedonostsev. And “there can be no justification for the real campaign that the episcopate organized against the secular professors, who have done so much for the development of science and education in the academies,” according to the scientist. Again, censorship is increasing, and, accordingly, the level of scientific works , "correct" textbooks are published, far from scientific objectivity. What can we say about the attitude towards the Old Believers, if the Holy Synod, until the very collapse of the Russian Empire, could not decide on its attitude towards the Edinoverie. “Edinoverie,” writes Hieromartyr Simon Bishop of Okhtensky, “as soon as he remembers himself, from then to our days, was not equal in rights and equal in honor to common Orthodoxy - it stood in a lower position in relation to the latter, it was only a missionary means.” Even the religious tolerance declared under the influence of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 did not help them get a bishop, and such statements were often heard as an argument for refusal: “if Edinoverie and the Old Believers unite, we will remain in the background.” A paradoxical situation arose - the declared religious tolerance touched all the Old Believers, except for those who wanted to remain in unity with the New Believer Russian Orthodox Church. However, this is not surprising, because no one was going to grant freedom to the Russian Church, She, as before, was headed by the emperor and was under the vigilant supervision of the chief prosecutors. Edinoverie, however, had to wait until 1918, and this example can be seen as the result of a joint policy of secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the development of science and education of the people, when "the contradiction between the government's desire to promote education and its attempt to suppress free thought" was resolved in favor of the latter. For the same reason, nothing has actually changed both in solving the problem of the Old Believers and in studying the events associated with its occurrence. Trying to consider the development of understanding the essence of the split in different historical eras, D.A. Balalykin argues that "contemporaries ... understood by the schism not only the Old Believers, but in general all religious movements that were in opposition to the official church." In his opinion, "pre-revolutionary historiography narrowed the schism to the Old Believers, which was associated with the official church concept of the origin and essence of the schism as a church-ceremonial trend that emerged in connection with Nikon's ritual reform." But in the Orthodox Church there has always been a specific difference between heresy, schism and unauthorized assembly, and the phenomenon called the schism of the Old Believers still does not fit any of the definitions of the Pilots. S.A. Zenkovsky writes about it this way: “The schism was not a split from the church of a significant part of its clergy and laity, but a genuine internal rupture in the church itself, which significantly impoverished Russian Orthodoxy, in which not one, but both sides were to blame: both stubborn and refusing to see The consequences of their perseverance are the planters of the new rite, both too zealous, and, unfortunately, often also very stubborn, and one-sided defenders of the old. Consequently, the split was not narrowed down to the Old Believers, but the Old Believers were called the split. Balalykin's essentially erroneous conclusions are not devoid of positive dynamics; The author's historical intuition correctly points us to the steady striving in pre-revolutionary historiography to narrow down and simplify the historical and conceptual outline of the events associated with the schism. Scholastic science, forced to argue with traditionalists and obliged in this dispute to comply with state interests, created a simplified traditional point of view in its official version, significantly influenced the Old Believer version and, since it was required to “keep the secret of the king”, covered the true state of affairs with a foggy veil. Under the influence of these three components - Latinized science, polemical enthusiasm and political expediency - myths about Russian ignorance, the reform of Patriarch Nikon and the emergence of a schism in the Russian Church arose and became firmly established. In the context of the foregoing, of interest is Balalykin's statement that "the emerging Soviet" schismology "borrowed, among other ideas, this approach as well" . A different vision of the events of the middle of the 17th century for a long time remained the property of only individual prominent scientists.

As you can see, the revolution did not solve this problem, but only fixed it in the state in which it was until 1917. For many years, historical science in Russia was forced to adjust historical events under the templates of class theory, and the achievements of the Russian emigration for ideological reasons were not available in the homeland. Under the conditions of the totalitarian regime, literary criticism achieved great success, in view of the latter's less dependence on ideological clichés. Soviet scientists described and introduced into scientific circulation many primary sources on the history of the 17th century, the emergence and development of the Old Believers and other issues related to the study of church reform. In addition, Soviet science, being under the doctrinal influence of the communists, was spared the influence of confessional predilections. Thus, on the one hand, we have enormous developments in the field of factual material, and on the other hand, the few, but extremely important for understanding these facts, the works of the Russian emigration. The most important task of the church-historical science of our time in this matter is precisely to join these directions, to comprehend the available factual material from the Orthodox point of view and to draw the right conclusions.

Bibliography

Sources

1. Basil the Great, St. St. Basil the Great from the message of the hedgehog to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, and to Diodorus, and to some others sent: rule 91. Rule 1. / Pilot (Nomocanon). Printed from the original of Patriarch Joseph. Russian Orthodox Academy of Theological Sciences and Scientific Theological Research: preparation of the text, design. Ch. ed. M.V. Danilushkin. - St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004.

2. Avvakum, archpriest (deprived of dignity - A.V.). From the Book of Conversations. First session. The Tale of Those Who Suffered in Russia for Ancient Church Pious Traditions. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection. Compilation, preface, comments, design under the general editorship of Bishop Zosima (Old Believer - A.V.). Rostov-on-Don, 2009.

3. Avvakum... Life, written by him. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

4. Habakkuk... From the Book of Conversations. First session. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

5. Habakkuk... From the Book of Interpretations. I. Interpretation of the Psalms with the application of judgments about Patriarch Nikon and an appeal to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

6. Avvakum… Petitions, letters, messages. "Fifth" petition. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

7. Denisov S. Russian grapes or a description of those who suffered in Russia for ancient church piety (reprint). M .: Old Believer publishing house "Third Rome", 2003.

8. Epiphanius, monk (deprived of monasticism - A.V.). A life written by him. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

9. Lazarus, priest (deprived of dignity - A.V.). Petition to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

10. Theodore, deacon (deprived of dignity - A.V.). The Legend of the Marker of God Nikon. / The Pustozero Prisoners Are Witnesses of the Truth. Collection...

11. Filipov I. History of the Vygovskaya Old Believer Desert. Published according to the manuscript of Ivan Filipov. Editor-in-Chief: Pashinin M.B. M .: Old Believer publishing house "Third Rome", 2005.

Literature

1. Habakkuk. / Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Civilization. Compiled by O.A. Platonov. M.: Orthodox publishing house "Encyclopedia of Russian Civilization", 2000.

2. Arseny (Shvetsov), Bishop (Old Believer - A.V.). Justification of the Old Believer Holy Church of Christ in Answers to Pretentious and Perplexing Questions of the Present Time. Letters. M.: Publishing house "Kitezh", 1999.

3. Atsamba F.M., Bektimirova N.N., Davydov I.P. etc. History of religion in 2 volumes. T.2. Textbook. Under the general editorship. I.N. Yablokov. M.: Higher. school, 2007.

4. Balalykin D.A. Problems of "Priesthood" and "Kingdom" in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. in Russian historiography (1917-2000). M.: Publishing house "Vest", 2006.

5. Batser M.I. Double-fingered over Vyg: Historical essays. Petrozavodsk: PetrGU Publishing House, 2005.

6. Belevtsev I., prot. Russian church schism in the 17th century. / Millennium of the Baptism of Russia. International Church Scientific Conference "Theology and Spirituality", Moscow, May 11-18, 1987. M.: Edition of the Moscow Patriarchy, 1989.

7. Belokurov S. Biography of Arseny Sukhanov. Part 1. // Readings in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book. first (156). M., 1891.

8. Borozdin A.K. Archpriest Avvakum. Essay on the history of the mental life of Russian society in the 17th century. SPb., 1900.

9. Bubnov N.Yu. Nikon. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia. Issue 3 (XVII century). Part 2, I-O. SPb., 1993.

10. Bubnov N.Yu. Old Believer book of the 3rd quarter of the 17th century. as a historical and cultural phenomenon. / Bubnov N.Yu. Book culture of the Old Believers: Articles different years. St. Petersburg: BAN, 2007.

11. Bystrov S.I. Double-fingering in the monuments of Christian art and writing. Barnaul: AKOOH-I Publishing House "Fund for Supporting the Construction of the Church of the Intercession ...", 2001.

12. Varakin D.S. Consideration of the examples cited in defense of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. M .: Publishing house of the magazine "Church", 2000.

13. Vurgaft S.G., Ushakov I.A. Old Believers. Persons, objects, events and symbols. The experience of the encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Church, 1996.

14. Galkin A. On the causes of the schism in the Russian Church (public lecture). Kharkov, 1910.

15. Heiden A. From the history of the schism under Patriarch Nikon. SPb., 1886.

16. George (Danilov) Archbishop Word to readers. / Tikhon (Zatekin) archim., Degteva O.V., Davydova A.A., Zelenskaya G.M., Rogozhkina E.I. Patriarch Nikon. Born on the land of Nizhny Novgorod. Nizhny Novgorod, 2007.

17. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M .: Publishing house of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, 2002.

18. Golubinsky E.E. To our controversy with the Old Believers (additions and amendments to the controversy regarding its general formulation and regarding the main points of disagreement between us and the Old Believers). // Readings in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University. Book. third (214). M., 1905.

19. Gudziy N.K. Archpriest Avvakum as a writer and as a cultural and historical phenomenon. / Life of Archpriest Avvakum written by himself and his other writings. Editorial, introductory article and commentary by N.K. Gudzia. - M .: CJSC "Svarog and K", 1997.

20. Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia: Essays ethnic history. M.; Iris-press, 2008.

21. Dobroklonsky A.P. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. Moscow: Krutitsy Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, 2001.

22. Zenkovsky S.A. Russian Old Believers. In two volumes. Comp. G.M. Prokhorov. Tot. ed. V.V. Nekhotin. Moscow: DI-DIK Institute, Quadriga, 2009.

23. Znamensky P.V. History of the Russian Church (textbook). M., 2000.

24. Zyzykin M.V., prof. Patriarch Nikon. His state and canonical ideas (in three parts). Part III. The fall of Nikon and the collapse of his ideas in the Petrine legislation. Reviews about Nikon. Warsaw: Synodal Printing House, 1931.

25. Kapterev N.F., prof. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (reprint). T.1, 2. M., 1996.

26. Karpovich M.M. Imperial Russia (1801-1917). / Vernadsky G.V. Moscow kingdom. Per. from English. E.P. Berenstein, B.L. Gubman, O.V. Stroganova. - Tver: LEAN, M.: AGRAF, 2001.

27. Kartashev A.V., prof. Essays on the history of the Russian Church: in 2 vols. M.: Nauka Publishing House, 1991.

28. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures. Afterword, comments by A.F. Smirnova. M.: OLMA - PRESS Education, 2004.

29. Kolotiy N.A. Introduction (introductory article). / Way of the Cross of Patriarch Nikon. Kaluga: Orthodox parish of the Temple of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God in Yasenevo with the participation of Syntagma LLC, 2000.

30. Krylov G., prot. Book on the right of the 17th century. Liturgical Menaion. M.: Indrik, 2009.

31. Kutuzov B.P. Mistake of the Russian Tsar: Byzantine temptation. (Conspiracy against Russia). Moscow: Algorithm, 2008.

32. Kutuzov B.P. Church "reform" of the 17th century as an ideological sabotage and a national catastrophe. M.: IPA "TRI-L", 2003.

33. Lobachev S.V. Patriarch Nikon. St. Petersburg: Art-SPB, 2003.

34. Macarius (Bulgakov) Metropolitan History of the Russian Church, book seven. M .: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.

35. Malitsky P.I. Guide to the history of the Russian Church. M.: Krutitsy Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, pec. according to ed.: 1897 (Vol. 1) and 1902 (Vol. 2), 2000.

36. Meyendorff I., Protopresbyter. Rome-Constantinople-Moscow. Historical and theological studies. Moscow: St. Tikhon Orthodox University for the Humanities, 2006.

37. Melgunov S. The Great Ascetic Archpriest Avvakum (from the edition of 1907). / Canon to the Holy Hieromartyr and Confessor Habakkuk. M.: Publishing house "Kitezh", 2002.

38. Melnikov F.E. History of the Russian Church (from the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich to the destruction of the Solovetsky Monastery). Barnaul: AKOOH-I "Fund for Support of the Construction of the Church of the Intercession...", 2006.

39. Melnikov F.E. Short story Old Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. Barnaul.: Publishing house of BSPU, 1999.

40. Mirolyubov I., priest. Activities of the Moscow Printing House under Patriarch Joseph. Dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Theology. Sergiev Posad, 1993.

41. Mikhailov S.S. Sergiev Posad and the Old Believers. M.: Archeodoxia, 2008.

42. Molzinsky V.V. Historian N.M. Nikolsky. His views on the Old Believers in Russian history. // Old Believers: history, culture, modernity. Materials. M .: Museum of the History and Culture of the Old Believers, Borovsky Museum of Local History, 2002.

43. Nikolin A., priest. Church and State (history of legal relations). Moscow: Sretensky monastery edition, 1997.

45. Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. M.: Publishing house of political literature, 1985.

46. ​​Platonov S.F. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Crystal", 2001.

47. Plotnikov K., priest. The history of the Russian schism known under the name of the Old Believers. Petrozavodsk, 1898.

48. Poloznev D. F. Russian Orthodox Church in the XVII century. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. M.: Church-Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2000.

49. Preface. / Extracts from the writings of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church on matters of sectarianism (reprint edition: Extracts from the works of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, in Russian translation, as well as from early printed and ancient written books and writings of spiritual and secular writers on issues of faith and piety, disputed by the Old Believers Compiled by Samara diocesan missionary Priest Dimitry Alexandrov, St. Petersburg, 1907). Tver: Tver branch of the Russian International Cultural Fund, 1994.

50. Preface. / Shusherin I. The story of the birth, upbringing and life of His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Translation, notes, preface. Church and Scientific Center of the Russian Orthodox Church "Orthodox Encyclopedia". M., 1997.

51. Pulkin M.V., Zakharova O.A., Zhukov A.Yu. Orthodoxy in Karelia (XV-first third of the XX century). M.: All year round, 1999.

52. His Holiness Patriarch Nikon (article). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, compilation and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. University, 2004.

53. Simon, schmch. Bishop of Okhta. Path to Golgotha. Orthodox St. Tikhon University for the Humanities, Institute of History, Language and Literature of Ufa scientific center RAN. M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2005.

54. Smirnov P.S. The history of the Russian split of the Old Believers. SPb., 1895.

55. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700-1917. / History of the Russian Church, Book Eight, Part One. M .: Publishing house of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1996.

56. Smolich I.K. Russian monasticism. Origin, development and essence (988-1917). / History of the Russian Church. Application. M .: Church and Scientific Center of the Russian Orthodox Church "Orthodox Encyclopedia", publishing house "Palomnik", 1999.

57. Sokolov A., prot. Orthodox Church and Old Believers. Nizhny Novgorod: Quartz, 2012.

58. Suzdaltseva T.V. Russian typical, problem statement. / Old Russian monastic charters. Compilation, preface, afterword Suzdaltseva T.V. M.: Northern pilgrim, 2001.

59. Talberg N. History of the Russian Church. Moscow: Sretensky monastery edition, 1997.

60. Tolstoy M.V. Stories from the history of the Russian Church. / History of the Russian Church. Moscow: Edition of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1991.

61. Undolsky V.M. Review of Patriarch Nikon on the Code of Alexei Mikhailovich (foreword by the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate). / Nikon, Patriarch. Proceedings. Scientific research, preparation of documents for publication, compilation and general editing by V.V. Schmidt. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. University, 2004.

62. Urushev D.A. To the biography of Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. // Old Believers in Russia (XVII-XX centuries): Sat. scientific Proceedings. Issue 3. / State. Historical Museum; Rep. ed. and comp. EAT. Yukhimenko. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004.

63. Philaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop History of the Russian Church in five periods (reprint). Moscow: Sretensky monastery edition, 2001.

64. Florovsky G., prot. Ways of Russian theology. Kyiv: Christian-charitable association "The Way to Truth", 1991.

65. Khlanta K. History of the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy in the XX century. Graduate work. Kaluga: Moscow Patriarchate, Kaluga Theological Seminary, 2005.

66. Shakhov M.O. Old Believers, society, state. M .: "SIMS" together with the charitable foundation for the development of humanitarian and technical knowledge "WORD", 1998.

67. Shashkov A.T. Habakkuk. / Orthodox Encyclopedia. T.1. A-Alexy Studit. M.: Church-Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2000.

68. Shashkov A.T. Epiphany. / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia. Issue 3 (XVII century). Ch.1, A-Z. SPb., 1992.

70. Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century. Moscow: Veche, Lepta, 2010.

71. Shmurlo E. F. Course of Russian history. Moscow kingdom. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya Publishing House, 2000.

72. Shchapov A. Zemstvo and Split. Release the first. SPb., 1862.

73. Yukhimenko E.M., Ponyrko N.V. "The story of the fathers and sufferers of the Solovetsky" Semyon Denisov in the spiritual life of the Russian Old Believers of the XVIII-XX centuries. / Denisov S. The story of the fathers and sufferers of the Solovetsky. M., 2002.

The split of the Russian Orthodox Church

Church schism - in the 1650s - 1660s. a split in the Russian Orthodox Church, due to the reform of Patriarch Nikon, which consisted in liturgical and ritual innovations, which were aimed at making changes to liturgical books and rites in order to unify them with modern Greek ones.

background

One of the most profound socio-cultural upheavals in the state was the church schism. In the early 50s of the 17th century, a circle of “zealots of piety” formed among the higher clergy in Moscow, whose members wanted to eliminate various church disorders and unify worship throughout the vast territory of the state. The first step had already been taken: the Church Council of 1651, under pressure from the sovereign, introduced unanimous church singing. Now it was necessary to make a choice what to follow in church transformations: one's own Russian tradition or someone else's.

This choice was made in the context of the internal church conflict already emerging in the late 1640s, caused by the struggle of Patriarch Joseph with the growing Ukrainian and Greek borrowings initiated by the sovereign's entourage.

Church schism - causes, consequences

The Church, having strengthened its positions after the Time of Troubles, tried to take a dominant position in the political system of the state. The desire of Patriarch Nikon to strengthen his power positions, to concentrate in his hands not only church, but also secular power. But in the conditions of strengthening autocracy, this caused a conflict between church and secular authorities. The defeat of the church in this clash paved the way for its transformation into an appendage of state power.

The innovations in church rituals begun in 1652 by Patriarch Nikon, the correction of Orthodox books according to the model and likeness of the Greek, led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Main dates

The main reason for the split was the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1633–1656).
Nikon (worldly name - Nikita Minov) enjoyed unlimited influence on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
1649 - Appointment of Nikon as Metropolitan of Novgorod
1652 - Election of Nikon as patriarch
1653 - Church reform
As a result of the reform:
– Correction of church books in accordance with the "Greek" canons;
– Changing the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church;
- The introduction of triplets during the sign of the cross.
1654 - The reform of the patriarch was approved at the church council
1656 - Excommunication of opponents of the reform
1658 - Nikon's renunciation of the patriarchate
1666 - The deposition of Nikon at the church council
1667–1676 - The uprising of the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery.
The rejection of the reforms led to a division into supporters of reforms (Nikonians) and opponents (schismatics or Old Believers), as a result, the emergence of many movements and churches.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon

Election of Metropolitan Nikon as Patriarch

1652 - after the death of Joseph, the Kremlin clergy and the tsar wanted the Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod to take his place: the character and views of Nikon seemed to belong to a man who was able to lead the church-ceremonial reform conceived by the sovereign and his confessor. But Nikon gave his consent to become patriarch only after Alexei Mikhailovich's long persuasion and on the condition that there were no restrictions on his patriarchal power. And such restrictions were created by the Monastic order.

Nikon had a great influence on the young sovereign, who considered the patriarch his closest friend and assistant. Departing from the capital, the tsar transferred control not to the boyar commission, as was customary before, but to the care of Nikon. He was allowed to be called not only the patriarch, but also the "sovereign of all Russia." Having taken such an extraordinary position in power, Nikon began to abuse it, seize foreign lands for his monasteries, humiliate the boyars, and severely crack down on the clergy. He was occupied not so much with reform as with the establishment of a strong patriarchal authority, the model for which was the authority of the Pope.

Nikon reform

1653 - Nikon began to implement the reform, which he intended to carry out, focusing on Greek samples as more ancient. In fact, he reproduced contemporary Greek models and copied the Ukrainian reform of Petro Mohyla. The transformations of the Church had a foreign policy connotation: the new role of Russia and the Russian Church on the world stage. Counting on the accession of the Kyiv Metropolis, the Russian authorities thought about creating a single Church. This required the similarity of church practice between Kyiv and Moscow, while they had to be guided by the Greek tradition. Of course, Patriarch Nikon did not need differences, but uniformity with the Kyiv Metropolis, which should become part of the Moscow Patriarchate. He tried in every possible way to develop the ideas of Orthodox universalism.

Church cathedral. 1654. The beginning of the split. A.Kivshenko

Innovations

But many of Nikon's supporters, being not against the reform as such, preferred its other development - based on ancient Russian, and not on Greek and Ukrainian church traditions. As a result of the reform, the traditional Russian two-fingered consecration of oneself with a cross was replaced by a three-fingered one, the spelling "Isus" was changed to "Jesus", the exclamation "Hallelujah!" proclaimed three times, not twice. Other words and turns of speech were introduced in prayers, psalms and Creeds, some changes were made in the order of worship. The correction of liturgical books was carried out by reference workers at the Printing Yard on Greek and Ukrainian books. The Church Council of 1656 decided to publish the corrected Trebnik and the Service Book, the most important liturgical books for every priest.

Among the different sections of the population were those who refused to recognize the reform: it could mean that the Russian Orthodox custom, which their ancestors adhered to from ancient times, was vicious. With the great adherence of the Orthodox to the ritual side of the faith, it was precisely its change that was perceived very painfully. After all, as contemporaries believed, only the exact performance of the rite made it possible to create contact with sacred forces. “I will die for a single “az”!” (i.e., for changing at least one letter in the sacred texts), exclaimed the ideological leader of the adherents of the old order, the Old Believers, and a former member of the "zealots of piety" circle.

Old Believers

The Old Believers initially fiercely resisted the reform. Boyar wives and E. Urusova spoke in defense of the old faith. The Solovetsky Monastery, which did not recognize the reform, for more than 8 years (1668 - 1676) resisted the tsarist troops besieging it and was taken only as a result of betrayal. Because of the innovations, a split appeared not only in the Church, but also in society, it was accompanied by strife, executions and suicides, and a sharp polemical struggle. The Old Believers formed a special type of religious culture with a sacred attitude to the written word, with fidelity to antiquity and an unfriendly attitude towards everything worldly, with faith in the near end of the world and with a hostile attitude towards power - both secular and ecclesiastical.

At the end of the 17th century, the Old Believers were divided into two main currents - bespopovtsy and priests. Bespopovtsy, not finding as a result the possibility of establishing their own bishopric, could not supply priests. As a result, based on the ancient canonical rules on the permissibility of sacraments in extreme situations by the laity, they began to reject the need for priests and the entire church hierarchy and began to choose spiritual mentors from their midst. Over time, many Old Believer rumors (trends) were formed. Some of which, in anticipation of the imminent end of the world, subjected themselves to "fiery baptism", i.e., self-immolation. They realized that if their community was captured by the sovereign's troops, they would be burned at the stake as heretics. In the event of the approach of troops, they preferred to burn out in advance, without deviating from the faith in anything, and thereby save their souls.

The gap between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich

Deprivation of Nikon's patriarchal rank

1658 - Patriarch Nikon, as a result of a quarrel with the sovereign, announced that he would no longer act as head of the church, took off his patriarchal vestments and retired to his beloved New Jerusalem Monastery. He believed that requests from the palace for his speedy return would not be long in coming. However, this did not happen: even if the conscientious tsar regretted what had happened, his entourage no longer wanted to put up with such a comprehensive and aggressive patriarchal power, which, according to Nikon, was higher than the royal one, “like the sky is higher than the earth.” Whose power in reality turned out to be more significant, further events demonstrated.

Alexei Mikhailovich, who accepted the ideas of Orthodox universalism, could no longer defrock the patriarch (as was done all the time in the Russian Local Church). Orientation to the Greek rules put him before the need to convene an ecumenical Church Council. Proceeding from the steady recognition of the falling away from the true faith of the Roman see, the ecumenical council was to consist of Orthodox patriarchs. All of them took part in the meeting in one way or another. 1666 - such a council condemned Nikon and deprived him of his patriarchal rank. Nikon was exiled to the Ferapontov Monastery, and later transferred to more severe conditions on Solovki.

At the same time, the council approved the church reform and ordered the persecution of the Old Believers. Archpriest Avvakum was deprived of the priesthood, cursed, and sent to Siberia, where his tongue was cut off. There he wrote many works, from here he sent messages throughout the state. 1682 - he was executed.

But Nikon's aspirations to make the clergy beyond the jurisdiction of secular authorities found sympathy with many hierarchs. On the church cathedral In 1667, they managed to achieve the destruction of the Monastery order.

From the very beginning of the 17th century, reforms took place in the church environment. At the very beginning of the century, in 1619-1633, Patriarch Filaret expanded the monastic land holdings, established a patriarchal court, and transferred judicial power over the clergy and monastic peasants to the jurisdiction of the patriarch. Patriarch Filaret, with his reforms, tried to increase the authority of the church, to make it more independent.

In the 40s of the 17th century, the church begins to lose only what it was, the acquired independence. The clergy are limited in economic and political rights, in the life of the state. Cathedral Code slightly reduced the privileges of the church. The new church reforms consisted in the fact that the church was forbidden to acquire new lands, while the management of the affairs of the church was transferred to a special monastic order.

In 1653, a split occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church. , who wanted to strengthen the rapidly declining authority of the church, began to carry out church reform. The essence of the church reform of Patriarch Nikon was reduced to the unification of the norms of church life. The church reform of Patriarch Nikon entailed the correction of the rites of worship, thereby violating the established traditional forms of Russian Orthodox rites.

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon aroused the indignation of some of the clergy and secular nobility. Archpriest Avvakum became an opponent of Nikon's church reforms. The performances of his supporters marked the beginning of such a phenomenon as the Old Believers.

The conflict between the supporters of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon (supporters of the Greek rite) and the Old Believers, caused, first of all, disagreements in the composition of the sign. The Great Russians (Russians) were baptized with two fingers, and the Greeks with three. These differences have led to a dispute about historical correctness. The dispute came down to the fact that whether the Russian church rite - two-fingered, eight-pointed cross, worship on seven prosphora, a special "hallelujah", walking salting, that is, in the sun, when performing rituals, is the result of ignorant distortions in history or not.

There is reliable information that during the baptism of Russia, the prince, the Russians were baptized with two fingers. This was also done in Russia, before the church reform of Patriarch Nikon. In the era of the Christianization of Russia, in Byzantium, two charters, Jerusalem and Studian, were used. The fact is that in ritual terms these charters are contradictory. East Slavs used the first, and the second prevailed among the Greeks and Little Russians (Ukrainians).

For a long time there was a conflict in Russian Orthodox society. The split turned into persecution of the Old Believers and great losses for our society. Among the Old Believers there were many worthy people, merchants, cultural figures and patrons.