The adoption of Christianity as the state religion by Prince Vladimir (circa 988) was an outstanding act that politically and ideologically consolidated education a single ancient Russian state. Moreover, this was the result of Russian-Byzantine relations in the 10th century. Like other early feudal states, Rus' needed a national religion that would consolidate the newly created state unity. The pre-Christian religion - paganism - could not play such a role, being the ideology of the tribal system. It came into conflict with the new conditions of class society and was not capable of sanctifying and strengthening social order.
At 980 g. Prince Vladimir tried to reform the old religion - to declare one god - Perun. However, the mechanical unification of the old tribal deities could not lead to the unity of the cult and continued to ideologically divide the country.
Prince Vladimir decided to carry out real religious reform. According to the chronicle, he organized a “faith show”, listening to representatives of various world religions. Vladimir made a choice in favor of the Christian faith according to the Byzantine model. There were many reasons for this. Vladimir’s grandmother, Princess Olga, was also baptized, and there were also many Christians among the prince’s associates. But the most important thing is the historical, economic, political and other ties with Orthodox Byzantium, which was precisely the state with which contacts were of the greatest value for Kievan Rus. However, Russia's adoption of Christianity took place in the difficult political situation of Rus''s struggle with Byzantium. Uprisings in Bulgaria and Asia Minor forced the Byzantine Emperor Vasily II to turn to Vladimir for military help. In response, Vladimir demanded the emperor’s sister marry him - Anna. Since such a marriage would mean Byzantium’s recognition of dependence on the Russian state, Vasily II tried to avoid it. Then Vladimir besieged the Greek city of Chersonesos in Crimea. The capture of Chersonesus forced Vasily II to submit.
Thus, the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium did not lead to Rus''s dependence on Byzantium.
The new religion began to spread throughout Rus', often by force (for example, in Novgorod). Christianity zealously fought against the remnants of the pagan worldview. Many more decades will pass before Christianity triumphs in Rus'; moreover, paganism never completely gave up, many traditions and holidays merged with Christian ones.
A Russian metropolitanate was established in Rus', which was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Orthodox clergy at first were Greek. The nobility willingly accepted Christianity: it helped them rule over the people and strengthened their statehood. The church received from the princes large land holdings and a tenth of the income (“tithe”).
The adoption of Christianity by Russia was a progressive step and had important historical consequences:
a) Political:
1) Rus', having rejected “primitive paganism,” now became equal to other Christian countries, ties with which expanded.
2) Christianity became the state religion, linked secular and ecclesiastical authorities and united the multi-ethnic population into a single whole.
3) dynastic relationship with the Byzantine emperors.
b) Cultural:
1) Creation of the church as an institution and church organization according to the Byzantine model.
2) The entry of the Russian state and people into the circle of Byzantine culture, values, art, etc.
3) The emergence of architecture and painting.
4) Possibility, unlike Catholicism. Conducting a sermon in the native language of believers.
5) Introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet and the beginning of literature.
The adoption of Christianity in the Orthodox tradition became one of the determining factors in the further historical development of Rus'.
The Old Russian state strengthened significantly under Yaroslav the Wise (978 - 1054). The first thing Yaroslav the Wise did was strengthen the governance of the country. They sent their sons to large cities and lands and demanded unquestioning obedience from them. He himself became an “autocrat.” In some documents he was even called king. The Grand Duke was a zealous supporter of the development of culture, education, and literacy. Under him, new schools were opened and the book business was supported. The prestige of Kievan Rus rose, foreign kings sought an alliance with the Kievan prince.
Under Yaroslav the Wise, the beginning of Russian written legislation was laid. The code of laws of that time was called “Russian Truth” and was based on old Russian customs. The sons of Yaroslav the Wise supplemented it with new laws (“Truth of the Yaroslavichs”). Blood feud, a relic of the clan system, was prohibited. The murder of a person used to be avenged from generation to generation. Now a fine was imposed for murder. Under the Yaroslavichs, “Russian Truth” (a new set of laws) was aimed not only at establishing order in the country, but also at protecting property (land, house, property).
Vladimir Monomakh gave Rus' a new “Russian Truth”, called “The Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich”. He limited the arbitrariness of moneylenders by lowering interest rates (no more than 20% per annum). The “Charter” included new articles about easing the lot of scumbags, purchasers, rank-and-file workers, and slaves. Essentially, Monomakh is the first reformer in our history. During his reign (1113-1125), as well as the reign of his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132), the power of the supreme ruler was strengthened, social peace was achieved and the foundations of a developing state were strengthened.
The Middle Ages is a significant historical period in the history of human civilization, following Antiquity and preceding the Modern Age, which covers the period from 476. - the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 17th century. This period is very important for humanity, since it was during this period that Christianity was established, new states arose and established themselves in Europe, new masterpieces of culture and art were created, and naturally new systems of education and upbringing were developed, combining mental development with moral development. The Middle Ages are divided into three periods: Early - V-X centuries, developed - XI-XIV centuries, and later - XIV-XVII centuries.
The Early Middle Ages period is characterized by a mixture of ancient, pagan (barbarian) and Christian cultures, which was reflected in the nature of education and training. Despite the fact that Christianity fought hard against the first two, they still existed - Nazaryeva V.A. Cheat sheet on pedagogy/V.A. Nazarieva. - M., 1983 - With. 265.
Family upbringing was the only one for girls, whose mothers taught them how to manage a house and organize their life. The daughters of feudal lords could also receive education in nunneries, where they were raised in a religious spirit, taught reading, writing, handicrafts, home economics and weaving, or at home under the supervision of a monk-teacher. There was no literacy training, although girls from noble families usually received a broader education, learning the Latin and Greek languages, versification, poetry, dancing, singing, playing musical instruments - in the same place.
Boys, at an older age, could continue their education outside the family. Alexander Dzhurinsky identified two forms of family education: apprenticeship and knightly education. The first form was common among artisans. It consisted in the fact that the boy was given to be raised by a craftsman, who, in addition to him, taught one or two more students, and he taught the boy his craft. Tuition was paid for by the student's work on the farm. The training lasted 7-8 years, after which the student became an apprentice and could already receive payment for his work. Subsequently, having sufficiently learned the craft, the apprentice could open his own business. With this form of education, the student was either taught literacy by the artisan himself, or allowed the student to attend a special educational institution.
Knightly education was common among the children of secular feudal lords, where they were sent after completing their studies at a regular school, where they mastered literacy and arithmetic. From the age of seven, boys acquired knowledge and skills by being pages to the overlord's wife and her courtiers. At the age of 14, they became squires to knights, who were for them a model of morality, strength, courage, and good manners. The basis of knightly education was the program of “seven knightly virtues”, including swimming, fencing, horseback riding, wielding a spear, chess, hunting, playing a musical instrument and reading poetry of one’s own composition. Pages and squires had to learn “the fundamental principles of love, war and religion.” The “principles of love” included politeness, kindness, generosity, knowledge of etiquette, noble manners and speech, the ability to write poetry, abstain from anger, modesty in food, etc. Military professional skills were called the “principles of war.” Towards the end of the service, they began to engage in religious education. The teachers were people from the courtyard servants. Most attention was paid to military preparation. Moral education was based on the ideas of the superiority of chivalry over the lower classes, heroism, personal sacrifice and freedom. Knightly education ended at the age of 21, with the rite of initiation into knighthood, which consisted of a blessing with an illuminated sword, as well as physical tests and knightly tournaments - Dzhurinsky A.N. History of foreign pedagogy/A.N. Dzhurinsky. - M., Publishing group "Forum" - "INFRA-M", 1998. -320s..
Also, all researchers note that this period is characterized by the decline of ancient culture, which was reflected in education and upbringing. Even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. ancient schools continued to exist and taught grammar and rhetoric. The existence of these schools was even supported by almost all the rulers of medieval European states. However, by the 7th century. ancient schools almost completely disappeared due to the growing number of church schools and the destruction of ancient society caused by constant warfare, as well as the fact that medieval leaders completely rejected ancient culture, with its ideal of a comprehensively developed personality, considering it pagan, devilish and sinful. However, ancient society had too deep an impact on all spheres of life in Western Europe to disappear without a trace. The legacy of ancient education was Latin, which was spoken and written by the entire population of Western Europe, and which became mandatory for study in all church schools, and which was not forgotten, despite the fact that A.N. Dzhurinsky noted. that even in his time, Pope Gregory I (540-604) said that it was impossible to praise both Jupiter and Jesus Christ in the same language, and in general he believed that ignorance is the mother of true piety - Gregory I’s Discourses on the Sciences. Letter to the bishop. Around 600 // Reader on the history of the Middle Ages / Ed. N.P. Gratsiansky and S.D. Skazkina. T.1.- M.: State. Academician-pedagogical Publishing house Min. Enlightenment of the RSFSR, 1949, pp. 129-130. The works of ancient philosophers and writers continued to be stored in the libraries of monasteries. Small groups of Christian theologians even took part in saving ancient knowledge. As a result, ancient knowledge was not forgotten, but rather was even widely used. For example, based on the postulates of ancient education and upbringing, Augustine the Blessed created a model for training clergy, Magnus Cassiodorus and the “last ancient philosopher” Boethius (480-524) wrote the first textbooks on music, arithmetic and logic, Archbishop Martin de Braga wrote a treatise on education " Formulas of a noble life", where it was proposed to build education on the values of the Stoics: temperance, caution, justice, courage, prudence - Dzhurinsky A.N. History of foreign pedagogy/A.N. Dzhurinsky. - M., Publishing group "Forum" - "INFRA-M", 1998. - With. 290.
Also, this period, especially the period of the 5th-7th centuries, is characterized by an extremely critical situation with education. There was a strong decline in school affairs. There was a severe student shortage in church schools. The number of schools was small, and even then they were only in monasteries, since only there were libraries, works of ancient philosophers, religious literature, etc. All this resulted in general illiteracy, including among the nobility and kings. For example, the kings of the Merovingian dynasty did not know how to write, nor did they know how to know.
The Catholic Church tried to correct the situation by holding the VI Ecumenical Council in 681 and spiritual councils in Valence and Orange in 529. at which decisions were made on calls for the creation of new schools. To no avail. The calls were not heard.
Charlemagne (742-814), who himself never learned to write until the end of his life, achieved much greater success in this - Einhard. Life of Charlemagne/trans. Petrova M.S. M. ROSSPEN. 1999. At his court, he opened an educational institution called the academy. It was taught by various invited teachers from England, Ireland, Italy: Albinn Alcuin (735-804), who wrote the treatise “General Exhortation”, where he substantiated the importance of universal education and training of teachers; The Benedictine Paul the Deacon and the Visigoth Theodulf wrote the Carolingian Minuscule, an easy-to-read Latin script. The Academy was "mobile". Her residence was the city of Aachen, but she traveled all the time with the royal court. Mostly children from the upper classes studied at the academy. They mastered music, rhetoric, astronomy, grammar, geometry, logic, arithmetic, dialectics, ethics, and studied the works of Roman writers: Seneca, Cicero, Virgil, etc. In addition, realizing the importance of education for the development of the state, Charlemagne tried to make education universal, free and compulsory - “General Admonition” of Charles I (789) on the formation of schools // Reader on the history of the Middle Ages / Ed. N.P. Gratsiansky and S.D. Skazkina. T.1.- M.: State. Academician-pedagogical Publishing house Min. Enlightenment of the RSFSR, 1949, p. 131., and he also encouraged the opening of new church schools in which they studied: counting, writing, reading, church singing - Capitulary of Charles I on the pursuit of science (about 780-800) // Reader on the history of secondary education centuries /Ed. N.P. Gratsiansky and S.D. Skazkina. T.1.- M.: State. Academician-pedagogical Publishing house Min. Enlightenment of the RSFSR, 1949, pp. 130-131.. But after the death of Charlemagne, almost all of his ideas were forgotten: the academy stopped working, church schools weakened their positions, but did not lose them completely.
But the main specificity of education and upbringing of the early Middle Ages was the dominant position of Christianity and the church in all social and cultural life. It was the Christian church that determined and shaped the rules of behavior in society, the way of life, ethical and aesthetic postulates, and a picture of the world that was not subject to any doubt. However, despite the dominance of the church, education in the early Middle Ages was essentially a mixture of religion and secular tradition. On the one hand, the basis of upbringing was the Divine principle, the main goal of upbringing and education was considered to be the salvation of the soul, and God was considered the supreme judge. Education was addressed to each individual child, and at the same time was aimed at developing class morality. On the other hand, the importance of mastering earthly knowledge was not denied. But still, the dominant sphere in upbringing and education was the church.
The Church, having monopolized the educational sphere, created a new type of school - Christian, the main language of which was Latin. The Church used authoritarian methods of education. The ideal of her education was considered to be an average, religious person. The main idea of pedagogy of the early Middle Ages was that the whole world is the “school of Christ” and the meaning of life for all people is the knowledge of God. As researchers note, in order to justify the exploitation of large sections of the population, the church, using the doctrine of the innate sinfulness of man, called people to an ascetic lifestyle, mortifying the flesh and abstaining from all earthly goods. All this is for the salvation of the soul in the future afterlife, where everyone will be rewarded for the torment they endured. By this, the church instilled in people long-suffering and humility, submission to the feudal lords.
Jesus, the Broken Word: How Christianity Really Began
Dedicated to Aya, incomparable granddaughter
Preface
I arrived at Princeton Theological Seminary in August 1978 as a recently married college graduate. I had a leaf through the New Testament in Greek, a thirst for knowledge - that’s probably all. I acquired a passionate desire to study with age: those who knew me five or six years earlier could not have imagined that I would go into science. But at some point during my studies, I noticed that I was obsessed with the academic itch. I probably became infected with it at the Moody Institute in Chicago, a fundamentalist Bible college where I began attending classes in my youth, at age seventeen. At that time, my scientific research was fueled not so much by intellectual curiosity as by a devout desire for certainty.
Studying at the Moody Institute left a deep impression on me. I chose this institution because in high school I was “reborn in faith” and decided to be a “real” Christian, which meant gaining experience in in-depth Bible study. During my first semester of school, something happened to me: my need for knowledge about the Bible became passionate to the point of frenzy. At the Moody Institute, I not only took every Bible and theology course I could, but I also, on my own initiative, memorized entire books of the Bible. I devoted every free minute to studying it. I read books and studied notes taken during lectures. Almost every week I sat up all night preparing for classes.
Three years of such study can change your whole life. And of course, it will strengthen your mind. After graduating from Moody, I went to Wheaton College to get a degree in English Literature, but I continued to focus on the Bible, taking all sorts of exegesis classes, and teaching the book to my children's group at church once a week. And he studied Greek in order to study the New Testament in the original.
As a convinced Christian who believes in the Bible, I believed that all of it, down to the last word, was sent down by God - inspired by God. Perhaps this explained the fervor with which I studied it. After all, before me were the words of God, the speeches of the Creator of the universe, the Lord of all, addressed to us, mere mortals. Undoubtedly, having a complete understanding of these words is the most important thing in life. At least that was important to me. Understanding literature in the broader sense of the word helped me understand this work (that’s why I specialized in English literature), the ability to read Greek allowed me to find out exactly what words the Author of the text chose.
During my first year at Moody Institute, I decided to become a teacher and professor of biblical studies. Then, already at Wheaton, I suddenly realized that I knew Greek quite well. Therefore, my next step was a foregone conclusion: I would enroll in doctoral studies and study the New Testament, and specifically, some aspects of the Greek text and language. My favorite Greek teacher at Wheaton, Gerald Hawthorne, introduced me to the work of Bruce Metzger, the country's foremost authority on Greek biblical manuscripts, who, it turned out, taught at Princeton Theological Seminary. And I applied to Princeton, knowing nothing about it—absolutely nothing—except that Bruce Metzger taught there and that if I wanted to become an expert on Greek manuscripts, Princeton was the way to go.
I think I already knew about Princeton Seminary one: This is not an evangelical institution. And the more information I received in the months leading up to moving to New Jersey, the more nervous I became. I have heard from friends that Princeton is considered a “liberal” seminary that does not place much emphasis on the literal meaning and “verbal, full inspiration” of the Bible. This means that the most severe test for me was not going to be my studies, the ability for which I was able to demonstrate by receiving a master's degree and winning the right to enter doctoral studies. I had to maintain my faith in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
And I arrived at Princeton Theological Seminary - young, poor, but passionate and determined to confront liberals with their emasculated ideas about the Bible. As a good evangelical Christian, I was prepared to fend off any attack on my biblical faith. I could explain any apparent contradiction and resolve possible discrepancies in the Word of God, both the Old and New Testaments. I knew I still had a lot to learn, but didn't intend to to learn that there are at least some errors in a sacred text so important to me.
Not all plans are destined to come true. What I learned at Princeton caused me to change the way I think about the Bible. I didn't give up without a fight - at first I fought hard and argued. I prayed (a lot and diligently) for a change in attitude, fought with it (intensely), resisted it with all my might. And at the same time I thought: if I want to be truly devoted to God, I must be completely devoted to the truth. After quite a long time, it became clear to me that my previous ideas about the Bible as an inerrant divine revelation were completely wrong. I had to make a choice: either continue to cling to views that I had already realized were wrong, or follow the path along which I believed the truth was leading me. Ultimately it turned out that there was no choice. What is true is true, what is not is not.
For many years I have known people who said, “If my beliefs don’t match the facts, so much the worse for the facts.” I was never one of them. In the following chapters I will try to explain why studying the Bible caused me to reconsider my views.
This information is necessary not only for scientists like me, who have devoted their whole lives to serious research, but also for everyone who is interested in the Bible - regardless of whether these people consider themselves believers or not. From my point of view, this information is of great importance. No matter whether you are a believer or not, no matter what your faith is - fundamentalist, evangelical, moderate or liberal - the Bible is still the most important book in the history of our civilization. Understanding what it is and what it is not is one of the most important intellectual tasks our society can undertake.
Some readers of this book will likely find the information presented in it unsettling. I ask only one thing: if you find yourself in a similar position, follow my example - try to perceive it with an open mind, and if you have to change, change. If nothing in this book shocks or alarms you, just read it with pleasure.
I am indescribably grateful to the many thoughtful and insightful readers who diligently studied my manuscript and actively insisted - I hope not in vain - that I change some passages. These readers are Dale Martin of Yale University and Jeff Siker of Loyola Marymount University; my daughter Kelly Erman Katz; my graduate students Jared Anderson and Benjamin White; one astute proofreader and my thoughtful and invaluable editor at GregOpe, Roger Frith.
I dedicate this book to my two-year-old granddaughter Aya, perfection in every way.
1. Historical attacks on faith
In the Christian world, the Bible is constantly bought, actively read everywhere and revered before it like no other book. At the same time, no book is so misunderstood, especially among lay readers.
Over the past two centuries, biblical scholars have made significant progress in our understanding of the Bible—thanks to archaeological discoveries, our advances in the study of Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of Scripture, and deep and thoughtful historical, literary, and textual analysis. This is a vast field of science. In North America alone, thousands of scientists continue serious research in this area, and university graduate students and future priests studying in seminaries and preparing for ministry are regularly and systematically familiarized with the results of their research.
IV. The struggle of Christianity against paganism in life and thought.
[Above there was already talk about the attitude towards paganism of Constantine V . (306-337) and Constantius (337-361). Under the pagan Julian (361-363), an attempt was made to restore paganism]. During the reign of Julian, the Church of Christ suffered terrible oppression, but with the death of Julian, the work he began dissipated like smoke. His successor Jovian (363) was a Christian and did not even want to accept leadership over the pagan troops. Jovian's successor Valentinian I (364-375) was also a Christian and adhered to freedom of religious beliefs. His Eastern co-ruler Valens (364-378), who wanted to give triumph to the Arian party, the pagans also had no reason to be dissatisfied. Cases of oppression of pagans were quite rare under him and were of a local nature.
Under Emperor Gratian (375-383) the gradual restriction and suppression of paganism begins. So, Gratian did not accept the title " pontifex maximus ”, which was worn by all previous emperors, removed the statue of Victoria from the Senate, deprived the privileges of the Vestals and banned pagan sacrifices combined with fortune telling. Valentinian II (383-392), under the influence of Ambrose of Milan, continued the policy of his brother; he did not want to be named pontifex maximus , because of which there was a murmur among the people. "If Valentinian does not wish to be pontifex maximus , said the pagans, then Maxim will be pontifex"o m". There was an uprising and unrest.
When he established himself on the throne Theodosius the Elder (379-395), there was no change in relation to the pagans. In his politics he kept a balance. In 381, on December 21, he issued an edict prohibiting sacrifices combined with fortune telling and spells. In 382, he allowed the opening of a pagan temple in Edessa as an artistic monument. In 386, Christians were exempted from contributions to the maintenance of pagan temples and from municipal positions associated with paganism. In principle, it turned out that paganism still had a future. From 387 to 391 the emperor had to be in the west. Here he, having become acquainted with paganism, decided to give triumph to Christianity. Under the influence of Ambrose, he issued two decrees that prohibited sacrifices and entry into pagan temples for sacrifice and worship of things made by hand. But political considerations forced the emperor to go further in this direction. It was at that time that the indignation of Maxim and Evgeniy occurred. The latter, [patronizing the pagans, had an image of Hercules on his banner. From here Theodosius noticed that the disturbance took place in the name of paganism. Therefore, in 392, he issues a rescript prohibiting the pagan cult, as an insult to the royal majesty. Various officials, under pain of punishment, had to ensure that sacrifices were not made. Thus, the general characteristic feature of the reign of Theodosius is that he wanted to give the pagans a warning, but did not want to execute them.
At Arcadia (395-408) practical measures are taken against paganism - missions are organized to educate
The destruction of the pagans, sometimes the pagan temples are forcibly destroyed. All such phenomena turned out to be necessary to protect the Christian population. From the life of Porfiry of Gaza one can see what life was like for Christians in those cities where there were many pagans. Each destruction of pagan temples showed that Christians had strength on their side and called on the pagans to be calm and modest.
In the east, paganism was more shaken than in the west. In the western half of the empire, Honorius (395-423) had to reckon with paganism in the person of the courtiers. Thus, Stilicho dreamed of restoring paganism as a state religion. In 399, Honorius, under his influence, issued two decrees that protected the inviolability of pagan temples as architectural monuments and buildings for feasts. In 408, he already prohibited pagans from being in the guard corps, although, however, this prohibition remained a dead letter. Paganism was alive. In the same 408, during the siege of Rome by Alaric, pagan sacrifices were performed.
Under Emperor Leo (457-474), the quaestor of Antioch, Isokasios, accused of belonging to the pagan faith, was subjected to criminal prosecution; the matter ended with baptism ( Zonar . XIV, 1). The Athenian pagan-philosophical school continued to exist until 529, when it was destroyed by Justinian . The Syrian historian John, Bishop of Ephesus, tells about himself that on a missionary trip in 542 he converted up to seventy thousand pagans to Christianity.
Thus, paganism existed and counted many thousands in its midst. Only the pagans did not openly declare their religious beliefs. Bishops and civil officials were charged with the duty of bringing pagans to trial. Thus, a person had not previously been persecuted by the government for maintaining paganism until there was a denunciation. So, we see that the pagans and Christians have switched roles. Paganism had become an illicit religion, but it still existed. A pagan could rise high on the social hierarchical ladder; but as soon as you denounced him, he fell into disgrace. Paganism existed even after Justinian, and in the west it persisted more stubbornly than in the east, and therefore
There were often hostile clashes between pagans and Christians.
There has also been a change in the area of guiding ideas. Previously, paganism was the attacking side; now, on the contrary, Christianity has become such a side. Previously, for example, Porfiry wrote works against Christians, and Christians wrote treatises in defense of their teachings and in refutation of pagan slander. Now the pagans themselves are turning to defending their faith from the attacks of Christians. Themistius led them , held in high esteem by Julian and Theodosius V.. The latter even entrusted him with raising his son, Arkady. He held the opinion that everyone should believe as his conscience requires. Another apologist for paganism, Livanius , defended the latter on practical grounds. He cried out against the destruction of pagan temples and tried to protect the pagans from the encroachment of Christians on their freedom. This kind of work, which represents a close analogy with the judicial apologies of ancient Christian writers, did not evoke any literary response from Christians (except for the short letter of Ambrose against Aurelius Symmachus ).
From the scientific side, Emperor Julian polemicizes against Christians (κατὰ χριστιανῶν , 363) and Proclus († 485). The work of the first represents the most profound attack on it, based on a multifaceted study of Christian doctrine. Proclus objected to the doctrine of the creation and end of the world from a philosophical point of view. Finally, pagan historians like Eunapius and Zosima serve their cause, presenting the activities of Christian emperors in the most unfavorable light. As for the dialogue « Philopatris », then in determining its origin, scientists fluctuate between 261 and 969.
Christian writers of the present era have compiled several apologetic works of a scientific nature. [Back in the first half of the 4th century. spoke with apologetic works of Lactantius : Institutionum divinar u m libri VII, Eusebius of Caesarea: Προπαρασκευὴ εὐαγγελική And ἀπόδειξις εὐαγγελική , Afanasy V.: Κατὰ τῶν ἐλλήνων And Περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως τοῦ Λόγου . Composition Theodoret of Cyrus: Ἐλληνικών θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων serves as the completion of these works of a general apologetic nature. In particular
Juliana denied Cyril of Alexandria, Prokla John Philoponus(VI century). Finally, the essay Julia Firmica Materna(343—350): De errore profanarum religionum, where it is recommended to exterminate paganism with fire and sword, according to this practical tendency is the antithesis of the speeches of pagan speakers.
A unique kind of apologetics consists of historical works written by Western writers. The masses of the people believed that the system of state life was closely connected with the ancient Russian religion, and therefore they saw the cause of all the people's disasters in Christians, as violators and apostates from the true ancient religion. This circumstance prompted Orosius to compile a “world history”: Historiarum adversus paganos libriVII. It begins with the idea that disasters have always occurred, and then real disasters are considered. In them, the author, in addition to all the bad, also sees some good sides. One of these good sides was the conversion of barbarians to Christianity, which would not have happened with happy turns of affairs.
The same events, but only from a philosophical point of view, are also considered by Bl. Augustine in his essay " De civitate Dei ". He considers the fact of the fall of humanity to be the basis of world history, adding to this the fact that pagan writers themselves attribute the fall of pagan morality to the time of the first success of Roman weapons, the conquest of Carthage. Finally, the motivation for the founding of the Roman Empire was the love of glory, a patriotic virtue, not a religious one. But for temporary virtue the reward can only be temporary. This reward is the long-term existence of the Roman Empire. Augustine contrasts this temporary “city” with the heavenly city, founded on an unshakable rock and experiencing everything, that is, the Church of Christ. The City of God will exist until the time of perfect peace and contemplation of God.
The Gallic presbyter Salvian speaks on the same topic. . The reason for writing his essay “ De gubernatione Dei" or "De praesenti judicio "was the fall of Rome. This event made a terrible impression on the best Romans, especially since the attacks of the barbarians after this
Intensified. They complained about Christians as the perpetrators of disasters, and asked: is there Providence when Rome, the eternal city, is destroyed? The tone of his work, in contrast to Augustine's, is sad. The author depicts here the rudeness of the barbarians and the depravity of Roman Christians. The depravity of the latter especially struck him, since it is the result of refinement, and not rudeness. What can we say about Christians, about the church, which should appease God? How many of them are not drunkards, not murderers, but those who would be generally blameless? Many of its members are mired in terrible vices. It is against such Christians that barbarians and heretics speak out. They are also spoiled; but this does not depend on luxury, but on their moral rudeness. However, despite all this, they are more capable of creating a good state than vicious Christians. In conclusion, Salvian poses the question of how a Christian should stand in the newly established state relations, and resolves it in the sense that pagans should be treated the same way as they treat Christians. God will judge who is right.
How did the church emerge from the struggle with the newly developed circumstances, and how did these circumstances historically affect its life? Until the time of Constantine V., the essence of the struggle of Christianity against paganism was to protect the rights of freedom of conscience. Tertullian, in a letter to the proconsul Scapula, says that every person has the right to worship whomever he wishes, and this does not harm anyone; it is impossible to force, since this is displeasing to God; Even a person does not want to be worshiped involuntarily, much less does God want this. Lactantius says that religion must be defended with words and not with blows. If anyone decides to defend her with violence and atrocity, he will only disgrace her. Let the pagans exert all their mental talents to defend their religion. We will listen to them, but they won’t do anything with their ferocity. We do not lure into our society, but exhort. If no one leaves us, it is not because we are holding them back, but the truth itself is holding them back.
Since the time of Constantine V., these views on freedom of religious belief have changed. True, in the Edict of Milan the emperor granted freedom of choice to all his subjects
Between pagan and Christian religion. But in subsequent times he held the view that the state religion should be the Christian-Catholic religion. Therefore, he constrained all other religions. Constantius declared himself even more clearly from this side [and since, while patronizing the Arians, he persecuted the Orthodox, he provoked denunciations against himself from Athanasius V., Hilary of Pictavia, Hosius of Corduba]. IN IV V. The church fathers generally agree with the point of view of freedom of conscience and argue that it is impossible to force one to religion by violent means. But this point of view was applied primarily pro domo sua , i.e. to your Christian church. Therefore, the question arises: did the pagans enjoy freedom of conscience?
The answer is the fact of the existence of Christian κατηχούμενοι , catechumens. In the 4th century. The Christian church consisted of persons who were baptized in adulthood, and therefore well understood their desires and their motives in converting to Christianity. From 348, a number of catechetical teachings of the Jerusalem presbyter (then bishop) Cyril remained, from which it is clear that if the doors of the church were open for persons who wished to be baptized, then, therefore, they were not closed for those who wished to leave it . In these teachings, Cyril of Jerusalem speaks in the following tone: “Although God is generous in doing good, he expects from everyone sincere will. Therefore, if you are here only with your body and not with your soul, then there is no benefit. And we, the ministers of the church, accept everyone, and there is no prohibition from entering here with unclean intentions. But be careful that when you call it true, you do not have the disposition of the unfaithful. If you accept baptism only with your lips and not with your heart, then beware of the judgment of the Knower of the Heart; and if you have departed from the faith, then the announcers are not guilty; It was only the water that accepted you, not the Spirit.”
Thus, the church, standing at the height of its position, accepted pagans, but cautiously, arguing that without an internal disposition, accepting Christianity would not bring any benefit. From this point of view - from the side of the inviolability of inner conviction - both Christianity and paganism were equal. But alongside this lofty principle there were also variations in views on the issue of freedom of conscience, which left their mark on the subsequent history of relations between Christianity and paganism.
The issue of freedom of conscience was discussed, among other things, by St. Athanasius and Hilary of Pictavia, who taught freedom of confession in defense of the rights of the church. But it was possible to defend this position from another point of view, arguing that the church is free because this institution is undoubtedly high, and the one who exerts pressure must obtain permission from its leaders. If this permission is not available, then there should be no place for violence. Thus, by recognizing the high position of the episcopal rank, the same results can be achieved. Everyone must obey the leaders of the church, and not give them instructions. A typical exponent of this view is Ambrose of Milan, who brilliantly defended the interests of the church, based on the authority of the episcopal rank [in the cases of his clash with the imperial power mentioned above]. The suppression of paganism, which resulted in conversion to Christianity, was considered a triumph of the church. That is why various measures for things that should not be used were considered good. That's why they looked at him with favor terror legum , to the imperial laws prohibiting paganism. Augustine was also an exponent of this view on the subject of coercion in matters of faith [in the above-mentioned letter to the Donatist Vincent].
It must be admitted that Christians generally stood on the side of a slightly different view. This can be seen from how, according to the story in the life of Porfiry of Gaza, the Gaza Christians reacted when, after the destruction of the temple, the pagans began to convert under the influence of fear and when idols and books began to be found among them. Many learned the truth voluntarily, while others entered under fear, but the church opened its doors to everyone. Some said that one should not accept those who come out of fear, but only out of choice. But Porfiry points out that a person has to acquire good things by chance. For example, whoever buys an ungrateful slave who does not want to do his will, he admonishes him with words, but then, when he does not listen, he instills fear in him with blows and puts him in prison, not at all wanting to destroy him. And God acts through punishments so that people, at least out of necessity, know what is good. Moreover, if the convert comes with doubt, then time can soften a hard heart, and if he does not appear as a worthy believer, then those born by him can be honored with bliss. So
Thus, the leaders of the Church found it possible to make concessions so that, at least, the descendants of the Parents converted in this way would become good Christians.
In the West, Gregory V. spoke out quite consistently in this sense. As is known, he is, by the way, a good owner; along with church orders, he has many economic orders regarding church property, charitable affairs, etc. He had to state the fact that even bishops Other Churches did not care that slaves living on church lands accepted Christianity. He sent, among other things, a message to the Sardinian bishop, where he threatened the latter with punishment for negligence. He drew attention to legislation on this issue. He recommended that converting Jews reduce their rent as much as possible without harming church revenues, hoping that the Jews would turn to Christian mercy and accept Christianity. In relation to the peasants who remained pagans, Gregory recommended a heavier quitrent so that they would feel more burdened; if pagan slaves lived on church lands, then they should have been brought to their senses by beatings and torture, and if they were free pagans, then they should have been subjected to strict solitary confinement. This is what practical measures have come to resolve the issue of freedom of conscience.
In Spain, whose population consisted of Iberian, Celtic and Roman tribes, they zealously began to forcibly convert [the Jews] to Christianity. The same thing happened in other places. It goes without saying that, given the way things were going, many were baptized insincerely. The Toledo Cathedral had to reckon with what to do with them. All the bishops agreed that they were not Christians, but they were worthy of baptism and reception of St. Secrets, and therefore they could not be allowed to leave Christianity [ can. 57].
In essence, we have to use examples from Western life. This hardly gives us the right to assume that this order of affairs does not take place in the east. The fact is that in Western literature there are documents (for example, the correspondence of Gregory V.) of this kind that he did not leave to us
None of the Eastern writers. The writing of the East and West was very different. The Latins wrote in a businesslike manner; their authors had no time for eloquence; they provide much more material for illuminating the state of material affairs. In Greece, however, rhetoric took precedence over businesslikeness, cultivating eloquence, because of which it is difficult to discern the actual attitude of the Eastern fathers to the issue of freedom of conscience.
We find the only serious clarification on this issue in the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council. This latter ordered [right. 8], so that Jews who came to church insincerely would not be considered Christians; the civil government had to leave them under the weight of civil laws; they could not freely use the property 1).
1) Soon afterwards we had to reckon with the heretics, the Paulicians and Athenians (in Phrygia). There were terrible rumors about the sectarians; some believed that they worshiped the devil and their deeds were unclean. When the question of persecuting them was raised, it came to the point that they began to be executed. Theodore the Studite spoke on this matter in a letter to the Ephesian Bishop Theophilus. The following words of Theophilus were conveyed to St. Theodore: “I neither advised killing heretics, nor did I advise against it; but even if I had advised killing them, I would have done a better job.” Against this, Theodore argued that such a relationship is contrary to the command of Christ to leave the tares to grow with the wheat until the harvest, so that, by pulling out the tares, the wheat would not be uprooted; and Chrysostom says that heretics should not be persecuted by death. Against the reference to the Old Testament examples of Phinehas and Elijah, St. Theodore objected in the sense that such actions do not agree with the New Testament spirit. As for the reference to the example of John the Faster, who allegedly advised the execution of heretics, this fact has not been verified; moreover, there the matter was about magic, therefore the civil authorities executed the guilty there for civil lawlessness, but the church did not have the right to do this. “That is why we said to the blessed patriarch (Nicephorus): “the church does not take revenge with the sword,” and to the emperors - the first: “God does not like such a murder,” and to the second: “if consent to execution is required, then first remove our heads.” So, if you have a different Gospel, then good; and if the same, then remember that the shepherds of the Church must admonish those who are in error with words” [er. 155]. Thus, we have views against the persecution of heretics. But the significance of this evidence cannot be exaggerated, because this opinion is not the only one. Theophan the Confessor appears as an opponent of such views. When the Studite opinion triumphed under Emperor Michael, Theophanes said that “the pious emperor wanted to execute heretics, but there were bad advisers who pretended that they should not be executed; but if they knew the heretics, they would also know
In general - this cannot be rejected - the Christian government, in its measures against paganism, practiced a system of moderate and consistent violence, at one time consciously expressed by Emperor Arcadius. Many representatives of Christian society in this regard acted in concert with the government, and the more zealous (especially the monks) even went ahead of it. There were even martyrs who laid down their lives during the destructive campaign against the temples (such as Marcellus of Apamea under Theodosius).
But all this does not change the fact that paganism died a natural death: if in any court, including the court of history, it is required, ut auditatur et altera pars (so that the other side can also be heard) - in relation to paganism, this demand was brilliantly satisfied during the reign of Julian. The strongest measures were taken to resurrect paganism, but even here it did not show any vitality. Reforms in the Christian spirit did not take root in him; Having delved into Neoplatonic interpretations of the content of the old religious doctrine, Julian broke away from both the masses and the majority of the intelligentsia; with his ardent, affected piety, he seemed almost ridiculous in the eyes of the religiously indifferent pagan society of that time. The blows of subsequent Christian sovereigns were directed, generally speaking, not against paganism in itself, not against adherents of the old faith, but against those external supports on which the ancient Roman religion could rest: the laws deprived it of only these external resources. The situation of both fighting religions is characterized by the fact that paganism did not produce a single martyr. Death of Hypatia (415), torn to pieces by the fanatical Alexandrian mob led by
that they are unable to turn to faith. The Apostle Peter struck down Ananias for one thought. However, the pious emperor killed quite a few of them.” Secondly, Theodore himself did not express an opinion on the punishment of heretics in general, not the death penalty]. The Holy Father could bring Chrysostom and other fathers, but the fact is that the fathers opposed both the execution of heretics and execution in general. Thus, the question remained open, because the fathers did not speak clearly. And Chrysostom himself expresses that the Savior only forbade killing heretics, but did not forbid curbing their daring, did not forbid scattering their congregations [homil. 46, al. 47, in Math. XIII, 29].
"Reader Peter" says nothing against this generalization. Hypatia was killed not because she was a pagan, but for reasons of such a private nature that she probably would not have escaped death even if she had been a Christian.
This gradual weakening of paganism was accompanied, of course, by the external strengthening of the church and numerous conversions. This point constitutes one of the weakest aspects of the established new orders of church life. Konstantin V. looked at the matter very practically; directly recognizing that very few are capable of listening to and accepting Christian preaching for the sake of its very content, the emperor recommended to the fathers of the Council of Nicaea the path of external influence, attracting pagans to Christianity by extraneous means - material assistance in needs, intercession with civil authorities. The emperor himself practiced these means on a wide scale, and his generous rewards to those who converted to Christianity attracted into the fold of the church precisely the worst part of court society, those people for whom the question of conviction mattered least of all and who were capable of migrating from Christian churches to pagan altars and back, depending on the requirements of court circumstances. This side of Constantine’s activities did not escape even Eusebius and caused censure from this panegyrist. Of course, the emperor's direct influence was limited to the narrow sphere of court life; but his example did not remain without imitation in lower spheres: and there a passion for propaganda developed. And the laws prohibiting the pagan cult, of course, also did their job: given the weakness of religious animation among the masses, naturally the majority preferred to fulfill the will of the divine emperors than to endure this or that trouble. In a word, one of the worst consequences of the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion was the conversion of entire masses without firm conviction, without internal preparation, without anything that would even resemble the deposition of the old man.
There were persons prepared for the transition to Christianity by the study of idealistic philosophy, like Synesius; but these could only be counted as a few; usually accepted Christianity for reasons far from the region
Religious conviction, or even downright selfish. Another accepted Christianity out of sincere friendship with someone in order to please him; the other - because he had a case and was thinking of bringing it to the bishop's court; the third - to secure some strong patronage through clergy; the fourth - because there was an opportunity to make a profitable match. Bl. Augustine, who lists all such cases of conversion, still looks at the matter with faith and hope, finding that the grace of God can carry a Man further than he thought to go himself; that many who enter the door of the church and for these reasons are subsequently corrected; that through the influence of the Christian catechumen many actually become what at first they only intended to appear.
And indeed, in principle, all this should not adversely affect the internal life of the church: bishops have always had the opportunity to keep such proselytes at the threshold of the church until they convert sincerely. But that is not what happened in reality: in order for the bishops to fulfill with dignity the difficult task of shepherding souls in this case, they themselves had to be incomparably higher than what they actually were. Already Chrysostom complains that the spiritual often violate the Savior’s commandment: do not throw pearls before swine; out of unreasonable vanity and ambition, they allow morally corrupt people, without faith, without conscience, to communicate in the sacraments without any testing. The mass of appeals was met with a lack of funds for the educational influence of the church - a lack both qualitatively, since the average level of the clergy was below their calling, and quantitatively, because the churches themselves were not even enough. And the same St. Chrysostom complains in his sermons that many owners, having converted the colonies under their control to Christianity, then do not care about their Christian education and do not build churches. The consequence of this was, on the one hand, a fall from Christianity into paganism, and on the other hand, a lowering of the level of moral life and religious consciousness in the church itself, which was faced with the need to accept into its fold so many people with a pagan system of concepts and everyday habits, only very weakly and superficially touched by the light of Christian truth.
Previously, a period of 1 year - 40 days was legal for subjects; now it has become customary, in cases of conversion of Jews, to shorten the period, so that, as Gregory V. recommended, the subjects would not become bored with their position. They consoled themselves with the hope that the children of the converted were being raised in the true faith. But this hope was not always justified in practice. On the contrary, it turned out that with rapid conversion no moral progress was noticed, that is, with extensive expansion the church lost the intensity of the religious and moral consciousness of its members. And according to Chrysostom’s reasoning, believers consist of three categories. Some turn on their sickbed; others vouch for them in faith, because they themselves could not do it; Having recovered, they do not always lead the life they promised to lead at baptism. Others are baptized in childhood, and still others in adulthood and responsibility, but even in those the religious fire soon cools.
Thus, when conversion reaches large masses, the intensity of their religious and moral perfection is lost. And here, apparently, the well-known law that the same amount of energy, progressing in extension in the world, decreases in intensity, justifies itself. And Christianity, while losing the intensity [of faith] of individual members, nevertheless produces a beneficial effect through extensive expansion, for many phenomena that were previously possible due to the unbelief of some people have now become impossible. It is not individual characters that are elevated, but the customs themselves gradually change, and much of what was previously considered ordinary has now become impossible. If it was not possible to change the masses into sons of light, then it was possible to raise the customs of the people to such a degree that they became largely consistent with Christian requirements. A larger number of people consider it worthy to imitate Christ and already consider it unworthy to be an opponent of Christ, not only in deeds, but even in words.
The page was generated in 0.05 seconds!
Golden eagle hovered above You,
Sometimes sitting down
On God's chest,
When You melted, the river, the pool,
Pointing at fish
The villages are terrible.God, carried by the waves,(Velemir Khlebnikov, "Perun")
Swans are greeted by barking,
Didn't You predetermine Tsushima?
The family of people who overthrew You?
Let's start from afar...
In 1450, a certain subject of the most Christian king of France, J. Le Bouvier, wrote in his “Book of Descriptions of Countries” about the neighbors of his people: “The English are cruel and treacherous, moreover, they are stingy traders, the Swiss are cruel and rude, the Scandinavians are hot-tempered and angry; The Neapolitans are fat and rude, bad Catholics and great sinners; the Castilians are violent, poorly dressed, poorly shod, sleep on bad beds and are bad Catholics."
Sketching a portrait of each European nation with a few bold strokes, distributing, so to speak, earrings to all the sisters, Le Bouvier inserts every bast into the line - from a bad bed to, in his opinion, insufficient Catholicism.
Of course, against such a background, the fellow countrymen of the author of the “Book of Description of Countries” should look like pure angels... but that’s not what interests us now. As is easy to see, the Frenchman brought the accusation of “bad” Catholicism to two nations: the “Neapolitans,” that is, the Italians, and the “Castilians,” the Spaniards.
Why, however, were these particular peoples awarded such an epithet? After all, later, as we know, both of them remained faithful to the Vatican even three centuries after the bile “ethnographer” Le Bouvier, when the majority of the peoples listed by Le Bouvier, not endowed with the stigma of “bad Catholics,” fell into Protestantism, or even completely - like the same French - moved away from Christianity, sending priests to the guillotine "in the name of reason and progress."
It's about the time when the undiplomatic Frenchman wrote his book. In 1450, no heresies were heard of in France (the Czech Republic, seething with the Hussite wars, was too far away, and Martin Luther had not yet been born). "Bad Catholic" in the mouth of a European in 1450 means "bad Christian"!
It is curious that the writer and scientist, specialist in the culture of the Middle Ages, Umberto Eco writes something similar. In his novel “The Name of the Rose,” which we have already quoted in the introduction, through the mouth of the stern Englishman-Dominican, William of Baskerville, he tells the novice Atson: they say, Italians, in order to experience reverence, need some kind of idol, and most often this idol takes the name of one of the saints.
The Englishman expresses fear that the Italians, they say, are about to reach “secondary paganism.”
William of Baskerville hit the nail on the head. This is what, for example, happened in the south of Italy at the end of 1893 (!!). A long drought has hit these areas. Grain fields and orchards perished, people were threatened with hunger.
After the magnificent processions of the cross turned out to be powerless, spending nights with rosaries in their hands and prayer on their lips in front of the statues of saints, hanging palm branches blessed on Palm Sunday from the branches of gardens, and even scattering across the fields the rubbish swept from churches on the same Sunday, the desperate the peasants went to extreme measures.
The enraged Italians came to the church with far from pious intentions. Gone are the days when the inhabitants of Nicosia carried crucifixes around the city with songs, lashing each other with rods - now they used rods to beat statues of saints who did not want to respond to prayers.
In Palermo, parishioners dragged the statue of Joseph out of the church into the sun so that he could taste for himself what, by his grace, people had to endure, and vowed to leave the named father-savior there until it rained.
This, however, was still a gentle treatment - magnificent robes were torn off the statues of saints, they were turned to face the walls like worthless children, they were threatened, they were mocked, they were insulted, they were dipped in puddles, they were expelled from the parishes.
In the city of Caltanisetta, the golden wings of the Archangel Michael were torn off, but, however, they were replaced with cardboard ones - apparently, considering that it would be too cruel to turn a winged creature into a wingless cripple; They tore off his purple robe and dressed him in rags and cast-offs.
The worst thing happened to Saint Angelo, the patron saint of Licata - a crowd of recent admirers stripped their careless patron naked, chained him and threatened to hang him or drown him. "Rain or rope?!" - the enraged Italians shouted, waving a rope loop in front of the saint’s wooden face.
This is what “bad Catholics” are, or, if you like, “secondary paganism.” Yes, the Italians really fought the drought like pagans, yes, they really treated the statues of saints as if they were idols. But the countrymen of their strict judges - both the real Le Bouvier and the fictional Englishman - by this time, in the overwhelming and absolute majority, had ceased to be not only Catholics, but at least simply people who believed in God.
Let us remember, reader, what we talked about in the preface. “Since the 16th century, witch trials, sermons, and catechisms have persistently emphasized the distinction between God and Satan, saints and demons, in order to root it in the mentality of rural residents,” writes Delumeau.
Starting from the 15th century, the church, which dramatically changed its attitude towards witches and witchcraft, began to persecute them and burn them at the stake. All these are facets of one process. Having largely done away with conscious paganism (at the end of the 14th century, Lithuania, the last pagan country in Europe, adopted Christianity), the church turned to fighting the remnants of paganism among its parishioners.
Who is to blame that some of the churchmen, such as the Augustinian monk from Germany, Martin Luther, went further than others in this matter and turned to those remnants of paganism that had grown into the very, so to speak, flesh of the church?
The Protestants declared war on that legacy of the former Faith, which the church either consciously, in order to make it easier for pagans to transition to Christianity, or unconsciously, in the souls of new, not entirely consistent parishioners, took for itself - the cult of saints, the heir of polytheism, the veneration of icons and relics, the heir of idolatry, magnificent rituals, heirs of magic, the ringing of bells and bright vestments of prelates, the very apparatus of the priesthood, the heir of the priesthood, and finally, the very symbol of the cross (however, not everyone got to this point).
All this was openly and, in general, rightly denounced as the legacy of godless, filthy paganism.
The 16th and 17th centuries passed under the sign of this struggle - the struggle between paganism and Christianity, which spread into Christian society. It’s probably not worth recounting it in detail here.
Everything is too reminiscent of the previous struggle against paganism - now crowds of fanatics smashed not temples, but churches, now they dragged behind horses and threw into bonfires not sorcerers and priestesses, but priests and nuns, crowbars smashed not the statues of Brigid or Freya, but the smiling faces of madonnas and curly hair plaster heads of babies on their arms.
In the same way, entire regions turned into deserts, brother went against brother and son against father - in general, the church drank full of what, by its grace, the worshipers of the old Gods had to taste.
“For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you”...
In the end, all countries that took the fight against paganism seriously, all the “good Catholics” of Le Bouvier, fell away from Rome. The church’s position in France more or less held its own, but even there it had a hard time.
And in other countries, a person with a gaze cleared of pagan idols and symbols could look into the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Scripture. And soon he began to declare that he did not want to have anything to do with this god.
Deprived of the Gods and idols of his ancestors dressed in Catholic vestments, the European did not want to deal with either the sadistic despot of the Old Testament or the sufferer of the New. In the centers of Protestantism - Switzerland, Britain, Germany - materialist philosophy flourishes.
Europe, having become more closely acquainted with the God of Christians, seemed to say that such a god would be better than none! Christian zeal and the consistency of Catholics cleared the way for Protestantism, and that - for atheism.
Something similar happened in our homeland, reader. Since the 17th century, the Christian Church, having finally defeated its main adversary, Slavic paganism, began to fight its remnants.
The first signs were the refusal to consecrate fire, then the global equation of Russian Orthodoxy with the Byzantine “template”, the Nikon schism. By the way, his opponents, the Old Believers, according to scientists, “are characterized by a noticeable restoration of paganism in their worldview and in cult actions.”
But the real war on the remnants of paganism in Orthodoxy, especially on that folk, village “Orthodoxy” that we talked about in the introduction, was declared in the next, 18th century.
Of course, at the end of this century there were priests (!) who did not know who Christ was (!!), and believed that God’s name was... Nikola (!!!).
However, due to the revolutions and reforms of the Russian state - and after Peter the church finally turned into one of his offices, so to speak, the “ministry of spiritual care” - it took a long time to get around to this task.
So, seriously for the “evangelization of the Russian village” - let me remind you that at the beginning of the 20th century, barely 15% of the country’s inhabitants lived in cities - the church and state came into being only in the 19th century.
At the same time, the research of ethnographers opened the eyes of the educated public to what that Russian peasant, from whom the Slavophiles hastened to paint an icon of Christian virtues, truly believes.
The results were disappointing. I spoke a lot in the preface about the striking manifestations of the actual paganism of the Russian village, but I will not repeat myself. But the Russian peasant’s Christianity was... non-Christian, so to speak.
They didn't preach in churches - they held services there. Without being interested in dogma for a second, the peasant concentrated his faith in ritual. This was, in fact, Orthodox idolatry - ritual belief, as church publicists called it.
Having learned under pressure to bow to icons, make the sign of the cross and kiss the priest’s hand, the Russian peasant has not advanced in his understanding of Christianity in the centuries since his baptism. This is not my opinion, this is not “atheistic propaganda” of Soviet militant atheists, these are not the writings of Marxists or Narodniks - this is the assessment of pre-revolutionary church Orthodox publicists.
“The Russian people do not understand anything about their religion... they confuse God with St. Nicholas and are even ready to give preference to the latter... The doctrines of Christianity are completely unknown to them” (Missionary Review, 1902, vol. II, p. 34).
“Our common people are enveloped in the impenetrable darkness of religious ignorance; sometimes they understand nothing either of the professed faith or of the divine service performed before them” (Church Voice, 1906, No. 46, p. 1256).
“It is hardly possible to find confessors of another religion who would understand their faith as poorly as the sons of the Orthodox Church. Our people’s ignorance of the dogma of Christianity is a fact that is unlikely to be disputed by anyone” (Church and Public Bulletin, 1913, No. 25, p. .2).
The comrade chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod wrote in those years that Orthodoxy in Russia is maintained only through the efforts of his government department. Not by sermons, not by the Russian people’s craving for Christianity, but by the efforts of officials.
If we leave, he wrote, the enlightened society will go Catholic, and the peasants will fall into schism. Well, if by schism we mean that same village “Christianity,” then everything is correct - although he really thought too well about an enlightened society!
As in the West, the struggle against pagan remnants was also a struggle against ritualism - for preaching against service, for dogma against ritual.
In vain did the subtle and deep thinker Vasily Rozanov (known, by the way, for his sympathies for paganism, in particular, it was he who wrote the famous phrase: “Try to crucify the Sun - and you will see who God is!”) warned his contemporaries that the planting of sermons in village churches would lead to only to the loss of interest of the peasants in religion.
It was in vain that the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, “the eye of the king” and the bogeyman of the “progressive intelligentsia,” Konstantin Pobedonostsev, warned against the destruction of ritual faith. The internal logic of Christianity turned out to be stronger. Did Christ perform rituals? He preached!
The echo of the attack on pagan relics is reflected in the works of Russian ethnographers. Vladimir Dal also simply writes about the dominance of the remnants of paganism in the Russian village.
S.V. Maksimov reports on successes - horses are no longer drowned by the waterman, fewer and fewer people believe in werewolves, listen to the prophecies of whores, listen with respect to the sorcerer and healer, fewer and fewer people come to revered trees, stones, and springs.
And every year all these dense superstitions retreat from cities, from railways, from new, literate and enlightened priests, into the wilderness, into the wilds...
N.I. Galkovsky in his work “The Struggle of Christianity against the Remnants of Paganism in Ancient Rus'” already speaks of actual victory. Of course, sparks are still smoldering somewhere... but these are really sparks, not remnants - remnants of remnants.
And everything would be fine... but this book is dated 1916. Does any reader need to be reminded of what happened exactly a year later to Orthodox Russia?
What did the good Orthodox peasants begin to throw out, to whom the enlightened priests explained that the earth is not the body of the Mother of God, but a dead creature, that the ancestral images in the red corner are not magical intercessors and helpers, but just a “book for the illiterate”, that from now on they will be in the church Should we listen to sermons and not participate in the service?
Some of them calmly watched the destruction of churches, the shooting of priests, the rape of nuns, and some of them helped, not just the “Jews-commissars” with the Latvians and the Chinese... and what’s more, it wasn’t just the Reds who committed atrocities on Orthodox shrines.
And what? Why not throw an icon into the fire - it’s just a “book for the illiterate”? Why not shoot at the priest - after all, this is not one of the “knowledgeable”, but just an official in a cassock? Why not set up a club in the church where you listened to sermons, where you will listen to lectures?
In villages near Moscow, back at the beginning of the 20th century, zealous priests collected idols of “chicken gods” from the villagers and burned them. The next generation will collect and burn icons.
An even more entertaining and revealing episode occurred at the same beginning of the 20th century in one of the villages of the Krestetsky district of the Novgorod province. There, in the zemstvo court, the priest and the men were suing over a completely curious issue.
Arriving in the village, the “fresh” priest, recently from the seminary, as they say, did not know grief until the parishioners called him with a censer to the pity. It’s a pity, if anyone doesn’t know, this is such an ethnographic specificity of the Russian North - a rural cemetery (again!), planted with trees and lined with boulders around the perimeter.
On the days of remembrance - on the ninth day, on the fortieth, on the anniversary, on Parent's Saturday, on Radunitsa - gifts for the dead are brought there and tied on the trunks and branches of trees - bright ribbons, scarves, sometimes entire shirts or dresses.
In short, a view that in itself is not very pleasing to the Christian gaze. And here... at the edge of the pity - I remind you, reader, European Russia, twentieth century! - there are stone idols.
Kadi, father, ask the Masters for rain and harvest.
I, the reader, would like to see the expression on the priest’s face at this moment. However, this desire, of course, will remain among the impossible, and we can only try to imagine it to the best of our ability. I'm sure the spectacle was memorable.
In response to their indignant refusal to participate in “idolatry,” the parishioners calmly answered the pastor:
We don't know anything. Past priests burned incense, and you are a censer, otherwise we won’t feed you - you’re not fulfilling your duties. It’s our choice to donate grain to them, but it’s your priest’s business to burn incense...
Another unfulfillable desire of mine is to look at one of these “past priests” while performing his duties. What, curious, did he sing while pouring incense from the censer on the stone faces? However... read, reader, “Essays on the Bursa” by Pomyalovsky.
A person who went through such a school, for the sake of a sure piece of bread for himself and his family, could agree to the consecration of something more serious - funeral pyres or sacrifices to the same idols of livestock.
In the end, they sacrificed bulls to Ilya the Thunderer, and I don’t remember many priests protesting!
It all ended quite predictably. The police came from the volost, the peasants were flogged, the idols were thrown into the river - it’s probably still possible to find them - seriously look up archives, maps, find out in which village the priests were forced to burn incense for the stone idols, trawling the bottom of nearby rivers.
Whatever the Gods joke about, maybe we will see the faces of the last pagan idols of Rus'.
And this whole story happened shortly before the First World War.
In general, in the 20th century, approximately the same thing happened to Russian Orthodoxy as happened to Catholicism in France, Germany, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries in the 16th-17th centuries. By fighting the “remnants of paganism,” it undermined its own foundations and sawed off the “bough” of Russian religiosity on which it had been sitting.
After which, quite naturally, it went upside down. Eradicating “idolatry” and “ritualism”, it is - well, just like in the West! - eradicated religiosity itself.
The pagan cults of the Russian countryside ceased - and, despite all the prayer services in the gilded cathedrals of the cities, despite the bishop's dinners and the theological delights of the Florenskys and Solovyovs, Orthodoxy collapsed, and the empire collapsed.
And if Orthodoxy somehow survived this fall, then... then throughout the Soviet period it was mainly preserved in the chapels at the “miraculous springs” at the holy graves, trees and stones with the “trace of the Virgin Mary.”
Just as in Europe Catholicism was saved from final destruction by the “bad Catholics” of Spain and Italy, so Orthodoxy survived at the expense of village semi-pagans, “ritual believers,” and “double-religionists.”
The fight against paganism turned into virtual suicide for Christianity. Because it was, in the words of the Christian writer Clive Lewis, a rebellion of the branch against the tree.
Paganism is the oldest religion on Earth. This is religion itself - and any religion is only as viable as how much paganism there is in it, how great is the respect for rituals and “idols” in it (after all, even Muslims continue to bow during prayer to the ancient idol of Mecca - the black stone).
However, I confess, reader, that the fate of Christianity is deeply indifferent to me. I am not indifferent to the fate of Rus'.
Christians and materialists can say whatever they want, but the fact remains - Rus' was strong when it was pagan, it weakened when it became Christian.
She rose again, merging together Christian symbols and names with an ancient essence into a fusion of “folk Orthodoxy”, where the ancient, native Gods were revered under the names of “Mother of the Raw Mother of God” and “Russian God Mikola”, “Ilya the Gromovnik” and “Ko-zmademyan” , God’s farrier,” where the priests were calm about the veneration of goblins, brownies and watermen.
And again it weakened, almost collapsed, when its rulers, and after them the people, moved away from this faith towards the “purified” stereotyped Christianity of Nikon and the Holy Synod.
Rus' is always - ALWAYS! - breathed the ancient Faith, the rituals of the Native Gods. May the rituals not be interrupted. May the dear Gods be merciful to my land, to the Russian family.
Let it be so.
And may the work of those who preserved these rituals and names of the Gods of the age of foreignness live in the memory of descendants. Those about whom I wrote this book.
THANK YOU:
Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov, historian and patriot, without whose findings this book would not exist.
Pyotr Mikhailovich Khomyakov - for the idea about the role of Byzantium.
Egor Kharin, sexton of the Trinity Cathedral in Izhevsk - his help was very useful.
Readers - for your attention to the book.
Notes:
For comparison, the famous work of the monk Khrabr is known in five copies. At the same time, only in two, Moscow and Chudovsky, it is said that “formerly the squalid Slovenes have no writings... they are truly filthy,” and in three - Savinsky, Lavrentyevsky and Hilendarsky - in the majority! - it says “had no books.” The difference, you see, is significant. Now guess which lists our historians quote? It is absolutely correct, reader, those two lists where the Slavs are depicted as not knowing not only books, but also writing.
Consider for yourself, reader, how many Christian methods there were between these methods - just first remember the words of Yaroslav Vladimirovich addressed to the Suzdal wise men. God sends drought, but man’s job is to humble himself and pray - this is the truly Christian approach.