Neplyuev Nikolai Nikolaevich. Founding of the Vozdvizhensk Agricultural School

Nikolai Neplyuev (1851–1908) is one of those people who proved by their example that spiritual revival can come from among the laity. On his estate in the Chernigov province, he first created a school for peasant children, then the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood. This experience was, if not completely unique, then, in any case, very unusual for Russia: in the community created by Neplyuev, there was a place for people of different classes who were able to show examples of true Christian unity.

Many contemporaries spoke positively about the brotherhood, among them the holy righteous John of Kronstadt, professors of theological academies M. M. Tareev and V. I. Ekzemplyarsky. And in our time, Neplyuev’s ideas do not lose relevance. In St. Petersburg, at the Anna Akhmatova Museum, an exhibition dedicated to Nikolai Neplyuev and the history of the Holy Cross Brotherhood was held, organized by the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute and the St. Peter's Small Orthodox Brotherhood. The chairman of the St. Peter's Brotherhood, Yulia Balakshina, tells the story.

The St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute and the Transfiguration Brotherhood have been interested in the history of the Exaltation of the Cross, created by Nikolai Nikolaevich Neplyuev, for a very long time. Some time ago we met Valery Avdasev, who lives in Neplyuev’s homeland, in Vozdvizhensk. He was once surprised to learn that in his native village at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries there was such a wonderful phenomenon as the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross, and this fascinated him so much that he created the Neplyuev Museum and collected a lot of materials about it. And so we joined forces with Valery. After all, it is important to convey the experience of Nikolai Neplyuev to modern people; now, in our era, it can be especially relevant. This is how the exhibition appeared.

- Why is this experience so valuable now?

- Many of those who visit this exhibition or simply learn about this brotherhood say that what Neplyuev created is a utopia, an ideal that was miraculously realized for a very short time. However, people who know Neplyuev’s experience first-hand think differently.

At the opening of the exhibition was Georgy Nikolaevich Fursey, the grandson of Andrei Fursey, one of Neplyuev’s closest associates. He spoke very passionately about the fact that it was a social, spiritual experiment, not at all utopian, although perhaps not reproducible in the forms that existed then. The idea of ​​this brotherhood was based not so much on the economic structure (although there was also a lot of interesting things in this regard), but on the concept that people can live united by the Christian spirit, the Christian meaning, that the communication of Christians with each other can be not nominal, but real. And it seems to me that Christian brotherhood is a reality today.

How do you imagine the existence of such a brotherhood in an urban environment? After all, the brotherhood created by Neplyuev is also a kind of distancing from the social order that was familiar in those days.

Our exhibition is a story about how people can build their lives on the principles of Christian love. The forms of existence can be different - it depends on the specific situation in which this or that community finds itself. The spirit of unity will give birth to forms that will correspond at this moment. And distance is needed in the Gospel sense: to live in this world, but to be not of this world. After all, even for Neplyuev, brotherhood was not a way of leaving the world; entry into the brotherhood he created was open to any person.

If a person chose this path, he could remain in the brotherhood. And the brothers did a lot for the peasants from neighboring villages, including helping them economically. It’s just that Christian brotherhood shows other people a life of a different, better quality.

However, the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross also had conflicts with the external environment, with the same neighboring peasants, some of them harmed the brotherhood...

Here's more modern example: a friend of mine from the Arkhangelsk province told me that a farmer settled in her village, created a model farm, and a year later this farm was burned down. For what? And so as not to show off - everyone is in poverty, and you don’t stick your head out. Well, for a Christian, conflict with this world is in some sense inevitable.

Was the experience of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross unique in that era? Or did some similar communities already exist before? Or maybe even then?

In a more complete version of the exhibition than we were able to place in the Anna Akhmatova Museum, there is a special stand dedicated to various phenomena of Russian life of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, in the context of which the Holy Cross Brotherhood and the Neplyuev school appeared. On the one hand, at that time there was a very powerful pedagogical movement: many landowners set up schools for peasant children on their estates - this was a very common phenomenon. On the other hand, there was a communitarian movement, into which the community created by Neplyuev also fits.

But there was also something that distinguished the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross from these movements: its Christian basis. Neplyuev gathered people not around some social idea, but around Christ. As for earlier times, we need to remember the Ukrainian brotherhoods of the 16th - 17th centuries, the emergence of which was associated with the need to resist Western influence. It is important to note that these were precisely lay movements aimed at preserving Orthodoxy, when even some church hierarchs accepted the union.

Beginning in 1861, when the climate in the country changed somewhat due to the abolition of serfdom, many brotherhoods arose in Russia - the idea of ​​​​some kind of responsibility for the peasants who had received freedom was in the air. The most famous was the brotherhood created by Alexander Gumilevsky in St. Petersburg at the Church of the Nativity on 6th Rozhdestvenskaya (now 6th Sovetskaya) Street. This temple is in Soviet time was demolished. There was also a stormy wave of brotherhoods after 1905, when it became clear that traditional parish structures did not really inspire people in church life. And of course, many brotherhoods arose in the early days of the revolution. One of the most famous is the Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood in St. Petersburg.

- Is anyone trying to do something similar these days?

As far as I know, Catholics have somewhat similar communities of lay people who engage in agriculture. These communities are small, 15–20 people. There is a brotherhood of St. Egidio, they are engaged in social activities and, as far as I understand, they do not live together. But in general, nowadays a lot of volunteer projects arise when people have a desire to somehow unite and do something together. And on the one hand, people are trying to unite, on the other hand, it is difficult for people to be together. But such movements are often markedly non-religious.

One representative of such a movement told me that in their organization there are two taboo topics - religion and politics. That is, faith is now perceived as something that divides people. It is here that Neplyuev’s experience can be in demand, because he and his associates showed that the Christian faith can unite people for a fulfilling life, for creativity. The Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross contributed to the personal development of its members, those peasant children who came to the brotherhood’s school, as they say, from the plow. Very interesting creative personalities were revealed in people who previously had neither culture nor self-awareness. After all, many scientists, writers, and poets came from this brotherhood.

And we communicate with the descendants of non-Plyuevites. The same Georgy Fursey is a physicist, member. His father, Neplyuev's godson, was an artist and played musical instruments beautifully. While in exile in Arkhangelsk, he played in the Arkhangelsk Symphony Orchestra - this is the education he was given in the brotherhood.

Natalya Valentinovna Budagovskaya, granddaughter of Semyon Fedorovich Chernenko, lives in Moscow. Semyon Fedorovich Chernenko (1877–1974) was a famous scientist-breeder, created about 60 new varieties of apple trees and about 10 new varieties of pears, which were highly appreciated by experts. For his achievements, he was awarded a state prize in 1947, from which he helped the Fursey family with money.

The writer and public figure Lyudmila Sergeevna Fedorenko, the granddaughter of the fraternal poet and history teacher at Neplyuev schools, came from Chelyabinsk to the opening of the exhibition.

In the Neplyuev Labor Brotherhood are the origins of such recognized figures of science and culture as the Ukrainian composer P. I. Senitsa, historian P. K. Fedorenko, breeder P. I. Ternitsky, designer M. V. Bondarenko, professor A. M. Stolyarenko, soil scientist P. A. Kostyuchenko, professor-volcanologist Sofya Naboko and many others.

- Do the descendants of the Neplyuevites show interest in the history of their families?

Those with whom we communicate manifest. In general, the memory of the brotherhood among its descendants was preserved for decades after the brotherhood itself ceased to exist. Georgy Fursey recalls that even when his father was repressed, no matter where their family was, their brothers sent them parcels and helped them survive. That is, these unique communities completely disintegrated, perhaps only 20–30 years ago. The living descendants of the brothers gather, rather, on our initiative, but with enthusiasm.

The St. Philaret Institute published some of the works of Nikolai Neplyuev. Are you the first to do this in post-Soviet Russia?

No. There was a doctor at the opening of the exhibition philosophical sciences, professor Neplyuev scholar Alexander Fedorovich Malyshevsky, he published a three-volume set of Neplyuev’s works, which collected the theological and historical works of Nikolai Nikolaevich. And we publish very specific texts, which may not be of interest to everyone - these are reports on the life of the brotherhood. People didn’t just live and work there, they tried to somehow comprehend this life. That is, in the life of the brotherhood there was always an element of spiritual reflection. And so Neplyuev wrote these reports based on meetings of the brotherhood, at which some results were summed up. So there are documents left that characterize the life of the Holy Cross Brotherhood from the inside.

In your opinion, is community life in an urban environment more difficult than in the version of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross? Or, on the contrary, is it easier in the city?

It's just a different life. For example, in the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross, people worked and earned money. Some went to general needs, some went to their personal accounts. And in the brotherhood there was, for example, a community of teachers and a community of laundresses. In a normal environment, teachers receive for their work more money than laundresses. But Neplyuev believed that if we live in a single Christian family, then such economic division should not exist. It’s hard for me to imagine this in the life of an urban community. It seems to me that the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross expressed Christian unity and trust between people.

In general, the Neplyuevites thought a lot about how the human need for personal space is combined with conciliarity. After all, Neplyuev was very inspired by Khomyakov’s ideas, and Khomyakov’s idea was close to him that a personality manifests itself in full only when it is revealed in conciliar unity, in creative interaction with other individuals, and this creative personality should not be confused with individuality (when a person builds boundaries between himself and others and engages in self-expression.). A teacher at the Moscow Theological Academy, Mikhail Tareev, visited the Neplyuev community and left an essay entitled “Living Souls,” in which he described the manifestations of this conciliar unity that he saw.

- Where did you get the exhibits for the exhibition?

We took some from the museum in Vozdvizhensk, and some were provided to us by the descendants of our brothers from their personal archives.

The exhibition was shown in St. Petersburg, now it works in Arkhangelsk. Will residents of other cities be able to see it?

We had invitations to show it in both Tula and Yelets. We respond to suggestions from people from different cities.

Interviewed by Igor Lunev

NEPLYUEV Nikolai Nikolaevich is a Russian public figure, religious thinker and publicist.

Nobleman. Large landowner. Graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University (1874). Advisor to the Russian Sol-State at the Bavarian Royal Court in Munich (1875-1877). Free listener of the Petrovsk Agricultural and Forestry Academy in Moscow (1878-1880). In 1880, he returned to his family estate in the town of Yan-pol, where he opened an orphanage. called upon the locals to engage in cultural re-establishment and pro-reve-no-reve-no (" Is-that-ri-che-s-calling of the Russian by-me-schi-ka”, 1880; “Daily Bread”, 1883; and others). The main lower agricultural schools are the 5-year male school at the Voz-dvi-zhensky farm (1885, 75 students by 1900) and a 4-year-old female at hu-to-re Pre-ob-ra-zhen-sky (1891, 77 students by 1900), developed a program for them mu hri-sti-an-sko-go education and vocational training, in which a significant place from-in-tel-lec- tu-al-no-mu and es-the-te-tical development (both schools receive annual subsidies from the Ministries of State Property).

N.N. Neplyuev is one of the leaders and ideo-logs of the com-mu-ni-tar-no-go movement in Russia. In 1889 N.N. Neplyuev with a group of you-pu-sk-ni-kov men's school or-ga-ni-zo-val agricultural community - Right-to-glorious labor brother-st. 1893), gave him a lease, and later ownership of land in Voz-dvi-zhensky with an area of ​​5.8 thousand hectares. The basis of community life, the ideal of its religious and moral code of conduct, the Evan-Gelic ethical principles - the active culture sti-an-skaya faith, fraternal unity of people, mutual help, as well as joint creative work of ra -for general benefit. Brother-st-in-mostly you-have-created N.N. Neplyuev schools, entry and exit from it would be free, new members pro-ho-di-li con-course kan-di Yes, tov, and you should have kept a probationary period. The community is the head of the election of the Duma (N.N. Neplyuev elected it in his life before him), pro- of the production affairs of the brother-st-va management of the-bra-my economic council and government. All members of the brotherhood were united according to professional principles in ar-te-li, or “brotherly families” (11 by 1900: land -businessmen, living-vo-vo-dov, garden-do-vo-dov, bee-lo-vo-dov, teachers and others), who lived in separate to-mah-about-sche-zhi-ti-yah (families were separated from separate rooms). Star-shi-nu ar-te-li na-zna-cha-la du-ma. In the brother-st-ve, there were general business associations, religious and secular trade-stations. , spiritual readings, literary and musical evenings. Members of the community used equal rights, the sick and unable to cope with the brothers st-vom, most of the income and property were collectively owned. Over time, under the leadership of N.N. Neplyuev's members of the brotherhood have created many different types of enterprises, which include sugar, kir-pich-ny and vi-no-ku-ren-ny for-water, raw-cooked, butter-oil, de-re-vo-about -ra-ba-you-vayu-shche-production and others. To the activity of brother-st-va pro-yav-la-li in-te-res L.N. Tolstoy (N.N. Neplyuev was personally acquainted with him and spoke with him), V.S. So-lov-ev, P.A. Florensky, pro-priest John of Kronstadt, a number of foreign scientists and international organizations. The brotherhood consisted of over 150 people in 1900, 195 people in 1905, about 500 people by 1908 (including students from fraternal agricultural schools), it was -the largest com-mu-ni-tar-organization in the Russian Empire.

N.N. Neplyuev said that, following the example of the Kre-sto-voz-mov-women’s labor, there are similar re-li- ties gi-oz-no-work-do-vye ob-e-di-non-niyas will arise throughout Russia and in all spheres of activity. As a result, this could, he said, contribute to the world's pre-development of society on the basis of so-ci-al-noy so-li-dar-no-sti and right-of-glorious spiritual values. Bu-du-chi side-by-no-church-of-nov-le-tion, in a number of articles and you-stu-p-le-ny N.N. Neplyuev criticized contemporary theological literature and church governance; he pre-la-gal pre-do-ta-vit the church at-ho-dam status of a legal entity, restore the choice of priesthood -kov, the principle of co-bor-no-sti, to provide a white spirit-ho-ven-st-vu and the world-us the opportunity to be more shi-ro -whose participation in the management of the Church-view, the weight of the divine service not in Church-Slavic, but in modern Russian -ke and more. One of the initiators of the co-call, the author of the pro-gram, the call and establishment of the Congress of one person -che-st-va (goal - religious, philosophical, national and political tolerance), which was within the framework of the World the second exhibition in Paris in 1900. Member of the Glu-khov district committee of the Special Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry (1902-1905). During the Revolution of 1905-1907, N.N. Neplyuev initiated the establishment of the religious organization “All-Russian Brotherhood” and a secular organization -di-non-niya “Peace-but-Progress Party”, however, these plans were not real.

After the death of N.N. Neplyuev's brother-in-law's leadership passed to his sister M.N. Crazy. During the 1st World War, the brother-st. studied in the assistance of the army, in 1915 something to the Russian Society of the Red Cross. After the October Revolution of 1917, he was transferred to the First Ukrainian Soviet Communist Party (1919), then to an agricultural art-tel. (1923) and collective farm (1924), after which his ru-ko-vo-di-te-li were subjected to re-press-si-yam, and in 1929 his former brother -st-it would be ras-pu-sche-but. In 2001, in the village of Voz-dvizhenskoye, the museum “Labor Brotherhood of N.N. Don't spit."

“...N.N. Neplyuev was born in Yampol in Ukraine. He was one of the largest landowners of his time. After graduating from the Faculty of Law at St. Petersburg University in 1875, Neplyuev was sent to Munich to work at the Imperial Embassy. The dream he saw several times forced Neplyuev to change the path of his life. He saw himself in a hut, talking with peasant children; communication with them was filled with joy: “This dream gave an impetus to my thoughts and my will in a new direction: I realized where the way out was.” Soon after this, in 1877, he left his career as a diplomat and entered the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy as a volunteer. In 1881, after graduating from the academy, he returned to his estate in the Vozdvizhensk farmstead, Glukhov district, Chernigov province. Neplyuev began by taking in ten peasant children from poorest families; Thus, on August 4, 1881, the future Vozdvyzhensk school was born. In August 1889, the first graduation from the school took place. Of the six people who received certificates, three - Andrey Fursey, Fedor Chvertka, Ilya Kobets - did not want to leave. They became the first members of the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood. From that moment on, the life of N.N. Neplyuev and the work of establishing the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross are inseparable from each other and form a single whole. For the sake of serving the brotherhood, he chose the path of celibacy. His mother Alexandra Nikolaevna and sisters Maria and Olga were actively involved in the work of creating a brotherhood..."

February 3 marked 100 years since the death of the founder of the Holy Cross Orthodox Labor Brotherhood N. N. Neplyuev

The Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross is a rare attempt in Russia to establish an Orthodox brotherhood on the basis of a consistent community-fraternal ecclesiology. This brotherhood was based on the theological and social concepts of its founder Nikolai Nikolaevich Neplyuev (09/24/1851-02/03/1908 n.st.), who invested his whole life in it, choosing the path of celibacy, and funds, including his own enormous fortune.

Neplyuev’s main idea was the need for unity between Christians, which is carried out in the Christian community. Such communities can be united into a labor fraternity. Neplyuev considered fraternal life to be a work of God, which should become a need for a person throughout his life. Otherwise, he will be loyal to the brotherhood only as long as life in it is convenient for him. According to Neplyuev, the sacred duty of brotherly love is work, incl. Spiritual work is a voluntary discipline of love. This consisted in the recognition of a hierarchy of values ​​common to all brothers: service to God is embodied in the establishment of a labor brotherhood, to which it is important to subordinate one’s personal and family interests. These concepts of Neplyuev were embodied in the creation of the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood (years of activity: 1889-1929).

The basis of the Exaltation of the Cross Brotherhood were communities formed on a professional basis under the general leadership of Neplyuev and the Duma, consisting of the most responsible brothers. Membership in the community of each member of the brotherhood was given fundamental importance: without acquiring the skill of loving the brothers and sisters of one’s Christian community, it is impossible to learn to love the brotherhood and the church. The preparatory stage for life in the brotherhood were schools in which children were taught not only to believe in God, but also to live according to their faith. The desire for a meaningful life of faith found its expression in the daily prayer life of communities, in general fraternal conversations, special prayer meetings, as well as in the experience of fraternal worship, in which the Russian language was partially used, and individual prayers and psalms were read by the brethren themselves. This experience was later witnessed by the brotherly priest Fr. Alexander Sekundov at the Local Orthodox Council Russian Church 1917-1918

Neplyuev believed that society needed a new Christianization, because people do not live by faith, and the clergy does nothing to correct this situation. In 1906, in Nos. 6 and 7 of the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy,” his article “The Voice of a Lay Believing Concerning the Upcoming Council” was published, in which he proposed a number of reforms of church life for consideration by the Local Council. He sharply criticized church life: “the parishes are scattered and turned into fiction,” many members of the clergy are guided “not by the truth of God, but by the decrees and instructions of their superiors,” passing off “anti-church routine as “true Orthodoxy.” Neplyuev saw the possibility of improving church governance in restoring the principle of conciliarity, because its violation taught the laity “not to consider themselves responsible members of the church.” It is required to “correct the edition of liturgical books until their content is intelligible and make the liturgical language accessible to the public.” Neplyuev considered it an urgent need to restore the “institute of catechists” (or the institute of catechesis) in the church. “All believers must go through the “school of catechists” in order to have a baptized mind and heart and not disgrace the Church with their lives.” At the same time, it is necessary to publish a completely new catechism, more “intelligible and vitally useful.”

N.N. Neplyuev dreamed of organizing the All-Russian Brotherhood on the basis of parishes, which should become living cells of the church-state organism. He believed that in order to implement this idea, priests should be concerned with the thought of spiritual transformation their parishes: preach, organize catechetical interviews, so that faith does not remain in the realm of abstract thinking. However, he failed to implement this project. In December 1907, he became seriously ill and on February 3, 1908, he departed to the Lord.

After the death of Neplyuev, the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross existed until 1925, when the people most devoted to the brotherhood were repressed. The Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood finally ceased to exist during collectivization in 1929.

In 1875 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. Served in Munich at the Imperial Embassy. In 1877 he left Munich and entered the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy as a volunteer.

In one of his first works, “The Historical Vocation of the Russian Landowner,” published in 1880, before the birth of the brotherhood, N. N. Neplyuev wrote about the difficult situation of the peasant, who, as a result of the reforms of 1861, received freedom, but himself, in fact, did not change at all . According to Neplyuev, the historical vocation of the Russian landowner was to take on the task of education. “We alone can successfully complete this task because we alone combine material strength with intellectual strength,” Neplyuev wrote. He proposed to start by taking in one or two children from needy families, placing them not in a manor house, but in a simple hut, and raising them with daily communication and teaching, giving them knowledge about agriculture and teaching them to work.

After the publication of this work, Neplyuev was attacked by numerous critics. The authors arguing with him believed that for the wealthy and educated person there is no reason to follow his example; one of the dissenters wrote that Neplyuev was not taking up his own business and that the only historical vocation of a Russian landowner could only be to train dogs, and not to educate people.

In the fall of 1880, N.N. Neplyuev moved to his family estate in the Chernigov province. His father held the position of provincial leader of the nobility and rarely visited the estate. All affairs were under the jurisdiction of the chief manager, who not only did not sympathize with the business started by the young Neplyuev, but also considered his residence on the estate extremely inconvenient. “The all-powerful manager erected new obstacles at every step, and everyone around was afraid to help me, for fear of incurring his displeasure,” recalled N. N. Neplyuev.

Despite all the difficulties, he did not give up and “to cut off the path of retreat for himself,” he adopted ten orphans. Thus, on August 4, 1881, the future Vozdvyzhensk school was born. Neplyuev’s father gave his son a small house for use in the town of Yanpol. Several years later, the attitude of the general manager became even more hostile, and he began to pit the father against the son. After this, Nikolai’s mother and sisters joined the conflict and persuaded the elder Neplyuev to give his son the Vozdvizhensk estate as full ownership. This meant that Neplyuev received complete financial independence and the opportunity to freely engage in his business. He finally moved to Vozdvizhensk with his students, the number of whom had already reached about 30 people, in the fall of 1884.

Founding of the Vozdvizhensk Agricultural School

In 1883, Neplyuev submitted a petition to the Ministry of State Property to open a school. In the summer of 1884, a representative from the ministry, D. S. Moskalsky, came to Vozdvizhensk. After his visit, he gave a favorable review in a report to the minister. The request to open a school was supported by Minister M. N. Ostrovsky. At the end of the winter of 1885, Neplyuev signed an agreement with the Ministry of State Property, and the charter of the school was approved. On August 4, 1885, the school was opened; a state subsidy was allocated for its activities for the maintenance of teachers and teaching aids in the amount of 3500 rubles per year. The remaining expenses were paid by Neplyuev. The training was free. Students studied the theory of agriculture, acquired practical skills in field work in the brotherhood, gained knowledge of the New Testament, studied the catechism, Orthodox worship, the Russian language, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and Russian history. Subsequently, ministry officials came to the brotherhood several times, checking the activities of the school, taking part in taking exams, checking how schoolchildren were doing field work, etc.

In 1888, N. N. Neplyuev turned to the Minister of State Property M. N. Ostrovsky with a memorandum in which he asked him to give the Vozdvizhenskaya school the right to invite former pupils of the school who had successfully completed it to teacher positions. This permission was received. This was an important milestone in the development of the school. The influence of fraternal teachers had a beneficial effect on educational process: “Despite the fact that the official educational qualifications of their predecessors were higher, I consider myself to have the right to say and I say this with conviction - never before has our school had teachers better prepared to perform their duties and performing them so conscientiously.”

In 1891, a similar four-year boys' school for girls, Preobrazhenskaya, opened. Neplyuev’s closest assistant and sister, Maria Nikolaevna Umanets, became her guardian.

Memories of school visitors

This is how one of the fraternity’s visitors, A. Tyumenev, describes the Vozdvizhensky schools:

Foundation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Labor Brotherhood

In 1889, the first class graduated from school. Three of the six graduates remained with Neplyuev and laid the foundation for the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood. All of them remained at the school and spent a year preparing under Neplyuev’s leadership to become teachers. Andrei Ivanovich Fursey took the position of school manager, high school agriculture teacher and manager of the Vozdvizhensky estate. Fedor Efimovich Chvertka became a teacher of cattle breeding and veterinary medicine. Ilya Pavlovich Kobets was a teacher of the first preparatory class, became the elder of the fraternal family of teachers, was preparing to take holy orders, but fell ill with consumption and died in 1893. As Neplyuev noted, he deserved “the sincere love and deep respect of all those who knew him.”

Since the founding of the Labor Brotherhood, the life of N.N. Neplyuev and the work of the brotherhood have been inseparable from each other and form a single whole. For the sake of serving the brotherhood, he chose the path of celibacy. In 1890, after the death of his father, N. N. Neplyuev became the owner of a significant fortune. His mother Alexandra Nikolaevna and sisters Maria and Olga also actively participated in fraternal life.

Fraternal priests

In 1893, a temple in the name of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross was built and consecrated in Vozdvizhensk. During the entire period of the brotherhood’s activity, it has had five abbots. The names of two of them are well known from their subsequent church activities: priest Sergius Chetverikov and priest Roman Medved. In 1903, priest Alexander Sekundov became the rector of the fraternal church. He remained the brotherly confessor until the end of the brotherhood.

Divine services in the brotherhood were treated as “a celebration of living love.” A fraternal choir sang in the choir. In addition to the usual temple services, in which the entire brotherhood participated, there was common prayer morning and evening in fraternal families. The brotherhood’s desire for a meaningful life of faith found its expression in the daily prayer life of communities, in general fraternal conversations, and special prayer meetings.

The main theological ideas of N. N. Neplyuev, which formed the basis of the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood

The main idea of ​​N. Neplyuev, to which he devoted his entire life, was the need for repentance and unity between Christians, which is carried out in the Christian community. Such communities can unite into a labor brotherhood, in which believers could arrange their lives according to faith, live together with brothers in Christ and earn a living through joint activities. Neplyuev pointed out three reasons for the structure of life and activities of the Christian labor brotherhood:

• Faith in the Living God and that community life is the will of God.
• Love: loyalty and the desire to stay together despite conflicts and everything that separates.
• Work: high-quality performance of one’s duties for the common good and voluntary discipline.

Neplyuev considered fraternal life to be the work of God. In his opinion, membership in the brotherhood is a calling from the Lord, therefore what matters is not how weak this or that person is, since there is no weakness in front of which the Lord would be powerless. It is important how stable each person who has chosen the path of fraternal Christian life is in the desire to give his life under the guidance of God.

Another side of love for God is brotherly love. Life in brotherhood is spiritual work, a every-minute test of the reality of one’s brotherly love. Brotherhood should become a person’s home, family and life’s work. This work cannot be done by anyone who does not want to deny himself, take up the cross and follow Christ: he can live in brotherhood and work honestly, but he will never become its firm support. If brotherhood does not constitute a necessity of life for a person, it risks losing him at any moment, since he will be faithful to brotherhood only as long as life in it is convenient for him: “It is necessary that brotherly love be the highest need, which is consciously and joyfully submitted to all other needs. Without this, betrayal of the cause of love is fatal, even with a clear awareness of its full significance.” However, it is impossible to find such an attitude anywhere outside the brotherhood, so it is enough just to recognize its absence as one’s own weakness, and to trust with confidence the authority and leadership of the spiritual elders in the brotherhood.

According to Neplyuev, the sacred duty of brotherly love is work. However, in the Christian labor brotherhood, neither labor itself nor the economic results of economic activity can have self-sufficient significance and be the ultimate goal. It is necessary for the brotherhood to be self-sustaining, and for each person to work honestly.

In addition to professional work, Neplyuev spoke about the need and importance of spiritual labor - a voluntary discipline of love, which consisted in recognizing a hierarchy of values ​​common to all brothers: serving God is embodied in the establishment of a labor brotherhood, to which it is necessary to subordinate one’s personal and family interests.

“The voice of a lay believer regarding the upcoming Council”

Neplyuev believed that society needed a new Christianization, since people do not live by faith, and the clergy is doing nothing to correct this situation. In 1906, in Nos. 6 and 7 of the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, Neplyuev’s article “The Voice of a Lay Believing Concerning the Upcoming Council” was published, in which he proposed a number of reforms of church life for consideration by the Local Council. He sharply criticized church life: “the parishes are scattered and turned into fiction,” many representatives of the clergy are guided “not by the truth of God, but by the decrees and instructions of the authorities,” passing off “anti-church routine as “true Orthodoxy.” Neplyuev saw the possibility of improving church governance in the restoration the principle of conciliarity, since its violation taught the laity “not to consider themselves responsible members of the church.” Neplyuev considered the restoration of the “institute of catechets” in the church to be an urgent need: “This matter is so pressing and urgent that all bishops, their vicars and monasteries should for the benefit of the Church not to spare any expense or labor." By this Neplyuev understood the revival of the institution of catechesis in the church. "All believers should go through the "School of Catechists" in order to have a baptized mind and heart and not disgrace the Church with their lives." teaching “theological sciences”, but limiting ourselves to “knowledge of the new catechism” and teaching to live according to “the commandment of love, which can be achieved in one, many, two years.” At the same time, it is necessary to publish a completely new catechism, more “intelligible and vitally useful.” He also noted that it is necessary to “correct the edition of liturgical books until their content is intelligible and make the liturgical language accessible to the public.”

Public lectures

From January 25 to January 31, 1907, Neplyuev gave a series of lectures in the auditorium of the Moscow Theological Academy. In the summer of 1906, a group of professors and students of the academy visited the brotherhood, and six months later the leadership of the MDA invited Neplyuev to give lectures. In them he outlined his understanding of life by faith and the responsibilities of the clergy and laity in the matter of the spiritual revival of Russia. He spoke in detail about the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood, also paying considerable attention to the issues of the upcoming Local Council. On ep. Evdokim (Meshchersky) Neplyuev’s speech produced strong impression: “I bless the day when I decided to give Mr. Neplyuev the opportunity to read the aforementioned seven lectures at the Academy,” he wrote in a report to the Educational Committee at the Synod. - “Since I was born, I have never seen or heard such deep faith, living faith in Christ the Savior from the lips of a secular, highly enlightened person with enormous connections and colossal wealth.” Journalist A. Pankratov wrote that the lectures were accompanied by applause.

Also in 1907, on October 28, Neplyuev gave a lecture on the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross, on the revival of parish life and on the formation of the All-Russian Brotherhood at the Oryol Women's Diocesan School. The section chronicling diocesan life in the Oryol Diocesan Gazette reports that the ruling Bishop of Oryol, Seraphim (Chichagov), was present at this lecture. Bishop Seraphim spent about two years at the Oryol See, but during this time he managed to do a lot for the revival of Christian life among the people. In addition to him, the lecture was attended by Bishop Mitrofan (Athos) of Yelets, “the clergy of the city, teachers of religious educational institutions, members of parish councils and many outsiders.” Two months later, a review of the lecture was published in the Oryol Diocesan Gazette, retelling some of its provisions and emphasizing the churchliness of the brotherhood: “The religious life of the labor brotherhood is in complete harmony with the religious structure and structure of the dominant Orthodox Church in Russia.” The article concludes with the author’s wish that “future workers of the parish, future shepherds and teachers of the people do not turn a deaf ear to the cause of the Labor Brotherhood” and a call to get acquainted with the brotherhood in Vozdvizhensk.

last years of life

IN last years In his life, Neplyuev began to develop a project for an All-Russian Brotherhood with a single charter and governing body, under the auspices of the Synod and the Emperor. The All-Russian Brotherhood is a collection of parishes that should become living cells of the church-state organism. To implement this idea, it is necessary to awaken the self-awareness of parishioners, therefore priests must take care of the spiritual transformation of their parishes: preach, organize catechetical interviews, so that faith does not remain in the realm of abstract thinking. In 1906, Neplyuev came to Kyiv, where he tried to form a society to create an All-Russian Brotherhood. Neplyuev himself wrote the draft Charter, but did not have time to implement his plan. With the draft Charter in December 1907, Neplyuev went to St. Petersburg, but there he became seriously ill with the flu. Despite his illness, he continued to work and even gave public lectures at the invitation of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. On December 21 he returned to Vozdvizhensk. During his illness, Neplyuev often received communion, and on the day of his death he was given unction.

Bibliography

• Neplyuev N. N. Collected works: In 5 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1901-1908.
• Neplyuev N.N. Vozdvizhenskaya school is the cradle of the Labor Brotherhood. St. Petersburg, 1895.
• Neplyuev N. N. All-Russian Brotherhood. St. Petersburg, 1907
• Neplyuev N. N. Fraternal unions in educational institutions - higher, middle and lower: Can the church and the Christian state manage without them longer and how to implement them? Leipzig, 1893.
• Neplyuev N.N. The voice of a lay believer regarding the upcoming Council. Kyiv, 1906.
• Neplyuev N. N. Sounds of the soul. Berlin, 1896.
• Neplyuev N.N. To all believers. St. Petersburg, 1907.
• Neplyuev N. N. Open letter to students. St. Petersburg, 1906.
• Neplyuev N.N. Draft charter of the Vozdvizhensky Agricultural Labor Brotherhood of Christ. St. Petersburg, 1885.
• Neplyuev N.N. Regarding false rumors. St. Petersburg, 1907.
• Neplyuev N.N. Mysterious phenomena of the earthly life of my spirit. Berlin, 1896.
• Neplyuev N. N. Labor brotherhood and its schools. St. Petersburg, 1900.

Reflecting on the Exaltation of the Cross Labor Brotherhood, it is impossible to remain indifferent. Associations may be different. The first thing that appears is the island of Utopia, which suddenly takes on real shape. But perhaps a comparison with the Jerusalem community of early Christians, which showed us highest ideal Christian hostel. In any case, this is an attempt to implement Christ's covenant of brotherly life in peace and love in everyday life. But everything happens not in the Holy Land, but in the Chernigov province of the late 19th century. Moreover, this is not a one-day event, but a community that existed and flourished for half a century. And the Labor Brotherhood itself is a purely Orthodox phenomenon, as evidenced by the very name of the Brotherhood. This phenomenon is too unusual to pass by and not try to comprehend it.

Even more impressive is the image of the founder, guardian and soul of the Brotherhood, Nikolai Nikolaevich Neplyuev - a landowner, a Christian, endlessly devoted Orthodox Church, a man of amazing humility, will and faith in God. The Lord rewarded him with many talents. Neplyuev is an outstanding spiritual writer - the five volumes of his works amaze with clarity, height of thought and amazing sincerity with a bright personality and great literary gift. It is thanks to these works that we are able to know quite accurately about the life of people in the Brotherhood. Neplyuev is both a composer of piano and vocal music, and an excellent organizer, and an excellent teacher. But his main talent was Christian love, which burned so brightly that it gave an irresistible, all-conquering force to all his deeds. “God is love,” Neplyuev repeats many times in his writings. And this is not rhetoric or mentioning God in vain. “Faith working through love” - this is the principle that this amazing man tried with all his might to bring to life.

Alas, Neplyuev and his Brotherhood are almost unknown to wide circles of Orthodox Christians. This is not so much surprising as it makes you think hard. Why is there always no prophet in his own country?

But everything is in order.

Background of the Brotherhood

N.N. Neplyuev was born in 1851. He came from an old noble family of Neplyuevs. Neplyuev wrote about his ancestors: “my ancestors came from the Varangians under Saint Nevsky, the Novgorod veche placed them, the kings of Moscow made them boyars, Tsar the Terrible burned their estates, the Great Peter sent them to Venice to teach.” Neplyuev's father, a privy councilor, Nikolai Ivanovich Neplyuev (1825-1890) had several extensive estates, including in the Chernigov province, where he was the provincial leader of the nobility.

The boy's exceptional sensitivity to love and evil manifested itself very early. Neplyuev recalled about his childhood: “... where I did not feel love, I was literally sick from boredom, literally frozen from spiritual cold... Not only the presence of a rudely unkind person, but even the presence of an indifferent, cold person gave me a difficult time.” , sometimes almost unbearable suffering (...) Only manifestations of love consoled me, illuminated my soul with a quiet light, warmed it with tender caress, were something familiar, giving meaning to existence.”

The Gospel makes an exceptional impression on a pure young soul. But at the same time, he sees an acute discord between the truth of the Gospel and the lies of this world:

“Since childhood, I was amazed and frightened by the isolation of life from this holy (Christian - N.S.) truth. When criticism of the facts was still beyond my strength and I could not yet formulate my thoughts, my heart sensed the irreconcilable discord between the mood of the spirit of the vast majority and the spirit of the world and love, which from the pages of the Gospel illuminated and warmed a child's heart. The more I lived and became acquainted with life, the more I became convinced that the overwhelming majority of people do not know how or do not want to think, feel, or live like Christians. loved and understood the eternal truth of the truth of God's will, the less I was able to put up with what was inconsistent with it in the life around me (...) Every day the evidence for me multiplied that I was not dealing with the disciples of Christ the Savior, but with people who systematically betray Him with their whole mindset and sympathies, with their whole structure of life and established mutual relationships.”

Nikolai Neplyuev’s life at first flowed normally, like that of many nobles. He graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University, became a diplomat and received a position at the Russian mission in Munich. But very soon the empty and playful pastime of a socialite causes deep disgust in him. And so he, a 27-year-old aristocrat and sophisticated socialite, sees a dream that has been repeated several times: “I am in a peasant hut in the company of peasant children, talking with them, and feeling such spiritual joy that my soul has longed for since childhood.” “It became clear to me,” writes Neplyuev, “that I need to leave the society of people who don’t need me,... leave them for those poor children of the people who need me in every way... I decided to start from raising peasant children in conscious faith in Christ the Savior and conscious love for him."

And the sophisticated aristocrat leaves the diplomatic service, resigns and spends two years as a volunteer student at the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy. Then, in the fall of 1880, he went to his family estate, the Vozdvizhensk farm, in the Chernigov province with the goal of founding a school for peasants. However, the manager opposes all the young master’s undertakings. Then Neplyuev asked his father to give him a house in the town of Yanpol (not far from Vozdvizhensk), and in February 1881. founded a school there for peasant orphans.

Schools

At first there were only 10 children studying at the school. But Neplyuev spares no effort on his brainchild and the school begins to gain strength. In 1883, he submitted a petition to the Ministry of State Property to found a lower agricultural school. Minister Mikhail Nikolaevich Ostrovsky supports this idea and later becomes a friend of the Brotherhood. In August 1885 The school, which received state subsidies, officially opens.

From the very beginning, Neplyuev’s goal is not just to teach children the basics of agronomy, but to educate young souls in the Christian spirit of conscious faith and love. However, at first Nikolai Nikolaevich did not imagine all the difficulties in carrying out such a task. He wrote:

“I had to make sure in practice that angels are not born on earth. The children loved me, but most of them loved me only to the degree of satisfaction with a person who placed them in comparatively better material conditions and expresses good feelings towards them (...) What concerns the love of God - for a long time they could not assimilate this completely new concept for them: gross pride in its most diverse manifestations, gross selfishness convinced of its own rightness, gross disrespect for the human person, the image and likeness of God, (... ) self-satisfied indifference to everything sublime, good and beautiful, (...) an enthusiastic attitude towards the rude, vulgar and ugly, gross superstition in the place of living faith, (...) rude exactingness towards others and a complete lack of understanding of one’s responsibilities towards to them - here is a sad picture of the great infirmities inherent, to a greater or lesser extent, in the vast majority of the children of the Orthodox common people, whom the populists try to present as the ideal of all Christian virtues and propose as teachers for the intelligentsia instead of Christ."

But God helps. Several of the most advanced older students, seeing the difficulties in educating the younger ones, decided to take “patronage” over the most difficult of them. It turned out that older children can influence the moral development of younger ones much more effectively than teachers. This is how the Senior Brotherhood Circle was formed, which later became the core of the Brotherhood. However, the teachers, who for the most part did not understand Neplyuev’s intentions at all, began to interfere with the activities of the Senior Circle. When Neplyuev learned about the conflict, he, who was in Paris at the time, suffered a heart attack. He writes several letters to teachers, and, in the end, the conflict is resolved. Let us note that Neplyuev recruited his first teachers from the teaching community, and it immediately became clear that their actual atheism and misunderstanding of Neplyuev’s plan created a lot of problems that depressed Neplyuev for many years. But in 1895, Neplyuev managed to get the ministry to allow school graduates to become teachers. And then things went smoothly.

After the Elder, a Junior Brotherhood Circle was created, consisting of children in whom the first shoots of a new life are already visible. Here analogies with the “Komsomol members” and “pioneers” of the Soviet era may involuntarily arise. However, similar associations will continue to arise as the story progresses. However, it should be remembered that all this grew not on the soil of atheism, but in the bosom of faith in Christ and strict Orthodox life. In addition, there was genuine democracy in Neplyuev’s schools. The guys from the Senior Circle themselves chose candidates for membership in the Circle. The guys of the Junior Circle, in addition to electing their fellow members, chose their own mentors from among the members of the Senior Circle. In addition, at the school, the children elected elders - students who performed administrative functions, whose orders were mandatory for all students in the school. However, if someone considered the foreman’s order inconvenient to carry out, then he could enter into a correct discussion. A repeat order was no longer discussed.

At first there were punishments in schools. However, Neplyuev later abandons them and introduces a seemingly dubious measure such as a general weekly meeting of the school, at which each student could express any complaints to the elders and teachers. However, as a result, conflicts were removed, and in addition, each student at these meetings was raised into an individual with an active civic position. Another “anti-pedagogical” innovation was the joint implementation of lessons (of course, not all). This measure was introduced to force the lazy to learn the material, and, oddly enough, it had an effect: school performance increased significantly. Every year, characteristics are written for all students, which are discussed at a general meeting of teachers, which lasted several days. Moreover, characteristics for younger students are written by members of the Senior Circle. Several such characteristics have come down to us: they amaze with their thoroughness and deep understanding of the human soul.

Here is some information about the Vozdvizhenskaya school. 5-year school. Children were accepted from the age of 12. The school soon won the recognition of the peasants and the competition for admission was great - 5-7 people. in place. Literacy was required. Every year about 20 children were accepted - the school could not accommodate more. Thus, the total number of students fluctuated between 68-85 people. They accepted everyone - nobles, peasants, townspeople, children of Cossacks, even foreigners. However, after several unpleasant incidents with Jewish and Baptist boys, whose parents were actively inciting them against the school, they began to accept only Orthodox ones. School education is free, although children lived on full board. The list of subjects is surprisingly diverse: catechism, Gospel, Orthodox worship, Acts and Epistles, Russian language, singing, drawing, geography, arithmetic, geometry, physics, chemistry, anatomy and physiology, entomology, botany, Russian history, law, land surveying, beekeeping, cattle breeding, horse breeding, dairy farming, agriculture, gardening, field and forestry. Class schedule: from 8 to 12 - school studies, from 12.30 to 4 - practical classes. In summer - work in the fields.

In 1890 Nikolai Nikolaevich's father died, and Neplyuev became the owner of a significant estate. Mother Alexandra Nikolaevna (nee Baroness Schlippenbach) and both of his sisters - Olga Nikolaevna and Maria Nikolaevna - moved to Vozdvizhensk. The sisters actively got involved in the work: one began to teach singing, the other - drawing. In 1893 a similar agricultural Preobrazhenskaya school for girls is being created (from 13 years old, education lasts 4 years). In addition to these subjects, students studied home economics, as well as cutting and sewing. Interestingly, a new building was built for the girls' school, much better than the men's school. The brothers have always been proud of this building. Neplyuev’s closest assistant and sister, Maria Nikolaevna Umanets, became a trustee of the Preobrazhenskaya school.

The schools received a state subsidy (3,500 rubles per year for men and 2,000 rubles for women). However, this money was not enough. At first, Nikolai Nikolaevich himself financed the schools. However, later, when the Brotherhood got on its feet, a subsidy of 10,000 rubles. per year carried out by the Brotherhood. In addition to two agricultural schools, a junior school for 40 children continued to operate in Yanpol, serving as a preparatory stage for agricultural schools. The Yanpol school was headed by Neplyuev’s other sister, Olga Nikolaevna. In addition, another children's shelter was organized on the Rozhdestvensky farm.

Brotherhood. Charter and organization of life

At meetings of the Senior Brotherhood Circle, teenagers brought up in the spirit of brotherly love more than once expressed the idea of ​​a working brotherhood in which they could continue the grace-filled life they lived in school. These thoughts were consonant with Neplyuev’s ideas, which he had been nurturing for a long time. And when the first 6 students of the school were graduated in 1889, three of them (Andrei Fursey, Fyodor Chvertka, Ilya Kobets), after a year of working as school teachers, decided to form a labor fraternity. For this purpose, Neplyuev provided them with 255 dessiatines. land on which they began to build a residential building. This marked the beginning of the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood. Neplyuev formulated the goal of the Brotherhood as follows:

"The main goal of the Brotherhood is to realize Christianity in incomparably to a greater extent how it is carried out in the surrounding life, to base relationships and work on a single Christian basis of brotherly love.”

And Neplyuev sees the only form corresponding to this task in the community:

“I had no need to think through the form of life that would be most consistent with the faith and understanding of the life of a Christian believer. The Holy Apostles... taught us this by the example of fraternal communities, this only form of social system that is fully consistent with brotherly love.”

Neplyuev drew up the Charter of the Brotherhood, and after much delay, on December 23, 1893, the Charter was approved by Emperor Alexander III, then, through the Holy Synod, it was sent for execution to Archbishop Anthony (Sokolov) of Chernigov. In September 1894, the Brotherhood was granted the right of a legal entity by the highest order, and on July 22, 1895. The solemn church opening of the Brotherhood took place.

The Charter of the Brotherhood provided for three categories of brothers: full-fledged - living within the boundaries of the Brotherhood's possessions, they are the full-fledged owners of the entire fraternal estate; they participate in elections and establishing the way of life of the Brotherhood; reception - on equal rights participate in the income of the Brotherhood, but do not participate in elections or in establishing the way of life of the Brotherhood; competitors - living on the side, they help the Brotherhood either financially or through their activities. Full brothers constitute the Duma of the Brotherhood, which decides all the most important issues in the life of the Brotherhood. From among the full brothers, the Guardian (head) of the Brotherhood is elected for life - Neplyuev became it. In case of absence or illness of the Guardian, the Duma elects a deputy - the governor (he chose Neplyuev's sister - Maria Nikolaevna). In addition to the Duma, an Economic Council was elected, which was in charge of all economic issues of the Brotherhood in accordance with the estimate and plan approved by the Duma. In addition, as necessary, the General Meeting of the Brotherhood was held, which considered the annual report of the Guardian, the Economic Council and various statements by the priest and brothers about the structure of life of the Brotherhood. However, the General Meeting had an advisory nature and submitted its decisions to the Duma for consideration. The Archbishop of Chernigov is the patron of the Brotherhood. Women can be elected to all positions on an equal basis with men. Let us note that life has forced the introduction of another category of brothers not provided for by the Charter - admitted members who passed before admission to the Brotherhood probation(1 year).

The distribution of the Brotherhood's income was very interesting. The charter reads:

"28. The Brotherhood's net income is distributed as follows:

a) 20% are paid annually to the Main and Reserve Capital, 10% each.

b) The remainder of the net income is divided equally between all full and Adoptive brothers, but is not given to them in their own hands, but is recorded in their personal accounts (...)

31. All amounts recorded in personal accounts, before the voluntary or forced withdrawal of a member of the brotherhood, do not go to his uncontrolled disposal, but can be spent by them only with the consent of a simple majority of the present members of the Duma.

Note 1. Upon leaving the Brotherhood, the person leaving the Brotherhood receives full ownership of the entire amount due to his share, minus the money he took with the consent of the Duma during his stay in the Brotherhood."

Let us note that the Duma established that each brother should be given 150 rubles for personal use. in year. This amount was spent on clothing, other personal items and partly food. Subsequently, the Duma further reduced this amount to 125 rubles. and even up to 105 rubles. This enabled the Brotherhood to invest significant funds in the development of production, schools and housing construction. As a result, the Brotherhood is growing quite quickly. Most of the new brothers were school graduates, but people came, albeit in small numbers, from the surrounding villages. At first, Neplyuev has a rather rosy impression of the prospects. He talks about the spiritual growth of the members of the brotherhood. However, he soon begins to notice many shortcomings and deviations, which, gradually growing, lead to the crisis of 1900, which will be discussed later.

The Brotherhood took upon itself the responsibility of providing for the old age of the brothers and care for illness, for which a hospital was built in the Brotherhood.

Economic life in the Brotherhood is collective. All the brothers were united on a professional basis into several artels, which in the Brotherhood were called “Families” (to distinguish them from families in the usual sense, we will write them with a capital letter). Each of the Families was given the name of an Orthodox saint: Nicholas the Wonderworker - teacher; Andrew the First-Called - preparatory class for life in the Brotherhood; John the Theologian - a family of brothers holding administrative positions in the Brotherhood; Virgin Mary - a sewing team of unmarried women and widows; St. Alexandra - laundry cooperative. In total by 1908 there were 10 Families in the Brotherhood.

Each Artel Family consisted of several families and single brothers. A family (with a capital letter) lives in one big house, in which each family is given a large room, and unmarried men live in dormitory rooms. The family has a common meal (children eat before adults) and their own local “kindergarten”. The family keeps a journal - a chronicle of life, in which all significant (including spiritual) events are recorded, and gathers weekly to discuss pressing issues. She elects a foreman, who is for her a “guardian” and at the same time a work manager who organizes the work of the artel.

All work in the Brotherhood was considered equally honorable and, accordingly, was equally paid. In other words, the brother’s personal account, regardless of whether he was a full brother or an adopted brother, received the same amount, depending on the economic success of the entire Brotherhood. The brothers themselves tried to change this norm more than once and establish differentiated income for families (at that time in Russia, teachers received tens of times more than laundresses). However, Neplyuev always sharply objected to this, arguing that if the division of money begins, then the Brotherhood as a Christian community will come to an end.

However, despite the economic problems, Neplyuev never forgot why the Brotherhood was created. He wrote: “Religious life should not be a part or department of the life of the Brotherhood, but the general basis of all life.”

It should be noted that the Brotherhood is strictly Orthodox. At the expense of Neplyuev, a new Holy Cross Church was built in Vozdvizhensk, which was solemnly consecrated in 1883. All clergy duties are performed by members of the Brotherhood. The combined choir of the Brotherhood and both schools sings. Admission to members of the Brotherhood and circle is solemn, with fasting and communion. In Great Lent, communion 3 times. Before confession, all fasting people gather for a repentant meeting, at which they ask each other and the Brotherhood for forgiveness. For those who are zealous, there are prayer meetings in the morning and evening: they pray for all their needs. Special prayers composed by members of the Brotherhood are also read. One of the prayers, the prayer for Russia, has gained considerable popularity:

“For our fatherland, Russia, pour out grace, O God!

May all the peoples inhabiting it be united into one family, you, the Heavenly Father, confessing with one mind, organizing their entire lives with one accord, according to faith, may there be one flock and one shepherd.

Let there be daily and spiritual bread for everyone without exception.

May there be peace and love between all of us and may the machinations of enemies internal and external, evil sowers of tares in Your field - through writing, word or deed, bring unsteadiness into minds, bitterness into hearts, temptation, discord and all kinds of filth into life, will be powerless.

Send, Lord, good workers to Your Russian field. May they announce her with the words of Thy Truth, may they glorify her as an example of life by faith.

Send, O Lord, to the Russian people sensitivity of heart, so that they may understand the holy speeches of Your chosen ones. May he understand Your holy will and unfailingly and joyfully do it, may Rus' be truly holy, may it unite with one mind and one accord into one great brotherhood, faithful to God in thought, word and deed.

Lord, Lord of the world, visit our homeland with your grace, may it be clothed with holiness, like a robe, and may its sons in their humility be worthy of the wedding garment, in which they must enter the palace of Your kingdom.

May God allow Russia to walk the path of repentance and awareness in humility. Grant, Lord, her transformation.”

With the blessing of the bishop, special petitions were included in the litanies and new rituals were created. The rite of initiation of school graduates into the Brotherhood was planned to be especially solemn: with the participation of a priest, at night with lit candles, with the singing of choirs, and those newly admitted in white festive blouses. The soul of the Brotherhood, its religious center, was Nikolai Nikolaevich himself. With the bishop's blessing, Neplyuev sometimes preached in church.

Prayer meetings with the reading of the Holy Scriptures were naturally combined with the intense cultural life of the Brotherhood. Musical and vocal evenings, on which Neplyuev himself played the works of classics, as well as his own. Theater productions were not uncommon. In general, unexpectedly a lot of talent appeared in the Brotherhood: beautiful voices, interesting artists, wonderful poets. The cultural level of the members of the Brotherhood is also evidenced by the fraternal library, which contains 6 thousand volumes. The brothers read newspapers and were interested in social life.

Friends of the Brotherhood

There were a lot of friends, and enthusiastic ones at that. Bishop was a friend of the Brotherhood. Sergius (Sokolov), who from 1891 was vicar of the Chernigov diocese, and from March 1893. - ep. Chernigovsky. Ep. Sergius visited Vozdvizhensk more than once, accepting with great approval the very idea of ​​a fraternal hostel. Honorary members of the Brotherhood became Princess Eugenia Maximilianovna of Oldenburg, Rev. Macarius (Troitsky), former Bishop of Kaluga and Borovsk, Rev. Peter, Bishop of Perm. The first competitive member of the Brotherhood was the famous priest Grigory Petrov.

Alexander Aleksandrovich Lyutetsky, private associate professor of Moscow University, became a true friend of the Brotherhood. While still in Moscow, he founded a Christian brotherhood of University students. Having learned about the Neplyuev Brotherhood, Lyutetsky went to Vozdvizhenskoye with the intention of living there and writing his master's thesis. But he remained in the Brotherhood - he left the University and his planned professorial career and became a member of the Brotherhood and a teacher in an agricultural school. Another well-wisher of the Brotherhood, I.I. Baranovsky wrote a will in favor of the Brotherhood of all his property.

The press showed considerable interest in the Brotherhood. More than once there were friendly notes about him. Of the church writers, N.D. spoke positively about the Brotherhood. Zhevakhov, professor P.Ya. Svetlov and M.M. Tareev. However, the latter also made a number of critical remarks, for the most part fair.

Neplyuev often visited abroad, published his works there, and met with many religious and political figures. Thanks to this, Neplyuev’s cause became known and respected in the West, and Neplyuev himself acquired exceptional authority and many friends and associates, both among Catholics and Protestants. Thus, Neplyuev was elected honorary president of the Congress of United Humanity, held in Paris in 1900. However, seeing that from a forum of fraternal solidarity of various religious and political forces, the Congress had turned into a nationalist tribune, Neplyuev soon resigned as chairman and left the Congress.

Brotherhood Priest Problem

However, there were plenty of problems associated with the relationship between the Brotherhood and the surrounding society, both with the world and with the Church.

A separate sad chapter is the history of the Brotherhood’s relationship with the priests of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross. It should be said right away that they changed frequently. There were at least five priests until at least 1908. There are several reasons. First of all, most of them did not understand the very idea of ​​​​the Brotherhood, considering it a socialist or Tolstoyan community. Another reason is conflict over spiritual leadership. The priest usually considers himself the spiritual leader of the community. Here the situation was different - Neplyuev was such a leader, and great tact was required from the priest in order to find his worthy place in the Brotherhood. His position was further complicated by the fact that, according to the Charter of the Brotherhood, the candidacy of a temple priest was proposed by the Duma and approved by the bishop-trustee of the Brotherhood.

In the Report of the Guardian of the Brotherhood for 1899, the following entry can be found: “We had to part with the former priest of our temple, Fr. Sergei Ch. He constantly forced the Brotherhood to choose between the loss of love, respect and trust in him or in the guardian of the Brotherhood.” We are talking about priest Sergius Chetverikov (1867-1947), later an emigrant, confessor of the RSHD, author of the famous books “Elder Paisiy Velichkovsky” and “Great Lent.” O. Sergius, who had just graduated from the Academy, served in the Holy Cross Church of the Brotherhood in 1896-1898. In 1901, his brochure “A New Attempt to Renew Mankind” was published, negatively assessing Neplyuev’s book “Towards a Better Future.” There about. Sergius writes that Neplyuev “does not notice the good living in the world, does not see the beneficial activity of the Church of Christ, and does not recognize the need to submit to its experience in the matter of Christian creation of souls.” “The truths of Christianity, as presented by N.N.N, take on a somewhat abstract and lifeless character.” Regarding Neplyuev’s views on “unsystematic charity” Fr. Sergius Chetverikov notes: “What strikes us first of all is the sharp contradiction between what St. says. The Gospel, and the teachings of N.N. Neplyuev.” But most of all Fr. Sergius does not like the way Nikolai Nikolaevich understood love: “at that time, like St. The Gospel and the Orthodox teaching of faith by Christian love always mean the mood of the heart, N.N.N. By love he means external affairs.” And about the above fragment of Neplyuev’s childhood memories, where he “spiritually became numb” with unloving people, Fr. Sergius says: “He finds it easy and joyful only with those who love him. But is this what true love is? True love- to love everyone without distinction.” Everywhere in the comments of Fr. Sergius shows a desire to offend Neplyuev from the position of an infallible adherent of Orthodoxy, although his considerations are substantively controversial and morally flawed.

It cannot be said that the priest’s problem was a surprise for Neplyuev. From the very beginning of the Brotherhood, Neplyuev hoped that a priest could be raised within the Brotherhood itself. And it seemed that this hope would come true - Ilya Kobets was preparing to become a priest. But his untimely death in 1893 took him to his grave.

A special place is occupied by the conflict between Neplyuev and Fr. Roman Medved, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000. O. Roman came to the Brotherhood on January 12, 1901, but at the end of 1901 he was no longer in the Brotherhood. And before leaving, Fr. Roman sent a report to the Synod, in which he spoke sharply negatively about the activities of the Brotherhood. In the report he wrote:

“The present economic organization of the brotherhood threatens to turn it into a collective landowner, which is very difficult for the area, since all private charity is prohibited by the charter. The result is the most cruel form of the capitalist system, without any expression of not only Christian, but also simply human feelings. The work of brotherhood has lost its moral and healing significance, therefore, in its own way life principle the brotherhood is steadily striving for self-gratification. (...) The historical relationship between brotherhood and Orthodox priest abnormal. The brotherhood constantly separated in the priest the moral personality and the dignity he bears, and through this opened a wide path for themselves to condemn and trample upon the priesthood. According to this division, everything in pastoral leadership that is unpleasant for the sheep and the flock can be attributed to the personality of the priest, which has nothing to do with the office he bears. The shepherd must feed the sheep as the sheep desire. (...) To despise a priest as a person and to receive the Holy Mysteries from him is not the job of a good layman.”

Characteristic economic life Brotherhoods as “forms of the capitalist system”, given by Fr. Roman, is hardly fair. On the contrary, the entire previous and subsequent history of the brotherhood suggests that genuine Christian socialism was realized in it, i.e. a form of socialization of property based on brotherly love, where labor had the utmost importance moral significance. The situation is more complicated with the accusations against Fr. Roman in contempt for him as a person. It seems that the young priest, who received his first parish, could not properly find his niche in such an unusual spiritual building as the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross. It is interesting that in 1902 “Private response letter from N.N.” was published. Neplyuev to a letter from priest Ivanov,” where under the name of priest. Ivanov, apparently, meant Fr. Novel. In this letter, Neplyuev expresses his view on the conflict. From it, in particular, it turns out that Fr. In confession, Roman demanded that the female half of the Brotherhood reveal to him all purely personal affections and sympathies. The girls were offended and simply stopped going to him for confession, but Fr. Roman blamed the Guardian for this, who allegedly incited the brothers against the priest.

Let us note that there were very strict standards regarding the relationship between the male and female halves in the Brotherhood. Young people were not allowed to walk together, especially at night; they could only talk at evenings organized in the Families. The proposal was made through Maria Nikolaevna, if consent was received, then anyway they could only see each other at evenings in the presence of others. However, the Duma may not agree to the marriage. So there could not be any “prodigal” connections. But apparently Fr. This was not enough for Roman.

Neplyuev also makes other claims against Fr. Roman:

I didn’t want to communicate with ordinary brothers, I considered it a “waste of time”;

Accused N.N. in material dishonesty;

I asked Maria Nikolaevna never to hand over to N.N. the contents of their conversation (M.N. was embarrassed, but did not show it);

After the first rejected advice (to the Duma and the Pedagogical Council), he stopped giving them altogether;

In the dispute I used the following argument: “you can’t understand this, because... didn’t study theology”;

He expressed the opinion that “conscience is more important than love.”

Neplyuev, as a senior, harshly states: “Your prestige suffers most precisely from the fact that your parishioners do not see in you either a fair assessment of good and evil in yourself and others, or repentance for evil even when it manifests itself most in you.” bright." “The grief is that you did not resist love, that again reason, and with it pride in you, in your life and in your relationships, outweighed love, almost extinguished it.” Regarding the “disenfranchised position” of the priest in the Brotherhood, Neplyuev writes: “In particular, this is precisely what they did not forgive me for the fact that in the charter I did not provide the priest with any exclusive rights, which I really did not provide to him, did not want to provide, to the mournful I learned from life experience that I did it very wisely, which I did not provide, and I can only rejoice in this, not only for the Brotherhood, but also for the Orthodox Church.”

The problem of the priest in the Brotherhood turned out to be difficult indeed. However, in the end, it was resolved. In the last years of Neplyuev’s life, Fr. Alexander Sekundov, who apparently managed to find the proper mode of behavior. For a long time, until his arrest in 1925, Father Alexander remained the confessor of the Brotherhood.

Detractors of the Brotherhood

It should be noted that many people came to see the Brotherhood, so the brothers eventually built a hotel for the visitors. However, many came to teach Neplyuev Christianity, sincerely believing that he misunderstood the essence of Orthodox charity. And not only them. The surrounding landowners also treated Neplyuev with hostility and contempt. They believed that he was engaged in a completely non-noble business. Unfortunately, the priests of nearby churches also had a negative attitude towards the Brotherhood, as did the consistory and city authorities. Thus, at the grand opening of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross in 1895, despite numerous invitations, not a single provincial official or person associated with the diocesan authorities arrived.

As its fame grew, the Brotherhood acquired numerous literary opponents. Already Neplyuev’s first publication, “On the Sacred Duty of the Russian Nobleman” (1880), caused controversy. Prof. Ivanyukov said that an educated and rich person has no incentive to follow Neplyuev’s example. The famous publicist and philosopher Mikhailovsky caustically wrote that the historical vocation of the landowner is to train dogs, and not to educate people.

Famous publicist M.O. Menshikov, having visited the Brotherhood and decided that everything that was happening there was insincere, also published several devastating articles in the Nedelya newspaper against Neplyuev and his Brotherhood. In one of them, he argued that joining the Brotherhood of Man was prompted by the “temptation of wealth.” What was meant here is that “on the side, a student of the Vozdvizhenskaya school receives only 10-15 rubles at first. monthly salary, and having entered the community, he finds himself in much better material conditions.” The opinion is controversial. Considering that 105-150 rubles were spent on each brother. per year (including food), then the members of the Brotherhood, if they had an advantage, were solely due to the benefits that collective life provided.

Not only the intelligentsia, but also the peasants of the surrounding villages treated the Brotherhood with great distrust. They could not believe in the selflessness of Neplyuev’s intentions - although it is not visible on the surface, he certainly has some benefit. Moreover, the peasants were not at all averse to profiting from the Brotherhood’s lands. This problem became especially acute during the revolution of 1905, when emboldened peasants burned estates and took away livestock and production tools from them. On the advice of the governor, the brothers decided to take all the women and children to a safe place in the city, and arm the men and put them to guard the land. Everything was done with a couple of shots in the air.

Continuing the theme of difficult relations with church structures, we note that problems here arose not only with the priests of the temple. In August 1893, Bishop Sergius died, and the Charter of the Brotherhood was approved by the new Chernigov bishop, Anthony (Sokolov). Although the new bishop was a trustee of the Brotherhood, he was not too interested in its life. For 15 years, until Neplyuev’s death, he visited the Brotherhood only once, quickly inspected the school and left. Apparently, all of Neplyuev’s activities were indifferent to him.

The first-present member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Anthony (Vadkosky), also had a negative attitude towards the Brotherhood, who wrote to Count Lansdorf: “The Society is ambiguous in its tasks, dubious for many.” The Metropolitan even refuses to call the Brotherhood “community,” considering it more correct to call it “society.” As a result of such a negative review of the Brotherhood, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna refused to accept it under her protection.

Prof. IN AND. Ekzemplyarsky, who wrote an excellent article about him after Neplyuev’s death, mentions that the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod Pobedonostsev himself spoke disapprovingly of the Brotherhood. This is confirmed by the writer A.S. Pankratov: noting: “Pobedonostsev could not stand the Brotherhood, he believed all the ridiculous rumors about it.” Pankratov cites the following conversation between Pobedonostsev and Neplyuev:

“... - Why do you want to mind your own business? If you want to serve God, build a monastery, become a monk, and we will soon make you a bishop.

But my goal is to educate the people.

Leave the people. He does not need enlightenment, and public education is even harmful to the state, because it can shake its foundations.”

It is difficult to judge how accurately the conversation is conveyed, but in any case it is typical. From the point of view of the conservative wing of the Church, all of Neplyuev’s activities were an extremely dubious innovation, a heresy in the Protestant spirit. And therefore, the leaders of this wing (and there was an overwhelming majority of them in the Church) tried in every possible way to interfere with Neplyuev. The same Pankratov notes that Pobedonostsev actively prevented the approval of the Charter of the Brotherhood. And Neplyuev, both as a lawyer and simply as a man of great intelligence, perfectly understood the importance of approving the Charter, and with great tenacity he achieved this, using his extensive aristocratic connections. And the approval of the Charter, and at the highest level, was a huge victory for Neplyuev, which largely predetermined the stable existence of his brainchild. The fact is that the will of the emperor Alexandra III No one dared to cancel it, including the bishop or even the Synod. Therefore, they were forced not only to put up with the existence of the Brotherhood, but also to bow to the provisions recorded in it - in particular, that the Bishop of Chernigov is the trustee of the Brotherhood and that the choice of a candidate for the place of priest of the temple depends on the Duma. These provisions did not allow (either by personal order of the bishop, or through the priest appointed by him) to destroy the Brotherhood. Let us note in passing that the Brotherhood was the only place in Russia where the priest was chosen by the parish. This also explains why Neplyuev’s cause had no followers - there were followers, but their activities were easily suppressed by the diocesan authorities. So, in the Novgorod diocese, Fr. Nikolai Opotsky (later Bishop Macarius) founded, following the example of Neplyuevsky, the Wielbitsky brotherhood with a parish school. But in 1910 Bishop. Gury removed Fr. Nicholas from administration and teaching of law. The same fate, of course, would have awaited Neplyuev if he had agreed to Pobedonostsev’s proposal regarding the adoption of monasticism.

"Bourgeois-democratic revolution"

Neplyuev had plenty of ill-wishers. However, the most insidious and powerful enemy nested within the Brotherhood. In 1900, a crisis arose in the Brotherhood, so to speak, a “bourgeois-democratic “revolution”. A group of teachers, “intellectuals” of the Brotherhood appeared, which unitedly opposed the very foundations of brotherly love. Neplyuev does not name their names, but only indicates them initials: R.E.L., V.K.F., N.P.P, I.F.K... All these are quite well-known people in the Brotherhood. “Dissatisfied” freely express their ideas, scold the Guardian, “muddy the waters” ". But the brothers treat them quite complacently. Tension is growing. As Neplyuev wrote, “Poison spread freely throughout the Brotherhood.”

At the beginning of 1900 Neplyuev met with Fr. John of Kronstadt. Father John invited Neplyuev to the altar for the duration of the liturgy, and then a conversation took place in which the situation in the Brotherhood was discussed. Father John blessed the activities of the Brotherhood and said: “Following Christ, it is impossible not to be persecuted, slandered, hated for His name. Rejoice in this. This is proof that you are serving the cause of God, and not doing the work of man. Be patient. He will give God, the hearts of those who persecute you will soften, and the Lord will give you patience and generosity, and meekness, and humility, and love.” Parting with Neplyuev, Fr. John said: “I’m glad that I met you, I found in you a truly Russian nobleman, engaged in a truly noble business.” In passing, we note that later the activities of the Brotherhood were blessed by the famous elder Barnabas of Gethsemane.

Lent and Easter passed and Bright Week began, during which the general meeting of the Brotherhood took place. And then the “dissatisfied” presented a united front. They read out their statements, which said that the goal of the brotherhood is not a feat, but “convenience in life”, that the Brotherhood has “gloomy religiosity”, “too many religious meetings”, “excessive and dry ideology”, “mercilessly harsh attitude to every thought and word,” “the independent search for truth has been killed.” It said that Nikolai Nikolaevich is the “sovereign owner” and the Duma is a “closed judicial institution.” One of the speakers frankly stated: “Work not for gain seems to me to be too great a feat (...) My deep conviction is that people will never understand Brotherhood as a feat, but will rather understand it as a convenience in life, than in essence Brotherhood should be (...) The Brotherhood has no future (...) Let N.N. and his family not oblige us with all those moral demands that are the result not of a common, but of their religious self-awareness."

The “dissatisfied”, leading the entire Brotherhood with them, made a decision on the economic isolation of each “family”, which fundamentally destroyed the idea of ​​​​brotherhood. The few days after the meeting were pure agony for Neplyuev. It seemed that the Brotherhood was dying. Here are his impressions of those days: “A real moral murder was committed on me personally. From that moment I felt literally dead, completely incapable of any activity on earth (...). I was suppressed by the consciousness of our universal sinfulness, the terrible consciousness of that “that all people, including myself among them, can also be blind to God out of malice, just as we are capable of being blind to each other out of malice, not realizing either our blindness, our malice, or our cruelty.” “All these terrible days from April 13th to 16th (1900 - N.S.), being unable to fall asleep for more than a short time, I can say that my soul constantly spent day and night in incessant prayer: “God, take me from here. You see that I cannot live any longer. However, may Your will be done in everything. If You want me to continue to live and act, give me the strength to serve in Your holy cause: give me patience, generosity: meekness, humility and love. Forgive and revive those who became hardened in response to my call. Call them yourself and create Your strength in our weakness!”

But then the brothers came to their senses and at the next meeting they supported the Duma, which did not recognize the decision of the first meeting. The “dissatisfied”, numbering 5-6 people, left. The Brotherhood, according to Neplyuev, was saved and began to grow spiritually stronger.

However, another view on the events described is also possible. It is impossible to deny that the non-Plyuev style of governing the Brotherhood was distinguished by authoritarianism, and in this regard, the statements of the “dissatisfied” were apparently quite reliable. Yes, indeed, Neplyuev held the reins of the Brotherhood. Thus, in the Duma, which decided all important matters in the Brotherhood, there were only 8 people in 1900, four of whom were representatives of the Neplyuev family. True, later the composition of the Duma was expanded to 21 people. Neplyuev was very afraid (and, as we see, not without reason) of the collapse of his business. Therefore, he followed his principle “good must be well organized.”

But it is clear that with this formulation of the matter, individual freedom is belittled, as indicated by those who failed to adapt to the style of the non-Plyuev brotherhood. In this sense, the notes of Ivan Abramov, a former student of the Vozdvizhenskaya school, are characteristic. Abramov writes: “In these (non-Plyuev - N.S.) schools the foundation is laid for that hypocritical Jesuit training, which ends in the brotherhood. Anyone who fails to drown out the personality within himself and cast himself into general shape, is immediately expelled from school. Thus, completely discolored figures enter the fraternity, ready, at a given signal, to reveal various Christian feelings: cry with tears of tenderness, sob contritely about their sins over the slightest deviations from fraternal rules, speak sublime speeches in a sentimental biblical style; long prayer meetings, general kisses, words of love, sympathy, gratitude, which are generously poured out in fraternal conversations, do not, however, prevent the brothers from diligently “looking for the speck in the eyes of their brothers” and informing their patron.” Similar reviews about the Brotherhood appeared more than once: “What, one wonders, is the position of those unfortunates who, neither sincerely nor feignedly, can indulge in this peculiar orgy of love.”

As a document depicting the “brotherly style,” Abramov gives the following example of a welcoming “Address” to Neplyuev: “Beloved spiritual father in Christ! Unforgettable friend! Dear teacher Nikolai Nikolaevich! On the last day of school life, let me express to you those ardent feelings with which our hearts are filled, that deep and heartfelt gratitude, that pure love that, like a shrine, we keep in the depths of our hearts for you, our beloved father, friend and mentor in Christ. To remain silent about these feelings would be gross injustice and black ingratitude Dear N.N.! conscious faith in the living and righteous God, ardent love for Him and your neighbors forced you to look for brothers in Christ; the same love, Christian humility and conscience awakened you, disdaining prejudices, to come to us, rude peasant children, in order to raise brothers among them...”, etc., and notes “It is not customary to write in a “brotherhood” in another language.” From the examples " poetic creativity" From the same article by Abramov you can find the following:

“Our path is clear... Around the prophet

We became a friendly family.

And he, he is bright and high

Shines with a strong soul”

“Hello, our dear prophet!

raised by your strength,

We will follow you together!”

So was the brotherly “orgy of love” really all a fake? Of course not. The very half-century existence of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross testifies to the fact that a very high level of love was achieved in it, living love based on faith in Christ, genuine love for one’s neighbor, which permeated everything. interpersonal relationships in the community. However, two points should be noted here.

Firstly, Neplyuev himself was not without shortcomings. Moreover, he wrote about this several times. Moreover, the brighter a person is, the larger and more complex the business he deals with, the more noticeable are these shortcomings, which are often the unenlightened sides of such a person’s outstanding talents. Neplyuev, of course, was gifted with the rare gift of love. But every person is infected with fallenness, and Neplyuev’s love is not ideal - it is often accompanied by “hypnotizing” rhetoric, an unnaturally exalted external expression, and an overly rigid expectation of change in a person. Naturally, the brothers felt these moments very sensitively and tried to involuntarily adapt to them, often deliberately and sometimes even comically playing along with Neplyuev.

Secondly, we must admit that the 5-year period of school education “in love” is very short - a person learns this all his life. Therefore, in the conditions of “accelerated learning”, pressure, “Jesuit training”, of necessity arose, within the framework of which a kind of natural selection took place: either the student in this short time accepted the non-Plyuev mode of life, or not, although among the “dissatisfied” and those who abandoned life in the Brotherhood there were probably decent young people who, however, were unable to humble themselves to lovingly accept all the shortcomings they noticed - the phenomenon of “instant” mental transformations” does not occur too often.

Economic successes of the Brotherhood

Feeling that the crisis has passed and the worst days of the Brotherhood are behind him, Neplyuev takes a decisive step. On December 29, 1901, Neplyuev issued a deed of gift in the name of the Brotherhood, according to which 16,435 acres of land with forest, buildings and factories were transferred to the Brotherhood. 5313 dessiatines, as well as the distillery, immediately passed to the Labor Brotherhood, and the rest of the donated estate passed to the Brotherhood after the death of the last of the Neplyuev family. In turn, the Brotherhood was obliged to maintain schools, a temple and a hospital, as well as pay off the debt to the Bank - a total of 28,220 rubles. in year. The total cost of the transferred property is 1,757,407 rubles. Thus, the Brotherhood acquired significant capital, which allowed it to develop the economy and receive profit from it, and increasingly. So, if for 1901/2. income amounted to 82 thousand rubles, then for 1903/4. - 98 thousand rubles. The most profitable (1903/4 - 48,374 rubles) turned out to be logging - the production of timber and firewood (cuttings were restored with seedlings). Subsequently, the Brotherhood used the profits to build a sawmill. In second place in terms of profitability (1903/4 - 22,692 rubles) was the Brotherhood's field crop and cattle breeding farm. Note that by 1905 the Brotherhood had 1,787 dessiatinas of plow land, 200 oxen, 140 horses, 100 Simmental cows, 120 head of young animals and about 600 pigs. A significant income (1903/4 - 21,571 rubles) was provided by the winery, which produced alcohol and malt from products grown by the Brotherhood. The number of the Brotherhood continued to grow: in 1901 - 79 people, 1905 - 195 people, in 1907 291 people, and if we take into account students of agricultural schools, then about 500 people.

The success of the Neplyuev case was not least determined by the original Christian moral philosophy of Neplyuev, which should be examined more carefully.

Moral philosophy. Christian love, reason and sensations.

At the turn of the century, Neplyuev wrote an article “Christian Harmony of the Spirit”, in which he theoretically clarifies the ideal relationship between the main forces of the human soul: 1) love, 2) reason and 3) “sensations”, by which he understands everything else - feelings, emotions, desires, attachments. From the point of view of Christianity, only the formula 1 + 2 + 3 is correct, and in the specified order - love is most important, then reason, and everything else must be kept in check. Neplyuev formulates it this way: “reason, submitting to love, must rule over sensations.”

Abbot Gracier, who knew Neplyuev well, calls him “the apostle of brotherly love.” And I think that this is not an exaggeration. The whole life of this amazing man is completely serving the cause of love, serving God-Love, as Neplyuev himself often wrote. His statements about love are countless:

“You know what a sacred thing love is for me,” writes Neplyuev, “you know that for me it is air, and light, and life.”

“In reality, love is always sacred and sanctifies everything, purifies everything to the point of holiness. Let us not be mistaken. Love remains sacred under all circumstances. It is no less sacred in the heart of an atheist, and in the heart of a robber, and in the heart of a fornicator. Their evil indifference to It is so sinful for God and the rest of His creation that a holy drop of their exclusive love drowns in this dark abyss, but this drop remains in itself no less holy and makes sacred everything that is done in the spirit of this sincere love. That is why it is better, purer “, the atheist, robber and fornicator who have this drop of shrine in their heart are more holy than the self-righteous Pharisee who is deprived of it.”

“I (...) came to the conviction that the highest good of the local Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, to which I belong, my Christian homeland, as well as the personal good of all my neighbors, consists mainly in the harmonious organization of all life on a single true Christian basis - brotherly love."

Love always comes first for Neplyuev; everything else is subordinated to the successful creation of this highest Christian virtue. For Neplyuev, love is the alpha and omega of his life. Neplyuev writes very interestingly about the discipline of love - a concept characteristic of his worldview.

"main reason of all evil and all suffering - the absence of humble love and voluntary discipline of love in relation to the Master of the world - the Living God."

“Humanity passionately desires freedom and does not want to understand that no freedom is possible without the discipline of love, when, out of love for good and neighbors, in the light of this love for good, they do not want to do evil and thereby become able to enjoy unlimited freedom without abusing it.”

For him, the discipline of love is the essence of humility. Love, and only love, is capable of resolving all the contradictions that the world is struggling to resolve, including socio-economic ones. Here are some of Neplyuev’s deep thoughts on this matter:

“Where the only true internal, voluntary and lasting discipline is absent - the discipline of love - there only external, forced, fragile discipline is possible: the discipline of fear, when they do not do what is too dangerous to do, and the discipline of self-interest, when they do not do that , which is too unprofitable... The second is based on the right of private property."

"without the discipline of love, the only guarantee of personal freedom is precisely property, and that state socialism, if ever realized by a social revolution, would be the worst kind of slavery that humanity has ever experienced."

Here it is especially clearly visible that Neplyuev is not a socialist, that his approach to common life is the complete opposite of Soviet communism. There is a forced, unloving construction of the communist form, in the hope that the form will change the soul and create a new person. For Neplyuev, the community of brotherly life is a consequence of the mutual love of brothers; it is absolutely voluntary and supported by the discipline of love. If there is no love, then communism turns into slavery, which is even worse than the power of private property. Of course, Neplyuev understood perfectly well that human fallenness is very great, that islands of love usually drown in a sea of ​​sin, anger and love of money. And his entire religious and social philosophy is aimed at overcoming this fallenness.

Neplyuev is a faithful son of the Orthodox Church, but for him the main division in humanity is not by confession - Orthodox and non-Orthodox, but in relation to love: on one side are “representatives of love”, on the other - “representatives of pride, malice and self-interest.” Alas, there are too few representatives of love, and therefore the life of the entire people is not satisfactory:

“The main and even the only obstacle... is the lack of love, good skills of sustainable brotherly love. There are too few representatives of love, both among the common people and among the intelligent strata of society, and between large landowners, and between spiritual shepherds.”

What to do? Of course, we need to raise representatives of love. But according to Neplyuev, something else is needed - a harmonious, reasonable, thoughtful organization of good:

“We can no longer be Christians for an hour, remaining rude pagans for the rest of the time; we need not a part of our life, but our whole life, to consciously and lovingly devote to the work of God. A coherent organization of good in life, under such circumstances, is an urgent need for the Church.”

Without intelligent, careful organization, good is quickly defeated by the forces of evil. Therefore, reason is not belittled by Neplyuev, but, on the contrary, is placed in second place after love.

But, returning to the work “Christian Harmony of the Spirit,” it remains to say that the content of this article is much deeper. Neplyuev considers the most important areas of human life: individual spiritual life, family, society, state, etc., and in each of them he analyzes not only the ideal ratio 1+2+3, but also all other options, revealing which they lead to distortions. For example:

3 (i.e. only sensations) A crowd of robbers.

3+2 A crowd of robbers and thieves, coherently organizing robbery and theft on a legal basis.

3+2+1 Idyll of robbery with complacent relationships.

2+1 Religion of violence and self-interest. Enthusiastic, fanatical veneration of iron and gold.

3+1+2 Poetry of violence and self-interest, restrained by prudence.

With such a demonstration of the possibility of the thought scheme he proposed, Neplyuev interested his contemporaries so much that the article was translated into several languages.

Moral philosophy. Freedom of choice. Unsystematic charity. Separation from evil

How to increase love in a person’s soul? Neplyuev writes:

“Obviously, it is impossible to educate people to love in other ways than through love. Love spoils those who do not love; they will readily accept love for granted and do not recognize the obligation of reciprocal love. For those who respond to love and appreciate its worth, it will be a powerful educational tool; love cannot spoil them, on the contrary, it will make them understand the duties of love not only to the one who loves them, but also to God-Love, and to all his creation, and to the work of love on the ground".

Neplyuev used this seemingly impractical method of nurturing love all his life and never deviated from it. But he was clearly aware that not every soul would love love in return. On the contrary, love often causes anger and coldness. This is a person's free choice. And at the same time it is a rejection of God. And nothing can be done about it. Neplyuev writes.

“No one can exert a moral influence on him against the will of another person. The Creator himself invariably respects the free will of his creatures, not in the sense of approving it, but in the sense of steadily refraining from violence for good. This is the key to understanding evil in God’s creation. Evil and there is nothing other than freedom from God and His truth. It is completely absurd to blame yourself for the fact that, due to ineptitude, you did not show your imaginary omnipotence, did not achieve in relation to others the results desired not by them, but by me."

Neplyuev drew this amazing recognition of the non-omnipotence of even the most remarkable pedagogy from his own experience of raising children in Brotherhood schools. So, regarding the expulsion of one of the school’s pupils, one of the brothers, I.F.K. (he left the Brotherhood after the crisis of 1900), writes in the chronicle: “why is our school, along with very nice characters, conducive to the development of sometimes terrible characters, like many of the departed were." N.N. answers in the margins: “Because of this, why the terrible character of Satan was developed in the Kingdom of God.”

Colliding with representatives of evil is always a difficult test for Neplyuev. Let us remember his words: “where I didn’t feel love, I was literally sick from boredom.” Yes, encountering dislike, coldness, anger, Neplyuev literally fell ill. So, when he listened to the statements of the “dissatisfied,” he suffered a severe attack in the liver, and since then this disease has constantly tormented Neplyuev. The attitude towards “representatives of love” and “representatives of evil” explains a lot in Neplyuev’s philosophy. He writes: “love requires (...) completely different manifestations in relations to the sons of light and the sons of darkness, without which it ceases to be a reasonable matter, pampers, indulges evil.”

Neplyuev with open arms goes to meet the representatives of love, those who want to live a common brotherly life. But he sees that not everyone wants this. Many people want to remain within the usual graceless lifestyle, but receive everything that their brothers get. Neplyuev believes that if such people are indulged for reasons of misunderstood love, then nothing good will come of it. Therefore, he is against “unsystematic charity”, i.e. charity in the usual sense of the word: alms to the poor, donating part of the profits to shelters and hospitals, free distribution of bread and other goods to peasants, etc. Neplyuev explains: unsystematic charity, without solving the problem of transforming society, only corrupts people: “In fact, this is love before extremes are short-sighted, a real apotheosis of myopia of the heart. Unsystematic charity, even the most sincere, based on a feeling of heartfelt participation, living pity, is only a palliative, not only does not prepare better future, which does not organize life on the principles of goodness and love, but, on the contrary, is often harmful, lulling the conscience, covering the dirt and ugliness of life with colors that are completely unnatural, inconsistent with the “foundations” of this life... This is a real pouring of new wine into old wineskins." Thus , huge funds go into the sand: “From the routine understanding of charity, not only does systematic activity towards organizing life on a fraternal basis not follow, but even this activity becomes impossible: labors, moral strength and all material resources go without a trace into the abyss of the sea of ​​\u200b\u200blife.” Neplyuev sums up: there is so much evil that “a whole life, the greatest fortunes are nothing in the matter of scooping up this sea of ​​evil and sorrow.”

It was this rejection of “haphazard charity” that caused the greatest criticism among his enemies. However, Neplyuev firmly pursued his policy towards the surrounding peasants. He wrote: “We do not find it useful to do charity to the surrounding population, giving free use of land, livestock, tools and in general the property of the Brotherhood, which on our part would be precisely that unsystematic charity that does not organize life on a good basis, with which we do not sympathize, from which we moved on to fraternal truth." The ban on “unsystematic charity” on behalf of the Brotherhood is written in the Charter (although any personal charity was not prohibited to any of the brothers).

Let us note that at this point between Neplyuev and the holy fathers, for example, St. John Chrysostom, there is a certain discrepancy. Chrysostom, of course, also understood that ordinary alms cannot lead to a change in society. However, he believed that almsgiving is necessary for a Christian, because it is primarily useful to the giver, warming love in his heart. In addition, the great saint was confident that abundant and universal alms could still change the world, giving rise to fraternal unions of Christians, where “they had everything in common.” Neplyuev is more rationalistic: he tries to cultivate the idea of ​​fraternal life between people not through alms, but through education. As for alms, according to Neplyuev, it is not useful “for everyone,” but only for “our own people.” Moreover, it is life in the Brotherhood that he views as “universal alms.”

The latter is certainly true. But still, refusing external charity was a mistake. And the point is not even that it was this point that most of all generated opponents of the Brotherhood. It seems that this is a distortion of the very principle of love - the main thing for Neplyuev. Prof. MDA M.M. Tareev, who visited the Brotherhood, wrote about this: “So, with the good in a good way and with the evil in an evil way. The principle is striking in its simplicity. But this is the Old Testament principle: love your neighbors and hate your enemies.” True, this mistake is understandable - it is due to the very harsh negative reaction of the world to the extraordinary phenomenon of the non-Plyuev Brotherhood. There is information that after Neplyuev’s death, the Brotherhood changed its policy regarding the ban on charity.

Summarizing his thoughts, Neplyuev comes to a fundamental principle: the organization of a genuine Christian life of a community is possible only if it is isolated from the opposing destructive forces of the world. Neplyuev writes: “Having separated from evil and people of evil will, faith requires us to rationally organize good in own life" Neplyuev proves this principle with references to Scripture: “According to them (opponents of isolation - N.S.) it turns out that the Living God, through His Old Testament chosen ones, said one thing, through the Savior of the world - another, through the first he demanded isolation from evil, through Christ supposedly bequeathed harmony with evil. According to them, it turns out that the Living God does one thing, but demands something completely different from His creation. He himself separates himself from evil, expels sinners from paradise, curses not only the sinned ancestors, but also the earth in human affairs, not at all engaging in random charity towards them, and promises those who repented prodigal sons“For those who love Him, the eternal bliss of complete separation from evil and the wicked beyond the walls of heavenly Jerusalem, and from us it seems to require spiritual prostitution, an indifferent attitude towards the good and the evil and unsystematic charity of uniform good deeds to the good and the evil.” It is interesting that Neplyuev also connects the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea of ​​isolation: “The work of God is the restoration of world unity. This world unity is the Christian ideal (...) This ideal can only be fully realized in the Kingdom of God, in the house of the Heavenly Father , with complete separation from evil and the wicked."

The idea of ​​separation is certainly correct. But it must be skillfully combined with love and cooperation, which Neplyuev could not fully achieve.

Social philosophy: attitude towards socialists and the community

Neplyuev’s moral and religious philosophy organically flows from his views on society. Much has been said about his desire to organize social life based on brotherly love. This is the leitmotif of his entire life. But he was also concerned about modern social phenomena.

Having survived the first Russian revolution, Neplyuev, naturally, could not help but evaluate the revolutionary movement in Russia. This assessment is negative. Neplyuev pointed to the Western roots of the revolutionary movement: “the plan for the Russian revolution was developed by the German Bebel, the Frenchman Jaurès... and other representatives of European socialism and European anarchism.” He also attributes the unrest in the countryside to the influence of the revolutionaries: “The peasants were bribed by the promises of dishonest people, who awakened in them the base instincts of self-interest and violence.” He sees that all layers of Russian society are working for the revolution, and therefore his forecast is gloomy: “Under such circumstances, I am very inclined to consider social revolution inevitable in the very near future.” Ezemplyarsky confirms: “N.N. had an extremely negative attitude towards the socialist movement and saw the direct opposite of the tactics of socialism in the path of reorganization of life he proposed.” That’s right: the path of Christian labor brotherhoods is an alternative to atheistic revolutionary socialism.

But the Social Revolutionaries also proposed another way: through the peasant community. In his report to the Glukhov Committee (1903), Neplyuev develops in detail his view of the community. He is very far from idealizing her. Here is a picture of life in the community, drawn by Neplyuev: “There is a peasant community, but the cement of love does not unite its members into one friendly spiritual and economic family. Anger in the bosom of the community scatters its members spiritually and economically. Nothing in common except common ownership of the land and common dependence They have nothing from the “peace.” How can they not be burdened by both! They have reduced the commonality in the matter of land ownership to a minimum. Cultivate all the land of the community together, organize from their community a production and consumer artel, together, collectively obtaining the means of living , which is obviously more profitable, they can’t do it for anything other than the shameful spiritual mood of the majority for Christians. Out of malice, this majority is completely incapable of friendly solidarity; when dividing the harvest, all the men would quarrel every year, endlessly bickering about each person’s share, demanding high evaluation of their work, not wanting to give nothing for free to the sick, to those with large families, and in general to those whose work for some reason was less productive. All the women would quarrel every day over every chicken, every egg, every handful of flour, every pot. Obviously, it is not the communal form of life that is to blame for this, but precisely the mood of the majority, which is as shameful for Christians as it is harmful both socially and politically. Meanwhile, we see at every step that this mood is recognized as a natural and inevitable phenomenon, which not only must be taken into account, but to which it is even necessary to apply. The communal form of life does not correspond to this mood.”

However, Neplyuev perfectly understands the positive significance of even such a flawed community: “And despite all this, the peasants still realize that by destroying the community, they are depriving themselves of the last guarantee against complete and total impoverishment, and the prosperity of a few “kulaks” is obviously not recognized at all they are sufficient consolation in the common misfortune." “Indeed, how would the situation of the majority of members of the community improve if it were abolished? The communal form of land tenure could only be replaced: by unlimited property, infinitely fragmentable and alienable and indivisible by a small land unit, such as a majorate or a minorate, it makes no difference. (...) In both cases, the transformation of the vast majority of the Russian people into proletarians is inevitable.”

What to do with the community? Neplyuev believes that the community should not be abolished, but transformed: “We do not need to destroy the community, but cherish it and perform an act of national repentance (...) embark on the path of unhypocritical love.” Let us note that already in 1903 Neplyuev clearly formulated his surprisingly deep thought about the transition of the entire Russian state to a life of faith through national repentance - a thought, the concretization of which became the idea of ​​​​the All-Russian Brotherhood.

National repentance and the All-Russian Brotherhood

Neplyuev clearly saw that the Brotherhood is a small island of Christian life in the sea of ​​essentially pagan social life in Russia. And he puts forward a whole program, which is based on an act of repentance for the fact that until now the Russian people and the Russian Church have not tried to realize the truth of God in the life of the people, and in particular “the social truth of brotherhood between brothers in faith and love.” Otherwise, God's punishment will not be long in coming. Neplyuev noted: “True reasonable love for our Russian local Church does not consist in whitewashing the evil of the routine of life in Her bosom (...), but in honestly calling Her children to repentance.” He said more than once that everything Russian society does not live by faith, does not want to realize the Christian truth in his life, does not organize his life on the principles of brotherly love and love. This also applies to the clergy, to the Church, which should be the spiritual leader of such activities. However, alas, “the organization of life and work in the bosom of the Church on an honest Christian basis of unity in brotherly love is considered an unnecessary and even harmful tempting innovation.” By creating the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross, Neplyuev sought to overcome this destructive trend. All aspects of the life of Christians, and above all work, should to be organized in a Christian way is the main thing that Neplyuev strived for.

It should be noted that Neplyuev did not place all the blame on the clergy. He emphasized that all layers of society, all people are to blame for the current graceless state. The landowners are guilty of the fact that, instead of seeing the peasants as their brothers in Christ, they mercilessly exploited them, considering them, as Herzen put it, as “baptized property.” It is the intelligentsia that, while advocating for freedom, recognizes it only for itself and denies freedom for all other strata of society that disagree with it, is to blame. The common people are also to blame, because they did not want to organize their lives on the basis of brotherly love (the attitude of the surrounding peasants towards the Brotherhood was negative), but followed those who proposed robbery and arson. The state power is also to blame, which, having proclaimed Orthodoxy as the main pillar of the state, at the same time “blasphemously wanted to make the Church its instrument in achieving purely earthly goals.”

But the clergy is also to blame. Neplyuev writes: “The clergy allowed this untruth, not in the sense that it had to incite the people against the landowners and preach enmity and sedition, but in the fact that it itself betrayed the truth, did not preach it either to the landowners or the people, did not call for neither the landowners nor the people participated in its implementation, the landowners became participants in the creation of untruths, and allowed the people to become savage. In the end, it itself, in the person of too many of its representatives, has gone wild, has come to justify evil in life, and in practice has become so reconciled with the anti-Orthodox routine of the anti-brotherly system of life that it is very happy with this routine, not only does it not preach, but he doesn’t even want to implement Orthodox truth in life.” Neplyuev even says that the clergy is more guilty than the landowners and the people, for “The more we respect the holy order, the more we recognize the reality of the grace bestowed on them in the sacrament of the priesthood, the more we are obliged to recognize the enormity and absolute inexcusability of their guilt.” “Everyone is guilty. Everyone must repent and create fruits worthy of repentance,” Neplyuev wrote. “It is precisely the matter of national repentance that should be on the part of all participants: the people, the intelligentsia, large landowners, and especially spiritual shepherds, the matter of raising children, the matter of creating a working community.” He clearly understood that the Church cannot stand in side in the matter of social transformation of society, and if the Church does not lead the people in this matter, then other forces will lead them, and of a completely different, opposite spirit.In 1906, speaking on the occasion of the proposed Local Council, he believed that it was not reforms, but national repentance and the adoption of a program for the social transformation of life should be the main task of the Council.

Towards the end of his life, the idea of ​​​​creating brotherhoods similar to Vozdvizhensky throughout Russia acquired increasingly clear outlines from Neplyuev. Neplyuev wrote: “What we do can be done by everyone (...) The peaceful prosperity that we achieved in the bosom of our Labor Brotherhood could be realized in the bosom of every parish, in every village, in every workers’ association of any city.” He sees a variety of forms of brotherhoods if they have a coherent ideology, as well as the All-Russian Brotherhood as a kind of unifying body with a single Charter. Neplyuev went to Kyiv in 1906, where he attempted to form a society to create an All-Russian Brotherhood. In Kyiv they applaud him and even form a commission to develop the Charter of the Brotherhood. However, Neplyuev himself, out of modesty, did not enter it, and without him, as Ekzemplyarsky, one of the members of this commission, testifies, it did not even know how to begin creating such a document and soon fell apart. But this did not discourage Neplyuev: he himself wrote the draft Charter, and at the end of 1907. goes to St. Petersburg for the same purpose. But there was failure there too - this amazing man started too bold a business.

Demise. Brotherhood after Neplyuev.

Already before his trip to St. Petersburg, Neplyuev suddenly felt that his mission in this world was over. And indeed, in St. Petersburg Neplyuev became seriously ill with influenza (flu), and at the end of December 1907, completely ill, he returned to Vozdvizhenskoye. Upon arrival, he immediately tells his brothers that his days are numbered, but the entire Brotherhood is praying for him day and night. Neplyuev often receives communion, and on the day of his death he is given unction. On January 21, 1908, amid the inconsolable sobs of the entire Brotherhood, Neplyuev dies. A delegation from the MDA comes to the funeral. A whole wreath of mournful poems. Lots of eulogies. Here are a few excerpts from them: “a great world figure has died”; “a harmony of life and teaching that is rare in our time”; “extraordinary integrity of character and clarity of worldview (...) I could never notice in him the slightest split or the shadow of any compromise.” Everyone understands that this loss for the Brotherhood is irreplaceable. The coffin is buried at the local Vozdvizhenskoye cemetery, and an Orthodox cross still stands on Neplyuev’s grave.

Sometimes in the literature it is silently mentioned that the Neplyuev experiment was unsuccessful and the Brotherhood disintegrated. This is wrong. After the death of Neplyuev, his sister, Maria Nikolaevna Umanets, was elected Guardian of the Brotherhood, and she managed to lead the ship of the Brotherhood further. At the All-Russian Agricultural Exhibition in 1911, the fraternal estate was awarded a large gold medal. According to Chernigov historian V.V. Tkachenko in 1912. The Brotherhood acquired 20,000 acres of forest in Perm province, opened its own branch and established timber processing. In 1914, both agricultural schools of the Brotherhood operated, and their level far exceeded other schools in the Chernigov province. During the First World War, the Brotherhood sent clothing parcels to the front. In 1917, the fraternal confessor Fr. Alexander Sekundov was elected a member of the All-Russian Local Council from the clergy of the Chernigov diocese and spoke at the Council with a message.

The revolution forced the Brotherhood to adapt to new conditions. In 1919, the Brotherhood was renamed a commune, but continued to develop. A journalist who visited the Vozdvizhensk commune in the fall of 1922 was amazed by what he saw: the highest level of agriculture, its own power plant, a huge garden of the best varieties of fruit, a brick factory, a telephone network, a superbly organized livestock complex, two agricultural and one preparatory schools are still operating. The author writes: “Even without that, it should be obvious to anyone who is at least somewhat familiar with agriculture that there are no other such agricultural peasant collectives not only in the Chernigov province, but throughout all of Russia.” But from the same article it is clear that the members of the commune are waging a silent but desperate struggle with the authorities: they are tormented by “endless commissions”, “Like crazy, members of the council rush around to all sorts of reception rooms of the volost, district provincial boards and sub-boards, knocking on the thresholds of all sorts of “beginnings” and “deputies”, they exhaust mountains of papers with all sorts of answers and complaints about the obviously mocking, bungling decisions of some Zemorgan foolishness.”

Difficulties are growing. In 1923, the Brotherhood became an agricultural artel, Neplyuev’s schools were transformed into Soviet ones, and Neplyuev’s sisters Maria and Olga were forced to be expelled from the artel as former landowners.

In the fall of 1924, the holy martyr Bishop Damascene (Tsedrik) came to the Vozdvizhensk agricultural artel several times, and he stayed with the priest. A. Sekundova. Vladyka participated in divine services and prayer meetings, delivered sermons, and spoke with adults and children. He spoke out against Soviet power several times. He told the children to obey “Mama Manya.” Judging by the fact that the Family of Ap. was mentioned. Andrei, the brothers managed to preserve the non-Plyuev principles of organization. According to reviews, ep. Damascene really liked the life of the community. Let us note that Fr. Alexander Sekundov was well known to Patriarch Tikhon and received three awards from him. From this it is clear that Patriarch Tikhon was aware of the affairs of the Neplyuev community.

In October 1925, a visiting session of the Supreme Court of Ukraine began work in Glukhov on charges of counter-revolution. On October 29, 1925, the verdict was pronounced. Members of the Brotherhood Tsvelodub, Klyuchko, Burdukalo were sentenced to death, but “taking into account the strengthening of Soviet power, the sentence was replaced by 10 years of imprisonment with strict isolation and confiscation of property,” and after serving the term they were “disqualified” for 5 years. Petrukov was given 8 years, Bessmertny 5 years, and both were also given a 5-year disqualification. Ovcharenko and Pavlov received 2 years in prison and 3.5 years of disqualification. Finally, Fr. Alexander Sekundov (not found guilty of counter-revolutionary activities) was given 1 year of exile. All 8 convicts, after serving all their sentences, were prohibited from living in the Glukhov district for 3.5 years. The way forward O. Alexandra turned out to be godfather: at the end of 1937 (or early 1938) he was shot.

In 1929, collectivization began in Ukraine, the artel was “transformed” into a collective farm, and yesterday’s brothers were completely evicted from Vozdvizhensk. Shortly before its liquidation, the Vozdvizhenskaya artel (renamed the “agricultural artel named after the October Revolution”) consisted of 530 members and had 1,748 hectares of socialized land. There was field cultivation on 1000 hectares using the latest agricultural machines, including 7 tractors, meadow farming on 160 hectares, livestock farming (a herd of cattle for 130 heads, 100 horses, 40 sows), gardening with nurseries on 87 hectares, forestry on 329 hectares with nurseries and restoration of workings, beekeeping for 50 hives, a sawmill, a brick factory with a capacity of 25 thousand pieces per day, a mill, peat mining, fruit and berry winemaking, processing of livestock products, workshops - blacksmithing, carpentry, carpentry , shoemaker's, power plant built during the revolution (lighting and 12 electric motors). In addition, the Brotherhood maintained a hotel, public canteens, a kindergarten, a nursery, and a club. As you can see, despite the persecution and the most difficult years of the revolution, the Brotherhood basically preserved and even increased its economy.

If we begin the history of the Brotherhood with the organization of the first school, then it existed for 49 years. Although the period was enormous (given such unfavorable conditions of existence), it would seem to be still a failure: both the Christian and communitarian traditions of the Brotherhood were not continued. However, it is interesting that the educational potential of the Brotherhood has borne fruit: many descendants of the brothers have become famous scientists, composers, artists, historians, among whom there are laureates State Prize and Heroes of Socialist Labor. And the Brotherhood itself has not been forgotten: with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan), a memorial monument to Neplyuev was erected in the village of Vozdvizhenskoye (now Sumy region). There is also a museum “Labor Brotherhood of N.N. Neplyuev,” and several enthusiastic historians are trying to revive this unique, incomparable phenomenon of Orthodox Christian socialism from oblivion.

Literature

1. Neplyuev. Labor fraternities - N.N. Neplyuev. Labor fraternities. Can the church and the Christian state do without them any longer and how to implement them. Leipzig, 1893, - 24 p.

2. Ekzemplyarsky - V.I. Instance. In memory of Nikolai Nikolaevich Neplyuev // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1908, N 5 p. 155-169, N 6 p.281-319, N 8 p.579-628.

3. Neplyuev. Reports - N.N.Neplyuev. Full composition of writings. T.V. St. Petersburg, 1908. Reports of the guardian on the religious and moral life of the brotherhood.

4. Neplyuev. Report to the Glukhov Committee - N. Neplyuev. Report to the Glukhov Committee of the Highly Established Special Meeting on the needs of the Agricultural Industry on the issue of the peasant community. St. Petersburg 1903. p.39.

5. Neplyuev. The vital importance of labor brotherhoods - N. Neplyuev. The vital significance of labor brotherhoods: church, state and public. Conversation for friends and enemies. St. Petersburg, 1905. – 26 p.

6. Neplyuev. Appeal - N. Neplyuev. Appeal to the friends of freedom and order. St. Petersburg, 1907, - 16 p.

7. Neplyuev. Faith, mercy - N.N. Neplyuev. Faith, mercy, charity; weapons and self-defense. Sergiev Posad. 1908. - 72 p.

8. Neplyuev – Letter to the clergy - N.N. Neplyuev. Letter to the clergy. Kyiv. 1905 - 20s.

10. Neplyuev. Private response letter - Private response letter to N.N. Neplyuev to a letter from priest Ivanov, letter from August 9 to August 21, 1902. - 102s.

11. Neplyuev. Conversations - N. Neplyuev. Conversations about the Labor Brotherhood. volume 4. p. 9-238.

12. Neplyuev. Vozdvizhenskaya school - N.N. Neplyuev. Vozdvizhenskaya school is the cradle of the labor brotherhood. volume 4.

13. Neplyuev. Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross - N.N. Neplyuev. Cross Exaltation of Labor Brotherhood. v.4., - p. 415-434.

14. Ascetic of the Russian land - N.N. Neplyuev. Ascetic of the Russian Land (wreath on the grave). Sergiev Posad. 1908 – 197 p.

15. Neplyuev. Towards a better future - N.N. Neplyuev. Towards a better future. t3. With. 3-84.

16. Neplyuev. Congress of United Humanity - N.N. Neplyuev. Congress of One Humanity. t3., p. 85-132.

17. Neplyuev. By the Lord's Prayer - N.N. Neplyuev. Christian life program according to the Lord's Prayer. t2., pp. 159-172.

18. Neplyuev. The tenth chapter of Matthew - N.N. Neplyuev. Thoughts of an ordinary Christian. The tenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. With. 195-225.

19. Neplyuev. Christian harmony of spirit - N.N. Neplyuev. Christian harmony of spirit. Psychological study. T.2. With. 293-393.

20. Neplyuev. Conscience - N. Neplyuev. Conscience. An incentive forgotten by Professor Ivanyukov when enumerating the incentives that determine human actions. A page from the life of a landowner. t3., p. 255-270.

21. Donenko. - Prot. Nikolai Donenko. Heirs of the kingdom. Simferopol. 2000. – 464 p.

22. Pankratov - Pankratov A.S. Seeking God. Essays on modern religious quests and sentiments. M., 1911, - 195 p.

23. Abramov - Abramov. I. Second letter from Glukhovsky district. //Russian wealth. 1900, No. 3, - p. 1-27.

24. From Russian magazines - From Russian magazines // World of God. 1900, No. 5-6, - p. 42-43.

25. Neplyuevshchina - N.K. Journal review. “Neplyuyevshchina” // Education. 1900, No. 2, - p.95-108.

26. Neplyuev. The path of faith - Neplyuev N.N. The path of faith. – Sergiev Posad, 1907. – 160 p.

27. Bogun, Tkachenko - Bogun N.A., Tkachenko V.V. The Truth of Nikolai Neplyuev (From the history of the Vozdvizhensky Labor Brotherhood) // Philosophical and sociological thought. Kyiv., 1991 No. 10. – p. 147-167.

28. Kontsevich - Kontsevich N. Burial of N.N. Neplyuev // Christian, 1908, No. 10, p. 400-417; No. 11, p. 595-626.

29. P-rs. In memory of Neplyuev - O. P-rs. In memory of Neplyuev.//Christian, 1908, No. 12, - p. 883-886.

30. Avdasev - Avdasev V.N. Labor Brotherhood N.N. Neplyuev, his history and legacy. – Sumy: RIO “AS-Media”, 2003. – 64 p.

31. Central Asia of the FSB - Central Asia of the FSB of the Russian Federation. D. N-3677, T.7. l.7-21.

32. Chetverikov - Priest. Sergiy Chetverikov. A new attempt to renew humanity. (Regarding the article by N.N. Neplyuev “Towards a better future” - “Book of the Week”, 1899) St. Petersburg. 1901. – 96 p.

33. Grandov - Grandov M. Clear the way (travel reflections) // “Bednota” (daily newspaper), Moscow, No. 1341. Wednesday, October 11, 1922 – p. 2-3.

34. Tareev - Tareev M.M. Living souls. Sergiev Posad, 1908 – 176 p.

35. Characteristics - Neplyuev Brotherhood. Characteristics of one of the pupils, written by her eldest. //Christian, 1911, No. 12, p. 823-832.

36. Petrov - Petrov M.N. Cross under the hammer. - Novgorod: Publishing house. NovSU, 2000.

37. Brief information - N.N. Neplyuev. Brief information about the Orthodox Cross Exaltation of Labor Brotherhood. Publication of the Labor Brotherhood. Chernigov. 1905. – 80 p.

38. RGIA - RGIA. F. 797. Op. 72, D. 52. Letter from Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) to Count N.A. Lansdorf.

Neplyuev. Conscience. P. 257.

Instance. pp. 157-158.

Neplyuev. Labor fraternities. pp. 3-4.

Right there. S. 4.

Right there. pp. 4-5.

Instance. pp. 165-166.

For example, Tareev. pp. 117-121; Characteristic.

Ascetic of the Russian land. P. 105.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 65.

Neplyuev. Labor fraternities. P. 7.

Right there. pp. 19-24.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 87.

Instance. P. 292.

Avdasev. P. 10.

Neplyuev. Congress of One Humanity, pp. 126-127.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 152.

Neplyuev. Towards a better future.

Chetverikov. P. 32.

Right there. P. 41.

Right there. P. 85.

Right there. P. 91.

Right there. P. 28.

Donenko. pp. 357-359.

Neplyuev. Private reply letter.

Pankratov. P. 120.

Neplyuev. Private reply letter. pp. 43-44.

Right there. pp. 35-36.

Right there. P. 53.

Right there. pp. 81-82.

Abramov. S. 5.

Neplyuev. Faith, mercy.

RGIA, sheet 6.

Ibid., sheet 6v.

Instance.

Pankratov. P. 112.

Right there. P. 114.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 197.

Right there. P. 208.

Right there. P. 210.

Right there. pp. 220-221.

Right there. P. 241.

Right there. P. 249.

Right there. pp. 250-253.

Abramov. S. 5.

From Russian magazines. P. 42.

Neplyuevshchina. P. 100.

Abramov. P. 10.

Right there. P. 11.

Right there. S. 5.

Right there. S. 2.

Brief information. P. 35.

Right there. With. 30-45.

Neplyuev. Christian harmony of spirit.

Right there. P. 329.

Ascetic of the Russian land. P. 116.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 106.

Neplyuev. Towards a better future. P. 49.

Instance. P. 284.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 249.

Neplyuev. Appeal. pp. 8-9.

Right there. P. 10.

Neplyuev. Report to the Glukhov Committee. P. 9.

Right there. pp. 27-28.

Neplyuev. Labor fraternities. P. 13.

Neplyuev. Reports. P. 132.

Right there. P. 263.

Right there. P. 288.

Neplyuev. Towards a better future. P. 70.

Neplyuev. Faith, mercy. S. 4.

Neplyuev. Towards a better future. P. 71.

Neplyuev. The vital importance of labor fraternities. P. 22.

Tareev. P. 144.

Neplyuev. The path of faith. P. 66.

Right there. P. 54.

Neplyuev. Faith, mercy. P. 35.

Neplyuev. Appeal. S. 5.

Neplyuev. The path of faith. P. 7.

Neplyuev. Congress of One Humanity. P. 619.

Neplyuev. Report to the Glukhov Committee.

Right there. pp. 11-12.

Right there. P. 16.

Right there. P. 17.

Right there. P. 19.

Neplyuev. The path of faith. P. 124.

Neplyuev. Letter to the clergy. P. 7.

Neplyuev. Private reply letter. P. 85.

Right there. P. 90.

Neplyuev. Report to the Glukhov Committee. P. 29.

Neplyuev. Appeal. P. 14.

Kontsevich. P. 406.

Right there. P. 621.

Prs. In memory of Neplyuev. P. 884.

Avdasev. P. 17.

Bogun, Tkachenko. P. 157.

Petrov. – P. 363.

Avdasev. P. 18.

Christian Empire: the view of the “utopian” N.N. Neplyueva

Somin N.V. (IPI RAS)

Late XIX – early XX centuries Russia has given birth to such a huge number of wonderful people that many of them remain forgotten today. One of these Russian geniuses, to whom the Fatherland still cannot give worthy honors, is the landowner of the Chernigov province Nikolai Nikolaevich Neplyuev. He was a theologian, an original religious and social thinker. But his main task was the creation of the only Orthodox labor community in Russia - the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood, which combined seemingly incompatible things: an Orthodox parish, a communist community and a business enterprise built according to the most advanced recipes of the then agronomic science. Briefly, the history of the Brotherhood is as follows.

A representative of the Neplyuev family, well-known in Russia, the son of a wealthy aristocrat, Nikolai Neplyuev graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University and became an employee of the diplomatic mission in Munich. However, unexpectedly he gives up everything, goes to Russia, becomes a volunteer student at the Petrovsky (now Timiryazvsky) Academy, and then, in 1880, leaves for his father’s estate, the Vozdvizhensk farmstead, where he sets up a school for peasant orphans and is extremely zealous about it. At the same time, a spiritual revolution takes place in him, the result of which is his deep and original assimilation of Orthodox teaching. Soon, in 1885, Neplyuev managed to organize a secondary agricultural boarding school for boys, where, in addition to a thorough study of agricultural disciplines, the Law of God, the New Testament and elements of liturgics were taught. Later, a similar school was created for girls. In schools, Neplyuev manages to create such an effective system of Christian education that already the first graduates of the men's school wished to continue the way of life they loved and create the Labor Brotherhood. Neplyuev allocated land to them, drew up a charter for the Brotherhood and managed, after much delay, to have it approved by Tsar Alexander III.

. “I had no need to think through the form of life,” writes Neplyuev, “that would be most consistent with the faith and understanding of the life of a Christian believer. The Holy Apostles... taught us this by the example of fraternal communities, this only form of social system that is fully consistent with brotherly love.” Here Neplyuev means the apostolic Jerusalem community, in which early Christian communism was realized. The goal of the Neplyuev Brotherhood is formulated as follows: “to realize Christianity to an incomparably greater degree than it is realized in the surrounding life, to base relationships and work on a single Christian basis of brotherly love.” Therefore, Neplyuev tries to combine a conscious attitude towards Christianity with the ordinary parish life of the brothers under the leadership of the priest of the Holy Cross Church in Vozdvizhensk.

But the Brotherhood is not only a parish, but also a labor commune. The brothers are organized into several “families”, i.e. artels or groups on a professional basis. Each such “family” includes several ordinary families and singles. The whole “family” lives in one dormitory, has common meals, and raises children in their own local kindergarten. All important decisions are made by the Duma of the Brotherhood (10-20 people), working under the chairmanship of the Guardian, who elected Neplyuev for life. All profits of the Brotherhood, after contributions to the development fund, are distributed strictly equally among all brothers, regardless of profession and position.

The Brotherhood is growing rapidly: if in 1890. there were only 9 people there, then by 1907. - already about 500. Blooming cultural life: all the brothers are literate, read books and newspapers, many write poetry, draw, and organize theatrical performances.

There is also a third party: the Brotherhood buys the most modern machines, ten-field crop rotation is introduced, and the best breeds of livestock are bred. The brothers work in carpentry and metalworking workshops. Later, tractors, a power plant, and a telephone appear. A hotel and hospital are being built, and the number of schools is increasing to five. In other words, highly efficient production and a strong social infrastructure are created.

Thus, Neplyuev manages to create a community with a righteous life, common property and scientific organization of labor, in general - the dream of all utopian socialists. But let us note that all this arose not on the island of Utopia, but in the center of the Russian Empire, in the Chernigov province, and the members of the Brotherhood are simple peasants with Ukrainian surnames: Naboko, Fursey, Chvertka, Ivchenko...

But Neplyuev is not only a deeply religious Christian, a theologian and organizer of the Brotherhood. He is an active public figure. True, the paradox is that he was much better known and appreciated abroad than in Russia. So, Neplyuev was the honorary president of the Congress One Humanity- a very representative forum held in Paris in 1900. And most importantly, he is a patriot of Russia, observing with great interest its public and economic life. And not only observing, but also trying to transform this life.

Neplyuev understands that, no matter how wonderful his Brotherhood may be, one swallow does not make a difference. It is necessary that this experience spread throughout Russia. Neplyuev wrote: “What we do can be done by everyone (...) The peaceful prosperity that we achieved in the bosom of our Labor Brotherhood could be realized in the bosom of every parish, in every village, in every workers’ association of any city.” And in the end, Neplyuev puts forward the project of the All-Russian Brotherhood, by which he understands a network of Orthodox labor brotherhoods, united by a single charter and governing body. It is interesting that in order to support the All-Russian Brotherhood as a social project, Neplyuev proposes to organize a “Party of Peaceful Progress”. He writes: “These labor brotherhoods, when they cover our entire country, will become healthy living cells of living organisms of the state and the local Church. Now these living and healthy cells do not exist, they must be created.” In other words, Christian labor brotherhoods should be not just a religious organization, but the basis for the social transformation of Russia.. The main problem, according to Neplyuev, is the lack of love in Russian society. Although Russia considered itself a Christian Empire, Christianity began to acquire the features of, in Neplyuev’s words, a “dead letter”, unable to transform society. The All-Russian Brotherhood was supposed to be a real step towards the revival of the spirit of love in society. According to Neplyuev, all classes, all structures had to participate in this project: the state - to provide a legal basis, entrepreneurs - to finance, the nobility - to allocate land and lead, the clergy - to sanctify religiously and create an ideological basis, and finally the people - making up the Brotherhood, to be the main participant in the entire movement. The form of communities can be different - they can be formed not only in villages, but also in cities on a very diverse basis - the only important thing is that they have a peaceful spirit of love and creation. Neplyuev himself viewed the All-Russian Brotherhood project as an alternative to atheistic socialism, the expansion of which in Russia was then felt by everyone. In the event of the failure of the All-Russian Brotherhood, the victory of this atheistic socialism in Russia is inevitable, because it is trying to solve precisely those social issues that Russian society has constantly shied away from resolving.

Neplyuev’s theory never diverged from deeds. In 1906, he travels to Kyiv, where he makes an attempt to form a society to create an All-Russian Brotherhood. In Kyiv they applaud him and even form a commission to develop the Charter of the Brotherhood. However, Neplyuev himself, out of modesty, did not enter it, and without him the commission, without getting down to business, disintegrated. But this did not discourage Neplyuev: he himself wrote the draft Charter, and at the end of 1907. goes to St. Petersburg for the same purpose. But there was a similar failure - this amazing man started too bold a business. In St. Petersburg, Neplyuev falls ill, returns to his home in Vozdvizhensk and a month later, in January 1908, dies amid the inconsolable sobs of the entire Labor Brotherhood.

III

How did Neplyuev want to see the socio-economic system of the Russian Empire? The All-Russian Brotherhood project allows us to restore this vision. The Russian economy is assumed to be three-level.

The first level (also the highest) is a network of Christian labor communities that are part of the All-Russian Brotherhood. This level is by no means illusory. The fact is that Neplyuev also included peasant communities here. In general, he saw all the shortcomings of these communities and believed that they had become a “dead letter”, i.e. The spark of love that previously gave life to the peasant community has almost disappeared in them. However, Neplyuev believed that their destruction would nevertheless be an even greater evil. He wrote: “The existing peasant community is a dead letter, not satisfied with love, it must not be destroyed, but revived with love, transformed from a mechanical agglomeration of people into a living brotherhood of love, a labor brotherhood, closely united by the cement of love, synthesizing all types of charity in the form of reasonable self-help and mutual assistance, replacing unsystematic charity with the systematic fulfillment of fraternal duties." In other words, he hoped that many communities could be transformed into real labor fraternities. Taking this into account, we can assume that a good half of the Empire’s population will be at the WB level.

The second level is state ownership. To the beginning of XX V. the state owned powerful industrial potential, transport and other systems. So a significant portion of the population will also be employed at this level.

And the third level is the private capitalist sector. Neplyuev had a negative attitude towards capitalism. He wrote: “It is necessary to understand that no partial reforms in the field of social life will help until we completely leave the anti-Christian, anti-brotherly soil of capitalism, with its inevitable economic struggle, on the peaceful soil of Christian fraternal unity.” However, his pedagogical experience clearly showed that there are people, and there are many of them, who, no matter how you educate them, will still be pulled towards selfishness and their own self-interest. Only a little more than half of the graduates of Neplyuev schools wanted to join the Brotherhood, while the rest left. Therefore, Neplyuev apparently viewed the private sector as a necessary evil, as a “reservation” of people who love to possess rather than create.

Nowadays it exists a large number of three-level economy projects. They are usually structured according to the following scheme: public sector - cooperative sector - private sector. Neplyuev changes this scheme only slightly - for him the cooperative segment of the economy is transformed into the economy of brotherhoods, i.e. the economy of love, and thereby he rises to the highest level. But everything is changing: now it is no longer a “mixed economy,” but a Christian economy, which, on the one hand, gives freedom to personal preferences, and on the other, brings the early Christian Jerusalem community to a truly high level. They will say: utopia, and that’s all. But Neplyuev realized this “utopia” on a small scale. And he did not consider himself unique. On the contrary, he saw that in Russia, rich in Christian traditions, there were many people who would carry out the work of organizing Orthodox labor brotherhoods with greater success than Neplyuev. Therefore, it seems premature to talk about the utopianism of the All-Russian Brotherhood. This is a completely feasible project, even in our difficult times.

However, then, in the conditions of Russia, XX V. it was not implemented. Russia has turned its capitalist course. Stolypin launched his reform, the purpose of which was precisely the destruction of the peasant community and the imposition of capitalist orders in the countryside. Russian society not only rejected the idea of ​​the All-Russian Brotherhood, but did not even understand it. And Neplyuev himself defended existence of one's own, Holy Cross Brotherhood with with great difficulty. Of course, the Brotherhood had many supporters and friends. But there were much more ill-wishers. The surrounding peasants did not believe in the sincerity of Neplyuev’s intentions and strove to steal something from the fraternal farm. Local landowners believed that Neplyuev was engaged in a completely non-noble business. The Church was especially distrustful of Neplyuev’s ideas. He was considered a Tolstoyan or a Protestant introducing non-Orthodox innovations. Chief Prosecutor Pobedonostsev and most of the higher hierarchs openly hated Neplyuev and tried in every possible way to spite him. The priests of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross were often unhappy that they were not the undivided spiritual leaders of the community, and left slamming the door. Many publicists, in particular the famous M.O. Menshikov wrote articles denigrating both the Brotherhood and Neplyuev himself. And only Neplyuev’s exceptional firmness and intelligence, and even the Charter approved by the Sovereign himself, did not allow opponents to destroy this amazing sprout of Christian socialism.

A few words about Neplyuev’s views on state power. He spoke out for monarchy as the most adequate form of government for Russia. But to the word “monarchy” he always added “by the grace of God.” For Neplyuev, this meant that the government was obliged to fulfill, as Neplyuev put it, the “supreme law of Christian revelation” - the law of love, which in this case should be expressed in support of the truly Christian foundations of society. If the government, and the monarchy in particular, does not do this, then it will no longer be “by the grace of God” and will be swept away. Alas, almost all of Neplyuev’s social prophecies have come true.

It remains to tell about the fate of the Brotherhood after the death of Neplyuev. Contrary to the wishes of many, the Brotherhood did not disintegrate. His guardian was Neplyuev’s sister Maria Nikolaevna Umanets, who managed to lead the ship of the Brotherhood further. The Brotherhood survived the First World War, revolution, and civil war. In 1922, visiting journalist M. Grandov was amazed by the exemplary order and the highest agricultural culture, and qualified the Brotherhood as the best agricultural enterprise not only in the Chernigov region, but throughout Russia. However, by that time the Brotherhood was already called a “commune”; it mimicked both the artel and the state farm, trying to preserve itself and not change its Orthodox-communitarian idea. But in 1925, difficult times came: almost the entire leadership of the Brotherhood, including the priest Alexander Sekundov, received long sentences, and about 25 families were expelled from Vozdvizhensk. In 1929, collectivization began in Ukraine, during which the Brotherhood was completely destroyed, and all the brothers were evicted from Vozdvizhensk and resettled in different parts of Russia.

“There is no prophet without honor except in his own Fatherland.” Nowadays the name of this outstanding Russian man and faithful son of the Orthodox Church is almost forgotten. During Soviet times, Neplyuev’s name was suppressed because of his Orthodoxy; and now they are also silent, but as a supporter of communal life with common property. But this man proposed a path of development that amazingly combined the best that was in both forms of the Russian Empire - the Tsarist and the Soviet. Therefore, Neplyuev’s entire legacy, including the experience of a “realized utopia,” requires careful study and comprehension.

Literature

1. N.N.Neplyuev. Labor fraternities. Can the church and the Christian state do without them any longer and how to implement them. Leipzig, 1893 – 24 p.

2. N.N.Neplyuev. Reports of the guardian on the religious and moral life of the brotherhood.//Complete works. T.V. St. Petersburg, 1908. – p. 3-351.

3. N.Neplyuev. Appeal to the friends of freedom and order. St. Petersburg, 1907, - 16 p.

4. Neplyuev N.N. Peaceful Progress Party. Her ideal foundations and life program. Glukhov, Printing House A.K. Nesterova. 1906. – 42 p.

5. Grandov - Grandov M. Clear the way (travel reflections) // “Bednota” (daily newspaper), Moscow, No. 1341. Wednesday, October 11, 1922 – p. 2-3.