The role of the church in the ancient Russian state. Acceptance of Christianity. the role of the church in the life of ancient Rus' The church and life in ancient Rus'

The problem of the relationship between the state and the church in Ancient Rus' is of undoubted scientific interest for studying the past of our country. The history of Russia, as well as the Old Russian state and feudal principalities that preceded it, is characterized by a close connection between the secular political organization of power and administration and the church. This relationship has changed over the centuries. So, in modern times, in the 19th century, the church served all state and official ceremonies, gave them an ideological and religious character, it was in charge of primary education, fixing acts of civil status, and it not only carried out moral Christian principles in this activity, but and consecrated the relevant acts with its authority. In the Middle Ages, the relationship between church and state was more direct and was expressed in the fact that the church organization performed a number of state functions and, therefore, was a kind of part of the state apparatus, and the state, princely power supported the church organization at its own expense. Under such conditions, the problem of church and state in Ancient Rus' acquires a general historical character in terms of the relationship between the state and the organization of a religious cult at different stages of the existence of both.

Naturally, questions arise before the historian: how did such a phenomenon of the Middle Ages appear as a church organization that is part of a state organization? what reasons contributed to its emergence in our country, in Rus'? What is the evolution of the connections of these institutions over more than two centuries of their history?

By the time of the official adoption of Christianity and the creation of a church organization at the end of the 10th century. the state had already existed in Rus' for almost two centuries, and its authorities and local government, territorial structure, law and pagan religious cult not only took shape, but also went through a certain path of development in accordance with the development of the entire ancient Russian society. Thus, the church appeared at the initiative of the princely power relatively late and had to adapt to the level of development of society and to the economic system that it found here at the indicated time. In this way, the relations between the state and the church in Kievan Rus differ from those that developed in other states, for example, in Byzantium, where the Christian organization, recognized by Emperor Constantine, was formed in the canonical plan at the councils of the 4th-8th centuries, almost from the very beginning of the existence of the new state . And in the later Russian centralized state, as in most European countries, church organizations took part in the formation and development of statehood from an early time, which left an imprint both on the nature of these states and on the very activity of the church.

If we try to determine the spheres of activity of the medieval church in the country, we will be able to identify at least six such large spheres. Firstly, this is an activity directly related to the cult - liturgical (cult) activity: service in the church, confessional practice, the performance of sacraments and rites. The sacraments are also associated with baptisms, weddings, and funerals held by the church, which was at the same time a fixation of the civil status, which was within the competence of the church. Missionary activity can be attributed to the same sphere: conversion to Christianity, in particular, the Christianization of the state of Rus' itself and the surrounding peoples, who were or were not part of it. Perhaps, monastic activity in the narrow sense of the word also belongs here.

Another area of ​​activity of the church can be considered cultural and ideological. This includes the consecration of the power of the feudal state, domination and subordination in society, the development of social consciousness in the general Christian, state (national), class aspects. In the hands of the church were literature, writing, spoken word (rhetoric), which she actively used. In her hands was also the school, originally organized by the princely authorities. Further, this is the transfer of the experience of ancient civilizations, class societies to Rus'. The Church as a multifunctional institution helped to bring the ancient Russian society and state, which arose on the spot, on the basis of the spontaneous development of alliances of East Slavic tribes, without interformational socio-economic synthesis with the ancient slave system, to the level of other European countries that directly inherited the ancient Mediterranean civilization. It contributed to the princely, state power in transferring the achievements of ancient societies, their culture, ideology and other phenomena to a new soil. The Church was also engaged in theological activity - theological (it was not capable of anything else) understanding of society and nature. The Church taught Christian moral principles, basic commandments.

To the third sphere of church activity, we include its role in the socio-economic life of the country as a landowner, a participant in the production relations of a feudal society that used the labor of church peasants and other groups of workers. In the early period of the existence of the church in Rus', she, together with the princely power, was the consumer of those tributes that the prince collected in a centralized way, then she herself becomes the owner of the land, the same as the princes and boyars.

The fourth, public law, sphere is associated with the broad jurisdiction of the church as an integral part of the state organization. Episcopal sees belonged to two large circles of court cases - the trial of the so-called church people, including the church clergy, people connected by their position with the cult and the population of church estates, and the trial of the entire population of Russia on the so-called church matters, i.e. on cases of marriages, divorces, family conflicts, etc. This allowed the church to penetrate deeply into the life of the community, family, each person.

A special, fifth sphere of activity of the church was the internal management of the church organization itself - from the metropolitan, bishops and abbots of monasteries to priests, deacons and ordinary monks. For this administrative activity, she had a staff of special officials - sovereign governors, tiuns, etc.

Finally, the last area includes political activity churches both within the country and internationally, since the Kiev Metropolis was one of 60-70 metropolises subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Church leaders took an active part in the life of their city and principality, carrying out political assignments given to them by the secular authorities; their duty was the meeting of the princes and the enthronement (enthronement) at their reign, participation in the cross-kissing at the conclusion of treaties as a state act, etc.

Of these large areas, in this work, to one degree or another, only those that are connected with the relationship between church organizations and princely power and city administration are considered: the formation and development of the church structure, the system of the metropolis, bishops (Chapter I), the socio-economic sphere : sources of material support for the church at different stages of its history, church jurisdiction, the performance of some city control functions by church organizations (chap. II and III), internal and external political position and activities of the church (chap. IV).

The book studies the activities of not all, but only some church organizations that had public - administrative or state - significance. The church in the Middle Ages was a complex and controversial institution that united various social and class groups, ranging from the "princes of the church", who stood on the same level with secular princes, and ending with ordinary clergy and monastic peasants who were exploited by monasteries - feudal corporations . In close connection with the state - princely, city - power were the metropolitan and episcopal departments and their officials, city cathedrals, which were associations of the white clergy, princely monasteries and city organizations of the black clergy - archimandrites. All of them are considered in this work in special sections.

App. I gives a brief biographical dictionary of the Kyiv metropolitans from the end of the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled by A.V. Poppe. It was originally published in German and for the present edition is partially revised and supplemented by the author. App. II contains a list of bishops of ancient Russian departments.

The study is limited to the period from the emergence of the Old Russian church organization at the end of the 10th century. until the middle of the 13th century, the time of the Mongol conquest and the establishment of a new political system of vassalage, which changes the traditional cooperation and opposition of church and secular authorities. It was then that, along with the indicated two components of state life, a third force appeared in the person of the Horde - the Khan and his apparatus of power. Under these conditions, both the princely power and the church establish their ties with the Horde, receive labels, use the khan in their own interests, which significantly changes the nature of their mutual relations.

This book was created on the basis of a special course for students, which has been taught since 1981 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. To his listeners, as well as to the former head of the department of the history of the USSR during the period of feudalism, prof. HELL. Gorsky (1923-1988), who brought this study to life, is dedicated by the author.

II

The problem under study has a long tradition in Russian historiography. It begins in the annals, in conditions when many issues of the relationship between the church and the state of the early period remained acute. So, in the Nikon Chronicle, the creation of which is connected, as shown by B.M. Kloss, with a major figure in the Russian church in the first half of the 16th century. Metropolitan Daniel (1522-1539), in the stories about Ancient Rus' there are several ideas that were relevant to his time. Such is, first of all, the idea of ​​harmony and cooperation between princely power and the church. The annals give numerous examples of “love and advice” of the grand dukes with metropolitans and bishops, and this cooperation has been going on since the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who was “in harmony and love with many people” with the metropolitan, and he “byahu ... always in love and in consultation with Volodimer. Further, with references to the apostolic canon, the legitimacy of the appointment of metropolitans in Rus' without the sanction of Constantinople (Hilarion and Clement) is substantiated, and the appointment of Hilarion is associated with "quarrels and discord" with the Greeks. This was neither a break with the Orthodox patriarchs and "pious Greek law", nor a desire to refuse the appointment of patriarchs, but only the desire to avoid "enmity and slyness, like a besha then." Finally, the concept of the originality of church land ownership, its inviolability according to the commandment of Vladimir “until the end of the world do not tease on church and hierarchs”, the divinity of the church tithe, which he transferred to the Church of the Virgin, is important. All this is closely connected with the ideas that the compiler of the chronicle himself and his entourage defended: the union of the metropolis, which was in the hands of the Josephites, with the grand ducal power; the state of church autocephaly de facto with the appointment of metropolitans on the spot, in Moscow; condemnation of non-covetousness and success in protecting the privileges of the metropolitan estates.

Such a connection between the opinions and concepts of the authors who wrote about the history of the church in Ancient Rus', with the political position they took in relation to this organization, and its connection with the state in the modern world is no exception in Russian historiography. It is visible among historians not only of the 16th, but also of the 18th, and even of the 20th century, a completely different era.

V.N. Tatishchev, who in his "History of Russia" expressed a number of interesting thoughts on issues of interest to us. This topic is being studied in Lately D.V. Andrusenko, who continued at the present level the identification of Tatishchev’s views on religion and the church, which has been going on for as long as the “Russian History” itself has existed. Tatishchev is characterized by a sharply critical assessment of the activities of the clergy and the church, both in the position of the bishops in relation to the grand duke's power, and especially in the responsibility of the church for the state of enlightenment in the country. He considers the chronicle report about the tithe given by Vladimir to the church as “fictitious priests”, since there is no information about tithe at a later time and it could only be given to the detriment of other needs of the state of that time. This position of the historian is undoubtedly connected with his civic position as a supporter and participant in the reforms of Peter I.

In Russian bourgeois science of the 19th - early 20th centuries. we almost never meet such a critical attitude towards the church in ancient Rus', which is typical for noble historiography, and not only Tatishchev, but also Boltin and other researchers. Of course, over the past 100-150 years, the level of historical research in Russia, the range of sources used, and the outlook of historians have changed significantly. At the same time, the social, class position of historians also played a role. These were no longer representatives of the privileged nobility, who were in state power and shared their attitude towards the rival church, but raznochintsy, people from the clergy themselves (S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky).

Solovyov in his "History, Russia since ancient times" and other works, like Tatishchev, did not set abstract tasks, believing that "science has the duty to answer the questions of life." A supporter of the theory of tribal life, who attaches decisive importance in history to political and moral factors that govern social relations, he believed that in Russia from the 9th to the 12th centuries. both in society and in the princely environment, tribal relations dominated: the head of the collective was the father, who had despotic power over the family that was under his subordination. The church was the factor that changed this picture, and contributed to the replacement of tribal relations with state, legal ones. According to Solovyov, “the family, until now closed and independent, is subject to the supervision of someone else's power, Christianity takes away from the fathers of families the priestly character that they had ... next to the natural fathers are the spiritual fathers; what was formerly subject to family judgment is now subject to ecclesiastical judgment. The metropolitan and the bishops "were necessary advisers to the prince in everything related to the attire in the country"; the range of their activity was defined according to the Byzantine model in the statutes on church courts. Solovyov draws attention to the changes that the 12th century brought to relations within the Russian church and to the position towards Constantinople: Kiev's attempts to free itself from the power of the patriarch, the desire of North-Eastern Rus' to get out of the power of the Kiev metropolitan, etc.

To a certain extent, an overestimation of the role of the church in the history of Rus', in comparison with Solovyov, is noticeable in Klyuchevsky. In the course of lectures "The History of the Estates in Russia", belonging to the period of the historian's creative flowering, which he read in 1886 and subsequently reprinted several times, he gave an impressive picture of the position of the church in ancient Russian society, with which, however, it is difficult to agree, it is so different from that what we know from sources. Klyuchevsky rightly believes that the church, having appeared in Rus', had to adapt to the order that it met here. As a result, she created a special society in Rus', parallel to the state one, which included the clergy, from the metropolitan to the poor. “The greatest power in it was vested in persons who refused all the blessings of the world - monks-hierarchs. The most privileged, that is, the least obliged, were considered in it the most helpless people - miserable and homeless, ”wrote this prominent historian and at the same time a master of paradoxes in Russian history. Klyuchevsky substantiated the thesis, which allowed later researchers, for example, N.M. Nikolsky, to name the position of the church in Russia as "a state within a state". However, Klyuchevsky's statement that "church society consisted of exactly the same elements that were part of" the state one is an undoubted exaggeration: church "boyars and free servants" for the time referred to by Klyuchevsky (XI-XIII centuries), unknown in sources; the existence, according to the Charter of Prince Vsevolod, of "church charitable princes" is also almost unbelievable. Klyuchevsky ascribes to the church a "decisive change" in "Russian slave-owning law", which consisted in the fact that it introduced the custom of freeing slaves by will, established cases of compulsory release of serfs to freedom and forced redemption of serfs. However, as later studies have shown, this picture is far from reality. As for the release of serfs into the wild, then, according to sources, they included mainly weak old men, concubines who became mothers. Yes, and the bishops, "who refused, - according to Klyuchevsky, - from all the blessings of the world", actually owned serfs themselves: according to the chronicle, around 1068, the Bishop of Novgorod "Stephan in Kiev strangled his serfs". However, the institution of servitude not only could not be ousted, despite the existence and strengthening of the church organization in Rus', but received a new development in the 15th-16th centuries, at a time when the influence of the church increased, when not only ministerials - administrators of estates, but also landowners were serfs. , T. i.e. they have become an stratum of the exploiting class.

The master's thesis of M.D. Priselkova “Essays on Church political history Kievan Rus X-XII centuries. Student A.A. Shakhmatova, who, like many other historians of Rus' of that time, was strongly influenced by the new concept of the development of Russian chronicle created by a major source specialist, he developed this concept in relation to the church-political history of Rus' on the basis of the chronicles and the Kiev-Pechersk patericon with much less use of other sources. His work, based on hypothetical constructions, Shakhmatova, itself offered original solutions to many questions of the church history of Rus'. Among the hypotheses put forward or substantiated by Priselkov, one should mention the theses about the subordination of the Old Russian Church until 1037 to the Bulgarian Archdiocese of Ohrid, about the transfer of Metropolitan Hilarion and the clergy appointed by him after the death of Yaroslav to the Caves Monastery, where Hilarion became the chronicler Nikon, about a sharp struggle with varying success between the Caves Monastery, Kiev princes and Greek metropolitans, etc. . Priselkov's talentedly written book had a strong influence on the historiography of this topic in the 1910-1930s, and only 45-50 years after its publication, researchers were able to return to the consideration of the questions posed in it.

The traditions of university bourgeois science continued to be developed abroad by Russian scientists. Among them was G.V. Vernadsky, son of the famous Soviet geochemist V.I. Vernadsky and the grandson of the professor of political economy I.V. Vernadsky. A supporter and one of the creators of the so-called Eurasian concept, which affirms the special paths of the history of Russia, by origin and in the historical past connected not so much with Europe as with Asia, he created a school of Russian history in the USA, which received a certain development in the post-war years.

In his work of 1941, Vernadsky examines the history of the Old Russian church organization at the end of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century. based on the analysis of the Charter of Vladimir, on tithes and the work of M.D. Priselkov 1913. Rejecting the previously recognized concept of Priselkov about the belonging of Rus' to the Ohrid Archdiocese until 1037, Vernadsky proposed the Tmutarakan Archdiocese as another center, to which Rus' was de jure subordinate in church terms, after the fall of Korsun it became de facto autocephalous. He considers in the aspect of the Tmutarakan thesis both Vladimir’s campaign against Korsun, and his establishment of tithes on the model of the Khazar Khaganate, which, according to Khordadbeh, collected a tenth of the price of goods, and the nature of Kiev church architecture, in particular the Church of the Tithes, which belonged to the basilicas of the Caucasus, and trips to Tmutarakan Nikon-Hilarion, who, according to Vernadsky's assumption, occupied the archbishop's chair there. Vernadsky connects the establishment of the metropolis in Kyiv with the conflict between Yaroslav and Mstislav for power in Rus', in which this act was supposed to help Yaroslav, although the death of Mstislav made it meaningless. Many of these constructions of Vernadsky were challenged by later studies, and he himself did not include all of them in his 1948 Russian history course.

In parallel with university, civil historiography, which considered, among others, questions of the history of the ancient Russian church and its relations with state power, church historiography also existed in Russia. The history of the Russian Church was taught in the theological academies, printed training courses were devoted to it and scientific works prominent specialists whose contribution to the study of our problem is also of interest. Of course, the studies of church historians were works written by researchers who understand the course of history, the role of the church organization in society, not only from a religious point of view, but also from the position of the ministers of this organization. The connection between the "objectivity" of the study of church history and Christian piety was directly named by one of the authors of the first major works on this topic, Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky). In his "History of the Russian Church ... from the beginning of Christianity in Russia to the invasion of the Mongols" he wrote that "the historian of the church must primarily be faithful to the truth, and for this he must be a sincere Christian. Revising the sources, he must look at their information not according to his own taste, not according to the spirit of his time, but as the circumstances of that time require, as the truth of history and the gospel requires ... Without Christian piety, a church historian is a foreigner in Christ's church: a lot he will not understand the events of the church, he will spoil a lot with a misinterpretation or completely leave him without attention ... ". It is not surprising that this historical work of Filaret acquired the character of an official history for edifying reading, but, although it was reprinted several times, it did not have the scientific value that his other, bibliographic work has.

Much more interesting was the work of a younger contemporary of Filaret, Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) "History of the Russian Church" in 12 volumes, brought to the end of the 16th century. . The historicity of this "History", as noted by the biographer of Metropolitan Macarius, increases as he works on volumes, and the first volumes, dedicated to the 10th-13th centuries, are more schematic, although they give a fairly complete account of events from the point of view of a church historian and administrator of the middle of the 19th V. (Macariy was the archbishop of Kharkov, then the metropolitan of Moscow). Valuable are the publications of documents in the appendix to individual volumes (especially in the second edition). Important was the initiative of Macarius, who wrote a dissertation on the history of Christianity in Rus' before Prince Vladimir.

Peculiar, far from the official direction of church historiography, were the views on the history of the Russian church of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Academician E.E. Golubinsky (Peskov). The scientific position of this prominent historian, who came from the family of a provincial priest, was undoubtedly affected by the controversial role of the church in his time, which closely connected Russia of the reform decades with the past, religion with the autocratic state, school and education with the church. These connections in Golubinsky's mind found expression in his words about the inevitability of a modern historian's active attitude both to reality and to the past: “To be a historian is in some respects almost as ticklish as to be a publicist. The history of any society cannot be a laudatory word to it or a panegyric, but must be an exact reproduction of its past life with all the advantages and disadvantages of this latter, otherwise it will lose all its meaning and cease to be history. But, speaking of the shortcomings of the past tense, it is sometimes impossible not to capture to some extent the present, for the very simple reason that sometimes the past still continues to more or less remain present. Thus, in some cases, the historian, willy-nilly, becomes partly a publicist. In his major questions in terms of the breadth of the questions posed and the volume of works, most of which still retain a certain significance, Golubinsky acted as a liberal historian, critical of the society he studies, the role of the Old Russian Church (“our church history is not good according to our own fault"), the state of enlightenment ("we did not have genuine enlightenment, but only literacy"), to a certain extent continuing the tradition of Tatishchev. He does not idealize the history of the church, as does his younger contemporary Klyuchevsky. Golubinsky is characterized by a negative attitude towards church legends, such as the journey of the Apostle Andrei, the circumstances of Vladimir's baptism; he wrote about the introduction of Christianity in Rus' by force, about pagan martyrs who refused baptism, believed that the first Russian saints Boris and Gleb were exalted "for political reasons that have nothing to do with faith." Golubinsky is just as critical in relation to the sources on the history of the church, which he had at his disposal, both to the chronicles and church charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav - in his opinion, forgeries of the 13th century.

No wonder that published in 1880-1881. the first two books (“halves”) of the first volume were banned by the Synod, and only 20 years later two books of the second volume were published and the first volume was republished.

We can agree with the biographer's opinion that one of the essential features of Golubinsky as a historian and source specialist is the simplification of his approach to "the diversity of the historical process, the complexity and interweaving of historical conditions", skepticism about early sources, which he considered too straightforward - as a document authentic or inauthentic . Significant layers, redactions, later revisions of the source, reflecting other views, another purpose of the source, are alien to him. Already Klyuchevsky, at the defense of Golubinsky’s dissertation in 1880, rightly noted the obsoleteness of his opinion about the Tale of Bygone Years as a single chronicle compiled by a monk of the Caves Monastery.

The tradition of Russian church historiography, which, however, comes more from Metropolitan Macarius than from Golubinsky, has found expression both in Soviet church literature and in foreign literature. Such is the work devoted to the highest church hierarchy in Ancient Rus', P. Imshennik, giving a fairly objective, as far as a historian who is under the undoubted influence of Klyuchevsky is able to do, a picture of the relationship between church and secular power, without raising new questions.

Abroad, this tradition is represented primarily by “Essays on the History of the Russian Church” by A.V. Kartashev. Associate Professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and then Minister of Religions in the Provisional Government, he became a professor at the Russian Theological Academy in Paris, which trained Orthodox clergy for countries Western Europe and America. Kartashev's work, written by a Russian historian abroad, is one of the examples of the idealization of the role of Christianity and the Church in the history of Russia. His work is connected both with the tradition of Russian bourgeois science, coming from Klyuchevsky, and with the position of the author himself as the only official historian of the Russian church in the academic department in the 20-30s, and with separation from Russia and opposing its past history to its modern state, which he characterizes as an "anti-Christian revolution". Being at the level of pre-revolutionary science, Kartashev's "Essays" in covering the period of interest to us did not give a new interpretation, remaining, as he himself wrote, "not claiming to be a new scientific development, iterative and generalizing work", and, it should be noted, generalizing the religious concept of Russian stories.

Along with Russian emigrant scientists, local scientists also studied the history of the Old Russian church and state abroad. The greatest interest in this issue was shown by German historians, a tradition dating back to the 18th century. and continuing to this day. Among such researchers, one should first of all name the famous Slavist and canonist, Professor of the University of Bonn L.K. Goetz. He owns a series of books of various scientific value, including works on Cyril and Methodius, the Kiev Caves Patericon, the history of Russian canon law (translation of the course by A.S. Pavlov, accompanied by sources), the study of Russian Truth, Russian-German treaties and trade relations in the Middle Ages .

In his 1908 work on the history of the state and church in Rus' in pre-Mongolian times, Goetz drew attention to a number of phenomena that had already been identified in Russian bourgeois science or remained unknown. Thus, for example, he says that the transfer of the Christian Church to Rus' led, first of all, to its change here, to degrecization and Russification. Such changes took place in those directions that were possible under local conditions, that is, not in church dogma and not in a change in the place of the metropolis in relation to the patriarchy, but in another. This is the development of an ecclesiastical structure connected with the territory of the new state and its political structure, this is the development of ecclesiastical law, this is the definition of the relationship between the state and the church, caused to a large extent by local conditions. Such processes led to the fact that the Kiev Metropolis, one of many in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, turned out to be transformed into a Russian state national church. It was this transformation, along with other circumstances, that, according to Goetz, was the reason that in Rus' there was no enmity between state power and the church, known in the West, where the church did not acquire a national character in each of the countries. It is also important that the Bonn historian admits that the state power in Rus' used the church not only to create a “moral-Christian order”, but (according to Klyuchevsky) also “civil society”, transferring the area of ​​law to it and supporting it in this: “The prince entrusted her sphere of law, for he considered her more competent in these matters. In this scheme, however, the thesis about the “transfer” of certain areas of law by the prince to the church remains controversial. Rather, as was shown later, the church itself defined those areas of law and public life, which were not within the competence of the princely power, but belonged to the communal and family competence and which were regulated by the already existing traditional norms.

The work of the German historian K. Fritzler, devoted to the history of the Old Russian church jurisdiction and the Charter of Prince Yaroslav, was of a completely different nature. Issued in 1917, during the First World War, and republished in 1923, it was a significant step backward compared with Goetz's study of the relationship between the state and the church in Rus'. The author sets himself the task of substantiating the concept that the church had no jurisdiction in the pre-Mongolian period, because, in his opinion, for the princely power, the creation of another special court would be nonsense and the creation of an ecclesiastical court would be a "suicidal act" for the state power itself. Only a foreign force could give the church its own jurisdiction: "these were the Tatars." Thus, it was thanks to the Mongol conquest that the church in Rus' received a certain power and extensive judicial rights. According to Fritzler, the development of ancient Russian law passed through two periods. In the first, Kiev, there was a complete commonality of legal relations in Rus' and in the "Germanic countries": "Both rights, Old Russian and Scandinavian, are branches of the same German trunk." In ancient Russian society, he sees not a social, but an ethnic gradation: the ruling stratum and the common people, "formed by two completely different peoples, who were not in any close connection with each other." Only the Mongol conquest brought with it "church-Byzantine influence", and in order to weaken the princely power in Rus', the khans gave the church jurisdiction, which took away a number of public spheres from this power. The author of this work combines extreme Normanism with anti-historical constructions, clothed in a paradoxical form that attracts the reader. The anti-historicism of his concept lies, among other things, in the fact that, as shown in this work and in a number of others, the development of the spheres of law in Rus' goes in the opposite direction to what Fritzler draws, namely from a large family, a community to a church organization in the time of its establishment and development in the XI-XIII centuries. and then, with the restriction of the feudal judicial rights of vassals in favor of the grand dukes in the XII-XV centuries, from the church to the grand ducal power (theft, in the family, murder during a wedding, rape).

These characteristic features of the bourgeois historiography of the history of the ancient Russian church - first of all, its consideration as a supra-social, extra-class body, the almost obligatory idealization of its role only as a carrier of peace, culture in the chaos of medieval life, without changing its role in time - required the creation of works based on on a different, materialistic and dialectical methodological basis. In the history of the Marxist study of the history of the ancient Russian church, which appeared in pre-revolutionary science, four periods of gradual growth and deepening of knowledge can be distinguished.

The first period is associated with the first attempts at a historical-materialistic understanding of the specific place of the Old Russian church in society and the state. Based on the works of Marx and Engels, considering the medieval church as an organization that sets as its goal the deification of the feudal system, historians thereby broke with the traditions of the idealization of the church and its supra-class interpretation. Their contribution was important for the historical assessment of the role of the church in the history of Russia and in its present, including for developing an attitude towards the church in modern society, fixed in the revolutionary slogans of the separation of church and state and the recognition of freedom of conscience. However, the works of historians of this period bore the stamp of their origin, which complicated their significance in the history of science. This refers to such features as the use of the theory of "commercial capital" as a special era in the Middle Ages, preceding industrial capital, as the desire for a Marxist analysis and interpretation of the phenomena of the past on the basis of facts collected (and selected) by aristocratic-bourgeois science on the basis of its methodology and her interests. characteristic feature of these works there was also a sharply negative attitude towards the very subject of research - the church organization, with the transfer of this attitude from the church of the 19th - early 20th centuries, which was distinguished by conservative social and state activities, to the church organization of the early time, when it had to play a different role. At the same time, this position of historians could not but contribute to the emergence and expansion in Soviet society in the late 1920s of a nihilistic attitude towards the church, which brought significant losses in culture, spiritual life and public morality.

The formation of the Marxist history of the Russian Church is associated with the names of M.N. Pokrovsky and N.M. Nikolsky. The name of the first major historian, author of a work who comprehended the centuries-old history of Russia from a Marxist position, and in the post-revolutionary period - a statesman (chairman of the Moscow City Council, Deputy People's Commissar of Education), is not associated with special studies on the history of the church. Among others, he was professionally interested in the problem of the formation of the political system of the Russian autocracy of the 16th-17th centuries, and from this point of view he also looks at the relationship between the state and the church: “What was the role of the church in creating the objective conditions that gave rise to Moscow tsarism? What did the church give not in words, but in deeds - did it give as a certain organization? . He establishes that “the feudalization of the Orthodox Church began long before the period under consideration: already in Kievan-Novgorod Rus, monasteries were large landowners, and metropolitans and bishops had a large share political power, by the way, being judges ... for the entire population in general. He notes the dependence of the activities of bishops on secular political forces, monasteries - on the corresponding princely dynasties. “The dependence of the church on the state in Kievan-Novgorod Rus was only as much less than the same dependence in the post-Petrine era, insofar as the church of the veche city was a democratic organization.” At the same time, according to Pokrovsky, the conquest of Rus' by the Tatar-Mongols and the subordination of it to the "infidel" kings brought liberation from such dependence of the church, and not internal socio-economic and political processes, such as the growth of land ownership of the church, the weakening of the central state power in the process feudal fragmentation, etc.

Another work of this time, specially devoted to the history of the Russian church, belongs to Nikolsky. Orientalist, historian of Middle Eastern religions, he participated in the creation of Pokrovsky's Russian History from Ancient Times, writing a number of chapters for it. They were later revised into a separate book, The History of the Russian Church.

Nikolsky's work was the first special work that showed the role of the Russian Church, different from what was portrayed by previous university and church historians. This contribution of the scientist to the study of the topic is noted in the introductory article of the editor of the latest edition of the book, N.S. Gordienko. Nikolsky closely connects the spread of Christianity in Rus' with princely power, writes that the Kiev princes, who gave the church a certain part of the income from their estates, created "the main link of the new faith and princely power on an economic and socio-political basis", and the church " was weaker than the principality both economically and organizationally. At the same time, Nikolsky considers the adoption of Christianity as a state religion as a factor mainly external, politically beneficial to Byzantium, as a way of a kind of colonization of Rus' from Constantinople, who wanted to "become sovereign master over the Dnieper country rich in raw products", which, however, he failed to do . "For the Patriarch of Constantinople, the new church was a colony, where all the "surplus" of the clerical population could be directed." Developing the provisions of Klyuchevsky and considering the wide church jurisdiction, he writes that this is exactly how a kind of church state within a state, representing a whole system of feeding, developed in Kievan Rus. Following P.F. Nikolaevsky, who wrote about financial dependence Kiev from the patriarch, Nikolsky believes that "the patriarch zealously monitored the regular receipt of payments due to him ... income from vacant departments and churches, income from the so-called stauropegia ... and various judicial and administrative fees." As shown in this paper, this thesis of Nikolaevsky and Nikolsky cannot be supported by evidence from sources. Concerning the history of church law in Rus', Nikolsky wrote that “on the Dnieper ... Byzantine church law, brought by the Greek clergy, was predominantly in force,” and in the XIII-XIV centuries. “Byzantine ecclesiastical norms have been preserved only nominally, and under their labels a purely local content has developed ...” . However, a study of the history of church law in Kievan Rus does not allow us to believe that Byzantine norms were predominantly applied there, rather, on the contrary, in the XIV-XVI centuries. in the process of development of the social and state system, the norms of the Pilot's Book become more common in Rus', as corresponding to the feudal law of this era (the use of "city laws" at that time, the publication in the 17th century of the Pilot's Book).

The works of historians of the second half of the 1930-1950s can be attributed to the second period in the history of Marxist and Soviet historiography.

In the works devoted to the history of Ancient Rus' as such, the historical-materialistic and class approach to the study of the church in the Middle Ages was embodied. A characteristic feature of the works of this period is the consideration of the history of the Old Russian Church in close connection with the social and political development of the country, as part of civil history. Finally, in the works of this period, a large new material, introduced by the 30-40s on the socio-economic and political history of Rus'. Among such works is the article by S.V. Bakhrushin, specially devoted to the issue of the adoption of Christianity by Russia; works by B.D. Grekov; a generalizing chapter on religion and the church by N.F. Lavrov in the "History of the Culture of Ancient Rus'", prepared back in 1941, which summed up the study of this topic in the first half of the century; works by M.N. Tikhomirov 1946 and 1959 , sections A.M. Sakharov in critical essays by Soviet historians "The Church in the History of Russia (IX century - 1917)", etc.

The third period is characterized by a significant expansion and the introduction of new sources into science, which are needed specifically for the history of the Old Russian Church. If the historians of the first period were based on the base that was collected and interpreted in pre-revolutionary historiography, and for the 30-50s, achievements in the socio-economic history of Russia were used to study the position of the church and Christianity in Russia, based on a new study of Russian Truth, archaeological discoveries, etc., now historians have begun to study special groups of sources. In the late 1950s - 1980s, studies appeared on sources of church origin or related to church activities: chronicle stories, lives, epistles, seals, lists of hierarchs, Novgorod and Smolensk land and statutory charters, princely charters, collections of church law .

Finally, in the 1980s, we entered a new, fourth period. It is characterized by the appearance of generalizing studies on the history of the Old Russian Church, carried out partly on the basis of source studies. The absence of such studies has been felt since the 70s, when fragments of old Soviet works on the history of religions and the church were republished, when N.M. Nikolsky, as it was shown, is very outdated and does not reflect the achievements of Soviet science.

Modern foreign historiography includes both valuable works based on a painstaking study of sources, as well as knowledge of existing, including Soviet, literature and scientific issues, as well as propaganda and anti-Soviet articles and books. An important contribution to the justification of the initial status of the Old Russian church was made by Professor L. Müller of the University of Tübingen. Having considered the arguments in favor of the eight different versions of the international position of the Church in Rus' before 1039, expressed in science, he confirmed by analyzing the sources of various groups and origins that the church organization was from the very beginning, after the official adoption of Christianity, connected with Constantinople and headed by the metropolitan.

Among modern foreign historians, the greatest contribution was made to the study of the Old Russian church and its relations with the state power by Professor of Warsaw University A.V. Poppe, Marxist historian, author of in-depth studies of both the sources on the topic and the historical problems themselves. Among his works is a monographic study specially devoted to the state and church in Rus' in the 11th century. , and a large number of articles, some of which have been published as a separate book. The main provisions substantiated by Poppe are the establishment of the Kyiv Metropolis at the end of the 10th century, shortly after the official adoption of Christianity, the development of a network of episcopal departments in the 11th century. and the existence of titular metropolises in Chernihiv and Pereyaslavl. His other provisions - about the reasons for placing Hilarion as a phenomenon not so much of ancient Russian as of Eastern Christian history in general, about Vladimir's campaign against Korsun as an act of military assistance to Emperor Vasily II against usurpers - seem less justified.

Maps of the church-administrative structure of Rus' at the end of the 10th-11th centuries. and XII - the first half of the XIII century. performed by A.A. Queen.

Notes

. Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church (before the division of the churches - 1054). Brussels, 1964, pp. 325-330.

. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1960. Book. II. pp. 260, 268-272.

Cm.: Marks K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 7. S. 352.

In the book: Podskalsky G. Christentum und theologische Literatur in der Kiever Rus" (988-1237). München, 1982. S. 282-301 (Anhang Ib (zusammengestellt von A. Poppe)).

PSRL. St. Petersburg, 1862, vol. 9, pp. 57, 64; Class B.M. Nikon's code and Russian chronicles of the 16th-17th centuries. M., 1980. S. 96-97; see also: Shakhmatov A.A. Review of the essay by S.K. Shambinago "The Tale of the Battle of Mamaev" (St. Petersburg, 1906). SPb., 1910. S. 157.

PSRL. T. 9. S. 83; see also p. 172.

There. pp. 65-66; Kloss B.M. Decree. op. S. 52.

. Andrusenko D.V. From the history of studying the views of V.N. Tatishchev on religion and the church // Social and philosophical aspects of criticism of religion. L., 1986. S. 130-153.

. Tatishchev V.N. Russian history. M.; L., 1963. T. 2. S. 236. Note. 202.

. Soloviev S.M. Selected works. Notes. M., 1983. S. 215.

. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1959. Book. 1. S. 262.

There. S. 260.

There. M., 1960. Book. 2. S. 54-56.

The date of the introduction of Christianity in Rus' as a state religion is considered to be 988, when the great Kiev prince Vladimir and his retinue were baptized. Although the spread of Christianity in Rus' began earlier. In particular, Princess Olga accepted Christianity. Prince Vladimir sought to replace the pagan pantheon with a monotheistic (monotheism) religion.

The choice fell on Christianity, because:

1) the influence of Byzantium was great in Rus';

2) faith has already become widespread among the Slavs;

3) Christianity corresponded to the mentality of the Slavs, was closer than Judaism or Islam.

There are different points of view on how Christianity spread:

1) the baptism of Rus' took place peacefully. The new religion acted as a powerful unifying factor. (D.S. Likhachev);

2) the introduction of Christianity was premature, since the main part of the Slavs continued to believe in pagan gods until the XIV century, when the unification of the country had already become inevitable. The adoption of Christianity in the X century. exacerbated relations between the Kievan nobility and their neighbors. The baptism of Novgorodians took place together with mass bloodshed, Christian rites, orders did not take root in society for a long time: the Slavs called children pagan names, church marriage was not considered mandatory, in some places remnants of the tribal system were preserved (polygamy, blood feud) (I.Ya. Froyanov). Since the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, the Russian Church has been part of the Ecumenical Constantinople. The metropolitan was appointed by the patriarch. Initially, the metropolitans and priests in Rus' were the Greeks. But meanwhile the Russian foreign policy retained its independence thanks to the firmness and perseverance of the first princes. Yaroslav the Wise appointed the Russian priest Hilarion as metropolitan, thereby putting an end to the dispute with the Greeks.

The Russian Church provided great influence on all spheres of life of the Slavs: politics, economics, culture:

1) the church began to quickly gain economic independence. The prince donated a tithe to her. Monasteries were, as a rule, an extensive economy. Some of the products they sold on the market, and some stockpiled. At the same time, the Church grew richer faster than the great princes, since it was not affected by the struggle for power during feudal fragmentation, there was no great destruction of its material values ​​even during the years of the Mongol-Tatar invasion;

2) political relations began to be covered by the church: relations of domination and subordination began to be regarded as correct and pleasing to God, while the church received the right to reconcile, to be a guarantor, a judge in the political sphere;

3) Christian churches became the centers of not only religious but also worldly life, as community gatherings were held, the treasury and various documents were kept;

4) the Christian Church made an important contribution to the culture of ancient Russian society: the first sacred books appeared, the monk brothers Cyril and Methodius compiled the Slavic alphabet. Among the population of Rus', first of all Kyiv principality literacy rate increased. Christianity introduced new norms of behavior, morality for the Slavs, such as “do not steal”, “do not kill”.

4. Political fragmentation in Rus' (XII-XIII centuries.)

In the 30-40s. 12th century princes cease to recognize the power of the Kievan prince. Rus' breaks up into separate principalities (“lands”). For Kyiv began the struggle of different princely branches. The strongest lands were Chernihiv, Vladimir-Suzdal, Galicia-Volyn. Their princes were subject to princes whose possessions (destinies) were part of large lands. The prerequisites for fragmentation are growth of local centers, already burdened by the guardianship of Kyiv, the development of princely and boyar land ownership. The principality of Vladimir rose under Yuri Dolgoruky and his sons Andrei Bogolyubsky (d. 1174) and Vsevolod the Big Nest (d. 1212). Yuri and Andrei captured Kyiv more than once, but Andrei, unlike his father, planted his brother there, and did not reign himself. Andrew tried to rule by despotic methods and was killed by conspirators. After the death of Andrei and Vsevolod, feuds broke out between their heirs. Galician Principality intensified under Yaroslav Osmomysl (d. 1187). In 1199, when Yaroslav's son Vladimir died childless, Galich was captured by Roman Volynsky, and in 1238, after a long struggle, Roman's son Daniel. The development of this land was influenced by Poland and Hungary, which actively intervened in local strife, as well as the boyars, much more influential and powerful than in other principalities. Novgorodians in 1136 they expelled Prince Vsevolod and from then on began to invite princes by decision of the veche. The real power lay with the boyars, whose factions fought among themselves for influence. The same situation was in Pskov, which depended on Novgorod. In the 1170s. the Polovtsian danger intensifies. The southern princes, led by Svyatoslav of Kyiv, inflicted several defeats on them, but in 1185 Igor Novgorod-Seversky was defeated and captured by the Polovtsy, the nomads ravaged part of southern Rus'. But by the end of the century, the Polovtsy, having broken up into many separate hordes, stopped the raids.

Prerequisites for overcoming feudal fragmentation:

1) at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries. special politic system Grand Duchy of Vladimir. The power of the Grand Duke, although it was largely nominal, still gave some advantages. The Grand Duke of Vladimir stood at the head of the feudal hierarchy. In the XIV century. the main contenders for the throne of Vladimir were the princes of Tver and Moscow;

2) The Horde weakened, experienced a period of acute internal contradictions;

3) the most important political task for Rus' in the XIV century. began the struggle with the Horde. The Russians stopped paying tribute to the Mongols and were preparing for an all-Russian campaign against the Horde.

In the second half of the XIV century. the raids of the Golden Horde on Russian lands began to become more frequent. Leading the Horde 1360s was Khan Mamai.

Among causes of feudal fragmentation in general, we can distinguish: 1) internal political; 2) foreign policy; 3) economic.

Historians indicate the time of transition to fragmentation by a conditional date - 1132, the year of the death of the great Kyiv prince Mstislav Vladimirovich. Although researchers who support a formal approach to history, thereby allow a number of inaccuracies when analyzing feudal fragmentation, taking into account the personality of one or another Grand Duke.

In the XI-XII centuries. in Rus', several dozen independent states (lands, principalities, volosts) arise, about a dozen of them are large. Until the establishment of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the process of their further fragmentation did not weaken.

At the same time, feudal fragmentation in Rus' was not an out of the ordinary process; all countries of Western Europe and Asia passed through it.

Feudal fragmentation call the inevitable state, the stage of the world historical process, which has local specifics.

Economic reasons feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus: 1) the dominance of natural economy; 2) economic independence of the estates of the princes; 3) isolation of individual economic units; 4) the strengthening and growth of Russian cities, the improvement of the technology of manufacturing goods.

In times of feudal fragmentation, representatives of princely families made every conceivable effort so that their patrimony would become more developed than the possessions of an enemy relative.

Political reasons for the feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus: 1) the growth of boyar land ownership and the strengthening of the power of feudal lords in their estates; 2) territorial conflicts of representatives from the Rurik family.

It should also be taken into account that the Kiev throne was losing the position of its former leader status, there was a decrease in its political significance. The center of gravity shifted gradually to the princely destinies. If at one time the princes sought to seize the throne of the grand duke, then in times of feudal fragmentation, everyone began to think about strengthening, strengthening their own patrimony. As a result, the reign of Kiev becomes honorary, although it does not really give anything, it does not mean anything.

Over time, the princely family grew, the destinies were subject to fragmentation, which led to the actual weakening of Kievan Rus. Moreover, if in the middle of the XII century. there were 15 specific principalities, then at the beginning of the XIII century. there were already about 50 of them.

Foreign policy reasons for the feudal fragmentation of Kievan Rus: 1) comparative calm on the borders of the Kyiv principality; 2) the resolution of conflicts took place by diplomatic methods, and not by force.

Important authorities in the fragmented feudal lands were the prince, as well as intensified in the XII century. veche (people's assembly of the city). In particular, in Novgorod the veche played the role of supreme power, which turned it into a special medieval republic.

The absence of an external danger that could rally the princes allowed them to deal with the internal problems of the destinies, as well as wage internecine fratricidal wars.

Even taking into account the high degree of conflict, on the territory of Kievan Rus, the population did not cease to consider itself a single entity. The feeling of unity was maintained thanks to the common spiritual roots, culture and great influence of the Orthodox Church.

The common faith helped the Russians to act together in times of severe trials during the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

This question has two sides: what was the role and position of the church within the country, in the relationship of the metropolis, episcopia, monasteries with princely power, with cities, and what is its foreign policy position, mainly manifested in the relationship of the Kiev Metropolis with Constantinople and in the activities of Kiev metropolitans - Greeks and Russians. The Catholic Church from abroad sought to establish its own diocese in Rus', but the matter did not go beyond sending missionaries, the existence of churches in the colonies of foreign merchants in Kiev, Smolensk, Novgorod, and the activities of the Dominican Order in Kiev in the 1220-1230s. Therefore, in state relations between the princely and city authorities, on the one hand, and the church organization, on the other, only the Russian, metropolitan church participated.

1. International status of the Old Russian Church

Formed at the end of the X century. on the initiative of the prince of Kyiv and by agreement between Kiev and Constantinople, the Kiev Metropolis was formally one of the 60, later 70, metropolises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Its head was the patriarch of Constantinople with his council and staff. At the same time, the emperor, who had sacred functions and was the nominal head of the Christian world, also had undoubted authority in the church.

However, the Kiev Metropolitan Eparchy differed significantly from others in many ways, which put it objectively in very special conditions. Not only was it the largest diocese among the Metropolises of Constantinople, its borders coincided with the borders of another state, it covered the territory inhabited by a different, ancient Russian ethnic group that spoke a different language and used a different script. The Kiev metropolitan diocese covered the territory of the Old Russian state with its state power, ruling dynasties, its political and legal traditions. Thus, unlike most of the metropolitan dioceses of Constantinople, it was a national and state church organization.

According to the tradition prevailing in the Christian, and in particular in the Church of Constantinople, and partly confirmed and formulated by the councils of the 4th-7th centuries, the patriarchy and the emperor were in charge of the formation of new metropolitanates on the territory of the diocese, i.e., the division of one diocese into several, setting and the removal of metropolitans, the trial of them and the consideration of conflicts in the metropolitan dioceses, which the metropolitans themselves were not able to resolve.

The competence of the local church and the metropolitan was to create new bishoprics and close the old ones, i.e., changing the territory of episcopal dioceses, appointing and removing bishops and judging them, convening diocesan councils and issuing rules relating to church affairs within the diocese.

In some works of historians devoted to Russian-Byzantine church relations, the nature of relations between Kiev and Constantinople received a one-sided coverage, not substantiated by evidence from sources. Thus, P. F. Nikolaevsky believed that “the power of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Russian metropolia was complete, exclusive, far exceeding the rights of the patriarch over the metropolises, indicated by the rules of the councils. The patriarch not only managed the affairs of the Russian church, but he himself, in addition to the consent of the local councils, in addition to the consent of the Russian clergy and the Russian secular authorities, elected, installed and sent metropolitans to Russia; appointed not only metropolitans, but also bishops, and sometimes persons to lower church positions - to archimandrites and abbesses. From the metropolitans, he demanded a constant account in the management of Russian church affairs: without the knowledge and consent of the patriarch, the Russian metropolitan could not undertake anything important in his area; every two years he had to appear in Constantinople to present a report to the patriarch on his administration ... ". As shown in ch. III, in the sections on the church-administrative structure in Rus', on the archimandrites in the Russian city, much of. what Nikolaevsky writes does not find confirmation in the known facts of the 11th-13th centuries.

The same must be said about such a thesis as the obligation of the Russian metropolis to send monetary tribute to Constantinople. Nikolaevsky writes that the cost of this tribute was not regulated by exact laws, but it “was great and difficult for the Russians; the metropolitans collected this tribute from all the bishops, and those from their dioceses, from all the lower clergy and people. P. P. Sokolov also wrote about such a tribute. In his opinion, the contributions from the metropolitans to the patriarch were in theory voluntary in terms of their size, but practice diverged from theory. The patriarchal synod in 1324 established an annual tax rate depending on the wealth of individual metropolitans. “We do not find the Russian metropolia in this list,” Sokolov writes, “but this does not mean that she was exempted from such contributions in favor of the patriarchate. Completely opposite; while the Greek metropolitans, by means of this synodal act, shielded themselves from the former arbitrary requests from the patriarchate, with regard to Russia, the former practice remained. In Soviet literature, did you support the thesis that Russia paid tribute to the Patriarch of Constantinople? ?. Nikolsky, who wrote that “the patriarch zealously monitored the regular receipt of payments due to him - payments for those appointed to episcopal positions to the patriarch himself and his “notaries”, i.e., officials of the patriarchal curia, income from vacant chairs and churches, income from the so-called stauropegia, i.e., monasteries and churches, which were selected by the patriarchs for their direct control, and various judicial and administrative fees.

Meanwhile, the sources at our disposal, both Russian and Byzantine, in particular the named list of metropolitanates of 1374, where Rus' is absent from those sees that pay an annual tax to the patriarch, do not report anything about such obligatory and permanent payments from Kiev. Naturally, when the Kyiv metropolitans and other hierarchs traveled to Constantinople, they brought gifts with them. The medieval structure of government and court determined the payment, which became traditional over time, for the arrival of a bishop for court (“honor”), a metropolitan for an arbitration court, fees for appointment to bishops and church officials (Rule 1273). Probably, for the approval of Metropolitan Hilarion, chosen by Yaroslav and appointed bishops, if there was such a thing, he also brought large gifts to Constantinople. But the system itself, according to which the appointment and consecration of the Kiev metropolitan from among the Greeks, people close to the patriarch, took place in Constantinople, as well as the arrival of such metropolitans in Rus' should have led to the bringing of gifts not from Rus' to Constantinople, but, on the contrary, gifts from the emperor Kiev Grand Duke. Of course, to Rus' in the XI-XIII centuries. Byzantine church leaders came, who were also presented with gifts from the metropolitan and the prince, but these gifts cannot in any way be considered as permanent and obligatory tributes, which the named researchers speak about without sufficient reason. In addition, the stauropegia mentioned by Nikolsky did not exist in Rus' at the time under study - all the monasteries and churches in Rus' were subordinate to their bishops and princes, and not to the patriarch, in church-administrative terms. As shown in Chap. I, and the archdiocese in Rus' was only nominal and was replaced not by the Greeks, but by the Novgorodians, who were subordinate to the city council and the Kyiv metropolitan.

The Novgorod Chronicle I reports that the Archbishop of Novgorod Nifont, in anticipation of the new metropolitan, went to meet him in Kyiv and died there; but he also cites an unsubstantiated rumor, which, according to the chronicler, is widespread: “... and many others say, as if, having drunk (having robbed. - Ya.Shch.) Saint Sophia, I sent Caesaryugrad; and I speak a lot in n, nb myself for sin. Priselkov sees in this message only a story about the bishop bringing to his metropolitan an annual fee, collected during several years of his absence in Kyiv. The mention in the rumors of Constantinople recorded by the chronicler allows us to interpret the extraordinary collection of large Money. It is possible that, having supported the patriarchate in the non-recognition of the canonicity of the appointment of Kliment Smolyatich, who received a commendable message from Patriarch Nicholas Muzalon in 1049-1050, he himself, in the absence of a metropolitan recognized by Constantinople in Kiev, could count on being appointed to the Kiev cathedra in Constantinople. For this act, he really needed very large funds. However, he lingered in Kiev, most likely having received the news that in the autumn of 1155 the new metropolitan Constantine had already been appointed, and died there in April 1156. If this is so, then we could see another Russian in the person of Nifont of Novgorod candidate for the metropolitan see.

Thus, turning again to the competence of the Old Russian church organization as a state church, there is reason to believe that the principles of self-government and the activities of the metropolis, recognized in the Church of Constantinople, to a certain extent met the national needs and state prerogatives of Ancient Rus', with such an important exception as the appointment and consecration the very head of the ancient Russian church - the Metropolitan of Kiev. Constantinople used this right in order to always have in Kyiv a reliable and trusted representative who would observe the interests of the patriarch and reconcile them with the interests of the local authorities without prejudice to the patriarchy. Some of the Kievan metropolitans bore court patriarchal titles, indicating that they belonged to a narrow circle of advisers, members of the patriarchal council. Such titles are on their seals: "protopor and metropolitan of Russia" Ephraim (1054-1068), "metropolitan and syncellus" George (c. 1068-1073), and in the first case, the court title even precedes the diocesan one. This great closeness to the head of the Constantinople church of the metropolitans of the middle of the 11th century, whose seals have been preserved, is also shown by the placement on them of the personal emblems of the patriarchs.

In the conditions of the church-political polycentrism that existed in the Byzantine Empire, several patriarchies, the recognition of worship in local languages ​​and the existence of state churches in countries outside the empire (Bulgaria, Russia, Serbia, etc.), for the capital Patriarchate of Constantinople, which claimed a leading role in the empire (and who had it), it was important to turn the appointment of metropolitans from a sacred act of consecration - ordination into a political act of selecting their proteges. Although the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which recognized the right of the See of Constantinople to appoint metropolitans in the dioceses belonging to it, equal to that of other patriarchates, spoke only in favor of the confirmation and consecration of new metropolitans by the Archbishop of Constantinople, this decision, which seemed to be beneficial to the New Rome, was soon reconsidered. The right to appoint metropolitans in three or four dioceses from among the candidates presented to the archbishop in the time of Justinian, already without any decisions of the councils, was turned into the right to approve and appoint those candidates who were presented to him by the patriarchal council, a narrow deliberative body. Consequently, by the time the Old Russian church organization was established, the patriarchate had completely seized the right to appoint metropolitans, considering deviations from this practice as violations of ancient traditions.

2. The question of the role of the Greek metropolitans at the head of the Russian Church

At the head of the national state church organization in Rus' from the end of the 10th century. and before the Mongol invasion, as a rule, there were Greek metropolitans sent to Kiev from Constantinople, trained there, who did not know the Russian language, probably had not been to Rus' before and knew local conditions only from the stories of travelers who came from Kiev, as well as by correspondence, which was conducted between the two state and church centers. Thus, foreign church administrators and diplomats came to Kyiv to manage the Russian diocese.

This phenomenon in the history of Rus' XI-XIII centuries. caused conflicting assessments of researchers, from recognizing it as an evil for the development of the country, which made or threatened to make it a Byzantine colony, to including it among the factors that played a positive role.

This question was raised most sharply by Golubinsky, who formulated it as follows: “Was it good or bad for the Russian church and for the Russian state that in the pre-Mongolian period our metropolitans were mostly Greeks?” He answered this question in the affirmative, considering "that the domination of the Greeks was not for us a great and decisive evil in any respect, and that, on the contrary, in some respects it was a positive and greatest good." “To such an extent the greatest that we must not only come to terms with the Greeks’ claim, which is absolutely not based on any right, to subjugate other Orthodox peoples in ecclesiastical terms, but also thank God that they had such a claim.”

However, the position of the researcher is contradictory. On the one hand, he agrees that “Metropolitans of Greek origin... could not take care of the affairs of the Russian Church as diligently as metropolitans from natural Russians would have diligently taken care of,” on the other hand, practically the only thing that makes the Byzantine metropolitans benefactors for Russia, in his opinion, is their non-interference in the political inter-princely struggle, their lack of connection with one or another Grand Duke, which allows them to be outside this struggle.

The same position is fully shared by L. Muller. He writes that, "contrary to most researchers, it is necessary to recognize the correctness of Golubinsky" in this matter. He showed that there are no grounds to consider the metropolitan as "the emperor's envoy to the Kiev court", who would also carry out the claims of Constantinople for the state subordination of Rus' to the empire. Indeed, special ambassadors were sent to negotiate on specific political issues, since the metropolitans could not be very mobile, and while protecting the interests of the emperor, they could not be completely independent of the Kyiv Grand Duke. The Greek Metropolitan of Kiev Nikifor (1104-1121) in a letter to Grand Duke Vladimir Vsevolodovich speaks of his obligation to take care of the Christian faith, protecting the flock of Christ from the wolf and the divine garden from weeds, than he must continue the “old tradition” of his fathers. Muller rightly sees behind these words of the metropolitan the assignment to the Russian prince of the same rights and obligations in relation to the church, which, according to the VI novel of Justinian, the Byzantine emperor had, i.e., he does not believe that only the emperor retained these rights in Rus'. And how could it be otherwise, when the position of the church and Christianity in Kiev depended on the Grand Duke of Kiev, and not on the nominal head of the Christian church, who did not have any rights to power in a foreign state?

Müller also writes about the mediating activity of the metropolitans in political conflicts between the princes, an activity that “foreign Greeks could perform much better, on the election of which the Russian princes were not able to exert or exerted very little influence than the local bishops...”, and about "extremely positive significance" for the history of Russian culture of the fact that the Greeks were at the head of the Russian church. And the metropolitans themselves, and “the spiritual (perhaps, secular) staff accompanying them, and the artists and artisans who followed them brought to Rus' the traditions of Byzantine culture, equally significant in quality and volume. This included the Greek language, and the Byzantine religious, literary and scientific traditions, and the experience of building art and painting, music and artistic crafts, and, finally, clothing and comfort.

Indeed, the cultural and political significance of the fact that Rus' at the end of the X-XII centuries. focused on Constantinople and was part of its church, it is difficult to overestimate. This contributed to the fact that Rus' became on a par with other medieval countries of Europe, created outstanding works literature and art, in the conditions of feudal fragmentation, preserved the cultural and political unity of the Russian lands. The inclusion of works of Middle Eastern, early Christian, Byzantine literature, law, historiography into the composition of their own writing contributed to the fact that the achievements of world civilization served in Rus' not only the feudal class, but also a wider circle of people. Rus''s belonging to the Christian civilization and its eastern unification under the auspices of Constantinople overcame the isolation of the East Slavic feudal world, made the Old Russian society open to using the cultural achievements of other countries and transferring their own achievements abroad.

Recognizing the important cultural and political significance for Rus' of the fact that it was subordinate to Constantinople in church terms in the first centuries, one should, however, pay attention to the facts of the development of the country and the Old Russian Church in cultural and political terms without the participation of representatives of Constantinople in Kiev, and sometimes and contrary to them.

The conflict between Rome and Constantinople, which led to a rupture between them in 1054, was alien to Rus', which maintained political, commercial and cultural ties with both Western and Eastern countries. The event in question was not reflected in the Russian annals. Attention was drawn to the fact that among the signatures of the metropolitans on the conciliar act of 1054, which condemned the Roman ambassadors, there is no Kyiv metropolitan, for one reason or another he did not participate in this case. The figures of the Byzantine church in Rus', especially the metropolitans, tried, and not without success, to restore the princes and Russian society in general against contacts with the West, marriages with Catholic princesses, etc. However, the community of Rus' as a European state with the countries of other parts of Europe in the XI-XIII centuries. was more than something special that united it only with Byzantium and other countries of Eastern Christianity. In Russian writing and church services, the cult of transferring the relics of Nicholas of Myra, Western saints who were not recognized in Byzantium, became widespread.

The appointment of bishops and the establishment of new episcopal sees took place at the request of the local princes, which was satisfied by these representatives of Constantinople. When Metropolitan Nicephorus II sent to Vladimir the Greek Bishop Nicholas, appointed by him, to the vacant chair, the Grand Duke did not accept him, citing the fact that “this man was not chosen by our land”, and achieved the appointment of the candidate he needed. But metropolitans do not always fulfill their duties. Priselkov testified that Metropolitan Nikolay delayed the appointment of new bishops to vacant sees, and only the arrival of Nikifor to replace him led to the filling of vacancies.

The belonging of Rus' to the Eastern Christian region and its acquaintance with the church-political ideas that were widespread there created the conditions not only for their assimilation and use, but also for the creation of their own concepts. However, the fact that there was a protege of the patriarchate in Kyiv prevented the emergence of any theories that ran counter to the official views adopted in the patriarchate. Therefore, such ideas arise outside the circle of the Greek metropolitan, among local figures associated with princely churches or monasteries.

Such is the court princely priest Hilarion, who used the theme of changing the "law" - nationally limited and obsolete with the emergence of Christianity, the Jewish religion and the moral and ethical system "grace" - with a Christian doctrine that equalizes everyone and thereby allows people who "newly know" God to take a high place that was previously inaccessible to them. He used this theme in order to counter the "old law" - the ecclesiastical and political concepts of Constantinople - with the "new" doctrine, requiring new people, to which Russia also belongs, in the new conditions of introducing Christianity to Rus'. Thus, it was the local, Russian religious and political ideologist who could put forward the idea of ​​transferring heavenly attention and favor from one chosen people to all of humanity. Also, in the local historical work, not related to the metropolis, in the Tale of Bygone Years, ideas are carried out not only about the connection of the history of Rus' with the history of the world, but also about the independence and independence of Rus' in choosing its political sympathies, which puts it on a par with other great powers, especially with Byzantium.

Russian chronicle arose and existed outside the metropolitan court and the sphere of his interests - in Russian monasteries and city churches. In the construction of cathedrals, works of church architecture, the role of metropolitan orders is invisible - this is mostly a princely initiative, and the metropolitan fulfills his service role at the consecration of the church.

Attention is drawn to the differences in titles in relation to old Russian princes, which is sometimes used by local and never visiting figures. Laying on the Grand Duke of Kiev, as a shepherd and a vinedresser, the duty of keeping Christianity clean and at a sufficient height in his country, Metropolitan Nikifor in the above message calls him, however, simply “my prince” (“blessed and glorified”, “ faithful and meek", "noble", "philanthropic"), i.e. in the original Greek "????? ???". Under his pen, the naming of the Kiev prince with those titles that are known in local writings and inscriptions could not have arisen - “kagan”, as Yaroslav Hilarion calls him, “king”, as the deceased Grand Duke is called in graffiti on the wall of St. Sophia Cathedral, in praise of the XII century ., addressed to the son of Vladimir Monomakh Mstislav and his grandson Rostislav. Meanwhile, the title applied to the heads of the feudal monarchies of medieval Europe has always been very important and served to recognize the economic and political strengthening of the state by obtaining a high title for its head. The presence in Kyiv of a metropolitan from Constantinople could not contribute to this form of recognition.

The significance of the one who is at the head of the state church organization - a local or Byzantine figure, can be seen from the codification of church law by Yaroslav and Hilarion.

The appearance of Greek church leaders (“bishops”) under Vladimir led to an attempt to introduce, at their insistence, Byzantine criminal law and those forms of punishment that were not accepted in Slavic law. However, the creation of a local code of church law is associated with the name of not the patriarch's henchman, but the collaborator and ideologist of Prince Yaroslav - Hilarion, when he became metropolitan. Naturally, it is likely that the introduction of traditional local forms of punishment into ecclesiastical law, a significant expansion of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over those cases that in Byzantium were not subject to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities, could have belonged to the initiative of a local church leader, and not a Byzantine at the Kiev cathedra. The metropolitan did not participate in the selection and transfer to Rus' of the monastic charter, which Priselkov drew attention to. Even before Theodosius, the monk of the Caves, Ephraim, went to Constantinople, as he believes, to study the life of Byzantine monasticism, and later it was Abbot of the Dmitriev Monastery Varlaam who went around the monasteries in Constantinople in search of a better charter.

The name of Hilarion, a local metropolitan, and not one sent from Constantinople, is also associated with such events that turned out to be promising and, therefore, meeting the needs of Rus', such as the foundation, together with Prince Yaroslav, of the first princely monasteries, in particular the monastery of George. In the XI - the first half of the XII century. princely monasteries in Kyiv and its environs, and in the second half of the XII century. in Vladimir Suzdal, they became an important ecclesiastical and political institution that connected the princely dynasty with the capital in addition to its rights to the grand prince's table.

Another important function of the Church of St. George's Monastery in Kyiv, which is reported by the prologue memory of its consecration in some lists: it was the place of banqueting, i.e., the rite of enthronement of bishops. It is of undoubted interest that the ordination (investiture) in Rus' was also divided into secular (dedication) and ecclesiastical (ordination), the latter took place in the Cathedral of St. Sophia.

The service of the Metropolitan in the Cathedral of St. Sophia, his participation in the consecration of new bishops, in the work of local councils were necessary. But the execution of many other matters that belonged to the competence of the clergy did not stop even in the absence of the metropolitan and could be carried out without his participation. The following case during the inter-princely conflict over Chernigov is indicative. The kiss of the cross, brought before by Mstislav Vladimirovich, obliged him to go to war against Vsevolod Davydovich, who attracted seven thousand Polovtsy to his side. In the absence of the Metropolitan Abbot of the Kyiv Andreevsky Monastery, the family monastery of his grandfather, Gregory took the initiative to remove the oath from the prince. Since he himself did not have sufficient spiritual dignity for this, he convened a council of the Kyiv clergy, who collectively took upon themselves the sin of princely perjury. The Kiev hegumen showed himself to be an authoritative figure in the religious and political service of the capital and an excellent organizer of a peaceful solution to the military-political conflict, which would do honor to the metropolitan.

The absence of a metropolitan in Kiev did not prevent the selection and functioning of new bishops in Novgorod - the republican constitution of this Russian land made it possible not to remain without church power even when the approval from Kiev of the appointments of local bishops was late. The metropolitans had to come to terms with the emergence in one of their subordinate dioceses of a special procedure for the appointment of a bishop. For the first time, a message about the election of a candidate for bishops on the spot: “... having gathered all the city of people, deigning to appoint a holy man as a bishop and the name Arcadia was chosen by God,” is contained in an annalistic article of 1156, referring to the time when there were no metropolitan. There is no direct indication of how Arkady was chosen, but the words “chosen by God” allow us to assume that even then they used lots. These elections were recognized by the metropolitan, who was forced, though only two years after his appearance in Kyiv, to ordain him. How such an election was carried out is indicated by a message about the appointment of a new archbishop in 1193 under Metropolitan Nicephorus II: three candidates were named, and their names were put in cathedral on the altar on the throne. After the liturgy, the first blind man who came across was brought from the veche square, who took out a note with the name of the future Archbishop Martyrius. Thus, the development of the republican system in Novgorod led to the method of choosing a bishop, which was established in early Christianity and found expression in the Orders for the election of a bishop, but then was changed in practice by the strengthened state power and the church hierarchy, which took the replacement of this position into their own hands. .

Foreign metropolitans with their staff did little to familiarize Russian society with the works of Byzantine literature, organize translations from Greek into Old Russian, spread knowledge of the Greek language in Rus', schools and education.

The bulk of Slavic translations from Greek known in Rus' was the result of the work of the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius and their students in Moravia and Bulgaria. A large number of translations were made in Bulgaria under Tsar Simeon. Translation from Greek into Rus' was organized by Prince Yaroslav, who "gathered many scribes and converted from Greek to Slovenian writing." Circle translated into Rus' in the XI-XII centuries. Historical, natural science, narrative, hagiographical and other works are quite wide, but it does not reflect everything that Byzantine writing contained. D.S. Likhachev believes that "translations from Greek should have been the subject of state concern in Rus'." Of course, secular, narrative literature, for princely and boyar circles, could rather be translated according to princely orders than at the direction of the metropolitan. But outside the list of translations made on these orders, there were many works of literature, philosophy, history, political thought, law, which remained untranslated either in Bulgaria in the 10th-11th centuries, or in Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries. Whether the metropolitans organized translations from Greek into Rus' is not known; there is little information at all about any of their activities that contributed to the development of the country where they served, and acquaintance with the culture they represented.

The Greek language was known in Rus' in princely circles. The mothers of Svyatopolk, Yaroslav and Mstislav Vladimirovich, Vladimir Monomakh, Vsevolod and Igor Olgovich, Daniil Galitsky and Vasilko Romanovich and other princes were Greek women, i.e. these princes could know the Greek language from childhood.

Vladimir Monomakh wrote about his father that he was “sitting at home, learning 5 languages”, and among them, of course, Greek. The Greek language should have been even better known in the environment of metropolitans and Greek bishops, where official translators were also needed to communicate with the Russian clergy and translate metropolitan messages and other documents. Choral kliros sang alternately in Greek and Slavonic in the cathedral churches of Kyiv and Rostov. Nestor, the author of "Reading on Boris and Gleb", calls the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Greek "katholikani iklisia", probably as the Greek metropolitan called it.

Successes in the development of ancient Russian culture associated with Christianity, the church, are determined by its active support from the secular government and monasteries to a much greater extent than church hierarchs sent from the shores of the Bosphorus. The absence of a Greek-speaking “intellectual elite” in Rus', as some modern researchers write about, may be primarily due to this passive position in the country of native speakers of this language, who did not consider it their task to spread it and organize schools.

Work plan

I. Introduction. The formation of the Christian religion.

The adoption of Christianity in Rus'.

The Orthodox Church, its structure, strengthening positions.

The results of the influence of the church on various aspects of the life of Rus'.. Conclusion.. List of used literature.

I Introduction

The Baptism of Rus' had a huge impact on the history of the state. Christianity was closely connected with the state and permeated all layers of life and culture of the people. The Church has always been given special attention to both the people and the state itself. The adoption of Christianity by Ancient Russia was not only a choice of religion, but also had a political character, as it helped to strengthen ties with Byzantium, which was of great importance for the state.

The official beginning of this process, which was gradually prepared by all the previous development of ancient Russian society, was laid by Prince Vladimir, who in 988 baptized only the inhabitants of his capital, and in subsequent years, the population of a number of other cities of Kievan Rus.

It was a long process, stretching over several centuries, of introducing Christianity as the state religion of the centralized Kievan state. Our Orthodox Church considers the event of 988 to be the official adoption of Christianity in Rus' and recently celebrated the thousandth anniversary on this occasion. However, it is necessary to separate two concepts: "Baptism of the people of Kiev" and "Baptism of Rus'" - the first event took place in one day, and the second - a whole era that stretched for centuries.

II. The formation of the Christian religion in Rus'

.The adoption of Christianity in Rus'

The very first news about the penetration of Christianity in Rus' dates back to the first centuries AD. In the ninth century Rus' adopted Christianity twice: the first time under Olga - 957; the second - under Vladimir 988

Immediately after Vladimir seized the throne of Kiev in 980, having eliminated his elder brother Yaropolk (972-980), he made an attempt to create an all-Russian pagan pantheon headed by Perun, the god of thunder, and to establish a common ritual. However, the mechanical unification of the old tribal deities could not lead to the unity of the cult and still ideologically divided the country. In addition, the new cult retained the ideas of tribal equality, unacceptable to feudal society. Vladimir realized that it was necessary not to reform the old, but to adopt a fundamentally new religion, corresponding to the already formed state.

Rus' maintained good relations with both Byzantium and the Roman Church; there were both Muslims and Jews. But it was necessary to accept Christianity for several reasons:

This was necessary in the interests of the development of the state in order to avoid isolation from the whole world.

Monotheism corresponded to the essence of a single state headed by a monarch.

Christianity strengthened the family, introduced a new morality.

Contributed to the development of culture - philosophy, theological literature.

Social stratification required a new ideology (paganism - equality).

In 987, Rus' and Byzantium began negotiations on baptism. Vladimir demanded for his wife the sister of Emperor Vasily II - Princess Anna. Byzantium needed the help of the Russians in the fight against the rebels.

In 988, Vladimir himself was baptized, christened his boyars, his squad, and under pain of punishment forced the people of Kiev and all Russians in general to be baptized. At baptism, Vladimir received the Christian name Vasily in honor of Emperor Basil II - Basil the Great.

The change of religious cults was accompanied by the destruction of the images of the once revered gods, their public desecration by the princely servants, the construction of churches on the sites where pagan idols and temples stood. So, on a hill in Kyiv, where the idol of Perun stood, the Church of Basil, dedicated to Basil the Great, was erected. Near Novgorod, where the pagan temple was located, the Church of the Nativity was built. According to The Tale of Bygone Years, Vladimir began to build churches in the cities, appoint clergy and people began to be baptized in all cities and villages.

According to the historian Ya.N. Shchapov: "The spread of Christianity was carried out by the princely power and the emerging church organization by force, with the resistance not only of the priests, but also of various segments of the population." Confirmation of this can be found in Tatishchev V.N., who, examining the annalistic stories about baptism, cites the following facts: Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev admitted that baptism in Kiev took place under duress: "No one resisted the princely order, pleasing to God, and they were baptized, if not by his own will, then out of fear of those who ordered, for his religion was connected with power. In other cities, the replacement of the traditional cult by a new one met with open resistance.

Resistance to the introduction of Christianity

christianity church orthodox Rus'

The main part of the population of Rus' offered active or passive resistance to the new religion. It was the general rejection of it in the conditions of limited democracy that thwarted the plans of the Kyiv nobility and turned the introduction of Christianity into a centuries-old process.

In most of the cities that openly rebelled against the planting of Christianity, the local secular and former spiritual nobility came forward. So, it is known about the uprising of Prince Moguta, which lasted from 988 to 1008. Moguta's many years of struggle ended with his capture, and then pardon with exile to the monastery.

The rebels everywhere destroyed temples, killed priests and missionaries. The uprisings in different regions were similar in nature to the uprisings in Suzdal, Kyiv, Novgorod, they merged anti-Christian and anti-feudal motives.

The uprisings took place mainly in non-Slavic lands, where the struggle for independence joined the indicated motives. It was from this time that three processes began to manifest themselves simultaneously in Rus': Christianization, feudalization and colonization of neighboring lands. Also characteristic is the surprising coincidence of the dates of the uprisings with the death of princes or their absence, caused by feudal strife, i.e. periods of relative anarchy. But the reasons for the uprisings in the XI century. already others. Their beginning, as a rule, is associated with the deterioration of the economic situation of the masses, periodic crop shortages and many years of famine.

Meanwhile, the central Kiev government, ignoring the difficulties of the north-eastern lands, continued to exact taxes from the population. The situation was aggravated by internecine wars, accompanied by robberies. In it hard time Magi acted as heralds of popular anger. As Christianity strengthened, they lost their rights, and at the same time their sources of livelihood, found themselves new occupations, most often healing. In order to destroy this social group - their ideological enemies - the clergy accused them of "witchcraft", of using harmful "land" and "indulgence", set the believers and the state against them. The buffoons, who annoyed the church only with humor, games and songs, were also destroyed without trial or investigation.

The uprising of 1024 in Suzdal took place during the war between the Kievan and Tmutarakan princes, as a result of which Kievan power was weakened in the city. It was also headed by the Magi. This social group was also a materially interested party in the preservation of the former religion. Defending antiquity, they also fought for their economic interests. But attention should be paid to the fact that the call of the clergy of the former religion was supported by the whole people. This speaks of the extremely insignificant influence of Orthodoxy on the townspeople. The chronicle reports: "Having heard about the Magi, Yaroslav came to Suzdal; having captured the Magi, he sent some into exile, and executed others."

Uprisings of 1071 in Rostov land and Novgorod was caused by the same reasons. Most of the people followed the magi, and not the clergy, who defended the interests of the nobility.

Both uprisings had deep social causes, were anti-feudal and anti-church. There is no doubt that the social basis of this struggle was class contradictions, but they dealt blows to the process of Christianization, held back its course, forced the church to adapt.

Orthodox Church, its structure, strengthening of positions

At the head of the church was the Metropolitan of Kiev, who was appointed from Constantinople or by the Kyiv prince himself, with the subsequent election of bishops by the cathedral. In the large cities of Rus', all the practical affairs of the church were in charge of the bishops. The metropolitan and bishops owned lands, villages, and cities. In addition, the church had its own court and legislation, which gave the right to interfere in almost all aspects of the life of parishioners.

The power of the church was based primarily on its rapidly increasing material resources. Even Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich established the "tithe" - the deduction of a tenth of the prince's income in favor of the church; the same order was maintained by other princes. The churches owned large real estate, numerous villages, settlements and even entire cities.

Relying on material wealth, the church has gained great influence on the economic and political life, for the life of the population. She sought to act as a guarantor of inter-princely agreements, secured by the "kiss of the cross", intervened in the negotiations, and her representatives often played the role of ambassadors.

The Church used various methods to preach the Orthodox dogma and assert its authority. Not the last role was played in this respect by the construction of temples, the architectural forms and internal painting of which were supposed to symbolize the "earthly" and "heavenly" worlds. With the same purpose of religious influence on the minds of people, divine services and rituals were performed - in honor of Christian holidays and "saints", on the occasion of christenings, marriages and funerals. Prayers were served in churches for recovery, for salvation from natural disasters, for victory over enemies, and sermons and teachings were delivered. With the help of compulsory confession, churchmen penetrated into the inner world of people, influenced their psyche and actions, and at the same time found out information about any plans directed against the church, the ruling class and the existing social system.

Despite the fact that Christianity during the period of feudal fragmentation had already covered a significant part of the population, even among the feudal nobility there was an open disdain for the new religion and disrespect for its servants. All the more resisted Christianity among the people.

Under Vladimir, the church took on not only spiritual duties, but was also in charge of worldly affairs that were closely related to the interests of the state. On the one hand, the church was given jurisdiction over all Christians, which included family matters, cases of “violation of the holiness and inviolability of Christian churches and symbols”, and the church also had the right to judge for apostasy, “insulting moral feelings”. Under the care of the church, a special society was placed, separated from the Christian flock, called the almshouse people. They included:

white clergy with their families;

priest widows and adult priests;

clergy;

mallow;

wanderers;

people in hospitals and hospices, and those who served them;

"Puffy people", outcasts, beggars, the population living on church lands.

In 1019 Vladimir's son Yaroslav the Wise comes to the throne. By this time, the church had already gained strength in a new country for it, and Yaroslav decides to continue the work begun by his father, and develops a decree in which he retains the affairs under the jurisdiction of the church and, unlike his father, describes not in general terms, but in clearly formulated theses judicial procedure with a complex system of punishments.

This system is built on a clear distinction between sin and crime. “Sin is in charge of the Church, crime is in the hands of the State. Sin is not only a moral crime, a violation of divine law, but the very thought of an act by which a sinner can harm another person or society. A crime is an act by which one person causes material damage or moral offense to another person. Yaroslav's ecclesiastical court order is based on these concepts. He divided all cases under the jurisdiction of the church into several categories, providing for a different measure of punishment.

Purely spiritual matters, not related to the violation of worldly laws, were dealt with by the episcopal court without the participation of a princely judge. This included cases of violation of church commandments, such as sorcery, sorcery.

With cases of "sinful-criminal" things were quite different. Cases in which the violation of a church commandment was combined with the infliction of moral or material harm to another person or with a violation of public order were dealt with by the prince's court with the participation of the church. The princely court sentenced the criminal, and the metropolitan received a small sum of money for the development of the church. Such a category included cases of “little girls, insults in word or deed, spontaneous divorce of a husband and wife at the will of the first, carried the guilt of the latter, violation of marital fidelity, etc.”

Ordinary illegal actions committed by both church people and laity were considered by the church court, but according to princely laws and customs. The prince reserved some participation in the trial of the people of the church department. This participation was expressed in the fact that the most serious crimes committed by church people were dealt with by the church court with the participation of the prince, with whom the former shared fines.

The results of the influence of the church on various aspects of the life of Rus'

Statement monotheistic religion contributed to the strengthening of the grand princely power, the elimination of the "pre-feudal fragmentation" inherent in Rus', until the end of the 10th century, when in a number of East Slavic lands there were their own princes under the auspices of Kyiv.

Christianity played a major role in the ideological justification of power Kyiv princes. “From the moment of baptism, the merciful eye of the good God looks at the prince. The prince is put on the throne by God himself.

The establishment of Christianity in Rus' as the state religion had a great impact on various spheres of the social and spiritual life of the country. The eradication of local, tribal differences in certain regions of Rus' and the formation of the Old Russian people with a single language, culture, and ethnic self-consciousness accelerated. The elimination of local pagan cults also contributed to further ethnic consolidation, although differences in this area continued to persist and revealed themselves later, when, during the period of feudal fragmentation, aggravated by the Tatar-Mongol invasion, separate parts of Rus' became isolated from each other or fell under the rule of foreign conquerors.

The Baptism of Rus' was an important stage in the development of its culture. In many respects, ancient Russian culture acquired fundamentally new features and characteristics. Just as the Christianization of Rus' was a factor that significantly accelerated the formation of a single ancient Russian people from the East Slavic tribes with their various cults, Christianity also contributed to the consolidation of ancient Russian consciousness - both ethnic and state.

Christianity brought to the Slavs a written language based on the Church Slavonic alphabet compiled by the enlightening brothers Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century.

At the same time, in the field of culture, certain negative aspects are also associated with the adoption of Christianity. Oral literature, the literature of Ancient Rus' of pre-Christian times was rich and varied. And the fact that a significant part of it was lost, did not get on parchment and paper, is a certain fault of church circles, which, naturally, denied pagan culture and, as best they could, struggled with its manifestations.

The adoption of Christianity served as a powerful stimulus for familiarizing Rus' with Byzantine culture. Through Byzantium, from the depths of centuries, the influence of world civilization, including the heritage of the ancient world and the Middle East, more actively began to penetrate into Ancient Rus'.

Equally important were the consequences of baptism in the field of education. About a hundred years before the baptism of Kievan Rus, Christianity was adopted in Bulgaria and the Greek missionaries, who fought there and in the Czech Republic with Catholic influences, contributed to the development of the Slavic alphabet and the translation of Christian cult books into the Slavic language. Thus, Kievan Rus received writing in the Slavic language. Already under Vladimir, an attempt was made to organize a school. The students were forcibly chosen from among the children of the "people's child", i.e. from the upper layers of the household.

Baptism had a huge impact on the cultural life of the country, in particular on the development of technology in Kievan Rus under the influence of Greek Christianity. In agriculture, it was expressed in a significant increase in the technique of horticulture. This was undoubtedly facilitated by the increased consumption of vegetables, which was stimulated both by the numerous fasts established by Christian ascetic teachings and by the requirements of monastic life. The fact that, to a large extent, the culture of many vegetables was brought from Byzantium along with the Studium charter, shows the origin of the names of many of them.

Even more obvious is the influence of Byzantine Christianity in the field of building technology. We got acquainted with the stone construction in Kyiv on the example of churches that were built by order of the princes by Greek architects. From them we learned the techniques of laying walls, removing vaults and dome coverings, using columns or stone pillars to support them, etc. The method of laying the oldest Kyiv and Novgorod churches is Greek. It is no coincidence that the names building materials in Old Russian, everything is borrowed from the Greeks. And the first stone buildings of a secular nature, like a stone tower, were probably built by the same Greek architects who built churches, and that the oldest building of this type was attributed by legend to the first Christian princess, Olga.

The adoption of Christianity had the same influence on the development of crafts. The technique of stone carving, as shown by the ornamentation of the marble capitals of St. Sophia Cathedral with intertwined leaves and crosses and the tomb of Yaroslav in the style of ancient Christian sarcophagi, was borrowed from Byzantium for church purposes. Greek mosaics began to be used to decorate church buildings and, perhaps, palaces. The same must be said about fresco painting. If in the field of mosaics and frescoes Kievan Rus remained for a long time dependent on Greek masters, then “in some types of art industry, Russian students, - notes I. Grabar, - caught up with their Greek teachers, so it is difficult to distinguish cloisonné works from Byzantine ones. samples." Such are the works on enamel (enamel) and filigree (filigree). However, the Russian works show "a well-assimilated style of Byzantine designs, and their subject matter is in most cases ecclesiastical".

The influence of Byzantine baptism was especially pronounced in the artistic field. Striking in their artistic value, samples of the architectural art of Kievan Rus from the first times of Christianity, inspired by the best examples of Byzantine construction from the era of its heyday, have survived to us.

The baptism of Rus' introduced it in a close way not only into the family of Christian Slavic states, but in general into the system of Christian countries of Europe with their cultural achievements. Russian culture has been enriched by the achievements of the countries of the Middle East, which have deep historical traditions, and, of course, by the cultural treasures of Byzantium. Rus' benefited from an alliance with Byzantium, but at the same time, Rus' continued to have to constantly resist the political and ecclesiastical claims of the Byzantine Empire, which sought to subordinate Rus' to its supremacy. Nevertheless, Vladimir, the baptizer of Rus', felt his power to be full-fledged among other Christian peoples.

III. Conclusion

The adoption of Christianity by Russia was a progressive step and had important consequences. The ruling classes of Rus' received a powerful ideology to strengthen their domination, and the Christian Church, being a branched political organization, spiritually sanctified and supported the new system in every possible way. Christian morality ("Thou shalt not kill", "Love thy neighbor as thyself") and Christian norms of behavior - the equality of all before God, helping the poor, etc. became widespread. Along with this, Rus' received Slavic writing and the opportunity to master the achievements of Byzantine culture. The international ties of the Old Russian state were strengthened and expanded up to the dynastic marriages of Russian princes with representatives of powerful powers. The international prestige of Rus', which entered the Christian world, grew immeasurably.

IV. List of used literature

1. Platonov S. V. "Lectures on Russian history", St. Petersburg, 1913.

Klyuchevsky V. O. "Course of Russian History" Moscow, 1987.

. "Christianity and Rus'", Moscow, 1988.

Philist G. M. "Introduction of Christianity in Rus' - prerequisites, circumstances, consequences", Minsk, "Belarus", 1988.

Karamzin N.M. "Tradition of the Ages".

Tatishchev V.N. "Russian History", v.2, Moscow, 1962.

Shchapov Y. N. "The Church in Ancient Rus'", political publishing house, 1989.

At the end of the X-beginning of the XI centuries. there is a restructuring of society on a territorial basis, the tribal community is replaced territorial. This process is also reflected in the history of the urban community, which itself becomes territorial, is formed Konchan-hundred system. In parallel, the growth of the urban district was going on - the city-states were growing and getting stronger.

In 980, Prince Vladimir united Kyiv, Novgorod and Polotsk under his rule and became the sole ruler of Rus'. Vladimir set about solving major state problems, he restored the unity of the Russian land again. Strengthened the system of government of the country.

One of the most important state reforms was Baptism of Rus' in 988. It turned out to be connected with the internal political crisis in the Byzantine Empire.

The Byzantine emperors Constantine and Basil II asked Vladimir for help against the rebel Varda Foki. Vladimir promised to help the emperors, but on the condition that they give him their sister Anna as a wife. The emperors agreed, but demanded that the prince accept the Christian faith. After the defeat of Phocas, they were in no hurry to fulfill their promise. Then Vladimir captured the city of Chersonesus and threatened to capture Constantinople. The emperors had to agree not only to the marriage of his sister, but also to the fact that Vladimir was baptized not in Constantinople, but in Chersonese. Returning back to Kyiv, Vladimir destroyed the pagan idols and baptized the people of Kiev. The baptism of Vladimir and the people of Kiev was the beginning of the spread of Christianity in Rus'.

The baptism of Rus' was explained by a number of historical reasons:

1) the developing state did not allow polytheism with its tribal gods and polytheistic religion. This undermined the foundations of the state. "One great prince, one almighty God";

2) the adoption of Christianity contributed to the development international relations since in almost all European countries Christianity was accepted as a religion;

3) Christianity, with its idea that everything comes from God - and wealth, and poverty, and happiness, and misfortune, gave people some reconciliation with reality.

The adoption of Christianity contributed to the flourishing of material culture (icon painting, fresco, mosaics, the construction of domes).

With Christianity came writing in the Slavic language. Schools sprang up at the monasteries.

After the adoption of Christianity, the East Slavic tribes united into the Old Russian people.

The role of the church in ancient Rus'

By the end of the X-XI century. in Rus', a harmonious system of organization of church religious life appeared. It was created in the image and likeness of the Byzantine church, headed by patriarch. At the head of the Christian Church in Rus' was metropolitan Kyiv and all Rus'.

Schools and libraries appeared at churches and monasteries, the first of which were opened on the initiative of Prince Vladimir himself. The first Russian chroniclers, scribes and translators of famous ecclesiastical and secular works, icon painters also worked here.

The church contributed to the development of the country's economy. Prominent church figures, as well as monasteries already in the XI-XII centuries. received land holdings from the Grand Dukes and set up their own economy on them.

A close relationship is being established between secular and ecclesiastical authorities, with the primacy of the former over the latter. In the first half of the XIII century. clearance begins ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Now the competence of the church includes the consideration of cases of marriage, divorce, family, some inheritance cases. The Church also played a significant role in international affairs related to the deepening of relations with Christian states and churches.

The Church promoted philanthropy, tolerance, respect for parents and children, for the personality of a woman-mother, and called the people to this. The church also played a significant role in strengthening the unity of Rus'. Church leaders in the future more than once performed the role of peacekeepers in princely strife.

In large cities, church authority over Russian lands was exercised by bishops. In Novgorod, as one of the largest cities, the center of a large region, religious life was directed by the archbishop.

The church opposed Roman-style Christianity. Those who proclaimed a folk pagan culture were considered apostates.

Thus, the church contributed to the isolation of Rus' from Western European culture. For Rus', such a statement of the church was unacceptable, since Rus' cooperated with many Western European countries that preached the Catholic religion.

The church prospered through the use of the labor of dependent people, robbed people through usury, and so on. Many prominent figures of the church participated in political intrigues. Therefore, the actions of the church caused more negative people.

Adoption of Christianity in Kievan Rus contributed to its inclusion in the European Christendom, which means that Rus has become an equal element of European civilized development. However, the adoption of Christianity in the Orthodox version had its negative consequences. Orthodoxy contributed to the isolation of Rus' from Western European civilization.