The ideology of absolute monarchy. A model for the construction of Russian churches

Archival activities during the folding period

About the future of the Russian people

Above, I presented a fairly clear proof “by contradiction”, which allows us to talk about the need to reject all three imposed ideologies. But it’s one thing to admit it in words, and quite another to put it into practice. Alas, at present we are not ready to restore the Autocracy and return to our historical, God-ordained world role. And how much it will take to restore true Russian national identity is still unknown.

At the same time, another transition to socialism is clearly outlined on the political horizon, but this time to national, and not to international (communist). What will determine this transition, and what signs are there that it is being deliberately prepared is a subject for separate consideration. Here I will simply outline my vision of what awaits us after this transition.

A very simple scenario awaits us, similar to the one that was used in Germany in the middle of the last century. We know very well how it all ended, what was left of the German people as a result, and what level of independence the German state has had since then.

It is also important to understand that in any case there will be a transition period and within its framework events may occur that were not planned by manipulative political strategists.

In the conditions of fragmentation of Russian lands, the connecting bonds were preserved

threads that served as the basis for the future unification:

This mutual language, legal norms, Orthodox faith,

as well as weak economic ties between individual principalities.

And finally, the political factor was extremely important

The need for unification for the sake of liberation from foreign

From the first half of the 14th century. initiative and leading role in

the unification of all Russian lands move to the Northeast. On

second half of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. must be completed

unification of lands around Moscow. The basis for the construction of a new

states formed the despotic traditions of northeastern Rus'.

The basis of the power of the Moscow prince was the Moscow

boyars, and their rights depended entirely on the sovereign. For the great

the prince of Moscow “and all Russia” recognized the right of free

expression of will, he had all the fullness of legislative and

executive power.

The Sovereign Treasury, which served as a national administrative

body, gradually becomes virtually state

office, from which the organs were later separated

sectoral management - orders.

The documents of the Grand Duke were kept in the Treasury.

Since the late 90s. XV century documents are confiscated from the state

Treasury and transferred to a separate state archive, history

whose activities occur mainly during the period of existence

Russian centralized state.

In the 16th century the state that was formed is being strengthened

in the form of a monarchy with a strong supreme authority.

The basis of the organization of public administration in the period under consideration

period there was unity of judicial and administrative

authorities. Until the middle of the 16th century. two national national

departments: White Palace and Treasury.

The White Palace was in charge of the personal lands of the Grand Duke, headed

his courtier (or “butler”). The functions of the Palace included

and management of individual sectors of the princely economy.

As new lands were annexed, they were created to manage them.

local “palaces”, for example the Kazan Palace (after

annexation of Kazan), etc.

The State House (Treasury) was in charge of financial matters, as well as

state archive and state seal.

Gradually, with the increase and complexity of the functions of the state

management, there was a need to create special

institutions that led the military, foreign,

legal and other matters. So, in the middle of the 16th century. arise

standing orders with their staffs,

internal structure and special office work.

From the large number of orders created in different years,

Several main groups can be distinguished, united by direction

activities:

first group - military (Discharge, Local, Streletsky,

Pushkarsky, Armory Chamber);

the second group - palace orders, in charge of individual

branches of the grand ducal, and then (from 1547) royal

farms (Kazenny, Konyushenny, Lovchiy, Sokolnichiy, Postelnichiy);

third group - external relations with foreign powers

(Ambassy order);

fourth group - financial, fiscal orders for collection

taxes and duties (Order of the Great Parish);

fifth group - judicial-police orders (Robbery, Kholopy,

Zemsky);

sixth group - court orders who were in charge of the court

in certain territories (Moscow, Vladimir,

Dmitrovsky, Kazansky).

The number of orders was constantly increasing, which was due

with the expansion and complication of the functions of the centralized

states.

Significant changes in the 16th century. occurred in the organization

churches. In 1589, the patriarchate was established - the highest authority in

Orthodox Church.

Under the patriarch in the 16th century. a special “court” arose with its officials

persons. Through this apparatus the patriarch carried out the general

management of church affairs and church property.

Documentation preserved in the archives of churches and monasteries,

can be conditionally divided into two groups: religious and economic,

which made up the majority.

At the beginning of the 17th century. as a result of the Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish

interventions caused serious damage to church archives.

Therefore, today we can only judge their former composition by

surviving inventories and copy books (copies of the most

important documents). In addition, in the archives of churches and monasteries

documents of secular feudal lords were kept, confirming their rights

to own land, peasants and other property.

The local government system at that time was complex. By

Zemstvo reform of 1555 -1556 court and tax collection were transferred

under the jurisdiction of “elders”, who were elected by townspeople (city

residents) and black-sown peasants (who were not

in serfdom, but belonged to the state).

The Code of Law of 1550 entrusted the “local administration” (headmen,

sotsky, tenth) the obligation to keep “measuring books”,

in which property status and duties were recorded

population (fees to the state treasury). In addition, on

in places in counties divided into volosts, disputes often arose

situations related to property and land rights.

Thus, the life of the “province” was reflected

in the documents of local institutions. Unfortunately, until our

Only small fragments of these documentary complexes have survived for days,

lost not only as a result of wars and natural disasters

disasters, but also to a large extent due to careless storage.

Due to the growth of feudal land ownership, the distribution of belongings

the state (≪blacks) and the royal palace (≪palace

≫) lands in local and patrimonial ownership important

acquired the maintenance of relevant documentation. That's why

on the estates of secular and spiritual feudal lords (especially monasteries),

as well as in government institutions, both central

(orders), and local (voivodeship orders and move-out huts),

copies and notebooks of acts were compiled.

Acts establishing

forms of dependence of peasants on landowners (≪orderly and

loan records≫), acts on debtors working off interest

from loans in the households of landowners (≪service bondage

The development of the feudal economy led to the complication

functions of patrimonial management, and consequently to the complication

current office work in the feudal estate. Yes, they appear

receipts and expenditure books and other types of documents.

In the XVI-XVII centuries. in government agencies has developed

office management system. The administrative apparatus (office) consisted

from clerks and clerks who kept all the official documentation.

There was a “column” form of order paperwork,

A special writing style was also developed - cursive.

Columns were ribbons of paper 15 -17 cm wide and of various sizes.

lengths that had several gluings. On the front side

column the main text was printed, and the reverse side served

for applying various marks, in addition, the scribe after

the completion of the case provided “certificates”, i.e. indicated his name, and the clerk

or the clerk, who “completed” the work, fastened the column “with a clamp”,

that is, he put the letters of his name and title on the glued places. Such

the system made it possible to protect documents from forgery or loss

in case of unstitching of columns.

In addition to the columnar form, other forms were also used in orders.

documents - notebooks (several sheets sewn into one spine),

certificates (selected most important government

decrees or private transactions).

Gradually, in the work of orders there was a division in storage

originals and copies of documents.

Initially, the archives in the orders were located in cramped, unsuitable

premises - “kazenkas”. However, after the strongest

fire in Moscow in 1626, which destroyed a large number of

wooden buildings, including those where they were located

orders, a special stone building was built in the Kremlin

the building in which the surviving archives of orders were located. Further

it was here that documents from

Moscow orders.

Characteristic feature the work of the archives of this period was

the fact that documents that have lost practical significance, as a rule,

were kept in the office along with current office work,

those. document repositories have not yet become independent

structural divisions of institutions.

For the history of archival affairs of the Russian centralized state

Tsar's (or state) has special significance

archive, which in the 16th century. occupied a central place among the repositories

written materials.

The current affairs of the archive were managed by the Duma clerks. Documentation

in the archive were stored in boxes, each of which contained

certificates, books, notebooks, columns, and in some - archives of former

independent lands.

Conventionally, the archive could be divided into two groups of materials:

confiscated in the reunited lands (spiritual letters of the great

and appanage princes) and arising in the process of activity

government agencies(documents on the history of internal

And foreign policy Russian centralized state).

The Tsar's archive contained materials dating back to the 14th century, including

including documents of abolished institutions and the most important documentation

XVI century At the end of the 16th century. most of the files are from the Tsar's archives

was transferred to the archives of the Ambassadorial Prikaz. At the beginning of the 17th century.

(during the Time of Troubles) documents previously included in the Tsar's archive

suffered greatly as a result of military intervention.

DOMOSTROY

1. Patriarchal, harsh and inert family life (after the name of the old Russian code of everyday rules).

2. A good owner, an organizer of order in his home.

USEFUL BOOK

“Domostroy” amazes us today with the almost incredible spirituality of even the smallest everyday details. “Domostroy” is not just a collection of advice; a grandiose picture of an ideally churched family and economic life unfolds before the reader. Orderliness becomes almost ritualistic, a person’s daily activity rises to the heights of church action, obedience reaches monastic strictness, love for the king and the fatherland, home and family acquires the features of real religious service.

"Domostroy" was created in the first half of the reign. The authorship of the final text is associated with the name of the associate and mentor of Ivan the Terrible, Priest Sylvester of the Annunciation.

“Domostroy” consists of three parts: about the attitude of Russian people to the Church and royal power; about intra-family structure; about organizing and running a household.

“Fear the king and serve him with faith, and always pray to God for him,” Domostroy teaches. “If you serve the earthly king with righteousness and are afraid of him, then you will learn to fear the heavenly King...” The duty of serving God is at the same time the duty of serving the Tsar, who personifies Orthodox statehood: “The Tsar... do not strive to serve with lies and slander and deceit... do not desire earthly glory in anything... do not repay evil for evil, nor slander for slander... do not condemn those who sin, but remember your sins and take great care of them..."

Domostroy has everything. There are touching instructions “how to love and care for the children of their father and mother and obey them and give them peace in everything.” There are arguments that “if God gives someone a good wife, his dearest is a valuable stone.” Eat practical advice: “what kind of dress should a wife wear and arrange”, “how to run a vegetable garden”, “how to serve food all year round” (details about what is for a meat-eater, and what is for what fast). There are instructions on the rules of home prayer for the whole family - “how a husband, wife and household members should pray to God in their home.” And all this - with that simplicity, thoroughness and quiet, peaceful leisurelyness that unmistakably testifies to a concentrated prayer life and unshakable faith.

WOMAN'S LOOK

Domostroy is a set of rules of conduct for a city dweller that he had to follow in everyday life, a monument to secular writing of the 16th century. The authorship and compilation work are attributed to the archpriest of the Annunciation Monastery in Moscow, confessor of Ivan the Terrible, Sylvester. When compiling the code, Russian (“Izmaragd”, “Chrysostom”, “Teaching and Punishment of the Spiritual Fathers”) and Western (Czech “Book of Christian Doctrine”, French “Parisian Master”, Polish “Life of a Respectable Man”, etc.) “teaching books” were used collections." For gender history, sections of Domostroy XXIX, XXXIV, XXXVI are of particular importance, relating to the upbringing of children (including teaching girls to do needlework and boys to do “men’s” housework) and relationships with his wife, the “empress of the House,” as the author of Domostroy calls the mistress. Domostroy taught women “how to please God and their husband,” how to maintain the honor of the clan and family, take care of the family hearth, and run the household. Judging by Domostroy, they were real housekeepers who supervised the procurement of food, cooking, organizing the work of all family members and servants (cleaning, providing water and firewood, spinning, weaving, tailoring, etc.). All members of the household, except the owner, were supposed to help the “empress of the House”, completely submitting to her. In relations with household members, Domostroy recommended that the owner be a “thunderstorm” for his wife and children and severely punish them for their offenses, up to “crushing their ribs,” or “whipping them with a whip depending on their guilt.” The cruelty of relations with his wife and children, prescribed by Domostroy, did not go beyond the morality of the late Middle Ages and differed little from similar edifications of Western European monuments of this type. However, Domostroy entered the history of Russian social thought precisely thanks to the odious descriptions of his wife’s punishments, since it was repeatedly quoted in this part by Russian commoners-publicists of the 1860s, and then by V.I. Lenin. This explains the unjust oblivion of this most valuable monument until the last quarter of the 20th century. Currently, the expression “Domostroevsky morals” has retained a clearly defined negative connotation.

WOMAN'S LOOK-2

...The argument of foreign researchers in favor of the theory of “terem seclusion” is that during the period of strengthening the grand ducal and then tsarist power and increasing the power of the boyar-princely aristocracy, women remained aloof from these processes and did not receive the right to independently rule, self-realize and even travel without a male escort.

This conclusion was made on the basis of a number of works of the 16th century. - “Domostroya” by the Blagoveshchensk archpriest Sylvester and notes from foreigners about Russia. But can these monuments be considered reliable historical sources? Sylvester expressed his idea of ​​the place of women in society and the family; foreigners, who had almost no contact with Russian people, could have only the most superficial idea of ​​the situation of local women. For example, seeing that a noble person was traveling on business surrounded by an honorary retinue, they could conclude that she did not have the right to travel alone. Foreigners could also be biased in their assessment of the presence of male and female halves in Russian homes. This was not due to the isolation of women, but to the division of responsibilities in the family. The woman raised small children, provided all household members, including servants, with clothes, bed linen and took care of their cleanliness. All women had these responsibilities, regardless of their social status. But the noble and rich hired servants, needlewomen, porto-washers, nurses, mothers and nannies for children, while the poor commoners did everything themselves. But husbands never interfered in these women’s affairs, giving spouses freedom of action.

AUTHORSHIP

Sylvester (beginning of the 16th century - until 1568), a native of the Novgorod prosperous commercial and industrial environment, was close to the Novgorod Archbishop Macarius, after whose election as metropolitan he moved to Moscow and from 1545 became the archpriest of the court Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin. He participated in the preparation and implementation of state and cultural reforms of that time, including the compilation and editing of such important monuments as the Code of Laws of 1550 and the Chet'i-Minei. In his political views, Sylvester is close to non-covetous people; he opposed the enrichment of the church, defended strong state power - autocracy; this became a political platform for rapprochement with representatives of the rising nobility (represented by other adherents of the new course, such as Alexei Adashev). Ivan IV’s “offensiveness” to Sylvester began after the boyar “rebellion” of 1553, in which Sylvester took an evasive position; since he was associated with Vladimir Staritsky, the main antagonist of Ivan IV, he had to “voluntarily” take monastic vows at the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery (under the name of Spiridon). Sylvester suffered final disgrace in the spring of 1560, after the death of Queen Anastasia, who favored him. Further circumstances of Sylvester’s personal life are little known and controversial; even the time and place of his death is unknown. A major political figure and writer, in the last years of his life he was engaged only in copying books, some of which have survived.

“Domostroy” “Silvestrovsky edition” is the main work of the writer; he edited and partly supplemented the Novgorod collection of similar content that was circulating in the lists.

FROM THREE PARTS OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION

6. How to visit in monasteries and in hospitals and in dungeons and any sorrowful person (“give drink, feed, warm”)

In monasteries, and in hospitals and in the desert and in dungeons, you visit those imprisoned and give alms and all kinds of necessary strength and greatly demand, and you see their misfortune and sorrow and every need as much as possible, help them and everyone who is sorrowful and poor and in need and do not despise poverty, bring Give your house something to drink, warm your clothes with all your love and a pure conscience, create the mercy of God and receive freedom, and make an offering to the churches of God in memory of your departed parents and feed them in the house, give alms to the poor, and you yourself will be remembered by God.

(In the monastery, and in the hospital, and in seclusion, and in prison, visit prisoners and give alms that they ask, according to the strength of your ability, and look into their misfortune and sorrow, and into their needs, and, as far as possible, help them, and do not despise the needy or the beggar, bring everyone into your home, give them something to drink, feed, warm, and greet with love and a clear conscience: and with this you will earn the mercy of God and receive forgiveness of sins; and also your parents Remember the deceased with an offering to the Church of God, and arrange funeral services at home, and give alms to the poor, then you yourself will be remembered by God).

20. Praise for wives (“if God grants a good wife”)

If God grants a wife to a good darling, there are valuable stones, such a one will not lose self-interest from goodness, she does all the goodness to her husband, having found the wave and flax, create usefully with her hands, as if I would buy a ship, working from afar, she collects wealth in herself and rises from the night and gives a tidy house and the work of the slaves, from the fruit he plants his hand, he labors a lot, having girded his loins tightly, he strengthens his arm for the work and teaches his children, likewise the servant, and her lamp does not go out all night, stretches out his hand to the useful, and strengthens his lactation to the lost , mercy extends to the poor, but gives fruit to the poor, does not care about the house; her husband does not care about the house; her husband makes many kinds of attire, adorned, for her husband and for herself and for her child, and for her household, but the husband will always be in the company of a nobleman and sit down with a well-known nobleman, he will be honest quickly, and understand the conversation prudently because no one will be married without labor to do good; for the sake of a good wife, blessed is the husband and the number of his days; the wife of good cheers her husband and fulfills his life with peace; the wife of goodness may share in the goodness of those who fear the Lord; for the wife is more honest with her husband, keeping the first commandment of God, she will be blessed, and the second is praised by man, a wife who is kind, and passionate and silent, a man who has found his crown is a husband who wears his good wife out of his home, blessed are such wives as husbands and fulfill their years in the blessing of the world , about a good wife, praise and honor to her husband.

(If God gives a good wife, a better one is better than a precious stone; such a one will not deprive her of good for her selfishness, she will always good life suits her husband. Having collected wool and flax, do what needs to be done with your own hands, be like a trading ship: it absorbs wealth from afar and emerges from the night; and she will give food to the house and work to the maidservants, and from the fruits of her hands she will greatly increase her wealth; having girded her loins tightly, she sets her hands to work and teaches her children, like her servants, and her lamp does not go out all night: she stretches out her hands to the spinning wheel, and her fingers take hold of the spindle, she turns mercy on the poor and gives the fruits of her labor to the poor, - Her husband does not worry about the house; He will make all kinds of embroidered clothes for his husband, and for himself, and for his children, and for his household. And therefore her husband will always gather with the nobles and sit down, honored by all his friends, and, speaking wisely, knows how to do good, for no one is crowned without difficulty. If a husband is blessed with a good wife, the number of days of his life will double, a good wife will delight her husband and fill his years with peace; a good wife will be a good reward for those who fear God, for a wife makes her husband more virtuous: firstly, having fulfilled God’s commandment, she will be blessed by God, and secondly, she will be glorified by people. A kind, hardworking, and silent wife is a crown to her husband, if the husband has found his good wife, she only takes good things out of his house; blessed is the husband of such a wife, and they will live their years in good peace; for a good wife, praise and honor to the husband).

54. In the cellar and on the glacier, take care of everything (“and saffron milk caps, and caviar, and fruit juice”)

And in the cellar and on the glaciers and in the cellars there are breads and kolaches, cheeses, white eggs, and onions, garlic and all kinds of meat, fresh and corned beef and fresh and salted fish and unleavened honey, and boiled meat and fish jelly and all the food supplies, and cucumbers and cabbage, salted and fresh, and turnips, and all sorts of vegetables, and saffron milk caps, and caviar, and set roses, and fruit juice, and apple kvass, and lingonberry waters and Flaz wines, and flammable foods and all kinds of honey, and fresh and plain beer, and mash, and the key keeper would know how much was stored in the cellar, and on the glacier and the cellar, and everything would be counted and remarked, whether completely or not completely, and remarked, and recorded, and how much of what he would give to where by order of the sovereign and how much Why would everything be in the account? It would be something to say to the ruler, and an account of everything would be given, and everything would be clean and covered, and not musty and moldy, and sour, and the wines from Frya and the dry wine are overcooked, and all the best drinks keep it in a lined cellar behind a lock and go there yourself.

(And in the cellar, and on the glaciers, and in the pantries there are breads and rolls, cheeses and eggs, sour cream and onions, garlic and all kinds of meat, fresh and corned beef, and fresh and salted fish, and unleavened honey, and boiled food, meat and fish , jelly and all edible supplies, and cucumbers, and cabbage, salted and fresh, and turnips, and all sorts of vegetables, and saffron milk caps, and caviar, and ready-made brines, and fruit juice, and apple kvass, and lingonberry waters, and dry and strong wines , and all kinds of honey, and beer with honey and plain beer, and mash - the housekeeper is in charge of all that stock. And how much of what is stored in the pantry, and on the glacier, and in the cellar - all of it would be counted and re-marked, which is entirely, but what is not completely counted, and written down, and how much of what and where the housekeeper will give according to the master's order, and how much of what will be dispersed - and then everything would be in the account, there would be something to say to the master and an account of everything. everything is clean, and covered, and not suffocated, and not moldy, and not sour. And keep dry wines and honey infusions and other best drinks in a special cellar under lock and key and keep an eye on them yourself).

2.1. "Domostroy" priest Sylvester

The positive attitude towards capital on the part of those in power and influential layers in general, which began in Kievan Rus, continued in Muscovite Rus. Here the initial predisposition to the activity of merchant capital soon turns into an apology for great household economy, i.e. in an apology for the boyar way of life, in praise of the boyar estate. The wealthy classes of Muscovite Rus' openly preach gradual accumulation and enrichment. It clearly manifested itself in a number of characteristic monuments. Ahead of the others is a valuable monument of the 16th century, the famous “Domostroy”, the work of the Moscow archpriest Sylvester. This characteristic work, like a mirror, fully reflected the worldview of the 16th century and that typical class ideology of the boyars, which expressed the interests and aspirations of the most important class of Moscow Rus', the class of large landowners.

The economic policy of Domostroy is not complicated. Minute details concerning household items affect the entire everyday life of a wealthy household. Here are the rules for “prudent and cooperative living” of family members and servants, instructions on the order of serving food and preserving dishes and clothes, supplies, etc. The main principles are economy, thrift and thrift. Expenses must be consistent with means, “every person, rich or poor, should judge himself and set his own standards.” Without this there is “great dishonor”, ​​“reproach” and “reproach”. The main management of the house lies with the mistress, a caring and tireless leader of the house.

“Domostroy” includes a special, final chapter, called the Small Domostroy, which concludes Sylvester’s instructions to his son Anfim. This is, apparently, the only genuine part of the composition of the priest Sylvester himself, the rest is a compilation compiled for a rich Novgorod house of the 15th or 16th centuries. By its nature, “Domostroy” comes closest to the medieval French “Domostroy” - “Admonition of a French bourgeois to his son.” “Domostroy” is a monument to a closed household. He does not know the national economy as a whole. The material life of his subjects then constituted another branch of the personal economy of the ruler, who, following the example of all medieval princes, viewed the country as his personal estate. Therefore, “Domostroy” could only represent a set of rules for home economy, the principles of which, like the principles of private economy, are antagonistic to social and economic interests. At the same time, Domostroy gives us a picture of a large closed and self-sufficient semi-feudal economy, in which the needs have already been largely developed. What small peasant farming was like in this era is not visible from this monument. “Domostroy” does not know the peasantry at all; its rules are not suitable for rural farming, but only for the household management of the “elect”, for the large landowner. Only a prince and a great boyar, with the gluttonous mood of a future serf-owner, the “father” of large estates and many households, could draw wisdom from the teachings of the Moscow archpriest. “Domostroy” is a typical expression of the class ideology of the Russian medieval landowner.

In its content and in the nature of its presentation, “Domostroy” is a simple summary of practical recipes and advice, not without guile, imbued with the spirit of petty hoarding and alarming suspicion, which are confidentially expressed to close people in a moment of frankness by a clever exploiter, a representative of the era of primitive accumulation. Purely economic issues occupy 23 chapters in the third part of Domostroy - “about the construction of a house”, which is about one third of the entire book.

“Domostroy” is not old: the oldest copy of its first part, according to paleography, dates back to the first half of the 16th century, and only the second was written, perhaps a century earlier. Its tendencies indicate the same thing: Domostroy is true to its era - it is bureaucratic and bourgeois. Its first half was compiled, as can be seen from the instructions of a specialist researcher, at the beginning of the 16th century or at the end of the 15th century, and, moreover, an ardent supporter of strengthening the royal power of the Moscow state; the second was written no later than the 15th century by a wealthy Novgorodian, who exchanged the alarming freedom of the vechevik for the well-fed calmness of the royal slave. Judging by a significant number of lists, the Moscow nobility read Domostroy, but in the St. Petersburg era it was already completely forgotten. This monument became known again from the time of its first printing, i.e. since the 1840s, after which Domostroy was reprinted several times.

So, “Domostroy” is a typical example of the Moscow autocracy and all the tendencies of pre-Petrine Rus', which were fundamentally alienated from the aspirations for political freedom and any kind of citizenship.

“The way of education,” as Fletcher 5 says, “alien to any thorough education and citizenship and recognized by the authorities as the best for the state and completely consistent with the way of government,” imposed its indelible sadness on everything, at the same time increasing the contrast with the West. And indeed, in that era when the bold thought of a European was already formulating a high social ideal, at a time when many of the militant mottos and theses of our time were becoming popular in the West, our “best people” reverently repeated the dubious provisions of the wretched and hypocritical wisdom of servile clerks.

So, “Domostroy” is a monument to the transitional era. It, of course, cannot be called a “monument to the economic ideology of urban craft farming,” as Professor M.N. incorrectly does. Pokrovsky 6; This essay sets out the ideology of the leader of a large natural economy, which was transforming from a closed, oikos economy into a commercial and industrial one, which represented the first arena for the accumulation of commercial capital. Sylvester is the direct predecessor of future Russian mercantilists; he is the ideologist of rural large landownership, already gravitating towards the market, where its “surplus” is sold. Primary accumulation, from which the development of the first stages of commercial capital begins, from that time on is being introduced into the thickness and course of Russian life.

2.2. Filaret's theory of the Third Rome and nationalist reaction: the emergence of mercantilism

As already mentioned, “Domostroy” established only the ideology of a separate isolated feudal-boyar economy, but did not yet rise to the level of understanding of national and national tasks. As the Moscow state grows and strengthens, new, already national, tasks are also put forward, especially since in essence they represented only an expansion of the boundaries of the economic unit: from the boyar’s estate to the grand-ducal, royal estate, in which the principles of management and the psychology of awareness were the same. The Grand Duke of Moscow, and then the Tsar of All Rus', considered himself as the personal owner of his land, his patrimony. The idea of ​​central historical power and historical mission, introduced by the Byzantines who arrived with Princess Palaeologus, who became the wife of Tsar John III, appears and strengthens. The nascent monarchy sought to defeat its feudal rivals, gain a foothold on the wealthy masses, the prototype of the European bourgeoisie, and create its own economic and political ideology.

This was reflected in the anonymous legends of the 15th century “About the Kingdom of Babylon” and “About the White Cowl”, which had a deep historical and philosophical meaning for that time. Here, not only was statehood realized, but Russian statehood was exalted, idealized and brought to the level of world historical significance, which has its own highest tasks. The latter appeared as a result of the fall of Constantinople, once the world center and at the same time the main center of the Eastern Church, at the end of the 15th century. With the transfer of the religious center to Moscow, the thought naturally arose about political continuity, and, consequently, about Moscow inheriting world domination from Byzantium. This idea formed the basis of a whole series of new ideas of a historical and philosophical and, moreover, ultra-nationalistic nature, and received literary expression in the messages of the monarch, Elder Philotheus, who set out a whole historical and philosophical theory about Moscow as the “Third Rome”. Elder Philotheus is a major historical figure who appeared in Russian history at the very beginning of the 16th century. Elder Philotheus was a hermit - a monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery, who developed in a certain and confident form the idea of ​​​​pan-Russism and God's chosenness of Russia. These views are set out in three of his messages - in general, he wrote a lot and willingly - addressed to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Ivanovich, to the important Pskov clerk Misyura-Munekhin and to the Moscow Tsar Ivan IV (the Terrible). These messages, now published, were written by Elder Philotheus with the goal of interceding for his fellow Pskovites, who lost their political independence in 1510. The former free and trading city, which, like Novgorod, had an independent republican physiognomy, was now oppressed by Moscow governors, centralists - bureaucrats. Philotheus’s letter to the clerk Misyura - Munekhin had, among other things, the purpose of speaking out against the “heretics” - astrologers, or “astrologers”, and against the Latians in general, and also to stand up for Orthodoxy, of which Philotheus considered himself a faithful guardian. Philotheus believes that the destinies of both people and nations are determined and directed by God's providence, the source of world truth on earth. According to God's providence and according to the predictions of the prophecies (Daniel and others), old Rome, the great center of the first world empire, fell. Rome fell into the heresy of Apollinaris and served the liturgy on unleavened bread, i.e. changed the orthodox church. The “Second Rome”, Byzantium or Constantinople, also did not keep the covenants of religion: it betrayed Orthodoxy at the 8th Council and entered into a union with the Latins. As a result, the Second Rome fell and “became the property of the grandchildren of Hagar.” Only the glorious cathedral church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Moscow, the God-saved city of “all new and great Rus',” remains unharmed. This is the Third and last Rome, “the third and indestructible kingdom of Ramaean.” The Third Rome is a Russian shrine, shining throughout the entire universe with its piety, brighter than the sun. The Third Rome is the last center in the historical existence of mankind. There will never be a Fourth Rome. In the consistent course of the historical life of peoples, all Orthodox Christian kingdoms fell and merged into one Russian kingdom, the last world kingdom, after which, at the end of the world, will come the eternal kingdom of Christ. Thus, for the first time, the idea of ​​Russia’s global vocation was formulated, God’s providence foretelling the future of the Russian Church and the Russian state. This idea of ​​the world greatness of the Russian kingdom is expressed in the following words: “In the whole of heaven there is one Christian king and holder of the reins and of God’s saints. The one holy universal apostolic church, instead of the Roman and Constantinople churches, is located in the God-saved city of Moscow.”

This formula has become very widespread. Moscow is called the Third Rome in all the most important acts of that time: in the charter establishing the patriarchate in Russia, and in the letter of the first Moscow Patriarch Job to the Georgian Tsar Alexander, and in a number of others. The idea of ​​the Third Rome already creates a certain direction and outlines a certain program, even more - it obliges.

Elder Philotheus, in his message addressed to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily Ivanovich, points out the worldwide nature of his power. “Yes, the news of your power, pious king, is that the entire kingdom of the Orthodox Christian faith has descended into your one kingdom, you alone are the king of all Christians under heaven.” But this extraordinary mission of the Moscow Tsar must take place in conditions of strict morality. “It is fitting for you, king,” Philotheus further says, “to hold this with the fear of God. Fear God, who gave you this: do not trust in gold, in wealth, in glory; “All this is gathered here and the lands will remain here.” Moscow, according to Filofey, is the last world monarchy in the history of mankind. There was a lot of fuss about this idea, or rather this theory, in Moscow. It was important as a vivid symptom of the awareness of statehood, as the first sprout of national feeling.

2.3. The first theorist of bureaucratic monarchism Ivan Peresvetov, ideologist of the local nobility

There is an assumption about Peresvetov that he is a mythical collective personality, but if he really existed, then he was a native of Lithuania, who traveled and wrote a lot. In any case, what was called “Ivanets Semenov son of Peresvetov” is a typical exponent of the ideas and interests of the nobility, i.e. economically small and medium-sized landowners. The latter is closely connected with autocracy, which in that era rested on the serving nobility and naturally struggled with its political limiters, i.e. with the boyars. Hence the fiery hatred of the ideologist of the nobility Peresvetov towards the boyars.

Peresvetov outlined his ideas in a number of works, of which the most valuable is “Tales of Tsar Constantine.” Here the author praises the East and sees an instructive example of political wisdom in the East. His hero is the Turkish Sultan. Boyars and nobles, according to Peresvetov, always “sat like snakes” and relied on numerous servitude. If, according to Peresvetov, the enslaved people are released, then the boyars themselves can be weakened. That. he is an opponent of slavery, believing that “a person can only be a slave to God.” With freedom, in his opinion, personal courage manifests itself, a quality so necessary “for the defense of the state.”

In the era of Peresvetov, the economic crisis ruined the boyars, and in Rus' there was a natural struggle for workers. The nobles, meanwhile, were paid in land, not in salaries. And the mature, consistent bureaucratic centralism demanded payment for labor in wages, not in land. This salary was supposed to compensate for merit, not origin. The boyars did not correspond to all this. “There are many nobles,” says Peresvetov, “but little use.” Such, in his opinion, should be “inflicted with fire and other cruel deaths, so that evil does not multiply.” Our preacher of the monarchy, supported by the petty nobility, did not leave behind a thoughtful and complete theory of absolutism, which we see in Jean Bodin. He differs unfavorably from his European brother, who understands that autocracy can become a source of enslavement and humiliation of the country, and knows the limits of autocratic power. His monarch obeys the “laws of nature,” which provide his subjects with “natural freedom.” Such a system, in his opinion, is a royal monarchy. The lack of freedom for subjects to dispose of their person and property is another system of organizing the eastern monarchy, found in ancient Persia and Muscovy. We have the lowest and most negative form in the third system, the system of tyrannical monarchy. All laws are simply flouted here. The monarch’s assistant in governing the country is religion, but it often diverges from the truth, and the truth, Peresvetov explains, is “above faith.” This is the ideology of a Moscow publicist who does not know that in the West the core of his ideas is developing into a theory of limiting autocratic power.

3. SPECIFIC FEATURES OF RUSSIAN ECONOMIC THOUGHT

For the history of the development of Russian economic thought The following specific features are characteristic. Firstly, most of the works of Russian economists are highly characterized by the spirit of social and economic reformism. This is explained both by the internal conditions of the country’s development and by the strong influence of Marxism on all currents of Russian economic thought since the second half of the nineteenth century.
Secondly, for the majority of Russian economists, the peasant question and the whole complex of related socio-economic problems are of particular importance.
Thirdly, Russian economic thought has always attached great importance to social consciousness, ethics, the active role of politics, in other words, to non-economic factors. We can name a number of Russian traditions and features that will better help us understand the specifics of Russian economic thought. It is well known that in Russia, unlike Central and Western Europe, Roman property law, based on a well-organized base of legal codes, did not receive legal recognition. It was there that the centuries-old culture of private property developed such qualities of the economic personality as economic individualism and economic rationalism. In Russia, for many centuries, the economy was based not on private property, but on a peculiar combination of communal use of land and the power of the state, acting as the supreme owner. This had a significant impact on the attitude towards the institution of private property, leaving a corresponding moral and ethical imprint on it. Russian people tend to believe that “man is above the principle of property.” It is no coincidence that in the Russian mentality the idea of ​​“natural law,” which is the basis of Western European civilization, was replaced by the ideals of virtue, justice and truth. This determines Russian social morals and economic behavior. And therefore the phenomenon of the “repentant nobility” is a purely Russian feature. Another Russian tradition is a penchant for utopian thinking, the desire to think not in realities, but in images of the desired future. Connected with this is the tradition of relying on “maybe”, a dislike for precise calculations, and strict business organization. A characteristic feature of the Russian mentality is also the desire for conciliarity (the voluntary unification of people for general actions regardless of property and class inequality) and solidarity, which are realized in collective forms of labor and property ownership.
As for Russian economic traditions, despite their diversity, over the centuries they have developed around two axial lines: the tradition of nationalization and the tradition of community. Centralized regulation and social guarantees are the most important forms of their manifestation. As for the traditions of small and medium-sized businesses, in pre-revolutionary Russia they were just emerging as a national tradition. But large-scale entrepreneurship has existed since ancient times and from the very beginning it gravitated towards the treasury - the princely, and then the state.

CONCLUSION

So, the lag social development Russia from Western Europe also affected the development of its economic thought, although it is worth noting that this gap was gradually narrowing. Thus, the ideas of mercantilism, which had been developing in the West since the 15th century, began to spread in Russia only in the middle of the 17th century, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Their guide was A. Ordin - Nashchokin. However, the concept of mercantilism did not become dominant in Russia due to the insignificant role of foreign trade in its national economy.

Changes in the economic life of the emerging single centralized state - Muscovite Rus' - caused, as always and everywhere, a dual attitude: one part of the population welcomed innovations that led to rapprochement with novelty and, ultimately, with the West; others condemned the new and sought to retain the old life, to return to it, in a word, to the old forms. Rationalistic sects - the heresy of the Strigolniks and the heresy of the Judaizers, and later the ideological position of the “Trans-Volga elders” was the monk Vassian Kosoy (Prince Vasily Ivanovich) Patrikeev, a student of Nil Sorsky and a like-minded person of the enlightened Maxim the Greek. He stood for the secularization of monastic property and demanded a humane attitude towards dissidents. For correcting books, he was convicted in 1531 and exiled to a monastery. A different position is held by the more numerous conservative camp, the so-called “Josephites”, led by Metropolitan Daniel and Joseph Volotsky, to whom priest Sylvester’s “Domostroy” is ideologically aligned.

• Size: 9.4 Megabytes
• Number of slides: 20

Description of the presentation Presentation moskva tretiy rim on slides

Along with the decline of Kievan Rus, the first civilizational period in the development of Russian culture ended, and from the middle of the 13th century. in its history, the process of formation and development of the Great Russian people and its spiritual characteristics began. This was the period of formation of a centralized state, its internal consolidation and strengthening of international positions. As a result of the complex and contradictory interaction of ethnic, historical, political and cultural factors, a new ethnocultural complex emerged, the center of which was North-Eastern Rus' and Moscow. A new ethnocultural community naturally emerged - the Great Russians, that is, a new nationality with specific features of spirituality and mentality. After the Mongol invasion, the policy of the ruling circles of Rus' was aimed at preserving Russian Orthodox identity in the face of external threats and cultural expansions. This did not lead to complete isolation of the country; it continued to be influenced by both the East and the West, while maintaining spiritual ties with Orthodox peoples. In such conditions, the formation of the Russian cultural archetype itself took place, which was called Muscovite Rus'.

Rome Constantinople Moscow. At the turn of the XV - XVI centuries. In Russia, the political theory “Moscow is the third Rome” appears, which substantiates the world-historical significance of the capital of the Russian state of Moscow as a political and church center.

It was set out in the letters of Philotheus of Pskov. The essence of the theory comes down to the fact that after the fall of Rome and Constantinople, the true faith was preserved only in the Moscow state, therefore from now on until the “end of the world” Moscow is the third Rome. According to this theory, Rus' is the historical heir and successor of the historical mission of the first and second Rome, and the Russian people were chosen by God. Philotheus’ theory “Moscow is the third Rome” determined the spiritual and historical destiny of Russia in the context of the entire world history. These ideas of Philotheus provide an accessible explanation for the rise of Moscow, and also predict a messianic role for it in the future.

It should be noted that Philotheus’ ideas combined elements of the so-called “Continuing Rome” theory, which is very widespread in Christian countries, according to which the history of the Roman Empire will continue forever. The desire to declare and emphasize one’s identity with the Roman Empire can be traced in socio-political thought different countries eastern and Western Europe. Philotheus’ theory “Moscow is the third Rome” carries two main ideas: 1) missionary (the author calls on the Moscow sovereign to convert all pagan peoples in his kingdom to Christianity) 2) church (the prince must take over the management of church affairs).

Thus, the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” expresses the great-power idea of ​​the Russian people, as well as the idea of ​​the Russian people being chosen by God. The ideology of “Moscow is the third Rome” had a significant impact on the subsequent development of state forms of autocracy in Russia.

Themes of journalistic messages reflecting social development, questions arose about the power of the Tsar and in general about the structure of the Russian state. The leading direction of socio-political thought of the XIV-XV centuries. , reflected in chronicles and other literary works, was the idea of ​​all-Russian unity and strong princely power in alliance with the church, expressed in religious form. It was a feudal ideology in its class and political content, expressing the progressive movement at that time towards the creation of a single feudal monarchy. WITH greatest strength this ideology developed in the works of Moscow socio-political thought.

In the late 40s - early 50s of the 16th century. writes his petitions to Ivan IV I. S. Peresvetov (possibly a fictitious person). To present his views, Peresvetov uses a unique literary device. He depicts a non-existent ideal monarch - Makhmet-Saltan of Turkey, who, having concentrated all power in his hands, managed to establish fair relations and a strong rule of law in his state.

We see a fierce debate on these same issues in the famous correspondence (1564 -1577) of Ivan the Terrible with Prince Andrei Kurbsky, one of his supporters in the 50s. Having fled abroad with the beginning of the oprichnina, Kurbsky sent a message to the tsar, accusing him of tyranny and cruelty. Grozny replied. The entire correspondence consists of two messages from the tsar and three princes, who also wrote the pamphlet “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow.” Thus, Kurbsky advocated a monarchy, but a limited one. Tsar Ivan considered only a monarchy with unlimited power to be a true monarchy. This is what he proved - in this case, with a pen in his hands. The arguments are primarily facts from previous history, according to which “autocracy” exists in the Russian land “by God’s permission.”

The fight against the church found its expression in such a journalistic work as “The Conversation of the Valaam Elders” (mid-16th century). The author, a supporter of strong church power, opposes attempts by the clergy to interfere in government and against monasteries that seize black peasant lands. His main demand was the complete destruction of monastic land ownership.

Most of the grandiose handwritten historical and literary works are associated with the activities of Metropolitan Macarius. By 1554, he and his collaborators created the “Great Four Menaions” - a 12-volume collection of all the books “read” in Rus': lives and teachings, Byzantine laws and monuments of church law, stories and legends. The works were distributed according to the days on which they were recommended to be read

Another major work was “The Powerful Book of the Royal Genealogy.” A degree book arranges the narrative according to “degrees.” Each degree corresponds to the reign of a prince (from Vladimir to Ivan IV) and a metropolitan. This emphasized the idea of ​​unity of royal and church power.

In the middle of the 16th century. chroniclers prepared a new chronicle code, called the Nikon Chronicle (since one of the lists belonged to Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century). The Nikon Chronicle absorbed all previous chronicle material from the beginning of Rus' to the end of the 50s of the 16th century. A remarkable feature of this collection is the presence in it of some data relating mainly to ancient period Russian history, which are not found in other chronicles. The authors of the Nikon Chronicle also made an attempt not to simply present the material, but to explain certain events.

In the 70s of the 16th century. The compilation of an illustrated world history, the Facial Chronicle, was completed. It consisted of 12 volumes, of which 10 have reached us. facial vault world history is presented as a succession of great kingdoms - Hebrew, Babylonian, Persian, Alexander the Great, Roman, Byzantine. The formation of the Russian state seems to be a logical result of this process.

Chronicles of the 16th century. are also represented by local works. For example, “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom” describes the first years of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. In the 60s, the “History of the Kazan Kingdom” was compiled, which proved the historical justice of the conquest of the Kazan Khanate. By the end of the 16th century. One of the editions of “The Tale of the Beginning of Moscow” also applies.

To literature everyday genre This includes such an original work as Domostroy, the author of which was probably Archpriest Sylvester. “Domostroy” means “housekeeping,” so you can find a variety of advice and instructions in it: how to raise children and treat a wife, store supplies and dry laundry, when to buy goods at the market and how to receive guests. The instructions, at the same time, are sanctified by the authority of God and the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the period of the XIII-XVII centuries is the time of the formation of the Great Russian ethnic group and its main stereotypes in the consciousness, the self-determination of the Russian Church, and its finding its place on the cultural map of the world. The desire for unity, for the unification of the people, which arose during the difficult interfaith situation in Rus', is a central element of Russian identity, which was complemented by disobedience to those who wanted to encroach on the independence of the people; devotion to the tsar (the father of the family for the people according to “Domostroy”); loyalty to the highest moral ideals. All these elements of self-awareness allowed the people to self-identify as Russian, and self-awareness determined the further course of Russian history.

The publishing house "Tsarsky Dom" published the book "Domostroy - the Great Book of the Great Country". As an afterword, it contained an essay by our regular author, historian Leonid Bolotin. This essay can be considered as an objection to an essayVictor Aksyuchitsa “Falling into Troubles and Coming Out of It. Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Josephiteism."

The sixteenth century can and should rightfully be called the Golden Age of Russian National Literature. It is customary to talk about Russian Literature as a phenomenon in the sense of exclusively artistic works - poems, narratives, novels, short stories, fables, tragedies, comedies - about reading that is undoubtedly useful, instructive, with great educational value, but at the same time entertaining and captivating , stimulating the reader's fantasy and imagination. But is the life of words, first hand-written and then typographically limited, limited to this alone? letters widespread throughout the world?

Speaking about the word, especially about the literary word, we must always remember that in the depths of its nature each alive the human word is extremely small, but directly likened To the Word of God - our Lord Jesus Christ, since our human literature, in contrast to the wordless world, is one of the main expressions of the fact that man was created according to image And likeness God (Genesis 1:27). Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt testified to the connection of God the Word with the words of human speech: “Feeling the warmth and your breath within yourself, remember the Word of God as a Person; when speaking the word, remember the Personal and Living Word of God; and when acting with your mind, remember the great Mind - God, from Whom is every mind and everything that is wisely created.” That is why the living human word is so expressively- in addition to sounds and direct mental meaning, the word, in some miraculous, supernatural way, also carries a visual image.

Unfortunately, the majority of purely secular researchers of Russian National Literature of the 16th century, while quite sincerely expressing love and respect for our written heritage of that time, still cannot avoid looking top down, a point of view as if from the “height” of the undoubtedly great creations of Russian Literature of the 19th century. Many scientists consider this ancient period as a kind of “childhood” of Russian literature. Such arrogant tenderness, a spiritually condescending look at the works of the 16th century as tombstones, at literary monuments is fraught with a distortion of the real perspective, a derogation of the true spiritual dignity of native speech, the existence of which lies outside the “laws” of primitive evolutionism and progress. Many spiritual peaks reached by Russian National Literature in the 16th century were never conquered in subsequent centuries.

In the 17th century, tendencies towards simplified imitation of heterodox foreign models were already intensifying, primarily Polish (through Little Russia), but also German, English, and Latin too. At the same time, on the one hand, European “carnival” (according to M. Bakhtin) laughter, laughter-making, mockery penetrates into domestic literature, on the other hand, grandiloquent mannerism, stylistic redundancy or bureaucratic inertia, soullessness. Civilizational imitation intensifies even more in the 18th century due to the belittlement of national identity in our literature, therefore according to some spiritual and national indicators One can speak not at all about “progress,” but about degradation in Russian literature.

What forces us to look at the literary heritage of the 16th century not top down, A down up? This point of view turns out to be more scientific and methodologically accurate, since it reveals the reliable, deep meanings of the ancient works of the Russian Word.

The construction of new, more powerful and extended red-brick walls and towers of the Moscow Kremlin under Grand Duke John Vasilyevich in 1485-1495 marked a fundamentally new stage in the state building of Russia, which on the far outskirts acquired its clear boundaries and raised a single capital center above all specific cities. The new Kremlin bastions became a kind of architectural icon of the spiritual fence of the entire Russian State as the New Jerusalem. Already under this powerful protection, national Russian Literature was rapidly developing in the 16th century, the diverse works of which are also components of power building and the original creation of the life, spiritual structure of the Russian person.

The Russian literary 16th century begins with “The Enlightener” by St. Joseph of Volotsky, a work that liberated the Orthodox Russian spirit and mind from captivity in the Jewish heresy. In those same years, Saint Spyridon-Sava wrote to Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich “The Message on the Crown of Monomakh,” which contains a legend about the origin of Grand Duke Rurik from Prus, a relative (“brother”) of the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar.

In 1516-1522, the disciple and relative of the Venerable Joseph (Sanin) - the Venerable Dosifei (Toporkov) Volotsky, relying on the rich library of the Volokolamsk Monastery, created the first “Russian Chronograph”, in which World History was first described with the full inclusion of the events of Russian History.

In 1523-1524, the monk of the Spaso-Eliazar Monastery, the Venerable Philotheus of Pskov, in a letter to the clerk Misyur Munekhin, first sets out his spiritual insight: Moscow is the Third Rome.

Under the Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich, through the efforts of St. Daniel of Moscow, a monumental chronicle was created in 1526-1530 vault, which later received the everyday scientific name “Nikon Chronicle”, given by the owner of the manuscript, Patriarch Nikon. To create this collection, ancient lists of all-Russian and specific chronicles, documents, stories and tales about revered icons, Saints and heroes were brought to Moscow from various cities and monasteries of Rus'. From this diverse material, the metropolitan scribes compiled Russian Antiquity from its beginnings until the 1520s. Russian History, tousled into separate strands first by the appanage, and then by the Tatars, was restored and again woven into a single fabric.

In 1529, in Novgorod, Archbishop Macarius (Leontyev) began to collect the initial version of the Russian Great Menaions, where in a yearly circle the Lives of Saints, legends about icons, stories from general church history, instructive words and many other spiritual works were collected in single volumes, which together compiled the first Russian church encyclopedia. Having become Metropolitan of Moscow, Saint Macarius creates more extensive Kremlin Great Four Menaions.

The spiritual book construction of St. Macarius of Moscow culminated in the creation of the “Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy” and the multi-volume “Royal Personal Chronicle Code”, the final design of which was completed after the death of St. Macarius by his disciple St. Athanasius of Moscow - the Confessor of the Holy Blessed Tsar-Great Martyr John. In this spiritual, educational, encyclopedic activity of Saint Macarius, a creative synthesis of the ancient Novgorod and relatively “young” Moscow literary schools was accomplished.

It was on this base, delightful in its universality, and on the works of St. Maximus the Greek, that the diverse literary and liturgical creativity of the Holy Great Martyr Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, unique in all world literature, grew in the monks of Jonah, in which the understanding of the meaning of the Kingdom and the Church in the Divine Economy reached hitherto unprecedented heights Theological and sovereign thought.

In this magnificent literary constellation of the 16th century, the book called “Domostroy”, at first glance, occupies a rather modest, private place.

The Church Slavonic word “domostroy” itself is a direct similarity to the Greek word “economy”, or in the church tradition - “oikonomia”. In church literature one encounters the expression “economic theology,” which, firstly, refers to the dogmatic Theology of the Holy Trinity, and secondly, to the questions of the creation of the Universe and man by God the Word, to the very structure of the world (John 1: 1-18 ).

But long before the Nativity of Christ, providentially in the Greek language, in Greek philosophy, there was a process of formation of subtle speculative, generalizing concepts, which later became the perfect instrument of Christian Theology. Ancient wisdom also shaped the concepts of “economy” and “economics”, which, on the one hand, denoted the broadest principles of reasonable management on a state scale, on a polis scale, and on the other hand, considered private issues of housekeeping itself.

Many hexameters in Homer's Odyssey are devoted to thoughtful home ownership and housekeeping. Hesiod wrote in detail about practical management in his Works and Days. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides also paid attention to proper home organization.

The great Athenian sage Socrates believed that household management, like government, should be included in the compulsory subjects of philosophical education. The student of Socrates, the philosopher and commander Xenophon, wrote the dialogue “Economy”, the name of which is translated into Russian as “Domostroy”. In Xenophon’s “Domostroy,” the philosopher Socrates, in his unique dialectical manner, using many historical examples and his own everyday experience, convincingly proves the importance and necessity of everyday comprehension of current economic problems:

“I once noticed that the same occupation makes some extremely poor, others extremely rich. This surprised me terribly, and I decided that it was worth seeing what was going on. I began to observe and found that it was quite natural: whoever does business poorly, I saw, suffers a loss; and whoever takes care of it with intense attention fulfills it faster, easier, and more profitable. If you want to learn from them, and if God is not against you, then I think you too will become a resourceful person.”

It is significant that Socrates, being in a pagan environment a spontaneous (not according to the Holy Scriptures) apophatic Theologian, believing in the Unknown God, in the One God the Creator, points out to his interlocutor the importance of the mystical factor, Divine favor for a profitable business.

The treatise “Domostroy” is also known from another great ancient philosopher - Aristotle, although it is more often translated into Russian as “Economics”. There is also a chapter in Aristotle’s “Polity” - “Economy”. Despite the different tradition of translating these names, this does not change their economic essence. The economic treatises of Xenophon and Aristotle were later translated by Cicero himself into Latin and enjoyed success among ancient Roman readers; they were repeatedly quoted by Virgil, Theophrastus, and Philodemus.

Already at the time of Christianity in Constantinople, in the Roman Empire, it was created whole line works both about broad economic problems and about household management and family structure in connection with Christian piety. Many Western European medieval treatises, based on the tradition of Xenophon, Aristotle, and other ancient writers, were also devoted to prudent and God-fearing management and home economics.

The Russian Domostroy had its spiritual predecessors in Russian literature. First of all, we need to name the “Collection of 1074” by Grand Duke Svyatoslav and a completely original, magnificent, unsurpassed work of Russian didactic literature - “The Teachings of the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh to his children,” compiled by the Russian Sovereign at the beginning of the 12th century.

Russian literary historians, who have studied about forty manuscripts, both entitled “Domostroy” and containing texts common to “Domostroy,” believe that the basis for the most complete Sylvester edition of “Domostroy” in the mid-16th century was based on the works of Novgorod and Moscow that have not reached us. books of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, dedicated to Orthodox home economics, in the writing of which both clergy and literate lay people took part, directly familiar with the most ancient literary traditions, dating back to both the ancient Xenophon “Domostroy” and the ancient Tsargrad already Orthodox protographers. Thus, the Russian “Domostroy” finds itself included in the circle of world philosophical, economic and didactic literature.

But with all the variety of sources of the Russian “Domostroy”, it is a completely original, independent work of Russian National Literature of the mid-16th century, filled with both the sovereign Theology of that time, the Theology of the new state creation, and living, everyday Russian speech and folk wisdom.

The Russian “Domostroy” in the works of domestic historians of our literature is emphatically characterized as a secular work, in which the spiritual component has only a subordinate, auxiliary meaning. This, in our understanding, erroneous assessment is due to the fact that the teachings of Domostroi are addressed to the laity, and a significant part of the text is associated with a description of the everyday way of life. But such an assessment, so to speak, “mechanical”, “quantitative”, does not take into account the strategic meaning, the highest ideal of this unique, purely spiritual work, which really goes beyond the typological genre series of church literature itself.

The attitude towards the spiritual component of the Russian “Domostroy” as something introduced from the outside, additional, does not allow us to see the author’s creative synthesis, as a result of which everything worldly, everyday, everyday in this work is completely subordinated to the heights of the Orthodox Russian spirit... Here is the Russian spirit, here It smells like Russia! And first of all, not with spicy pickles, beer, bread dough, cabbage soup, onions and full burps, but with incense, wax, oil, the pure spirit of Lent and Easter Joy, the light prayerful breath of Holy Rus'!

The full title of the work: “The book spoken by Domostra contains useful things, teaching and punishment for every Christian - husband, wife, child, male and female slaves,” already indicates the religious dignity of the reader to whom the treatise is addressed. Instructions and instructions are given not only to the owner of the house or the father of a large family in general, but to “every Christian.”

A number of the initial chapters of Domostroy correspond to the spiritual purpose of “every Christian.” The first chapter is a strict edifying blessing from the father of a large family to his adult son, his wife, their children and household members. The style itself, the form of the blessing, in terms of genre, resembles a prayer read in confession, and a state oath, and a legal contract, and a spiritual testament, and above - the Biblical Testament: “I bless you, a sinner.” namename, and I teach, and I punish, and I admonish my son namename, and his wife...” The creator of “Domostroy” thinks on a grand scale, on a state level, he creates a model that is close in meaning to the spiritual canon for wide, universal, repeated use. Hence the precise severity of the wording and these “names”.

The one who blesses spiritually obliges those being blessed to obey this order from the highest authority: “You will give an answer on the day of the Last Judgment.” The blessing resembles home, more like ancestral oath, which is assumed for subsequent generations of heirs. Here we can immediately discern a hierarchical level, which is by no means reducible to a home economics manual. The spiritual goal of this book, which should become a family book, passed on from father to son, from son to grandchildren, from grandchildren to great-grandchildren, is immeasurably higher: to build Russian family life for many generations to come according to the highest Christian ideal.

Russian Literature of the 11th-16th centuries in its visual, compositional and semantic techniques relied heavily on the canons of iconography. The scale of figures, objects, events, and their location in the Orthodox icon corresponded to their significance in the spiritual hierarchy. So here, in the center - at the beginning of the text, above the entrance to the literary space - God, the Divine, the church, the religious are depicted large and categorically, and the everyday, earthly, material - according to the degree of their semantic significance. But even the smallest tertiary details are drawn clearly and simply - without emotional expression, dynamism, in spiritual simplicity, with a contemplative look. The details are subordinated to Divine service in the broadest sense of this concept as chaste human existence.

The similarity of the book “Domostroy” to documents of state dignity is indicated by the following brief chapter: “How can Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and the Most Pure Mother of God and the Cross of Christ and the Holy Heavenly Powers and all the Holy and Honest and Holy Powers and worship them.”

All the most important state documents, charters of the Sovereign-Church Councils and the Sovereign Duma, chronicles in the 15th-17th centuries began with spiritual beginnings, which secular historians of ancient Russian sources call the conventional term “Theology”. In their analyses, secular scientists, as a rule, limit themselves to this definition, without going into the content of such spiritual principles, considering them something formal and therefore not worthy of special attention. However, a careful examination of state charters of the 16th-17th centuries shows that their “Theologies” invariably focus attention on the Orthodox confession of the Holy Trinity, on the Divinity of the human nature of Jesus Christ, on the confession of the Ever-Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, on the veneration of the Cross, Holy Icons and Holy Relics.

This is explained by two main reasons.

Firstly, sovereign cutting off from the consequences of the heresy of the Judaizers, whose adherents rejected the Most Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the true dignity of the Mother of God and mocked the veneration of the Cross of Christ, Holy icons and Holy relics.

Secondly, Beginning with the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders at the beginning of the 13th century and from the time of the Holy Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, Holy Rus' was threatened from the outside by Catholic expansion with the subsequent distortion of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the violation of Her indivisibility and equivalence by the Catholic introduction of the “filioque” confession. It is no coincidence that the hero of the Battle of the Neva in 1242 went to the Peipus ice battle against the Catholic crusading knights with the motto: “For the Holy Trinity!”

In line with such sovereign charters, the author of “Domostroy” provides a similar foundation-theology for this instructive text. Just as the Russian Kingdom testified in its charters that on a universal scale it is the custodian, the sovereign stronghold of Orthodoxy, so every Russian family, in its small measure, must become the custodian of the fatherly faith, its Orthodox dogmas: “It is fitting for every Christian to know how to live according to God.” in the Orthodox faith of Christians: first, believe with all your soul in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - in the indivisible Trinity, and believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and call the Mother of God who gave birth to Him, and worship the Cross of Christ with faith, as if Then the Lord brought salvation to all people. And give honor to the icon of Christ and His Most Pure Mother and the Holy Heavenly Ethereal Powers and all the Saints, as Love Himself.”

Thus, the dogmatic Divine economy of the Most Holy Trinity is determined by the standard for family life, and for home life, for housekeeping. Orthodox leavened the patriotism of Rus' is opposed here unleavened bread cosmopolitanism of the Catholic West.

A whole series of subsequent chapters - 3-6, 8-15, 22-25 can be called a kind of home Church Charter. Their names speak for themselves: “How to partake of the Mysteries of God and believe in the resurrection of the dead, and look forward to the Last Judgment and touch all holy things”, “How to love God with all your soul, and also have your brother and the fear of God and the memory of death”, “How Honor the holy rank, as well as the priestly rank and monishes” and so on.

A special place in the series of this “church-statutory” section is occupied by the seventh chapter: “How to honor the Tsar and the prince and obey in everything and to repent of every ruler and serve them with righteousness in everything, to the great and to the lesser, and to the sorrowful and weak to every person of any kind.” be, and take heed to yourself about this.”

Here it is again emphasized that the existence of the Russian family is by no means a private, individualistic, self-contained existence - it is an integral part of the state life of Holy Rus', the family is the basis and support of the Russian State.

The author of “Domostroy” calls for the most reverent attitude towards the Anointed of God: “Fear the Tsar and serve him with faith and always pray to God for him and do not speak falsely before him, but with submission, answer the truth to him as to God Himself, and obey him in everything, even if you serve the earthly King with righteousness and fear him, you will also learn to fear the Heavenly King.”

And in subsequent chapters the need for obedience to the Tsar is repeatedly mentioned, about the spiritual duty of loyal subjects to pray for the Tsar-Sovereign, for the Queen and for Their Children-Heirs.

The state dignity of the head of the family and his wife is repeatedly emphasized by the fact that in the “Domostroy” of Sylvester’s edition they are called “sovereign”, “empress” more than one hundred and thirty times and derivatives of these words are used in relation to them. After all, for all households they are not just masters, owners of property, elders, but patrons, teachers and judges, punishers, pardoners and pardoners. In the bright paintings of the Russian “Domostroy” the Holy Russian patriarchal tradition of ancient times reveals itself from the epic Holy Prince Vladimir the Red Sun.

Thus, the compiler of Domostroi comprehensively portrays the Russian patriarchal family not only as Small Church, which is a general position in the Holy Tradition, but also how Small Kingdom.

In the light of the patriarchal tradition, a very important spiritual and ideological stratagem of “Domostroy” is highlighted - the fatherland. For the author, primacy from tsa, that is, that from whom everything occurs physically, legally, and spiritually, is undeniable. The writer does not specifically defend the truth that is obvious to him and his readers. Economic Theology of the Most Holy Trinity - Son of God, from From born of the Holy Spirit, from From outgoing - simply excluded the very possibility of a different view of the father of the family, the family and society as a whole. The positivist and then materialist, and essentially atheistic fable about the primacy of “matriarchy” was simply unknown to the people of that era. The primary hierarchical dignity of the father and paternity permeates the entire text of Domostroi from beginning to end. This is the spiritual, tribal basis of both Russian paternalism and Russian patriotism.

Nowadays, when the Code on the Family and other laws repeatedly talk about motherhood, about “maternity capital”. Paternity is mentioned only once or twice and, “naturally,” comes second after motherhood. This is evidence of the deepest spiritual illness of modern society. And in the coming years, a cure for this disease on a national scale is not expected. But modern Orthodox Christians must remember the family ideal, based both on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and on the patriarchal ancient Russian tradition. Without deep reverence for fatherhood and through it the Fatherland, the revival of spiritual patriotism, sacrificial patriotism, which is fundamentally different from corporate “patriotism”, based on serving personal and corporate interests, on selfish love for oneself in one’s native land is impossible: here is both the “patriotism” of the cat and “patriotism” of a criminal boss, and the last refuge of a scoundrel.

“Domostroy” does not in the least humiliate or diminish the importance of mothers and wives, as many Russian writers tried to present already in the 19th century. But the Christian family, as the original bond of the Orthodox Kingdom, is unthinkable without reverence for the Fatherland, fatherhood, and courage in its true sacrificial dignity. The sacrificial service of the father - the sovereign of the household - consists of the highest responsibility before God to serve the cause of not only the personal salvation of the soul for Eternal Life, but to contribute in every possible way to the salvation of the souls of his wife, children and all household members in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In one of the editions of “Domostroi” the preface says: “...In this book you will receive instructions from someone about the worldly structure, how to live as an Orthodox Christian in the world with wives and children, and household members, and to punish (instruct) and teach them , and to save with fear, and to repel (defend) by thunderstorms, and to protect them in all matters, spiritually and physically, to be pure, and to be guardian over them in everything, and to take care of them as if it were your own body (a member of the body). Lord of the rivers: you will become one flesh. Apostle of the Rivers: if one person suffers, then everyone suffers with him. In the same way, do not worry about yourself alone, but also about your wife, and about your children, and about others, and about the last members of your household. For all are united by one faith to God: and with this good diligence, have love for all who live according to God, and have an eye of the heart looking to God. And you will be a chosen vessel, not carrying yourself alone to God, but many. And you will hear: good servant, you will be faithful in the joy of your Lord.”

The Royal Law, according to Scripture: love your neighbor as yourself(James 2:8).

At the time of the covert departure from the Marxist-Leninist - destructive for the state - communist "dogmatics" in the ideology of the socialist "state" (in quotes, because without the Sovereign) it began to be declared that the family is the main, basic unit of society and the "state". The crafty reception of the official ideology of “developed socialism,” however, did not resolve the deep contradictions between the godless worldview and the mystical nature of family, marriage, fatherhood, motherhood and childhood. But in the formal message, Soviet ideologists returned to the main, power-forming provisions of Domostroy.

The book “Domostroy” is a very important component of the church-state ideology of the Autocratic Orthodox Kingdom, which was built in Russia throughout the 16th century. The actual everyday component of this work, in which we find amazingly beautiful and original pictures of the patriarchal way of life of the exemplary Russian House, deeply dear to all of us, is entirely subordinated to this high national goal.

The treatise on Russian family life takes its worthy and very important place among such spiritual and sovereign programmatic works and documents of the era as the “Tsar’s Code of Law” of 1550, “Russian Chronograph”, “Tsar’s Chronicle Code”, “Kremlin Great Chetya Menaion”, “The Degree Book of the Royal Genealogy”, “Stoglav”, “The Enlightener”, various Council and Royal Establishments.

It is significant that the very ideal concept of “Holy Rus'”, which we habitually assimilate both in our antiquity under the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich, and in the times of the Holy Blessed Grand Prince-Martyr Andrei Bogolyubsky, and in the era of St. Alexis of Moscow, St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Holy Blessed Great Prince Dimitry Donskoy, in fact, its emergence and formulation owes to the activities of the Holy Great Martyr Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and St. Macarius of Moscow in the middle of the 16th century. It was the Makariev Councils, which glorified for general church veneration a whole host of Russian Devotees of Piety, that brought to life this spiritual ideal - Holy Rus', an ideal that, of course, applies to all times of Rus'-Russia, starting with Askold's Baptism under Patriarch Photius, and to Rus' coming.

Holy Rus' was created by the Providence of God, but in the service of the Lord it was created and is being created works of faith(James 2:14-26), the sincere faith of our ancestors, the deep faith of our contemporaries, still unknown to us - prayer books for us and our Fatherland. A vivid image and example of creative works of faith is the Russian “Domostroy”, which shows us the Face of Holy Rus' through patriarchal family and home life.

This is what is hidden from the average view of this truly great book! But what is hidden throughout the centuries is revealed to everyone without much difficulty. to a loving heart a believing Russian person. God is love!

memory of St. Maximus the Greek

NOTES

John of Kronstadt, Holy Righteous. About prayer. Extracts from diary notebooks for the years 1856-1862. M., Father's House, 2007. P. 249.

This passage is presented under the influence of a conversation about Old Russian Literature with my friend, Doctor of Philology, Alexander Vadimovich Gulin. In the process of this explanation, I borrowed the following thoughts from A.V. Gulin. The principles of “age-related development” - “childhood”, “youth”, “maturity”... - are not applicable to the historical patterns of the existence of literary language, the content and form of literary works. This “age” approach inevitably leads to the idea of ​​“old age” and “death” of national literature. Russian Literature, from the moment of its emergence and formation in the 11th-12th centuries, has manifested itself in such works as “The Word on Law and Grace” by St. Hilarion of Kiev, “The Tale of Bygone Years” by St. Nestor the Chronicler, “Teachings of the Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh to his children.” They are the undoubted peaks of the national spirit and national culture, and yet they were not preceded by any “development”, “evolution”, or literary “childhood”. They are products of a creative spirit that is common to all eras.

Xenophon of Athens. Domostroy. Ch. 2, § 16.

The words “slave” and “slave” are not suitable here O It is false to attach importance to the powerless class, known from the history of Ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Here we are talking about employees, serving the owner of the house on one or another basis, whether hired (in “Domostroi” it is said about the salary of servants), or as permanent household members and servants, but not about the “living thing” of the times of the slave system. No “slavery” or even “serfdom”, known for a shameful century in history Russian Empire from 1762 to 1861, at the time of the creation of the Russian Kingdom and the writing of “Domostroy” did not exist.

The “offensive” definition of Russian patriotism as “leavened” is now associated in everyday consciousness with kvass. But this bread drink is not exclusively Russian; from ancient times it was in use among numerous Finno-Ugric and some Baltic peoples of Russia, not as borrowed from the Russians, but as their own, original. During the polemics between Russian Slavophiles and Westerners who gravitated towards ecumenism, it is obvious that the definition of “leavened” was associated with the Orthodox dogmatic canon of celebrating the Divine Liturgy on leavened bread , and not on unleavened bread, like Catholics. Moreover, in Orthodox Rus' the Catholic tradition was spiritually associated with Jewish unleavened bread, with Easter matzo. Hence leavened patriotism, that is, Orthodox, spiritual patriotism.

Here is the numbering of chapters according to Sylvester's edition of Domostroy.

The concept of the primacy of “matriarchy” is based on hypotheses. Firstly, on the tendentious interpretation by positivist archaeologists and positivist ethnologists of small sculptural artifacts of primitive antiquity as central cult objects (“mother goddesses”, “primitive Venuses”). In fact, these artifacts had a utilitarian pornographic purpose and were not even related to pagan cosmogony. Secondly, on the unproven hypothesis of the primacy of the female priesthood in Mycenaean Crete. Third, As for the ancient Greek myth about the land of the Amazons, which is the only written “evidence” of the existence of “matriarchy” in ancient times, then this false myth was refuted by ancient writers, who explained that the Amazon warriors were only part of a completely patriarchal Scythian civilization. Of course, the hypothesis of evolutionism could not do without the creation of an animal and semi-animal period, when the hypothetical “hominids” and then primitive people “did not know” the institution of marriage, but lived in sin, and therefore supposedly only motherhood could physiologically guarantee family succession. But humanity, from the day of the creation of Adam and Eve, knew both what marriage was and what fatherhood was, communicating with the Heavenly Father.

Explained according to: Domostroy. Series: “Literary Monuments”. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 2005. P. 8.

In fairness, it should be noted that indicating the importance of the church-sovereign dignity of the Russian “Domostroy”, placing it among the listed spiritual and state works of the 16th century is by no means a “new word” in the study of this work. And the most attentive researchers of the Tsarist era - such as I.S. Nekrasov, A.V. Mikhailov, A.A. Kizevetter ( Nekrasov I.S. Experience of historical and literary research on the origin of Domostroy. M., 1873; Mikhailov A.V. On the issue of the editorial boards of Domostroy, its composition and origin // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1889. Book. 2, 3; Kizevetter A.A. Main trends of ancient Russian Domostroy // Russian Wealth. 1896. No. 1. P. 39-52), and scientists of our era - such as academician D.S. Likhachev, prominent St. Petersburg philologist, historian of the Russian Language V.V. Kolesov, paid attention to this. For example, V.V. Kolesov indicates the significance of the influence of such a historical and literary context of the 16th century on the form and content of “Domostroi” ( Kolesov V.V. Domostroy as a monument of medieval culture // Domostroy. Series: “Literary Monuments”. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 2005. pp. 307-308). However, even in the most benevolent interpretations of the Russian “Domostroy”, this influence is considered not as the main and constructive one, but as a factor distorting folk prototypes of economic and everyday literature: “Domostroy suffered the fate of all Novgorod-Pskov literature: what was not directly burned on Red Square, sometimes it is completely redone, sometimes with a distortion of the main idea of ​​the work. The literary activity of [St.] Macarius and his collaborators was this kind of “reshaping” of the rich literary tradition that had developed in Novgorod, in favor of the autocratic interests of Moscow" ( Kolesov V.V. Right there. P. 326). Thus, the main advantage of the book, through a purely journalistic, ahistorical, unscientific device, is turned into its “disadvantage.” Suffice it to say that during the time of Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and St. Macarius, the Moscow city toponym “Red Square” did not exist in Moscow. The space to the East of the Kremlin was called Torg. The name “Red Square” appeared in May 1613 in connection with the meeting of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov. For His procession from the Neglinny (later Resurrection) Gate of Kitay-Gorod to the Spasskaya Tower, a high wooden platform covered with red cloth was built. Since then, the Kremlin Torg became known as Red Square.