Preamble
The essence of Nikon’s church reform is in 17 main points:
- at least somehow, if only not in the old way

Nikon wanted not just to correct some errors of the scribes, but to change all the old Russian church rites and rituals in accordance with the new Greek ones. “The tragedy of the split-creative reform was that an attempt was made to “rule the straight along the crooked side.” Archpriest Avvakum conveyed the order of Patriarch Nikon to “correct” the books to the “inspector”, a student of the Jesuits, Arseny the Greek: “Rule, Arsen, at least somehow, if only not in the old way" And where in the liturgical books it was previously written “youths” - it became “children”; where it was written “children” - it became “youths”; where there was a “church” - there became a “temple”, where there was a “temple” - there was a “church”... Such outright absurdities also appeared as “the radiance of noise”, “to understand the toes (i.e. with the eyes)”, “to see with the finger”, “cruciform hands of Moses,” not to mention the prayer “to the evil spirit” inserted into the rite of baptism.

1. Double-fingered replaced with triple-fingered
2. The ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish was abolished - he began to be appointed
3. Recognition of secular authorities as the head of the church - following the model of Protestant churches
4. Prostrations canceled
5. Marriages with people of other faiths and relatives are allowed
6. The eight-pointed cross was replaced with a four-pointed one
7. During religious processions they began to walk against the sun
8. The word Jesus began to be written with two and - Jesus
9. The Liturgy began to be served at 5 prosphoras instead of 7
10. Praising the Lord four times instead of three times
11. The word of truth has been removed from the Creed from the words about the Holy Lord
12. The form of the Jesus Prayer has been changed
13. Pouring baptism became acceptable instead of immersion
14. The shape of the pulpit was changed
15. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs was replaced by the kamilavka of the Greeks
16. Changed ancient form bishop's staffs
17. Church singing and canons of writing icons have been changed

1. Two-fingered, ancient, inherited from apostolic times, form of the sign of the cross, was called the “Armenian heresy” and was replaced by three-fingered. As a priestly sign for blessing, the so-called malaxa, or name sign, was introduced. In the interpretation of the two-fingered sign of the cross, two outstretched fingers mean the two natures of Christ (Divine and human), and three (fifth, fourth and first), folded at the palm, mean the Holy Trinity. By introducing tripartite (meaning only the Trinity), Nikon not only neglected the dogma of the God-manhood of Christ, but also introduced the “divine-passionate” heresy (that is, in essence, he argued that not only the human nature of Christ, but the entire Holy Trinity suffered on the cross). This innovation, introduced into the Russian Church by Nikon, was a very serious dogmatic distortion, since the sign of the cross has at all times been a visible symbol of faith for Orthodox Christians. The truth and antiquity of the double-fingered constitution is confirmed by many testimonies. These also include ancient images that have survived to our time (for example, a 3rd century fresco from the Tomb of St. Priscilla in Rome, a 4th century mosaic depicting the Miraculous Fishing from the Church of St. Apollinaris in Rome, a painted image of the Annunciation from the Church of St. Mary in Rome, dating from the 5th century century); and numerous Russians and greek icons Savior Mother of God and saints, miraculously revealed and written in ancient times (all of them are listed in detail in the fundamental Old Believer theological work “Pomeranian Answers”); and the ancient rite of acceptance from the Jacobite heresy, which, according to the Council of Constantinople in 1029, the Greek Church contained back in the 11th century: “Whoever does not baptize with two fingers like Christ, let him be cursed”; and ancient books - Joseph, Archimandrite of the Spassky New Monastery, the cell Psalter of Cyril of Novoezersky, in the original Greek book of Nikon the Montenegrin and others: “If anyone is not marked with two fingers, like Christ, let him be cursed”3; and the custom of the Russian Church, adopted at the Baptism of Rus' from the Greeks and not interrupted until the time of Patriarch Nikon. This custom was conciliarly confirmed in the Russian Church at the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551: “If anyone does not bless with two fingers, like Christ, or does not imagine the sign of the cross with two fingers; may he be cursed, as the Holy Fathers rekosha.” In addition to what was said above, evidence that the two-fingered sign of the cross is a tradition of the ancient Ecumenical Church (and not just the Russian local one) is also the text of the Greek Helmsman, where the following is written: “The ancient Christians formed their fingers differently to depict the cross on themselves than the modern ones, then Some people depicted him with two fingers – the middle and index fingers, as Peter of Damascus says. The whole hand, says Peter, means one hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers mean His two natures.” As for triplicate, not a single piece of evidence in its favor has yet been found in any ancient monuments.

2. The prostrations accepted in the pre-schism Church were abolished, which are an undoubted church tradition established by Christ Himself, as evidenced in the Gospel (Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “fell on His face,” that is, made prostrations) and in the patristic works . The abolition of prostrations was perceived as a revival of the ancient heresy of non-worshippers, since prostrations in general and, in particular, performed during Lent are a visible sign of veneration for God and His saints, as well as a visible sign of deep repentance. The preface to the Psalter of 1646 edition said: “For this is cursed, and such wickedness is rejected from heretics, who do not bow down to the ground, in our prayers to God, in the church on appointed days. The same about this, and not without a decree from the charter of the holy fathers, such wickedness and heresy, hedgehog inflexibility, took root in many people during the Holy Great Lent, and for this reason no pious son of the apostolic church can hear. Such wickedness and heresy, let us not have such evil in the Orthodox, as the holy fathers say.”4

3. The three-part eight-pointed cross, which since ancient times in Rus' was the main symbol of Orthodoxy, was replaced by a two-part four-pointed one, associated in the consciousness Orthodox people with Catholic teaching and called the “Latin (or Lyatsky) kryzh.” After the reform began, the eight-pointed cross was expelled from the church. The hatred of the reformers towards him is evidenced by the fact that one of the prominent figures of the new church, Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov, called him “Brynsky” or “schismatic” in his writings. Only from the end of the 19th century did the eight-pointed cross begin to gradually return to New Believer churches.

4. The prayer cry - the angelic song “Hallelujah” - began to be quadrupled among the Nikonians, since they sing “Hallelujah” three times and the fourth, equivalent, “Glory to Thee, O God.” This violates the sacred trinity. At the same time, the ancient “extreme (that is, double) hallelujah” was declared by the reformers to be “the abominable Macedonian heresy.”

5. In the confession of the Orthodox faith - the Creed, a prayer listing the main dogmas of Christianity, the word “true” is removed from the words “in the Holy Spirit of the true and life-giving Lord” and thereby casts doubt on the truth of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. A translation of a word "?? ??????”, standing in the original Greek Creed, can be twofold: both “Lord” and “true”. The old translation of the Symbol included both options, emphasizing the equality of the Holy Spirit with the other persons of the Holy Trinity. And this does not at all contradict Orthodox teaching. The unjustified removal of the word “true” destroyed the symmetry, sacrificing meaning for the sake of a literal copy of the Greek text. And this caused fair indignation among many. From the combination “born, not created,” the conjunction “a” was removed - the same “az” for which many were ready to go to the stake. The exclusion of “a” could be thought of as an expression of doubt about the uncreated nature of Christ. Instead of the previous statement “There will be (that is, no) end to His kingdom,” “there will be no end” is introduced, that is, the infinity of the Kingdom of God turns out to be related to the future and thereby limited in time. Changes in the Creed, sanctified by centuries of history, were perceived especially painfully. And this was the case not only in Russia with its notorious “ritualism,” “literalism,” and “theological ignorance.” Here you can remember classic example from Byzantine theology - a story with only one modified “iota”, introduced by the Arians into the term “consubstantial” (Greek “omousios”) and turning it into “co-essential” (Greek “omiosios”). This distorted the teaching of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, enshrined in the authority of the First Council of Nicea, about the relationship between the essence of the Father and the Son. That is why Ecumenical Councils prohibited, under pain of anathema, any, even the most insignificant, changes in the Creed.

6. In Nikon’s books, the very spelling of the name of Christ was changed: instead of the former Jesus, which is still found among other Slavic peoples, Jesus was introduced, and only the second form was declared the only correct one, which was elevated to a dogma by New Believer theologians. Thus, according to the blasphemous interpretation of Metropolitan Demetrius of Rostov, the pre-reform spelling of the name “Jesus” in translation supposedly means “equal-eared,” “monstrous and meaningless”5.

7. The form of the Jesus Prayer, which, according to Orthodox teaching, has a special mystical power. Instead of the words “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” the reformers decided to read “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” The Jesus Prayer in its pre-Nikon version was considered a universal (universal) and eternal prayer, based on the Gospel texts, as the first apostolic confession on which Jesus Christ created His Church6. It gradually came into general use and even into the Church Rules. Saints Ephraim and Isaac the Syrian, Saint Hesychius, Saints Barsanuphius and John, and Saint John the Climacus have indications of it. Saint John Chrysostom speaks about it this way: “I beg you, brothers, never violate or despise this prayer.” However, the reformers threw this prayer out of all liturgical books and, under threat of anathemas, forbade it to be said “in church singing and in general meetings.” They later began to call her “schismatic.”

8. During religious processions, the sacraments of baptism and weddings, the new believers began to walk against the sun, while, according to church tradition, this was supposed to be done in the direction of the sun (posolon) - following the Sun-Christ. It should be noted here that a similar ritual of walking against the sun was practiced by different nations in a number of harmful magical cults.

9. When baptizing infants, the New Believers began to allow and even justify dousing and sprinkling with water, contrary to the Apostolic decrees on the need for baptism in three immersions (50th canon of the Saints). In connection with this, the rites of Catholics and Protestants were changed. If, according to the ancient church canons, confirmed by the Council of 1620, which was under Patriarch Filaret, Catholics and Protestants were required to be baptized with full threefold immersion, now they were accepted into the mainstream church only through anointing.

10. The New Believers began to serve the Liturgy on five prosphoras, arguing that otherwise “the body and blood of Christ cannot exist” (according to the old Service Books, it was supposed to serve on seven prosphoras).

11. In churches, Nikon ordered to break down “ambons” and build “lockers”, that is, the shape of the pulpit (pre-altar elevation) was changed, each part of which had a certain symbolic meaning. In the pre-Nikon tradition, four pulpit pillars meant the four Gospels; if there was one pillar, it meant the stone rolled away by an angel from the cave with the body of Christ. Nikon's five pillars began to symbolize the pope and five patriarchs, which contains an obvious Latin heresy.

12. The white hood of the Russian hierarchs - a symbol of the purity and holiness of the Russian clergy, which distinguished them among the ecumenical patriarchs - was replaced by Nikon with the “horned cap kamilavka” of the Greeks. In the eyes of Russian pious people, the “horned klobutsy” were compromised by the fact that they were repeatedly denounced in a number of polemical works against the Latins (for example, in the story about Peter Gugniv, who was part of the Palea, Cyril’s Book and Makary’s Chet Minea). In general, under Nikon, all the clothing of the Russian clergy was changed according to the modern Greek model (in turn, heavily influenced by Turkish fashion - wide sleeves of cassocks like oriental robes and kamilavkas like Turkish fezzes). According to the testimony of Pavel of Aleppo, following Nikon, many bishops and monks wished to change their robes. “Many of them came to our teacher (Patriarch Macarius of Antioch - K.K.) and asked him to give them a kamilavka and a hood... Those who managed to acquire them and on whom Patriarch Nikon or ours entrusted them, their faces opened and shone. On this occasion, they vied with each other and began to order kamilavkas for themselves made of black cloth in the same shape that we and the Greek monks had, and the hoods were made of black silk. They spat in front of us on their old hoods, throwing them off their heads and saying: “If this Greek robe had not been of divine origin, our patriarch would not have put it on first.”7 Regarding this insane disregard for his native antiquity and groveling before foreign customs and orders, Archpriest Avvakum wrote: “Oh, oh, poor things! Rus', for some reason you wanted German actions and customs!” and called on Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: “Breathe in the old way, as you used to do under Stefan, and say in Russian: “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!” And leave Kireleison alone; That's what they say in Hell; spit on them! You, Mikhailovich, are a Russian, not a Greek. Speak in your natural language; do not humiliate him in church and at home, and in proverbs. As Christ taught us, this is how we should speak. God loves us no less than the Greeks; Saint Cyril and his brother gave us the letter in our own tongue. What do we want better than that? Is it the language of angels? No, they won’t give it now, until the general resurrection.”9

13. The ancient form of bishop's staffs was changed. On this occasion, Archpriest Avvakum wrote with indignation: “Yes, he, the evil Nikon, started in our Russia with his like-minded people the most evil and unpleasing thing - instead of the rod of St. Peter the Wonderworker, he again acquired the holy rods with the cursed snakes that destroyed our great-grandfather Adam and the whole world , which the Lord himself cursed from all livestock and from all the beasts of the earth. And now they sanctify and honor this cursed snake above all cattle and beasts and bring it into the sanctuary of God, into the altar and into the royal doors, as if a certain consecration and the entire church service with those rods and with the cursed serpents made act everywhere, like some kind of precious treasure, they command to wear those snakes in front of their face for display to the whole world, and they form the consumption of the Orthodox faith”10.

14. Instead of ancient singing, a new one was introduced - first Polish-Little Russian, and then Italian. New icons began to be painted not according to ancient models, but according to Western ones, which is why they became more similar to secular paintings than to icons. All this contributed to the cultivation in believers of unhealthy sensuality and exaltation, previously not characteristic of Orthodoxy. Gradually, ancient icon painting was completely replaced by salon religious painting, which slavishly and unskillfully imitated Western models and bore the loud name of “icons of the Italian style” or “in the Italian taste,” about which the Old Believer theologian Andrei Denisov spoke in the following way in “Pomeranian Answers”: “Current painters , that (that is, the apostolic - K.K.) changed the sacred tradition, they paint icons not from the ancient likenesses of the holy miraculous icons of Greek and Russian, but from self-judgment: the appearance of the flesh is made white (thickened), and in other designs they are not like the ancient saints having icons, but like Latin and others, those in the Bibles are printed and painted on canvases. This pictorial new publication gives us doubts...”11 Archpriest Avvakum characterizes this kind of religious painting even more sharply: “By the permission of God, in our Russian land icon paintings of incomparable isugraphs have multiplied... They are painting the image of Emmanuel of the Savior; the face is puffy, the mouth is red, the hair is curly, the arms and muscles are thick, the fingers are puffy, the thighs are also thick at the feet, and the whole body is belly and fat like a German, except for the sword that is not written on the thigh. Otherwise, everything was written according to carnal intent: because the heretics themselves loved the fatness of the flesh and refuted the things above... But the Mother of God is pregnant at the Annunciation, just like the filthy filth. And Christ on the cross is blown out of proportion: the fat little guy is standing cute, and his legs are like chairs.”12

15. Marriages were allowed with people of other faiths and persons in degrees of kinship prohibited by the Church.

16. In the New Believer Church, the ancient custom of electing clergy by the parish was abolished. It was replaced by a resolution appointed from above.

17. Finally, subsequently the New Believers destroyed the ancient canonical church structure and recognized the secular government as the head of the church - following the model of Protestant churches.

Church schism- Nikon reforms in action

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

Mark Twain

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

Prerequisites for reform

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

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

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

Patriarch Nikon

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

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

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

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

Implementation of the reform

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

• Baptism with three fingers instead of two.
• Bows should have been made to the waist, and not to the ground, as was the case before.
• Changes have been made to religious books and icons.
• The concept of "Orthodoxy" was introduced.
• The name of God has been changed in accordance with the global spelling. Now instead of "Isus" it was written "Jesus".
• Replacement of the Christian cross. Patriarch Nikon proposed replacing it with a four-pointed cross.
• Changes in church service rituals. Now the procession of the Cross was performed not clockwise, as before, but counterclockwise.

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

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

The Scriptures predetermined the church schism in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient religion

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

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

Historical reference book

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

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

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

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

People's reaction to church schism

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

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

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

What did the reform lead to?

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

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

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

Church reform of Patriarch Nikon

Introduction

As the Russian autocracy developed, the issue of the priority of state power over church power became more and more pressing on the agenda. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the Russian church played a significant role in uniting the country to fight the Mongol-Tatar invasion. However, for all its desire to play an independent role, the Russian Orthodox Church has always been dependent on state power. In this it differed greatly from the Roman Catholic Church, which had complete independence in church affairs.

The transformation of the church from an instrument of the domination of feudal lords into an instrument of the domination of the noble state was completed in the 17th century, when, after the unrest, the nobility finally seized the leadership position in the Moscow state. This also affected the church. She lost a significant part of her influence, and even the patriarch was forced to reckon with the constant control of the tsar and the boyar duma.

This change in the position of the church had an economic basis. True, the absolute size of church estates and the number of church people were very impressive in the 17th century: at the end of the century, the patriarch, metropolitans and bishops owned about 37,000 households, which included about 440,000 souls of the tax population; in addition, significant lands belonged to individual monasteries. But, still, compared to the noble state, it was not so much. Commercial and industrial cities and settlements grew. The nobility jealously monitored the church economy and continued to take measures against its growth. At the council of 1580, the Moscow government passed a resolution according to which it was forbidden to give monasteries estates for the funeral of the soul, and it was also generally prohibited for church persons and institutions to buy and take land as collateral. The Troubles paralyzed the operation of this rule; but in 1649, when the Code was drawn up, it was restored, expanded and implemented as a national law. It was the Council Code that decreed (chapter XVII, art. 42): “The patriarch and the metropolitan and the archbishop and the bishop, and in monasteries, should not buy ancestral, and served and purchased estates from anyone, and do not mortgage them, and do not keep them for themselves.” , and a heart-to-heart in eternal remembrance, do not deal with some matters ... "

The Code finally abolished church jurisdiction in relation to church people in civil and criminal cases. These measures, in addition to their legal significance, caused considerable material damage to the church, depriving it of constant and large income in the form of court fees.

The initiative to establish the patriarchate came from the tsar. All of them were “elected” by the councils on the instructions of the king.

The king intervened not only in administrative, financial and judicial matters. He also issued orders on the observance of fasts, the service of prayers, and order in churches. And often these decrees were sent not to the bishops, but to the royal governors, who zealously monitored their implementation and punished those who disobeyed.

Thus, the leadership of the church in all respects actually belonged to the king, and not to the patriarch. This situation in church circles was not only not considered abnormal, but was even officially recognized by the councils.

The church reform of the 50-60s of the 17th century was caused by the desire to strengthen the centralization of the Russian church in a similar way to other parts of the state apparatus.

1. Church reform of Patriarch Nikon. Reasons and results

nikon reform church

Tsar and Nikon

This man’s thirst for activity was truly boundless. He understood the title of Great Sovereign in the literal sense as giving the right to govern the country. While still Metropolitan of Novgorod, Nikon actively intervened in government affairs. Having become a patriarch, he begins to direct the domestic and then foreign policy of the government. Already on the seventeenth day of his patriarchate, he sought a decree prohibiting the sale of vodka on holidays and some fast days. After another four weeks, a decree appears on the closure of taverns in estates and estates held by moneylenders. On October 4th, all foreigners in Moscow were transferred to a separate settlement on the banks of the Yauza River, they were forbidden to dress in Russian dress and have Russian servants. If the patriarch even got around to such trifles, then not a single important decision can be made without Nikon’s approval. Under his direct influence, a war was started with Poland, which ended with the annexation of Orthodox Ukraine. The tsar himself pointed this out when on October 23, 1653, he declared that he, “after consulting with his father, with the great sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Nikon, decided to go to war against the enemy - the Polish king.” On the eve of their departure to the army, Nikon served a special prayer service for them in the Assumption Cathedral, inspiring them for the upcoming feat of arms. When the troops leaving for war passed the Kremlin, Nikon blessed them, reminding them of the “Orthodox Ukrainian brothers languishing under the yoke of Catholic Poland.” According to the historian S. M. Solovyov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky “looked at Nikon as the main person who inspired the tsar to fight the Poles, as his personal supporter and intercessor.” The Patriarch did not limit himself only to moral influence on the Tsar, the boyars and the army. According to his orders, grain, horses and carts were collected from all monastery lands to be sent to the army in the field, and manufactories were created for the production of bladed weapons and firearms. Using his own funds, he equipped an entire army and 10,000 people and moved it to the aid of the fighting army. He even developed plans for military operations, in particular, an attack on Stockholm. He called on the tsar to move to Vilna and further to Warsaw. Under his influence, military operations began against Sweden for access to the Baltic Sea. Many of the patriarch’s deeds and plans were subsequently continued and implemented by Peter 1. Therefore, a number of prominent historians, in particular A.P. Shchapov, V.S. Ikonnikov and others, saw in Nikon the direct predecessor of Peter the Great. “So Nikon achieved his immediate goal in the most brilliant way. He became not only an independent church ruler, independent of secular power, but next to the tsar, the second great sovereign, who had direct influence on the entire course of state affairs, which depended on him almost as much as on the first real sovereign, since the latter He relied on his “brother friend” for everything, looked at everything through his eyes, and submitted to his authority and leadership.”

In 1654-1658, the tsar was constantly with the army, visiting Moscow only on visits. At the introduction of the patriarch, he transferred the care of his family and the management of the entire country. And in this field Nikon acted in the most successful way. He personally listened daily to the reports of the boyars and Duma clerks, the leaders of the most important orders, the then executive authorities. Gave orders and monitored their implementation. His comprehensive memory absorbed information from all over the vast country, his magnificent intellect found hundreds of solutions to numerous problems, and his strong will saw them through to completion. The strong rear he organized greatly contributed to the success of Russian troops in the battles against the Poles and Swedes. Finances were in satisfactory condition, the active army was regularly replenished, and the intrigues of the boyars and the arbitrariness of officials were restrained by the iron grip of the patriarch.

Nikon behaved harshly and even arrogantly with the boyars, descendants of Russian appanages and grand dukes. As deacon Pavel Alepsky, who accompanied one of the eastern patriarchs to Moscow, wrote: “The boyars previously entered the patriarch without a report from the gatekeepers; he went out to meet them and when they left, he went to see them off. Now, as we have seen with our own eyes, the king’s ministers and his entourage sit for a long time at the outer doors, until Nikon allows them to enter, and until the very end of their work, they stand on their feet, and when they finally leave, Nikon continues to sit.”

Further, Alepsky writes: “Usually every day, early in the morning, the ministers came to order... All the ministers, having gathered in the divan, remained there until the patriarch’s bell rang. The boyars stood at his door in the bitter cold until the patriarch ordered them to be let in... Each of them, approaching, bowed to the ground, approached him for a blessing and, in conclusion, bowed to the ground a second time... and they reported to him all current affairs , to which he gave an answer, ordering them what they should do. As we happened to see, state nobles generally do not feel any particular fear of the tsar and are not afraid of him, and they are probably more afraid of the patriarch. The predecessors of Patriarch Nikon never engaged in state affairs, but this patriarch, thanks to his insightful, sharp mind and knowledge, is skilled in all branches of spiritual, state and worldly affairs...” Professor Kapterev, who quotes these quotes, concludes: “It is clear that the proud and arrogant Moscow boyars were deeply offended by the imperious, arrogant treatment Nikon was with them, but for the time being they were forced to hide their true feelings for him, they were even forced to ingratiate themselves in every possible way, to seek mercy and attention from the peasant’s son, since Nikon’s favor or dislike meant too much to them then.” The patriarch treated the highest hierarchs of the church, bishops and metropolitans in a similar way. In addition to the arrogance that developed in him under conditions of unlimited power, a great sense of superiority apparently also played a role here. Here is what N.F. Kapterev thinks about this: “But almost the main reason, why Nikon treated the Russian bishops so arrogantly and disdainfully was the characteristic circumstance that Nikon had the lowest idea about our hierarchs of that time, both regarding their moral qualities and overall behavior, and regarding the level of their mental development and knowledge, and, especially, their relationship to secular power. This is how Nikon spoke about the Pskov archbishop that he was “both old and stupid”; about the Novgorod metropolitan, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, he said: “The metropolitan of Piterim does not even know why he is a man.”

Having strengthened his position as a “great sovereign” equal to the tsar, Nikon began to openly declare the superiority of the patriarchal power over the royal one. The substantiation of the idea that “there is a greater priesthood of the kingdom” was comprehensively outlined by him in the “Helmsman” book. Moreover, this idea did not remain on paper, but was everywhere introduced into practice by his adherents. According to V.I. Lenin, he tried to “play in Russia the role of the popes, who combined spiritual power in the West with secular supremacy...”. The most prominent leader of the schismatic Old Believers, Archpriest Neronov, forced to bow down and reconcile with Nikon, told him during the solemnly arranged act of reconciliation: “I am amazed that the sovereign’s royal authorities can no longer be heard; From you everyone fears, and your envoys are more fearful to everyone than the king’s, and no one dares to say to them that even if by force we embitter them.” It is confirmed with them: do you know the patriarch.” He said the same thing to the king; “He has confused the entire Russian land and trampled your royal honor, and no longer hears your power - from him all enemies fear.”

2.Church reform of Patriarch Nikon, goals, causes and consequences

Patriarch Nikon was born in 1605 in a peasant environment, with the help of his literacy he became a rural priest, but due to the circumstances of his life he entered monasticism early and tempered himself with a harsh lifestyle in northern monasteries. He acquired the ability to greatly influence people and the unlimited trust of the king. He quite quickly achieved the rank of Metropolitan of Novgorod and finally, at the age of 47, became the All-Russian Patriarch.

His behavior in 1650 with the Novgorod rebels, to whom he allowed himself to be beaten in order to bring them to reason, then during the Moscow pestilence of 1654, when in the absence of the Tsar he rescued his family from the infection, reveals in him rare courage and self-control. But he easily got lost and lost his temper over everyday trifles, everyday nonsense: a momentary impression grew into a whole mood. In the most difficult moments, which he created for himself and required full work of thought, he occupied himself with trifles and was ready to raise a big fuss over trifles. Convicted and exiled to the Ferapontov monastery, he received gifts from the tsar, and when one day the tsar sent him a lot of good fish, Nikon was offended and responded with a reproach for why they did not send vegetables, grapes, and apples. In a good mood he was resourceful and witty, but, offended and irritated, he lost all tact and took the whims of his embittered imagination for reality. In captivity, he began to treat the sick, but could not resist, so as not to prick the king with his healing miracles, sent him a list of those cured, and told the royal messenger that the patriarchate had been taken away from him, but he was given a “cup of medicine: “heal the sick.” Nikon was one of those people who calmly endure terrible pain, but groan and despair from a pinprick. He had a weakness that often affects strong, but little-constrained people: he missed peace, did not know how to wait patiently; he constantly needed anxiety, a passion for courage; whether by thought or a broad enterprise, even just a quarrel with a person.

Reasons for church reform

Until July 1652, that is, before Nikon was elected to the patriarchal throne (Patriarch Joseph died on April 15, 1652), the situation in the church and ritual sphere remained uncertain. Archpriests and priests from the zealots of piety and Metropolitan Nikon in Novgorod, regardless of the decision of the church council of 1649 on moderate “multiharmony,” sought to perform a “unanimous” service. On the contrary, the parish clergy, reflecting the sentiments of the parishioners, did not comply with the decision of the church council of 1651 on “unanimity”, and therefore “multivocal” services were preserved in most churches. The results of the correction of liturgical books were not put into practice, since there was no church approval of these corrections. This uncertainty worried the royal authorities most of all.

In foreign policy terms, the issues of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia and the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was associated with the start of the liberation war of the Ukrainian people against the government in 1648, became of paramount importance for her. gentry of Poland(already in 1649, B. Khmelnitsky’s representative S. Muzhilovsky arrived in Moscow with a proposal to accept Ukraine under Russian rule). To begin to resolve these issues without eliminating the religious and ritual differences between the Russian and Greek churches and without overcoming the negative attitude of the Russian Orthodox hierarchs towards the Church of Ukraine was, to say the least, careless. However, the events of 1649 - 1651 in the church sphere, and especially the deterioration of relations between secular and church authorities, played a partly positive role. Their consequence was that the tsar and his closest secular circle felt the complexity and enormity of the changes that had to be carried out in the religious field, and the impossibility of carrying out this kind of reform without a close alliance with the church authorities. Alexei Mikhailovich also realized that it was not enough to have a supporter of such a reform at the head of the church. The successful implementation of the transformation of church life in Russia according to the Greek model was accessible only to a strong patriarchal government that had independence and high political authority and was capable of centralizing church administration. This determined the subsequent attitude of Tsar Alexei towards church authority.

The tsar's choice fell on Nikon, and this choice was supported by the tsar's confessor Stefan Vonifatiev. Kazan Metropolitan Korniliy and the zealots of piety who were in the capital, who were not privy to the tsar’s plans, submitted a petition with a proposal to elect Stefan Vonifatiev, the most influential and authoritative member of the circle, as patriarch. There was no reaction from the tsar to the petition, and Stefan avoided the proposal and persistently recommended Nikon’s candidacy to his like-minded people. The latter was also a member of the circle. Therefore, the zealots of piety in the new petition to the tsar spoke out in favor of electing Nikon, who was then the Novgorod metropolitan, as patriarch.

Nikon (before becoming a monk - Nikita Minov) had all the qualities Tsar Alexei needed. He was born in 1605 in Nizhny Novgorod district into a peasant family. Richly gifted by nature with energy, intelligence, excellent memory and sensitivity, Nikon early, with the help of a village priest, mastered literacy and professional knowledge as a church minister and at the age of 20 became a priest in his village. In 1635, he became a monk at the Solovetsky Monastery and was appointed in 1643 as abbot of the Kozheozersk Monastery. In 1646, Nikon, on monastery business, ended up in Moscow, where he met with Tsar Alexei. He made the most favorable impression on the tsar and therefore received the position of archimandrite of the influential capital Novospassky monastery. The newly-minted archimandrite became close to Stefan Vonifatiev and other metropolitan zealots of piety, entered their circle, repeatedly talked about faith and rituals with the Jerusalem Patriarch Paisius (when he was in Moscow) and became an active church figure. He acted before the king most often as an intercessor for the poor, disadvantaged or innocently convicted, and won his favor and trust. Having become the Novgorod metropolitan on the recommendation of the tsar in 1648, Nikon proved himself to be a decisive and energetic ruler and a zealous champion of piety. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was also impressed by the fact that Nikon moved away from the point of view of provincial zealots of piety on church reform and became a supporter of the plan for transforming church life in Russia according to the Greek model.

Nikon considered himself the only real candidate for patriarch. The essence of his far-reaching plans was to eliminate the dependence of church power on secular power, to place it in church affairs above the tsarist power and, having become a patriarch, to occupy at least an equal position with the tsar in the governance of Russia.

A decisive step followed on July 25, 1652, when the church council had already elected Nikon as patriarch and the tsar approved the election results. On this day, the Tsar, members of the royal family, the boyar Duma and participants in the church council gathered in the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral to consecrate the newly elected patriarch. Nikon appeared only after a number of delegations were sent to him from the tsar. Nikon announced that he could not accept the rank of patriarch. He gave his consent only after the “praying” of the tsar and representatives of secular and ecclesiastical authorities present at the cathedral. With this “prayer” they, and, first of all, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, pledged to obey Nikon in everything that he would “proclaim” to them about “the dogmas of God and the rules”, to obey him “as a chief, a shepherd and a most noble father.” This act significantly raised the prestige of the new patriarch.

The secular authorities accepted Nikon's conditions because they considered this measure useful for carrying out church reform, and the patriarch himself was a reliable supporter of the reform plan. Moreover, in order to solve priority foreign policy problems (reunification with Ukraine, war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), which was supposed to be facilitated by church reform, the secular government made new concessions. The tsar refused to interfere in the actions of the patriarch that affected the church and ritual sphere. He also allowed Nikon’s participation in solving all domestic and foreign political affairs that interested the patriarch, recognized Nikon as his friend, and began to call him the great sovereign, that is, as if he bestowed on him a title that, of the previous patriarchs, only Filaret Romanov had. As a result, a close union of secular and ecclesiastical authorities arose in the form of the “wise two,” that is, the king and the patriarch.

Patriarch Nikon soon after his election became the autocratic ruler of the Russian church. He began by eliminating the interference in church affairs of his former associates in the circle of zealots of piety. Nikon even ordered that the archpriests Ivan Neronov, Avvakum, Daniil and others should not be allowed to visit him. Their complaints were not supported by the tsar, nor Stefan Vonifatiev, nor F. M. Rtishchev, who avoided interfering in the actions of the patriarch.

Already at the end of 1652, some of the abbots of the monasteries, in order to please Nikon, began to slavishly call him the great sovereign. The bishops followed their example. In the 50s of the 17th century. Thanks to Nikon’s energetic and decisive activity, a set of measures was implemented that determined the content and nature of church reform.

Church reform

Its implementation began in the spring of 1653, almost immediately after the Tsar and the Boyar Duma made the final decision to include Ukraine in Russian state. This coincidence was not accidental.

The first step was the sole order of the patriarch, which affected two rituals, bowing and making the sign of the cross. In the memory of March 14, 1653, sent to churches, it was said that from now on believers “it is not appropriate to do throwing on the knee in church, but bow to the waist, and also cross yourself with three fingers naturally” (instead of two) . At the same time, the memory did not contain any justification for the need for this change in rituals.

Moreover, the patriarch's order was not supported by the authority of the church council. This beginning of the reform cannot be called successful. After all, this decision affected the most familiar rituals, which the clergy and believers considered an indicator of the truth of their faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that the change in bowing and signing caused discontent among believers. This was openly expressed by the provincial members of the circle of zealots of piety. Archpriests Avvakum and Daniel prepared an extensive petition, in which they pointed out the inconsistency of the innovations with the institutions of the Russian Church. They submitted the petition to Tsar Alexei, but the Tsar handed it over to Nikon. The patriarch's order was also condemned by archpriests Ivan Neronov, Lazar and Loggin and deacon Fyodor Ivanov. Their judgments sowed distrust and hostility towards the reform and, of course, undermined the authority of the patriarch. Therefore, Nikon decisively suppressed the protest of his former like-minded people. He exiled Ivan Neronov under close supervision to the Spasokamenny Monastery in the Vologda district, Avvakum to Siberia, Daniel to Astrakhan, depriving him of the rank of clergyman, etc. The circle of zealots of piety disintegrated and ceased to exist.

Nikon's subsequent decisions were more deliberate and supported by the authority of the church council and the hierarchs of the Greek church, which gave these undertakings the appearance of decisions of the entire Russian church, which were supported by the “ecumenical” (that is, Constantinople) Orthodox Church. This was the nature of, in particular, the decisions on the procedure for corrections in church rites and rituals, approved in the spring of 1654 by the church council.

Changes in rituals were carried out on the basis of Greek books contemporary to Nikon and the practice of the Church of Constantinople, information about which the reformer received mainly from the Antiochian Patriarch Macarius. Decisions on changes of a ritual nature were approved by church councils convened in March 1655 and April 1656. These decisions eliminated the difference in church ritual practice between the Russian and Constantinople churches. Most of the changes concerned the design of church services and the actions of clergy and clergy during services. All believers were affected by the replacement of two fingers with three fingers when performing the sign of the cross, a “three-part” (eight-pointed) cross with a two-part (four-pointed) one, walking during the baptismal rite in the sun (“salting”) with walking against the sun, and some other changes in rituals.

Exclusion from services, mainly from the liturgy, bishop's prayer, and dismissal, was also of significant importance for church ministers and believers. (prayer at the end of the service) and some litanies (prayer for someone, most often a prayer for health for the king and members of his family). This entailed a significant reduction in the volume of the text, a shortening of the church service and contributed to the establishment of “unanimity.”

In 1653 - 1656 The liturgical books were also corrected. Officially, the need for corrections was motivated at the council of 1654 by the fact that there were many errors and insertions in the old printed books, and by the fact that the Russian liturgical order was very significantly different from the Greek. For this purpose, a large number of Greek and Slavic books, including ancient handwritten ones, were collected. Due to the presence of discrepancies in the texts of the collected books, the reference workers (with the knowledge of Nikon) took as a basis the text, which was a translation into Church Slavonic of a Greek service book of the 17th century, which, in turn, went back to the text of liturgical books of the 12th-15th centuries. As this basis was compared with ancient Slavic manuscripts, individual corrections were made to its text. As a result, in the new service book (compared to the previous Russian service books), some psalms became shorter, others became fuller, new words and expressions appeared, the triple “hallelujah” (instead of double), the spelling of the name of Christ Jesus (instead of Jesus), etc. New the missal was approved by the church council in 1656 and soon published.

Over the seven centuries that have passed since the religious reform of Prince Vladimir, the entire Greek liturgical rite has changed greatly. Double-fingering (which became a custom to replace the former single-fingering), which the first Greek priests taught to the Russian and Balkan Slavs and which until the middle of the 17th century was also maintained in the Kyiv and Serbian Church, in Byzantium - was replaced, under the influence of the fight against the Nestorians, by triplicate (late 12th century). The finger formation during blessing also changed, all liturgical rites became shorter, and some important chants were replaced by others. Thus, the rites of confirmation and baptism, repentance, consecration of oil and marriage were changed and shortened. The biggest changes were in the liturgy. As a result, when Nikon replaced old books and rituals with new ones, it was like the introduction of a “new faith.”

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

Nikon, in 1654-1656, also became a leader in resolving matters that fell within the competence of the royal government. “great sovereign”, de facto co-ruler of Alexei Mikhailovich. In the summer of 1654, when a plague epidemic broke out in Moscow, Nikon facilitated the departure royal family from the capital to a safe place.

During the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden, the tsar left the capital for a long time. During these months, Nikon played the role of head of government and independently decided on civil and military affairs. True, a commission of the boyar duma remained in Moscow for observation, and more important matters were sent to the king and the boyar duma for decision. But Nikon subordinated the commission of the boyar duma to his authority. In the absence of the king, she began to report all matters to him. Even the formula appeared in the verdicts on the cases: “... His Holiness Patriarch indicated, and the boyars sentenced.” To make reports, members of the boyar duma commission and court judges came to the patriarchal palace and waited here for reception. During receptions, Nikon behaved arrogantly, including towards the most noble boyars. This behavior of the patriarch offended the arrogance of the courtiers, but in 1654-1656. they not only tolerated, but also subserviently before him. Nikon's self-esteem and activity grew along with the successes of Russian foreign policy, since he also took an active part in determining its course.

But for the failures of 1656-1657. in foreign policy, the tsar's entourage placed the blame on Nikon. Active interference in literally all the affairs of the state and the desire to impose his decisions everywhere, including through threats (at least twice, due to the tsar’s disagreement with his “advices,” Nikon threatened to leave the patriarchal see), the tsar also began to feel burdened. The relationship between them began to cool. The Patriarch was invited to the royal palace less often; Alexei Mikhailovich increasingly communicated with him with the help of messengers from the courtiers and made attempts to limit his power, which, of course, Nikon did not want to put up with. This change was used by secular and spiritual feudal lords. Nikon was accused of violating laws, greed and cruelty.

An open clash between the tsar and the patriarch, which led to the fall of Nikon, occurred in July 1658. The reason for it was the insult by the okolnichy B. M. Khitrovo of the patriarchal solicitor Prince D. Meshchersky on July 6 during a reception in the Kremlin of the Georgian prince Teimuraz (Nikon was not invited). The Patriarch demanded in a letter that the Tsar immediately punish B.M. Khitrovo, but received only a note with a promise to investigate the case and see the Patriarch. Nikon was not satisfied with this and regarded the incident as an open disdain for his rank as head of the Russian church. On July 10, 1658, the tsar did not appear at the solemn mass in the Assumption Cathedral. Prince Yu. Romodanovsky, who came in his place, said to Nikon: “The Tsar’s Majesty honored you as a father and shepherd, but you did not understand this, now the Tsar’s Majesty ordered me to tell you that in the future you should not be written or called a great sovereign and will not honor you in the future.” " At the end of the service, Nikon announced his resignation from the patriarchal chair. He hoped that his unprecedented step would cause confusion in government circles and in the country, and then he would be able to dictate the terms of his return to the king. This situation did not suit the royal authorities. The only way out of this situation was to depose Nikon and choose a new patriarch. For this purpose, in 1660, a church council was convened, which decided to deprive him of the patriarchal throne and priesthood, accusing Nikon of unauthorized removal from the patriarchal see. Epiphany Slavinetsky, speaking, pointed out the illegality of the council’s decision, since Nikon was not guilty of heresy, and only other patriarchs had the right to judge him. Given Nikon's international fame, the tsar was forced to agree and order the convening of a new council with the participation of the ecumenical patriarchs.

To win over the eastern patriarchs to his side, Nikon tried to enter into correspondence with them. In November 1666, the patriarchs arrived in Moscow. On December 1, Nikon appeared before a council of church hierarchs, which was attended by the tsar and the boyars. The patriarch either denied all accusations or pleaded ignorance. Nikon was sentenced to deprivation of the patriarchal throne, but retained his previous title, prohibiting him from interfering “in the worldly affairs of the Moscow state and all of Russia, except for his three monasteries given to him and their estates.” The Eastern Patriarchs sought to restore the relationship between the two authorities on the basis of the Byzantine principle of “all-wise twos." At the same time, the limits of both authorities were established as follows: “Let the Patriarch not enter into the royal things of the royal court, and let him not retreat outside the boundaries of the church, as the king also preserves his rank.” At the same time, a reservation was made: “but when there is a heretic and it is wrong to rule, then it is most appropriate for the patriarch to confront him and protect him.” Thus, the council gave the church authorities a formidable weapon that the patriarch could use by declaring the tsar’s policy heretical. This decision did not satisfy the government. On December 12, the final verdict in the Nikon case was announced. The place of exile of the deposed patriarch was determined to be the Ferapontov Monastery. But the question of the relationship between the “priesthood” and secular power remained open. In the end, the disputing parties came to a compromise solution: “The Tsar has precedence in civil affairs, and the patriarch in church affairs.” This decision remained unsigned by the council participants and was not included in the official acts of the council of 1666-1667.

Church schism, its essence and consequences

The introduction of new rituals and services according to the corrected books was perceived by many as the introduction of a new religious faith, different from the previous one, “true Orthodox.” A movement of supporters of the old faith arose - a schism, the founders of which were provincial zealots of piety. They became the ideologists of this movement, the composition of which was heterogeneous. Among them were many low-income church ministers. Speaking for the “old faith,” they expressed dissatisfaction with the increasing oppression on the part of the church authorities. The majority of supporters of the “old faith” were townspeople and peasants, dissatisfied with the strengthening of the feudal-serf regime and the deterioration of their position, which they associated with innovations, including in the religious and church sphere. Nikon's reform was not accepted by some secular feudal lords, bishops and monks. Nikon's departure gave rise to hopes among supporters of the “old faith” of abandoning innovations and returning to the old ways church ranks and rituals. Investigations of schismatics carried out by the tsarist authorities showed that already in the late 50s and early 60s of the 17th century. in some areas this movement became widespread. Moreover, among the schismatics found, along with supporters of the “old faith,” there were many followers of the teachings of the monk Capito, that is, people who denied the need for a professional clergy and church authorities. Under these conditions, the tsarist government became the leader of the Orthodox Church of Russia, which after 1658 focused on solving two main tasks - consolidating the results of church reform and overcoming the crisis in church administration caused by Nikon's abandonment of the patriarchal chair. This was to be facilitated by the investigation of schismatics, the return from exile of Archpriest Avvakum, Daniel and other clergy, the ideologists of the schism, and the government’s attempts to persuade them to reconcile with the official church (Ivan Neronov reconciled with it back in 1656). The solution to these problems took almost eight years, mainly due to Nikon’s opposition.

The church council elected Archimandrite Joasaph of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery as the new patriarch. At the request of the Eastern Patriarchs, the convened council condemned the old rituals and canceled the resolution of the Stoglavy Council of 1551 on these rituals as unfounded. Believers who adhered to the old rites and defended them were condemned as heretics; it was ordered to excommunicate them from the church, and the secular authorities were ordered to try them in a civil court as opponents of the church. The decisions of the council on the old rituals contributed to the formalization and consolidation of the split of the Russian Orthodox Church into the official church that dominated society and the Old Believers. The latter, in those conditions, was hostile not only to the official church, but also to the state closely associated with it.

In the 1650-1660s, a movement of supporters of the “old faith” and a schism in the Russian Orthodox Church arose.

Entertaining artistic narratives and hysterical writings, including those criticizing church orders, were in great demand.

Struggling with the desire for secular education, churchmen insisted that only through study scripture and theological literature, believers can achieve true enlightenment, cleansing the soul from sins and spiritual salvation - the main goal of a person’s earthly life. They regarded Western influence as a source of penetration into Russia of harmful foreign customs, innovations and views of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism hostile to Orthodoxy. Therefore, they were supporters of Russia's national isolation and opponents of its rapprochement with Western states.

Consistent spokesman and promoter of the policy of hostility and intolerance towards the Old Believers and others church opponents, other faiths, foreigners, their faith and customs, secular knowledge was Joachim - patriarch from 1674 to 1690. Opponents of the desire for secular knowledge, rapprochement with the West and the spread of foreign culture and customs were also the leaders of the schism, including Archpriest Avvakum, and formed in the last third of the 17th century. Old Believer religious communities.

The tsarist government actively supported the church in the fight against schism and heterodoxy and used the full power of the state apparatus. She also initiated new measures aimed at improving the church organization and its further centralization. Schism of the last third of the 17th century. is a complex socio-religious movement. It was attended by supporters of the “old faith” (they made up the majority of participants in the movement), members of various sects and heretical movements who did not recognize the official church and were hostile to it and the state, which was closely associated with this church. The hostility of the schism to the official church and the state was not determined by differences of a religious and ritual nature. It was determined by the progressive aspects of the ideology of this movement, its social composition and character. The ideology of the split reflected the aspirations of the peasantry and partly the townspeople, and therefore it had both conservative and progressive features. The first include the idealization and defense of antiquity, isolation and propaganda of accepting the crown of martyrdom in the name of the “old faith” as the only way to save the soul. These ideas left their mark on the schism movement, giving rise to conservative religious aspirations and the practice of “baptisms of fire” (self-immolation). The progressive sides of the ideology of schism include sanctification, that is, the religious justification of various forms of resistance to the power of the official church and the feudal-serf state, and the struggle for the democratization of the church.

The complexity and inconsistency of the schism movement was manifested in the uprising in the Solovetsky Monastery of 1668-1676, which began as an uprising by supporters of the “old faith.” The aristocratic elite of the “elders” opposed Nikon’s church reform, the ordinary mass of monks - moreover - for the democratization of the church, and the “beltsy”, that is, novices and monastic workers, were against feudal oppression, and in particular against serfdom in the monastery itself.

To suppress the movement, various means were used, including ideological ones, in particular, anti-schismatic polemical works were published (“Rod of Rule” by Simeon of Polotsk in 1667, “Spiritual Doom” by Patriarch Joachim” in 1682, etc.), and to increase the “educational quality” of church services, the publication of books containing sermons began (for example, “The Soulful Dinner” and “The Soulful Supper” by Simeon of Polotsk).

But the main ones were violent means of combating schism, which were used by secular authorities at the request of the church leadership. The period of repression began with the exile of the ideologists of the schism, who refused reconciliation with the official church at a church council in April 1666; of them, archpriests Avvakum and Lazar, deacon Fedor and former monk Epiphanius were exiled and kept in the Pustozersk prison. The exiles were followed by the mass execution of the surviving participants of the Solovetsky Uprising (more than 50 people were executed). Patriarch Joachim insisted on such a severe punishment. Cruel punishments, including executions, were more often practiced under Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682). This caused a new uprising of schismatics during the Moscow uprising of 1682. The failure of the “rebellion” of supporters of the old faith led to the execution of their leaders. The hatred of the ruling class and the official church for the schism and schismatics was expressed in legislation. According to the decree of 1684, schismatics were to be tortured and, if they did not submit to the official church, executed. Those schismatics who, wishing to be saved, submitted to the church and then returned to the schism again, were to be “executed by death without trial.” This marked the beginning of mass persecution.

Conclusion

The church reform of Patriarch Nikon had a huge impact on the internal life of the country and laid the foundation for such a socio-religious movement in the 17th century. like a split. But one also cannot deny its certain role in the foreign policy of the Russian state. Church reform was intended to strengthen relations with some countries and opened up opportunities for new, stronger alliances in politics. And the support of Orthodox churches in other countries was also very important for Russia.

Nikon defended the principle of independence of the church from state power. He tried to achieve complete non-interference between the tsar and the boyars in internal church affairs, and to have power himself equal to that of the tsar.

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

It is not surprising that, striving for the unification of the Russian church liturgical sphere, and complete equality with the Eastern Church, Patriarch Nikon decisively took up the task of correcting liturgical books according to Greek models. This is what caused the greatest resonance. The Russian people did not want to recognize the “innovations” that came from the Greeks. The changes and additions made by scribes to the liturgical books, and the rituals inherited from their ancestors, were so ingrained in the minds of people that they were already accepted as the true and sacred truth.

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

To eliminate the unrest that had arisen in the country, a Council was convened (1666-1667). This council condemned Nikon, but still recognized his reforms. This means that the patriarch was not such a sinner and traitor as the Old Believers tried to make him out to be.

The same Council of 1666-1667. summoned the main propagators of the Schism to his meetings, subjected their “philosophies” to the test and cursed them as alien to spiritual reason and common sense. Some schismatics obeyed the maternal admonitions of the Church and repented of their errors. Others remained irreconcilable.

Thus, the religious Schism in Russian society became a fact. The split troubled the state life of Rus' for a long time. The siege of the Solovetsky Monastery, which became a stronghold of the Old Believers, lasted for eight years (1668 - 1676). After the monastery was captured, the perpetrators of the rebellion were punished; those who expressed submission to the church and the king were forgiven and left in their previous position. Six years after that, a schismatic revolt arose in Moscow itself, where the archers under the command of Prince Khovansky took the side of the Old Believers. The debate on faith, at the request of the rebels, was held right in the Kremlin in the presence of the ruler Sofia Alexandrovna and the patriarch.

It is difficult, and probably impossible, to say unambiguously what caused the split - a crisis in the religious or in the secular sphere. Surely, both of these reasons were combined in the Schism. Since society was not homogeneous, its various representatives, accordingly, defended different interests. The response to their problems in the Schism was found by different segments of the population: serf peasants, who gained the opportunity to express protest to the government, standing under the banner of the defenders of antiquity and part of the lower clergy, dissatisfied with the power of the patriarchal power and seeing in it only an organ of exploitation, and even part of the higher clergy, who wanted to stop the strengthening Nikon authorities. And at the end of the 17th century, in the ideology of the Schism the most important place denunciations that revealed individual social vices of society began to occupy the place.

Some ideologists of the Schism, in particular Avvakum and his comrades, moved on to justify active anti-feudal actions, declaring popular uprisings as heavenly retribution of the royal and spiritual authorities for their actions.

Most likely the true cause of the Russian Schism Orthodox Church there was a desire of its main characters on both sides to seize power by any means. The consequences that affected the entire course of life in Russia did not bother them; the main thing for them was momentary power.

List of used literature

1. History of Russia: textbook. for universities / A. S. Orlov et al. - M.: Prospekt, 2010. - 672 p. - (Grif MO).

Derevianko, A.P. History of Russia: textbook. allowance / A. P. Derevyanko, N. A. Shabelnikova. - M.: Prospekt, 2009. - 576 p. - (Grif MO).

Zuev M.N. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the twentieth century. /M.N. Zuev. - M.: Bustard, 2000.

History of Russia from ancient times to 1861 / Ed. N.I. Pavlenko. - M.: Higher. school, 1996.

Kazarezov V.A. The most famous reformers of Russia / V.A. Kazavrezov. - M., 2002.

For a modern person, immersed in information flows, the need to edit texts intended for wide circulation is beyond doubt, and the role of the editor seems to him self-evident. It is now impossible to imagine that corrections in books could lead to confrontation in society. Meanwhile, in the Russian medieval consciousness, the view of editing, or, as sources of that time called it, “book right,” was fundamentally different. Disputes about book law became the cause of one of the most significant catastrophes in Russian culture that had long-term consequences -.

The reason for this is in relation to the text and the language of the text: the book did not carry information, it allowed earthly man to come into contact with the heavenly world. Like the icon, it was on the border of the ideal and the material, creating the opportunity to comprehend divine revelation. Therefore, everything that was connected with the book was considered sacred.

In ancient Russian culture, a clear hierarchy of texts developed. The book meant the Holy Scripture, its interpretation by the Fathers of the Church (Holy Tradition). Through a book, like an icon, a person, on an irrational level, conducted a dialogue with God. The teachings of the 14th-century Byzantine theologian Saint Gregory Palamas developed the thought of the late antique philosopher Plotinus about the identity of form and content, the unity of word and essence. This determined the symbolic perception of any sign in the book. The written word and letter possessed holiness, through the graphics of which there was an approach to the incomprehensible divine wisdom. The sacralization of the word and letter of Scripture extended to the language. The Church Slavonic language, used in ancient Russian writing, was specially created to express divinely revealed truth. Its sacredness was initially opposed to the worldly, colloquial Russian language, and its use belonged exclusively to the church sphere. It was impossible to speak Church Slavonic in everyday life.

Accordingly, there should have been rules governing the use of books. The creation of new lists was not mechanical copying. The rewriting was intended to restore the integrity of the form of Revelation. It was a search for the correct text, where every word accurately recorded the truth given by God. But the scribes could distort it, so the texts had to be corrected by eliminating formal errors, such as accidental typos and sometimes incorrect translations. Books on the right in Russia were exclusively the prerogative of the church and state. The correctness of the books was a guarantee of the correctness of the entire church rite and the very essence of the doctrine. At the Council of the Stoglavy in 1551, the requirement for mandatory comparison of the manuscript created by the scribe according to the correct ori-gi-na-lama was approved: “... and which holy books in every church you will find are incorrect and descriptive, and you would books from good translations were corrected at the council, but the sacred rules forbid this and do not command that uncorrected books be brought into the church, nor can they be sung about them.” Detected faulty books had to be removed from churches.

However, a logical question arises: what was meant by the “correct” text? Of course, the main criterion was linguistic and dogmatic-canonical accuracy. It was possible to achieve it in two ways: by editing books based on grammar (formal approach) or by reproducing texts recognized as the most authoritative (textual approach).

Church Slavonic grammars appeared relatively late. Initially, the textual principle of book justice dominated. The scribe's task was to turn to “good translations,” that is, to ancient texts. IN medieval period the truth was in the past. It was given to the prophets Old Testament, but is fully embodied by the appearance of Christ into the world. The goal and meaning of the work of the scribes was fidelity to the primary source - the Bible. It is no coincidence that they emphasized: “We do not create new things, but we renew old things.” But antiquity in different periods was understood as both Russian and Greek tradition. The vagueness of the criteria gave rise to theological disputes about book law.

There were several stages of book justice, and each time these major stages ended dramatically. The most famous example was the case of Maxim the Greek, a Greek learned monk accused at three church councils (in 1525, 1531 and 1549) of deliberately damaging Russian books. Most likely, he can be compared with a person about whom information from sources in Italy has been preserved. This is a native of the city of Arta, coming from an aristocratic family, in the world Michael Trivolis (Μιχαήλ Τριβώλης). He studied on the island of Corfu, where he graduated from school. Then he went to improve his education in Italy, where Greek learning was highly valued. The previous migration from the former provoked the interest of Italian intellectuals in the Greek tradition, especially the ancient one. Maxim Grek studied at the University of Padua, then visited Milan, Venice, and Florence. He was a member of the circles of leading humanists, among whom the study and systematization of the Greek language took place. The young man was associated with the Venetian printer Aldus Manutius, who began printing books, including biblical ones, in Greek and in Greek script. Another center of attraction for Maxim the Greek was Florence, where he met an ascetic who shocked him with the purity of his thoughts and ardent criticism of the shortcomings of society - Girolamo Savonarola. This abbot called for following early Christian ideals. The personality of Savonarola made a colossal impression on Maxim the Greek, and became a powerful blow. The Greek left Italy and decided to return to his roots. His choice fell on Athos - the center of the isi-hasm teachings, whose monastic practices and mysticism were perceived by him as the point of contact between the two faiths. The aristocrat took monastic vows under the name Maxim.

An educated monk enjoyed the authority of the brethren. And when I addressed them Grand Duke Vladimir and Moscow Vasily III with a request to send a scribe to translate church books, the choice fell on Maxim the Greek. Vasily III, the son of Ivan III and Sophia Paleologus, who received a humanistic education in Rome in his youth, realized the need to turn to the Greek originals, so Maxim the Greek was received favorably in Moscow. The learned monk, who arrived from Athos in 1518, began translating the Explanatory Psalter (1519), interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles and checking with the Greek text of the Colored Triodion (1525).

Maxim the Greek saw his task as bringing Church Slavonic as close as possible to the Greek language, the structures of which replaced (in his understanding) the missing grammar. By analogy with the Greek language, he established the uniformity of verb forms of the second person singular of the past tense. He replaced the aorist, which recorded the existence of the heavenly world, with a perfect, reflecting the variability of the earthly world. As a result, the phrase of the Creed, “Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father” (or “sat at the right hand of the Father”) began to look like “sat at the right hand of the Father” (or “sat at the right hand of the Father,” or even “sat at the right hand of the Father”). Maxim the Greek was seen to be guilty in the fact that with such a choice of verb tenses, he spoke of Christ as transitory, temporary, passing, and not eternal. In addition, Maxim the Greek was accused of espionage for the Ottoman Empire. Traditionally in Russia, accusations of heresy were supported by accusations of treason. Treason to faith was identical to betrayal of the fatherland. The courts ordered imprisonment. Initially, the Holy Mountain resident was deprived of any opportunity to write; in despair, he scratched phrases on the walls of the dungeon.

Subsequently, the conditions of detention softened, and Maxim the Greek gained the opportunity to create. The learned elder substantiated his practice of book law in special essays (“The Word is Disciplinary on the Correction of Russian Books”), which were supposed to prove that he was right. In captivity, Maxim the Greek continued to work and created a whole corpus of theological works. He turned out to be the leading theologian of the entire Russian Middle Ages, and his linguistic views were transformed during his stay in Russia. In addition to the Greek language, he began to increasingly focus on the Russian spoken language. At the same time, in translations from Greek, he followed the principles of hesychasm, which was characterized by literalism and linguistic calculation of the text. The ideas of Maxim the Greek were embodied in a variety of directions, and his attempts to apply a formal approach to sacred language were continued.

The next stage of the book movement was associated with the advent of book printing in Russia. The initiator was Ivan IV the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius. By the time of the repose of Maxim the Greek in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the new ruler of the country turned to the idea of ​​​​creating a printing house. Its very establishment was justified by the need to convey absolutely identical texts to the flock. Of course, theological, canonical and liturgical works had to be uniform for the entire state. There could be no discrepancies. It is impossible to conduct worship, theological polemics or church court, relying on editions of works that differ from each other. Accordingly, the printing house should be one for the whole country, and all its publications were published only with the blessing of the Tsar and the Metropolitan, and subsequently the Patriarch. Reference books (editors) and quotation books appeared—proof copies with corrections made. When preparing the first dated book, “The Apostle” of 1564, Ivan Fedorov did the work of verifying the texts. He drew on ancient copies in Church Slavonic, as well as Greek, Latin and Czech editions of the Bible. Ivan Fedorov eliminated archaisms and outdated expressions, the Church Slavonic language in some cases came closer to the colloquial language, in other cases more accurate Greek analogues were found: “hypostasis” (instead of “construction”), “elements” (instead of “composition”) and etc. In the afterword to the Apostle, Ivan Fedorov substantiated the need to correct handwritten texts. He spoke about their distortion by scribes.

But not only editing, but also the very principle of replacing a handwritten book with a printed one aroused opposition in Russian society. After all, before this, the process of creating a book was an individual contact between the scribe and God. Now it has been delivered as a technological process. The corrections of the Apostle and the Book of Hours were also criticized, and the new metropolitan, Athanasius, was unable to protect the printers from attacks and accusations. The printing house was destroyed, and Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets had to flee. The pioneer printers found shelter in the East Slavic lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where they were able to continue publishing Church Slavonic books in Zabludov, Lvov, and Ostrog. Their work on checking the texts gave impetus to further philological searches.

Russian pioneers found themselves in a country in which Western and Eastern Christianity coexisted. The complex confessional situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and then in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) gave rise to new forms of book justice. Polemics with Catholics (and then Uniates) about the essence of language, about the possibility of reflecting Revelation using the Church Slavonic language led to the creation of numerous Orthodox works in its defense. Along with polemical texts, grammars also appeared. The most famous were “Grammar” by Lavrenty Zizaniy (Vilno, 1596) and “Gram-ma-tika” by Melety Smotrytsky (Evye, 1619). They were built according to the Western model, which presupposed the presence of a universal system in the languages ​​of Divine revelation. Lavrenty Zizaniy and Melety Smotritsky codified the Church Slavonic language by analogy with Greek and Latin. Innovative was the analytical way of understanding the language, creating its uniform rules, applicable to both church and secular texts. The approval of the formal principle of book law, based on grammar, could not but influence the Russian tradition - especially after the Time of Troubles, which marked a new stage of book law in Russia.

The establishment of the Romanov dynasty determined the confessional policy of the new government. Among the first activities in this direction was book correction. In 1614, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich restored the Printing House in Moscow, and in 1615 the question of collating books intended for publication was raised. During the Time of Troubles, Russian churches were filled with books printed in Orthodox printing houses of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The use of so-called books of the Lithuanian press for worship aroused fears of the Russian spiritual and secular authorities. It was necessary to replace them with Russian publications, but they were completely absent.

Existing Russian publications were also assessed critically. Doubts arose about the inerrancy of Russian liturgical books, and it was necessary to clear them of typos and discrepancies. The work was led by the hero of the Troubles, arch-mandrite of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, Dionysius Zobninovsky. The principles of editing in the circle of Dionysius Zobninovsky gravitated towards the textual tradition, the reference workers turned to the most ancient Russian copies. If necessary, Greek samples were used. In addition, they also referred to “grammatical regulations,” that is, they were ready to operate with elements of a formal approach. They were also very familiar with the works of Maxim the Greek. The archimandrite and his companions - Elder Arseny Glukhoy and the white priest Ivan Nasedka - did a colossal amount of work in three years. They edited the missal, Colored triode, octoechos, general and monthly menaions, Psalter, canon. At the same time, the main dispute revolved around one phrase - “and with fire” in the prayer for the consecration of water on the feast of the Epiphany: “You yourself and now, Master, sanctify this water with your holy Spirit and fire.” Corresponding to this text was the ritual of immersing lighted candles in water. The investigators of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, not finding the phrase “and with fire” in ancient Russian manuscripts and Greek books, excluded it from the prayer. Emphasizing the heretical nature of the phrase, the editors argued that water is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, but not by fire. But there were opponents. A secular employee of the order of the Money Table, Antony Podolsky, who had previously taken part in the work of the Moscow Printing House, proved the validity of the phrase. In his interpretation, the phrase “and with fire” meant the possibility of the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the form of the fire of Epiphany candles. Specifically to clarify this issue, the Council of 1618 was convened, which was led by the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Jonah. He recognized the true position of Anthony Podolsky. Dionysius Zobninovsky and his assistants appeared at the Council on charges of damaging liturgical books and, consequently, heresy. Book correction was thought to be capable of disrupting Russian Orthodoxy and making visible changes in church practice - a symbolic embodiment of religious teaching. The inspectors were sent to prison as heretics and excommunicated from communion. They were saved by the father of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, Filaret, who returned from Polish captivity in 1619 and was ordained patriarch. The primate categorically disagreed with the opinion of the locum tenens. He convened his Council in 1619 against Metropolitan Jonah, at which the point of view of Dionysius Zobninovsky triumphed. Anthony Podolsky was now sent into exile. Patriarch Filaret confirmed his views with the Greek hierarchs. In 1625, four Orthodox patriarchs (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) recognized the non-canonical nature of the phrase “and by fire.” Subsequently, Patriarch Nikon abolished the ritual of immersing lighted candles on the day of Epiphany.

Under Patriarch Filaret, disputes about book rights continued. In 1626, the issue of the admissibility of publishing Orthodox works of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Russia was again discussed. The occasion was the visit to Russia of the famous Ukrainian theologian and linguist Lavrentiy Zizaniy. He brought a text new to the Russian tradition - a catechism he compiled. Patriarch Filaret initially blessed the publication, but with the condition of translation and corrections. The text was prepared for printing and published. But the initiator (Patriarch Philaret himself), seeing the finished publication, decided to abandon his idea. He organized conciliar hearings in 1627 on the admissibility of the text for distribution. The hearings revealed ideological and linguistic differences between the scribes of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Kyiv Metropolis. Russian reference workers refused to use Greek publications in book reference. They were well aware that Greek schools and printing houses, banned by the Ottoman authorities, had moved to Italy, primarily to Venice. Therefore, the modern Greek tradition in their presentation bore the “stamp of Latinity.” In the “Debate” it was stated: “We have the rules for all the old Greek translations. But we do not accept new translations of the Greek language and any books. For the Greeks now live in great straits among the infidels and, by their own will, do not have their books to print for them. And for this purpose they introduce other faiths into the translations of the Greek language, whatever they want. And we do not need such new translations of the Greek language, although there is something in them from the new custom printed and we do not accept that new input.” We were talking about publications that were previously so important for Maxim the Greek. But the paradox was that during the cathedral hearings, Lavrentiy Zizanius only repeated all the comments made earlier when working on the text. All of them have already been corrected in the printed edition. Nevertheless, the book was recognized as heretical, and its circulation was destroyed (although it was actively distributed in the manuscript tradition).

Under the next patriarch, Joseph I (1634-1640), disputes about book correction were not renewed. The Printing Yard consistently published liturgical and canonical books. The printing house fulfilled the task set after the Time of Troubles by Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich - to publish a complete cycle of Russian liturgical books. Only the next patriarch, Joseph (1642-1652), was able to complete this order. But he saw the goal much broader. Under Patriarch Joseph, the themes of the Printing House's publications began to change. In addition to liturgical documents, codes of patristic writings, codes of Byzantine church law (Helmsman's Books), treatises in defense of icon veneration, and anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant works were selected for publication. In the 40s of the 17th century, a significant number of texts were published at the Moscow Printing Yard, designed to expose the heterodox and protect the Orthodox from communicating with them. Most non-liturgical publications dated back to Orthodox texts, who came to Russia from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Balkans. In addition, there was a need to publish the full text of the Bible, which was previously absent in Russia. For this, investigators were needed who were familiar with Greek and Latin. This time they decided to invite them from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1649, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich turned to the Kyiv Metropolitan Sylvester Kossov with a request to send learned monks who were “knowledgeable in the Divine Scriptures and familiar with the Hellenic language.” After a repeated invitation, Arseny Satanovsky and Epifaniy Slavinetsky came to Moscow.

During the reigns of Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, the inspectors demonstrated familiarity with the bookish and linguistic principles of Maximus the Greek and knowledge of grammatical works. In the Russian manuscript tradition, new treatises on grammar appear, in which borrowing from the works of Lavrentiy Zizaniy and Meletiy Smotritsky appeared. In 1648, the work of Meletius Smotritsky, containing the codification of the Church Slavonic language, was republished in Moscow. Moreover, the author’s name was removed, and instead of the preface, an essay by Maxim the Greek was added, which made him the author of the entire publication.

But, turning to grammar, the reference books under Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph remained supporters of the textual approach, and the most ancient lists, by which only Russians were understood, continued to be selected as exemplary ones. Only the Moscow tradition was recognized as true as the only one that preserved religious purity. The reference books managed, although not always consistently, to combine two opposing principles of book reference.

The break between textual and grammatical approaches occurred under Patriarch Nikon (1652-1666), who proclaimed the need for book editing solely on the basis of grammar. The main thing is that Nikon insisted on the piety of Greek books. Russian reference workers who disagreed with the innovations were removed from the Printing Yard. They were replaced by Epiphany Slavinetsky and Arseny the Greek.

The book on the right became one of the main components of the church and ritual reform of Patriarch Nikon. The main role model was the Greek ancient manuscripts: at the Council of 1654 it was decided to “correct the old and Greek books in a dignified and righteous manner.”

The unification of rituals according to the Greek model changed ideas about the correctness of Russian liturgical books. The guidelines changed, the Russian tradition was declared completely distorted, which led to an acute conflict in Russian society, which grew into a schism within the Church. The conflict was aggravated by the methods of activity of the new inspectors. In fact, the Moscow Printing Yard reproduced editions of the 16th and 17th centuries by Greek printing houses in Italy, as well as Orthodox editions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In addition, adherence to the formal principle of book legality was openly proclaimed, that is, strict adherence to the norms of “Grammar” by Meletius Smotrytsky. In the formula “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” the referees excluded the first conjunction, resulting in “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This was perceived as a violation of the equality of the three hypostases of God. The use of a formal approach to book law, which was now based exclusively on grammatical norms, caused a split in the Church. And although the Old Believers, like their opponents, started from the same texts, primarily the works of Maximus the Greek and the book rules of the era of Patriarchs Joasaph I and Joseph, innovations radically changed the entire previous worldview. They destroyed the idea of ​​the relationship between the form and content of the sacred text.

The trend took hold under Patriarch Joachim, when the investigators focused exclusively on Greek sources, which was approved at the Council of 1674. The main attitude of the reference workers was to liken the Church-Slavic language to Greek; they sought to write “in Slavonic,” as the Holy Fathers wrote in the “Hellenic dialect.” At the same time, the correctness of the changes made could be argued by references not only to the grammar of the Church Slavonic language, but also to the grammar of the Greek language. The formal approach became dominant.

In 1682, Patriarch Joachim, in a debate with the Old Believers, stated that the book on the right was conducted “according to grammar.” In a similar situation, Old Believer bookishness in the 17th century moved into the field of manuscript tradition. Deprived of the opportunity to publish their works in the only printing house in the country - the Moscow Printing House - the Old Believers defended their views on the nature of book legality in handwritten works.

New principles of editing led to the secularization of bookishness. Thanks to borrowings from Greek and Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox traditions, located on the border with the West, Russia was included in the pan-European processes of secularization of culture. The reform of Patriarch Nikon was a significant step in the desecularization of the book. This caused an active protest from the majority of scribes, who defended the previous textual principles of editing and the sacredness of the book. But the conflict quickly grew beyond the level of theological disputes between learned monks and priests. The broadest social strata became opponents of church reform: boyars, merchants, artisans, peasants. They called themselves Old Believers, and considered the slightest changes in words and rituals to be heresy. Medieval views are a thing of the past, but they are carefully preserved to this day in the Old Believer culture. Protecting the Donikon Russian tradition as the only one that has preserved the purity of the Christian faith, the Old Believers are in perfect agreement with different ways of life. The scale of the movement is enormous, supporters of the old faith fled to the borders Russian Empire, and then further, exploring new countries and continents. The followers of Avvakum organically fit into the context of any culture - from Moldova and Lithuania to the USA, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, etc. And many returned to the ancient capital, and pre-revolutionary Moscow became one of the important Old Believer centers.

Russian Old Believers became the first collectors of ancient codices in the Church Slavic language. Most of these unique monuments are now in the collections of the largest libraries in Russia. They enable a modern person, by touching them, to feel the deification of the book that has faded into oblivion.