There is no happiness in comfort, happiness is bought. “In Europe there is benefit - with us there is sacrifice”: F.M. Dostoevsky on European civilization and Russia

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Under the cover of grace. Film 1st. Baptism of Rus'

✪ Second Baptism of Rus' (Part 1)

✪ Vladimir Candle | Temple-monument to the 1000th anniversary of Baptism

Subtitles

Preparation

The process of preparation for the holiday in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) had a significant consolidating influence among the Orthodox part of the Russian diaspora abroad. The scientific and journalistic activity of the Russian abroad has revived. During this period it comes out great amount publications on Russian history devoted to understanding the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in building the state and the formation of the Russian mentality. Scientific monographs, articles in periodicals, separate publications of various dioceses of the ROCOR, biographical publications, etc. were published. Almost all such publications contain an analysis of the current state of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the ROCOR.

On May 17, 1983, the official transfer of the complex of buildings of the Moscow former Danilov Monastery took place for the creation on its territory of the “Spiritual and Administrative Center” of the Moscow Patriarchate. The decision was perceived not only by the Orthodox in Moscow, but throughout the USSR as an event of extreme importance, as the first sign of a possibly changing attitude of the country's leadership to the needs of the Church. The restoration of the first monastic monastery after 1930 in the capital of the communist state became widely known in society, which attracted interest both in the upcoming anniversary and in Orthodoxy in general. In 1984, an attempt was made to prevent the creation of a monastic community in the Danilov Monastery. But after the death of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Konstantin Chernenko, objections from the authorities disappeared. Some concerns among the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate were caused by the appointment in November 1984 of Konstantin Kharchev, who replaced Vladimir Kuroyedov, to the post of chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs.

In 1986, during the election of Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) as First Hierarch of the ROCOR, Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) said: “In two years, you will have to hold the solemn anniversary of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of our Motherland. We have lived as Christians for a thousand years, which we must show not in words, but in deeds. We must celebrate this anniversary here so that it is also an anniversary there, in our homeland. The celebration will be banned there, or allowed, reducing it to nothing, and then - under the mockery and threats of the Soviet press. Only from here will our enslaved brothers hear the voice of the Russian Church. Your voice, Master, is like that of the Holy Hierarch of God."

Basic official holiday events were agreed upon two years before the anniversary: on July 29, 1986, the Holy Synod decided “in connection with the celebration to convene a Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and hold it /.../ from June 6 to June 9, 1988.” At the same time, the composition of the Commission for the preparation and holding of the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' was published, consisting of 43 people.

In 1987, a revision of state policy regarding religion and the rights of believers began: materials began to appear in the media about repressions in the USSR, about the Russian Church as the custodian of folk culture and spirituality, about Optina Hermitage, the fate of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and other destroyed shrines.

In the lead-up to the anniversary, three international scientific conferences were held in Kyiv, Moscow and Leningrad, dedicated to the activities of the church throughout its history. thousand-year history. In addition to Russian and foreign theologians and church historians, secular scientists also participated in these conferences. More than 250 reports were heard. The materials of the conference, held on July 21-28, 1986 in Kyiv, were published in the 28th issue of the collection “Theological Works”.

The article by academician Boris Rauschenbach, published in August 1987, dedicated to the baptism of Rus' and its significance for ancient Russian state. The article was published in many languages and published throughout the world, including by the UNESCO Courier.

The development of the situation was also followed abroad: in November 1987, the XXIV session of the UNESCO General Assembly called for celebrating the “1000th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in Rus' as biggest event in European and world history and culture". This statement attracted the widest public attention to the Russian Orthodox Church, not only Soviet Union, but also the whole world.

The main church celebrations planned for the beginning of the summer of 1988, including festive services and thanksgiving prayers in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church, were decided to coincide with the Day of All Saints Who Shined in the Russian Land, which, in accordance with the church calendar, fell on June 12.

Celebration in the USSR

The Bishops' Pre-Conciliar Conference, which took place on March 28-31, 1988 in the Assumption Church of the former Novodevichy Monastery, in the communiqué noted, among other things: “The participants in the Bishops' Pre-Conciliar Conference with gratitude consider it necessary to note the positive attitude of the Soviet government to the issues put forward by the Hierarchy of our Church.”

On April 29, 1988, in the presence of reporters from all over the world, a meeting of the Patriarch and permanent members of the Synod with Mikhail Gorbachev “in connection with the 1000th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in Rus'” took place in the Catherine Hall of the Kremlin. Gorbachev himself called the Baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir “a significant milestone on the centuries-old path of development of national history, culture and Russian statehood” and noted that thanks to Perestroika, more Active participation religious figures in the life of society. In response to this, Pimen expressed “full support”, “sincere gratitude” to the “architect of Perestroika and the herald of new political thinking” and blessed Gorbachev to continue the work he had begun. This meeting served as a signal for party and Soviet bodies to allow coverage of the Jubilee celebration as a national event.

A real sensation at that time was the permission of the authorities to build a new temple in the capital in honor of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus', which was agreed upon at a meeting between Mikhail Gorbachev and the hierarchs.

On the eve of the celebrations, the Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Monastery (Kaluga) and the Tolgsky Monastery (Yaroslavl) were transferred to the Church. On the eve of the Millennium itself, part of the buildings of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra were returned to the Church. The relics, which were stored in the state museums of the Moscow Kremlin, were transferred to the church.

The main anniversary celebrations took place on June 5-12, 1988 in Zagorsk and Moscow. Participants of the Local Council of 211 delegations from 89 countries came to Moscow - a total of 517 guests, including the primates of local Orthodox churches: Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, Patriarch Diodorus of Jerusalem, Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of All Georgia, Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria, Archbishop Chrysostomos I of Cyprus, Metropolitan of Warsaw Vasily, Metropolitan of Prague Dorotheos, Metropolitan of All America and Canada Theodosius. There were only no representatives of the Constantinople and Greek Orthodox churches.

Patriarch Demetrius I of Constantinople did not arrive due to some protocol disagreements. The celebrations in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in which a delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church led by Archbishop Kirill of Smolensk and Vyazemsk took part, took place earlier and were timed to coincide with Orthodoxy Week, February 28, 1988.

1,100 journalists were accredited for these celebrations, of which 446 were foreign. No festivals have had such an international resonance.

The anniversary celebrations opened with the Divine Liturgy in the Moscow Epiphany Cathedral.

Throughout the week from June 5 to June 12, festive services were held in Moscow churches, and on June 11 an all-night vigil was held.

For public charitable purposes, the Bolshoi Theater was provided, foreign guests were received by the head of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N.I. Ryzhkov - while the celebrations continued, the program was constantly growing. These events were widely covered on television throughout the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev did not participate in these stories, but his wife Raisa Gorbacheva was a frequent guest at all non-liturgical events and was always the center of media attention.

The culmination of the holiday was June 12, when the hierarchs of almost all the Orthodox churches on the planet gathered in Moscow. On the square of the Danilov Monastery, which had just been restored from a dilapidated state, the Divine Liturgy was served, which was performed by: Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, Patriarch Diodorus I of Jerusalem, Patriarch Pimen of Moscow, Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II, Patriarch Theoktist of Romania, Patriarch Maximus of Bulgaria, Archbishop of Cyprus Chrysostom I.

Many festival events were widely broadcast on central television.

On June 13, 1988 in Moscow, in the Tsaritsyn Ponds area, near the Kashirskoye Highway, Patriarch Pimen laid the foundation stone of a “temple dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', a temple in memory of all our compatriots who laid down their lives defending the sacred borders of our Motherland in Patriotic Wars..." . However, for various reasons, its construction began only in 2001.

Celebration in ROCOR

In 1987, the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Vitaly, addressed the clergy and flock of the ROCOR with the First Anniversary Message, on the occasion of the then approaching 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. This message outlined anniversary celebrations in all countries of the Russian diaspora, throughout the world.

On July 24, 1988, in the large theater hall of Buenos Aires, the Casal de Catalunya, the official ceremony of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' took place, in Russian, with a full hall of more than 600 seats.

Meaning

The year 1988 was a turning point in the public perception of the Church and its role in the history of Russia. The celebrations dedicated to the Millennium became a true triumph for the Russian Orthodox Church, which believers could not imagine before this event. Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov) said on this occasion: “We were sure that it would be a small family celebration. And then it turned out...”

The Millennium celebrations and the events of the previous months mark a real turn in the church policy of Gorbachev, who used the anniversary to advertise his own activities. Most likely, it was important for him to win the trust of the West. . It was from this moment that there was a significant weakening of the control and repressive pressure from the state apparatus on the Russian Orthodox Church. Temples are being returned to the Church, frequent meetings between government officials and church hierarchs are taking place, and the persecution of ordinary believers is ending. However, significant government pressure on the Church remains.

New churches began to be opened, restored and built (this process began back in 1987, but after the celebrations it began to new strength). After the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', Soviet rules for registering Orthodox parishes were officially changed. There was no longer any need to gather the “twenty” into the community; the destroyed churches were handed over en masse by the authorities. Throughout the USSR, more than one and a half hundred communities were registered daily.

All more people began to turn to God, the Bible and church literature became available. From that time on, the party and state press (there was no other press in the USSR at that time) began to actively cover the problems of religious life, and spiritual Christian programs appeared on television.

However, the celebrations lived up to expectations Soviet authorities; According to Kharchev, “Everyone saw that the party had changed its policy regarding religion, and not only the Russian Orthodox Church. After this, the mass opening of churches began, which was no longer prevented by the regional committee secretaries. In turn, what did the state get from this? People believed Gorbachev that a restructuring of society was actually taking place. After all, there was no particular success in the economy. There was also a colossal resonance abroad; we got rid of the bogeyman of the “evil empire.”

Gorbachev's new policy made possible more active participation of religious figures in the life of society. So, in 1989, Patriarch Pimen was elected people's deputy of the USSR.

Literature

Filaret, Metropolitan of Minsk and Belarus. The 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' is an outstanding event in Russian and world history // “Questions of History”, 1988, No. 5, p. 102-110
Anniversary collection: In memory of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus' (988-1988). - Jordanville: Rev. Printing House. Iova Pochaevsky, 1988. - pp. 1-4.
Celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' by Russian emigration in Western Europe, 988-1988 / Comp. Nikolai Ross. Paris: Publishing House of the Western European Committee for the Commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus', 1989. - 128 pp.: photo.
Russian Orthodox Church in Soviet times (1917-1991). Materials and documents on the history of relations between the state and the Church / Compiled by G. Stricker. M.: “Propylaea”, 1995. - 400 p.
Archimandrite Dionysius (Shishigin) “The past flies by... Patriarch Pimen and his time” - M. 2010. - 616 p.
You can separate the Church from the state, but you cannot separate the Church from the people // ZhMP, No. 7 July 2013 / July 24, 2013

The first publication of this article appeared about a year before the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus', in nineteen eighty-seven, in the month of August. Usually, on the eve of such significant dates (the 800th anniversary of Moscow, the 100th anniversary of Lenin), all Soviet periodicals were flooded with materials on the corresponding topic. On the occasion of the upcoming millennium, a striking silence reigned; only Komsomolskaya Pravda, having promised its readers to completely defeat the churchmen by this date, began a cycle of incompetent, vague atheistic articles, which, however, did not concern the millennium at all.

The country's greatest writers were silent, humanities scientists were silent, cultural figures were silent. It was at this moment that the author of the then-unwritten article received a call from the editorial office of the Kommunist magazine and was asked to “respond” to the strategic defense initiative of US President Reagan - SDI, which excited the minds of politicians and statesmen and caused a new surge of ideological struggle with its appearance. By that time, Boris Viktorovich had already written several articles about SDI, so with some annoyance he answered the “Communists” employee: “What nonsense is all this, is it really important? Here comes the millennium of the baptism of Rus', and you, strange people, do not write anything about it!” “What, can you write? - the journalist asked after a moment of confusion. “We are trying to find the author and have been unsuccessful.” - "Certainly can..."

And the article you will read below was commissioned. And not just like that (those were the wrong times!), but the author set the condition that he would first explain to the editorial board what and how he was going to write, and if he met support, he would agree to take on the work. It must be said that in those years the editorial board of the magazine “Communist”, a faithful and completely official organ of the party press, split into a progressive part, which included Chief Editor Bekenin, and reactionary - very persistent. So the foresight of the author of the future article, which, by the way, was very sharply conceived, was not out of place. The reactionary part did everything to prevent the article from being published, so the process of getting through it was difficult.

The material was “put on paper” in literally three or four days. Two years before the events described, academician rocket scientist Rauschenbach, in the words of his family, “was busy with nonsense again”: he became interested in history Ancient Rus', Kievan Rus and from morning to night I read huge, thick volumes of all modern authors treating this topic, even read in the original, in Old Russian, “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion. There were no far-reaching plans, the academician was just interested in it, it became another passion of his, like icons, which Boris Viktorovich was already seriously studying at that time. Therefore, he had plenty of material for the article ordered by “Kommunist”, the article was written instantly, and the editors allowed it, contrary to existing rules, without a queue, “pushing” other authors slightly, and put it in the twelfth issue of August 1987 (“ Communist” was published once every three weeks and had eighteen issues a year).

Of course, the author wanted to buy several copies of the magazine with his own article and went to the newsstand, where there were always different issues of “Kommunist” to choose from. This number was not available. It was not available in other kiosks either. I had to call the editorial office, and the employee laughingly assured the author that there was no problem, “we go to lunch at the Central Committee canteen, there are as many “Kommunist” as you like, I’ll buy you ten copies so that you can give them to your friends...” In the canteen of the Central Committee on the twelfth There was no issue of “Kommunist”: the appearance of a scandalous article by a famous academician in the main party printed organ caused a real boom, the magazine was instantly snapped up. The author had to be content with a single copy, which was given to him by one of the editorial staff.

After the publication, indignant calls from atheists were heard in the editorial office of Kommunist, but no one wanted to enter into polemics with Rauschenbach on the pages of the magazine: there was nothing to object to, it was impossible to polemicize, because the article cited indisputable facts.

In the autumn of the same year, Boris Viktorovich flew from Prague, where he was on a business trip, to Stockholm as a member of the Soviet delegation taking part in meetings to protect peace. The level of participants was quite high - former ministers, former prime ministers, - therefore the hotel where the meetings were held was surrounded by machine gunners; Even then, Sweden was afraid of terrorist attacks and took all measures to protect its guests. At the airport, the late academician was met by an employee of the Soviet embassy in Stockholm and on the way to the hotel he said: “I must convey to you the ambassador’s gratitude.” - "For what?" - “For your article in “Kommunist.” People constantly contact us at the embassy asking what the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' is, but we don’t know what to answer. When your article appeared, we translated it into Swedish and are distributing it to everyone who is interested.”

The article was published in many languages and published throughout the world, including by the UNESCO Courier. In 1988, without wanting it, Academician Rauschenbach became “the biggest expert” on this issue, although he still cannot talk about it without smiling. Nevertheless, when UNESCO celebrated the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus' in Paris - and this was an official celebration - B.V. Rauschenbach was included in the Soviet delegation, along with Metropolitan Juvenaly, who made a report at the celebrations.

In the Soviet Union, a holiday on this occasion was held almost at the state level: with a ceremonial meeting and concert in Bolshoi Theater USSR, in the presence of the Moscow elite and representatives of various religious denominations. M.S. Gorbachev, then general secretary The Communist Party, could not come to these celebrations, Raisa Maksimovna was present as a representative of the Cultural Foundation, headed by Academician Likhachev. And since the “first lady” of the country was present, everyone understood that in this way Mikhail Sergeevich himself was present, who could not appear physically only for protocol reasons.

According to Boris Viktorovich, this whole situation was quite comical, but characteristic of that time; it showed how unexpected and necessary the appearance of such an article was, what a powerful breakthrough it was through the barriers of officialdom, which gave rise to other similar articles that were already relatively easy. But in “The Millennium...” there was no “overthrow of the foundations,” the author even referred to Engels to assure the atheists that he was just a Marxist, they were not Marxists.

Today's re-publication of this article is interesting as the first non-atheistic voice that was heard amid the complete silence on the eve of great date Russian history.

A thousand years ago, in 988, Kievan Rus appeared among the “host” of European Christian states. The interest shown in this event both in our country and far beyond its borders is understandable.

In order to rethink what and how happened in those distant centuries in Kievan Rus, it is useful to recall the words of Friedrich Engels, spoken, however, about a later era - the Renaissance: “It was a time that the French correctly called the Renaissance, but Protestant Europe was one-sided and limited by the Reformation.”

From Engels’ statement it is clear that judging events of this magnitude, taking into account only the religious component, means judging “one-sidedly and limitedly.” Unfortunately, some representatives of scientific atheism take a position that contradicts the deep thought of Engels. Looking only for “ dark sides” of an event that took place 10 centuries ago, it is impossible to fully appreciate its complexity and inconsistency, its objective meaning and significance.

They emphasize in every possible way, for example, the violent nature of baptism. The history of the spread of the Christian religion indeed provides certain reasons for this. Take, for example, the so-called baptism of the pagan tribes of the Baltic states by the crusaders. Here they acted simply: an army of knights marched out, defeated the detachments of those who resisted, seized lands, built their castles on them, turned the free population into serfs and gave this robbery a “decent” appearance by baptizing the survivors. However, it is obvious that the point here was not at all about baptism, but about the seizure of land. The Spaniards in America baptized the aborigines in a similar way. But nothing like this happened in Rus', where events developed differently and in the opposite, so to speak, direction (more on this below).

What happened at the end of the 10th century in Ancient Rus' was an outstanding event in the history of our Motherland. Grand Duke Vladimir carried out a bold government reform that had far-reaching consequences. I would compare it with the reform of Peter I. As in the time of Peter, then a breakthrough in the development of the country was needed, assimilation of the highest achievements of the advanced countries of that era. Vladimir pursued the goal of becoming on par with the developed feudal monarchies. To do this, it was necessary to decide to energetically carry out feudal reform and the profound transformations associated with it. It is this “one-sided and limited” reform that is often called the baptism of Rus'.

(To avoid misunderstandings, I will emphasize at the very beginning that I am talking about the feudal nature of reforms, the state, and ancient Russian society as a whole, using modern concepts and not at all wanting to present Vladimir as something like a conscious “theorist of feudalism.” He expressed the objective needs of social development, which determined his natural desire to create a state in no way inferior to the monarchies known to him, including Byzantium.)

To better understand the processes that determined the lives of our ancestors in those distant centuries, it is necessary to at least briefly recall the events of the previous century. Initially scattered Slavic tribes at times they united and carried out military operations with their neighbors, sometimes disturbing the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire. In the middle of the 9th century, the first big campaign against Byzantium took place, associated in the chronicle with the name Prince of Kyiv Askold. This was a period when the patriarchal communal system was decomposing and feudal relations were emerging. They then had a primitive form - in the fall and winter, the squad with the prince walked around their territory, collecting tribute; feudal land tenure did not yet exist. In the spring, surpluses collected (furs, wax, etc.) were sent along the Dnieper to Byzantium and even to more distant countries of the East. From there they brought products that were not produced in Rus'. Askold besieged Constantinople, took a large ransom and concluded an agreement with Byzantium, which probably contained some benefits for the Russian nobility. For the first time, Byzantium encountered the nascent state. These were no longer just “barbarians” who plundered the border provinces, but something more serious.

At the end of the 9th century, Oleg, who came from Novgorod, captured Kyiv and united northern and southern Rus' (Novgorod and Kyiv). The outlines of the future ancient Russian state emerged. The still fragile unification of Rus' into one whole was supported by constant military operations against rebellious tribes. A new successful campaign against Byzantium ended with the conclusion of a beneficial treaty for the Russians and the provision of an annual tribute (payment for non-aggression).

With the death of Oleg (beginning of the 10th century), the fragility of the unification of the Slavic tribes immediately became apparent - their union disintegrated. Igor had to restore it by force of arms. He was killed in one of the campaigns against the Drevlyans for repeated tribute, which was contrary to customs. Cruel revenge on the Drevlyans followed on the part of his wife Olga, who became the ruler under her young son Svyatoslav. The sad experience forced Olga to streamline the tribute received from the allied tribes and their duties. It was new step to a feudal state regulated by laws.

Having come to power, Svyatoslav directed his energy against the external enemies of the nascent state. Having defeated the Khazar Kaganate, Svyatoslav’s army reached the North Caucasus. His campaign against Byzantium was also accompanied by victories (although not always). Returning back, Svyatoslav died in a battle with the Pechenegs, whom the Byzantines warned about the route of his squad. But potential enemies of the Russians in the east and west were neutralized.

The internecine struggle between the brothers after the death of Svyatoslav led his son Vladimir to power in 980. What was the legacy that Vladimir inherited from his predecessors? In short, he found himself at the head of a fragile union of Slavic tribes, the stability of which required the constant use (or at least the constant threat of use) of military force. To strengthen this unification, the young prince made two important decisions. Firstly, he settled in Kyiv so as not to leave control of his power for many months or years (this was the duration of the military expeditions of his predecessors). Secondly, he tried, in today's language, to ideologically unite the allied Slavic tribes with the help of a religion common to all.

The transition to settled life in the capital was a serious step towards the feudalization of the state: in the kingdoms contemporary to Vladimir, monarchs mainly ruled their countries from the capitals. K. Marx considered it necessary to especially highlight this aspect of Vladimir’s activity. He wrote that before Vladimir the country was ruled by conquering princes who looked at Russia only as a station from which they had to move on. For example, Svyatoslav was going to move the capital to the Danube, bringing it closer to the battlefields of his own squad. The chronicles also tell about this: before Vladimir, the princes thought “about the rateh,” and he thought “about the system of the earthlings... and about the earthen rules.” This does not mean, of course, that Vladimir did not make military campaigns. But he never stayed in the conquered lands, but always returned to Kyiv. His campaigns were not an end in themselves; they were determined by the needs of the state.

Having settled in Kyiv, Vladimir began building defensive structures to the east of it, thereby confirming that he intended to stay in the capital permanently and protect it from nomads. A calm and confident life in the city was also an important prerequisite for the success of deep state reforms.

He initially tried to solve the second problem - the unification of allied tribes - by “equalizing the rights” of all the main tribal gods (and therefore influential priestly groups). Anyone who came from afar could see that in the capital not only their own, Kyiv, gods were revered, but also the god of his tribe. This is how a pantheon of six pagan gods arose in Kyiv, the remains of which have already been discovered by archaeologists in our time. According to another point of view, the pantheon represented gods who symbolized the main elements of the ancient Slavic picture of the world - sky, earth, sun, etc. This group was headed by the princely god Perun. But even in this case, the pantheon had a pan-Slavic, unifying character.

Although we do not have direct evidence today, there is no doubt that these measures of Prince Vladimir strengthened the ancient Russian state. But it soon became clear that the road along which he had so successfully moved forward actually led to a dead end. There were two serious reasons for this. Firstly, the pagan religion, even after Vladimir’s innovations, still assumed old image life. It was appropriate for the patriarchal system, but seriously hampered the formation of new production relations of nascent feudalism. We needed new law, new customs, new public consciousness, new assessments of events. Old paganism could not give this. And “this” lay, essentially, ready-made in Byzantium.

The second reason was that Kievan Rus could not stand on a par with the advanced countries of Europe and the East; it could not reach, in today’s language, “the level of world standards” without borrowing from them crafts, construction equipment, science, culture and much more. (So, later Peter needed experience Western Europe.) All this could also be taken in Byzantium.

Why Byzantium? When deciding which (or which) of the then existing countries to take as a model, Vladimir could also focus on the Muslim East and the Catholic West. But preference was given to Orthodox Byzantium. (The formal division of the once united church into Orthodox and Catholic occurred only in 1054; in fact, they became independent much earlier. This allows us to use the terminology adopted here.) To a large extent, Vladimir’s choice was determined historically, but in the same way - his state wisdom. Quite close economic relations had already developed with Byzantium: it was located close (Bulgaria, related to Rus', adopted Christianity about 100 years before Kievan Rus). This was greatly facilitated by the activities of Cyril and Methodius, who created Slavic writing and preached Christianity in the Slavic language. Nowadays, the Slavic peoples rightly honor them as outstanding educators (in Bulgaria, the day dedicated to their memory is celebrated as a national holiday of education). Thus, Vladimir’s decision could have been influenced by the fact that in the Orthodox Church, unlike the Catholic Church, worship could be conducted on clear language(in the X-XI centuries. Bulgarian language practically no different from Russian). It is worth noting that in that era Byzantium was still in its heyday; didn't die there ancient tradition- Homer and other classics of antiquity were studied in its schools, Plato and Aristotle continued to live in philosophical debates... The Byzantine version of Christianity met the needs of the emerging feudal society and therefore fully corresponded to the plans of Vladimir. At the same time, the task of a single cult for all the tribes of Ancient Rus' was solved.

Neither Rus' nor Byzantium regarded the upcoming baptism as a purely religious act. If we limit ourselves to a somewhat simplified and extremely brief description, then the point of view of Byzantium boiled down to the following: since Rus' was converting to the Orthodox faith, and Orthodox Church headed by the Byzantine patriarch and emperor, then Rus' automatically became a vassal of Byzantium. However, the growing and already quite powerful ancient Russian state, which had repeatedly successfully fought with Byzantium, did not at all want such a role for itself. The point of view of Vladimir and his entourage was different. Baptism and related borrowing Byzantine culture and technology should not have deprived Rus' of its independence. According to the prince, Rus' would turn into a friendly, but completely sovereign state. As a friend of Byzantium, it would provide it with military assistance if necessary. With such a significant difference in views on the consequences of baptism, it was, to say the least, very difficult.

But fate turned out to be favorable to Vladimir’s plans. In 986, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II suffered a severe defeat in the war and barely escaped, and in 987, the rebellious Byzantine military leader Varda Phocas approached Constantinople with an army and declared himself emperor. In this desperate situation, Vasily II asks for help from the Kyiv prince Vladimir. He agrees to provide military assistance and thereby preserve the throne of Vasily II, but puts forward strict conditions: the baptism of Rus' takes place, figuratively speaking, “according to the Kyiv scenario”; Vladimir receives the emperor’s sister as his wife and thereby becomes “one of his own” among the supreme rulers of Europe.

The Emperor is forced to agree. It was a great diplomatic victory for Vladimir. The princely army (6 thousand soldiers) helped defeat Phocas, and Vasily II remains on the throne.

The year 988 comes, and with it the baptism of Rus' begins, but Vasily II breaks his word - the arrival of his sister Anna in Kyiv is delayed. Vladimir acts decisively: he besieges Korsun (modern Chersonesos in Crimea) - an important stronghold of Byzantium on the Black Sea.

A.K. Tolstoy, who had an excellent sense of humor, describes the besieged Byzantines this way:

The Greeks saw ships in the bay,
The squad is already crowding around the walls,
Let's go and interpret it here and there:
“As it is, trouble has come for Christians,
Vladimir has come to be baptized!”

Korsun capitulates, Vladimir threatens to transfer military operations to the territory of Byzantium. Now Vasily II is forced to capitulate. Anna's fate was mourned in Constantinople for a whole week, and it is not difficult to imagine with what thoughts she then went to Vladimir.

Those who like to speculate about “forced baptism” can use this example to verify that violence actually took place. Keeping the intonation of A.K. Tolstoy, one can ironically say that the ancient Russian army, having defeated the Byzantines, forced them to christen themselves.

Before turning to feudal reform, let's consider the religious side of the issue. At first glance, it may seem that the social role of any religion is always the same, since they all recognize the existence of some mystical force that controls what happens in the world. In reality, the situation, of course, is more complicated; religions have their own difficult history, and, in particular, the transition of Kievan Rus from paganism to Christianity should be assessed positively, as a progressive process, a transition to a “civilized” religion. For example, human sacrifice was an obligatory element of the pagan cult of many tribes inhabiting Europe, including the Slavs. They were performed on various occasions, including some holidays of the annual cycle. At the funeral of a married man, his wife was killed, and if he was wealthy enough, then a slave, sometimes even several slaves and slaves. It happened that before the battle one of the warriors was sacrificed. Sacrifices associated with thanksgiving services are also known.

For example, after Vladimir’s victory over a Lithuanian tribe, the Kiev priesthood decided to commemorate the victory by sacrificing a young man and a girl. The chronicler writes about this recent past: “... and they brought it to them (i.e. idols - B.R.) sacrifices... and they brought their sons and daughters to them... and the Russian land was desecrated with blood”...

Various magical acts were widely practiced. We are well aware of the relic of a pagan holiday that existed until recently, when on the night of Ivan Kupala they light bonfires, jump over them, and dance in circles. In pre-Christian times, such holidays ended in mass orgies of an erotic and obscene nature. It is not for nothing that the church at one time branded them as “demonic games.”

A natural question is: how did the spread of Christianity proceed? Was this process met with resistance? Let us emphasize once again that it was an internal matter of Kievan Rus. The transformations were carried out at the direction of the Grand Duke and his inner circle, like the “government”. The country did not experience any external, violent pressure. In addition, the population was familiar with Christianity: for many years, small Christian communities existed in ancient Russian cities, which appeared during the reign of Olga, Vladimir’s grandmother, who was the first of the supreme rulers of Kievan Rus to convert to Christianity (except for the legendary information about the baptism of Askold). This also contributed to the establishment of a new religion.

As with any radical transformation, the new, progressive encountered resistance from the old, outdated. Therefore, it is useful to discuss who benefited from this new thing and who did not.

The prince only won - if before he was simply the head tribal union, then now his power was sanctified, “given by God.” Vladimir's immediate circle did not suffer any property or other damage. The same can be said about the squad. For those who traded with Byzantium, the reform opened up new opportunities. If previously on the trading floors of overseas countries they were “barbarians”, “Scythians”, then from now on in Byzantium and Europe they are respected co-religionists, and in Muslim East- representatives of one of the world religions. Ordinary community members, while the process of feudalization had not yet gained momentum, also did not suffer particularly. Christianity promised freedom to slaves. As you know, in Ancient Rus' slavery was domestic, slaves were not used in production, but they constituted a noticeable layer of society. However, the slave trade was widespread. Even today in English, German and French the concept of “slave” is denoted by the word “Slav”, since Slavic slaves were highly valued in slave markets. Slavery is not characteristic of feudalism, and the church sharply opposed it, especially against the slave trade, when their fellow tribesmen were sold “for filth.”

Those who lost everything were the pagan priests. The influential priestly class suddenly became of no use to anyone. Under these conditions, the pagan priesthood resorted to two fundamentally different tactics: first, “going underground,” when on the outskirts and in other places where this was possible, they continued serving idols, performing magical rituals, etc.; secondly, open (even armed) resistance to Vladimir’s entire system of reforms.

Vladimir's reaction to these two tactics was different. Almost no attention was paid to the “underground” pagan priests, they were not disturbed, because they did not pose a danger to the main thing - to feudal reform. This is one of the roots of the so-called dual faith. Vladimir believed that as a result of the activities of the Christian clergy, these elements of paganism would gradually die out. With such large-scale reforms, it is unreasonable to demand that everything change immediately. (After all, Peter did not demand that the serfs be dressed in Dutch costumes.)

The reaction to resistance to the system of feudal reforms was different. Here Vladimir showed firmness, ruthlessness and, if necessary, used military force. However, it is important for us that “fire and sword” was not just introduced new religion, and a centralized feudal state was created. (And here an analogy with Peter is appropriate. He, too, was firm and merciless when his reforms were interfered with. Suffice it to remember that he did not spare his own son, Tsarevich Alexei.)

The process of Christianization proceeded gradually and, according to modern estimates, generally took about 100 years. Considering the size of the country, this is a very short period of time: Sweden and Norway, who were baptized almost simultaneously with Russia, took 250 and 150 years, respectively.

The state reform of Vladimir seemed to release the potential that was gradually accumulating in ancient Russian society - the rapid, rapid development of the country began, and this shows how timely the reform was.

Craftsmen invited from Byzantium build stone buildings and temples, they are painted, decorated with frescoes, mosaics, icons, and Russians work next to them, learning previously unknown skills. The next generation will build complex structures in Russian cities, almost without resorting to the help of foreigners. Agriculture is also changing - gardening appears in Rus'.

The arriving clergy not only serve in new churches, but also prepare “national personnel” for the church, and, as a result, knowledge and literacy spread. Schools are organized in which Vladimir gathers the children of the upper class to the cry of their mothers (later Peter will use this method), and sends young people to study abroad. A chronicle is introduced. Like any developed state, Kievan Rus begins to mint gold coins.

Ancient Rus' is gradually becoming a state of a new, high culture. However, one should not think that in pagan times it did not have a perfect culture in its own way. This folk pagan culture will live on for a long time and will give ancient Russian art original and unique features. Speaking about the new, I mean mainly the mass of knowledge (from the works of Aristotle to the methods of laying a stone arch), which already then became the property of world culture.

Strangely, the chronicles report almost nothing about Vladimir after his baptism. They were probably written by the visiting Byzantines, who, of course, wanted to see different results from the baptism of the country. Vladimir was not obedient to his spiritual fathers when their advice was useful only to Constantinople and was at odds with the needs of Kyiv. It was not the visiting clergy who “commanded” Vladimir, but vice versa.

But if the chronicles are silent about Vladimir, then folklore enthusiastically praises him, and this is the highest rating that a politician could receive at that time. Vladimir the Red Sun will forever remain in people's memory. And this is no coincidence. At all times, people wanted today to be better than yesterday, and tomorrow to be better than today. The higher the rate of continuous improvement in life, the happier the person. During the period of Vladimir's reforms, the pace of renewal of all aspects of the life of ancient Russian society was truly stunning. Just yesterday, a Kievite looked with amazement at the wonders of Constantinople, and the next day he saw something similar in Kyiv. This filled his soul with pride for home country and confidence in its great future.

According to the apt definition of Professor V.V. Mavrodin, during this period “everything was shrouded in a haze of optimism, the optimism that was inherent in early Christianity Kievan Rus." Initial Christianity in Rus' was joyful, did not deny earthly passions, and was alien to monastic asceticism. In the time of Vladimir, Rus' did not have its own monks, there were no monasteries. This is all quite natural. In order for anyone to feel the need to go to a monastery, he had to become accustomed, preferably from childhood, to Christian ideas and ideals. And this takes time. In addition, Russian Christians of the first generation considered the very fact of baptism to be such a great feat of personal piety that it was not necessary to supplement it with feats of monastic life. Of the virtues preached by Christianity, the most valued was love for one's neighbor, which was manifested, in particular, in the practice of feasts and alms to the poor.

Paganism also knew princely feasts. Vladimir preserved this custom, giving it new content. Here, “current politics” was freely discussed between representatives of the druzhina and tribal nobility, and this served to unite the feudal clan. As for alms to the poor, at the princely court a Kievite or wanderer could eat for free. By order of Vladimir, food for the elderly and sick was delivered to their homes. One of the types of alms was the ransom of captives (slaves) with the provision of freedom and means of subsistence.

Over time, when feudalism reaches a sufficiently complete development, the church will help the ruling class to keep the oppressed peasantry in obedience. Moreover, she herself will become the largest feudal lord. But all this is in the future, but for now the “affectionate prince” rules Kievan Rus - Vladimir the Red Sun.

Vladimir's thoughtful and energetic policy introduced Rus' into the system of European Christian states. Her international situation strengthened. Rus' became “known and heard... to all ends of the earth.” Karl Marx called the era of Vladimir “the culmination of Gothic Russia.”

The rapid pace of transformation in Vladimir's era was still unable to ensure the completion of feudal reform during his lifetime. This required more time, and his work was completed by his son, Yaroslav the Wise. As the chronicle says, Vladimir plowed, Yaroslav sowed, and we (that is, the next generation) are reaping the fruits. What was Yaroslav’s “seeding”?

Having taken the Kiev table after a difficult internecine struggle, Yaroslav began to continue the reform he had begun no less energetically than his father. Like his father, he builds fortifications to protect his lands, now, however, mainly in the west. Just like his father, he makes sure that nothing interferes with feudal transformations. In this regard, it is useful to recall the so-called “revolt of the Magi.”

In the hungry year of 1024, an uprising broke out on the then distant outskirts of Kievan Rus, in Suzdal. It seemed that the pagans were against the Christians. But the matter was more complicated - as the chronicler writes, the rebels directed their blow against the “old child”. This reveals to us the essence of what was happening. At the time described, the process of stratification of the once free tribal community was underway. The tribal elite - the “old children” - was engaged in the expropriation of communal lands, gradually becoming feudalized; she collected tribute for the prince, of course not forgetting herself. In times of famine, these nascent feudal lords hid food supplies, simultaneously enriching themselves and enslaving their fellow tribesmen. Consequently, the uprising of 1024 is a typical uprising of the enslaved against the oppressors; it is a prototype of future peasant uprisings in the history of our country.

In this situation, the Magi came out of the “underground” and tried to use the uprising for their own purposes - to restore paganism. The uprising was suppressed by Yaroslav. It is interesting to note that while the Suzdal Magi performed their pagan rituals, Yaroslav did not touch them. He spoke out when an anti-princely (only in form anti-Christian) uprising broke out. It was important for him, like Vladimir, to consolidate feudal reforms.

Yaroslav continues intensive construction activities, clearly striving to make Kyiv no worse than Constantinople. If Constantinople is famous for its St. Sophia Cathedral, then the majestic St. Sophia Cathedral is being built in Kyiv; and here and there city fortifications adorn the Golden Gate, etc. Yaroslav also devoted a lot of effort to the development of trade: under him, they began to mint not only gold, but also silver coins.

However, Yaroslav’s main concern was the creation of his own, Russian intelligentsia (despite all the conventions of applying this concept to that era). Vladimir could not solve this problem due to lack of time. What was required was not just literacy, it was necessary to make sure that Kievan Rus did not need to “import” Greek or Bulgarian clergy, so that it had its own scientists, writers, philosophers, so that it could, if necessary, wage an ideological struggle, in particular against the imperial ideology of Byzantium.

In the Middle Ages, the only place where people were provided with everything they needed and were given the opportunity to engage in science were monasteries. They played the role not only of religious centers, but also of a kind of academy of sciences and universities. Here treatises were written on the most various topics, and a new generation of educated people was raised. Princes and kings went to monasteries not only for prayer, but also for advice - after all, the most knowledgeable compatriots were often there. It is not surprising that under Yaroslav Russian monasticism arose and Russian monasteries appeared.

Inventories of the 15th-17th centuries (the earlier ones were lost) show that most of the books in monastery libraries were not of liturgical, but of a different nature. Lives, works of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, chronicles, chronographs, various “walks” (that is, geographical works), philosophical and military treatises, such classical works as Josephus Flavius’s “History of the Jewish War”, etc. were kept here. A monk-scientist had to be comprehensively educated. This is evidenced, for example, by the beginning of “The Tale of Stephen of Perm,” in which the author, Epiphanius the Wise, a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (XV century), belittles, according to the custom of that time, his talents:

“After all, I was not in Athens in my youth and did not learn from the philosophers either their intricacies or words of wisdom, I couldn’t master either Plato’s or Aristotle’s conversations...” From these words one can see the ideal of a monk-scientist.

In the monasteries, chronicles were kept (Nestor), works of a polemical nature were written (often with clear political overtones), books were copied (we owe to these monastic scriptoria that we can read ancient chronicles, that the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” has come down to us), and icons were painted (Alipy). Monastery doctors selflessly provided medical assistance to the laity. It is also important that their own Russian clergy and hierarchs came from here, replacing the visiting Byzantines.

Relations with Byzantium either improved or worsened. In 1037, taking advantage difficult situation Yaroslav in the fight against the Pechenegs, Byzantium forced the prince to establish a Russian metropolitanate headed by a Greek. The Russian Church began to formally submit to Constantinople. Byzantium still wanted to see Kievan Rus as its vassal. When a military conflict arose a little later between Kiev and Constantinople, the Byzantine historian Michael Psellus called it a “Russian uprising.” Not an attack, but an uprising! He clearly did not want to come to terms with the idea of the independence of Kievan Rus.

In 1051, after the death of the Greek metropolitan, the unheard of happened: Yaroslav himself (without the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople), “gathering bishops,” for the first time installed Hilarion, the Russian priest of the princely village of Berestovo, as metropolitan. The Russian Church is once again strengthening its independence.

Metropolitan Hilarion was, of course, a highly talented man. He is the author of a wonderful example ancient Russian literature- “A Word about Law and Grace.” Judging by the title, one might think that this is a classic theological treatise. After all, even the Apostle Paul in his “Epistle to the Hebrews” raised the question of the relationship between the Old Testament (the law given by Moses) and the New Testament (the grace given to humanity by Christ). Naturally, this problem was solved in favor of grace. However, in his work Hilarion gave a new, politically topical twist to the classic theme.

Since grace is higher than the law, it means that the new is often higher than the old. But then the peoples who were baptized later are not at all worse than those who were baptized long ago, and Byzantium’s claims to seniority in relation to Rus' have no basis. Narrowing the topic and speaking about the baptism of Rus', Hilarion especially emphasizes that this is not a servant of Byzantium. The baptism took place on at will Russians, this is just the first step, and the Russian people have a great future ahead of them. Narrowing the topic even more, Hilarion moves on to praise of Prince Vladimir - the baptizer of Rus' - and to his policies. He points out that all countries praise their teachers: Rome - the apostles Peter and Paul, Asia - John the Theologian, India - Thomas, Egypt - Mark, but our Kagan (Tsar) Vladimir brought Christianity to us. This comparison of Vladimir with the apostles is very bold and very significant. This gives Hilarion grounds to raise the question of canonizing Vladimir as the “new Constantine.” Emperor Constantine, who many centuries ago made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, introduced Christianity into a country where it was actually already widespread. Vladimir is in a pagan country, which is much more difficult. Therefore, Vladimir’s merits are higher than those of Konstantin. Further, Hilarion describes and praises not only Vladimir’s “alms,” but also his state activities, pays tribute to his ancestors - Svyatoslav and Igor, that is, he praises the pagans!

In fact, Hilarion’s work was a sharp ideological weapon in the struggle for the independence of Kievan Rus. This did not go unnoticed in Byzantium, and Vladimir’s canonization was then refused.

Under Yaroslav, the spread of literacy and the construction of schools continued (not only in Kyiv). There is evidence of the opening of a school for 300 children in Novgorod in 1030, where they were “taught books.” Not only boys were taught, schools for girls also appeared. All classes gradually mastered literacy - this is evidenced by the finds of ancient birch bark letters. Yaroslav himself “was diligent in books, and read them often night and day,” and also “collected many scribes, and translated from Greek into Slovenian writing, and copied many books...”. “Great is the benefit of book learning.” There was a quick cultural growth population of Ancient Rus'.

Civilized states cannot exist without written laws, and Yaroslav creates “Russian Truth”, as well as a number of other written statutes. In short, Yaroslav, the finalizer of Vladimir’s reform, made Kievan Rus a freely developing early feudal state, in no way inferior to others. Pride in one's country, the desire for independence from Byzantium and equality with it were close not only to the princely entourage, but also to the entire people. Several decades after the death of Yaroslav, this will be proven by Abbot Daniel, who made a trip to Palestine and described it in his “Walk”. Seeing in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher many kandils (lamps) from different countries, including from Byzantium, but not from Rus', he turned to King Baldwin (Palestine was then in the hands of the crusaders) with a request to allow him to put up a kandil “on behalf of the entire Russian land.” Rus' should never have been lower than Byzantium.

What are the results of the principality of Vladimir and Yaroslav? Firstly, Rus' united into a single early feudal state. It was united by a new, advanced culture at that time, written laws, and religion. The old pressure along tribal lines has disappeared. The unified Old Russian nationality received final state registration, from which Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians later emerged.

Secondly, as a result of reforms, Rus' finally stood on par with the entire civilized world. It was not inferior to other countries either in the sense of socio-economic formation (feudalism, which continued its development), or in the sense of culture, crafts, and military affairs. The introduction of Christianity, which became the ideological basis of the unified feudal statehood of Ancient Rus', played a progressive role in the early Middle Ages.

The rapid flourishing of the ancient Russian state made a huge impression on the world. The Western chronicler (Adam from Bremen) calls Kyiv “the adornment of the East” and “the rival of Constantinople.” But perhaps the international authority of Kievan Rus is most clearly visible in dynastic marriages. If Vladimir got himself a “worthy wife” by force of arms, then during the reign of Yaroslav a completely different picture is observed. He himself is married to the daughter of the King of Sweden, his sister is the Queen of Poland, three daughters are respectively the Queens of Hungary, Norway and France, a son is married to the sister of the King of Poland, a grandson is married to the daughter of the King of England, a granddaughter is the wife of the German king and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. Isn't this a sign of the international authority of the ancient Russian state as an advanced and powerful power? It arose from a conglomerate of “barbarian” tribes before the eyes of astonished Europe over the course of two generations. This is how Vladimir “ploughed” and Yaroslav “sowed”!

Today we have every reason to be proud of what our great ancestors did and remember with gratitude their selfless work. What happened a thousand years ago (like any date this kind, it is, of course, conditional), was a significant step forward on the long path of history.

Celebrations will be held throughout Russia today on the occasion of the 1000th anniversary of the repose of the Most Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, the Baptist of Rus'. His Holiness Patriarch Moscow's Kirill of All Rus' will perform the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral Cathedral of Christ the Savior. A reception will be held in the Kremlin on behalf of the country's President Vladimir Putin.

Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir

Vladimir the Baptist, Vladimir the Great, Vladimir the Red Sun - that’s all famous names ruler of Rus', who in 978, according to legend, seized the throne in Kyiv. He was known as an aggressive pagan who killed, drank and committed adultery, but in 988 he converted to Orthodoxy, and, as a true believer and renounced everything vain and godless, then baptized Rus', starting with his squad. At Holy Baptism, Vladimir was named Vasily. After accepting Christianity, Prince Vladimir accomplished many feats in the name of the Orthodox faith and strengthening the Russian state, uniting tribes in the name of strengthening Rus'. And today, this holiday, first of all, has a unifying meaning for all Orthodox Slavic states: it is very important in our troubled times, when the internecine war among the Orthodox Slavic peoples brought a lot of grief and claimed many human lives.

Kiev-Pechersk Lavra

Solemn services will be held in all Orthodox churches, including in Crimea, on the territory of this peninsula, in Chersonesus, where Prince Vladimir was baptized in 988. A festive service will be held in all Orthodox churches, followed by a mass prayer service and a procession of the Cross. In Crimea, a mass baptism of children and adults will take place in the waters of the Black Sea.
In Ukraine, festive divine services will be held everywhere, and a divine liturgy will be held in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. A lot of events, both secular and church, are planned, but the center of today's celebrations is the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, where thousands of people gathered for the morning solemn liturgy. This is a center of attraction for Kyiv Orthodox believers, where 8 Miraculous Icons of the Mother of God were brought specially for the holiday.

Holy relics of Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir

The monastery of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra itself is directly connected with the history of the Baptism of Prince Vladimir. It was there, before the founding of the monastery, that the residence of Prince Vladimir was located, and after his death for a long time in the main cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the Assumption, a particle of the holy relics, the honorable head of Prince Vladimir, was kept. The 1000th anniversary of the death of Prince Vladimir is widely celebrated here. In Ukraine today is the main day of celebration. Celebrations will take place throughout the country; many events in the Ukrainian capital are dedicated to this important event in Orthodox life. Services will be held in Orthodox churches, as well as concerts, exhibitions, and it is expected that today the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, will personally take part in the celebrations.

Baptism of Great Rus'

Sevastopol, along with Vladimir, Kiev, and Moscow, celebrates the Orthodox holiday of Sevastopol. Along with other cities, the feast of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir in this city, which is also called “Russian Bethlehem”, “the cradle of Orthodoxy”, the spiritual center of Russia - Chersonese - celebrates the holiday 1027 years after the baptism and adoption of Orthodoxy by Prince Vladimir. Today the celebrations here are special, because today marks the 1000th anniversary of the death of Prince Vladimir. Celebrations on this occasion in Sevastopol began on July 26 with a naval religious procession: the relics of St. Vladimir were loaded onto a yacht. He traveled around the entire Sevastopol Bay, and yesterday evening the relics were returned to Sevastopol.

Vladimir the Baptist

Today, the celebrations in Sevastopol began at dawn: at 6 in the morning, a procession of thousands of people from the center of Sevastopol passed to the St. Vladimir Cathedral, where the Holy Divine Liturgy will then take place. Metropolitans of the Kuban region, as well as clergy from Kazakhstan and all regions of Russia, came to this prayer service in order to share this holy holiday with the entire Orthodox world.
After Procession of the Cross A festive concert will take place in Chersonesos at 6 pm.

The great Orthodox holiday of the Baptism of Rus' and the 1000th anniversary of the repose of Vladimir

A nobleman by birth, Dostoevsky received an excellent engineering education. His first story, “Poor People,” was favorably received by critics, who noted the obvious talent of the writer, who in the future was destined to become a titan of Russian literature. The writer had a subtle mental organization, a lively mind and could not help but succumb to the revolutionary trends of that time. In the spring of 1849, he was arrested and, together with all the other conspirators, sentenced to death. Just before execution, the sentence was changed - Fyodor Mikhailovich was deprived of all ranks and titles, noble origin, and were sent to hard labor in Siberia.

He would return to St. Petersburg only in 1861, already with the rank of officer, but hopelessly ill since the days of Siberian hard labor. Fyodor Mikhailovich was already a different person. In his subsequent novels “Crime and Punishment”, “The Idiot”, “Demons” he rather harshly characterized modern Russian society. He uttered his famous phrase about the value of happiness obtained through suffering at precisely this time. As a man who recognized a rich noblewoman

life and poverty, he understood that happiness can only be truly appreciated when he has experienced misfortune.

In the draft version of “Crime and Punishment,” Dostoevsky wrote that punishment and philanthropy are simultaneously conditions for a person to gain spiritual harmony. That is, for Dostoevsky, happiness is inseparable from awareness of oneself as a person. A person is alive as long as he continues to develop, until he allows his mind to “die.” It turns out that happiness also lies in development, and no development can be passive.

It is known that the writer had a hard time with the death of his wife. Perhaps he transferred some of her spiritual traits to the character of Sonya Marmeladova from Crime and Punishment. Sonya's love saved Raskolnikov. But this love was at the same time suffering, since Sonya was a lost soul due to her type of activity, and Raskolnik stained his soul with murder. And these two unfortunate people found each other and fell in love, despite the dirt and poverty. Love, like happiness, born in suffering is valued much higher than easy relationships.

Dostoevsky was a deeply religious man and loved his Russia immensely. The author was distinguished by his love of humanity, therefore, even after joining revolutionary movement, continued to believe that people should not be destroyed for any purpose. Orthodoxy teaches that through suffering one can know true happiness, which is faith in God. For Fyodor Mikhailovich, true happiness was not wealth, but spiritual improvement and elevation.

We can conclude that Fyodor Mikhailovich expressed such a deep thought in one phrase, the interpretation of which is multifaceted. Only true brilliant writer could explain a lot with one thought.

(No ratings yet)

Hieromonk Job (Gumerov) answers:

The words that people are created for happiness belong to Elder Zosima. IN artistic creativity F.M. Dostoevsky reveals his worldview positions through the entire figurative and compositional structure of the work. The writer expresses his thoughts verbally only in the “Diary of a Writer” and in correspondence. In a letter from Ems (August 7/19, 1879) to the physicist and publicist N.A. Lyubimov F.M. Dostoevsky wrote: “It goes without saying that many of the teachings of my elder Zosima (or, better to say, the way of expressing them) belong to his person, that is artistic depiction his. Although I have completely the same thoughts as he expresses, but if I personally Push expressed them, he would have expressed them in a different form and in a different language. He's the same could not neither in another language nor in in a different spirit to express it as in the one I gave it. Otherwise the artistic personality would not have been created.”

Words about happiness were spoken to the landowner who visited the old man, who suffered from disbelief in the future life, in response to her remark (“And why are you sick? You look so healthy, cheerful, happy”): “Today I feel unusually better, but I already know that it's just a minute. I now understand my illness unmistakably. If I seem so cheerful to you, then nothing could ever please me so much as by making such a remark. For people were created for happiness , and whoever is completely happy is directly worthy of saying to himself: “I have fulfilled God’s covenant on this earth.” All the righteous, all the saints, all the holy martyrs were all happy.” This opinion is consistent with the theological understanding of the purpose of human creation.

The Holy Fathers are united in understanding the purpose of the creation of man - eternal bliss.

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “We have come into being in order to prosper; and prospered after they received being; paradise was entrusted to us to enjoy; the commandment was given to us, so that by keeping it we might earn glory.”

Saint John of Damascus: “As good God did not create us to punish, but so that we might be partakers of His goodness.”

Saint Philaret of Moscow: “God created man with such a purpose that he would know God, love and glorify Him, and through this would be eternally blissful.”

St. Justin (Popovich): “Man was created in order to, through perfecting himself in the goodness of God, participate in the bliss of God and therefore glorify God, his Creator and Savior.”

In the biblical sense, the word “blessed” (Heb. ashre; Greek Makarios- lit. "happy") means the highest degree of happiness. Its fullness will be in the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who sincerely live according to the Gospel commandments while still on earth, by virtue of communion with God, are rewarded with sublime joy, which is a foretaste of future unearthly happiness. Elder Zosima, in contrast to narrow worldly ideas, says that all the saints, including the martyrs, were happy because they “fulfilled God’s covenant on this earth.”

When talking about ways to achieve perfect happiness, Christianity does not contrast it with earthly happiness. Happiness is a state in which a person experiences inner satisfaction, completeness and meaningfulness of life and the fulfillment of his purpose. It is possible in earthly life, but it is incomplete and temporary. “It is no small matter for those who are in happiness not to be proud of their prosperity, but to be able to modestly use happiness” (St. John Chrysostom). The same saint points out that in achieving happiness, the main thing is the internal structure of a person, and not external circumstances: “Many, abounding in wealth, consider life unbearable, while others, living in extreme poverty, always remain the most joyful of all.” Continuing this thought, the saint emphasizes that neither poverty, nor illness, nor reproach, nor insult, nor dishonor are misfortunes when a person lives righteously. “True misfortune consists in offending God and doing something displeasing to Him.”

The most destructive thing to happiness is pride. A person infected with it is himself unhappy and causes harm to others. “The proud and rebellious man will see bitter days; the humble and patient will always rejoice in the Lord” (Reverend Ephraim the Syrian). A proud person alienates himself from God and often falls into severe temptations. “There is nothing worse than pride, which is why God constantly defeats it with all measures” (St. John Chrysostom).

F.M. Dostoevsky, in a speech at the Pushkin Jubilee (June 8, 1880), called for humility. This call was directed against all socialists, revolutionaries and reformers who, obsessed with vanity, want to forcibly make all people happy: “Humble yourself, proud man, and above all, break your pride. Humble yourself, idle man, and first of all work in your native field,” this is the decision according to the people’s truth and the people’s reason. “The truth is not outside you, but within yourself; find yourself, subjugate yourself, master yourself - and you will see the truth. This truth is not in things, not outside of you and not overseas somewhere, but, first of all, in your own work on yourself. You will conquer yourself, you will pacify yourself - and you will become free as you never imagined, and you will begin a great work, and you will make others free, and you will see happiness, for your life will be filled, and you will finally understand your people and their holy truth. The gypsies don’t have world harmony anywhere, if you yourself are the first to be unworthy of it, angry and proud and demand life for free, without even suggesting that you have to pay for it.”

Happiness is achieved through hard work. The hardest work must be done on yourself in order to cultivate the field of your soul and remove all the weeds and thorns from it. IN preparatory materials to the novel “Crime and Punishment”, working on the third edition, F.M. Dostoevsky wrote: “There is no happiness in comfort; happiness is bought through suffering. This is the law of our planet, but this direct consciousness, felt by the everyday process, is such a great joy, for which you can pay for years of suffering. Man is not born for happiness. A person deserves happiness, and always suffering.” F.M. Dostoevsky came to this idea experimentally. In the memoirs of Vsevolod Sergeevich Solovyov (1849-1903) about him, the writer’s words are given about his suffering at hard labor: “When I found myself in the fortress, I thought that this was the end for me, I thought that I couldn’t stand it for three days, and suddenly I completely calmed down. . After all, what was I doing there?.. I wrote “The Little Hero” - read it, can you see the bitterness and torment in it? I dreamed of quiet, good, good dreams, and then the further it went, the better it was. ABOUT! This was great happiness for me - Siberia and hard labor! They say: horror, anger, they talk about the legitimacy of some kind of anger! The most terrible nonsense! I only lived there healthy happy life, I understood myself there, my dear... I understood Christ...” It was the experience of suffering in a Christian way that helped F.M. express to Dostoevsky artistic means patristic thoughts about true happiness.

“Night at sunrise with the evening star.
Quietly shining with a stream of gold
Western region.
Lord, our path is between stones and thorns,
Our path is in darkness: You, Light of the evening,
Shine on us!
In the darkness of midnight, in the midday heat,
In sorrow and joy, in sweet peace,
In a difficult struggle -
Everywhere the radiance of the Holy Sun,
God's wisdom and power and word...
Glory to You!

A.S. Khomyakov. Evensong