Report: Saints of Ancient Rus'. Russian saints and ascetics of Orthodoxy. Historical encyclopedia Suffering in the name of the Lord

Main part................................................ ................. 3

1. Prince Vladimir ............................................... ................. 3

2. Boris and Gleb ............................................... ....................... 5

3. Sergius of Radonezh................................................ ....... 9

Conclusion................................................. ......................... eleven

List of references .............................................. 11

Introduction

Every society, like every person, needs a bright spiritual ideal. Especially acutely society needs it in an era of troubled times. What serves us, the Russian people, as this spiritual ideal, the spiritual core, the force that has united Rus' for a whole millennium in the face of invasions, troubles, wars and other global cataclysms?

Undoubtedly, Orthodoxy is such a binding force, but not in the form in which it came to Rus' from Byzantium, but in the form in which it acquired on Russian soil, taking into account national, political and socio-economic characteristics Ancient Rus'. Byzantine Orthodoxy came to Rus' with an already formed pantheon of Christian saints, for example, such as Nicholas the Wonderworker, John the Baptist and others who are deeply revered to this day. By the 11th century, Christianity in Rus' was only taking its first steps, and for many ordinary people of that time it was not yet a source of faith. After all, in order to recognize the holiness of the alien saints, one had to believe very deeply, to be imbued with the spirit of the Orthodox faith. It is a completely different matter when before one's eyes there is an example in the person of one's own, a Russian person, sometimes even a commoner, performing holy asceticism. Here the most skeptical person towards Christianity will come to believe. Thus, by the end of the 11th century, a purely Russian pantheon of saints began to form, revered to this day on a par with common Christian saints.

I was forced to take up writing a work on this topic by interest in this period of time in Russian history, interest in the historical role of Russian Orthodox Church as well as some unpopularity of this topic among the students (with the possible exception of students of the theological seminary). In addition, this topic is more relevant than ever in our time of transition, when many people talk about Orthodox ideals and values, often not adhering to them, when the emphasis is only on the visible side of worshiping God, and when many of us do not live according to the commandments that formed the basis of Christianity. .

Main part

The turbulent Russian history has brought forward many bright, extraordinary personalities.

Some of them, thanks to their ascetic activity in the field of Orthodoxy, thanks to their righteous life or deeds as a result of which the name of Russia gained greatness and respect, were awarded the grateful memory of their descendants and canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

What kind of people were these, Russian saints? What was their contribution to history? What were their deeds?

Prince Vladimir

A special place both in Russian history and among the saints canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church is occupied by Prince Vladimir (? -1015 son of Prince Svyatoslav, Prince of Novgorod (since 969), Grand Duke of Kiev (since 980), nicknamed Red in Russian epics Sunshine, why is this prince remarkable and how did he take his place in the pantheon of Russian saints?

In order to answer these questions, one should analyze the situation that developed in Kievan Rus by the end of the 10th and beginning of the 11th centuries. During his lifetime, Prince Svyatoslav handed over the throne of Kiev to his son Yaropolk, another son, Oleg, became a Drevlyansk prince, and sent Vladimir to Novgorod.

In 972, with the death of Prince Svyatoslav, civil strife broke out between his sons. It all started with the fact that the Kiev governor, in fact, initiated a campaign against the Drevlyans, which ended with the victory of the Kyivans and the death of the Drevlyan prince Oleg. During the retreat, he fell into the moat and was trampled by his own warriors. Having learned about these events, Prince Vladimir gathers Scandinavian mercenaries, kills his brother Yaropolk and seizes the throne of Kiev. If Yaropolk was distinguished by religious tolerance, then Vladimir at the time of the conquest of power was a convinced pagan. After defeating his brother in 980, Vladimir set up a pagan temple in Kyiv with idols of especially revered pagan gods, such as Perun, Khors, Dazhdbog, Stribog and others. In honor of the gods, games and bloody sacrifices with human sacrifices were arranged. And Vladimir began to reign in Kiev alone, says the chronicle, and placed idols on a hill outside the Terem courtyard: a wooden Perun with a silver head and a golden mustache, then Khors, Dazhdbog, Stirbog, Simargl and Mokosha. And they made sacrifices to them, calling them gods ... And the Russian land and that hill were defiled with blood "(under the year 980). Not only the close princes, but also many townspeople treated this approvingly. And just a few years after the reign in Kiev, in 988-989, Vladimir accepts Christianity himself, and also converts his subjects to it.But how did a convinced pagan suddenly believe in Christ?It is unlikely that he was guided only by an understanding of the public benefit of Christianity.

Perhaps this was caused by remorse for the committed atrocities, fatigue from a wild life. Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, the monk Jacob and the chronicler the Monk Nestor (XI century) named the reasons for the personal conversion of Prince Vladimir to the Christian faith, according to the action of the calling grace of God.

In the "Sermon on Law and Grace," St. Hilarion, Metropolitan of Kiev, writes about Prince Vladimir: "A visit from the Most High came upon him, the All-Merciful eye of the Good God looked upon him, and his mind shone in his heart. He understood the vanity of idolish delusion and sought the One God He created everything visible and invisible. And especially he always heard about the Orthodox, Christ-loving and strong in faith Greek land ... Hearing all this, he was kindled in spirit and desired in his heart to be a Christian and convert the whole Earth to Christianity. "

At the same time, Vladimir, as a smart ruler, understood that a power consisting of separate principalities, always at war with each other, needed some kind of super-idea that would unite the Russian people and keep the princes from civil strife. On the other hand, in relations with Christian states, the pagan country turned out to be an unequal partner, with which Vladimir did not agree.

Regarding the question of the time and place of the Baptism of Prince Vladimir, there are several versions. According to the generally accepted opinion, Prince Vladimir was baptized in 998 in Korsun (Greek Chersonese in the Crimea); According to the second version, Prince Vladimir was baptized in 987 in Kiev, and according to the third version, in 987 in Vasilevo (not far from Kyiv, now the city of Vasilkov). Apparently, the second one should be recognized as the most reliable, since the monk Jacob and the Monk Nestor agree on the year 987; monk Jacob says that Prince Vladimir lived 28 years after baptism (1015-28 = 987), and also that in the third year after Baptism ( i.e. in 989) made a trip to Korsun and took it; the chronicler St. Nestor says that Prince Vladimir was baptized in the summer of 6495 from the creation of the world, which corresponds to the year 987 from the Nativity of Christ (6695-5508 = 987). So, having decided to accept Christianity, Vladimir captures Chersonese and sends messengers to the Byzantine emperor Basil II demanding to give him the emperor's sister Anna as his wife. Otherwise, threatening to approach Constantinople. Vladimir was flattered to intermarry with one of the powerful imperial houses, and along with the adoption of Christianity, this was a wise step aimed at strengthening the state. The people of Kiev and the inhabitants of the southern and western cities of Rus' reacted calmly to baptism, which cannot be said about the northern and eastern Russian lands. For example, to conquer the Novgorodians, it even took a whole military expedition from Kiev. The Christian religion was considered by Novgorodians as an attempt to infringe on the ancient primordial autonomy of the northern and eastern lands.

In their eyes, Vladimir seemed like an apostate who had trampled on his original liberties.

First of all, Prince Vladimir baptized 12 of his sons and many boyars. He ordered the destruction of all idols, the main idol - Perun, to be thrown into the Dnieper, and the clergy to preach a new faith in the city.

On the appointed day, a mass baptism of the people of Kiev took place at the place where the Pochaina River flows into the Dnieper. "The very next day," says the chronicler, "Vladimir went out with the priests of the Tsaritsyn and Korsun to the Dnieper, and people gathered there without number. Enter the water and stand there alone up to the neck, others up to the chest, young ones near the shore up to the chest, some held babies, and already adults wandered, the priests prayed, standing still. Vladimir was glad that he knew God and his people, looked at the sky and said: “Christ God, who created heaven and earth! Look at these new people and let them, Lord, know You, the true God, as the Christian countries have known You. Establish in them a right and unswerving faith, and help me, Lord, against the devil, so that I can overcome his wiles, relying on You and Your strength.

This most important event took place, according to the chronicle chronology accepted by some researchers, in 988, according to others - in 989-990. Following Kiev, Christianity gradually comes to other cities of Kievan Rus: Chernigov, Novgorod, Rostov, Vladimir-Volynsky, Polotsk , Turov, Tmutarakan, where dioceses are being created. Under Prince Vladimir, the overwhelming majority of the Russian population adopted the Christian faith and Kievan Rus became a Christian country. The Baptism of Rus' created the necessary conditions for the formation of the Russian Orthodox Church. Bishops headed by the Metropolitan arrived from Byzantium, and priests from Bulgaria brought with them liturgical books in the Slavic language; churches were built, schools were opened to train clergy from the Russian environment.

The chronicle reports (under the year 988) that Prince Vladimir "ordered to chop down churches and put them in the places where idols used to stand. And he built a church in the name of St. Basil on the hill where the idol of Perun and others stood and where the prince and And in other cities they began to set up churches and identify priests in them and bring people to Baptism in all cities and villages. relics Equal-to-the-Apostles Princess Olga. This temple symbolized the true triumph of Christianity in Kievan Rus and materially personified the "spiritual Russian Church."

2006

Introduction

1. History of the canonization of saints

3. Old Russian saints

Conclusion

Numerous disparate calendars and diptychs, local veneration and separate celebrations of saints brought many inconveniences to the hagiographic, liturgical and hymnographic practice of the Church. In this regard, the question arose about the unification of the calendar. Simeon Metaphrastus and John Xifilinus compiled a corpus of minologies of all the saints revered throughout the Greek Empire. This minology is essentially the foundation of the later "clergy of the Church of Constantinople", who became part of the saints of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and through them into the saints of the Russian Church.

2. Features of the canonization of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church

The earliest document concerning the practice of canonization in the Eastern Church is the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Kalek (Apren) to the Kievan Metropolitan Theognost (1339) on the relics of St. Alexis.

The Russian Orthodox Church, when classifying ascetics as saints, was guided by the rules, which in in general terms reminiscent of the rules of the Church of Constantinople. It should be noted that the main criterion for canonization was the gift of miracles, which manifested itself during the life and after the death of the saint. In some cases, the presence of incorruptible remains was the basis for canonization. There were three types of canonization. Along with the faces of saints, according to the nature of their church service (martyrs, saints, reverends, etc.), the Russian Church also distinguished saints by the prevalence of their veneration - local temple, local diocesan and nationwide.

Local temple and local diocesan saints could be canonized ruling bishop with the knowledge of the Metropolitan (later - the Patriarch) of All Rus'. Canonization could be limited only to a verbal blessing for the veneration of a local ascetic. In this regard, when considering the history of Russian canonizations, one can find a fairly large number of saints who do not have a written definition for their veneration, but in reality they are venerated, while having solemn services and rites and great fame. Most of the saints of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church do not have any formal, documentary evidence of their canonization as saints, for example, the ascetics from the patericons, but they are all included in the national calendar and even Russian calendar calendars" without formal regulations.

The right to canonize church-wide saints belonged to the Patriarch Metropolitan or the Metropolitan of All Rus' with the participation of the Council of Russian Hierarchs.

In monasteries, the veneration of ascetics could begin by decision of the council of monastic elders, who later presented the case for approval by the local bishop. Previously, the diocesan authorities carried out work to certify the authenticity of miracles at the tomb of the deceased (and often in incorruptible relics). Then a solemn divine service was established in the local church and a day was appointed to honor the saint, a special service was compiled, an icon was painted, as well as a “life” depicting miracles, certified by an inquiry from church authorities.

In the history of the canonization of saints in the Russian Orthodox Church, five periods can be distinguished: from the baptism of Rus' to the Makarievsky Councils, the Makarievsky Councils proper (1547 and 1549); from the Macarius Councils to the establishment of the Holy Synod; synodal and modern periods.

3. Old Russian saints

Each of us at least once heard the names of ancient Russian saints. This is Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir (died in 1015. Further, the years of death are indicated in brackets), and the noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), venerable Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves (1074, 1075), the Monk Ilya of Muromets (c. 1188), the holy noble Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, in schema Alexy (1263), the Monks Sergius and Herman of Valaam (c. 1353), the Monk Alexander Peresvet, schema-monk-warrior , Radonezhsky (1380), Rev. Andrey Oslyabya, schema-monk-warrior, Radonezhsky (XIV century), holy noble Grand Duke Dimitri Donskoy (1389), St. Sergius of Radonezh, miracle worker (1392), Rev. Andrei Rublev (XV century), reverend Nil of Sorsk (1508), Saint Maxim the Greek (1556), Holy Martyr Paul the Russian (1683), Saint Pitirim, Bishop of Tambov (1698), Saint Mitrofan of Voronezh (1703), Saint Joasaph, Bishop of Belgorod (1754), Saint Seraphim of Sarov ( 1833) .

Prince Vladimir was the great-grandson of Rurik, the grandson of Grand Duchess Olga, and the son of Prince Svyatoslav and the Christian Malusha, the housekeeper in his house.

The young prince of Novgorod Vladimir was distinguished by a stern, irrepressible character and sometimes a quick temper. Although he was brought up in tolerance and love by a Christian, Saint Olga, he took an example in everything from his warrior father, who until the end of his days worshiped idols. Therefore, the first years of the reign of Vladimir, who showed himself to be an ardent pagan, were marked by many unseemly deeds and deeds.

Tradition, which has come down to our days, depicts Prince Vladimir in the first years of his reign as a man of unbridled passions, a lover of noisy feasts, military campaigns and sensual pleasures. The pagan religion allowed the prince to have as many wives as he wanted, he had three more legal wives. Meanwhile, grand-ducal affairs demanded special attention from Vladimir. Increasingly, in Rus', the preaching of Christ was heard, brought from enlightened countries.

The legend tells how the Grand Duke Vladimir gathered the boyars in his chambers in 986 and began to receive ambassadors from different countries who sought to attach a powerful state to their faith and thus gain a strong ally.

The speedy baptism of the Grand Duke was also facilitated by certain military and political circumstances that firmly tied Orthodox Byzantium and Rus'.

Holy tradition says that before baptism, a misfortune happened to the prince. A sudden illness weakened his body and took away his sight. The prince began to hesitate whether to accept Christianity, but the wise princess Anna said to her betrothed: “Accept temporary blindness as a visitation from God, for the Lord wants to enlighten you by revealing a miracle; if you want to get better, then be baptized, prince, in the name of the Holy Trinity. Vladimir ordered to prepare everything for baptism. A font was prepared in the Church of the Holy Apostle Jacob. With the greatest solemnity, with a huge gathering of courtiers and retinues, the Bishop of Korsun performed the sacrament of baptism of Grand Duke Vladimir. As soon as the bishop laid his hand on the head of the newly baptized and began to plunge it into the font with the words: "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Prince Vladimir received his sight. But not only his eyes saw the light, the prince's soul also gained sight, to which the whole depth of the Christian faith was revealed. “Now I have known the true God!” - Vladimir exclaimed, and his whole later life was a confirmation of this. He marked his righteous deeds with a welcome event. In Korsun, he erected a church named after St. Basil (the angel of Prince Vladimir). The city itself was returned to Byzantium as a sign of friendship and reconciliation.

For thirty-three years the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir sat on the throne of Kiev, for twenty-eight years he ruled the state, already being baptized. And all these years, the prince contributed to the spread of enlightenment in Rus', built churches and cities, and at the same time successfully repelled the attacks of unfriendly neighbors. For good deeds and tireless concern for the state, the Russian people began to affectionately call the Grand Duke - Vladimir the Red Sun.

The first Russian saints glorified by the Church are the noble princes Boris and Gleb. It is known that their canonization became an example for the glorification as saints of Emperor Nicholas II and his family in 2000. They were the younger sons of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir. Boris had an ardent desire to imitate the feat of the saints of God and often prayed that the Lord would honor him with such an honor. Gleb was brought up with his brother from early childhood and shared his desire to devote his life exclusively to serving God. The brothers were distinguished by mercy and kindness of heart. In everything they tried to imitate the example of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir, who was merciful, sympathetic to the poor, sick, destitute. Shortly before his death, his father called Boris to Kyiv and sent him with an army against the Pechenegs. However, the death of Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir soon followed. His eldest son, Svyatopolk, declared himself the Grand Duke of Kyiv. He did not believe that Boris would not claim the throne sent assassins to him. Saint Boris was informed of such an act by Svyatopolk, but did not hide and readily met death. The assassins overtook him when he was praying for Matins on Sunday, July 24, 1015, in his tent on the banks of the Alta River. After that, Svyatopolk just as treacherously killed the holy prince Gleb. Svyatopolk summoned his brother from Murom and sent vigilantes to meet him in order to kill Saint Gleb on the way. Prince Gleb already knew about the death of his father and the villainous murder of Prince Boris. Deeply grieving, he preferred death to war with his brother.

The feat of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb consisted in the fact that they gave their lives for the sake of observing obedience, on which the spiritual life of a person and, in general, all life in society is based.

Ilya Muromets became a monk, already crowned with the glory of a hero beloved by the people and the winner of adversaries. He himself never sought glory: neither on the battlefield, nor even more so in the monastery. His monastic deeds are hidden from us, but, undoubtedly, they were great, even greater and more difficult than the feats of arms - proof of this is the imperishable relics of Elijah, which still lie in the Near caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.

Moscow priest John Lukyanov, in his "Journey to the Holy Land" in the 17th century, writes: "We went to Anthony's cave and there we saw the brave warrior Ilya Muromets in incorruption, lying under the cover of gold, growing like today's large people, his left hand was pierced by a stump, an ulcer everything is visible, and the right hand depicts the sign of the cross. From this description it can be seen that Ilya Muromets was not a fabulous giant, but was a very large and strong man.

The Monk Elijah was born in the village of Karacharovo near the ancient Russian city of Murom. The name of this village has been preserved to this day. The name of Elijah's father, the peasant Ivan Timofeevich, has also been lovingly preserved by the people's memory. Other heroes are mostly knights of a noble family, Dobrynya Nikitich is even a relative of Prince Vladimir, according to the annals - his uncle, according to epics - his nephew. Ilya Muromets is the only peasant by birth among Russian heroes. And it was he who was given the greatest strength - both spiritual and bodily.

From birth, Elijah was weak, he could not even walk until he was thirty years old. And it is clear that in these thirty years great patience and humility, great meekness were brought up in him, if by God's Providence he was determined to become at that troubled time at the head of the entire heroic army. Their young strength and power, always agitated, ready to break out in a quarrel, needed just such a leader, respected by everyone for his spiritual strength, uniting and reconciling everyone. "Under the glorious city near Kiev, there was a heroic outpost. At the outpost was Ilya Muromets, the ataman, Dobrynya Nikitich was the subtaman, Alyosha, the priest's son, was the captain." Vasnetsov captured these words from the epic in his famous painting "Three Heroes".

It can be seen from the epics that Ilya Muromets is a special chosen one of God, strength is given to him by a miracle, through the holy elders, "passing kaliks", that is, wandering monks. They come to his house, where he habitually remains silent alone, and with authority they say: "Go and bring us a drink." Trying to obediently fulfill the order of the elders, he receives help from above and gets up. Here, the moment of testing the faith of Elijah is very important - "according to your faith, let it be done to you" (Gospel of Matthew, ch. 9, article 29). The Lord does not do anything to a person by force. It requires the free aspiration of the will of man, his determination, in order to receive everything else for free, by grace. The future great hero was worthy of his chosenness. One had to have truly great faith in order to try to get up after thirty years of immobility at the request of the "passers-by".

Having received power by a miracle, already at a mature age, Elijah could not be proud of it, he carried it through his whole life as a precious gift that does not belong to him, but to all the Russian people, whom he served unchangingly and unselfishly, in sorrows and hardships, until old age , becoming for many years the image of his spiritual and bodily strength.

Everything shows that Elijah received a good Christian upbringing. Going to heroic deeds, he bows to the ground before his father and mother, asks them for a great blessing. The father and mother understand the high purpose of their son, they understand that great power was given to him from God for a reason. The people are already old, nevertheless they unquestioningly release Elijah, give him a great blessing and a covenant not to shed Christian blood. And in all the exploits of the hero, we see that he never enters the battle out of daring or in the heat of anger. He uses the power granted to him only to protect his Fatherland or restore justice. But even before the battle with the pagan Tsar Kalin, who threatened to take Kyiv, Elijah persuaded him for a long time to leave voluntarily, not to shed blood in vain. And here, and in every deed of the holy hero, one can see his calm, quiet disposition, Christian long-suffering and mercy.

The holy noble Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky was the great-grandson of Vladimir Monomakh and descended from his youngest son, Grand Duke Yuri Dolgorukov, the ancestor of the younger, northern branch of the Monomakhs. In his face, in the rarest way, statesmanship, distinguishing feature princes of this branch, and military prowess was combined with holiness. It must be considered a special happiness for Rus' that after its defeat by the Tatars and the battle in the City, his father became the Grand Duke. Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, intercessor for the Russian people before the Khan. No wonder his contemporaries called him "a sufferer for the Russian land" - he laid down his soul for it, poisoned by the Tatars.

Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky was born in 1220 in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, where his father Yaroslav Vsevolodovich reigned. He led the Russian troops that defended the northwestern lands of Rus' from being captured by Swedish and German feudal lords. After the landing of the Swedish troops at the confluence of the river. Izhora in the river. On the Neva, Alexander Nevsky with a small retinue, having joined with the Ladoga residents, on July 15, 1240, suddenly attacked the Swedes and completely defeated their large army, revealing exceptional courage in battle.

Alexander received his nickname "Nevsky" for the Battle of the Neva in 1240, which averted the threat of an enemy invasion from the North. The victory contributed to the growth of the political influence of Alexander Nevsky, but at the same time contributed to the aggravation of his relations with the boyars, as a result of which Alexander Nevsky was forced to leave Novgorod. After the Livonian knights invaded Rus', the Novgorodians asked Alexander Nevsky to return. In the spring of 1241, he created an army that expelled the invaders from Russian cities. A large cavalry army led by the master of the order opposed Alexander Nevsky, but it suffered a decisive defeat on April 5, 1242 on the ice of Lake Peipsi. In the history of the military art of the Middle Ages, the victory of Alexander Nevsky on Lake Peipsi was of great importance: the Russian foot army surrounded and defeated the knightly cavalry and foot bollards, long before the infantry in Western Europe learned to defeat the knights. Thanks to this victory, Alexander Nevsky stood in the ranks of the largest military leaders of his time. The aggression of the German knights against Rus' was stopped.

Alexander Nevsky made a great contribution to the strengthening of the northwestern borders of Rus', showed himself to be a cautious and far-sighted politician. Alexander Nevsky was canonized by the Russian Church. At the end of the 13th century "The Life of Alexander Nevsky" was compiled, in which Alexander Nevsky appeared as an ideal warrior prince, defender of the Russian land from enemies. In accordance with the order of Peter I, the remains of Alexander Nevsky were transported to St. Petersburg. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the Order of Alexander Nevsky was established on May 21, 1725. On July 29, 1942, the Soviet military order of Alexander Nevsky was established in honor of Alexander Nevsky.

Conclusion

In Rus', the cult of saints appeared with the introduction of Christianity. The Orthodox Church, having borrowed many saints from the common Christian pantheon, began the canonization of Russian saints as well. The cult of saints is widespread in Christianity (it does not exist in Protestantism) and in Islam. There are about 400 saints in Orthodoxy, half less in Catholicism.

Russian saints are the divine fruit of the millennial Orthodox faith of the Russian people.

Little is said about them and rarely written about. But when in 1941 the time of trials for Russia came, they again remembered the forgotten names of the holy noble grand dukes.

In our perhaps no less difficult time of the moral testing of the Russian people, we need even more support in the face of Russian saints. After all, in their earthly life, with their purity, justice, spirituality and righteous living, they created a moral shield for the Russian people.

Bibliography

Yablokov I.N. Religious studies: textbook. - M.: Gardariki, 2002.

Karpov A.Yu. Orthodox saints and miracle workers: Ancient Rus'. Moscow Rus'. Russian empire. - M.: "Veche", 2005.

Skorobogatko N.V. Russian saints. - M.: White City, 2004.

Krupin V. Russian saints. Moscow: Veche, 2006.

Only a single spiritual life could make Ancient Rus' a state - after all, in pagan times, different tribes and regions recognized different gods as their patrons, which even caused armed conflicts. It was Orthodoxy that essentially united Rus' for the first time, creating a strong country with the help of spiritual bonds.

In Rus', many saints are glorified, each in his own face, that is, the rank in which a person is canonized: these are martyrs and passion-bearers, reverends, righteous people, saints, holy fools, faithful and equal to the apostles - usually rulers, princes. We will talk about the most revered Russian saints. In Russia, saints are not glorified in some ranks, for example, the apostles.

Memorial Day of the Cathedral of All Russian Saints is the second Sunday after the feast of the Holy Trinity (Pentecost).

Baptism of Rus' - Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir

The Baptism of Rus' is only symbolically named by the same name as the Sacrament of Baptism, which is performed on a person. This process can be called active missionary work in Rus' and the personal preaching of Prince Vladimir, who was baptized independently and baptized Rus'. Also, as a result of Baptism, the Orthodox Church became the state institution of Kievan Rus.

At some point, Prince Vladimir realized that paganism was becoming obsolete and began to reform polytheism by creating a common pantheon of gods in 983. However, the tribes in the country continued to quarrel among themselves, arguing which of the gods is stronger and, accordingly, which of the tribes is more powerful under his patronage (there were, for example, the Veles tribe, the Svarog tribe, depending on the region).

Back in 983, Prince Vladimir himself made sacrifices and was a tormentor, and only five years later he became Prince Vladimir the Red Sun, the Baptist of Rus'. We know many examples of people who became Christians only in words. Vladimir was not like that: he dropped the foundations of Christianity and decided that this religion would be useful not only for the state system, but also for the moral state of people. He was baptized himself and changed his life, trying to follow the ideals of Christ. It is known that the prince began to take care of the poor a lot, he ceased to be a polygamist (previously he had a large harem of concubines). It was thanks to his life and sincere activity that he was canonized as a saint Equal to the Apostles, and not at all because the Church thanked him for the "new lands."

The soul of the prince himself underwent the main transformation and enlightenment, realizing the lack of spirituality and cruelty of paganism.

In 988, Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity in Korsun (Chersonese, then a colony of Byzantium), married the Orthodox princess Anna and began the process of Christianization and missionary work in the state. In the rivers Dnieper and Pochaina, he baptized the squad, boyars and courtiers. Now, over the place of their Baptism on the Kyiv mountains, there is a monument to Prince Vladimir.

The Beginning of Holiness in Rus' - Blessed Princess Olga

The biography of Equal-to-the-Apostles Princess Olga is a stunning historical evidence of how the life of one person, according to the commandments of God, is capable of enlightening an entire state. If the life of many saints is brief, through the centuries only fragmentary information about the personality of one or another early Christian martyr or ancient Russian hermit has come down to us, then the life of the holy princess was documented. A number of chronicles vividly describe her activities in the successful management of the state, the upbringing of her son, diplomatic trips and Baptism, and attempts to plant Christianity in Rus'. Given the difficult position of women in ancient Rus', the rejection of Christianity by the Russians and the loneliness of the saint in Christian life, the personality of the holy princess Olga is admirable. And believers have great joy that the saint comes to the aid of all those who ask for her mercy and intercession in many troubles.

Despite her great role in history, the saint helps everyone who comes to her with prayer. It is not for nothing that for many centuries the name Olga has remained one of the most common in Russia: girls are entrusted with the patronage of a truly wise, beautiful and strong-spirited saint.

Those who have labored in the spiritual life for the good of the state and their rulers are also called noble believers: for example, this is the revered holy prince Alexander Nevsky.

Martyrs, sufferers for the sake of Christ, passion-bearers

Already in early Christian times, the first martyrs appeared - people who gave their lives for the faith of Christ, refusing to betray the Lord, to renounce Christianity. Over time, a division into martyrs and passion-bearers appeared - those who suffered torment from the Gentiles and from fellow believers. After all, Christianity became the official religion in many countries, and people who professed Christianity in words turned out to be villains in reality.

The first Russian martyrs, more precisely, martyrs, were Saints Boris and Gleb, the sons of Prince Vladimir, the Baptist of Rus'. They were killed by their brother Yaropolk the Accursed, baptized, but not enlightened by the light of Christ's truth.

In the 20th century, with the beginning of the persecution of the Church, a whole host of martyrs and confessors appeared from the Soviet authorities - those who professed Christianity through suffering, life, and not death.

The Russian land became famous for many saints, but most of all among them are the saints. This is the rank of saints who performed many ascetic feats for the sake of Christ: after all, in Russia there are many dense forests, abandoned places, where the monks went to pray in silence and loneliness for the whole world: they died for the world, in order to rise for Christ, grow in spiritual life . And surprisingly, the Lord God glorified many of them during his lifetime: even in impenetrable thickets, people found the righteous, and when they healed them with their prayers, helped in all needs, they told others. Thus, both princes and noble people gathered around the saints, who were enlightened by their wisdom. The saints blessed them for military exploits and reconciled the belligerents, helped people and themselves grew in abstinence, fasting and prayer.

Saint Sergius of Radonezh

St. Sergius of Radonezh from ancient times bears the name of the Abbot of the Russian Land - and therefore, the head of Russian monasticism. It was he who arranged the first large monastery - the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (located in the city of Sergiyev Posad, named after the saint) on the lands of Moscow Rus', raised a whole galaxy of students who dispersed throughout the country and created their own monasteries. He approved the foundations of monastic life in relation to Rus' (after all, the Rule of monastic life was written in the south, in Syria, where both the climate and the mentality differ from Russia).

Saint Sergius became famous for his kindness, asceticism and great faith into God. These qualities have been in him since childhood. He prayed as a child, attended the temple with his parents, like all the guys went to school. His life was completely turned over by a miracle that happened to him in childhood: the Angel of God visibly enlightened him, who could not understand the letter. Since then, Bartholomew has found a cherished dream: to become a monk, to devote himself to Almighty God. At first he helped his parents, and when they grew old and died, he went to the monastery, and there, with the blessing of the abbot, to the forests to live alone - in the "desert" - and pray to the Lord for the whole world. Sometimes, in order to partake of the Holy Mysteries and resolve everyday issues, he also visited the monastery. People saw how kind he was, how he believed in the Lord and was ascetic. Many began to come to Bartholomew, who had taken monastic tonsure with the name Sergius and the priesthood. He introduced a cenobitic charter - everyone who came to the monastery divided the property among themselves, lived on donations, and Saint Sergius himself took the least of all.

Soon the princes began to come to the monk. He gave wise advice to everyone, called for a virtuous Christian life, reconciled those who were waging internecine warfare. It was he who blessed Prince Dimitry Donskoy, also later glorified as a saint, for the battle on the Kulikovo Field.

Righteous John of Kronstadt

Righteous saints are those who lived in the world, but were glorified by the Lord after death - for example, Saints Peter and Fevronia, the parents of Sergius of Radonezh, Cyril and Mary - or even during their lifetime, like Saint John of Kronstadt. Few of these people have been glorified - apparently, it is difficult to find holiness in the world, but it washes, they go unknown to the Lord and gain glory only from Him, remaining hidden for others.

John of Kronstadt is a saint whose name is known throughout the Orthodox world. Even during his lifetime, he, a priest of a large cathedral near the capital, the founder of a large metropolitan monastery, was known throughout the Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He worked marvelous miracles. And today, people continue to share testimonies of his help orally, in print and on the Internet.

A simple priest of St. Andrew's Cathedral in Kronstadt, a suburb of the then capital of Russia - St. Petersburg, he was glorified by God for his virtuous life, filled with prayers for the needy, caring for the poor and alcoholics, of which there were many in the port of Kronstadt, preaching and missionary work. He had no children of his own, and the good shepherd, the modest priest, seemed to have adopted all the unfortunate people who came to him. Millions donated to him, and he distributed everything to the poor and needy, asking for support. Rumors about healings, the exorcism of evil spirits from people, a miraculous change in destinies after the prayer of Father John went throughout the country.

Blessed

The feat of foolishness or bliss is one of the most difficult spiritual paths in Christianity. People go to them for the sake of God, but under the secret spiritual guidance of experienced mentors-monks, spiritual fathers.

It was only in Ancient Rus' that holy fools began to be called "blessed". Foolishness is a spiritual feat of voluntary, for the purpose of salvation and pleasing Christ, renunciation of the world, pleasures and pleasures, but not in monasticism, but being “in the world”, but without adhering to generally accepted social norms. The holy fool takes on the appearance of an insane or unreasonable, naive person. Many people swear and ridicule such holy fools, but the blessed always endure deprivation and humiliation humbly. The goal of foolishness is the achievement of inner humility, the victory of the main sin, pride.

However, the holy fools over time, having reached a certain spiritual measure, in an allegorical form denounced the sins in the world (verbally or by action). This served as a means of humility of oneself and humility of the world, improvement of other people.

The most famous Russian blesseds are St. Basil - a Moscow miracle worker who lived during the time of Ivan the Terrible, St. Xenyushka and St. Matronushka.

Xenia the Blessed is one of the most revered and loved by the people of the saints. "Ksenyushka" - many affectionately called her during her lifetime, they still call her now, when she helps us from Heaven with her prayers. She lived relatively recently - in the 18th century (after all, many revered saints to whom the whole Church prays lived in the first centuries of our era, at the dawn of Christianity).

Blessed Xenia in St. Petersburg of the 18th century was very famous. After the death of her husband Andrei. St. Andrew's Church on Vasilyevsky Island, she gave away all the property and portrayed madness - she began to be called the name of her husband. In reality, she did not want her relatives to marry her, a young widow of 27 years old, and only cared about the afterlife of her beloved husband. She prayed for their life together in Heaven, for the Lord to accept her beloved husband into the Kingdom of Heaven. For the sake of love for her husband and for God, she accepted the feat of poverty and foolishness (imaginary madness), received from the Lord the gift of prophecy and healing.

Matrona, Blessed Matrona, Saint Matrona of Moscow - all these are the names of one saint, revered by the entire Orthodox Church, beloved and dear to Orthodox Christians all over the world. The saint was born in the 19th century and died already in 1952. There are many witnesses to her holiness who saw Matronushka during her lifetime. Even monks from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra came to her for spiritual advice and consolation.

Matronushka still helps those who pray today, there are many testimonies of miracles after prayers before her icons and relics in the Matrona Church on Taganka and of the appearances of the blessed Matrona in a dream to believers.

May the Lord keep you with the prayers of all Russian saints!

Chapter 1. Boris and Gleb - holy martyrs. Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Conclusion Literature index Bibliography

Why is this book so important to us today? First of all, it reminds us of those moral ideals on which more than one generation of our ancestors was brought up. The myth of the backwardness of Ancient Rus' has long been dispelled by scientists, but still continues to take root in the minds of a huge number of our compatriots. We have already understood the height of the Old Russian craft, sometimes already unattainable for us, we are beginning to understand the significance of Old Russian music and literature.

I am glad that the propaganda of ancient Russian music is expanding, and it is finding more and more fans. With ancient Russian literature, the situation is more complicated. First, the level of culture has fallen. Secondly, access to primary sources is extremely difficult. The publication of Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus', undertaken by the Department of Old Russian Literature of the Pushkin House, is not yet able to satisfy the growing demands of readers due to the small circulation. That is why the publishing house "Nauka" is preparing a twenty-volume edition of "Monuments" in a two hundred thousandth edition. We have yet to learn and comprehend all the greatness of ancient Russian literature.

What is the value of the publication of Georgy Fedotov's book for us? It introduces us to a special and almost forgotten world of ancient Russian holiness. The moral principle has always been necessary in public life. Morality is ultimately the same in all ages and for all people. Honesty, conscientiousness in work, love for the Motherland, contempt for material wealth and at the same time concern for the public economy, love of truth, social activity - all this is taught to us by life.

When reading old literature, we must remember that even the old does not become obsolete if it is corrected for time, for other social conditions. The view of the historian must never leave us, otherwise we will not understand anything in culture and deprive ourselves of the greatest values ​​that inspired our ancestors.

Academician D. S. Likhachev

Archpriest Alexander Men. Back to the roots

He was justly compared with Chaadaev and Herzen. Like them, Georgy Petrovich Fedotov (1886–1951) was a European and world-class historian-thinker and publicist, and like them, he had the gift to clothe his ideas in a brilliant literary form.

Like them, the ancient saying can be applied to Fedotov: "There is no prophet in his own country." Like Chaadaev, he was attacked by various ideological camps and, like Herzen, he died in a foreign land.

But unlike Herzen, he did not go through painful crises, he did not know tragic disappointments and discords. Even having abandoned any views, this surprisingly harmonious person always retained from them what he considered authentic and valuable.

During his lifetime, Fedotov did not become, like Chaadaev and Herzen, a man of legend. He left Russia before gaining fame, and the émigré environment was too torn apart by passions so that it could truly appreciate the calm, independent, crystal-clear thought of the historian. Fedotov died in the Stalin era, when the very fact of emigration inevitably crossed out a person, whether he was a writer or artist, philosopher or scientist, from the national heritage.

Meanwhile, internally Fedotov always remained in Russia. His thoughts were with her both when he worked in France and when he went overseas. He thought a lot and intensely about her fate, studied her past and present. He wrote, armed with a scalpel of strictly historical analysis and criticism, bypassing the pitfalls of myths and prejudices. He did not rush from one extreme to another, although he knew that few among those around him would want to understand and accept him.

Fedotov closely followed the events taking place in his homeland and, as a rule, gave them deep and accurate assessments. But most of all he did for the study of Russian history. The past was not an end in itself for him. In his works, a conscious orientation is visible everywhere: to comprehend the soul of Ancient Rus', to see in its saints a specific national embodiment of the common Christian world ideal and to trace its fate in subsequent centuries. In particular, he was deeply disturbed by the tragedy of the Russian intelligentsia, and he sought to understand what they had retained and what they had lost from the original spirituality of Christianity. Like his friend, the famous philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874–1948), Fedotov considered political freedom and free creativity an integral part of cultural creation.

History gave Fedotov food for broad generalizations. His views were generally formed even before emigration. The well-known Russian scientist Vladimir Toporov rightly considers Fedotov to be a representative of the Russian philosophical revival, "which gave Russia and the world many glorious and very different names and had a great influence on the spiritual culture of the entire 20th century." But among them Fedotov occupies a special place. His own axial theme was what is commonly called the "philosophy of culture" or "theology of culture". And he developed this theme on the material of Russian history.

Today, shortly after the significant anniversary of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', Fedotov is finally returning home.

The meeting of our readers with him, with one of the main books of his life, can be considered a real celebration of national culture.

The origins of Fedotov are on the Volga. He was born in Saratov on October 1, 1886, a few months after the death of Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky, who immortalized the world of the provincial towns of the Volga region. The historian's father was an official under the governor. He died when George was eleven years old. The mother, a music teacher in the past, was forced to pull her three sons on her own (the pension was small). And yet she managed to give George a gymnasium education. He studied in Voronezh, lived in a boarding school at public expense. He suffered deeply in the oppressive atmosphere of the hostel. It was then, as a high school student, that Fedotov was imbued with the conviction that "it is no longer possible to live like this", that society needs radical transformations. At first, he seemed to find the answer to painful questions in the ideas of the sixties, populists, and by the end of the course he had already turned to Marxism and social democracy. In these new doctrines for Russia, he was most attracted by the pathos of freedom, social justice. And much later, having found his own way, Fedotov did not change his commitment to the democratic spirit.

From his school years, the future scientist and thinker was distinguished by organic integrity and some kind of enlightenment of nature. The protest against social ills did not infect his soul with bitterness. Physically weak, lagging behind his peers in their entertainment, Georgy was not tormented, as they say now, by "complexes", he was open, friendly, sympathetic. Perhaps his brilliant abilities played a role here.

But in 1904 the gymnasium was behind us. You have to choose your life path. An eighteen-year-old youth who considers himself a Social Democrat does not proceed from his own interests and tastes, but from the needs of the working class to which he has decided to devote himself. He comes to St. Petersburg and enters the Institute of Technology.

But he did not have long to study. The revolutionary events of 1905 interrupt the lectures. Fedotov returns to Saratov. There he takes part in rallies, in the activities of underground circles. Soon he is arrested and sentenced to exile. Thanks to the efforts of his grandfather, the chief of police, instead of being sent to Siberia, Fedotov was sent to Germany, to Prussia.

There he continues to be in contact with the Social Democrats, is expelled from Prussia, and studies at the University of Jena for two years. But in his views the first changes have already been outlined. He begins to doubt the inviolability of atheism and comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to find the right course for social transformation without a serious knowledge of history.

That is why, returning to St. Petersburg in 1908, Fedotov entered the Faculty of History and Philology.

Ties with circles of revolutionaries remain, but science is now at the center for Fedotov: history, sociology.

Fedotov was lucky with the teacher. It was the largest Russian specialist in the Middle Ages, Ivan Mikhailovich Grevs (1860–1941). At the lectures and seminars of Grevs, Fedotov not only studied the monuments and events of the past, but also learned to understand the meaning of living continuity in the history of peoples and eras. It was a school that largely determined the cultural studies of Fedotov.

However, once again, studies are interrupted under dramatic circumstances. In 1910, in the Saratov house of Fedotov, the police found proclamations brought from St. Petersburg. Actually, Georgy Petrovich himself had no direct relation to the matter: he only fulfilled the request of his acquaintances, but now he realized that he would be arrested again, and hastily left for Italy. And yet he graduated from the university course. First he came to St. Petersburg on someone else's documents, then he declared himself to the police, was sent to Riga and, finally, passed the exams.

He was appointed assistant professor of the university in the Department of the Middle Ages, but due to a lack of students, Fedotov had to work in the St. Petersburg Public Library.

There he became close friends with the historian, theologian and public figure Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev (1875-1960), who by that time had already traveled a difficult path from the “neo-Christianity” of D. S. Merezhkovsky to the Orthodox worldview. Kartashev helped Fedotov finally establish himself on the basis of the spiritual ideals of Christianity. For the young scientist, this did not mean burning what he worshipped. Having become a conscious and convinced Christian, he did not change one iota of his devotion to freedom, democracy, and cultural construction. On the contrary, in the Gospel he found a "justification" for the dignity of the individual, the eternal foundations of creativity and social service. Therefore, as his biographer writes, Fedotov saw in the First World War not only a disaster, but also "a struggle for freedom in alliance with Western democracies." He regarded the October Revolution as "great", comparable only to the English and French. But from the very beginning, he was worried about the possibility of its degeneration into "personal tyranny." Historical experience gave rise to rather pessimistic forecasts.

However, starting from the war years, Fedotov moved away from social activities and completely went into scientific work. In Petrograd, he became close to the Christian thinker Alexander Meyer (1876–1939), who wrote “on the table,” and his religious and philosophical circle. The circle did not join the political opposition, but set itself the goal of preserving and developing the spiritual treasures of Russian and world culture. At first, the orientation of this community was somewhat amorphous, but gradually most of its members entered the Church's fold. Such was the path of Fedotov himself, and until the last day of his life in his homeland, he was associated with Meyer and his like-minded people, participated in their Free Voices magazine, which lasted only one year (1918).

Like many cultural figures, Fedotov had to experience the hardships of the hungry and cold years of the Civil War. He failed to defend his dissertation. Continued to work in the library. Got typhus. After his marriage in 1919, he had to find new means of subsistence. And it was then that Fedotov was offered the chair of the Middle Ages in Saratov. In the autumn of 1920 he arrived in his native city.

Of course, he could not expect that in this formidable era, students would be interested in medieval studies. But some of his courses and talks on religious and philosophical topics gathered a huge audience. Soon, however, Fedotov became convinced that the university was placed under strict conditions of censorship. This forced him to leave Saratov in 1922. The sad fact remains that many, like Fedotov, honest and principled people unwittingly became outsiders. They were increasingly pushed aside by opportunists who quickly assimilated the new "revolutionary" jargon. The era of the great Russian exodus began, when the country was losing many prominent figures.

For several years, Fedotov tried to find his place in the current conditions. In 1925 he published his first book, Abelard, about the famous medieval philosopher and theologian. But the censorship did not let the article about Dante through.

The Leninist NEP was fading away, the general atmosphere in the country was changing noticeably. Fedotov understood that events were taking that ominous turn that he had long foreseen. He was alien to monarchism and restorationism. The “rightists” remained for him the carriers of the dark, inert element. However, being a historian, he was able to assess the real situation very early. Later, already abroad, he gave an accurate and balanced assessment of Stalinism. In 1937, he wrote with irony about emigrants who dreamed of "getting rid of the Bolsheviks" when "it was not "they" who ruled Russia. Not them, but him." One of the symptoms of the political metamorphosis that took place under Stalin, Fedotov considered the dispersal of the Society of Old Bolsheviks. “It would seem,” the historian notes, “there is no place for Trotskyists by definition in the Society of Old Bolsheviks. Trotsky is an old Menshevik who joined Lenin's party only during the October Revolution; the dissolution of this powerless but influential organization shows that it is the traditions of Lenin that strike Stalin.

In a word, it is not difficult to understand what motives guided Fedotov when he decided to leave for the West. It was not easy for him to take this step, especially since A. Meyer and friends in the religious and philosophical circle were against emigration. And yet Fedotov did not postpone. In September 1925, he left for Germany, having with him a certificate that allowed him to work abroad during the Middle Ages. What awaited him, if he did not do so, we can guess from the fate of Meyer. Four years after Fedotov's departure, the members of the circle were arrested, and Meyer was sentenced to death, from which he was saved only by the intercession of an old friend, A. Yenukidze. The philosopher spent the rest of his life in camps and exile. His works were published in Paris almost forty years after his death.

So, for Fedotov, a new period of life began, the life of a Russian exile.

A brief attempt to settle down in Berlin; futile efforts to find a place for themselves in the Parisian medieval studies; the first appearances in the press with essays on the Russian intelligentsia; ideological confrontation with various emigrant currents. In the end, his fate is determined by an invitation to the Theological Institute, recently founded in Paris by Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky). His old friends, Anton Kartashev and Sergei Bezobrazov, later a bishop and translator of the New Testament, are already teaching there.

At first, naturally, he reads the history of the Western confessions and the Latin language, this was his element. But soon the department of hagiology, that is, the study of the lives of saints, was vacated, and Fedotov entered a new area for him, which has since become the main vocation of the historian.

Maneuvering in an emigrant environment was not easy. There were monarchists, ascetic-minded people who were suspicious of culture and the intelligentsia, and "Eurasians" who harbored hopes for a dialogue with the Soviets. Fedotov did not join any of these groups. Calm character, mind of an analyst, loyalty to the principles of cultural creativity and democracy did not allow him to accept any of the radical concepts. He became closest of all with the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, the publicist Ilya Fondaminsky, and the nun Maria, later a heroine of the Resistance. He participated in the movement of Russian Christian students, and in ecumenical work, but as soon as he noticed the spirit of narrowness, intolerance, "witch hunt", he immediately stepped aside, preferring to remain himself. He accepted the idea of ​​"restoration" in only one sense - as the revival of spiritual values.

In 1931, the "Karlovites", a church group that broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate, declared that the Orthodox and the autocracy were inseparable. The “Karlovites” attacked both the Theological Institute and the hierarchy in Russia, which at that time was under pressure from the Stalinist press. Fedotov could not sympathize with the “Karlovites”, who considered themselves “nationally minded”, not only for moral reasons: he was clearly aware that the Russian Church and the fatherland had entered a new phase of history, after which there was no turning back. In the same 1931, he founded the Novy Grad magazine with a broad cultural, social and Christian democratic platform. There he published many vivid and profound articles, mainly devoted to topical issues of world and Russian history, events and disputes of those days. People who wanted to stand on the other side of the "right" and "left" were grouped around the magazine: mother Maria, Berdyaev, Fyodor Stepun, Fondaminsky, Marina Tsvetaeva, philosophers Vladimir Ilyin, literary critics Konstantin Mochulsky, Yuri Ivask, monk Lev Gillet - a Frenchman who became Orthodox . Fedotov also published in Berdyaev's organ, the famous Parisian magazine Put'.

However, Fedotov most fully expressed his cherished thoughts in his historical writings. Back in 1928, he published a fundamental monograph on Metropolitan Philip of Moscow, who opposed the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and paid with his life for his courage. The topic was chosen by the historian not by chance. On the one hand, Fedotov wanted to show the unfairness of the reproaches against the Russian Church, which supposedly has always been distinguished by indifference to public life: and on the other hand, to debunk the myth that the old Muscovite Rus was almost the standard of the religious and social order.

Fedotov was deeply convinced that the primordial spiritual ideals of Orthodox Rus' are of lasting importance and are extremely important for the present. He only wanted to warn against unjustified nostalgia for the distant past, which had both light and shadow sides.

“Let us beware,” he wrote, “of two mistakes: to over-idealize the past and paint it entirely in a black light. In the past, as in the present, there was an eternal struggle between good and dark forces, truth and falsehood, but, as in the present, weakness, cowardice prevailed over good and evil. This "weakness" became, according to Fedotov, especially noticeable in the Moscow era. “It can be noted,” he writes, “that examples of the courageous lessons of the church to the state, which were frequent in the specific veche era of Russian history, become less frequent in the century of Moscow autocracy. It was easy for the Church to teach peacefulness and fidelity, the word of the cross to violent but weak princes, little connected with the earth and torn apart by mutual strife. But the Grand Duke, and later the Tsar of Moscow, became a “terrible” sovereign who did not like “meetings” and did not tolerate opposition to his will. All the more significant and attractive is, according to Fedotov, the figure of St. Philip of Moscow, who was not afraid to engage in single combat with a tyrant, before whom old and young trembled.

Feat of St. Filipp Fedotov examines against the backdrop of the patriotic activities of the Russian Church. The Moscow First Hierarch cared about his fatherland no less than St. Alexy, confessor of Prince Dmitry Donskoy. We are talking only about various aspects of patriotism. Some hierarchs contributed to the strengthening of the Grand Duke's throne, while others faced a different task - a social and moral one. "St. Philip, says the historian, gave his life in the fight against this very state, in the person of the king, showing that it must also submit to the higher principle of life. In the light of Filippov's feat, we understand that the Russian saints did not serve the great power of Moscow, but the light of Christ that shone in the kingdom, and only as long as this light shone.

In the conflict between Metropolitan Philip and Grozny, Fedotov saw a clash between the evangelical spirit and the government, which violated all ethical and legal norms. The historian's assessment of Grozny's role, as it were, anticipated discussions about this tsar related to Stalin's desire to turn him into an ideal monarch.

Fedotov also had to contend with those who, under the influence of the apocalyptic events of our century, came to the devaluation of culture, history, and creativity. It seemed to many that the world was going through an era of decline, that the West and Russia, albeit in different ways, were heading towards their end. It was not difficult to understand such moods, characteristic not only of the Russian emigration. Indeed, after the First World War, the consistent destruction of those institutions and values ​​that lived in the 19th century began. A fair amount of courage and stamina was needed, a firm faith was needed to overcome the temptation to "withdraw into oneself", passivity, and refusal to constructive work.

And Fedotov overcame this temptation.

He affirmed the value of labor and culture as an expression of the higher nature of man, his god-likeness. Man is not a machine, but an inspired worker, called to transform the world. The supernatural impulse has acted in history from its very beginning. It defines the difference between man and animal. It sanctifies not only the ups and downs of consciousness, but also the daily existence of a person. To regard culture as a diabolical invention is to reject the human birthright. The higher principle is manifested in both Apollo and Dionysus, that is, both in the enlightened mind and in the flaming element. “Not wanting to yield to the demons either the Apollonian Socrates or the Dionysian Aeschylus,” Fedotov wrote, “we Christians can give true names the divine forces that also acted, according to the Apostle Paul, in pre-Christian culture. These are the names of Logos and Spirit. One marks order, harmony, harmony, the other - inspiration, delight, creative impulse. Both principles are inevitably present in every cultural undertaking. And the craft and labors of the farmer are impossible without some creative joy. Scientific knowledge is unthinkable without intuition, without creative contemplation. And the creation of a poet or a musician involves rigorous labor, casting inspiration into rigorous art forms. But the principle of the Spirit prevails in artistic creativity as the beginning of the Logos - in scientific knowledge» .

There is a gradation in the spheres of creativity and culture, but in general they have a higher origin. Hence the impossibility of rejecting them, treating them as something transient, and therefore unnecessary.

Fedotov realized that human deeds can always be brought before the court of Eternity. But eschatology was not for him a reason for the "non-doing" preached by the Chinese Taoists. Explaining his attitude, he cited an episode from the life of a Western saint. When he, being a seminarian, was playing ball in the yard, he was asked: what would he do if he knew that the end of the world was soon? The answer was unexpected: "I would continue to play ball." In other words, if the game is evil, then it should be abandoned anyway; if not, then it always has value. Fedotov saw in the above story a kind of parable. Its meaning lies in the fact that work and creativity are always important, regardless of the historical era. In this he followed the apostle Paul, who condemned those who quit their jobs under the pretext of the imminent end of the world.

On the centenary of the birth of G. P. Fedotov, the American Russian almanac "The Way" published an editorial about him (New York, 1986, No. 8–9). The article was called "Creator of the Theology of Culture". And indeed, of the Russian thinkers, along with Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergei Bulgakov, Fedotov did the most for a deep understanding of the nature of culture. They see its root in spirituality, in faith, in intuitive comprehension of Reality. Everything that culture produces - religions, arts, social institutions - in one way or another goes back to this primary source. If the psychophysical properties of a person are a gift of nature, then his spirituality is a gift acquired in the transcendental dimensions of being. This gift allows a person to break through the rigid circle of natural determinism and create a new, non-existent, to move towards cosmic unity. Whatever forces hinder this ascent, it will be accomplished in spite of everything, realizing the secret inherent in us.

Creativity, according to Fedotov, has a personal character. But the individual is not an isolated entity. It exists in living relationships with surrounding individuals and the environment. This is how superpersonal, but individual images of national cultures are created. Accepting their value, Fedotov sought to see their unique features. And first of all, this task faced him when he studied the origins of Russian spiritual culture, sought to find the universal in the domestic, and at the same time - the national embodiment of the universal in the specific history of Russia. This is one of the main goals of Fedotov's book "The Saints of Ancient Rus'", which was published in Paris in 1931, was published twice more: in New York and in Paris - and is now offered to our readers.

The historian was inspired to write it not only by hagiology classes at the institute, but also by the desire to find the roots, the origins of Holy Rus' as a special unique phenomenon. It was not by chance that he turned to the ancient Lives. For Fedotov, his work was not "archeology", not a study of the past for its own sake. It was in pre-Petrine times that, in his opinion, the archetype of spiritual life was formed, which became the ideal for all subsequent generations. Of course, the history of this ideal was not unclouded. He worked his way through difficult social conditions. In many ways, his fate was tragic. But spiritual construction throughout the world and at all times was not an easy task and always faced obstacles that had to be overcome.

Fedotov's book on ancient Russian saints can be considered unique in some ways. Of course, many studies and monographs on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church and its prominent figures were written before him. Suffice it to recall the works of Filaret Gumilevsky, Makariy Bulgakov, Evgeny Golubinsky and many others. However, Fedotov was the first to give a holistic picture of the history of Russian saints, which was not drowned in details and combined a broad historiosophical perspective with scientific criticism.

As the literary critic Yuri Ivask wrote, “Fedotov sought to hear the voices of history in documents and monuments. At the same time, without distorting the facts and without artificially selecting them, he emphasized in the past what could be useful for the present. Before the book was published, Fedotov carried out a thorough study of the primary sources and their critical analysis. He outlined some of his initial principles a year later in the essay "Orthodoxy and Historical Criticism". In it, he spoke out both against those who believed that the criticism of sources encroaches on church tradition, and those who were prone to "hypercriticism" and, like Golubinsky, disputed the reliability of almost all ancient evidence.

Fedotov showed that faith and criticism not only do not interfere with each other, but must organically complement each other. Faith concerns those matters which are not subject to the judgment of science. In this respect, tradition and tradition are free from the conclusions of criticism. However, criticism “comes into its own whenever a tradition speaks of a fact, a word or an event limited in space and time. Everything that flows in space and time, that is available or was available to sensory experience, can be the subject of not only faith, but also knowledge. If science is silent about the mystery of the Trinity or the divine life of Christ, then it can give an exhaustive answer about the authenticity of the Constantine gift (once recognized in the East), about the work’s belonging to one or another father, about the historical situation of persecution of or activity ecumenical councils» .

As for "hyper-criticism", Fedotov emphasized that, as a rule, it is guided not by objective scientific considerations, but by certain ideological premises. In particular, these are the hidden springs of historical skepticism, ready from the threshold to deny everything, to cast it aside, to question it. This, according to Fedotov, is more likely not even skepticism, but “a passion for one’s own, new all the time, fantastic designs. In this case, instead of criticism, it is appropriate to speak of a kind of dogmatism, where not traditions, but modern hypotheses are dogmatized.

The historian also touched upon the question of miracles, which are so often found both in the ancient "Lives" and in the Bible. Here Fedotov also pointed to the demarcation line between faith and science. “The question of a miracle,” he wrote, “is a question of a religious order. No science, less historical than others, can solve the question of the supernatural or natural character of a fact. The historian can only state a fact that always admits not one, but many scientific or religious explanations. He has no right to eliminate a fact just because the fact goes beyond the boundaries of his personal or average worldly experience. The recognition of a miracle is not the recognition of a legend. The legend is characterized not by the mere presence of the miraculous, but by a combination of features pointing to its folk or literary, supra-individual existence; the absence of strong threads connecting it with this reality. The miraculous can be real, the natural can be legendary. Example: the miracles of Christ and the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus. Naivety, believing in legends, and rationalism, which denies miracles, are equally alien to Orthodox historical science—I would say, to science in general.”

Such a balanced approach, both critical and connected with the tradition of faith, was put by Fedotov at the basis of his book The Saints of Ancient Rus'.

Considering the theme of Fedotov's book, Vladimir Toporov correctly noted that the concept of holiness has its source in the pre-Christian tradition. In Slavic paganism, this concept is associated with a mysterious excess of vitality. To this we can only add that the terms "holy" and "holiness" also go back to the Bible, where they indicate the close connection of the earthly human with the supreme Secret divinity. A person called "saint" is consecrated to God, bears the seal of another world. In the Christian mind, saints are not just “kind”, “righteous”, “pious” people, but those who were involved in the transcendent Reality. They are fully characterized by the features of a particular person, inscribed in a certain era. And at the same time, they rise above it, pointing the way to the future.

In his book, Fedotov traces how a special Russian religious tin was formed in ancient Russian holiness. Although it is genetically connected with common Christian principles and the Byzantine heritage, individual features appeared in it very early.

Byzantium breathed the air of "sacred solemnity". Despite the enormous influence of monastic asceticism, she was immersed in the magnificent beauty of the sacrament, reflecting the immovable eternity. The writings of the ancient mystic, known as Dionysius the Areopagite, largely determined the world outlook, ecclesiastical and aesthetics of Byzantium. The ethical element, of course, was not denied, but it often receded into the background in comparison with aesthetics - this mirror of the "heavenly hierarchy".

Christian spirituality in Rus' acquired a different character already in the very first decades after Prince Vladimir. In the face of St. Theodosius of the Caves, having preserved the ascetic tradition of Byzantium, it strengthened the gospel element, which put active love, service to people, and mercy at the forefront.

This first stage in the history of ancient Russian holiness in the era of the Horde yoke is replaced by a new one - mystical. It is embodied by St. Sergius of Radonezh. Fedotov considers him the first Russian mystic. He does not find direct evidence of the connection between the founder of the Trinity Lavra and the Athos school of hesychasm, but he asserts their deep closeness. Hesychasm developed the practice of spiritual self-deepening, prayer, and the transformation of the personality through its innermost unity with God.

In the third, Moscow period, the first two tendencies collide. This happened due to the fact that the supporters of the social activity of the Church, the Josephites, began to rely on the support of powerful state power, which had grown stronger after the overthrow of the Horde yoke. Bearers of the ascetic ideal, St. Nil Sorsky and the “nonpossessors” did not deny the role of social service, but they were afraid of the Church turning into a rich and repressive institution and therefore opposed both monastic land ownership and the execution of heretics. In this conflict, the Josephites outwardly won, but their victory led to a deep and protracted crisis that gave rise to a split in the Old Believers. And then came another split that shook the whole of Russian culture - connected with the reforms of Peter.

Fedotov defined this chain of events as "the tragedy of ancient Russian holiness." But he also noted that, despite all the crises, the original ideal, which harmoniously combined service to society with spiritual self-deepening, did not die. In the same 18th century, when the Church found itself subject to the strict synodal system, the spirit of the ancient ascetics unexpectedly resurrected. “Under the soil,” writes Fedotov, “fertile rivers flowed. And just the age of the Empire, so seemingly unfavorable for the revival of Russian religiosity, brought a revival of mystical holiness. On the very threshold of a new era, Paisius (Velichkovsky), a student of the Orthodox East, finds the works of Nil Sorsky and bequeaths them to Optina Hermitage. Even St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, a student of the Latin school, preserves in his meek appearance the family features of the Sergius house. Since the 19th century, two spiritual bonfires have been lit in Russia, the flame of which warms the frozen Russian life: Optina Pustyn and Sarov. Both the angelic image of Seraphim and the Optina elders resurrect the classical age of Russian holiness. Together with them comes the time of rehabilitation of St. Nile, whom Moscow even forgot to canonize, but who in the 19th century, already venerated by the Church, for all of us is the spokesman for the deepest and most beautiful trend of ancient Russian asceticism.

When Fedotov wrote these lines, only three years had passed since the death of the last of the elders of Optina Hermitage. Thus, the light of the Christian ideal that took shape in ancient Rus' has reached our troubled century. This ideal was rooted in the gospel. Christ proclaims the most important two commandments: love for God and love for man. Here is the basis of the feat of Theodosius of the Caves, who combined prayer with active service to people. From him begins the history of the spirituality of the Russian Orthodox Church. And this story continues today. It is as dramatic as in the Middle Ages, but those who believe in vitality eternal values and ideals, they can agree with Fedotov that they are needed even now - both in our country and in the whole world. Fedotov continued to teach at the institute. Wrote numerous articles and essays. He published the books And Is and Will Be (1932), The Social Significance of Christianity (1933), Spiritual Poems (1935). But the work was getting harder. The political and social atmosphere became tense and gloomy. The coming to power of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco once again split the emigration. Many exiles saw in the totalitarian leaders of the West almost "the saviors of Russia." The democrat Fedotov, of course, could not accept such a position. More and more he felt alienated from the "nationally minded", who were ready to call on the "kingdom of the Bolsheviks" of any interventionists, no matter who they were.

When Fedotov publicly spoke out in 1936 that Dolores Ibarruri, for all his disagreement with her views, was closer to him than Generalissimo Franco, a hail of insinuations rained down on the historian. Even Metropolitan Evlogy, a man of broad views who respected Fedotov, expressed his disapproval of him. From that moment on, any political statement of the scientist was attacked. The last straw was the New Year's article of 1939, where Fedotov approved the anti-Hitler policy of the Soviet Union. Now the whole corporation of teachers of the Theological Institute, under pressure from the "rightists", condemned Fedotov.

This act aroused the indignation of the "knight of liberty" Nikolai Berdyaev. He responded to it with the article "Does Orthodoxy Have Freedom of Thought and Conscience?", which appeared shortly before the Second World War. “It turns out,” Berdyaev wrote, “that the defense of Christian democracy and human freedom is unacceptable for a professor at the Theological Institute. An Orthodox professor must be the defender of Franco, who betrayed his fatherland to foreigners and drowned his people in blood. It is absolutely clear that the condemnation of G. P. Fedotov by the professors of the Theological Institute was precisely a political act that deeply compromised this institution. Defending Fedotov, Berdyaev defended spiritual freedom, the moral ideals of the Russian intelligentsia, the universalism of the Gospel against narrowness and pseudo-traditionalism. According to him, “when they say that an Orthodox person should be “nationally minded” and not be an “intellectual,” they always want to protect the old paganism that has entered Orthodoxy, with which it has grown together and does not want to be cleansed. People of this formation may be very "Orthodox", but they are very few Christians. They even consider the gospel to be a Baptist book. They do not like Christianity and consider it dangerous to their instincts and emotions. Everyday life is paganism within Christianity. These lines were especially poignant in connection with the growing tendency to regard them only as part of the national heritage, regardless of the very essence of the gospel. It was in this spirit that Charles Maurras, the founder of the Aksien Francais movement, who was later tried for collaborating with the Nazis, spoke in France at that time.

Fedotov always emphasized that, as a cultural phenomenon, he was on a par with paganism. His uniqueness is in Christ and in the gospel. And it is in this vein that every civilization based on Christianity, including Russian, should be evaluated.

However, there were no conditions for a calm dialogue. Arguments were met with bullying. Only the students stood up for their professor, who was then in London, and sent him a letter of support.

But then the war broke out and stopped all disputes. Trying to get to Arcachon to Berdyaev and Fondaminsky, Fedotov ended up on the Oleron Island with Vadim Andreev, the son of a famous writer. As usual, work saved him from unhappy thoughts. Realizing his old dream, he began to translate biblical psalms into Russian.

Without a doubt, Fedotov would have shared the fate of his friends - mother Maria and Fondaminsky, who died in the Nazi camps. But he was saved by the fact that the American Jewish Committee put his name on the list of people whom the United States was ready to accept as refugees. Metropolitan Evlogy, by that time already reconciled with Fedotov, gave him his blessing to leave. With great difficulty, risking his life every now and then, Fedotov and his relatives made it to New York. It was September 12, 1941.

Thus began the last, American, decade of his life and work. He first taught at the theological school at Yale University, and then became a professor at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary. The most significant work of Fedotov during this period was the book "Russian Religious Thought", published in English. She is still waiting for her Russian publishers, although it is not known whether her original has been preserved.

In the post-war years, Fedotov could see how his political forecasts were being realized. The victory over Nazism did not bring inner freedom to its main winner. The Stalinist autocracy, appropriating the fruits of the people's feat, seemed to be reaching its zenith. Fedotov had to hear more than once that all this was the fate of Russia, that she knew only tyrants and serfs, and therefore Stalinism was inevitable. However, Fedotov did not like political myths, even plausible ones. He refused to accept the idea that Russian history had programmed Stalin, that only despotism and subjugation could be found in the foundations of Russian culture. And his position, as always, was not just emotional, but was built on a serious historical foundation.

Shortly before his death, in 1950, he placed in the New York magazine Narodnaya Pravda (No. 11-12) the article "Republic of Hagia Sophia." It was dedicated to the democratic tradition of the Novgorod Republic.

Fedotov revealed the exceptional originality of the culture of Novgorod not only in the field of icon painting and architecture, but also in the socio-political field. For all its medieval flaws, the veche order was a very real "people's rule", reminiscent of the democracy of ancient Athens. "The veche elected its entire government, not excluding the archbishop, controlled and judged him". In Novgorod, there was an institution of "chambers", which collectively decided all the most important state affairs. The symbols of this Novgorodian democracy were the Church of Hagia Sophia and the image of Our Lady of the Sign. It is no coincidence that the legend connects the history of this icon with the struggle of Novgorodians for their freedom. And it is no coincidence that the Terrible dealt with Novgorod with such ruthlessness. His anger was brought down even on the famous veche bell - the emblem of the ancient people's rule.

“History,” concludes Fedotov, “judged the victory of another tradition in the Russian church and state. Moscow became the successor of both Byzantium and the Golden Horde, and the autocracy of the tsars was not only a political fact, but also a religious doctrine, almost a dogma for many. But when history has done away with this fact, it is time to recall the existence of another major fact and another doctrine in the same Russian Orthodoxy. Orthodox supporters of democratic Russia can draw inspiration from this tradition. Fedotov opposes the political domination of the Church, the theocracy. “Every theocracy,” he writes, “is fraught with the danger of violence against the conscience of a minority. Separate, albeit friendly, coexistence of church and state is the best solution for today. But, looking back into the past, one cannot but admit that within the limits of the Eastern Orthodox world, Novgorod found the best solution to the ever-troubling question of the relationship between the state and the church.

This essay became, as it were, the spiritual testament of Georgy Petrovich Fedotov. On September 1, 1951, he died. Then hardly anyone could have imagined that the day of the end of Stalinism was not far off. But Fedotov believed in the meaningfulness of the historical process. He believed in the victory of humanity, spirit and freedom. He believed that no dark forces could stop the stream that flows to us from early Christianity and Holy Rus', which adopted its ideals.

Archpriest Alexander Men

Introduction

The study of Russian holiness in its history and its religious phenomenology is now one of the urgent tasks of our Christian and national revival. In the Russian saints, we honor not only the heavenly patrons of holy and sinful Russia: in them we seek revelations of our own spiritual path. We believe that every nation has its own religious vocation, and, of course, it is carried out most fully by its religious geniuses. Here is the path for all, marked by milestones of the heroic asceticism of the few. Their ideal has fed popular life for centuries; at their fire, all Rus' lit their lamps. If we are not deceived in the conviction that the entire culture of the people, in the last analysis, is determined by its religion, then in Russian holiness we will find the key that explains a lot in the phenomena and modern, secularized Russian culture. Setting before ourselves the grandiose task of its churchification, its return to the body of the universal Church, we are obliged to specify the universal task of Christianity: to find that special branch on the Vine that is marked with our name: the Russian branch of Orthodoxy.

A successful solution of this problem (of course, in practice, in spiritual life) will save us from a big mistake. We will not equate, as we often do, the Russian with the Orthodox, realizing that the Russian theme is a private theme, while the Orthodox is a comprehensive one, and this will save us from spiritual pride, which often distorts Russian national-religious thought. On the other hand, awareness of our personal historical path will help us to concentrate on it the most organized efforts possible, saving, perhaps, from the fruitless waste of forces on foreign, unbearable roads for us.

At present, a complete confusion of concepts in this area dominates among Russian Orthodox society. Usually they compare the spiritual life of modern, post-Petrine Russia, our eldership or our folk foolishness, with the "Philokalia", that is, with the asceticism of the ancient East, easily throwing a bridge over the millennia and bypassing the completely unknown or supposedly known holiness of Ancient Rus'. Strange as it may seem, the task of studying Russian holiness as a special tradition of spiritual life was not even set. This was hampered by a prejudice shared and shared by the majority of people both Orthodox and hostile to the Church: the prejudice of uniformity, the immutability of spiritual life. For some, this is a canon, a patristic norm, for others it is a stencil that deprives the topic of holiness of scientific interest. Of course, the spiritual life in Christianity has certain general laws, or rather, norms. But these norms do not exclude, but require the separation of methods, exploits, vocations. In Catholic France, which develops a huge hagiographic production, the school of Joly (author of a book on the "psychology of holiness") currently dominates, which studies individuality in the saint - in the conviction that grace does not force nature. It is true that Catholicism, with its characteristic specification in all areas of spiritual life, directly attracts attention to a specific person. Orthodoxy is dominated by the traditional, the general. But this commonality is given not in faceless schemes, but in living personalities. We have evidence that the icon-painting faces of many Russian saints are basically portraits, although not in the sense of a realistic portrait. The personal in the life, as well as on the icon, is given in fine lines, in shades: this is the art of nuances. That is why much more keen attention, critical caution, subtle, jeweler's acrivia is required here from the researcher than for the researcher of Catholic holiness. Then only behind the type, "stencil", "stamp" there will be a unique look.

The great difficulty of this task depends on the fact that the individual is revealed only against a clear background of the general. In other words, it is necessary to know the hagiography of the entire Christian world, especially the Orthodox, Greek and Slavic East, in order to have the right to judge the special Russian character of holiness. None of the Russian ecclesiastical and literary historians has so far been sufficiently armed for such work. That is why the proposed book, which can only rely on the results of finished works in very few points, is only a rough outline, rather a program for future research, which is so important for the spiritual tasks of our time.

The material for this work will be the hagiographic hagiographic literature of Ancient Rus' available to us. The lives of the saints were the favorite reading of our ancestors. Even the laity copied or ordered hagiographic collections for themselves. Since the 16th century, in connection with the growth of the Moscow national consciousness, collections of purely Russian hagiographies have appeared. Metropolitan Macarius under Grozny, with a whole staff of literate collaborators, for more than twenty years collected ancient Russian literature into a huge collection of the Great Fourth Menaia, in which the lives of the saints took pride of place. Among the best writers of Ancient Rus', Nestor the Chronicler, Epiphanius the Wise and Pachomius Logofet dedicated their pen to the glorification of saints. Over the centuries of its existence, Russian hagiography has gone through different forms, known different styles. Forming in close dependence on the Greek, rhetorically developed and embellished life (the sample is Simeon Metaphrastus of the 10th century), Russian hagiography, perhaps, brought its best results in the Kiev south. The few, however, monuments of the pre-Mongolian era with a magnificent verbal culture combine the richness of a specific descriptive writing, the distinctness of a personal characteristic. The first shoots of hagiographic literature in the north before and after the Mongol pogrom have a completely different character: these are short, poor in both rhetoric and factual details of the record - more like a canvas for future stories than ready-made lives. V. O. Klyuchevsky suggested that these monuments were connected with the kontakion of the sixth ode of the canon, after which the life of the saint is read on the eve of his memory. In any case, the opinion about the national origin of the most ancient northern Russian lives (Nekrasov, partly already Shevyrev) has long been abandoned. The nationality of the language of some hagiographies is a secondary phenomenon, a product of literary decline. From the beginning of the 15th century, Epiphanius and the Serb Pachomius also created a new school in northern Rus' - undoubtedly, under Greek and South Slavic influences - a school of artificially decorated, extensive life. They - especially Pachomius - created a stable literary canon, a magnificent "weaving of words", which Russian scribes strive to imitate until the end of the 17th century. In the era of Macarius, when many ancient unskillful hagiographic records were being rewritten, the works of Pachomius were entered into the Chet'i Menaion intact. The vast majority of these hagiographic monuments are strictly dependent on their models. There are lives almost entirely written off from the most ancient ones; others develop platitudes while refraining from precise biographical data. This is how hagiographers willy-nilly act, separated from the saint by a long period of time - sometimes centuries, when even folk tradition dries up. But the general law of hagiographic style, similar to the law of icon painting, also operates here: it requires the subordination of the particular to the general, the dissolution of the human face in the heavenly glorified face. A writer-artist or a devoted disciple of a saint, who has taken up his work on his fresh grave, knows how to give a few personal features with a thin brush, sparingly, but accurately. The writer, a late or conscientious worker, works according to "facial originals", refraining from the personal, the unstable, the unique. With the general stinginess of ancient Russian literary culture, it is not surprising that most researchers despair of the poverty of Russian hagiographies. In this regard, the experience of Klyuchevsky is characteristic. He knew Russian hagiography like no one else before or after him. He studied manuscripts up to 150 lives in 250 editions - and as a result of many years of research he came to the most pessimistic conclusions. With the exception of a few monuments, the rest of the mass of Russian hagiographic literature is poor in content, representing most often a literary development or even copying of traditional types. In view of this, even the “poor historical content of the life” cannot be used without preliminary complex work of criticism. Klyuchevsky's experiment (1871) scared Russian researchers away from "ungrateful" material for a long time. Meanwhile, his disappointment largely depended on his personal approach: he was looking for in life not what it promises to give as a monument of spiritual life, but materials for studying an extraneous phenomenon: the colonization of the Russian North. Thirty years after Klyuchevsky, one secular provincial scholar made the study of religious and moral trends his topic, and Russian lives were illuminated in a new way for him. Proceeding just from the study of patterns, A. Kadlubovsky could see the differences in spiritual trends in the slightest changes in the schemes, outline the lines of development of theological schools. True, he did this only for one and a half - two centuries of the Muscovite era (XV-XVI), but for the most important centuries in the history of Russian holiness. One must be surprised that the example of the Warsaw historian did not find imitators among us. During the last pre-war decades, the history of Russian life has had many well-armed workers among us. Mainly either regional groups (Vologda, Pskov, Pomeranian) or hagiological types (“holy princes”) were studied. But their study continued to be external, literary and historical, without sufficient attention to the problems of holiness as a category of spiritual life. It remains for us to add that work on Russian hagiography is extremely hampered by the lack of publications. Of the 150 lives, or 250 editions, known to Klyuchevsky (and after him unknown ones were found), no more than fifty, mostly the most ancient monuments, were printed. A. Kadlubovsky gives an incomplete list of them. Starting from the middle of the 16th century, that is, just from the heyday of hagiographic production in Moscow, almost all the material lies in manuscripts. No more than four hagiographic monuments received scholarly publications; the rest are reprints of random, not always the best, manuscripts. As before, the researcher is chained to the old preprint collections scattered in the libraries of Russian cities and monasteries. The original literary material of antiquity has been superseded by later transcriptions and translations. But these arrangements are far from complete. Even in the Fourth Menaion of St. Demetrius of Rostov, Russian hagiographic material is presented extremely sparingly. For the majority of domestic ascetics, St. Demetrius refers to the "Prologue", which gives only abridged lives, and even then not for all the saints. A pious lover of Russian hagiography can find a lot of interesting things for himself in the twelve volumes of transcriptions by A. N. Muraviev, written - this is their main advantage - often from handwritten sources. But for scientific work, especially in view of the aforementioned nature of the Russian life, transcriptions, of course, are not suitable. Under such conditions, it is understandable that our modest work abroad in Russia cannot satisfy strict scientific requirements. We are only trying, following Kadlubovsky, to introduce a new light into Russian hagiography, that is, to pose new problems - new for Russian science, but very old in essence, because they coincide with the meaning and idea of ​​hagiography itself: problems of spiritual life. Thus, in the analysis of the difficulties of Russian hagiographic science, as in almost every Russian cultural problem, the basic tragedy of our historical process is revealed. Silent "Holy Rus'", in its isolation from the sources of the verbal culture of antiquity, failed to tell us about the most important thing - about its religious experience. The new Russia, armed with the entire apparatus of Western science, indifferently passed by the very topic of "Holy Rus'", not noticing that the development of this topic ultimately determines the fate of Russia.

In concluding this introductory chapter, it is necessary to make a few remarks concerning the canonization of Russian saints. This particular theme in Russian literature was lucky. We have two studies: Vasiliev and Golubinsky, which shed enough light on this previously dark area. Canonization is the establishment by the Church of the veneration of a saint. The act of canonization - sometimes solemn, sometimes silent - does not mean the definition of the heavenly glory of the ascetic, but addresses the earthly Church, calling for the veneration of the saint in the forms of public worship. The Church knows about the existence of unknown saints, whose glory is not revealed on earth. The Church has never banned private prayer, that is, asking for prayer to the dead righteous, not glorified by it. In this prayer of the living for the departed and the prayer to the departed, which presupposes the reciprocal prayer of the departed for the living, the unity of the heavenly and earthly Churches is expressed, that “communion of saints” about which the “apostolic” creed speaks. The canonized saints represent only a clearly defined, liturgical circle in the center of the heavenly Church. In Orthodox liturgy, the essential difference between canonized saints and other deceased is that prayers are served to the saints, and not memorial services. To this is added the commemoration of their names at various moments of worship, sometimes the establishment of holidays for them, with the compilation of special services, that is, variable prayers of worship. In Rus', as, indeed, throughout the Christian world, popular veneration usually (although not always) precedes church canonization. The Orthodox people are now revered by many saints who have never used the church cult. Moreover, a strict definition of the circle of canonized saints of the Russian Church runs into great difficulties. These difficulties depend on the fact that, in addition to general canonization, the Church also knows the local one. By general we in this case - not quite correctly - mean national, that is, in essence, also local veneration. Local canonization is either diocesan or narrower, limited to a separate monastery or church where the relics of a saint are buried. The latter, that is, narrowly local forms of ecclesiastical canonization often approach the popular one, as they are sometimes established without the proper permission of the ecclesiastical authorities, are interrupted for a while, resumed again and raise insoluble questions. All lists, calendars, indexes of Russian saints, both private and official, disagree, sometimes quite significantly, in the number of canonized saints. Even the last synodal edition (however, not official, but only semi-official) - "The Faithful Menologion of Russian Saints" of 1903 - is not free from errors. He gives a total number of 381. With a correct understanding of the meaning of canonization (and prayer to the saints), the controversial issues of canonization largely lose their sharpness, just as the well-known cases of decanonization in the Russian Church, that is, the prohibition of the veneration of already glorified saints, cease to confuse. Princess Anna Kashinskaya, canonized in 1649, was expelled from the number of Russian saints in 1677, but restored under Emperor Nicholas II. The reason for the decanonization was the actual or imaginary two-fingered addition of her hand, used by the Old Believers. For the same reason, St. Euphrosyn of Pskov, an ardent champion of the double hallelujah, was transferred from the generally revered to the locally revered saints. Other, less remarkable, cases are known, especially frequent in the 18th century. Church canonization, an act addressed to the earthly Church, is guided by religious-pedagogical, sometimes national-political motives. The choice it establishes (and canonization is only choice) does not claim to coincide with the dignity of the heavenly hierarchy. That is why, on the paths of the historical life of the people, we see how they change in their even church consciousness heavenly patrons; some centuries are painted in certain hagiographic colors, subsequently fading. Now the Russian people have almost forgotten the names of Kirill Belozersky and Joseph Volotsky, two of the most revered saints of Muscovite Rus'. The northern hermits and Novgorod saints also turned pale for him, but in the era of the empire, the veneration of St. Princes Vladimir and Alexander Nevsky. Maybe just a name St. Sergius Radonezhsky shines with a never fading light in the Russian sky, triumphing over time. But this change of favorite cults is a precious indication of the deep, often invisible germination or withering in the main directions. religious life people. What are the organs of church authority to which the right of canonization belongs? IN ancient church each diocese kept its own independent lists (diptychs) of martyrs and saints, the spread of the veneration of some saints to the boundaries of the universal Church was a matter of free choice of all city-Escopalian churches. Subsequently, the canonization process was centralized - in the West in Rome, in the East in Constantinople. In Rus', the Greek metropolitans of Kyiv and Moscow, of course, retained the right of solemn canonization. Even the only document related to the canonization of Metropolitan Peter is known, from which it is clear that the Russian metropolitan requested the Patriarch of Constantinople. There is no doubt, however, that in numerous cases of local canonization, the bishops did without the consent of the metropolitan (of Moscow), although it is difficult to say what the prevailing rule was. From Metropolitan Macarius (1542-1563), the canonization of both generally venerated and local saints became the work of councils under the metropolitan, later the patriarch of Moscow. The time of Macarius - the youth of the Terrible - generally means new era in Russian canonization. The unification of all Rus' under the scepter of the princes of Moscow, the wedding of Ivan IV to the kingdom, that is, his entry into the succession of the power of the Byzantine "universal", according to the idea of ​​​​Orthodox tsars, unusually inspired the Moscow national-church self-consciousness. The expression of “holiness”, the high calling of the Russian land, was its saints. Hence the need for the canonization of new saints, for a more solemn glorification of the old ones. After the Makariev Councils of 1547–1549 the number of Russian saints almost doubled. Everywhere in the dioceses, it was ordered to conduct a “search” about new miracle workers: “Where are miracle workers famous for great miracles and signs, from how many times and in what years.” Surrounded by the metropolitan and in the dioceses, a whole school of hagiographers worked, which hastily compiled the lives of new miracle workers, reworking the old ones in a solemn style corresponding to new literary tastes. The Menaia of Metropolitan Macarius and his canonization councils represent two sides of the same church-national movement. The cathedral, and from the 17th century the patriarchal power retained the right to canonization (exceptions are found for some local saints) until the time of the Holy Synod, which from the 18th century became the only canonization authority. Petrine legislation (Spiritual Regulations) is more than reserved about new canonizations, although Peter himself canonized St. Vassian and Ion Pertominskikh in gratitude for saving us from a storm on the White Sea. The last two synodal centuries were marked by an extremely restrictive canonization practice. Before Emperor Nicholas II, only four saints were canonized as common saints. In the 18th century, cases were not uncommon when diocesan bishops, by their own authority, stopped the veneration of local saints, even church canonized ones. Only under Emperor Nicholas II, in accordance with the direction of his personal piety, canonizations follow one after another: seven new saints in one reign. The grounds for church canonization were and still are: 1) the life and exploits of the saint, 2) miracles, and 3) in some cases, the incorruption of his relics.

The lack of information about the lives of the saints was an obstacle that hindered the canonization of Saints Jacob Borovitsky and Andrei Smolensky in the 16th century. But miracles triumphed over the doubts of the Moscow metropolitans and their interrogators. Miracles in general are the main grounds for canonization - though not exclusive. Golubinsky, who is generally inclined to attribute decisive importance to this second moment, points out that church tradition has not preserved information about the miracles of St. Prince Vladimir, Anthony of the Caves and many holy Novgorod bishops. With regard to the incorruption of relics, on this issue we have recently been dominated by completely wrong ideas. The Church honors both the bones and the incorruptible (mummified) bodies of saints, now equally referred to as relics. Based on a large amount of chronicle material, acts of examination of holy relics in the old and new times, Golubinsky could give examples of incorruptible (Prince Olga, Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky and his son Gleb, Kiev Cave saints), perishable (St. Theodosius of Chernigov, Seraphim of Sarov and others .) and partially incorruptible (St. Demetrius of Rostov, Theodosius of Totemsky) relics. Regarding some, the evidence is double or even allows us to assume the later corruption of the once incorruptible relics. The very word "relics" in the Old Russian and Slavic language meant bones and was sometimes opposed to the body. About some saints it was said: "Lies with relics", and about others: "Lies in the body." In the ancient language, "imperishable relics" meant "imperishable", that is, not decayed bones. Not very rare cases of natural incorruption are known, that is, the mummification of bodies that have nothing to do with saints: mass mummification in some cemeteries in Siberia, the Caucasus, in France - in Bordeaux and Toulouse, etc. Although the Church has always seen in the incorruption of saints a special gift God's and the visible evidence of their glory in ancient Rus' did not require this miraculous gift from any saint. “The bones of the naked exude healing,” writes the scholar Metropolitan Daniel (XVI century). It was only in the synodal era that the wrong idea took root that all the resting relics of saints were incorruptible bodies. This misconception - partly an abuse - was first loudly refuted by Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg and the Holy Synod during the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Despite the explanation of the Synod and the study of Golubinsky, the people continued to hold their former views, and therefore the results of the blasphemous opening of the relics by the Bolsheviks in 1919-1920. were a shock to many. Strange as it may seem, Ancient Rus' looked at this matter more soberly and more sensibly than the new “enlightened” centuries, when both enlightenment and church tradition suffered from mutual disunity.

The Baptism of Rus' in 988 and the subsequent establishment of dioceses headed by the metropolitan of the capital city of Kyiv marked the beginning of a new Local Church within the framework of Universal Orthodoxy. Having received holy baptism and instruction in the truths of the Christian faith from the Byzantine hierarchs, the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples were grafted into the tree of the One Holy Cathedral and Apostolic Church. Thanks to a living connection with the Greek-Slavic Orthodox East, the Russian Church adopted the richest Byzantine heritage.

Since the end of the 10th century, Orthodoxy has shaped the culture of the Russian people, participated in the development of art and the formation of statehood. Orthodox spiritual and moral values ​​became the essence of the state ideology during the period of the Kiev state in the 10th-12th centuries, the formation and strengthening of the Russian state with its center in Moscow (14th-16th centuries), the revival of Russia in the 17th century after the Time of Troubles, the Swedish-Polish interventions, etc. Orthodoxy more than once saved Rus' and the Russian statehood from destruction. The adoption of Christianity in 988 was a political act and, perhaps, allowed Kievan Rus to retain its statehood and national independence until the 13th century, and in the 11th-12th centuries. she (thanks to joining Orthodox culture) along with the Arab Caliphate and Byzantium began to belong to the most developed countries of that time and experienced its heyday.

With the Baptism of Rus' in Rus', along with its enlightenment with the light of Christianity, there appears "the teaching of literacy" and "the teaching of the book." The translation of sacred books, the writing of historical, artistic, pedagogical books, the coordinated actions of princes and spiritual authorities to educate the population ensured the widespread dissemination of literacy and higher education in Rus' in the pre-Mongol period, which resulted in the flowering of ancient Russian culture.

By the 10th century, a situation was developing in Rus' when it was necessary to introduce compulsory elementary education. Historians see the reasons for this in the fact that at that time the Slavic alphabet was compiled, and the ethnographic unity of the Slavic tribes helped the spread of writing. The main reason is most often called the introduction of Christianity in Rus' and the translation from Greek into Russian of the Holy Scriptures and other books. The new faith, which was chosen by Vladimir, was to be accepted by all the people. Therefore, the first schools in Rus' were opened by Prince Vladimir on the advice of Metropolitan Mikhail. To prove these facts, one can cite chronicle evidence, which says that the first schools were not only educational, but also educational institutions. Using chronicles characterizing the life of Novgorod, we can conclude that literacy has become an integral part of Russian cities.

D.S. Likhachev in his works proves the high level of development of culture, literature and education in Rus'. The main reason that led to the cultural revolution, he considers the introduction of a single script. Writing was needed for the development of the state apparatus, trade, and for private correspondence. Christianity, unlike paganism, was a highly literate religion, so its introduction brought about a cultural upheaval.

Thus, at this stage in the development of the state and education, the role of the Orthodox Church can be considered fundamental for the development and establishment of the first educational institutions.

Despite the unfavorable conditions for the development of education, the Russian school, led by the clergy, continued to exist during the period of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The role of monasteries in which schools were preserved was especially strengthened.

After the introduction of Christianity in Ancient Rus', new approaches to the problems of the needy began to be implemented, based on Greek church laws, but at the same time, the traditions and customs of the ancestors served for many centuries to resolve all kinds of disputes and litigations. With the formation of Russian statehood, royal decrees appear that regulate relations between the church and the state, certain categories of the needy and power. In 1551, not only an article on poverty appeared in Stoglav, but also a number of articles regulating the life of various strata of society: people of the church, wanderers, widows, “balti”, beggars.

There are laws aimed at streamlining the relations and relations of various groups of the population during the period of mass famine and epidemics.

In the X-XIII centuries. assistance is changing. The created cultural and historical situation demanded other principles of integration and new forms of support and protection for those in need. The external expansion of the Christian world made its own adjustments to the transformation of social relations, which was reflected in princely protection and guardianship, in church and monastic support, and the parish assistance system.

The historical significance of princely charity and poverty lies in the fact that the emerging centralized government is looking for ways to develop social policy in relation to subjects not related by tribal relations. It can be added that with the adoption of Christianity, not only attempts at “social reform” in the field of assistance and support were carried out. Initially, this process proceeded within the framework of retinue traditions, pagan brotherhoods. However, the impossibility of the princely power to single-handedly implement Christian social reform is gradually being realized, since the society was heterogeneous and there was dual faith in it. The binary opposition of faith practically led to the opposition of the way of life, which, in turn, led to the impossibility of “dressing up” according to the laws, which should also have not only their own provisions, but also their own legal subject.

The authorities, for various reasons, both political and military, are moving away from independent implementation of the ideas of social Christian reform, involving the church in this activity. She not only endows it with legal powers, but also provides it, as a nascent institution, with support, financial assistance in the form of “tithes”, deductions from various types of taxes. Power delegates and expands the powers of the church in relations with clients, which are becoming more and more over time.

The institution of the Church has played its special role in shaping Christian approaches to charity and charity towards one's neighbor. With the adoption of Christianity in Ancient Rus', a new stage of public care begins. Assistance has various support strategies: from material to changing the life scenarios of the needy. The Christian canons of mercy expand the paradigm of help and support, build guidelines for protection, based not only on the vital, but also on the spiritual needs of the individual.

The baptism of Rus' brought changes to the institution of the family. The state has long tried to build relationships with the family, pursuing a certain family policy. The first, most striking experience in the design and implementation of “family policy” was the activity of the Russian state and church after the adoption of Christianity in Rus', the purpose of which was the reorganization of all spheres of life of a pagan family, starting with property relations and ending with the sexual behavior of spouses. Conventionally, the beginning of the process of "reforming" family and marriage relations can be considered the end of the 10th century. In general, this process took more than one century. As a result of the reorganization of the pagan family, the basis for the future development of the Russian classical patriarchal family was formed, which over the next centuries determined the mentality of the Russian people, their attitude to everyday social and economic problems of life.

Unlike paganism, during which the institution of concubinage officially existed, the Christian church preached that adultery is a sin. By limiting and then completely prohibiting concubinage, adultery and voluntary divorce (which were traditional in pagan times), the church introduced a new model of marital behavior based on Christian love. This model assumed a spiritual rather than carnal beginning in marriage. Based on the idea that the family is the fruit of the Christian love of one person for another (the only one), the church forbade polygamous marriage. The monogamous family has become the basic norm of a new type of family and marriage behavior. The foundation of such a family was a Christian marriage, which in the Orthodox Church is one of the seven sacraments. An understanding gradually formed in the consciousness of a person that the family union should be consecrated by the church in the sacrament of the wedding. Since they enter into marriage out of true love for each other, it unites a man and a woman for life, and therefore a Christian marriage cannot be dissolved.

Thus, Christianity has changed the very essence of family and marriage relations, arguing that the purpose of marriage is for spouses to help each other and complement each other. And since the main goal of human life is the salvation of the soul, spouses should encourage each other to the Christian way of life.

The Russian Church, having adopted Christianity from the Orthodox East, showed the world lofty examples of monastic deeds in the spirit and strength of ancient monasticism, which gave us great saints. Along with the first churches in Kievan Rus, monastic cloisters immediately appeared. With the establishment of Christianity in Ancient Rus', the monastic ideal also firmly entered the consciousness of the Russian people. Very many aspired to complete the days of their lives by joining the monastic face. In this, perhaps, there is something special, nationally Russian.

The Kiev-Pechersk Lavra can be called the Russian monastic Bethlehem, from where monasticism began to spread throughout all of Rus' at that time. The name of this monastery is closely connected with the life of one of the founders of monasticism in Rus', the same age as her baptism - St. Theodosius of the Caves. Having received a “book appointment” in one of the first church schools of the 11th century in the city of Kursk, Theodosius himself later began to teach “truth and love and the beginning of wisdom, the fear of God, purity and humility.”

After himself, he left several written teachings, which became masterpieces of ancient Russian moral literature for monks and laity. Having become abbot of the Kiev-Pechsra monastery, Theodosius introduces here the principles of monastic cenobitic charter Fyodor Studit. The Monk Theodosius of the Caves established that a tenth of all the income of the monastery was allocated for the maintenance of the almshouse that existed at the monastery. Many poor, sick people who needed help came to Theodosius. He received all of them kindly, gave everyone what they asked for. He separated a whole yard near the monastery church of St. Stephen for these poor people. “If you see a naked, or hungry, or in winter, or obsessed with misfortune, whether there will still be a Jew, or a Saracen, or a Volga Bulgarian, or a heretic, or a Catholic, or any pagan - have mercy on everyone and deliver them from misfortune, as if you can” - transmits us the words of the Monk Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. (ZHMP, 1988, No. 2, p. 45)

Holy Rus' showed the world many defenders of their native Fatherland. Among them is the great commander and talented diplomat and statesman, the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky. XII century: the most difficult time in the history of Rus' began: the Mongol hordes were coming from the east, knightly hordes were advancing from the west. In this formidable hour, the Providence of God raised up for the salvation of Rus' the holy prince Alexander - the great warrior-prayer book, ascetic and builder of the Russian land.

The Orthodox Church considers Alexander Nevsky a miracle worker. It was this quality, according to the Church, that helped him work miracles, constantly defeating a significantly superior enemy with small forces. Participating personally, leading and fighting ahead of his army, he came out victorious in more than twenty battles, remaining unharmed, and did not suffer a single defeat. Love for one's neighbor extended in Saint Alexander to the point of self-sacrifice. He was highly regarded by friends and enemies alike. Khan Batu in 1249, after a conversation with Prince Alexander, said to his nobles: “Everything that I was told about him is all true. There is no one like this prince.” Batu offered Alexander Nevsky to become his son-in-law and adopted son in order to become his successor in the Golden Horde. He highly appreciated the abilities of the young, tall, strong, handsome, intelligent, wise, with a loud voice of the Russian prince-commander. However, the Grand Duke, as a true patriot of his Fatherland, refused, and at the end of his life he became a monk and took the vows in the schema with the name Alexy.

One of the greatest of the saints of Rus' is called St. Sergius of Radonezh. For more than 600 years this name has been known to every Russian person.

Here we must remember that for the time for Rus' the XIV century. In the previous XIII century, the Tatars defeated Rus'. The disaster of the barbarian invasion brought not only material, but moral ruin. Memories of a peaceful working life have gone so far into the past that they were like legends. There was no hope for a better life in the future among the people. Tatar raids, civil strife between princes, betrayal, ruin - and this is how more than one generation of Russians lived. There seemed to be no way out of this hopelessness. People helplessly lowered their hands, their minds lost their vigor.

In order to throw off the Tatar-Mongol yoke, to build a strong independent state, it was necessary for the Russian people themselves to rise to the level of high tasks, to raise their internal strength, to tear people's aspirations away from momentary earthly concerns. Sergius of Radonezh devoted his life to this moral education of the people.

Sergius, who at a young age left the world for the forests, eventually found himself at the center of the socio-political life of the second half of the 14th century. He was an associate of Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy in gathering Russian principalities around Moscow. Already in his middle years, he repeatedly went to the princes of Nizhny Novgorod, Ryazan, Suzdal and with quiet, meek speeches pacified their warlike hearts. Sergius blessed Dmitry Donskoy for his battle with Mamai and gave the prince two monks from the former boyars - Peresvet and Oslyabya. It was the duel between Alexander Peresvet and Cholubey that began the Battle of Kulikovo. The chronicle testifies: throughout the bloody Kulikovo battle, the brethren of the monastery prayed, while Sergius, with his perspicacity, informed the brethren about the course of the battle!

Among the saints of the Russian land, one cannot ignore another ascetic and miracle worker - Reverend Seraphim Sarovsky.

Born in the middle of the 17th century in Kursk, widely revered during his lifetime, the Monk Seraphim became one of the most beloved saints. No wonder. His spiritual path is marked by the great modesty inherent in Russian saints. From childhood, he went step by step to spiritual perfection. Eight years of novice labors and eight years of church service in the rank of hierodeacon and hieromonk, hermitage and pilgrimage, seclusion and silence succeed each other and are crowned with elderhood. Feats that surpass natural human capabilities enter harmoniously and simply into the life of a saint. The Monk Seraphim left a rich spiritual heritage - these are brief instructions written down by himself, who heard them. The ascetic's precious contribution to the treasury of Russian patristic teaching was the "Discourse of St. Seraphim of Sarov on the Purpose of Christian Life", first published in 1903. In addition to teaching about the essence of the Christian life, it contained a new explanation of many passages of Holy Scripture. In Rus', there have long been unwritten rules by which the ascetics of the Russian land lived. Such rules included meekness and humility, tireless work and prayer, observance of church prescriptions and accomplishment of feats, the gift of clairvoyance and the ability to heal, of course, instructions and the presence of disciples.

It is useful to recall some of the spiritual instructions of the elder. “We must always endure everything, no matter what happens, for God's sake, with gratitude. Our life is one minute compared to eternity. Insults from others should be endured indifferently and one should be trained in such a disposition of the spirit, as if their insults did not concern us, but others. Endure in silence when the enemy offends you, and then open your heart to the only Lord.” The monk greeted each visitor with the words of greeting “My joy! Christ is Risen!”, and the cherished words “Acquire a peaceful spirit and thousands will be saved around you” for two centuries now have been giving restless minds an answer to the question of the meaning of human life.

More than one and a half thousand names of a host of saints were given to the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century. The New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, like ancient Christians, gave their lives for the triumph of the Orthodox Faith during the period of persecution from the theomachic authorities, showing us an example of steadfastness, devotion to their native Fatherland and boundless love for God.

1020 years ago, Saint Prince Vladimir led his people out of the darkness of paganism to the light of the promised land of Christianity. The internal unity of Ancient Rus' turned out to be sealed not only by consanguinity, but also by religious unity, the beginning of which was laid by the font of the waters of the Dnieper.

Christianity became the channel along which the culture of the most developed civilization of that time, Byzantium, flowed into the ancient Russian land. In Kievan Rus, writing developed rapidly, and national literature began to be created. The Old Russian state became on the same level with the states of Western Europe, and in many ways surpassed them.

The adoption of Christianity brought our people closer to others Slavic peoples who accepted the faith of Christ through the work of the Enlighteners of the Slavs, Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius. The fraternal peoples, close to us in language and traditions, in many ways contributed to the assimilation of Christian truths and cultural values ​​by our ancestors.

According to Orthodox Tradition, the unity of the Church lies not in the centralization of church administration and not in the uniformity of church life; it is the identity of faith, and, consequently, fidelity to the Spirit of truth, which builds the Church of Christ and dwells in it. Thus, with the baptism of Rus', the fraternal Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples not only accepted the inexhaustible treasures of church writing - the Holy Scriptures, the works of the holy fathers, the lives of the saints and liturgical books, but gained the basis for their spiritual unity.