Page 21
Common in the process of formation of united states in Western Europe and Russia:
the need for a strong central government - the formation of a monarchy - autocratic power
Page 22
What is subsistence farming?
Subsistence farming is a primitive type of farming, in which production is aimed only at satisfying one's own needs (not for sale). Everything needed is produced within the economic unit, and there is no need for a market.
Page 24
Remember what estates existed in the XIV - XV centuries. in Western Europe.
Nobility, artisans, merchants, clergy, peasantry
Page 26. questions and tasks for working with the text of the paragraph
1. What role did cities play in the formation of united states in Western Europe? Did Russian cities play a similar role?
Cities played a big role in the formation of unified states in Western Europe. European cities, creating the main material wealth, were interested in the exchange of goods, they needed the support and protection of the state. Thus, in Western Europe, cities became one of the main forces that needed to unite the country.
Russian cities did not play such a role because they were not economic centers, the production of material wealth was carried out on the estates of feudal lords - boyars within the framework of a subsistence economy.
2. Explain the meaning of the phrase: "More and more peasants redeemed their duties from the feudal lords and became free."
The meaning of the phrase is as follows: with the development of commodity-money relations, trade, crafts and manufactory, the peasants grew rich and could redeem their duties from the feudal lords and became free from the feudal lords.
3. Why did the creation of a single state become possible in Russia under the dominance of natural economy?
In Russia, the creation of a single state became possible under the dominance of subsistence farming because the growth of the country's territory led to an increase in the land holdings of the prince and his entourage, who were forced to look for ways to secure the peasants on the land. Therefore, in Russia the formation of a single state took place under the complete dominance of natural economy.
4. What was the position of the church in the formation of a unified state in Russia? Was she an opponent or ally of the Grand Duke in the unification of the country?
The position of the church in the formation of a unified state in Russia: since the time of the struggle to overcome dependence on the power of the Horde khans, the church supported the policy of the Grand Duke in uniting the country, i.e. was an ally of the Grand Duke.
5. What changes took place in the European armies in the XV - XVI centuries? * With the help of additional literature and the Internet, find out if there were similar changes in the Russian military affairs of this period.
Changes in European armies in the XV - XVI centuries.
Jacques Kerr (France), a representative of large merchant capital and a talented politician, expressed the idea that the state needs to have armed force in peacetime, this idea led in 1446 to the establishment of permanent companies in France. With the decline in the importance of the medieval feudal militia, demobilization at the conclusion of peace acquires only a partial character.
Charles V, in whose vast empire "the sun never set," also needed armed force at his fingertips, and by the end of his reign (1556) had 60,000 field and 80,000 garrison troops. The gangs, which had previously been hired only during the war, and now remained under the banner for a long time, gradually began to change their character and turn into a trained army.
Similar changes took place in the Russian military affairs of this period. At the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, there was a process of transition from a feudal militia to a permanent all-Russian army. Its basis was the noble local cavalry - the sovereign's service people, united in regiments under the command of the grand princely governors and at first did not have firearms. It was used by gunners and pishchalniks, the first information about which dates back to the beginning of the 15th century. At the same time, the Cossacks were formed.
Under Ivan III, a system of military recruitment for temporary service was introduced. Detachments of pishchalniks were formed from the urban population. From the village - auxiliary infantry detachments - the field army. A clear system for collecting military people was developed. The military command was the grand princely governors. The noble cavalry was equipped with handguns, convenient for shooting while riding.
Page 26. Working with the map
Show on the map the territory of Russia by the end of the reign of Ivan III.
Page 26. Studying documents
Page 26. Studying documents
1. From the course of world history, remember where and when the despotic form of government existed.
The despotic form of government existed in ancient times in the eastern states: Egypt, Persia, China, India.
2. What reasons for the emergence of despotism in Russia does A. A. Zimin name?
A. A. Zimin names the reasons for the emergence of despotism in Russia: slave origin, canine devotion to autocracy.
3. Do you agree that the author's statement is true for all classes of Russia of this period? Justify your opinion.
Page 27. We think, compare, reflect
1. In additional literature and the Internet, find various theories about the reasons for the appearance of the double-headed eagle as a symbol of the Russian state. Which one do you think is the most likely? Justify your answer.
1) In January 1472, the Russian embassy went to Constantinople for the bride of the Grand Duke. On November 12, 1472, Zoya Paleolog entered Moscow. She was met by the Metropolitan and the higher clergy. Zoya Paleolog became Grand Duchess Sophia Fominichnaya. She brought to Russia the coat of arms of Byzantium - a double-headed eagle. Its combination with the Moscow coat of arms in the form of George the Victorious became the coat of arms of the Russian state then united under the hegemon of Moscow.
2) For the first time, the double-headed eagle as the state symbol of the Russian state is found on the reverse side of the state seal of Ivan III Vasilyevich in 1497, although the images of the double-headed eagle (or bird) were found in ancient Russian art and on Tver coins before.
The placement of the rider on the chest of the eagle can be explained by the fact that there were two sovereign seals: Large and Small. The small one was two-sided and was attached to the document, on each side of it an eagle and a rider were placed separately. The big seal was one-sided and applied to the document, and therefore it became necessary to combine the two symbols of the state in one. For the first time, such a combination is found on the large seal of Ivan the Terrible in 1562. Then, instead of the horseman, a unicorn began to appear. Although the tsar did not consider the unicorn a necessary symbol of the state, he, nevertheless, was found on some seals of Boris Godunov, False Dmitry (1605-1606), Mikhail Fedorovich, Alexei Mikhailovich.
3) For the first time, he arose in the most ancient of the world's civilizations - ancient Sumer, and was one of the deities. However, the ancient Sumerian tradition was lost, and the origins of the modern double-headed eagle symbol date back to ancient Rome. The eagle was a sacred animal of the Romans, the messenger of the supreme god Jupiter, to notice his flight promised good luck in battles. In the late Roman Republic, the standard of the legions also appeared, in the form of a silver or gold eagle placed on a pole (aquila). It was considered the greatest shame to lose an aquila, such a legion was disbanded, so the legionnaires preferred to die, but not give the Eagle to the enemies.
Later, this symbol was transformed into a double-headed eagle in Byzantium, which considered itself the successor of the Roman Empire, and the inhabitants called themselves "Romans" (i.e. Romans). The double-headed eagle was the coat of arms of one of the last Greek rulers of the era of the end of Byzantium, the Morean despots of the Palaiologos.
The Grand Duke of Moscow Russia, Ivan III, married Sophia Paleolog, the daughter of the Morean ruler, and after that he approved the double-headed eagle as the second symbol of the principality, after the “rider” (a horseman striking a serpent with a spear).
Finally, the image of the double-headed eagle becomes the coat of arms under the first Russian tsar - Ivan the Terrible. The double-headed eagle at that time was also the coat of arms of the mighty Holy Roman Empire, and thus Grozny showed the claims of Muscovite Russia to become a powerful Eurasian state.
2. Compare the attitude of the church towards the monarchy in Europe and Russia. Draw your own conclusions.
The attitude of the church towards the monarchy in Europe and Russia was the same: both in Europe and in Russia, the church supported the creation of a single centralized state.
3. What were the consequences of the military revolution in Europe?
The consequences of the military revolution in Europe: the appearance of regular armies, the rearmament of these armies, the appearance of navies. The military revolution contributed to the formation of united states and the strengthening of strong monarchical power in them.
4. Using the Internet and a textbook on the history of the Middle Ages, find out which of the European rulers was a contemporary of Ivan III. Why, in your opinion, Ivan III did not want to accept the royal title that Frederick III offered him?
Ivan III did not want to accept the royal title, which Frederick III offered him, because he considered himself equal with the European rulers of a strong state.
6.7. What was the role of the church in the Muscovite state?
The Russian Orthodox Church occupies a prominent place in the history of the Muscovite state. The bibliography of works devoted to the relationship between the secular and spiritual authorities in Russia, the church schism is huge. Different points of view on the role of Orthodoxy and the Church in the Muscovite state can be reduced to two areas - historical-religious and socio-political. Western historiography is characterized by a misunderstanding and rejection of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church, which leads to the assertion of their totalitarian nature, that the church was a servant of the state.
Orthodoxy determined the ethnic self-consciousness of the Russian people during the period of the struggle against the Tatar-Mongolian beetle, which, together with the all-Russian church organization (metropolis) and along with socio-economic factors, contributed to the political unification of the lands and the creation of a single Moscow state.
The relationship between church and state in the XVI-XVII centuries. are rich in changes that are determined by the internal development of the church and state, socio-economic and foreign policy reasons. For the most part, the historical literature considers these relationships in terms of spirit European experience of the struggle between the royal power and the church for political dominance. This does not take into account the significance of the Byzantine-Orthodox theory of the "symphony of power", which assumed the dual unity of independently existing secular and spiritual authorities, who jointly defended Orthodox values. This doctrine largely determined the building of autocratic power in Russia and the indifference of the Russian Orthodox Church, its highest hierarchs to the state administration itself, which is often interpreted as the dependence of the church on the tsar. The “symphony of power” was an ideal state system that was hardly ever achieved in the history of the Muscovite state. From the time of Ivan IV, the power of the tsar, the anointed of God, had a sacred character, since only God was its source, and it was limited only by Christian commandments, church canonical codes and traditions. The Orthodox Church, without encroaching on secular government, acted as a moral counterbalance to the Russian autocracy. This role of hers was manifested in the open condemnation of the oprichnina executions by the highest church hierarchs.
Of certain importance in this regard was the institute of the holy fools, consecrated by the church, who had an unlimited opportunity to denounce the authorities and enjoyed universal respect.
In the XVI-XVII centuries. the church, relying on the state, suppressed numerous heresies that penetrated into the upper strata of the administrative apparatus and had a fairly broad social base. Liberal and Marxist historiography viewed this struggle as the suppression of free thought, currents of social thought similar to the Western Reformation. Church history interprets the defeat of heresies as a defense of faith, the Orthodox identity of the Russian people and Russian statehood, and the scope and cruelty of the fight against heresies in Russia could not be compared with the activities of the Inquisition or Protestant churches.
The church and monasteries had significant economic power, developed and efficient economy, and were cultural centers. Monasteries were often built in strategically important places and were of great importance in the defense of the country. The church was able to field up to 20 thousand warriors. These circumstances determined the material basis of the authority of the church (a kind of state within a state), which, however, was not used in opposition to secular power.
The Consecrated Council, as a body of church administration, took an active part in the work of Zemsky Sobors. During the Time of Troubles, the patriarchate (established in 1589), despite some hesitation, played a big role in the fight against impostors and the Polish-Swedish intervention (the tragic fate of Patriarch Hermogenes , the death of monks while protecting Orthodox shrines, material support for the militia, etc.). Patriarch Filaret, father of Mikhail Romanov, actually ruled Russia, being a co-ruler of the tsar for 14 years, strengthened the autocracy and the new dynasty, on the one hand, and the role of the church, on the other,
In the middle of the XVII century. reorientation begins in the relationship between church and state. Researchers evaluate its causes differently. In Soviet literature, the point of view prevails, according to which the process of the formation of absolutism inevitably led to the deprivation of the church of its feudal privileges and subordination to the state. The reason for this was the attempt of Patriarch Nikon to put the spiritual power above the secular. Church historians deny this position of the patriarch, considering Nikon a consistent ideologist of the "symphony of power." They see the initiative in rejecting this theory in the activities of the tsarist administration and the influence of Protestant ideas about the subordination of the church to the state. The Council of 1667, which deposed Patriarch Nikon, decreed: "The tsar has the power to rule above the patriarchs and all hierarchs." However, the state, as a compromise, confirmed the autonomous economic, administrative and judicial rights of the church and even closed the Monastic order.
Prior to these decisions of the Council, Russia had entered a stage of deep spiritual crisis caused by a split in response to Nikon's reform to correct religious books in accordance with the Greek originals. The reasons for the rejection of the reform that led to the split, Soviet historians reduced to social protest against the growing burden of state taxes, serfdom, and centralization, which eliminated original local government. In religious terms, it was a protest against the Greek and Ukrainian infiltration of Russian Orthodoxy, the fear of losing the spiritual identity of Russia. The inflexible methods of carrying out the reform also had an effect. The consistent struggle with the Old Believers, however, did not lead to religious wars in Russia.
Fundamental changes in the relationship between church and state occurred in connection with the reforms of Peter I in the 18th century.
Literature
1. Braudel F. Material civilization, economics and capitalism, XV - XVIII centuries, vol. 1-3. M., 1987-1992.
2. Vernadsky G. V. Remarks on the legal nature of serfdom // Motherland, 1993. No. 3.
3. Golovatenko A. Two crises of Russian statehood: oprichnina and the Time of Troubles // Teaching history at school, 1993, No. 2.
4. Gumilyov L. N. From Russia to Russia. M., 1992.
5. Duby J. Europe in the Middle Ages. Smolensk, 1994.
6. Christensen S. O. History of Russia in the 17th century. M., 1939.
7. Le Goff J. Civilization of the Medieval West. M., 1992.
8. Skrynnikov R. G. The reign of terror. St. Petersburg, 1992.
9. Skrynnikov R. G. Russia on the Eve of the Time of Troubles. M., 1980.
10. Stanislavsky A. L. Civil War in Russia in the 17th century. M., 1990. PartI.
The Orthodox Church played an important role in the consolidation of Russian lands and the formation of a unified Russian state. Within a relatively short period of two or three centuries, Christianity took deep roots in Russian soil. The Orthodox Church has become one of the most authoritative institutions. It remained the most important link of all Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation until the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
During the Tatar-Mongol yoke, its importance increased even more. Orthodoxy served as the spiritual and moral support of the Russian people during the years of severe hardship. The Grand Dukes of Moscow relied on her authority, pursuing their unifying policy. It is known that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter of Vladimir, was in close friendship with Ivan Kalita, lived for a long time in Moscow, where he died in 1326, and was buried in the Assumption Cathedral. His successor, Metropolitan Theognost, finally settled in Moscow, which thus became the ecclesiastical capital of all Russia. The transfer of the metropolitan see to Moscow helped to strengthen the political role of the Moscow principality.
The Orthodox clergy played an active role in the liberation process from the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The founder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow, Sergius of Radonezh, who became one of the most revered saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, has special merit in this. Sergius of Radonezh, together with Dmitry Donskoy, can rightly be called the organizer and inspirer of the victory of the Russian troops over the Tatar troops during the Battle of Kulikovo.
The Battle of Kulikovo, as follows from the above, took place after the victory of Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Tatar-Mongolian troops led by Begich on the river. Vozhe in 1378. Immediately after this event, the new Horde commander Mamai began intensive preparations to pacify the Russians. Russia also began to prepare for battle. And in this preparation, the creation of an appropriate spiritual and moral mood by Sergius of Radonezh was of great importance. It was at this time that Russia was preparing for the great trials that a vision came to Sergius. The Mother of God appeared to him in a dream and promised her care and protection to the Russian land. Such spiritual revelations had a huge impact on the mood and state of mind of people. The news of the "appearance of the Mother of God" to Sergius quickly spread throughout the Russian lands, which contributed to the rise of patriotic feeling, the unity of the Russian people. The promise of the Mother of God to protect the Russian land was combined in the people's minds with preparations for rebuffing the new Golden Horde invasion.
It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the blessing received by Dmitry Donskoy on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo from St. Sergius "for the battle for the Russian land." Together with the blessing, Sergius of Radonezh sent for spiritual and military support two monks of his monastery, heroes Andrei Oslyab and Alexander Peresvet. Peresvet, as you know, opened the Battle of Kulikovo with his duel with the Tatar hero Chelubey.
Saint Sergius sought to overcome conflicts between the Russian princes, contributed to their consolidation in the name of the interests of the Russian land. Before the Battle of Kulikovo, he warned Prince Oleg of Ryazan against taking the side of the Horde. And Prince Oleg obeyed the admonition of an authoritative clergyman, which no doubt contributed to the victory of the Russian troops. After the Battle of Kulikovo in 1387, he insisted on the marriage of the daughter of Dmitry Donskoy with the son of the Ryazan prince Oleg Fedor. Thus, problems in relations between Moscow and Ryazan were removed, and peace was concluded between them for a long time.
In the formation of a unified Russian state, the formation national Russian Orthodox Church.
In the process of the formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church, two sides can be distinguished - formally organizational and content-spiritual. The formal organizational side is associated with the gradual acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Byzantine one, obtaining the status of an autocephalous (independent) church. As is known, from the beginning of its formation, the Russian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The highest official in Russia - the Metropolitan of Kyiv, then Vladimir and Moscow were directly appointed by Constantinople and were Greeks by nationality. In the XIII-XV centuries, in connection with the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the Balkan Peninsula and the capture of Byzantium by the crusaders, the procedure for appointing and approving the metropolitan changed somewhat. Most often, the metropolitan was consecrated at home, in Russia, and the patriarch only confirmed this consecration.
At the end of the XV century. Significant changes took place in relations between the Orthodox churches of Russia and Constantinople. In 1439, in order to protect Byzantium from the invasion of the Turks, at the Ecumenical Council in the Italian city of Florence, the Orthodox Church signed a union with the Catholic Church - a document on the unification of the Eastern and Western Christian churches. This document recognized the dogma of the primacy of the Pope of Rome over all Christian churches, but retained for Orthodoxy the right to perform rituals according to its canonical rules. For centuries, Orthodox Russia was brought up in a spirit of hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, the conclusion of the Florentine Union was regarded by the Russian Orthodox Church and the entire Russian society as a betrayal, apostasy from the true faith. The Union of Florence was rejected, and this served as a powerful impetus for the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The protégé of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Isidore, who participated in the Ecumenical Council and signed the union, was deposed, and in 1448 a council of Russian bishops for the first time, without the participation of Constantinople, elected a Russian person, Jonah, as metropolitan. Finally, the Russian Orthodox Church becomes independent (autocephalous), and therefore, in the full sense of the word, the national church in 1589. This year, the Russian Orthodox Church is transformed from the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople into the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchate, and Patriarch Job is elected the first Russian patriarch at the Local Council .
In terms of content and spirituality, the creation of all-Russian shrines was of great importance in the formation of a unified Russian state and the formation of a national Orthodox Church. The famous Russian historian and public figure P.N. Milyukov noted that even in the days of Kievan Rus, the inhabitants of each locality liked to have their own special, specially owned shrine: their icons and their local saints, under whose patronage this or that region was. Naturally, such local saints were honored only within their own region, while other regions ignored them and even treated them with hostility.
The unification of the lands also required a change in views on local shrines. Gathering inheritances, the Moscow princes without ceremony transported the most important of these shrines to the new capital. Thus, the icon of the Savior from Novgorod, the icon of the Annunciation from Ustyug, the icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria from Smolensk, and others appeared in the Assumption Cathedral. is to bring all local shrines into the public eye and thus create a single treasury of national piety ( Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. In 3 volumes. T. 2. Part 1. - S. 38). The work of two spiritual councils during the reign of Ivan the Terrible on the canonization of Russian saints was aimed at solving the same problem. At the first council (1547), 22 saints were canonized, that is, canonized. On the second (1549) - 17 more saints. Thus, in the Russian Orthodox Church in 3 years as many saints were canonized as were not canonized in the five previous centuries of its existence. Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church proved that it has rich spiritual foundations and in this respect is capable of competing with any ancient Christian church.
Against the backdrop of the rise of the international prestige of the Russian state, the growth of national self-consciousness in the depths of the Russian Orthodox Church already at the end of the 15th century. the idea of the world-historical role of the Muscovite kingdom, of Moscow as the "third Rome" begins to take shape. This idea is based on the notion of the saving role of Russian Orthodoxy for all mankind after the conclusion of the Union of Florence and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. This idea is clearly formulated in the message to Ivan III by the abbot of the Pskov monastery Filaret. “The Church of Old Rome fell because of the unbelief of the Appolinarian heresy, while the second Rome, the Church of Constantinople, was cut down with axes by the Hagarites. This is now the third new Rome - your sovereign kingdom - the holy catholic apostolic church in the whole sky shines more than the sun. And may your power, pious tsar, know that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox faith have converged into your single kingdom: you alone are the king in all the heavenly Christians. Watch and listen, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms have converged into your one, that two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth. Your Christian kingdom will no longer be given to others.” Thus, the Moscow sovereign received religious illumination not only for the management of all Russian lands, but also for the whole world.
In the XVI century. the formation of a national church acquires new features. The national Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly turning into a state church. The prerequisites for such a transformation are laid down in the very tradition of Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Church recognized the supremacy of state power over itself and was included in the framework of government institutions. In Russia, Prince Vladimir and his heirs - Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vladimir Monomakh and others - strove to continue this tradition. But after the collapse of the unified Russian state into specific principalities, the close union of church and state was broken. This union begins to recover as the unified Russian state is formed. The greatest impetus to the establishment of such a union, the transformation into a state national church, was given by three major church leaders of the 16th century. Igumen of the Volokolamsk Monastery Joseph, Metropolitans Daniel and Macarius. As P.N. Milyukov, Joseph theoretically put the Russian prince in the place that the Byzantine emperor occupied in the Eastern Church. Daniel practically subordinated the church and its representatives to the will of the secular authorities. Finally Macarius applied the theory and practice of secular intervention to the revision of the entire spiritual content of the national church. The culmination of the Josephine policy was the spiritual cathedrals of the first years of the independent reign of Ivan the Terrible ( Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. In 3 volumes. T. 2. Part 1. - S. 37).
The most important fruit of such an alliance between the state and the church was the national exaltation of both - the creation of a religious and political theory (ideology) that sanctioned an original Russian power (statehood) and placed it under the protection of an original national shrine.
The Orthodox Church played an important role in the consolidation of Russian lands and the formation of a unified Russian state. Within a relatively short period of two or three centuries, Christianity took deep roots in Russian soil. The Orthodox Church has become one of the most authoritative institutions. It remained the most important link of all Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation until the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
During the Tatar-Mongol yoke, its importance increased even more. Orthodoxy served as the spiritual and moral support of the Russian people during the years of severe hardship. The Grand Dukes of Moscow relied on her authority, pursuing their unifying policy. It is known that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter of Vladimir, was in close friendship with Ivan Kalita, lived for a long time in Moscow, where he died in 1326, and was buried in the Assumption Cathedral. His successor, Metropolitan Theognost, finally settled in Moscow, which thus became the ecclesiastical capital of all Russia. The transfer of the metropolitan see to Moscow helped to strengthen the political role of the Moscow principality.
The Orthodox clergy played an active role in the liberation process from the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The founder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow, Sergius of Radonezh, who became one of the most revered saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, has special merit in this. Sergius of Radonezh, together with Dmitry Donskoy, can rightly be called the organizer and inspirer of the victory of the Russian troops over the Tatar troops during the Battle of Kulikovo.
The Battle of Kulikovo, as follows from the above, took place after the victory of Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Tatar-Mongolian troops led by Begich on the river. Vozhe in 1378. Immediately after this event, the new Horde commander Mamai began intensive preparations to pacify the Russians. Russia also began to prepare for battle. And in this preparation, the creation of an appropriate spiritual and moral mood by Sergius of Radonezh was of great importance. It was at this time that Russia was preparing for the great trials that a vision came to Sergius. The Mother of God appeared to him in a dream and promised her care and protection to the Russian land. Such spiritual revelations had a huge impact on the mood and state of mind of people. The news of the "appearance of the Virgin" to Sergius quickly spread throughout the Russian lands, which contributed to the rise of patriotic feeling, the unity of the Russian people. The promise of the Mother of God to protect the Russian land was combined in the people's minds with preparations for rebuffing the new Golden Horde invasion.
It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the blessing received by Dmitry Donskoy on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo from St. Sergius "for the battle for the Russian land." Together with the blessing, Sergius of Radonezh sent for spiritual and military support two monks of his monastery, heroes Andrei Oslyab and Alexander Peresvet. Peresvet, as you know, opened the Battle of Kulikovo with his duel with the Tatar hero Chelubey.
Saint Sergius sought to overcome conflicts between the Russian princes, contributed to their consolidation in the name of the interests of the Russian land. Before the Battle of Kulikovo, he warned Prince Oleg of Ryazan against taking the side of the Horde. And Prince Oleg obeyed the admonition of an authoritative clergyman, which no doubt contributed to the victory of the Russian troops. After the Battle of Kulikovo in 1387, he insisted on the marriage of the daughter of Dmitry Donskoy with the son of the Ryazan prince Oleg Fedor. Thus, problems in relations between Moscow and Ryazan were removed, and peace was concluded between them for a long time.
In the formation of a unified Russian state, the formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church was of great importance.
In the process of the formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church, two sides can be distinguished - formally organizational and content-spiritual. The formal organizational side is associated with the gradual acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Byzantine one, obtaining the status of an autocephalous (independent) church. As is known, from the beginning of its formation, the Russian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The highest official in Russia - the Metropolitan of Kyiv, then Vladimir and Moscow were directly appointed by Constantinople and were Greeks by nationality. In the XIII-XV centuries, in connection with the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the Balkan Peninsula and the capture of Byzantium by the crusaders, the procedure for appointing and approving the metropolitan changed somewhat. Most often, the metropolitan was consecrated at home, in Russia, and the patriarch only confirmed this consecration.
At the end of the XV century. Significant changes took place in relations between the Orthodox churches of Russia and Constantinople. In 1439, in order to protect Byzantium from the invasion of the Turks, at the Ecumenical Council in the Italian city of Florence, the Orthodox Church signed a union with the Catholic Church - a document on the unification of the Eastern and Western Christian churches. This document recognized the dogma of the primacy of the Pope of Rome over all Christian churches, but retained for Orthodoxy the right to perform rituals according to its canonical rules. For centuries, Orthodox Russia was brought up in a spirit of hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, the conclusion of the Florentine Union was regarded by the Russian Orthodox Church and the entire Russian society as a betrayal, apostasy from the true faith. The Union of Florence was rejected, and this served as a powerful impetus for the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The protégé of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Isidore, who participated in the Ecumenical Council and signed the union, was deposed, and in 1448 a council of Russian bishops for the first time, without the participation of Constantinople, elected a Russian person, Jonah, as metropolitan. Finally, the Russian Orthodox Church becomes independent (autocephalous), and therefore, in the full sense of the word, the national church in 1589. This year, the Russian Orthodox Church is transformed from the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople into the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchate, and Patriarch Job is elected the first Russian patriarch at the Local Council .
In terms of content and spirituality, the creation of all-Russian shrines was of great importance in the formation of a unified Russian state and the formation of a national Orthodox Church. The famous Russian historian and public figure P.N. Milyukov noted that even in the days of Kievan Rus, the inhabitants of each locality liked to have their own special, specially owned shrine: their icons and their local saints, under whose patronage this or that region was. Naturally, such local saints were honored only within their own region, while other regions ignored them and even treated them with hostility.
The unification of the lands also required a change in views on local shrines. Collecting inheritances, the Moscow princes transported the most important of these shrines to the new capital without ceremony. Thus, the icon of the Savior from Novgorod, the icon of the Annunciation from Ustyug, the icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria from Smolensk, and others appeared in the Assumption Cathedral. in order to bring all local shrines into general fame and thus create a single treasury of national piety (Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. In 3 vols. Vol. 2. Part 1. - P. 38). The work of two spiritual councils during the reign of Ivan the Terrible on the canonization of Russian saints was aimed at solving the same problem. At the first council (1547), 22 saints were canonized, that is, canonized. On the second (1549) - 17 more saints. Thus, in the Russian Orthodox Church in 3 years as many saints were canonized as were not canonized in the five previous centuries of its existence. Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church proved that it has rich spiritual foundations and in this respect is capable of competing with any ancient Christian church.
Against the backdrop of the rise of the international prestige of the Russian state, the growth of national self-consciousness in the depths of the Russian Orthodox Church already at the end of the 15th century. the idea of the world-historical role of the Muscovite kingdom, of Moscow as the "third Rome" begins to take shape. This idea is based on the notion of the saving role of Russian Orthodoxy for all mankind after the conclusion of the Union of Florence and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. This idea is clearly formulated in the message to Ivan III by the abbot of the Pskov monastery Filaret. “The Church of Old Rome fell because of the unbelief of the Appolinarian heresy, while the second Rome, the Church of Constantinople, was hacked off with axes by the Hagarites. This is now the third new Rome - your sovereign kingdom - the holy catholic apostolic church in the whole sky shines more than the sun. And may your power, pious tsar, know that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox faith have converged into your single kingdom: you alone are the king in all the heavenly Christians. Watch and listen, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms have converged into your one, that two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth. Your Christian kingdom will no longer be given to others.” Thus, the Muscovite sovereign received religious illumination not only for the management of all Russian lands, but also for the whole world.
In the XVI century. the formation of a national church acquires new features. The national Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly turning into a state church. The prerequisites for such a transformation are laid down in the very tradition of Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Church recognized the supremacy of state power over itself and was included in the framework of government institutions. In Russia, Prince Vladimir and his heirs - Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vladimir Monomakh and others - strove to continue this tradition. But after the collapse of the unified Russian state into specific principalities, the close union of church and state was broken. This union begins to recover as the unified Russian state is formed. The greatest impetus to the establishment of such a union, the transformation into a state national church, was given by three major church leaders of the 16th century. Igumen of the Volokolamsk Monastery Joseph, Metropolitans Daniel and Macarius. As P.N. Milyukov, Joseph theoretically put the Russian prince in the place that the Byzantine emperor occupied in the Eastern Church. Daniel practically subordinated the church and its representatives to the will of the secular authorities. Finally Macarius applied the theory and practice of secular intervention to the revision of the entire spiritual content of the national church. The culmination of the Iosifleenskaya policy was the spiritual cathedrals of the first years of the independent reign of Ivan the Terrible (Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. In 3 vols. Vol. 2. Part 1. - P. 37).
The most important fruit of such an alliance between the state and the church was the national exaltation of both - the creation of a religious and political theory (ideology) that sanctioned an original Russian power (statehood) and placed it under the protection of an original national shrine.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN
Almetyevsk State Oil Institute
Department of Humanitarian Education and Sociology
Test
Course "National History"
Topic: The role of the Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of a single state in the XIV-XVIII centuries.
Completed by a 1st year student
group 69-73BT
Zulkarnaev R.Sh.
Teacher: Bylinkina G.A.
Almetyevsk 2009
Introduction
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Orthodoxy is one of the traditional confessions of Russia. It has a long history that began with the Baptism of Russia in 988. In subsequent years, the ROC won a dominant position in the religious life of the country, which did not weaken with its division into specific principalities. In the era that followed the rise of Moscow and the liberation from the Horde dominion, the moral authority of the church and its material well-being steadily grew. Having become the only independent Orthodox state after the fall of Byzantium, Moscow Rus received the patriarchal throne. Meanwhile, the relationship between the church and state power did not always develop smoothly, and its history is full of drama and at the same time filled with deep spiritual content. Among the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church of all historical eras, one can find many examples of asceticism, heroism and feat in the name of the Motherland, both in the cause of uniting the country and the fight against the Mongol-Tatar invaders, and during the Oprichnina terror and the Time of Troubles.
Relevance of the topic. The Moscow period was the period when the peak of development of the Russian Orthodox Church was reached. It was during this period that the Church received the right to appoint its metropolitans, and then the patriarch, theoretically realized its mission of leadership in the Orthodox world, and then actually led it. The Russian Orthodox Church endured all the hardships and horrors of the Tatar-Mongol invasion on an equal footing with the entire state. After the invasion, the position of the Russian Church changed. Like the Russian princes, she became a vassal of the khans of the Golden Horde. However, the Russian hierarchs got the opportunity to defend their interests in the Horde, regardless of the princely power, which made the church an active participant in the political struggle in Russia in the 14th-15th centuries. It was during this period that the Church contributed to the rallying of the people in the struggle for the independence of Russia from the Horde domination, and also ideologically prepared the rulers of the Moscow principality for the mission of collecting Russian lands. Thus, in the political system of medieval Russia, the church occupied one of the central places.
The unification of Russian lands around Moscow led to a radical change in the political significance of this city and the great Moscow princes. They, the recent rulers of one of the Russian principalities, found themselves at the head of the most extensive state in Europe. The emergence of a single state created favorable conditions for the development of the national economy and for repelling external enemies. The inclusion of a number of non-Russian nationalities in the unified state created conditions for the growth of ties between these nationalities and a higher economic and cultural level in Russia.
The purpose of the control work is to study the main areas of activity of the Orthodox Church in the Moscow state - religious and socio-political.
Chapter I. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation of a centralized state XIV-XV
Factors that influenced the formation of a single state
territorial factor.
In comparison with Tver, the Moscow principality occupied a more advantageous central position in relation to other Russian lands. The river and land routes passing through its territory gave Moscow the importance of the most important junction of trade and other ties between the Russian lands. Moscow became in the fourteenth century. a major trade and craft center. Moscow craftsmen gained fame as skillful masters of foundry, blacksmithing and jewelry. It was in Moscow that Russian artillery was born and received its baptism of fire.
Trade relations of Moscow merchants "surozhans" and "cloth workers" stretched far beyond the borders of Russian lands. Covered from the northwest of Lithuania by the Principality of Tver, and from the east and southeast of the Golden Horde by other Russian lands, the Principality of Moscow was less subject to sudden devastating raids by the Golden Horde. This allowed the princes of Moscow to gather and accumulate strength, gradually create superiority in material and human resources, in order to act as organizers and leaders of the unification process and the liberation struggle. The geographical position of the Moscow Principality predetermined its role as the ethnic core of the emerging Great Russian people. All this, combined with the purposeful and flexible policy of the Moscow princes in relations with the Golden Horde and other Russian lands, ultimately led to Moscow's victory for the role of leader and political center in the formation of a unified Russian state.
Economic factor
From the beginning of the 4th c. the fragmentation of Russian lands stops, giving way to their unification. This was caused primarily by the strengthening of economic ties between the Russian lands, which was a consequence of the overall economic development of the country. At this time, intensive development of agriculture begins. Agricultural production is characterized in this period by the increasing spread of the arable system, which requires constant cultivation of the land. Since the peasant always deals with only one plot, which rests from sowing only after a year (two-field system) or two (three-field system), then there is a need for fertilizer fields. All this requires more advanced tools of production.
But the rise of agriculture was due not so much to the development of tools as to the expansion of sown areas through the development of new and previously abandoned lands. An increase in the surplus product in agriculture makes it possible to develop animal husbandry, as well as to sell grain to the side. The ever-increasing need for agricultural implements necessitates the development of handicrafts. As a result, the process of separation of handicraft from agriculture is going deeper and deeper, which entails the need for exchange between the peasant and the artisan, that is, between town and country. This exchange takes place in the form of trade, which in this period increases accordingly. Local markets are created on the basis of exchange. The natural division of labor between individual regions of the country, due to their natural characteristics, forms economic ties on the scale of the whole of Russia. The establishment of these ties also contributed to the development of foreign trade. All this urgently demanded the political unification of the Russian lands, that is, the creation of a centralized state. Nobles, merchants, artisans were interested in this.
The strengthening of economic ties also required the political unification of the Russian lands. However, unlike the West, where this factor was decisive, it was not so here (a single all-Russian market was formed only in the 17th century).
political factor.
Another factor that led to the unification of the Russian lands was the intensification of the class struggle, the intensification of the class resistance of the peasantry. The rise of the economy, the possibility of obtaining ever greater surplus product induce the feudal lords to intensify the exploitation of the peasants. Moreover, the feudal lords strive not only economically, but also legally to secure the peasants to their estates and estates, to enserf them. Such a policy aroused the natural resistance of the peasantry, which took on various forms. Peasants kill feudal lords, seize their property, set fire to estates. Such a fate often befalls not only secular, but also spiritual feudal lords - monasteries. Robbery directed against the masters sometimes acted as a form of class struggle. The flight of peasants takes on a certain scale, especially to the south, to lands free from landlords. Under such conditions, the feudal lords are faced with the task of keeping the peasantry in check and bringing serfdom to an end. This task could only be accomplished by a powerful centralized state capable of performing the main function of an exploiting state - suppressing the resistance of the exploited masses.
These two reasons played a leading role in the unification of Russia. Without them, the process of centralization could not have achieved any significant success. At the same time, in itself, the economic and social development of the country in the XIV-XVI centuries. could not yet lead to the formation of a centralized state. Although economic ties during this period reached a significant development, they were still not wide enough, deep and strong enough to bind the whole country together. This is one of the differences between the formation of the Russian centralized state and similar processes in Western Europe. There, centralized states were created in the course of the development of capitalist relations. In Russia, in the XIV XVI centuries. there could still be no question of the emergence of capitalism, of bourgeois relations. The same must be said about the development of class relations, the class struggle. No matter how great its scope was in this period, nevertheless this struggle did not acquire such forms as it already had in the West or at a later time in Russia (peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov, Razin in the 17th century). Even for the beginning of the XVI century. predominantly outwardly imperceptible, latent accumulation of class contradictions is characteristic.
ideological factor.
The Russian Church was the bearer of the national - Orthodox ideology, which played an important role in the formation of powerful Russia. In order to build an independent state and bring foreigners into the fence of the Christian church, for this Russian society had to strengthen its moral strength. Sergius devoted his life to this. He is building a trinity temple, seeing in it a call to the unity of the Russian land, in the name of a higher reality. In a religious shell, heretical movements represented a peculiar form of protest. At a church council in 1490, the heretics were cursed and excommunicated. They linked their ideas with the tasks of centralization. Heretics oppose church land ownership, the existence of a class of clergy and monasticism. The close union of the church with the state is the main goal set by the Josephites. The views of the "non-possessors" were in everything opposite to the views of Joseph. They demanded a strict separation of church and state, their mutual independence. Thus, historians pay great attention to the development of religious ideology, within which the theory of "Moscow - the Third Rome" is formed, which provided a compromise between the royal power and the church, indicating that the development of this theory took place in the conditions of a sharp ideological struggle within the church itself between the Josephites. and not hoarders. The latter most actively used this concept to strengthen the material and political power of the church.
In the very first years of his reign, Ivan Kalita gave Moscow moral significance by transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow. Back in 1299, Metropolitan Maxim of Kyiv left Kyiv for Vladimir on the Klyazma. The Metropolitan was supposed to visit the southern Russian dioceses from Vladimir from time to time. On these trips, he stopped at a crossroads in Moscow. Metropolitan Maxim was succeeded by Peter (1308).
A close friendship began between Metropolitan Peter and Ivan Kalita. Together they laid the stone Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow. While in Moscow, Metropolitan Peter lived in his diocesan town in the ancient courtyard of Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, from where he later moved to the place where the Assumption Cathedral was soon laid. In this town, he died in 1326. Peter's successor Theognost no longer wanted to live in Vladimir and settled in the new metropolitan courtyard in Moscow.
Personal factor.
Historians notice that all Moscow princes before Ivan III, like two drops of water, are similar to each other. In their activities, some individual characteristics are noticeable. However, following the successive change of Moscow princes, one can catch only typical family features in their appearance. First of all, the Danilovichi are notable for their remarkably stable mediocrity, neither above nor below the average level. Danilovichi are princes without any brilliance, without signs of both heroic and moral greatness.
· The founder of the dynasty of Moscow princes was the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, Daniel. Under him, the rapid growth of the Moscow principality began. In 1301 Daniil Alexandrovich seized Kolomna from the Ryazan princes, and in 1302, the Pereyaslavl principality passed to him by will of a childless prince of Pereyaslavl, who was at enmity with Tver. In 1303, Mozhaisk, which was part of the Smolensk Principality, was annexed, as a result of which the Moscow River, which was then an important trade route, turned out to be within the Moscow Principality from source to mouth. In three years, the Moscow principality almost doubled, became one of the largest and strongest principalities in North-Eastern Russia, and the Moscow prince Yuri Daniilovich considered himself strong enough to join the struggle for the great principality of Vladimir. Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver, who in 1304 received a label for a great reign, strove for absolute rule in "all Russia", subjugation by force of Novgorod and other Russian lands. He was supported by the church and its head, Metropolitan Maxim, who in 1299 transferred his residence from devastated Kyiv to Vladimir. An attempt by Mikhail Yaroslavich to take away Pereyaslavl from Yuri Daniilovich led to a protracted and bloody struggle between Tver and Moscow, in which the question was already being decided not so much about Pereyaslavl, but about political supremacy in Russia. In 1318, at the intrigues of Yuri Daniilovich, Mikhail Yaroslavich was killed in the Horde, and the label for the great reign was transferred to the Moscow prince. However, in 1325, Yuri Daniilovich was killed in the Horde by one of the sons of Mikhail Yaroslavich, who avenged the death of his father, and the label for the great reign again fell into the hands of the Tver princes. During the reign of Kalita, the Moscow principality was finally defined as the largest and strongest in North-Eastern Russia. Since the time of Kalita, there has been a close alliance between the Moscow grand ducal authorities and the church, which played a large role in the formation of a centralized state. Kalita's ally, Metropolitan Peter, moved his residence from Vladimir to Moscow (1326), which became the church center of all Russia, which further strengthened the political positions of the Moscow princes.
· In relations with the Horde, Kalita continued the line outlined by Alexander Nevsky of external observance of vassal obedience to the khans, regular payment of tribute in order not to give them reasons for new invasions of Russia, which almost completely stopped during his reign. The Russian lands received the respite they needed to restore and revive the economy, to accumulate strength for the upcoming struggle to overthrow the yoke. The collection of tribute from all Russian lands, carried out by Kalita with all cruelty and inexorability, contributed to the concentration of significant funds in the hands of the Moscow prince, gave him the opportunity to exert political pressure on Novgorod and other Russian lands. Kalita was able, without resorting to weapons, to expand the territory of his possessions at the expense of "fonts" - receiving from the khan for rich gifts labels for separate lands (Galich, Uglich, Beloozero). During the reign of Kalita, the foundation of Moscow's power was laid. The son of Kalita, Prince Semyon Ivanovich (1340-1353), already claimed the title of "Grand Duke of All Russia" and for his arrogance received the nickname "Proud". fortification of Moscow.
The significant superiority in material and human resources achieved by Moscow during the reign of Kalita was reinforced by the construction in 1367. Stone Kremlin, which strengthened the military-defensive potential of the Moscow principality. In the context of the renewed invasions of the Tatars and the offensive of the Lithuanian feudal lords on the Russian lands, the Moscow principality became a stronghold in the fight against the invaders. The rulers of the principalities that entered into rivalry with Moscow, not possessing sufficient forces of their own, were forced to seek support in the Horde or Lithuania, pursue an anti-national policy of alliance with external forces hostile to Russia, thereby dooming themselves to political isolation in their country and, as a result, to defeat in struggle against Moscow. The struggle of the Moscow princes against them acquired the character of an integral part of the national liberation struggle and received the support of the bulk of the ruling class of feudal lords, residents of cities and villages, the powerful and influential church, all the progressive elements of the then society, interested in the state unification of all the forces of the country.
foreign policy factor.
The factor that accelerated the centralization of the Russian state was the threat of an external attack, which forced the Russian lands to unite in the face of a common enemy. It is characteristic that only when the formation of the Russian centralized state began, it became possible to defeat the Golden Horde on the Kulikovo field. And when Ivan III managed to collect almost all Russian lands and lead them against the enemy. the yoke was finally overthrown.
The formation of a single state is natural in the history of the country. It was prepared by the long socio-economic and political development of Russia. Despite the huge destruction of the economy and culture caused by the Tatars, from the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century, agriculture began to be restored, cities were rebuilt, and trade was revived. Significant changes have taken place in the main sphere of production. Agriculture became more productive. Rich buyers of bread appeared on the ground. The slower development of production in Russia was due primarily to the Mongol yoke, which destroyed and slowed down the development of productive forces. A great hindrance to the normal economic development of the southern regions was the constant raids of the Crimean Tatars, who ruined everything and diverted significant forces of Russia.
The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the formation and strengthening of the unified Russian state
The Orthodox Church played an important role in the consolidation of Russian lands and the formation of a unified Russian state. Within a relatively short period of two or three centuries, Christianity took deep roots in Russian soil. The Orthodox Church has become one of the most authoritative institutions. It remained the most important link of all Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation until the Tatar-Mongol invasion. During the Tatar-Mongol yoke, its importance increased even more. Orthodoxy served as the spiritual and moral support of the Russian people during the years of severe hardship. The Grand Dukes of Moscow relied on her authority, pursuing their unifying policy. It is known that the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter of Vladimir, was in close friendship with Ivan Kalita, lived for a long time in Moscow, where he died in 1326, and was buried in the Assumption Cathedral. His successor, Metropolitan Theognost, finally settled in Moscow, which thus became the ecclesiastical capital of all Russia. The transfer of the metropolitan see to Moscow helped to strengthen the political role of the Moscow principality.
The Orthodox clergy played an active role in the liberation process from the Tatar-Mongol yoke. The founder of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near Moscow, Sergius of Radonezh, who became one of the most revered saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, has special merit in this. Sergius of Radonezh, together with Dmitry Donskoy, can rightly be called the organizer and inspirer of the victory of the Russian troops over the Tatar troops during the Battle of Kulikovo.
The Battle of Kulikovo, as follows from the above, took place after the victory of Prince Dmitry Donskoy over the Tatar-Mongolian troops led by Begich on the river. Vozhe in 1378. Immediately after this event, the new Horde commander Mamai began intensive preparations to pacify the Russians. Russia also began to prepare for battle. And in this preparation, the creation of an appropriate spiritual and moral mood by Sergius of Radonezh was of great importance. It was at this time that Russia was preparing for the great trials that a vision came to Sergius. The Mother of God appeared to him in a dream and promised her care and protection to the Russian land. Such spiritual revelations had a huge impact on the mood and state of mind of people. The news of the "appearance of the Virgin" to Sergius quickly spread throughout the Russian lands, which contributed to the rise of patriotic feeling, the unity of the Russian people. The promise of the Mother of God to protect the Russian land was combined in the people's minds with preparations for rebuffing the new Golden Horde invasion. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the blessing received by Dmitry Donskoy on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo from St. Sergius "for the battle for the Russian land." Together with the blessing, Sergius of Radonezh sent for spiritual and military support two monks of his monastery, heroes Andrei Oslyab and Alexander Peresvet. Peresvet, as you know, opened the Battle of Kulikovo with his duel with the Tatar hero Chelubey. Saint Sergius strove to overcome conflicts between the Russian princes, contributed to their consolidation in the name of the interests of the Russian land. Before the Battle of Kulikovo, he warned Prince Oleg of Ryazan against taking the side of the Horde. And Prince Oleg obeyed the admonition of an authoritative clergyman, which no doubt contributed to the victory of the Russian troops. After the Battle of Kulikovo in 1387, he insisted on the marriage of the daughter of Dmitry Donskoy with the son of the Ryazan prince Oleg Fedor. Thus, problems in relations between Moscow and Ryazan were removed, and peace was concluded between them for a long time.
In the formation of a unified Russian state, the formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church was of great importance.
In the process of formation of the national Russian Orthodox Church, two sides can be distinguished - formally organizational and content-spiritual. The formal organizational side is associated with the gradual acquisition of independence by the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Byzantine one, obtaining the status of an autocephalous (independent) church. As you know, from the beginning of its formation, the Russian Orthodox Church was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The highest official in Russia - the Metropolitan of Kyiv, then Vladimir and Moscow were directly appointed by Constantinople and were Greeks by nationality. In the XIII-XV centuries, in connection with the Tatar-Mongol invasion of the Balkan Peninsula and the capture of Byzantium by the crusaders, the procedure for appointing and approving the metropolitan changed somewhat. Most often, the metropolitan was consecrated at home, in Russia, and the patriarch only confirmed this consecration.
At the end of the 15th century, significant changes took place in relations between the Orthodox churches of Russia and Constantinople. In 1439, in order to protect Byzantium from the invasion of the Turks at the Ecumenical Council in the Italian city of Florence, the Orthodox Church signed a union with the Catholic Church - a document on the unification of the Eastern and Western Christian churches. This document recognized the dogma of the primacy of the Pope of Rome over all Christian churches, but retained for Orthodoxy the right to perform rituals according to its canonical rules. For centuries, Orthodox Russia was brought up in a spirit of hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, the conclusion of the Florentine Union was regarded by the Russian Orthodox Church and the entire Russian society as a betrayal, apostasy from the true faith. The Union of Florence was rejected, and this served as a powerful impetus for the separation of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The protégé of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Metropolitan Isidore, who participated in the Ecumenical Council and signed the union, was deposed, and in 1448 a council of Russian bishops for the first time, without the participation of Constantinople, elected a Russian person, Jonah, as metropolitan. The Russian Orthodox Church finally becomes independent (autocephalous), and therefore, in the full sense of the word, the national church in 1589. This year, the Russian Orthodox Church is transformed from the metropolis of the Patriarch of Constantinople into the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchy and the first Russian patriarch at the Local Council is elected patriarch Job.
In terms of content and spirituality, the creation of all-Russian shrines was of great importance in the formation of a unified Russian state and the formation of a national Orthodox Church. The well-known Russian historian and public figure P.N. Milyukov noted that even in the times of Kievan Rus, the inhabitants of each locality liked to have their own special, specially owned shrine: their icons and their local saints, under whose patronage this or that region was. Naturally, such local saints were honored only within their own region, while other regions ignored them and even treated them with hostility.
The unification of the lands also required a change in views on local shrines. Collecting inheritances, the Moscow princes transported the most important of these shrines to the new capital without ceremony. Thus, the icon of the Savior from Novgorod, the icon of the First Annunciation from Ustyug, the icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria from Smolensk, and others appeared in the Assumption Cathedral. in bringing all local shrines into the public domain and thus creating a single treasury of national piety
The work of two spiritual councils during the reign of Ivan the Terrible on the canonization of Russian saints was aimed at solving the same problem. At the first council (1547) he was canonized, that is, canonized. 22 pleasers.
On the second (1549) - 17 more saints. Thus, in the Russian Orthodox Church in 3 years as many saints were canonized as were not canonized in the five previous centuries of its existence. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church proved. that it has rich spiritual foundations and in this respect is able to compete with any ancient Christian church
Against the backdrop of the rise of the international prestige of the Russian state, the growth of national self-consciousness in the depths of the Russian Orthodox Church, already at the end of the 15th century, the idea of the world-historical role of the Muscovite kingdom, of Moscow as the "third Rome" began to form. This idea is based on the notion of the saving role of Russian Orthodoxy for all mankind after the conclusion of the Union of Florence and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. This idea is clearly formulated in the message to Ivan III by the abbot of the Pskov monastery Filaret. “The Church of Old Rome fell because of the unbelief of the Appolinarian heresy, while the second Rome, the Church of Constantinople, was hacked off with axes by the Hagarites. This is now the third new Rome - your sovereign kingdom - the holy catholic apostolic church in the whole sky shines more than the sun. And may your power, pious tsar, know that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox faith have converged into your single kingdom: you alone are the king in all the heavenly Christians. Watch and listen, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms have converged into your one, that two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth. Your Christian kingdom will no longer be given to others.” Thus, the Muscovite sovereign received religious illumination not only for the management of all Russian lands, but also for the whole world.
In the 16th century, the formation of a national church acquired new features. The national Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly turning into a state church. The prerequisites for such a transformation are laid down in the very tradition of Eastern Christianity. The Eastern Church recognized the supremacy of state power over itself and was included in the framework of government institutions. In Russia, Prince Vladimir and his heirs, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vladimir Monomakh, and others sought to continue this tradition. But after the collapse of the unified Russian state into specific principalities, the close union of church and state was broken. This union begins to recover as the unified Russian state is formed. The greatest impetus to the establishment of such a union, the transformation into a state national church, was given by three major church figures of the 16th century: hegumen of the Volokolamsk monastery Joseph, metropolitans Daniel and Macarius. As P.N. Milyukov notes, “Joseph theoretically put the Russian prince in the place that the Byzantine emperor occupied in the Eastern Church. Daniel practically subordinated the church and its representatives to the will of the secular authorities. Finally Macarius applied the theory;
the practice of secular intervention to revise the entire spiritual content of the national church. The spiritual cathedrals of the first years of the independent reign of Ivan the Terrible were the crowning achievement of the Iosiflena policy. The most important fruit of such an alliance between the state and the church was the national exaltation of both - the creation of a religious and political theory (ideology) that sanctioned the original Russian power (statehood) and placed it under the protection of an original national shrine.
church principality raid
Chapter II. The Influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Development of Russian Statehood in the 16th-18th Centuries.
Church and state in the XIV-XVIII centuries.
In the second half of the XIV century. in northeastern Russia, the tendency to unite the lands intensified. The center of the association was the Moscow principality, separated from Vladimir-Suzdal in the 12th century.
The weakening and disintegration of the Golden Horde, the development of economic inter-princely relations and trade, the formation of new cities and the strengthening of the nobility as a social stratum played the role of unifying factors. In the Moscow principality, the system of local relations was intensively developing: the nobles received land from the Grand Duke (from his domain) for service and for the duration of their service. This made them dependent on the prince and strengthened his power. From the 13th century Moscow princes and the church begin to carry out a wide colonization of the Trans-Volga territories, new monasteries, fortresses and cities are formed, the local population is conquered and assimilated.
In the course of centralization, the entire political system was transformed. In place of many independent principalities, a single state is formed. The whole system of suzerain-vassal relations is changing: the former grand dukes themselves become vassals of the Grand Duke of Moscow, a complex hierarchy of feudal ranks is taking shape. By the 15th century there is a sharp reduction in feudal privileges and immunities. A hierarchy of court ranks is being formed, complained for their service: an introduced boyar, a roundabout, a butler, a treasurer, the ranks of duma nobles, duma clerks, etc. The principle of parochialism is being formed, linking the possibilities of holding public office with the origin of the candidate, his generosity. This led to a thorough and detailed development of the problems of genealogy, "genealogies" of individual feudal clans and families. The strengthening service nobility becomes a support for the Grand Duke (Tsar) in the fight against the feudal aristocracy, which does not want to sacrifice its independence. In the economic field, a struggle is unfolding between patrimonial (boyar, feudal) and local (noble) types of land tenure. The Church becomes a serious political force, concentrating in its hands significant land holdings and values and mainly determining the ideology of the emerging autocratic state (the idea of "Moscow is the third Rome", "Orthodox kingdom", "the king is the anointed of God").
The theory: "Moscow is the third Rome" - "... we have two Romes, and the third stands, and there will be no fourth" was supported by the Byzantine origin of the tsars (Vladimir Monomakh) and royal regalia; the marriage of Ivan III to Sophia Palaiologos (Byzantine princess). Under Ivan III, the first steps were taken in the matter of subordinating the church.
g. - occurred with the formation of an autocephalous (independent) Orthodox Church (a response to the Florentine Union of 1439). The spiritual authority of Metropolitans Jonah, Alexy, and St. Sergius was very high.
At the same time, a conflict arose within the Russian clergy over the question of how to save the soul between the followers of Joseph Volotsky (the monastic land as a condition for the greatness of the church and the sovereign) and non-possessive followers of the Nile of Sorsky (the intention of owning land is a terrible sin. "). The teaching of the Josephites deified the Power, the question of the seizure of the church lands was removed.
In the XV century. The church was an important factor in the process of uniting the Russian lands around Moscow and strengthening the centralized state. In the new system of church administration: episcopates, dioceses, parishes. Since 1589, a patriarchate was established in Russia, which strengthened the church's claims to political power. They resulted in conflicts between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and on a broader level - in a split, a clash of old and new political positions of the church.
The highest church body (the Consecrated Cathedral) in its entirety was part of the upper chamber of the Zemsky Sobor. The clergy, as a special estate, was endowed with a number of privileges and privileges: exemption from taxes, corporal punishment and duties.
The Church, in the person of its organizations, was the subject of landed property, around which already from the 16th century. a serious fight ensued. A large number of people were associated with this property: managers, peasants, serfs living on church lands. All of them fell under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authorities.
Prior to the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, all cases related to them were considered on the basis of canon law and in the church court. Under the same jurisdiction fell cases of crimes against morality, divorce cases, the subjects of which could be representatives of any social groups.
The power of the patriarch was based on people subordinate to church organizations, the special status of monasteries, which were large landowners, on the participation of church representatives in class-representative bodies of power and administration. Church orders, which were in charge of managing the church economy and people, formed the bureaucratic basis of this power.
The Church in its activities relied on the system of church law norms contained in the Pilot Book, Metropolitan Justice and Stoglav (a collection of resolutions of the Church Council of 1551).
Family law in the XV-XVI centuries. was largely based on customary law and was heavily influenced by canon (ecclesiastical) law. Only a church marriage could have legal consequences. For its conclusion, the consent of the parents was required, and for serfs, the consent of their masters. "Stoglav" determined the age of marriage: for men -15, and for women - 12 years. "Domostroy" (a set of ethical rules and customs) and "Stoglav" consolidated the power of the husband over his wife and the father over his children.
Crimes against the Church until the middle of the 17th century. constituted the sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The most serious religious crimes were subjected to double punishment: by state and church authorities. Heretics were judged according to the decision of church authorities, but by the forces of the state executive power (Rogue, Detective Orders).
From the middle of the XVI century. church authorities, with their prescriptions, prohibit secular entertainment, buffoonery, gambling, sorcery, witchcraft, etc. Church law provided for its own system of punishments: excommunication from the Church, the imposition of repentance (penance), imprisonment in a monastery, etc.
Internal church activity was regulated by its own rules and regulations, the range of subjects subordinate to them was quite wide. The idea of "two authorities" (spiritual and secular) made the church organization a strong competitor for state bodies: in the church schism, the desire of the Church to rise above the state was especially obvious. This struggle continued until the beginning of the 18th century.
Church in the XV-XVII centuries. was one of the largest landowners. At the beginning of the XVI century. an attempt was made to limit the growth of church and monastic land ownership, in the middle of the century (Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551) the question of the secularization of church lands was raised. The practical results were not significant: only a partial confiscation of monastic lands in certain regions was carried out and a limitation was made on hereditary (by will) contributions of estates to monasteries.
In 1580, monasteries were forbidden to buy patrimonies from service people, to accept them as a pledge and for "Commemoration of the Soul." The most tangible limitation was the liquidation of the “white” monastic, patriarchal, metropolitan and episcopal settlements in the cities, enshrined in the Cathedral Code.
At the same time, the political role of the church is growing. In 1589, a patriarchate was established in Russia, and the Russian Church received complete independence. The special position of the church was reflected in the articles of the Council Code: for the first time in secular codification, responsibility for church crimes was provided (they were in the first place in the code). The assumption by the state of affairs that previously belonged to ecclesiastical jurisdiction meant the limitation of the latter.
By the 17th century, the Church began to have special rights and its own jurisdiction. Marriage and family law, as well as inheritance, was in its introduction.
Attempts to secularize church lands, which began at the end of the 16th century, continued at the beginning of the 18th century. The estates of the patriarch were subjected to secularization, the monasteries were subjected to significant taxes.
In 1701, the Monastery Order was established, which was in charge of church administration, however, almost complete state control over the church was established only after the establishment of the Synod as a body of state sectoral administration. church affairs (1721).
One of the reforms of Catherine II, the main purpose of which was to strengthen the social base of absolutism, was the church reform.
Church reform - the secularization of church lands and the subordination of the church to the state.
The Decree of 1764 became the decisive act of the secularization of church lands, depriving the Church of all estates and transferring monasteries and dioceses to regular salaries. Peasants who previously belonged to the Church were transferred to the position of state.
The College of Economy, liquidated during the reform, was again restored, and all these peasants (about eight hundred thousand people) were assigned to it. Significant land plots remained behind the monasteries and bishops' houses, which were slightly enlarged in 1797.
In October 1721, in connection with the victory in the Northern War, the Senate and the Holy Synod confer on Peter I the title of "Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia", and Russia becomes an empire.
Back in Art. 20 Military Articles (1715), the position of the sovereign was defined as follows: “His Majesty is an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs; but the power and authority has its own states and lands, like a Christian sovereign, to rule according to his will and goodwill.
The monarch was the source of all executive power and the head of all state institutions. The presence of the monarch in a certain place terminated the entire administration, and power automatically passed to him. All institutions of the empire must carry out the decrees and decrees of the monarch. Public state affairs were given priority over private affairs.
Peter I abolished the patriarchate and became the head of the church, thereby subordinating the church to himself.
Conclusion.
Based on the results of this work, we have come to the following conclusions:
The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the history of Muscovite Russia is enormous.
Ever since the population of Russia adopted Christianity in its eastern, Orthodox form, the church has played a crucial role in the history of Russia. Religion permeated the entire Russian culture. The monasteries of Russia showed an example of both piety and diligent, exemplary management. The metropolitan, and later the patriarch of all Russia, was the second person in the country after the sovereign himself, and in the absence of the monarch or when he was young, he sometimes exerted a decisive influence on the affairs of government. For many centuries in Russia there were two main centers of attraction for economic activity - the state and the church, and the church was able in most cases to manage its wealth more wisely than the state.
However, the situation in which the Orthodox Church found itself in the Russian state did not remain unchanged.
After the Mongols came to Russia, especially under the Khan of the Golden Horde Mengli-Girey, the church received significant privileges and grew stronger. Led by the Greek metropolitans, ordained in Byzantium, protected by the khan's charter, the church in Russia then depended less on princely power than at any period in Russian history. In fact, the metropolitan more than once served as an arbiter in disagreements between the princes.
This time was also a period when the Russian church had the opportunity to create a large material base for its activities. Since the church lands were protected from the intervention of state authorities, both Mongolian and Russian, they attracted more and more peasants and the share of their production in the total agricultural product was constantly growing. This is especially true of monastic estates.
During the period of decline in the Golden Horde and the fall of the Mongol yoke, the church, anticipating the strengthening of Moscow, supported the desire of the Russian people to regain their freedom.
In the very first years of his reign, Ivan Kalita gave Moscow moral significance by transferring the metropolitan see from Vladimir to Moscow.
Back in 1299, Metropolitan Maxim of Kyiv left Kyiv for Vladimir-on-Klyazma. The Metropolitan was supposed to visit the southern Russian dioceses from Vladimir from time to time. On these trips, he stopped at a crossroads in Moscow.
Metropolitan Maxim was succeeded by Peter (1308). A close friendship began between Metropolitan Peter and Ivan Kalita. Together they laid the stone Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow. While in Moscow, Metropolitan Peter lived in his diocesan town in the ancient courtyard of Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, from where he later moved to the place where the Assumption Cathedral was soon laid. In this town he died in 1326.
Peter's successor Theognost no longer wanted to live in Vladimir and settled in the new metropolitan residence in Moscow.
In the 1440s the refusal of the Russian Church from the Florentine Union of 1439 made it impossible to accept a metropolitan who had the traditional blessing of Constantinople, where the union was supported by both the patriarch and the emperor. Metropolitan of All Russia Isidore, who accepted the union in Florence, upon his return to Moscow in 1441 was taken into custody and replaced, by decision of the Russian Bishops' Council in 1441, with Ryazan Bishop Jonah. On December 15, 1448, a council of Russian bishops, convened by Grand Duke Vasily II, proclaimed autocephaly (independence) of the Russian Church and installed Jonah as metropolitan of All Russia.
Gaining strength, state power gradually narrowed church jurisdiction more and more, as well as its influence on the sphere of internal church life constantly increased. At the same time, although infrequently, conflicts arose between the primates of the Russian Church and the highest state power, when the behavior of the latter seemed to be a challenge to the Christian foundations of Russian statehood, or interference in church life could serve to undermine it, and consequently, undermine the very foundations of people's life.
On the issue of church property in the Church, there was a division into non-possessors (supporters of the Nile of Sorsky) and Josephites (followers of Joseph Volotsky, who insisted on the need for monastic possessions for church construction and the participation of the Church in public life), which corresponded to various monastic practices: Nile, who previously lived on Athos Sorsky was an adherent of "intelligent prayer" and contemplative life in the skete, the ideal of Joseph Volotsky was a cenobitic monastery with many labor obediences. At the same time, Joseph Volotsky highly valued the spiritual experience of Nil Sorsky, sending his students to him to learn contemplation and prayer.
The most dramatic was the clash in 1561 between Metropolitan Philip of Moscow and Tsar Ivan the Terrible after the introduction of the terrorist regime of the oprichnina, which cost the courageous primate not only the metropolitan see, but also his life.
Other examples of asceticism is the feat of Patriarch Hermogenes during the opposition to the Polish invaders
Literature
1. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: In 3 books. Book. 1 - St. Petersburg: Crystal, 2000. - 704 p.
History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century // A.P. Novoseltsev, A.N. Sakharov and others - M.: AST, 2000. - 576 p.
Munchaev Sh.M., Ustinov V.M. Political history of Russia. From the formation of autocracy to the fall of Soviet power. - M.: NORMA - INFRA, 2004. - 800 p.
Milyukov P.N. Essays on the history of Russian culture in 3 volumes.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
