First among equals whose words. The history of the royal title in Russia

Meaning of FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in the Phraseology Reference

FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK)

outstanding, chief, leading, the best. The expression comes from the Latin Primus inter pares (first between equals) - the title that Augustus bore before he assumed the imperial title. These words created the appearance of maintaining the prestige of the senate, masters and courts.

Handbook of Phraseology. 2012

See what "First among equals" is in other dictionaries:

The main, bright, large, large, brilliant, brilliant, prominent, largest, outstanding, outstanding, outstanding, wonderful Dictionary of Russian synonyms. first among equal nouns, number of synonyms: 12 brilliant (63) ... Synonym dictionary

1. Book. About the main, outstanding among the rest. 2. Publication Obsolete Pathet. About the Russian people in relation to other peoples of the USSR. Khan Pira, 1999. /i> Tracing paper from lat. primus inter pares. BMS 1998, 436 ...

first among equals- bookstore outstanding, chief, leading, the best. The expression comes from the Latin Primus inter pares (first between equals) - the title that Augustus bore before he assumed the imperial title. These words created the appearance of maintaining ... ... Phraseology Handbook

First, first. 1. Numbers. order to one. First top. First number. First stage. January 1st (meaning the number). “Three treasures in this life were my joy. And the first treasure was my honor.” Pushkin. 2. only pl. Occupying an initial place in ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

- (colloquial and poet.) MIDDLE, preposition. whom what 1. In a part more or less equally distant from the edges of something, in the middle, in the center. Stand with. rooms, streets. The park is laid out in S. of the city. The well is located yard. S. river island. // Within what l ... encyclopedic Dictionary

The request is redirected here Faculty of Medicine Moscow University. A separate article is needed on this topic ... Wikipedia

among- middle; (colloquial and poet.) 1) a) In a part more or less equally distant from the edges of something, in the middle, in the center. Stand among / rooms, streets. There is a park in the middle of the city. The well is located in the middle / yard. In the middle/of the river is an island. b) resp. Within… … Dictionary of many expressions

In the first. Novg. First time, first time. NOSE 7, 116. First among equals. 1. Book. About the main, outstanding among the rest. 2. Publication Obsolete Pathet. About the Russian people in relation to other peoples of the USSR. Khan Pira, 1999. /i> Tracing paper from lat. primus inter… … Big Dictionary Russian sayings

the first- In the first place to whom with inf. (colloquial) for the first time, for the first time (you have to do something, experience; more often with a negative). I'm not the first to chop wood. Primitive state (jokingly) former, former state. Return someone. in primordial... Phrasebook Russian language

Books

Heresy images. In 2 volumes. Volume one. Artbook, Merret Alan. An amazing book, a real find for all fans of the Horus Heresy! From the ashes of the Great crusade betrayal was born. Superman, who has no equal, the first among ...
First among equals. , Svetlov D.N. By inadvertently activating a wedding gift from India, which actually turned out to be a mobile means of teleportation, Admiral Count Sergei Nikolayevich Alekseev ended up on a deserted ...

It is clear that all elders are equal, but each has some special spiritual gift or gifts. Church leadership cannot be a faceless bureaucracy. Character traits, gifts and spirituality of each individual leader determine the appearance of the entire governing body of the church. For example, in the passage from 1 Timothy we are examining, certain elders who have worked especially hard are singled out from total weight leaders. Ministers with the gift of teaching are seen as first among equals.

People have the wrong idea about collegial church management. They believe that by working in a team, talented people unable to realize their gifts. However, co-leadership actually only contributes to the development of the talents of talented leaders. Although the leaders work together and have an equal responsibility to lead God's flock, they are not equal in talent, knowledge, and ability to lead. Therefore, one or more elders will naturally stand out from the crowd and become leaders. This is what Catholics mean when they say "first among equals" (primus inter pares), or "first among equals" (primi inter pares). This type of leadership can be seen among the twelve apostles and New Testament elders.

Among the first apostles, Jesus singled out three, and he gave them Special attention. They are Peter, James and John. The gospels tell us that of these three, as well as of the twelve, Peter stood out in a special way, was "the first." In all four lists of the names of Christ's disciples, Peter always comes first (see: Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus calls on Peter to “strengthen his brothers” (see Luke 22:32).

Among the twelve who jointly oversaw the first church (see: Acts 2:14, 42; 4:33, 35; 5:12, 18, 25, 29, 42; 6:2–6; 8:14; 9:27; 15:2-29), Peter was the main speaker and leading figure (see: Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:1ff; 4:8ff; 5:3ff. 5:15, 29; 8:14-24; 9:32-11:18; 12:12:3ff; 15:7-11; Gal. 2:7-14). Since Peter was by nature a leader, preacher and active person He motivated other students to take action. Without Peter, the twelve would have been much weaker. Surrounded by eleven disciples, Peter himself grew stronger and was protected from his own impulsiveness and fears. Despite the recognized leadership and oratorical skills, Peter did not have any titles or titles that would elevate him above his comrades, since they did not obey him in any way. They were not his workers or his students. Peter was simply the first among equals.

The same relationship is observed between the seven deacons who were appointed assistants to the apostles (see: Acts 6). Philip and especially Stephen stand out as prominent figures among the rest of the brothers (see: Acts 6:8-7:60; 8:4-40; 21:8). But nevertheless they do not have any titles and do not occupy a special position in the group.

The same principle of primus inter pares applies to the council of presbyters. Any church council will have one or more leaders. In a sense, all elders are first among equals in the congregation of believers (see: Acts 15:22). But in the very council of presbyters the first or first among equals will also appear, especially among those who have the spiritual gifts of shepherding and administration. According to our passage in 1 Timothy, elders who work worthily (especially those who work in word and doctrine) deserve a double honor (i.e.,

financial support). If the church provides financially gifted elders, these elders can devote part of their time or even all of their time to the leadership of the church, which greatly strengthens both the council of elders and the whole community. The apostle leaders did not assign themselves any titles and did not make any distinction between themselves and other apostles. Likewise, presbyters who have earned "double honor" cannot form any special class, assign titles to themselves, or come up with new, higher positions.

There is always a danger that the members of the council of elders will shift their duties to one or more gifted ministers. This danger will always exist because of human selfishness and laziness, especially in spiritual matters. Man is always unconsciously striving for someone else to do his work for him. In Christian families, for example, many fathers have shifted the responsibility for the spiritual upbringing of their children to their wives or teachers. Sunday school. The exaltation of the bishop over the presbyters, which arose in the 2nd century, was undoubtedly due to the fault of the Christians, who shifted their duties and honorary rights onto the shoulders of one gifted person. Didn't Israel gladly and willingly give up their freedom, rights and privileges, choosing a king for themselves and becoming like the peoples around them (see: 1 Sam. 8)?

In the church, however, gifted teachers, pastors, and leaders should not monopolize the ministry or allow themselves to be elevated above other leaders. Gifted elders, as humble servants, are to instruct their brethren in the faith so that each may serve to build up the body of Christ (see Eph. 4:11, 12). The principle of "first among equals" in no way means that someone alone in power can take responsibility for making all decisions. No one among the presbyters should call fire upon himself. All decisions must be made jointly.

Since all elders are equally responsible for the leadership of the church, each member of the community must also take responsibility for their service to the Lord and to each other (see: 1 Pet. 4:10, 11). Being free people in Christ, the congregation should not be passive. Otherwise, such an attitude will give rise to ecclesiastical dictators like Diotrephes. John said: “I wrote to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to excel among them, does not accept us. Therefore, if I come, I will remind you of the deeds that he does, blaspheming us with evil words and, not content with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish, and casts him out of the church” (3 Jn.

9, 10).

By design of the Holy Spirit, all elders are responsible for the leadership of the church. And although among the presbyters there may be first among equals, New Testament does not allow anyone to rise above his brothers. Thus the modern division into lay elders on the one hand and ordained pastors on the other hand was not sanctioned by God. There are no lay elders, there are only elders with the responsibility for this ministry entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit.

New Testament church leadership is not just membership in a board of trustees where people are chosen to do the necessary work. Church leadership is not organizational structure, allowing people entering there to receive important decisions. The council of presbyters is not a fixed number vacancies to be borrowed, and not a means by which to lure the rich and influential people in church. The Council of Elders is the governing body, consisting of devoted shepherds appointed to this ministry by the Holy Spirit (see: Acts 20:28). This is a close-knit group of leaders who are appropriate for their position, dedicated and placed in the service of the Spirit. This is not a passive and dormant committee. Biblical Leadership in the Church - correct form leadership that avoids the errors of one-man government and the confusion that results when power is given to all members of the community.

Chapter 17
Church leadership based on the principle of the priesthood of all believers

And you do not call yourself teachers, for you have one Teacher - Christ, yet you are brothers ...

Unlike indifferent attitude to the problem of the laity, which has prevailed throughout almost the entire church history, this issue has recently been of concern to many. "In the 20th century," writes Kenneth Chafin, "theologians rediscovered the doctrine of the laity" 1 . Commenting on a modern reading of Ephesians 4:11, 12, Chafin says, "The rise of interest in the question of the laity represents the most radical change that has taken place in the church in this century." Even Roman Catholic Church abandoned at the Second Vatican Council negative attitude to the laity, which for many centuries was hallmark Catholic theology 3 .

And yet, despite the beautiful words that were spoken at the Second Vatican Council, between the clergy and the laity, priests and ordinary members of the church, there still lies an insurmountable abyss. Unfortunately, this is also true of many Protestant churches. Even in churches that do not seem to support the priesthood/laity distinction, in practice there is a tangible difference between the ordained minister and the non-ordained church members. As Robert Girard states, our churches are dominated by a two-caste system of ministry:

Our churches are deeply rooted in a two-caste system of ministry that is inconsistent with biblical teaching. In this two-caste system, there is a clan of priests who are trained and invited to the parish. They are paid for their work and worthy service is expected of them. There is also a caste of lay people who usually make up the audience. They gratefully pay for the performances that the priesthood arranges, or harshly criticize the shortcomings of these performances (and there are always shortcomings).

No one expects much from the lower caste of the laity (other than "attendance, tithes, and testimony"). But everyone expects something extraordinary from the highest caste of priests (including the priests themselves)!

The trouble is that such a system is absolutely contrary to the biblical view of ministry. Therefore, we are faced with the impossible task of trying to reach the biblical ideals of ministry with unbiblical methods that are completely unsuitable for this goal! And no matter how high we raise the bar for the priesthood, it will never be able to live up to the qualifications that are presented in the Bible! four

Moreover, even the scientists who study this problem and try to correct the situation are only reforming what needs to be completely eradicated. John Stott, for example, correctly speaks of the flaws in the system of clericalism:

... The true ugliness of clericalism is visible only against the background of the equality and unity of God's people. Clericalism always seeks to concentrate all power in the hands of the priesthood, and this at least prevents the unity of God's people ... I dare say that the perception of the Church as a privileged priestly caste or hierarchical structure distorts the New Testament teaching about the Church.

… In other words, the New Testament, revealing the nature and operation of the Church, focuses not on the status of the priesthood, not on the relationship between the priesthood and the laity, but on all the children of God in their relationship to God and to each other. According to the New Testament, God's people are a unique community of people called by the grace of God to become His inheritance and His messengers in this world 5 .

Unfortunately, Stott's critique of clericalism does not reach its logical end. Pointing to the obvious abuses inherent in clericalism, Stott still supports the division of the church into clergy and laity and uses, by his own admission, unbiblical terminology: “So, we are faced with the question: what is the relationship between the representatives of these two groups, teachers and students, pastors and flocks , or, in modern, non-biblical terms, "priesthood" and "laity"? 6.

If the terms "priest" and "layman" are indeed unbiblical, then why does such an eminent biblical scholar as John Stott continue to use them? It should not be forgotten that the names that a society gives to its leaders say a lot about the character and beliefs of the society itself. Knowing this, the New Testament writers carefully chose appropriate titles for church leaders. The words "priesthood" and "laity" that we use today misrepresent both the language of the New Testament and the essence of the Christian brotherhood.

Every teacher of the Word has a sacred duty to identify and correct everything, including the use of unfortunate terminology, that misrepresents the precious truths of Scripture. Although Stott argues that priests are only servants of the laity, in practice he justifies clericalism with its unbiblical division of God's family and the establishment of a class of priests above the laity: “Of course, we must reserve for the priesthood the exclusive right to teach the Word and administer the sacraments. No one should be allowed to preach sermons or perform the sacraments in the church without being called in accordance with the rules to these duties” 7 . These words are contrary to the principles of the apostolic, New Testament Christian community, they represent clericalism, which, in addition to the wrong division of the holy brotherhood, has, far more than any other teaching, weakened church leadership. Moreover, supporters of clericalism, using New Testament texts to confirm their position (see: 1 Tim. 5:17, 18), only distort the biblical teaching about the Church even more.

In order to fully restore the institution of presbyters and give them their rightful place in the church, we must recognize the existence of a dichotomy between the priesthood and the laity and categorically reject such an opposition of two parts of one whole. If we want to be faithful to the Word of God and Jesus Christ, we must avoid using the words "priest" and "layman" because these terms express concepts that are foreign to the New Testament church. But more importantly, we must oppose any action that divides God's people into laity and priesthood, ministers and non-servants, ordained and non-ordained Christians. We must boldly follow the teachings of Christ, according to which we are all brothers, whether teachers or students, shepherds or flocks, leading or led.

royal title

As we have already said, both Ivan III and Vasily III were sometimes called tsars. But officially, it was Ivan the Terrible who became the first Russian tsar.

The word "king" itself comes from the Latin "caesar" (from the personal name of Gaius Julius Caesar, which gradually turned into constituent part imperial title). In Russia, the emperors of Byzantium were called tsars, so were the khans of the Golden Horde, and then the khanates that separated from its composition. hitherto existed in the country Grand Duke”was not much higher in rank than just“ prince ”. But there were enough great princes in Russia, but there was no official tsar yet. If the Grand Duke could be perceived as the first among equals, then the king should not be equal. It was a qualitatively new title. In Byzantium, for example, in serious theological literature, a lot of space was given to teachings on how to honor the king, what honors to give him. These recommendations, as it were, should have automatically passed to Muscovy.

Cap of Monomakh

AT international relations the title of king also gave certain advantages. After all, both in the Kazan and in the Crimean khanates, with which Russia waged either wars or negotiations, tsars ruled. And now the Moscow sovereign was on the same level with them. In Western Europe, the title "grand duke" was translated as "prince", "duke", but not as "king" or "emperor". But the "king" - was placed on the same level with the king and emperor. So from all sides, the adoption of a new title was beneficial and important for the sovereign.

... The wedding to the kingdom took place on January 16, 1547 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin. At first, the life-giving cross, the crown and barmas were solemnly brought here on a golden platter. Then Ivan himself came, accompanied by his confessor, princes and boyars. In the middle of the temple, on a high pedestal (pulpit) with twelve steps, two places were built, “dressed with golden carpets, velvets and damask lay at the feet.” Ivan IV and Metropolitan Macarius sat down at these places after the prayer service. N. M. Karamzin writes: “In front of the pulpit stood a richly decorated deposit with royal utensils. The archimandrites took it and gave it to Macarius. He stood up with John and, placing a cross, barmas and a crown on him, loudly prayed that the Almighty would protect this Christian David by the power of the Holy Spirit, put him on the throne of virtue, give him horror for the obstinate and a merciful eye for the obedient. The rite concluded with the announcement of a new many years to the sovereign ... From now on Russian monarchs they began not only in relations with other powers, but also within the state, in all deeds and papers, to be called kings, retaining the title of grand dukes, consecrated by antiquity ... "

Metropolitan Macarius

Cross

Orb - a symbol of royal power

So the acceptance royal title, as a result of which Ivan IV was equated with the Western European emperors, was done primarily in order to strengthen central government and emphasized the unlimited power of the monarch within the state.

At the same time, this step had a special spiritual and moral significance for Russia. For the state ideology of that time and for the worldview of ordinary people, the idea of the special role of Russia as the only surviving independent Orthodox state. After all, after the fall of Constantinople under the blows of the Turks in 1453, Orthodoxy remained only in the Russian state - Christianity of the Eastern model. This was explained by the special piety of the Russian Orthodox Church.

“Two Romes have fallen, Moscow is the Third Rome. There won't be a fourth." This meant that if Moscow, the guardian of Orthodoxy, collapsed, then it would die, end and sacred history. Such was considered the special messianic role of Moscow before the Orthodox world. And the sovereign of Russia was obliged to regard as his main task the protection of Orthodoxy and concern for the salvation of the souls of the Orthodox - the establishment of "true truth" on earth.

The Don Icon of the Mother of God, before which Ivan IV prayed

Interior view of the Assumption Cathedral

Such great role was quite to the liking of the young ambitious Ivan IV. Here is what Klyuchevsky writes: “... his own person in similar reflection appeared to him illumined with brilliance and grandeur, which his ancestors, simple Moscow princes-masters, did not smell on themselves. Ivan IV was the first of the Moscow sovereigns who saw and vividly felt in himself a king in the true biblical sense, the anointed of God. This was a political revelation for him, and from that time on his royal "I" became for him an object of pious worship. He became a shrine to himself and in his thoughts created a whole theology of political self-adoration in the form scientific theory his royal power. In a tone inspired from above and along with the usual subtle irony, during peace negotiations, he wrote to his enemy Stefan Batory, pricking his eyes with his electoral power: "".

And, of course, the Church actively supported him. It was not without reason that Metropolitan Macarius, who sought to strengthen the autocracy and put an end to the lawlessness of the boyars, conceived and carried out the ritual of crowning the kingdom.

From the book of Vasily III. Ivan the Terrible author Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich

The royal title of Vasily III ordered the boyars, as noted above, to “protect” their son until the age of 15, after which he was to begin independent government. 15 years is the time of coming of age in the life of people of the 16th century. At this age, noble children entered the military as "novices".

From the book Rus and Rome. Colonization of America by Russia-Horde in the XV-XVI centuries author

1. The title of the Moscow Tsar What would you say if you saw that the coat of arms of a certain modern state constantly depicted in a pair with the coat of arms of some other state? Moreover, being enclosed with him in a common frame. On coins, letters, government papers, etc. Probably

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

4.3.13. The Royal Garden and the City of David inside the Jerusalem Fortress Wall - Embankment Royal Garden and Royal Palace in the Kremlin Near the gates of the Source of the fortress wall of Jerusalem, the Bible places the royal garden, the Selah reservoir and the “city of David”. The Bible says that the SAME

From the book Moscow in the light New Chronology author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

4.3.21. The Tsar's House and nearby the "High Pillar" inside the Jerusalem Fortress is the Tsar's Palace and the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great in the Kremlin. According to the Ostroh Bible, with further movement we reach "even to the evasion and even to the corner" (Nehemiah 3). AT synodal translation instead of

From the book Rus. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

From the book History of Peter the Great author Brikner Alexander Gustavovich

CHAPTER VII The imperial title Russia under Peter became great power. The overall result of his efforts in the field foreign policy was the transformation of the Muscovite kingdom, alien to Europe, into a close connection with Europe the All-Russian Empire. In 1715, Peter already wrote:

From book secret office under Peter the Great author Semevsky Mikhail Ivanovich

4. New title On October 22, 1721, at the solemn celebration of the Peace of Nystad, Feofan Prokopovich said a eulogy. Calculating the unusually wise orders and blessings of His Majesty in favor of his subjects, the archbishop announced that the sovereign deserved

author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich

From the book I know the world. History of Russian tsars author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich

From the book "The Dowager Kingdom" [ Political crisis in Russia in the 30s–40s of the 16th century] author Krom Mikhail Markovich

1. Political status ruler and her title So, by the autumn of 1534, Grand Duchess Elena concentrated supreme power in her hands. Was the change in her status somehow reflected in the sources? For the first time in historiography, this question was raised by A. L. Yurganov. scientist drew

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

4.13. The Royal Garden and the City of David inside the Jerusalem fortress wall is the Royal Garden and the Royal Palace in the Kremlin. The Bible says that THAT

From the book Book 2. Development of America by Russia-Horde [Biblical Russia. The Beginning of American Civilizations. Biblical Noah and medieval Columbus. Revolt of the Reformation. dilapidated author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

4.21. The Tsar’s house and next to it the “High Pillar” inside the Jerusalem Fortress is the Tsar’s Palace and the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great in the Kremlin. In the synodal

From the book Fight for the Seas. The era of the great geographical discoveries author Erdödi Janos

From the book Tsar Ivan the Terrible author Kolyvanova Valentina Valerievna

Royal title As we have already said, both Ivan III and Vasily III were sometimes called kings. But officially, it was Ivan the Terrible who became the first Russian tsar. The word “tsar” itself comes from the Latin “Caesar” (from the personal name of Gaius Julius Caesar, which gradually turned into

From the book I know the world. History of Russian tsars author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich

Title - Grand Duke Grand Duke - the oldest title of Russian rulers. When the family of Prince Rurik grew, the senior princes began to be distinguished from the younger ones by the title "Grand Duke". Initially, this title had only an honorary meaning. In the future, the “Grand Duke” is the title

From the book I know the world. History of Russian tsars author Istomin Sergey Vitalievich

Title - king King - from the Latin caesar - sovereign sovereign, emperor, as well as the official title of the monarch. In the Old Russian language, this Latin word sounded like a Caesar - “tssar.” Initially, this was the name of the Roman and Byzantine emperors, hence Slavonic

Cap of Monomakh

In the era of the Tatar-Mongol yoke and before it, the eldest among specific princes bore the title of Grand Duke. Ya. N. Shchapov notes that the mention of princes as kings refers to two major figures Russia XII-XIII centuries: Mstislav the Great and Andrei Bogolyubsky.

After Russia fell into dependence on the Golden Horde, the king (derived from the Latin caesar) began to be called the great khan of the Golden Horde. Title tsar first of all, he indicated that its owner is a completely sovereign ruler and does not depend on anyone. That is, the Grand Duke, being a tributary of the Horde, naturally stood lower in the hierarchy.

By the way, it is worth noting that until a certain moment (before the reign of Dmitry Donskoy), the legitimacy of the great khan as the head of the Russian princes in Russia was not questioned, but Tatar-Mongol yoke was perceived as God's punishment for sins, which must be humbly endured.

By the era of Ivan III, when Russia was freed from the yoke and became completely independent state, include the first cases of the Grand Duke using the title "Tsar" (or "Caesar") in diplomatic correspondence - so far only in relations with petty German princes and Livonian Order; the royal title begins to be widely used in literary works.

It was possible to take any title, but foreign rulers might not recognize it - that is why Ivan III tries the royal title in diplomatic correspondence with smaller states.

In 1489, the ambassador of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Nikolai Poppel, on behalf of his overlord, proposed Ivan III royal title. The Grand Duke refused, pointing out that "we by the grace of God sovereigns on their land from the beginning, from their first forefathers, and we have the appointment from God, both our forefathers and we ... and we did not want the appointment from anyone before, and now we do not want it.

It is worth noting that, while deriving the word "tsar" from caesar, the Russian rulers considered this title to be the same as the emperor ("caesar" in Byzantine Empire), but after the fall of Byzantium under the onslaught of the Turks in 1453, Russia was perceived as its heir and the only stronghold of Orthodoxy (or, more broadly, of all Christianity, since the rest of the Christian denominations were considered “wrong”). Hence the famous "Moscow - the Third Rome."

Similarly, this title was interpreted by Western monarchs - but not always, but when it was beneficial for them.
In the treaty between the Muscovite state and Denmark in 1493, Ivan III was called "totius rutzci Imperator". Vasily III was also named emperor in an agreement with Emperor Maximilian I, concluded in Moscow in 1514: "Kayser und Herscher alter Reussen". In the Latin charter of Albrecht of Brandenburg in 1517, Vasily III was also called "Imperator ac Doniinator totius Russiae".

Officially, only the grandson of Ivan III, Ivan the Terrible, decided to take on the royal title. On January 16, 1547, Ivan Vasilyevich, Grand Duke of Moscow and All Russia, was solemnly crowned with the title of Tsar. In speech at royal wedding The metropolitan characterized the height of the powers of the royal dignity with the words of Joseph Volotsky: “Hear the king and understand that power has been given to you from God and strength from the Most High, for the Lord has chosen you in Himself a place on earth ...”.

The royal title made it possible to take a significantly different position in diplomatic relations with Western Europe. The grand ducal title was translated as "prince" or even " Grand Duke". The title “king” was either not translated at all, or translated as “emperor”. The Russian autocrat thus stood on a par with the only emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe.

The boyars did not immediately inform foreign countries about the coronation of the 16-year-old grandson of Ivan III. Only two years later, the Polish ambassadors in Moscow learned that Ivan IV "was crowned king" following the example of his progenitor Monomakh, and that he "took no one else's" name. After hearing this extremely important statement, the ambassadors immediately demanded that they be presented with written evidence. But the cunning boyars refused, fearing that the Poles, having received a written answer, would be able to consider objections, and then it would be difficult to argue with them. The messengers sent to Poland tried to explain the meaning of the Moscow changes in such a way as not to arouse the displeasure of the Polish court.

Now, they said, our sovereign alone owns the Russian land, which is why the metropolitan crowned him with the Monomakh crown. In the eyes of the Muscovites, the coronation thus symbolized the beginning of Ivan's autocratic rule in the fourteenth year of his reign.

Ivan the Terrible

Ivan the Terrible married in 1547, but his foreign colleagues did not immediately recognize this title for him. After 7 years, in 1554, England unconditionally recognized him. The question of the title was more difficult in Catholic countries, in which the theory of a unified “ holy empire". In 1576, Emperor Maximilian II, wishing to bring Ivan the Terrible to an alliance against Turkey, offered him the throne and the title of "Eastern [Eastern] Caesar" in the future. John IV was completely indifferent to the "Greek tsardom", but demanded immediate recognition of himself as the king of "all Russia", and the emperor yielded to this important matter of principle, especially since Maximilian I recognized the royal title for Basil III, calling him "by the grace of God, the Caesar and owner of the All-Russian and Grand Duke."

The papacy turned out to be much more stubborn, which defended the exclusive right of the popes to grant royal and other titles to sovereigns, and on the other hand, did not allow violations of the principle of a “united empire”. In this irreconcilable position, the papal throne found support from the Polish king, who perfectly understood the significance of the claims of the Moscow Sovereign. Sigismund II Augustus submitted a note to the papal throne, in which he warned that the recognition by the papacy of Ivan IV of the title of "Tsar of All Russia" would lead to the exclusion from Poland and Lithuania of the lands inhabited by the "Rusyns" related to the Muscovites, and would attract Moldovans and Vlachs to his side. For his part, John IV attached particular importance to the recognition of his royal title by the Polish-Lithuanian state, but Poland throughout the 16th century did not agree to his demand.

It is known that in 1580 the correspondence of the famous Flemish cartographer G. Mercator with the English geographer R. Hakluyt called the Russian monarch "le grand emperior de Moscovie".

So, the title "tsar" was perceived by the Russian rulers as equal to the imperial one. True, not all of their foreign colleagues agreed with this - at that time there was only one empire in Europe - the Holy Roman Empire and the emperor, which means that there should also have been only one.

False Dmitry I

Focused on Poland, False Dmitry I wanted to be called emperor. In a letter Polish king Sigismund III False Dmitry I, "according to ancient custom with great and powerful kings and emperors,” reported his accession. He pointed out that he received a blessing as an heir from "our brightest parent." This was followed by an explanation of the new royal title, unusual for the previous tradition: “we are married and sacred peace anointed by our most holy patriarch not only to the rank of emperor of our vast possessions, but also to the rank of king of all the Tatar kingdoms, which from ancient times have been subject to our monarchy.

Having studied all the formulas of the title of False Dmitry I in foreign correspondence (messages to the Pope, the Polish king and nobles), N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky pointed out that since the autumn of 1605 they have had the same symbolism of names: Dimitri Ivanovich, by the grace of God Caesar and Grand Duke of All Russia, and all Tatar states, and many other lands belonging to the sovereign and the king to the Moscow monarchy. All of these titles claimed to recognize the power of False Dmitry I as the highest and most powerful among earthly monarchs and pointed to its Divine analogue - the King of Kings.

It is clear that these symbols-names immediately gave rise to a sharply negative reaction in Western courts, among foreign politicians and diplomats. They were also negatively evaluated by contemporaries in Russia. Konrad Bussov noted the reaction of foreigners in Moscow: “vanity increased daily ... with him ... it manifested itself not only in the fact that they surpassed all others in all luxury and splendor former kings, but he ordered even to call himself "the king of all kings." Interestingly, the Pretender initially distributed this title only for internal use (that is, at court). Stanislav Borsha, speaking about the murder of False Dmitry I, summarized: “It was apparently so pleasing to God, who did not want to endure the pride and arrogance of this Demetrius any longer, who did not recognize himself as an equal to any sovereign in the world and almost equaled himself with God.”

Poles, of course, imperial title False Dmitry was rejected.

As you know, the full royal title (“Great Title”) included a list of lands subject to the king. In 1645, that is, during the death of the first sovereign from the Romanov dynasty, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and the coming to power of his son, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the “Big title” sounded as follows: “By the grace of God, we, great sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, Autocrat of All Russia, Vladimir, Moscow and Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Tver, Yugorsky, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others, Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novagarod Nizovsky lands, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozersk, Udora, Obdorsk, Kondi and all northern countries, sovereign and sovereign of the Iberian land, Kartal and Georgian kings and Kabardian lands, Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and many other states sovereign and possessor.

The mention of the unsubordinated at that time Caucasus and Transcaucasia in the title of king may be surprising. In this case, the desired was presented as real.

This issue was studied by G.K. Kotoshikhin in the essay “On Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich”. The inclusion of uncontrolled territories in the royal title meant illegal claims to other people's prerogatives. Such actions could threaten diplomatic complications. Because of this Imperial Courtyard was forced to go to the tricks. In letters addressed to Christian sovereigns, the great royal title was reproduced in full with a listing of the eastern lands, in letters to the “Busurman states” and, first of all, to Persian Shah"Eastern" titles were not specified. Otherwise, “how would it be written with those titles by everyone ... and all the Busurman states would raise a war against him for that.”

Kotoshikhin points out that Turkish sultan and the Russian tsar was written to the Persian Shah “with a large title, not all, only according to the“ sovereign ”. That is, the final phrase in the title remained “and the ruler of all the northern countries”, the phrase “Iberian lands of Kartalinsky and Georgian kings, Kabardian lands of Cherkasy and Mountain princes, and many other states sovereign and owner” was removed. If you ask yourself about the reasons for the sequence of listing territories in the royal title of the 17th century, then we can assume that not only the significance and status of the lands or their sequence of inclusion in the state predetermined it, but also practical considerations: in the end it is worth putting what is most controversial which can always be removed if necessary.

Given this fact, we can say that a great title in the XVII century. - not so much a reflection in the mind of the right to the territory or an expression of ideas about the territorial integrity of the state, but a means of diplomatic game in a situation in which a certain fragmentation of the West and the East, the existence of two worlds that are not well aware of each other due to relatively weak interest in each other and underdevelopment of diplomatic and trade relations, gave Russia a chance to raise the prestige of the power of its kings at the expense of one part of Eurasia in relations with another.

As noted above, not everyone in Europe recognized the equality of the imperial title to the royal one, and there was no such equality in relations between Russia and the Holy Roman Empire. In the "Record made in Moscow between the Russian and Caesar's courts", the Caesar's extraordinary envoys clearly indicated that the existing in the 17th century. tradition reinforces more high status emperor in relation to other sovereigns and is expressed in the fact that not only the Russian tsar, but also other European kings from the emperor always write the title "Highness".

In the minds of Russian diplomats and Russian court For Alexei Mikhailovich, the task of achieving for his sovereign recognition by the Empire of his title of "majesty" meant the opportunity to put the Russian tsar on a par with the emperor. In fact, in the international practice of that period, the term "king" = "king" = "highness"; the term "emperor" = "majesty".

The problem was solved only after Russia's sharp rise in international arena after the victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War. However, it is worth noting that Peter I was called emperor until 1721. During his stay in England in 1698, the imperial resident Hoffmann reported that everyone here "called the Russian emperor here the emperor of Russia", and after the tsar's visit to parliament, someone started a joke that he saw "the king on the throne and the emperor on the roof" - Peter through window watched as English king approved the land tax bill. Emperor was called Peter I and people from Western Europe who served in Russia. Only in this way, for example, did the brilliant French architect J. B. A. Leblon address him in numerous letters and projects.

Peter I

On October 18, 1721, the members of the Synod "had a secret discussion." Having considered the “deeds”, “works” and “guidance” of His Royal Majesty in connection with the “eternal peace” concluded with Sweden after the Great Northern War, they decided that they should “invent what is decent” for the monarch “from a common person for all subjects”. This "decent" was the decision to "pray to the tsar" "to accept the title of Father of the Fatherland, Peter the Great and Emperor of All Russia."

Understanding that this was a matter of state, the members of the Synod "reasoned" to report it "secretly" to the secular authorities - the Senate. On October 19, this was done through the vice-president of the Synod, Feofan Prokopovich. On October 20, 21 and on the morning of October 22, joint meetings of the Senate and the Synod were held in the audience chamber, that is, in the grand throne room of St. On October 22, 1721 (according to the new style - November 2) in St. Petersburg in the Trinity Cathedral, Tsar Peter I was presented with the title of "emperor". It is believed that on this day Russian kingdom, Muscovy, officially became Russian empire and the countdown of a new, imperial period in the history of the country began.

It is known that before this act, negotiations took place between the tsar and some senators and archbishops of Novgorod and Pskov, Theodosius Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich. Negotiations with the monarch turned out to be necessary, since the king “refused” for a long time to accept the title and led to many “reasons” for this. However, the "important ideas" of the senators and bishops prevailed and Peter "bent down to that."

Perhaps this behavior of the king was nothing more than a tribute to tradition and some kind of theatrical modesty - not to immediately accept what was offered. And perhaps there were more compelling reasons for Peter's objections. After all, the introduction of differences between the title "emperor" and "tsar" meant that Russia recognizes that the imperial title is higher than the royal one - contrary to the ideas that have existed in Russia since the time of Ivan the Terrible. It is likely that this was not entirely to the liking of Peter I.

It should be noted that Feofan Prokopovich in his “Word for praise ... in memory of Peter the Great”, noted that even before the adoption in 1721 of the title “ great emperor"This title" was before and was called by everyone.

Portal for the student. Self-training

First among equals whose words. The history of the royal title in Russia

Meaning of FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in the Phraseology Reference

See also interpretations, synonyms, word meanings and what is FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

See what "First among equals" is in other dictionaries:

Books

Portal for the student. Self-training

Meaning of FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in the Phraseology Reference

See also interpretations, synonyms, word meanings and what is FIRST AMONG EQUALS (BOOK) in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

See what "First among equals" is in other dictionaries:

Books

RELATED ARTICLES