However, instinct, even the most subtle one, is not enough for the development of culture, and we subsequently had to pay for our mental retardation with a long apprenticeship with the West, with Peter's drastic reforms. The split between the people and the intelligentsia paid Russia for centuries of mental stagnation. It was this stagnation that later became the cause of the split of the Russian soul – between loyalty and devotion to Russia and Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and the awareness of the need to learn from the "Latin" or "German" West, on the other. According to the English historian Toynbee, "in order to save themselves from forced Westernization, the Russians had to westernize, partially assimilate the principles of Western science and technology." But science and technology do not fall from the sky and must be cultivated by the tradition of scientific thinking. The well-known inferiority complex that many Russians felt in relation to the West is rooted precisely in the centuries-old mental stagnation we have mentioned. Today we already have independent traditions of Russian science, Russian philosophy, which will protect us from unnecessary schisms in the future, but we are now talking about Ancient Russia. However, let's get down to the topic. If we look closely at the Kievan period, we will be amazed at the purity of our ancestors' perception of Christianity. The good news was received in an unusually harmonious and bright way. There was no deviation either into one-sided asceticism, or into the separation of morality from mysticism. Our Kievan ancestors, of course, the best of them, were inspired by the desire for the activity of Christian love. It is not for nothing that one of the first Russian saints, Theodosius of the Caves, was not such a reclusive hermit as his teacher, St. Anthony, a Greek by birth. In his life, Theodosius practiced monasticism in the world – "kenosis". The "Instruction of Vladimir Monomakh" also strikes with its truly Christian mood. Vladimir understands that as a grand prince he must observe the law, but at the same time he strives to be a Christian sovereign. To his sons he commands: "Do not forget the poor above all, but feed and help all those who are in your power according to your strength, both the fatherless and the widow, and do not allow the strong to destroy a man." About himself, he says that "he also did not give seven strong offenders to the wicked widow."  In ancient times, Russian metropolitans and bishops enjoyed exceptional moral authority. There were almost never conflicts between princes and metropolitans, for somehow it was understood that spiritual power was morally superior to secular power, but that it was not proper for spiritual rulers to take upon themselves the prerogatives of secular power. At the same time, the Church was not blind to worldly affairs. Very often the Church acted as a reconciling force, reconciling princes prone to internecine strife. In Novgorod Rus', Vladyka always reconciled the warring sides of the veche when it came to bloody battles. In the Muscovite period, the relationship between the church and the state acquired a different hue. There is a process of their closer rapprochement, with the ensuing positive and negative aspects. Positive, for Moscow, which is not yet very powerful, receives active support from the Church in the matter of defending the Russian land from the heterodox and in the matter of gathering Rus'. St. Sergius of Radonezh is especially characteristic in this respect. In Muscovite Rus, Christianity had already become quite firmly established in the life of the Russian people, while in Kiev Christian traditions were only being instilled. The consequence was the growing nationalization of the church, which subsequently led to its autocephaly – to the introduction of the Russian Patriarchate. But at the same time, communion with other Orthodox churches, in particular with the Byzantine Church, is weakening. "Russian" began to be opposed to "Greek". Ivan IV already says that "our faith is not Greek, but Russian, Christian." The "betrayal" of the Greeks at the Union of Lorentia in 1439 made us even more cautious about the Greek Church. As a result, there is a further separation from universality and the affirmation of Russian as a synonym for the truly Orthodox. In this way, the ground was prepared for the emergence of the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome, the idea of the chosenness of the Russian people as the "new Israel". There is a separation and self-isolation of the Russian Church, the replacement of universal traditions with local traditions.

ПЕРВЫЙ  ЦЕРКОВНО-ИДЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ    КОНФЛИКТ

На этом фоне становится понятным первый внутри церковный конфликт — знаменитый спор между иосифлянами и заволжскими старцами, на котором мне придется остановиться несколько подробнее, ибо здесь столкнулись, в сущности, два понимания православия в его отношении к «миру». Хотя конфликт этот также не получил принципиальной формулировки в силу достаточно подчеркнутого нами умственного косноязычия Древней Руси, дело здесь было именно в принципах. Спор между иосифлянами и заволжскими старцами возник по двум конкретным вопросам: по вопросу о судьбе монастырских имуществ и по вопросу о методах борьбы с появившейся тогда в Новгороде «ересью жидовствующих». Но в отношении к этим двум вопросам ярко выявилось различие между социальным и этическим мировоззрением обоих течений. Сначала нужно, однако, сказать несколько слов об  исторической подоплеке спора. С самого начала христианства на Руси монастыри были рассадниками христианского просвещения и сыграли решающую роль в христианизации нравов. Однако с течением времени, когда монастыри оказались собственниками обширных земель и всякого богатства, жизнь в монастыре стала соблазном для разного рода тунеядцев и шедших туда не столько ради спасения души, сколько для безбедной и безопасной жизни. Монастырские нравы, бывшие строгими раньше, значительно расшатались. Но, помимо того, в самих монастырях возникло движение, возглавляемое Нилом Сорским, который считал, что монастыри должны быть прежде всего средоточием подвижничества и молитвы, что монахи должны быть «нестяжателями» — не иметь никаких имуществ и питаться лишь за счет плодов собственного труда. Против него выступил энергичный и властный Иосиф  Волоцкий, настоятель Волоколамского монастыря. Иосиф также сознавал, что происходит падение нравов в монастырях, но предлагал бороться с этим злом введением строгой дисциплины. Само же сосредоточение богатств в монастырях он считал полезным для укрепления авторитета и власти церкви. Выступая  в защиту монастырских имуществ, Иосиф был в то же время ярким апологетом авторитета царской власти. Он как бы предлагал государству теснейший союз с церковью, всячески поддерживая князей московских в их объединительной политике. Поэтому на созванном церковном Соборе великий князь Московский поддержал в конце концов иосифлян, которые вышли победителями в спорах с «заволжцами». Победа  иосифлян соответствовала тогдашним  тенденциям общего развития Руси в сторону укрепления единства за счет, может быть, духовной свободы (XV—XV  вв.). Идеал заволжцев, призывавших к нестяжанию, к духовному возрождению («умной молитве»), к уходу вобитель, был слишком непрактичен для того сурового времени. Следует отметить, что Нил Сорский, один из наиболее просвещенных русских святых, выступал и против излишеств внешнего подвижничества (аскетизма, умерщвления плоти и т.п.). Выше всего он ставил «умную молитву», чистоту душевного умонастроения и деятельную помощь ближним. Его ученики даже высказывались в том духе, что лучше оказать помощь людям, чем тратить деньги на слишком благолепное украшение храмов. Он недаром провел много лет на Афоне, который переживал свое возрождение, где было тогда сильно влияние великого подвижника и отца церкви св. Григория Паламы. В противоположность этому, Иосиф в первую очередь подчеркивал  строгость монастырского устава,чистоту обряда и церковное «благолепие». Если Нил взывал к высшим струнам души —  к внутренней свободе, к чистоте духовной направленности, то Иосиф, как строгий педагог и организатор, имел в виду прежде всего рядовых монахов, для которых дисциплина и вообще строгое исполнение устава должны иметь главное воспитательное значение. Иосиф действовал строгостью, преподобный Нил — благостью.

В русской историографии симпатии историков неизменно оказывались на стороне Нила, и многие считают саму фигуру Иосифа роковой для судеб церкви в России. Нил же Сорский стал юбимым святым русской интеллигенции. Такая оценка и с нашей, современной точки зрения, и вообще — правильна. Однако исторически она нуждается в оговорках: нельзя с исторической точки зрения изображать Нила «передовым, просвещенным пастырем», а Иосифа —  только «реакционером». Нил ратовал за «старину» — за восстановление былой нравственной и мистической высоты монастырей. Иосиф же для того времени был своего рода «новатором»; он подчеркивал, говоря современным языком и применительно к тогдашним условиям, социально-политическую миссию православия, которую он видел в исправлении нравов через строгость и истовость обряда и устава и в теснейшем сотрудничестве с великокняжеской властью. Идеалы же Нила фактически проводились в жизнь на заре христианства на Руси, когда церковь не была так тесно связана с политической жизнью страны и заботилась больше о нравственном просвещении народа. Еще ярче различие между обоими лагерями сказалось в их отношении к ереси идовствующих. Родона чальником ереси был ученый еврей Схария, и распространилась она главным образом в Новгороде. «Жидовствующие» отдавали Библии преимущество перед Новым Заветом, они отрицали таинства и сомневались в догмате о Пресвятой Троице. Словом, это была раци-оналистическая, как бы протестантствующая секта. Не случайно ересь эта распространилась именно в Новгороде, всегда поддерживавшем близкие сношения с Западом. Одно  время «жидовствующие» имели успех — сам митрополит Новгородский был ей близок, и одно время даже великий князь Иоанн III склонялся к этой ереси. Но благодаря обличительным проповедям нового новгородского митрополита Геннадия и затем самого Иосифа Волоколамского ересь эта была разоблачена и подавлена.

Однако ученики Нила Сорского на церковном Соборе предлагали бороться с новой ересью словом и убеждением, в то время как Иосиф был сторонником прямого преследования еретиков. И в этом вопросе верх взяли иосифляне, причем некоторые из заволжцев (в частности, «князь-инок» Вассиан Патрикеев) поплатились впоследствии жизнью.

Мы  напомнили вкратце историю этого спора. Но для нас важен прежде всего его смысл. Некоторые историки, например о. Георгий Флоровский, считают победу иосифлян по существу разрывом с византизмом в пользу московско-русского начала. Они ссылаются на тот факт, что движение заволжских старцев возникло благодаря влиянию греческих «исихастов» — учения о необходимости нравственного очищения и удаления от мирской суеты, шедшего с Афонской обители. Учение это связывалось еще с так называемым  фаворским светом, предвещающим скорый конец  мира. Однако и тенденция Иосифа Волоцкого имеет свои параллели в Византии. Подчеркивание строгости устава и обряда, тесное сотрудничество церкви с государством — ведь это также византийская традиция. По существу, спор между иосифлянами и заволжскими старцами был спором между двумя византийскими традициями, причем уже достаточно прочно пересаженными на русскую почву. Но во всяком случае победа строго «бытового исповедничества» над мистической, благодатной струей способствовала дальнейшей национализации русской церкви, отрыву от традиции вселенского христианства. Победа иосифлян явилась предпосылкой позднейшего раскола, основанного на  противопоставлении «русского» православия «греческому». Она же способствовала дальнейшей богословской летаргии, ибо, хотя и Нила Сорского нельзя счи тать христианским мыслителем, он только более свободомысленный начетчик, чем Иосиф, однако его традиция, дававшая разуму большой простор, могла бы создать предпосылки для более раннего пробуждения у нас религиозно-философской мысли.

Speaking of the "Trans-Volga people", one cannot ignore Maximus the Greek, who was invited by John III to translate the Greek originals. This remarkable scientist, a Greek from Italy, could, according to his contemporaries, become the pride of Greco-Italian science; however, he preferred to accept the crown of the Grand Duke and go to Muscovy, where his fate was sad. Exiled for many years to remote places, he died prematurely. Charges of a political nature were brought against him, which, perhaps, had grounds. But it is characteristic that he supported the "Trans-Volga" with his authority and even managed to create a small circle of "Christian humanists" around him.   From the school of Maximus the Greek came the only more or less independent Russian theological writer of the sixteenth century, Zinovy Otensky, the author of the work "The Truth Testimony to Those Who Inquired About the New Teaching." He moves entirely in the traditions of Greek patristicism, and it is difficult to call him a more than knowledgeable compiler, but nevertheless he was the fruit of the rudiments of Russian theology, worthy of the attention of a historian. Unfortunately, he was subjected to repressions, and this tradition was not continued. From this circle later came such an outstanding figure as the first Russian emigrant, Prince Kurbsky. In the well-known correspondence between Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible, the prince, among other things, accused Ivan of having "shut up the Russian land, that is, free human nature, as in a hellish stronghold." This emphasis on "natural law" ("free human nature") undoubtedly comes from Italy and, through Maximus the Greek, somehow echoes the more humanistic trend of the "Trans-Volga people". Ivan, in his "verbose" writings, especially emphasized the divine origin of the tsar's power and his right to "execute and pardon" at his discretion. He will give an answer only before God's judgment. 

However, it should be noted that the famous Hundred Chapters Council, convened under Ivan the Terrible, was organized on the initiative of Macarius and Sylvester, disciples of Joseph of Volokolamsk. Macarius, the main compiler of the Chetya-Minei, this encyclopedia of ancient Russian church education, was an enlightened Josephite. It is known that he exerted a good influence on the young John. This alone indicates that the Josephites, having defeated the Trans-Volga people, did not become "reactionaries" in the second generation, but to some extent adopted the Trans-Volga spirit of tolerance and humanity. But one way or another, the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome, put forward at the beginning of the sixteenth century by the monk of the Pskov monastery Philotheus, became during the sixteenth century the leading ideology of later Muscovite Russia. Two Romes have fallen, and the third is standing, and the fourth will not be." The spread of this messianic idea of a "holy kingdom" was made possible by the victory of the Josephites, who emphasized the word "Russian" in the expression "Russian Orthodoxy." It was at this time that the very expression "Holy Russia" was dogmatized.

 SCHISM

And it is only on this basis that the tragedy of the Nikon schism in the seventeenth century becomes understandable. For when the Russian Orthodox traditions began to deviate more and more from the Greek ones, Patriarch Nikon decided to compare the Russian translations and rites with the Greek sources. It should be noted that the very question of correcting some church translations was by no means new. It was stirred up during the time of Metropolitan Philaret, the father of Mikhail Fyodorovich. But under Alexei Mikhailovich, the need for such corrections, as well as for a general revision of the rites, was already ripe. Here it is necessary to note the growing role of the Little Russian Orthodox clergy, who from the time of the imposition of the Unia waged a heroic struggle for Orthodoxy. Since the Little Russian clergy had to enter into polemics with the highly educated Polish Jesuits, they were forced to raise the level of their theological culture, to study with the Greeks and to become acquainted with Latin sources. From this Ukrainian Orthodox environment came such learned defenders of Orthodoxy as Petro Mohyla and Epiphanius Slavenetsky. The influence of the Kievan monks began to be felt in Moscow, especially after the reunion with Little Russia. Greek hierarchs came to Muscovite Rus through Little Russia. All this also forced the Russian Moscow clergy to reflect on the discrepancies in the Greek and Moscow readings of the same theological texts. But this involuntarily broke the self-isolation of the Moscow Church, which was established especially after the victory of the Josephites and after the Council of the Hundred Chapters under Ivan the Terrible.

Thus, a new meeting with Byzantium, in which there were elements of an indirect meeting with the West, became the background for the emergence of a schism. The results are well known: the so-called Old Believers, who were almost the majority, refused to accept the "innovations", which were essentially a return to more ancient antiquity. Since both the Old Believers and the Nikonovites showed fanatical irreconcilability in this dispute, it came to a schism, to going into the religious underground, and in some cases to exile and execution. Of course, it was not only a matter of two or three fingers or other ritual differences, which now seem to us so insignificant that many explain the tragedy of the schism by simple superstition and ignorance. No, the real causes of the split lie much deeper. For, in the opinion of the Old Believers, if Russia is "Holy Russia" and Moscow is the Third Rome, then why should we follow the example of the Greeks, who in their time betrayed the cause of Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence? After all, "our faith is not Greek, but Christian" (i.e. Russian-Orthodox). For Avvakum and his associates, the renunciation of the idea of the Third Rome was a renunciation of the idea of the Third Rome, i.e. in their eyes it was a betrayal of Orthodoxy, which, according to their faith, had been preserved only in Russia. And since the Tsar and the Patriarch persist in this "betrayal", it follows that Moscow, the Third Rome, is perishing. And this means that the end of the world is coming, the "end times". This is how the Old Believers tragically perceived Nikon's reforms. It was not for nothing that Avvakum wrote that his "heart ached and his legs trembled" when he understood the meaning of Nikon's "innovations." These apocalyptic moods explain why the Old Believers went to torture and execution with such fanaticism and even staged terrible of self-immolation. Moscow — The Third Rome is dying, and there will be no fourth! Muscovite Russia had already established its own rhythm and its own way of church life, which was revered as sacred. The rite and ritual of life, the visible "decorum", the well-being of church life – in a word, the emphasized "everyday confession" – this was the style of church life in Muscovite Russia. The Orthodox clergy in Moscow was imbued with the conviction that only in Russia did true piety survive (after the death of Byzantium), because only Moscow was the Third Rome. It was a kind of theocratic utopia of the "earthly, local City". Therefore, Nikon's reforms gave the impression of apostasy from true Orthodoxy among the majority of the clergy, and Nikon himself became almost the Antichrist in the eyes of the zealots of the old faith. Avvakum himself considered him the forerunner of the Antichrist. "His deeds are already being done, only the last one is where the devil has not been before." (And the Nikon church was spoken of in the following terms: "For the present church is not a church, the mysteries are not the Mysteries, baptism is not baptism, the scriptures are flattering, the teaching is unrighteous, and all filth and impiety." "The charm of the Antichrist shows its face.")

The only way out is to go into the religious underground. But the most extreme defenders of the old faith did not stop there. They claimed that the "last times" had come and that the only way out was a voluntary martyr's death in the name of Christ. They developed a theory according to which repentance alone is no longer enough, it is necessary to leave the world. "Death alone can save us, death", "in our time Christ is unmerciful, He does not accept those who come to repentance". All salvation is in the second, fiery baptism, that is, in voluntary self-immolation. And, as is known, wild of self-immolation took place in Russia (one of the themes of Mussorgsky's opera Khovanshchina). Fr. George Florovsky is right when he says that the mystery of the schism is not a rite, but the Antichrist is a fiery (in the literal sense) expectation of the end of the world, connected with the practical collapse of the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome.   It is well known that both sides have shown passion and fanaticism in this struggle. Patriarch Nikon was an extremely domineering and even cruel hierarch, by no means inclined to any compromises. In essence, the schism was a great failure, for in it the Old Russian tradition was replaced by the Modern Greek. The protest of the Old Believers against Nikon was aptly described by Vladimir Solovyov as the Protestantism of the local tradition. If the Russian Church did survive a schism, it was thanks to the ineradicable Orthodoxy of the Russian spirit. But the wounds inflicted by the schism did not heal for a very long time, and these traces were visible until recently. The schism was a revelation of the spiritual trouble of Moscow. In the schism, the local Russian antiquity was elevated to the level of a shrine. In this regard, the historian Kostomarov speaks well about the schism: "The schism chased after the old, tried to adhere to the old as closely as possible, but the schism was a phenomenon of new, not ancient Russian life." "This is the fatal paradox of the raskola..." "The schism is not old Russia, but a dream of antiquity," Florovsky remarks in this regard. Indeed, there was something of the peculiar heroic romanticism of antiquity in the schism, and it was not for nothing that the symbolists of the early 20th century, kindred to the romantics in spirit, were so interested in the schism – the philosopher Rozanov, the writer Remizov and others. In Russian fiction, the life of the later schismatics was especially vividly reflected in Leskov's remarkable story "The Sealed Angel".   Needless to say, the schism terribly undermined the spiritual and physical strength of the Church. The strongest in the faith went into schism. And it is not surprising, therefore, that the weakened Russian Church offered such weak resistance to the later church reforms of Peter the Great, who abolished the former independence of the spiritual authority in Russia and introduced the Holy Synod instead of the patriarchate on the Protestant model, in which a secular person, the chief procurator of the Synod, was introduced. But Nikon himself, as is known, fell out of favor with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich even in the process of schism. The immediate reasons for this disfavor lay in Nikon's extreme authority. But there were also ideological reasons: Nikon began to claim not only the role of the Russian first hierarch, but also the role of the supreme head of the state. For the first time in our history, alien to the Western struggle between the state and the church, the church in the person of Nikon encroached on power over the state. Nikon, as is known, compared the power of the patriarch with the light of the sun, and the power of the tsar with the light of the moon. This is the paradoxical coincidence of Nikon's thoughts with Latinism, which also claimed earthly power. In connection with this, the Slavophile Samarin wrote that "behind the great shadow of Nikon stands the terrible ghost of papism." The philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, before his enthusiasm for Catholicism, also believed that in the person of Nikon the Russian Church had come together, though for a short time, by the temptation of Rome – earthly power. This encroachment of Nikon was rejected by the tsar with the support of the majority of the clergy.   One way or another, the Russian Church, as is known, offered passive resistance to the reforms of Peter the Great. The desire for the Europeanization of Russia, for a way out of national self-isolation, was then perceived by the majority of the clergy as a betrayal of the cause of Orthodoxy. For the representatives of the official, non-schismatic church were close in spirit to the Old Believers with their pathos of isolating Moscow from the West. The West was a temptation, a forbidden fruit for Russia during the XVII century. Everything European had an inexplicable charm for those who ate its fruits. It was this passive resistance to the church that prompted Peter to cut the Gordian knot and abolish the independence of church authority. When Stefan Yavorsky, who welcomed Peter's external, political reforms, began to oppose the extremes of his Western passions, Peter appointed in his place Theophan Prokopovich, the author of the apologetic "The Truth of the Monarch's Will". Theophan himself was a highly educated man and an ardent admirer of Peter, but he can be reproached for being too susceptible to Peter's church reform with all its extremes. Later, Yuri Samarin in his dissertation argued that Stefan Yavorsky represented a Catholic deviation in our church, while Theophan Prokopovich represented a Protestant deviation. This can be argued, but there is no doubt that the church since the time of Peter has lost its former independence and found itself under the tutelage of the state. This guardianship was friendly, for the state itself considered itself Christian and Orthodox. Therefore, the analogies that are now sometimes drawn between the situation of the Church in the Soviet Union and under Peter the Great are devoid of positive meaning. But the general secularization and Europeanization of life gradually led to the rupture of living ties between society and the church and to a decrease in the authority of the church.