Social and economic development of the country in the 16th century. Economic development of Russia in the 16th century

In the first half of the 16th century, the Russian economy developed upward. At this time, Russia did not wage ruinous wars - neither external nor internal internecine. At this time, only clashes with the Tatars on the southern and eastern borders required great effort.

At this time, specialization of regions in the production of one type of goods is planned. First of all, this concerns areas of salt production and fishing for sale. Salt production is developing in Staraya Russa, Salt Vychegodskaya, Salt Kama, Salt Galichskaya, Kostroma. The Pskov land was identified as a center of flax growing, where commercial production of linen and linen developed. Large center leather tanning is Yaroslavl, metalworking is Novgorod. IN late XVI centuries, there were over 230 craftsmen engaged in iron processing. At the same time, the famous iron-making center was taking shape in the Serpukhov-Tula region.

Craft production was concentrated mainly in cities. The largest cities in terms of population in the mid-16th century were: Moscow (100 thousand people), Novgorod (about 25 thousand people), Mozhaisk (about 6 thousand people), Kolomna (3 thousand people). Moscow is gradually becoming not only the administrative, but also the economic center of the state. Simultaneously with the cities, smaller trade and craft settlements - “posads” and “rows” - are also growing. Such settlements often had their own narrow specialization. Subsequently, many of them turned into cities. A network of small “marketplaces” began to form, located at monasteries or in villages and settlements.

The main product on the domestic market was bread. Townspeople, peasants, and monasteries took part in the grain trade. Fish and salt were also important goods. The northern monasteries - Solovetsky and Spaso-Prilutsky - specialized in the salt trade, which had sources of salt production in their possessions. The growth of economic ties was facilitated by fairs, usually organized in cities and at monasteries. The monasteries were interested in fairs being held near the monastery walls, since customs revenues partially went to their treasury.

In the middle of the 16th century, attempts were made to streamline the collection of various duties related to trade and transportation of goods. In the era of fragmentation, each of the principalities and lands had its own procedure for collecting trade and travel duties. Now uniform norms are being introduced and the concept of a “state border” is being established, uniform for the entire country. Measures are being taken to prevent the illegal (duty-free) import and export of goods: “there are strong outposts along the Lithuanian, and German, and Tatar borders, and the appearance and washing of everything is good, and to inspect both fugitive people and reserved goods.”

In the 16th century, foreign trade flourished, becoming the most important state business. After the capture of Narva by Russian troops in 1558, it became the gateway through which Russian goods went to Western European countries. Flax, hemp, and lard were exported from Russia, and lead, sulfur, tin, copper, and cloth were imported.

To attract foreign merchants (and therefore an influx of precious metals), the Russian government was ready to make big concessions. In 1554, the Englishman Richard Chancellor, looking for a way to the east through the northern seas, arrived at the mouth of the Northern Dvina. He visited Moscow, was received by Ivan the Terrible and spent several months in the capital. This expedition marked the beginning of the development of direct relations between Russia and Western states. The city of Arkhangelsk at the mouth of the Northern Dvina became the center of Russian foreign trade for a century and a half.

Ivan the Terrible had great sympathy for England, which, due to its distance from Russia, seemed to him a friendly country. The English trading company received great benefits in Russia: exemption from duties, free passage through Russian lands to the East, complete internal self-government.

Russia's eastern foreign trade also flourished. Furs, leather, and products of Russian jewelers were exported to Turkey. Silk, pearls, and spices were brought from there. Crimea played an intermediary role in this trade. Another eastern neighbor of Russia - Nogai Horde- supplied huge amount horses. There were connections with Central Asian and Transcaucasian countries, although Khanate of Kazan significantly impeded these contacts.

Russia of that time also knew the “eternal” economic problems, which the population faces: rising prices and rising taxes. During the 16th century, prices for agricultural and commercial goods increased approximately three to four times. This increase occurred in several stages: the 20–30s, the second half of the 50s and the very end of the 70–80s. At the end of the 15th century, the unit of taxation in Russia was a certain size of cultivated arable land. Since the middle of the 16th century, this has been the so-called “big Moscow plow”. Depending on the number of “plows” the landowner had, the main state tax was levied - tribute.

After the reform of local government in the middle of the 16th century, the peasant population began to pay rent, which was used to pay service people. In addition, the main state taxes included “polonyanka money” (it was used to ransom prisoners), “pososhny service” (support for military campaigns) and “city affairs” (repair and construction of city fortifications).

From the late 1560s in economic life the decline begins. The situation in the 1570s-1580s is usually characterized as an economic crisis. By the mid-1580s, almost the entire territory of the country, to one degree or another, “lay empty.” A population decline of 60-80% in different regions of the country also meant a cessation of tax revenues. The devastation began with a bad harvest in 1570, and soon the country was engulfed by a severe pestilence. It was one of those terrible epidemics of the Middle Ages that occurred approximately once every 100 years. Even after ten seconds extra years many villages that were deserted during the years of the plague continued to remain uninhabited. Oprichnina pogroms and land redistributions also completed the devastation of the rural population.

The events associated with the Livonian War had serious consequences for the socio-economic situation of the country. In those territories where hostilities took place, Polish-Lithuanian soldiers killed peasants and burned villages. The needs of the war were also associated with an extremely rapid increase in taxes and levies, which became an unbearable burden for the peasants. From the middle of the century to the 70s, state taxes doubled, and from the early 70s to the early 80s - by another 80%. Extraordinary taxes began to be collected annually - “polonyany money”, “five money”. On the lands of black-plowed (state) peasants, the so-called “tithe arable land” was established: each peasant had to plow four acres of land for the sovereign.

During the reign of Tsar Feodor (1584-1598), some economic revival was observed. Some of the peasants who fled to the outskirts return to their former places of residence, begin to rebuild courtyards, and cultivate arable land. But the subsequent events of the Time of Troubles swept away these government achievements.

In the 16th century Moscow state occupied about 2.9 million square meters. m. Since by the 16th century peasants were no longer subject to taxes (the tax was placed on land), having become more independent, people could move to other territories.

The most important role Monasteries played a role in the process of settlement and development of new territories by people. Despite the fact that the economy retains its natural character, arable farming and productive livestock breeding are developing in some areas.

Going active development trades and crafts, centers of iron production. Despite the fact that sparsely populated cities still remain the trading center, the number of trading villages has increased.

During the reign Prince Vasily 3 in many Russian cities developed stone construction. For this purpose, as well as the Pushkar business, the prince hired foreign workers.

Livonian War And oprichnina not without consequences for Rus':

· destruction of cities and villages, peasants fleeing to new lands;

· the country's economy froze, and the plague epidemic and extremely terrible harvests aggravated the situation - an economic crisis ensued;

· Almost all the land in the central regions was abandoned. The surviving peasants left the land.

Strong desire finding a way out of the crisis led the government to decide to introduce " reserved years"(from 1581 to 1582), during which people were not allowed to leave their lands. The feudal lords tried to lease land to the peasants, but great success it didn't work. In the 90s of the 16th century, a rise in agriculture was planned, but it was extremely vulnerable. The lands were owned mainly by secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords, whose possessions were subject to various benefits secured by grand ducal charters.

In the 16th century there were important changes in the structure of feudal property: the share of local land ownership is growing greatly; the development of the local system has led to a decrease in the number of black-growing peasants in the center of the country. In Rus', territorially separated 2 forms naturally arose feudal land tenure:

· previously strengthened local-patrimonial (secular and church feudal lords) in the central regions;

· communal peasant farming in sparsely populated areas, periodically controlled by the state, and as a result, falling into the sphere of wide demand.

This was a distinctive feature of the development of the Russian economy in the Middle Ages.

General direction The socio-economic development of the country in the 16th century was the strengthening of the feudal-serf system. The economic basis of serfdom was feudal ownership of land.

By social status peasants were divided into 3 groups:

· proprietary - belonged to secular and church feudal lords;

· palace - belonged to the palace department of the Moscow princes, and then the tsars;

· Chernososhnye (state) - lived in territories that did not belong to one or another owner, but were obliged to perform public works in favor of the state.

In the 16th century, trade with centers in Moscow and other cities increased greatly. Bread was delivered to the northern lands, and from there salt, fish and furs. For domestic trade The feudal lords who had privileges, as well as the Grand Duke himself, were of great importance. In the sphere of commodity education, products of the commercial economy and handicrafts were listed. Foreign trade was actively gaining momentum. Novgorod and Smolensk were a connecting link trade relations with the West. In 1553, the White Sea was opened trade route to England. Products of Russian crafts and timber were exported, and weapons, metals, and cloth were imported. Chinese fabrics, porcelain, and jewelry were imported from the East to Russia, and furs and wax were exported.

The growth of the country's commodity turnover in the 16th century led to the development of monetary relations and the accumulation of capital. But due to the dominance of feudal-serfdom and the cruel fiscal policy of the state, capital or enrichment of the treasury was directed to lending money at interest and drawing the population into heavy debt dependence.

During the expansion of trade, a rich merchant stratum was formed from different social strata. Merchant associations with privileges were created in Moscow. Legally, they were equalized with feudal landowners.

In the 16th century, the largest merchants were the Stroganovs; they were Pomeranian peasants who became the founders of a powerful commercial and industrial house in the 15th century, operating until 1917.

13) Social and political crisis of the late 16th – early 17th centuries in Russia. " Time of Troubles“and its consequences The beginning of the 17th century is characterized by an extreme aggravation of social and political contradictions caused and aggravated by the economic crisis and the deterioration of the country’s international position. Contemporaries designated these phenomena with the term “Troubles” (1605–1613). The Troubles can be considered the first civil war in the history of the country. Oprichnina and the Livonian War caused economic desolation of the country. Due to rising taxes, a mass exodus of peasants began to the outskirts of the country to the Cossacks. Trying to stop the flight of peasants and overcome the labor shortage, the government in 1597 prohibited the peasant transition on St. George’s Day and announced a five-year period for searching for fugitive peasants. Social crisis coincided with the dynastic one. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fyodor Ivanovich (1594–1598) became tsar. Fedor was married to the daughter of Boris Godunov, who actually ruled the country. After the death of the childless Fyodor, the Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov (1598–1605) to the kingdom. However, closer blood relatives of Ivan the Terrible – the Shuisky princes and the Romanov boyars – also laid claim to the throne. Boris Godunov (1598–1605). Initially, circumstances favored Boris. By the beginning of the 90s, the country began an economic revival, the development of the black earth Center began, and the international situation improved. In 1598, Godunov managed to achieve the arrival of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Moscow and the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. The first Russian patriarch was Metropolitan Job, a native of Staritsa. However, the famine of 1601–1603 exacerbated the socio-economic crisis. In order to mitigate the crisis, Godunov restored the norms of St. George's Day in 1601–1602. But this restoration concerned only the peasants of the small-land nobility. The law displeased the border nobles, and its repeal displeased the peasants. As a result, dissatisfaction with Godunov covered all layers of society - from the boyars to the peasants: 1) the boyars were devastated by the oprichnina and were dissatisfied with Godunov’s personality; 2) the nobility increases in number, and its lands and peasantry decrease; 3) the peasantry is dissatisfied with taxes, poverty and the abolition of freedom; 4) the Cossacks are dissatisfied with the desire to enslave the Cossack lands. In 1605, Boris died and his son Fyodor Borisovich ascended the throne. Thus, the Godunov dynasty gained a foothold in power. False Dmitry I. The reason for the open rebellion against the Godunov dynasty was the appearance of the impostor Grigory Otrepiev (False Dmitry I), posing as the son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri, who was killed in Uglich in 1591. The impostor was helped by the Polish king Sigismund III; in Russia, False Dmitry relied on anti-Godun forces. In June 1605, False Dmitry captured Moscow, Fedor was killed. Trying to please everyone, the impostor pursued an extremely contradictory internal policy: he freed fugitive peasants from responsibility and increased the period of searching for fugitives, increased the taxation of monasteries, brought the Polish army into the Kremlin, and increased land grants to the nobles. V.I. Shuisky (1606–1610). During the uprising in May 1606, False Dmitry was killed, and the Zemsky Sobor elected Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky as tsar. Peasants from the southern and southwestern outskirts of the country and the Cossacks, who received tax benefits from False Dmitry, opposed Shuisky. The rebels were led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606 - October 1607). The government dealt with the uprising with great difficulty. The remnants of the Boltnikovites in 1607 joined the army of False Dmitry II (Tushinsky thief). False Dmitry II (1608–1609). The core of the army consisted of Cossacks and Lithuanian-Polish troops. False Dmitry stayed in the village of Tushino ( Tushino thief) and partially besieged it. The Trinity-Sergius Monastery was also besieged (September 1608 – January 1610). Metropolitan Filaret (boyar Fyodor Romanov) was also in the Tushino camp. To fight the thief, the Tsar’s nephew Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky entered into an alliance with Sweden, which sent a detachment to Russia. Skopin-Shuisky managed to lift the siege of the Trinity-Sergmev Monastery and strengthen the defense of Moscow. Swedish intervention in Russian affairs gave rise to Polish intervention, which besieged Smolensk. Deprived of Polish help, the Tushino camp collapsed. The Seven Boyars and the occupation of Moscow (1610–1612). Vasily Shuisky was removed from the throne in 1610. A council of seven boyars (semiboyarshchina) came to power. Trying to strengthen power and overcome the Cossacks, the council negotiated with Poland and allowed the Poles, led by Tsarevich Vladislav, into the Kremlin. There was a threat of the death of Russia as a state. Patriarch Hermogenes stood at the head of the national forces. At his call, a militia of nobles and Tushins led by Lyapunov and Ataman Zarutsky was formed in Ryazan. However, due to disagreements between the leaders, the militia disintegrated. In August 1611, a second people's militia was formed in Nizhny Novgorod, led by Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and merchant Kuzma Minin. On October 26, 1612, the militia liberated Moscow. The Provisional Government began preparations for the Zemsky Sobor, which was assembled in January 1613. At the council, 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the son of Metropolitan Philaret, was elected tsar. After the cathedral, relations with Poland and Sweden were established. According to the Stolbovo Treaty of 1617 with Sweden, Russia returned Novgorod, but lost lands in the Baltic. According to the treaty with Poland of 1618, Russia lost Smolensk. Consequences of the Time of Troubles: 1) further weakening of the boyars and strengthening of the nobility; 2) the economic consequences of the war resulted in increased enslavement of the peasants; 3) strengthening the sense of national and religious unity. “Mikhail’s election strengthened her self-conscious unity,” writes A.S. Khomyakov.

Overthrow of the Mongol Tatar yoke, the abolition of tribute and political unification contributed to the development of the productive forces. Beginning of the 16th century It was a time of economic expansion. The question of the level of agricultural development during this period is controversial. According to B. A. Rybakov, three-field arose back in the 14th century, and in the 16th century. spread everywhere. D. A. Avdusin attributed the appearance of three-fields in the northeast of Rus' to the 15th century. See Avdusin D. A. Archeology of the USSR. M., 1977. According to A. A. Zimin, in the 15th century. Two-field farming prevailed, and the slash-and-burn farming system was preserved on the outskirts. The three-field region arose at the end of the 15th century. early XVI V. in the center of Russia, in densely populated areas. Main argument This opinion is supported by the impossibility of three-field farming without regular application of organic fertilizers. According to A. A. Zimin, at the beginning of the 16th century. this was impossible due to the insufficient development of livestock farming. The main agricultural tool was a two-pronged plow. The main agricultural crops are rye, barley, oats, turnips, millet, peas, cabbage, onions, garlic, cucumbers, apple trees, pears, plums, cherries, flax, hemp, and in the south - wheat; domestic animals - horses, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, poultry. Livestock farming and the production of industrial crops provided 25% of peasant income. The development of agricultural technology ensured the growth of surplus product. Agriculture gradually became commercial.

In the 16th century Two possible paths for Russia’s economic development have emerged:

• 1) replacement of natural rent with cash, economic independence of peasants, development of capitalism and
• 2) the spread of corvée, the enslavement of peasants, the preservation of feudalism.

The first path corresponded to national interests, the second - to the class interests of feudal lords, primarily nobles - small service landowners. The second path was chosen, since the government relied on the nobles in the fight against the boyars, the nobles formed the basis of the army, the population density was low, there were fewer cities than in Western Europe, which limited the ability of peasants to sell their products. In addition, numerous urban population could become a counterweight to the nobility. Since this did not happen, the government predominantly expressed the interests of the nobles. By the beginning of the 16th century. The development of the northeastern lands was completed, so there was not enough land, and the feudal lords began to seize peasant lands. This gave rise to numerous land disputes, so the Code of Law of 1497 limited the limitation period to 3 years if the subject of the dispute was private land, and 6 years if the disputed land belonged to the state. The monasteries began to seize peasant lands. Monastic land ownership also grew due to princely grants and contributions from private individuals. V. O. Klyuchevsky connected the enslavement of peasants with the growth of monastic land ownership. See Klyuchevsky V. O. Course of Russian history. T. 2. M., 1988. P. 270.

The government sought to limit it, therefore, in conflicts between peasants and monasteries, it defended the interests of the peasants. The Church Council of 1503 limited the growth of monastic land ownership, but the attempt to secularize church lands, undertaken by Ivan III with the support of Nil Sorsky, failed. In the struggle between money-grubbers and non-money-grubbers, the former won. They were also called Osiphlans, after their leader Joseph Volotsky. The government's struggle against the growth of monastic land ownership was caused by the lack of land to allocate it to landowners. Gradually, corvee became the main duty of the peasants. Initially it arose on monastic estates. Since the monasteries did not have serfs, they rented out land to peasants on a working rent basis. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, quitrent was rent for land, corvee was working off a debt. See ibid. P. 276. In some estates, rent in kind was replaced by money. However, corvee became more widespread. It was associated with the expansion of lordly arable farming and the enslavement of peasants. The Code of Law of 1497 limited the right of peasants to move to two weeks before and after St. George’s Day - November 26th. The source of this legal norm was the Pskov Judgment Charter. It established another deadline for the peasants' transition - November 14th. This was explained by the difference in natural conditions in the north-west and in the center of Russia. See Zimin A. A. Russia at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries.

The peasant had the right to leave the landowner by warning him in advance and paying the dues. Elderly - payment from peasants to the landowner for living on his land, in fact compensation for the loss of a worker. If a peasant lived on the land of the feudal lord for four years or more, he paid the full cost of the yard; if for three years - 75%, if for two years - 50%, if for a year - 25%. See also there.

The Code of Law of 1550 provided for an increase in the elderly. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky considered this article of the Law Code a compromise between landowners, peasants and the state, since, in his opinion, the state was not strong enough to protect the peasants from the tyranny of the boyars. See Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. Feudalism in Russia. pp. 305 - 306. In 1581, Ivan the Terrible prohibited the transition of peasants to new lands for several years. These years were called “reserved years”. In 1597, Boris Godunov limited the search period for fugitive peasants to five years. V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov, N. P. Pavlov-Silvansky and A. A. Zimin separated the attachment of peasants to the land from enslavement, that is, the personal dependence of peasants on landowners, and explained it by the debt of the peasants. A. A. Zimin noted that in the 15th century. Most of the peasants who lived on the land of the feudal lords were personally free. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, by the end of the 16th century. the peasants lost the actual possibility of moving without outside help, so the peasants' exit turned into an export. See Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history. Full course lectures. Part 1. M., 2000. The question of economic and legal status black-mown peasants was debatable. L.V. Cherepnin and A.M. Sakharov considered them feudal-dependent on the state, A.A. Zimin and I.I. Smirnov - free and full owners of the land. A. A. Zimin saw black-plow land ownership as one of the prerequisites for the capitalist development of Russia. See Zimin A. A. Russia at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries.

The main forms of peasant protest were escapes, complaints against landowners, and seizure of their land. In the middle of the 16th century. The rapprochement between the estate and the estate began. The Code of Law of 1550 allowed landowners to exchange estates with the consent of the tsar and transfer the land by inheritance to their sons if they could bear military service. After the death of its owner, part of the estate remained with the widow until remarriage, tonsure as a nun or death, and for daughters under 15 years of age. If the landowner died at home, the widow was allocated 10% of the estate, and the daughters - 5%. If he died in battle, the widow received 20%, the daughters - 10% of the estate. Thus, landowners for the first time received the right to transfer land by inheritance. The right of patrimonial owners to dispose of land was limited. They did not have the right to sell their estates and could freely pass them on by inheritance only to their sons. It was possible to transfer land to a brother or nephew only in the absence of sons and with the consent of the king. If a patrimonial owner bequeathed an estate to his wife, after her death it went to the treasury. It was forbidden to transfer land to daughters and sisters. The purpose of this article of the Code of Law was to force all landowners to perform military service. Each landowner was obliged to field one mounted warrior in full armor from 100 quarters, that is, from 150 hectares of land. See Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. T. 7. M., 1989. P. 12 - 13, 17. Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history.

Noble cavalry in the 16th century. formed the basis of the Russian army. Military threat from Sweden, Poland, Crimean Khanate, and until 1552 - 1556. Also, the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates forced the government to increase the number of armed forces, so local land ownership grew rapidly. In 1550 1078 service people received 176,775 acres of land. The second reason for the growth of local land ownership and the expansion of the ownership rights of the nobles was the struggle of Ivan the Terrible with the boyars in the 60s and 70s. XVI century

The main industries were metalworking, woodworking, weaving, leather and shoe industry, production of paints, soap, tar, and potash. The process of developing crafts into small-scale production, which began in the 20s and 30s, has resumed. XII century, but interrupted by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.

In the second half of the 16th century. The first manufactories appeared, but they belonged to the state, there were very few of them. Weaving and turning looms and water engines were used in manufactories and craft workshops. Water mills were widespread. A territorial division of labor began to take shape. Cities became centers of crafts and trade. According to A. A. Zimin, the class of townspeople was in the process of formation. See Zimin A. A. Russia at the turn of the XV - XVI centuries. Used in the mining industry and transport hired labor. See Solovyov S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. T. 7. P. 45. Thus, the beginning of the 16th century. It was a time of economic expansion. Formed economic prerequisites capitalism, although feudalism still reigned supreme. Oprichnina led Russia to an economic crisis.

CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF MOSCOW Rus' in the 16th century

1. The rise of the needs of the sovereign and the state.

3. Architecture.

4. Painting.

5. Education.

6. Rising national feeling.

7. All-Russian chronicle codes and chronographs.

8. The idea of ​​Holy Rus' and its criticism, rationalistic and scientific; heresy of the Judaizers.

9. Canonization of Russian saints.

10. Great Chetya Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius.

1. The rise of the needs of the sovereign and the state.

With the overthrow of the Tatar yoke, a significant part of the material resources that had previously gone to the Horde began to remain in the country and came at the disposal of the Moscow sovereign and his closest servants.

The funds of the Moscow sovereign, and regardless of this, grew from the acquisition of new territories, some of which had large natural wealth. All these increased funds began to be used to satisfy new needs caused by both the rise of the very importance of the Grand Duke of Moscow and the unification of Great Rus' into one state. The development of pomp and luxury at the court of the Moscow sovereign and in the everyday life of the boyar, government class was noted above. But even more resources, of course, had to be absorbed by the defense of the huge state, the maintenance and supply of armed forces and fortresses.

2. Foreign imports and foreign craftsmen in Moscow.

The needs of the court, the upper class and the treasury were largely served, as in specific times, by the import of necessary items from abroad. Russian merchants who traveled to Kafa, Azov and even Constantinople, Greeks who came from there to Moscow, brought various items luxury - silk, knotted gold, silk and woolen materials, carpets, muslin, sashes, morocco, combs, necklaces, gems, pearls, incense, musk, soap, etc., wines, sweets and spices - walnuts, almonds, pepper, ginger, saffron, and, finally, various mosquito products - paints, camphor, etc. Exported from the east also some weapons - sabers, sagaidaki. German merchants who came to Novgorod, Moscow merchants who traveled to Lithuania and Livonia and other Western countries also brought expensive fabrics - cloth, wool and silk, wines, fruits and spices, as well as metals and minerals - silver, tin, copper , lead, sulfur and various iron products. The British, who established trade with Moscow through Arkhangelsk, and then the Dutch, imported expensive cloth, fine linens, and colonial goods into the Moscow state.

Not content, however, with foreign imports, the Moscow government began to take measures to obtain some of the foreign imports, especially metals. Ivan III, sending Yuri Trachaniot to the Tsar's court, ordered him to find in the Tsar's land and hire a mine who knows gold and silver ore, and another master who knows how to separate gold and silver from the land; Ivan III also asked the ore miners from the Hungarian King Matthew. Something has been achieved in this regard in practice. In 1491, the Germans Ivan and Victor found copper and silver ore on the Tsymna River, half a day from the river. Kosma and seven bottoms from the river. Pechory. But these searches did not yield any significant results, and the Moscow state still had to be content mainly with imported metals.

Materials and substances brought from the West and East were transformed into products by the work of their own, home-grown craftsmen. Various skills, as already indicated, were not translated in Rus' and in Tatar era. But in the 16th century, the Moscow government was no longer satisfied with their work alone and looked for more skilled technicians abroad. The aforementioned Yuri Trachaniot was ordered to obtain, among other things, a cunning silversmith who could make large vessels and mint cups and write on the vessels. From the Hungarian King Matthew, Ivan asked, in addition to ore miners, architects, silversmiths, cannon foundries. In 1490, the grand ducal ambassadors brought to Moscow a doctor, wall and chamber craftsmen, cannon, silversmiths and even an organ player; in 1494, ambassadors traveling to Venice and Milan brought Aleviz, a wall master and chamberlain, and Peter the cannonman to Moscow; under 1504, we meet the news that ambassadors had brought a new batch of craftsmen from Italy. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich greatly valued foreign craftsmen. In 1556, he sent an order to the boyar children in Novgorod to send to Moscow all captured Germans who knew how to make silver ore, silver, gold, copper, tin and any other craft. These Livonian captives, as is known, formed the first settlement of the so-called German Settlement in Moscow at the mouth of the Yauza. In 1567, a doctor, a pharmacist, an engineer with an assistant, a goldsmith, an assayer and other craftsmen left for Moscow from England. The influx of these masters undoubtedly raised the level of technical knowledge in the Muscovite state, for the Russian people learned from these foreigners and adopted their “tricks.” The Moscow government began to use the services of foreigners, among other things, to satisfy its military needs. The famous architect Aristotle Fioravanti not only built churches in Moscow, but also built cannons; Besides him, this work was also carried out by the Italian Pavlin Debosis, who in 1488 cast a large cannon, Peter the Cannonman, and others. Finally, foreign, mainly Italian, craftsmen, as we have already seen, took an active part in decorating the capital of the Moscow sovereign with new stone churches , chambers, walls and towers.

3. Architecture.

The main merit of foreign masters was the improvement of the art of construction techniques. This technique, as already mentioned in its place, was very weak. Ivan III, having decided to rebuild the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, built by Kalita and threatening to fall, entrusted this work to the Moscow masters Krivtsov and Myshkin. Having destroyed the old building, in 1472 they began to build a new temple based on the model of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. But as soon as they completed the construction to the vaults, part of the building collapsed.

Pskov craftsmen showed that the cement was bad. Then Ivan III entrusted the construction of the cathedral to Aristotle Fioravanti, who completed it successfully in 1479. Since he was also ordered to take the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral as a model, then, in general, he adhered to the Vladimir type, although he made some deviations from it, namely: he lengthened the plan, instead of four supporting pillars he installed six, of which four were round, Instead of three altar semicircles, he made five. The influence of Vladimir architecture was reflected most of all on the facade of the cathedral. We see here the same belt of columns, the same portals. But at the same time, researchers note in Fioravanti’s work a fascination not only with the forms of the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, but also with early Moscow architectural forms. Copying the portals and the arched belt, Fioravanti places “beads” on all the strands and semi-columns; The necks of its heads are smooth, without any decoration, modeled on the Church of the Savior on Bor and the Cathedral in Zvenigorod.

Like the Assumption, the Archangel Cathedral at the beginning of the 16th century turned out to be dilapidated and cramped. Ivan III ordered it to be dismantled and entrusted to another Italian architect, Aleviz Novy, to build a new, more extensive temple based on the model of the Assumption Cathedral. Aleviz carried out this order, and in 1509 the cathedral was ready. Its original facade was two-color: the walls were red, brick, and the pilasters, cornices and drafts were white stone. The entire external ornamentation of the cathedral - capitals, arches, pilasters, platbands - is designed in the Italian style of the early Renaissance; according to the Italian model, empty spaces in semicircles of kokoshniks are lined with shells; A special feature of the Aleviz building is also the cornice on which these shells stand. This cornice quickly won its place in Moscow architecture, and with half XVI centuries, almost all new churches in Moscow had it in one form or another.

The cathedral church in the Novodevichy Monastery, founded in 1524 according to the vow of Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich, was also built on the model of the Assumption Cathedral. In general, the influence of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral turned out to be very strong. Thanks to him, a definite plan for the cathedral church was created, which was followed throughout the 16th and XVII centuries: This is a large temple with six internal pillars, with external cornices, with five large onion-shaped domes on round necks.

The Annunciation Cathedral, built in 1490 on the site of the temple built by Vasily Dmitrievich, received a unique style. The Annunciation Cathedral was built by Pskov craftsmen. The temple is a square building with three altar semicircles and four pillars in the middle. On the southern, western and northern sides it is surrounded by covered porches, or galleries with two porches. Above the porches rise four aisles adjacent to the four corners of the building (they were added later, in 1563-1564), crowned with onion-shaped domes on round necks. From above, the temple is crowned with five onion-shaped domes, also on round necks, placed on kokoshniks (pointed at the top and stepped arches), along which the covering of the temple itself is made. In the Annunciation Cathedral one can see a mixture of techniques used in Vladimir-Suzdal architecture with Novgorod-Pskov techniques and, although still weak, an admixture of motifs of wooden architecture (in the use of kokoshniks).

Subsequently, Moscow architecture was already emancipated from the influence of Vladimir-Suzdal models. As in other spheres of life, so in art, the spirit of national creativity awakened, which headed towards the development of its own forms, which had already been developed by itself. When creating stone temples, the wooden churches of the northern region of Rus' begin to serve as a source of inspiration; is the desire to reproduce in brick the forms of wooden architecture that flourished magnificently in the north of Rus'. The political unification of Great Rus', thus, leads to the unification and concentration of the spiritual forces of the Russian people, which unfold in all their power, primarily in artistic creativity. Moscow architecture, led by talented craftsmen and assisted by all the technical means of modern construction art acquired from the Italians, creates architectural monuments of high artistic merit. The first attempts in a new direction date back to the time of Vasily III. In 1529, the Grand Duke and his wife built, according to a vow, the Church of the Beheading of John the Baptist in the village of Dyakovo near Moscow. The architect used the plan form of wooden churches. The main body of the temple is a high octagonal tower with semicircular projections on the east for the altar, surrounded by four smaller towers connected by galleries, each of which has an entrance in the middle, and on the sides of the entrance there are open spans like windows. Middle tower crowned with a cornice on which two rows of kokoshniks stand one above the other; from them emerges a second smaller octahedron, decorated at the top with square recesses; on this smaller octahedron there is a cylinder covered with eight semicircular protrusions, forming, as it were, a bunch of stone pillars; everything ends with a low dome. The smaller side towers are also built in the same manner. The builder of the Church of the Ascension in the village of Kolomenskoye, built in 1532, went even further in a new direction. According to its plan, it represents an equal-ended cross, without internal columns. The main building has the appearance of a high tower with twenty walls, crowned with kokoshniks, from which grows a smaller octagonal tower, crowned with two kokoshniks on each side; the octagon is covered with a high octagonal tent, with a small turret at the top, ending with a small dome with a cross. The church stands on a basement and is surrounded on all sides by a gallery of stone arches with three porches. All these features are taken from wooden churches. The Kolomna Church delighted its contemporaries with its appearance. The chronicler said about her: “very wonderful in height and beauty, and lightness, such has never happened before in Rus'.” The Dyakovskaya and Kolomna churches were the predecessors of St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow. The builders of this church - Posnik and Barma - looked at the Dyakovskaya and Kolomenskaya churches as an idea that they developed and complicated in their work. St. Basil's Cathedral (the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is on the moat) was built by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich in memory of the capture of Kazan. This temple represents a whole group of temples: in the middle is the main one, the largest in size, and on the sides it is surrounded in strict symmetry by eight smaller ones, and the whole group in the form of an octagonal star represents a harmonious and artistic whole. It must be said that the current appearance of the temple is somewhat inconsistent with its ancient appearance. Previously, all the heads, and especially the middle tent, rose higher, which is why the whole group received a greater tendency upward; the middle tent was surrounded, like the middle dome of the Dyakovo Church, by cylindrical projections, now non-existent; the porches had no tents; The cathedral was covered with tiles, the middle tent was decorated with multi-colored tiles with the same balls. There were no churches on the lower floor: there were storage rooms for storing valuable property of parishioners. St. Basil's Cathedral remained the only inimitable example. But the motives of wooden architecture were expressed in many stone churches built in the 16th and first half of the 17th centuries.

4. Painting.

New churches, which were built by foreign and Russian architects, were painted and supplied with icons mostly Russian masters. So, in 1481, the icon painters Dionysius, priest Timofey, Yarets and Konya, “wrote the Deesis with the holidays and prophets of Velmi Chuden in the new cathedral church of the Most Pure Mother of God in Moscow”; in 1488, master Dolmat, an icon painter, signed the Church of the Presentation on the settlement; in 1514-1515, apparently, Novgorod masters decorated the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow with frescoes. After the great Moscow fire, when many churches burned down, the tsar sent for icons to other cities, called Novgorod and Pskov icon painters and ordered them to make copies; Pskov masters asked to go home and painted copies of local icons there. Thus, Moscow, in the field of iconography, concentrated everything that was then best in Rus' - both artistic examples and artistic forces. Moscow icon painting generally reproduced the manner and traditions of old Russian art, which developed under Byzantine influence. But in the 16th century one can already notice realistic features in it, inspired by Western, Italian influence. This “Fryazhsky” style, characterized by a desire for nature, reveals familiarity with anatomy human body, is noticeable in the works of even some Pskov masters (in the painting “Carnally in the Tomb”), but especially in the frescoes of the Annunciation Cathedral, discovered in 1884 by Academician Fartusov.

In addition to church painting, secular, ward painting of an emblematic nature developed in Moscow in the 16th century. The royal chambers were decorated with emblematic paintings - Faceted, Golden, Raspravnaya, Retaliatory, etc. Here, among other things, were depicted Day and Night, the faces of the four Winds, Love with the Strelok, personifications of virtues - courage, reason, chastity, truth - and their opposites vices, the angels of the Fear of God are depicted, an angel holding the Sun, the Lord in the form of an angel holding a mirror and a sword, etc. Finally, it is necessary to note the successes of historical painting, manifested especially in the luxurious miniatures with which the Royal Book is decorated.

5. Education.

Complaints about the lack of literate, educated people, which were heard at the end of the appanage era, were repeated in the 16th century. At a church council in 1551, it was stated that candidates for the priesthood and deaconry “have little ability to read and write,” and in response to the bishops’ questions they explained: “we learn from our fathers and from our masters, but elsewhere we have nowhere to study; “As much as our fathers and masters know how to do, that’s what they teach us.” But with all this, one cannot fail to notice the rise in education in Muscovite Rus' compared to specific era. It can no longer be said about the Moscow sovereigns of the 16th century that they were unlearned people: Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich was even a well-read, educated and developed person for his time. Under him, they began to send young people to foreign countries “to learn different languages ​​and read and write.” Boris Godunov already valued education so much that he planned to found in Moscow something like a university with the teaching of foreign languages ​​and foreign teachers, and only the fear of the clergy, as if this would cause damage to faith, prevented Godunov from carrying out his plan. The new management system - orderly, bureaucratic - required many competent officials, people of letters, and in the end a significant contingent of them was created in the state. Among them in Moscow were persons who knew foreign languages, interpreters of Greek, Latin, German and Polish languages who served under the Ambassadorial Prikaz. But even among the serving nobility there were already many literate, educated people. Researchers have noted that about 80% of the court nobility had their hands on the document on the election of Boris Godunov to the throne. There were many literate people among the merchants; There were fewer among the townspeople, peasants, archers, gunners, slaves, but still there were; in the 16th century there were literate people in almost every locality. Literacy was caused by the demands of practical life, which, with the unification of Rus', took on a new scale, different from the era of specific isolation, close relationships, and petty domestic interests. Literacy has become necessary for everyone - and ruling class, which had to abandon patriarchal methods of management, keep accurate records and calculations of everything, put its acts in writing, and the commercial and industrial class, which carried out its operations on an increased scale and was attracted by the government to cooperate in financial management, and worldly people , peasants who received self-government under the control of the central government. Under such conditions, literacy and a certain level of education should have developed invisibly to the observer, and even independently of those schools that Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod established, and should have been established by clergy based on the definition of the council of 1551.

6. Rising national feeling.

The political unification of Rus', having created a new living situation, putting forward new vital tasks, raised the entire structure of feelings and ideas of Russian society, especially its upper strata.

Here, in the foreground, we should note a certain rise in national feeling. While Rus' was divided into many small principalities, while the rulers and the ruling class were completely absorbed in petty everyday affairs, worries and thoughts, while specific isolation and specific egoism of the princes and the societies ruled by them reigned in Rus', there was no source that would feed the national feeling . This feeling has almost completely died out and dried up in Russian society and the masses. It barely glimmered in the highest church hierarchy, which was almost the only one who remembered the entire Russian land, its common interests and tasks, sometimes reminding the Grand Duke of All Russia and those around him about them. Outside this close circle, Russian national feeling began to awaken with the success of the unification of Rus' under the rule of Moscow. The Battle of Kulikovo gave him a strong impetus. After almost all of Rus' marched under the banner of Moscow on the Kulikovo Field and won a brilliant victory over the Tatars, Russian society’s eyes were opened to the fact that there is a Russian land, there are Orthodox Russian Christians, natural brothers and allies against the godless, filthy Tatars. This national contempt was expressed quite clearly in the legends about the Battle of Kulikovo, in those rhetorical embellishments and outpourings with which the legends about the Battle of Kulikovo were flavored. Some of these legends were even rehashes of an ancient national poem - “Tales of Igor’s Campaign.” The awakened feeling did not fall asleep, despite subsequent strife and defeats, but grew stronger and stronger. By the end of the 15th century, it had already grown so much that it became the determining motive for domestic and foreign policy. Ivan III and Vasily III were thoroughly imbued with this feeling, destroying inheritances to unite the forces of Rus' against external enemies, waging a long and intense struggle to annex the Orthodox Russian lands that were under heterodox Lithuanian rule. The same national feeling undoubtedly animated the Moscow boyars, the clergy, and the entire intelligentsia of that time.

7. All-Russian chronicle codes and chronographs.

A characteristic expression of this fact is the change in Russian chronicle writing in the 15th and 16th centuries. Local chronicles, kept in the 13th and 14th centuries, are increasingly being replaced by all-Russian chronicle collections in the 15th and 16th centuries. It has already been said about the appearance in the 15th century of the so-called Vladimir Polychron (around 1423). In the second half of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, several alterations and continuations of this “Polychron” arose, which now constituted the Sophia chronicles (first and second), Resurrection and Nikon chronicles. All these chronicles already interpret the Russian land as a single one, they are imbued through and through with the ideas of its national, political and religious unity. The same trends can be noticed to a certain extent in the first Russian chronograph, and in the so-called “Book of Degrees,” the first systematic history of Russian statehood, where events are presented according to the pedigree degrees of rulers, starting with Vladimir. It is based on the “Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” with its legend about the sending of the royal crown and barmas to Vladimir Monomakh by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, with the genealogy of Russian princes from Augustus Caesar, etc. The book is thoroughly imbued with the desire to justify and exalt the policies of the Grand Dukes of Moscow. Its first edition was apparently compiled back in the 15th century, and the second, more complete, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible by Metropolitan Macarius. At the same time, the compilation of a grandiose historical encyclopedia with many illustrations in XI volumes, known as the “Royal Book,” dates back to that time. This piece is a further development of the chronograph.

8. The idea of ​​Holy Rus' and its criticism, rationalistic and scientific; heresy of the Judaizers.

The national Russian idea received, as already said, a religious overtones. In the consciousness of Russian people at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, it was not simple Rus' that grew up, but Holy Rus'. After the Greek Church concluded a union with the Latin Church, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. The Russian land in the eyes of the Russian people has become the only custodian of true orthodox Christianity, the only vessel of saving Christian piety. This idea of ​​Holy Rus' found its most vivid expression and development in the letters of the Pskov monk Philotheus to clerk Misyur Munekhin, “to a certain nobleman living in the world,” to Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich and to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. But this idea penetrated the consciousness of thinking Russian society of the 16th century and strengthened in it, not without struggle, not without obstacles. At the very end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, it was destined to withstand a fairly strong onslaught of rationalistic criticism from the so-called Judaizers.

The heresy of the Judaizers arose in Novgorod, on the soil already prepared by the Strigolniks. The instigator of this movement was the Jew Skhariya, who arrived in Novgorod in 1470 with the Lithuanian prince Mikhail Olelkovich. Arriving in Novgorod, Skhariya began to have conversations with some Novgorod priests and laymen on theological topics. According to Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk, Skhariya presented the following arguments against Christianity:

1) how is it possible to imagine and admit that God himself came down to earth and became incarnate?

2) The Old Testament says that there is one God. How can one accept the New Testament, which says that it is trinitarian?

3) The apostles wrote that Christ was born in last summers, and yet there is still no second coming: isn’t it clear that their writings are false?

4) Ephraim the Syrian says in his writings; “Behold, our Lord Jesus Christ is coming to judge the living and the dead, and behold, the end has come”; and meanwhile, about a thousand years have passed since his death: isn’t it clear that this writer, respected by Christians, from whom one can conclude about other writers, was mistaken and told a lie?” These arguments had an irresistible effect on one priest, Dionysius, who brought another priest, Alexei, to Skaria. Dionysius and Alexei not only converted to Judaism themselves, but also seduced their wives and children. They wanted to be circumcised, but Skaria himself was afraid of the result of his conversations and advised them to remain outwardly Christians. From this we can conclude that it is unlikely that Skaria had any specific intentions regarding the seduction of Christians into Judaism. He soon disappeared from the horizon, but the seeds he sown sprouted and bore fruit. It should be noted that he attracted Russian followers not only with critical arguments. Rev. Joseph says that he was “studied in sorcery and witchcraft, astronomy and astrology.” Therefore, his followers not only crookedly interpreted some of the “chiefs” of the Divine Scripture, but also “a certain fabulous and astronomical law was taught to look at the stars and build the birth and life of man, and to despise the Divine Scripture, as nothing exists and is indecent for the existence of man.”

Alexey and Dionysius managed to seduce new faith many of the priests, deacons and clerks and ordinary people in Novgorod. When Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich was in Novgorod in 1479, he really liked Alexei and Dionysius, he transferred them to Moscow - one as archpriest of the Assumption Cathedral, the other as priest of Arkhangelsk. In Moscow, Alexei and Dionysius won over to their ideas Archimandrite Zosima of the Simonov Monastery, Duma clerk Fyodor Kuritsyn, sextons Istoma and Sverchok, merchant Klenov, the Grand Duke's daughter-in-law Elena and others. According to the testimony of the teacher. Joseph of Volokolamsk, who denounced them in his “Enlightener,” the simplest turned to Judaism, that is, they rejected the divinity of Christ, considered him a simple prophet, and not the Messiah, who had not yet come, but would come. Others, even if they did not retreat into Judaism, then learned to reproach the Divine scriptures, “both in the marketplace and in the houses of the faith, I create strife and have doubts,” - they denied the need for an external, visible church, the veneration of icons and the veneration of relics, monasticism, rituals and fasts . According to the testimony of Gennady, Bishop of Novgorod, and Joseph, these religious freethinkers cursed at icons and crosses, got drunk and overeat, and became defiled by fornication.

The church and state brutally dealt with the breeders and prominent followers of the Judaizing sect. According to the resolution of the council of 1504, the main Moscow heretics were burned. In addition to punishing heretics, polemical works against Judaism were published. The embassy interpreter Dmitry Gerasimov Maly translated “Master Nicholas Lear’s most beautiful legends, Jewish unbelief in Orthodox faith blasphemous" (this is a polemical treatise by Nicholas De Lire, a Franciscan, professor at the University of Paris, who died in 1340). Nikolai Nemchin translated “Teacher Samoil the Jew into God-marking Jews with accusatory prophetic speeches” (Samuel, a Moroccan Jew who converted to Christianity in 1085). Finally, Rev. Joseph of Volokolamsk wrote his “Enlightener” against the Judaizers.

But having withstood the attack of rationalist criticism, the idea of ​​“Holy Rus'” was subsequently attacked by scientific criticism. Some Greeks who remained under Grand Duke Vasily III after his mother Sophia Fominishna began to point out to the sovereign that the Slavic liturgical books were full of heretical errors. The Grand Duke turned to the Greek scholar Maxim, whom he summoned to translate the Explanatory Psalter. Maxim confirmed this and received instructions from the Grand Duke to correct these liturgical books. Maxim not only corrected the Book of Hours, the Psalter, the Gospel, the Apostle and the Tsvetnaya Triodion, but also wrote some treatises that should have painfully hurt Russian society, imbued with religious-national conceit. He protested against the idea widespread in Moscow that true Orthodoxy was preserved only in Rus', that the Greek Church had wavered in the true faith, that there was no need for Russian metropolitans to go to Constantinople to be installed. “The sacred canons, to the observance of which the bishops commit themselves by their handwriting,” wrote Maxim, “they do not teach anywhere that they should be excommunicated from their patriarch, as long as this Orthodox one stands before the holy Church of God; if in Constantinople instead of Orthodox kings there were unfaithful tormentors, then the first church from the Ascension of the Savior to Constantine the Great was in the same position and not only was not defiled by the power of the wicked, but also shone in the midst of wickedness, like the sun. The priesthood is greater than the earthly kingdom, and if there are no earthly Orthodox Christian kings in Constantinople, then the spiritually reigning patriarch remains untried by hand God's grace and this grace is preserved among the wicked in all Orthodoxy.” The Russian people, who had already arrogated to themselves the monopoly of holiness, should not have listened particularly favorably to such speeches. They were even irritated by the corrections that Maxim made to their liturgical books. They said to him: “Great, O man, you are annoyed by this deed to the venerable wonderworkers who have shone in our land: they were pleasing to God and living with their holy books, and after their repose they were glorified by their holiness and all kinds of miracles.”

The matter ended with Maxim being brought before the court of the ecclesiastical council for his various heretical and criminal-political acts. He was blamed for various unsuccessful corrections made by him due to insufficient knowledge of the Church Slavonic language, for example, “having ascended into heaven and turning gray (instead of gray hair, εκάɘισεν) at the right hand of God the Father, fearless Divinity” (instead of dispassionate Divinity); “if anyone denounces (instead of does not denounce) the Most Pure Mother of God the Virgin Mary, let him be cursed,” etc. Maxim was convicted and imprisoned, where he spent more than twenty years.

9. Canonization of Russian saints.

Thus the idea of ​​“Holy Rus'” triumphed again. We saw that the Russian people, in their quarrels with Maxim the Greek, pointed out to him as proof of national holiness the existence of many saints in the Russian Church, who became famous during their lives and after their deaths for their miracles. But a significant part of these lamps of the Russian church and its prayer books remained not yet glorified by the church, not canonized. The other part was revered only in certain localities, but not throughout the Russian land. Until 1547, 68 saints were canonized, of which only seven were canonized as saints of the entire Russian land (St. Boris and Gleb, Theodosius of Pechersk, Metropolitan Peter and Alexei, Sergius of Radonezh and Kirill of Belozersky). Just before the council of 1547, 15 more saints were canonized throughout the Russian Church. About 46 saints remained locally venerated until 1547. The political unification of Rus' and the awakened national feeling in connection with the idea of ​​​​holy Rus' gave rise to the need to unite and decorate the Russian sky with a host of all saints. Metropolitan Macarius satisfied this need. At the councils of 1547 and 1540, he proclaimed twenty-two locally revered saints and eight saints who remained glorified as all-Russian saints, so that the number of all-Russian saints more than doubled. After these councils, six more new saints were canonized under Metropolitan Macarius. Since some of the canonized saints did not have lives at all or had faulty ones, Metropolitan Macarius ordered that the lives be compiled again. There are up to 10 such lives.

10. Great Chetya Menaion of Metropolitan Macarius.

Rus', in the minds of its sons of the 16th century, became a vessel of true piety, a treasury of true Christianity. Church traditions, instructions and rules were kept in its entirety, and all the holy books were circulated in it. But in order not to lose these treasures, it was necessary to somehow make them known and put them together. The unification of Rus' had to take place in this spiritual and religious sphere. The same Metropolitan Macarius took up this matter. Even when he was Archbishop of Novgorod, Macarius set out to collect “all the books that can be found in the Russian Land.” For twelve years, according to him, he worked on this matter, “with many properties and many different clerks, not sparing silver and all honors.” Among his collaborators in collecting and compiling the lives of Russian saints were clerk Dmitry Gerasimovich Tolmachev and boyar son Vasily Mikhailovich Tuchkov. The fruit of his labors, which he continued in Moscow when he was already a metropolitan, were 12 volumes of the Great Four Menaions. In them Macarius placed not only short (diligent) and lengthy (Minea) legends about the holidays and lives of the saints, but also all the words that existed in those days and all the creations that belonged to these saints that he could find; at the end of each month he placed church teaching works by unholy and unnamed writers. The number of newly compiled lives of Russian saints in the Menaions reaches 60. Macarius finally established in our hagiographical writing the direction that arose back in the 14th century, when the compilers of the lives began to bring moral edification to the foreground to the reader, simplicity of presentation began to be replaced with an ornate interweaving of words, folk and Russian language in Church Slavonic, short prayers to the saint words of praise in honor of him and descriptions of the miracles performed by him after his death.

In the history of the consolidation of the religious-national Russian idea, the church council of 1551 also played a certain role. It legitimized various local features of the Russian Church, as immutable truths of Orthodoxy, for example, about the addition of two fingers, about the special hallelujah, etc. The Council gave a fairly complete code, which eliminated various disorders and abuses in church practice, but at the same time what was considered the charter, the tradition of the Russian Church was approved and sanctioned.

11. Influence of Protestantism; heresies of Matvey Bashkin and Theodosius Kosoy.

Along with this dominant current in the spiritual life of Russian society, currents rose to the surface that ran counter to it and created, as it were, whirlpools in the consciousness of Russian society. Such phenomena include the heresies of Matvey Bashkin, Theodosius Kosoy, and Abbot Artemy. These heresies show that not all Russian people of that time were inclined to concentrate on the conviction of the rightness and salvific nature of national Orthodoxy, that some were capable of analyzing and criticizing its basic dogmas and boldly constructing religious truths in a completely new direction.

During the Great Lent of 1553, the boyar's son Matvey Semenovich Bashkin came to confession to the priest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Simeon, and, not limiting himself to ordinary repentance, entered into a conversation with him about faith. This conversation continued in the priest’s courtyard and in Bashkin’s own house. Bashkin’s speeches caused great confusion to the priest. By the way, he said: the whole law of Christ is contained in the words: “love your neighbor as yourself, and we keep Christ’s servants with us; Christ calls everyone brothers, but with us, some are considered to be bondages, some are runaways, some are well-dressed, and others are full-fledged; But I thank my God, because I had complete bondage, then I tore everything apart, so I hold my own voluntarily.” Matvey taught the priest that it was the duty of the priests to “visit us often and tell us about everything, how we should live and keep people with us without tormenting us.” Fearing that he would not get into trouble from such interviews, Simeon spoke about Bashkin’s perplexed questions and his depraved interpretation of the apostle to his comrade, the famous priest Sylvester, and he reported this to the king. Bashkin was seized and two elders of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery were assigned to interrogate him. Bashkin at first did not want to admit to any heresy, but then the wrath of God overtook him: he began to rage terribly, hang out his tongue and shout in different voices. Having come to his senses, he heard the terrible voice of the Mother of God, ordering him to confess everything and betray his like-minded people. Bashkin did this in writing. From the letters of Metropolitan Macarius to the Solovetsky Monastery and the Tsar to Maxim the Greek, we learn what the heresy of Bashkin and his followers consisted of:

1) “The Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ is unequal to His Father;

2) His honest and holy body and His honest and holy blood are considered nothing, but simply simple bread and simple wine;

3) they will deny the holy and catholic apostolic church, saying that it is a council of the faithful - this is only a church, but this one that was created is nothing;

4) the divine flesh of Christ, the imagination and the Most Pure Mother of God and all His holy holy icons will be called idols;

5) repentance is considered nothing, saying: as soon as he stops committing sin, even if the priest does not repent, he has no sin;

6) the fatherly tradition and their lives are imputed to fables;

7) all the divine scriptures are described as fables, but the apostle and the gospel do not set forth the truth.”

It is easy to see that Bashkin and his comrades were imbued with the extreme Protestant ideas that were then spreading throughout Europe. Bashkin himself admitted that “he accepted the evil teaching from the Litvin Matyushka, an optometrist, and Ondryushka Khoteev, the Latinists.” So Rus' was not left without the influence of the reformation ideas of the era. However, this influence was destroyed at the very beginning by vigorous measures. According to the council's decision, Bashkin and his comrades, the two Borisov brothers, were imprisoned in life imprisonment. Matvey Bashkin accused, among other things, Theodosius Kosoy of heresy. Theodosius Kosoy was a runaway servant of a Moscow boyar who became a monk at the Belozersky Monastery. We learn about his teaching from polemical works written against his heresy by the monk Zinovius of Otten (“Truth testimony to those who asked about the new teaching,” “The Epistle is verbose”) and another unknown author. From this evidence it is clear that Kosoy’s teaching was a development of those very radical views that had previously been spread by the Judaizers. Theodosius taught that God is one, and not trinity, that Jesus Christ, the founder religious society, is not God; it is proper to worship God in spirit, and not externally; the entire outer church with its hierarchy, sacraments, services and institutions is a later human tradition and invention. Theodosius advised not to go to churches, for they are idols, not to sing prayers, not to demand prayers from the priests, not to repent to them and not to receive communion from them, not to burn incense, not to perform funeral services, not to be remembered after death; destroy crosses and icons, for they are idols; do not call on saints for help and do not venerate their relics, do not observe fasts, do not read the writings of the fathers. True Christianity does not consist in deeds of external piety, but solely in fulfilling the commandment of Jesus Christ to love one’s neighbors. Not recognizing Jesus Christ as God, Theodosius recognized him, however, as God's messenger, who, instead of the Old Testament, established his New Testament. Jesus Christ abolished rituals, ordered to worship God in spirit, and in place of rituals he gave a new moral commandment about loving your neighbors as yourself. In his religious free-thinking, Theodosius went so far as to admit that people of all faiths are one with God: both Tatars and Germans. There is no doubt that Theodosius would have paid dearly for such a teaching if, having been captured and imprisoned, he had not escaped to Lithuania in 1554.

In connection with the Bashkin case, it was revealed that religious freethinking in the Protestant spirit had embraced a fairly significant number of people in our country who did not directly fall away from Orthodoxy. The most interesting of them is the abbot of the Trinity Monastery Artemy. Bashkin and various other persons pointed out to him that he had a negative attitude towards icon worship, preached that what was not written in the Gospel and the Apostle did not need to be maintained, did not curse the Novgorod heretics, praised the Latins, and did not fast. The Trinity cellarer testified that Artemy said: there is no benefit in singing requiems and masses for the dead, this will not relieve them of torment. Monk Ignatius testified that Artemy laughed at the akathists singing: - they only know how to shout: “Yes, Jesus, yes, Jesus; Rejoice, rejoice." By all accounts, Artemy represented a fairly common type of critics of the existing order in our country, who do not go beyond conversations and sharp words, remaining servants of this order. And Artemy was not alone. In the same Trinity Monastery, four monks were exposed as disciples of Artemy; then the following were accused of heresy: monk Savva Shah, monk of the Solovetsky Monastery Iosaf Belobaev, Bishop of Ryazan Cassian and some others. Artemy and his like-minded people were condemned by the council in 1554 and sent to Solovki for imprisonment. From Solovki, however, he fled to Lithuania and here, repenting of his errors, he wrote polemical works against Theodosius Kosoy and his comrades and against local heretics. The search for heretics continued in subsequent years, until 1557 inclusive. It is only unknown what results they led to.

The heresies of Bashkin, Theodosius Kosoy and others did not give rise to a powerful reform movement in our Rus', as they gave rise to similar teachings in the West. But, in any case, they show that in the 16th century Rus' was not as spiritually isolated from the West as it might seem at first glance. The main spiritual currents of the West seeped into our Rus'; and we had critics and denouncers of a recognized order, who came out with bold religious and philosophical constructions on the principles of rationalism.

Literature

1. S. M. Soloviev. History of Russia from ancient times. Book 2.

2. D. I. Ilovaisky. History of Russia. T. 2, 3. M„ 1884, 1890.

3. A. Novitsky. History of Russian art from ancient times. M„ 1903.

4. I. E. Grabar. History of Russian art. Vol. 5, 6, 7.

5. M. Krasovsky. Essay on the history of the Moscow period of ancient Russian church architecture. M., 1911.

6.II. A. Rozhkov. Review of Russian history with sociological point vision. Part 2. Issue. 1. St. Petersburg, 1905.

7. A. I. Sobolevsky. Education of Moscow Rus' XV-XVII centuries. St. Petersburg, 1892.

8. E. E. Golubinsky. History of the Russian Church. T. 2. Half volume 1. M., 1900.

9. M. N. Speransky. History of ancient Russian literature. 2nd ed. M., 1914.

Lecture, abstract. Socio-economic development in Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries - concept and types. Classification, essence and features.

06/25/2010/abstract Features of the formation of military blocs at the end of the 19th century. Contradictions between Russia and Austria-Hungary. The situation in the world after the First World War. Features of the formation of a new totalitarian type state regime in the USSR by the early 1930s. 3.12.2002/course work The political situation in Russia on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The socio-economic situation in Russia on the eve peasant reform. The essence of the reform. New perspectives. Opportunity for broad development of market relations. 09.27.2004/test work Evolution of state and political system. The process of centralization. Socio-economic development. Domestic policy. Foreign policy. Diplomatic contacts with Denmark, Sweden, the German and Ottoman empires. 11/16/2008/abstract Reunification of all Ukrainian lands as part of a single power. Development of Ukraine within the USSR. Ukraine as a co-founder and member of the United Nations since its founding. Settlement territorial issues. Transition to peaceful life. 01/5/2011/abstract Germany within the Holy Roman Empire. The end of the Interregnum periods and the emperors of various dynasties. The election of Habsburg as sovereign and his policy of expanding family domains. Specifics of the development of the country's estate representative bodies. 06/29/2010/abstract Administrative and state transformations of Belarusian lands. War of 1812 on the territory of Belarus. Socio-economic development and socio-political movement in Belarus in the first half of the 19th century. Culture of Belarus in the first half of the 19th century. 05/17/2010/course work Study of the origins of the army in ancient Egypt. Characteristics of the weapons of the ancient Egyptian warrior and analysis of battle tactics. Influence standing army for socio-economic development Ancient Egypt. Review wars of conquest rulers of Ancient Egypt. 09/22/2008/thesis Domestic and foreign policy of the Egyptian government in 1952-1956. English influence in the country. History of political movements in Egypt. Legislative design new regime. Socio-economic development. System of international relations. Did you like the article? Share with your friends! Share on Facebook Read also Lesson summary "scientific complex of Russia" Brief summary on the topic scientific complex NATO expansion to the east: stages of advancement Presentation of identification marks of tanks of NATO countries Unit of length - kilometer" The photograph shows a view of the Earth from lunar orbit. Welcome to Trenkasinskaya Rural Library A sphere inscribed in a cylinder A sphere is said to be inscribed in a cylinder if it touches its base and lateral surface (touches each generatrix) Presentation on computer science on the topic "distance learning at school" Presentation on distance learning in technology lessons Presentation - troubled times Top